Jump to content

neneko

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,419

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by neneko

  4. New Frontier

    Posted

    While point two is technically true you can apply that to any term. You can't force anyone to pay you reps either but if the alternative to paying is worse they might do it anyway, same deal with disbandment. We could argue that nobody is ever forced by anyone to do anything which is actually a line that npo argued back in their glory days to claim that they never forced anyone to pay them anything. I don't really think it holds up though.

  8. Goldie

    Posted

    The TOP and MK gov who outed Gramlins, they know whats going on.

    You've said this a few times so I'll go ahead and correct you here. Nobody in MK mentioned gre. TOP mentioned the stale in the discussion was due to gre when discussing things with MK members in a owf thread, that doesn't mean MK had any part in 'outing' them.

    The gov of many of any alliance currently involved in this war know whats going on. People who listen to these peopl can get a good idea whats going on as well. People who stick their fingers in their ears and yell "I can't hear you!" ... well you know what you're doing.

    Nobody is sticking their fingers in their ears. Some people wish to withhold judgement until seeing the whole picture from both sides. The people that got the 'insider info' by reading the discussions here on owf only have a very select quote from the negotiations (two words) and the TOP/IRON interpretation of those words.

    If gre truly want to force iron to sign a document that says gre is free to do whatever they want with them then naturally I'm opposed to that but I can't imagine why gre would do something like that so until the real facts are on the table and not just rumors and snippets from disgruntled negotiators I'm not going to join the pitchfork crew and scream at gre. If you want to call that sticking my fingers in my ears then I can't stop you but I prefer to see all the facts before I judge anyone.

  10. Goldie

    Posted

    But we havent changed and are still "the root of all evil". :awesome:

    Note my post on the locked thread and you'll see MK(C&G). I named MK as I see them as the main face of C&G and I am too lazy to name everyone, I thought you'd be happy about that D: . And in any case yes anyone who is withholding on offering peace to IRON due to Gremlins is enabling them to push their ridiculous demands.

    I hope that makes it more clearer, and yeah I would like that sandwich now. :ehm:

    *makes a baby sandwich*

    I am happy. I suggested that we keep pushing this. I mean it'd be dumb to see where the negotiations leads before saying that we should abandon our ally that entered for our sake. If that even is what's going on. Nobody really have any indepth info on this outside the people actually involved.

    Also mk is way more evil npo. Just ask around and you'll see.

  11. Goldie

    Posted

    Your putting words in my mouth is appreciated, although let me correct you there. I said if MK was not going to leave their ally who was being unreasonable, alone on the field, then MK was enabling said ally to commit such unreasonable acts. Not that its all MK's fault. I am sorry but you cannot steal the "root of all evil" title from us. :smug:

    Sorry but you have repented for your sins and are the good guys now. I'm not putting anything in your mouth. If you want I could make you a sandwich though. I think it's great that you just happened to pick mk out of all the enablers you could have picked. It really made me surprised. No really I didn't think it was too far fetched and I think you should keep working on that line I enjoyed it.

    It made alot more sense than the claims that we're responsible for the TOP DoW at least and that's a big step up.

  12. Goldie

    Posted

    I'd rather get more info on this before I say anything. The only thing we, the peanut gallery, know right now is what some TOP guy said wich was the words unconditional surrender. Rather see more than two words before making any comments.

    I'm also a bit upset that most people seems to have dropped the attempts to pin this on mk. Have you forgotten that we're the root of all evil? That NPO guy from the locked thread had us pinned down as enablers thus making it all our fault. That wasn't too far fetched you can work with that. Come on. We need the attention :(

    also coursca capital letters + bold made it not so subtle

  18. Ejayrazz

    Posted

    We said "roll TOP". Even though we say that about 2 dozen+ alliances TOP was feeling conscientious because they held the #1 spot. At least that's what I've gathered. I don't say that sarcastically either. All I've seen is that TOP keeps claiming we wanted to roll them, yet they aren't by any means the only alliance we've made those jokes about.

