Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='27 February 2010 - 11:27 AM' timestamp='1267291861' post='2206681']
It was a general statement which really had no bearing, though accurate. Though I will admit you are right, likewise with my assertion. If we have a cycle of hatred continuously going, people will always wish for *their* vengeance. Normally this isn't the issue, it is how they go about getting their vengeance. "They made me do this 4 years ago, and even though they changed, imma make them do the same even though they have evolved from their former selves!" You are not considered in this category in the sense of your theoretical talks, but others are; and that is where it becomes a problem. If I attacked POlaris for supporting NPO in WuT over 3 years ago, would I be justified? In all seriousness? POlaris has changed their views and rationalizing decision making, which I feel it would be unjustified to attack someone dwelling on the past, but if we change this to the context at hand which this discussion was initially about reps, I feel it is unjustified to give unreasonable reps for actions done 2+ years ago for alliances such as Polaris, TOP, etc.

Did you not read your direct quote in you saying they essentially are what a bully is? I already referenced the quote earlier, which I have no idea how you could even begin arguing. Perhaps you didn't mean to say it or it came off as something other than what you intended, but you did state and actively compare the two, being "essentially the same."

It seems you are somewhat shifting positions. Initially when I said TOP shouldn't receive harsh terms, you commented with this:
[i]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.[/i]
You actively disagreed with my notions and here we are, but now state you are not in favor of harsh terms? I would assume you're more so for saying, as you said, "it is their right [CnG] to impose what they wish." So was it for GGA. So was it NPOs' right to do what they wished. So was it for GOONS to act brutal to people in diplomatic discussions. Just because they can shouldn't mean they should. We are arguing over harsh reps, not military action, which has lead us to this point. In terms of comparing you to the hegemony, that was more so as an example rather than a factual suggestion. YOu have gone up in arms about how they have mlitariyl attacked Polaris and now CnG, I get that, but it doesn't make them rough mousers. It doesn't making them immoral. It is THEIR military strategy and although they deserve a beating, they don't deserve a death if you know what I mean. As I said, militarily we're somewhat on the same page, it's the reps in which LM and I were discussing which you actively disagreed with in terms of what TO has *DONE* in the past and how they coordinated rep agreements.

This is better explained, and I can understand this statement with this clear wording. It should be noted most alliances do not change in a snap of a finger, but I agree. Diplomacy should have been used. But, with this brings up what I said earlier: Though WE don't agree with what occurred in Polaris (iirc), it also happened eight months ago. Militarily, they have the right, as you speak of, to attack anyone they wish if they feel the alliance is a threat, but I feel no one *SHOULD* impose harsh reps. An alliance should consider two things:
1. If they ask for reps, consider their position and capabilities, as well as their NS.
2. If you wish no reps, beat them down to rubbles and ask for no reps.

By doing number 2 AND asking for reps is what I find unreasonable, as it would be nearly impossible. As Airme stated, he doubts CnG will do this, and honestly, I hope he is right.[/quote]

Paragraph 1- i agree that those who hold grudges are stupid. i have advocated learning from the past, not holding a grudge or at least tried to.

Paragraph 2- no, i know the quote. it was again based off of your analogy and nothing more. i did not equate TOP to being a bully until after you brought out the analogy so i used your analogy against you.

Paragraph 3- tell me in there where my position shifted? i went from "why didn't YOU say this when TOP was giving Polaris harsh terms" to saying "i don't like harsh terms". nowhere in there did i ever advocate that TOP should get harsh terms. i did not disagree with you but in fact wondered why it took you so long to come up with it. at the same time, it is CnG's right to impose what they will. just as it is TOP's right to reject the terms and my right to think any alliance who imposes harsh terms are complete jackasses who should be rolled next. but i am not sure where in there my opinion shifted at all. it may be a bit confusing since i don't like harsh terms but still feel sovereignty is important.

Paragraph 4- i agree with this paragraph.

