Trashcat's Corner: And They Will Look Up And Shout Save Us

[Azaghul]

I'm not aware anyone argued otherwise.

It's a fact that seems to have been disregarded.

They may not be important to you but to others, that Valhalla happily pillaged, after suffering as badly or worse in war, they are important.

I disagree. People in alliances that were extorted and threatened with extinction by Vahalla have every right to object to the free pass they were given in this war.

Losing half their strength is hardly a free pass.

Big reps would have just been icing on the cake, regardless you still got the cake. I think they should have gotten some reps too, I'm just saying there seems to be too much significance placed on them.

[Tygaland]

It's a fact that seems to have been disregarded.

No, it is a fact so obvious it didn't warrant mentioning. Add to that it was immaterial to the point I was making.

Losing half their strength is hardly a free pass.

I'm sure you are aware that in previous wars the loss of strength during the war had no part in the determination of peace terms. Alliances they fought in the past lost 75% or more of the strength and were still laboured with heavy reps payments as well as other restrictions for up to 6 months. I'm sure a symbolic reparations payment akin to MCXA's terms would have been fair and appropriate. Not to mention give some sort of consistency to the terms offered by members of the Karma coalition.

Big reps would have just been icing on the cake, regardless you still got the cake. I think they should have gotten some reps too, I'm just saying there seems to be too much significance placed on them.

Who mentioned anything about big reps? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Tygaland

[Deuterium Dawn]

Awesome as always Stumpy. Even with out the cards. D:

[Monster]

I'm sure a symbolic reparations payment akin to MCXA's terms would have been fair and appropriate. Not to mention give some sort of consistency to the terms offered by members of the Karma coalition.

What would the point be besides making a gesture ultimately? Why have a symbolic payment?

[defroster]

Dear Stumpy,

I would like you to know I am completely outraged with your pick of Electron Sponge as player of the week. After everything he's done, all the damage he has inflicted and you turn around and name him player of the week. He's caused so much damage to a ton of alliances, even one you are allied with, yet you didn't even consult us before you turned around and worshiped him. He should be censured, you should be calling for his PZI (even though we all know PZI is wrong, its different if its for players that mess with us). This just goes to show you how much Stumpy is jocking for influence and fracturing Karma.

Fake edit: Did I bawwww hard enough to counter the anti-umbrella bawwing yet?

real edit:

I'm sure you are aware that in previous wars the loss of strength during the war had no part in the determination of peace terms. Alliances they fought in the past lost 75% or more of the strength and were still laboured with heavy reps payments as well as other restrictions for up to 6 months. I'm sure a symbolic reparations payment akin to MCXA's terms would have been fair and appropriate. Not to mention give some sort of consistency to the terms offered by members of the Karma coalition.

Yeah because an eye for an eye is totally the best policy. I can't wait to see the next curb stomp STA has planned.

Edited May 23, 2009 by defroster

[Rafael Nadal]

Dear Stumpy,

I would like you to know I am completely outraged with your pick of Electron Sponge as player of the week. After everything he's done, all the damage he has inflicted and you turn around and name him player of the week. He's caused so much damage to a ton of alliances, even one you are allied with, yet you didn't even consult us before you turned around and worshiped him. He should be censured, you should be calling for his PZI (even though we all know PZI is wrong, its different if its for players that mess with us). This just goes to show you how much Stumpy is jocking for influence and fracturing Karma.

Fake edit: Did I bawwww hard enough to counter the anti-umbrella bawwing yet?

real edit:

Yeah because an eye for an eye is totally the best policy. I can't wait to see the next curb stomp STA has planned.

On both sentences regarding Tyga's statement.

Firstly, Tyga has not advocated an eye for an eye policy. Secondly, I have a feeling you'll be waiting quite a long time for that curb stomp. Also, next implies they've participated in one before, which they haven't to the best of my knowledge, unless you count being on the wrong end one as planning.

[Bob Sanders]

Even with out the cards. D:

Please remove this heretical statement immediately

[23:10] <Bob_Sanders> also wtf

[23:10] <Bob_Sanders> no cards again

[23:10] <Bob_Sanders>

[23:11] <Stumpy> Bob_Sanders: He stopped making them

[23:11] <Stumpy> I dont know why

[23:11] <Stumpy> but he didnt even sign on today

[23:11] <Bob_Sanders> can I nuke him?

[23:11] <Stumpy> Yes

[23:11] <Stumpy> please

[23:11] <Stumpy> hes pissing me off

[PrototyoeRuler]

Stumpy...what a crappy publication. I hate you, and your stupid cat fetish.

