IRON Surrenders

[KagetheSecond]

Good thing Rok isnt Karma.

Well can I see a list of who is and who isn't? RoK was one of the first to enter the war so I pulled out my handy "Jump to Conclusions Mat" and decided that you are a part of the coalition. By fighting the Hegemony, you are lumped in with those who actually consider themselves Karma, whether you like it or not.

[rishnokof]

Congratulations on peace, guys. Hope everyone recovers swiftly.

As for the reps discussion, as a third party and fairly casual player, seeing the terms demanded by RoK in relation to the other alliances receiving reparations made RoK's piece of the pie seem both massive and unfair. I'm certain that someone has posted what the breakdown of how much tech/money each member in IRON will have to pay, but it's mainly about the shock of seeing It looks like you're kicking them while they're down. While I understand that IRON did the same thing on multiple occasions, doing the same to them lessens your credibility in the eyes of players who aren't privy to the inner workings of Karma.

Firstly, calculators and mathematics are your friend, unfortunately you clearly do not enjoy using them.

Secondly, I don't give a damn what IRON did to whoever, whenever.

IRON (20,096,264 NS) attacked RoK (8,305,203 NS), when we were already heavily engaged with Legion, Echelon, and the NPO. You seriously expect us, to give them a slap on the bum, and tell them to go on their merry way? No. That's not how it works, that's not how RoK operates, we do not take !@#$ from anyone, anywhere, at anytime. These terms do not cripple IRON in any way, shape or form, and are more than reasonable.

(OOC: Edit: Your avatar freaks me out. )

Edited May 27, 2009 by rishnokof

[KagetheSecond]

Firstly, calculators and mathematics are your friend, unfortunately you clearly do not enjoy using them.

Like I said, fairly casual. (OOC: It's also almost 4 in the morning and I had a statistics final earlier today. Not really feeling math atm)

Secondly, I don't give a damn what IRON did to whoever, whenever.

Cool.

IRON (20,096,264 NS) attacked RoK (8,305,203 NS), when we were already heavily engaged with Legion, Echelon, and the NPO. You seriously expect us, to give them a slap on the bum, and tell them to go on their merry way? No. That's not how it works, that's not how RoK operates, we do not take !@#$ from anyone, anywhere, at anytime. These terms do not cripple IRON in any way, shape or form, and are more than reasonable.

At the time terms were given, how many alliances were on IRON and how many were on RoK? What was the percentage in NS loss? I really would figure these things out myself, but I quite obviously don't like math and calculators. I'm fairly sure I mentioned in my post that the terms aren't bad relative to IRON's size, but there is a definite shock factor that makes it seem like they are horrible terms. It's a case of the bark being bigger than the bite I guess.

(OOC: Edit: Your avatar freaks me out. )

(OOC:I wish that I could have hair growth like that someday...)

[delgursh]

I don't believe IRON ever really pushed for or dished out excessively harsh terms though. Don't lump us in that boat. I can give plenty of examples where IRON was no worse...and in fact just as or more generous than a lot of alliances out there. Everyone needs to be sure they know the whole history before they assume. IRON in the past may not have always given white peace, but I can very rarely remember IRON went so far to kick an alliance while they are down. Reps are a fine thing...excessive reps, as we all agree, are a bad thing.

Edited May 27, 2009 by delgursh

[Fark Dansker]

Thank god for my SDI.

Thank you for showing me why I should get one of those as soon as possible.

And thanks for helping me earn my Nuked-for-Farkistan ribbon.

Here is to peace and hopefully a renewed friendship with my MHA/FARK opponents and others I did not get to face.

I'll drink to that.

[Bob Janova]

While I understand that IRON did the same thing on multiple occasions, doing the same to them lessens your credibility

Not all of Karma is on the idealist platform that some of us are, I don't understand how requesting reparations from a defeated alliance (something which has been done in every major war in history pretty much) 'lessens their credibility'. No-one from Karma has ever said that we are out to end reparations – some have said that we wish to end excessive reparation demands, but what IRON have agreed to here is not that.

