IYIyTh Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 False dichotomy; exactly why should NPO be paying reps or be punished at all when they entered via MDP for NSO? If anything, it should be us whose feet you're holding to the fire, as the given CB for Polar, TOP, and Fark; especially since we've got a higher percentage of nations in peace mode right now than Pacifica. e:clarification I'm sure if you want you can follow the same terms Pacifica eventually gets. Won't be any oversight, but if y'all want to march and carry a cross by no means let lil' ol me get in your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 If TOP ever fought its own battles outside of Peace Mode I would have a heart attack, I really would. If anyone ever fought its own battles outside of Peace Mode I would have an heart attack! Given that they were just plans to roll the alliances and not hold them hostage, as well as the fact the XX/SF grudge wasn't a one-way street that had continued for far longer than any actual grievances... Oh, typical the rebel post nevermind Typical Ray talking out of his rear end and twisting the context like usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Quick Question:Why is it a crazy notion that nations would bring in tech to then send out to their mid tier at a later date in rebuilding aid of 9m/100T with 6 deals at a time.I thought that's what banking/aid nations was all about... buy stuff from your guys to loan (donate) to other nations at a later date... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 I'm sure if you want you can follow the same terms Pacifica eventually gets. Won't be any oversight, but if y'all want to march and carry a cross by no means let lil' ol me get in your way. Why even bother to quote my post if you're not going to respond to it? I'll ask again: Exactly why should NPO be paying reps or be punished at all when they entered via MDP for NSO? If anything, it should be us whose feet you're holding to the fire, as the given CB for Polar, TOP, and Fark; especially since we've got a higher percentage of nations in peace mode right now than Pacifica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Quick Question: Why is it a crazy notion that nations would bring in tech to then send out to their mid tier at a later date in rebuilding aid of 9m/100T with 6 deals at a time. I thought that's what banking/aid nations was all about... buy stuff from your guys to loan (donate) to other nations at a later date... Because that's horribly inefficient. You could just send the tech and cash directly to those nations without a middle man. You just make four slots do the work of two slots that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Because that's horribly inefficient. You could just send the tech and cash directly to those nations without a middle man. You just make four slots do the work of two slots that way. So are middlemen tech deals, but people still frequently do them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 So are middlemen tech deals, but people still frequently do them. Frequently? Anyhow, if that's what NPO doing with those nations, they're /wasting BILLIONS of dollars/ on those aid slots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Quick Question: Why is it a crazy notion that nations would bring in tech to then send out to their mid tier at a later date in rebuilding aid of 9m/100T with 6 deals at a time. I thought that's what banking/aid nations was all about... buy stuff from your guys to loan (donate) to other nations at a later date... Because for 10k+ infra bank nations 600 tech is a very cheap purchase so for the greater good of an alliance it would be much better to just buy it manually and then send it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Because for 10k+ infra bank nations 600 tech is a very cheap purchase so for the greater good of an alliance it would be much better to just buy it manually and then send it. True, but it will completely depend upon the ratio of sellers to buyers pacifica has whether that is a suitable system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Typical Ray talking out of his rear end and twisting the context like usual.Nice counterpoint, but yeah I twisted the entire context of that there statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Why even bother to quote my post if you're not going to respond to it? I'll ask again: Exactly why should NPO be paying reps or be punished at all when they entered via MDP for NSO? If anything, it should be us whose feet you're holding to the fire, as the given CB for Polar, TOP, and Fark; especially since we've got a higher percentage of nations in peace mode right now than Pacifica. I think you keep dancing around this like it's some sort of a-ha! gotcha! or something. Let me help you -- you don't get decide to whose feet what fire is held. Don't like it, keep fighting. Have fun. I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Valleo Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 There have been peace talks, and most of the alliances in it right now have peace offers they could take today and see peace. This war is continuing