[quote]As I stated, TOP stated from the gecko they were after white peace and most of those on their side were advocating it as well. You stated earlier you didn't remember LM's logs, which Lord Fingolfin submitted. (Reference: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2200544) It did count, because if TOP was against said terms they would have stated it. Your name doesn't need to be embolden on paper to mean you represent something. That war was suppose to blow up mind you, and here they are stating from the beginning they were after white peace. It shows a shift in terms of reparation acceptance.

As I said, signing paper means nothing in terms of how an alliance stands. Yes, they joined Karma war, but also stated they were up for white peace to us Gremlins the first day the conflict broke out. There is no set amount in terms what makes an alliance change their opinion, especially with political stagnation and infrequent war rampaging. However, using your number, which I find is silly as there should never be a mandatory amount since wars do not happen as frequently, there are 3 times. 1 was karma, whether you agreed or not, they gave white peace. 2 was blue balls, which has been proven numerous times (Even CnG acknowledges it) and 3, this war, as TOP stated no harsh terms would be given from the start, but since they are taking a spanking, it doesn't matter since they wont be the one giving the terms. Mind you, this was stated when they thought they actually would win.

As I stated, set fixes are a little obnoxious. If alliance A gave harsh terms their first war which occurred in January, gave white peace in February, gave white peace in July, but another war didn't occur for another 8 months and were attacked, I feel your mandatory fixed amount would, without a doubt, not represent this alliance's new reparation representation, particularly because technically, since you like using technicalities often, TOP has represented your number. YOu also state TOP didn't give Polaris a chance after ES, but what about your number here? That is why mandatory sentencing has always been looked down up.

Let me span on this subject. You are an intelligent person, I have realized that ever since you were a brother in Gremlins, and though you do admit when you're wrong, some times you try using technical nonsense, i.e because TOP didn't sign anything doesn't mean they were for white peace, EVEN though their are logs of them supporting it before all others? How in your right mind is that logical, Doch? Because it isn't. You also stated TOP was essentially a bully where I REFERENCED the quote and you still deny it? Honestly, you mine as well say it came out wrong or you didn't mean to convey it as such, but to outright deny written words is mind bottling. Other than that, I agree, you do seem to admit when you're wrong or when you at least made a mistake, which I also do.[/quote]

P1- ahhh, now i remember the logs. thanks for the link. i am willing to give TOP half a point for the BBW instead of a full point. in all honesty, it is easier on TOP for another alliance to take a beating and then accept white peace (especially in the case of TPF since they were DoWed on). if TOP was in that position would they have wanted white peace or demanded reps? we will never know since it was not TOP in that position.

P2- okay, so their reps position has changed. that does not matter to me, since it was you who started this topic in regards to me discussing their military/political actions. (i.e. starting wars and reasons for starting wars). so you bested me in an area that i have conceded much on since it had nothing to do with my original argument.

P3- actually, in this case, i would see the alliance moving along with only 1 harsh terms vs 2 white peace. as for mandatory fixes- length of time matters little really. if TOP imposed harsh terms in global war A, then 8 months later harsh terms in global war B, then 4 months later lenient terms in minor war A, then 5 months after that harsh terms in global war C, then 6 months after that harsh terms in global war D, then 7 months after that white peace in global war D, then 8 months asks another alliance to impose white peace in minor war B, then 4 months states they would have given lenient terms in global war E but are on the losing end from almost the beginning. (this is not supposed to represent Bobian history as i do not wish to look that deeply, it is simply an example since i have already conceded this to Ejay pretty much) so from the looks, it looks like they are moving on the right path but 2 of those wars are iffy since one deals not with them but their ally (minor war B) and in Global War E, who knows since they started losing from almost the beginning of the war.

P4- yes, i do admit to being technical. for example, the bully quote. again, i would not have stated any such thing if you had not brought in the bully analogy. since you had, i used said analogy against you. it does not mean that i actually feel that TOP is a bully, it just means that i can adapt your arguments against you as a good debater can do. as for the BBW white peace thing, TOP was for white peace when it came to another alliance taking it. frankly, any alliance could be fore white peace when it is not their alliance that has to take it. but as i stated before, i will give you a half point for that (out of 1 point) due to them being for white peace. if it had been their alliance instead of TPF that took it, then they would have gotten a full point.

