Denial

[quote name='Jrenster' date='08 April 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1270690420' post='2252482'] I counter your smug with my smug [img]http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/467/nsosmugsmall.png[/img]. [/quote] Roll NSO.

All aboard the smug train! [quote name='Kevin McDonald' date='08 April 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1270688322' post='2252398'] Congratulations, MK. Which alliance will you disband first? [/quote] Athens.

[quote name='Jens of the desert' date='07 April 2010 - 09:03 AM' timestamp='1270593164' post='2250806'] http://www.cybernations.net/allNations_display_alliances.asp?Alliance=LUEnited%20Nations Are you talking about those two 200ns nations? [/quote] Notice the time difference between your post and mine? Yeah.

[quote name='Alterego' date='06 April 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1270531946' post='2250077'] ^This The alliances who are protesting are full of crap and are 100% supporting Gramlins war without end. The war is not over all those alliances who peaced out are still in the war, just not fighting at the moment. They are letting gramlins do this and are using the comically weak e-layer argument that they are powerless to stop Gramlins from their eternal war and powerless to stop them selves attacking any alliance who helps IRON. Make no mistake the alliances who "peaced" out are not at peace and are still in this war and either want IRON kept in perpetual war or want people to re-enter the war so they can once again say they were not the aggressors. If they really wanted this to end they would withdraw support for Gramlins which would be the logical thing to do if Gramlins really slapped their allies of the moment with this rogue move. I doubt this will happen because C&G & Co are happy with this situation. It keeps alliances that were part of our side split and forces us to watch, powerless to do anything to stop their power trip and attempted humiliation of their vanquished enemy and their allies who can only watch on or be obliterated too should we try to stop this outrage. [/quote] [i]Everything[/i] is a plot to set up IRON. [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/frantic.gif[/img] Need I remind you again of your comments, just days ago, that were urging all of us to peace out without Gremlins?

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='06 April 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1270524597' post='2249975'] I could have swore people said we had many many more off our AA. [/quote] There were. The return of members previously on false AAs has been a gradual process over the last week (as peace looked likely). At the peak of the conflict, the TOP AA contained roughly 190 members, showing that at least 23 have returned so far. [quote name='supercoolyellow' date='06 April 2010 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1270524463' post='2249969'] If only you could get that 1.5 score sitting in Vanguard to "Come Home" you could be sanctioned [/quote] Some people are just making the most of being able to fly the Vanguard or LUE AA for a few more days.

Congratulations to OMFG and best of luck to their new government.

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 11:52 PM' timestamp='1270473707' post='2249033'] I am glad you have abandoned your attacks and seen that I am right after all [/quote] I expect to see you in the front row of Denial's School for Gifted Rulers shortly [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/eng101.gif[/img] [quote name='Bob Janova' date='05 April 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1270473460' post='2249028'] Denial, as usual you are expending many words and leafing through the thesaurus to try to bury a bad argument in mountains of verbiage. The bad argument in this case is that 'inflation' somehow justifies much higher tech reps than in the past.[/quote] Okay, okay, I get it. You have vocabulary envy. Can we get past this and you can stop using this same line as a preface to every post you direct towards me? Also, I'll reiterate, for the fourth time, when I used the word inflation, I did not mean 'an increase in price' but used it as a synonym for 'expansion' or 'augmentation'. You, like Letum, have chosen to be purposely ignorant of this fact and consistently created strawmen. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='05 April 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1270473460' post='2249028'] Using this idea of membership size and proportionality, to demand over 250k from TOP is much worse than 350k from NPO, and much worse than 85k from MK in noCB too. ... C&G has now taken far more in reps than everyone else in history, and it looks increasingly like the Karma talk of 'proportionality' was simply a smokescreen.[/quote] As per usual, your argument falls apart quite rapidly. I'll say this to you using words that I have seen used in your own posts, so it's easier for you to comprehend (and it will save you time from not having to include your normal preface in your reply!): If you read on through Azaghul's writing, and through my posts, the idea of proportionality in determining reparations from aggressive alliances does not only take into account the number of members, but the amount of technology remaining at the conclusion of the war. Just a mere two sentences after the Azaghul quote you provided, he states "Athens had to send off 7/8ths of its tech..." I assume you intentionally discarded that part from your 'analysis'. I would recommend reading the entirety of Azaghul's post there, Bob Janova, as I am sure you would find it enlightening. Additionally, your accusation that proportionality was a "smokescreen" in Karma is entirely baseless. The exact same notions that were applied throughout Karma War were applied throughout the Bipolar War, including this peace settlement. Not to mention that it is laughable to claim that there is any similarity between Mushroom Kingdom paying reparations for defending its allies, and TOP paying reparations for aggressively attacking an entire bloc. By very definition, sizeable reparations were necessary in this peace settlement, and TOP leadership admitted as such.

