Rep Repayment Plan

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1317607331' post='2814363']
Legacy was quite literally forced reps upon them by an eager CSN.
[/quote]

Actually, no. DT was the one who said they want to pay to Legacy, and (if I recall) wouldn't accept the reps (20k tech blah blah) without them taking some. CSN forced the reps, but they didn't force Legacy to accept the anything.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Gibsonator21

[Biff Webster]

I don't see why you didn't just keep the reps.

[Baltus]

You were [i]forced[/i] into accepting reps? Come on now.

I guess it's the gesture that counts.

[Bob Ilyani]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1317623299' post='2814514']
Again the same as with GOD, the reps where accepted, if they want to send them back.. well i don't see how it's a $%&@ You to CSN, not like Legacy sending out money and or tech affects CSN in any way shape or form.

So i guess what i'm trying to get at is.. Could someone please explain to me what the reasoning is behind the idea that anyone would care (except for parties directly involved in the transfers of course)?
[/quote]
In this case, it's quite purely the thought that counts. It's not really changing much, but rather it's the physical rejection of a deal that was forced on them. They now confessed that they messed that scenario up, and have worked very, very hard to right the wrongs that were made in their name.

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1317626491' post='2814530']
Actually, no. DT was the one who said they want to pay to Legacy, and (if I recall) wouldn't accept the reps (20k tech blah blah) without them taking some. CSN forced the reps, but they didn't force Legacy to accept the anything.
[/quote]
That doesn't exactly justify why DT currently holds a treaty with Legacy and CSN doesn't. Irrespective of how DT wanted the terms to play out, if CSN hadn't been so aggressive in presenting them in the first place, then they might still have a treaty and a friendship with Legacy. Nice try spinning that to make DT look like the villains though.

[zzzptm]

[quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1317629728' post='2814536']
I don't see why you didn't just keep the reps.
[/quote]
All I know is, if Legacy asks to borrow our lawnmower, I know they'll return it in good time. They're good neighbors. They mind the property line and they said they'd help out at the next bloc party.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

This is going to have to be one of those times I disagree with you, Schattenman. You may not be *literally* able to force someone to take reps, but in effect it boils down to the same thing. It's been done to me in the past, so it's not hard at all for me to imagine.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1317609522' post='2814384']
This is getting ridiculous.

The idea that Legacy was literally [i]forced [/i]to accept reps is a claim of grand scale in the hokum department. The only thing that Legacy [i]had [/i]to do is stay black and die. Maybe an extreme amount of pressure was put on them, maybe threats of cancellations were made, maybe people were screaming with purple veins on their foreheads, but Legacy is an alliance with its own government and its own decision-making processes and deciders.

And at the end of the day, [i]Legacy [/i]decided to accept reps. Sending them back now is a nice gesture, but it does not change the fact that [i]Legacy [/i]took them in the first place.
[/quote]

My thoughts exactly.

[Lurunin]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1317642845' post='2814561']
[b]That doesn't exactly justify why DT currently holds a treaty with Legacy and CSN doesn't.[/b] Irrespective of how DT wanted the terms to play out, if CSN hadn't been so aggressive in presenting them in the first place, then they might still have a treaty and a friendship with Legacy. Nice try spinning that to make DT look like the villains though.
[/quote]


I would have to disagree...anyone with a shred of decency wouldn't have given the F U to GOD/CSN as Legacy did in their cancellation/announcement thread awhile back. If they had a respect they could have in the very least made it two separate announcements rather than the same one

so what i am saying is: if you value a treaty partner/friend enough to sign with them, then no matter the situation you should show some respect in cancelling on them

edit: as for signing with DT, they said they have been long time friends but i just wonder as to why they didnt sign a treaty before? if it was because of GOD/CSN here comes back the idea of alliance sovereignty and both alliances should have been able to see past that, hell even if they wanted to sign a PIAT instead of a MDoAP because of the other treaty partners on both sides

