Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Haflinger]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' date='02 March 2010 - 10:36 AM' timestamp='1267544419' post='2211322']
Well, then I am genuinely curious... Why did you think you would win? What alliance(s) and brilliant masterstrokes would help you win?
[/quote]
bigwoody thought the attack on Ordo Verde had a chance of winning.

No joke.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='flak attack' date='02 March 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1267550366' post='2211447']
The payment we are asking for is less than what your screw up destroyed, does have a guaranteed slot usage and does have a definite end.
[/quote]

Not what I've seen. Granted, you may have offered something new I have no knowledge of. If, however the terms posted by Ejayrazz are current, you could potentially allocate only 10 slots for reps forcing the alliances in question to remain under terms for a VERY long time.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Commisar Gaunt' date='02 March 2010 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1267550907' post='2211456']
Hardly puffing my chest. You seem stuck in your new found role as a martyr, while the dirty laundry in your past clearly shows that you can't take what you dish out. The greatest predictor of future actions are past actions. Why should we believe what you have to say now, while you scramble for PR? Why would we have had any other reason to believe that you guys didn't come in for a chance to bloody us up, like TOP's DoW states?
[/quote]
In all fairness, they did offer white peace in the last 2 wars.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 09:49 AM' timestamp='1267545174' post='2211336']
Anyone who knows me knows I don't do this "reps" thing, really. I am not about blood money. My record on this is consistent.
[/quote]OK, fair enough, I retract anything I've said directed solely at you. I recognise this isn't the time to start a tantrum about your [from hereon, TORN~a GOONS descendant represented by you] absolute defection to the safer side of things.

But the fact is, TORN has always been an alliance big on bravado, and never publically against [i]their side[/i] taking huge reps.

My own personal moral crusader view on this is that IRON, TOP and TORN (I literally don't care who DAWN are, and I have some respect for FEAR) are the ones who escaped their comeuppance last year. They have taken reps from aggressive wars, or were art and part to their taking. You may have been in private channels telling Moo that hundreds of thousands of tech was too much for 2008; you might have been saying that white peace is the way forward. But you did not make a stand, and you remained by their side and by the side of IRON as it did the same thing. As did TOP.

Let's seperate this part of the argument from the validity of the CB side. Whining about reps for [i]this war[/i] leaves you with no leg to stand on.

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='02 March 2010 - 06:05 PM' timestamp='1267553344' post='2211486']
In all fairness, they did offer white peace in the last 2 wars.
[/quote]

Were they attacked out of the blue while trying to secure peace between their allies, in defense of their allies?


Yeah I thought not.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='02 March 2010 - 01:31 PM' timestamp='1267554881' post='2211503']
Were they attacked out of the blue while trying to secure peace between their allies, in defense of their allies?


Yeah I thought not.
[/quote]
What is your point? Completely off-topic with anything remotely related to my comment. I am neither defending their actions nor condoning them; however, people usually like painting a tainted image to better their cause. Whether TOP was justified or not has nothing to do with my post, sorry if you felt otherwise.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='02 March 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1267553031' post='2211483']
Not what I've seen. Granted, you may have offered something new I have no knowledge of. If, however the terms posted by Ejayrazz are current, you could potentially allocate only 10 slots for reps forcing the alliances in question to remain under terms for a VERY long time.
[/quote]
Are we really going to get into ridiculous "what if"s? We could also only open 1 slot and require all tech to be sent 1 unit at a time. Or even worse, we could also require all money sent in one dong packages. It is to both of our advantages for the terms to be completed as quickly as possible. We aren't going to drag this out.

[Arthur Blair]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='02 March 2010 - 06:33 PM' timestamp='1267555016' post='2211507']
however, people usually like painting a tainted image to better their cause.
[/quote]

This is so true and describes the larger situation perfectly.

Regardless of your intended context, I wish to make it abundantly clear that there is no comparison between their prior white peace agreements and the current situation.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='02 March 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1267555016' post='2211507']
What is your point? Completely off-topic with anything remotely related to my comment. I am neither defending their actions nor condoning them; however, people usually like painting a tainted image to better their cause. Whether TOP was justified or not has nothing to do with my post, sorry if you felt otherwise.
[/quote]I think the point my esteemed colleague means to make is that some situations justify reps more than others.