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1270472382' post='2249016'] The alliance that has 800k tech is in a better absolute position than the one that has 50k tech, and will continue to be as such after reps, so it is natural someone would "rather" be in that position. [/quote] Thanks. I'm glad we agree

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1270465556' post='2248946'] Furthermore, if it were not for the precedents set by you, I would have thought 270k tech as unthinkable today.[/quote] And with this, we have finally drawn your underlying motivation out into the open. As I had suspected earlier, you are motivated only by the pursuit of excusing Pacifican crimes of the past, with your posts amounting to nothing other than factually inacurracte criticisms of Complaints & Grievances, coupled with a dash of the Pacifican victim complex. You see, this statement goes to the heart of what we are discussing here. As the total technology held by individuals and alliances have increased over time, so have the absolute number in reparations extracted at the conclusion of conflicts. This is a process that is not limited to the Hegemony, the Karma War, or the Bipolar War; rather, it is something that has transcended all politics and continued unabated. This is why the only valid, honest method of making a comparison between the severity of peace agreements is not Letum's "gee, let's see which one has more digits" but to investigate the proportion of technology that had to be transferred, in combination with the burden it put on that alliance. [quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1270465556' post='2248946'] Psychological factors are also not quantifiable, nor material. You can claim just about anything as being psychologically detrimental, including "you were mean to me" or, "I do not trust you". Trying to assess the actual strain upon an alliance based on it has no hard data and forms a slippery slope that can be used to justify or condemn just about anything.[/quote] So, because it is not quantifiable, it is not relevant? Also, there are factors that are quite clearly more detrimental to an alliance than others - for example, the disparity in psychological consequence between an alliance having to transfer 90% of its technology and being subject to a few nasty comments in the public arena. You are being intentionally obtuse. [quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1270465556' post='2248946'] If that is wrong, then please explain how, ceteris paribus, had TOP held a tech level of 800,000 at this moment, they would consequently be able to pay more reps. Would their nations have more slots? no. Are their nations currently unable to self-buy tech if they ran out, giving them an advantage if they had a larger pool? no. Ergo, the factor of total tech level is irrelevant when judging ability to pay.[/quote] As you have brought up - both in the description of your own reparations payments and this hypothetical situation - the method of firstly using surplus, remaining technology at the conclusion of a war, and then supplementing that, if necessary with self-bought technology, I will ask you this. Would you rather be in: A) A TOP that possesses 50k technology and must pay 100k direct technology, B) A TOP that possesses 444k technology and must pay 100k direct technology, C) A TOP that possesses 800k technology and must pay 100k direct technology. Since you employ the method of firstly using on-hand technology to make reparations payments, there appears to be a clear winner out of the above. [quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1270465556' post='2248946'] My argument has been very consistent: your transparent attempts to fool people into thinking that the large amounts your group is in favor of imposing are somehow "reduced" by an unquantified and magical factor that you first call inflation, and then proportion to tech level are irrational and false. You have yet to illustrate how the factor of having more tech is in any way capable of giving an alliance extra production ability, instead being content to make unjustified grandiose claims. Tech is not some form of interest-bearing investment - the first 1000 costs as much as the last 1000.