    Most grievous acts.

    No really I kinda hope that's not the answer because that would just be sad.

  20. Ejayrazz

    Posted

    Sorry to cut in, but if you actually believe that, it would be a very naive view of the world. Every alliance is constantly comparing itself to possible opponents, that does not mean it's intending to fight them. Planning for contingencies is important: if you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

    So yes, the relative advantage does matter, because this is CN, there is a 90% probability of a new war within the next year, and TOP does not have the closest MDP ties to your guys, which makes it more likely that it would be on a different side of such a conflict. That does not bely some intent to fight; merely a recognition of how the world moves. Simple logic.

    The relative advantage only comes into to play if they plan to do something like they did this war and try to hit us when our treaty partners are tied up elsewhere.

    The strength we gain from the reps will matter very little to them in some coming war in other cases since there are quite alot of alliances on bob that's not in cng. Now don't get me wrong I don't mind if they stay in this war until ZT when they're all in bill-lock but I think the 'relative' strength they get towards the rest of the world will be much much worse in that scenario.

  22. Ejayrazz

    Posted

    We aren't planning anything. I can safely say that MK is no where near top of the list of alliances we hate right about now. We may have seen you as a threat and an opponent and most of your members agrees they did the same, but we did not hate you.

    So why do you even bring up the 'relative advantage' then? Once the war is over it's over and unless you plan on attacking us again the 'relative advantage' doesn't matter.

    Given way you are treating this war that could change however.

    mmm.. I do love those threats. You guys attacked us out of the blue so what exactly are you threatening to do? Do it again? I sort of count on it.

    Well, I'm going to love seeing how you pry anything for our cold dead hands. Not only you won't pry anything but you will lose hundreds of thousands of tech trying. And not get a cent from us. That is unless you stop with unreasonable crippling terms. We are not in a vacuum, while rest of the world grows CnG can try to contain us. I am going to enjoy watching alliances start to dwarf you and your position weaken day by day. All because you could not see that it is in your interest to end the war, end the cycle and try to find a good solution for both sides.

    Problem in your equation is that even if we are completely destroyed, including all our tech and infra, we will still have all our wonders and all we will need is 1000 infra (bought for 5million) and some spare cash to buy up nukes. Even a 0 tech nuke does 150 damage and keeps someone in nuclear anarchy. You've seen Aircastle deploy on 3 targets each, now imagine 200 nations did that. Do you really want to make us into your arch-enemy? So we can either find an end to the conflict which won't leave bitter taste in peoples mouths or we can keep this up hurting both of us a lot. You can disperse the damage but the losses are still there.

    The prying comment was a reference to a earlier post (not made by you). I'm fully aware that if this war goes on for any prolonged time we're not very likely to gain anything from you. Guess what though. We didn't start this war to gain reps. In fact we didn't start this war at all. You attacked us and you don't get to decide how the war ends. If you want to go vieTOP in stubborn refusal to pay for the damage you did to us then I for one won't shed any tears.

  23. Ejayrazz

    Posted

    Look, offer is 350k to your alliances (meaning 700k net loss for TOP compared to your side). This means that if we accept the terms we will effectively lose all our tech without causing any damage.

    [...]

    So, tell me, we should give up all of our tech (because by giving 350k to your side we are losing 700k in relative advantage) and cause no damage?

    Relative advantage? Are you already planning your next war against us? If that's the case I don't think these reps are nearly harsh enough.

    I don't mind prying it from your cold dead hands at all.

  24. Ejayrazz

    Posted

    Ejay, I love how you're completely fine with setting a alliance back months by attacking it but not making someone pay reps that could take months to finish. Honestly these terms are alot more lenient than I expected them to be after hearing all the whining from you and your cohort.

    Actually I think these terms are fair, leaning towards lenient for some of the alliances involved in trying to take out cng.

×
×
  • Create New...