TEst Declaration of War

[Big Brother]

Sorry if I misinterpreted your message and rebatled for no actual reason Big Brother. Honestly. I am new at the forum, so I cannot really evaluate correctly yet whether some comments are "malevolent" or humorous (or both).

 

Don't be sorry, it's cool. I understand, it's not always easy to interpret people's meaning over the internet

[Orfeas]

Don't be sorry, it's cool. I understand, it's not always easy to interpret people's meaning over the internet

 

It is! Just add an emoticon next time. XD

[Buorhann]

I mean, it's not like we asked for an essay on Dioism.

 

Which is a perfectly legitimate request for all you heathens out there.

[Doktor Avalanche]

And this is a question that actually moves the conversation forward!

 

I will only talk for my point of view. Simple peace terms regarding non-aggresion, or reparations, even keeping the military to specific levels and so on, should be acceptable. All these are just numbers and things that can be fixed and dealed with when the time passes. But terms that have as the ONLY goal to belittle the one who lost and humiliate an alliance for just defending its ideals (which do not seem clear to everybody) is a lot different.

 

In my view, the problem is not that the terms do not provide a "honorable" peace, but that they just provide a "dishonorable" one. A simple peace would be ok. A "honorable" peace would be something like casual terms + formalities/announcements to show mutual respect ("gg guys, I really felt that nuke"). This is not something we ask for. We did not ask for a "honorable" peace. We would be ok with peace terms that would not be dishonorable.

We were offering non-aggression considering we do not do reparations. Rebuild your military afterwards. This fits into your term of simple peace terms.

Out of humor, we were giving you a flag for one month. Whether or not you fly it is not actually of any concern. If you find this dishonorable and wish to continue a perpetual war scenario, we can also provide this although much of your alliance is out of range. But once many are in range continual combat will stunt the growth of your community.

 

"Honorable" terms for peace. Be cautious of victory if it falls on the side of Terminus Est if you feel dishonored by our terms right now.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Lo Pan

[Beatrix]

They got hit by Test for no reason, other than Test could do it and get away with it.  They should be doing as much damage as humanly possible, because they never stood a chance to begin with.

 

lol. They got hit by TEst because TEst wanted to hit them, not because "they could get away with it".

They were millitarized anyways, might as well unload.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Beatrix

[Ole]

And this is a question that actually moves the conversation forward!

 

I will only talk for my point of view. Simple peace terms regarding non-aggresion, or reparations, even keeping the military to specific levels and so on, should be acceptable. All these are just numbers and things that can be fixed and dealed with when the time passes. But terms that have as the ONLY goal to belittle the one who lost and humiliate an alliance for just defending its ideals (which do not seem clear to everybody) is a lot different.

 

In my view, the problem is not that the terms do not provide a "honorable" peace, but that they just provide a "dishonorable" one. A simple peace would be ok. A "honorable" peace would be something like casual terms + formalities/announcements to show mutual respect ("gg guys, I really felt that nuke"). This is not something we ask for. We did not ask for a "honorable" peace. We would be ok with peace terms that would not be dishonorable.

 

Our New Flag policy is fairly simple. We dont want to use our millitary prowess to extort reps, we do not belive that harmfull restrictions are justified in an offencive war, all we want is a token that you accept our victory and we can move on to new fun. Hoisting a fun flag says that without harming you, not accepting what we feel to be a generous offer on our part and with such a disrespectfull manner(read Cromwells reply to Odin.) pisses us off.

 

 

 

3. So, to prove that we do not show another path, you bring up as an argument that... we are "fodder" and stupid. Yes, this is a really valid point. Please, for the sake of the debate, try to prove that we do the same with all the others or sticking to our ideas is wrong.

 

 

You are "fodder" you cant war, have no allies to help you and loads of you'r nations have infra levels on par with neutrals. Attacking you was easy, risk free and honestly it got boring fast. All of this could be diffrent and most of it stemms from your neutral playstyle.

 

You forgot to answer to this:

 

"And since you really do not understand the difference between neutrals and pacifists:

-) Neutral is someone who avoids taking sides.

-) Pacifist is someone who avoids fighting (and as a result avoids taking sides too). However, in this case, if a pacifist gets raided, most of the time he/she will try to solve the matter diplomatically rather than taking a raid as a casus belli. And since we have to fight back in case diplomacy cannot solve the matter peacefully, we are fighting pacifists.

-) A neutral most probably would not feel inclined to use diplomacy first.