[defroster]

On both sentences regarding Tyga's statement.

Firstly, Tyga has not advocated an eye for an eye policy. Secondly, I have a feeling you'll be waiting quite a long time for that curb stomp. Also, next implies they've participated in one before, which they haven't to the best of my knowledge, unless you count being on the wrong end one as planning.

Well he has a funny way of showing that he doesn't want an eye for an eye you know bringing up what has been done then point out how that affects what should be done in the future. I think I like umbrella's way better, where we see what will allow us to get the job done and look ourselves in the mirror the next morning, but to each his or her own.

As far as the curb stompping part the historical precedent isn't the important part, its that Tyga seems so hell bent on adopting the policies of those who have so recently been handing out curb stompings.

In summary, while you might see him as a paragon of justice, I have no reason to share your opinion and only judge him by his rather blood thristy demeanor in the valhalla peace thread and this thread.

[PrototyoeRuler]

Well he has a funny way of showing that he doesn't want an eye for an eye you know bringing up what has been done then point out how that affects what should be done in the future. I think I like umbrella's way better, where we see what will allow us to get the job done and look ourselves in the mirror the next morning, but to each his or her own.

As far as the curb stompping part the historical precedent isn't the important part, its that Tyga seems so hell bent on adopting the policies of those who have so recently been handing out curb stompings.

In summary, while you might see him as a paragon of justice, I have no reason to share your opinion and only judge him by his rather blood thristy demeanor in the valhalla peace thread and this thread.

Woah chill bro.

Tyga has good reason to be upset with his former enemies for opposing harsh terms on himself and most importantly the members of his alliance. Tyga is honest, and fair. He doesn't just go about destroying alliances, extorting them or publicly humiliating them. But, Tyga my friend we were pulled in because of a treaty, an obligation to our friend. Much like you and MK during the WAPA war. We came in and $%&@ed !@#$ up, and we did it pretty good. Valhalla, OMFG, and company probably don't want to fight us again. We did what we had to do, and because Valhalla never directly insulted us, extorted from us we don't harbor to many ill feelings. Umbrella is an alliance full of misfits, and people seeing each alliance they have ever loved destroyed. We don't want to lose our home, and we shouldn't force that on any one else. War is there for a reason, no need to kick them when there down..

OCC: It's 4am, and im drunk sorry if it didnt make any sense but ya

[Tygaland]

Yeah because an eye for an eye is totally the best policy. I can't wait to see the next curb stomp STA has planned.

If you can point out any post where I have advocated government members of Valhalla being expelled or removed from office, destruction of wonders, massive reparations, ZI listing of members of Valhalla and long term military decom then I'll concede your "eye for an eye" argument. All I'm asking for is a rather aggressive nail trim for an eye.

While I'm setting you the task to back up the dribble you have left in this thread, I'll ask you to point out any war, curbstomp or otherwise, that the STA has kicked off. Going to war to honour treaties when our allies are attacked does not count.

I'll check back semi-regularly to see how you are getting along with the abovementioned tasks.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Tygaland

[Tygaland]

What would the point be besides making a gesture ultimately? Why have a symbolic payment?

I have answered this probably a dozen times so whats one more time, huh! To provide fair, consistent and just terms reflective of Valhalla's status in the Continuum.

As we stand now, peace terms are a crap shoot and hardly reflective of Karma's statement about fair and just terms. Perhaps I'm just a stickler for details like that but if I'm part of a Coalition that states it supports fair and just terms then having alliances like SSSW18, AB and TSI paying reparations while alliances like Valhalla, OG and NATO get a free pass does not sit well with me. It isn't fair and it isn't just.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Tygaland

[defroster]

If you can point out any post where I have government members of Valhalla being expelled or removed from office, destruction of wonders and improvements, massive reparations, ZI listing of members of Valhalla and long term military decom then I'll concede your "eye for an eye" argument. All I'm asking for is a rather aggressive nail trim for an eye.

If I may paraphrase, "It's not eye for an eye because we aren't quite as bad!". Yes you could ask for worse than 10,000 tech, but just because it's less bad doesn't mean it's good. While you maybe be striving for vengence (as honorable or dishonorable as it may be) umbrella is striving to do good. I'm not going to commend you for asking (or more accurately pestering other Karma members to ask for you) for light reps. I'll save it for alliances that strive to do good (see Gramlins, TOP and Kronos).

While I'm setting you the task to back up the dribble you have left in this thread, I'll ask you to point out any war, curbstomp or otherwise that the STA has kicked off. Going to war to honour treaties when our allies are attacked does not count.

