Dan123123 Posted May 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 These reparations are entirely fair. Kait was very willing to work with me to find an appropriate amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 I hope this will be the last of the childishness and !@#$%baggery displayed by SF towards AB. This quote does not match the signature that is under it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejarue Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 At about Kait's infra level, 180M wouldn't even get me 600 infra. That doesn't count tech and land losses. Sounds like AB got off easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Hail! o/ The people of Francos Spain mourn the loss of so much precious infrastructure. We'd lower our flags to half-staff but, you know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Well, this is a nice move. I really, sincerely hope that this is the end of this conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Seems reasonable to me. 1 Nuke can do a helluva lot of damage to a high infra nation. Also, Kait may be many things, but a damsel in distress she is not. lol @ White Knight comment I'm finding myself agreeing with you. Something must be wrong here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of War Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 This quote does not match the signature that is under it. It is quite true that I am a proponent of giving those who deserve it a taste of their own medicine, I am also a proponent of only doing it to those who truly deserve it. It is absolutely ridiculous that Q members like NATO and OG walked away only after a week or two of fighting with white peace while an alliance at the edge of the conflict like AB who should have been one of the first alliances offered peace was specifically held at a state of war by GOD and others who acted like complete !@#$%bags to AB throughout the negotiation process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Might as well have put this in in the other thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Might as well have put this in in the other thread. It wasn't a surrender term. This was worked out over a week ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 It is absolutely ridiculous that Q members like NATO and OG walked away only after a week or two of fighting If you think GOD had any say in that, or supported it, you're dreaming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 If you think GOD had any say in that, or supported it, you're dreaming. He didn't say anything of the sort. He didn't even bring up the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan123123 Posted May 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 It wasn't a surrender term. This was worked out over a week ago. Exactly. This agreement has been in place for some time. Our war with GOD was unrelated to the attacks on Kait. The attack on Kaitlink was unsanctioned by the majority of the AB government, and this is a fair consequence of that attack. The attacks were without due cause, and this was deemed an appropriate means of repayment/reparations/contrition by both Monos Archein and Aurora Borealis. Neither of us harbors any hard feelings, and we look forward to a peaceful future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 He didn't say anything of the sort. He didn't even bring up the subject. Actually, he kinda did. He said it's ridiculous that our war with AB went for ~3 weeks but OG/NATO got off light and early. The comparison fails because we had zero say in the former. The people on OG/NATO decided when and how they got off, and they're not us. Our policy for war has been fairly consistent, and we never made any bones that if someone attacked us, it was going to hurt a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regent of Omerta Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) You guys are seriously trolling someone accepting reps that are a fraction of the damage caused by nuke rogues? Do you guys investigate before posting or do you just load up a pre-determined response regardless? Good to see AB stepping up and doing the right thing. Don't think I could agree more with a statement made in this thread. I think you nailed it on this one Hoo. Nicely done Dan on your OP. Edited May 19, 2009 by Regent of Omerta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Did the member leave the alliance beforehand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
menwearpink135 Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 GearsOfWar, these terms are pretty easy as it was a nuke attack. If it was just some comments on the forums or IRC (like I'm sure many thought at first) then this would be ridiculous, but nukes do a lot of damage. No need to flame SF for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of War Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) Actually, he kinda did. He said it's ridiculous that our war with AB went for ~3 weeks but OG/NATO got off light and early. The comparison fails because we had zero say in the former. The people on OG/NATO decided when and how they got off, and they're not us. Our policy for war has been fairly consistent, and we never made any bones that if someone attacked us, it was going to hurt a lot. My argument is one of proportions, precedents were set, very bad precedents unfortunately, but precedents nonetheless. Even if you just completely throw that out the window there is still the issue of your handling of the peace negotiations with AB. I have seen some very unflattering logs. I plan to push for some "harsh", read non-white peace, peace with the NPO and TPF, but I don't intend to be jerks to them while doing so. GearsOfWar, these terms are pretty easy as it was a nuke attack. If it was just some comments on the forums or IRC (like I'm sure many thought at first) then this would be ridiculous, but nukes do a lot of damage. No need to flame SF for it. My comments are directed at more at the entire AB front than at these specific terms, in case that wasn't clear. Edited May 19, 2009 by Gears of War Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Actually, he kinda did. He said it's ridiculous that our war with AB went for ~3 weeks but OG/NATO got off light and early. The comparison fails because we had zero say in the former. The people on OG/NATO decided when and how they got off, and they're not us. Our policy for war has been fairly consistent, and we never made any bones that if someone attacked us, it was going to hurt a lot. He was explaining his sig to someone on your side that called shens on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) This is ridiculous, to say the least. I agree with o ya baby if the answer to this is yes. Did the member leave the alliance beforehand? If he didn't leave then I could see this being fine. Edited May 19, 2009 by Mogar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan123123 Posted May 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 I agree with o ya baby if the answer to this is yes.If he didn't leave then I could see this being fine. The members in question were allowed to stay. This is perfectly fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 So did the member in fact leave the alliance first? Just wish for a clear clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 So did the member in fact leave the alliance first? Just wish for a clear clarification. No, they remained on the AB AA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Lee Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 boo fricken hoo, nice terms guys. Congrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Did MA ask for these reps, or did AB offer them of their own accord? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Did MA ask for these reps, or did AB offer them of their own accord? Does it matter? 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.