Kortal

[quote name='FreddieMercury' date='20 February 2010 - 01:41 PM' timestamp='1266691263' post='2193892'] A measly 3-6 million spread out between nations does not help out much at all. And does much more to further exacerbate the situation of the losing party, whose nations capable of sending out aid have already been diminished. And these wars for the large part are initiated through honoring of friendships, and these alliances in other circumstances would have no reason to fight one another. Parties have no business furthering damaging each other for little reason. You always put on a brave face during diplomacy as people tend to throw around the "stop complaining" retort often to a nauseating extent. And does simply having "no interest" on a front disbar their opinions? [/quote] I'm sure GOONS will be sorry to hear that the money they're getting will not help them in the slightest :| They must be pretty poor nation builders. On a serious note, please remember that for smaller nations such a relatively tiny amount can in fact be quite a bit and with proper organization, sleds combined with aid slots filled by these reps can be mightily beneficial to these smaller nations. Again, as to the exacerbating of the situation of the losing party, they should have thought of that before attacking someone. You're right, they based their DoW's on the need of friends and that's admirable, but it doesn't excuse them of the responsibility for their attacks. No one can ever be forced to declare war on someone, whether they have an MDP, MDoAP, MADP, etc. An alliance chooses when to go to war offensively. These alliances attacked others, and its ridiculous to purport that they should walk away after this without anything to make up for the attack. If you attack an alliance, you'd better be prepared for any terms that could be imposed upon you in the event of a loss.

[quote name='Heft' date='20 February 2010 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1266690977' post='2193884'] This is one of the most flabbergastingly idiotic ideas I've seen floating around here lately. Not even you can actually believe that. Anyway, if they agreed to pay reps then whatever, I'll just make sure to not join those alliances. It is baffling that these alliances would submit to such treatment. [/quote] I take it NSO is planning on fighting on permanently then?

[quote name='FreddieMercury' date='20 February 2010 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1266688910' post='2193827'] It won't serve to recoup any significant damages, only to tie up sparse aid slots and slow their reconstruction efforts down. [/quote] To the first part, no but it can help, and for a smaller nation the money can be incredibly beneficial in rebuilding. As to the latter, I assume you're referring to the defeated parties, in which case such slowing of reconstruction is certainly not a bad thing in the eyes of the victors and more to the point, the defeated parties have no business complaining about such after launching attacks against an alliance and subsequently surrendering. Not that the alliances in question here are actually complaining, they've taken the terms with the honor and graciousness they exhibited throughout the affair. their calm acceptance of the end result is in stark contract to the moaning and cringing of those with no interest whatsoever in this front, or in most cases with the alliances actually surrendering here.

[quote name='The AUT' date='20 February 2010 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1266685465' post='2193750'] Don't worry too much about him, Archon. No matter how much he speaks about how evil you guys are, him and his alliance will have no choice but to declare war along your side. Besides this is about GOONS last I checked and not the entire side that GOONS is on. If you've seen what's going on, [b]their side are being critical towards GOONS[/b]. [/quote] Correct, if by "their side" you mean about 3 people on that side. Don't confuse variance of opinion with widespread support or legitimacy for your argument. And for the love of god, please don't maintain that these reps are in any way harsh. After weeks of war and many nukes I could pay them off all on my own with money to spare, and anyone with a decent warchest could do the same. Finally, please note the post from the member of one of the alliances that's actually paying this money and try to follow his lead.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='20 February 2010 - 10:45 AM' timestamp='1266680708' post='2193643'] True, they agreed to pay and as far a reparations go I've seen much worse, but traditionally the allies left behind to fight do the complaining while those who surrendered go sulk in the corner, glad to be out of their predicament and hoping the sound of gun fire will stop ringing in their ears. Smart alliances in such a position issue gag orders on their membership or admonishment them to keep comments muted for fear that there will be renewed attacks. What makes this situation a bit different is that so many people, some on the same side of the war are questioning what GOONS did to deserve reparations. I think it a fair question. If you do not, then so be it. [/quote] So you're just following tradition by complaining about terms agreed to by other alliances, admittedly extremely light terms? Well if you have nothing better to do I suppose... This situation is no different. We have a few people adamantly opposed to reps in general, for some reason or other. That's not an entirely unfounded belief now and one I've occasionally supported myself. HOWEVER, as an alliance that other alliances are surrendering to, GOONS has every right to request anything they want from said alliances. They don't have to agree to these terms of course, what they need to determine is what they're willing to pay for GOONS and others to stop attacking them, which they did. You think it makes your own claims more legitimate because some people on the same "side" agree. I assure you it does not, it just makes those people look pathetic for complaining in this thread with all the other uninvolved riffraff rather than taking their concerns privately to GOONS. Again, congratulate the victors on their gains or say nothing, acting the fool along with the other members of the peanut gallery is a disservice to your alliance. (This to people like RIA and FOK that is)

