Fort Pitt Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 OK listen up, those who think that SSSW18 is getting harsh terms, please exit via the side entrance. 2500 tech per alliance isnt that much considering alliances have pulled off deals many times bigger with just double the nations. If you believe that SSSW18 should be fighting instead of profiting about 1mil per nation off of this, please join the others in leaving the room. These terms pretty much are a mutual rebuilding project by all parties, with $300,000,000 going into SSSW18, and 10,000 tech coming out. In the end you could call it mutual, or two way reps, or whatever you want to call it, but the terms are certainly not harsh, hard, immense, impossible, inoperable, etc... it is very much doable, you just have to get coordination going. ^ IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krull Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 We're not the decision makers of the hedgemony....We got dragged into this fray honoring our treaties, so I wouldn't go as far as to say that we are hypocrites. As stated before, we have taken responsibilty for the fact that we turned down the first offer. I believe in his statement he meant, that the terms would not have been accepted if it was blatant extortion. Although we fought along side the NPO we are not the NPO, therefore we should not be labeled hypocrites due to their past actions. Should I point at the huge line of alliances who got crippling terms/didn't get terms at all for simply honoring their treaties or can you get down from your high horse and face the fact that you approved their tactics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryievla Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) I love how strongly the hedgemony opposes the idea of reps when they might be the ones that would pay them. Now don't get me wrong I'm opposed to forcing alliances that's crushed by war to pay reps too but I've been paying reps to alliances on the hedgemonys side since gw 2. You realise you're all huge hypocrites when you voice yor disgust for reps right? I think the main ones complaining are the ones doing the paying, seeing as how in 2 out of 4 past conflicts they gave white peace, one had tech deals, and only one did they receive any reps whatsoever (please correct me if I'm wrong). Edited May 1, 2009 by Kryievla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bowen Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I will simplify for those of you who can't get my point.....The terms, while not horrible, are not as good as the Karma side would like to think they are. That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taget Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 How many times do I need to say this. We signed it. We're fine with it. All this argument shows is if you needle and prod enough you can create an argument out of nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krull Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I will simplify for those of you who can't get my point.....The terms, while not horrible, are not as good as the Karma side would like to think they are. That is all. Yes they are. That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bowen Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) Yes they are. That is all. No they're not! Edited May 1, 2009 by Matt Bowen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outworld Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Congrats to SSSW18 on achieving peace . SSSW18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relyt92 Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 No they're not! At the end of last war we owed SSSW18 2000 tech at the price of 2m/150 tech. This was along with 12000 tech between NPO and TPF that we had to pay for ourselves. And considering we weren't even officially at war with SSSW18, your terms are certainly fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o ya baby Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 No they're not! That's some funny sarcasm you've got there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlogYou Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Why isn't it a mutual growth scheme? In a tech deal at this price the seller profits more than $1m on each deal. The seller gets a million per slot, the buyer gets tech, what's the problem?Also: hmmm yes, another two days. How heroic. Why can't mutual growth be kept within the alliance. By forcing them to do tech deals outside of the alliance, the larger nations of SSSW18 have a smaller pool of internal sellers. Forcing them out into the free market of planet Bob. The free market has it's pitfalls especially if you don't know the nations your dealing with (Tech Fraud?). Now if the war rages on for weeks/months then this could technically take hundreds if not thousands of nations out of the sellers market, which could have a negative impact on the tech buyers within SSSW18 (their growth). Now with the above noted, I am in agreement that these are not harsh terms, but it is not white peace and shouldn't be passed as such. It is also a the first of many Peace terms to incorporate some punative measures within the framework of peace. It should be interesting to see how severe the next set of terms will be. If terms are allowed to some parties? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craziekyng Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I have to agree with Taget, the agreement is already signed. No amount of discussion on these forums will change that. I have faith in our Gov't and the Gov't of the other alliances involved that if the terms were not fair no agreement would have been reached. With that I say we pop a few bottles and move along with the party.....No underage ladies please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) why is asking for reparations wrong? as long as the reparations are reasonable than I see no issue. besides SSSW18 had a chance to leave this conflict with a white peace, they refused. Any attempt to paint Karma as hypocrites do to this is futile since all you need to do is find the cases where gramlins gave these same terms to alliances and watch how the members and leaders of Karma hailed them for it. Yeah for Karma, I'm not part of Karma. Just for the record, I am 100% against any war ending with anything less than white peace. Those are my nations political beliefs, those are my beliefs and to date I'm a member of an alliance that has give these. I have no great angst towards any of the alliances from either side ( except maybe TPF )): ) But I will decry any alliance that gives less than white peace, including my own alliance should it ever happen. To those saying "your lucky you didn't have to surrender to X" Get over it, I thought your "KARMA" group was going to be better? Edited May 1, 2009 by Merrie Melodies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I would agree that argument can be used in any case for the most part. But one would also agree that you can support something without neccesarily agreeing with it whole heartedly. I am not in SSSW8 gov't this is just my opinion. I dont find the terms to be incredibly harsh, for the most part the ones