Jump to content

The End. It's coming.


Syzygy

Recommended Posts

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 02:23 PM' timestamp='1266582191' post='2191901']
I pointed out that it's entirely possibly for a [b]situation to arise where you can form a crushing coalition, seeing as how close you were to it just a few weeks ago.[/b] If we let you, an opponent that hates us and declared an aggressive war without justification, just walk away from the war as soon as it starts to turn in our favor then we're just asking for you to rebuild and strike as soon as we look weak again.
[/quote]
Crushing coalition and just few weeks ago? Are you sure you're not just trying to $%&@ with me?! Yea whatever, but based on dealings with you guys, public and private, it's obvious that we are not the party who has been antagonizing and baiting for a long time now. Your fellows have admitted to us they've deliberately doing it for ages. Although I'm sure it's not a secret to anyone. Therefore it's obvious we're not the ones carrying hate here.

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 02:23 PM' timestamp='1266582191' post='2191901']
You guys prefer white peace as soon as things go against you. You didn't prefer white peace during GPA, noCB, and you sure as hell didn't enter the war with the intent of ever offering us white peace. Your entire history has been on the side of those that demand crushing reps, those that promote the total destruction of alliances. The only exception being when you tried to play both sides during Karma. As for this war, you entered with the intent to destroy us, then as soon as it became evident that wouldn't happen, you switched to damage control mode of trying (unsuccessfully) to make yourselves look benevolent and pretending to be victims. Aside from syz, I don't think anyone has genuinely bought into your bs.
[/quote]
AFAIK white peace was the objective from the beginning. We entered the war to support NpO, who had white peace on table already, so how could we demand anything more from you guys? Amazing.

We do have a history of taking reps, but that's history. We have changed, we haven't taken reps for 1½ years and that's what counts. In Karma war we were pursuing for quick and clean victory, and we achieved it. Decisive victory, white peace, shaking hands and everyone can walk away. We weren't there trying to destroy alliances or for old grudges.

If we wanted we could have extorted reps like you guys, but I guess we're above it. :smug:

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 02:23 PM' timestamp='1266582191' post='2191901']
Things happen pretty slowly around these parts, [b]2 years ago and a year and a half ago are pretty recent in my mind.[/b] Basically you're trying to say that because you didn't demand crushing reps in the last war (in which you tried to play both sides), that everything before that should be forgotten. Sorry, but history doesn't work like that.
[/quote]
Then you must remember how you fought GPA within our ranks. :o At least to me, and I hope to many others, it's more important what people have done recently, like within a year at max, than in the past.

If you want to make any comparisons, your alliance has taken more reps and more recently than my alliance. And now you're looking more. :smug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 586
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Joe Izuzu' date='19 February 2010 - 03:11 PM' timestamp='1266556296' post='2191552']
No alliance can ever be even one tenth as evil as the NPO. After all, we paid/are paying for the sins of all of the Hegemony (including those members who conveniently jumped ship after participating in the rape of Bob for so long). Since we have been making restitution for those sins, nobody can hold TOP/IRON etc. responsible for any of it. It is all done.

Now if you want to argue only about the current sins, well that is a different story. However, since no alliance can ever be even one tenth as evil as us, no alliance should ever pay even one tenth what we have paid. Our reps were based on years of accumulated evil. TOP/IRON have only a couple of weeks for which to account.

Besides, it would be insulting if any alliance ever broke our record.
[/quote]
I wish I could be as hopeful as you that the NPO reps record would never be broken,
But people said the exact same thing about the previous record and it got broken.

This is because some people will see breaking any record, even one for handing out the harshest terms to be some sort of achievement for their alliance.

Edited by Prime minister Johns
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]As for me being "far worse than the Hegemony"? If it were up to me, I'd bury IRON so deep in the ground you wouldn't be able to smell them anymore.[/quote]
Righto, I'll make sure not to respond to you on terms issues then as you're clearly rather far out.

[quote]What coalition was at war with C&G? The preemptive attack by TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN was the first declaration of the war without a mandated or optional entry through a treaty.[/quote]
An optional entry 'through a treaty' is no different to an optional entry without a treaty – both are entering a war with no obligation. C&G may not have been at war but it was a part of the raiding coalition (though that argument's been done so let's not push this thread onto it again). TOP/IRON were by far not the first people to enter the war without treaty obligations – almost everyone after PC did so.

