Tulafaras

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='09 March 2010 - 06:31 AM' timestamp='1268112990' post='2218898'] I was going off the terms listed [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=196&showentry=1401"]here[/url], and using the 'you' collectively, not as C&G specifically, but those still engaged in combat. Likewise the same, not TOP specifically, but those still fighting. Collectively that's over 500k tech. [/quote] keep in mind that IRON is a pretty significant alliance as well. If they asked the ~200 TOP members to pay 500k it would be very high. But they didn't, instead they asked for a high amount and gave concessions regarding where the tech must come from (meaning they may buy it off AA for a big part). Considering the start of this war frankly i consider that fair, but obviously i am not in TOP and don't have to pay it.

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='07 March 2010 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1267997914' post='2217197'] You're ignoring the wording that one party has to [b][i][u]BREAK[/u][/i][/b] the treaty for the treaty to become null and void. That means that the breaking occurs, and immediately following the breaking, the treaty is gone. You can't reverse causality. "Null" doesn't mean "never existed in the past". [/quote] actually in some legal jargon "null and void" does mean never existed in the past. In many european legal systems we differentiate between "ex nunc" (from now on, basically you do something and it changes the legal situation from that point onwards) and "ex tunc" (from then on, meaning the contract/treaty is voided in such a way as if it had never existed). The translation into english for the latter is "null and void" according to my legal dictionary, but i am decently sure that there is another phrase more commonly used in the USA for this distinction which i sadly neither remember nor can find on the internet.

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='07 March 2010 - 05:57 PM' timestamp='1267981347' post='2216932'] One offers too high, the other offers too low. I say a third set of negotiations should come soon for both to mediate. [/quote] that idea works only in certain amounts. If you go so low or high that the other side feels insulted chances are your haggling will fail (as in one party walks out/refuses to do buisness at all).

[quote name='shahenshah' date='06 March 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1267868324' post='2215796'] One of the sticking points has been open-ended timeline, who knows how long they'd keep us under terms. [/quote] that sounds like something you should (and easily could) settle in negotiations shouldn't it? Fixing a timeline so you can finish your reps in a set timeframe would hardly be a sticking point for most alliances.

[quote name='Azhrei' date='05 March 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1267797481' post='2214825'] I definitely think our attack on TPF was premature, that we should have asked them first about it and get it all clarified. Grub did in the end admit to his planning the infiltration and eventual destruction of Athens and Ragnarok. During war time? Yes, but we were not at war with each other. At most you could say we were on opposite sides of [i]a[/i] war. Zero Hour was formed to infiltrate and destroy Athens from the inside - it doesn't matter that Grub never officially gave the order to go ahead with the plan. Of course, then all of that spurned lover bullcrap was revealed and everyone felt stupid for a while. But when you're in the position Athens was at the time, before you know the truth of the situation, you're not going to want to give your enemies a chance to escape to peace mode. It's treading a thin line and sure, not everyone would take the same path Athens and Ragnarok did. I bet many would, however. As for intending to set up IRON and other alliances by declaring war on TPF, though? No. Just... no. [/quote] i know Grub is the root of all evil etc. etc. etc. but i think you meant mhawk in this. Aside from that, tbh this thread has run it's course nearly 40 pages ago. I have no idea why we are discussing the TPF war here now, since it has literally nothing to do with this war. Maybe our actions were premature, maybe they were not, what they definitly were not was an attempt to "lure" IRON into a trap. Frankly if we had wanted that we wouldn't have stopped when we finally achieved our supposed goal. edit: darn Letum was faster

