Hodor

1,100,001

1,000,001

But we are winners x2.

Nope. I was finishing a train of thought that came to me.

Though this would be interesting... had we kept fighting and you had hit CHAOS then NPO would've hit BK sphere and KETOG? Right? Damn what a wild world.

Please tell me you're joking. We were already doing that and you had to spoil the fun.

Normally I'd agree except that a NAP in this war would mean we can effectively attack Fark and random unaffiliated micros for the better part of a year. Aside from the fact that we're already being touted as bullies, this will force us to pick fights where there is effectively zero challenge and we'll continue to be seen as bullies. Additionally, we've had admissions from our opposition that they like fighting? So why do they want a NAP? A long war such as this is usually followed by long peace NAP or not because war chests need rebuilding, infra needs repairing, and people generally like to econ a bit, so without a NAP we're still looking at probably 2-3 months of peace on the conservative side. Sure, I guess I misspoke and you all do seem to believe you're winning decisively, but we won't rehash those arguments here. You're spot on with your assessment of peace agreements, so nothing really to contribute there

White peace is when there are no terms imposed. I assume "terms" in this case to be punitive terms.

The bolded is gold, p sure it's not what you mean but I couldn't resist. This is pretty fair assessment. I would generally agree that the default should reflect the military outcome of the war, after all white peace can also be accompanied by an admission of defeat. We've been told white peace isn't going to happen and that there will be terms, so there is far more to this than that argument. The actual issue here is the military outcome of the war. I would accept that using both of our respective victory conditions, we've each won the war, however neither side has won decisively even by their own standards. This game's mechanics don't allow for a war to be won decisively through attrition, so this status quo we've settled into isn't going to change much.

Great thing about zero is that it's smaller than any positive number, so I'm not sure how any part of this contradicts what I was saying? Are we just forum fighting for forum fightings sake now?

I am confused by the whole wanting to drag it out aspects of these arguments. As far as I can tell, both sides don't necessarily require peace, but one side has a precondition for talks occurring. So if there is one side dragging it out, it's yours. This is not at all a damnation of dragging it out, we're all big kids who can make our own decisions, but let's at least acknowledge that if there is one barrier and its erected by your side, we are not the ones dragging it out.

Seven deadly sins: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, sloth... Keep prying out of greed, gluttony, and wrath. We'll be happy to oblige.

See! Someone gets it! (despite the fact that exponentially is used incorrectly here, blast, there goes my pride again!)

I don't see any demand for money in my logs? It depends on what you define as help. Advice is free, asking us to expand our already over sized front in a global war is certainly not. I think that is pretty self explanatory. As for the coordination, if that's true, that's our loss and frankly I am surprised to hear that. That shouldn't have been the case unless there was some other bit of information that was not disclosed.