Jesse End

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='05 May 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1273100144' post='2288162'] It is my position that once NPO has completed their terms, you should never again be punished for past crimes. However I see no problem with alliances that have good reason to dislike you keeping their distance, so long as they take no real action against you. Basically, we should move forward without entirely forgetting the past. [/quote] Good to hear. It's too bad not everybody can be reasonable like that, some need to constantly try to use us as justification for their actions

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='05 May 2010 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1273098923' post='2288131'] Not really. I'm just saying that with a bit of foresight you could probably have bought the MIC. Perhaps not. It really doesn't matter and has very little do to with anything. [/quote] I know that I couldn't have. My original point was that the reps demanded of us are not somehow 'less harsh' just because they have specific terms missing. The immense size of the reparations demanded and the limitations imposed on who could pay them specifically has resulted in the payment of reps taking more time than ever before, among other things. I'm not defending either position, simply pointing out how it is hypocritical for some to currently condemn someone for something they allegedly did in the past (especially if said alliance has 'paid' for those actions and had a complete change in leadership), then at the same time support someone else doing a similar thing now. That may or may not be directed at you too, I'm not sure what your position is.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='05 May 2010 - 03:20 PM' timestamp='1273094399' post='2288040'] My mistake, should have checked your first post again. It still seems as if at some point between getting out of bill lock and dipping under 1000 tech you should have bought the MIC. Doesn't really matter, of course.[/quote] That's equivalent to saying that anyone who decommissioned a wonder because of terms should have started buying wonders earlier, then they wouldn't be behind.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='05 May 2010 - 05:28 AM' timestamp='1273058884' post='2287547'] How much tech did you end the war with?[/quote] I stated that originally, see bolding: [quote name='Jesse End' date='04 May 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1273016607' post='2286955'] I'll give you an example using my own nation to help you look at it from a different angle. We were restricted to only sending tech from nations with over 1k tech, so no small nation tech sellers. Because of that, you can also consider the replacement value of the tech that each of those over-1k tech nations had at the time when the war ended and reps started. [b]I had 2740 tech when the war ended[/b], which according to a tech calculator, is worth $511,049,309.98. When I ran out of that, I started buying it in 150 tech chunks to keep sending reps; as of today, that totals 2910 tech (not including what I currently have on hand, which will be used for more reps, plus purchasing more still), which at $2,690,637.16 per 150 tech (from tech calculator), totals $52,198,360.90. So, at my cost of the 5650 tech, I have sent $563,247,670.88 worth of tech to date. To replace the tech that I have sent, not including what I will still be sending until our reps end, it would cost me $1,917,746,371.30. If I replace the entire amount with $3mil/100 tech deals, assuming I can get 100% perfect completion rate with 2 deals per cycle, it would take 28.25 (29) cycles, or 290 days, or 9 months, or 3/4 of a year for me to replace what I have sent. $2 billion or 9 months to rebuild only the tech reps sent from just one nation, reps aren't even done yet, and that's not including the time for reps to be sent. Additionally, the only wonders that I currently meet the requirements to buy are those prohibited by our surrender terms. I haven't bought a wonder since early January because our terms don't allow me to buy the only ones available to my nation, so that has set me back 5 months. [/quote] I think I see where you want to go with this, so I'll repeat what you quoted too, see bolding: [quote name='Jesse End' date='04 May 2010 - 08:51 PM' timestamp='1273027898' post='2287208'] Before I started shipping away my technology, [b]I had zero infrastructure and was bill locked because of the war[/b]. Before that, I was in a 3 month war against 15+ alliances. Before that, over a year ago, I had other wonders to buy and met the requirements to buy them. [/quote]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 May 2010 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1273018392' post='2286986'] You should probably have bought it before you start shipping away your technology. [/quote] Before I started shipping away my technology, I had zero infrastructure and was bill locked because of the war. Before that, I was in a 3 month war against 15+ alliances. Before that, over a year ago, I had other wonders to buy and met the requirements to buy them.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 May 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1273016979' post='2286964'] You don't have a Mining Industry Consortium. You have the resources Coal, Uranium and Oil. And you haven't bought a wonder since January? [/quote] "Requires 5,000 infrastructure, 3,000 land purchased, 1,000 technology. " I don't meet the requirements for it, which is why I said 'wonders that I currently meet the requirements to buy'.