[b][Edit][/b] I notice he pointed this out himself.

Oh well, lol Wad of Lint.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Rocky Horror

[Timmmehhh]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1267549305' post='2211416']
Ok, now you're just changing your talking point.

The main reason we wanted a quick white peace was to help on other fronts and win the war. But at least you got what we wanted (white peace) right this time, have a gold star.
[/quote]
What other fronts?

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='02 March 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1267555990' post='2211513']
This is so true and describes the larger situation perfectly.

Regardless of your intended context, I wish to make it abundantly clear that there is no comparison between their prior white peace agreements and the current situation.
[/quote]
I can agree to that mate, it was intended for someone painting that tainted image I spoke of; but that wasn't you.

The only way we can make up is through alcohol, boobs, and domesticated midgets.

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='02 March 2010 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1267556014' post='2211515']
I think the point my esteemed colleague means to make is that some situations justify reps more than oth
[/quote]
Though I must admit I am against these terms (And no, I understand white peace isn't an option as of now), I generally agree with your statement. The question comes into play: [i]how much[/i] and [i]how long[/i].

Edited March 2, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[lanceman1972]

!@#$%*, !@#$%*, !@#$%*, !@#$%*, !@#$%*, !@#$%*, !@#$%*. Could there be just a bit more whining on this thread?

Can't we all just agree to ZI the losing alliances? That way we don't have to worry about reps and this half-baked war can continue to give me maximum lulz.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Thorgrum' date='02 March 2010 - 09:31 AM' timestamp='1267540486' post='2211272']

Im not telling you C&G arent going to win, but "winning" is subjective once again "hey your entire top tier has just been negated but you won! you rolled them!!"
[/quote]

The term you are looking is Pyrrhic Victory, it refers is a battle 'won' at such great cost that you may as well have lost.

[Bob Janova]

It's pretty hilarious to see people claiming C&G is fighting a war of survival when peace has been available to them, no questions asked, for a month. I hope for your sake (AB in particular) that you're just pushing that for propaganda purposes and you don't actually believe it.

[quote]What other fronts? [/quote]
FOK (though TOP wouldn't have hit there), Stickmen, R&R, Fark, GOD, PC ... maybe I'm forgetting some that were engaged at that time.

It's also sad that people think that TOP 'escaped' in Karma even though they fought on the right side, and that IRON 'escaped' despite paying billions in reps and having their top tier smashed.

Edit: Odin, yes, of course 'rolling' is subjective, but when you're outnumbered in NS 10:1 and your opponents are pushing harsh terms, that counts in my book. If TOP/IRON aren't getting rolled then MK didn't get rolled in noCB, and GPA didn't get rolled by Continuum.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Bob Janova

[King Srqt]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 March 2010 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1267563672' post='2211638']
It's pretty hilarious to see people claiming C&G is fighting a war of survival when peace has been available to them, no questions asked, for a month. I hope for your sake (AB in particular) that you're just pushing that for propaganda purposes and you don't actually believe it.
[/quote]
Yes, because accepting white peace from an alliance that aggressively attacked them with no CB is something that should be remotely considered. MK is doing what is best for their interest (and survival) by following this course of action. Letting TOP and CO go free to possibly attack again is foolish and dismissing the possibility that they would do it again is equally foolish considering how this war started.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 March 2010 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1267563672' post='2211638']
It's pretty hilarious to see people claiming C&G is fighting a war of survival when peace has been available to them, no questions asked, for a month. I hope for your sake (AB in particular) that you're just pushing that for propaganda purposes and you don't actually believe it.


FOK (though TOP wouldn't have hit there), Stickmen, R&R, Fark, GOD, PC ... maybe I'm forgetting some that were engaged at that time.

It's also sad that people think that TOP 'escaped' in Karma even though they fought on the right side, and that IRON 'escaped' despite paying billions in reps and having their top tier smashed.

