iamthey
-
Posts
3,604 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by iamthey
-
-
what was the rest of the terms .. is it not possible there was something in the other parts he did not like ..? what i am asking is your terms are for no slot use for them nations ? and our counter to that might of been at least let them nations send aid to them that were fighting at least ? I am thinking your centralizing on one part of the terms and not the whole process or terms were there maybe other factors in disagreement ?
i asked a question was your offer still including the no use of slots period ?
umm i asked you the question i think ? what were the total terms with the 8 days the Polar side offered since you were there ?
Yes it does matter cause i do know that the original terms we of our nations could not use no slots for any reason at all ... for the length of time of the terms .. i know our counter was for a certain period of time but with the stipulation that the nations could send aid to them nations that fought which this quote is only from 2 or 3 hours ago long after Farrin left the talks. Meaning maybe you offered a difference in time but the rest of the terms are also in question .. so your spinning of using one point does not jive.
So you are saying that it is okay for our nations in question to send aid to nations that fought and the only difference is eight days ? And the eight days is the only thing holding up the peace?
Still waiting for a answer to this question :) ...and it is just a simple yes or no answer i beleive
Now to understand completely ... mirrored as in were the same as or mirrored as they were close to but not the same as you do know mirrors reflect opposite sides right ? (left reflects right and your right reflects on the left )
okay so something is not right here then .. i see above in a post there was a offer tonite which i dont know about accept was said here .. with that offer we made it included i guess tech supposedly. Now I would assume if this offered was including tech it maybe in relation to changing one of them terms in this deal that was not acceptable three days ago .. just saying now... so if he stopped negotiating three days ago would it not make sense cause them terms that were supposedly a mirror or reflection were not entirely as close as you said and he just maybe ..... just saying needed them days to maybe come back with a counter offer .. just saying
too be perfectly honest he did not say one term was 8 days longer .. .he was saying that the only difference was 8 days period. As a matter of fact i do not think as well that them that are not in the rooms realise each term of the Terms has days attached to each different one... but regardless if it was only a minor eight days then the one thing i would question why did each side just not agree to the +/- day differential to make them eight days. If it was really that minor and all it was then the solution was simple ..
Nine posts and not a single day was removed from the current offer. -
But just because the word reparation is out of favour these days doesn't mean the terms demanded are not reparations.
No one is demanding the forced transfer of tech. That established, feel free to make yourself feel better by entertaining whatever semantic gymnastics you need to in describing what we're doing. I don't think there has ever been a surrender agreement, short of white peace, that didn't carry with it the resistance of the defeated party; that you don't enjoy your ally's circumstance is to be expected and has been duly noted by the powers that be. -
So why the double standard? If NoR's hiding in PM clearly they have to have punitive terms placed on them as well by your logic. Hypocrisy at it's best!
Oh and by your #s 72.9% of NoR is in PM while the nations your coalition are whining about are only 10.95% of our members. SO they should be punished even more by your logic!
itt NPO wants all its allies to also be 'punished'.NoR were never the main target of the war. Or even any kind of target I imagine, more a bonus for certain people. So there is your answer why.
What are you attempting to accomplish with this? Are you simply waiting for someone in our ranks to slip and allow you to extract a '[ooc]game[/ooc] changing' admission on one of your irrelevant rhetorical points? If that happens what do you intend to do with it? Will you run back to the coalition channel smug and self righteous, affirmed in some ephemeral moral high ground your side must surely hold- will anyone even remember the admission? This entire process is silly, and unless you're doing it purely for therapeutic reasons I'd advise you to stop.
In either case, you all have played the martyr this entire war- shamelessly trotting out every stale line losing coalitions have thrown about since GWI. We've all said these things when defeated, and we've all rolled our eyes when they were returned. The community is far too cynical at this point for an appeal like that.Why'd NPO want peace when clearly they're winning, haven't you guys seen their damage dealt/ damage taken ratio. Everyone else on their side are probably screaming for peace though but this isn't about them so no peace for NpO and co, eternal war is the only offer you're getting.