[quote name='AirMe' date='04 May 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1273004797' post='2286688'] It would cost you 200 million but not a month. Money can be replaced, time cannot. It all comes down to what your time is worth. NPO has about as many nations to send tech as MK had in the whole alliance when we took terms, during the course of the terms we dropped to about 150 members. So your point isn't as valid as you want it to be. Plus we had probably the best banking system of the time so we were able to work as efficient as the restrictions allowed. There are a lot of tech sellers out there, they just can't sit there and wait for the sellers to come in they need to go out and find them. Plus if they are going to re-instate the revenge doctrine as some NPO members have claimed they are going to do, they will have a built in tech farm right on red. Well farm isn't really a fair term, but nations who they protect will be more willing to sell them tech. [/quote] I'll give you an example using my own nation to help you look at it from a different angle. We were restricted to only sending tech from nations with over 1k tech, so no small nation tech sellers. Because of that, you can also consider the replacement value of the tech that each of those over-1k tech nations had at the time when the war ended and reps started. I had 2740 tech when the war ended, which according to a tech calculator, is worth $511,049,309.98. When I ran out of that, I started buying it in 150 tech chunks to keep sending reps; as of today, that totals 2910 tech (not including what I currently have on hand, which will be used for more reps, plus purchasing more still), which at $2,690,637.16 per 150 tech (from tech calculator), totals $52,198,360.90. So, at my cost of the 5650 tech, I have sent $563,247,670.88 worth of tech to date. To replace the tech that I have sent, not including what I will still be sending until our reps end, it would cost me $1,917,746,371.30. If I replace the entire amount with $3mil/100 tech deals, assuming I can get 100% perfect completion rate with 2 deals per cycle, it would take 28.25 (29) cycles, or 290 days, or 9 months, or 3/4 of a year for me to replace what I have sent. $2 billion or 9 months to rebuild only the tech reps sent from just one nation, reps aren't even done yet, and that's not including the time for reps to be sent. Additionally, the only wonders that I currently meet the requirements to buy are those prohibited by our surrender terms. I haven't bought a wonder since early January because our terms don't allow me to buy the only ones available to my nation, so that has set me back 5 months.

If the original terms which were offered (before being withdrawn, re-offered, and withdrawn again) are now being declared by Gramlins as unofficial, that's yet another example of them not staying true to their word. Then they want IRON and DAWN to trust them to give reasonable terms after decommissioning their entire military in an unconditional surrender? That's hilarious.

Loucifer, it has been a privilege to work with you, make sure to drop by as much as you can. I'll still find work for you Congrats and welcome Brennan o/

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='18 April 2010 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1271653504' post='2265919'] First of all, I am not arguing that IRONs DoW was a criminal act. I am , in fact, arguing, that it at least has some basis in fact, and therein, it is debatable, as I said earlier. I categorically feel that GRE is making a huge mistake at present. At the same time, I caregorically oppose those who want to paint GRE's view of IRONs DoW as a criminal act, to be matter-of-factly a lie, an absurdity, and a falsehood. The facts do not support that. It is cause for debate, but it not clear-cut one way or another. To your second point, it IS completely wrong, beyond any matter of debate, that GREs relationship with MK was at a HIGH treaty-type level. GRE was VERY clear when they made their announcement going paperless. Their friendships and bonds would determine their military course in conflicts. Anyone who doubted the level of the relationship between those two prior to this war, is either willfully ignorant or specifically in denial of facts. [/quote] Is it your view that it is acceptable to declare war without a treaty link (aka to help friends), or do you believe it's wrong to declare war without a treaty link?

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='18 April 2010 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1271643509' post='2265692'] I love how you continue to try to speak for myself, and for my allies. You must enjoy trotting out that nonsense. Its factually quite simple. Had IRON not attacked a defensive partner of CnG, IRON would not have been attacked. More to the point, NSO had entered that war in defense of the aggressors, IRON had zero obligation to hit anyone. There is a reason their treaty was oA and and MADP. Presumable its to keep IRON out of a war that shouldnt be fought, and was only being fought because of massive egos on the side of the aggressors. That IRON decided to issue a blanket DoW on a group of alliances whos defensive treaties encompass 65% of the planet, speaks to either temporary insanity, or a death wish. Your constant postulating that CnG was headed in a beeline towards IRON, sir, is quite simply not true. [/quote] As you are arguing that IRON's DoW was a criminal act without a direct treaty link, do you feel the same way about Gramlins DoW on IRON without a direct treaty link?

