Re: Valhalla

[neneko]

The followup question is: If some wanted reps, why was it necessary to talk them out of it? Or why weren't they allowed to request reps?

Once again it depends on what you mean with the question. If by 'some' you mean some of the members then it's simply because it was up to the leaders that discussed this, not the members.

If by 'some' you mean that a few leaders in some alliance wanted reps then I'd assume it's because they were outvoted by the others. For example if Xav in umbrella wanted reps and Roquentin and uaciaut didn't then we'd not try to get any reps.

Finally if by 'some' you mean that some alliance leaders wanted reps but were forced not to demand any by leaders from other alliances then I simply don't belive you are right. I'm sure that reps were discussed and the possibility of asking for reps was brought up by some alliances. I'm sure there were arguments both for and against taking reps. In the end all alliances decided against demanding reps. Unless you have any proof I don't belive any decision was forced on anyone. discussing a question is not the same as forcing people to do what you say.

Edited May 14, 2009 by neneko

[Kryievla]

Hi, i appreciate you taking the time to type all that ... but really the question wasn't directed at you. So step the F*ck off. Protip: Don't answer a question that you don't understand.

You are posting on a public board, and I will step wherever I please. As I have always done, as I will always do.

Sorry you don't like my answer. Maybe I credit PC more than you do.

/me shrugs

Counter Protip: If you don't like reading what I have to say, there is a handy ignore feature, which is also far more classy than cursing at people.

[b3x]

Finally if by 'some' you mean that some alliance leaders wanted reps but were forced not to demand any by leaders from other alliances then I simply don't belive you are right. I'm sure that reps were discussed and the possibility of asking for reps was brought up by some alliances. I'm sure there were arguments both for and against taking reps. In the end all alliances decided against demanding reps. Unless you have any proof I don't belive any decision was forced on anyone. discussing a question is not the same as forcing people to do what you say.

Again ... don't over complicate it. It is really very simple, why would those who were against reps, not allow the ones who wanted reps to get their reps? There isn't even evidence of a compromise. I see it one of two ways: Either the alliances that wanted reps were flatly refused, or they were "persuaded", "talked out of it", "shown the path of enlightenment" whatever you want to call it ...

Let me recap: we have established that some alliances wanted reps. we have established that a white peace was given. we can then draw a conclusion that an effort was put forth to reverse the demands of some alliances in regards to reps.

The question(s), which I am most interested in is: Why such an effort to give valhala white peace?

[b3x]

Sorry you don't like my answer.

Your answer was offensive, and disrespectful. It made me angry. I expect an apology.

[neneko]

Again ... don't over complicate it. It is really very simple, why would those who were against reps, not allow the ones who wanted reps to get their reps? There isn't even evidence of a compromise. I see it one of two ways: Either the alliances that wanted reps were flatly refused, or they were "persuaded", "talked out of it", "shown the path of enlightenment" whatever you want to call it ...

Let me recap: we have established that some alliances wanted reps. we have established that a white peace was given. we can then draw a conclusion that an effort was put forth to reverse the demands of some alliances in regards to reps.

The question(s), which I am most interested in is: Why such an effort to give valhala white peace?

I don't see it as much of an effort really. Some of the alliances surely stated their reason for not wanting reps and if other alliances that wanted reps agreed with them and decided against forcing out reps I can't see what the problem is. Discussing wether or not to take reps is no evil act it's very standard to discuss the terms as a group when several alliances give peace to a single alliance. You have to excuse me if I fail to see the crime you're trying to pin on the alliances not wanting reps.

[KagetheSecond]

Your answer was offensive, and disrespectful. It made me angry. I expect an apology.

Your response to Kry was offensive and disrespectful, not only to her, but to the community at large. We expect an apology.

[b3x]

I don't see it as much of an effort really. Some of the alliances surely stated their reason for not wanting reps and if other alliances that wanted reps agreed with them and decided against forcing out reps I can't see what the problem is. Discussing wether or not to take reps is no evil act it's very standard to discuss the terms as a group when several alliances give peace to a single alliance. You have to excuse me if I fail to see the crime you're trying to pin on the alliances not wanting reps.

Ahem: The question again, in the simplest terms possible: Why weren't the alliances who wanted reps, allowed to have reps?

Let me give you an example answer: X and Y alliances felt that Valhala would not accept terms with reps, and those alliances wanted the fighting over as soon as possible, because their members were beginning to chafe and they were running low on lubricant.

This is a plausible response, probably not the entire truth, nor something that X or Y alliance would admit to on the forums. This answer approaches a level of reason and logic that I expect, While "gee we all decided that not asking for reps was the neighborly thing to do", given the situation, doesn't pass the sniff test. (judge Judy nods approvingly)

Edit: changed from X Y Z, to just X Y cause we know there were two perps

Edited May 14, 2009 by b3x

[Heracles the Great]

Ahem: The question again, in the simplest terms possible: Why weren't the nations who wanted reps, allowed to have reps?

The nations who wanted reps weren't allowed to have reps because the leader of the alliance that they pledged their allegience too saw fit not to require reps.