on this thread who do not like the terms are not even a part of our alliance. As I have stated before, if we SSSW18, can accept the terms and agree to them, I dont see why the rest of anyone, especially outside of our alliance cant. I'll just leave this here http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32762 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o ya baby Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I think the main ones complaining are the ones doing the paying, seeing as how in 2 out of 4 past conflicts they gave white peace, one had tech deals, and only one did they receive any reps whatsoever (please correct me if I'm wrong). They should be glad to even have gotten such lenient terms. They can sit here and whine all they want, but they need to realize it could've been so much worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Get over it, I thought your "KARMA" group was going to be better? It is better. Nobody ever promised we'd meet your standard of what is ideal, but it is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Get over it, I thought your "KARMA" group was going to be better? This is a myth. Karma is here to remove the NPO, not win hearts and minds. Good job on the peace, everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craziekyng Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I'll just leave this here http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32762 I am familair with those terms. I believe the issue here is the nations outside of our alliance who do not agree with these terms. Our gov't and the nations within SSSW18 have accpeted this, and I for one do not think the terms are harsh, as I have said before. We wish nothing short of the best of luck to everyone in this rebuilding process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I am familair with those terms. I believe the issue here is the nations outside of our alliance who do not agree with these terms. Our gov't and the nations within SSSW18 have accpeted this, and I for one do not think the terms are harsh, as I have said before.We wish nothing short of the best of luck to everyone in this rebuilding process. Your previous argument was that you weren't npo and didn't necesarilly agree with their ways. Yet here you're clearly willing to sign a document where they extort tech from alliances wich was exactly what you said you didn't agree with. My first comment wasn't aimed at SSSW18 specifically anyway it was aimed at all hypocrites on the hedgemony side crying loudly in this thread about how bad reps (or in this case something that slightly resemble reps) are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 As far as terms go, these are very good terms. However, the act of imposing terms in and of itself violates what I had thought Karma stood for. This is very saddening to see. Fighting tyranny is a good thing, I commend you all for that, but taking those first small steps to becoming tyrants yourself is another. Just because these terms aren't as harsh as others have imposed does not mean Karma will remain better than other tyrants Be they Francoists or Trotsyists, tyrants of all flavors are pretty much the same. o/ Baby steps to tyranny! o/ Terms! o/ Karma! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 the act of imposing terms in and of itself violates what I had thought Karma stood for. This is very saddening to see. I get sad too when I misunderstand things I feel you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) To those saying "your lucky you didn't have to surrender to X"Get over it, I thought your "KARMA" group was going to be better? Unless you think moderate amounts of tech at market price is equivalent too exorbitant amounts of tech at sub market price or for no monetary compensation at all, we are better. These terms are fair and if SSSW18 is smart about it they can use it to their own benefit. if SSSW18 uses only their bottom 15 tech nations, the highest of which has only 50 tech they can finish the reps in one round of deals (30 days) if each of those nations does 5 deals. (each deal sending out 100 tech meaning each nation sends out 500 tech after receiving 15 million in aid and 500*15 is 7500 or the total tech owed). That will lead to a profit of approximately 75 million for those nations (5 million each) and they will be free to do deals as they like in 30 days. Monsters indeed. Edit: I thought there were three alliances turns out there were four, you could still do it with only these nations it would just take two cycles and the second would not even be full which would still allow them to do in alliance deals within 30 days and would up the total profit to 100million (6.6 million each nation.) Edited May 1, 2009 by KingSrqt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krull Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 As far as terms go, these are very good terms.However, the act of imposing terms in and of itself violates what I had thought Karma stood for. This is very saddening to see. Fighting tyranny is a good thing, I commend you all for that, but taking those first small steps to becoming tyrants yourself is another. Just because these terms aren't as harsh as others have imposed does not mean Karma will remain better than other tyrants Be they Francoists or Trotsyists, tyrants of all flavors are pretty much the same. o/ Baby steps to tyranny! o/ Terms! o/ Karma! Obviously you have the required level of intelligence to figure out what Karma stands for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 As far as terms go, these are very good terms.However, the act of imposing terms in and of itself violates what I had thought Karma stood for. This is very saddening to see. Fighting tyranny is a good thing, I commend you all for that, but taking those first small steps to becoming tyrants yourself is another. Just because these terms aren't as harsh as others have imposed does not mean Karma will remain better than other tyrants Be they Francoists or Trotsyists, tyrants of all flavors are pretty much the same. o/ Baby steps to tyranny! o/ Terms! o/ Karma! Karma stands for giving alliances like yours their just desserts, not white peace for everybody. Ultimately if Karma gave white peace to everybody, particularly the alliances of the Continuum and One Vision, I think we'd have failed in our goal of breaking the back of the beast and only have to end up putting it down again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Let's see... DT, LSR, etc. get a nice chuck of tech with zero effort. SSSW18 has to find sellers which, hopefully there are enough small nations, so that they don't lose money selling. Also, meanwhile while this whole scheme is happening our larger nations, which really need the tech won't be able to get if from their usual sources. So, uh yeah, it's great for us! You have 31 nations below 200 tech. If each of them uses three slots, that's 93 slots. In one round (30 days), you can sell 9,300 tech. Using five slots per nation would allow you to sell 15,500. Terms only require you to sell 10,000, which can be sold by only using 5 slots from 20 nations in one round. This shouldn't be a problem. 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.