[quote name='Delta1212' date='09 April 2010 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1270860744' post='2254838'] It'd really be more interesting to see the stats from the general peace declaration on. [/quote] Since its only been 6 days since April 4th, you can see them all in [url=http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=Gr%E4mlins]Gremlins currently active wars[/url]. Offensively Gramlins hit and # of wars: Independent Republic Of Orange Nations 2 The Citadel 1 Defensively Gramlins was hit by and # of wars: Democratic Alliance of Wise Nations 13 Independent Republic Of Orange Nations 21 The Citadel 3

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='16 February 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1266384446' post='2187137'] Not necessarily. As long as the aid isn't meant to help the nation at war with its war, I don't see it as an act of war. For example, a neutral party sells tech to nations at war (regardless of "sides") for commercial reasons. I don't see that as an act of war. Should that party sell tech in order to increase the battle odds of the nation at war, I see that as an act of war. [/quote] I don't think intention really has anything to do with whether the aid helps or not, but I am glad that NSO and NpO have stated that they understand our position while we continue sending reps to GOD.

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='16 February 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1266383878' post='2187121'] Everyone knows that committing an act of war (and this is really pushing that definition to the limit, given the circumstances) doesn't automatically mean you're at war, right? [/quote] You don't consider sending aid to nations at war to be committing an act of war? So the next time Créole is at war, I guess there will be no issues if another alliance organizes $15 million in aid to each of the nations that you're fighting.

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 06:08 PM' timestamp='1266368894' post='2186599'] It was this point: I was saying that many members didn't actually stay, but that you simply were recruiting new ones during the war. Looking back though, it seems there have been a few contradictions for both sides. [/quote] Yeah, we did recruit a few new members during the war, we also had some who were members already and rerolled, and there were also a few that left. There are a lot who remained through the entire time. Does that clear it up?

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1266367661' post='2186569'] I'm not sure you're reading because you keep assuming I'm trying to smear Pacifica. I mean, it's not like I posted a thread calling out GOD or anything, right? You were proven wrong because if those nations refreshed their AAs, then the count will be lower than the 30 that you had acquired. If this is the case, then relying upon this method is flawed. I did not know that NPO nations are told or that they usually refresh AA, so I had no idea that method was impractical at the time I suggested it. Basically, after around 100 days or so, these recruits would have just refreshed their AA and now, I couldn't find that they were recruits on this day. The only way therefore is to go by the nation founded date- and find how many were founded on between those dates that are members, which would take a lot of time to do since it isn't easily organized. That however is also flawed, because that doesn't mean they were members during that time. [/quote] Honestly, I don't have the slightest idea what your point is by claiming we 'recruited en masse during the war', or even what this has to do with it. Would you mind making your point more clear?

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 05:27 PM' timestamp='1266366458' post='2186532'] Wait, why do you do that? I'm not trying to prove anything other than you gained members during the war. I have no idea why you think I have some sort of conspiracy toward you. As I said earlier I don't really care if the NPO rises again. Anyway, so it seem your own claim of only 30 was proven wrong by the poster above you. If you really, and I mean, really want the data, I suggest you go to somebody like Unspeakable Evil, or perhaps Impero of VE- who had brought those numbers to my attention at the time. [/quote] My 'claim' of only 30? That's taken directly from the alliance seniority, it's not a claim, it's fact, go look it up yourself. Since you seem to be more interested in just attempting to smear us, I'll even help you out so you don't have to figure out dates -> seniority: that war started 301 days ago and ended 212 days ago. How was I proven wrong now? silentkiller gives an example of how many of those were already members of NPO, not new recruits. That's exactly what I said too. Of course we continued to recruit new members during the war, our recruitment dept is good at their job and didn't stop because we were at war. Other alliances gained members too, that's kinda how this planet works. That was explained to you twice already, are you even fully reading the responses here?

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1266361088' post='2186378'] I don't have any data [i]myself.[/i] I'm sure that somebody has statistics from that time. Even if not, one could Order the NPO by seniority and count the number that joined At the start of the Karma war to the end of the Karma war. [/quote] I even did it for you, it only took a couple minutes. There are exactly 30 nations whose AA became NPO between 4/21, 2009 and 7/19, 2009, some of whom were already long time members of the NPO. Others were likely new members because our recruitment dept didn't shut down during the war. So, now your unsubstantiated claim is further weakened by the fact that you've overstated the number of members we gained by 3 times as much, while you still don't have any data to prove whatever you're trying to prove. What exactly are you trying to prove again?