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 March 2010 - 08:05 AM' timestamp='1267686567' post='2213515'] You do realize that the only way to enforce such a term would be to delete all nations with MPs, right? [/quote] to be honest i never considered deleting a wonder so no i didn't check that. I remembered a fuss about wonder deletion and picked the first military wonder that came to my mind. The ironic thing is that it was actually written into the GR terms a while ago so i guess other people made the same mistake If it makes you happy i can go back and edit it to WRC but it doesn't really make a difference does it? The point i wanted to make remains pretty clear.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 March 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1267652786' post='2212966'] You are correct, I meant to say: this is as paranoid as TOP/IRON's secondary reason for attacking you was, which you have elevated to the primary/only reason for PR purposes. You'd know that assumption wasn't correct if you read these boards more Grub gave the pre-emptive attack the all clear and said that he wouldn't be activating the MK treaty. And yes Tick, I consider going against your directly provided word to a coalition partner to fight against them to be a betrayal. Also, I'd like to see those figures for TOP/IRON's side ever having a 3:1 advantage; the sides were at best about even, and then more alliances started to pile in against them and those on their side were pushed into peace. Stupid because it gives the lie to Karma being the end of draconian reps? And yes, there were other terms – similar to those imposed on NPO by your bloc, so you don't have a leg to stand on there either. (Not to mention that the draft TOP/IRON terms have a no outside aid clause, which is designed to be as damaging as the 1000+-tech term to Polar.) Edit: Yeah, it tends to shift against those who keep their opponents down and impose harsh terms [/quote] Seriously Bob are you trying to prove that you are the most biased poster on this board? You are comparing apples to oranges and say there is no difference except prove a lie. Frankly you still don't understand what draconian means. I can think of at least 3 terms which have been used in the past which definitly fit the definition of the word, and almost none of them have anything to do with money or tech. Want an example? Let's include Factories into the list of improvements you must rip down to surrender. Or another one? Delete all manhatten projects. Or how about accept person XY as viceroy? Frankly the numbers TOP allegedly has been offered (i wasn't there obviously since my alliance has nothing to do with that front) are pure money. Will they hurt? Most likely, but they are easily paid off within a short period of time if TOP truly has the warchests they have always claimed they have. It might sting their pride that they have to give out some tech, but in bare numbers they will recoup whatever they have to pay within 6 months. Their nations will be back at 6k+ infra and they still have their organization.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 February 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1267376069' post='2208415'] There's a few people who actually need to read posts (mine and the one I was responding to) before jumping on their soapbox. Rocky Horror said "[i]CnG in general and MK and Athens in particular know what it is like to suffer truly draconian [b]reps[/b][/i]". The other things wrong with those terms are not reps. Regarding proportionality, this may not be as bad as Athens got in noCB, but if MK was 170 members and was charged 85,000 tech, and TOOL is 206 members and is charged 25,000 tech and 1.1bn (about 40,000 tech equivalent), these reps are officially 63% AS BAD AS THE HEGEMONY (TM). [/quote] seriously you suck at this... First of all you are comparing wars in rather different stages of the history of this planet. Almost any nation over 900 days is far stronger today than they were 2 years ago. The planet has grown. I remember days when GOD pushed like mad to get 20 MPs because that was our goal to defend ourselves against agression. Second your are ignoring the amount of tech MK had compared to the amount of tech TOOL has nowadays. Believe me, if MK had had 300k to give the other side would have demanded higher amounts. That was just the way they worked back then. Regardless of the amounts you are completly ignoring possible side clauses which are usually what makes terms hard to pay. You compare bare numbers because those sound best to you, even if any reasonable person can see the difference between the two agreements as clearly as night and day. Honestly your rethoric has been mostly empty for the entire war, but frankly your outrage over these terms is over the top even for you....

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 February 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1267374377' post='2208376'] And yet ... and yet those reps, which you still whinge about 18 months later, were considerably lower than these, and undoubtedly much much lower than what C&G is planning to extort at the end of this. NoCB does not give you (or others; I know this is SF and fringe alliances not C&G) carte blanche to impose draconian reps forever. You don't really have any reason to complain about noCB if you're going to take the stance that harsh reps are not unjust when you do them. [/quote] Seriously Bob are you truly so biased that you can write such drivel with a straight face? The reps on TOOL have no restrictions placed on them except for a timeframe (which isn't even short). They do not include clauses on who must pay, they do not ban internal aid. The total amount is less than the warchest of 5 decent high end nations (frankly it's less than the warchest of 2 high end nations) and you call them draconian? Why don't you save your whining until someone actually does something harsh to the agressors (because no matter how you try to spin it, TOOL did enter on the agressive side of that conflict. Maybe they were obliged to, maybe their honor demanded it, fact is that they did not have to. I don't blame them for entering and supporting their friend, but if you back up a wrong, it might make you honorable but it doesn't make you right.)?

