Inquisition Flight 420 to Nassau - UPN Removed

[Insert Name Here]

I don't know about you, but I've never seen a war where the loser could actually afford to pay for such a thing.

 

 

Give him a break, fam. You can't expect someone who's never won to actually know what winning means.

[ComradeMilton]

I believe if the Syndisphere transfers $500m to me I can convince our governments to grant you white peace.

[Dr Rush]

Whether I'm the first or not is kind of irrelevant. I mentioned him because he's one of the few people who could probably end the conflict forcibly and that's what I originally thought the post was suggesting.

Its entirely relavent as you were trying to ascribe such intentions of others, buts it not really worth debating further so I'm going to drop this line of conversation.

 

You can't read red?

 I can. Not super relevant to your arrangement of text being super eye bleedy. An arrangement that only gets worse as the pyramid grows btw.

 

Milton still hasn't learned to use quotes lmao.

That was my favorite part too.

Glad you appreciate the observation. I plan on petitioning the Great Hippo of FA to add a new peace term.

[Felkey]

Glad you appreciate the observation. I plan on petitioning the Great Hippo of FA to add a new peace term.

Is it $250m for every time Milton fails to use quotes like a normal human?

[Felkey]

I believe if the Syndisphere transfers $500m to me I can convince our governments to grant you white peace.

Keep up, we don't want white peace, why would we pay for it?

 

Now if you said send me $500m and I'll convince IQ gov to surrender you may have something there

[durmij]

This is literally a carbon copy of the Rose surrender thread from last war, where everyone forgot about Rose a third of the way through the thread. Add it to the pile of ways this war is exactly like the last one.

 

BUT AT LEAST THE POLITICS ARE STALE RIGHT GUISES?

[ComradeMilton]

Sorry, we're pretty happy as is.

[Ryleh]

Sorry, we're pretty happy as is.

It's some fun stuff I agree. And i'm at the level i get rolled if i build up anything

[Felkey]

They don't and never have. The constant disrespect or any sense of decency makes it a lot easier to stay at war because it's not changing.

Let's be real here, that lack of respect goes both ways.

[Insert Name Here]

I for one fully support Milton typing in red. It goes perfectly with his side's revenue.

Which reminds me... if any of you wanna bet on the 1st alliance to go bankrupt, just gimme a shout. Just be warned that you'll get terrible odds if you bet on BK.

[Roquentin]

> Attacks syndisphere, waves around non-existent CB to justify "hey we're really the victim here"

> Tries to validate shit CB by putting it as the #1 peace term to solidify victimhood

> Tries to spin lackluster military performance "we're really just the victims of not being gud"

> Tries to paint lenient peace terms with no reps as nefarious Syndisphere triumphalism and mah political diversity

> Not playing the victim card

 

Comon bb, it's the only card you have left to play at this point.

 

No, this is just your go-to card.

 

Syndisphere set the precedent of attacking people just because they appear to be a threat or they had consolidated too many treaties.  If you attack someone, they brought it on themselves and are playing the victim. If someone decides to attack you because you appear to be threat and there are various indications of your intentions, it's not being a victim, it's taking their fate into their own hands. We're not letting you take the initiative, because win or lose that is far worse for the more casual side.  With military performance everyone knows the activity levels are very different between both sides, so it's simply a statement of fact.  All I've basically said is that you have a vested interest in perpetuating the current dynamics and humiliating the other side, this time in terms of getting people to admit defeat even if they don't want to is a way to show resistance is futile. 

 

 

 

 

I don't know about you, but I've never seen a war where the loser could actually afford to pay for such a thing.

 

 

Don't think I said you were the loser. 

 

 

Let's be real here, that lack of respect goes both ways. 

 

I disagree. People will naturally get defensive and respond back after constant disrespect. No one's going to take that kind of abuse. 

Edited May 27, 2017 by Roquentin

[Senry]

If only Inq would stop with the constant disrespect, Syndi wouldn't have to get all defensive and respond back! ;o

[ComradeMilton]

Or they could exercise basic control over themselves when deciding to communicate... Crazy idea, but perfectly doable.

