An announcement from CA

[Vanilla Napalm]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1315928563' post='2799764']
There is however a difference between doing a tech deal with someone you shouldn't because of ignorance and doing a tech deal with someone who shouldn't because you've decided it is worth the risk or you wanted to say F.U. to NG. The former should rate less reparations, but there's no indication I've seen that it did. That's the problem most people with I think. If NG wants to say, "if we thought it was purposeful, we'd have rolled them without a word", and $30 mill is what they consider to be "reasonable reparations" then that's another conversation.
[/quote]
Oooo, a pre-emptive aid analysis. I must bring that up with TOP at some stage.

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1315925586' post='2799752']
When I first found out about an SC member making the mistake, I suggested 3 million as reasonable reps. We never said The Sandwich Confederation wasn't willing to pay something. That was when KingZander of Non Grata said, "i was thinking more like 30 mil."

I admit, I was NOT prepared for that. I've never been asked for 30 million by any other alliance for anything! We have 29 members and at the time only optional treaties (at least officially). Non Grata has 256 and is 9,928,608 in strength with 3,553 nukes and is ranked number 9 overall. SC's alliance strength is 1,087,014 and we have 378 nukes (not bad for our size but nothing compared to NG). We live in a "might makes right" world. What was I supposed to think? Sorry, but "oh, this is just negotiation" was NOT one of the thoughts that entered my mind. Right or wrong, what I thought was here's a big alliance trying to bully a much smaller one to make a profit because they mistakenly believe that we will just capitulate to anything they ask in order not to be rolled.

And yes, the amount was moved from 30 million to 15 million. That happened AFTER I invited a member of Basketball Ninjas (allies of SC's who are also members of the PF bloc) into the discussion. Guess what I thought about the amount being lowered after that

Frankly, I don't think I was wrong regardless of what is said at this point. Even though it was never literally said, it's obvious that "pay or else" was implied. When I saw this thread and what happened to CA, it just reinforced my initial thoughts. Only difference between CA and SC is that CA called you on the implied "or else." As I said before, congrats - you have your war.



Providing war aid to a nation at war is, arguably, a "crime" by CN standards. Doing a tech deal when the other nation is at war is a mistake. There is a difference.
-------------------------

Oh, and kriekfreak, Meth tells me that he intends to keep his deal and pay our nation the tech he owes when it comes due. I had assumed it was entirely a con on his part, but he claims otherwise. Is this going to cause a problem? I would think that him having to give up tech at this point would actually help the situation for Non Grata (as he's giving up resources) but I want to be clear out of concern that if it's accepted by our member it's just going to be used as "proof" that it wasn't a mistake. If we have to wait until after the war - let me know.
[/quote]

I didn't hear about the actual negotiations until after. Some people start high and work their way down to end up at an agreeable sum, others state what they at least want to get and do not bend on that. We weren't going for what's normal in these situations (3x aided mount) because Methrage was in bill-lock and there were active wars, so that's how the 5x aided amount come from. If we really thought this was done by purpose we wouldn't have pushed for reps but we would have gone straight for war. I think we have already shown that we stand up for our principles even if that means it will cost us some infra and tech. Who your allies and allies of your allies are does not concern me. Every alliance aiding Methrage will be handled the same, as we showed Wolfpack. In my opinion it really doesn't matter how large your alliance is esp not when this can be paid off by 1 nation, as others have stated before me. Not to sound obtuse.

Calling us extortionists just because we want compensation for the damages that are caused due to your members' error, is what I find absurd.

[asawyer]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1315925586' post='2799752']
When I first found out about an SC member making the mistake, I suggested 3 million as reasonable reps. We never said The Sandwich Confederation wasn't willing to pay something. That was when KingZander of Non Grata said, "i was thinking more like 30 mil."
[/quote]

I realize 10X reps look unfair when you first see them but aid is easily leveraged 5-10X when fighting multiple nations. A single set of ground attacks can steal up to $6 million which is immediately dumped into infra purchases, giving even better odds for the next set of attacks so more money can be looted. Add in a few nukes and a non-anarchy collection and you'll get to $30 million worth of gains/damages pretty quickly. Suggesting token reparations of only $3 million may have been an innocent mistake on your part but I've been on the other side of negotiations like this and find it very insulting when an alliance only offers to cover a fraction of the damage it has done.