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 05:37 AM' timestamp='1266323836' post='2185455'] His answer was just quite different to your own, thus different conclusions. Except is wasn't unsubstantiated. There were literally 100+ nations having joined NPO during Karma's first week of war. I don't have any data on me, but I'm sure somebody does. These nations all had the same seniority too. In fact, if I am to believe Letum, that would mean that my original claim that 100+ nations joined NPO was correct. In fact, this was the case. I know not why this was the case, and Letum says that he may have a reason, and though that reason is a good one, it just does not fit with the majority of large alliances during a beat-down. Most large alliance have seen much larger loses than Pacifica during a war (in terms of member count I mean) and most did not have an influx of membership during said war. Besides, I don't see why saying your recruitment has done well during a war is a "conspiracy" as I have implied nothing about these numbers meaning anything sinister, just being a large outlier. Though I may just settle for Cortath's/Letum's responses and agree that the Pacifican recruiting machine is a good one, even during war, and that these numbers are relative constants, with or without wars. [/quote] By definition, if you don't have any data, as you say, then the claim is unsubstantiated. I'd say you should settle for Cortath and Letum's responses about our recruitment dept being good at their job, regardless of your attempts to smear us.

[quote name='Earogema' date='15 February 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1266293148' post='2184371']Oh I do. It's just that he ignored your response completely. As a result, I don't know the percentage of those that rerolled, and those that newly joined as a result of the turnover rate. [/quote] I didn't ask Letum anything in this discussion, so why would he need to respond to me here? You made an unsubstantiated claim of hundreds of nations joining NPO during the Karma war. Though your claim is extremely exaggerated, I gave one reason why we had new members, and Letum gave another reason. You're grasping at straws of conspiracy theories, when the answer is very simple, and not much different from any other alliance in an extended-length beatdown war, except for that Pacificans are less likely to abandon their home.

[quote name='Fantastico' date='16 February 2010 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1266307030' post='2185241'] I wonder what the reception here would be had the NPO done the right thing and refused to comply? edit, grammar fail [/quote] I'm fairly sure that all of the G15 who are holding us under terms would then attack us for violating surrender terms.

[quote name='Fireandthepassion' date='16 February 2010 - 12:40 AM' timestamp='1266306004' post='2185215'] You can not suspend something that does not exist. FOK, ROK and a few others are not owed reps. How can you meet requirements that no longer exist? Why would you approach someone that you don't owe reps and have to meet any sort of minimal payments to? [/quote] Like I've said many times already, as a signatory to our terms, they enforce our terms, including the minimum monthly requirements. We contacted them to ensure that we were covering all of our bases while GOD does not have enough aid slots to possibly meet minimum requirements. How many times do I have to say this before you understand?

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='16 February 2010 - 12:37 AM' timestamp='1266305828' post='2185203'] So which alliances actually had reps due to them still from NPO? Oh don't tell me they're all in FOK's situation now and you're using this number of 14/15 agreeing to suspend reps when most of them don't have any reps due to them as a blatant PR slam attempt [/quote] We currently owe varying amounts of reps to Ordo Verde, Viridian Entente, Global Order of Darkness, Vanguard, Greenland Republic, Athens, RnR, =LOST=, DICE. All agreed to a suspension of reps with the exception of GOD.

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='16 February 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1266305510' post='2185188'] Like I said, I look forward to seeing polaris recognizing a state of war with pacifica. Well yeah, I meant specifically which alliances. I don't believe that's actually mentioned here at all. [/quote] All with the exception of GOD. [quote name='Fireandthepassion' date='16 February 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1266305514' post='2185190'] You do realize you just defeated your argument and validated everything WC has been saying about those not having reps not suspending right? It also kind of validates Xiphosis' (Legion NoFISH maybe) about how this is a PR attempt to make GOD look bad by saying 14/15 have agreed to suspended parts of the surrender when obligations of payments had ended. [/quote] Validated his argument of what now? With the exception of GOD, all other alliances that hold us under terms have agreed to a suspension of reps and minimums. /me spins on the record player

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='16 February 2010 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1266305194' post='2185168'] What alliances suspended their reps? [/quote] If you actually read this thread, you must have a really short memory. Everyone that we owe reps to, except for GOD, suspended their reps.