IYIyTh

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1307946198' post='2730446'] Which is why all of you being tied together with those alliances makes so little sense. [/quote] It's immoral for you (or anyone, for that matter,) to question the sovereignty of an alliances right to self-determination, even if your assumptions about it are incorrect.

Just basically recruitment went down and had a few members leave for other pastures. Actually, stopped recruiting altogether. Should probably fix that.

[quote name='Melancholy Culkin' timestamp='1307945036' post='2730432'] It's almost like you're... neutral [/quote] Don't let him fool you. After all, he was once harmless. Mostly.

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1307944973' post='2730430'] You can say that again. [/quote] That.

Road Rash is not fun, but certainly not the worst. You'll start feeling normal again around 2 weeks, the sores/itchy/open wounds will generally close up after the first week or at least on't be a pain in the ass when you have to bend them. I wish you godspeed, fellow soldier of crazy !@#$.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307861434' post='2729689'] This sort of thinking is why this planet is dead. [/quote] No, that's because bad rulers are weeded out and alliances make fewer miscalculations about eachother's compellance and deterrance power. You say dead, I say people got smarter. OOC: You could blame people "getting good," at a political simulator, though. That's what this game is at its very heart, after all. /OOC Edit: OOC tags.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307849586' post='2729567'] This is perhaps the most convoluted attempt to justify a bloc i've ever seen. If simply existing is power and politics to you, than have fun! [/quote] Simply existing is power. To cease to exist may require an attack by an opponent and force them to allocate resources they might use productively elsewhere. See, we're getting somewhere!

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1307805858' post='2729209'] That "nearly everyone in and outside of UINE agrees is completely justified" does not appear to be true at all. But even were that true, it is wrong to impose crazy gibberish [color="red"](i.e. OOC)[/color] terms nonetheless. And as another poster already noted, it's not the monetary reps that people are criticising. [/quote] I think you misread, I was talking about the war in context with how everyone felt about the validity of actually going to war, which has been and is unaminously agreed upon to be for a good reason. The context is lost and literal interpretation incorrect. I must again point out the irony of advocating an alliances sovereignty being infringed upon by accepting peace terms they find acceptable. Doing so effectively argues they should violate their own sovereignty and take a method alternative than what they have, effectively violating their ability to make their own decisions.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307842996' post='2729496'] No, because XX isn't a pole (it doesn't do anything). Neither is C&G, SF or Pandora's box. When they actually start to do !@#$, two sides will form. Just because a bloc exists doesn't make it a power sphere. [/quote] I'll assume that you mention XX because of my AA. Necessitating whether doing something makes something a political entity is a fallacy. There is positive power and negative power. The ability to get someone to do something they normally wouldn't and the ability to prevent someone from doing something they might do otherwise. You reference compellance, or positive power to be the only quality an entity must have in order to be considered a pole. Detterrance, or the ability to stop someone from doing what they would normally do is also a quality of a pole (and inconsequentially, the reason most oft associated with forming one. In CN usually in the form of long-term ramifications coupled with an alliances treaties, indirect and direct, and most importantly strength.) Each bloc and individual alliance has a certain amount of compellance and deterrant power, with varying degrees of such. If each alliance/bloc decides that it is not in its best interest "to do something," because of another bloc/alliance's detterrance, it does not make them any less of an alliance or bloc. You reference sides as if there's always two. There are about as many individual sides to every large conflict as there are alliances. The norm is that alliances co-operate only in their self-interest and it is often in one's self-interest to avoid war due to the long-term ramifications and cost versus the satisfaction that victory would provide at a given time. Otherwise we'd just all be at war with eachother all of the time.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307837541' post='2729461'] It is only 'multi-polar' when there isn't a looming war. The planet is always bipolar when there is a major threat. [/quote] Eh, a multi-polar world is still a multi-polar world even in the unlikely event each pole decides to stack against each other on two sides in what is perceived to be a bi-polar contest. They take these positions according to each pole's interest, and is thus still multi-polar. The "Large," wars are far and few between, the "even," one's even moreso.