[/quote] I have made it quite clear, on numerous occasions, what I meant when I employed the use of the word 'inflation'. To reiterate, inflation has a non-economic definition synonymous with 'expansion', 'augmentation', and so on. It is incontrovertible that the level of technology held by individuals and alliances has expanded - or, inflated - in size over the years, and will continue to do so. For example, there were not any 24k technology nations in 2007, yet one (almost two) exists today. You are doing nothing but spreading fraudalent claims, in the hope of persuading people into the idea that Pacifica has never enforced terms that were as severe and castrating as what they faced in the Karma War. You are spurred on entirely by the hope of gaining political ground against your perceived opponents. Nothing more. [quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1270465556' post='2248946'] Your insults are very cute. Who is Alterego, and what does he have to do with reps?[/quote] Who is Letum, and what does he and Pacifca's reparations have to do with the Bipolar peace settlement? [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/iiam.gif[/img] [quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1270465556' post='2248946'] Perhaps you do not understand what I mean when I say get over. I mean that you should stop using your personal feelings to exhibit wanton aggression towards other parties. And yes, you have been aggressive throughout this conversation, making malicious accusations such as: "[i]Pacifica is working assiduously to be seen as the poor victim of a world that is out to get them, but there's a time and a place for your tired propaganda[/i]", "[i]the underhanded and manipulative actions of Pacifica[/i]" and "[i]a concerted misinformation campaign by you and your ilk[/i]". That is the kind of behaviour that you must get over if you have any semblance of maturity. I am attempting to engage your claims of relative inflation in a reasoned manner, and you respond with aggressive statements and accusations, which effectively border on Ad hominem attacks. Your demeanour is not how honest debate is conducted. I am not quite sure if it my tag that triggered your acidic tongue or if you generally exhibit such behaviour, but you please pay careful attention to this: Get over yourself. Stop taking so much time trying to discredit my argument by calling into question my motivation or character, and spend more time trying to actually argue economics. This is not some partisan election campaign, so there is no need for such tactics. [/quote] Again, it's always interesting to see your swift transition from forceful debate to, "you sad mean things to me and I am sad". Let's try this on. Perhaps you do not understand what I mean when I say move on. I mean that you should stop attempting to soothe your damaged ego by dispering amongst the international arena a carefully-constructed ploy to come across as a maltreated alliance that undeservedly felt the wrath of alliances defending themselves and their allies. You should stop acting as if a spirited debate and some forceful language - despite your use of it, also - damages your delicate sensibilities. That is the kind of behaviour you must get over if you have any semblance of maturity. I am attempting to engage your claims of taking the stance of "the reparations with the most digits are obviously the most damaging" in a reasoned manner, and you respond with strawmen (your repeated discussion of economic inflation which was never utilised in my argument, as I have explained) and accusations, which effectively border on ad hominem attacks. Your demeanour is not how honest debate is conducted. I am not quite sure if it was my tag and subsequent desire to immediately throw baseless accusations my way that triggered your intellectually fraudulent responses, in lieu of anything sensible, or if you generally exhibit such behaviour, but please pay careful attention to this: Get over yourself. Stop taking so much time trying to discredit my argument by calling into question my movitvation, or designing strawmen and attacking them with the ferocity of an Invicta blitz, and pay attention to the realities of history and the fact that there are factors that come into play that undermine your 'economics' arguments. This is not some partisan election campaign, so there is no need for such tactics.