The idea that reparations should be scaled down for smaller alliances is ridiculous. If 10 members of Viridia formed a splinter alliance and someone went rogue I would expect them to get the same reparations penalties that we would. Punishment fits the crime, not how big you are.

[SirWilliam]

1x reparations is itself insulting.

[Schad]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1315897675' post='2799668']
Woh why are you people so rigidly holding on to that 30mil mark? It's called negotiation. That 30mil was lowered to 15mil in a blink of an eye. Please stop making it sound like that was the agreed sum.
[/quote]

That's what I was getting at before, though...people here seem to think that's the way negotiation has to work. Problem being that, in the context of a political setting, the response is always going to be "oh hey we're being extorted", especially if the price is framed in the context of fair remuneration. And when the price drops dramatically, it doesn't look like compromise...it just looks like the offering party admitting that the original position is untenable.

I don't think that NG was looking to extort SC with the initial $30m, and the fact that you halved the request in under five minutes would seem to support that. I just think that everyone in this world (and I'm not singling NG out; practically every alliance seems to try this) needs to stop bloody well negotiating in this fashion.


[quote]

I realize 10X reps look unfair when you first see them but aid is easily leveraged 5-10X when fighting multiple nations. A single set of ground attacks can steal up to $6 million which is immediately dumped into infra purchases, giving even better odds for the next set of attacks so more money can be looted. Add in a few nukes and a non-anarchy collection and you'll get to $30 million worth of gains/damages pretty quickly. Suggesting token reparations of only $3 million may have been an innocent mistake on your part but I've been on the other side of negotiations like this and find it very insulting when an alliance only offers to cover a fraction of the damage it has done.[/quote]

At the time, the three nations that Methrage were fighting had $3.2m in infra, tech, military and land [i]combined[/i].

Edited September 13, 2011 by Schad

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='asawyer' timestamp='1315932554' post='2799787']
I realize 10X reps look unfair when you first see them but aid is easily leveraged 5-10X when fighting multiple nations. A single set of ground attacks can steal up to $6 million which is immediately dumped into infra purchases, giving even better odds for the next set of attacks so more money can be looted. Add in a few nukes and a non-anarchy collection and you'll get to $30 million worth of gains/damages pretty quickly. Suggesting token reparations of only $3 million may have been an innocent mistake on your part but I've been on the other side of negotiations like this and find it very insulting when an alliance only offers to cover a fraction of the damage it has done.
[/quote]

The Sandwich Confederation only had one person make the mistake. One. At MOST the request should have been 3X the amount or 9 million (and not 30 or as pointed out later moved to 15 million).

Are you actually suggesting that SC should be required to pay the reps of everyone else as well? That's crazy. IF multiple people from SC made the same mistake and no other alliance had members who did they same thing, I might see the logic in asking for an increased amount. However, that is NOT what happened. What happened is that NG went around to multiple alliances (in addition to our one member who made the mistake and to CA, two Wolfpack nations made the same mistake and I've been told someone from MHA also) asking for large amounts of money from each one. Frankly, my guess is that if one added up ALL the money NG got from all the alliances they asked for "reps" from, NG came out with a nice profit.

Also, when I offered 3 million I did not know other nations from other alliances got caught in the same trap. There was also NO explanation provided by NG UNTIL I balked. I just offered to pay 3 mil and their person said "we want 30 million."

Edited September 13, 2011 by White Chocolate

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1315933966' post='2799794']
Problem being that, in the context of a political setting, the response is always going to be "oh hey we're being extorted"
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but that's just the response in the setting of over emotional children who find being 'outraged' entertaining and decided about 2 years ago that they really, really like to use the word extorted all over the forum. In reality, that's how negotiations work all the time here, on every plane of existence, in multiple fields of business, across every profession, and yes, in politics as well. Not only that, it's how such things have worked for thousands of years, and for good reason.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Il Impero Romano

[Schad]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1315934549' post='2799797']
I'm sorry, but that's just the response in the setting of over emotional children who find being 'outraged' entertaining and decided about 2 years ago that they really, really like to use the word extorted all over the forum. In reality, that's how negotiations work all the time here, on every plane of existence, in multiple fields of business, and across every profession. Not only that, it's how such things have worked for thousands of years, and for good reason.
[/quote]

You'd think that years of watching this very strategy needlessly produce cluster$%&@s and mindless drama around here would dissuade people from seeing it as the optimal course, but apparently not. Strength isn't asking the moon and immediately settling for less...it's setting a fair price, and sticking to it.

