Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='flak attack' date='22 February 2010 - 11:48 PM' timestamp='1266904110' post='2198626']
You over estimate TOP's warchest advantage. Other than a handful of outliers, theirs are pretty comparable to ours
[/quote]
, yep.

Also TOP's heptagon was always a bit of a joke as they didn't really seem like they knew much more than the general membership did. TOP really isn't a true democracy in my opinion, more of an aristocracy. The lack of Heptagon information/power really showed TOP's government for what it is.

[Krashnaia]

Well, anyway the war is being simplified as more and more fronts get closed. Soon, only the original agressors will be left, and then we shall see if all that bragging about not surrendering and being invincible thanks to their warchests is really true.

Maybe we should open a poll to bet about the issue.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Krashnaia

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='flak attack' date='22 February 2010 - 11:48 PM' timestamp='1266904110' post='2198626']
You over estimate TOP's warchest advantage. Other than a handful of outliers, theirs are pretty comparable to ours
[/quote]

and your side was the one claiming TOP had a massive advantage when it came to WC's.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Soon, only the original agressors will be left[/quote]
Yep, we're being really hardcore on Polar.

Seriously though, Ivan's point is still true. The amount of reps you can extort* from TOP/IRON at the end of this has already reached its limit, and it's way less than you've lost already. It doesn't matter how long you keep holding them down and punching them, you aren't going to get more money – and they still pack a punch too, even if you do have them outnumbered and pinned down.

[quote]the talks of how CnG would have been fresh and yada yada yada, mean very little in modern Bobian wars due mainly to the fact that most have huge WCs now (especially in TOP) and thus, the same edge they keep proclaiming now, would have served them just as well as if they had gone in without a preemptive strike[/quote]
Incorrect. Once you're deployed for more than a day, you have your fighting nations in nuclear anarchy, and your opponent can pick the deployment on that front when they enter. Considering the defensive nature of the treaty web and the serious political problems associated with opening a new front on a militarily unengaged alliance, a pre-emptive strike is not going to be a good choice. But from a purely military point of view, it has merits.

*: Not all rep demands are extortion, but I will be pleasantly surprised if what C&G demands in this case is not.

[magicninja]

I'm of the opinion that you really can't extort someone who has attacked you for no reason.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 05:14 AM' timestamp='1266902058' post='2198573']
essentially, TOP/IRON doomed themselves and those who fought alongside them on their dislike of CnG and their paranoia over how much of a threat CnG actually was. they had a far better chance of negating whatever threat CnG could have been in the future by entering using IRON's treaty with NSO than the chance they have now.
[/quote]

The major flaw in your statement is that CnG would not have entered the war regardless of anything anyone has said. CnG has been split apart since the very first war which initiated the current one we have. TOP/IRON knew this which is why they claimed to have entered in on a pre-emptive strike. They thought they could gain enough supporters and manage to roll them once and for all, but we all have seen how that turned out. So going after CnG while split apart from their other allies was probably the best choice, but they could have always waited another 4-5 months also. (Although a lot of people would love to hit NSO no one will do it while they are allied to Frostbite, especially not when they hold a treaty to alliances within Frostbite)

[Bob Janova]

Tick, you should read LM's post about TOP's reasons. I think he knows a wee bit more about it than you do

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Tick1' date='23 February 2010 - 11:11 AM' timestamp='1266941500' post='2199078']
The major flaw in your statement is that CnG would not have entered the war regardless of anything anyone has said. CnG has been split apart since the very first war which initiated the current one we have. TOP/IRON knew this which is why they claimed to have entered in on a pre-emptive strike. They thought they could gain enough supporters and manage to roll them once and for all, but we all have seen how that turned out. So going after CnG while split apart from their other allies was probably the best choice, but they could have always waited another 4-5 months also. (Although a lot of people would love to hit NSO no one will do it while they are allied to Frostbite, especially not when they hold a treaty to alliances within Frostbite)
[/quote]
This doesn't make sense to me. Most people acknowledge that if IRON had declared on Fark that the escalation that followed would have led to CnG entering the war at a later stage. I didn't know that was even in question. The error occurred in skipping a step (or two or three) unnecessarily to reach the same end in some respects.

