Dankbud

Still have 3 slots left. Please doon't offer me deals if you are in a war.

Nation link: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=27300 5 slots open Middlemen welcome to speed the deal up.

4 slots have opened up.

Still have 2 slots

Another 3 slots are now open

2 slots have opened up. thanks to everyone that has contacted me!

6 more slots open.

3 slots filled 3 more to go

6 slots open link: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=27300

looking for renewable deal preferably, but will take what i can get. nation link: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=27300

This will be my last post in this thread. Reps are worthless at this point in the game. All of these alliance that were given huge reps recently were able to regrow because nations are huge and wonders allow nations to rebuild at ridiculous rates. Even in the scenario where we got 10k tech from Val that is what, 100 tech from each Val nation on average exchanged between the 2 sides? That's mere pocket change. Nations that buy tech easily afford to do so so being abel to save 6m makes a minimal difference. And the small nations that deal gets them a free 3m, and in most alliances they get that 3m on a regular basis either thru tech deals or as a method of building that nation. The impact of reps on either side at this point is not as great as it once was when nations were young at the hit was more impactful. The only way to meaningfully impact a nations or alliances ability grow as a whole is to have them decom wonders and improvements like factories and labor camps. PB is flooded with tech and money, it is what it has become. Not sure how much sense I am making but I feel there is a point in there somewhere. 0/ booze

No, their feelings did matter. If you read the whole post you would have seen the part where we voted on whether or not to change our charter to impose harsher terms. If we didn't care at all it would never have gone that far. And for an alliance to change their charter in order to appease "friends" is a huge thing, wouldn't you say?

In case any of you were wondering, if Valhalla declared on us and we were on the defensive side against them, reps would have been levied. The whole "white peace" or lenient terms comes about because we were the aggrssors in this war. I cannot justify picking a fight, beating the crap out of my opponent and then stealing his money while calling him names or making him act like a pig. That's our alliance, those are our beliefs. To us past transgression of Valhalla never factored into the terms since those transgressions were not against us as an alliance. I can't speak for my compatriots who shared this front with us but I think the sentiments would be the same. And the fact is, we put up a vote for our alliance to amend our charter to allow harsher terms and it was emphatically voted down. So it isn't like we didn't make any attempt to respect those we are fighting with and try to ease their anger for Valhalla did to them in the past. In the end our principles and beliefs won out, as they should have. It is not meant as a slap in the face of those that were wronged in the past and wanted harsher terms, believe me. But what would it look like if a young alliance such as ours, which came together because we so strongly shared beliefs changed our foundation and charter the first time we were asked? Lastly, there were only a couple ways to go with peace terms with Valhalla: 1. Light terms that give them a second chance. 2. Change of leadership to try to force change as in the Polar war. 3. Disbandment Anything else would have been moot. And since disbandment and lforced leaedership change are both something we don't believe in it is something that could never happen. As stated before, asking for any amount of tech or extended mil decom or even the decomming of wonders/improvements would have only delayed Valhalla from coming back a month or so while at the same time galvanzing them only more.

I'm not playing, it is who I am. I have tried holding grudges, it just doesn't happen. There are better ways to spend energy. But then again some people just can't let go of the past.

We would have fought any target we were assigned, believe me on that. And we would have fough to ZI. The battles we fought against Valhalla were isolated for our alliance. And for diplomacy, I am not amongst the ones that came out and publically reprimanded their allies about peace terms making ties on the Karma side more tenuous. Things like this are better kept to private channels. All you have accomplished is showing OUR enemies weakness amongst OUR ranks. And then to further compund the problem with beligerence? I weep if you represent your alliances diplomatic team. You are doing yourself less favors with your display of complaining so heatedly about something so trifling as peace terms.

Thanks for the answer Tyga. And to those that have been less than cordial, I don't hold it against you. Anger brings out the worst in people and sometimes things get said in haste. And for those that will remain angry over this, I pity you. We don't believe in handing out punishments that we ourselves wouldn't accept no matter the "middle ground" or beyond that has been proposed as more fitting terms. It is just a case of different philosophies. I hope you can eventually see past this.