[quote]Why state it unless you're refuting a point? Because not only I, but several others who also commented you (at least LM) took at similar to as I. I stated no to harsh reps, you said "WHAT? DONT YOU REMEMBER WHAT THEY DID 8 MONTHS AGO?" Paraphrase, of course.

No, I said harsh reps can LEAD to disbandment (in most cases) or LEAD to political stagnation, not many carefully plan a number purposely hoping the other side disbands, but as I said, harsh reps are subject; [i]which I stated in my second post after LM's assertions.[/i] It depends on the situation, which I laid out beforehand in this very statement.

We got this here where you stated TOP shouldn't pay for their past, you only plan on mentioning it, but here is another where you're stating they should:

"so, just like in Karma- TOP should pay for their current and past crimes in some way shape or form." (Reference: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2199265)

To the point, another is when I bring up the terms of ending the cycle in which plagues this Bob. When I suggest CnG should end the cycle and set an example, you state:
" i simply stated what i said because TOP has done some rather unsavory things in the past and you are stating that CnG could do something akin to disbanding them (forcing them to pay unreasonable reps). you also stated "Somewhere along the lines someone needs to completely and utterly destroy the cycle". why could it not have been the SPW this was done? why should it occur now [meaning, the avoidance of harsh terms]? just because you like TOP?," which you refuted. So Yes, it is logical for myself and others to believe you refuted unreasonable terms.

Problem is, why would CnG, who was not affected by TOPs' past, make them 'pay for it'? They were no where near being affected by the Polaris incident 8 months ago.[/quote]

P1- everything i post does not have to refute something. i posted that because when TOP was handing out harsh terms you personally never spoke out that i could remember, at least publicly (possibly you did so privately). thus, my question of where you (personally) were at when TOP was handing down harsh terms to Polaris. that was not to state that TOP deserved harsh reps or to refute anything, but simply a question of why you feel that it is all of a sudden important that alliances don't hand down harsh reps. it seems this only came about due to who the alliance involved is and not because you actually care about harsh reps in and of themselves.

P2- "forcing unrealistic reparations [b]is[/b] indirectly forcing an alliance to disband in some, or even most, cases" (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2199249) sorry, the is in there mislead me since i usually equate is in the way of simile or direct comparisons. but this is also false. only a few alliances have ever disbanded due to a war, and out of those only a handful of them could in any way lead to harsh reps. while i have never and will never be a fan of outside forces being capable of disbanding an alliance (to me, only internal forces could ever disband an alliance as it is the choices that the leadership/members take that actually disband the alliance and we have seen many alliances live through harsh terms and a few alliances live through eternal war or viceroys or indefinite terms and what not), if you wish to use that, then at least don't use "most cases" because only a handful have ever disbanded due to harsh reps.

P3/4- "so, just like in Karma- TOP should pay for their current and past crimes in some way shape or form." again, please point out where that states anything about harsh reps? and as for past crimes- again, i bring up Polaris because they have used the same military tactic/political reasoning in the CnG war that they used in the Polaris war. thus, any talk of the CnG war being some kind of anomaly is false since it is in their past that they have done this. hence, because TOP has proven they are more than willing to aggressively attack alliances (particularly when a global war is underway) for personal reasons and thinking that they will easily win and take out political enemies, they should pay for it to actually ensure that this line of thought changes.

