Rafael Nadal

[img]http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b228/Avitus/lueshiflagzs3.png[/img] The revoLUEtion is glorious. [b]SaLUEte[/b]

Why did you make a topic and blog post of the exact same thing?

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='30 March 2010 - 11:04 AM' timestamp='1269972266' post='2241201'] AirMe, Reparations figures were voted on and accepted by the Heptagon Council two days past. We are standing under a flag of truce attempting to comply with the terms that we have been given, and we are still getting attacked. We are defeated, we have admitted this, and we have agreed to the cost of peace. Apparently the bloodlust of some alliances has not been adequately slaked. [/quote] There has been no agreed upon truce, and the ceasefire that is being discussed has little to do with hammering out the other terms between CnG and TOP.

[quote name='Some-Guy' date='30 March 2010 - 10:44 AM' timestamp='1269971023' post='2241188'] We voted on and accepted the figure of reparations. [/quote] You may have accepted the figure, but I'm pretty we still had the surrounding terms to come to a consensus on.

Not accept. But seriously, you've been awesome in Vanguard. Take care.

Definitely understand where this is coming from. Sad indeed that ARES have lost multiple treaties recently. I wish them luck in turning things around, though I realistically don't see it happening.

Orly? TOP, not counting any nations they might still have off AA, has 463k tech. Please provide me with the information that we have asked for more than 463k tech. Thanks babe.

That's not what the definition says. The definition has no numbers. You're now applying your own subjective logic to the objective definition. YOU LOSE, GOOD DAY SIR. This topic, lol.

We're accepting applicants at this point in time.

[quote name='KainIIIC' date='10 March 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1268254518' post='2221228'] I'm sure all of those alliances would get along extremely well, especially NSO and Sparta... and somehow Gre would have to go back the paper route? [b]I'm still holding out on NPO joining C&G.[/b] In any event, to all those complaining out there, neo-Hegemony is just a lazy, easier way of categorizing the large group of alliances associated with the "Hegemony" pre-Karma, and that side of the treaty web. If you were a participant for the non-Karma, non-SuperComplaints side in any of the last 3 wars, then you're probably part of the neo-Hegemony. What can be done about it? Well, the easiest would be to hope that SuperComplaints fights itself over. By treaties, they aren't linked very strongly, and creating that link was one of the important steps to establishing the Karma coalition that took down NPO. However, after (and in large part because of) the TPF war and the current conflict, i'd say the two blocs are closer than ever. However, it only took 8 months for three solidly aligned blocs (SF, LEO, Cit) to the NPO to abandon based on the justifications and momentum for war. If you think about the Polar-\m/ conflict, and had IRON/TOP got itself in through more traditional means (through purple or NSO, for example) and peace not been declared, you would have had a very even battlefield, possibly one tilted towards the Polar side. That scenario was not to be, however, as we all know. But given that we probably aren't going to have a war until another 10 months or so, don't be surprised to see significant FA changes, or even a 'Karma Civil War'. As far as the 'Neo-Hegemony' alliances go, what they really have to do is outgame the other side and connect themselves and 'win' certain alliances over outside of the treaty web. The first of course would be that 'BLUnity 2.0' section, but after that they need to begin winning back over groups like LEO and individual alliances of NOIR (not named Sparta). Or regain MHA/Ex-Citadel. All are really hard tasks. Entrenching yourself to either SF or to C&G though, may turn out disappointing. C&G for example did not bat at all for Polar's side despite being heavily connected to them. [/quote] Whoever leaked that is getting pzi'd.

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='08 March 2010 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1268106029' post='2218773'] Dude he is trying to be cool. Don't blow his spot up man. Finally, something with substance. I can understand this as you present it respectfully with interesting rhetoric, the question that surfaces is: When does it become excessive? Though these terms are payable now (For argument sake, we'll just agree), lets say TOP gets murdered down to 2m NS..are these terms still going to be the same terms? because the whole "it'll take 61 days," now turns into 7+ months if you get what I am saying. I am just wondering what your stance is pertaining to socio-economical status. [/quote] No, the amounts would not stay at the same levels, if I were solely making them. How much they would go down is up in the air as I don't know any specifics of member retention at that point, how much tech they've moved off AA, how much tech they still have on AA, etc, not to mention the states of our own alliances at such a point in time.

As far as I'm concerned, our first offer was a serious offer, and a fair one at that, considering that half the tech doesn't even have to come from TOP's own tech stockpiles they currently possess. I, and others, didn't feel like going through a huge process of lopping of 25k, 50k tech here and there to get to a level where we want. In essence, we cut the !@#$%^&*. The amounts we offered, at least in this CnG leader's mind, are pretty damn firm, and there is very little room for haggling over the reps amounts. Other terms encasing the amounts are more open to negotiation than the amounts themselves. Edit: I guess you can take this an official Vanguard statement of policy, considering that I make it. Also, I am but one leader in CnG, and ultimately have the distinct possibility of being in the minority.

NEEDZ MOAR SOME-GUY Also, good luck with the shuffle. Also, Bob Sanders made this topic worth reading.

[quote name='Some-Guy' date='28 February 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1267395779' post='2208876'] It's a brave new world baby! PS: TOP's MOFA supported harsh reps for NPO [/quote] Yes, I remember that post.

This is something I can get behind. Edit: The $%&@? I quoted ditching MK, but it didn't show up. Hmmph. Probably the work of MK, thus more fodder for the expel MK faction.