Edit: Odin, yes, of course 'rolling' is subjective, but when you're outnumbered in NS 10:1 and your opponents are pushing harsh terms, that counts in my book. If TOP/IRON aren't getting rolled then MK didn't get rolled in noCB, and GPA didn't get rolled by Continuum.
[/quote]

If C&G preempted TTIFtD, you wouldn't be in here defending them with this ferocity.

The point is, C&G was not in the war and unless you can prove to me that you can tell the future do not tell me any different. The point of TOP's attack was to get C&G when their allies were tied up and decimate ALL THEIR TIERS. EDIT: And by the looks of it MK specifically. Except Grub was an apparent snake in the grass and pulled the rug out from under them.

This war should be called Karma because that's exactly what happened here you don't let a guy who just busted all the windows up in your house walk out the front door after you caught him red handed with your wife.

Edited March 2, 2010 by AirMe

[Mussolandia]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' date='02 March 2010 - 03:26 PM' timestamp='1267543829' post='2211318']
Wait, what?

Did you even bother to take a look at the alliances on your side?
[/quote]

The war could have certainly been won. Have you bothered to look at the situation before TOP/IRON entered?

[AirMe]

[quote name='Mussolandia' date='02 March 2010 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1267565888' post='2211678']
The war could have certainly been won. Have you bothered to look at the situation before TOP/IRON entered?
[/quote]

One could argue that their side was winning the war before they preempted. At least that was the impression I was getting from the numbers at the time.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 March 2010 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1267564015' post='2211648']
Yes, because accepting white peace from an alliance that aggressively attacked them with no CB is something that should be remotely considered. MK is doing what is best for their interest (and survival) by following this course of action. Letting TOP and CO go free to possibly attack again is foolish and dismissing the possibility that they would do it again is equally foolish considering how this war started.
[/quote]
Whether they should take it or not is a different question. But it's not a war for your survival if you can leave it at any time. C&G are making the determination you state here and [i]choosing[/i] to prolong the war. A war for survival is what FAN did for a year, and it's what TOP and IRON are doing right now if anyone is. A war for survival is when you're outnumbered, outgunned and your opponents are putting either no terms or harsh terms on the table as a condition for peace – which is what is happening to TOP/IRON right now, not C&G.

And to be honest, C&G would be in a much better position today if they had agreed to a white peace on day 2, whatever reps they manage to squeeze out of TOP/IRON won't rebuild them or bring back all the strength they've lost relative to NPO, Superfriends, NpO or even the Remnant alliances which are out of the war. And that argument applies every day ... the level of reps acceptable to TOP is actually going [b]down[/b] every day that leaves them with less stuff, and C&G is taking damage every day, so each day their post-war position against everybody except TOP/IRON is getting worse.

[quote]
If C&G preempted TTIFtD, you wouldn't be in here defending them with this ferocity.[/quote]
We'll never know, because this particular set of circumstances – one group of alliances pre-empting another, in a global war, and the second group finding out about it and manipulating the rest of the war into peace in order to roll the first group – is unlikely to come round again. I am not really defending TOP/IRON, but criticising C&G (not to mention the bandwagoners), and I think you'll find me a consistent critic of piling 10:1 odds onto an alliance and then demanding harsh reps. You'll probably find me criticising the terms given to Legion in GW3 which is the last vaguely comparable situation.

(edit: wrong sort of tags)

Edited March 2, 2010 by Bob Janova

[tamerlane]

I just wanted to say that I support C&G and their War of Terror.

[uaciaut]

[quote name='Mussolandia' date='02 March 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1267565888' post='2211678']
The war could have certainly been won. Have you bothered to look at the situation before TOP/IRON entered?
[/quote]

No because we weren't in it. That's the thing here.

[mitchh]

[quote name='uaciaut' date='02 March 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1267570763' post='2211834']
No because we weren't in it. That's the thing here.
[/quote]
I'd assume Ragnarok was aware of \m/ being attacked.

[Ubermeir]

Alright, short and sweet, pre-emptive attacks are bad. Pay your reps and let's just move on. Peace is in your hands, sign the papers and let's move on.
Or not, war is fun too.