because the NSO/NG/NPO side wants it to. Just how high were you when you posted this? Oh wait maybe you and yours are actually starting to believe the rumors and propaganda you are pushing (said rumors being possible terms that may be offered and talked about in the future). NNN (NPO/NG/NSO) has not been offered official terms because the oA Coalition refuses to even have talks about what the demands will be until all our allies have reached peace with their respective fronts. Anyone saying otherwise is simply lying or has not idea what they are talking about, plain and simple. Whenever it ends, less than three months later people will be complaining about lack of war. The never ending cycle of people complaining about wars and then peace... Probably one of the most honest statements ever uttered in these realms. Extortion is probably a better word. Agreed That's not a penalty, that's just war But hopefully the war will go on for as long as it needs to go on for, unless of course we all hire MisterBlack to mediate. Some pretty rose colored glasses you are wearing there. How soon UMB forgets they received "White Peace" from the NPO and its allies previously under the push of that ultimate boogyman "Brehon" an action which pissed off allies and (now) enemies alike. If UMB pushes for reps or other punitive actions, the hypocrisy will be Epic. Its almost as if most alliances in your coalition and NPO have fought differently in this war, and NPO is trying to get special treatment, again, while hiding in peace mode. Again. This is almost laughable...who has received the most damage? Who has pushed out the most damage? The stats speak for themselves and cannot possibly be accurate if you statement had any validity. :/ If the other coalition doesn't like the terms being brought up, here's a grand idea. Start winning. Or you guys can make this the curbstomp you thought you had but missed. If our beating was soooo bad you could force us to accept terms (w/e you guys get around to them). However this wont happen 1. Because the oA coalition cant come to a consensus on what should be offered. 2. While you may be the victors of this war, it is not a strong enough for you to try and do what you want with impunity. Where was $20b demanded? Ummm it wasnt....which makes Caliphs statements so absurd. But no one is surprised that members of the oA coalition cant even get their story straight. It is entertaining to see Caliph/UMB say we are refusing terms and peace and then Crymson/TOP say where are the demands? Get a room and get your stories and propaganda harmonized please ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 I think you keep dancing around this like it's some sort of a-ha! gotcha! or something. Let me help you -- you don't get decide to whose feet what fire is held. Don't like it, keep fighting. Have fun. I will. Keep dancing around what? I asked you a question directly in response to your post that you've now refused to answer/address twice. I didn't think you were the kind of person to hold your tongue and refuse to admit that 2+2=4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Keep dancing around what? I asked you a question directly in response to your post that you've now refused to answer/address twice. I didn't think you were the kind of person to hold your tongue and refuse to admit that 2+2=4. I answered your question. Just because you didn't like the answer doesn't mean it wasn't answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Why does NPO throw around the term "oA coalition" like it's a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) Why does NPO throw around the term "oA coalition" like it's a bad thing? Because this war has continued the dangerous trend of alliances ignoring MD level treaties with one side in order to be on the other side. Alliances may as well just sign a Coalition treaty Edited January 5, 2014 by Stewie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krzyzewskiville Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Why does NPO throw around the term "oA coalition" like it's a bad thing? Where did you get the impression that we were trying to turn that term into a bad thing? Perhaps you are just projecting your own views of it. We simply use that term because "Optional Aggression coalition" is a better-fitting name for the so-called "Polaris coalition," just as "Mutual Defense coalition" is a better-fitting name for the so-called "Sith coalition." