The Overtime Accords

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1304784280' post='2708034']
Yeah no. You have no idea what you're talking about and you should stop talking about this before you dig yourself even deeper.
[/quote]
Oh really?

Upon seeing that UOKMB nations were applying to UPN, an alliance with whom you already had active wars, you:

A. Contacted UPN government to see what they wanted to do in order to get peace for those nations;
B. Ordered new attacks on nations that you had no active wars on, now that they had joined an AA that you were already fighting.

Yeah. It was B.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1304580135' post='2706720']
The reparations, spread between multiple alliances over many aid cycles, are equal to what a tiny alliance, Umbrella, has sent Out in the past thirty days, and that's considering that a large proportion of our slots are filled with incoming tech. The reparations are not excessive, even if GOONS is receiving them as per their policy.
[/quote]
The question is, were the reps really needed? Did GOONS receive so much damage that they needed $2+ billion to recover?

Then there's also the requirement that NPO must allow their top tier fighters be toasted by your triple teams. Why was that needed? Were you only planning on trimming NPO?

[quote name='Lord Velox' timestamp='1304785784' post='2708046']
Haflinger you should just stop when you're not making sense.
Wait that would disqualify you from posting at all.
[/quote]
You seem to have forgotten that no person's mind is the same as another person's mind.

[Feuersturm]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1304787007' post='2708059']
Less than 10 are in peace long term per orders, the rest are in their of their own initiative.

The other difference is that we never tried to systematically keep whole NS ranges out.
[/quote]

I take quite some offense to people that say 'our upper tier has never fought' - considering myself and many other upper tier Pacificans have once again shed blood for your boredom. The thing most of you seem to forget it we've been at war for over 3 months and those of us that were up there are no longer as strong.

Most of our alliance has fought in this war, even before the terms were set.

edit: grammatical error

Edited May 7, 2011 by Feuersturm

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1304787228' post='2708063']
Neither did we. Unless of course, you claim that our 130 pre-war upper tier nations were brought down to 40 through mass-deletion rather than fighting.
[/quote]
Only because we attacked before they could get there. In the run-up to the hit they were going into peace mode at a pretty rapid pace. And when your allies entered, nearly all of their upper tiers were in peace. Looking at Legion especially, though they had a few people come out near the end.

[Letum]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1304790371' post='2708082']
Only because we attacked before they could get there.
[/quote]

"Your usage of long-term peace-mode is a bad thing"
"But you do it too"
"Well, we don't do it for an entire tier"
"Neither do we"
"You would have done it if only you could!"

When you have to reach into a fictitious alternate reality to justify your argument, even you have to realize that you're grasping at straws. But you can't really escape the fact of the matter, and that is that MK's and NPO's usages of peace-mode in this war have not been significantly different.

So, whilst you can work to deny your opponent the usage of that tactic, and whilst you can discuss its effectiveness under the circumstances; if you criticize its inherent acceptableness, you have to recognize that you end up criticizing yourself.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Letum

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1304737269' post='2707870']
I see that my point sailed right over your head.
[/quote]

Save your breath for more productive things then arguing with Tyga.....like blowing up balloon toys or bubbles or hell a nice air mattress. All far more productive then that imo...

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1304764376' post='2707979']
You pursued them and agreed to pay 15M after ODN interceded. Before that, you were not willing to accept reparations for them at all.
[/quote]
No. I already explained this to you. UOKMB disbanded and joined other AAs like UPN. We asked UPN for 15m. They screwed around and didn't pay it for several weeks, and then tried to make something of it. Then ODN stepped in. Your assertion that we weren't going to accept reps is an outright lie. We tried to get the money from UPN for weeks before ODN came to us. You're also free to ask ODN (OsRavan was a mediator there) how things went down.
[img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL8.jpg[/img]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1304774479' post='2707995']
As for the rest - Peggy Sue had her faults, but lying to her allies wasn't among them. Often she carried through with being honest when it was definitely not in her best interest, so in other words: I don't believe you, but instead I believe her.
[/quote]
There's even an IRC quote somewhere of HeroofTime (or someone similar) chewing out Peggy for not telling them they had already agreed to pay us. The WCE thing was partially about UPN trying to generate a CB on us for demanding they pay us money, even though they had already agreed to do so. You're free to believe her if she's currently making such claims, but [i]there are logs proving it's not true[/i].
[right][img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aeris-_-R6.jpg[/img][/right]