[quote name='Crazy Carrot' date='20 February 2010 - 10:26 AM' timestamp='1266679617' post='2193621'] Nice way of insulting a lot of people on "your" side of the conflict as well. Classy... [/quote] Shouldn't he be complimented for not excusing the foolishness of those on the winning side and being fair in his arguments :x Far less classy is filling a thread with posts questioning the decisions of, if not outright condemning people on "your" side if we're going to get into that. You should be congratulating them on a victory, not whining because someone in another alliance has to pay a small amount of money (a term they agreed to and have not complained about at all might I add).

Where exactly did the belief that you don't need to pay reps if you have a good reason for going to war come from? People made conscious decisions to attack alliances. Now did they have good reasons for it? Sure. But does that somehow excuse them from being responsible for damages inflicted? Hardly Alliances purposely entered a war here and then wanted to surrender down the line, now they're paying these tiny amounts of money for that privilege Nothing to see here

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='20 February 2010 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1266653140' post='2193366'] lol I see where you get the contradiction from, but all I need to add is to your final sentence. It's "...going to do this, that, and pay me this BECAUSE..." The answer is, what? Because I won? I get money for winning? Pretty lame. Although it's how the world seems to work. You didn't do anything wrong, but since I won, I get money? You're going to do "this and that" because I need to keep you from re-entering the war at full capacity. But the only reason I have for getting money is that I won. Or I get it because you did something especially wrong that made it reasonable to ask for money in reparations for your wrongdoing. Your first sentence assumes something terrible IMO, and that is that the victor should ever need to be paid in order for them to accept peace. I can understand a symbolic "We surrender." wording. My point in the second paragraph is that we philosophically disagree on whether being the "victor" allows you to be vindicated from your crimes or for some reason causes you to deserve money. [/quote]Well that's a fair point, I maintain that the attack on the alliance is the "something wrong" though. Rarely do we see alliances demanding reps from those that they've attacked, its only when an alliance comes after them and then loses that they come into play, if then. The alliances in question here had arguably good reasons for coming in, their assistance had been requested by allies and they were doing the best they could to help them out. That doesn't mean they supported their allies' reasons for war or anything like that, they were just helping friends. BUT, all that said, an attack on an alliance is an attack on an alliance. You might have every reason in the world to do it, but you still knowingly and purposefully damaged that alliance. Why should you be exempt from reps (as the previous poster pointed out [I think] reparations is not a good term for these payments but ANYWAYS) just because you had a good reason for your attack? So putting my points together then with that line in question: "alright, if you want to surrender you're going to do this, that, and pay me this, because you attacked me" Also GOODNIGHT

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='20 February 2010 - 02:45 AM' timestamp='1266651950' post='2193339'] I would disagree with your first paragraph for the following reason: Decomms and changing AAs and peace mode restrictions are made to keep the other side from re-engaging dishonestly and against the terms of one's surrender. They are meant to discourage rogues. Nowadays, with warchests the way they are, the only decomms that really have an effect are nuclear and naval decomms. But nobody can really stop someone from going into peace mode, building up a military, and coming out. Nobody can stop a surrendered alliance from doing it collectively. The only thing is that it's looked down upon. Reps, however, are in a different category. They're an apology for a wrong-doing, and my argument was that there was no such wrong-doing. The main philosophical disagreement we have is that you determine responsibility for one's action once victory is determined. I would have you determine reps for both sides purely based on actions of both sides, and not of NS or victories or previous surrenders. That means if FoB lost, you would say that they shouldn't have gotten reps. This I cannot agree with. Victory cannot be such a pivotal point in whether an alliance deserves an apology. In the case of TOP/IRON vs C&G, the losing side will apologize simply to get out of having to lose more infrastructure. I sincerely doubt one side will honestly believe that they are wrong. So in the case of the main players in this war, victory determines the reps de facto. But when you're coming in simply to honor a treaty, optional or not, and you lose, and the other side is only getting reps because they're on the winning side, I disagree with that precedent. [/quote] Well you dismissed my answer to the second paragraph in your first paragraph so my hands are a little tied here :| I can only repeat that reps are not solely a means of apology for wrong doing as you put it, they are paid to the victor so peace can be achieved. As such, the winning party would have no business or reason for paying reps. Its not "hey you did this so now you're going to pay me this" its "alright, if you want to surrender you're going to do this, that, and pay me this".

