Re: Valhalla

[Tygaland]

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

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

It wasn't about avoiding vengeance from Valhalla because it will never be you they come after. It'll be the ones they have tried to destroy previously. Which is my point. It is very easy to tell people that no terms are fine when it is not your alliance that will most likely suffer for it. I was trying to get across to you that the STA has a lot more to lose from this than you or any of the other alliances involved in the terms do.

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.

I didn't ask for huge reps, just some. Seeing as MCXA had to pay reps and so did SSSW18, I don;t see your pattern materialising. If you think that down the track Valhalla will offer similar terms to what they got here today then I asmire your optimism. I don;t share it and history certainly backs my concerns.

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.

You need both sides to agree to change for anything to change. I can't see that happening.

[LJ Scott]

Wow, excessive amounts of bawwwing right here :>

@ Valhalla; it was fun-ish ( )): BnT )): )

Edited May 11, 2009 by LJ Scott

[King Srqt]

"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.

So asking for reps that would accomplish nothing other then making some people feel that Valhalla was punished enough (because apparently my alliance burning their infra and tech to the ground wasn't enough) is ok? placating the egos of those that Valhalla has wronged in the past buy adding an extra form of punitive "justice" is what should be done to show them empathy but no empathy or concern for the wishes of those that actually defeated Valhalla in this war should be shown?

It seems that those asking for harsher terms (notice I said harsher and not harsh before I get jumped on for it) are the ones who are not impartial but that are instead blinded by hate and bias and that rarely leads to doing the right thing.

Edited May 11, 2009 by KingSrqt

[mrcalkin]

Self righteous Umbrellailure checking in.

[Dankbud]

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.

We would have fought any target we were assigned, believe me on that. And we would have fough to ZI.

The battles we fought against Valhalla were isolated for our alliance.

And for diplomacy, I am not amongst the ones that came out and publically reprimanded their allies about peace terms making ties on the Karma side more tenuous. Things like this are better kept to private channels. All you have accomplished is showing OUR enemies weakness amongst OUR ranks. And then to further compund the problem with beligerence? I weep if you represent your alliances diplomatic team. You are doing yourself less favors with your display of complaining so heatedly about something so trifling as peace terms.

[neneko]

It wasn't about avoiding vengeance from Valhalla because it will never be you they come after. It'll be the ones they have tried to destroy previously. Which is my point. It is very easy to tell people that no terms are fine when it is not your alliance that will most likely suffer for it. I was trying to get across to you that the STA has a lot more to lose from this than you or any of the other alliances involved in the terms do.

Okay I misunderstood you then. I still think it's out of line. It's not that we don't care if they destroy alliances but making them give us a few 1000 tech isn't going to change that if that's what they want to do when they rebuild.

I'm not as optimistic as alot of others here saying that valhalla will have months to rebuild before they're ready to even concidering being in another war. We've seen most of their warchests and eventhough they were alot smaller than I expected (they weren't small but I had very high expectations) their warchests are still enough to let them rebuild pretty fast and we'd have to give them horrible terms for the reps to actually stunt their growth.

You need both sides to agree to change for anything to change. I can't see that happening.

I think you're wrong. If the world start seeing huge reps as completely unacceptable alliances won't be able to give reps like that anymore. If we can just change enough peoples minds about how wars should end we can make a real difference.

Edited May 11, 2009 by neneko

[TehChron]

So asking for reps that would accomplish nothing other then making some people feel that Valhalla was punished enough (because apparently my alliance burning their infra and tech to the ground wasn't enough) is ok? placating the egos of those that Valhalla has wronged in the past buy adding an extra form of punitive "justice" is what should be done to show them empathy but no empathy or concern for the wishes of those that actually defeated Valhalla in this war should be shown?

It seems that those asking for harsher terms (notice I said harsher and not harsh before I get jumped on for it) are the ones who are not impartial but that are instead blinded by hate and bias and that rarely leads to doing the right thing.

'Twas not. In all honesty, even Valhalla thinks you guys let them off the hook easily. And folks who are sufficiently punished to get up and immediately say "We would have taken worse, but you guys let us off easy. Thanks!"

Don't straw man me. You didnt take the feelings of Valhalla's victims into account period when making these terms. MK sure as hell wasn't informed, and they and Tyga are folks I think would have been informed beforehand if you honestly gave a crap about showing empathy to those wronged by Valhalla.

Pain brings about empathy through understanding. Valhalla did not experience pain. If Valhalla hates you, then so be it. They started the fight, and you finished it. There was nothing to feel guilty about, or to feel as if you needed to make a point by slapping your allies in the face just to show how much more "righteous" you are than they are.

What you did was not the right thing. Being blind due to bias and hate is one thing, but crying foul from you being unbeliavably lax is in no way, shape or form being blinded by hate.

Dont try and strawman your way out of this travesty of justice.