Yes, we were the wrong ones to send against Valhalla to acheive the peace terms you all so passionately desire. I have problem admitting this as the evidence of it is quite clear. Some alliances stand by their principals, it is an honor thing. If you can't be true to your own beliefs then what is there left? What more is there to be said? Valhalla probably did deserve harsher terms once oyou factor in past transgressions, but it was against those "much-vaunted principals" to hand out those terms. For us, this was an isolated incident against them as was dealt as such. You do seem to have a good grasp of the basic reasons behind it, but your anger over this seems to being causing some undue backlash. I don't see why we need to be lectured about running our alliances the way we want to.

Tyga, let me ask you this: You were beat down bad and it was due to you being loyal to your allies. And even moreso it was caused because someone started a war they had no reason to. Then on top of that you were forced to apy large reps. Wouldn't you say that all of that led you to be more angry and aggesive to the perpetrators? Wouldn't you also say that the grudge that probably developed from that only made you want to crush those same perpetrators even more if the opportunuity came? And if so then why would you want those same actions performed on any other alliance knowing how that made you and your alliance feel? I know you want Valhalla to pay for what they did to you, and you may yet get that at some point in the future, but can't you see that doing this to Valhalla would make us no better than they are?

And that is where it comes back to my original point: We were the wrong group to send in against Valhalla. Sure we did enough damage in the fighting but our morals/ethics and lack of being hurt by Valhalla in the past firsthand is what lead to these terms. It has nothing to do with the "feel-good train". It has everything to do with sticking by fundamental beliefs of our alliances and how we conduct ourselves during war and when handing out peace terms. By allowing harsher peace terms (IE: peace terms you are looking for) would be against our beliefs, even as just as they might be through yours or others viewpoints. I, for one, cannot justify going against those fundamental beliefs and break charter because others want it despite the fact they were not on the same battlefront.

Are you really hypothesizing that any alliance involved in a war where they are getting into peace term talks are to ask all of their allies if the terms presented are okay with them even thought they didn't fight in that war/battle? I think that is going a bit in far in trying to appease your friends. Should alliances now let their allies dictate certain terms? That corrupts their sovreingty. I am not one to break ones morals because a friend asks me to. That friend should know my views and how I deal with situations. And at the same time our alliance won't sign a treaty with someone that doesn't already know how we operate in war and is against such methods.

I know of what they did, I have been around long enough. But experiencing it first hand and experiencing it as a bystandard are 2 different things. If person A kills person B and I have no tie to person B I am certianly not going to be as upset as if person B had been a friend or family member. I am not going to take personal stake in what happens to person A in the first scenario. And that is the big difference that lead to these terms.

There is no arrogance about it. I do wish things were different and someone hit Valhalla that would have given them the terms that everyone wants. I hate seeing us, that are fighting in the same side, getting so heated about this. But it is what it is. We were assigned to Valhalla and we stuck by our beliefs in how peace terms should be handled. Different alliances, different views. I don't see what is so wrong with that. Like I said, it was our war and thus it was up to us to determine the peace terms.

You want to know what the biggest problem is? The alliances that were put on task to attack Valhalla (Umb and Kronos) are 2 newer alliances is the grand scheme of things. And while some of their members have been wronged by Valhalla in the past neither of those alliances as a whole have been wronged by them. We never felt what you angry alliances felt torwards Valhalla. In truth, it should have been your alliances that hit Val, but saldy, for you, it didn't work out that way. It is unfortuante really. But what it simply comes down to is that this was OUR war this time around and WE get to dictate the terms. I'm sorry you don't agree with them, but that time has passed. Nothing anyone is saying at this point is helping the matter. Just let it be. Please.

i feel compelled to post in this topic.

arredondo will eventually replace fuentes. have faith. and be happy that adenhart pitched so well after not being so great last year in AAA.