Re: Valhalla

[Nizzle]

Is that a joke? How about alliances that were just destroyed entirely? I mean thats 100% losses. I think that counts right?

I don't think you understand the context of the statement. It was speaking to the concern that Hegemony will arise from the ashes stronger than ever.

Ummm....I do believe we were discussing Valhalla and their losses. Hegemony losses have varied across the board and it is really impossible to compare, the war in itself is different on a massive matter of scale.

I assumed you were asking for alliances in the No CB war on the Karma side who suffered massive losses during the last war and survived paying the reps and are now highly intact (though obviously TDSM8 only fits part of this bill).

That would be correct. It will take quite some time, and significant aid, to get an alliance like Valhalla back to where they were. Add in the destruction their traditional allies have faced, and there is not enough money to go around. I expect a full recovery in perhaps 8-10 months time. Maybe as early as 6. Then we get another fun war.

[TehChron]

Tyga, let me ask you this:

You were beat down bad and it was due to you being loyal to your allies. And even moreso it was caused because someone started a war they had no reason to. Then on top of that you were forced to apy large reps. Wouldn't you say that all of that led you to be more angry and aggesive to the perpetrators? Wouldn't you also say that the grudge that probably developed from that only made you want to crush those same perpetrators even more if the opportunuity came?

And if so then why would you want those same actions performed on any other alliance knowing how that made you and your alliance feel?

I know you want Valhalla to pay for what they did to you, and you may yet get that at some point in the future, but can't you see that doing this to Valhalla would make us no better than they are?

You see, here's what makes your entire point moot.

The folks that put those reps on STA did so to be complete !@#$%bags. It had nothing to do with vengeance, or justice, or anything like that.

Making Valhalla suffer at least a little bit of humiliation is justice, and is mollifying. Because when you beat folks in war, they dont remember or care about the leniency of the terms.

They remember that they lost, and frankly, thats all they care about. You think going easy on the surrender terms makes a difference in how they will remember this?

You don't know a damn thing.

[Nizzle]

I AM GOING TO SAY THIS ONCE MORE: YOU DONT NEED TO IMPOSE TERMS AS MASSIVE AS THE HEGEMONY HAS IN THE PAST, WE ARE JUST ASKING YOU APPLY SOME TERMS AT ALL. You are not becoming the enemy by having any terms whatsoever. Good God people dont seem to get that there is a difference between light and medium rep levels and the kinds that were imposed in the last war.

How does imposing reps at all make any difference? I certainly don't want to do it just to feel "warm and fuzzy", but that's mainly because I wouldn't feel that way. Reps serve no purpose in an instance like this aside from showing arrogance.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

I don't think you understand the context of the statement. It was speaking to the concern that Hegemony will arise from the ashes stronger than ever.

That would be correct. It will take quite some time, and significant aid, to get an alliance like Valhalla back to where they were. Add in the destruction their traditional allies have faced, and there is not enough money to go around. I expect a full recovery in perhaps 8-10 months time. Maybe as early as 6. Then we get another fun war.

Ask Bob_Sanders how big his warchest is and tell me its gonna take a while to rebuild. After talking to several members of peaced our Hegemony alliances, none of them seem to concerned about rebounding in record time.

[Nizzle]

You see, here's what makes your entire point moot.

The folks that put those reps on STA did so to be complete !@#$%bags. It had nothing to do with vengeance, or justice, or anything like that.

Making Valhalla suffer at least a little bit of humiliation is justice, and is mollifying. Because when you beat folks in war, they dont remember or care about the leniency of the terms.

They remember that they lost, and frankly, thats all they care about. You think going easy on the surrender terms makes a difference in how they will remember this?

You don't know a damn thing.

They sure will remember you taking tech. They sure will remember how you acted.

I think it's rather sad that no one can see the absurd cycle being perpetuated here by some of you.

[King Srqt]

Nevermind, misunderstood quotes intent.

Still tho, the self-righteous need to do a better job explaining themselves.

I will assume you are calling me self righteous (If I am wrong feel free to correct) if you are then please feel free to ask any questions you may have so that I may explain myself better and also please explain to me how carrying out the actions I have always told others they should do is being self righteous. Or is it only self righteous because I defend my point of view and feel I am doing the right thing?

[Virillus]

I don't know how I feel about this.

There are a lot of good people in Valhalla, but they got drunk off the power they sucked from Pacifica's teat and used it to go on a little-man's binge of destruction and misery for the better part of two years. You used power bought from people stronger than you to put good people down for doing nothing at all, and you tried to keep them there. Now that the situations are reversed, you are given the lightest terms conceivable. All I can say is remember this moment. Remember this, and let it be a lesson to you that a complete lack of compassion and decency is not sustainable, nor does it pay. You've been given a gift, now earn it.