[quote name='Alterego' date='05 April 2010 - 08:59 PM' timestamp='1270463335' post='2248934'] Congratulations on allowing Gramlins to continue in their goal of dismantling and killing off IRON. Enjoy your party MK this will be waiting for you and your allies down the line. [/quote] [quote name='Alterego' date='01 April 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1270122362' post='2243576'] If everyone is ready to peace out then why not peace out. Gramlins said they are going it alone so leave them to their fate. This, like the attack on C&G is a new war and as such the terms of the last war shouldn’t encompass this new war. It is a new war because they are not here because of the attack on C&G they are here for another reason separate from the C&G/TOP-IRON war. If Gramlins want to fight this new war alone then leave them to stand alone as they wish. [/quote] Oh, okay then.

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1270450757' post='2248832'] The economic sense of inflation is also the literal one; trying to include the rise in overall levels as some form of justification for an increase in reparation size has no credence in it at all, for it affects neither their ability to pay nor the cost of replacement, and thus is irrelevant to their burden. A mid-level alliance of 2010 would have to spend the same amount of time, and produce at the same cost, 100k technology as a mid-level alliance of 2007. Any perceived "extra burden" on the latter would be psychological and not material in nature. There is no decreasing marginal cost when talking about tech.[/quote] Firstly, a psychological millstone can be as detrimental as an economic one. It has consequences for membership retention, activity, and leadership turnover - particularly for small alliances - and was arguably a factor in a number of disbandments during the Hegemony era. A psychological burden is more likely to eventuate when an alliance is ordered to pay reparations that constitute a high proportion of their end-of-war technology levels. Secondly, the economic usage of the word 'inflation' is not that word's only meaning. Thirdly, the rise in overall levels in technology, at both the individual and alliance level, is entirely relevant to the burden of reparations. There is a distinct difference in the ability of alliances from 3 years ago and alliances of today to pay the same amount of reparations. The heightened levels of technology in contemporary times displays an increased capacity to procure technology, thus making it easier for - as an example - mid-ranking alliances of 2010 to pay off 100k in reparations than mid-ranking alliances of 2007. What you are arguing for here, Letum, is that it would have been just as easy for TOP 2007 to source and send its owed 280k technology as it would be for TOP 2010. That is simply not the case; extracting 100k direct and 170k indirect technology from a post-war 2007 version of TOP would have been unthinkable, but to demand that amount from the post-war 2010 version of TOP (roughly 60% of their current technology) is justified punishment for waging a war of aggression. [quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1270450757' post='2248832'] I have not made the argument that the harshness of our reps derives from their relation to the absolute level tech that we had. Any mention of the "more tech than we had" line is always as a response to the use of said yardstick as a mechanism of criticism or justification by other parties, and is usually, but not always, aimed at highlighting hypocrisy. In this specific situation, it was meant to highlight that any attempt to judge rep harshness by proportion would lead to the promotion of the position that the NPO suffered harsh reps, a position which whilst you have personally stated your belief in, nevertheless does not have universal acceptance, and is not viewed as something desirable to promote. In effect, when this line is used it serves as an attempt to hold the people it is used against to their own standards, not to our beliefs. If you make a note of how the paragraph wherein that fact was contained began (and really, a single paragraph is far from a lengthy diatribe), you will note that it referenced your metric, and used it to its logical extension in order to highlight just that point; that arguing in favour of that metric means arguing in favour of the view the NPO was treated harshly. [b]Now granted, that reference has no effect on you as you have admitted your belief for the object of said promotion, but it is nevertheless a point of relevance to the wider audience.[/b] I assure you, I would believe our reps would be just as harsh had we double the amount of tech that we had at the end of the war.