The End. It's coming.

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 February 2010 - 03:01 AM' timestamp='1266462073' post='2188682']
Just out of curiosity, what does TOP consider to be harsh reps or what do they qualify as being "turned into a tech farm".

Keeping in mind that TOP is capable of sending out 50 000 tech in a round (about 80% of their slot capacity).
[/quote]
Speaking for myself, There's no price I wouldn't pay from my nation if my brothers asked me too.

But given no one's asked me to do anything peace-ly yet, I'm going to go nuke something.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Some-Guy

[Ying Yang Mafia]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='18 February 2010 - 02:11 AM' timestamp='1266477088' post='2189160']
You cannot blame TOP for flair ups & wars initiated by C&G in last few months. TOP was never an instigator and only got brought in via chains.
[/quote]

And here I thought that it was TOP that attacked C&G! Thanks for clearing that up for me, I can completely understand TOP's reluctance to pay reps given they are fighting a defensive war.

[Heft]

[quote name='Ying Yang Mafia' date='18 February 2010 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1266519356' post='2189978']
And here I thought that it was TOP that attacked C&G! Thanks for clearing that up for me, I can completely understand TOP's reluctance to pay reps given they are fighting a defensive war.
[/quote]
lol, illiteracy

[Lord Brendan]

So nobody is capable of discussing the issue without getting all emotional about it?

If you think 350k is too high, give me a number you think is reasonable, don't jump to "OMG draconian!!!".

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 February 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1266525566' post='2190135']
So nobody is capable of discussing the issue without getting all emotional about it?

If you think 350k is too high, give me a number you think is reasonable, don't jump to "OMG draconian!!!".
[/quote]

100 billion gajillion dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

is that a good number?

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1266527534' post='2190190']
100 billion gajillion dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

is that a good number?
[/quote]

As official representative of C&G in peace negotiations, I will consider it.

[Bob Janova]

The absolute upper limit would be the reps MK claimed were 'draconian' in noCB (58k tech for ~100 members), or NPO in Karma (350k for ~600 members), both of which would give an upper limit of around 110k tech which would be considered 'draconian' if C&G aren't in double standards mode.

It should be significantly lower than that, because both of those had serious aggravating factors (in Karma, NPO was paying for all the injustice of the Hegemony, and in noCB, anyone unbiased agreed that the terms were far too high). The only real precedent (Legion in GW3) is long enough ago that it isn't really relevant to modern times.

A better amount to look at might be what NpO was given in the BLEU war. An alliance of ~400 nations had to pay out 100k, in terms which were thought harsh; that would translate to around 50k for TOP.

Of course I would say that anything up towards those numbers is exploitative and excessive, but certainly nothing higher should be considered.

Edit: Even Lord Brendan is more official than me, of course.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 February 2010 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1266525566' post='2190135']
So nobody is capable of discussing the issue without getting all emotional about it?

If you think 350k is too high, give me a number you think is reasonable, don't jump to "OMG draconian!!!".
[/quote]

I shall open with a bid of one dollar.

[President Obama]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 February 2010 - 12:30 PM' timestamp='1266496233' post='2189547']
How about matching the NPO's 350 000?

As an alternative suggestion, what do you feel about being barred from foreign aid for 6 months?[/quote]
I thought that the justification for the huge NPO reps was that they were paying for the sins of the past and for the sins of their Hegemony?

As to your alternative suggestion, how do I feel about it? Personally, I don't like the idea very much.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1266530211' post='2190296']
The absolute upper limit would be the reps MK claimed were 'draconian' in noCB (58k tech for ~100 members), or NPO in Karma (350k for ~600 members), both of which would give an upper limit of around 110k tech which would be considered 'draconian' if C&G aren't in double standards mode.

It should be significantly lower than that, because both of those had serious aggravating factors (in Karma, NPO was paying for all the injustice of the Hegemony, and in noCB, anyone unbiased agreed that the terms were far too high). The only real precedent (Legion in GW3) is long enough ago that it isn't really relevant to modern times.

