Chief's Blog

Not to interrupt your pointless arguing over both of your !@#$%* terms, can we please stop saying 'NUTS!' every time terms are offered?

STRAWBERRIES WITH !@#$%* WHIPPED CREAM!!!!!!!!!!!!

[this is a productive comment in line with community standards]

It's also pretty military-history geekish.

You are commenting on replies to a blog post made in reference to a pretend war taking place in a text-based role-playing game on the internet. You, sir, are in no position to criticize others for "geekish" behavior.

Also, the TTItD doesn't have the right to dictate ZI policy to the other alliances. In the original terms no one was singled out for ZI except for people who went rogue.

There's no 'dictating' Airme. If C&G is working out a conditional surrender, then TIDTT can ask and fight for any conditions of surrender they want, including ZI policy toward combatants.

These are closer to reasonable than the first offer leaked in Ejay's blog, although the final figure will probably be between them. It's also strange to have a partial nuke decom and protection – with protection you'd normally expect demilitarisation.

How are these close to reasonable? They attacked with no CB and want to get out of paying for it. NUTS

NUTS!

It's mockery. When mocking via mimicking, it quite often does not make sense for the mimer (did I just make up a word) to do what they're doing. Except that they're insulting the other party. :haw:

As a side note, your insult has been duly noted, and I am quite pleased to see your arrogance and sense of entitlement has survived this war fully intact thus far. We will be sure to redouble our efforts on that front

I understand exactly what you guys are trying to do... It just makes absolutely no sense in this situation. It's the same thing as if instead of saying "NUTS!" in reply to your terms we said "Never Surrender!" and then you guys all posted "Never Surrender!" in response to our counter offer. It makes no sense since you are not being asked to surrender.

If our counteroffer was to ask for your surrender, then your responses would be appropriate. So please learn how to mock.

I understand exactly what you guys are trying to do... It just makes absolutely no sense in this situation. It's the same thing as if instead of saying "NUTS!" in reply to your terms we said "Never Surrender!" and then you guys all posted "Never Surrender!" in response to our counter offer. It makes no sense since you are not being asked to surrender.

If our counteroffer was to ask for your surrender, then your responses would be appropriate. So please learn how to mock.

Except we're saying nuts because your counter terms were way lower than anything we would want. We don't have to use the exact same meaning of the word to mock the idea of what you guys were doing.

Except we're saying nuts because your counter terms were way lower than anything we would want. We don't have to use the exact same meaning of the word to mock the idea of what you guys were doing.

No you don't. You also don't have to make any sense either, but I guess you already know that

Why not just drop the requirement that they have to send their own tech. Let them buy it with tech sellers. CnG will get their tech and it doesn't cripple the alliances paying the reps. People are throwing out time frames in terms of aid slots that alliances will have to devote to paying reps but its really double whats being quoted because of the wasted aid slots used to acquire the tech in the first place. I think the punitive aspect to the reps requested should be dropped. War is good and people seem to think we should encourage it. If the original rep request is paid it will set a dangerous precedent that will insure long long lasting peace.

Look at the tears! "Crippling reps", misuse of "nuts", don't ZI the nuke rogue we're harboring!

No you don't. You also don't have to make any sense either, but I guess you already know that

What doesn't make sense? Nuts is expressing our disbelief at how low the counter-offer was.

You're kidding right?

What doesn't make sense? Nuts is expressing our disbelief at how low the counter-offer was.

The term "NUTS!" is taken from a historical context. Have you read up on it?

The term "NUTS!" is taken from a historical context. Have you read up on it?

Nope, that would explain why I was lost.

BUTTS

If that's the real counter-offer, all I can say is: hilarious.

Why not just drop the requirement that they have to send their own tech. Let them buy it with tech sellers. CnG will get their tech and it doesn't cripple the alliances paying the reps. People are throwing out time frames in terms of aid slots that alliances will have to devote to paying reps but its really double whats being quoted because of the wasted aid slots used to acquire the tech in the first place. I think the punitive aspect to the reps requested should be dropped. War is good and people seem to think we should encourage it. If the original rep request is paid it will set a dangerous precedent that will insure long long lasting peace.

Because letting them buy it entirely through tech sellers doesn't punish them at all? Cash is nothing, I'm sure TOP would agree to reps of 20B in a heartbeat, cause realistically it would be super easy for them to pay off. Tech is where it hurts them.

(And for all you paranoid $%&@ers out there, I just pulled the 20B out of a god damn hat to illustrate a point, please don't start debating it)

Look at the tears! "Crippling reps", misuse of "nuts", don't ZI the nuke rogue we're harboring!

You missed "OMG, this is extortion! EXTORTION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!"

Why not just drop the requirement that they have to send their own tech. Let them buy it with tech sellers. CnG will get their tech and it doesn't cripple the alliances paying the reps. People are throwing out time frames in terms of aid slots that alliances will have to devote to paying reps but its really double whats being quoted because of the wasted aid slots used to acquire the tech in the first place. I think the punitive aspect to the reps requested should be dropped. War is good and people seem to think we should encourage it. If the original rep request is paid it will set a dangerous precedent that will insure long long lasting peace.

300,000 tech is 18 billion in cash. Those *really* are joke reps for TOP.

TOP will surrender?

The tears, they are delicious.

Also: NUTS!

Because letting them buy it entirely through tech sellers doesn't punish them at all? Cash is nothing, I'm sure TOP would agree to reps of 20B in a heartbeat, cause realistically it would be super easy for them to pay off. Tech is where it hurts them.

(And for all you paranoid $%&@ers out there, I just pulled the 20B out of a god damn hat to illustrate a point, please don't start debating it)

But is the point to repay the damage or to punish them? If its the latter then you need to call it something other that reparations.

But is the point to repay the damage or to punish them? If its the latter then you need to call it something other that reparations.

Surrender terms?