Hey-ho hey-ho it's off to work we go

[Ephriam Grey]

Hi Jens, trade partner .

Good luck to TFO.

[Tobirama Senju]

Now all you guys are doing is sitting back, out of the war, and complaining in every thread anyone affiliated with PC makes. just get over it and pay the reps. You dont have to like any of us but dont !@#$%* and whine in every single thread.

This is not correct. I responded to this thread after the TSI name was brought up by TwistedRebel. And from what I have read, my fellow TSI members responded to the same post. None of us are targeting PC or TFO related threads. But we will not sit idly by while the TSI AA gets thrown around.

I also posted earlier in this thread that if anyone wanted to debate this they could stop by the IRC channel or shoot me a pm so the thread could stay on topic. Thank you and have a nice day.

[cowen70]

As Shurukian pointed out, it comes down to simple combat effectiveness. There was zero point in the Initiative remaining in the fight to simply provide defensive slots for RAD to occupy and that was that. I don't believe at any point I've sat back and laughed at the combat abilities of RAD (though I've certainly questioned your methodology of declaring wars ). By saying "Hey, if you don't surrender before X time RAD will be declaring war" there's an implicit threat there. It's called the carrot-and-stick method. It simply comes down to whether or not you believe that the information given about RAD's intentions was truly meant as a kind heads-up or whether it was meant in a less-than-polite manner.

Here are the two options that were given:

1. Accept surrender terms being dictated by a person who began by making an unreasonable demand and would not take advice or redirection from others present on that side of the table (persons from two other alliances and a Karma mediator)

-or-

2. Receive attacks from three alliances (RAD, Poison Clan and Lone Star Republic) including nuclear bombardment on nations unable to resist the strikes with no reasonable expectation on the part of the Initiative for a change of circumstances for the better (basically, just taking damage for the hell of it with no gain and no change to the reparations being asked for)

Given those options, the leadership of the Initiative made the better choice as I see it. Certainly, the personal complaints being lodged by members of this alliance can be seen as "whining" and if that's how they are going to be perceived I won't argue the point. Did we have to surrender? No, there was no reasonable way for any of the alliances fighting us to take direct control of our nations and force the acceptance of terms (OOC: hijack our accounts). Would it have been irresponsible for the Initiative's leadership to not make the choice we did? I think so. I certainly have my pride but I'm not willing to put it ahead of those persons who have entrusted the well-being of their nations to myself and, more importantly, the Empress.

Does that mean people should be thrilled about having to pay reparations? I don't think so. Certainly members of other alliances, when faced with what they saw as uneven reparations demands, have publicly expressed their displeasure with them (see: Athens, Mushroom Kingdom, GATO, FAN, etc.). People are going to do so here as well and I'll support their alliance-given right to free speech no matter what. Should the day come when RAD or any other alliance finds itself in a position of having been unfairly treated as they see it (I actually never want to see this happen, believe it or not) you'll find me there supporting your rights as well. And yes, you can hold me to that.

As I said before in this line of discussion, I'll be taking note of the performance and conduct of The Forsaken Ones on this new front. They've chosen to make a new effort in this war and I'm more than willing to reserve judgment on their future conduct as the future is not set in stone and people can learn. When all is said and done we'll see how things go.

You had a problem with one person briefly within the negotiations, not with me or the other people in TFO so I wonder exactly what it is you think I need to learn? I don't have problems with people in negotiations. I didn't particularly feel the same kind of idealistic and fanatical fervour others do around white peace and I don't apologise for that. TFO faced superior numbers and asked for a reasonable amount of reperations that does not even remotely bear comparison to the extortion that was common under the hegemony (something which TSI has indirectly supported through affiliation and military support of a Q alliance).

Considering our limited involvement in the Avalon war I certainly don't think reperations will be asked for.

[Augustus Autumn]

You had a problem with one person briefly within the negotiations, not with me or the other people in TFO so I wonder exactly what it is you think I need to learn?

Internal alliance communication, clarity of war aims and conduct during negotiations judging by my experience thus far.

I don't have problems with people in negotiations. I didn't particularly feel the same kind of idealistic and fanatical fervour others do around white peace and I don't apologise for that.

Your personal opinions on the matter never came into play since you were not leading the negotiations for The Forsaken Ones nor were you making the decisions.

TFO faced superior numbers and asked for a reasonable amount of reperations that does not even remotely bear comparison to the extortion that was common under the hegemony (something which TSI has indirectly supported through affiliation and military support of a Q alliance).

Guilt by association is a very slick slope to wander onto - as for your implication that the Initiative has somehow directly supported the New Pacific Order and other alliances known for exacting harsh terms and excessive reparations I would call on you to provide examples of wars after October 12, 2008 (the date the Initiative came into being) when it was involved in a conflict which resulted in harsh reparations being demanded.

Considering our limited involvement in the Avalon war I certainly don't think reperations will be asked for.

An excellent stance to take.

[cowen70]

Internal alliance communication, clarity of war aims and conduct during negotiations judging by my experience thus far.