[Felkey]

I disagree. People will naturally get defensive and respond back after constant disrespect. No one's going to take that kind of abuse.

 

So attacking us without cause and trying to get us to publicly sign off on your reasoning without even showing us said reasons is respect. Cool, got it.

[Roquentin]

You could just admit that you lost and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I don't really see how it would be any different then.  The tension isn't going to evaporate. The same discourse would be had about how IQ sucks, are incompetent, or used people as meatshields except a lot people would be unhappy that they surrendered despite not wanting to. The costs have been incurred already as far as that goes and the propaganda has already set in.

 

So attacking us without cause and trying to get us to publicly sign off on your reasoning without even showing us said reasons is respect. Cool, got it.

 You were given the rationale, just because we haven't been able to disclose the exact logs doesn't mean it's non-existent. It was the tipping point after a period. I think just pretending there were no war plans or potential war plans on your end is an act at best.

[Shiho Nishizumi]

Until you disclose it, your claims of a syndisphere attack on IQ will remail baseless, and therefore lack any value as a legitimate CB.

[Bollocks]

 

Syndisphere set the precedent of attacking people just because they appear to be a threat or they had consolidated too many treaties.  If you attack someone, they brought it on themselves and are playing the victim. If someone decides to attack you because you appear to be threat and there are various indications of your intentions, it's not being a victim, it's taking their fate into their own hands. We're not letting you take the initiative, because win or lose that is far worse for the more casual side.  With military performance everyone knows the activity levels are very different between both sides, so it's simply a statement of fact.  All I've basically said is that you have a vested interest in perpetuating the current dynamics and humiliating the other side, this time in terms of getting people to admit defeat even if they don't want to is a way to show resistance is futile. 

 

All you basically said in a ton of words is that it's always someone else's fault besides your own. The perpetual victim. To be the aggressor, getting rekt, and then start a tantrum claiming no reps + admit defeat is literally worth telling your coalition partner, who just accepted the terms, to disband is just playing the stupid card tho.

[Roquentin]

Until you disclose it, your claims of a syndisphere attack on IQ will remail baseless, and therefore lack any value as a legitimate CB.

This isn't a court of law and wars have been started on less. It was the smoking gun for us, but we don't really need it to see your side as a threat.  Like I said, as soon as it's okayed by the parties involved, we'll have no issue disclosing it. The alternative would be to cause unwelcome headaches. I don't think you guys are gonna be like "welp, well tS did it. IQ was right"

 

All you basically said in a ton of words is that it's always someone else's fault besides your own. The perpetual victim. To be the aggressor, getting rekt, and then start a tantrum claiming no reps + admit defeat is literally worth telling your coalition partner, who just accepted the terms, to disband is just playing the stupid card tho.

 

Actually, I wasn't saying that all. You're the ones who think that way. You're always the good guys and everything that happens is 100% the other side's fault.  You set precedents and then get upset when people turn them on you. I was saying you always try to paint your opponents as playing the victim when it's a trait your side exhibits. It's normal to think you're in the right, but the insistence that your viewpoint is the universal and objective fact is the problem I have.

 

I didn't really agree with the comment, but the idea was more about the other terms than the surrender in this case. In essence, Tiber said it'd be better to disband than to accept restrictions like not being able to recruit, cap infra,  and having an enemy coalition watch your bank transactions.

[Felkey]

This isn't a court of law and wars have been started on less. It was the smoking gun for us, but we don't really need it to see your side as a threat.  Like I said, as soon as it's okayed by the parties involved, we'll have no issue disclosing it. The alternative would be to cause unwelcome headaches. I don't think you guys are gonna be like "welp, well tS did it. IQ was right"

 

Considering you're one of the main leaders in your coalition, perhaps you should pressure them. I mean if it is a legitimate cb, there are many of us who would love to see it and may be accommodating if you gave as an actual reason...

 

But as it stands, even some of the members in your coalition didn't even know what it was beyond "yeah we have a good chance to win this". Which is just further evidence that you are talking out your ass.