Edited October 3, 2011 by Lurunin

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1317648858' post='2814590']
I would have to disagree...anyone with a shred of decency wouldn't have given the F U to GOD/CSN as Legacy did in their cancellation/announcement thread awhile back. If they had a respect they could have in the very least made it two separate announcements rather than the same one

so what i am saying is: if you value a treaty partner/friend enough to sign with them, then no matter the situation you should show some respect in cancelling on them
[/quote]
Well, that really depends on how they acted when the treaty was in place, doesn't it? If I signed a treaty and then they started acting like utter dicks I wouldn't feel any obligation to be respectful during the cancellation.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1317648858' post='2814590']
I would have to disagree...anyone with a shred of decency wouldn't have given the F U to GOD/CSN as Legacy did in their cancellation/announcement thread awhile back. If they had a respect they could have in the very least made it two separate announcements rather than the same one

so what i am saying is: if you value a treaty partner/friend enough to sign with them, then no matter the situation you should show some respect in cancelling on them
[/quote]

I'm fairly certain, and a representative of Legacy can correct me if I'm wrong, but Legacy showed GOD and CSN the exact level of respect in that cancellation thread that GOD and CSN had been showed to them previously.

[Lurunin]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1317649119' post='2814592']
Well, that really depends on how they acted when the treaty was in place, doesn't it? If I signed a treaty and then they started acting like utter dicks I wouldn't feel any obligation to be respectful during the cancellation.
[/quote]

then you, my friend, are why cooler heads must prevail

even if someone $%&@s up entirely and attacks your protectorate they are still your treaty partner and negotiations should take place right? you wouldnt advocate just outright cancelling and attacking that same treaty partner would you?

if so i would hope you arent gov

[Lurunin]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1317650137' post='2814597']
I'm fairly certain, and a representative of Legacy can correct me if I'm wrong, but Legacy showed GOD and CSN the exact level of respect in that cancellation thread that GOD and CSN had been showed to them previously.
[/quote]

and then we come to grade school diplomacy "i only pushed him cause he pushed me! it's not my fault!!"

and as for the respect part, if Legacy wasnt happy with the way they were treated before the DT incident then they had plenty of options as it was, they didnt need to hang around long enough to say one final "$%&@ You", but rather "it was good while it lasted"...also there had to be some reason for them to sign treaties with the both of them to begin with, no?

edit: I in no way promote the idea of backing GOD or any of the sort, hell you can ask a lot of people because i'm pretty vocal about it i just dont believe in treaty your "friends" like total !@#$. and before anyone says "yea but GOD/CSN did it to Legacy so Legacy did it back!!!!! *foam mouth*" ask yourself, if your own treaty partner did this exact move to you, regardless of the circumstances, wat would be your very first thought? and believe me it'll be easy to find a lie in this question

Edited October 3, 2011 by Lurunin

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1317650583' post='2814599']
then you, my friend, are why cooler heads must prevail

even if someone $%&@s up entirely and attacks your protectorate they are still your treaty partner and negotiations should take place right? you wouldnt advocate just outright cancelling and attacking that same treaty partner would you?

if so i would hope you arent gov
[/quote]
Well, it depends. If it was a mistaken raid then no of course not. If it was a full scale declaration then I'd support initial negotiations but they'd be having to peace out immediately and pay reps or it would be a cancellation and declaration. Though a DoW on a protectorate would probably void an MDP anyway due to the 'attack on the protectorate is an attack on the protector' language that protectorate treaties use.

However, that's not the scenario my earlier post was responding to. Being an utter dick, to me, implies some kind of intent to be a dick, or at least an unwillingness to fix a mistake once committed, so a full scale declaration on a protectorate would fit that, but not a mistaken raid. And even if they were being utter dicks I didn't mean that I'd cancel and immediately declare, I just meant that during the cancellation process, either informing them of our intent to cancel, or the actual announcement of the cancellation, I would feel no obligation to be respectful about it. I'd probably go into detail about why I was canceling and why I thought they were utter dicks instead of using the old 'reasons were given in private' or whatever.

And I'm mid-level gov for NSO.

[Biff Webster]

[quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1317644437' post='2814565']
All I know is, if Legacy asks to borrow our lawnmower, I know they'll return it in good time. They're good neighbors. They mind the property line and they said they'd help out at the next bloc party.
[/quote]

Sure, until they change their mind about it again.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1317650769' post='2814600']
and then we come to grade school diplomacy "i only pushed him cause he pushed me! it's not my fault!!"

and as for the respect part, if Legacy wasnt happy with the way they were treated before the DT incident then they had plenty of options as it was, they didnt need to hang around long enough to say one final "$%&@ You", but rather "it was good while it lasted"...also there had to be some reason for them to sign treaties with the both of them to begin with, no?[/quote]

"Good while it lasted" implies a parting on amicable terms. The split was anything but that. Not so much grade school diplomacy as an expression that shoddy treatment is not to be rewarded with a quiet departure, giving the world the impression that there was nothing notable that caused the break up when very clearly there was.