[quote]I'll just say this, lol NAP. Nobody wants NAP's any more, least of anybody, myself. [/quote]
What surer way is there to guarantee that an alliance will not attack you (which is what C&G claim to be scared of) than a treaty forbidding it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' date='19 February 2010 - 09:48 AM' timestamp='1266572914' post='2191814']
TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN should pay reps so steep that they think long and hard before doing something stupid in the future. Really, you put yourselves in this situation and your nonstop verbal squirts got old the middle of last week.
[/quote]

Ah... no. By forcing high reps CnG will just be creating a long term enemy. People don't forget things like that just look at NPO for proof of that. It took planet bob 2 years to do it but they did. If you were CnG what would you prefer, Reps that give you a lot tech and a enemy for life or some tech and a not so angry alliance?

I don't care what any of you say but you all cried about having to pay high reps before so why in the hell would you force someone to pay them now? Prove your better then the past Hegemony and not slowing turning into them.

Edited by Left_Behind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 February 2010 - 10:01 PM' timestamp='1266548505' post='2191083']
Well in theory time spent paying reparations is worth about three times as much as time spent simply not using foreign aid (assuming perfect slot efficiency both in reps payment and tech dealing).

So say in place of paying two months worth of reparations, not using foreign aid for six months.
[/quote]
Brendan I dont know if you have ever had the no outside aid placed on you before it is far more damaging in practice than it would seem. It absolutely stunts the growth of any alliance who does not have smaller NS nations. While I will not argue that it was better than we could have ever hoped for the 90 days we spent in Valhalla with out the ability to purchase tech was very difficult. I believe a TOPer has said they would be willing to pay for tech to be sent to the agrieved nations. 6 months of no outside aid is far worse than allowing these nations to pay some one to send out tech and allowing minimal slots for them to rebuild what they have lost as well.

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 07:23 AM' timestamp='1266582191' post='2191901']
I pointed out that it's entirely possibly for a situation to arise where you can form a crushing coalition, seeing as how close you were to it just a few weeks ago. If we let you, an opponent that hates us and declared an aggressive war without justification, just walk away from the war as soon as it starts to turn in our favor then we're just asking for you to rebuild and strike as soon as we look weak again.


You guys prefer white peace as soon as things go against you. You didn't prefer white peace during GPA, noCB, and you sure as hell didn't enter the war with the[b] intent of ever offering us white peace[/b]. Your entire history has been on the side of those that demand crushing reps, those that promote the total destruction of alliances. The only exception being when you tried to play both sides during Karma. As for this war, you entered with the intent to destroy us, then as soon as it became evident that wouldn't happen, you switched to damage control mode of trying (unsuccessfully) to make yourselves look benevolent and pretending to be victims. Aside from syz, I don't think anyone has genuinely bought into your bs.


Things happen pretty slowly around these parts, 2 years ago and a year and a half ago are pretty recent in my mind. Basically you're trying to say that because you didn't demand crushing reps in the last war (in which you tried to play both sides), that everything before that should be forgotten. Sorry, but history doesn't work like that.


Like rain on your wedding day, amirite? Also, who views sigs anymore?
[/quote]
I have tried to stay out of this thread as it is simply a circular argument but the bolded above is FALSE. IRON/TOP stated from the get go White Peace was the objective and the goal for exiting the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Telchar' date='19 February 2010 - 08:17 AM' timestamp='1266585441' post='2191935']
More stuff
[/quote]

Meh, I'm only going to reply to two parts of this. You guys entered a war "to defend Polar" (who isn't your ally) by attacking two of their close allies? That is horrible logic. Also, if you look at all time totals, MK has taken much less reps than TOP has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Left_Behind' date='19 February 2010 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1266588952' post='2191977']
Ah... no. By forcing high reps CnG will just be creating a long term enemy. People don't forget things like that just look at NPO for proof of that. It took planet bob 2 years to do it but they did. If you were CnG what would you prefer, Reps that give you a lot tech and a enemy for life or some tech and a not so angry alliance?