P5/6- for one, Polaris was fighting alongside MK and GR for Hyperion. thus when TOP/Co hit for personal reasons (going so far as to state this the TOP-Polar war was separate from the global war going on) i would say it had a major affect on MK and CnG as they lost Polaris/BLEU in that fight. It also drew CnG much closer to former BLEU alliances (including GR joining CnG after this war). as for anything else, TOP has used this tactic in the past, this is why it is important to CnG because it is not the [b]first[/b] time TOP has done this to an alliance. that is important to any alliance because this gives CnG proof that TOP may damn well hit CnG in the future using the same tactic should CnG ever find themselves once again in a weaker position than TOP. you keep thinking that the crime i am referring to is Polaris when in fact it is simply the crime of aggressively attacking an alliance for the reason of "threat to their security" when the defending alliance is in a weaker position than TOP. it could have been NPO for all i care and would still work for what i am talking about.


[quote]Look at what you quoted. As I stated in term three; "3. I state you shouldn't judge someone's past in terms of reparations because as the community, as a whole, for the most part, has evolved. I also state this isn't Polaris forcing terms, but rather CnG, who were not directly linked to Polaris and thus even their 'past' has no bearing with CnG."

Like you said, Polaris isn't forcing terms - as I stated. CnG is NOT related to TOPs history whatsoever. Yes, they have been attacked, yes they did this before, but when TOP attacked Polaris, CnG was [b]NOT[/b] affected by it too my knowledge, so for them to 'want vengeance' is politically redundant and most CnG leaders will tell you the same. They want vengeance for THESE actions, not actions done in the past which had no bearing on them.

Furthermore, you did it again. You keep blending the military vs reparation amounts. I bring up TOPs' history in temrs of reps, you bring their military action. Yes, militarily one could easily stated TOP hasn't changed, but in terms of reps? Which is the entire point of this argument? One can EASILY provide reasoning as to why TOP has changed within the past few months in terms of reps amount, which has been provided numerous times in which you don't accept because "They didn't sign it on paper," which is ridiculous. Keep this subject on reps, as I stated in the terms which you quoted and disputed while trying to avoid the military aspect.

Your first sentence means little as you later, in your own response, state you misread. In terms of TOP-Polaris, I was against their actions and even agreed with your assertions in this response, which hopefully you'll acknowledge.
[i]Let me break this down.
-I stated the environment has changed and developed over time:

"Now, should we try forcing Polaris to pay terrible reps because of the hideous crimes they have supported or done so themselves in the past? Whether you agree or not, essentially you are supporting the demise in Polaris if we are to always judge on the past and actions which we have done in the past. EZI is a social taboo, but it wasn't in the older days; so should I kill them for it? No. Wouldn't I just be adding to the cycle of hatred and unethical profoundness?....Should we consider GOD a terrible alliance for sanctioning someone they tech raided? No, not at all, because it was acceptable then and no longer is now. Anyone can look in the past and laugh as silly actions or ideas because of evolution in terms of how we progress as a society and in how we progress in ourselves. Lets look at funny scientific explanations, or theories, and lets laugh at the way people were punished (EZI/PZI) in the old days. We can look at them as morally unjust, but back then, we were different as a society and dictated by different terms or standards."

-You thought somehow I was saying that extortion-like terms was once accepted:

"this whole, "it was acceptable back then" bs is ridiculous. extortionist reps have never been acceptable by everyone in CN. it was only acceptable to Initiative/Q/1V mostly and was used by their allies at the time. those who fought against those parties i sure as hell would bet did not like the unreasonable reps. so to state it was "acceptable" is ridiculous as it was only acceptable by a minority within CN. thus, that whole argument fails based on the fact that a minority=/=CN.

See your mistake? Maybe you interpreted incorrectly or read too quickly, but that is where it stems from. Its not that I sad nothing about reps, it's that I said nothing about 'socially accepted extortion-like terms in the past' which you thought I said they were once socially acceptable. Essentially, you're arguing on my side.