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='20 February 2010 - 02:20 AM' timestamp='1266650446' post='2193309'] There we go, bold because Im line-by-line like that. [/quote] I appreciate both your going back to the post and your reasonable arguments. In regard to the last paragraph or so, SF alliances don't need to pay reparations because again, such things are paid in order for another alliance to cease attacks upon those paying them. While the winner in the conflict is generally the one that proposes the amount of reps to be payed and to whom, they are in effect something offered by the loser so that the war will end. They're in the exact same category as changing one's AA to "x alliance pow" or decommissioning troops. People just associate them as being different because they last far beyond the actual war, or so I imagine is the case. I would also reiterate that just because an alliance feels it has a legitimate reason for declaring war on another alliance, even if everyone in CN feels they have a good reason, doesn't mean they're not responsible for the attack. If an alliance makes the honorable call and comes to the defense of an ally regardless of their feelings on the war or how many people are against them, I for one approve of them, and in general the majority if not all of CN feels similarly. They're an alliance I'd want to be allied to myself. But again, this doesn't mean they don't have to face up to the attack, and if they're defeated, it doesn't mean they don't have to worry about any sort of terms imposed by the winner. They may be great guys, but they still attacked an alliance and in general, that's not something people are quick dismiss.

[quote name='D34th' date='20 February 2010 - 02:14 AM' timestamp='1266650045' post='2193300'] After see alliances like GOONS and FoB receiving reparations in a war who started because of raid I have to admit, we failed hard and hope for a better cyberverse is no more. [/quote] Well you got about a fifth of that sentence correct

I edited out that line in the hopes that you will actually go back and read the rest. I sincerely think it will be informative

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='20 February 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1266648514' post='2193253'] ADded a very necessary part of your reasoning. The only reason FoB "gets" reps in the CN world today is that their side won. Their ALLIES, not their PUPPET MASTERS, asked for ASSISTANCE, on an OPTIONAL clause. This was ACCEPTED by two alliances, and suddenly, they need to pay reps for the damage they did in honoring treaties. Dozens of alliances have gotten off without reps, but suddenly an oA clause isn't a good enough treaty to be worth honoring and make you free from having to pay reps? If the fact that FoB's side won vindicates from the SuperComplaints' crimes of honoring oA's and declaring wars and doing damage, please explain that. I had no idea that it's fair when winners are right and losers are wrong just because winners win and losers lose. Is that the karma world we want to have? Or do winners "deserve" reps because they won in your eyes? Does FoB get the reps because they were attacked? Okay, so I guess I gotta pay a lot of reps to TOOL because I attacked them. Umbrella is gonna have to pay a lot of reps to who they're fighting too. Can't say you were just honoring a treaty either. We've done the same crime NATO and TFD did, the only difference is we've won. [/quote] 1. Reparations have no absolute rules or standards attached to them. In every situation they are unique. By arguing as if there are any set rules for them, you immediately start off in the wrong. 2. Just because an alliance feels they have legitimate cause to attack another alliance, does not mean such an attack is forgivable or easily dismissed. By what stretch of logic do you maintain that this is so? Alright, an alliance goes in because an ally requests that they honor an oA agreement, or defensive, whatever. They have a recognizably legitimate reason for going to war, and that's pretty cool. But in what way does a good reason for going to war excuse one from the repercussions of one's actions? How are they not responsible for attacking another alliance just because they have good reason to? 3. You're right, winners decide who gets reparations and how much (pending the losing side agreeing to said terms of course). That's just how the world works. Lets not forget that aside from being a possible punitive or compensatory tool, reparations are part of an alliances surrender terms. They are acknowledging that they have lost and are paying this money for the incredibly under-appreciated move on the victor's part of not continuing to beat them into the ground. I could probably go on but I'm hoping you've a better understanding of how reparations work at this stage