[Penguin]

In my experience, the last thing any alliance should want at the end of a war is to look like they "got off light". The simplest way to create a new image for your alliance is to be totally defeated and completely humiliated to the extent where the vast majority of your enemies are satisfied with your fall and then start rebuilding from what is left. If the public already believes you got off light, that may not necessarily be a good thing. I wish you the best of luck towards proving your alliance's worth to the community over the coming weeks, months, years or however long it takes.

[Rafael Nadal]

All I'll say is that I hope Valhalla truly does change its ways, instead of masquerading as a changed alliance until it regains a powerful spot once the terms are up. You've received incredibly light terms, obviously polarizing as seen in this topic, and I hope this goodwill, or foolishness (depending upon your viewpoint) isn't trampled upon.

I personally would have liked to seen light reps, at least as a token of punishment. I also would have limited internal aiding between those in peace mode and war mode.

Also, Nizzle, I'm sorry, but it won't (at least it shouldn't) take Valhalla 6 months to get back to pre-war strength levels. Maybe if they received terms that they had been party to handing out in the past, but they have no economic hits in these terms hindering their rebuilding. And they're not rebuilding from scratch. They already have wonders and improvements, which drastically decrease the time it takes to rebuild.

[Raider]

My only complaint with these surrender terms is you didn't have Valhalla peace out from VietFAN.

[Monster]

My only complaint with these surrender terms is you didn't have Valhalla peace out from VietFAN.

They already did and if they hadn't, it would have been included. Vox, too.

[Buds The Man]

It wasn't about avoiding vengeance from Valhalla because it will never be you they come after. It'll be the ones they have tried to destroy previously. Which is my point. It is very easy to tell people that no terms are fine when it is not your alliance that will most likely suffer for it. I was trying to get across to you that the STA has a lot more to lose from this than you or any of the other alliances involved in the terms do.

I didn't ask for huge reps, just some. Seeing as MCXA had to pay reps and so did SSSW18, I don;t see your pattern materialising. If you think that down the track Valhalla will offer similar terms to what they got here today then I asmire your optimism. I don;t share it and history certainly backs my concerns.

You need both sides to agree to change for anything to change. I can't see that happening.

Tyga it is safe to say there is much bad blood between STA and Valhalla, but considering some of your members hatred for us Pez and Uhtred to be specific how do we move past that. We share a common ally whom we had bad blood with before and we have moved past that, what does it take to bury the hatchet with you. I see nothing but doubt from you and that concerns me to a point. You speak of change, but tell me with your current posts how do we not feel threatened by STA in the future. Where does it end.

[Style #386]

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.

You aren't building from the ground up when you have hundreds of millions sitting around. I started the war with 11k infra. After two cycles of full-scale nuclear war, and then another month of turtling, and under that assumption that I'd be at ZI, I would be able to rebuild to ~8k infra the very second I was out of nuclear/conventional anarchy.

Pre-war, the vast majority of Valhalla had less infrastructure than that, yet tons and tons of tech, which implies that they haven't been too concerned about their infra levels. During this time, they accumulate a lot of money. I was hoping that with your military background you would have a better understanding of warchests and their use both during and after a war.

[TehChron]

We would have fought any target we were assigned, believe me on that. And we would have fough to ZI.

The battles we fought against Valhalla were isolated for our alliance.

And for diplomacy, I am not amongst the ones that came out and publically reprimanded their allies about peace terms making ties on the Karma side more tenuous. Things like this are better kept to private channels. All you have accomplished is showing OUR enemies weakness amongst OUR ranks. And then to further compund the problem with beligerence? I weep if you represent your alliances diplomatic team. You are doing yourself less favors with your display of complaining so heatedly about something so trifling as peace terms.

Perhaps if MK and STA hadnt first found out these ridiculous terms from the public announcement, you'd have a point regarding this "private channels ftw" line. But considering not, you'll need a new line to defend yourself.

The fact of the matter is, by making this situation occur, without any thought of the consequences, you guys made this situation. YOU made Karma look weak, not those complaining about the terms.

You brought this about through your own arrogance and sense of self-righteousness.

[Tygaland]

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.

You know what got up peoples' noses more than the non-existent terms? The condescending attitude of those from Karma that gave out the terms towards the people most upset by them. Instead of saying "we understand you aren't happy but we think this is for the best" you all decide to talk down to us as though we are lesser beings for wanting an alliance that has caused us much harm to suffer a small amount of punishment for their actions.

The continuous referral to "huge reps" which no one on my side of the fence ever mentioned let alone asked for. The "you are just as bad as they are" slurs and the "what difference would a few thousand tech in reps make?" posts.

