Jump to content
  • entries
    18
  • comments
    64
  • views
    7,890

What the People Want, They Get


crushtania

149 views

 Share

Reps Poll  

25 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Personally, me as a man sitting behind a LCD screen, cannot stomach the recent spate of surrenders ending in white peace. If I was not in the government of any of the major alliances and instead a dedicated and loyal member of my smaller alliance, I would vocally petition all leaders to sue for reparations in some form. Even though we are merely playing a game, what is the point of fighting if victory entails a return to the start? Alliance membership are not pawns in a Presidents and Triumvirs' game. They are people who have spent many hours building their nations only to see them destroyed again. I cannot say for certain that alliances who have metered out white peace to their former enemies has their terms endorsed by an overwhelming, or even simple majority of their member base. But I would feel cheated if I was not even asked.

As the game continues to evolve into a post-Pacifican era, so must our approaches to the rigid Pacifican modes of alliance conception. In Pacifica, when the Emperor speaks, his voice thrusts with the unanimous cries of the Body Republic. However in other alliances, national obligations are less stringent and compulsory. Such is the FCC that imposes little restraints on what their members must and must not do.

In the war, we have had calls for Individual Surrender Terms and Alliance-wide ones also. In my view, if an alliance grants another white peace as part of a surrender, they must also provide for alliance members that wish to extract reparations from enemies that they have fought directly. Yes, more red tape and coordination would be required. But those who wish to be remunerated for their services deserve to have the choice of said repayments. I would of course, limit the reparations to the exact damage caused or rounded up to the nearest 50 tech/3M keeping the payments just and equitable.

I believe that members should have more input into the war that they have so bravely fought for their leaders, their brothers and their alliance.

 Share

11 Comments


Recommended Comments

Here's the thing, I know you were disgusted with what we did, but we had said from the beginning that we weren't looking to ask for reps. Most of our members agreed.

No amount of reps, not even the 82k tech MK had to pay, really repairs what is lost in a war. Most people enjoy going to war for its own sake. I had people begging for something since January or even before that.

When you have people thinking they're entitled to reps from the onset, you get situations like what happened with TSI.

Link to comment

Damages in this war stretch into the billions. The foreign aid system just isn't going to be enough to repair it, unless you're willing to have alliances still paying reps in 2010 or beyond.

Link to comment

I wouldn't want a defeated alliance to rebuild an entire economy; the size of the reps are largely unimportant. My issue is the process that was arrived at asking for them or not and if it was representative of an alliance's membership.

Link to comment

There are an awful lot of alliances out there now that will refuse reps demands, Crush. If you want to end the war before the target is completely defeated, you're going to need to make some concessions.

It's not just your allies in The Citadel who think that way.

Link to comment

We've been ultimately doing a lot of public polling on war decisions, it's one thing for peacetime coalition building and such, it's another situation where 1/2 of my members have been nuked for weeks. They get ultimate say in what we do in the end game. If they want reps, they're going to get reps.

Link to comment

While I agree with your desire for reps, sometimes it depends on the context of the conflict.

Let's say, for example, that you are sitting at a bar. Next to you is your friend, and next to him is your friend's friend. Now let's say your friend's friend gets into a fight. You buddy jumps up and says, "We have to help my friend out." You say ok and jump to your feet, but just as you do, another person who is larger and stronger gets in your way. He his related to his chain of friends in a similar manner that you are. So you scuffle for a minute, maybe get a punch in or two, but in the end, this larger guy shoves you down into the chair. "Don't get up." He says. You've just been defeated. Now you and he both know that the conflict wasn't between you two but rather in defense of your respective friends. No hard feelings.

This is the situation we found ourselves in at Zenith (although, to be fair, their was more than one opponent).

In our scenario above, even though you both sustained a some damage, how right would it be if your opponent then demanded your wallet?

Sometimes conflict isn't about destroying an enemy but rather just checking his progress.

At Zenith we were grateful for the white peace.

---

Now what if you are walking down the street and somebody jumps out and says "I don't the way you look or the friends you hang out with!" And starts swinging on you? I think you would be more than justified in taking his wallet off his bloodied prostrate body.

Link to comment

Xiph, it takes two to tango. Remember that in order to get reps, you have to be at war with someone who's willing to give them.

Any reps demand has to be backed up by a willingness to keep the other side at war for longer than they're willing to fight. If they're willing to fight forever, you're not going to get it.

Link to comment
Xiph, it takes two to tango. Remember that in order to get reps, you have to be at war with someone who's willing to give them.

Or I just have to not care, which is what NPO and Echelon have run into. We want reps in order to ensure they're no longer a threat for a prolonged period after the war. They don't want to pay, so they stay in peace mode. Doesn't bother us a bit. They drew the short straw when picking targets in this war.

Link to comment
Or I just have to not care, which is what NPO and Echelon have run into. We want reps in order to ensure they're no longer a threat for a prolonged period after the war. They don't want to pay, so they stay in peace mode. Doesn't bother us a bit. They drew the short straw when picking targets in this war.

If what you want is to try and intimidate everyone into never attacking you, you know that didn't work for noWedge.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...