Rhita Gawr Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 The peace is refreshing, I came in when this started, and now I finally get to see CN in peace time! Hail peace! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Oh so it is bad if they focused on getting you peace before working out the details of who gets what? Usually revenge driven pirates would be more concerned with securing their personal stake before letting their prey go wouldn't they? Well, there is that. I was also suggesting that they might be prioritizing keeping the total value fixed ahead of dividing up the reps. One of the things that happened in War of the Coalition when people broke down who got what reps is some alliances decided to independently reduce their amount of reps. Keeping the total in the terms and not dividing it up makes sure that if anyone does that, it doesn't improve the situation for the surrendering alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Death II Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 hmm NPO is gonna loose their sanction soon, with the army decom and tank decom and the tech reps, they are already very close. We will see what happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) Oh so it is bad if they focused on getting you peace before working out the details of who gets what? Usually revenge driven pirates would be more concerned with securing their personal stake before letting their prey go wouldn't they? I think you missed the part where I said Karma is not a pirateless captain crew captainless pirate crew. edit: I'm leaving that gem of a mistake in. Edited July 20, 2009 by hawk_11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 I think you missed the part where I said Karma is not a pirateless captain captainless pirate crew.edit: I'm leaving that gem of a mistake in. I sensed sarcasm, perhaps I misjudged the statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 I sensed sarcasm, perhaps I misjudged the statement. Perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Congratulations on peace. I am glad that the two sides have managed to come to an agreement – though I do notice that these terms are effectively the same as the ones NPO said they would never accept, but with higher reps (due to the extra damage of fighting on for a month, I guess) and therefore you'd have been better agreeing back then. I hope to see TPF come to the table soon, as well, so this war can be over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejarue Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Congratulations on peace. I am glad that the two sides have managed to come to an agreement – though I do notice that these terms are effectively the same as the ones NPO said they would never accept, but with higher reps (due to the extra damage of fighting on for a month, I guess) and therefore you'd have been better agreeing back then.I hope to see TPF come to the table soon, as well, so this war can be over. The two weeks of war for peace-mode nations is gone. I think that was a clencher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MszPolaris Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 o/ karma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Ah yes, I just noticed that and was going to edit my post. So I guess NPO are left with a pretty strong top tier after all – Karma are relying on the reps to hold back their growth while the measurement of a 'top tier' grows around them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eye Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 No-one is WWI or WWII anything . Keep this thread IC please. CN has enough history by now that you should be able to find IC analogies if you need them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffasamini Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Congratulations on peace. I am glad that the two sides have managed to come to an agreement – though I do notice that these terms are effectively the same as the ones NPO said they would never accept, but with higher reps (due to the extra damage of fighting on for a month, I guess) and therefore you'd have been better agreeing back then.I hope to see TPF come to the table soon, as well, so this war can be over. No, they are very different. Its a comprimise, we accepted some terms we found disagreeable, and karma relinquished some terms it ardently sought. I really hope TPF gets peace as soon as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Congrats to all those whom have received peace in Karma & Pacifica. (I had a sweet Wild West Analogy to relate this too, but now I can't use it...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olaf Eisenberg Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Congrats to the victors! o/ Karma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Ah yes, I just noticed that and was going to edit my post. So I guess NPO are left with a pretty strong top tier after all – Karma are relying on the reps to hold back their growth while the measurement of a 'top tier' grows around them. Actually, with rep payments restricted to nations currently with 1,000+ tech and a ban on any NPO nation accepting tech in aid packages for the duration of the terms, I'm fairly sure this is going to tear down the top tier harder than two weeks of war. Their tech is going to be gone and that's a lot harder and more expensive to play catch up on than infra loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) Actually, with rep payments restricted to nations currently with 1,000+ tech and a ban on any NPO nation accepting tech in aid packages for the duration of the terms, I'm fairly sure this is going to tear down the top tier harder than two weeks of war. Their tech is going to be gone and that's a lot harder and more expensive to play catch up on