[/quote] At least you openly admitted that last statement in bold. By stating that already yourself, you saved me time that had been used up trying to work out how the preceding two paragraphs had any relevance, or in any way countered one facet of my argument. You have consistently utilised the "more tech than we had" line as your primary ammunition whilst criticising the Karma War peace agreement, and no, you have not contained your usage of it in the manner you have claimed. If you are genuine when you state that you would believe your reparations would have been just as harsh had Pacifica had double the amount of tech at the conclusion of the Karma War, then I expect to see no more Letum posts complaining about the fact that NPO is paying out more technology than it possessed. If nothing else comes from this debate, it would have been worth it to wipe out the foundation of your campaign to play the victim. [quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1270450757' post='2248832'] I am not quite sure what you are trying to prove here; but I should note that alliances paying a higher proportion of their final tech figure would have a high correlation with those paying a high amount in the absolute sense, and it would therefore make sense if they were found to have a higher burden. Furthermore, any perception of opposition does not come from me, nor have I made any such claim. Quite the opposite in fact.[/quote] Your opposition is intrinsic and often implicit. While you do not declare it openly, you demonstrate it by being willing to flip-flop between conflicting economic and political points of view in an attempt to criticise those who were the victors in the Karma War and gain some form of political point. You jump at the chance to condemn those that checked and rejected Pacifican aggression in the war, throwing away consistency and principled thought in favour of adopting any position, no matter how illogical, that may allow you to verbally attack your betters. What you have argued here is intellectually fraudulent. You would have people believe that a direct comparison of absolute numbers from 2010 to absolute numbers from 2007 is perfectly valid. You would have people believe that alliances paying 90% of their technology face no heavier burden than an alliance paying 30% of their technology. You would have people believe that technology was as prevalent, and as easy to source+send, in the Hegemony era as it is in contemporary times. You would have people believe that simply because the numbers are larger, the TOP reparations are more severe than those faced by MK in the past. These are absolutely ludicrous claims that are motivated only by the pursuit of excusing Pacifican crimes of the past. It is quite clearly your belief that if you can persuade people to look only at absolute numbers, you can pass off contemporary reparations as far surpassing the severity of those enforced by the New Pacific Order. Let me tell you now, no one is buying it. [quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1270450757' post='2248832'] I would accept such an invite, and would find it very refreshing to engage in such linguistic exchange without the shadow of partisanship. I am also grateful that you seem to hold the view that I would fit in a school for gifted leaders.[/quote] Oh, indeed. Anyone that can so freely switch from one perspective to another on an issue, in the lone pursuit of criticising their opponents, and without genuinely believing a word of their own commentary, is certainly someone that needs to be worked with in closer quarters. Through studying your quite sophisticated level of delusion, we may be able to grasp a better understanding of the enigma wrapped in a mystery that is Alterego. [quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1270450757' post='2248832'] I have made no attempted to characterise any group you claim loyalty to as possessing any negative traits, therefore I am not quite sure what point I am supposed to move on from. I do take some issue with the claim that an argument backed up with reasoning is, rather than being countered outright in a similar manner, instead being attacked as a misinformation campaign. [/quote] Heh, you switch your approach to debate as frequently as you switch your opinion on political and economic matters. Need I remind you that it was you that first brought the burden of NPO's reparations into this discussion, and it was you that took the aggressive stance of informing me to "get over" the fact that my alliance had been victorious in its last two wars? Surely the fact that you have entered a topic that not only does not concern you, but also does not concern the reparations owed by Pacifica, and then complained at length about the money and technology NPO owe as punishment for previous actions, demonstrates that it is you that needs to move on from the past.