NPO is achieving superior damage output because their force is clustered in the 10k range. Their use of PM in the upper tier has also precluded them from receiving the efficient/expensive damage that everyone else in their coalition has received. Given that the bulk of their damage has been dealt in the lower ranges I also suspect the price/economically corrected figures (that scale up and down with the value of what is being destroyed) would show a much lower (possibly irrelevant) damage value comparable to the overall damage of the war. -
These terms are ridiculous, the only solace I get is when half the people enforcing them get burned to the ground next war and we do nothing to help them :|
Edit: The best part of all this is that people apparently forget what happened last time Umbrella\GOONS\TOP took NPO out of play through terms.
Hey Polar, you think that TOP treaty is going to keep you safe? Ask MHA and Sparta if their Umbrella treaty kept them safe last time...
I'm sure you're holding out hope that we'll do something utterly self defeating and idiotic to reverse the sorry positioning you've saddled yourself with. -
Congrats fear.
-
Meet TOP circa 2006-2014.
Honestly, I love how you are trying to blame us. You should go full bore into us being the devil of CN.<snip>
Hello to everyone!
This war really is about grudges and I’m surprised The Order of the Paradox’s coalition ever attempted to convince people otherwise. TOP, Fark, and the New Polar Order have attacked our allies by using obsolete information that clearly had been discarded and even forgotten about. We all know this. We all know the real reasons they are attacking NSO.
The NpO has no qualms with declaring war on the allies and friends of their allies. They demonstrated this by doing so last war. But Non Grata respects it’s allies. In genuine gratitude for all that IRON and Valhalla have done for Non Grata, we do not declare war on Fark or the NpO.
Now TOP…..
You’ve plotted and schemed your way to the head of the pack. You’ve signed strategic tie after strategic tie. You define the word realpolitik. And you’ve done a masterful job inching your way to the leader of your coalition. Your ego and confidence have exploded along the way reminding us how you were just before you attacked CnG during BiPolar and during your grudge war with NpO.
Clearly, you have no issues declaring war for no reason other than you merely dislike them. This cannot stand.
Non Grata declares war on The Order of the Paradox in defense of the New Sith Order.
He already did, and I would be remiss if I failed to admit I thought it was satire at first. -
lol, TOP's coalition first offers for NPO was 134 days of PM for NPO's top nations and now it's 107 days, not much movement there. I get that you feel you are winning and can make demands, but when NPO goes from 0 days to being willing to take 94 days and you still reject that, that's just ridiculous. So many alliances in this war were just honoring treaties on both side and now they are all being held captive to just a select few alliances that have grudges to settle to NPO.
Now there is winning and then there is rubbing it in and getting cocky. Good luck in the future with that kind of attitude. Is 13 extra days really worth that much to you TOP? You would hold everyone at war for an extra 13 days? Seriously I think the joke of it is that you believe the way to "win" is to be the one that gives the final counter.
NPO is being more than fair for an alliance just honoring a treaty.
I think you mean nine days. -
Honestly Grub, when are you going to just give it a rest- no one cares about your constant nonsense and noise attempting to spin things into this or that.
Honestly NPO, when are you going to just give it a rest- no one cares about your constant nonsense and noise attempting to spin things into this or that. -
Just because you keep saying it and thinking it, well, that won't make it come true.
I wouldn't call it a PR disaster, but I might say it is irrelevant. Other than to give the reythegreat's, rotaveles, et al- something to do on a sunday afternoon I fail to comprehend what this thread actually set out to accomplish. -
Lol wrong.
Also, there's no way this war could have been over by Christmas, because for all of December, when we were continually approaching your coalition to attempt to negotiate, your coalition kept telling us that you could not come to an agreement on what you wanted to offer us.
In other words, there weren't any terms for us to accept even if we'd have been willing to accept them.
If NPO had approached the war as its peers did, it would have received the same treatment as the others- we have been ready to peace them out since mid december. You didn't and so there was disagreement on how to handle you. That you have terms has nothing to do with who you are, only how you have fought the war. -
Our banking nations sure do need tech, since in practically every war we fight, our enemies try to force us to make our banks fight under the threat of draconian terms.
They're not banks, they are upper tier nations you'd prefer not to waste on this war, and it is this very specific NPO interest that is prolonging the conflict and holding all of your allies at war. If you had deployed those nations from the beginning (or released them after a time as NSO did) this war would have been over by christmas. -
The real point is that your statement is a lie. Banking nations don't have so much tech.
I've seen your nations' warchests. These PM nations could have fought, sent aid with 100% slots, and continued to send aid even now, and the war would have been over long before Christmas. Every other alliance on your side has taken more damage than I'd wish upon anybody, all because you Pretend to have aid banks and Pretend you have willfully chosen an outdated system of economics.