You:
i admit my mistake about misreading your post. [/i][/quote]

P1/2/3- i found where this whole mess occurs. i brought up Polaris first in terms of them demanding harsh reps from Polaris during a war conducted in a similar manner as the CnG war. and that was mostly to ask you Ejay, why you did not speak out against harsh reps at that time but do so now, when it could happen to TOP. afterwards, because i wanted to separate the reps argument from Polaris, i used Polaris solely for the military/political action and took out the reps especially since in regards to reps i was trying to be more open-minded and not allow my bias of being a Polar during that war to cloud my judgment. i admit, it got messy and confusing while i tried to do this and i apologize for that. i was doing much of my typing in between doing other things (RL homework and what not so my mind was not 100% on topic). we both seemed to be trying to separate the reps/military arguments but ended up confusing one another while doing so.

P4-end- i am not entirely sure what you are agreeing with me on. in my first sentence i stated that you personally accepted the harsh/extortionist reps that TOP handed down to Polaris but now seem against TOP possibly receiving the same treatment. as for what i misread- i misread you stating that extortionist reps were [b]socially[/b] acceptable back then. my first sentence was directed solely at you, thus had nothing to do with anyone else. This is the first time that you have personally said you were against TOP handing down harsh reps to Polaris, which does answer my question. other than that-

"Now, should we try forcing Polaris to pay terrible reps because of the hideous crimes they have supported or done so themselves in the past? Whether you agree or not, essentially you are supporting the demise in Polaris if we are to always judge on the past and actions which we have done in the past."

this is quite confusing as TOP did just that to Polaris, but you have been of the argument that these actions should cease in the here and now. not that this was wrong of TOP to do to Polaris in the first place. thus, i am not sure what i should acknowledge, since i am not sure where you agreed to my assertions. if you will clarify, then i won't mind acknowledging but at the moment, i am quite confused by your arguments.


[quote]If you take my word, there are three since they stated in the beginning they were against harsh terms. You brought up TOPs' old past in terms of Polaris and their reparations, but failed to mention the past three wars (including this one) in which TOP was for white peace and reasonable terms, though they always gave white peace. You once again mention the Blue Balls War, but it was stated from the beginning TOP was after white peace before the conflict even stirred them in as they knew they'd be drawn in but stagnated because of New Years.

By comparison, you're comparing TOP from 8 months ago versus TOP from now in terms of reps. As stated, the factual data doesn't prove your point as the past three wars (Including this one) they have either stated or given white peace from the very beginning. So yes, it leads me to believe they no longer believe in their methods, but do remember, Polaris once imposed harsh terms on other alliances when NPO was the big dog. You state you're comparing things, but you're doing it incorrectly. This argument stemmed off reps, not military action. You have done a fairly decent job in terms of TOPs' military action, but lacked in reparation comparison. Yes, TOP did somethings in the past even I do not agree with (Polaris), but do know people and entities change and TOP has done so within the past three wars. I wish they would have won this war to show you their different intake of reparation amount, but stating BBW doesn't count merely because they weren't "on paper" is ludicrous and ignorant my friend, which you are not either. I am hoping your senses will at least make you realize how incorrect you are towards the BBW incident; which is an incident of fact, not opinion. They not only supported white peace in the end, but supported white peace from the beginning which was stated so in official diplomatic channels, referenced above.

In terms of you saying "The last two weeks...", it has been the last few months my friend, ever since Karma they began shifting views and have actively DONE so.

Of course I brought the bully analogy into play, but as you said, TOP is essentially the same as a bully. How can you even think of possibly changing this and turning it on me? What you said is what you said, it is what it is, perhaps you didn't mean it in such a manner, but that is certainly how you conveyed it.
And as I said, you proved nothing with your rebut towards my analogy and as stated, essentially called TOP a bully. LOOK AT THE QUOTE lol, it says it quite bluntly Doch. You actually took the typical approach and expanded a hypothetical situation further than intended which doesn't prove your point, but rather changes the situation. If someone is a bully in grade 6 , you see them when they are 24 and are afraid they are going to be punched and do the swing first, it doesn't make them a bully, but rather someone stupidly attacking first. If anything, you should agree: It doesn't make them a bully, it makes them stupid.


