Hyperbad

You're better off just finding someone both parties trust and appears indifferent to the situation. Not all would find the same people trustworthy, respectable and dependable so an official label just wouldn't work. It's best done on a case by case basis as the involved parties feel necessary.

[quote name='Tungsten' date='07 March 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1268016214' post='2217484'] Not picking sides here... but: il·le·gal    /ɪˈligəl/[ih-lee-guhl] –adjective 1.forbidden by law or statute. 2.contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc. Someone please show me these laws we apparently now have for CN, I'm sure they'll be a great read. Seriously, unless no one's noticed the only constant here on Planet Bob is that [i]everyone will do what they think they can get away with to better themselves and/or their allies[/i]. There are no laws, there are no courts, there is no higher authority. There is only what you can do without getting yourself smashed to bits by everyone else, and the standards of what that seems to mean tend to change along with the political climate.[/quote] There isn't any and I don't believe he was refering to that but rather the standards held in signing documents of the sort making it a violation or offense against the other signatorie. You're reading too much into this exchange.

The mechanics can change to add more variety and consideration of different factors but ultimately what makes the game old and tired is the slow evolution in politics. Some of it has to do with the mechanics but largely it's about the culture, our society. Why bother when little if anything underneath the surface has ever changed in the 4 years this game has existed? Now personally, I don't mind it. I come on for five minutes, browse when bored and post even when indifferent simply for something to do. If anything I thoroughly enjoy this slow evolution because it gives me so much to laugh at. Simply put there's a stunning amount of incompetence and psychological disorders. It's fortunate that the situation isn't different or I might actually be tempted to put some time and effort into the game.

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='07 March 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1268000838' post='2217242'] The causality is still there. The breaking of the treaty directly caused the treaty to be canceled. No matter what interpretation you can possibly think of, the treaty was broken quite clearly by PC. [/quote] I'm not disputing that they broke it.

Don't forget character map where permitted and foreign language characters. Those additions increase the possibilities exponentially. Just make sure the website supports them. Some flat out won't accept them and some will upon submission but when you try to log in you get database errors. An example of the craziness one of the passwords I used to have in the past: öQMहिं³文§0¹Ãš©«U,दी½;2 Good luck with that.

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='07 March 2010 - 04:33 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] I'm not ignoring anything and never insinuated that the treaty never actually existed. I'm stating that while the treaty existed, legally it isn't treated as such. It possess no legal weight regardless of what happened. [b]Edit to add:[/b] hmm, I think it's just coming down to semantics and it obviously wasn't clarified in their treaty what they meant - which would override either of our interpretations. I see it like a marriage being annuled where as the opposing perspsective is that it's null and void only at that point and anything prior is treated as "valid" until it was "voided". The problem is that it became voided at the very moment it was breached, not right after but simultaneously.

Unless a DoN has a consistent signatorie besides the originator I wouldn't count them. Either they're simply statements of intent or NAPs openly stated to be an option to anyone should they show a desire to sign it. [quote name='BamaBuc' date='05 March 2010 - 09:23 AM' timestamp='1267799317' post='2214849'] You are incorrect. The wording is along the lines of "If either party breaks the treaty, it is null and void." It specifically states that it is voided by the treaty being broken, which is an illegal action. If it had said "If either party attacks the other, it's void", then perhaps a good e-lawyer could have made the case for attacking an NAP partner being legal (lol), but that is not the case. It's more along the lines of what Soccerbum said, though put into writing rather than being an unwritten rule as it usually is.[/quote] Not just terminated or cancelled (void) but the last article essentially permits (decriminalizes or legalizes) the illegal act of breaking a contract by saying if you do it to this one then we'll consider the contract to have never existed (null). Thus there is no legal fall out from breaking the treaty because while it did exist laws wouldn't consider it to be binding upon breach. The only fall out is that of the opinions in the community that feel it a terrible thing to do. That the agreement is to be treated as if it never existed was said in it has me personally indifferent to the manner in which it was cancelled. However at the time I must admit I found it a despicable act myself. Now, I don't know the purpose of that clause but who ever wrote it should have sat back and reconsidered it. If you rely too heavily on what the community thinks and feels then you'll get burned by someone that doesn't conform to that standard.

Indeed but I was responding to the comment of demilitarization in terms being a step back. While its use has traditionally been that of a punishment the effect can easily make it a benevolent act if the intent were to differ. I see it as possible means for stepping forward; moving beyond punitive terms and helping to heal wounds by encouraging the rebuilding of nations. If mandated as a requirement then it would be counter productive for it would look as a violation of sovereignty. If demilitarization were optional then it would be looked upon more highly. Still, even if required, its benefits are not lost and terms which help the defeated rebuild no matter what the actual intent is are by far more preferable then those which actually cause harm.

