Leet Guy Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 [quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1319477063' post='2831621'] While a good idea, it could probably cause some problems. What happens when someone deserts and goes to...NPO. NPO accepts them and says he doesnt have to pay? [/quote] They would have every right to continue warring said nation, considering he ducked from the war in order to avoid fighting and then ducked on the payment to avoid penalty for being a deserter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Xander the Only Posted October 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 [quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1319477063' post='2831621'] While a good idea, it could probably cause some problems. What happens when someone deserts and goes to...NPO. NPO accepts them and says he doesnt have to pay? [/quote] I like to think that most alliances wouldn't do such a thing, as it's certainly not something we would do to another alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 [quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1319416631' post='2831232'] Yes, any alliance that doesn't disband as soon as they realize they are losing a war is showing a failure of leadership. [/quote] [quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1319418463' post='2831258'] So is this the strategy you're going to encourage your alliance to take the next time you find yourself losing a war? [/quote] Come on Delta your way smarter than this. This scenerio is totally different than anything youd find Valhalla in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarmatian Empire Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 [quote name='King Xander the Only' timestamp='1319478631' post='2831636'] I like to think that most alliances wouldn't do such a thing, as it's certainly not something we would do to another alliance. [/quote] But would you if it would fit into your agenda though. Lets flip things around real quick and say GOD was at war with SOS and GOD gave SOS the same reps. Knowing that a large part of bob wants to roll GOD, what if SOS dude number 1 joins NG. In theory, you could tell GOD to go shove it and any continued acts of war against sais nation would be countered by NG. Obviously this is all a little far fetched, just playing devils advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) If we're accepting some war dodging !@#$%^ from SOS we have bigger problems. Edited October 24, 2011 by Zoomzoomzoom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarmatian Empire Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1319483346' post='2831660'] If we're accepting some war dodging !@#$%^ from SOS we have bigger problems. [/quote] It was an example and you know it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 [quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1319486718' post='2831671'] It was an example and you know it [/quote] If they're accepting some war dodging !@#$%^ in general they have bigger problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Xander the Only Posted October 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 [quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1319486718' post='2831671'] It was an example and you know it [/quote] It's fun to be an !@#$%^& and everything, but this is one particular thing I'm very much against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 [quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1319482188' post='2831653'] But would you if it would fit into your agenda though. Lets flip things around real quick and say GOD was at war with SOS and GOD gave SOS the same reps. Knowing that a large part of bob wants to roll GOD, what if SOS dude number 1 joins NG. In theory, you could tell GOD to go shove it and any continued acts of war against sais nation would be countered by NG. Obviously this is all a little far fetched, just playing devils advocate [/quote] It's not much difficult than sanctioning a nuke rogue. I would have to swallow a couple of times if SOS came knocking, but I think I would ultimately do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 [quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1319481420' post='2831646'] Come on Delta your way smarter than this. This scenerio is totally different than anything youd find Valhalla in. [/quote] Everyone thinks that about themselves. We're all just as vulnerable as the next guy, and as soon as we stop believing that, our clock starts ticking down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1319464279' post='2831559'] People should stop viewing the terms as reps, and start viewing them as a penalty for deserting your alliance.[/quote] Nice try, but no. It's not the responsibility of an enemy to impose a "penalty" on deserters from the alliance they are fighting for desertion. That's very bad logic. You help your friends take care of their deserters, not your enemies. What you're doing is absolutely reparations - you're losing the ability to take their tech, land and cash so you want some sort of pay off. I'm not saying that's bad. In fact - kudos for doing it. Just call it what it is please. [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1319412760' post='2831176'] Deserters always deserve to pay. Well done. I look forward to this precedent being set for every major war from now on. EVEN if it is against my own alliance. [/quote] [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1319413096' post='2831182'] Especially when it is your alliance. [/quote] Excellent point, Schattenmann. There is no such thing as a one size fits all policy. Note to everyone outside of Non Grata, if/when you get into a war and Non Grata is on the other side, make it as easy as possible for their membership to get out of the war. Perhaps SOS Brigade should start offering 3 million and 50 tech to everyone who deserts Non Grata Edited October 25, 2011 by White Chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) (apologies for two posts) Edited October 25, 2011 