Ejayrazz's Blog

I love these threats from TOP. These terms are hugely better for you guys than a vietFAN type situation. I'll quote a post I made a while ago because I don't know how buried it became in the topic I posted it in.

Basically, as far as I can see it, you guys don't get to choose who you can hit, and that's going to be a problem when you're outnumbered 10:1 (or more).

Look, offer is 350k to your alliances (meaning 700k net loss for TOP compared to your side). This means that if we accept the terms we will effectively lose all our tech without causing any damage.

Not only that but our slots will be locked with reparation payments for unknown amount of time (depending on how much tech CnG can absorb) and for whole that time we would be completely banned from buying tech for our own growth.

So, tell me, we should give up all of our tech (because by giving 350k to your side we are losing 700k in relative advantage) and cause no damage?

Seriously, you think this is a good offer?

Comparisons between MK paying 58/85k? tech with 170 members and TOP with 205 (and some ghosts) paying 350k are valid. Amount of tech we currently have is completely irrelevant to determining whether terms are harsh or not. For example I have 2.7B warchest as of this moment, if CnG wants I will pay you 2.7B in cash myself. Now, tell me, is this any useful?

Just because we have 700k tech with 200 members doesn't mean we have 50 slots per member. We still have 6 slots like everyone else. So making TOP pay 4 times as much in reps than MK did is extremely harsh and completely ridiculous. Not to mention we would essentially be at mercy of all alliances receiving tech to give us lists of targets in time to not prolong the payments unnecessarily. Given that NPO is still paying 350k and 12B they recieved I really doubt they would do us a favor there. And unlike NPO, TOP would have serious issues buying tech internally.

In other words, "Merde!".

i hope to god that IAA's name is taken off of the list of alliances taking reps from TORN/DAWN. i refuse to take reps for this war and would hope my alliance would have far more honor than this.

as for the rest, CnG is the only alliances that should take reps. every other alliance that demands it should have more honor.

I can't help but ageee with this. Why Gre is on there really astounds me.

Look, offer is 350k to your alliances (meaning 700k net loss for TOP compared to your side). This means that if we accept the terms we will effectively lose all our tech without causing any damage.

[...]

So, tell me, we should give up all of our tech (because by giving 350k to your side we are losing 700k in relative advantage) and cause no damage?

Relative advantage? Are you already planning your next war against us? If that's the case I don't think these reps are nearly harsh enough.

I don't mind prying it from your cold dead hands at all.

Yes, I am lulz right now. I have no interest in this mess, even though I assisted in its creation

Yeah, wink away, like you were proud of it

Relative advantage? Are you already planning your next war against us? If that's the case I don't think these reps are nearly harsh enough.

I don't mind prying it from your cold dead hands at all.

We aren't planning anything. I can safely say that MK is no where near top of the list of alliances we hate right about now. We may have seen you as a threat and an opponent and most of your members agrees they did the same, but we did not hate you.

Given way you are treating this war that could change however.

Well, I'm going to love seeing how you pry anything for our cold dead hands. Not only you won't pry anything but you will lose hundreds of thousands of tech trying. And not get a cent from us. That is unless you stop with unreasonable crippling terms. We are not in a vacuum, while rest of the world grows CnG can try to contain us. I am going to enjoy watching alliances start to dwarf you and your position weaken day by day. All because you could not see that it is in your interest to end the war, end the cycle and try to find a good solution for both sides.

Problem in your equation is that even if we are completely destroyed, including all our tech and infra, we will still have all our wonders and all we will need is 1000 infra (bought for 5million) and some spare cash to buy up nukes. Even a 0 tech nuke does 150 damage and keeps someone in nuclear anarchy. You've seen Aircastle deploy on 3 targets each, now imagine 200 nations did that. Do you really want to make us into your arch-enemy? So we can either find an end to the conflict which won't leave bitter taste in peoples mouths or we can keep this up hurting both of us a lot. You can disperse the damage but the losses are still there.

Look, offer is 350k to your alliances (meaning 700k net loss for TOP compared to your side). This means that if we accept the terms we will effectively lose all our tech without causing any damage.