[quote name='Haflinger' date='26 February 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1267218147' post='2205299'] I'm just hoping I find myself in one war that both makes sense and has a useful opponent. God knows Illuminati didn't score well on the second count. You ... bought land? We'll have to see if I do that. Somehow I doubt it. [/quote] you didn't have to? Even with water i have far too few miles for my citizens. Packing them at 180 per mile is obviously uncomfortable.

[quote name='Alterego' date='28 February 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1267362568' post='2208194'] They're sore about losing their precious infra and tech. Its not enough for a group of bullies just to beat you up they have to rob you after. They then are surprised when people point out that its not right and their answer is usually that they agreed to give up their money. Like the post below this, after being beaten up and robbed you are expected to give your bullies a pat on the back and congratulate them on a job well done. [/quote] right, your analogy seems to miss a few key points. If a group of bullies decides to beat you up and then gets stopped by your friends, then the friends of the bullies decide to help out the bullies and loose as well. When things settle down the bullies and their friends get fined. That sounds more like the events which happened here. Frankly the amount of whining your side posts is disgusting.

does anyone have a stat what used to be rank 250 before we blew each other to pieces? (NS wise i mean, since 97k is enough for rank 250 now, i was curious how far that had dropped).

[quote name='Haflinger' date='22 February 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1266855789' post='2197358'] Far be it from me to assume that Archon = MK. That's the reading comprehension thing biting you again, since you seem to think that's the case. [/quote] is it Archon's place to stop someone from leaving his alliance? Has that ever been done by any alliance? What exactly do you want him to do except say: "so long and good luck" ?

to be honest i ceased being surprised by GGA drama about a year ago... Frankly you should consider keeping your mouth firmly shut until you've actually done something and sorted the alliance out.... Regarding the Coup, has GGA ever actually followed their charter?

[quote name='Sir Keshav IV' date='21 February 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1266777127' post='2195220'] That quote works both ways mate. At least try arguing without starting the first line with an insult. D: [/quote] i was referring to a specific part of his post, i probably should have made that clear. His line was Athens & GOD jumped TPF, which is true to a limited extent, but is rather biased considering that GOD's role in that war was simply to back up our MADP partner Rok. We didn't declare the initial war, we just followed our treaty. Something which was hailed by Bob for the alliances who did it to back up TOP/IRON in this war. Besides, i must admit i do not consider bias an insult, frankly it's logical to some extent that we are biased, every single one of us is a member of an alliance and likes some people more than others, but Bob is letting his bias overtake his reason in this war. Personally when i heard the rumours that TOP/IRON would enter the war my first reaction was to draw up a targetlist for IRON since we had on purpose kept a large amount of strength in peace up to that point to react to their inevitable counterattack. When the first rumours that their target might be MK (not even CnG as a whole but MK) reached our IRC channels our collective reaction was something along the lines of: "they can't be that stupid, that rumour is almost certainly false". I imagine the situation was similar in the MK channels, there was a rumour about alliance X entering against alliance Y almost every single night and most of them proved false. The TOP/IRON rumours proved true in the end, but it doesn't change the fact that most alliances had a hard time believing them. So his position that MK should have averted the war (which newsflash they actually tried to do by speeding up the peace negotiations....) seems absurd to me.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='21 February 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1266755068' post='2194933'] I'm just going to assume this isn't a serious question. Athens and GOD jumped TPF in peacetime. TOP/IRON entered an existing war. Well that's rather the point – you did not want peace on this front, you welcomed it and put your effort into bringing peace to the other fronts and pulling alliances onto your side to gain a strategic advantage. Which is fine, but it puts the lie to the rhetoric about how terrible TOP and IRON are to attack you and that you did not want the war. [/quote] Carefull your bias is showing. Frankly put maybe you should reconsider which alliance you should belong to. Clearly you would feel more at home in TOP. I've enjoyed reading the ridiculous verbal acrobatics you have been using to try and justify TOP's position in this war, but frankly you've become boring. You repeat the same lies you've been sprouting since the conflict has started maybe you should actually consider the other sides point of view once in a while to get some new material. The facts of the situation are crystal clear, TOP joined a war without a CB (except for "we consider them a threat" which would be in the top 10 of most useless CBs i have ever read) and without a treaty connection. They declared on an uninvolved party which had been trying to meditate and close the conflict from day 1. Frankly there is no way you can justify that and make CnG the wrong party.