As far as the rest of whatever you are trying to articulate goes, PC and others had plenty of opportunity to attack NSO. On several occasions I offered to fight without the benefit of our allies and alliances were too cowardly to take us up on it and declare. I am certain now that we have lost 65% of our total NS (so far) that you and those like you will finally have the courage to declare on us, or maybe not. I fully expect the cowards of six months ago to come out of their holes once this is over, whether they prove to be blowhards or opportunists remains to be seen. Good show.

[raasaa]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 February 2010 - 02:22 PM' timestamp='1266866563' post='2197638']
Well LM has put the thinking behind the declaration out in the open now so hopefully that will curtail the things like 'TOP made it clear that their feelings of us being a threat was not related to the ongoing conflict'.
[/quote]
I believe LM and i believe that his reasons for organizing the preemptive strike were strategic in nature. What i don't believe is the fact that the leaders of the involved alliances, namely IRON, TOP and DAWN, accepted to follow the plan, only out of strategic interest...even after their allies advised them not to. That, IMO, implies there was some sentiment / feeling / hatred which clouded their better judgment.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='23 February 2010 - 12:38 AM' timestamp='1266903516' post='2198610']
It is unrealistic to believe that any amount of reparations will sufficiently cover even the costs of this war to date, much less so as it continues to progress. [/quote]
I don't think repartitions of any kind will help in rebuilding. They will rather be used as a tool to ensure that the losing alliance does not rebuild quickly and pose a threat in the near future

Edited February 23, 2010 by raasaa

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' date='23 February 2010 - 06:08 AM' timestamp='1266923336' post='2198877']
, yep.

Also TOP's heptagon was always a bit of a joke as they didn't really seem like they knew much more than the general membership did. TOP really isn't a true democracy in my opinion, more of an aristocracy. The lack of Heptagon information/power really showed TOP's government for what it is.
[/quote]
As an ally of TOP for two years, I safely will tell you their heptagon listens to their members. If they didn't, "Top speed" wouldn't exist and half their members wouldn't reside in TOP, as many are independent and unwilling to be a mere number.

I mostly agree with Ivan's assertions pertaining to reps. I also have heard the argument "We fear they will attack us again in the future and we wish to avoid that," which to be honest, [i]sounds like the former hegemony[/i]. Now before anyone jumps on my case, I am not comparing the two indefinitely, just a mere observation on the terms of this ideology of being fearful of others and completely destroying them so they're unable to recover. Will CnG do this? Who knows, I hope not, but it really comes down to the certain mitigating circumstances MK, CnG, and allies alike will need to consider. Will they demand TOP and allies pay for everything, even when they are down to barely anything? Will white peace only be offered when TOP is around 2m NS? Ivan laid it down beautifully and sometime soon in the future is when we really will find out who is unreasonable and who is merciful; as mercifulness is what has lead us to where we are now.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='raasaa' date='23 February 2010 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1266948245' post='2199223']
I don't think repartitions of any kind will help in rebuilding. They will rather be used as a tool to ensure that the losing alliance does not rebuild quickly and pose a threat in the near future
[/quote]