Put another way, if you were a gal with a controlling, manipulative boyfriend and you got fed up with his behavior, you're probably going to want to warn other women away from the jerk.

Doing so publicly saves time, since you can reach your audience all at once.

[quote]edit: I in no way promote the idea of backing GOD or any of the sort, hell you can ask a lot of people because i'm pretty vocal about it i just dont believe in treaty your "friends" like total !@#$. and before anyone says "yea but GOD/CSN did it to Legacy so Legacy did it back!!!!! *foam mouth*" ask yourself, if your own treaty partner did this exact move to you, regardless of the circumstances, wat would be your very first thought? and believe me it'll be easy to find a lie in this question.[/quote]

In the case of UPN, most of us at Valhalla warmed our feet by the fires of UPN being burned down. I don't expect that Legacy has any sort of future relationship in mind with GOD or CSN. Mostly they burned the bridge and kept walking. Life is like that some times.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1317648858' post='2814590']
edit: as for signing with DT, they said they have been long time friends but i just wonder as to why they didnt sign a treaty before? if it was because of GOD/CSN here comes back the idea of alliance sovereignty and both alliances should have been able to see past that, hell even if they wanted to sign a PIAT instead of a MDoAP because of the other treaty partners on both sides
[/quote]

I asked the same question but the answer didn't make too much sense. As for any GOD/CSN interference in such a treaty process... no. Prior to the war, DT wasn't on our radars at all (the last time we had any real substantive contact with DT was before their formal existence announcement [2008 I believe?], which was over a ZI dispute of Spitfire in late 2007).

[iamthey]

I don't have any real comment on the substance of the issue at hand. In fact, I didn't actually read your announcement, the image selected was just so gawd awful. Hurt my eyes. Srsly.

[Lurunin]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1317651774' post='2814602']
Well, it depends. If it was a mistaken raid then no of course not. If it was a full scale declaration then I'd support initial negotiations but they'd be having to peace out immediately and pay reps or it would be a cancellation and declaration. Though a DoW on a protectorate would probably void an MDP anyway due to the 'attack on the protectorate is an attack on the protector' language that protectorate treaties use.

However, that's not the scenario my earlier post was responding to. Being an utter dick, to me, implies some kind of intent to be a dick, or at least an unwillingness to fix a mistake once committed, so a full scale declaration on a protectorate would fit that, but not a mistaken raid. And even if they were being utter dicks I didn't mean that I'd cancel and immediately declare, I just meant that during the cancellation process, either informing them of our intent to cancel, or the actual announcement of the cancellation, I would feel no obligation to be respectful about it. I'd probably go into detail about why I was canceling and why I thought they were utter dicks instead of using the old 'reasons were given in private' or whatever.

And I'm mid-level gov for NSO.
[/quote]

Being a dick doesnt always mean intending to be a dick. Legacy did not have to stay in the war if they did not want to did they? they could have withdrew when they saw that there was no point in the war being dragged out than it needed to be. By making their own peace to end the side-conflict they would have put pressure on their own allies to stop acting foolishly. any good ally should be behind their partner when needed, but also infront of them to show them their own wrong doing.


[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1317654514' post='2814616']
"Good while it lasted" implies a parting on amicable terms. The split was anything but that. Not so much grade school diplomacy as an expression that shoddy treatment is not to be rewarded with a quiet departure, giving the world the impression that there was nothing notable that caused the break up when very clearly there was.

Put another way, if you were a gal with a controlling, manipulative boyfriend and you got fed up with his behavior, you're probably going to want to warn other women away from the jerk.

Doing so publicly saves time, since you can reach your audience all at once.


In the case of UPN, most of us at Valhalla warmed our feet by the fires of UPN being burned down. I don't expect that Legacy has any sort of future relationship in mind with GOD or CSN. Mostly they burned the bridge and kept walking. Life is like that some times.
[/quote]

Good while it lasted also shows that while once you may have had good relations, there was a break down in those relations. by giving the F U, yes they did indeed burn bridges but they also spat on the groundwork that the treaty was built on, not to say CSN wasnt guilty of this as well but like i said, a good treaty partner shows tells their friend they are being foolish. Hell I'll even make reference to Athens-KofN! issue with this and MK having to common sense to say "wtf you think you doing?"

but i do want to bring attention to Legacy's cancellation thread real quick:

[quote=OP]An alliance must be able to stand up and be independent.[/quote]

there was nothing stopping this before, they just chose not to


If Legacy had balls back then then the whole issue of reps being repaid wouldnt have even come up

[RandomInterrupt]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1317609522' post='2814384']
This is getting ridiculous.

