Deathsmile Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I believe you, and these terms are fine with me if they're fine with SSSW18. Tech deals at good prices aren't exactly oppressive. But thank you for understanding that when everyone has been getting white peace, and now terms have to be approved by Karma command and involve reps, it's gonna raise eyebrows.-Bama They were offered White Peace, they refused, said they wouldnt go down until NPO does... the next day, TOOL wants peace, and they come to us saying, were gonna be looking for peace soon... hmm.. seems like when theyre help is forced to peace out, and then theyre magically going too even though NPO is still in the fight, so what really raises your eyebrow? But honestly, who cares? Each war is different, everyone cant fight everyone else. why dont you guys focus on your own alliance and your own wars/peace thats going on? Youre all bad at trolling due to there being nothing to troll. Whats wrong with tech deals? if i was in sssw18's spot, id have no problem with the tech deals. if you guys honestly think these are "harsh" terms, then i guess we can make them decom all military improvements, wonders, and give thousands of free tech, just like the alliances on your side have in the past right? Is that what youre really comparing our "reps" too? These are only labeled "reps" because thats how CN has coined the term. Theyre just tech deals, alliances do this when they make treaties, you know, have big tech programs, so whats the difference? "oh boohoo, the terrible DT is helping rebuild the alliance they attacked in war. oh how dare you Karma." Id be happy to have an alliance help my alliance rebuild after we just fought a good, straight forward honest war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Paul Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I remember other alliances requiring tech sales as terms of surrender, and the world agreed that turning an alliance into a tech farm was a fair, equitable, and desirable outcome for all parties. No one has ever objected to this type of reperation before, so I'm curious as to why it's being objected to now. Forced economic development is good for all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuiNur Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 My problem is the principle of the thing. Suddenly after our allies are gone, including TOOL (who was focused on DT), wait, SSSW18 was allied with TOOL? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 We informed everyone that the terms would not be same if they weren't accepted the first time. Even on that day it was first discussed with SSSW18 and terms were offered and turned down. When you turn things down then the terms will change. At least this set of terms is a joint venture for both sides to recover. It could of been worse to where only 1 side is paying for everything.o/ Joint growth Again, look, I have a lot of respect for DT, and these are fair terms, but you have not displayed the policy described in that post towards all of your enemies during this war. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I remember other alliances requiring tech sales as terms of surrender, and the world agreed that turning an alliance into a tech farm was a fair, equitable, and desirable outcome for all parties. No one has ever objected to this type of reperation before, so I'm curious as to why it's being objected to now. Forced economic development is good for all! ES to \m/ "eternal tech farm" Kind of leaves a lasting bad taste ES, much love to ya these days, just saying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaGneT Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) Perhaps I can enlighten you to my view. Below are the relevant portions of peace announcements I found in a few minutes of searching. I ask you to find another tech selling requirement. So none of those alliances are jointly rebuilding with their opponents. Sucks for them, really. Youre all bad at trolling due to there being nothing to troll. Death, I'd just like to say, disagreeing =/= trolling. @Merrie Melodies: This isn't a tech farm. They're selling the tech for a profit, not a deficit. Edited May 1, 2009 by MaGneT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathsmile Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 name='Brandon Simonson' date='Apr 30 2009, 11:57 PM' post='1490653']Perhaps I can enlighten you to my view. Below are the relevant portions of peace announcements I found in a few minutes of searching. I ask you to find another tech selling requirement. So none of those alliances are jointly rebuilding with their opponents. Sucks for them, really. Death, I'd just like to say, disagreeing =/= trolling. It was more or less to everyone who is trying to troll this thread, not actually to bama. Sorry Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 It was more or less to everyone who is trying to troll this thread, not actually to bama.Sorry Bama No offense taken. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craziekyng Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 It was a pleasure this time around. I must say our opponents have been honorable. Best of luck to everyone....including the LSR guy that nuked me 4 times Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Bowie Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Perhaps I can enlighten you to my view. Below are the relevant portions of peace announcements I found in a few minutes of searching. I ask you to find another tech selling requirement. Is it your opinion that these terms are somehow inhumane, because that is an argument that is hard for anyone to swallow I would think. +They lost, and then a fair deal was hammered out for them to sell some tech to their opponents. I simply do not see why you are fighting this. Hell after the war I am going back to selling tech right beside them to the same exact guys ferchrisakes. When people start to oppose fair peace terms it only paves the way for harsher ones. I for one, look forward to meeting some of my former opponents on a level deal table as opposed to a sweat shop. SSW18 did well in getting these terms. My guess is that you have never been on the receiving end of a forced disband or huge unreasonable reps. JB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaPirate Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 