Banking nations also don't import tech, so we could expect most of the banks to be running zero tech imports in the lead up to the war.
Tech Importation from 9/15-10/15 for those PM'd NPO nations above 90k:
magus rules http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=132439 1700
lithium http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=488644 1600
walt schmidt http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=233123 1500
kingdom of dark http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=29470 1500
mr breeze http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=49773 1300
arcades057 http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=90642 1200
chilerelleno http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=113984 1200
desfuhrer http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=53947 1200
yohon http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=38931 1080
acidnine http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=329212 900
guido http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=97698 900
emperor svb http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=256346 800
lord strider http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=84844 600
alexit http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=132119 600
woodrow http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=169033 0
albertspeer http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=195263 0
sable http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=18453 0
sludgemonkey http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=22897 0
eclipse363 http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=152802 0
lenadius http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=134146 0 -
Good stance Farrin. We would never let you take those terms anyway. Those are insane, unprecedented, and extremely punitive terms and equivalent to extremely ridiculous reparations. No one should accept them. Not even my worse enemy would see terms like that from me. [OOC]And they should be against the ToS, making someone basically quit the game for nearly half a year[/OOC].
To add to it, these are basically terms you given an opponent that you know they'll have trouble keeping, so this is just designed to give NpO/TOP another CB on NPO. Telling 33 nations to stay in peace mode for 4+ months and keeping them disciplined to not accidentally go to war mode or leave due to boredom. It's disgusting. And sad they were even offered. And do we really need more incentive to push nations from our world? These terms do just that.
Clearly you have either been misled, or you now feign ignorance- the coalition dropped the PM term after the first Pacifican counter offer. In its place we accepted Farrin's proposal of aid restrictions (on those nations who have not fought), we exempted their senators as they requested, we then considerably cut the multiplier on the duration of the war from 2 to 1.5 to 1.3. Farrin countered this with .5 - and then proceeded to rage quit over a .8 difference (which remained negotiable). Negotiations at this point are a technical discussion over what the multiplier should be, no one is forcing anything onerous on NPO, certainly nothing NPO hasn't itself proposed.
If farrin wants to make a public appeal to the twenty !@#$ posters of the OWF then by all means he's free to do that- all the same we'll be waiting when he wants to talk to us again. The only group extending the war at this point is NPO.
-
It's worth noting that I also have sufficient tech to support 6th gen fighters. Regardless, arms transactions make sense RPwise given that re-inventing the wheel is generally frowned upon, and in either case this isn't something that started this morning- our IC treaty clearly stipulates the creation of governance bodies directed towards facilitating the sharing of technology and general arms transactions. This was in the cards from day one.
-
Terrible news, my sincerest condolences to his family and those that knew him.
-
Outrageous- biggest controversy of 2014.
-
Please make sure Bremerhaven is marked as Austrian on the map (this was part of the original land split between me and yawoo)- it was there in the past but it looks like it got removed (probably assuming it was an erroneous miscolor).
-
ooc: fixed the name
ic: We can agree to the principle of a unified germany as a common ambition, and we're willing to dedicate the resources to exploring and laying the groundwork for that outcome. There are important cultural, and administrative distinctions that we would be interested in preserving, but in so far as the project respects these we'd be willing to work towards further integration.
Draft:
[b]V. German Addendum[/b]
In recognition of common historic membership, both parties agree to establish a commission of national incorporation directed towards an eventual unified state. While both parties maintain this project as a common ambition, they agree the pace of the project should proceed only by consensus, and that eventual union must occur with the consent of the signatories. As an initial act of good faith, both consent to a policy of mutual open borders, further economic integration, and the issuance of a common German passport which will suffice as authorization to seek employment under either regime.
-
Indeed, and now it seems those mutual interests are imperiled by an eastern ogre, the polish-sith axis. Its unrepentant perfidy against its neighbors cannot be excused by any appeal to rationality, and its clear bid to undermine its ernstwhile Austrian allies is most troubling. We would be deeply honored to call you a friend, and to stand beside you against this appalling crisis. We propose the following articles:
Austro-Prussian Security Accords
I. Sovereignty:
Both parties jointly recognize the exclusive and supreme right of the other over their respective territorial domains. Neither party will act in any way to compromise the stability or efficacy of the other.II. Security and Assurances:
- Signatories of this pact pledge their support to one another in defense of an aggressor. Aggression shall be here defined as any unprovoked attack launched against an overseas asset, or any incursion which imperils the territorial holdings of the other.