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) Why does NPO throw around the term "oA coalition" like it's a bad thing?Actually, nobody's said that. Your coalition's just used a bunch of optional aggression chains to win this thing.Guilty conscience? Edited January 5, 2014 by Neo Uruk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Because this war has continued the dangerous inevitable trend of alliances ignoring MD level treaties with one side in order to be on the other side. Fixed it. Treaties have always been a part of war strategy, and aggression clauses have existed for years and provided strategic flexibility in war. The fact that one side had more defensive activations than offensive ones simply indicates that it is the defeated side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Actually, nobody's said that. Your coalition's just used a bunch of optional aggression chains to win this thing. Guilty conscience? I have no conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amossio Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) Some pretty rose colored glasses you are wearing there. How soon UMB forgets they received "White Peace" from the NPO and its allies previously under the push of that ultimate boogyman "Brehon" an action which pissed off allies and (now) enemies alike. If UMB pushes for reps or other punitive actions, the hypocrisy will be Epic. Mate, you're a funny lad. Read my comment again. Wouldn't the "penalty" be the thing they're getting. That's not a penalty, that's just war But hopefully the war will go on for as long as it needs to go on for, unless of course we all hire MisterBlack to mediate. I'd love to see war all day every day for the rest of the year, but now that you mention reps, if it was up to me I wouldn't mind seeing brehon pzi and cifica disbanded, see now you have my personal opinion on reps. !@#$@#$ stooge Edited January 6, 2014 by Amossio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 Right, I'm not going to bother replying individual posts, so to address various points brought up:* NPO has been refused the opportunity to even sit down and negotiate an exit from this war until we are left alone on the battlefield and vulnerable to harsh terms. The cute PR attempts to say we are "holding up the war" are absolute lies.* The type of terms (forced peacemode and therefore lost aid/collections) likely to be offered has been confirmed, but the exact numbers only hinted at through back-channels. The information hinted at comes out to about 20-25bn in lost aid and 30bn in lost collections over a period of four months. Whilst rumors don't necessarily have to be taken as fact, those numbers are so high that even a small percentage of them would be too much.* Aid restrictions matter more than lost collections because it hampers the ability of our hammered lower tier to receive aid and thus rebuild post war.* Quite obviously we would be in a position to counter-offer something when the oA coalition is ready to sit down and talk about things.* The argument that somehow terms are a "deserved" consequence of NPO "hiding" in peacemode is factually false as well as being morally illogical. NPO has had 38 nations formerly in the 80k+ range that fought and were hammered down. Our upper tier has 400k tech less than it used to.* Regardless of how much an alliance has or has not fought, terms like this are not designed to fill some moral "fighting quota" an alliance has to fill every time they are at war (if anything, the more of an alliance's members that are in PM, the less opponents their enemies have to fight). Instead, terms like this are designed to further damage and cripple an alliance for the post-war period. The justification is entirely realpolitik, even if people try to dress it up in moral terms. The people pushing for this just want a weak NPO that will be easier to handle in future wars.* When stuff happens in our world, people talk about it. An inevitable consequence of trying to damage somebody with terms that are harsh is that you will get criticized for it and suffer bad PR. It's why, in all wars in the last 7 years, one side tries to emphasize harsh terms as a great evil, and the other tries to talk them down as either being morally justified or invoke an argument from the authority of being the winners so "deal with it".* It is also why we keep seeing harsh terms being repackaged in a new, less unpopular way (we've gone from viceroys/removals of gov to reparations to extended wars without PM to several months of forced PM), until people's instinctive negative reaction catches up to the new format. (For example, most historical examples of reparations would be less damaging than even a modest enforced peacemode, but the word "reps" just has such negative connotations that even a small amount gets a disproportionate reaction).* This entire thread is stupid and we have all lost something for participating in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 * This entire thread is stupid and we have all lost something for participating in it. Let the OWF eat it up and see them choke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 Because this war has continued the dangerous trend of alliances ignoring MD level treaties with one side in order to be on the other side. Alliances may as well just sign a Coalition treaty Dangerous trend? This has been happening since forever. People just wait till the middle of wars or after to post angsty cancellations rather than the eve of them now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) It would seem to me that crushing the enemy in war and peace strategically is a core Pacifican value. As a former Pacifican myself, I am proud to have been a small part of perpetuating the classic NPO war philosophy of inflicting collective punishment and "salting the earth." Edited January 6, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts