Derantol

Good evening, folks! Derantol here, with the CNASR network, covering the CN World Cup! We've got thirty-two teams and some very diverse kinds of competition happening out here at the Poison Clan international stadium complex; we've seen a few teams grab huge leads right off the bat, while we've got others falling WAY behind - and in between, we have some very intense competition going on for four of the 2nd place spots. As a review, here's the deal: Thirty-two teams are here competing for fifteen days. Those teams are divided into eight divisions, and the top two teams from each division at the end of the fifteen days will go on to be part of the second segment of the CN World Cup competition. Poison Clan has been given the honor of hosting the World Cup based on their stellar performance during the CN Olympics some months ago. Today, I'm here to give you the first of five three-day updates; I'm going to point out the highlights of this competition so far and direct you towards the teams to watch for the following days. So, without further ado, let's begin! ----- First off, here's some background on the divisions. The teams were seeded based on performance for a month; one team out of the top seven, plus Poison Clan, were matched up with a team from the second eight, the third eight, and the fourth eight randomly. Those divisions were named after the eight senior councilors sitting on the CN World Council, excepting Supreme High Chancellor Admin. Some of these divisions, due to the random nature of determination, have much smaller alliances providing teams; the initial aggregate sizes range from a low of 73.36 to a much higher 133.87. In addition, some divisions have very evenly matched sizes, whereas others have a wide distribution. This, in one case in particular, may lead to some intense competition at the end of this round. Because of the nature of this competition, it is also quite possible for us to keep track of how much each individual division grows. While the divisions themselves likely won't shift in order of size, the change should indicate the effort being put forth by the alliances within. Here's the growth of each division thus far: [color="green"](+1.69)[/color] [b]Philotheos:[/b] 114.11 --> 115.12 --> 115.54 --> 115.80 [color="green"](+0.98)[/color] [b]Darth Revan:[/b] 133.87 --> 134.08 --> 134.42 --> 134.85 [color="green"](+0.84)[/color] [b]Allan a Dale:[/b] 108.15 --> 108.17 --> 109.01 --> 108.99 [color="green"](+0.79)[/color] [b]Donnerjack:[/b] 92.72 --> 92.71 --> 92.76 --> 93.51 [color="green"](+0.70)[/color] [b]Megabyte:[/b] 77.93 --> 78.09 --> 78.29 --> 78.63 [color="green"](+0.62)[/color] [b]Vivi:[/b] 118.50 --> 118.62 --> 118.89 --> 119.12 [color="green"](+0.53)[/color] [b]Manwe:[/b] 73.36 --> 73.11 --> 73.54 --> 73.89 [color="green"](+0.01)[/color] [b]Atlas:[/b] 85.79 --> 85.76 --> 85.81 --> 85.80 As you can see already, there are definitely different kinds of competition going on here; ranging from the ultra-aggressive, as in Philotheos, to what might be passive, defensive play in Atlas. To get a better idea, let's take a look at each of these divisions in more detail. As a note, the number in the <brackets> refers to the seed of the team prior to the tournament. ----- [size="5"][b][u]Allan a Dale[/u][/b][/size] [b]Initial Size:[/b] 108.15 [b]Day 3 Size:[/b] 108.99 [b]Day 6 Size:[/b] [b]Day 9 Size:[/b] [b]Day 12 Size:[/b] [b]Day 15 Size:[/b] [b]Daily Growth:[/b] [color="green"](+0.02)[/color], [color="green"](+0.84)[/color], [color="red"](-0.02)[/color] [b]Total Growth:[/b] [color="green"](+0.84)[/color] [b]Current Leader:[/b] [color="green"](+0.83)[/color] <1>[color="red"][b]New Pacific Order[/b][/color] Allan a Dale, home to <12>[color="blue"][b]Nueva Vida[/b][/color], <27>[color="maroon"][b]Random Insanity Alliance[/b][/color], <16>[color="purple"][b]United Purple Nations[/b][/color], and <1>[color="red"][b]New Pacific Order[/b][/color]. This division hasn't seen much competitions yet; Day One left <16>[color="purple"][b]United Purple Nations[/b][/color] in the dust, with a 0.24 loss, whereas <1>[color="red"][b]New Pacific Order[/b][/color] took a commanding lead on Day Two with a 0.64 gain. <1>[color="red"][b]New Pacific Order[/b][/color] currently makes up all but 0.01 of Allan a Dale's growth so far, with the loss of <16>[color="purple"][b]United Purple Nations[/b][/color] canceling out most of the gains from <12>[color="blue"][b]Nueva Vida[/b][/color] and <27>[color="maroon"][b]Random Insanity Alliance[/b][/color]. Check back in three days to see if the competition between <12>[color="blue"][b]Nueva Vida[/b][/color] and <27>[color="maroon"][b]Random Insanity Alliance[/b][/color] heats up at all; until then, there won't be much news here. [size="5"][b][u]Atlas[/u][/b][/size] [b]Initial Size:[/b] 85.79 [b]Day 3 Size:[/b] 85.80 [b]Day 6 Size:[/b] [b]Day 9 Size:[/b] [b]Day 12 Size:[/b] [b]Day 15 Size:[/b] [b]Daily Growth:[/b] [color="red"](-0.03)[/color], [color="green"](+0.05)[/color], [color="red"](-0.01)[/color] [b]Total Growth:[/b] [color="green"](+0.01)[/color] [b]Current Leader:[/b] [color="green"](+0.17)[/color] <5>[color="orange"][b]Orange Defense Network[/b][/color] Atlas, with the smallest growth of any division, has been very stable so far. <5>[color="orange"][b]Orange Defense Network[/b][/color] and <30>[color="grey"][b]Siberian Tiger Alliance[/b][/color] have the first two spots with total gains of over a tenth each, while <23>[color="purple"][b]The Legion[/b][/color] and <14>[color="black"][b]Umbrella[/b][/color] have equal and opposite gains, sitting far below the break-even point. <5>[color="orange"][b]Orange Defense Network[/b][/color] brought their game today, taking all 0.17 of their