- Both parties affirm a willingness to cooperate on the gathering of intelligence and pledge to convey information regarding any threat to the other in a timely fashion.
- Both parties pledge the closure of their borders, waterways, and air corridors to any entity which may pose a threat to the other.
III. Economic Cooperation:
Both parties agree upon the implementation of a joint regime of free trade. All tariffs and excise taxes levied against the flow of goods and services between each country shall be relaxed at once.IV. Cancellation:
Either party may withdraw from this pact at any time though notice of intent must be given within two months of activation (ooc: 4 days). Upon termination item I and the last term of item II will remain in effect for at least six months (ooc: 12 days), or through the duration of any active threat which either emerged prior to the activation of V, or during the cool off period.
Signatures for Austria:
Alexander Schröder, Chairman of the Executive Committee
Velimir of Metternich, Foreign Minister of Austria
Signatures for the Federal Republic of Prussia: -
[center]
[/center]To: The Greater Sith Empire
From: Foreign Office of the Austrian Interim Authority
Esteemed neighbors, we regard with distress the sith backing of polish aggression. It is our view that the current crisis presently embroiling Europa is one of unwarranted paranoia manufactured through the saber rattling of an acquisitive regime (poland) and its international supporters. Your unconditional support of its present move against Prussia, our ally, a stable, democratic, and legitimate regime, and our ever faithful allies to the south is not only disconcerting but highly alarming. Rather than acting with impartiality and method to suppress the agitative and noxious nationalism of the Poles, your move has only served to fan the flames of national butchery. We emphasise with the greatest urgency the need for both peace and forethought and request an immediate secession of your movements, submission to neutral Austrian mediation, and your acceptance of fair terms of surrender- which satisfy both Prussian and Athenian security interests.
Sincerely,
Velimir of Metternich, Foreign Minister of the Austrian Interim Authority
-
I disagree on the navy thing. Not all nations are able to maintain navies IRL even island ones (look at the Phillipines).
This doesn't really address the issue. Why should I have to waste a million (or more) per day IG to maintain a useless navy for the purposes of CNRP? This cash could be far more productively funnelled into my warchest. We already eliminate IG requirements for airforce and CM's, the navy requirement is just grossly inefficient and wasteful.
-
In general I support a multiplier but I'm not too sure about that last part with giving certain planes a score and such. That could make things a bit too complex which I believe is something the majority of CNRP wants to avoid.
I would propose as said a multiplier based on your infra or tech. While there is theoretical merit behind having be just infra or infra and tech the problem is you can lose a few thousand infra in a round of war easily, tech takes a lot longer to destroy thus removes some volatility. Having it be infra or tech both accommodates both those who want to fight a war or in a warfighting alliance and those who are more focused on pure nation building.
I am not sure about having 12k tech is the best way of going over the maximum standard as that actually is quite difficult for a pretty large part of CNRP to achieve. What I would suggest is having the tech requirement be half the infra one due to the relative longer time you need to buy tech and if you do it manually the much higher cost. That brings it to the following multipliers.
3750 Tech, 7500 Infra x2
7000 Tech, 14000 Infra x3
10000 Tech, 20000 Infra x4
This seems like a fair compromise. The more simple the mechanic is the less arguing there will be in the future. One thing I would also suggest we consider is moving away from pure IG navy. Having to hold and pay for a full fleet in peace time is completely silly. We could just as easily screencap our theoretical navies if anyone challenged the veracity of a player's claims (and you can already fudge it given that all anyone can actually see is its total size).
-
The alternative of course is to be a diplomatic power, so basically everyone should choose between being a girly Austria or AWESOME PRUSSIA!
austria.png
-
Well this was pretty clearly botched. I can't say I didn't try to advise you all on constructive ways to approach the problem. In either case I'm disappointed that after assurances to the contrary it came out in this form (and with my name on it no less) but whatever.
The leak certainly didn't help either, I just hope south america was worth it.
A Message from the Emperor of the New Pacific Order
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
You're responding to a post that is woefully out of date (note the timestamp predates the most recent negotiations that everyone is now discussing).