Really guys in all honesty lay off NSO. They fought to the best of their ability against superior numbers. If the few unharmed (or moderatly harmed) nations they have left stay in peacemode i won't blame them. Anything else doesn't make much sense. Personally the NSO members i've fought did their best and fought well for the most part some random moments as they happen in every war non-withstanding, even when they were rather clearly outmatched in strength. Considering the amount of alliances still at war with NSO (and some other alliances usually) saying they should come out of peacemode and fight is idiotic at best. War rethoric or not, stick to something usefull to talk about. @Heft: active wars? because the search does include a rather large percentage of inactive wars which haven't been deleted. edit: searched for it, 141 active wars, still a decent number considering how long this war has been going on.

personally if we formed such a council and had no tension/war on planet bob anymore, i would desert my nation within a year.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='19 February 2010 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1266600365' post='2192193'] In order for the counter-declaration to be the actual impetus for the ongoing NSO-Fark/GOD/GO/CSN war then after our counter there would have been a logical necessity for the others to redeclare upon NSO instead of acknowledging an already existent state of war and the 20 hours between Polar going to peace and my declaration would have seen no attacks and at the very least a general ceasefire amongst all parties since these supposed "peace talks" were taking place between Fark and NSO and I was busy refusing their offer of white peace. None of that happened. [/quote] True in some points, somewhat confusing in others. There wasn't a general ceasefire, but GOD internal there was a ceasefire and we considered the war to be almost over. Granted i was not part of the negotiations but i honestly don't think Xiph0 was lying to us when he said we were only waiting on Fark (a point which you also agree on). As far as i remember the sticking point where things fell apart was that Fark wanted a clause added that you'd agree to stay neutral and not reenter the war for IRON was it not? Regardless i think you are missing the point i was trying to refute. According to arentak we (as in the falsly named allies of m, we were actually in it for PC but who cares...) were refusing to give you peace and that is why IRON had to enter. If IRON had not entered no neutrality clause would have been needed and peace would long have been reached. The NpO/NSO \m/ war was closing/slowing down (they had been meeting for peace talks for days if you remember) and i think even you would say that it looked as if this entire thing was almost over and done with before IRON/TOP blundered their way into it.

[quote name='arentak' date='19 February 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1266587377' post='2191954'] NSO joined with Polar against the \m/ side. \m/'s allies didn't want to give NSO peace. IRON wasn't going to let NSO burn alone. TOP wasn't going to let IRON burn. Its all one war. [/quote] That is actually incorrect. The NSO front was in the process of declaring peace all around when the NSO decided to "counter-declare" in defense of IRON and the whole front started up again. If IRON had not entered the war (on a completly unrelated front) peace would have been declared within 24 hours of the NpO \m/ peace (the timeframe would have been needed because FARK did not have the entire council online to vote). We (as in GOD) were already under orders to cease fire and our goverment was working on getting the entire front sorted out. Don't try to say that you joined the war to help NSO, if so you could have joined days earlier against GoD and FARK instead of this whole mess.

