ktarthan

[quote name='nutkase' date='21 February 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1266817386' post='2196469'] I don't see how it could be opportunistic when they knew when joining the war that was definitely going to be the losing side, also they did not join the war in regards to TOP/IRON CB on C&G but to help out a ally, something that become well separated when it came to reps or white peace during Karma and I thought this war. Reps been taking from aggressors is better because they are the guilty ones that started the war for its own gains or better status and thus receive a punishment. In my eyes, alliances that hold no connection to a war other then aiding a ally when in desperate times, should be thanked and sent on there own way, not dragged through the mud afterwards. Thats how you find yourself becoming enemies with a lot of alliances is by kicking them when they are down. While if you had a good fight shakes hands after, you might find they come to respect you. Example is TTK vs CCC during WoTC, great fight and at the end walked away with no reps given and actually very friendly towards each other, while NPO received large amount of reps and look where that got them. Reps breeds hostility and contempt. Edit: my spelling fails [/quote] Reps also breeds stronger GOONSlings, so it sounds like a win-win. Honestly I wasn't around for and I don't care about what happened during Karma. GOONS wanted reps, GOONS asked for reps, GOONS got reps (trivial ones, at that). Our allies consented, so I don't think anyone in GOONS is going to lose sleep worrying if our enemies in war that we defeated (or helped to defeat) think less of us.

[quote name='ChimpMasterFlash' date='21 February 2010 - 07:13 PM' timestamp='1266808387' post='2195877'] That was really close but you missed out on fundamental caricature. I took the liberty to fix it for you. [/quote] This edit makes it 100% accurate to the situation.

[quote name='zenergy' date='21 February 2010 - 12:29 AM' timestamp='1266740945' post='2194825'] That statement is unfounded, and I demand an apology and formal retraction. GUN works very hard to maintain our status as a force of outright oppression and malice, and we will not tolerate any propaganda to the contrary. Consider this your first and only warning. Slip up again and you'll be required to pay $1b and 100k tech as reps. Are we clear? [/quote] Hey, GOONS has a monopoly on self villainizing and unreasonable reps in this thread. Don't make us demand reps from you too!

[quote name='nutkase' date='20 February 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1266731926' post='2194649'] In relation to other alliances you earned nothing. [/quote] Then other alliances should be asking for much larger rep amounts than seen here, no? I cannot speak for why they haven't, but I don't think that makes us villains for asking.

[quote name='Scorponok' date='20 February 2010 - 01:49 AM' timestamp='1266659363' post='2193448'] Such good people aren't you all. And all they did was defend their allies. [/quote] Yep, NATO and TFD were sure defending their allies!

[quote name='SonOfHoward' date='19 February 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1266650457' post='2193310'] More reps for GOONS I wonder who's going to get rolled next? [/quote] Actually these were the first reps to GOONS. But to answer your question, we've got our eyes on C&G.

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='19 February 2010 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1266651493' post='2193334'] Absolutely agreed. Especially considering your last point. Hey, look, an AP debate went well. [/quote] Wait... what? This is where you counter with a "might makes right" argument!

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='19 February 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1266650446' post='2193309'] There we go, bold because Im line-by-line like that. [/quote] (Replying to this post and hoping it'll also address the response you gave to me) I don't think that in this situation the reps indicate that NATO/TFD were "bad" or "wrong" in the sense it is implied. When surrender talks came up, FoB (and GOONS) thought "You know, I'd like some recompense for the damage I have suffered". Do you think it is wrong for them to want to recoup some (very small) bit of their losses? They brought this as terms for the surrender, and after discussing it, an agreement was reached. Just because no one else in this conflict has asked for reps does not mean that anyone else is undeserving of them. I do not think that the winning side is "vindicated" from having to pay reps, but the winning side has more leverage to get what they want. Both sides would obviously love to get rebuilding money, but only one has the leverage to do so.

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='19 February 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1266649712' post='2193289'] Oh I stopped reading [/quote] Oh I stopped reading right about there. But I'm sure you rebutted their argument instead of asking an inane question.

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='19 February 2010 - 10:52 PM' timestamp='1266648762' post='2193260'] Honestly, a very fair and well put argument, but here is why I disagree: honoring an oA does not mean you support the reason for the war. It means you support your allies and will fight with them. If Ragnarok went into a war and made a mistake and it was a stupid war, Id go yell at Hoo or whoever their emperor is at the time (lol), but I'd honor an optional aggression clause to [s]defend[/s] help them. I'd also say the war was stupid and demand that we offer white peace. I would also understand if the attacked did not accept this white peace. Id also fight by RoK's side until they got peace, and never suggest they accept peace until they were given fair terms for the crime done (e.g. no viceroys, no gov't restrictions, IA changes, etc.) So just because NATO and co. were helping their allies the best way that they felt was possible, by ganging up on the alliances they felt were weaker (no offense to the skill of FoB, it's purely a #s game), doesn't mean that they supported the war. If they did support the war, and that was the crime, then they owe reps to the entire C&G bloc, no? edited and left mistake struck through [/quote] I guess it is a difference of opinion, but in the case of an optional clause into a war that you do not support, I feel that it is entirely reason enough to sit that one out. Is that not what optional clauses are for? They would not owe reps to all of C&G because they chose to inflict damage upon FoB alone, and the reps are the result of that.