[Sir Keshav IV]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 04:39 PM' timestamp='1267548187' post='2211392']
Ok, showers are nice for reflection. I think I understand where CnG is coming from now.

An open question to CnGers ITT. Please look at things from our POV. If you were entering the war in TOP/IRON/TORN's shoes, would you go in planning to ask for reps if you won? Would you go in planning to ask for white peace? What would you do, in our shoes?

I am convinced by now the answer is that you would ask for reps in our shoes. You would ask for reps to not run the risk that CnG would quickly rebuild and get revenge.

This is why you are completely in genuine disbelief that we would in turn offer white peace. You wouldn't do it, why would we?

Fine. This:

[00:23] <%Feanor> White.
[00:23] <%Feanor> Get them off the field.
01[00:24] <~bigwoody> remember we will be judged on our terms when the NEXT war comes
[00:24] <%Feanor> We aren't looking for reps.
[00:24] <Sleepib[TSO]> im not about to ask for reps in this war
01[00:24] <~bigwoody> and since we're likely to win
01[00:24] <~bigwoody> be gracious winners

...may not convince you. I could logdump all the times I have told people to break the cycle of revenge reps, and strangely this war was the first time I didn't need to convince anyone. I am, if nothing else, very very consistent in my beliefs regarding reps. We truly do not operate like most alliances, or groups of alliances, I fully believe in breaking the cycle of revenge reps. I believed it then, and I will advocate it in the future any time I am in a position to do so.

However, this time I drew the losing card. Any such avocation by me now is seen as self-serving and thusly will not sway anyone. This doesn't shock me, I don't even mind at this point honestly. However, claiming we went in seeking to draw out damaging reps, or permanent destruction, is a plain lie.
[/quote]

@bigwoody: Why should we take your word? Look where it got you guys(Placing your trust into an alliance that by paper are not your allies.) I would never trust a word unless its on paper, but thats just me.

@People towing the Karma Line: Karma war was a defensive war, which happened because the world had enough of NPO and its !@#$ CB wars. Karma War happened to end such wars with !@#$ CB's and well to stop the game from stagnating with all those EZI's/PZI's and well throwing players out of the game. What TOP/IRON/NpO did were start wars on "Moral Standards" which by no standards is a Valid Casus Belli. You aren't the only alliances in this game who should be allowed to wage moral crusades just because you don't like alliances. This was what Karma wished to eradicate. We all love war, but get a good reason for it. We did not support NpO because well their CB was baseless such as yours. Karma wasn't to eradicate reperations and give white peace to everyone, it was to eradicate NPO's stronghold over Bob and let every alliance survive without the fear of being rolled by the NPO. That was what Karma was for. When you guys hit us with such an idiotic CB, in a war we hadn't even been a part of it was like a silver platter for us. Yes, I agree we dislike you guys, and when you hit us inside we were very happy. But what we are arguing is, you can't do that. You can't hit alliances with no CB's only because you think they are a future threat and always wish to do harm for you guys. We would have never gone out of the line to hit TOP/IRON. Not with such an idiotic CB at least. Karma in the end was a mistake, it did not achieve the majority of its goals and therefore is a failure.

My 2 cents.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 March 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1267564015' post='2211648']
Yes, because accepting white peace from an alliance that aggressively attacked them with no CB is something that should be remotely considered. MK is doing what is best for their interest (and survival) by following this course of action. Letting TOP and CO go free to possibly attack again is foolish and dismissing the possibility that they would do it again is equally foolish considering how this war started.
[/quote]

while i understand white peace is not acceptable and i know that TOP/IRON aggressively attacked but i don't get the whole "CnG are fighting a war of survival" bit... i would understand this line if TOP/IRON (this includes all on their side) were the ones winning, but it is clear to anyone with eyes that TOP/IRON are losing. so it is just ridiculous to state that CnG are fighting for their survival. at this moment, TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN/TSO are the ones fighting for their survival and there is simply no way it can be spinned.

i would understand if this was the beginning of the war but essentially within the first week of the war, it was pretty clear that CnG would win. thus, if the victor is clearly known it can in no way shape or form be called a war of survival for the winning side. now, especially with these reps, it is the other side fighting a war of survival.