The idea that Legacy was literally [i]forced [/i]to accept reps is a claim of grand scale in the hokum department. The only thing that Legacy [i]had [/i]to do is stay black and die. Maybe an extreme amount of pressure was put on them, maybe threats of cancellations were made, maybe people were screaming with purple veins on their foreheads, but Legacy is an alliance with its own government and its own decision-making processes and deciders.

And at the end of the day, [i]Legacy [/i]decided to accept reps. Sending them back now is a nice gesture, but it does not change the fact that [i]Legacy [/i]took them in the first place.
[/quote]
This is, of course, correct. What confuses me is why Legacy felt it was necessary to claim they were forced to accept reps. I think accepting reps, later realizing that it was wrong to do, and paying them back is a very respectable and reasonable thing to do. No need to concoct a story about being forced.

Not to be too hard on Legacy about it all though. It seems that the broader world fails to understand the concept of sovereignty.

[Sarmatian Empire]

[quote name='RandomInterrupt' timestamp='1317659895' post='2814646']
This is, of course, correct. What confuses me is why Legacy felt it was necessary to claim they were forced to accept reps. I think accepting reps, later realizing that it was wrong to do, and paying them back is a very respectable and reasonable thing to do. No need to concoct a story about being forced.

Not to be too hard on Legacy about it all though. It seems that the broader world fails to understand the concept of sovereignty.
[/quote]
Very early on in this thread, while responding to RV, I said the choice of the term forced was a bad choice on my part

[Spartacus1082]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1317650137' post='2814597']
I'm fairly certain, and a representative of Legacy can correct me if I'm wrong, but Legacy showed GOD and CSN the exact level of respect in that cancellation thread that GOD and CSN had been showed to them previously.
[/quote]

Hmmmm, but we're not allowed to do that right?

Some of the alliances that are complaining about how we acted recently have a much longer history of being, well basically, dicks all on their own. I can't personally comment about the reps incident as I wasn't a member of Legacy but I have no problem with taking something that we feel was a mistake and trying to make it better. Don't like it? Too damn bad, don't read our posts.....

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1317658641' post='2814638']
If Legacy had balls back then then the whole issue of reps being repaid wouldnt have even come up[/quote]

So Legacy should have caused the war to be even longer and more costly for all concerned because their allies were being crappy to them and it was time to take a principled stand?

Sorry, but their approach of waiting until after the war was the best...certainly the lesser of two evils.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1317660544' post='2814651']
Very early on in this thread, while responding to RV, I said the choice of the term forced was a bad choice on my part
[/quote]
There is an edit button on the bottom of your OP.

[Lord Boris]

As far as the comment made earlier in the thread about DT requesting/insisting at least some of the reps total went to Legacy instead of CSN, I have no clue about the accuracy of that statement. It would, however, make a lot of sense, and if true that was a brilliant move on the part of DT gov. If you knew you had to fork over tech but had a chance to shift some of it to an alliance you thought was more likely to be an asset to you down the road, wouldn't you try to do the same thing?


[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1317650137' post='2814597']
I'm fairly certain, and a representative of Legacy can correct me if I'm wrong, but Legacy showed GOD and CSN the exact level of respect in that cancellation thread that GOD and CSN had been showed to them previously.
[/quote]

CSN in particular had also done good things for Legacy in the past (such as protecting the AA when it first formed, if memory serves). If CSN took Legacy's blatant "screw you" personally, they had ample reason to do so.

[Buds The Man]

Legacy wasnt FORCED per se to take the reps but in the interest of closing that front down I believe they took them. IMO if they would have refused reps those negotiations would have taken at least another week or two to conclude. For those saying they could have left the battlefield your right they could have and left an ally on the field. I dont believe Legacy to be the type of AA to do this. It was an all around $%&@ed up situation. Legacy did what they had to do at the time and now they are simply following through with what they wanted originally. Good show Sarm.

o/ Legacy