I do not understand how to make it any clearer

[feardaram]

Ahem: The question again, in the simplest terms possible: Why weren't the nations who wanted reps, allowed to have reps?

Let me give you an example answer: X, Y and Z alliances felt that Valhala would not accept terms with reps, and those alliances wanted the fighting over as soon as possible, because their members were beginning to chafe and they were running low on lubricant.

This is a plausible response, probably not the entire truth, nor something that X Y or Z alliance would admit to on the forums. This answer approaches a level of reason and logic that I expect, While "gee we all decided that not asking for reps was the neighborly thing to do", given the situation, doesn't pass the sniff test. (judge Judy nods approvingly)

Arguing with you...

Edited May 14, 2009 by feardaram

[Nizzle]

So now you are saying getting reparations from a brick wall is possible, but not from a super evil 2 mil NS alliance?!?!

[Haflinger]

So now you are saying getting reparations from a brick wall is possible, but not from a super evil 2 mil NS alliance?!?!

I demand 3 million tonnes of mortar for reparations immediately sir.

[b3x]

The nations who wanted reps weren't allowed to have reps because the leader of the alliance that they pledged their allegience too saw fit not to require reps.

I do not understand how to make it any clearer

how would you know? No one requested reps as far as you knew.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1525430

[King Srqt]

how would you know? No one requested reps as far as you knew.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1525430

Since you stated as fact that nations wanted reparations he responded in the context of your argument. Seeing as though the leaders of all alliances engaged with Valhalla signed the above peace agreement his statement that "the leader of the alliance that they pledged their allegiance to saw fit not to require reps." is factual.

So that is how he knows.

[neneko]

Ahem: The question again, in the simplest terms possible: Why weren't the nations who wanted reps, allowed to have reps?

Let me give you an example answer: X, Y and Z alliances felt that Valhala would not accept terms with reps, and those alliances wanted the fighting over as soon as possible, because their members were beginning to chafe and they were running low on lubricant.

This is a plausible response, probably not the entire truth, nor something that X Y or Z alliance would admit to on the forums. This answer approaches a level of reason and logic that I expect, While "gee we all decided that not asking for reps was the neighborly thing to do", given the situation, doesn't pass the sniff test. (judge Judy nods approvingly)

If you actually meant nations in that question then the answer is simply because it's up to the leaders, not individual nations.

I'm going to assume that you mean alliances though.

The answer is that they were allowed to have reps. The fact that the terms were discussed with all alliances doesn't mean anyone was forced into these terms. The terms was discussed and in the end everyone agreed that no reps would be forced. If a single alliance wanted reps I'm sure that would have been fine. See the GGA surrender terms where only one alliance recived reps.

Now I have to ask why you find it so incredibly hard to belive that all the alliances actually wanted to give valhalla white peace by their own free will.

Lets look at all the victorious alliances and see who would have had any interest in reps. First of all I want to point out that the main force fighting valhalla was RIA, PC, kronos and umbrella for the most part of the war. I'm not trying to dimminish any alliances part in this but this a fact. Other alliances joined in very late (AO) or had alot of other fronts (everyone else). Now it would have looked ridicolous for FARK for example to demand reps from valhalla seeing as they had about 2 active wars with them so we can assume that any alliance not part of the main force doesn't have any interest in demanding reps.

This leaves RIA, PC, kronos and umbrella. Now RIA, kronos and umbrella have something in common. All three have stated long before valhallas surrender that they're not interested in any reps from this war. I have no reason to think that they would change their mind once they won so these three had no reason to ask for reps either.

This leaves PC. PC both have a history of wanting reps and they were the ones that got attacked by valhalla so that's two reason we might suspect they could be interested in reps. However PC is an old ally to valhalla so it's not impossible that they wanted them to get lenient terms either.

Now assuming it's PC that wanted reps I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed to. I used the example before where Athens got reps from GGA while nobody else did. Valhalla attacked PC here so there wouldn't have been any problem to add some reps to PC in the terms.

Assuming that PC did actually want reps they probably said that when the terms were discussed and when all other alliances said they didn't want any reps is it impossible that they decided to not take any reps either, by free will?

As for the argument that some alliances were starting to lose members and wanted to get out fast and that's why they forced another alliance to not demand reps. It simply doesn't hold up. If we look at the alliances that were the main ones engaging valhalla we see that it's simply not true. Umbrella and kronos have not lost a single member during the war. RIA I'm not as sure about. I know they gained members at the start of the war and I think they lost around 7 after that. That's a few percent of their total member count at most so they didn't have any problem in the war either. PC I'm not sure about either but I can't imagine that PC had a huge problem with members leaving either. You're in there so maybe you can tell me if I'm wrong but I'm going to assume that PC did fairly well in the war. So none of the alliances that had any benefit of valhalla getting peace in terms of less damage to their alliance had any problems in the war. In fact pretty much every valhalla nation not in peace mode was in anarchy so they couldn't even declare any wars. I can't see why any alliance would want valhalla to get peace as fast as possible.

You have to admit that I'm pretty patient with you seeing as you havn't even shown me a solid reasoning as to why your conspiracy theory would be true.