EDIT:

<+HeroofTime55> Peggy, when you came to us, you never once mentioned you had previously agreed to pay GOONS off
* Peggy_Sue|UPN sets mode: +b
* HeroofTime55 was kicked by Peggy_Sue|UPN (Peggy_Sue|UPN)

Edited May 7, 2011 by Beefspari

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1304792615' post='2708103']
No. I already explained this to you. UOKMB disbanded and joined other AAs like UPN. We asked UPN for 15m. They screwed around and didn't pay it for several weeks, and then tried to make something of it.
[/quote]
You attacked their nations within days of their switching to the UPN AA.

These were nations that were not under attack before the switch. It's pretty obvious that the change in AA is the reason for the attack.

[Gobb]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1304787228' post='2708063']
Neither did we. Unless of course, you claim that our 130 pre-war upper tier nations were brought down to 40 through mass-deletion rather than fighting.
[/quote]
So all that earlier talk about protecting your upper tier from overwhelming forces and having an upper tier post-war by keeping them in peace mode was just bull?

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1304791966' post='2708094']
"Your usage of long-term peace-mode is a bad thing"
"But you do it too"
"Well, we don't do it for an entire tier"
"Neither do we"
"You would have done it if only you could!"

When you have to reach into a fictitious alternate reality to justify your argument, even you have to realize that you're grasping at straws. But you can't really escape the fact of the matter, and that is that MK's and NPO's usages of peace-mode in this war have not been significantly different.

So, whilst you can work to deny your opponent the usage of that tactic, and whilst you can discuss its effectiveness under the circumstances; if you criticize its inherent acceptableness, you have to recognize that you end up criticizing yourself.
[/quote]
I'm not looking into an alternate reality, I'm looking at how the original blitz transpired, which was moved up in response to the rapid movement of your upper tier nations into peace mode. The fact that your allies did the same thing that you did, something which they had greater success at because they controlled when they entered the war, further supports my view.

[Letum]

[quote name='Lord Gobb' timestamp='1304793182' post='2708109']
So all that earlier talk about protecting your upper tier from overwhelming forces and having an upper tier post-war by keeping them in peace mode was just bull?
[/quote]

We can both fight and keep enough people back to improve our bounce-back capability.

[Letum]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1304793403' post='2708112']
I'm not looking into an alternate reality, I'm looking at how the original blitz transpired, which was moved up in response to the rapid movement of your upper tier nations into peace mode.
[/quote]

That "movement" was almost over a week, and thus quite far from rapid. But really, you have to recognize that you have now moved from criticizing our actual strategy, to claiming what you think we "would have done" is bad. I can only assume that means that what we actually ended up doing, whether by choice or by circumstance, is perfectly fine given its similarities to what your alliance works like.


[quote]
The fact that your allies did the same thing that you did, something which they had greater success at because they controlled when they entered the war, further supports my view.
[/quote]

If you want to discuss Legion's or any of our other allies strategies, go talk to them. I'm well aware that I should not be confusing Umbrella's strategies for MK, which is made quite evident by the simple fact that Umbrella did not move half its upper tier into peacemode in anticipation of us coming out.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Letum

[HHAYD]

Ah, here's this gold mine that I came across a while ago: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=22&showentry=2903

Still looking for that other blog or post that mentioned DH's percentage of NS in peace mode...