by White Chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grendel Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) There is a habit here of very imprecise use of the word reparation/s and specifically within this thread. While there may be a reasonable assumption that NG is dictating reparations on individual nations of SOS in fact they are offering a choice of terms to those nations [with some exceptions as noted in the OP]. While reparations demanded of a nation or alliance may also be part of the terms those terms are not necessarily reparations but instead a provision of an agreement between parties. In this case it appears NG is dictating those terms without cooperative negotiation between them and SOS but we really do not know what is or is not happening behind the scenes. As you will note below there are distinct differences between terms and reparations. Chiefly with reparations, especially in the case of CN, there is some form compensation from a [b]defeated nation/alliance[/b] to the opposing nation/alliance. Where Terms, as would be logically applied to CN, are the provisions that determine the nature and scope of an agreement, though be it a one sided agreement but an agreement none the less. In the case of the OP the individual terms of surrender offered to SOS are not limited to those who are actively fighting or defeated but terms to the general membership of SOS [minus those excluded in the OP] whether they are fighting or not and before any final outcome of hostilities has been determined. These terms as dictated by NG to SOS are a way that individual nations can get out of this war before the final conclusion with what may be less arduous terms as compared to what might be expected if they stayed to the end and reparations are factored in for the whole debacle. Bolded parts of the definitions are what would apply in this case. [b]Definition of REPARATION[/b] 1 a : a repairing or keeping in repair b plural : repairs 2 [b]a : the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury b : something done or given as amends or satisfaction[/b] 3 [b]: the payment of damages : indemnification; specifically : compensation in money or materials payable by a defeated nation for damages to or expenditures sustained by another nation as a result of hostilities with the defeated nation —usually used in plural[/b] [b]Definition of TERM[/b] 1 a : end, termination; also : a point in time assigned to something (as a payment) b : the time at which a pregnancy of normal length terminates <had her baby at full term> 2 a : a limited or definite extent of time; especially : the time for which something lasts : duration, tenure <term of office> <lost money in the short term> b : the whole period for which an estate is granted; also : the estate or interest held by one for a term c : the time during which a court is in session [b]3 plural : provisions that determine the nature and scope of an agreement : conditions <terms of sale> <liberal credit terms>[/b] 4 a : a word or expression that has a precise meaning in some uses or is peculiar to a science, art, profession, or subject <legal terms> b plural : expression of a specified kind <described in glowing terms> 5 a : a unitary or compound expression connected with another by a plus or minus sign b : an element of a fraction or proportion or of a series or sequence 6 plural a : mutual relationship : footing <on good terms> b : agreement, concord <come to terms after extensive negotiations> c : a state of acceptance or understanding <came to terms with the failure of his marriage> 7 : any of the three substantive elements of a syllogism 8 : a quadrangular pillar often tapering downward and adorned on the top with the figure of a head or the upper part of the body 9 : division in a school year during which instruction is regularly given to students — in terms of : with respect to or in relation to <thinks of everything in terms of money> — on one's own terms : in accordance with one's wishes : in one's own way <prefers to live on his own terms> -edited missed part in copy/paste Edited October 25, 2011 by Grendel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 They're a defeated nation (ergo -> surrendering) and therefore are paying for damages. It doesn't really matter whom has inflicted those damages, because in the scale of alliance war you are paying for the damages your alliance has inflicted on the enemy, regardless of the fact you're abandoning said alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grendel Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1319555499' post='2832081'] They're a defeated nation (ergo -> surrendering) and therefore are paying for damages. It doesn't really matter whom has inflicted those damages, because in the scale of alliance war you are paying for the damages your alliance has inflicted on the enemy, regardless of the fact you're abandoning said alliance. [/quote] Actually they are not defeated but surrendered and that would mean that they accepted the individual surrender terms that are not necessarily reparations but instead an agreed upon cost between parties, who determines that is not you or me but instead the parties involved. The definitions for surrender never mention being defeated or vanquished but instead speaks of relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion. To give up. Edited October 25, 2011 by Grendel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 [quote name='Grendel' timestamp='1319555876' post='2832085'] Actually they are not defeated until after surrendering and that would mean that accepted the individual surrender terms that are not necessarily reparations but instead an agreed upon cost between parties, who determines that is not you or me but instead the parties involved. [/quote] They are quite clearly defeated if they're even weighing the option to surrender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grendel Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1319555953' post='2832086'] They are quite clearly defeated if they're even weighing the option to surrender. [/quote] reread I edited Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 [quote name='Grendel' timestamp='1319555876' post='2832085'] The definitions for surrender never mention being defeated or vanquished but instead speaks of relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion. To give up. [/quote] I have absolutely no idea how you're trying to spin "giving up" not equating to being defeated. "I stopped fighting, I didn't lose though!!