The issue for us (and by us I mean the alliances that have suffered at the hands of Valhalla) is that the Karma alliances that gave these terms don't give a stuff about us or what we have been through. The goal of Karma was to break the Hegemony and prevent them from regaining the stranglehold on the Cyberverse that they have had for 2 years now. It was never about cutting them all easy deals to get them out of the war or becoming the moral highground in the Cyberverse.

There is such a thing as being tough but fair and that is something that the Hegemony forgot about. They had to top each lot of terms with worse ones as time went on and I honestly do not think Karma would be so foolish. But it is just as foolish to believe that anything more than white peace and a small military decom is evil. I have no problem with peripheral alliances getting easy terms but the Continuum/1V alliances are the cause of this war and are the root cause of the issues that have brought the Karma coalition together certainly deserve more than a slap on the wrist. Why should they be given the same or lesser terms than SSSW18 who came in via a treaty chain and certainly had no role in planning the aggression that kicked this war off?

Sure, have a go at me for voicing my opinion. I honestly do not care. I call it as I see it as a member of the STA. But leave the moralising and other condescension behind because it is too much. I have run my alliance as one of honour and integrity and if anyone questions the fairness of the STA with respect to foes then you are kidding yourself.

But this is bigger than a PR exercise and I hope you all realise it before it is too late.

[Dankbud]

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.

I'm not playing, it is who I am. I have tried holding grudges, it just doesn't happen. There are better ways to spend energy. But then again some people just can't let go of the past.

[Bob Sanders]

My only complaint with these surrender terms is you didn't have Valhalla peace out from VietFAN.

I think you missed this. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=56799

[Tygaland]

Tyga it is safe to say there is much bad blood between STA and Valhalla, but considering some of your members hatred for us Pez and Uhtred to be specific how do we move past that. We share a common ally whom we had bad blood with before and we have moved past that, what does it take to bury the hatchet with you. I see nothing but doubt from you and that concerns me to a point. You speak of change, but tell me with your current posts how do we not feel threatened by STA in the future. Where does it end.

Where have we threatend Valhalla, Bud? Where have we tried to kick people from your government? Where have we tried to re-add your members to a ZI list whenever it suits?

To be honest, I'm neither here nor there with Valhalla. I'd happily have nothing to do with you, good or bad, forever. However, should we go to war again and the STA lose, do you really envision the STA getting terms like you go there or anything remotely like them?

We have had nothing to do with Valhalla since the war terms expired back in January and I'm happy to keep it that way. If friendship is to be gained then that will take a hell of a lot longer than a couple of months.

I will ask you a question though and I'd appreciate an honest answer. Do you think Valhalla will take these terms on board are rethink their peace terms policy or do you think you'll take the free pass and learn nothing from it at all?

[TehChron]

I'm not playing, it is who I am. I have tried holding grudges, it just doesn't happen. There are better ways to spend energy. But then again some people just can't let go of the past.

Wow.

You condescending !@#$%.

Read this post here.

Good god.

[King Srqt]

'Twas not. In all honesty, even Valhalla thinks you guys let them off the hook easily. And folks who are sufficiently punished to get up and immediately say "We would have taken worse, but you guys let us off easy. Thanks!"

Don't straw man me. You didnt take the feelings of Valhalla's victims into account period when making these terms. MK sure as hell wasn't informed, and they and Tyga are folks I think would have been informed beforehand if you honestly gave a crap about showing empathy to those wronged by Valhalla.

Pain brings about empathy through understanding. Valhalla did not experience pain. If Valhalla hates you, then so be it. They started the fight, and you finished it. There was nothing to feel guilty about, or to feel as if you needed to make a point by slapping your allies in the face just to show how much more "righteous" you are than they are.

What you did was not the right thing. Being blind due to bias and hate is one thing, but crying foul from you being unbeliavably lax is in no way, shape or form being blinded by hate.

Dont try and strawman your way out of this travesty of justice.

I am not trying to strawman anything, that would require me to build something up that was not there and I did no such thing, if you can really sit here and tell me that MK and STA are not biased in matters regarding Valhalla then you are ignorant.

as to your claim of being "unbelievably lax" that is a matter of opinion that only holds water if you take into account actions from outside this war. we fought this war not last summer's war and we gave terms in accordance with the way this war was handled. we had no objective or real right to impose terms for wars that did not involve us.

[Penguin]

Tyga it is safe to say there is much bad blood between STA and Valhalla, but considering some of your members hatred for us Pez and Uhtred to be specific how do we move past that. We share a common ally whom we had bad blood with before and we have moved past that, what does it take to bury the hatchet with you. I see nothing but doubt from you and that concerns me to a point. You speak of change, but tell me with your current posts how do we not feel threatened by STA in the future. Where does it end.

A lesson I took from last summer is that it is simply impossible to bury the hatchet with alliances you or your predecessors have wronged while your infrastructure remains intact. It's not surprising that most people are more willing to forgive you once they're satisfied with the beating you've taken. Grudges will last only as long as someone feels like you've done more to hurt them than they have to hurt you.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Penguin

[Ivan V]

Congrats on agreeing to a peace, Valhalla, Umbrella, Kronos, et al.