That's because at start, they were kowtowing to the NPO. The debates amongst membership about whether they should start signing MDPs rested on the fear the members had of being rolled next. The members (and some council members at the time) felt buddying up with the NPO would protect them from such a fate. There were however a small minority which felt a genuine affection for the NPO. After the treaty was signed the relationship, the intention might have evolved into something else (remember, that was years ago I'm talking). It's logical to deduce that the more time you spend together and closer you work together either you're repelled or attracted. I'm not sure IRON ever had a full grasp of what the NPO was about early on either.

Maybe, but that doesn't remove the benefit for those receiving the term particularly with the length of time some terms of surrender remained in effect. If terms lasted only a month then there's an argument demilitarization might be more costly then remaining militarized, based upon the cost to rebuy all of it minus the difference in bills. Over a prolonged period of time however they're desirable for the losing party.

It's actually in an alliance's best interests to have demilitarization. Lower bills from a lack of military and uninterrupted growth for members that would otherwise fight tech raiders or rogues means more money put into rebuilding. The harshest terms one can place on another is full military being mandatory but that just puts them in a position where they could concievably do a lot of damage in a first strike if they wish to go full suicide mode. Between terms involving demilitarization and those without, I'd take the former and try to extend it as long as reasonably practical. Depending on other terms you could even still import tech thus improving your capacity to wage war when ever you remilitarize. What about provisions prohibiting importing of tech to member nations while allowing them to act as buyers for C&G? It would keep them leveled while allowing C&G to catch up. Its effects might be less then if it were TOP's own tech but do you think it might be acceptable to either party as a compromise?

[quote name='Lord Stark' date='02 March 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1267567247' post='2211721'] If we had peaced out say after one week (which is I think what you are saying we should have done?) We would have been in an even worse strategic position. CnG suffered their greatest losses in that first week because we were fighting TOP at al. mostly alone (because our allies were busy on other fronts). Even with the terms now proposed TOP would have soundly defeated us because their War Chests would have allowed every member to fully re-build and their losses would have been significantly less then ours on a whole. They would have taken an even bigger lead on us in the upper ranks which would have threatened the safety of CnG. I think it is important to remember that unlike many terms that have been offered in previous wars we are allowing our enemies to pay half of their tech reps by purchasing tech from outside nations. This is a little harder to organize perhaps (though we know tech organization is one of TOPs specialties so I think they could handle it), it does show that though we would like to bring TOP a little bit closer to our level so they aren't in such a commanding position to threaten is in the future. However, by allowing them to purchase half of the reps from outside alliances it is clear that CnG isn't attempting to completely flatten TOP by making them pay back all of the damage that they have done. We simply want them to pay for what they have done and bring them a little bit closer to our level and then we are allowing the remainder of our losses to be provided by outside sources which can very easily be purchased with their war chests. It is also important to note that the point at which you are saying that we could have ended this war TOP was insisting that nothing except for white peace would have been acceptable. That would have been impossible for us to accept mostly for the reasons pointed out in the first paragraph of this post. Even with these terms TOP still has advantages over CnG mostly because of their huge war chest and the statistics that were shown earlier that indicates TOP has lost far less then they have dealt out in damages. [/quote] I wasn't trying to assert that it was in C&G's best interest to get an earlier peace and apologize if I came off suggesting they should have peaced out earlier. Rather I'm discussing the citations of damage received throughout the war as reason for severe reparations when peace was an option for some time. I see there being legitimacy in the argument that your opponents should not be faulted when there is a swap of positions to them wishing for peace but you to continue the conflict and they perhaps should not be punished for defending themselves from that point on. Before that point is another story where you have a strong case. I don't know the specific dates of most relevance to this though besides when the NpO - \m/ conflict/front (reader choose your term) ended so again, it's possible the terms are simply reasonable.

[quote name='Lord Stark' date='02 March 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1267554483' post='2211497'] The bottom line is that the reps are just asking for what has been lost by CnG et al. as a result of the aggressive actions by TOP. They are higher then reps in the past but more has also been lost in this war then wars in the past. We didn't declare this war we just want to be compensated for our loss as a result of the war of aggression launched by TOP.[/quote] If you're taking into account only damage received prior to talk of peace by your opponents then or damage received prior to the original NpO-\m/ wars being peaced out then I can see this as being a valid argument. Afer that it becomes a bit difficult. The initial fronts of a war typically lead others to feel there's nothing left to fight over and it can be argued your opponents felt that way. Likewise a desire your opponents may have felt in wanting to end the war previously had your side taken up this offer would have prevented a lot of damage from ever being inflicted upon your nations. The problem comes in with the damage you've taken since your side stated peace wouldn't yet be offered but a desire to knock your opponents down a few pegs before terms are discussed is desired. Damage you've taken during that time is no ones fault but your own for your unwillingness (right or wrong) to see a conclusion to this conflict. You've effectively gone on the offensive and have given your opponents little choice but to fight much like you were at the start. If the NpO-\m/ war seeing peace is used as the line then the proposed terms are most probably far too high. If the statements of your opponents receiving no peace yet are the reference point then the terms might even be too low to pay for all the damage they caused. I think this one of the many areas of concern in the debate over reparations.