current gain; <14>[color="black"][b]Umbrella[/b][/color], on the other hand, drops from first in the division to last with a loss of 0.21. <30>[color="grey"][b]Siberian Tiger Alliance[/b][/color] shows steady, reliable growth, a trademark of the alliance. As for now, just as with the Allan a Dale division, put your focus elsewhere; Atlas will more likely heat up later on in the round. [size="5"][b][u]Darth Revan[/u][/b][/size] [b]Initial Size:[/b] 133.87 [b]Day 3 Size:[/b] 134.85 [b]Day 6 Size:[/b] [b]Day 9 Size:[/b] [b]Day 12 Size:[/b] [b]Day 15 Size:[/b] [b]Daily Growth:[/b] [color="green"](+0.21)[/color], [color="green"](+0.34)[/color], [color="green"](+0.43)[/color] [b]Total Growth:[/b] [color="green"](+0.98)[/color] [b]Current Leader:[/b] [color="green"](+0.45)[/color] <2>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Mostly Harmless Alliance[/b][/color] Darth Revan is easily the largest division in the Cup. It is one of two divisions with three sanctioned alliances present, along with Philotheos. It is also the home to our first two Aqua competitors, <2>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Mostly Harmless Alliance[/b][/color] and <9>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Mushroom Kingdom[/b][/color]. These two currently hold the top two spots very firmly, but <17>[color="black"][b]Sparta[/b][/color] is certainly within striking distance of second place. <26>[color="grey"][b]The Order Of Light[/b][/color] currently seems to be out of the running, but twelve days is a long time, and <26>[color="grey"][b]The Order Of Light[/b][/color] may have some tricks up their sleeves. <9>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Mushroom Kingdom[/b][/color] has the highest single gain in this division - 0.25 earned today - while also holding the sole loss, a 0.05 loss on Day One. Keep your ears open, in any case; Darth Revan has the second-highest total gain, behind only Philoetheos, and it has four teams that should keep delivering. [size="5"][b][u]Donnerjack[/u][/b][/size] [b]Initial Size:[/b] 92.72 [b]Day 3 Size:[/b] 93.51 [b]Day 6 Size:[/b] [b]Day 9 Size:[/b] [b]Day 12 Size:[/b] [b]Day 15 Size:[/b] [b]Daily Growth:[/b] [color="red"](-0.01)[/color], [color="green"](+0.05)[/color], [color="green"](+0.75)[/color] [b]Total Growth:[/b] [color="green"](+0.79)[/color] [b]Current Leader:[/b] [color="green"](+0.59)[/color] <4>[color="orange"][b]Independent Republic of Orange Nations[/b][/color] Donnerjack's competitors come from two spheres; Aqua and Orange. <4>[color="orange"][b]Independent Republic of Orange Nations[/b][/color] leads the division with a 0.49 gain from today, followed by <24>[color="#48D1CC"][b]The Democratic Order[/b][/color]. <18>[color="orange"][b]FOK[/b][/color] had a rough start, beginning with a 0.07 deficit, but the players at <18>[color="orange"][b]FOK[/b][/color] have brought it back a little, bringing themselves back into the positives today. <13>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Athens[/b][/color] currently ties <18>[color="orange"][b]FOK[/b][/color] at the bottom, but at 0.14 behind <24>[color="#48D1CC"][b]The Democratic Order[/b][/color], both <13>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Athens[/b][/color] and <18>[color="orange"][b]FOK[/b][/color] have their work cut out for them if they hope to be in the running any time soon. [size="5"][b][u]Manwe[/u][/b][/size] [b]Initial Size:[/b] 73.36 [b]Day 3 Size:[/b] 73.89 [b]Day 6 Size:[/b] [b]Day 9 Size:[/b] [b]Day 12 Size:[/b] [b]Day 15 Size:[/b] [b]Daily Growth:[/b] [color="red"](-0.25)[/color], [color="green"](+0.43)[/color], [color="green"](+0.35)[/color] [b]Total Growth:[/b] [color="green"](+0.53)[/color] [b]Current Leader:[/b] [color="green"](+0.36)[/color] <11>[color="orange"][b]The Order of the Paradox[/b][/color] This division is graced with the presence of the hosting team; <31>[color="black"][b]Poison Clan[/b][/color]. Manwe is also the smallest division of the eight, with a whopping 73.36 initial size. That being said, it is also the first division we've talked about today with action happening [i]right now[/i]. <11>[color="orange"][b]The Order of the Paradox[/b][/color] currently holds a fairly decisively lead of 0.36, while <25>[color="orange"][b]The Grand Lodge of Freemasons[/b][/color] is attempting to catch up with a negative 0.11; a 0.19 loss on Day One is responsible for the current state of the <25>[color="orange"][b]The Grand Lodge of Freemasons[/b][/color]. However, turning our attention to the other two members of the division, we can see a battle for second place emereging; both <31>[color="black"][b]Poison Clan[/b][/color] and <20>[color="blue"][b]Multicolored Cross-X Alliance[/b][/color] are at 0.14; <31>[color="black"][b]Poison Clan[/b][/color] having caught up with gains of 0.17 and 0.11 after a lackluster first day. Keep at least one eye here, folks; we'll see tomorrow if <31>[color="black"][b]Poison Clan[/b][/color] has the momentum to continue their upward climb. [size="5"][b][u]Megabyte[/u][/b][/size] [b]Initial Size:[/b] 77.93 [b]Day 3 Size:[/b] 78.63 [b]Day 6 Size:[/b] [b]Day 9 Size:[/b] [b]Day 12 Size:[/b] [b]Day 15 Size:[/b] [b]Daily Growth:[/b] [color="green"](+0.16)[/color], [color="green"](+0.20)[/color], [color="green"](+0.34)[/color] [b]Total Growth:[/b] [color="green"](+0.70)[/color] [b]Current Leader:[/b] [color="green"](+0.43)[/color] <10>[color="brown"][b]Global Alliance and Treaty Organization[/b][/color] <10>[color="brown"][b]Global Alliance and Treaty Organization[/b][/color] finds its berth at the head of Megabyte's division; it also joins the ranks of several other alliances holding significant leads at first place. <7>[color="black"][b]Nordreich[/b][/color], despite