SSSW18 Surrenders

[JWConner]

Generally speaking, once an offer is made to an alliance to get them peace, the starting terms (or lack thereof) are the best set available. Terms typically get worse after that.

Well, in this case, it's the reverse. First off they (along with VA and others) were offered extremely high amounts of reps for peace ($500 mill for VA, $600 for SSSW18, cant remember for GRAN) from MOON. Only after other alliances got involved were those amounts dropped and white peace was offered.

[JWConner]

But, let me clear this up real quick...we're gracious to have received white peace at VA and our brothers in GRAN. I'm just intrigued/perplexed why our allies in SSSW18 were required to do anything more than we were.

Again, let me reiterate, i dont consider tech deals to be heinous by any means, it's just the principle of the ordeal.

[SovietNoob]

Where's the White Peace?

-1 respect points for you

[Haflinger]

Can someone please explain why the people doing all the arguing have nothing to do with this?

At least, that's my best theory.

[Overlord Shinnra]

But, let me clear this up real quick...we're gracious to have received white peace at VA and our brothers in GRAN. I'm just intrigued/perplexed why our allies in SSSW18 were required to do anything more than we were.

Again, let me reiterate, i dont consider tech deals to be heinous by any means, it's just the principle of the ordeal.

SSSW18 were offered white peace at teh same time you were. It is our belief the war was pretty much decided at that point and SSSW18's reply was their members wanted to stay at war longer. Actually its quite funny when I was approached about surrendering the reason for wanting to surrender was because they could no longer do damage which lead me to believe that they just used the 2 days to do more damage. That is our reason for giving the ungracious "term".

Is it a mandated term? Yes, I make no qualms about that fact and neither should anyone else.

Is it a harsh term? No, I believe it will help both alliances grow and are easily payable within the time date specified. The time date specified has already been indicated that it is very negotiable and will extend as long as we fill there is any effort being made which I already am satisfied with.

Do I feel I am better then the hegemony? I am no angel and I don't claim any such thing. I make errors (My first set of terms) and I demand justice (current term). I however do not believe that Karma's intent was ever to be an angel or a savior. It was a defense coaltion put together for various reasons number 1 being defense. Some might think it's some change of the game or otherwise but the fact of the matter is that the game will remain the same and only the players will change. What those players decide to do will decide the IC parts of the game, not this war. So the honest answer to this question is I don't care.

[craziekyng]

Can someone please explain why the people doing all the arguing have nothing to do with this?

Very well stated

[MaGneT]

Yeah I deserve it but my monitor is safe

OOC: You'd better stick around, your posts entertain me.

IC: I'll have to make your monitor unsafe, then.

But, let me clear this up real quick...we're gracious to have received white peace at VA and our brothers in GRAN. I'm just intrigued/perplexed why our allies in SSSW18 were required to do anything more than we were.

Again, let me reiterate, i dont consider tech deals to be heinous by any means, it's just the principle of the ordeal.

DT was not at war with VA and GRAN.

We advocated the tech deals. Of course, the others did go along and saw that it was a good idea once I proposed it.

Where's the White Peace?

-1 respect points for you

Really?

So doing something that is, in fact, more generous than white peace is worth "-1 respect"?

Then again, your opinion is irrelevant to me, so I oughtn't have even replied to you.

[Jipps]

For the record, obviously we would've rather had white peace than forced deals. I'd also like to point out the fact that just because the terms could've been a lot worse, doesn't make them any better.

Whats done is done though and debating it now really won't do much. Besides, who knows what the terms would have been if we declined them again.

I look forward to getting this done as soon as possible.

[Merrie Melodies]

For the record, obviously we would've rather had white peace than forced deals. I'd also like to point out the fact that just because the terms could've been a lot worse, doesn't make them any better.

Whats done is done though and debating it now really won't do much. Besides, who knows what the terms would have been if we declined them again.

I look forward to getting this done as soon as possible.

Heres to you success o/

[Fort Pitt]

it's just strange they were required to "pay reps"

its because they are the only NPO allies with balls

Edited May 2, 2009 by Fort Pitt

[Masterof9puppets]

But, let me clear this up real quick...we're gracious to have received white peace at VA and our brothers in GRAN. I'm just intrigued/perplexed why our allies in SSSW18 were required to do anything more than we were.