[Them]

All you basically said in a ton of words is that it's always someone else's fault besides your own. The perpetual victim. To be the aggressor, getting rekt, and then start a tantrum claiming no reps + admit defeat is literally worth telling your coalition partner, who just accepted the terms, to disband is just playing the stupid card tho.

While I don't agree with publicly suggesting that one of your coalition allies disband, the problem here isn't that UPN surrendered. tTO, Lordaeron, and SK all managed to exit the war without any public backlash from BK gov. The difference here is that UPN exited the war on objectively worse terms than what the coalition was offered as a whole, as well as the terms Syndisphere was giving for individual allince surrenders. If Lordaeron, of all allinces, could get surrender without terms after the whole surrender camp debacle, there's no reason for UPN to settle for less. Furthermore, accepting such terms validates the Syndisphere's approach to negotiations and suggests desperation among the other coalition members. While this can't be entirely avoided, a simple surrender without terms would have mitigated the damage. I'm obviously not involved with the peace talks, but I doubt that the coalition leadership authorized UPN's surrender (or at least knew the terms), judging from their reaction. Anyways, I've nothing against UPN and am just trying to clarify why the reaction to this surrender was so harsh, compared to the earlier ones. 

Edited May 28, 2017 by Them

[Kastor]

While I don't agree with publicly suggesting that one of your coalition allies disband, the problem here isn't that UPN surrendered. tTO, Lordaeron, and SK all managed to exit the war without any public backlash from BK gov. The difference here is that UPN exited the war on objectively worse terms than what the coalition was offered as a whole, as well as the terms Syndisphere was giving for individual allince surrenders. If Lordaeron, of all allinces, could get surrender without terms after the whole surrender camp debacle, there's no reason for UPN to settle for less. Furthermore, accepting such terms validates the Syndisphere's approach to negotiations and suggests desperation among the other coalition members. While this can't be entirely avoided, a simple surrender without terms would have mitigated the damage. I'm obviously not involved with the peace talks, but I doubt that the coalition leadership authorized UPN's surrender (or at least knew the terms), judging from their reaction. Anyways, I've nothing against UPN and am just trying to clarify why the reaction to this surrender was so harsh, compared to the earlier ones.

 

White Peace*

[Senry]

Has it been two months yet?

[Roquentin]

Considering you're one of the main leaders in your coalition, perhaps you should pressure them. I mean if it is a legitimate cb, there are many of us who would love to see it and may be accommodating if you gave as an actual reason...

 

But as it stands, even some of the members in your coalition didn't even know what it was beyond "yeah we have a good chance to win this". Which is just further evidence that you are talking out your ass.

It would depend on if it was good enough in your eyes. What's good enough for us, may not be enough for you so you could just dismiss it. Given you would stand to benefit from the political damage of it being released if the parties involved were displeased with the disclosure, the spot it puts us in is a very tricky one.

 

I mean, if that's the case, they just didn't ask because most people know the basic outline of it coming to our attention that tS had been asking people to commit to some sort of offensive action that would take place that week and that setting it in motion for us. I didn't make it up and everyone was perfectly content with the build up being a false alarm like the previous ones and the mutual decom had been offered right before it came to our attention. The VE issues made it so it was a lot more likely there'd be a war, so we had built up, and we hadn't reacted to Syndisphere's constant "defensive" builds up until that point.

[Sketchy]

 I doubt that the coalition leadership authorized UPN's surrender (or at least knew the terms), judging from their reaction.

 

We'll be sure to get daddy BK and mommy NPO to sign off on the permission slip next time.

[Shiho Nishizumi]

This isn't a court of law and wars have been started on less. It was the smoking gun for us, but we don't really need it to see your side as a threat.  Like I said, as soon as it's okayed by the parties involved, we'll have no issue disclosing it. The alternative would be to cause unwelcome headaches. I don't think you guys are gonna be like "welp, well tS did it. IQ was right"

 

Wars have been started on less, but those less weren't based on vaporware CB's as opposed to this one.

 

I won't really change my previous stance. Until you throw in the logs solidly proving your CB, I'll just assume that you attacked us to impose yourselves as the dominant sphere, in spite of your fancy discourse of political diversity and whatnot. Facts can be trusted, propaganda cannot.