its high seed, remains in last place; even so, the gap between <7>[color="black"][b]Nordreich[/b][/color] and <29>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Ragnarok[/b][/color] is only 0.06, bisected by <22>[color="gold"][b]Federation of Armed Nations[/b][/color]. This close grouping should result in an entertaining next few days; aside from <10>[color="brown"][b]Global Alliance and Treaty Organization[/b][/color], there has been no daily gain outside of the range of -0.02 and 0.06. Watch this division slowly bloom into some of the closer competition of Round One of this CN World Cup! [size="5"][b][u]Philotheos[/u][/b][/size] [b]Initial Size:[/b] 114.11 [b]Day 3 Size:[/b] 115.80 [b]Day 6 Size:[/b] [b]Day 9 Size:[/b] [b]Day 12 Size:[/b] [b]Day 15 Size:[/b] [b]Daily Growth:[/b] [color="green"](+1.01)[/color], [color="green"](+0.42)[/color], [color="green"](+0.26)[/color] [b]Total Growth:[/b] [color="green"](+1.69)[/color] [b]Current Leader:[/b] [color="green"](+1.26)[/color] <15>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Fark[/b][/color] From Day One it has looked like Philotheos is truly a three-team division with one Round Two spot reserved for <15>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Fark[/b][/color]. <15>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Fark[/b][/color] hit the field hard and heavy from the beginning, with a gain of 0.88 to start the competition. On top of that, <3>[color="blue"][b]The Foreign Division[/b][/color] performed far better than was expected during qualifying, and is not expected to be a major factor in the CN World Cup. To make the situation even better for <15>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Fark[/b][/color], <32>[color="blue"][b]World Task Force[/b][/color] is coming off of a month of consistent low performance, earning the lowest seed, despite the generally high rank of the team. Giving <32>[color="blue"][b]World Task Force[/b][/color], currently in second, a run for their money is <21>[color="green"][b]Viridian Entente[/b][/color], only a short 0.04 jump behind their fellow sanctioned alliance. What will the horizon hold for Philotheos Division? Only time will tell. [size="5"][b][u]Vivi[/u][/b][/size] [b]Initial Size:[/b] 118.50 [b]Day 3 Size:[/b] 119.12 [b]Day 6 Size:[/b] [b]Day 9 Size:[/b] [b]Day 12 Size:[/b] [b]Day 15 Size:[/b] [b]Daily Growth:[/b] [color="green"](+0.12)[/color], [color="green"](+0.27)[/color], [color="green"](+0.23)[/color] [b]Total Growth:[/b] [color="green"](+0.62)[/color] [b]Current Leader:[/b] [color="green"](+0.20)[/color] <6>[color="orange"][b]RnR[/b][/color] If you watch nothing else, you will want to watch Vivi Division. There is currently a three-way tie for highest gain here, given to <6>[color="orange"][b]RnR[/b][/color] due to their smaller size. <8>[color="blue"][b]New Polar Order[/b][/color] and <19>[color="green"][b]Green Protection Agency[/b][/color] are the other two competitors at 0.20, making this the only three-way tie in the CN World Cup for the moment. To make things that much more exciting, <8>[color="blue"][b]New Polar Order[/b][/color] and <19>[color="green"][b]Green Protection Agency[/b][/color] are almost identical in size, ranked third and fourth in the world. And although <28>[color="maroon"][b]Commonwealth of Sovereign Nations[/b][/color] holds only a 0.02 gain at the moment, don't count them out; we're only one fifth of the way through the competition, after all. ----- So which teams should you watch out for? [u]<15>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Fark[/b][/color][/u]: <15>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Fark[/b][/color] pulled a high-risk move early on, and provided that they make it to Round Two, it could prove troublesome later on. As long as they can combat that, these guys have a decent chance at making it to the top, despite the relatively low seed. [u]<1>[color="red"][b]New Pacific Order[/b][/color][/u]: The number one seed for a reason. One on one matches later on might give these guys trouble, but they're a shoe-in for Round Two, especially with <16>[color="purple"][b]United Purple Nations[/b][/color] in so much trouble. [u]<4>[color="orange"][b]Independent Republic of Orange Nations[/b][/color][/u]: With the occasional large gain will also come the occasional large loss; while <4>[color="orange"][b]Independent Republic of Orange Nations[/b][/color] may be performing well now, issues outside the World Cup could certainly influence things negatively. [u][b]Vivi Division[/b][/u]: With two powerhouses and a higher-seeded underdog, Vivi Division will remain tense - likely for all of Round One. This is where to focus your attentions. [u]<10>[color="brown"][b]Global Alliance and Treaty Organization[/b][/color][/u]: <10>[color="brown"][b]Global Alliance and Treaty Organization[/b][/color] is posting consistent high gains in a lower-performing Division, giving them a great shot at Round Two with a nice beginning momentum. [u]<2>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Mostly Harmless Alliance[/b][/color][/u]: This is the same story. All three gains above 0.10 means that <2>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Mostly Harmless Alliance[/b][/color] has a good shot at Round Two. Unlike <10>[color="brown"][b]Global Alliance and Treaty Organization[/b][/color], however, <2>[color="#48D1CC"][b]Mostly Harmless Alliance[/b][/color] has some competition coming up from beneath. ----- I hope you've enjoyed this first of five reports! I'll take any suggestions and requests for Day Six; until then, sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride! [size="4"]CNASR World Cup Coverage: Bringing the game to you.[/size]