Half of it is payable through outside sources. The incoming tech effectively increases our income by 50% (because 30 days means we would get 600 tech, now we're getting 900) while having no effect on your outgoing tech. Except we probably wouldn't be getting full slots from the reps. Regardless it's around a 425k tech differential (175k from you guys multiplied by 2, 0 from you guys on the other half and an increase of 75k at best for our income). I doubt you would drop very far behind MHA or GPA (lol) in total tech and you would pass them pretty quickly afterwards. Maybe a couple months.

Not only that but our slots will be locked with reparation payments for unknown amount of time (depending on how much tech CnG can absorb) and for whole that time we would be completely banned from buying tech for our own growth.

Depending on how stubborn you guys are about which of your nations send out tech you could get these done pretty quickly. 100 nations sending out 300 tech each would be 30,000 tech per cycle, meaning 2 months for the stuff that you guys have to send out personally.

So, tell me, we should give up all of our tech (because by giving 350k to your side we are losing 700k in relative advantage) and cause no damage?

Because if you battle on to below 100k tech we'll have an even bigger tech advantage on your post war.

Seriously, you think this is a good offer?

100% serious, yes and I'm glad you didn't accept them.

I touched on a couple of the things in the remainder of your post but for the most part I think that was directed at other people.

Edit: I've edited this post so many times that if you've quoted it, don't expect it to be the same.

Edit 2: Be back in 9 hours.

It seems that the idea is currently, in the in game political world by those that have power in it, to eliminate threats by in game technical means--"extreme draining of vital stats". You can not make up for that, only hope that those that accumulated this unreachable edge on you, lose it in some other conflict.

Hey, its a strategy. Whatyagonnado

Its a good strategy, limits the PR hit and you can always quote "No viceroys" even though nobody installed one in more then two years or ever will due to admin rule and changing of the political climate. Making it a moot point to make. Also a incredibly stupid way to come about "justifying" current peace term standards, indicative of lower level of posters. And it is generally underestimated how big of a negative impact big reps have on alliances, how big of a stress they are on the community.

We will see how well this will work for them and for how long.

I sorta miss the days when you wanted to "eliminate" threats by making them make a oath to you-- hiya Moldavi and ODN . Made for good controversy which driven the game and didn't mutilate in game nations of players to the point they give up on them entirely.

NUTS!

As a note, I don't think those total reps even add up to CnG's total tech loss in the war at this point.

Hmm ... I bet MK's tech levels back then were much, much higher than what TOP's are right now, so their 50% less nukes, proportionately, caused the same amount of infrastructure damage. Right? And I bet that MK's targets 18 months ago had much higher infrastructure levels than TOP's current targets, so that when their nukes hit, it was almost the exact same economic setback, proportionately, as C&G is seeing today. Right? Because otherwise, your entire argument falls apart - and you wouldn't come here with an argument that falls apart that quickly and easily, would you?

You forgot MK's massive WRC count. Even GGA barely has the number MK had back then.

Shahenshah, please stop posting. You are not representing IRON well in this thread and that just burns my bum.

This is the best thing you've ever posted.

Best of luck to everyone in finding an agreeable peace.

"NUTS" etc

Good to see they weren't leaked by TOP.

/me leaves a biased comment and exits

haha I love this stuff:

IRON shall agree to provide BACoN with unlimited cast iron frying pans for bacon cooking purposes

but not the other reps

Look, offer is 350k to your alliances (meaning 700k net loss for TOP compared to your side). This means that if we accept the terms we will effectively lose all our tech without causing any damage.

Actually, as of the time those numbers were offered, you had roughly 820k tech, not the ~700k your AA shows. Hiding people in other AAs doesn't mean we won't count their tech as part of TOP's. It was a nice try, though.

Wow, we are being this nice?

I’m curious as to how exactly these figures were drawn up. I’ve seen a number of attempts at explanation but by no one that I personally recognize as a government member but my knowledge there is dated. It could conceivably help the case for these kinds of terms if some insight was provided to the general public.

