Dankbud
-
Posts
42 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Dankbud
-
-
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
-
Really?
There were only three options for peace?
Im frankly shocked. Did you receive a list of what surrender terms Valhalla would consider beforehand, or something?
As I said in this post here, terms can be harsh, yet fair.
Based on what Ive seen, you folks were completely uninterested in fair terms of punishment for Valhalla's many transgressions. I suppose it's your perogative, though, as no one else's feelings mattered, and if they want to punish Valhalla themselves, they can do so after you stop protecting them.
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.
-
That crap don't fly, buddy. Playing magnanimous is still just spitting in everyone's face. Ill go to sleep tonight, wake up tomorrow, and still think what was done was a load of !@#$%^&*. Because it was.
And because what you did was such an insult, that is where the anger comes from. I find it hilarious that your measuring stick for "acceptable terms" is what you would take yourselves.
That's marvelous. Thanks for making me laugh.
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.
-
You aren't running your alliance. This is about diplomacy. This is about doing right by your allies who are fighting tougher opponents so you did not have to.
And you crapped all over several of those allies. Congratulations. You have done an awesome job showing off your pretentiousness for all to see.
I swear to god...For you the war was an "isolated incident"? And you saw fit to base your treatment of them based only on this "isolated incident"?
How much more arrogant can you get? Wait...thats right, you could be Valhalla or the NPO.
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.
-
So...once again, you admit to being the wrong folks to send against Valhalla. When the issue comes up of surrender terms, you decide to flip your allies who did suffer at their hands the bird and go with your much-vaunted "principles", right?
And when people say that's messed up, you essentially say "screw off, you didnt fight them, so you don't have a say in it". And then you twist the knife a little by saying "Well, they didnt hurt us in the past, so we figured they didn't deserve it as badly as you think they did."
That seems to be the gist. Thanks for clearing that up.
!@#$, man.
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.
-
Last war the STA went from 2.2 million NS to 350K NS in a month of war against 18 alliances. We were then forced to pay 12K in tech, 250 million in cash, cancel all our treaties with no signing new treaties for 6 months, destruction of hidden silo wonders and all military improvements, decommission all military with a maximum of 30% troops and no outside aid other than tech deals with Valhalla and others who signed the terms for the terms duration of 6 months.
So, yes, Nizzle, do tell me of sacrifice in war for I clearly do not know what it means or feels like.
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?
-
You misinterpret how "diplomacy" works. And a large part of that is Empathy. Because of a stroke of ill-chance, your allies are denied justice to right wrongs done unto them, and then you refuse to even tell them beforehand of this travesty of justice?
Of course, your soveriegnty is far more important than empathy to their plight. I hope that when your mistakes come back to haunt you folks, they bite you in the rear. You slapped your allies in the face with these terms. And I have no small suspicoun the reason you didn't inform the Valhalla victims beforehand was specifically because they would have protested against your self-righteous pissing.
Keep the feel-good train going and whatnot.
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.
-
You could have consulted your allies about it. Asked what they thought.
Based on AirMe's reaction, I think it's fair to say that the thought never crossed your mind.
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.
-
Oh so you are ignorant of what they did in the past cause you are so young and never had the privledge of witnessing their crimes first hand, thus that excuses you from making a terrible mistake. I gotcha.
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.
-
That is a horribly arrogant way to look at it.
And makes you look far more like tools for saying it.
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.
-
I'm posting in this thread an angry man as [ooc] Brian Fuentes and the Angels just choked away a four run lead, simultaneously ruining the 6 innings of shutout ball thrown by Nick Adenhart who is on my fantasy team, costing me the W for his outing. Thus, in this angered state [/ooc] this new alliance sucks, especially Epiphanus. Also, anybody protecting this alliance sucks. Also, Kronar Applicant AA sucks.
Good luck guys, you can thank me later for my blessings.
[22:07] <Epiphanus> POST IN IT OR DIE
[22:07] <rafael_nadal-away> that should be expected
[22:07] <rafael_nadal-away> also
[22:07] <rafael_nadal-away> i'm currently watching the Angels choke away a lead
[22:07] <rafael_nadal-away> a 4 run lead
I posted, happy now?
arredondo will eventually replace fuentes. have faith. and be happy that adenhart pitched so well after not being so great last year in AAA.
Buying 50 tech for 3m
in Black Market
Posted
Still have 3 slots left. Please doon't offer me deals if you are in a war.