I’m curious as to how exactly these figures were drawn up. I’ve seen a number of attempts at explanation but by no one that I personally recognize as a government member but my knowledge there is dated. It could conceivably help the case for these kinds of terms if some insight was provided to the general public. That aside, I’m seeing a number of different arguments presented by either side, some employing semantics and others searching up old wars that the victors were in to conduct comparisons. The argument I see as being most disingenuous is where if those being offered these terms reject them and proceed to fight a prolonged conflict akin to VietFan that their technology would be reduced to a point where they no longer do damage as they originally did. Meanwhile they would be incapable of growing despite the apparent victors being capable of such, albeit more slowly then if at peace. While it’s true the issue with this argument is how short sighted it is. The focus is on the one group you’re presently in conflict with without consideration that others will grow while you’re hampered and the politics could begin to unfold as old or new differences crack open into fissures. A concerted effort could of course conceivably offset this trend of tugging every which way. What will happen though if this moral outrage by a number of parties were to materialize into a trend? What kind of treatment would be received or expected if such a policy were followed and you were finally among the vanquished? How would you expect or wish others to read your words and actions? Based on Bob’s history now, how do you think they will? There’s a trend in Bob of looking back at actions and words then doing comparisons and judging based on hindsight. The momentary views of events are typically different from that which is held when viewing in hindsight. A dilemma arises when you’re going against the grain, Bob’s new found moral compass, by increasing the volume of reparations to new heights. The treaty web certainly is structured to be in the assumed victor’s favor but we’ve seen lines in the web snap under pressure before. What is there to assure that your view of these terms being acceptable will be shared by others down the road and is that a risk worth taking? While one may receive some sort of satisfaction out of damaging terms being issued to their opponent it can do a great disservice despite any advantage to your statistics it may give. Those numbers may incite rage down the road or be viewed at as simply being understandable and in a case of the former it would only serve to delay the inevitable.

Yes, it is most probable the majority would be of the same cost as market value, simply because that's what they paid for it. They do have the potential to use those lowest in tech for the cheap tech in order to save billions, assuming a time frame with some leeway.

Yeah, I did forget to do the conversion for 100 tech. My sincerest apologies to those my error may have shone a negative light on. I've made corrections to all relevant areas (I think, point me out if you see another error, it's late, I'm tired, there probably is one). Yup and they don't need to spend all that many billion on tech. They could get tech cheaper with internal aid still permitted. Doing it from 0 tech and buying up to 50 the real cost is $5,609,296,000 for 345,400 tech @ 812k per 50.

I'm sorry, you're right. I'll adjust the post accordingly.

Nope, it's actually in the trillions for value. Remember, in total we're talking over 600,000 tech. As a reference to, I edited the post you quoted. In double checking after the other posted commented I did the math wrong in my head. I got IRON's stuff correctly.

Note, the monetary figures is the market value of the tech at 3mil/100, not how much it costs to buy tech. Though it is important to note that a significant amount if not the majority of their tech will likely come from what they got in tech deals however seeing that it doesn't prohibit intra-alliance aid transfers then if it were ever to have been accepted they probably would have just bought up cheaper tech to send out. Edit: I got IRON's right