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1270447047' post='2248767'] Ah, I see you have switched from making an argument on the basis of inflation, to one of the basis of size. A wise choice. I am glad that, by omission, you have tacitly accepted my conclusive rebuttal of any inflationary argument.[/quote] My original comment regarding inflation was not in relation to the economic sense of the word (an increase in the price of technology), but in the more literal sense. Levels of technology possessed by both individual nations, and alliances in total, increased dramatically (i.e. inflated) during the period of the Hegemony, all the way up to the outbreak of the Karma War. This historical fact adds credence and nuance to the sensible rule of comparing an alliance's ability to pay, and thus the burden of reparations, when attempting to find which surrender terms are lenient and which are onerous. In other words, a mid-level alliance of 2010 is much more capable of paying 100k technology than was a mid-level alliance of 2007, thus rendering the juxtaposition of absolute numbers from years ago to absolute numbers from contemporary times illogical and dishonest. Many peace agreements handed down by the Hegemony were far more severe than the current peace agreement, despite the large disparity in absolute numbers. [quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1270447047' post='2248767'] I would make a further suggestion, and say that you might want to switch from arguing about proportion of total tech to size, as the former has little effect on an alliance's ability to pay, and consequently the burden placed upon them. The nations in question would be, rather readily, able to fund a constant output of full slots of tech whether they started from 10,000 or 1,000. Therefore, absolute amounts would be very relevant within the framework in question, and even more so after your claims of some magical inflation have been discredited. In fact, it would be the proportion of total tech argument that would be the most dishonest, as it would imply that a tech-rich alliance would face less of a burden giving a similar amount of tech away than a tech-poor alliance. That is not true: it would cost the same to replace the lost tech no matter how high of a starting point you were left with.[/quote] So, if we are to take your argument here that a tech-poor alliance is just as capable as a tech-rich alliance, at end-of-war standings, of paying sizeable reparations, why is it that you subject the Cyberverse to lengthy diatribes regarding the fact that Pacifica must pay more technology reparations than it possessed at the conclusion of the war? In fact, there is a complaint of that nature in this very topic of discussion. What you say here completely undermines many of your own arguments regarding the supposed 'injustice' of Pacifica's terms. It is amusing how you will switch from one economic position to the other depending on what/who you are trying to criticise at a particular moment. It is lucky for you that I do not accept your current argument, and from the very onset of the signing of Pacifica's surrender terms, I have been open with my opinion that the burden on Pacifica was high. The peace settlement was intended to be as such. The fact of the matter is, throughout the history of peace settlements involving technology reparations, those alliances that have had to part with a higher proportion of their final technology figure have had significantly more difficulty than those alliances ordered to pay a smaller proportion. It is one of the primary reasons why each alliance that has been subjected to such a thing has spoken out against their treatment so fervently (as Pacificans have done, ad nauseam). The difference between you and I is that I have remained constant with my objective and accurate measurements of the burden of reparations, whereas you are willing to adopt any position so long as it assists you in criticising the latest movement by your perceived opponents. [quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1270447047' post='2248767'] If you will permit me once again to copy your writing style, thank you for your predictable attempt to portray the New Pacific Order as some dishonest bogeyman (what's a Denial post without it?). I am also glad that you have admitted that harshness and justification are two separate concepts, which was part of my original argument. I am not quite sure why you would see the need to include a rather irrelevant attempt to repeat your justifications for the Karma war, as no attempt to call them into question or start a new debate over an issue that has been beaten to death has existed. I am sure that you are working quite assiduously to continue an unnecessary and irrational grudge, though I am not quite sure for what reason that may be. Perhaps you interpreted my attempt to argue against the logic of inflation as some personal slight - the lack of any attempt to protect that discredited argument would support that, though I am loathe to jump to that assumption at this point. Nevertheless, I wish you the best, and hope that you will cease your own tired attempts against us. You won, and then you won again; get over it already. [/quote] I have noticed quite a few fans of my linguistic ability over the years, but it has dramatically increased in the past few months. It is very flattering. Perhaps I should create some sort of formalised institution in order to instruct my growing number of immitators? Professor Denial's School for Gifted Leaders may soon be established over at The Castle Hall, and I will make sure that you are amongst the first to receive an invite. Anyway, I digress. If you wish for me to stop placing a spotlight of truth upon the underhanded and manipulative actions of Pacifica, perhaps you should take my advice and not involve Pacifica and its past military losses in topics of discussion that you and your alliance are not relevant to? It is also amusing that you would attempt to instruct me to "get over" the two-time successful defence of my alliance and its allies, when I am perfectly humble in victory and only seek to prevent any erroneous beliefs taking hold as a result of a concerted misinformation campaign by you and your ilk. I think you may need to heed your own words in terms of moving on.