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1315933966' post='2799794']
That's what I was getting at before, though...people here seem to think that's the way negotiation has to work. Problem being that, in the context of a political setting, the response is always going to be "oh hey we're being extorted", especially if the price is framed in the context of fair remuneration. And when the price drops dramatically, it doesn't look like compromise...it just looks like the offering party admitting that the original position is untenable.

I don't think that NG was looking to extort SC with the initial $30m, and the fact that you halved the request in under five minutes would seem to support that. I just think that everyone in this world (and I'm not singling NG out; practically every alliance seems to try this) needs to stop bloody well negotiating in this fashion.

At the time, the three nations that Methrage were fighting had $3.2m in infra, tech, military and land [i]combined[/i].
[/quote]

I'm more of a guy who states the price I want and that's not going to be negotiated on. Others aren't, and I understand that. In this case Xander did the negotiation and he has a different philosophy in negotiations than I have.

That's not the way it works Schad, and even if it did, you are forgetting that he could buy up infra from that amount and declare (he was in bill-lock), him declaring on our guys meant he got steal 6mil every day. So all in all 15mil was probably less than the damage he is doing atm. It is quite common to use the aided amount and multiply it by 3. Because Methrage was in bill-lock and we have stated on the OWF that people should not aid him we decided to up this level.

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1315934110' post='2799795']
The Sandwich Confederation only had one person make the mistake. One. At MOST the request should have been 3X the amount or 9 million (and not 30 or as pointed out later moved to 15 million).

Are you actually suggesting that SC should be required to pay the reps of everyone else as well? That's crazy. IF multiple people from SC made the same mistake and no other alliance had members who did they same thing, I might see the logic in asking for an increased amount. However, that is NOT what happened. What happened is that NG went around to multiple alliances (in addition to our one member who made the mistake and to CA, two Wolfpack nations made the same mistake and I've been told someone from MHA also) asking for large amounts of money from each one. Frankly, my guess is that if one added up ALL the money NG got from all the alliances they asked for "reps" from, NG came out with a nice profit.
[/quote]

The damages Schad and Nicholai did has been quite a bit more than 'all' the money we received.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1315934756' post='2799799']
You'd think that years of watching this very strategy needlessly produce cluster$%&@s and mindless drama around here would dissuade people from seeing it as the optimal course, but apparently not. Strength isn't asking the moon and immediately settling for less...it's setting a fair price, and sticking to it.
[/quote]

While I wish I could say that you know better than thousands of years of negotiation by the brightest minds in other lands, I'm going to have to go out on a limb and stick with their tried and true framework.

Also, don't get me wrong, setting a price and sticking too it certainly is a viable way to go about things as well, but their appropriateness is entirely contextual and neither really is superior to the other as a concept.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Il Impero Romano

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1315934549' post='2799797']
In reality, that's how negotiations work all the time here, on every plane of existence, in multiple fields of business, across every profession, and yes, in politics as well. Not only that, it's how such things have worked for thousands of years, and for good reason.
[/quote]

In reality, if a nation has an issue with another nation, any resulting negotiations are worked out between those two nations. What does NOT happen in reality is a group of 256 nations collectively expecting a group of 29 nation collectively to pay the bill of one of the nations in the group of 29. If you want reality, just negotiate with the one and only attack the one if an agreement isn't made. That would be real world.

We all know, however, that Planet Bob has nothing to do with reality. What matters is what is considered "common practice" here. If you want 30 million to become the "common practice" amount paid for a mistake like this - just say so and the rest of us can debate the fairness of that based on THIS world.