 

I hope this was educative. Or, seriously, just google it. Here is some help: https://www.quora.co...ce-and-pacifism

 

"

 

And yet it comes to the same, thus it is the same. All you are saying is that you are even more timmid than the GPA milk cows. That isnt an uplifting prospect for you.

[Orfeas]

Ok guys, let's talk out of roleplaying. Let's talk as players.

 

I can see that you spent some time on designing the flag and deciding this policy regarding the defeated nations. And, after seeing your reaction to our answer and what you just wrote, I come to believe that you really don't try to leave a psychological scar to the defeated nations. What you want is to get a badge of your victory and fly for new endeavors. So, as players, I do respect you and find your policies legitimate. And I accept what you are trying to do and even support it, since in one sense, these terms are less destructive, when we are looking at resources and so on. Plus, as I said, I find the flag really cool.

 

Now, let's go back to roleplaying. Let's talk as nations.

 

You cannot expect all the alliances to accept such a term. Many nations and alliances give priority to reputation rather than points and so on. In this sense, TFP is trying to protect its ideals and (the new buzzword) honor. How an alliance will chose to roleplay is up to it and there is no reason to criticize it. If you say "ok, but you will get destroyed that way", we say that we know the risks but prefer to stand for our ideas, exactly because they are more important to us in terms of roleplaying. So, I think that, although you may have good intent with your policy, you could be a little bit more flexible.

 

Now, let's talk about pacifism/neutrality. I don't know why this debate goes around really. As I said, a neutral is someone who avoids taking sides. A pacifist is someone who avoids fighting. However, in this case, if a pacifist gets raided, most of the time he/she will try to solve the matter diplomatically rather than taking a raid as a casus belli. The game is called "Politics and War", not "War and Politics". In any case, you could say that these terms are not exclusive, so yes, such an alliance has no other alliance to back it up. However, such an alliance, causes less reasons for an attack by others. It would be interesting to see whether an alliance causing wars but having alliances is safer than an alliance that does not make enemies but doesn't have alliances. For example, if the previous war hadn't happened, TFP wouldn't reach top 10 and as a result, it would not be attacked.

 

I think it's ok choosing this path and I do not find a reason for others to react soooo aggresively to such a mentality. It looks like Switzerland would have many problems in Orbis World Wars.

 

P.S. Ole, thanks for the way you set straight some things and for keeping a "civil posture". It helped me understand your view much better than other comments that didn't really answer the true questions.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Dorgam

[The Mad Titan]

I will only talk for my point of view. Simple peace terms regarding non-aggresion, or reparations, even keeping the military to specific levels and so on, should be acceptable. All these are just numbers and things that can be fixed and dealed with when the time passes. But terms that have as the ONLY goal to belittle the one who lost and humiliate an alliance for just defending its ideals (which do not seem clear to everybody) is a lot different.

 

May I ask how you would get Test to accept these terms? They have made it clear they don't want your money, and you guys don't really seem to have any negotiating leverage (and as time goes on this only becomes more true). This makes it seem like your only options if Test doesnt play ball is to fight to ZI or accept the dishonorable terms.

[Doktor Avalanche]

You cannot expect all the alliances to accept such a term. Many nations and alliances give priority to reputation rather than points and so on. In this sense, TFP is trying to protect its ideals and (the new buzzword) honor. How an alliance will chose to roleplay is up to it and there is no reason to criticize it. If you say "ok, but you will get destroyed that way", we say that we know the risks but prefer to stand for our ideas, exactly because they are more important to us in terms of roleplaying. So, I think that, although you may have good intent with your policy, you could be a little bit more flexible.

Then we will continue with our conflict.

 

Now, let's talk about pacifism/neutrality. I don't know why this debate goes around really. As I said, a neutral is someone who avoids taking sides. A pacifist is someone who avoids fighting. However, in this case, if a pacifist gets raided, most of the time he/she will try to solve the matter diplomatically rather than taking a raid as a casus belli. The game is called "Politics and War", not "War and Politics". In any case, you could say that these terms are not exclusive, so yes, such an alliance has no other alliance to back it up. However, such an alliance, causes less reasons for an attack by others. It would be interesting to see whether an alliance causing wars but having alliances is safer than an alliance that does not make enemies but doesn't have alliances. For example, if the previous war hadn't happened, TFP wouldn't reach top 10 and as a result, it would not be attacked.