[Gobb]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1304793408' post='2708113']
We can both fight and keep enough people back to improve our bounce-back capability.
[/quote]
The fighters have been in your lower tiers though, since there hasn't been much fighting in your upper tier between the initial blitz and this last phase.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1304793707' post='2708115']
That "movement" was almost over a week, and thus quite far from rapid. But really, you have to recognize that you have now moved from criticizing our actual strategy, to claiming what you think we "would have done" is bad. I can only assume that means that what we actually ended up doing, whether by choice or by circumstance, is perfectly fine given its similarities to what your alliance works like.[/quote]
You are mistaken. I was helping to organize the blitz and was watching, and we moved it up because of the rapid movement of large nations into peace mode that day. There was clearly a standing order for large nations to go into peace mode that was obeyed as they became aware of it.

It's not similar to what we are doing. We never tried to get everyone we could into peace mode in certain NS ranges for the entire war.

[quote]If you want to discuss Legion's or any of our other allies strategies, go talk to them. I'm well aware that I should not be confusing Umbrella's strategies for MK, which is made quite evident by the simple fact that Umbrella did not move half its upper tier into peacemode in anticipation of us coming out.
[/quote]
So you're saying NPO wasn't a part of all your allies moving their upper tiers into peace mode? That there wasn't an overall strategy? I'm not buying that.

Though we may do different things with different units, we've worked together with Umbrella and our other co-belligerents on this. There aren't separate strategies.

[nippy]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1304792856' post='2708106']
You attacked their nations within days of their switching to the UPN AA.

These were nations that were not under attack before the switch. It's pretty obvious that the change in AA is the reason for the attack.
[/quote]

You're not even trying anymore. It's amusing to me that you're comfortable with playing the kind of stupid you're playing in here. Beefspari already stated that warring nations that switch AA mid-war are generally frowned upon within this community. They WERE under attack before the switch. ALL UOKMB nations were in wars prior to this incident. Why? Because they declared wars upon us. We retaliated. Running away via a change of AA has never been a valid method, and it never will be. If a nation happens to slip into peace mode, that doesn't excuse him from his previous choice to be a rogue.

Haflinger, I think it would be better for everyone if you'd just stick your head above your touchpad and start slamming your laptop screen on top of your head until you can no longer feasibly do so. There are two possible results from this, and both of them would be better than you having the ability to post anything, anywhere.

Edited May 7, 2011 by nippy

[Letum]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1304795891' post='2708133']
You are mistaken. I was helping to organize the blitz and was watching, and we moved it up because of the rapid movement of large nations into peace mode that day.
[/quote]

We had 40 nations in peacemode within the relevant NS range at the signing of those terms. 12 of those had been ordered to enter PM on the day of your declaration. 28 had been ordered starting a week previously. I am not mistaken, because I was the one who handed out those damn orders.

Really, it's pretty telling that you've given up your original argument of "long-term peace mode is bad", and keep trying to add additional qualifiers in order to make the "bad" label stick on to the NPO. Your "concentration within a tier" argument (which makes no sense) has already been shown to be false, so now you move into an "intent" argument (which also makes no sense).

You're trying too hard.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Letum

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1304795891' post='2708133']
It's not similar to what we are doing. We never tried to get everyone we could into peace mode in certain NS ranges for the entire war.
[/quote]
Alchemy kept everyone from 15K to 60K in peace mode for nearly the whole of the war.

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1304797109' post='2708135']
They WERE under attack before the switch. ALL UOKMB nations were in wars prior to this incident.
[/quote]
At some point, yes.

The nations in question had no active wars on their screen at the time of their switch to the UPN AA. Upon switching, they acquired wars.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1304797737' post='2708139']
At some point, yes.

The nations in question had no active wars on their screen at the time of their switch to the UPN AA. Upon switching, they acquired wars.
[/quote]
Just because a couple nations changed AAs during a pause between wars doesn't mean they get a free ride out of the war and don't have to pay for attacking us. It was more because at the time we were fighting more than 15 nuclear capable nations in the under 10k range and didn't have the ability to stagger everyone at that level. And it has literally nothing to do with your assertion that we weren't planning on allowing them peace until ODN came to us. They never attempted to negotiate peace with us in the first place. They had a "going out in a blaze of glory" approach until they simply changed AAs expecting to be let go. Changing AAs does not mean the war is over.
[img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL7.jpg[/img]

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1304797227' post='2708136']
We had 40 nations in peacemode within the relevant NS range at the signing of those terms. 12 of those had been ordered to enter PM on the day of your declaration. 28 had been ordered starting a week previously. I am not mistaken, because I was the one who handed out those damn orders.[/quote]
Unfortunately we didn't keep records of it, but I remember a lot more than that going into peace.