Ever since Q, that is what reparations have been for quite sadly. It also slows down the cyclical nature of war/peace and generally allows for huge power blocs to build up, lots of animosity to build up, and then an explosion of hatred. I cannot tell you how much that dismays. That is the reason that I for one always push for white peace regardless of being an aggressor or a defender. I can guarantee that wars would happen a lot more often and for more legitimate reasons "I don't like you" DoW by IRON to this day was one of the best CB's in the game imo. Instead of trying to hide behind some BS Casus Belli they came right out and stated their intent and for what purpose. I'd there hasn't been a decent CB produced since the days of GWI. It is for that reasons that I believe war should be a fun thing (we all seem to like it regardless of what side you're on) and why reps are a modality of the past. Why as we progress, so should how we war. This in turn helps everyone out as there are no large poolings of warchests and newer nations are able to over-come the inherent flaw of time. The fact is ever since Q, if not before (probably closer towards GWII) reps have never and will never be in accordance to the damage incurred within a war. To do so would require you to truly extort someone and in some cases, demand money/tech that is more then an alliance even has (even if they are over-stating/inflating those numbers). Therefore the only true option in relation to reps (at least the one that makes sense in my mind) is white peace. I believe this to be the case regardless the side of aggressor or defender, victor or loser. I think the only exception to this would be OOC related attacks which are in my mind, completely irresponsible and have no place here.

Ivan: I don't exactly go around asking for credit for Karma. Post-Karma I took a leave of absence for quite some time outside the daily monotony of things. Even in Karma my intent was not to gain "credit" but merely to present a plan that I felt would win. People listened to it, and I became a defacto leader. In all my military incursions I realize that I am just but one person with a plan. If people choose to follow it, it is of course of their own volition. I truly believe that the true "geniuses" of the game, the truly skilled players, are those that use this medium here to wage their war. Players like you, Archon, Doitzel, Schatt, Stumpy (obligatory lol purple ) and other various people that have an eloquence with words that escapes me. I just crunch numbers and do analysis.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 07:01 AM' timestamp='1266930074' post='2198927']
Incorrect. Once you're deployed for more than a day, you have your fighting nations in nuclear anarchy, and your opponent can pick the deployment on that front when they enter. Considering the defensive nature of the treaty web and the serious political problems associated with opening a new front on a militarily unengaged alliance, a pre-emptive strike is not going to be a good choice. But from a purely military point of view, it has merits.

*: Not all rep demands are extortion, but I will be pleasantly surprised if what C&G demands in this case is not.
[/quote]

wow, the same holds true for CnG... so, once CnG declares on TOP/IRON/whomever else, then zomg TORN/DAWN/TSO/others can declare on CnG while many of them are in nuke anarchy and then it is CnG who is feeling the same as TOP/IRON did.

so again, i am correct. TOP/IRON had a much better chance entering via NSO than anything else. i do not see where you actually found me incorrect. especially since the part you quoted had missed the last sentence that stated that CnG would be in the same position as TOP/IRON soon after they DoWed. CnG would have been "fresh" essentially for a day before they themselves fell to nuke anarchies and the like which means they would be in the same situation as TOP/IRON and getting hit by new "fresh" alliances that are allied to TOP/IRON. which again, is what you quoted and failed to pick up on.

so if you are going to attempt to counter my arguments, then at least ensure that the post you are quoting does not already counter whatever point you are trying to make.

[Ejayrazz]

As LM stated, reparations in extensive amounts only further stagnates this world, which nearly all of us complain about. I have always been an active supporter of white peace merely because forcing unrealistic reparations is indirectly forcing an alliance to disband in some, or even most, cases. Though subjective, if they decide to choose not to disband and pay unrealistic amounts of cash and technology, that is indeed their choice, but with heavy burden. Too many people often use the choice as an argumentative stance and therefore believe because they "chose it," that is what they "truly wish," but in reality, it was a choice based off of limited, astringent choices. I can understand if some reparations are demanded in [i]some situations[/i], but what I do not agree with is when someone is utterly destroyed [i]and[/i] the party expects massive reparations; hard to pay when they themselves are barely able to stand.