[delgursh]

Thank you for showing me why I should get one of those as soon as possible.

And thanks for helping me earn my Nuked-for-Farkistan ribbon.

I'll drink to that.

But most importantly, this type of sentiment is what I'd like to see in this thread.

I fought mostly Fark this war, and it was fun.

[Haflinger]

Well as an alliance that has not asked for reps before, I will disagree with this. Sure they may rebuild, and pass in score (which is a worthless thing anyways). Why should a war serve a purpose for keeping someone down. I'd say that they learned from their mistakes and it's done. Why keep them down? They didn't act dishonorably during the war. Reps do not make a war "worth it" or give meaning to any end result.

Your alliance has asked for reparations before. Or did you mean unpaid reps? As far as I know, that you've never done.

[Micheal Malone]

What counts as 'crippling or humiliating' reps is a matter of opinion – the opinion of most of Grämlins is that the final terms are not that, but that the original numbers mooted would have been. This is why we have discussions between alliances, to come to an agreement despite differing opening opinions – and I think we did that. The sniping between Grämlins and Ragnarok here is rather unseemly in my view .

Our Codex requires that rough peace terms should be talked through with all participants before entering, as well as for those terms to be appropriate.

So are you saying that before Grämlins enters war via a treaty agreement that the peace terms need to be discussed? Before the outcome of the war has been seen? Or is it just the fact that it's 5 am and your words are lost upon me...

[Syzygy]

So are you saying that before Grämlins enters war via a treaty agreement that the peace terms need to be discussed? Before the outcome of the war has been seen? Or is it just the fact that it's 5 am and your words are lost upon me...

You're lost.

VI. On Joint Offensive Operations

The Grämlins shall only participate in joint operations if the full evidence and proof for the CB has been shared, the exact goal of the war has been defined, rough peace term demands have been discussed and the other participants have been named.

That means, if we are obligated to defend someone, we come, no questions asked. If we ATTACK someone via non-mandatory clauses (oA like in IRONs case), there has to be a rough outline about what we fight for, who is participating and at which point we stop shooting. And should one of the other parties in this joint operation begin to "push for things" we have not agreed on, we leave the party.

And everyone can be damn sure if the Reps had not been lowered, Grämlins had peaced out IRON with white peace unilaterally by now. We fight to ensure the opponent is going down. Not to enforce anyones demands.

[Meer Republic]

Firstly, calculators and mathematics are your friend, unfortunately you clearly do not enjoy using them.

Secondly, I don't give a damn what IRON did to whoever, whenever.

IRON (20,096,264 NS) attacked RoK (8,305,203 NS), when we were already heavily engaged with Legion, Echelon, and the NPO. You seriously expect us, to give them a slap on the bum, and tell them to go on their merry way? No. That's not how it works, that's not how RoK operates, we do not take !@#$ from anyone, anywhere, at anytime. These terms do not cripple IRON in any way, shape or form, and are more than reasonable.

(OOC: Edit: Your avatar freaks me out. )

I'm glad you lowered your original demands to something more in line with the feelings of the alliances that prevented you from being reduced to rubble. Given that I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that those alliances did most of the heavy lifting on this front.

[IamJoe]

While I understand that IRON did the same thing on multiple occasions, doing the same to them lessens your credibility in the eyes of players who aren't privy to the inner workings of Karma.

I am pretty sure the only alliance we really kicked when they were down was The Empire, a small one started by several Ex-Councilers who hacked our forums ages ago. Everything else (FAN) was required by treaty IIRC. Feel free to post links if I'm wrong.

[HellAngel]

nvm, question has already been answered

Edited May 27, 2009 by HellAngel

[Micheal Malone]

You're lost.

That means, if we are obligated to defend someone, we come, no questions asked. If we ATTACK someone via non-mandatory clauses (oA like in IRONs case), there has to be a rough outline about what we fight for, who is participating and at which point we stop shooting. And should one of the other parties in this joint operation begin to "push for things" we have not agreed on, we leave the party.

And everyone can be damn sure if the Reps had not been lowered, Grämlins had peaced out IRON with white peace unilaterally by now. We fight to ensure the opponent is going down. Not to enforce anyones demands.