[b]A better amount to look at might be what NpO was given in the BLEU war. An alliance of ~400 nations had to pay out 100k, in terms which were thought harsh; that would translate to around 50k for TOP.[/b]

Of course I would say that anything up towards those numbers is exploitative and excessive, but certainly nothing higher should be considered.

Edit: Even Lord Brendan is more official than me, of course.
[/quote]

I don't agree at all. You're interpreting things as if every member of every alliance has the same ability to pay reparations. That is completely false, as I'm sure you are aware. A nation with no warchest and 2000 infrastructure is next to useless at paying off reparations; a nation with 2000 infrastructure, a full complement of wonders and a billion dollars left over can send off 600 technology and 18 million a round without taking a hit to his rebuilding ability.

TOP is more capable of paying high reparations than any other alliance that has ever existed. They have at least three times the economic capability that Polar had at the end of the War of the Coalition.

And seeing as you brought up the example of the War of the Coalition, let's examine that one a bit closer. NpO had to pay 100k tech, yes. You forget to mention that 75% of that had to come from their top 30 nations. If you scale that ratio up for TOP it gives you upwards of 500k technology.

Heck, even if you ignore all others alliances and take ONLY the reparations that NpO paid to TOP (20 000 tech) and consider that 75% (15 000 tech) had to be paid by 30 nations, that comes to 500 tech per nation. Scaled to TOP's size that amounts to 100 000 technology. I would say that that is the [i]baseline[/i] for an acceptable reparations amount if reparations is what people want. Personally I'm not sure it's entirely worth the hassle.

[Bob Janova]

The argument deployed by C&G to justify the size of the NPO reps while complaining about those given to alliances like MK in noCB was that of proportionality – i.e. 'they have 600 nations therefore we can take 6 times as much out of them and have it not be 'draconian''.

[Lord Brendan]

I do remember proportionality being used ([url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58638"]Azaghul made a thread about it[/url]), but it was based on more than just member count.

[quote]So what makes some terms fair and proportional and some excessive? That depends on a few factors, what are the terms going to achieve? How big is the alliance in question and [b]how able are they to fulfill them? What crimes have they committed?[/b] The reason so many objected to the terms given in the GATO war and noCB war is that they did not match the crimes committed at all. [...][/quote]

As I said, TOP is more able to pay high reparations than any alliance that has ever existed. Like the NPO during the Karma War, they are fighting on the aggressive side of the war (whether you consider it two wars or one), and as such should be held more responsible and pay more than if they were the ones who had been attacked.

As far as crimes go, there is certainly a long laundry list of crimes to hold TOP accountable for - mainly because they have never before been held truly accountable for anything they've done. I don't think that's particularly relevant though; the war continues because of TOP's recent actions, not ancient history.

If the reparations route is taken, I'd say anywhere between 100k tech (20 days to pay) and 300k tech (2 months to pay) would be quite reasonable. After about 500k tech (4 months to pay) I'd start to consider it excessive.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Choader]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1266530211' post='2190296']
The absolute upper limit would be the reps MK claimed were 'draconian' in noCB (58k tech for ~100 members), or NPO in Karma (350k for ~600 members), both of which would give an upper limit of around 110k tech which would be considered 'draconian' if C&G aren't in double standards mode.

It should be significantly lower than that, because both of those had serious aggravating factors (in Karma, NPO was paying for all the injustice of the Hegemony, and in noCB, anyone unbiased agreed that the terms were far too high). The only real precedent (Legion in GW3) is long enough ago that it isn't really relevant to modern times.

A better amount to look at might be what NpO was given in the BLEU war. An alliance of ~400 nations had to pay out 100k, in terms which were thought harsh; that would translate to around 50k for TOP.

Of course I would say that anything up towards those numbers is exploitative and excessive, but certainly nothing higher should be considered.
[/quote]

You're entirely missing the point. The "draconian" reparations paid by NpO and C&G in the NoCB war were levied against defeated alliances who had been attacked out of the blue in the case of NpO (and the rest of BLEU who was preempted), and alliances who only entered due to treaty obligations in the case of C&G. This is an important distinction. The terms weren't excessive solely because of the amounts, they were excessive by adding insult to injury.