I don't care what any of you say but you all cried about having to pay high reps before so why in the hell would you force someone to pay them now? Prove your better then the past Hegemony and not slowing turning into them.
[/quote]

We already have an enemy for life. They've ended up against us the past two chances they had. I'd rather cripple their war ability with reps than pretend we're magically going to be friends when it won't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 09:59 AM' timestamp='1266591575' post='2192015']
We already have an enemy for life. They've ended up against us the past two chances they had. I'd rather cripple their war ability with reps than pretend we're magically going to be friends when it won't happen.
[/quote]

In September 2007 I was part of the leadership of an alliance that was forced to disband by NpO for all practical purposes. A year and a half later, and in leadership in another alliance that was founded in large part by members of the alliance that was forced to disband, I negotiated a MDoAP with Polaris.

My point here is clear...there are no permanent enemies on Planet Bob. Not if both sides are willing to let the past be the past. The past can never be the past however if you are going to demand reparations that go on for many, many months or even years. Every time a member of TOP or IRON has to send out yet another shipment of tech or cash to one of the members of C&G, they will be reminded of the war.

This is why white peace is preferable...unless you think that the NPO style of "world management" is the way to go...that worked out quite well for them in the end and without a single alliance or individual being bitter or resentful at all, eh?

Edited by ChairmanHal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not really accurate. In Karma they sided with C&G (indirectly). In the TPF incident you (Supergrievances) aggressively attacked an alliance directly tied to IRON and therefore only one chain from TOP; they had more justification for joining that war on the TPF side than many of your friends had to join this war on the raiding side. And in this incident, obviously they chose the other side. So that's one cooperation, one choice by TOP/IRON and one choice by Supergrievances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 09:59 AM' timestamp='1266591575' post='2192015']
We already have an enemy for life. They've ended up against us the past two chances they had. I'd rather cripple their war ability with reps than pretend we're magically going to be friends when it won't happen.
[/quote]
Yeah and so have a lot of people. You have chosen to twice to back people that went against so called community standards by backing Athens in the KoN and TPF incedent/war and indirectly \M/ in this current case. TOP was tied to iron who was tied to TPF not a stretch that it would chain out that war. KoN Athens were $@! hats and you choose to back your ally (no problem with that but still your choice) TOP didnt agree with that action either. So to say they have lined up against you twice is true but too demonize them over it is out of line as they acted in accordance with their treaties and alliance beliefs. You say TOP was paranoid well by evidence shown through out this thread both sides have been. Yes we all know there is tension there Delta made a great post about it you should read it.

Edited by Buds The Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 08:59 AM' timestamp='1266591575' post='2192015']
We already have an enemy for life. They've ended up against us the past two chances they had. I'd rather cripple their war ability with reps than pretend we're magically going to be friends when it won't happen.
[/quote]

Chairman Hal is right to correct this. This world is much too complex for "enemies for life" to make much sense. In fact, that kind of thinking will create more enemies for you in the long run.

Our world is one of living colors, not some black and white strategy board that can be planned out or speak to every circumstance. Take the new \m/ and the new GOONS for example. As much as I might appear to despise them, do I consider them my enemies, or even my enemies for life? I surely do not, since I know there are more things we have in common than we disagree on. Right now, those things simply are not in focus as they might have been not too long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='19 February 2010 - 10:14 AM' timestamp='1266592496' post='2192026']
In September 2007 I was part of the leadership of an alliance that was forced to disband by NpO for all practical purposes. A year and a half later, and in leadership in another alliance that was founded in large part by members of the alliance that was forced to disband, I negotiated a MDoAP with Polaris.

My point here is clear...there are no permanent enemies on Planet Bob. Not if both sides are willing to let the past be the past. The past can never be the past however if you are going to demand reparations that go on for many, many months or even years. Every time a member of TOP or IRON has to send out yet another shipment of tech or cash to one of the members of C&G, they will be reminded of the war.

This is why white peace is preferable...unless you think that the NPO style of "world management" is the way to go...that worked out quite well for them in the end and without a single alliance or individual being bitter or resentful at all, eh?
[/quote]

Yea, it's not like IRON has been opposed to us in every major war since our inception or something small like that to indicate that we may always be enemies. You guys can try to make horrible excuses for us to let them off to regrow and attack again, but to us it's pretty clear they're a threat that needs to be taken care of.