Well I guess this just pans out to how much spin you accept and how much you don't.

you're saying you went in on oA, but RoK went in via treaty to VE, who went in via treaty to defend OV... You could then of course listen to the spin cycles...

In one aspect, you were on the "defensive" side of the war. Then if you listen to spin further, you were on the offensive side of the war as OV was being punished for spying. But then you could listen further and hear that the entire war was over something that every alliance does.

I see now what you're saying though. Initially I took the tone of the statements to be that Grämlins dictated the amount of the reps...

Edit: removed sarcasm so it wasn't misconstrued.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Micheal Malone

[OverCaffeinated]

I'm certain that someone has posted what the breakdown of how much tech/money each member in IRON will have to pay ... While I understand that IRON did the same thing on multiple occasions ...

IRON hasn't been demanders of big reparations after a war, and if memory serves me correctly, we've actually forgiven the war reparations offered us.

I think the argument that other have tried to make is that we have enabled the NPO and other alliances to engage in such behavior, and that being an accessory to such acts makes IRON culpable and deserving of punishment.

[Bob Janova]

Our treaties are non-chaining, so although I consider Karma to be a defensive operation overall, under our own law there is at least a good argument that the offensive operations clauses apply.

Everything else (FAN) was required by treaty IIRC.

Signing an MADP is agreeing to be a part of whatever injustices your partner commits. While this is true on the face of it, it doesn't exonerate you, because signing the treaty in the first place set you up for injustice. You could have cancelled that treaty at any time but instead you chose to take part in those operations which are now used as justification for the wrath of Karma.

[delgursh]

Our treaties are non-chaining, so although I consider Karma to be a defensive operation overall, under our own law there is at least a good argument that the offensive operations clauses apply.

Signing an MADP is agreeing to be a part of whatever injustices your partner commits. While this is true on the face of it, it doesn't exonerate you, because signing the treaty in the first place set you up for injustice. You could have cancelled that treaty at any time but instead you chose to take part in those operations which are now used as justification for the wrath of Karma.

But IRON isnt the only one that allowed these things to happen. There were plenty of Q alliances as well as others out there sitting back as well while a lot of wars went along swiftly. IRON sticks by its treaty partners because our word is our bond. Disagreements over policy can be worked on. Finding allies worthy of an MADP is a tougher task. There are lots of alliances out there that let these injustices go on unchecked as well. Almost everyone was connected to everyone at one point not long ago. Its all guilt by association....IRON very rarely ever issued harsh terms or kicked an alliance while they were down or held policies that would be disagreeable to many. No more than the rest who might be looking down on us. The fact that IRON stuck by its treaty partners for a long period of time was our trouble spot.

Edited May 27, 2009 by delgursh

[Syzygy]

This is getting old. If you beat up a grandma as a gang to get her purse, you can't argue that someone else has done the first hit and because you have said "I will follow you through thick and thin" you are suddenly the "good guy".

"Following your word" does not automatically make you "honourable". That is why MADP's generally are a stupid idea.

Edited May 27, 2009 by (DAC)Syzygy

[King Srqt]

This whole argument is pretty sad when you think about it. "RoK's original request was too high". So what? You always make your first offer too high it is negotiation 101. You need a bargaining point, if you start with what you really think you should get you will always end up with less than you think you should get.

[TIEIXIAIS]

This whole argument is pretty sad when you think about it. "RoK's original request was too high". So what? You always make your first offer too high it is negotiation 101. You need a bargaining point, if you start with what you really think you should get you will always end up with less than you think you should get.

All of RoK's request were too high.

[delgursh]

But not boiling in anger over what that other person does does not make you a facilitator either. Alliances don't (generally ) make other alliances do things. In this case, IRON did not make NPO go after OV.

My point is, I choose the well being of my friends over strangers. When we sign a treaty with someone, we intend to uphold it.