Now we have TIFDTT and TFD/NATO who got the ball rolling on the C&G front and now find themselves facing defeat in a war they started. It's absurd to allow someone who undid a year of your alliance's growth to walk away without making restitution, and with the numbers we're dealing with that restitution could be every dollar and unit of technology the aggressors possess and still not fully repair the damage done. Obviously taking all the material goods of those eight alliances isn't going to happen, but neither is allowing them to walk away scott-free. A number somewhere in-between will have to be established and by necessity it will (or should) be one of the largest amounts ever given in reparations.

This is only common sense Bob. If you wreck someone's car you have to reimburse them for the damages, if you demolish an entire car lot then you'll have to repair as much of the damage as you can even though your contribution will be a drop in the bucket.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1266534174' post='2190449']
The argument deployed by C&G to justify the size of the NPO reps while complaining about those given to alliances like MK in noCB was that of proportionality – i.e. 'they have 600 nations therefore we can take 6 times as much out of them and have it not be 'draconian''.
[/quote]
It's the difference between a bully kicking you in the teeth then demanding your wallet before they'll let you go, and the same bully losing the fight they started and having to pay your dental bills.

[Bob Janova]

Ah, the redefining of 'draconian terms' is under way already.

[Lord Brendan]

You've always been one of my favorite posters Bob, so I'm a little disappointed that now that I [i]finally[/i] get a chance to argue against you instead of agreeing with you, you don't even address my post.

[Choader]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 03:36 PM' timestamp='1266536182' post='2190533']
Ah, the redefining of 'draconian terms' is under way already.
[/quote]
There's no redefining here. It's simple logic that your personal friendships and perceived obligations are preventing you from recognizing.

You're friends with a lot of people in TOP. You dislike raiding, we got that. Unfortunately TOP and their cronies screwed up and no amount of posturing and misdirection will get them off that hook.

[Nizzle]

[quote name='Choader' date='18 February 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1266536511' post='2190537']
There's no redefining here. It's simple logic that your personal friendships and perceived obligations are preventing you from recognizing.

You're friends with a lot of people in TOP. You dislike raiding, we got that. Unfortunately TOP and their cronies screwed up and no amount of posturing and misdirection will get them off that hook.
[/quote]

No, there is redefining. You are making the argument draconian terms only exist under certain conditions which, here is a shocker, just so happen to be conditions your friends were under.

[Choader]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='18 February 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1266536880' post='2190554']
No, there is redefining. You are making the argument draconian terms only exist under certain conditions which, here is a shocker, just so happen to be conditions your friends were under.
[/quote]
I see you're in the school of thought where defending yourself and seeking restitution is equivalent to armed robbery.

[Bob Janova]

Firstly, starting the argument from having your damages reimbursed is, in the purest sense of the term, absurd. The damage done already (and C&G show no sign of wishing to stop the war) are probably well over a trillion dollars by now. There is literally no way to even approach a 'reparation' amount, however extortionate, that will go anywhere near fixing the damage done. Even the damage done in the 160 wars declared in the first 45 minutes would probably be of the order of hundreds of billions. It's a decent principle but it is simply impossible with the aid mechanics available.

As for the idea that 'draconian' varies depending on how you enter a war – that is true to a limited extent. However, when it's as part of a coalition war (not just an attack out of nothing like for example the GPA war), it shouldn't make a huge difference. Entering a coalition war without obligations (i.e. through an ODP or OA clause) makes hardly any difference; in Karma and the first part of this war, many alliances received no terms at all. So any extra 'fairness' would be for the pre-emptive nature of the attack. The difference between that and MK in noCB (when they were waiting to attack NPO as soon as any war was declared and made most of the war declarations, took the war nuclear in a time of that not being a certainty, and deliberately drove NPO nations to nuclear anarchy collections or deletions) is not that great.

Brendan, TOP's structure is not that different to MK in noCB so the pure proportionality argument works well from there. However, NPO's aid capacity after Karma was not 6 times that of MK after noCB, so I'm pretty sure that the C&G approach to 'draconian' was not based on alliance structure.