[quote name='Vespassianus' date='19 February 2010 - 12:46 PM' timestamp='1266612407' post='2192393'] You are right, but from 30 only 17 of them are in anarchy, at least their stat page says this. Altough Aircastle is still a positive suprise for me in this war, when they fought they fought hard and now they gained some war experience. [/quote] They helped us out massively with keeping people out of peace mode, ie: declared way more wars than they otherwise would have. Now that the rest of us were able to cycle out of the first round or so of nuke anarchy, we can afford to give them a break and allow them a round or two to collect, re-arm, and re-organize themselves.

[quote name='Raunchero' date='19 February 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1266615724' post='2192456'] Indeed we do, and we did not strike first until we were provoked to. Regardless, good fight on both sides. [/quote] I'm not really sure how those two statements work together, but I really don't care, soooooooooo...ok.

[quote name='zzniperr' date='19 February 2010 - 09:39 AM' timestamp='1266601189' post='2192209'] We did not send out alliance-wide messages calling your leaders fascists, in fact our response to your terms and such were much in the same vein, minus this Vogon poetry All is fair in love and war- MCXA has a nuclear no first-use policy. This was explained, but of course, it is always down to our foes to decide whether or not they wish to reciprocate. I had good chats with many of the enemy, and I was lucky enough to be counter-attacked by Divi Filius. If he and the 3 other FOK 'enemies' I encountered are representative of their alliance, I can only wish FOK the best for the future, it was a pleasure fighting you. Good luck NADC and Echelon with the rebuild. [/quote] All is fair in love and war, but you have a no first strike nuke policy?

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 02:07 PM' timestamp='1266530878' post='2190327'] I seem to remember negotiating a peace settlement with an Orange alliance once. Said Orange alliance initially insisted on a white peace after having launched an unprovoked attack, decimating the upper tier of its opponent. I - and some other diplomats - got that alliance to agree to pay reps. However that wasn't in the starting position. That alliance was yours. [/quote] Unprovoked? So Universalis and Pain weren't attacked by Legion, pre-emptively? Also, if you recall, most of our insistence upon white peace was because that's what was being discussed by the other parties in the war. The peace broke down between Uni and Legion not due to the lack of reps in the peace, but due to Legion's unwilligness to go along with the apologies asked of both sides. So, when peace talks started for the rest of us, white peace was the peace being discussed. That's not to say I think we should have paid reps, since we were drawn in from Legion's &#$@-up of a pre-emptive attack, but that's purely ideological. Also, if by some other diplomats, you mean Continuum, then I agree. The rest of purple entering was unfazing to us, especially considering we had considerable support behind us willing to come in. In the end, we decimated Legion's upper tier and paid back 120 mil and 700 tech, plus participated in a few tech deals. If you want to take credit for that, go ahead. Congrats, you should really slap yourselves on your backs for that one. Legion received reps for a few reasons. First, Universalis had informed us of their intention to delete after firing their nukes, so it was pointless for us to continue taking damage, however little Legion was inflicting. Secondly, we were aware of Continuum's support of Legion and purple, even if some of it's support for Legion was begrudging. We realized that eventually the other war at the time would shape up in a way that would allow Continuum to lend more quality support against us. And third, the reps were so little that it wasn't worth pushing our luck and having Continuum be able to come against us. Instead we escaped with nothing of any real consequence to pay, while we were able to wreak havoc on Legion. Sure, ideologically we didn't deserve to pay any reps, but realistically we needed to to keep our operation such an overwhelming success.

I'll just say this, lol NAP. Nobody wants NAP's any more, least of anybody, myself.

[quote name='HellAngel' date='17 February 2010 - 01:10 PM' timestamp='1266441015' post='2187958'] Its a catch-22 Delta. TOP members think any offer of reparations will most likely be ridiculously high and therefor they reject it in general, while CnG thinks TOP will reject any offer and therefor doesnt make any. Thats just to explain whats happening, i still think it's too early to talk about reparations... we gotta fight the war first. [/quote] No, it's not a catch 22. It has been said on several occasions that TOP would not accept anything but white peace. If TOP was willing to accept reps, but not become a tech farm, then the line of thought and speech would have been "we're not going to accept harsh terms." Also, I agree with you, I'd rather see the war continue on before talks start happening. Edit: If TOP is now no longer holding the "white peace or bust" line of thinking, then perhaps there is room for discussion.

[quote name='Bilrow' date='17 February 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1266444555' post='2188083'] Hahaha....double standards in CyberNations....never [/quote] Yes, MK refused to grant permission for you to postpone reps payments.

It's like StevieG is my twin or something, excepting the name. Liverpool

[quote name='popsumpot' date='16 February 2010 - 04:40 PM' timestamp='1266367239' post='2186556'] I didn't know CnG was made up entirely of MK and GR. [/quote] You're right, it's not. However, CnG as a whole can't want something if 2 of the signatories don't go along with it. :mysterysolved:

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='16 February 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1266355617' post='2186182'] It worked on several other fronts. The primary dispute was over, and other fronts were permitted to peace out, no questions asked, despite aggression in many cases. [b]This is what is getting you compared to the Hegemony. You are essentially saying that you are going to completely crush TOP (and presumably everyone else in their coalition too). Yes, it's only been 2 cycles so far, but the intention is clear.[/b] Because it's white peace now or white peace later, and you're going to take more damage every day the war continues. Certainly, so will TOP, but this is not a world containing only you and TOP. Your strength and influence is reduced by every nuke you eat. In addition, public opinion begins to turn against those who stomp down their opponents indefinitely. The same applies to this – if you 'lose' now, you will lose much worse if you stay at war, eating 5k+ tech nukes for an extended period of time. [/quote] I really don't care to get into this, however, I don't foresee there being crippling reps along with a beatdown. Not to mention, a good percentage of us will also be crushed in this war, whereas the hegemony was infamous for the curbstomps and/or crushing reps and other diplomatic shenanigans.