Did I ever claim this? I don't recall typing that STA started any war. I did imply that you planned other wars, which I'm sure you did (I mean really, I don't think STA got into the UJW merely through treaty obilgations, so were you really left out of planning it? Do you have a signed note saying so?) And if you keep putting vengence before diplomacy, then I'm sure I wont have to wait too long before I can't point one out to you.

I'll check back semi-regularly to see how you are getting along with the abovementioned tasks.

Done and done. Sorry if it's not what you were expecting, but please read it as it is a little specific and might require more than, "Yeah, prove it" to respond to.

Edited May 23, 2009 by defroster

[agnews]

All I'm asking for is a rather aggressive nail trim for an eye.

How Could U?

you people make me sick forcing such horrors on other alliances, you and your agressive nail trims

[Alterego]

The Siberian Tiger Alliance announced that it would be leaving SNOW this week, the white team economic unity bloc, over being on the opposite side of a war from most of the other signatories.

I hope someone else on a different colour does the same.

[Haflinger]

On both sentences regarding Tyga's statement.

Firstly, Tyga has not advocated an eye for an eye policy. Secondly, I have a feeling you'll be waiting quite a long time for that curb stomp. Also, next implies they've participated in one before, which they haven't to the best of my knowledge, unless you count being on the wrong end one as planning.

There was this one. Honestly I think their actions in it and at the end of it were justified, though.

As far as I know that's the only one

[Heracles the Great]

I think a combination of the two would have restricted their aid slots and decreased their warchests as they have to rebuy even more tech than before. Quite simply, Valhalla, like many alliances is this war, was smart and had warchests. Big warchests. Half of the use of a warchest is the rebuild later. With nothing decreasing their internal slots and forcing them to rebuy sent out tech to further decrease warchests they can sky rocket in strength.

Well let's assume for a second that Kronos had given terms like you guys wanted, and we had given something similar to MCXA's 10,000 tech reps. 10,000 tech requires 200 slots - for a 120member alliance, they could have that filled in a single cycle, while at the same time likely exporting well over $1b in cash to future tech deals (if they go the 1x1 route). Now some are here saying "well you could have done both" and that's true - we could have - but for a 65 page thread and a whole new topic to be created over something as simple as that, it just doesn't make sense. And I keep hearing "they got White Peace" despite the terms that were given being far harsher than the terms what MCXA got, yet you want to say we should have been more like that.

So let's stop for a second and really compare. Valhalla is a top heavy alliance - they only have, roughly, 30 or so "tech sellers" within their ranks. So, at most, they have 150 tech slots for the next 90 days (assuming nobody outgrows tech selling). That's 7,500 tech every 10 days (max) that can be sent out - considering one cycle has to be used to pay the sellers, that's essentially 15,000 tech a month for the next 3 months - that's the most Valhalla can get internally. As for "us" being allowed to aid them - Umbrella, Kronos, PC, RIA, etc don't have extra sellers - our sellers are being used for us and our allies first. So now that we're clear on that - we've basically agreed that for the duration of these reps, we've limited Valhalla's tech import to a max of ~45,000 for an alliance with 90 or so buyers - that's a total of 500 aid per member over 90 days.

Now let's look at what could have been done without that term. 90 buyers with 450 slots (likely more since most have DRA) can import 22,500 tech every 10 days - that's 45,000 a month with a payment cycle. Over 3 months, that's 135,000 tech - so we essentially cut their growth by 66% over the course of 3 months. What happened to MCXA? (assuming my memory is serving me correctly at this hour) They had 300 nations have to pay out 10,000 tech which costs 200 slots - meaning only 66% of their nations even had to waste 1 aid slot to send out 50 tech. So essentially their alliance didn't even lost a full 10 days of growth, only 66% of their members did. One alliance lost 2 months of growth, one alliance lost maybe 2 days worth of growth.... who was hindered further? But we don't see anyone complaining about MCXA getting off too light, or GGA getting off too light? Why? Because they got the oh so symbolic reps that everyone was looking for...

1. Im sorry I cant poll EVERY ALLIANCE MEMBER OF VALHALLA. Ill get on that. You asked for some proof, I have someone who came to mind. Are you telling me that no one in Valhalla is like Bob_Sanders?

2. No thats not what Im saying. Im saying thats what we wanted when we !@#$%*ed about giving them too light of terms. I said basically because I didnt want to list every little term that could be considered out. I was pointing out what we would have liked to have seen.