[quote]Really, it's pretty telling that you've given up your original argument of "long-term peace mode is bad", and keep trying to add additional qualifiers in order to make the "bad" label stick on to the NPO. Your "concentration within a tier" argument (which makes no sense) has already been shown to be false, so now you move into an "intent" argument (which also makes no sense).

You're trying too hard.
[/quote]
It comes down to, on the macro level, are we putting people into peace mode in order to limit damage to our alliance as a whole and limit the fighting in certain ranges? The answer is no. Just because some people, on the micro level, are in peace doesn't mean that the former is happening. There are various things that you can look at to distinguish between the two, as I've brought up. But it comes down to the former.

The simple fact of the matter is that we are on the larger, winning side. There are more people in war mode on our side than you have a chance of hitting. If some of our people stay in peace, it's not that big of a deal because y'all will still have plenty of targets that you can attack and it won't seriously impact the number of wars that happen or your ability to attack us. It's not limiting wars on the macro level.

The same is true of your low NS people in peace mode long term which is why we don't care about them.

If we were on the loosing side, it would be justifiable to demand that our peace mode people come out because their being in peace would seriously limit the amount of damage that could be dealt. But you aren't winning, and their being in peace isn't limiting the scale of the war, so it's a moot point.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1304801093' post='2708155']
The simple fact of the matter is that we are on the larger, winning side. There are more people in war mode on our side than you have a chance of hitting. If some of our people stay in peace, it's not that big of a deal because y'all will still have plenty of targets that you can attack and it won't seriously impact the number of wars that happen or your ability to attack us. It's not limiting wars on the macro level.
[/quote]
Actually, I was running out of targets to attack, and was lobbying Invicta government to issue DoWs so I could get more targets.

Down in the 30-40K range the targets were hard to come by.

[Choson]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1304797737' post='2708139']
At some point, yes.

The nations in question had no active wars on their screen at the time of their switch to the UPN AA. Upon switching, they acquired wars.
[/quote]
So, Invicta is okay with allowing people to switch AAs in the middle of the war with no consequences?

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1304811297' post='2708256']
So, Invicta is okay with allowing people to switch AAs in the middle of the war with no consequences?
[/quote]
Actually, we've had this exact situation happen to us. What we do is go to the AA that our targets switch to and make sure they know what's going on before launching attacks; that way people don't think we're trying to launch wars against their alliance.

We usually don't blow staggers as well; of course sometimes that happens, especially with lower-NS targets where we don't have a lot of nations in range. You guys don't have that problem though.

[Choson]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1304812983' post='2708270']
Actually, we've had this exact situation happen to us. What we do is go to the AA that our targets switch to and make sure they know what's going on before launching attacks; that way people don't think we're trying to launch wars against their alliance.

We usually don't blow staggers as well; of course sometimes that happens, especially with lower-NS targets where we don't have a lot of nations in range. You guys don't have that problem though.
[/quote]
Wait, so you're saying that the alliance that targets switch to have no responsibility to ensure they're not accepting rogues or bad members?

I guess that's how you got into Invicta.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1304792431' post='2708099']
Save your breath for more productive things then arguing with Tyga.....like blowing up balloon toys or bubbles or hell a nice air mattress. All far more productive then that imo...
[/quote]

Let it be said that your rare posts are always informative and insightful. Balloon toys and bubbles bring joy to many and air mattresses provide semi-comfortable sleeping options for the unexpected visitor. Arguing with me could never compete with these things in the contest of productivity. I'd have been offended had you listed useless and mundane tasks in your comparison.