enderland Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Dude, I am on your team and all, but that does not really make sense. Someone comes to you and says they have authority to fix stuff, you generally do not check their documentation first. Call me thorough, but if right now an external party came and offered me peace in my wars against Legion/Invicta, I would most definitely be a little skeptical and check with the actual alliances involved before I would straight up agree with them and assume they had the authority to issue peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Call me thorough, but if right now an external party came and offered me peace in my wars against Legion/Invicta, I would most definitely be a little skeptical and check with the actual alliances involved before I would straight up agree with them and assume they had the authority to issue peace. We were the complainant and the resolution was satisfactory to us. That's a markedly different scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrSonny Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Dude, I am on your team and all, but that does not really make sense. Someone comes to you and says they have authority to fix stuff, you generally do not check their documentation first. Then we will have to agree to disagree my brother. In my eyes no alliance has the right to accept terms for reps in any position. Unless stated in treaties etc.. I'm sure others would have atleast checked in with kronos and mentioned what was atleast discussed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrSonny Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) Call me thorough, but if right now an external party came and offered me peace in my wars against Legion/Invicta, I would most definitely be a little skeptical and check with the actual alliances involved before I would straight up agree with them and assume they had the authority to issue peace. Not all think in the safe logical way. If we(my aa) had a dispute with an AA and one of their allies tried to pay reps, darn straight I would check in with the AA I had a dispute with. Its called, common sense? Edit: sorry for double post Edited November 24, 2009 by mrSonny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakerzz8 Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Might I suggest you get into a priv channel with your gov and add a clause to your charter where it requires you to go to the AA that you actually have a problem with? Its not acceptable that you did not even discuss the "accepted" terms with the AA that you actually had a confrontation with. Yes, small part of this goes onto top and kronos for miscommunication. But. The good part falls on to STA for not using common sense about discussing terms. Maybe TOP should add a clause to their charter where it doesn't try to broker deals without the consent of their highest government official (DrDan) and the actual ally they are trying to broker the deal for. If NpO came to you and said they are mediating between you and the STA and the STA wants peace and is willing to send you reparations. You wouldn't believe them? Keep in mind that it is the NpO coming to you and not the other way around. I don't see why you keep arguing this considering TOP has already admitted they made the mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakerzz8 Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Tech you didn't deserve. Well said. I was using the wording of the guy I quoted in a sarcastic manner. Good to see you understood that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrSonny Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) Maybe TOP should add a clause to their charter where it doesn't try to broker deals without the consent of their highest government official (DrDan) and the actual ally they are trying to broker the deal for.If NpO came to you and said they are mediating between you and the STA and the STA wants peace and is willing to send you reparations. You wouldn't believe them? Keep in mind that it is the NpO coming to you and not the other way around. I don't see why you keep arguing this considering TOP has already admitted they made the mistake. No, I can honestly say that if that situation where to happen with my alliance I would A. Have a gov member of all three AA's present during the talks or B. Check in with STA before anything was final. And yes I realize that TOP said they goofed up, they are gracious enough to take fault. But its STA's job to make sure that the reps are ok with both parties not TOP's or NpO's. Edited November 24, 2009 by mrSonny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Not all think in the safe logical way. If we(my aa) had a dispute with an AA and one of their allies tried to pay reps, darn straight I would check in with the AA I had a dispute with. Its called, common sense?Edit: sorry for double post Why on earth would it matter to you? You wanted the reps and you got it, the rest is really for the other two parties to sort out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilrow Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 TOP being magnanimous to save their stats since 2007. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrSonny Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Why on earth would it matter to you? You wanted the reps and you got it, the rest is really for the other two parties to sort out. What are you on about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterof9puppets Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 I've been thinking about this announcement a bit...why exactly was this even made in public? It is an agreement between two alliances that involves absolutely no one else (except maybe TOP since they did pay the tech apparently).Looks to me like Tyga was just looking for a chance to get some shine from the spotlight and take a stab at TOP in public. And to think, I once thought Tyga was one of the GOOD guys. Yeah, Tyga and co were the the only ones that wanted it posted publicly. No big deal though, I got to go to bed and all that good stuff. Yes, if there had been different people with a different grievance doing a different thing, then there would be