Again, let me reiterate, i dont consider tech deals to be heinous by any means, it's just the principle of the ordeal.

One, your allies at SSSW18 didn't get the same terms as you because you also did not happen to be fighting with us. Not everyone is going to get the same terms.

Two, everyone has got to really shut right up about the whole "principle of the ordeal" bs. Principle of the freaking deal is that Alliance X is surrendering to Alliance Y. Alliance X is the losing side. No one made a law that says the losing side gets to skip away happily ever after from the losing side of a war. What would that teach alliances?

Thirdly, after the above stated, DT and MOON were nice enough to give SSSW18 terms that actually benefited them; this is not something that should be complained about. Yes, it is a forced tech deal. Yes, it is a surrender term. Yes, it is beneficial. Now stop whining like an idiot, especially if you are not even part of this.

Edited May 2, 2009 by masterof9puppets

[Haflinger]

I'm sorry, I've been trying to resist posting in this thread (see my last post for the reason why, I gave in to weakness). This is my last.

No one made a law that says the losing side gets to skip away happily ever after from the losing side of a war. What would that teach alliances?

It would teach them that going to war is not something to be terrified of, that honouring treaties is not going to be looked down upon. That would be good, right?

Sigh. Now I exit. Really.

[Blacky]

I know and fully expect some crippling terms. Is that justice not my call but as many KARMA leaders say they are for change where is the change in that.

This is the one part of your post which in my opinion stands out most of all because it is the basis of your entire argument.

First and foremost. The accusation implied in these two sentences is that Valhalla will receive crippling terms. This is something we do not know and you later reinforce this by saying leaders of Karma are asking for change. Normally your entire argument should break up around that one point here but I'm going to ignore that and move on to the next part of the accusation. The next part asks a rhetorical question; "Is that justice?" well taking the most basic and carnal version of justice it could be. As it is an eye for an eye. Valhalla has demanded harsh terms on many occasions where it otherwise ought not to have. Receiving terms similar to those they demanded from a single alliance for all of it's trangressions would not satisfy this version of justice. It would simply not be enough.

Now on to the next part of the accusation. Is Karma the bigger man? If Karma decides not to issue that version of justice and instead chooses to take the moral high ground leaving those whose misdeeds are many unpunished would that be justice at all? It would not be justice at all.

So we've already established that the fair route is impossible in regards to some of the alliance we are facing. What we seek is a change which has long since been needed. A simple change in leadership with similar policies would still be a change however not the change desired by the Karma coalition. The only true way to achieve change is to accept that there can be no justice. As what has been done in the past can never be undone. Forcing alliances on the hegemony side to pay crippling reps, will not make okay the times they have forced alliances to pay crippling reps. All we can do is disprove these methods by not using them ourselves and also simultaneously dismantling the hegemony.

In summary:

There can be no fair conclusion. What's more is your side does not deserve one. Whatever the conclusion it will still be unfair to those you have wronged. Whether your side is forced to pay harsh reps or light reps it will not make what your alliance has done in the past right. I only hope however the terms are light in order to disprove those methods.

[Adrian LaCroix]

its because they are the only NPO allies with balls

Having balls means you pay reps?

XD

[Jipps]

What would that teach alliances?

To honor our treaties despite odds against us? I'm sure that's what DT would want from it's allies.

[AuiNur]

It would teach them that going to war is not something to be terrified of, that honouring treaties is not going to be looked down upon. That would be good, right?

Yet, war is something that alliances should be afraid of. Things aren't always similar to a situation in which one side wins unscathed, while the other is saturated with terrifying agony. Part of deciding alliance policy/decision is knowing when to fight the good fight, and when to lay down your arms for another day. Of course, I'm not saying you should not honor treaties, but its just another factor to consider.

Whether or not you implied it, DT has not in any way stated that honoring treaties is "looked down upon". In fact, one could even say that because one honored one's treaties, unfair reps were not demanded.

To honor our treaties despite odds against us? I'm sure that's what DT would want from it's allies.

-edit: i forgot why i quoted the last quote i quoted, but i quoted it.

and spelling

Edited May 2, 2009 by AuiNur

[mattski133]

To honor our treaties despite odds against us? I'm sure that's what DT would want from it's allies.