I'd say your actions are on the verge of being like NPO, but not quite. I'm still not impressed even though I knew you were evil but declined until this moment to comment on the matter because I am holier than thou. Shame on you.

How morally outrageous of you.

It's implied in the OP, in saying that R&R was incapable of doing anything it did without XX, which although flattering, is simply not true. As you admit, the war was sound and warranted that there was no need for XX to even be concerned. There was no involvement of XX at the bloc level at any point other than being completely aware of every step R&R had taken and how patient they had been with UINE. Hell, the reps owed were around about three months past due when XX was formed. This was a matter between UINE and R&R, and has been resolved between UINE and R&R to terms upon which they've both agreed upon, hardly in a manner that convince me R&R is out to disband alliances. Your position in government is irrelevant. (Save the italics, it's a blog post.) The statement that you believe SF to be incapable at a bloc level right after you make a point that RoK recently left it is just an indication of bias, not in any sort or way convincing or providing a different perspective. Saying that R&R is somehow corrupt (Even then, your definition of corrupt is unsuitable,) on only a disputed interpretation of the reperations it gave UINE after three days of war is innappropriate.

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooool what!!! This is hilarious. I don't know what is more! The presumption that R&R corrupt, the additional assumption of XX as having unilaterally attacked UINE, or the OP probably not being aware R&R is in SF too.

[quote name='The Archduke' timestamp='1307797434' post='2729145'] Just because something's now 'allowed' doesn't mean it wasn't earlier... and I think we were going to re-incorporate those changes before we signed the peace treaty anyway. [/quote] You also thought you would have payed those reps 6 months ago. Thought you were going to remove Keve on your own, but only started after a war broke out because of him... Then you thought you were going to coup him to save your own skin...

Oh no, a multi-polar world, what everyone wanted! Quick, destroy it!

[quote name='The Archduke' timestamp='1307715599' post='2728605'] Yes, that's true to an extent, and this incident may even have made our alliance more active again, but still, if there's ever a future incident of this sort, could the guilty party have negotiations before the war, a cease-fire a bit sooner when they indicate they are willing to rectify matters, and sovereignty/independence-infringing terms expiring after a year or some other fixed amount of time? Please don't think I'm being ungrateful to RnR for only asking us what we were prepared to do, which was very kind of them. However, I think a few small improvements to this way of working could still be made. But at least we're not wasting each other's time and money dragging out a nearly pointless war over 21 million any longer, for which I would like to thank all people who showed some restraint. [/quote] Your willingness to rectify the situation is 6 months past due. When the entire OWF agrees that you are in the wrong and well-deserving of a war, you should probably take a hint and quit while you're behind on that one. I do relish with every post that you seem to count this as some sort of phyric victory for UINE. The amateur display of showmanship in pretending that after couping your own government : [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=102418&st=0"]http://forums.cybern...pic=102418&st=0[/url] merely hours after war was declared as well as the general failure to pay the debt owed to AiD when your allies had bargained on your behalf for more time and multiple extentions in addition to the impeccable patience of R&R severely puts your claim that you are capable of doing anything in serious doubt. After agreeing to the terms provided bilatteraly to end the conflict within only a couple days when it well could have gone for far, far longer, that they are all of a sudden unnacceptable, but apparently not enough to break them. Then comes the claim that the war wasn't justified at all, that you were forced to accept the terms. I truly hope your alliance become "more active," and, well, generally better than before (though I'd say this would be the proverbial rock bottom,) but to insinuate that R&R lacked restraint at any point in this venture is quite comical.

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1307667744' post='2728284'] It's a bit late to complain about the blurring of the IC/OOC line. It hasn't existed for a very long time now. [/quote] Nailed it.