And besides, its not an old argument, its a valid one. If a friend beats someone up, they are still your friend first. You might not like what they did, but you don't drop your friends because you have a disagreement when they already have your trust. You don't leave them out to dry. But besides the point, in this case, my main point is, IRON never facilitated or did anything different than 90% of the alliances out there did. Everyone should be looking in the mirror before they push blame around.

Edited May 27, 2009 by delgursh

[Gen Lee]

So...who is Karma? GOD? C&G, Superfriends, NpO, STA?

I'm confused here. Cause really, no one wants to claim being Karma. Anti NPO would be a good definition, but it doesn't work. There are so many variations to this.

It's not that no one wants to claim to be Karma, it's that everyone else wants to claim what "being Karma" allows you to do and say.

Well can I see a list of who is and who isn't? RoK was one of the first to enter the war so I pulled out my handy "Jump to Conclusions Mat" and decided that you are a part of the coalition. By fighting the Hegemony, you are lumped in with those who actually consider themselves Karma, whether you like it or not.

I consider myself part of Karma. And the name is nothing more then a cool word to use for propaganda to me. It no different then referring to the two sides of GW3 as Aegis and The Initiative, it's just a name. It's no different than ~ vs. Unjust Path, it defines the sides of the war not the principles of individual alliances.

Not all of Karma is on the idealist platform that some of us are, I don't understand how requesting reparations from a defeated alliance (something which has been done in every major war in history pretty much) 'lessens their credibility'. No-one from Karma has ever said that we are out to end reparations – some have said that we wish to end excessive reparation demands, but what IRON have agreed to here is not that.

And finally what Bob Janova said. He's a smart fellow.

[shilo]

I do respect IRON, as IRON members generally are quite polite and respectful, and IRON as an alliance was never one of those troll-houses.

That said, if you sign an MADP with an alliance, you are part of whatever crime they commit, you are responsible for it.

You don't sign a treaty that means an automatic participation in every offensive war with an alliance like NPO to later say "hey, we didn't start the wars!".

By MADP logic, you may as well have started it yourself, at least you lend the muscle to the crimes committed.

[OOC]A guy standing watch while his buddies beat up someone else is a criminal as well. A guy helping out his friends beating someone up by later joining the fray is also a criminal.[/OOC]

Participation in a crime, no matter for what reason (loyalty and friendship included) makes you guilty of the crime.

IRON and NPO are definitely not of the same kind, but the only way IRON could claim to not have participated in all of Hegemonies acts would have been in not signing 1V and Q, or leaving it before any crimes were permitted, as well as all the individual treaties IRON held and holds with all the 1V and Q alliances.

IRON was heavily tied to Hegemony, was one of the core alliances, its leadership involved in all that was going on (doesn't matter whether just being informed or making decisions, although my educated guess would be that IRON was powerful enough to make decisions), and thus there is no way backing out of it now.

Still doesn't change that you guys are a nice bunch, and that I like you delgursh

[delgursh]

Okay, but my main point in all of this is not that IRON wasnt a part of the Hegemony. IRON was for sure a part of the Hegemony. My main point is there was a very big Hegemony....and plenty of alliances a part of it at one point or another. Even while all of the problems that everyone is angry about were going on. Nearly every alliance on Bob was a facilitator to what went on. A lot of alliances were a part of the Hegemony and a lot were tied to it. Like I said, I along with everyone else should look in the mirror before accusing others. I don't see many differences in the path IRON took in comparison to a lot of other alliances out there with regards to the Hegemony and length of time in the Hegemony and "allowing things to happen" while being a part of the Hegemony. What crimes did IRON specifically sit around for and do nothing about that everyone else did do something about? Everyone sat around for a loooong time before anyone cared. I know...I was in the Legion in GW3. I took the brunt of it.

Thats my last point. Theres better places for this debate now that the wars over. Dont get me wrong, Im not mad or upset by any length at any alliance or anyone. I love war in CN. Its makes it worth playing. I just don't like to see spin. And besides, our surrender thread isnt a place for all of this anyway And now, I bow out.

Edited May 27, 2009 by delgursh

[Gen Lee]

All of RoK's request were too high.

lol, well everyone that signed this document doesn't seem to think so.

I think that includes your alliance.