Now, someone can stir this view with unimportant "what ifs," which exist in "every situation," but ultimately we need this world to continue spinning. Somewhere along the lines someone needs to completely and utterly destroy the cycle, some may say it occurred in Karma, but did it really? Time will tell.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='raasaa' date='23 February 2010 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1266948245' post='2199223']
I believe LM and i believe that his reasons for organizing the preemptive strike were strategic in nature. What i don't believe is the fact that the leaders of the involved alliances, namely IRON, TOP and DAWN, accepted to follow the plan, only out of strategic interest...even after their allies advised them not to. That, IMO, implies there was some sentiment / feeling / hatred which clouded their better judgment.
[/quote]

this. LM believes his reason for war. Crymson believed/s his reason for war. TOP believes Crymson's reason for war otherwise it would have been LM's reason that got put up, not Crymson's.

so just because LM gave an eloquent speech about [i]his[/i] reasoning for coming up with the plan, does not mean it was approved with the same reasoning. it was approved because much of TOP's reasoning for the war was to hurt CnG and a small part was to help Polaris. nothing else in terms of reasoning matter. individual reasoning do not matter.

i am fighting or have fought VA, TORN, and DAWN nations because my alliance is and to help my alliance. Does that mean that my reasoning for fighting is why my alliance is at war? not really. if my alliance was only concerned about itself as i am only concerned about her in this war, then IAA would not have joined the war. My alliance fights as a whole for one reason, i personally fight for another.

personal reasons=/=alliance reasons. so i believe LM has his own personal reason, i do not believe that is the reason why TOP is fighting. the reason why TOP is fighting is outlined in the DoW thread that Crymson posted and TOP approved of.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 12:25 PM' timestamp='1266949517' post='2199241']
wow, the same holds true for CnG... so, once CnG declares on TOP/IRON/whomever else, then zomg TORN/DAWN/TSO/others can declare on CnG while many of them are in nuke anarchy and then it is CnG who is feeling the same as TOP/IRON did.

so again, i am correct. TOP/IRON had a much better chance entering via NSO than anything else. i do not see where you actually found me incorrect. especially since the part you quoted had missed the last sentence that stated that CnG would be in the same position as TOP/IRON soon after they DoWed. CnG would have been "fresh" essentially for a day before they themselves fell to nuke anarchies and the like which means they would be in the same situation as TOP/IRON and getting hit by new "fresh" alliances that are allied to TOP/IRON. which again, is what you quoted and failed to pick up on.

so if you are going to attempt to counter my arguments, then at least ensure that the post you are quoting does not already counter whatever point you are trying to make.
[/quote]

To be fair Doch, the treaty web doesn't proliferate as much from IRON/TORN etc. as it does from SF/CnG. SF in full + proliferary alliances in their sphere of influence would be able to tie up all those that went against CnG in nuclear anarchy, allowing CnG to come over the top. I disagree with you still that TOP/IRON had a much better chance entering via NSO. TOP/IRON had a much better chance had polaris not played flippity flop with their cajones. While I do agree it would be interesting to see it play out all three ways (current way, current way with polaris staying on this side, and then going in via NSO/IRON) it is something we are unlikely to ever see. And sadly we don't get to see wars of this magnitude often to test theories out on pre-emp and political fall out, thus making me reitterate my above point on speeding up the war/peace cycle by global peace after every war. I'm a warmongerer at heart but I appreciate peace, for it's ability to allow me to rebuild and war all over again. I do not see this speeding things up anywhere close to the pace of TE mind you as there are still modicums of "rules" and "guidelines" by which alliances abide by.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='23 February 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1266949976' post='2199249']
As LM stated, reparations in extensive amounts only further stagnates this world, which nearly all of us complain about. I have always been an active supporter of white peace merely because forcing unrealistic reparations is indirectly forcing an alliance to disband in some, or even most, cases. Though subjective, if they decide to choose not to disband and pay unrealistic amounts of cash and technology, that is indeed their choice, but with heavy burden. Too many people often use the choice as an argumentative stance and therefore believe because they "chose it," that is what they "truly wish," but in reality, it was a choice based off of limited, astringent choices. I can understand if some reparations are demanded in [i]some situations[/i], but what I do not agree with is when someone is utterly destroyed [i]and[/i] the party expects massive reparations; hard to pay when they themselves are barely able to stand.