You do not deserve these terms. But hopefully, in time, you will.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Virillus

[der_ko]

You'll regret this.

[lcdt94]

These terms could be described as Sadaam Hussein getting 10 hours of community service rather than being hung.

[Nizzle]

Ask Bob_Sanders how big his warchest is and tell me its gonna take a while to rebuild. After talking to several members of peaced our Hegemony alliances, none of them seem to concerned about rebounding in record time.

There are some with a substantial warchest remaining, perhaps enough to rebuild...but certainly not enough to be such a threat. You cannot take individual examples and apply them to an alliance as a whole. I'm sorry, I've built nations from the ground up. It isn't exactly a shake and bake process...and it certainly won't allow them to keep pace with the rest of us. Not immediately.

[Nizzle]

There's no point. Do carry on.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Nizzle

[Orkules]

Orkules aside from Cloud i have seen nothing combative comming from our camp we were both impressed and grateful for the terms given as many of us thought they would be much worse. As to the past I wasnt here for much of it and know little of it as my nation was in other pastures. What can be said is let us move forward from here and lets see what happens.

I thought I saw more but I could be wrong. If so, once again I apologize. You can perhaps understand my feelings though. Tonight has been...hard for me.

[Tygaland]

I'm most disappointed in the comments I've seen by Tyga here. Probably because Tyga is someone I respect alot (eventhough I doubt he know who I am). Implying that we're giving lenient terms because we're cowards and afraid of retribution is way out of line and only show that you still fear the hedgemony enough to want it crippled. I understand that you're angry but lashing out at your own allies in public for standing firm for what we belive in is in bad taste.

Where did I call you cowards? I'm calling it as it is. Only 9 months ago Valhalla did all in their power to destroy the STA. This is after they were cut a free pass in the UJW, this is after NoWedge was long gone so they cannoy blame this on him as they seem to like to do for other past wrongs. On top of being smashed in a war where we came to the defence of our allies who were defending their allies from Vahallan aggression we were then held to crippling terms for the best part of 6 months and required to send out more reps than any alliance from the Hegemony has been asked to send out so far.

Now, Valhalla has been beaten down and I watch as they are given yet another free pass, all in the name of being fair and merciful. I have no problem with fair, but Valhalla has crapped on a great many alliances over the past 18 months and I feel that their actions deserved more than a handshake at the end of this war.

I really don't think you understand where alliances like MK, TDSM8 (may they rest in peace) and the STA are coming from. We aren't asking for Valhalla to be destroyed, we are not asking they be eternally crippled. We are asking that they be punished a little for their past actions. You may be disappointed in my posts and that's your choice. But I'm extremely disappointed in these terms and seeing as our voices were ignored in other venues, here we are.

[mrcalkin]

I AM GOING TO SAY THIS ONCE MORE: YOU DONT NEED TO IMPOSE TERMS AS MASSIVE AS THE HEGEMONY HAS IN THE PAST, WE ARE JUST ASKING YOU APPLY SOME TERMS AT ALL. You are not becoming the enemy by having any terms whatsoever. Good God people dont seem to get that there is a difference between light and medium rep levels and the kinds that were imposed in the last war.

Alright, awesome, noted. Thanks for the suggestions, mate.

[TehChron]

They sure will remember you taking tech. They sure will remember how you acted.

I think it's rather sad that no one can see the absurd cycle being perpetuated here by some of you.

It will continue regardless of your actions here. That's what's sad. That's what makes them the "bad guys". Holding them down and letting the victims be mollified is what "justice" is about.

Satisfying your own egos and sense of righteousness is not justice. It's a slap to the face of those victims who expected you to take their feelings into consideration instead of you deciding they were better than them.

These terms are arrogant and an insult to those who suffered at Valhalla's hands. You shouldn't be ashamed of the folks you flipped the bird to, you should be ashamed of yourselves for not even taking their feelings into account. At least don't PROTECT them while they're rebuilding.

I will assume you are calling me self righteous (If I am wrong feel free to correct) if you are then please feel free to ask any questions you may have so that I may explain myself better and also please explain to me how carrying out the actions I have always told others they should do is being self righteous. Or is it only self righteous because I defend my point of view and feel I am doing the right thing?

I am calling you self-righteous. Because you are. These terms, your defense of them, they aren't about "right" or "wrong" they are about you "feeling better" about yourself. Because you were "better" than Valhalla was, because you were better than the victims of the alliance calling for Justice.

Ive made my points well enough throughout the thread. If you really were interested in mollifying your offended allies, you would have addressed the points I was making much earlier.

Lack of empathy for victim...No, rather, a lack of concern for them is nothing less than absolute arrogance on your parts. And I hope that you come to regret it. Because they'll be gunning for you guys first.

[boscher]

These terms are disgustingly light, glad I was not on the Valhalla front.