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='05 April 2010 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1270446098' post='2248733'] Ah, so TOP is alliance A and DAWN is alliance B? I get it. [/quote] Sure, why not.

[quote name='flak attack' date='05 April 2010 - 03:47 PM' timestamp='1270444659' post='2248686'] Actually, I would say that the FoB exodus to PC proves that rather well, since they left because we were trying to avoid entering the war. [/quote] That's quite a good point.

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1270444563' post='2248684'] <snip> [/quote] Comparaing absolute reparations to judge the burden of reparations is undeniably dishonest. For example, Alliance A possesses 200k technology at the conclusion of a war and is obligated via peace settlement to make a payment of 100k technology. On the other hand, Alliance B possesses 60k technology at the conclusion of a war and is obligated via peace settlement to make a payment of 45k technology. Alliance A clearly has the highest amount of technology to pay in absolute numbers, but it constitutes only 50% of their end-of-war technology. Alliance B, while having to pay significantly less technology in absolute terms, has a much higher burden, as 45k technology represents 75% of their final technology. Any comparison of reparations extractions must primarily take into account the capacity of the surrendering alliance to make payments. As for the remainder of your post, where you predictably include a mention of NPO's reparations (what's a Letum post without it?), no one denied that the burden on Pacifica was high. That was the intention of the peace terms, given that Pacifica was the lynchpin of the Hegemony and had conducted a war of aggression backed by a dubious casus belli. How exactly was that in any way relevant to our discussion, anyway? We get it, Pacifica is working assiduously to be seen as the poor victim of a world that is out to get them, but there's a time and a place for your tired propaganda.

[quote name='CloudGT4' date='05 April 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1270444064' post='2248663'] So you had to have someone come fight your battle for you.. no matter how you dress the word up.. its still a deterrent to attack them.. you guys were going after them, they knew it. beat you to the punch. Here, someone on IRC had a good argument for you to use.. Inflation.. CN suffers from inflation. so its okay for you to extort tech. Anyways before this turns to a senseless troll fest, or anything else of that matter I will stop posting, as there is still plenty more people calling you on your weak argument. However if you wish to attempt to sway me to believe C&G wasn't planning an attack on TOP, then find me in irc. I will be around for a while. [/quote] As the one making the baseless accusations (C&G were 'plotting' to attack IRON & TOP), the onus is upon you to provide proof. Particularly considering asking me to provide proof is disingenuous; it's impossible for anyone to prove a negative. Besides providing you with my word - as C&G leadership have done countless times before - that TOP & IRON had no reason to suspect a C&G attack, unless they directly attacked an ally of ours (surprise, surprise, we follow treaties), there is nothing else I can do. But, somehow, I get the feeling that you won't accept that, as you're too deep into your own world of delusion and fanciful notions to be able to grasp fact or logic. [quote name='NeCoHo' date='05 April 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1270444221' post='2248669'] You are obviously very confused, and I feel sorry for you because of it. Your "side" has extorted over 700,000 tech in less then a year. It must be a tech-induced high making your thoughts foggy. [/quote] Perhaps people should learn a lesson and stop attacking us and our allies. If you don't want to pay reparations, don't engage in wars of aggression. It's rather simple.

[quote name='NeCoHo' date='05 April 2010 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1270443710' post='2248653'] I heard that the Tech Tyrant's war machines were vast and magical. [/quote] Pretty sure the First Great War and Karma War demonstrated that was incorrect