a different outcome, I agree.Why did you put "breaking an agreement" in quotes? I think it was referring to Crymson not being gov at the time, and it not really having the stability of an official agreement without Dr. Dan behind it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iotupa Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) Appears so. If roles were reversed and it would have been NPO asking for money for not clearing up warslots fast enough, we would have a thread full of rightous anger against them. Instead, TOP is getting the flak for "breaking an agreement". No offense, but an agreement was broken, whether it was legal or not is the main question I seem to be picking up from my point of view. But other than that point, you're definitely right. If the roles were reversed, I'm positive TOP would not be getting the support STA seems to be getting in this situation. Which brings me to my next point... Paying reps for rogues is ridiculous. I'm glad Kronos didn't do it. Kryievla is so very right here. When I was first told Kronos was even CONTEMPLATING paying any reps, and I didn't even know if it was true or not, it really boggled my mind. Demanding reps for a ROGUE? Who are you STA, the New Pacific Order pre-Karma War? Give me a break. Edited November 24, 2009 by Jonathan Brookbank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Then we will have to agree to disagree my brother. In my eyes no alliance has the right to accept terms for reps in any position. Unless stated in treaties etc.. I'm sure others would have atleast checked in with kronos and mentioned what was atleast discussed! It would make sense if Kronos had a beef STA, but it was the other way around. STA wanted was a payday, TOP offers them a payday and they got what they wanted. STA is not at fault for getting away with what they want if they are offered it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 What are you on about? What exactly don't you get? It was pretty clear. In your hypothetical situation you claimed you'd check with the AA you had a dispute with because its 'common sense'. I'm asking why it would matter to you if you got the resolution you wanted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrSonny Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 It would make sense if Kronos had a beef STA, but it was the other way around. STA wanted was a payday, TOP offers them a payday and they got what they wanted. STA is not at fault for getting away with what they want if they are offered it. Again we have to agree to disagree. Yes sta was looking for a payday, that's not what we are arguing about here, or atleast myself. Yes they got "their payday" but if they were thinking logically and really wanted to end the beef with kronos, they would have checked in with kronos after terms where agreed upon with top. Which points at yes your right. They want a payday. Not acutal reps. If that makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Looks like a fair enough resolution to me, congratulations to the cooler heads for prevailing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyrinx Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) Yeah, Tyga and co were the the only ones that wanted it posted publicly. No big deal though, I got to go to bed and all that good stuff. Since one deal was reneged pretty much because it could be, we wanted this in public. Also, thanks to Joe Stupid the entire world wanted to know what the resolution to this was Might I suggest you get into a priv channel with your gov and add a clause to your charter where it requires you to go to the AA that you actually have a problem with? Its not acceptable that you did not even discuss the "accepted" terms with the AA that you actually had a confrontation with. Yes, small part of this goes onto top and kronos for miscommunication. But. The good part falls on to STA for not using common sense about discussing terms. TOP approached us. They said they had authority to broker an agreement and mediate the solution. You seem to think that that's our fault for believing them. Well, I apologize for not thinking that TOP .gov is incompetent and lies. STA will make sure we don't make the same mistake next time when TOP is involved in anything. That said, no you're wrong: in a normal circumstance if an ally of the party you have grievances against approaches you, states that they have authority to broker an agreement, and then proceeds to, that agreement is being done in good faith. To say that you're not using common sense there is ridiculous and shows that you obviously have an agenda there. If the deal is later found out to not have been done with the original alliance's consent, that's the ally's fault. The agreement as was done in good faith must still be completed, or it's a breaking of a contract. The original alliance can go yell at their ally later, but reneging on an agreement because of one's own incompetence is not cool. In this particular situation btw Kronos knew TOP was talking to us on their behalf to try and get a deal. So, your specific objection fails completely. Also @ChairmanHal: I'm reasonably sure White Majik cleared out his previous wars, hence why his defensive wars look spread apart. I don't think his previous defensive wars were all peaced out at the same time. I personally tried getting STA members on IRC to declare on White Majik when I saw his IRC comments asking people to declare on him. Our STA members were all afk though (go figure ). By the time Coloradia responded, the slots were gone. No idea about that third slot that cleared up and was filled a lot later though, I don't ever remember seeing that clear. Edited November 24, 2009 by Jyrinx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Tech you didn't deserve. I guess TOP never accepted reparations they didn't deserve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) Kryievla is so very right here. When I was first told Kronos was even CONTEMPLATING paying any reps, and I didn't even know if it was true or not, it really boggled my mind. Demanding reps for a ROGUE? Who are you STA, the New Pacific Order pre-Karma War? Give me a break. This is absolutely a mischaracterization of our stance. At no time