[Kzoppistan]

IMO, appropriate monetary reps along with a NAP between TOP/IRON and CnG would be fair. If there is any tech to be sent out, it should be as deals as 3 million for 100 tech.

I think that would satisfy most major concerns regarding security and acceptable reparations.

I've already made my opinion regarding the preemptive strike known, but I also don't feel that TOP [i]as a whole[/i] has any problem with CnG and saw them, in light of the NpO offensive, as merely strategic obstacles.

I've also made my opinion about some of the CnG participants known, as well, but I have also seen level-headedness and attempts at diplomacy, regardless of what some of the more rabid posters say.

I have faith, that if we keep the rhetoric at a minimum, that cooler heads from both parties can come to an acceptable solution.

I think that we must acknowledge that from the very beginning, with that raid by \m/, to NpO's attack, to the vehement condemnation from CnG regarding it, to the TOP/IRON offensive, most major alliances have made miscalculations of brashness.

Considering how that got us to where we are today, let's hope their aren't any more.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[Branimir]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1266530211' post='2190296']or NPO in Karma 350k for ~600 members[/quote]
That is incorrect. The 350k tech was to be paid by NPO nations over 1k tech levels in the moment of settling the peace.
Number was around 140 nations originally, which dwindled now as by the last information I saw, to little under 100 nations.

Anybody claiming NPO terms are not draconian and worded the way to drain NPO and hurt it punitively extremely harshly-- can not be taken seriously in any manner.

I think we are way pass that propaganda line now, when even Londo on NPO boards in Athens embassy is open in admitting the NPO terms for what they are-- extremely hard, out of revenge/fear of retribution.

Also to say, my history with Bob is clear over the last couple of years (!) and its not good but-- he is right. It is quite hilarious to see how many try to rape the meaning of "draconian terms" which they, to start with, defined not so long ago.

Honestly, you are a riot-- cant be bothered with such nonsense, except to point and laugh.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Branimir

[Bob Janova]

Ah, Branimir, I was referring to the overall reps/alliance size. Yeah, similar to NpO, the way the amount was to be paid was restricted to the large nations. Honestly, I forsee C&G at least trying to apply that to TOP too, but 'nations over 1000 tech' is not such a restriction there.

If even Athens have stated that the NPO terms [i]were[/i] overly harsh, then that brings the upper limit on what would be reasonable to be significantly below the proportional amount. An upper limit of around 100k tech (or equivalent) seems to be what the arithmetic is pointing at from multiple directions.

And heh, the world has really turned upside down if [i]you[/i] are agreeing with me

[Krack]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1266538401' post='2190610']
Firstly, starting the argument from having your damages reimbursed is, in the purest sense of the term, absurd. The damage done already (and C&G show no sign of wishing to stop the war) are probably well over a trillion dollars by now. There is literally no way to even approach a 'reparation' amount, however extortionate, that will go anywhere near fixing the damage done. Even the damage done in the 160 wars declared in the first 45 minutes would probably be of the order of hundreds of billions. [b]It's a decent principle[/b] but it is simply impossible with the aid mechanics available.
[/quote]

Damn, that sucks. Perhaps TOP and IRON should have thought about that before [u]aggressively attacking[/u] a bloc, that was not involved in war, in a fit of paranoia? Let's try "It's a decent principle, so that's the one were gonna use as a starting point."

[necAnt]

intresting discourse we have here, however, i want to make my own personal stand clear here.
shall the moment arise where we have to decide on reps, i´d vote around the following points, again plz note, this is my personal stand, and should not fall back at my ally at the whole.
a) c&g wants tech? ok, i pay for there tech deals.
b) c&g wants ig-money from me? ok i could live with it.
c) c&g wants me to send tech from my own stock? never, if you want this tech, you have to grab it in fight, tech by tech.

thats my view, call it whatever you want.

cheers nec

[Bob Janova]

Krack, if you want to use 'the largest reparations ever demanded by a factor of 100' as your starting point, then you are far worse than the Hegemony. I'm sure C&G realise that that isn't a sane place to start.