That aside, I’m seeing a number of different arguments presented by either side, some employing semantics and others searching up old wars that the victors were in to conduct comparisons. The argument I see as being most disingenuous is where if those being offered these terms reject them and proceed to fight a prolonged conflict akin to VietFan that their technology would be reduced to a point where they no longer do damage as they originally did. Meanwhile they would be incapable of growing despite the apparent victors being capable of such, albeit more slowly then if at peace. While it’s true the issue with this argument is how short sighted it is. The focus is on the one group you’re presently in conflict with without consideration that others will grow while you’re hampered and the politics could begin to unfold as old or new differences crack open into fissures. A concerted effort could of course conceivably offset this trend of tugging every which way. What will happen though if this moral outrage by a number of parties were to materialize into a trend? What kind of treatment would be received or expected if such a policy were followed and you were finally among the vanquished? How would you expect or wish others to read your words and actions? Based on Bob’s history now, how do you think they will?

There’s a trend in Bob of looking back at actions and words then doing comparisons and judging based on hindsight. The momentary views of events are typically different from that which is held when viewing in hindsight. A dilemma arises when you’re going against the grain, Bob’s new found moral compass, by increasing the volume of reparations to new heights. The treaty web certainly is structured to be in the assumed victor’s favor but we’ve seen lines in the web snap under pressure before. What is there to assure that your view of these terms being acceptable will be shared by others down the road and is that a risk worth taking?

While one may receive some sort of satisfaction out of damaging terms being issued to their opponent it can do a great disservice despite any advantage to your statistics it may give. Those numbers may incite rage down the road or be viewed at as simply being understandable and in a case of the former it would only serve to delay the inevitable.

Actually, as of the time those numbers were offered, you had roughly 820k tech, not the ~700k your AA shows. Hiding people in other AAs doesn't mean we won't count their tech as part of TOP's. It was a nice try, though.

Some people are necessarily coming back

If it was my alliance being offered these terms I would reject them, these reps are extremely high and mostly in tech form as well. Reps to CnG are already very high, then Sparta and Dark Fist are looking especially greedy in what they're asking for on a war they declared, although most of these alliances don't deserve reps. If the total amount being asked for by CnG was cut way down more than half and most of these alliances helping weren't trying to profit off the situation it would be more realistic. Dark Fist should get nothing though, they seem the greediest in all of this.

Why do you say the terms are harsh? Why didn't TOP-IRON and their allies thought about this before commencing an unprovoked and aggressive attack?

You pay for what you do!

If it was my alliance being offered these terms I would reject them, these reps are extremely high and mostly in tech form as well. Reps to CnG are already very high, then Sparta and Dark Fist are looking especially greedy in what they're asking for on a war they declared, although most of these alliances don't deserve reps. If the total amount being asked for by CnG was cut way down more than half and most of these alliances helping weren't trying to profit off the situation it would be more realistic. Dark Fist should get nothing though, they seem the greediest in all of this.

Don't be too upset Methrage. I'll make sure you get invited to Greedfest 2010 over at Dark Fist headquarters.

Dancin' in the free world.

If it was my alliance being offered these terms I would reject them, these reps are extremely high and mostly in tech form as well. Reps to CnG are already very high, then Sparta and Dark Fist are looking especially greedy in what they're asking for on a war they declared, although most of these alliances don't deserve reps. If the total amount being asked for by CnG was cut way down more than half and most of these alliances helping weren't trying to profit off the situation it would be more realistic. Dark Fist should get nothing though, they seem the greediest in all of this.

I assure you there is no profit involved.

Don't be too upset Methrage. I'll make sure you get invited to Greedfest 2010 over at Dark Fist headquarters.

If you get greedy you get nothing and the fighting continues. My prediction is Dark Fist gets nothing in reps from this war.

ITT: We learn that Methrage is actually...

Also, if we don't get reps who will throw Greedfest '10?

You forgot MK's massive WRC count. Even GGA barely has the number MK had back then.

According to Janova-speak, only SDIs are germane to the discussion. WRCs are not pertinent. Stop bringing up non-pertinent information*.

*Anything that shoots holes in his argument. There is lots of this information out there, so please be vigilant.

Some people are necessarily coming back

Please take back Shardoon of Arient, who is currently hiding in Aloha pretending he was never in TOP.