Now, someone can stir this view with unimportant "what ifs," which exist in "every situation," but ultimately we need this world to continue spinning. Somewhere along the lines someone needs to completely and utterly destroy the cycle, some may say it occurred in Karma, but did it really? Time will tell.
[/quote]

man where were all you people when TOP was forcing reps from Polaris? i mean all this talk about excessive reps and it being like forcing an alliance to disband and yada yada yada, is all well and good, except that TOP has done that thing in the past. hell TOP forced reps from Polaris after aggressively attacking Polaris for the same reason they just recently attacked CnG, some notion of a threat. TOP watched/helped plan BLEU being preemptively struck (tbh, can't remember how many had to pay reps). if unrealistic reps are akin to disbandment, then how come TOP has never once attempted to pay Polaris back for trying to disband Polaris then? nor any of the other alliances who took reps from Polaris at the same time? if that is the case, then Gremlins has tried to disband an alliance by your statement.

so, just like in Karma- TOP should pay for their current and past crimes in some way shape or form. it is obvious that they have a trend of hitting alliance due to security issues, which many of you are claiming is an NPO-like quality in CnG (because CnG is not ending the war because of their own security issues with TOP). so TOP is even more NPO like since they actually conduct aggressive wars due to "threats to their security". (2 at least that they have led.)

[Italgria]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 06:40 PM' timestamp='1266950411' post='2199265']
man where were all you people when TOP was forcing reps from Polaris? i mean all this talk about excessive reps and it being like forcing an alliance to disband and yada yada yada, is all well and good, except that TOP has done that thing in the past. hell TOP forced reps from Polaris after aggressively attacking Polaris for the same reason they just recently attacked CnG, some notion of a threat. TOP watched/helped plan BLEU being preemptively struck (tbh, can't remember how many had to pay reps). if unrealistic reps are akin to disbandment, then how come TOP has never once attempted to pay Polaris back for trying to disband Polaris then? nor any of the other alliances who took reps from Polaris at the same time? if that is the case, then Gremlins has tried to disband an alliance by your statement.

so, just like in Karma- TOP should pay for their current and past crimes in some way shape or form. it is obvious that they have a trend of hitting alliance due to security issues, which many of you are claiming is an NPO-like quality in CnG (because CnG is not ending the war because of their own security issues with TOP). so TOP is even more NPO like since they actually conduct aggressive wars due to "threats to their security". (2 at least that they have led.)
[/quote]

Uhm when you use TOP forcing Polaris to reps can I please remind you when Polaris forced \m/ to disband because the reps would have made an eternal tech farm out of \m/ ?

I would call the Polaris reps Karma

Well I just wanted to add that to your post and to the rest I am not going to comment.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='23 February 2010 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1266950168' post='2199255']
To be fair Doch, the treaty web doesn't proliferate as much from IRON/TORN etc. as it does from SF/CnG. SF in full + proliferary alliances in their sphere of influence would be able to tie up all those that went against CnG in nuclear anarchy, allowing CnG to come over the top. I disagree with you still that TOP/IRON had a much better chance entering via NSO. TOP/IRON had a much better chance had polaris not played flippity flop with their cajones. While I do agree it would be interesting to see it play out all three ways (current way, current way with polaris staying on this side, and then going in via NSO/IRON) it is something we are unlikely to ever see. And sadly we don't get to see wars of this magnitude often to test theories out on pre-emp and political fall out, thus making me reitterate my above point on speeding up the war/peace cycle by global peace after every war. I'm a warmongerer at heart but I appreciate peace, for it's ability to allow me to rebuild and war all over again. I do not see this speeding things up anywhere close to the pace of TE mind you as there are still modicums of "rules" and "guidelines" by which alliances abide by.
[/quote]

you do realize that many of the alliances that proliferate from CnG/SF were already engaged on your side of the war don't you? Polaris was one of the main alliances tied to both CnG/SF that dragged many of those proliferations away from CnG/SF's side. so TOP/IRON had the best chance by entering via NSO since many alliances tied into CnG/SF were already fighting on either side. in fact, iirc there were many more alliances on Polaris's side waiting to go in that had yet to go in.