 

I think it's ok choosing this path and I do not find a reason for others to react soooo aggresively to such a mentality. It looks like Switzerland would have many problems in Orbis World Wars.

Honestly, I don't give a shit.

[Foltest]

I'm glad TEst is eliminating the threat that these Fighters pose. Their very name indicated their intent to be aggressors.

[Orfeas]

Then we will continue with our conflict.

 

Honestly, I don't give a shit.

 

Well, of course it's up to you how you are going to react. But I would like to know why not accepting this term hirts you: a) as players outside of roleplaying and as an alliance of the game.

I mean, you could just change the terms. Not doing so, means that we cause you a problem.

If you let us understand what is the problem we cause, it will be easier for us to find a solution or at least make a sense out of the current events.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Well, of course it's up to you how you are going to react. But I would like to know why not accepting this term hirts you: a) as players outside of roleplaying and as an alliance of the game.

I mean, you could just change the terms. Not doing so, means that we cause you a problem.

If you let us understand what is the problem we cause, it will be easier for us to find a solution or at least make a sense out of the current events.

Two things: If you actually wish to discuss terms for surrender, visit our Discord Channel and discuss this on a more private channel.

Second: I have no problem being in a perpetual state of war with you guys when any of your alliance members actually reach my range. If you feel your honor is worth a perpetual state of war, I have absolutely no problem with this as it will not stunt the growth of Terminus Est. This is coming from a member, not an Officer nor the War Master.

[The Mad Titan]

If you let us understand what is the problem we cause, it will be easier for us to find a solution or at least make a sense out of the current events.

 

I think this is one of the key misunderstandings of TFP. You need to understand that you give no problems to Test. Your existence does not matter at all to them, and they do not want to find a diplomatic solution. They are destroying because they can. This is a situation of might makes right. I understand that you guys have values as an alliance, but you must also realize that those values are not respected at all in Orbis, so no-one is going to stick up for you. If Test wants to humiliate you guys there is nothing you can do about, simply because they are stronger than you.

[Ole]

1. Ok guys, let's talk out of roleplaying. Let's talk as players.

 

I can see that you spent some time on designing the flag and deciding this policy regarding the defeated nations. And, after seeing your reaction to our answer and what you just wrote, I come to believe that you really don't try to leave a psychological scar to the defeated nations. What you want is to get a badge of your victory and fly for new endeavors. So, as players, I do respect you and find your policies legitimate. And I accept what you are trying to do and even support it, since in one sense, these terms are less destructive, when we are looking at resources and so on. Plus, as I said, I find the flag really cool.

 

2. Now, let's go back to roleplaying. Let's talk as nations.

 

You cannot expect all the alliances to accept such a term. Many nations and alliances give priority to reputation rather than points and so on. In this sense, TFP is trying to protect its ideals and (the new buzzword) honor. How an alliance will chose to roleplay is up to it and there is no reason to criticize it. If you say "ok, but you will get destroyed that way", we say that we know the risks but prefer to stand for our ideas, exactly because they are more important to us in terms of roleplaying. So, I think that, although you may have good intent with your policy, you could be a little bit more flexible.

 

3. Now, let's talk about pacifism/neutrality. I don't know why this debate goes around really. As I said, a neutral is someone who avoids taking sides. A pacifist is someone who avoids fighting. However, in this case, if a pacifist gets raided, most of the time he/she will try to solve the matter diplomatically rather than taking a raid as a casus belli. The game is called "Politics and War", not "War and Politics". In any case, you could say that these terms are not exclusive, so yes, such an alliance has no other alliance to back it up. However, such an alliance, causes less reasons for an attack by others. It would be interesting to see whether an alliance causing wars but having alliances is safer than an alliance that does not make enemies but doesn't have alliances. For example, if the previous war hadn't happened, TFP wouldn't reach top 10 and as a result, it would not be attacked.

 

4. I think it's ok choosing this path and I do not find a reason for others to react soooo aggresively to such a mentality. It looks like Switzerland would have many problems in Orbis World Wars.

 

5. P.S. Ole, thanks for the way you set straight some things and for keeping a "civil posture". It helped me understand your view much better than other comments that didn't really answer the true questions.

1. Im glad you see the wisdom of our clemency in victory.

 

2. When there are no options apart form Burn or Submit, you should Submit when the Conqurer is asking as little as we are. No matter the percived Honour in defying us. Wheres the Honour in beeing unable to defend your allaince not only from propper attacks but from even most minor raids? from loosing the oportunity to fund you'r nations? or even using your bank? you have the choise to revert to normality, or keep in a state of siege, crippling you'r alliance ability to fuction.