[center][img]http://i355.photobucket.com/albums/r471/SeipherCaim/2010-LOGOWC-1.png[/img][/center] [b]June 12 - Day 3 of 15[/b] [b]Group Allan a Dale[/b] [color=green](+0.83)[/color] [color=red]New Pacific Order[/color] : 48.00 --> 48.83 [color=green](+0.19)[/color] [color=blue]Nueva Vida[/color] : 17.55 --> 17.74 [color=red](-0.03)[/color] [color=maroon]Random Insanity Alliance[/color] : 18.11 --> 18.08 [color=red](-0.15)[/color] [color=purple]United Purple Nations[/color] : 24.49 --> 24.34 [b]Group Atlas[/b] [color=green](+0.17)[/color] [color=orange]Orange Defense Network[/color] : 29.70 --> 29.87 [color=green](+0.11)[/color] [color=gray]Siberian Tiger Alliance[/color] : 14.80 --> 14.91 [color=red](-0.13)[/color] [color=purple]The Legion[/color] : 23.75 --> 23.62 [color=red](-0.14)[/color] [color=black]Umbrella[/color] : 17.54 --> 17.40 [b]Group Darth Revan[/b] [color=green](+0.45)[/color] [color=#48D1CC]Mostly Harmless Alliance[/color] : 51.58 --> 52.03 [color=green](+0.34)[/color] [color=#48D1CC]Mushroom Kingdom[/color] : 30.30 --> 30.64 [color=green](+0.14)[/color] [color=black]Sparta[/color] : 33.74 --> 33.88 [color=green](+0.05)[/color] [color=gray]The Order Of Light[/color] : 18.25 --> 18.30 [b]Group Donnerjack[/b] [color=green](+0.59)[/color] [color=orange]Independent Republic of Orange Nations[/color] : 20.28 --> 20.87 [color=green](+0.16)[/color] [color=#48D1CC]The Democratic Order[/color] : 31.48 --> 31.64 [color=green](+0.02)[/color] [color=#48D1CC]Athens[/color] : 16.06 --> 16.08 [color=green](+0.02)[/color] [color=orange]FOK[/color] : 24.90 --> 24.92 [b]Group Manwe[/b] [color=green](+0.36)[/color] [color=orange]The Order of the Paradox[/color] : 27.37 --> 27.73 [color=green](+0.14)[/color] [color=black]Poison Clan[/color] : 14.79 --> 14.93 [color=green](+0.14)[/color] [color=blue]Multicolored Cross-X Alliance[/color] : 16.57 --> 16.71 [color=red](-0.11)[/color] [color=orange]The Grand Lodge Of Freemasons[/color] : 14.63 --> 14.52 [b]Group Megabyte[/b] [color=green](+0.43)[/color] [color=brown]Global Alliance and Treaty Organization[/color] : 26.06 --> 26.49 [color=green](+0.12)[/color] [color=gold]Federation of Armed Nations[/color] : 16.71 --> 16.83 [color=green](+0.09)[/color] [color=#48D1CC]Ragnarok[/color] : 19.79 --> 19.88 [color=green](+0.06)[/color] [color=black]Nordreich[/color] : 15.37 --> 15.43 [b]Group Philotheos[/b] [color=green](+1.26)[/color] [color=#48D1CC]Fark[/color] : 30.86 --> 32.12 [color=green](+0.20)[/color] [color=blue]World Task Force[/color] : 33.90 --> 34.10 [color=green](+0.16)[/color] [color=green]Viridian Entente[/color] : 33.58 --> 33.74 [color=green](+0.07)[/color] [color=blue]The Foreign Division[/color] : 15.77 --> 15.84 [b]Group Vivi[/b] [color=green](+0.20)[/color] [color=orange]RnR[/color] : 20.02 --> 20.22 [color=green](+0.20)[/color] [color=blue]New Polar Order[/color] : 41.04 --> 41.24 [color=green](+0.20)[/color] [color=green]Green Protection Agency[/color] : 41.26 --> 41.46 [color=green](+0.02)[/color] [color=maroon]Commonwealth of Sovereign Nations[/color] : 16.18 --> 16.20