Oh and lols at you thinking this is even remotely close to what NPO did. They declared multiple offensive wars, didn't allow individual surrenders in most of them, forced alliances to open their forums and accept extended control through viceroys then demanded the max amount of reps they could feasibly get without destroying the alliance (while oftentimes even destroying the alliance). We're merely leaning towards getting compensated for some of our losses and reducing their ability to attack us again.

Edit: Also most people saw you as a traitor to \m/, so you can't really play that card. I know I'm ex-Genmay and watched with glee when Polar was finally destroyed in the noCB war. I got over my grudge after seeing them get hit with horrid crushing reps. To be honest, if it weren't for those reps, I'd probably still hate them today.

[quote name='Fantastico' date='19 February 2010 - 10:57 AM' timestamp='1266595043' post='2192069']
Chairman Hal is right to correct this. This world is much too complex for "enemies for life" to make much sense. In fact, that kind of thinking will create more enemies for you in the long run.

Our world is one of living colors, not some black and white strategy board that can be planned out or speak to every circumstance. Take the new \m/ and the new GOONS for example. As much as I might appear to despise them, do I consider them my enemies, or even my enemies for life? I surely do not, since I know there are more things we have in common than we disagree on. Right now, those things simply are not in focus as they might have been not too long ago.
[/quote]
New \m/ and new GOONS are absolutely not the same as the old alliances. This is a horrible analogy.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='19 February 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1266592536' post='2192029']
That's not really accurate. In Karma they sided with C&G (indirectly). In the TPF incident you (Supergrievances) aggressively attacked an alliance directly tied to IRON and therefore only one chain from TOP; they had more justification for joining that war on the TPF side than many of your friends had to join this war on the raiding side. And in this incident, obviously they chose the other side. So that's one cooperation, one choice by TOP/IRON and one choice by Supergrievances.
[/quote]

TOP played both sides in Karma. They threatened people on the karma side and forced certain members to take heavy losses in order to feel like they betrayed no one, instead they betrayed both sides in the process by only engaging half way. Their land raid against Echelon doesn't make up for the threats they slung around behind closed doors.

Edited by renegade4box
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 08:21 AM' timestamp='1266596481' post='2192095']
Yea, it's not like IRON has been opposed to us in every major war since our inception or something small like that to indicate that we may always be enemies. You guys can try to make horrible excuses for us to let them off to regrow and attack again, but to us it's pretty clear they're a threat that needs to be taken care of.
[/quote]

Treaties on opposing sides of the web can make for adversarial situations. There doesn't have to be animosity involved. However, MK & Co. delight in antagonizing whoever is not joined at the hip with them. Given the extremely vocal bashing of IRON and TOP by C&G members and some gov (see Londo), what would you expect? You guys have consistently asked for confrontation. That behavior has been the same for some time. Karma War, Blue Balls War and this one, all the same. Maybe if MK muzzled their rabid dogs a bit, the hostility levels might actually drop a bit.

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1266288410' post='2184044']
....The attacks perpetrated by TOP and her allies against the Complaints and Grievances Union were born out of paranoia, unsubstantiated by concrete evidence beyond teasing and whatnot by regular C&G members (but few or no instances by government), and ultimately justified by reasoning that boils down to "you were going to defend your allies who we would be attacking, thus you'd be at war at us, thus that's an aggressive threat against us." This is my paraphrase, of course....

....You, and you alone, authored this war....

....We would also like to publicly assert that at no time did the Complaints and Grievances Union ever intend to aggressively pursue war against TOP or IRON. We do indeed recognize the fact that, had TOP or IRON hit our allies, we would be honor bound to defend them. We would also like to note that 2 + 2 = 4, as we feel these two statements are equally obvious. [b]Had TIFDTT not wished to engage the Union, or had they wished to avoid the perceived threat, not attacking us or our allies would have been a really simple way to achieve this[/b]....
[/quote]

Archon's post is so filled with logical inconsistencies and outright contradictions that it really should not be taken seriously. The fact is the C&G's friends were already in the war and had already attacked TOP/IRON's friends. Archon admits that if TOP/IRON attacked those C&G's friends, that C&G would have countered. The fact is that TOP/IRON did not start the war. It was started/escalated by C&G's friends and C&G would absolutely have entered. TOP/IRON did, in fact, attack preemptively but trying to claim that the attack was totally unjustified is simply ludicrous.