3. I dont see how I should have to claim which is more damaging, that wasnt part of my argument.

You have no reason to. That was EXACTLY my point. No one in this coalition gives a damn about the other members, hints the children !@#$%*ing remark. Basically you are doing exactly what Im claiming Karma's weakness is. Also, how am I avoiding the debate? I've made my points clear in this issue, this post, and the Valhalla thread. Im sorry Im not repeating myself over and over like you are. Thats not a debate, thats just useless.

1. - I asked for proof that most members of Valhalla still have massive warchests - considering you said, and I quote "Almost all of Valhalla has massive warchests" - Now you're claiming you haven't nor can poll every member of Valhalla, which basically means you took the most extreme example that maybe 3 members in a 120man alliance might come close to, and then tried to use it as an example of the majority. Considering we (Kro/PC/Umb/Etc) actually fought Valhallla, used our spies to gain perspective of their warchests, and then fought them and saw how they used their warchests, I'd imagine we have a far better idea of what their warchests really are. And from what I've seen, and from what I've heard others say they've seen, it's not even close. But screw facts - let's just go with what makes our argument look better.

2. - As explained above - what we gave Valhalla is actually (and it's not bs, I just gave you proof) harsher than what was given to several other alliances who had to give up reps. So explain to me, how hindering an alliances growth by ~60 days is more lenient than hindering it by

what... 2 days? I mean explain the logic in that to me.

3. - Actually you clearly stated that you felt our terms were White Peace - however if our terms are harsher than those that have been given reps, how is that still true? So if you're going to avoid actually confirming that yes, indeed these terms are harsher than what several other alliances in the "hegemony" got, then you are avoiding a major issue at the heart of this debate.

4. - I suppose that we do agree on this point - while I will disagree with any representation of this being a "grab for new allies" which would infer - to me - that we did this so that we could pull Valhalla to our side for the upcomign power struggle (what side is that again?) and actually find it disgusting to suggest that, I do agree that this was not a decision to be made by anyone other than those who fought Valhalla and that when it comes time for NPO to get terms, you won't hear a peep out of me one way or the other when you give terms to them. Why? Because despite their past actions against my forefathers (ooc: previous nations/alliances) I did not fight them and therefore do not have a stake in the say of what happens to them. If you see that as a weakness of Karma's then so be it.

1. Many of their larger members are represented there yes.

2. That is not remotely comparable. I do not consider restricting outside aid as anything beyond light terms, barely above white peace. In fact, it's so close I call it that for ease of reference. This is because it does almost nothing to restrict their regrowth. Not to mention, restricting outside aid doesn't do much considering their allies conditions.

3. Did we ever claim that? I honestly don't know which is worse. I know the combination of both, however, does a fair job of slowing things down.

You are fighting alongside us, and have worked with this in our coalition. You are friends of friends (I think). We would like to see some consideration. At the very least, you could have reacted graciously to our objections. You did not. You insulted us, called us monsters, and made it seem like we were insane for revenge. It does not please us.

1. - Actually - no, they're not and unless you have conducted a spy operation on a majority of their larger members, you're purely guessing

2. - So despite it hindering their growth by approx. 2 months, it'd have been better for us to demand 10,000 tech instead? Which would have hindered their growth by 2 days?

3. - So you claim that what we did was indeed white peace, despite the fact you have no idea if it was actually harsher (or did a better job at doing what it is intended to do) than what you wanted us to do (which in turn wouldn't have been white peace). Can you elaborate on that?

4. - If I insulted you, I apologize - it was not my intent (as I cannot recall it happeneing, I have to assume it wasn't my intent). If you would point me to where I insulted you, called you a monster, etc - I'd appreciate it so that I can rectify the situation. I can understand that Vanguard, at this point, feels Valhalla got off too lightly, but I can't help but think that perhaps it's because you haven't sat down and really looked at what we did. Hopefully the explanation I gave above sheds light on that - if not, I'm happy to discuss it further.

Claiming restriction on outside aid (ignoring the fact that under the terms given to Valhalla they can tech deal with a number of alliances to bring in outside money) slows down growth is incorrect. Historically, the use of such a term was to prevent other alliances paying off reparations payments mandated by said peace terms on an alliance's behalf. This was designed to ensure that an alliance paid all its reparations debts off on its own.

Large nations in an alliance with significant warchests can farm out aid to lower strength members and facilitate rapid rebuilding without any outside aid. Had those nations instead been required to pay reparations then their ability to rebuild others in their alliance is reduced until those reparations are paid.

Simply banning outside aid, while preventing outside money and tech (outside of the allowed tech deals) rebuilding the alliance, does little to slow rebuilding of an alliance these days.