If no one has started it by 2 CN time, I'll do it then. I've got some other things to handle until then. I might start earlier; if I do, I'll post here again.

[quote name='Banksy' date='13 June 2010 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1276493422' post='2336921'] Thanks, but if you're going to try and call someone out for a post, at least try to read what the post was referring to. [/quote] You were making a speculation about whether or not the NPO would come to someone's aid if they were at war while they signed a treaty, no? That, in turn came from a rhetorical (or at least I thought it was rhetorical) question about retroactive treaties, which came from speculation as to why NPO and IRON hadn't signed an MDP, which came from a comment Moo made about not wanting to be involved. That's a few steps down a road that doesn't have much to do with IRON and Gre being at war; it certainly doesn't take a part in the arguing back and forth about the morality of IRON's actions and Gre's demands. I believe I understand what the post was referring to, and that is precisely why I called it out. Correct me if I'm wrong... but quote chains are pretty clear trails to evidence. My apologies for the sarcasm there, though. That wasn't really necessary.

[quote name='Banksy' date='13 June 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1276479564' post='2336602'] So the NPO wouldn't be willing to help a treaty partner out if the conflict had already started? Interesting. I always thought wars were won by, you know, winning. IRON and Gremlins are at a standstill as IRON can't engage with Gremlin's upper tier. I'm sure IRON wouldn't say no to a bit of help. Yes, the NPO are under surrender terms right now and cannot declare war, how silly of me [/quote] Thanks, but if you're going to call people out, at least try to call out those actually involved. I know I still like to hear about the NPO... right? Hm... wait a minute... As far as the on-topic comment, I thought it was pretty clear that IRON is actually gradually winning. MPK is so kind as to point out over and over that it has nothing to do with us, which is more or less accurate, but the fact remains that we are winning. And at this point, there's no point in bringing in extra help, except in the form of individual nations who wish to fight under our banner. On that note... MPK, when did our military prowess become our line? I mean, I think it was discussed several dozen pages back, but it was pretty quickly determined that we weren't doing nearly as much as your own policies were. Then again, it appears that at this rate, we don't need to. Either way, us stating that we're winning definitely does not equate to us strutting about attempting to flaunt our military skill. And, at Kalasin; Ramirus actually does seem rather intelligent, as I've had some personal correspondence with him lately. That said, he's made two key miscalculations, in my mind. We disagree on one of these, but his first miscalculation is that IRON would participate in his process, given how it has been named *and* how it has been described. The second (the one we disagree on) is the importance of PR. This is a political game, and as such, you have to hold the respect of people around you, however you manage to do that. Finally, back to MPK; I understand the short-term goals here. You guys want to end the war with IRON on your terms, and those terms will somehow change the post-war conditions in such a way that the cycle of war that IRON and Gre have (all two of them) will end. However, I get the feeling that there's a broader long-term goal in mind that at this point will outlive the Gre AA. I have an idea of what that goal is, but I have no idea how you're planning on getting there. Could you elaborate in as detailed manner as you think you can? I just fail to see how you will get to where you'd like to go after Gre and IRON stop going to war with each other. Ram, feel free to field this one yourself, too.

[quote] [size="5"][b]Group Donnerjack[/b][/size] Independent Republic of Orange Nations Athens FOK The Democratic Order [/quote] Orange vs. Aqua? o/ Orange!

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='08 June 2010 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1276055319' post='2329650'] First, I want to say I really appreciate the thought and effort you're putting into your posts. It's a breath of fresh air. Next, I want to address your point and particular the line I bolded. If we presume your analysis is valid (which is a big if), I would like you to find in [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83752&hl=%20easter%20%20sunday%20%20accords&st=0"]The ESA[/url] where IRON admitted they were wrong. Please do so also addressing my point that admitting defeat is not equivalent to admitting you were wrong. [/quote] Ah, I believe I was unclear in my paragraph structure. It's something I'm working on. To address the the bolded line, I made the argument that IRON did not do anything wrong; or more accurately, the wrong that we did wasn't one that was worth a public apology. CnG (among others) has had a field day with the various bits drama and hilarity that ensued from this last war, and I imagine that because they had such a decisive strategic [i]and[/i] PR victory, they didn't think an apology was necessary. So when I said that we already admitted wrongdoing, I suppose what I really mean is that we made amends, to the extent that warring alliances do. I suppose that I can't exactly say that admitting defeat is admitting that we were wrong, but I don't believe that I need to argue that unless I am given conclusive evidence that we actually were in the wrong to the extent that you claim. So far, it's been a claim of an unwarranted attack; I contend that it was a strategic move to fight people we were going to end up fighting anyway. Pre-emptive strikes aren't a bad thing by nature, and every single alliance we could have hit through treaty lines would have dragged in CnG regardless. Surprising? Maybe, since in the end it looks like it was a bad strategic move anyway. Unwarranted? Only on the surface. Morally bankrupt? I think not.

I always enjoy reading through these; how much work would you say that you put into this?

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='07 June 2010 - 09:46 PM' timestamp='1275972353' post='2328557'] I think we've been pretty clear on what we're doing, why we're doing and what we're after. The only thing we haven't told you are the exact terms. [/quote] I'm actually going to take a legitimate crack at this one, from the Gramlins POV. Gramlins are pursuing a goal so righteous that it is worth going through the pain they are going through right now. IRON attacked CnG without just cause, and the damage ensued makes us accountable; so much so that the ESA was simply not the right kind of retribution. IRON needs to acknowledge that what it did was wrong and say *why* they have had a change of heart. More or less, this is right? The terms haven't been given yet because our apology wouldn't be sincere if we knew the terms; us coming forward without knowing the terms ahead of time proves that we feel that we deserve some sort of punishment. Okay, now from IRON POV. Gramlins want us to admit we're wrong. We already did that with the ESA. As was stated earlier in this thread (I believe) we offered to give a public apology, and for whatever reason, it didn't make it to the final surrender terms. Evidently, the signatories of the ESA don't feel as though they've been wronged any more than any other war in history has wronged the victims. Our apology would be *almost* guaranteed sincere if we were to give it in order to receive peace terms, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be sincere given afterwards, or as part of the peace terms. Finally, IRON doesn't believe that it has committed such a heinous crime as to require such a response; and judging by most of the reactions in this thread, neither do many of the posters here on the OWF. If IRON's crime was really that bad, wouldn't we be saddled with terms worse than NPO's, or at least comparable ones? Obviously, proportionality fits in here, but we've been given six months to pay our portion of the tech, versus the NPO's... ten? eleven? I don't recall when their terms actually started, but I'd imagine that the amount of time to pay off the debt is a good measure of severity of terms. That's my take. MattPK, is that more or less right?