Edited September 13, 2011 by White Chocolate

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1315925586' post='2799752']
Oh, and kriekfreak, Meth tells me that he intends to keep his deal and pay our nation the tech he owes when it comes due. I had assumed it was entirely a con on his part, but he claims otherwise. Is this going to cause a problem? I would think that him having to give up tech at this point would actually help the situation for Non Grata (as he's giving up resources) but I want to be clear out of concern that if it's accepted by our member it's just going to be used as "proof" that it wasn't a mistake. If we have to wait until after the war - let me know.
[/quote]

I am interested to hear a response to this as well, unless I missed it (or it was sent privately) none has been made.

As I have stated before it is my experience that Methrage always sends the tech. I know it is his firm intention to do so in this case. I dont see any reason NG should object - as you say, it will cost him money and that means he has less left to fight with, particularly given how touchy they are about anyone sending him money, I would think they would be happy to see him shipping resources the other direction.

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1315931742' post='2799784']
I didn't hear about the actual negotiations until after. Some people start high and work their way down to end up at an agreeable sum, others state what they at least want to get and do not bend on that.
[/quote]

Yes. I have been told my biggest mistake here was in not gaming the negotiations, actually. I essentially made every concession I could before you even spoke with me, leaving me with nothing left to give ground on. I guess I expected you to see that and give me some credit for it. I didnt feel like that happened at all.

I could have waited till you contacted me to take any action at all, and then I would have been able to offer those concessions in negotiations, instead of having to say 'look, I have already done this, and this, and this, and that is all I can do.' It might have worked better. I dont know.

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1315934110' post='2799795']
Frankly, my guess is that if one added up ALL the money NG got from all the alliances they asked for "reps" from, NG came out with a nice profit.
[/quote]

This would have been true if everyone had given them what they wanted, for sure. A very nice profit indeed.

I am fairly certain my own stand has already cost them their profit, however.

[Schad]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1315935344' post='2799807']
While I wish I could say that you know better than thousands of years of negotiation by the brightest minds in other lands, I'm going to have to go out on a limb and stick with their tried and true framework.

Also, don't get me wrong, setting a price and sticking too it certainly is a viable way to go about things as well, but their appropriateness is entirely contextual and neither really is superior to the other as a concept.
[/quote]

The appropriateness is absolutely contextual, and lo, we have a context here. As I said before: if you are haggling over a used car, it's the right strategy. If instead you're conducting a negotiation where a failure of diplomacy results in the imposition of military force, it's probably a pretty bad strategy unless you don't mind having the other party walking away pissed off and complaining that it looked like you were trying to extort them...or in the case of Sigrun, digging in their heels such that it results in a few weeks spent trading nukes.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1315935835' post='2799811']
In reality, if a nation has an issue with another nation, any resulting negotiations are worked out between those two nations. What does NOT happen in reality is a group of 288 nations collectively expecting a group of 29 nation collectively to pay the bill of one of the nations. We all know, however, that Planet Bob has nothing to do with reality. What matters is what is considered "common practice" here. If you want 30 million to become the "common practice" amount paid for a mistake like this - just say so and the rest of us can debate the fairness of that based on THIS world.
[/quote]

This is a strange post in general, but specifically I'm not entirely sure where you're getting the common practice stuff from. To answer your question though, common practice is impossible, as resolutions should be flexible in general and narrowly tailored to the facts and circumstances in which the situation in question arose. While a community standard can lay a loose baseline in custom, to try and promulgate an actual 'common practice' whose deviation therefrom would give rise to outrage is, frankly, retarded.

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1315936002' post='2799815']
The appropriateness is absolutely contextual, and lo, we have a context here. As I said before: if you are haggling over a used car, it's the right strategy. If instead you're conducting a negotiation where a failure of diplomacy results in the imposition of military force, it's probably a pretty bad strategy unless you don't mind having the other party walking away pissed off and complaining that it looked like you were trying to extort them...or in the case of Sigrun, digging in their heels such that it results in a few weeks spent trading nukes.
[/quote]

Or, you have normal negotiations where both parties walk away fine and without ire, such as what happens every day in queries but doesn't make it to the owf. NG negotiated in the manner they felt was right for the situation here, and to be sure, it is the common manner. Your personal opinion may be that you would have negotiated differently, and that's fine, but reasonable minds can differ.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Il Impero Romano

[Shaazzam]

Due to the strength disparity, this isn't a negotiation of equals though, nor is it a negotiation in which both sides stand to profit. This is an instance where one side is saying give us this, with the (un)spoken "Or else," looming significantly.