It was taken care of was it not and within the same day? That is pretty quick considering some negotiations can last days and yes people can get called away, I believe it happened with NPO just recently due to some external issues that interrupted communication.

Your personal opinions on the matter never came into play since you were not leading the negotiations for The Forsaken Ones nor were you making the decisions.

Indeed they do matter as the alliance is ran in part by me as well as other members like Jens, ditka and THD. I was absent during the beginning of the negotiations which is when a problem occurred but it was resolved quickly was it not? I do believe the negotiations finished that same session. We are not an alliance ran by a singular person, the focal head of power runs the AA in consultation with the rest of gov not inspite of them.

Guilt by association is a very slick slope to wander onto - as for your implication that the Initiative has somehow directly supported the New Pacific Order and other alliances known for exacting harsh terms and excessive reparations I would call on you to provide examples of wars after October 12, 2008 (the date the Initiative came into being) when it was involved in a conflict which resulted in harsh reparations being demanded.

You provide military support to one of the AA's who has extorted people in the past. If you do not support their actions and philosophy then why are you allied to them. Surely you consider the actions of the people you ally yourselves to when you sit down and discuss treaties? Knowing what they have done in the past and what they are likely to do in the future based on that. Or did you slap on a pair of blinkers hold your hands over your ears and shout ''lalalalalalalala'' when people talk about the hegemony's past actions (that isn't just NPO, that is TPF as well)?

An excellent stance to take.

One small slice of agreement then between us.

Edited May 13, 2009 by cowen70

[Augustus Autumn]

It was taken care of was it not and within the same day? That is pretty quick considering some negotiations can last days and yes people can get called away, I believe it happened with NPO just recently due to some external issues that interrupted communication.

Considering the contents of the communications received since the quickly-executed negotiations to the effect of "We did what?" I received the impression that internal communications were an issue. I absolutely agree that all decisions of that magnitude should be discussed amongst the responsible government and they should have been in this instance. It didn't happen. It's something to avoid in the future. (I think we're actually agreeing on something here )

Indeed they do matter as the alliance is ran in part by me as well as other members like Jens, ditka and THD. I was absent during the beginning of the negotiations which is when a problem occurred but it was resolved quickly was it not? I do believe the negotiations finished that same session. We are not an alliance ran by a singular person, the focal head of power runs the AA in consultation with the rest of gov not inspite of them.

The negotiations began and ended within about an hour and you weren't there for them hence my not holding you responsible for the decisions made. Simply put, because you weren't your personal opinion simply could not be taken into account. Frankly, I wish more voices could have been present but circumstances clearly did not allow for it. I've been well aware that the constitution of The Forsaken Ones does not allow for a dictatorial execution of power and yet one person, your Emperor no less, took it upon himself to lead the negotiations and conclude them on behalf of your alliance. Should you be upset with this you should take it up with your own government. (We're agreeing that your not being there wasn't a good thing )

You provide military support to one of the AA's who has extorted people in the past. If you do not support their actions and philosophy then why are you allied to them. Surely you consider the actions of the people you ally yourselves to when you sit down and discuss treaties? Knowing what they have done in the past and what they are likely to do in the future based on that. Or did you slap on a pair of blinkers hold your hands over your ears and shout ''lalalalalalalala'' when people talk about the hegemony's past actions (that isn't just NPO, that is TPF as well)?

And I could indicate the same concerning the past of Poison Clan and your associations with them. I simply don't considering that The Forsaken Ones is a sovereign alliance with an independent government which should be held responsible for its own actions and no one else's. I know the standard in the Cyberverse is to hold alliances responsible for the actions of their friends - I simply do not do so. To do otherwise breeds ignorance and an inescapable cycle of passed blame which makes peace and cooperation impossible in the long term.

One small slice of agreement then between us.

I think we're agreeing on a lot more stuff here than you think .

[cowen70]

Considering the contents of the communications received since the quickly-executed negotiations to the effect of "We did what?" I received the impression that internal communications were an issue. I absolutely agree that all decisions of that magnitude should be discussed amongst the responsible government and they should have been in this instance. It didn't happen. It's something to avoid in the future. (I think we're actually agreeing on something here )

The negotiations began and ended within about an hour and you weren't there for them hence my not holding you responsible for the decisions made. Simply put, because you weren't your personal opinion simply could not be taken into account. Frankly, I wish more voices could have been present but circumstances clearly did not allow for it. I've been well aware that the constitution of The Forsaken Ones does not allow for a dictatorial execution of power and yet one person, your Emperor no less, took it upon himself to lead the negotiations and conclude them on behalf of your alliance. Should you be upset with this you should take it up with your own government. (We're agreeing that your not being there wasn't a good thing )

And I could indicate the same concerning the past of Poison Clan and your associations with them. I simply don't considering that The Forsaken Ones is a sovereign alliance with an independent government which should be held responsible for its own actions and no one else's. I know the standard in the Cyberverse is to hold alliances responsible for the actions of their friends - I simply do not do so. To do otherwise breeds ignorance and an inescapable cycle of passed blame which makes peace and cooperation impossible in the long term.