Jipps,

No one is questioning SSSW18's honor or your fighting ability, both are higher than the standard around here. You just allied yourself to a group of people who talk more for you than they fight for you.

I hope SSSW18 takes a good hard look at all the nations that could have come to your aid during our war that ran to peace mode and stayed there, and remember it, more than the 2500 tech (which is the sum of the tech in my miserable nation alone) that we are paying you for.

That is my final argument here. We chose our treaty partners based on the merit of their character, not the strength of their arms. Turns out, they had both.

[Mogar]

That is my final argument here. We chose our treaty partners based on the merit of their character, not the strength of their arms. Turns out, they had both.

This is the problem with your argument, I sincerely doubt SSSW18 thinks TPF doesn't have character and wouldn't go to ZI to defend SSSW18, as much as you all hate TPF, there's good reasons why we were and are allied to them.

[Jipps]

Jipps,

No one is questioning SSSW18's honor or your fighting ability, both are higher than the standard around here. You just allied yourself to a group of people who talk more for you than they fight for you.

I hope SSSW18 takes a good hard look at all the nations that could have come to your aid during our war that ran to peace mode and stayed there, and remember it, more than the 2500 tech (which is the sum of the tech in my miserable nation alone) that we are paying you for.

That is my final argument here. We chose our treaty partners based on the merit of their character, not the strength of their arms. Turns out, they had both.

That comment was just in reply to the post I quoted, whcih was implying these terms were to teach a lesson.

[brass]

Can someone please explain why the people doing all the arguing have nothing to do with this?

They are using the "Use their own morals against them" tactic. Liberals have used this quite successfully against Conservatives.

The losing side is projecting what they would do if they won as "bad", in their eyes, "not bad" is white peace for everybody. They don't think of "Reasonable Terms", only "Terms" or "No Terms", turning everything into black and white.

If enough people call Karma bad and evil, sooner or later, some of Karma will believe it, especially when Real Terms are presented. The Real Terms will end up being more lenient than originally thought.

They reinforce this by stating "Karma" will simply replace "Them" in being "bloc bullies" in an attempt to make people afraid of Karma.

NONE of it is in the best interest of SSSW18, Karma, or any non-Hegemony alliances/supporters. If you believe the outcries of "Karma is Bad", you are falling for the trap.

[Arthur Blair]

These terms are horrible!

*cough*

DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

[denkimon]

To SSW18:

Good fight. Glad we are at peace.

To all complainers:

HA HA HA HA HARRR! Shove it.

Quit imposing YOUR version of "Karma" (where was 'white peace only' stated as policy?) on the other side while you defend those who imposed the most severe terms ever seen on Bob.

[Doitzel]

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!

BS. The first time this happened was when Gramlins paid NpO for the tech sent as reparations and it was hailed as a progress in peace terms and Gramlins the only honourable one amoung a coalition of opportunistic warmongers.

People calling these harsh terms need to get a grip. These are harsh terms. Mandatory tech deals that the alliance gets paid for? It's not even bloody standard reparations. This is child's play.

[neneko]

This is the problem with your argument, I sincerely doubt SSSW18 thinks TPF doesn't have character and wouldn't go to ZI to defend SSSW18, as much as you all hate TPF, there's good reasons why we were and are allied to them.

Yes I for one can't think of a single time where TPF abandoned its allies when it looked like they'd lose. Oh wait, yes I can!

[Blacky]

BS. The first time this happened was when Gramlins paid NpO for the tech sent as reparations and it was hailed as a progress in peace terms and Gramlins the only honourable one amoung a coalition of opportunistic warmongers.

Actually to be fair TORN was similarly honourable in that coalition and completely waived any reps.

Also, the GATO surrender terms (whereby GATO was not allowed to receive foreign aid, was forced to fight many weeks of warfare at ZI with no end in sight, and later had a viceroy imposed on their alliance for almost a year) did happen several months before the NoCB war. There was payment for tech at the going rate and then ofcourse the 'retirement bonus'.

Again that part of the terms although significant due to the other restrictions in place was the least of our concerns. Something Sir Paul can not seem to comprehend.

(It was mostly out of neccessity initally anyways considering most of the members hit ZI some several times and could not possibly produce tech.)