[Dankbud]

So...once again, you admit to being the wrong folks to send against Valhalla. When the issue comes up of surrender terms, you decide to flip your allies who did suffer at their hands the bird and go with your much-vaunted "principles", right?

And when people say that's messed up, you essentially say "screw off, you didnt fight them, so you don't have a say in it". And then you twist the knife a little by saying "Well, they didnt hurt us in the past, so we figured they didn't deserve it as badly as you think they did."

That seems to be the gist. Thanks for clearing that up.

!@#$, man.

Yes, we were the wrong ones to send against Valhalla to acheive the peace terms you all so passionately desire. I have problem admitting this as the evidence of it is quite clear.

Some alliances stand by their principals, it is an honor thing. If you can't be true to your own beliefs then what is there left?

What more is there to be said? Valhalla probably did deserve harsher terms once oyou factor in past transgressions, but it was against those "much-vaunted principals" to hand out those terms. For us, this was an isolated incident against them as was dealt as such.

You do seem to have a good grasp of the basic reasons behind it, but your anger over this seems to being causing some undue backlash. I don't see why we need to be lectured about running our alliances the way we want to.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

Sorry if anyone has found my comments rude. I spoke my mind, most of you can deal with that. Those that cant, sorry? My bad? Seriously though, I see this thread becoming even more just a circular argument of sarcastic remarks so Im leaving. Im already not sure why I wasted my time, but what else is new. Good luck to my friends in Val, as others have said dont waste this gracious gift.

[Tygaland]

Tyga, let me ask you this:

You were beat down bad and it was due to you being loyal to your allies. And even moreso it was caused because someone started a war they had no reason to. Then on top of that you were forced to apy large reps. Wouldn't you say that all of that led you to be more angry and aggesive to the perpetrators? Wouldn't you also say that the grudge that probably developed from that only made you want to crush those same perpetrators even more if the opportunuity came?

Nope. I always believed people reap what they sow. I'm starting to waver on that now. If I wanted revenge I'd have attacked Valhalla. STA didn't. We stuck to our treaties as we always do and relied on others in the Karma coalition to give terms reflective of each alliance's role in the Hegemony.

And if so then why would you want those same actions performed on any other alliance knowing how that made you and your alliance feel?

You incorrectly anticipated my answer.

I know you want Valhalla to pay for what they did to you, and you may yet get that at some point in the future, but can't you see that doing this to Valhalla would make us no better than they are?

No, it wouldn't. That flawed argument still doesn't fly no matter how many times you repeat it. Asking Valhalla to pay 10K or even 20K in tech for reps is still nowhere near as bad as they were and never will be.

[TehChron]

Yes, we were the wrong ones to send against Valhalla to acheive the peace terms you all so passionately desire. I have problem admitting this as the evidence of it is quite clear.

Some alliances stand by their principals, it is an honor thing. If you can't be true to your own beliefs then what is there left?

What more is there to be said? Valhalla probably did deserve harsher terms once oyou factor in past transgressions, but it was against those "much-vaunted principals" to hand out those terms. For us, this was an isolated incident against them as was dealt as such.

You do seem to have a good grasp of the basic reasons behind it, but your anger over this seems to being causing some undue backlash. I don't see why we need to be lectured about running our alliances the way we want to.

You aren't running your alliance. This is about diplomacy. This is about doing right by your allies who are fighting tougher opponents so you did not have to.

And you crapped all over several of those allies. Congratulations. You have done an awesome job showing off your pretentiousness for all to see.

I swear to god...For you the war was an "isolated incident"? And you saw fit to base your treatment of them based only on this "isolated incident"?

How much more arrogant can you get? Wait...thats right, you could be Valhalla or the NPO.

[neneko]

Where did I call you cowards? I'm calling it as it is. Only 9 months ago Valhalla did all in their power to destroy the STA. This is after they were cut a free pass in the UJW, this is after NoWedge was long gone so they cannoy blame this on him as they seem to like to do for other past wrongs. On top of being smashed in a war where we came to the defence of our allies who were defending their allies from Vahallan aggression we were then held to crippling terms for the best part of 6 months and required to send out more reps than any alliance from the Hegemony has been asked to send out so far.

Now, Valhalla has been beaten down and I watch as they are given yet another free pass, all in the name of being fair and merciful. I have no problem with fair, but Valhalla has crapped on a great many alliances over the past 18 months and I feel that their actions deserved more than a handshake at the end of this war.

I really don't think you understand where alliances like MK, TDSM8 (may they rest in peace) and the STA are coming from. We aren't asking for Valhalla to be destroyed, we are not asking they be eternally crippled. We are asking that they be punished a little for their past actions. You may be disappointed in my posts and that's your choice. But I'm extremely disappointed in these terms and seeing as our voices were ignored in other venues, here we are.