[Jacapo Saladin]

[quote name='Shaazzam' timestamp='1315938393' post='2799836']
Due to the strength disparity, this isn't a negotiation of equals though, nor is it a negotiation in which both sides stand to profit. This is an instance where one side is saying give us this, with the (un)spoken "Or else," looming significantly.
[/quote]


No this was a case where one side was saying "We want reparations for this act of war" and the other side was saying "WHAT? SC DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY ANY %*@&#&% REPARATIONS!!!!!!!!"


Oh btw that was your alliance which was screaming obscenities during negotiations.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Jacapo Saladin

[Fedora Prefontaine]

[quote name='Jacapo Saladin' timestamp='1315940697' post='2799859']
No this was a case where one side was saying "We want reparations for this act of war" and the other side was saying "WHAT? SC DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY ANY %*@&#&% REPARATIONS!!!!!!!!"
[/quote]

At this point, I'm almost wishing this had been our response.

And don't pretend there's not an implicit threat when a sanctioned alliance comes knocking on a micro's door demanding money. You're making me laugh.

[Schad]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1315935313' post='2799806']

That's not the way it works Schad, and even if it did, you are forgetting that he could buy up infra from that amount and declare (he was in bill-lock), him declaring on our guys meant he got steal 6mil every day. So all in all 15mil was probably less than the damage he is doing atm. It is quite common to use the aided amount and multiply it by 3. Because Methrage was in bill-lock and we have stated on the OWF that people should not aid him we decided to up this level.
[/quote]

Which is why, ultimately, we agreed to a higher figure. In the couple hours between when it was presented and resolved, we tried to put together an estimate of how much Methrage got from his back-collect (he would have already had the means to get out of bill-lock, though, as a result of the tech deal with the Wolfpack nation), how much damage he might be able to inflict and how much he'd steal if the nations in question still had their delivered aid plus a little bit, and how much it might increase if another couple of nations his size were put on him. Split three ways, still got a number a fair shade below $15m, but as the estimate was in no way precise, it was debatable.


[quote]No this was a case where one side was saying "We want reparations for this act of war" and the other side was saying "WHAT? SC DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY ANY %*@&#&% REPARATIONS!!!!!!!!"

Oh btw that was your alliance which was screaming obscenities during negotiations. [/quote]

SC was offering reparations from the start. The person screaming nonsense shouldn't have been anywhere near the negotiation...or another human being in pretty much any setting, really.

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1315912904' post='2799703']
It's amazing what you can do with a stupid premise and a calculator.
[/quote]
I bet these same people are going to tell me that the orange I'm eating is really an apple.

at NG for [size="4"]demanding OVER 100 MILLION DOLLARS!!!!![/size][size="1"]well not really, but if I twist and grind the numbers enough times I can *kinda* make it work out if you aren't paying much attention[/size]

edit: I'd also like to add that those who sent Meth cash allowed him to renuke and anyone knows how easy it is to win GA's after you nuke them. Now add 5 Barracks/5 GR's. He can effectively steal 6m per day from our nations with that cash you sent him. 6m x 7 days of war is $42 not to mention infra damage, tech deal disruptions, etc etc. $30m in light in my opinion. He was bill-locked before some inactive idiots aided him.

...like what kriekfreak said above

Here's me wishing we were back in the NPO days when they'd ZI you for one single 3m aid package to a rogue.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Steve Buscemi

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1315912608' post='2799701']
They have 29 members, you demanded 30 million. 30/29 = 1,034,482.75 per member. Do math.

Incidentally, that's roughly equivalent to NG paying out $264,827,584 in reps. Which I'm sure you would be willing to do if one of your nations aided a nation at war with another alliance.


Right, which is the equivalent of NG paying out $132,413,792 in reps for a single nation making a mistake.
[/quote]


You heard it here 1st. Reps need to be fairly determined on a per-capita basis.