[quote name='CloudGT4' date='05 April 2010 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1270443099' post='2248616'] is that the best you have? really.. nothing constructive? oh we have been fed bad propaganda. That's it. we have been lied to so C&G can look great. okay. Really if your gonna try to argue with me come with something to prove me wrong. It was a "pre-emp strike" right out your own mouth. That means for it to be pre emp, you guys were plotting on them, and they beat you to the punch. Now to look good over your tech extortion.. lets say we all were fed bad propaganda. [/quote] As Quinoa Rex has pointed out, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[quote name='The AUT' date='05 April 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1270442705' post='2248592'] These are the second highest reparations only second to those asked of Pacifica. Perhaps TOP/IRON/TSO and co. deserved these high prices due to their preemptive strike but to say these terms aren't harsh or draconian when you've extracted the largest amount of monetary reparations since ever. Many of you are in Denial over it, but we can still see things unbiased enough to know that these terms are far from "light." [/quote] Comparing reparations in absolute numbers is purposely disinegenuous and is only performed by those attempting to manipulate the truth to incite some misguided outrage. It flagrantly disregards the rapid inflation that has been present within the Cyberverse, particularly during the era of the Hegemony. The only honest method of comparing the burden of reparations is to look at it proportionally; the percentage of technology/cash that an alliance must send out in relation to their remaining technology at the conclusion of the war. By that legitimate standard - and when you add into the equation that this peace settlement is extracting reparations from parties that are, incontrovertibly, the aggressors - this peace settlement is light.

[quote name='CloudGT4' date='05 April 2010 - 03:13 PM' timestamp='1270442604' post='2248586'] Pre-Emptively attacked to me, means C&G was plotting to attack TOP, IRON, and their friends, but were beat to the punch. When the numbers are against you, you do what you can to even the odds. So what if C&G would of gotten the first punch and demanded tech that would be bad?? But since someone out smarted them and got the first lick, its Okay to extort tech and money and such.. specially for the bandwagon alliances in the war.. I think I understand now. [/quote] Are you and shahenshah having a private competition to see who can post the most nonsensical, idiotic commentary within the month of April?

[quote name='WorldConqueror' date='05 April 2010 - 03:06 PM' timestamp='1270442167' post='2248562'] Hi. Surely you shouldn't be worrying about us already, you and SF just secured your political dominance for the foreseeable future. Enjoy your time at the top, it's good to be king. [/quote] There is no politically dominant group within the current Cyberverse. In no way could Super Friends or Complaints & Grievances enforce their will upon the remainder of the Cyberverse as would be possible by a truly dominant or hegemonic group. As for Complaints & Grievances specifically, this war was damaging despite our decisive victory, and the reparations do not cover even half the cost of the war of aggression that TOP & IRON brought to our gates. Nor do these surrender terms in any way prevent the normal operations of any of the defeated parties; they each have generous timeframes to pay off a small portion of their remaining technology, and do not suffer any limitations on their foreign policy or military affairs.

[quote name='CloudGT4' date='05 April 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1270441998' post='2248551'] Oh wow.. so its okay for MK to do it.. but it was bad business for NPO, or any of the others.. We see how it is. Good show.. [/quote] Right, because the New Pacific Order [i]attacking[/i] alliances and then extracting technology is the exact same as Complaints & Grievances being pre-emptively attacked and demanding reparations for damage inflicted. Reparations, by [i]their very definition[/i], were in order here.

I would like to extend my thanks to all of Complaints & Grievances' stalwart allies that stood with us and, with valiant effort, checked and rejected TOP and IRON's aggression. It was a pleasure fighting on the battlefield with each of you. As for TOP, IRON, Purple & friends, I imagine we'll be seeing you all again in a few months' time when your pied piper in Red returns to the political arena.

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='03 April 2010 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1270295918' post='2246464'] It's a sad day for Stickmen (iFOK and FCO in particular) to be losing their ally in Vanguard. However, we are happy that you chose MK as your new home. Two of iFOK's most loyal allies in FOK and SLCB are now allied to MK. I can only hope that one day we can restore the love triangle we had. Take care Vanguard! [/quote] I believe I can speak for many former Vanguardians when I say that a piece of paper does not need to exist for us to come to the defense of iFOK or FCO.

[quote name='Starfox101' date='03 April 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1270286591' post='2246416'] You lost a treaty with the best bloc in the game. D: [/quote] If you're referring to Stickmen, the Vanguard-SLCB treaty was carried over to Mushroom Kingdom.