For Matt, the historical precedent doesn't matter. Neither do the numbers. He is convinced that by sheer "moral superiority", he will convince us to surrender. That is evidenced by his unwavering position, despite the shrinking platform upon which he makes them. It's admirable that he will stand up for something he believes in so fully, but that gets taken away as more and more members leave. EDIT: Added quotes around "moral superiority". Not everyone agrees on the nature of morals here, so the claim can't be made without backing that part up.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='26 May 2010 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1274914485' post='2312707'] Well, except for IRON's two largest nations. [/quote] Baby steps, man. Baby steps.

[quote name='wenwillthisend' date='26 May 2010 - 01:55 AM' timestamp='1274864099' post='2312234'] I can honestly say that The Codex means absolutly nothing to Gre, they are just hiding behind it. Oh and I do believe Gre will not sign anything that is classed as a treaty. [/quote] I actually have full confidence that The Codex means a lot to them; they interpret it differently than we do, but they stick to what they see. The difference is, as was pointed out a few posts ago, no one in IRON trusts Gramlins; and without a trust of Gramlins, we can't trust any internal documents they present to us. That said, as I recall, you were recently in Gramlins? I suppose you would know better than I.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='22 May 2010 - 12:46 PM' timestamp='1274557545' post='2308285'] Dwindling numbers don't diminish the validity of our goal. [/quote] Dwindling numbers don't diminish the validity of your goal. They do, however, diminish your ability to achieve that goal. There's a simple disagreement at a governmental level that is preventing this war from ending. You guys are confident that IRON has done something wrong and needs to pay for it, while IRON is confident that we've atoned by paying reps to CnG and allies in the ESA. Since we disagree, and you guys have more or less shut down diplomatic interactions that aren't IRON surrendering, the only policy option left is to be at war. So you'll have to either convince us that we are, in fact, still guilty (which the half a dozen threads and 200 pages of posts haven't done thus far), or beat us into submission. You're statistically incapable of doing it, so the war won't end on your terms. You can call it a might makes right argument, but we aren't arguing that we've atoned because we're stronger than you. We're arguing that we've atoned because we've come to an agreement to end the war with those that we attacked in the first place. The current war, therefore, is viewed as not having a valid CB because we don't believe the basic premise of your reason to be at war.

[quote name='SynthFG' date='21 May 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1274481216' post='2307343'] Grämlins has fallen, there is nothing left but the ego and those blindly following it, Take the FH and the banks out of the equation and there is not enough left to even think about rebuilding a community Were they facing anything like a competent opponent or if those bleating in this thread had the balls to back their words by I don't know temporarily joining IRON this would have been over weeks ago Its way past time for the Gre Dark Council to perform its final constitutional duty [/quote] Really? Competent opponent? It's not as if we had already had the crap beaten out of us. It's not like that hasn't been discussed at least once during this thread. We're doing exactly what we can do, but there's a difference between not being willing to do something and literally not being able to. At this moment in time we have one nation over 100k. One. Gramlins has eight. We literally *can't* win this war in a straight shoot-out. Also, it won't be over till one side accepts surrender, and Gramlins has made it clear that despite halving their membership (which, regardless of the reasons, seriously impairs an alliance's ability to fight), they aren't going to surrender. We've also made it clear that we aren't going to submit to their demands; they aren't changing their demands. This war wouldn't have been over weeks ago unless there are some hidden conditions for "pull back, let's try this again later" for either side.

[quote name='New Frontier' date='19 May 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1274304363' post='2303703'] Sanction has been around far, far longer than the AA field. [/quote] I remember when being sanctioned meant that you had to have more members post in an audit thread than other alliances, and the only way you could tell who was in which alliance was by looking at their nation bio.

[quote name='wickedj' date='16 May 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1274050213' post='2300485'] And the reply was? As an aside as far as i can tell IRON has only picked up a few nations who are actually trying to help rather than sit here and !@#$%*. When can we expect you to apply dear Otter [/quote] My guess is that he has obligations to any reparations payments that Argent owes, and whatever those might be, they're more of a private, or even internal, issue.

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='15 May 2010 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1273907054' post='2298455'] I believe they think they are "restituting themselves"*, by doing what they do now? [size="2"]*-that is a strange turn of phrase.[/size] [/quote] I think that the former actions are simply condemned as under previous leadership. While the Gramlins are a democratic alliance, it appears as though there has been enough flow of members in and out that the culture of the alliance has changed somewhat. That being said, this would be the way they'd "restitute themselves" if there was any they could really do so.

