Are alliances forced to accept harsh terms?

[Nobama]

FAN proved that nobody is "forced" to surrender. Doesn't release the "victors" from justice for what they've done, but it doesn't change the fact that nobody can make you into a loser without your consent.

[Electron Sponge]

My vote would have been for choice #3: "fffffffffffffffff"

[nc1701]

This is a great debate and all, but if we look at an RL situation where something like this is happening it becomes obvious. Suppose you are attacked by a man (or rather a whole gang of them), after a brief fight you are backed into a corner and beat mercilessly. You are helpless two thugs are holding you by your arms while a third punches you in the face and stomach, you spit out a tooth as blood pours down your face. He laughs at you and then says if you give up your wallet they will let you be as he pulls back for another strike...

This is basically the situation most alliances are in when they accept terms, they are fighting a hopeless war and they accept whatever terms are dictated because they realize they may not survive continued beating and nobody is showing up to help them.

...Now you give the thugs your wallet and they take it tie you up and leave you, you eventually free yourself and go straight to the police. A few months later the thugs have been caught and charged with robbing you, but when their leader takes the stand he denies the charges. He says that you removed your wallet from your pocket and handed it to him of your own fee will. He says that if you hadn't wanted him to have your wallet you would not have given it to him, so that the robbery charge is absurd.

He would be laughed out of any court, and summarily convicted. Apparently though this argument works in CN? Because everyone has demanded reps and we don't like to admit that reps are simply armed robbery, sure they don't have to accept your terms, just like the bank teller doesn't have to give the robber with a gun to her head the money. But when you are threatened with death (or eternal war which is basically IC death) then it is still robbery and extortion.

Now of course CN is a game and we are all free to rob and extort each other and doing so certainly adds flavor, but let's not try to blame the victim for giving the robber his money. That is patently absurd.

[Master Hakai]

Not all alliances have such a dedicated base as FAN apparently does. Many would crumble waiting that long for better terms.

I agreed with this post

[Uralica]

There is a certain situational dilemma in this question that is not addressed.

If you are in a position where you can still fight, accepting harsh terms really shouldn't cross one's mind. However, if you've been beaten so badly that you can barely muster a few hundred troops let alone tanks, CMs, bombers, n00ks, whatever, then accepting the terms really is the only option, although nobody can truly be told, "YOU DISBAND NAO," and forced into that. You either go FAN's route or you go LUA's in that situation. (No, I'm not talking about LUE )

Of course, this doesn't exempt the giver of said harsh terms from future discipline for their misdeeds (in the form of war). This is why terms in any war should always be given with a balance of justice and mercy, regardless of the alliance's crime (within an IC context of course - OOC stuff like /b/ombing, hacking, and what have you should be dealt with OOC).

[Bob Janova]

You've been in GATO, you tell us.

[magicninja]

You've been in GATO, you tell us.

I'm a fairweather GATOan. I've never been in GATO during a war unless you count the UJP. I think my opinion was clear in the OP.

[New Frontier]

The question is poorly worded.

The victor is at fault for being dicks about reps. That said, nobody's FORCING the losers to accept them.

[Raphael Beau Pre]

From a purely technical point of view you cannot force an alliance to accept terms, any set of terms given to an alliance could be rejected if the alliance wanted to, however, the victor can influence the choice by narrowing your alternatives.

Example: "agree to pay me 50,000 tech or I'll PZI all your nations"

I am still free to reject your terms and accept the PZI as a result of that decision, but I cannot stop your actions if I should refuse to pay the tech and as such may choose to take the lesser of two evils.

In the end, the only people that it matters to whether the terms are worth accepting or not are the alliances involved in the war, everyone has a different opinion on what is harsh/fair/reasonable/unreasonable and so every alliance will have a different point at which they will say "ok, I'll do what you ask".

[boscher]

another karma-is-just-as-bad-thread

[Taget]

It depends on your membership, their relationship with the alliance, and how much you think they can take.

If you're leading one of the oldest alliances in the game either accepting very stringent terms or entering a state like FAN becomes more viable. Especially if you have a large core of very committed people and a strong enough out of game community to survive the in-game portion being emasculated.

If you are a newer alliance with members who are newer to the game or not as committed to playing it your alliance and especially if you are having activity issues either harsh terms or entering "FAN mode" is not an option. Activity level and organization in particular are important since terms require a certain degree of organization and contribution from membership and if that is at all diminished you could have a violation of terms which would just result in a restomping. Thus disbandment whether with a bang or a thud has to be considered.

As for the attackers. No one likes a bully. While perhaps some alliances may still think they can scrape by always being on the bandwagon this war should hopefully teach people than anyone can end up on the losing side and it's always better to not engage in conduct that will rebound against you.

[iamthey]

Simply because I don't believe heavy reparation payments compare to the much harsher terms of surrender does not mean I consider them to be good sportsmanship. There are far worse things you can do to an alliance, but beating someone up and then stealing their lunch money is still worse than just beating someone up.

Yeah this is essentially my own opinion on the matter. At the end of the day its a game, and people would do good to remember that there are just normal people sitting on the other side of the screen.

[Drai]

First option, because the only other thing that can happen is for the fighting to continue and the losers lose even more.

[Nada2486]

"War gives the right of the conquerors to impose any conditions they please upon the vanquished."- Julius Caesar

This says it all, its up to the victor to decide the defeated alliance future.

But if you give white peace like crazy:

"Pardon one offense and you encourage the commission of many."-Publilius Syrus

[Paint Your Target]

Nations, nations can be destroyed. An Alliance can never really be destroyed.