you screwed that up by preemptively striking. that big shiny Peace between \m/ and Polaris was always on the table. that is the biggest thing you missed. you should have taken that into account since \m/ is tied to RoK and thus SF, it would have been easy for CnG/SF to push \m/ to finally take peace in order to clear up a massive amount of alliances formerly tied up on [i]your[/i] side of the war. had you entered via NSO, those alliances would never have left and you would have been in a far better situation. but instead you want to blame Polaris for accepting a peace that had [b]always[/b] been on the table and you [b]failed[/b] to take into account. so there is only 2 ways this would have played out. the first is the current way. the second is you doing the smart thing and entering via NSO/IRON.

since Peace was ALWAYS on the table, ready to be accepted by Polaris, that should have been the first and foremost in your mind. not the, "zomg Polaris condones a preemptive strike!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yippie lets go kill us some CnG [insert slathering of the mouth]" (yes, being somewhat sarcastic with the slathering bit). so, there was never a chance that Polaris was going to stay on your side. just never. and seriously, for as smart as many of ya'll in TOP are, the fact that you missed the huge neon !@#$@#$ sign that was the peace offer by Polaris to \m/ is just sad and shows just how focused you were on hitting CnG over anything else. that more than anything just proves to me that what is posted in the DoW as "much of [y]our reason" is utterly true.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 01:40 PM' timestamp='1266950411' post='2199265']
man where were all you people when TOP was forcing reps from Polaris? i mean all this talk about excessive reps and it being like forcing an alliance to disband and yada yada yada, is all well and good, except that TOP has done that thing in the past. hell TOP forced reps from Polaris after aggressively attacking Polaris for the same reason they just recently attacked CnG, some notion of a threat. TOP watched/helped plan BLEU being preemptively struck (tbh, can't remember how many had to pay reps). if unrealistic reps are akin to disbandment, then how come TOP has never once attempted to pay Polaris back for trying to disband Polaris then? nor any of the other alliances who took reps from Polaris at the same time? if that is the case, then Gremlins has tried to disband an alliance by your statement.

so, just like in Karma- TOP should pay for their current and past crimes in some way shape or form. it is obvious that they have a trend of hitting alliance due to security issues, which many of you are claiming is an NPO-like quality in CnG (because CnG is not ending the war because of their own security issues with TOP). so TOP is even more NPO like since they actually conduct aggressive wars due to "threats to their security". (2 at least that they have led.)
[/quote]

The past is the past Doch, we all did things which were 'socially acceptable' in those days. Whether it be GOD and their sanctioning of someone [i]they tech raided[/i] or whether it be EZI/PZI, etc, we as a diverse world evolve over time. There are some very respectable alliances who would look like ravaging mongrels if we compared their former decisions with modern-day social norms, which, is never acceptable. How come you are not referencing TOPs' last war when they offered white peace? Or when Gremlins told TOP to attack the alliance for their member 'supposedly spying on them" and TOP refused to punish an entire alliance with no evidence and because of one idiot? If we're going to analyze the past, lets do it fairly, and also consider the social differences from then and now.

I understand many are biased and refuse to listen to rhetoric merely because of their own speculations, which is certainly understandable, but I recall TOP also moving away from NPO because of their actions which only grew worse. TOP, on the other hand, has not. What happens when TOP resurrects? When 'their side' becomes big again and pummels CnG? Are harsh reps going to be asked for? When will someone finally be the bigger person and finally say "We really need to end this cycle?"

Edited February 23, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Italgria' date='23 February 2010 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1266950756' post='2199273']
Uhm when you use TOP forcing Polaris to reps can I please remind you when Polaris forced \m/ to disband because the reps would have made an eternal tech farm out of \m/ ?