My problem is the principle of the thing. Suddenly after our allies are gone, including TOOL (who was focused on DT), we go from white peace to tech deals.That awfully suspicious timing. My question is why? Was it because you knew that we were outnumbered completely or because we didn't bow down and surrender on your schedule? STOP BEING A SORE LOSER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strykewolf Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I remember other alliances requiring tech sales as terms of surrender, and the world agreed that turning an alliance into a tech farm was a fair, equitable, and desirable outcome for all parties. No one has ever objected to this type of reperation before, so I'm curious as to why it's being objected to now. Forced economic development is good for all! Apparently that was then.... I remember plenty of rep terms that I found reprehensible to the core of my being. This one is equitable for both sides. As are very nearly all tech deal reps. And...it hurts noone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaGneT Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 STOP BEING A SORE LOSER That isn't needed here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) I remember other alliances requiring tech sales as terms of surrender, and the world agreed that turning an alliance into a tech farm was a fair, equitable, and desirable outcome for all parties. No one has ever objected to this type of reperation before, so I'm curious as to why it's being objected to now. Forced economic development is good for all! Stop trying to do to Karma what [OOC]Bush did to McCain.[/OOC] Edit: OOC Edited May 1, 2009 by Delta1212 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 The Zenith/NADC surrender was hours after the TOOL surrender. "Karma Command" signed those as well, but the negotiations were handled by the alliances involved. These terms are more than fair and good to see some alliances benefitting economically both ways during the rebuilding. Some alliances only got 1 shot at white peace, some had friends on the other side, and some of the winners just didn't feel like dealing with monitoring reps or anything of the sort. All depended on who was involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaPirate Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 That isn't needed here. To quote Monty Python, "Let's not bicker and argue - this is a happy occasion!" So just as what I said wasn't needed, neither is his moaning. Anywho, o/ peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overlord Shinnra Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 The sigs from Karma have been removed. They were not meant to be there in the first place as SSSW18 isn't surrendering to Karma but to the forces of MOON, DT, LSR and Blackhorse. Sorry for any confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyin Hawaiian Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Just remember: We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaPirate Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 My problem is the principle of the thing. Suddenly after our allies are gone, including TOOL (who was focused on DT), we go from white peace to tech deals.That awfully suspicious timing. My question is why? Was it because you knew that we were outnumbered completely or because we didn't bow down and surrender on your schedule? You guys should have accepted peace the first time it was offered Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 C-c-c-combo breaker! The first reps of this war. And they aren't overly punitive. Good stuff guys. And congratulations on peace for all concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leetopia II Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 There's no way a 64 person alliance could swing 2500 tech to each of those alliances in 3 months, you're kidding yourselves with those terms guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I remember other alliances requiring tech sales as terms of surrender, and the world agreed that turning an alliance into a tech farm was a fair, equitable, and desirable outcome for all parties. No one has ever objected to this type of reperation before, so I'm curious as to why it's being objected to now. Forced economic development is good for all! I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not, but if it is, most people had no problems with it, as long as it was at a 3mil for 100 tech rate. the 3mil for 150 like I believe GATO was actually does hurt economic development, as alliances cannot grow as fast when they get less per deal than the average tech dealer does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taget Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I believe you, and these terms are fine with me if they're fine with SSSW18. Tech deals at good prices aren't exactly oppressive. But thank you for understanding that when everyone has been getting white peace, and now terms have to be approved by Karma command and involve reps, it's gonna raise eyebrows.-Bama The involvement of Karma was valuable, positive, and something we very actively sought. If you want to talk in private I can explain to you the situation and why that was the case. The terms are fine. There was considerable frustration in the process of getting there. Again something pointless to argue in public. This thread is about peace and putting differences aside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aratar Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 o/ Our allies in MOON o/ Victory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overlord Shinnra Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 There's no way a 64 person alliance could swing 2500 tech to each of those alliances in 3 months, you're kidding yourselves with those terms guys It has been conveyed already but the time table is lenient and will be extended if it looks like they are making any effort whatsoever. Also for your pleasure; 5 tech dealers have 5 slots each = 500 tech sent out for the month each deal. 2500 tech sent out with 5 sellers. Whod have thunk it. You could finish all deals in one month with 20 sellers, 5 slots each. Looking at the alliance there is a plethera of sellers who could use the money to rebuild. God we are so harsh. 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.