 

3. You keep harping on about Pacifism and Neutrality. Yes difrent words, resoluting in the same behaviour and same effects. I've never raided a GPA nation who dint try to talk me down either., so the idea that you "Pacifists" are more diplomatic are just plain wrong. Look like a Neutral, act like a Neutral, smell like a Neutral, You must be a Neutral. Yes you are safer if you have allies, If a treatied or Propper Paperless alliance are attacked, its usually a massive operation requireing long planning and massive coordination. To attack you took 3 5min conversations on Discord, 1 alliance and Hidude spent like 10 min making a target list, mainly for fun. And all the way we knew there was no counter coming, no need to talk to allies and arrange counters. How such alliances use the added security is a difrent matter. As most of them like war, so they use it to further their aim of fighting eachouther.

 

4. Its ok for you choose it, but it comes with the added risk of beeing attacked with impunity.

 

5. If i've apeared Civil I apologize and ill rever back to my usuall condescending and rudely distainfull manner shortly.

[Sea]

Off-topic, what program do you guys use to make the flags? Which then entails the second question, how? You guys a pretty good at making flags, so am jelly. I mean, Amentia would make a pretty legit alliance flag, if it wasn't for the fact that y'know... The Fighting Pacifists generally isn't about that shit, so it'd be a bit contradictory. (No arguing about the definition of pacifism or any other shit, mmk?)

 

And for the peace offer: The general consensus is that we like the heat of the flames. The majority of our members are well below your war range, so it's just been an issue of many of us (me included) being willing to take a lot of damage. No pixel hugging here, just pixel burning for warmth and sustenance.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Spontane

[Thalmor]

 

just pixel burning for warmth and sustenance

 

I'm sure your blood will also make for great warmth and sustenance for me.

[Sea]

I'm sure your blood will also make for great warmth and sustenance for me.

 

You've already fought me once. :/

[seabasstion]

i find it very silly to be arguing what bin you put yourself in. pacifist...neutral...who really cares

 

you can call yourselves whatever you want but the fact is your alliance as a whole only has 4 active wars in which a TFP nation was the aggressor. only 1 of those was against a terminus est nation. i think a better discussion should be on these statement made earlier:

 

 

dogram: "When we are attacked, we defend ourselves"

morts1: "We are pacifist unless attacked....What rank we are doesn't bother us. We are not pixel huggers"

kamut: "The word I'd stress most is "fighting"."

morts1: "We will never surrender. We do not kowtow to bullies."

spontane: "Thanks, now I'm building up to be a proper ankle-biter. But seriously, thanks for not completely killing me. As for the no peace--general consensus seems to be that we don't want peace. I can't obviously speak for my alliance as I'm just a member, but... it's how it is. We'll die fighting, I guess."

 

please tell me more about how you guys are fighters.

 

dogram: please tell me how you are defending TFP by declaring on 1 small raiding nation instead of any test members. we have been at war with you guys for a week and we've seen zero response from you other than the message board

kamut: please tell me again you stress the word 'fighting' when you have had 0 involvement in the war other than the message board

spontane: please tell me again how you "dont want peace and you'll die fighting" when you agreed to peace during the third day of your only offensive war declaration against test this war

 

morts1: you get a pass - youre the only one ive quoted from this thread that was declared on by test

 

at the end of the day im very perplexed by you lot. if you spent the same amount of time fighting for your alliance as you do trying to define your alliance i think we would all have a more clear picture of what you all are

[jaguar]

Well your only 2 whales will get second round, here's to another B in damage. Cool tactic you've got there cromwell!

[Kamut The Virus]

i find it very silly to be arguing what bin you put yourself in. pacifist...neutral...who really cares

 

you can call yourselves whatever you want but the fact is your alliance as a whole only has 4 active wars in which a TFP nation was the aggressor. only 1 of those was against a terminus est nation. i think a better discussion should be on these statement made earlier:

 

 

please tell me more about how you guys are fighters.