The bolded section clearly states that the way for TOP/IRON to have avoided conflict with C&G was to ignore their treaty obligations. I find it more than a little hypocritical and quite ironic that the chief of the "friends before infra" crowd could use that line without being struck down by lightning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 08:59 AM' timestamp='1266591575' post='2192015']
We already have an enemy for life. They've ended up against us the past two chances they had. I'd rather cripple their war ability with reps than pretend we're magically going to be friends when it won't happen.
[/quote]
Interesting theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 08:59 AM' timestamp='1266591575' post='2192015']
We already have an enemy for life. They've ended up against us the past two chances they had. I'd rather cripple their war ability with reps than pretend we're magically going to be friends when it won't happen.
[/quote]
Ren... has MK brainwashed you that much? You know better than this. Listen to yourself, man! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zero-One' date='19 February 2010 - 11:50 AM' timestamp='1266609023' post='2192337']
Ren... has MK brainwashed you that much? You know better than this. Listen to yourself, man! :(
[/quote]
Ignore him renegade, you're with us now :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zero-One' date='19 February 2010 - 02:50 PM' timestamp='1266609023' post='2192337']
Ren... has MK brainwashed you that much? You know better than this. Listen to yourself, man! :(
[/quote]

That was in reference to IRON. In fact, I'm pretty sure they've been opposed to us in every single war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='renegade4box' date='20 February 2010 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1266591575' post='2192015']
I'd rather cripple their war ability with reps than pretend we're magically going to be friends when it won't happen.
[/quote]
Yeah, while I used to think like you, I don't agree any more. What you're saying is that you don't want to have enemies that can fight properly, right? Where's the fun in that? What's the point? My view is that Bob turns into a stale and boring place when you nobble your opponents but whatever, each to his own.

Edited by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='18 February 2010 - 03:58 AM' timestamp='1266461882' post='2188671']
No, TOP keeps saying that its white peace or nothing.

Would TOP government care to comment differently?
[/quote]
Yes, as Grand Chancellor I will comment differently.

TOP is committed to achieving peace for everyone on our side. It is unlikely that white peace or no deal will achieve that, and we are open to discussions and talks. But we will not abandon anyone or switch sides in middle of the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 06:06 PM' timestamp='1266620798' post='2192579']
Yes, as Grand Chancellor I will comment differently.

TOP is committed to achieving peace for everyone on our side. It is unlikely that white peace or no deal will achieve that, and we are open to discussions and talks. But we will not abandon anyone or switch sides in middle of the war.
[/quote]

Care to comment on what you'd consider reasonable reparations to be asked from your alliance?

50k tech? 100k? 200k? 500k?

Some thoughts:
[quote]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 baseline for an acceptable reparations amount if reparations is what people want. Personally I'm not sure it's entirely worth the hassle.[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='20 February 2010 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1266621065' post='2192591']
Care to comment on what you'd consider reasonable reparations to be asked from your alliance?

50k tech? 100k? 200k? 500k?

Some thoughts:
[/quote]
I don't want to comment publicly on this.

I can however state that I would find much more reasonable reparations in cash so alliances can use it to rebuild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1266621736' post='2192613']
I don't want to comment publicly on this.

I can however state that I would find much more reasonable reparations in cash so alliances can use it to rebuild.
[/quote]

I've noticed several of your members state that "cash is valueless" (paraphrase). Why would the victors want it? Further question ... how much of the destroyed infrastructure/tech/land/money/spies do you feel it is appropriate for your side to pay for to rebuild?

Edited by Krack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could take 100 billion in cash from TOP (it would take a long time :P) and it wouldn't have any serious effect on them, or have any significant positive benefits for the victors.

Almost all reparations enforced since the GPA War have been in technology form, because it's simply more effective for the same slot usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1266621736' post='2192613']
I don't want to comment publicly on this.

I can however state that I would find much more reasonable reparations in cash so alliances can use it to rebuild.
[/quote]
[url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=34051]Well of course you would, and I'm frankly shocked that anyone with the ability to be reasonable could assert otherwise.[/url]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...