than infra loss. yeah I don't want to do the math (I will leave that to insane pastry or little green men) but I think that two weeks of turtling would have been less expensive. Edited July 20, 2009 by KingSrqt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 I hope to see TPF come to the table soon, as well, so this war can be over. MK dont think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Throne Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 We have fought a long and arduous war that is finally over. These terms are overwhelming and they will take a very, very long time to pay out. Yet we will persevere and establish a new place for ourselves in this new world. Pax Pacifica is finally over and hopefully whatever actions people are pissed off about will be dust in the wind as our own harsh terms will grind us down for the next year. It was good to see Karma finally came around to negotiating, it's too bad that they thought it was proper to force us to pay out more tech than we even have. Here is to a new beginning and a new, hopefully exciting world. o/ Emperor Moo-Cows! o/ Pacifica! o/ TPF, Avalon, and 64 Digits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 MK dont think so This is hilarious. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Rune Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Pax Pacifica is finally over and hopefully whatever actions people are pissed off about will be dust in the wind I wouldn't count on it. (By which I mean that round here people tend to remember things and hold grudges for a mighty long time no matter which alliance it is) But good to see that peace has been achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 MK dont think so This is hilarious. Thank you. You're welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cripple Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 o/ Karma o/ Greenland Republic o7 Pacifica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 the end of the conflict! about time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 How on earth can the peace terms waive NPO's cancellation periods?I'm no contract law expert, but it would seem that NPO only has the right to promise what is within its rights to give. The parties to those treaties that are supposedly canceled are not parties to these surrender terms. So, NPO could agree to give notice on its treaties. Or it could agree to offer to waive cancellation terms by mutual agreement. But it would seem to me that it has no right to unilaterally waive those notice provisions. Just as Karma has no right to force these peace terms on alliances not party to the agreement. Who is Karma to tell someone their contract with NPO is void? Let them tell NPO to cancel pursuant to their rights under the treaty, fine, but anything else would seem to be a surrender term imposed on non-parties, and possibly non-combatants. I'm not saying that people will complain about this, but as a point of law/precedent, this just seems wrong. Its called Sovereign Immunity, government's being the highest authority over its own actions cannot be held to anything they don't chose to be held to, Cancellation periods in treaties are niceties, not legally binding. At any time, no matter what a treaty may say a government always has the option of simply.... Not recognizing its power over them. It's not contract law, but otherwise you're right. The terms of surrender force NPO to offer to waive the cancellation periods; NPO treaty partners are under no obligation to accept the offer. Its not about what their treaties partners accept, you are being blind, NPO is the party withdrawing from the treaty, whoever they are allied to doesn't come into it. When one party of a two party agreement withdraws from it, it is no longer an agreement. NPO may seek to resign these in the future, but now they are gone. NPO does not require the consent of another party to cancel without notice. Polaris was prevented from moving ANY aid internally to/from its top 40 nations (i.e. any of the nations that weren't ZIed at the end of the friends > infra war). Not only could these nations not receive any tech to replace that they had to pay, they could not aid the rest of our alliance which was completely destroyed. This term is not new to CN, though it seems Karma are going to continue setting this precedence. It forbids the movement of tech not cash, NPO is still free to rescue nations from bill lock, and even jump start rebuilding if they can shake loose the aid slots from getting their minimum payment out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Its called Sovereign Immunity, government's being the highest authority over its own actions cannot be held to anything they don't chose to be held to, Cancellation periods in treaties are niceties, not legally binding. At any time, no matter what a treaty may say a government always has the option of simply.... Not recognizing its power over them.Its not about what their treaties partners accept, you are being blind, NPO is the party withdrawing from the treaty, whoever they are allied to doesn't come into it. When one party of a two party agreement withdraws from it, it is no longer an agreement. NPO may seek to resign these in the future, but now they are gone. NPO does not require the consent of another party to cancel without notice. That is a terrible precedent and contradicts the entirety of CN history and opinion. I don't think anybody is going to be upset about this particular term, and I think it's more or less accepted that these sorts of terms are valid in surrender agreements, and that surrender agreements take precedent over any other treaty, but your argument here goes way beyond that and, while perhaps technically accurate, opens up a ridiculous door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts