Rafael Nadal

I don't know who on our front was on the Valhalla front. I'm well aware of how the topic on the boards went, however, we agreed that each front would handle their own surrender, since obviously (you and airme have both conceded this) having all alliances under the Karma banner in on talks wouldn't work very well, if at all. So, if you're mad that people on the Valhalla front told you to shut your mouth, please take that up with those on the Valhalla front. I'm not asking you to shut your mouth, I'm asking you to stop projecting your anger on those who don't deserve it.

I understand how things chain, cause and effect. I ask of you the same questions I asked Airme. And still, the Valhalla terms had nothing to do with our front. We didn't disregard your advice, wishes, etc, so please, don't unload that on us.

So...how well do you think it would have gone to try to get all 60? + Karma alliances in on a discussion, and then agree on terms? How long would that have taken? 6 months? A year? Would there ever be an agreement reached? There was no way to have overall Karma negotiations. What of the alliances on the Karma boards who didn't consider themselves Karma? Would we just negotiate without them, leave them all alone? If they're not Karma, then they won't be on Karma surrender terms. I'm curious?

Wow. Would you like to contain your anger about other fronts, to those fronts please? The fact that alliances, such as Valhalla, got off light, was out of our control, right or wrong, so you chastising people like Sethb over it is just plain misdirected. You can continue to carry that grudge if you like, but carry it with those who settled on the Valhalla terms.

Once again, literally. Are you trying to say that we honored our treaty with the intent of procuring money from this venture? That would be the only way extortion would apply, when accounting for the connotation. In the case of the above, yes, reparations would be a euphemism for money extorted. Being as the motivation for getting involved in this war was not the procurement of money and tech (we do still incur an overall loss), accounting for the connotation, extortion does not apply. So, in our case, reparations is not a euphemism for anything. Also, might I add, that when discussion opened on NPO's terms, we received unconditional support, for anything we came up with, from TOP. Edit: In regards to your add-on, it asserts connotations make usage incorrect. Languages evolve, which you're not accounting for. Then we'll agree to disagree.

My guess would be nowhere near, unless we all go great war free for a few years and NPO racks up the grievances again.

I think you don't understand 1) How expensive war is, and to rebuild from it, and 2) How much OV lost. I can guarantee you well, well over 1 billion in damage was done to OV.

I guess you should hope you're well entrenched in the treaty web.

War does that, without reparations payments. If you think the new world will be devoid of war, I've got news for you. Also, if you don't think NPO is coming back to be a world power, right around when their terms are up, I've got more news for you.

Are you going to nitpick at CN's use of the term "white peace" as well? In the very literal definition, we did extort. Yes, we used force procure money. If NPO never agreed to reparations, the amount immaterial, they would still be in a state of war with us. Congratulations on using the most literal definition of the word. I don't know about you, but when I, and others, communicate, we use more than just 100% literal definitions. We take all sorts of things into consideration, such as connotations, and what certain words have come to mean. We don't live in a 100% literal world, and we accommodate for it. Extortion has the connotation of illegally using power to wring money from some person or entity. Essentially, a person would go in to a situation with the purpose of procuring large amounts of money. Let's look at the word connotation, root word connote, shall we? That's not to say your complete literal definition is wrong, but I just hate to see you become dazed and confused and possibly misunderstand, by not understanding that we don't communicate in a 100% literal fashion. Cheers. Edit: Grammar. [ooc]Also, I felt like working in dazed and confused because it came on random while I was typing up this response, sue me. [/occ]

You're going at this from the viewpoint that alliances came up with numbers that they wanted, and then we summed a total from those. In fact, it was the opposite. As a front, yes this includes those not taking reps as well, we agreed that 10 bil and 350k tech was a right amount. Actually, myself, I felt that the monetary portion was rather light, taking into consideration that two weeks of war would do well over 3 billion in damages to NPO. However, beyond 10 billion, and especially because the packets of money and tech are separate, a practical limit was reached. Once we decided on the total amount NPO should pay, we then allotted it. How much goes to each alliance is immaterial, as long as the totals don't exceed a practical ability to pay along the time frame of the terms. We decided what we wanted NPO to lose, not what each alliance wanted.

agreed

If the reps shares had come to a point where it would take significantly longer than the 6 months already written in the terms, then we very well might have. Edit: That also runs into issues totally unrelated to the actual breakdown of reps. We tacked on additional reps in exchange for scratching the two weeks of war. Every alliance on the front would, at least in theory, would take part in the war, as in, nobody would refuse the war as they would refuse the reparations. So, by diminishing the reparations, we are lessening the trade for the two weeks of war, which is already a great deal for NPO, seeing as their costs incurred would be much greater than 3 bil and 50k tech from the two weeks of war.

There are several factors why OV's own share of the reps are high. First, when discussing terms for NPO, we came up with overall numbers for NPO to pay to all alliances. It wasn't until after NPO signed the terms that we allotted the reparations. Secondly, not all alliances are taking reparations, meaning each alliance receiving reps is receiving a larger share than they otherwise would have. Thirdly, being that OV was the alliance originally attacked, we felt their share of the reparations receieved should be the most, or quite near the most, of any alliance on the front. The argument that this reps amount was chosen to purposely extend NPO's terms is, quite frankly, ridiculous. If you all don't recall, the terms last at least 6 months, as that was a term written in to the surrender terms. We don't need the rep amounts to manipulate the time on the terms. If anybody else has any incorrect accusations, misguided anger, etc feel free to let me know, and then be corrected.

This is good to see. Congrats to all. Uhh, what?

NCC as a General? I think our treaty is coming up for review pretty soon. >_>

Anyways, a good piece of work. Congrats SirPaul.

If the channel offends you, leave the channel. It's a simple solution. If you don't want to associate with SLCB, don't idle in their channel. If you don't want SLCB in your channel, ban them.

This flag is legendary.

I am irc neutral.

I guess if TPF really wanted peace, they'd accept these terms. However, since they have not, I assume TPF does not desire peace.

Those terms are considerably lighter than I was expecting. Good luck with your decision TPF.

This monumental change will shake CN to its very core. Congrats iFOK on being proactive.

Have fun Stickmen.

Lol, holy !@#$.