Jump to content

The End. It's coming.


Syzygy

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 04:13 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. It's a decent principle but it is simply impossible with the aid mechanics available.[/quote]
Exactly what I said. There's no way to make full restitution for the damage they did, but a good faith effort should only rightfully be expected.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1266538401' post='2190610']
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;
[/quote]
What coalition was at war with C&G? The preemptive attack by TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN was the [i]first[/i] declaration of the war without a mandated or optional entry through a treaty. Before you try to cite GOD, their attack on NSO was enabled by the SF MDAP. Why Xiph used the wording he did, I don't know.

The only examples of declarations against TOP's coalition without explicit and public treaties being activated are MHA/Gre on IRON, FAN on IRON, and PC/DT/NoR on Valhalla. All of which were after TIFDTT's attack on C&G and were against existing combatants. Also, each example has their own qualifying factors with far more legitimacy then anything TOP's tried to use to justify their preemptive attack.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1266538401' post='2190610']
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.
[/quote]
Terms given to defeated alliances are for better or worse at the discretion of the victor. Anyone who's surrendered so far and received white peace has been a small fish who entered through secondary treaty obligations/encouragements. Wolfpack and Nevermore are hardly culpable on the level of TIFDTT/TFD/NATO, though I wouldn't find fault with the alliances they attacked if they has requested moderate restitution.

MK/C&G handled the NoCB war as best as they could by doing max damage to an alliance who had rolling them on a back burner for over a year. Please don't try to claim C&G had blacklisted and made multiple attempts to roll TIFDTT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 586
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='necAnt' date='18 February 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1266541655' post='2190768']
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
[/quote]
So you have no problem attacking C&G and destroying their tech, but God forbid you be inconvenienced by replacing some of it.

Sounds about right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1266541829' post='2190774']
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.
[/quote]

You're the one who called it a "decent principle". It's not my fault you're blindly throwing out rhetoric ... any rhetoric ... in hopes that something will stick and your friends (who have been continuously finding new and innovative ways to fail for the last year) will escape the consequences of their own constant mistakes. If you now feel it is not a "decent principle", I can not be faulted for inproperly distinguishing between what you actually believe and what you are just saying because you think it makes you sound convincing and might hope to make your future arguments more persuasive; I am not a mind reader.

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. For as long as I've been on Planet Bob (900 days), they've been an aggressive, antagonistic, toady alliance treatied to other aggressive, antagonistic and/or toady alliances. That's three years of distasteful behavior. Which is enough for me to say, "I don't really like having them around anymore." Let's just call it my [i]Three Years And You're Out[/i] policy.

Lucky for them, it's not up to me.

/I'm sure IRON is just misunderstood. And that they are primed to become saints as soon as they are [s]let off the hook again[/s] given a [s]second[/s] third chance at life. I'm also sure they are the ones who hide eggs on Easter, and leave dollar bills when you put your tooth under your pillow. I bet they fart glitter, too - although that is unconfirmed.

Edited by Krack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Choader' date='18 February 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1266542930' post='2190818']
So you have no problem attacking C&G and destroying their tech, but God forbid you be inconvenienced by replacing some of it.

Sounds about right.
[/quote]

He clearly stated otherwise. :golfclap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='ROMMELHSQ' date='18 February 2010 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1266544993' post='2190918']
ah.. how wonderful. The BS Karma argument that terms aren't harsh because an alliance can pay them easily...
[/quote]

And that is a bad argument because..? If something can be done without much effort in a relatively short period of time, it's not difficult.

I've yet to see someone address the fact that TOP made 30 high-end nations pay 75 000 tech in the past, a ratio of 2500 tech per nation. TOP contains 150+ high-end nations (probably more). That amounts to 375 000 technology if C&G demands the same ratio of reparations from the aggressor as TOP did from the defender (it would make more sense to ask for more).

Please explain to me how something like 150k tech would be unreasonable; it's less than half of what TOP demanded of others in the past from those less capable to pay than they are right now.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 07:13 PM' timestamp='1266538401' post='2190610']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.
[/quote]

MK can correct me if I'm wrong, but they had [i]maybe[/i] 70 nations that were capable of fully sending out reparations. TOP has 150+, easily.

Bit of a taboo subject but what are people's thoughts on wonder destruction instead of reparations? Most of TOP have maxed wonders so it's not as damaging as it would be to others. Decommission all of TOP's WRCs would cost them ~22 billion, plus a delay in the wonder clock of some.

p.s. I'm just throwing out ideas here. No need for people to get all offended.

Edited by Lord Brendan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='19 February 2010 - 02:33 AM' timestamp='1266546834' post='2191002']Bit of a taboo subject but what are people's thoughts on wonder destruction instead of reparations? Most of TOP have maxed wonders so it's not as damaging as it would be to others. Decommission all of TOP's WRCs would cost them ~22 billion, plus a delay in the wonder clock of some.
[/quote]
The idea of destroying wonders is something I don't think we would ever agree to.

Of course I am not gov, don't speak for the alliance, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='President Obama' date='18 February 2010 - 09:52 PM' timestamp='1266547977' post='2191055']
The idea of destroying wonders is something I don't think we would ever agree to.

Of course I am not gov, don't speak for the alliance, etc.
[/quote]

That's what I thought. What about restricting wonder purchases for a certain time period?

Limiting/banning foreign aid for a certain time period?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there would probably be more of a positive response to limiting foreign aid than to limiting wonder purchases.

However, that's not to say that limiting foreign aid would get a positive response from TOP, but I suppose it would depend on the length of time and the other conditions that would be imposed.

edit: Sorry if it seems like I'm just rejecting your ideas outright by the way. I'm not, but it won't be easy for me to wrap my mind around accepting to most terms so that's kind of my mindset coming into this.