 

dogram: please tell me how you are defending TFP by declaring on 1 small raiding nation instead of any test members. we have been at war with you guys for a week and we've seen zero response from you other than the message board

kamut: please tell me again you stress the word 'fighting' when you have had 0 involvement in the war other than the message board

spontane: please tell me again how you "dont want peace and you'll die fighting" when you agreed to peace during the third day of your only offensive war declaration against test this war

 

morts1: you get a pass - youre the only one ive quoted from this thread that was declared on by test

 

at the end of the day im very perplexed by you lot. if you spent the same amount of time fighting for your alliance as you do trying to define your alliance i think we would all have a more clear picture of what you all are

 

It was a personal opinion. I think the "fighting" part of the statement is the part that deserves the most stress. I can't claim to speak for my entire alliance of course, so you'll have to hit them up individually to get their opinions. I'm also proud of the people who are a part of TFP, and wanted to recognize their willingness to fight. Unfortunately, you're right. I've had no actual involvement in this war since I'm limited by my score. I don't see a way around that problem except through time. (Or spending way too much real money on this game.) Though I don't think my score ought to determine whether or not I can draw attention to other actions of my alliance. Granted, were I actively involved in the fighting it would carry more weight. 

[Orfeas]

i find it very silly to be arguing what bin you put yourself in. pacifist...neutral...who really cares

 

you can call yourselves whatever you want but the fact is your alliance as a whole only has 4 active wars in which a TFP nation was the aggressor. only 1 of those was against a terminus est nation. i think a better discussion should be on these statement made earlier:

 

 

please tell me more about how you guys are fighters.

 

dogram: please tell me how you are defending TFP by declaring on 1 small raiding nation instead of any test members. we have been at war with you guys for a week and we've seen zero response from you other than the message board

kamut: please tell me again you stress the word 'fighting' when you have had 0 involvement in the war other than the message board

spontane: please tell me again how you "dont want peace and you'll die fighting" when you agreed to peace during the third day of your only offensive war declaration against test this war

 

morts1: you get a pass - youre the only one ive quoted from this thread that was declared on by test

 

at the end of the day im very perplexed by you lot. if you spent the same amount of time fighting for your alliance as you do trying to define your alliance i think we would all have a more clear picture of what you all are

 

Soooo... the fact that Terminus Est is smart enough to choose members that are of a specific range of score, making them able to 3v1 players of other alliances that have a greater range is OUR fault?

Ok. Sorry for being out of range from all the Terminus Est members. Oh, wait. That was actually their plan... To be able to hit alliances with more members by focusing on the upper range.

I don't really see your point seabasstion. 

Edited September 28, 2016 by Dorgam

[seabasstion]

It wasn't strategy on our part...we can only downdeclare so far. You can updeclare much much higher. There's quite a few of us with 0 wars this entire time.

 

You could easily 3v1 some of our nation's because we can't downdeclare to defend them. If our 3v1 was good strategy is your lack of 3v1 bad strategy?

Edited September 28, 2016 by seabasstion

[seabasstion]

And my point was: rather than waste a large amount of time trying to verbally define yourselves why don't you let your actions speak for themselves.

[LordRahl2]

For anyone actually interested, I believe the only term given was to change their flag for a month. I think we may have even offered to donate the credits for it.

That's the honor you're fighting for? I mean, it's not like we asked for an essay on Dioism.

Oh please make an essay on Dioism part of the terms.

[Orfeas]

It wasn't strategy on our part...we can only downdeclare so far. You can updeclare much much higher. There's quite a few of us with 0 wars this entire time.

 

You could easily 3v1 some of our nation's because we can't downdeclare to defend them. If our 3v1 was good strategy is your lack of 3v1 bad strategy?

 

Cool idea, but I think you can do the math. We can updeclare at a player with 75% more points. Let's say we take the lowest member of Terminus Est that has 2,376 points. This means that all of our members with more than (2,376/1.75 = ) 1,357 points can attack him. We also want these members to be out of the range of the rest Terminus Est members, so they have to have at least 25% less points. This is less than (2,376*0.75 = ) 1782 points. Our members that have between 1357 - 1782 points (and are not currently at war) are 9, so let's say we could attack the 3 lowest members (we couldn't). Your proposal is to destroy the defenses of these players and expose them to other raiders so that they (might) kill 1-2 of the Terminus Est members. The result is debatable. And you wouldn't like to crush your armies on a player with almost double points, would you?

 

 

And my point was: rather than waste a large amount of time trying to verbally define yourselves why don't you let your actions speak for themselves.

 

I don't care at all about such definitions. I already stated numerous times that I find this discussion pointless. I was not the one asking "what's your difference with GPA?". Look at the discussion and see who brought up this matter again and again and again. And since I cannot attack in a military manner, I try to face the opponent through discussion and arguments. So, I still do not see your point.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Dorgam