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='20 February 2010 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1266647978' post='2193236'] So ask for reps from IRON and TOP, not the people that honored treaties to help a friend even when they made a mistake and were on the losing side of a major war. [/quote] You give too little credit to these alliances, they're hardly puppets of TOP and IRON, attacking whenever they wish. As with all alliances in CN, they make their own choices. They decided to declare wars and did some damage to the alliances they fought. Ergo, reparations. If you don't like it then, well, I guess when it comes time for you to negotiate your own surrender in some far off war, you can refuse to send any form of reps. Until then, I'm not certain what the problem is

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='20 February 2010 - 01:34 AM' timestamp='1266647656' post='2193218'] To stay away from the OWF because I don't like reps? Now why on Bob would I do that? [/quote] To be frank, I'd prefer it if you would avoid the boards as a personal favor for a wide variety of reasons. And in the interest of accuracy, what I said was to stay away if one was morally outraged by the very idea of reps, not simply disliking them. Finally, I think there's been a misunderstanding itt wrt LSF. I believe the post that's been quoted was meant to imply that the LSF guy posting yesterday who was so vehemently opposed to paying reps was not saying LSF would never surrender, just that they wouldn't pay anything for the privilege. Not that LSF does not wish to surrender here

[quote name='Joe Stupid' date='20 February 2010 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1266647142' post='2193186'] I have no problems with reps which are justified. I hope that C&G get what they deserve (which is alot) when terms come out, however I don't think that it applies here. [/quote] Well I guess they feel otherwise

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='20 February 2010 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1266647112' post='2193183'] What? So he can't speak his mind now? Okay, glad we got that one out of the way. GOONS, enjoy your blood money. [/quote] You are one of those people. I would suggest you take my advice.

[quote name='Joe Stupid' date='20 February 2010 - 01:08 AM' timestamp='1266646114' post='2193139'] It's not the amount it's the principle, they were one of the reasons this whole !@#$@#$ war started anyway, and now they get reps to boot. [/quote] While involved in the initial raid, GOONS wasn't in any way shape or form a reason for this war starting, especially considering even Grub stated he had no problem with them. As to your issue with reparations, they're a part of CN and these are extremely light ones. If you don't want to pay reparations, don't enter a war. If you're prone to moral outrage at the very idea of reparations, despite the alliances actually paying them being ok with them, don't go on the OWF. This is not difficult

Negotiating a surrender containing reparations for multiple alliances amounting in total to significantly less than what a single nation would have on hand: Pickpocketing You goddamn [i]thieves[/i] GOONS!

[quote name='x Tela x' date='18 February 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1266554605' post='2191465'] Not Echelon, that's for sure. [/quote] If you're dissatisfied with terms tela, I can only suggest that you take a page from Legion's book and get started coup'ing somebody Otherwise, try to be a bit more gracious and humble in defeat. Bitterness may suit you, but it doesn't become you :|

Is anyone else annoyed that we're in a time period in CN where 150 million reps is unreasonable Oh for the days when they could have put them under deconstruction terms for 3 months and asked for thousands of tech without anyone batting an eye... (Not that I support harsh terms in this case, just a general remark on the view towards reps)

[quote name='Anarcho Jesse' date='18 February 2010 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1266551185' post='2191266'] The LSF is not a large alliance. Yet, for the seeming insignificance that we're being told we have, we still haven't been pushed out of the war. Why do you think this is? [/quote] A group of anarchists refusing to acknowledge that something won't work out? Well that would be pretty out of character for those of that ideology... Must be your two wrc's that are keeping you in the fight

LSF literally cannot imagine having 150 million, let alone paying the sum to anyone (can you imagine the logistical nightmare that would be?) Also those graphic sigs make the rest look like !@#$, were I in an alliance fighting one of these less creative groups, I would not even consider surrendering to them knowing their plaintext signatures would grace the OP. Poor show

Oh alright, I suppose this is a simple mistake on my part then :| Thanks

"Hey by the way guys we'd accept white peace anytime you happened to offer it, just sayin'!!"