Edited by President Obama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1266530211' post='2190296']

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.

[/quote]

glad to see people remember our history, feel free to swing by our forums anytime :)


as for reps, meh, I personally say reps should be short and to the point, after all, whats the fun of enemies that are slaves :P

Edited by SiCkO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Choader' date='19 February 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1266542930' post='2190818']
So you have no problem attacking C&G and destroying their tech, but God forbid you be inconvenienced by replacing some of it.

Sounds about right.
[/quote]

i´m not sure, but i believe, that i said, that there would be an option that i would agree to, to replenish the lost tech for c&G. but i´m or waa drunken, so, yeah i may be wrong.

Ohh nizzle allready got it, see what you did? you made nizzle defending me. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Commisar Gaunt' date='19 February 2010 - 09:38 AM' timestamp='1266565131' post='2191766']
I'd like my 3k tech back that I traded back and forth with my opponents, and then just vaporized with CMs and nukes.
[/quote]
[img]http://forums.cybernations.net/uploads/av-11200.jpg[/img] "War hurts."

Maybe you guys should have thought that before outright rejecting our white peace offer? Instead you're now expecting us to pay for the damages caused by your desire to prolong this war. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Telchar' date='19 February 2010 - 04:53 AM' timestamp='1266573198' post='2191818']
[img]http://forums.cybernations.net/uploads/av-11200.jpg[/img] "War hurts."

Maybe you guys should have thought that before outright rejecting our white peace offer? Instead you're now expecting us to pay for the damages caused by your desire to prolong this war. :rolleyes:
[/quote]

What a great idea, then you guys can attack next month when you have a stronger coalition and sometime tells me there wouldn't be a white peace offer that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1266575364' post='2191836']
What a great idea, then you guys can attack next month when you have a stronger coalition and sometime tells me there wouldn't be a white peace offer that time.
[/quote]
First, what is this mystical stronger coalition that would take down the over 200 million nation strength strong of yours? :rolleyes:

Second, if it's some kind of "super coalition" you're afraid of, I don't think forcing huge reps on alliances is the best way to avoid it. :awesome:

Third, we have a quite recently handled out white peace like candy, why would we change that? :smug:

And people say TOP is/was paranoid. *sigh*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Telchar' date='19 February 2010 - 06:02 AM' timestamp='1266577375' post='2191852']
First, what is this mystical stronger coalition that would take down the over 200 million nation strength strong of yours? :rolleyes:
[/quote]

Had your alliance been smart enough to enter the previous war on a defensive treaty instead of starting a new side war, the sides that would have developed would have had a good chance of being in your favor. By declaring an offensive war, you caused about 40 mil in NS to switch sides, creating an 80 mil difference between the sides.

[quote]
Second, if it's some kind of "super coalition" you're afraid of, I don't think forcing huge reps on alliances is the best way to avoid it. :awesome:
[/quote]

Well I guess that's where we differ. I think reps that reduce your ability to wage war will be perhaps our best bet to protect ourselves from a recurrence of a CB-less aggressive war.

[quote]
Third, we have a quite recently handled out white peace like candy, why would we change that? :smug:

And people say TOP is/was paranoid. *sigh*
[/quote]

Yea, like the white peace that Polar and GPA got, right? It's no secret that when you hate your enemy (which is beyond obvious the case here), that you guys seek to crush them and impose destructive reps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1266578079' post='2191860']
Had your alliance been smart enough to enter the previous war on a defensive treaty instead of starting a new side war, the sides that would have developed would have had a good chance of being in your favor. By declaring an offensive war, you caused about 40 mil in NS to switch sides, creating an 80 mil difference between the sides.
[/quote]
This answers to what? I asked about the mystical strong coalition that would take you down, by your account it would happen in a month or so after taking a white peace with us.

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1266578079' post='2191860']
[b]Well I guess that's where we differ.[/b] I think reps that reduce your ability to wage war will be perhaps our best bet to protect ourselves from a recurrence of a CB-less aggressive war.
[/quote]
Yes, that's how we differ. We prefer white peace and you prefer harsh reps. You want to continue the old hegemonic ways while we're evolving.

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1266578079' post='2191860']
Yea, like the white peace that Polar and GPA got, right?
[/quote]
Polar war happened 1½ years ago, GPA war 2 years ago, it's been a pretty long time and lots of things happened
since. That's why I said [b]recently[/b]. What have you done recently? Oh yea demanded the biggest reps ever, and now most likely trying to TOP that. :rolleyes:

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1266578079' post='2191860']
It's no secret that when you hate your enemy (which is beyond obvious the case here), that you guys seek to crush them and impose destructive reps.
[/quote]
You do realize that's ironic beyond belief?!

That's so sigged! :awesome:

Edited by Telchar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Telchar' date='19 February 2010 - 06:35 AM' timestamp='1266579359' post='2191873']
This answers to what? I asked about the mystical strong coalition that would take you down, by your account it would happen in a month or so after taking a white peace with us.
[/quote]

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.

[quote]
Yes, that's how we differ. We prefer white peace and you prefer harsh reps. You want to continue the old hegemonic ways while we're evolving.
[/quote]
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]
Polar war happened 1½ years ago, GPA war 2 years ago, it's been a pretty long time and lots of things happened
since. That's why I said [b]recently[/b]. What have you done recently? Oh yea demanded the biggest reps ever, and now most likely trying to TOP that. :rolleyes:
[/quote]
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.

[quote]
You do realize that's ironic beyond belief?!

That's so sigged! :awesome:
[/quote]
Like rain on your wedding day, amirite? Also, who views sigs anymore?

Edited by renegade4box
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...