Sigrun Vapneir Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1318517489' post='2824093'] War is the price you pay for the protection afforded by the alliance during peace time. Skipping out on a war for "bad timing" doesn't make you free of repayment. [/quote] Not at all, but it shouldnt be double-billed either. If the surrenders pay does that get subracted out the alliance reps at the end? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 [quote name='deth2munkies' timestamp='1318518349' post='2824098'] There's no real precedent set by this war other than the confirmation that NG are jerks. People have been attacked for less, people have been attacked during negotiations before, unreasonable reps have been demanded before. [/quote] Neither have we done. Negotiations were concluded, unreasonable reps were not demanded so.. if that still makes us jerks that's fine but don't try to turn this into something it isn't. Even UPN have admitted the reps were [b]more[/b] than reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1318524200' post='2824129'] Neither have we done. [b]Negotiations were concluded[/b], unreasonable reps were not demanded so.. if that still makes us jerks that's fine but don't try to turn this into something it isn't. Even UPN have admitted the reps were [b]more[/b] than reasonable. [/quote] A fair assessment, however I disagree with the part in bold. There was no signs of an ultimatum ( not saying you were obliged to make this clear,) or that the discussions had ended, on the contrary we believed that the dialogue would continue, and on solid grounds. The declaration itself was rather rash imo -- and this was admitted by several members, and your senior government. Ultimately it wasn't UPN who chose war... Saying that, I understand that you were well within your rights to do what you did. And I am not trying to shift the blame to you or point fingers at you. Furthermore, I don't see the point in raising this time and time again... we admitted our $%&@ up, that is public information, and your feelings on this are also located in the relevant topics. Let bygones be bygones, what is the need to beat a dead horse. As for the topic question itself; there was no fresh precedent set. I remember whilst I was still TPF gov, being in a private channel with other NSO allies, being asked to sit out of the upcoming NSO beat down. And I am sure it has been done before that too (Although I am not a CN Historian, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.) In short, nothing the OP mentioned set a precedent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1318525774' post='2824136'] Furthermore, I don't see the point in raising this time and time again... we admitted our $%&@ up, that is public information, and your feelings on this are also located in the relevant topics. Let bygones be bygones, what is the need to beat a dead horse. [/quote] If someone brings up the fact that we asked for 'unreasonable' reps, I point them to the fact that they weren't unreasonable as others (including yourselves) have admitted. I don't like history on this to be rewritten by those that continue to spout inane crap. It's not true and will not ever be true, so those bringing up 'unreasonable' reps just show how dumb or full of spin they actually are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexomega Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) Food of thought for everyone in this thread; the two nations our member raided deleted shortly after the war began. Ironic. Reps reasonable? Maybe. Reps needed by the nations in question? You be the judge. Edited October 13, 2011 by Dexomega Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 [quote name='Dexomega' timestamp='1318530931' post='2824168'] Food of thought for everyone in this thread; the two nations our member raided deleted shortly after the war began. Ironic. Reps reasonable? Maybe. Reps needed by the nations in question? You be the judge. [/quote] GTFO you troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexomega Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1318533505' post='2824179'] GTFO you troll. [/quote] Just doing what I was born to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1318505987' post='2824051'] A terrible idea? Why? [/quote] It's because normally when nations pay reps to victorious alliances, they get protection in return for those reps. The reason alliances have treated POWs with a fairly hands-off approach in the past (generally the orders being just don't come back into the war) is because after the war is over, they don't want to have to deal with those POWs anymore. You're setting up a situation where you have to deal with the enemy's deserting nations after the war is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1318535660' post='2824192'] It's because normally when nations pay reps to victorious alliances, they get protection in return for those reps. The reason alliances have treated POWs with a fairly hands-off approach in the past (generally the orders being just don't come back into the war) is because after the war is over, they don't want to have to deal with those POWs anymore. You're setting up a situation where you have to deal with the enemy's deserting nations after the war is done. [/quote] How on earth do you come to the conclusions that you do? Pay up and get the protection you seek for the remainder of the conflict, don't pay and continue to receive attacks. Simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1318535775' post='2824195'] How on earth do you come to the conclusions that you do? Pay up and get the protection you seek for the remainder of the conflict, don't pay and continue to receive attacks. Simple. [/quote] What do you do with nations who haven't finished paying at the end of the conflict? You're always going to have people who are inefficient with paying reps, even assuming you guys are better than GOONS at providing targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1318546466' post='2824288'] What do you do with nations who haven't finished paying at the end of the conflict? You're always going to have people who are inefficient with paying reps, even assuming you guys are better than GOONS at providing targets. [/quote] They need to pay upfront, not after. If they are inefficient, we just war them longer. And besides it's not like those deserters need to pay several rounds of aid. In this situation it was just 50 tech. That's 1 slot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1318546466' post='2824288'] What do you do with nations who haven't finished paying at the end of the conflict? You're always going to have people who are inefficient with paying reps, even assuming you guys are better than GOONS at providing targets. [/quote] We'll deal with it. It is really as simple as that. Quit making it out to be some horrendous act on our part for further punishing war deserters. If we ever war your alliance we'll be sure to triple the rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 One slot per nation isn't hard, yeah. Also I'm not criticizing you for being evil. The criticism is more along the lines of "Man that sounds like a headache to administer, why would you bother?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1318596204' post='2824815'] We'll deal with it. It is really as simple as that. Quit making it out to be some horrendous act on our part for further punishing war deserters. If we ever war your alliance we'll be sure to triple the rate. [/quote] This. I don't understand why this wasn't implemented sooner. It's bad enough they're deserting, unless the war is over and the old-alliance wants them back I can't see having them pay some form of mini reps (in the very likely case that someone who would walk out on their AA during war wouldn't help foot the bill either...) really being a huge deal to me, so long as it isn't ridiculous. Also, this is twice in a month or so now, NG. Stop it. I don't like it. Edited October 15, 2011 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.