I've recently been part of a very long thread, and I suggested to someone else that they should remain on topic, mainly because I didn't want the thread to get locked. Is that a warnable offense? I know that the forum rules in general prohibit that sort of thing, but I often see arguments refuted (or at least ignored) on the basis that they're irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Krashnaia, I'm not sure why you feel such a need to attack IRON over something as simple as having our top tier in PM. Questioning, fine, but it seems like you're taking this as an opportunity to simply troll IRON. As has been stated, our top tier remains in peace mode because it would monumentally idiotic in this scenario for us to bring them out. It is true, we've kept them there for a long time, and it is true, we have already been crushed. In this instance, we happen to have a small alliance with a stronger upper tier still at war with us. Regardless of the reason, they could destroy our upper tier handily, were we to give them that chance. We've decided not to in order to facilitate our ability to pay our reparations later in addition to assisting in rebuilding once we're totally free of war. As for stopping the war, we've been putting a fairly well-described plan into action to attempt to end the war on terms we can agree with. Our opponents wish to enforce a surrender process that we don't fully understand, and what we do understand we don't like. That is where this thread begins. Here are the themes, as I see them. Theme One: Gramlins are asking for something we don't want to give, but in an unusual manner. Disagreement ensues. Theme Two: Semantic differences arise. Unfortunately, the particular pieces of this set of semantics include a well-known military term that is being used differently than the commonly understood historical context. Disagreement ensues. Theme Three: Mostly uninvolved parties show up to bash one side or the other, inhibiting the flow of either of the above themes, both of which are more or less relevant to the thread. Theme Four: Mods show up to tell MPK he should stop double and triple posting. So far, it seems like you're simply taking this opportunity to take a jab at IRON. While military prowess certainly is related to the subject matter at hand, most of the substance of the debate arises from the moral implications of actions, not the strategic implications. So even if you have a point (which, in my opinion, you don't), the point doesn't really belong in this thread other than as a component of the larger subject. As it stands, however, you've been arguing for several pages about the same subject matter, with not a lot of indication that you're really interesting in the main topic. Obviously, not all that blame can be placed on you, as there have been a number of people replying, but Alfred (as an example) seems to only pipe in every so often, and his comments usually have a little more relevancy. I'm doing my best not to personally attack you here, but I'm respectfully asking you to assist in returning this to the context of the situation. Thank you, I hope.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1273774907' post='2297073'] I have outlined the process and asked the "dictionary brigade" to tell me what term they would use to define it. I'm still waiting for a good, inclusive response. I have also outlined specifically why the term [b]cannot[/b] mean what you purport it means. I am awaiting effective rebuttal to that as well. [/quote] War > Surrender/Cease Fire/Demilitarization? > Terms > Restitution (Compliance) > Peace This is your process, for those who haven't seen it, with the extra bit of cease fire/demilitarization added on with the surrender, although I'm not entirely sure where it goes. Essentially, it starts with war, like most surrender terms do. Then it moves on to the surrender stage where one side goes to the other and says "We want to surrender. What do we do?". Then the winning side puts terms out on the table for the other side to accept or not, and if those terms are not accepted, war resumes. I'm not sure exactly where the war stopped (I think at step 2), but it did. Then, once terms have been accepted, restitution can begin. Once the restitution is complete, Peace has been obtained. Before I move on to my definition here, I'd like to as MPK to describe this process again in great detail. I think I more or less got it. Now, as I understand it, the cyberverse general functions by a model like the following: War > Surrender > Terms > Cease Fire/Peace > Restitution Step 1: War. Pretty clear. Then, one side goes to other and says "We want to surrender." At this point, terms are negotiated. Once they have been agreed upon, war stops and peace is had. *After* the peace, restitution is achieved, through extended periods of demilitarization and reparations payments in most cases. There's a few key things to recognize here. Firstly, I'm using Surrender as MPK has been using it: desire to end the war. Surrender still has to be accepted by the victorious party, else we wouldn't have extended wars as soon as it was clear which side would win. And in this case, Gramlins are expecting us to also admit wrongdoing during this step. Normally, terms come at the Terms step, but there isn't anything that states that necessity. So, Surrender can be defined as the process during which one side seeks to begin peace negotiations and the other side either accepts or refuses it. Second, notice the difference of where Cease Fire is placed. Personally, I don't see anything inherently wrong about putting cease fire on the surrender stage. Strategically speaking, it may or may not be a good idea in any given situation, but MPK has made it clear that strategic moves aren't particularly important (this isn't a jab, I just can't figure out a good way to phrase it), with the exception of having us demilitarize at the same time. The inclusion of the demilitarization during this step makes me uneasy, despite MPK's repeated assurances that we would hardly be placed at a disadvantage. I believe you stated that it would be a show of intent to follow through with the eventual peace terms? I understand that, but what have we done that makes you doubt our willingness to follow through? One of the values that I find runs strongly in IRON is the desire to follow through on any official agreement we've made; take Karma for instance. We canceled on NPO at the beginning, yes, but we still came to war because we had made the agreement to do so. I nearly left during those first few days, simply for that reason. I was not the only one. Several did leave, only to come back once we actually went to war for them. This is also the reason we felt so back-stabbed in Karma when ODN canceled on us. Despite whatever reasons might have caused the cancellation, the Mutual Defense portion wasn't honored at that point. You can question the moral value of our attack on CnG, and perhaps you're correct in doing that. However, there's no reason to expect us not to follow an agreement that has been reached. And to be clear, that's how we look at this situation; surrender (commonly understood, not the definition I gave above) means the end of war, whether you (MPK) think it does or not. Once we've surrendered, we're obligated to take whatever terms you give us. And we'd rather take draconian terms that we agreed to than break that agreement, because whether you like us or hate us, we want to have as spotless a track record as we can in that regard, and that can be respected by anyone from either side. I hope that sheds some light on why we resist the idea of "unconditional surrender" with such vigor. Last, I want to look at the Peace/Restitution bit. In MPK's method, this means that the FAN war was one long war, since NPO still had them under terms when they redeclared. That particular bit more a semantical thing than any real issue, but I wanted to make that distinction. Really, the two are part of the same step, and it's a pretty fuzzy line as to how it is implemented. However, I view the ESA as having followed the second model; there is no demilitarization, so they expect us to make our own decisions now, barring those concerning reparations payments. As far as why the term is defined that way, it's simply an OOC historical thing. Historically, the phrase unconditional surrender means that the surrendering party agrees to any surrender terms handed down. It's not a matter of what the word literally means, as there are plenty of phrases that are commonly used as metaphors for completely unrelated subjects (I'll point out the "birds and the bees" phrase as an example). That's why it means what it means, and that's why people are saying that you're wrong. That being said, this particular part of the argument doesn't matter, as the above argument deals with what actually matters, not what we call it.

