Jump to content

Sunstar

Members
  • Content Count

    1,040
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sunstar

  • Rank
    Still around for some reason

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Sanctioned Alliance
    Orange Defense Network
  • Nation Name
    Georgian Bay
  • Alliance Name
    Orange Defense Network
  • Resource 1
    Oil
  • Resource 2
    Uranium

Recent Profile Visitors

785 profile views
  1. Sunstar

    Karma

    Depends on who you talk to. While people like Arsenal may have been opinionated, they didn't speak for all of us. It wasn't like our membership was posting for the sake of posting. The future of our alliance was on the line and we did not have an easy choice. There was widespread division of opinion at the outset, and it wasn't until after a great deal of very thorough and serious deliberation that a decision was reached.
  2. Sunstar

    Karma

    Your notion of "Arsenal is ODN Dictator!" really has no bearing in truth. At the time, he was Secretary of State; a position without vote or decision making authority. If you are really curious to know, then the decision was made by a Senate vote on April 21st after the issue was thoroughly debated in a 300-post discussion thread by our general membership over the previous two days.
  3. The second most hilarious part of this counter (the first being term 10) is the distribution. It goes without saying that TOP's huge stockpiles of tech have (largely through their nukes) caused an uncomparable amount of damage in this war. Even without statistics (as they'd be very difficult to obtain), I'd be willing to guess that TOP alone has caused a large majority of the damage taken by C&G and their allies. This was largely reflected in the original terms offered to TIDTT. Yet here in their counter-offer, what do we see? TOP offering a measly amount equal to just 7% of their tech. While the alliances who only supported their actions are offering much more than that. TORN is offering 21% here. DAWN is offering 17%. Even TSO and IRON blow them away offering 12% and 10% respectively. It may not be much, but its a lot more than the people who started this whole thing. So TOP: Stop letting your peripheral allies (especially TORN and DAWN) pay more for your mistakes than you do.
  4. I see my mistake but I don't believe your count is correct either. Assuming no part of IAA's, DAWN would be 13.5K tech (since the other 3K requested by Gramlins is paid for). Adding in half of IAA's and then it would be 16K.
  5. DAWN is not a protectorate of IRON at all. They are a fully independent alliance who made their own choice to participate in this war of aggression. Also, they are not being leveraged for 26K tech. Assuming DAWN and TORN were to equally split the reparations sought by IAA, then they are being assessed 12.5K tech in reparations.
  6. Its a generally established unofficial "rule" when you start an alliance war in CN that you state a Casus Belli. Just look at the wiki and notice there's a convenient box for them in the alliance war template. The validity of CBs are often debated, and useful when considering the war as a whole. TOP's been a part of seven alliance wars in its history now, and three of them have been declared aggressively by TOP against other alliances with little to no CB (I am speaking of the GPA war, WotC, and this current conflict). That's 43% of the time. For comparison, ODN's been part of nice alliance wars, one of which (GWIII against GOONS) would qualify as aggressive/unwarranted. Guess what happened after that? The ODN paid the harshest reparations ever in history. If TOP had lost the GPA war I should hope GPA would have demanded reparations. If they had lost to Polaris in WotC I feel Polaris would have been right to take reparations from them then. When you declare an aggressive war without cause you should pay for it. When you declare an aggressive war without cause and lose, then you might actually have to.
  7. So instead of either a) responding to the legitimate points I made, or b) explaining why you think the reps are nuts, you choose to make a completely off-topic remark and vague attack on my credibility. I don't feel like biting, so how about instead we discuss the issue at hand.
  8. From your actions in both the distant and recent past, it seems you don't really need a reason to be angry at people.
  9. What I see as relevant is this war. This war that was started by TOP and Co. without cause or justification. Should they have to pay for the damage they caused? It would make sense, but unfortunately that isn't really feasible. Damages taken by C&G alone likely outvalue the entire sum of these reparations by 10 times at least. In referencing the past, I seek to remind people that TOP has a history of starting aggressive wars with little to no cause. You may notice they did it again a month ago, and I see no indication that they are likely to change their ways anytime soon. As a member of an alliance they seem to have a problem with, that does not sit well with me.
  10. An alliance which has three times demanded and received the harshest reparations in history from alliances fighting defensive wars thinks they shouldn't have to pay for their own brutally destructive and unwarranted aggressive actions? Now that's what I call nuts.
  11. Sunstar

    I'm done

    Think it over. Then reconsider
  12. You don't know me but I used to see your posts everywhere. I just noticed you looking at a topic I was looking a and went "OMFG SUNSTAR". So yeah. Post more! xD

×
×
  • Create New...