I would call the Polaris reps Karma

Well I just wanted to add that to your post and to the rest I am not going to comment.
[/quote]

i stand by the fact that no one can force an alliance to disband. it has been proven by many alliances (2 of which \m/ though beneath them ie GATO/Legion). \m/ could have waited and fought on (if their strategy for the war wasn't even more stupid than the strat TOP/IRON just pulled) and attempted to get better terms but the leadership decided to disband instead of even trying.

so blame \m/ leadership at the time for \m/'s disbandment as it was their decision and theirs alone.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1266950411' post='2199265']
man where were all you people when TOP was forcing reps from Polaris? i mean all this talk about excessive reps and it being like forcing an alliance to disband and yada yada yada, is all well and good, except that TOP has done that thing in the past. hell TOP forced reps from Polaris after aggressively attacking Polaris for the same reason they just recently attacked CnG, some notion of a threat. TOP watched/helped plan BLEU being preemptively struck (tbh, can't remember how many had to pay reps). if unrealistic reps are akin to disbandment, then how come TOP has never once attempted to pay Polaris back for trying to disband Polaris then? nor any of the other alliances who took reps from Polaris at the same time? if that is the case, then Gremlins has tried to disband an alliance by your statement.

so, just like in Karma- TOP should pay for their current and past crimes in some way shape or form. it is obvious that they have a trend of hitting alliance due to security issues, which many of you are claiming is an NPO-like quality in CnG (because CnG is not ending the war because of their own security issues with TOP). so TOP is even more NPO like since they actually conduct aggressive wars due to "threats to their security". (2 at least that they have led.)
[/quote]

I was in Gremlins. I was a proponent of paying for our reps at the very least and still pushed for a white peace there, however many felt as though giving white peace at the time would be a slap in the face to our fellow coalition members so paid for the reps, and eventually came up with the Codex as a result of it which in turn required Gremlins to discuss a post-war scenario at the onset of any war/coalition. I do not consider reps an attempt to disband an alliance, they are two distinctly different things, both horrid in their own way.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='23 February 2010 - 12:48 PM' timestamp='1266950924' post='2199281']
The past is the past Doch, we all did things which were 'socially acceptable' in those days. Whether it be GOD and their sanctioning of someone [i]they tech raided[/i] or whether it be EZI/PZI, etc, we as a diverse world evolve over time. There are some very respectable alliances who would look like ravaging mongrels if we compared their former decisions with modern-day social norms, which, is never acceptable. How come you are not referencing TOPs' last war when they offered white peace? Or when Gremlins told TOP to attack the alliance for their member 'supposedly spying on them" and TOP refused to punish an entire alliance with no evidence and because of one idiot? If we're going to analyze the past, lets do it fairly, and also consider the social differences from then and now.

I understand many are biased and refuse to listen to rhetoric merely because of their own speculations, which is certainly understandable, but I recall TOP also moving away from NPO because of their actions which only grew worse. TOP, on the other hand, has not. What happens when TOP resurrects? When 'their side' becomes big again and pummels CnG? Are harsh reps going to be asked for? When will someone finally be the bigger person and finally say "We really need to end this cycle?"
[/quote]

so wait, it was "socially acceptable" then and not now? talk about !@#$%^&* and redefining !@#$. just because TOP and co found it acceptable does not mean that the rest of us did. so essentially, surrender terms are easily redefinable now? i thought people defending TOP/IRON (on the boards) did not want that to occur, because that means that draconian [i]is[/i] a redefinable term and can then have its definition changed to meet whatever needed.

so no, there is no !@#$@#$ "socially acceptable" anything. it is either something set in stone, or don't even attempt to bring it up. if what TOP and co pulled on Polaris, does not mean exactly what you stated for CnG, then it does not mean that for CnG either. there is no stupid bs definition switching. it either means the same thing or it does not mean what you posted at all.

you are better than that Ejay.

as for TOP moving away from NPO, somehwat. but it is just as easy to state they are NPO-like given people trying to associate CnG (many of whom have never been associated in any way but enemy format to NPO) as being NPO-like, they are just plain blind to what TOP has done in the past and just did currently.