[Ventus]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1315942817' post='2799885']
You heard it here 1st. Reps need to be fairly determined on a per-capita basis.
[/quote]

For a minute there I was hoping CA was going to roll you...

Either way, Methrage, nobody cares. You are a rogue. People like you have existed since the dawn of CN and none are ever remembered. Give it up, also as to a micro getting dragged into this, good I hope they are forced to disband too. Micros are annoying and ruining the forums

Edited September 13, 2011 by Ventus

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1315935835' post='2799811']
In reality, if a nation has an issue with another nation, any resulting negotiations are worked out between those two nations. What does NOT happen in reality is a group of 256 nations collectively expecting a group of 29 nation collectively to pay the bill of one of the nations in the group of 29. If you want reality, just negotiate with the one and only attack the one if an agreement isn't made. That would be real world.

We all know, however, that Planet Bob has nothing to do with reality. What matters is what is considered "common practice" here. If you want 30 million to become the "common practice" amount paid for a mistake like this - just say so and the rest of us can debate the fairness of that based on THIS world.
[/quote]

OOC: What about things such as the UN, NATO, EU, AU, and other alliances in RL? There is a common practice of a large group of nations going to a single nation and demanding something.

IC: I am still not getting the whole "29 nation" bit.... I am assuming that your nation who did the tech deal with Meth was buying tech. With that bit of info, I am assuming said nation most likely has at least 3,999 infra meaning he should have between $60-$120 million in WC, as well as make around $60-$80 million in a 20 day BC. So in reality, had NG been willing to do a payment plan, the nation who made the mistake could have easily paid off the initial demand of $30 million on his own, with only a slight setback in tech intake and WC on hand. There was no need for all 29 nations to become involved in any way. Now, once the reps were dropped to $15 million, that makes it even easier for said single nation to handle the issue.

As for your initial offer of just $3 million, it is quite insulting to be fair. The damage done, regardless of whether Meth sends the tech or not, will be far in excess of $3 million. I honestly think you would have received a much better reply had you just started with a $9 million offer instead of $3 million, particularly given that Meth is a known rogue and has been for several months.

Now, can we please end the "If you divide $30 million into square root of 29 nations over pi=100 bazillion gillion dollars" argument since really, that is a weak argument when it comes to cash. That argument is really only usable when it comes to tech reps.

[Shaazzam]

[quote name='Jacapo Saladin' timestamp='1315940697' post='2799859']
No this was a case where one side was saying "We want reparations for this act of war" and the other side was saying "WHAT? SC DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY ANY %*@&#&% REPARATIONS!!!!!!!!"


Oh btw that was your alliance which was screaming obscenities during negotiations.
[/quote]

I'm not really sure what your last comment has to do with anything, other than as a strawman argument. As has been stated, a member of my AA, one of our two MoFA's to be exact, was directly involved in getting this resolved and has already offered aid to the "aggrieved" AA. So clearly, we all aren't unreasonable.

Nor do I see how your "We want reparations for this act of war" actually differs from what I've already said. There is an implicit threat stated in that paraphrase you used.

edit: tooooo many commas

Edited September 13, 2011 by Shaazzam

[BloodFury]

Seems like this has already cost someone more than the 30 million in reps that was originally asked.

[Mr flubb]

[color="#8B0000"]Why is it that micros demand to be treated equally here in the global political arena, but when negotiations go in a way they disapprove of they scream extortion? You guys need to swallow the fact that reps were demanded of you, because in reality, this shouldnt have happened. Methrage has soo much publicity as a rogue and has been soliciting nations for aid. If your gov is ignorant of this, than they should be kicked. It was your responsibility to inform your alliance on such a high profile case. Also, stop complaining that the reps are unfair because only one nation aided him. An Alliance's most basic function is as an insurance policy. One nation gets attacked or Fs up, the rest backs him, and that nation backs the alliance when someone else $%&@s up. SO STOP WHINING. Also, as many have pointed out, reps are based on current and future damage caused by the aid, not how many members you have. Besides 30 mil isnt that much. Chill the $%&@ down and do the smart thing, pay your damn reps. [/color]