I believe I've addressed how, in fact, this does slow rebuilding of an alliance - and does it far better than demanding a paultry amount of reps - if I failed to do that and you'd like to discuss it further, I'd be happy to.

Reps unless they are extremely severe that they take up every single slot don't stop internal aiding either. Even with 82,000 tech in 10 cycles for a 150 man alliance MK moved 3.6 billion internally and sent 700 mill to allies. Polar moved a similar amount (3.96 billion IIRC)

To completely fill an alliance's aid slots, a month with a 100 members takes up 1500 aid slots, equivalent to 75,000 tech or 4.5 billion in money. Even the harshest reps have just been a fraction of that, and 10,000-50,000 tech reps from Valhalla wouldn't stopped their rebuilding unless it wasn't very great to begin with.

Very well said Azaghul

The only people claiming to have blocked their aid slots is Kronos who say not allowing external aid means they cannot use their aid slots. Ignoring the fact they can sell tech to Kronos and Umbrella under the terms, they are also free to send aid within Valhalla which means their aid slots are not blocked up at all. If they were required to pay reparations then less of their slots would be used for rebuilding and therefore the aid being sent out within the alliance would be reduced.

Nobody is claiming to have blocked their aid slots completely - nor did we ever claim that not allowing externa aild means they cannot use their aid slots. If we had required reps it would have cost a couple days worth of growth - what we did cost them a couple months worth of growth.

My point was that unless you gave them reps approaching 100,000 tech or billions in dollars to pay, it wouldn't have made much more than a moderate dent to any determined rebuilding program. Moderate reps would not have made more than a week or two's delay which isn't worth all the fuss that's been made about it by you and others. Reps have a lot more symbolic than practical value.

No, it is a fact so obvious it didn't warrant mentioning. Add to that it was immaterial to the point I was making.

I'm sure you are aware that in previous wars the loss of strength during the war had no part in the determination of peace terms. Alliances they fought in the past lost 75% or more of the strength and were still laboured with heavy reps payments as well as other restrictions for up to 6 months. I'm sure a symbolic reparations payment akin to MCXA's terms would have been fair and appropriate. Not to mention give some sort of consistency to the terms offered by members of the Karma coalition.

Who mentioned anything about big reps? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

So basically we should have demanded 5,000 tech (half the membership of MCXA therefore half their reps - so we're keeping it fair and consistent) instead of what we did? Or is it on top of what we did (but that's not consistent with what the others go, so I guess it'd have to be "instead of" just to be fair across the board).

And I'm glad you're not an advocate for big reps - I mean that's the only thing that would have slowed Valhalla's growth even the slightest bit without our restriction on outside aid, which you claim "does little to slow the rebuilding of an alliance"

I have answered this probably a dozen times so whats one more time, huh! To provide fair, consistent and just terms reflective of Valhalla's status in the Continuum.

As we stand now, peace terms are a crap shoot and hardly reflective of Karma's statement about fair and just terms. Perhaps I'm just a stickler for details like that but if I'm part of a Coalition that states it supports fair and just terms then having alliances like SSSW18, AB and TSI paying reparations while alliances like Valhalla, OG and NATO get a free pass does not sit well with me. It isn't fair and it isn't just.

So if the terms given to Valhalla were actually far more damaging to their growth plans than the terms given to MCXA, GGA, etc - didn't we, infact, actually do exactly what you wanted?

[Rulesaints]

Brilliant as always Stumpy, long may this continue

[RandomInterrupt]

This is the new reformed Valhalla?

Valhalla will "reform" when they are forced to. So far no one has punished them for being a horrible alliance full of horrible people, and therefore no reformation will take place.

[Neo Uruk]

Valhalla will "reform" when they are forced to. So far no one has punished them for being a horrible alliance full of horrible people, and therefore no reformation will take place.

I think you might be onto something here.

[Chimaera]

I enjoyed the part from the start to the finish, including the hail of my wonderful alliance.

As always, a great read, Stumpy.

[Comrade Mao]

Excellent, as always.

[King Srqt]

The lack of cards made me sad. Just because there are not reps does not make something white peace, when an alliance is forced to comply with terms they did not get white peace.

Other than that good read.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

I was very pleased with where this thread went

[Schattenmann]

now that TWiP is pretty much defunct, this is my new favorite CN news service, and another excellent read, keep it up trashcat!

I am really glad that stumpy came up with this as TWiP was waning. The need for an independent weekly publication for both the accountability and entertainment it brings has been shown. It's time to start planning "Bastion" again if stumpy ever has to stop or alter Trashcat's Corner to keep his head on.