When this argument began from reparation amounts and you spinning it into military action -- yes, that is spinning things, completely off the focused subject, Karma related to TOP in terms of reps -- which was the initial subject at hand. Let me make this VERY clear so you are no longer confused, as I have mentioned it numerous times.

[i]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, sounds like the former hegemony. 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. [/i]

[i]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 some situations, but what I do not agree with is when someone is utterly destroyed and 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. [/i]

What I have stated is terms are subjective. Let me further explain in a short manner:
1. If they ask for reps, consider their position and capabilities, as well as their NS. (Ex: Ask for reps if they really didn't suffer to much damage, thus, they can pay for damages in most cases)
2. If you wish no reps, beat them down to rubbles and ask for no reps. Destroying them and THEN asking for reps to pay damages not only take months months and months to pay, it could also lead to disbandment and eternal war, which both of us have seen numerous times.[/quote]

P1/2/3- oh i admit i have lacked in the reps department since i have conceded the Karma war to you almost immediately (if not immediately) and have recently conceded the BBW to you (though not fully as it was TPF not TOP thus in my opinion, does not deserve a full pat on the back). as for this war, i will concede that to though under the same premise as the BBW (i.e. they started losing almost immediately and thus it is easy to say they would have done white peace when losing and makes much more sense than stating that had they won, they would have handed down harsh reps). i went onto military action because that supports my arguments much more than the reps argument does. and in my opinion, the military action is much more relevant to the CnG issue as there is much more similarities. the reps argument while it shows TOP in a favorable light for the end of the war, does not prove that they would stop aggressively attacking alliances due to "threat to their security" but only shows that at the end of those wars, the defending nations have a good shot at white peace. this does not make what TOP did or may do correct. thus, CnG does have a point in considering that TOP may do this in the future should they be let off now and lightly.

P4- now you are the one stretching your own analogy to fit what you want it to say. "If someone punches me in the nose, are they always forever bad? If someone picks on me in sixth grade, are they always a bully?" that is what you stated originally. (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2199335) i simply added to it since yours is far to open-ended to actually produce any real answer. now you are adding your own parameters to counter my argument. let's face it, the bully analogy failed to begin with due to being open-ended and having no set parameters. thus, i could add on whatever i want and you could add on whatever you want, and the analogy would be capable of supporting both sides. but the original analogy we have no clue, because you could say yes or no quite easily since no other information is made available. thus, again, i simply used that analogy of yours to support my argument. that is not me stating that TOP is a bully, it is just me using your analogy against you. if you cannot see it so be it. this bully argument is tiresome and after this, i am done with it.

P5-8- aiight. so you like white peace and feel that harsh reps should cease to exist. we agree on that then. i already went through the reps/military stuff earlier so see no need to do so now.

[quote]I've never twisted what you stated, it just seems you have not since you're more focused on their negative aspects and nothing positive, such as their recent action in the past few months, but yet you like them? And as you said, you feel you're somewhat biased due to CnG. "but will admit i am biased due to my associations with CnG." (Reference: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2199300)

The argument was based on reparations versus military actions which put us on different pages. Nothing more, nothing less.

Referenced before where you are the one bringing up TOPs' history which was use to refute my idea of unreasonable terms. Perhaps it was your method of conveyance in the beginning. You have done better since then, but when someone says unreasonable reps are bad and you come along and say "DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THEY DID TO POLARIS?", yeah, it isn't illogical to take your initial, beginning posts as refuting ideas of unjust terms towards TOP, which as I stated, is purely subjective based on which terms are giving.
And as you stated:
[i]
yes, that is me advocating harsh reps instead of TOP paying for the initial damage. (okay i admit it is a bit misworded but that is what i was getting at. either way, that in no way advocates harsh reps for TOP)[/i]
That is what it is about. Right here. You admitting to 'miswording'. This is what I have been waiting for and praise your admittance. We all do it, but that is what the argument stems from. That mixed in with the reps vs. military action, we are somewhat on the same page, just a minor difference in recent acts.