[quote name='Alekhine' date='19 February 2010 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1266648781' post='2193261'] Fear not, good sir, for your logic is flawed and that is not the case. Rest assured that the conclusion GOONS = Peace does not follow from that set of premises and you can still sleep well tonight. [/quote] Thank you sir, I am truly relieved that it is not a transitive relationship. You have eased my worried mind.

[quote name='Xavii' date='19 February 2010 - 10:40 PM' timestamp='1266648000' post='2193238'] Peace is good. Goons is good. Goons growing is also good. Reps helping goons to grow is good. Reps to goons = good. [/quote] If Peace = Good And GOONS = Good Then GOONS = Peace? I am outraged you'd suggest such a thing!

[quote name='Kortal' date='19 February 2010 - 10:38 PM' timestamp='1266647928' post='2193232'] 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] I think you are correct. That's the impression I got.

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='19 February 2010 - 10:25 PM' 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] Thank you! It is my absolute favourite kind of money.

[quote name='bolivar' date='19 February 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1266646162' post='2193142'] nobody in LSF were talking about surrender [/quote] I wonder if you want to reconsider that 'nobody'. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81152&st=20&p=2191178&#entry2191178

[quote name='Kortal' date='19 February 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1266645519' post='2193117'] 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] What can I say? We've got a reputation to keep.

Hooray for GOONS! Oh and I guess all those other guys too. *party whistle*

[quote name='Haflinger' date='19 February 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1266626924' post='2192712'] UCN is not a large alliance. This is pretty much the equivalent of Unjust War-era reps. [/quote] I hope you're being sarcastic. They have 7 nations sitting in peace mode who could get 7/10 of the reps done immediately.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='19 February 2010 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1266626556' post='2192708'] It's 50 foreign aid slots. That's not a token amount. [/quote] 10 nations can do that in 10 days. They have 90. I can't see how this is possibly unreasonable.

I love all the white knighting that goes on in threads like this. Zenith says "Hey you guys are awesome thanks for being understanding!", White Knight says "How dare they do this to Zenith!" They do not need your assistance. Please move along.

[quote name='darkfox' date='19 February 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1266611622' post='2192377'] Couple days. Couple would be meaning 2 or close to do days eh? Well lets see we fought Immortals for 4 days before fighting GOONS, then GOONS for 10 days, followed by PC and LOST for 3 days. We lost about 685,738 ns in the "couple" days we fought. So you are totally right we are a bunch of slackers [/quote] In the three days fighting GOONS, PC, and =LOST=, you guys lost 405,966 NS; 135,322 per day. Anyone implying cowardice for surrendering at that point is a fool.

[quote name='Anarcho Jesse' date='19 February 2010 - 09:14 AM' timestamp='1266599645' post='2192171'] These are facts. They have no place in discussions pertaining to CyberNations. [/quote] CDT is non-chaining, so the defense was still optional. Try agin. It's evident from this thread that UCN is both happy with the terms, and with GOONS as an opponent. What are you so mad about?

[img]http://i47.tinypic.com/16a4i9w.jpg[/img] Unfortunately those have all been offensive wars - I haven't been able to get anyone to declare on me yet. Oh, and the huge fall at the beginning of the chart was me eating 6 nukes from a rogue. (Hi Epik High!) PS: GOONS gov is cheap and never gave me the aid I was supposed to get.

Well that was fun, UCN. Glad you guys got out while the getting was good. Also, excellent poetry.

[quote name='popsumpot' date='18 February 2010 - 05:12 PM' timestamp='1266541944' post='2190782'] I'm not trying to say UCN is winning militarily. I think it's pretty obvious from the fact that we are fighting GOONS, PC and =LOST= that we wouldn't even be close. With that said, that doesn't mean we didn't do some damage either, and trying to pretend that you guys were the only one doing the hurting is willful ignorance. [/quote] Oh, you guys have been the most capable military we've gone up against this war (not saying too much, but it's something), and you are probably responsible for the most damage too. My point was simply that ADI's efforts will most likely meet the same end as UCN's. They should not expect an easy time of "GOON stomping" simply because we are already occupied.