Sunstar
-
Posts
1,040 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Sunstar
-
-
Arsenal told me himself he had no intention of honoring the IRON treaty over the CnG one, I know Revanche was close to them but when were those logs? (As in day)
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.
-
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.
-
By the most conservative measure (no part of the IAA reps), DAWN is being assessed 16.5k tech. Read your own terms
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.
-
Why is DAWN a new protectorate of IRON, and host to only 33k tech being leveraged for 26k tech. TOOL may not have been on the level of Athens, this is though.
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.
-
Fine, I'll respond to this. So... I'm not seeing how TOP started this war with no cause/justification. They knew CnG would be on the opposite side, etc. ... But that's been debated so many times it's hardly worth debating again.
I'm not sure where TOP has such a history...? This war, they entered a Coalition war. Karma, they entered, wasn't it through OUT which you shared with them (I admit I'm not 100% sure). WotC, I think they had plenty of reason to declare on Polar, though the tech was not justified. In any case, they declared alongside several alliances, many of which are on your side of this war. In one of the 2nd/3rd GW's, they got hit. These are the only ones I can remember, I admit, but... where is the aggressive nature, seriously?
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.
-
What's ironic is Sunstar is in ODN, an alliance known for totally fail actions in the past that is trying to put forth a nice reformed image...
Also, reps are NUTS. Keep nuking them to pieces, TOP.
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.
-
Then why are you worried about us being a future threat? If you didn't want us to be a future threat you would think that you wouldn't give us a reason to be angry at you.
From your actions in both the distant and recent past, it seems you don't really need a reason to be angry at people.
-
What about their last two wars in white peace being granted? And they made it clear white peace would be given if victorious especially in back channels. Why focus over 1.5 years ago or so? People tend to look at the distant past but not in the near past when alliances truly show their colors, especially showing changes in reparation asking? Yes, they did things in the past, but that doesn't affect CnG which is irrelevant at this point. Feel free to correct me as you see fit.
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.
-
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.
-
Think it over.
Then reconsider
Karma
in The Predictive Pastry
A blog by Delta1212 in General
Posted
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.