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 [quote name='Grendel' timestamp='1319555876' post='2832085'] Actually they are not defeated but surrendered and that would mean that they accepted the individual surrender terms that are not necessarily reparations but instead an agreed upon cost between parties, who determines that is not you or me but instead the parties involved. The definitions for surrender never mention being defeated or vanquished but instead speaks of relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion. To give up. [/quote] There've been many, many attempts to spin defeat as anything else over the years, but I don't think anyone in CN has ever tried "I wasn't defeated. I surrendered." in all that time. Perhaps we all simply lack your imagination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grendel Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1319556466' post='2832090'] There've been many, many attempts to spin defeat as anything else over the years, but I don't think anyone in CN has ever tried "I wasn't defeated. I surrendered." in all that time. Perhaps we all simply lack your imagination. [/quote] Maybe it is I try to be precise in my use of words and to be honest IMHO Surrender <<< Defeat. To defeat me you will have to fight me if I surrender you did not have to do anything to supplicate me. To me that is much worse then fighting and losing. Edited October 25, 2011 by Grendel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 [quote name='Grendel' timestamp='1319557168' post='2832092'] Maybe it is I try to be precise in my use of words and to be honest IMHO Surrender <<< Defeat. To defeat me you will have to fight me if I surrender you did not have to do anything to supplicate me. To me that is much worse then fighting and losing. [/quote] So you'd rather spinelessly give in to the whims of the enemy than fight for the alliance which has protected you and acted as a home? I really hope the leadership of your alliance gets to read these comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 [quote name='Grendel' timestamp='1319557168' post='2832092'] Maybe it is I try to be precise in my use of words and to be honest IMHO Surrender <<< Defeat. To defeat me you will have to fight me if I surrender you did not have to do anything to supplicate me. To me that is much worse then fighting and losing. [/quote] So, to be clear, you can surrender without being defeated, defeated people can be forced to surrender, but it is worse to surrender than to be defeated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1319551878' post='2832068'] Nice try, but no. It's not the responsibility of an enemy to impose a "penalty" on deserters from the alliance they are fighting for desertion. That's very bad logic. You help your friends take care of their deserters, not your enemies. What you're doing is absolutely reparations - you're losing the ability to take their tech, land and cash so you want some sort of pay off. I'm not saying that's bad. In fact - kudos for doing it. Just call it what it is please. Excellent point, Schattenmann. There is no such thing as a one size fits all policy. Note to everyone outside of Non Grata, if/when you get into a war and Non Grata is on the other side, make it as easy as possible for their membership to get out of the war. Perhaps SOS Brigade should start offering 3 million and 50 tech to everyone who deserts Non Grata [/quote] Multiple people in Non Grata have already said we would support being offered these same individual surrender terms in any war. If someone in my alliance accepts an offer like this, I know they are paying more to get out of the war instead of just getting off scott free like all previous wars have been. We wrote them because we hate deserters. We first introduced this policy against UPN, although I think in this case we'd rather keep pounding down on SOS' nations. Edited October 25, 2011 by Zoomzoomzoom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grendel Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1319557556' post='2832097'] So, to be clear, you can surrender without being defeated, defeated people can be forced to surrender, but it is worse to surrender than to be defeated? [/quote] well that is kind of circular way of wording it. Defeated is defeated and surrendered is surrendered. Two individual words. You can be defeated and never surrendered and just as easily surrendered without actually being defeated. [quote]de·feat·ed/diˈfētid/ Adjective: Having been beaten in a battle or other contest: "the defeated army". Demoralized and overcome by adversity.[/quote] [quote]surrendered past participle, past tense of sur·ren·der (Verb) Verb: Cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority. Give up or hand over (a person, right, or possession), typically on compulsion or demand.[/quote] While similar in outcome of the verbs they are derived from they are distinctly different and I'll even accept that the differences may be just semantics but the difference to me is distinct. Edited October 25, 2011 by Grendel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 [quote name='Grendel' timestamp='1319558197' post='2832105'] While similar in outcome of the verbs they are derived from they are distinctly different and I'll even accept that the differences may be just semantics but the difference to me is distinct. [/quote] So, you're saying that submitting to the authority of another alliance is not demoralizing, nor is ceasing resistance being overcome by adversity? 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.