so you are stating that many of us are biased and refuse to listen to anything. look at yourself Ejay. look at what you just posted here and tell me you are in no way biased and refusing to listen to anything. i know and like TOP personally. hell i am probably one of the few outside TOP that genuinely likes and gets along wit Saber (just like i did with Reyne while she was in OG). but i can attempt to view their actions objectively but will admit i am biased due to my associations with CnG.

you and this whole redefining your own terms to fit whatever bias you want, is just well... not like you.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1266950903' post='2199280']
you do realize that many of the alliances that proliferate from CnG/SF were already engaged on your side of the war don't you? Polaris was one of the main alliances tied to both CnG/SF that dragged many of those proliferations away from CnG/SF's side. so TOP/IRON had the best chance by entering via NSO since many alliances tied into CnG/SF were already fighting on either side. in fact, iirc there were many more alliances on Polaris's side waiting to go in that had yet to go in.

you screwed that up by preemptively striking. that big shiny Peace between \m/ and Polaris was always on the table. that is the biggest thing you missed. you should have taken that into account since \m/ is tied to RoK and thus SF, it would have been easy for CnG/SF to push \m/ to finally take peace in order to clear up a massive amount of alliances formerly tied up on [i]your[/i] side of the war. had you entered via NSO, those alliances would never have left and you would have been in a far better situation. but instead you want to blame Polaris for accepting a peace that had [b]always[/b] been on the table and you [b]failed[/b] to take into account. so there is only 2 ways this would have played out. the first is the current way. the second is you doing the smart thing and entering via NSO/IRON.

since Peace was ALWAYS on the table, ready to be accepted by Polaris, that should have been the first and foremost in your mind. not the, "zomg Polaris condones a preemptive strike!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yippie lets go kill us some CnG [insert slathering of the mouth]" (yes, being somewhat sarcastic with the slathering bit). so, there was never a chance that Polaris was going to stay on your side. just never. and seriously, for as smart as many of ya'll in TOP are, the fact that you missed the huge neon !@#$@#$ sign that was the peace offer by Polaris to \m/ is just sad and shows just how focused you were on hitting CnG over anything else. that more than anything just proves to me that what is posted in the DoW as "much of [y]our reason" is utterly true.
[/quote]

Liquid Mercury, myself, and various others all discussed this scenario ad naeuseam. The fact of the matter was that Fark was prepared to enter in on IRON, and it was expected that MHA/Gramlins might very well follow them in, thereby bogging down IRON and allowing C&G to run rampant without a counter and come over the top. Our reasoning was rationale and well thought out, the \m/ peace was not taken into account, indeed nobody thought of it, not even Moridin or other Polar representatives, the assumption was that since the front had escalated that that peace was no longer a viable option.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='23 February 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1266951123' post='2199291']
I was in Gremlins. I was a proponent of paying for our reps at the very least and still pushed for a white peace there, however many felt as though giving white peace at the time would be a slap in the face to our fellow coalition members so paid for the reps, and eventually came up with the Codex as a result of it which in turn required Gremlins to discuss a post-war scenario at the onset of any war/coalition. I do not consider reps an attempt to disband an alliance, they are two distinctly different things, both horrid in their own way.
[/quote]

i agree. if you read Ejay's post, he is the one who relates reps with disbandment not me. so do not pin that on me but go after Ejay for posting it in the first place. though i do admit, him attempting to change his own definition when i pin in back on TOP/Gre is quite amusing but sad at the same time.

[Italgria]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1266951049' post='2199286']
i stand by the fact that no one can force an alliance to disband. it has been proven by many alliances (2 of which \m/ though beneath them ie GATO/Legion). \m/ could have waited and fought on (if their strategy for the war wasn't even more stupid than the strat TOP/IRON just pulled) and attempted to get better terms but the leadership decided to disband instead of even trying.

so blame \m/ leadership at the time for \m/'s disbandment as it was their decision and theirs alone.
[/quote]

I actually was at \m/ during that time and there was no way to evade the reps that NpO forced on \m/ at that time other than to disband.

Kinda funny that I always end up in the alliances that go harakiri