I'm pretty sure it's the first version you came out with, cause I got it off of the link that was on the boards here before it got taken down. I'll see if I can find you somewhere.

Actually, I think I understand the first piece of that one. He's saying that if we admit that we're wrong, to a power that can't defeat us, it's more sincere than if we admit that we're wrong to a person holding a gun to our head. I'd disagree, on the basis that it can be just as sincere, even under stressful circumstances. The difference is that it is *definitely* sincere in the first case, while it might not be in the second.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1273600754' post='2294844'] Here is an example: IRON has a standing offer of "white peace" yet they diligently assert that Gremlins actions are evil, unjust, etc. If they [b]actually[/b] believe what they are saying (that we are evil) then their offer of "white peace" to merely "let us go" is in itself a detraction to moral standards. [/quote] Just because it's your policy to at this point in time to be the moral police doesn't mean that it's everyone's policy. Besides, there's something important to understand here; different people have different views of how morality works. Some believe in universalism, what you're arguing; there are a set of moral laws written into the fabric of the universe, and they will never change. Others argue that the cyberverse sets its own morals through the societal standards people generally hold. I think the most prevalent view here is the combination of the two; there are a few moral laws of the cyberverse that hold true and are punishable (in the most extreme circumstances) by banishment from this realm. These laws, however, are held and enforced by the almighty Admin and his Mods. Those that try to enforce these rules themselves, not under the guidance and approval of Admin himself, also face retribution from the Mods. Barring those laws that we refer to as the "Terms of Service", morality (in the third system I'm describing) is determined by a majority of opinion here. Spying? Most consider it immoral, so it can be considered a just reason for war. EZI? Arguably a violation of the holy laws, but it has also been firmly decided by the masses that this is also unjust. PZI is another case of something decidedly immoral. Preemptive strikes are a trickier situation, since a preemptive strike is usually a direct military response to a threat of some sort. In this case, we thought it would be okay to strike; evidently, we were wrong, and we've come to realize that. But that isn't to say that preemptive strikes are morally wrong, just that this one is. So if I am to take your current argument and put it into the context of the third system there, what you're doing is trying to convince the world not only that our strike was wrong, but that we haven't paid or dues for it. What the world is doing (or has done) is saying that they think we've paid our dues, and understand the problem with what we've done. You're trying to convince the world that we embody this moral wrong until we follow your process. I respectfully disagree with your stance. I believe that we have paid our dues. I also believe what you're doing is wrong; however, you've paid for it with a third of your membership and half of your NS. At this point, if you were to have some sort of epiphany and realize that what you're doing is wrong (in the eyes of much of the cyberverse, if you agree that the relatively diverse group of people posting here indicates that), I'd be perfectly willing to give you white peace. I'd be willing to do that because you've paid for the act simply by committing it as you have. It'd be arrogant of me to assume that I could determine what your final restitution is, regardless of what I came up with. Reparations make some sense, in the context that because of this war, we've suffered from a growth standpoint. That, however, is a general standard that is direct punishment for a war, not for the reason it started. If there's any punishment for that reason, it's an admission of guilt, something we've done. At this point, I'd rather put this behind us and move on, so we can try to improve the state of this world, as opposed to trying to ultimately destroy what is bad. In essence, I don't believe that you are evil. I don't believe that the Gramlins in general are evil. I believe that the idea of unconditional surrender is wrong (evil, if you define evil as against morality). Therefore, if you were to disassociate unconditional surrender from Gramlins, I wouldn't see anything wrong with Gramlins except the fact that Gramlins are at war with us right now. And in that case, I'd give you white peace. Heck, even if you cling on to the idea of unconditional surrender, if you took white peace, it means that you didn't end up using it on us, so the wrong wasn't committed. I'm okay with that. If you tried to get someone else to unconditionally surrender in the future, I'd oppose it then, just as I do now. But I believe in the capacity of alliances to change. Maybe that's where I differ.

I missed a great shot of it where it was actually covering the whole web, except for probably those three.

Everyone has been trying to determine who the real enemy is right now. Gramlins thinks it's IRON, IRON thinks it's Gramlins, everyone else thinks that it's our inability to shut up about it. Well, search no more! I have exactly what you are looking for here. Now, this morning, I was just looking at the updated MDP web (I managed to get a download of it way back when it was introduced), minding my own business, when suddenly, out of nowhere, THIS pops into my vision, practically blotting out the sun: THEY MUST BE STOPPED! WHAT IS THIS MADNESS! They have already obliterated the New Polar Order, among others, and will not rest until they have absorbed the entire web. Oh, the humanity...