[quote name='Buffalo Niagara' date='18 February 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1266516267' post='2189894'] You know its really funny some of the posts in this thread talking about oA and all.... On our front, Valhalla is defending IRON who was attacked by FAN. PC, DT and NoR all jumped on Valhalla, with NoR's DoW being the ONLY one listing a valid treaty clause moving in support of DT. Those that came to support Valhalla get dogpiled on by I think a total of 14 alliances. Yesterday in conversations with FoK and Stickmen we all agreed on one thing..we were there to defend our allies. We were offered the same options at the original post. We of course turned them down even being outnumbered basically 2:1. Why? For the same reason many of the posters in this thread. We will not leave allies on the field. MK has stated in his thread that peace for TOP and IRON will not be given for a long time due to the attacks on C&G. Many on our side will not leave until that happens. So as far as peace talks go...those whom want peace, approach those alliances you are at war with. Everyone else...lets continue to nuke the crap out of each other until we are all irrelevant on Bob for the next year, while those not even involved or already peace out move to the forefront of power because we are all showing that our epeens are longer than each other. /me smiles and watches NPO take #1 in all categories... [/quote] You know, the way out of this war seems pretty obvious to me. Maybe you (as in alliances like you who refuse to leave the field without their allies getting peace as well, a position i find understandable and honorable) should approach the mentioned allies (TOP/IRON mostly i guess) and ask them to consider giving in. If they approached CnG with a reasonable offer (meaning a surrender instead of an insult like white peace or dust) i am sure CnG would prove themselves to be reasonable. If they refuse to take that logical step (that being acknowledging that their declaration was a giant mistake and owning up to that mistake) then at some point you have to consider how much backing they actually deserve before you try to pursue a seperate peace. (Note, do not get me wrong, as i said i find the attitude to support your allies to end honorable and would likely do the same, but on the same token your allies are obliged to do their utmost to get you out of the same war within a reasonable timeframe.)

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 06:33 PM' timestamp='1266514384' post='2189837'] If IRON had declared upon Fark and the rest of SF had declared upon IRON and TOP had declared upon them then direct allies of MK would have been declared upon, correct? That was the reasoning behind the declaration, at least from that perspective. I disagreed with the ultimate decision but even MK acknowledges that at some future point it was reasonable to expect one of their direct allies, or a direct ally of another CnG alliance, to be attacked in the escalation, which would thus have led to their entry. Again, I think the decision to skip that step was an error, but ultimately MK was expected, and expecting, to be involved at some future point. EDIT: I may be misinterpreting what you are stating. I am not sure that you are claiming something different than what I am but the point remains correct regardless. [/quote] That is the point i still don't understand. IRON had a perfectly serviceable way into this war, to back up a direct ally who was undoubtly under attack. If they had done so, the war would have stopped a week ago, with something close to white peace all around most likely. The escalation from that point on might have included CnG, but frankly that isn't certain. It might have simply included all of SF and some close allies (FOK, VE ) e.g. or it might have brought in CnG who knows. But regardless if CnG had countered on IRON, TOP would still have been free to counter with the deployment advantadge at that point. So why they choose to attack in such a strange way is honestly beyond me... (note we were expecting the IRON counter within a single day of our attack, that was why a significant amount of our strength was in peacemode so we could join our allies in counterattacking).

unless something changed today around update CnG had not even had internal talks about what kind of reps they'd like (Rsox said that some time before update) so, i think it's safe to say that what you are fearing is a rumour. As long as TOP/IRON are fighting instead of surrendering anything we say/hear is guesswork at best.

[quote name='Jerichoholic' date='10 February 2010 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1265761524' post='2171498'] NpO/GOD wars: 54 NpO/TOP wars: 7 http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?Page=2&searchstring=Declaring_Alliance,Receiving_Alliance&search=darkness%20polar http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=paradox+polar [/quote] to be fair the NpO/VE wars are probably a bit more significant than the NpO/TOP wars.

it was pretty even before your pre-emptive attack, and it seemed to be winding down instead of blowing up. The "crusader" side had 3m NS more than the "raiders" (strange names btw) as far as i remember