[quote name='PMoses' timestamp='1307668529' post='2728290'] Wow. This almost sounds like installing a Viceroy, without actually installing a viceroy. In other words, it almost sounds like someone found a loophole in the ToS rules, and used it to their advantage. But, I dunno the full story of what happened here, so could someone nicely explain it before I comment further and risk sticking my foot in my mouth? [/quote] OOC: I don't think you're familiar with the rules. Viceroys are totally acceptable, the only thing that is not is handing over of OOC property (aka: root admin access, etc. /OOC From an academic standpoint, I do enjoy the irony being perpetuated in these threads. Those who say the surrender terms are an abridgement of an alliances internal workings and self determination at the same time insinuate that an alliance should not be able to determine what they deem to be acceptable surrender terms. Edit: OOC tags.

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1307666645' post='2728278'] One would think that there is a difference between the ashamed new government of UINE (the ones who had just impeached their leader [b]on their own accord[/b], mind you) and the old autocrat who was now out of a job. Bit, I digress. [/quote] I don't know, there have been quite a few replies here from UINE's own government that would make me think otherwise. (Also, he wasn't impeached until after the war began, and that process was never completed afaik, not that it's relevant. In fact, in their public channel someone said that they would only impeach him if there was to be a ceasefire at one point.) Besides, fool me once every day for 6 months, shame on you...

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1307665951' post='2728272'] They agreed on reparations 6 months ago and look where that got us. [/quote] Someone already took my reply

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1307663783' post='2728245'] So that makes it RnR's problem? I can understand the rationale behind going to war (I supported the action myself) but I fail to see how UINE's internal issues are jusification for doing what has been done. Was any other term aside from the reps actually necessary? [/quote] One has to ask whether those internal issues were the actual cause of the war. It is clear that UINE certainly agrees with R&R's assessment of the actual cause, only the manner of how it should occur in the future. My personal opinion is quite irrellivant in that I'm not a party to this conflict, I only observe that both parties to it agreed (certainly, UINE did by aquiescing to these terms and in their statements only arguing semantics of how Keve's removal should occur,) to all of the terms provided. Who am I to infringe on either's right to determine their own cessation of hostilities ? (Also, it's R&R.)

I think this assumes that the terms given were bad, so I can't see anything productive coming from this discussion. 36 million in reps in line with only 18 mill more than the amount actually owed before the war by the offending party, and a term that all of UINE claims it's already doing on its own (though not so convincingly over the past 6 months...) in a war that nearly everyone in and outside of UINE agrees is completely justified... in comparison to an exorbitant amount of reps for a war with no actual reason at all? eh...

[quote name='Piratemonkey530' timestamp='1307660132' post='2728195'] Maybe they should have. But that's our alliances responsibilty not anyone elses. If anything, RnR should have put some interest or something on the reps and not full out attack UINE. It was rather barbaric. [/quote] I think you're missing the point. After 6 months it became R&R's problem, because [b]you[/b] made it R&R's problem. No if's, and's, or but's. Keve was your leader, and over the 6 month period no restitution was payed and your are now paying the price for your leaders incompetence. You are just as responsible because you allowed this individual to lead you and by doing so ceded individual [i]"sovereignty[/i]," (I apologize, I had to do it,) to your alliance leader whom you entrusted with all affairs of your alliance. Your unwillingness or inability to remove him is no one's problem but your own. Barbaric. Two-three days of war for 6 months of putting up with incompetence? You're lucky R&R is a generous alliance and you're still not at war. You can attempt to take solace while the peanut gallery contemplates whether the terms were excessive, well deserved, or fair, but don't let that confuse you: Whether the war was warranted or not is not a point of debate: that lies solely at the feet and blame of UINE. Everything after is a direct result of UINE's failure to initially establish reps in an appropriate matter within 6 months, after deadlines were continuously extended and graciously let slide over a long period of time and even your allies' intervention numerous times where you broke your promises to pay your debt fell through.

[quote name='Piratemonkey530' timestamp='1307634532' post='2727907'] As the Minister of Internal Affairs of UINE I'd like to point out that some, if not all, of these term agreements were already going to happen in the near future of UINE. I don't want to give RnR the pleasure of thinking that they are "forcing" our alliance to do anything. The only thing they are forcing us to do is not have Keve in power which we will get over. To be honest I don't see the big deal in these terms. They were practically unnecessary. [/quote] Maybe they should have happened 6 months ago.