After reading the above I became curious what this would be worth according to the market at $3mil per 100 technology and who would be receiving how much. Not to be an apologist but please take into consideration when reading this that C&G is comprised of.... *counts* .... seven alliances. =TOP=- C&G: $9,000,000,000.00 Sparta: $750,000,000.00 Dark Fist: $226,050,000.00 Brigade: $150,000,000.00 Resistance: $150,000,000.00 Nemesis: $87,000,000.00 Total: $10,363,050,000.00 -=IRON=- C&G: $4,500,000,000.00 Sparta: $450,000,000.00 Fark: $180,000,000.00 Grämlins: $180,000,000.00 Total: $5,310,000,000.00 -=TSO=- C&G: $1,200,000,000.00 GATO: $300,000,000.00 Genesis: $150,000,000.00 OSA: $150,000,000.00 Ronin: $150,000,000.00 Total: $1,950,000,000.00 -=DAWN=- C&G: $300,000,000.00 Grämlins: $180,000,000.00 IAA: $150,000,000.00* Fark: $15,000,000.00 Total: $640,000,000.00 -=TORN=- C&G: $300,000,000.00 IAA: $150,000,000.00* Total: $450,000,000.00 Total from defeated: $18,563,050,000.00 -=Receipients=- C&G: $15,300,000,000.00 Sparta: $1,200,000,000.00 Grämlins: $360,000,000.00 GATO: $300,000,000.00 Dark Fist: $226,050,000.00 Fark: $195,000,000.00 Brigade: $150,000,000.00 Genesis: $150,000,000.00 IAA: $150,000,000.00 OSA: $150,000,000.00 Resistance: $150,000,000.00 Ronin: $150,000,000.00 Nemesis: $87,000,000.00 * Denotes the term is split between the two designated parties and payment can to the best of my knowledge be divided as they so wish. As such it's counted for both of them to reflect the unlikely possibility of either of them paying the entirety of those stated reparations. Also note that this was kept in mind when coming up with totals and the number was only counted once for the receipient and in the grand total in reparations if terms were accepted. For an easier read on tech I present the below as well -=TOP=- C&G: 300,000 Sparta: 25,000 Dark Fist: 7,500 Brigade: 5,000 Resistance: 5,000 Nemesis: 2.900 Total: 345,400 -=IRON=- C&G: 150,000 Sparta: 15,000 Fark: 6,000 Grämlins: 6,000 Total: 177,000 -=TSO=- C&G: 40,000 GATO: 10,000 Genesis: 5,000 OSA: 5,000 Ronin: 5,000 Total: 65,000 -=DAWN=- C&G: 10,000 Grämlins: 6,000 IAA: 5,000* Fark: 500 Total: 21,500 -=TORN=- C&G: 10,000 IAA: 5,000* Total: 15,000 Total from defeated: 618,900 -=Receipients=- C&G: 510,000 Sparta: 40,000 Grämlins: 12,000 GATO: 10,000 Dark Fist: 7,500 Fark: 6.500 Brigade: 5,000 Genesis: 5,000 IAA: 5,000 OSA: 5,000 Resistance: 5,000 Ronin: 5,000 Nemesis: 2,900 * Denotes the term is split between the two designated parties and payment can to the best of my knowledge be divided as they so wish. As such it's counted for both of them to reflect the unlikely possibility of either of them paying the entirety of those stated reparations. Also note that this was kept in mind when coming up with totals and the number was only counted once for the receipient and in the grand total in reparations if terms were accepted. Annnnnd now I'm curious about past wars so excuse me if I disappear for a bit. Edit: I apologize, the format got screwed up when I hit submit. You'll all have to make do. Additionally if I made any errors in the above please feel free to point it out and I'll edit the list accordingly. Edit: Massive fail here. I forgot to convert for 100 tech when doing the math. My sincerest apologies to anyone my error may have shone a negative light on.

[quote name='Crowdog' date='28 February 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1267390336' post='2208770'] They didn't have to accept the reps if they felt they were so unjustified.[/quote] Not that this is the case - I highly doubt it is - but it could be a smart strategy to accept unjustifiably heavy reparations with the intent of causing resentment in the victors and sympathy for the defeated. The type of reparations now play a significant role in foreign affairs and who others are willing to work with in addition to the types and severity of reparations they will likely receive in the future if they should lose a war. The defeated here need not do anything beyond setting the stone in motion for others to pick up. So I wouldn't say someone accepting reparations of any particular type automatically means they believe them to be just and reasonable. There are other considerations made. [quote]Anyone and everyone complaining about harsh reps is an idiot because these weren't required to be accepted.[/quote] That holds no relevance with whether any set of terms could be viewed as harsh.

I'm up for buying provided you and your alliance are not at war (can't check that at work).

I hope you would be willing to share your findings on the following question: Does a nuke light the candles, blow out the candles or light them then blow them out?

[quote name='Momonishiki' date='22 February 2010 - 07:49 PM' timestamp='1266886153' post='2198199'] I thought I was clear in the OP, but perhaps not. I had no motivation for my post other than to kill the couped corpse of the GGA, whatever people may think of that. Rebuilding has been tried and tried. It is beyond that point now. [/quote] You were clear. I was merely stating another option as I don't seem to recall much talk about GGA membership actually challenging the authority and legitimacy of the present and past coup attempts beyond mere statements of disatisfaction.

You (OP) and the other dissenting members could have (and still can) started another forum when the first went down and fought for control of the AA in game while keeping the charter intact. Above all else that would show the members no longer consider coups as being acceptable. Then take this new found energy to rebuild your alliance from the ruins it has inhabited for so long.