did we attempt to hold Kronos responsible for the actions of rogues. Our complaint was that we believed Kronos to be actively aiding the rogues. Much of our reason to hold that belief is and was circumstantial, and Kronos has since been able to alleviate, explain, or cast doubt on some of our concerns on that front, which is why we were happy to settle for a lesser sum than was originally agreed. As the OP outlines, both sides agree that peacing out on Heracles on day 6 and immediately refilling his slots (after we had made it clear that we wanted opportunity to defend our member) was a poor move, although there may not be complete agreement on why that was. In any case, we have reached a mutually agreeable solution and I hope that Kronos-STA relations will cool off. Edited November 24, 2009 by bzelger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrSonny Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 What exactly don't you get? It was pretty clear. In your hypothetical situation you claimed you'd check with the AA you had a dispute with because its 'common sense'. I'm asking why it would matter to you if you got the resolution you wanted? Ah gotcha, well truth be told that would not end it. Kronos could come off feeling short sided because they didn't want/deserve to pay reps. In the end, like auctor pointed out. This wasn't resoultion talks, it was how can we get a payday talk. Which is why they didn't ok it with Kronos. Btw not saying kronos came off feeling that way at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chasmic Descent Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 This is absolutely a mischaracterization of our stance. At no time did we attempt to hold Kronos responsible for the actions of rogues. Our complaint was that we believed Kronos to be actively aiding the rogues.Much of our reason to hold that belief is and was circumstantial, and Kronos has since been able to alleviate, explain, or cast doubt on some of our concerns on that front, which is why we happy to settle for a lesser sum than was originally agreed. As the OP outlines, both sides agree that peacing out on Heracles on day 6 and immediately refilling his slots (after we had made it clear that we wanted opportunity to defend our member) was a poor move, although there may not be complete agreement on why that was. In any case, we have reached a mutually agreeable solution and I hope that Kronos-STA relations will cool off. Hi there Bzelger, If Kronos were able to cast further doubt, or go so far as to disprove that they were aiding the rogues in the manner that STA suggested, would STA return the reps that TOP had paid for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some-Guy Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 If you're a member of TOP reading this, shut up and get out. Lots of love, Your fellow brother, SomeGuy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iotupa Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Hi there Bzelger,If Kronos were able to cast further doubt, or go so far as to disprove that they were aiding the rogues in the manner that STA suggested, would STA return the reps that TOP had paid for? Nice call-out. I'm going to go with a "No" here. If it were the old STA, I'm sure they would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) Hi there Bzelger,If Kronos were able to cast further doubt, or go so far as to disprove that they were aiding the rogues in the manner that STA suggested, would STA return the reps that TOP had paid for? In this specific case, no. If payment were made erronously (which is not the case, as Kronos has agreed with at the very least the point outlined in my previous post) then that issue is between TOP and Kronos. The onus is entirely on TOP for not communicating properly with their ally and for breaking their contract with us. Edit: to qualify; this is my opinion of the matter. I'm not government and it wouldn't be my decision. Edited November 24, 2009 by bzelger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrSonny Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 TOP approached us. They said they had authority to broker an agreement and mediate the solution. You seem to think that that's our fault for believing them. Well, I apologize for not thinking that TOP .gov is incompetent and lies. STA will make sure we don't make the same mistake next time when TOP is involved in anything. That said, no you're wrong: in a normal circumstance if an ally of the party you have grievances against approaches you, states that they have authority to broker an agreement, and then proceeds to, that agreement is being done in good faith. To say that you're not using common sense there is ridiculous and shows that you obviously have an agenda there. If the deal is later found out to not have been done with the original alliance's consent, that's the ally's fault. The agreement as was done in good faith must still be completed, or it's a breaking of a contract. The original alliance can go yell at their ally later, but reneging on an agreement because of one's own incompetence is not cool. In this particular situation btw Kronos knew TOP was talking to us on their behalf to try and get a deal. So, your specific objection fails completely. Also @ChairmanHal: I'm reasonably sure White Majik cleared out his previous wars, hence why his defensive wars look spread apart. I don't think his previous defensive wars were all peaced out at the same time. I personally tried getting STA members on IRC to declare on White Majik when I saw his IRC comments asking people to declare on him. Our STA members were all afk though (go figure ). By the time Coloradia responded, the slots were gone. No idea about that third slot that cleared up and was filled a lot later though, I don't ever remember seeing that clear. No you have been misreading what I am trying to state clearly. Its not the fact omg they got reps they may or may not have deserved. My poin is that STA had no reason to not talk to kronos directly. Or atleast have a rep present during the talks. The fact that they left kronos out all together makes me want to assume they were just look for a payday. 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.