Neo Uruk Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 I understand this. One can only hope their membership sees it as mirror being held up to them rather than whatever Steve sees it as. In any case, the rowdiest members of the crowd won't change our stance on the reps here. Cry foul as you may, this was a decision that we agreed on. We'll deal with the consequences of our actions if we need to.You can't really say it's a "mirror being held up to them" when they don't have arexes, jacapo, zoom, etc. in any governmental capacity in any way. It's like saying Polar is the exact same alliance it was when sponge was in charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) You can't really say it's a "mirror being held up to them" when they don't have arexes, jacapo, zoom, etc. in any governmental capacity in any way. It's like saying Polar is the exact same alliance it was when sponge was in charge. It's still the same alliance though. Even if the current gov wouldn't do it, it's not unfair for UPN to want a token evening of the scales over such a minor amount. As someone who was a leader (2nd in charge) of an alliance (MK) who disagreed with a lot of what my former leader did (Leet), I can understand NG's having different leaders who act differently. But I also didn't expect IC or I to get a "clean slate", and we didn't. If people had wanted some token term from us in eQ because of something Leet did, I wouldn't have objected, at least on those grounds. Edited February 19, 2014 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) It's still the same alliance though. Even if the current gov wouldn't do it, it's not unfair for UPN to want a token evening of the scales over such a minor amount. As someone who was a leader (2nd in charge) of an alliance (MK) who disagreed with a lot of what my former leader did (Leet), I can understand NG's having different leaders who act differently. But I also didn't expect IC or I to get a "clean slate", and we didn't. If people had wanted some token term from us in eQ because of something Leet did, I wouldn't have objected, at least on those grounds.What if the alliance talking about token terms had recently been an ally? Would that not seem incredibly hypocritical and astoundingly poor form? Edited February 19, 2014 by Neo Uruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Goodness, people seriously complaining about paying six millions makes me wish we had not given up on really draconian reparations. This is laughable, just like the whole "we won't surrender" spiel was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enrage Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Grats on peace/surrender Wish everyone a speedy recovery til the next fight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Goodness, people seriously complaining about paying six millions makes me wish we had not given up on really draconian reparations. This is laughable, just like the whole "we won't surrender" spiel was. What else do they have? They are trying to make us look "ebil" and what do they got? 6m in reps, making an alliance surrender, and the weak-shit terms that NPO got. Compared to terms laid out in the past, this is the weakest you can get outside of grey/white peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CnaedmacAilpn Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Lol, if these 6 million in reps are so horrible, why not just keep fighting permawar like yall promised to? Lol, if you only just stopped posting, before thinking about waht you are to say. That promise was over a carefully chosen wording in the surrender term, as an amicable agreement was reached, the neccesity of a permawar became redundant. That has only been repeated so many times in more than a few threads :smug: Goodness, people seriously complaining about paying six millions makes me wish we had not given up on really draconian reparations. This is laughable, just like the whole "we won't surrender" spiel was. It was not a Spiel, at the time it was a serious option. That promise was over a carefully chosen wording in the surrender term, as an amicable agreement was reached, the neccesity of a permawar became redundant. What else do they have? They are trying to make us look "ebil" and what do they got? 6m in reps, making an alliance surrender, and the weak-!@#$ terms that NPO got. Compared to terms laid out in the past, this is the weakest you can get outside of grey/white peace. But you are Ebil, you are Satan manifest. There, feel better now :D ? Having said that, yes, the terms were by no stretch of the imagination, harsh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Lol, if you only just stopped posting, before thinking about waht you are to say. That promise was over a carefully chosen wording in the surrender term, as an amicable agreement was reached, the neccesity of a permawar became redundant. That has only been repeated so many times in more than a few threads :smug: It was not a Spiel, at the time it was a serious option. That promise was over a carefully chosen wording in the surrender term, as an amicable agreement was reached, the neccesity of a permawar became redundant. But you are Ebil, you are Satan manifest. There, feel better now :D ? Having said that, yes, the terms were by no stretch of the imagination, harsh. Can I be Beezlebub instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Compared to terms laid out in the past, this is the weakest you can get outside of grey/white peace. Which funnily enough is what everyone has been getting these past few wars... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) Which funnily enough is what everyone has been getting these past few wars... Which ones? Cuz Dave war had peace mode terms (where nations that were in PM for the duration of the war were punished for being in PM for the duration of the war... shocking I know right.) Grudge war had Hooligans demand $6 million in reps from Biohazard Corporation (wow...) as well as the reps NpO had to pay. That leaves eQ. So what past few wars are you talking about cuz I am seeing 1 war. And technically, that war had eQ basically forcing Competence to leave members out to hang with the "The Equilibrium Coalition and all Umbrella Coalition alliances agree to immediately cease hostilities with each other. Any nations which jumped to "splinter" or other such alliances during this war who decide to continue war will be treated as rogues by all parties to this document." So basically there was a term involved in the surrender of competence to eQ. So again, not exactly seeing the "white peace for everyone in the last [insert number] of wars" myth y'all been espousing too. The terms have just gotten different than reps, viceroys, and stuff like that. Edited February 19, 2014 by Dochartaigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) Back in the day when one of my allies wanted to disband UPN for not being good, I wasn't opposed to his plans on any other grounds, that it wasn't geo-politically achievable. I didn't like UPN back then, since those ancient times, I've grown as neutral of them, as of many others. But when I read this peace announcement, as a proud hegemonist I must admit that I now like UPN. In principle, reparations are great! So many years of health and prosperity to you, dear coalition ally. Edited February 19, 2014 by Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 What if the alliance talking about token terms had recently been an ally? Would that not seem incredibly hypocritical and astoundingly poor form? Would you not consider it poor form of an ally to proactively try and build a coalition against one of your MDoAP partners, whilst you are treatied? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Would you not consider it poor form of an ally to proactively try and build a coalition against one of your MDoAP partners, whilst you are treatied? You're not special. Happened to us at least 5 times I can count in the last 4 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onikujo Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 M-muh reps tho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krashnaia Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) Which funnily enough is what everyone has been getting these past few wars... I suppose that by "few wars" you mean one: eQ. And if eQ had no reps, it was not due to a surge of altruism among the nations of Bob. Grudge had terms. Dave had terms. Regarding eQ, some of the combatants had terms in mind when the war ignited. If there were no terms in the end, was because both sides were too matched. Neither had enough advantage to impose terms. There have been terms in this last war, like there were in all global wars in which one side was strong enough to impose terms. And this time the terms are more lenient than ever. Edited February 19, 2014 by Krashnaia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Let's be honest, the 6 mill wasn't exactly a sticking point in peace negotiations, if NG really was that set against it, they would have negotiated to have them dropped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexomega Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 You're not special. Happened to us at least 5 times I can count in the last 4 years. I said that last page. Since Karma UPN has gone through it a couple of times. Again, I stress that we had long standing MDoAP-level relationships that we maintain to this day on one side and on the other side we had an ODP-level that was just signed. Taken completely out of context, it is easy to decide which coalition we should have been with. When put into context, our decision was to stay out. I feel it's right to mention that, in my capacity as Minister of Finance, I tried to get in touch with NG via IRC to coordinate a rather sizable aid drive for you after the war ended. Unfortunately I got the stiff arm back then too, so I dropped it and we focused on Polaris. I actually completely forgot about this until right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 I said that last page. Since Karma UPN has gone through it a couple of times. Again, I stress that we had long standing MDoAP-level relationships that we maintain to this day on one side and on the other side we had an ODP-level that was just signed. Taken completely out of context, it is easy to decide which coalition we should have been with. When put into context, our decision was to stay out. I feel it's right to mention that, in my capacity as Minister of Finance, I tried to get in touch with NG via IRC to coordinate a rather sizable aid drive for you after the war ended. Unfortunately I got the stiff arm back then too, so I dropped it and we focused on Polaris. I actually completely forgot about this until right now. Who did you contact? Some people may have seen it as a slap in the face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 I suppose that by "few wars" you mean one: eQ. And if eQ had no reps, it was not due to a surge of altruism among the nations of Bob. Grudge had terms. Dave had terms. Regarding eQ, some of the combatants had terms in mind when the war ignited. If there were no terms in the end, was because both sides were too matched. Neither had enough advantage to impose terms. There have been terms in this last war, like there were in all global wars in which one side was strong enough to impose terms. And this time the terms are more lenient than ever. Oh yeah, I forgot about those forced combat terms in Dave, thought we went two in a row with no terms. Well that's that then :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Oh yeah, I forgot about those forced combat terms in Dave, thought we went two in a row with no terms. Well that's that then :/ Again what two? Before eQ (which arguably had terms given to Umbrella/co) it was Dave and Grudge both of which had terms. So again, where is this rush of white peace? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Craig Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Until we meet again............ Also much <3 to them turd burglar's in NG. But not Stewie or Steve. They smell funny I was glad to see this war brought you out of (semi?) retirement, man. There are too few old faces nowadays. And of course, hats off to all the nations I fought over the course of the war. Everyone was classy. -Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krashnaia Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Again what two? Before eQ (which arguably had terms given to Umbrella/co) it was Dave and Grudge both of which had terms. So again, where is this rush of white peace? It's ok, Doch. He admitted he was mistaken. I know that's an extremely uncommon event in a Forum, but he totally did. So, kudos to berbers. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Always a chance they're taking the joke in stride and dishing it right back out. Hey, guess not: oh you mean like this:http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=188822&Extended=1 There's Doombird trademark three 400k NS nations on a 100k target. You sure showed them Is this the part where everyone offended by a 6 million rep term jumps in? Honestly if you are all so offended I'll send you 6 million from my vaunted 3k nation and you can stop crying. At this point you're all just looking for something to complain about - petty politics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 DBDC has its role to play, just like everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 DBDC has its role to play, just like everyone else. Thanks for that incredibly obvious piece of insight You the man bro 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.