Edited May 14, 2009 by neneko

[Monster]

This answer approaches a level of reason and logic that I expect, While "gee we all decided that not asking for reps was the neighborly thing to do", given the situation, doesn't pass the sniff test. (judge Judy nods approvingly)

We've taken reps in the past and it left a bad taste in our mouths. Before going into this war, it was decided we weren't going to take any. You can theorize all you want, but all of our members can attest to what I'm saying.

neneko's post explains this in much more detail, so you should read it.

I have generally been opposed to reps during the war and have offered my opinions to other people in Karma.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Nausea

[Bob Janova]

Is this still going?

[Emperor Brutus]

Is this still going?

Unfortunately there are some really ignorant people...

[Tryptamine]

Unfortunately there are some really ignorant people...

Evidently, we should have done the same as with GGA here. Trivial reps were a part of those terms simply because they would shut people up. From what I've seen in that thread, they largely have. It's amazing how much stock people put in a little, "send some cash and tech" just on principle. The terms here are much harsher than those given to GGA, as I see it. If we'd have asked for a meager 300M and 3k tech, this thread would probably be 30 pages shorter. <.<

[Lord Levistus]

Hi, i appreciate you taking the time to type all that ... but really the question wasn't directed at you. So step the F*ck off. Protip: Don't answer a question that you don't understand.

Obviously you don't understand many things.

Like common decency.

Your question has been answered several times by several different people. You just aren't capable of comprehending it.

You should really take this to private channels within your own alliance, since you seem to have a grievance with your own leadership, and such topics don't belong in such a public format.

[iamthey]

Congrats on peace, fair terms. You guys were great.

All I will say about this travesty is this. I always said that someday, somehow, Valhalla would get what they deserve. That hasn't happened yet. Expect it. Someday, somehow.

Regardless of what was done in the past reps shouldn't be used as a means of "getting even". Demanding insane amounts of tech and subjugating a losing alliance is hardly something to be proud of or called for. Let us remember this is a game, malice and revenge are entirely out of place here and simply demonstrate an inability to look past an obsession. The combined forces that took on valhalla are attempting to do something honorable and that is recognize the bravery demonstrated by those who fought for Valhalla and allow the damage done to them (which was considerable) stand as the penalty for their chosen side. What you are asking for is essentially the equivalent of beating a person to death, then chopping off their legs because you won.

Edited May 15, 2009 by iamthey

[Mandrivia_2]

Go on, tell me more.

Lol, you sure talk pretty big for a leader that cowardly pulled his alliance out of a losing war before even being declared on.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Mamaev II

[caligula]

Lol, you sure talk pretty big for a leader that cowardly pulled his alliance out of a losing war before even being declared on. Go on, tough guy. Let me see your stuff.

You sure talk pretty big for having no idea what you're talking about.

SEE WHAT I DID THAR?

[Senes]

Lol, you sure talk pretty big for a leader that cowardly pulled his alliance out of a losing war before even being declared on. Go on, tough guy. Let me see your stuff.

Sorry slowpoke, war's over.

[pasquali]

Congrats on peace, fair terms. You guys were great.

Regardless of what was done in the past reps shouldn't be used as a means of "getting even". Demanding insane amounts of tech and subjugating a losing alliance is hardly something to be proud of or called for. Let us remember this is a game, malice and revenge are entirely out of place here and simply demonstrate an inability to look past an obsession. The combined forces that took on valhalla are attempting to do something honorable and that is recognize the bravery demonstrated by those who fought for Valhalla and allow the damage done to them (which was considerable) stand as the penalty for their chosen side. What you are asking for is essentially the equivalent of beating a person to death, then chopping off their legs because you won.

I'm sorry, I just feel the need to comment here. To say that reps shouldn't be used as a means of "getting even" - why not? It is a game, and certain alliances have chosen to play it in a very cutthroat way in the past (see the beating a person to death and chopping off their legs because you won bit). It's ok for one side to play that way, but not the other?

I'm not advocating for reps, and I want no reps for my involvement in this war. But to say that there are no grounds for reps based on past wrongs just doesn't add up. Malice and revenge are entirely in place here. For the winning alliances to show the amount of forebearance they have and continue to show speaks MASSIVE volumes about their sense of honor and mercy. True justice demands equivalent penalties for past wrongs committed. Most of these alliances actually want to demonstrate that there is a high road, regardless of how they and their friends were treated in the past. Don't minimize what they're doing - they would be fully within their rights to demand absolutely crushing terms.

[pezstar]

Congrats on peace, fair terms. You guys were great.

Regardless of what was done in the past reps shouldn't be used as a means of "getting even". Demanding insane amounts of tech and subjugating a losing alliance is hardly something to be proud of or called for. Let us remember this is a game, malice and revenge are entirely out of place here and simply demonstrate an inability to look past an obsession. The combined forces that took on valhalla are attempting to do something honorable and that is recognize the bravery demonstrated by those who fought for Valhalla and allow the damage done to them (which was considerable) stand as the penalty for their chosen side. What you are asking for is essentially the equivalent of beating a person to death, then chopping off their legs because you won.

That's a great response, however my reply didn't say a word about reps.