I think we're agreeing on a lot more stuff here than you think .

Well we do agree on a little more but I am troubled by the seeming never ending casting of negativity on TFO for what was a relatively painless affair that ended in reasonable reperations, obviously would have went smoother if we had waited for a full representation of our government but for all the negotiations started badly they did not end badly. There was a time when some AA's would have demanded wonders be destroyed and reperations would not even remotely be paid for and that was that, take it or become FAN. Honestly if a rough and bumpy negotiation is the worst crime TFO has ever committed then we're way ahead of a vast proportion of CN and we'll only improve from there.

As for Poison Clan I was a member there for some time before TFO, I am perfectly happy with their actions and quite knowledgable of their government, having known one of them a long time in CN and getting to know the rest of the upper government during and after my stay there I can comfortably say I am happy with their direction and confident that I can support their actions. I have actually been on the side where I was allied to an AA that I didn't support and it left me feeling very uncomfortable. If philosophically you differ from your allies in a big way then I don't see how that can make for a good military or even diplomatic relationship.

If I had to give my opinion of MDP's I again find myself in agreement with PC. One of the defining opinions I came across in my time there was the fewer MDP's the better. I don't think its easy to align yourself comfortably with a lot of AA's and retain your integrity, and those few that you do sign should be very close to your ideology.

[Augustus Autumn]

Well we do agree on a little more but I am troubled by the seeming never ending casting of negativity on TFO for what was a relatively painless affair that ended in reasonable reperations, obviously would have went smoother if we had waited for a full representation of our government but for all the negotiations started badly they did not end badly. There was a time when some AA's would have demanded wonders be destroyed and reperations would not even remotely be paid for and that was that, take it or become FAN. Honestly if a rough and bumpy negotiation is the worst crime TFO has ever committed then we're way ahead of a vast proportion of CN and we'll only improve from there.

The problem here is the lack of consistency which is in part due to larger alliances getting nil reps and the Initiative getting a high assessment in comparison. Yes, comparatively against history the reparations are much less than before. The problems here are 1) the conduct of the representative from your alliance during the talks and 2) the fact that the terms given defied the general Karma Coalition message of "reparations shall match the conduct of the combatant alliance". If reparations are seen as a form of punishment your alliance, in giving them, has sent the message that it will punish others for following their commitments. If reparations are seen as a form of gaining funds to rebuild an alliance they will be seen as piracy. The general outcry is not that reparations were asked but that they do not seem to make sense outside of "We won, you lost, give us your stuff".

As for Poison Clan I was a member there for some time before TFO, I am perfectly happy with their actions and quite knowledgable of their government, having known one of them a long time in CN and getting to know the rest of the upper government during and after my stay there I can comfortably say I am happy with their direction and confident that I can support their actions. I have actually been on the side where I was allied to an AA that I didn't support and it left me feeling very uncomfortable. If philosophically you differ from your allies in a big way then I don't see how that can make for a good military or even diplomatic relationship.

I don't think we're disagreeing here. The Initiative has very much been pleased by the actions of The Phoenix Federation during our time in existence and have supported, in general, the conduct of our protector's decisions. When disagreements have taken place they have been in private and through the proper channels. What that does not mean is that, by accepting a treaty, an alliance offers blanket support to another alliance. Disagreements in policy do take place between allies as we have clearly seen in this war and at other times (see: the New Sith Order and the Siberian Tiger Alliance). Simply because they happen does not mean that alliances are going to go rushing off to cancellation. We came into the Cyberverse as a new alliance under the protection of another - that does not impart the sins of our protector and/or allies and/or "side" of a war onto us any more than it does for The Forsaken Ones or any other alliance. If people believe otherwise that's simply foolish.

You also have to bear in mind when the Initiative signed its agreement with The Phoenix Federation. That alliance which so many hate has shifted into the past thanks to the efforts of mhawk and others. Certainly, there is bad history but we tend to look to the present and the future. There is benefit to remembering history for the purposes of avoiding it but that does not make history inescapable.

If I had to give my opinion of MDP's I again find myself in agreement with PC. One of the defining opinions I came across in my time there was the fewer MDP's the better. I don't think its easy to align yourself comfortably with a lot of AA's and retain your integrity, and those few that you do sign should be very close to your ideology.

I don't think we could be any more in agreement on this matter. I think the only difference we have is taking into account the past and how heavily we lend weight to it. I've simply judged the actions of your alliance on just that - its actions. The history of others has nothing to do it with nor should it.

It is my hope that, when it comes time for Avalon to receive peace and this conflict to end that they will be judged fairly and evenly based on their own conduct and not the past happenings of those who were willing to protect their alliance while they grew. And, when it comes time for negotiations to be conducted, that the (arguable) mistakes made during previous conferences are taken into account and that changes in conduct are made for the better. The Forsaken Ones has the potential for greatness like all other alliances - I hope that you can live up to it. Unfortunately, only time will tell.