It was an honor fighting besides you Valhalla.

o/ Duckroll ( Even though it is suspended for you guys for a while )

o/ Valhalla's Opponents

Edited May 11, 2009 by Ivan V

[mrcalkin]

'Twas not. In all honesty, even Valhalla thinks you guys let them off the hook easily. And folks who are sufficiently punished to get up and immediately say "We would have taken worse, but you guys let us off easy. Thanks!"

Don't straw man me. You didnt take the feelings of Valhalla's victims into account period when making these terms. MK sure as hell wasn't informed, and they and Tyga are folks I think would have been informed beforehand if you honestly gave a crap about showing empathy to those wronged by Valhalla.

Pain brings about empathy through understanding. Valhalla did not experience pain. If Valhalla hates you, then so be it. They started the fight, and you finished it. There was nothing to feel guilty about, or to feel as if you needed to make a point by slapping your allies in the face just to show how much more "righteous" you are than they are.

What you did was not the right thing. Being blind due to bias and hate is one thing, but crying foul from you being unbeliavably lax is in no way, shape or form being blinded by hate.

Dont try and strawman your way out of this travesty of justice.

Oh, I forgot that NSO was privy to those conversations.

By the way, here is how the decision making process occurred, at least in our camp:

Valhalla attacked PC

We defended PC

We beat Valhalla

We gave them terms

Nowhere did we take into account the all-important "think of all the previous victim's pain and how you must PUNISH them for it" clause to fighting as a part of Karma. I guess that part of the deal was in invisible ink or something.

The only alliance wronged by Valhalla that I care about is MK as our partners, and I know that those of us who were pushing against reps had made it clear to at least some MK gov how we felt. Fact of the matter is, I couldn't care less what some concerned member of NSO thinks, or any other non-allied alliance. We fought for our own reasons, and we left on our own terms. I really don't think we give a rat's $@! that the rest of you felt the terms were too weak because we would have pushed for the same thing for any other alliance that was as civil and respectful as Valhalla was to us in this war. Sorry if I am not exactly a big fan of moral crusades, it's just not my thing.

Basically, if this is Karma, $%&@ you guys.

edit:

You know what got up peoples' noses more than the non-existent terms? The condescending attitude of those from Karma that gave out the terms towards the people most upset by them. Instead of saying "we understand you aren't happy but we think this is for the best" you all decide to talk down to us as though we are lesser beings for wanting an alliance that has caused us much harm to suffer a small amount of punishment for their actions.

Funny, it seems that the rest of you have forgotten to consider that maybe our alliances stand opposed to practices we consider to be unjust, one of them being reps. I have always felt we didn't need a gremlins-style codex because we would make the right decisions when confronted with making a good or a bad choice, and so far, I am happy with the decisions that have been made here. It is a two-way street Tygaland, you are not the only one who has been beat down in the long history of this game, and most of us will never get our chance at revenge. If you want to cripple them so they can't hurt your alliance, you'll need to do it on your own, because that is just not how we operate, sorry.

Edited May 11, 2009 by mrcalkin

[Vhalen]

I love how alliance's that didn't fight or barely had any action at most, have input on stuff.. go back to your little hole my friend. we aren't in english class.

as for everyone devoting 3 pages thus far of attention to me. Thanks. I am glad I can gain that much attention.. Now, carry on with your little cries of how unfair it is you had to pay reps, and someone else didn't. cause honestly i am getting tired of typing now.

You should probably realize that it's not complimentary that you had "three pages of attention paid to you." People can't help but look at a car crash.

[TehChron]

I am not trying to strawman anything, that would require me to build something up that was not there and I did no such thing, if you can really sit here and tell me that MK and STA are not biased in matters regarding Valhalla then you are ignorant.

as to your claim of being "unbelievably lax" that is a matter of opinion that only holds water if you take into account actions from outside this war. we fought this war not last summer's war and we gave terms in accordance with the way this war was handled. we had no objective or real right to impose terms for wars that did not involve us.

Right. As if behavior outside of this war does anything to indicate what their behavior would be like...outside of this war.

And you had no right to punish Valhalla for previous crimes, is that right?

Then why the hell didn't you let those who had the right to punish them do so?

Insofar as "bias" goes? And claiming you folks arent? If you got your head out of your self-serving rectum for a moment, you would see that your obsession with "being better" than everyone else, this fetish for a deluded sense of "righteousness", you would see that your own egos clouded clearly clouded your judgement of what the the proper terms for this alliance should have been.

Claiming that you folks are not the ones who did anything wrong, but those victims calling for justice are the ones in the wrong...Is a strawman. Which you've been building at and claiming as a response this entire time.