The post I was refering to when I said you called us cowards was this one.

Oh, it will. But not biting them on the arse. It'll bite others on the arse, which is why they don't care.

Maybe I misunderstood it but it seemed to me as if you implied that we did this to avoid vengance from valhalla on ourselves.

I'm hoping that this war might put an end to huge reps. If we demanded reps I think the rep ammount would have gone up for other alliances surrendering later. I honestly belive that we can change the way wars work today.

As for my understanding how you feel. I was in MK during the last war and I was there paying all the reps. Entering this war I was fueled by pure hatred but seeing the damage we did eased it and in the end of this war I honestly thought that these terms were the best thing to end it with. My hope for a change in the current system is bigger than my will to get revenge on valhalla.

[King Srqt]

I am calling you self-righteous. Because you are. These terms, your defense of them, they aren't about "right" or "wrong" they are about you "feeling better" about yourself. Because you were "better" than Valhalla was, because you were better than the victims of the alliance calling for Justice.

Ive made my points well enough throughout the thread. If you really were interested in mollifying your offended allies, you would have addressed the points I was making much earlier.

Lack of empathy for victim...No, rather, a lack of concern for them is nothing less than absolute arrogance on your parts. And I hope that you come to regret it. Because they'll be gunning for you guys first.

first I have been the victim, this is not my first tango with Valhalla or the hegemony alliances (hell I am banned from joining most of them due to old terms) so you should take that into account, second this is not about being better than valhalla was (if you read my posts you would know that) it is about holding myself to the standard that I have always held others too. Third being sefl righteous would mean that I am not open to the practices of others and all you need to do is read any thread in this war where reps have been required to see that is not the case. (in fact I bet you could find at least three posts of me saying that while I understood reps and felt that they were fair that if I were in the posistion that I would not ask for them)

So I guess by your definition of self righteous I would either have to be that or a hypocrite.

[Dankbud]

Thanks for the answer Tyga.

And to those that have been less than cordial, I don't hold it against you. Anger brings out the worst in people and sometimes things get said in haste.

And for those that will remain angry over this, I pity you. We don't believe in handing out punishments that we ourselves wouldn't accept no matter the "middle ground" or beyond that has been proposed as more fitting terms. It is just a case of different philosophies. I hope you can eventually see past this.

[TehChron]

first I have been the victim, this is not my first tango with Valhalla or the hegemony alliances (hell I am banned from joining most of them due to old terms) so you should take that into account, second this is not about being better than valhalla was (if you read my posts you would know that) it is about holding myself to the standard that I have always held others too. Third being sefl righteous would mean that I am not open to the practices of others and all you need to do is read any thread in this war where reps have been required to see that is not the case. (in fact I bet you could find at least three posts of me saying that while I understood reps and felt that they were fair that if I were in the posistion that I would not ask for them)

So I guess by your definition of self righteous I would either have to be that or a hypocrite.

"In light of the crimes they have committed, we find it appropriate that these terms be enforced as well"

Impartiality and empathy never lead to hypocrisy. Deluding yourself into thinking your own ego is what is right does, quite often.

And to those that have been less than cordial, I don't hold it against you. Anger brings out the worst in people and sometimes things get said in haste.

And for those that will remain angry over this, I pity you. We don't believe in handing out punishments that we ourselves wouldn't accept no matter the "middle ground" or beyond that has been proposed as more fitting terms. It is just a case of different philosophies. I hope you can eventually see past this.

That crap don't fly, buddy. Playing magnanimous is still just spitting in everyone's face. Ill go to sleep tonight, wake up tomorrow, and still think what was done was a load of !@#$%^&*. Because it was.

And because what you did was such an insult, that is where the anger comes from. I find it hilarious that your measuring stick for "acceptable terms" is what you would take yourselves.

That's marvelous. Thanks for making me laugh.

Edited May 11, 2009 by ReturnOfChron

[mhawk]

Hmmm yes, if TOOL had a longstanding grudge against someone they would clearly attack anyway knowing that the entire MDP web would come crashing down on them, and also knowing that such an attack would accomplish nothing and just leave them dead in a gutter. Yes.

Also, nobody believes that the "if this treaty is broken it's void" clause wasn't written in on purpose, to be used by Slayer later after his ~years of political isolation~™ to hit Poison Clan with an array of allies so they wouldn't have to eat their nukes. So don't even bother using that line of reasoning.

Slayer was not leader nor gov when that treaty was written. However you or anyone else wants to spin it, I followed the intent and desired that treaty to prevent such a war. There was no plans to attack PC. We could have done exactly as you said, attacked with a coalition against a fully isolated pc, but I did not because I've worked hard to work out the issues between our alliances. Now if you want to just say "you're lying", well there isn't much I could do to contest that sort of argument anyways.