NPO has decimated alliances for the littlest things ever, much more irrelevant than TOP. NPO has politically back stabbed NUMEROUS allies for self-gain, where TOP has not. NPO has placed 'viceories' in alliances, where TOP has not. NPO has oppressed the opinions of others, where TOP has not. NPO has disbanded alliances, TOP has not. However, lets try avoiding another 239487 page arguments pertaining to this. And in all fairness, almost all alliances did NPO-like actions at one point in another, if you know what I mean.[/quote]

P1/2/3- actually since i have conceded the Karma war to you at the time, that i can focus on positive things. we have slightly differing views on the BBW and this war (though the post i am responding to is the first time you brought up this war) but after consideration i have seen you are partially correct with. not to mention even now you ignore my concessions in the reps argument and focus solely on my military arguments. which is mainly focused on the similarity of this war and the Polaris war. Though i do agree we were on separate pages due to arguing two separate arguments. initially- i was not really looking for an argument per se. i was more looking for an answer to the question i had asked, which you have finally answered. i do believe that was also a point of confusion and the sole reason i got involved in the argument was mostly a mistaken reading on your part as i only wanted to know what your position on the harsh reps TOP gave Polaris was (at the time that they took place, not what your answer is in the present looking back).

P4- i agree. to be honest, the only reason i usually start comparing alliances to NPO is simply to get them to acknowledge that either they or whichever alliance we are discussing, has done wrong in the past. and since there are way to many alliances out there that think or thought NPO as the ultimate ebil, i generally want to get them thinking about their actions or the actions of other alliances by said comparison. typically though most tend to do just what you did and focus solely on the worst of NPO's actions as if that somehow makes it okay for them or others to do whatever they please so long as they don't "give viceroys, disband alliances, or things similar to that" instead of going, wait, Pacifica/Heg did do something similar to this, maybe we should not head down this road and should rethink our stance on such and such actions. but meh.



[quote]I was against their actions on Polaris and CnG, they shouldn't have done it in the manner they did. Militarily, I am not arguing them facing Polaris and CnG, in terms of reps, I am.I have stated NUMEROUS times TOP has not changed militarily, but rather in terms of reps they HAVE. Why argue when we're on the same subject.

This is what I have been waiting for. We are on the same page. I am exactly in the same position. Exactly. READ THIS. Haha. [/quote]

whew. after going round and round we finally get somewhere. i have not been on a merry-go-round in a long time.


[b]
not sure if the join Ninjas was an actual invitation or not given the rolling eyes.
[/b]

I can't tell you. Figure out why and you'll understand.
[/quote]

lawlz. great, more thinking after this argument.... my brain is fried. give me a couple of days to recover.

[Urmom]

Holy walls of text.

I'm not going to bother to try to jump in on this. Just wanted to comment on one part since it is brought up a lot.

Dochartaigh: Do you think we were wrong in the Polar war in attacking Polaris? I feel that we were right in attacking them (their leaders said they would like to dance on our graves, and leaked screenshots showed them harboring resentment for us), although we could have probably handled the reps better. I think TOP received 20k in tech from NpO, I forget how it was structured. It's rather subjective to call us the bullies, since we would not have attack NpO if it weren't for us feeling we were bullied/threatened. And we would not have attacked CnG if we did not think they would attack us down the line in the war, since they constantly "joked" about rolling us and were the only group of nations to somewhat matchup to us.

Anyways, I think it's funny that we will most likely receive tremendous reps comparable to NPO's (at least from what everyone has been saying). We have been trying to get out of this war for a while, and it would have prevented a LOT of damage to CnG if they just accepted peace at the beginning. I don't think we are at fault for most of the damage we've done.

/.02$

[Urmom]

[quote name='Krack' date='24 February 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1267047440' post='2202018']
Oh Bob, you're such the military expert. Two weeks of nuke war and short of having 15,000 tech, you're now fighting in the lower side of the mid tier of nations. You can only have so much nation strength with zero infrastructure. The only difference, of course, between TOP nations and opposing forces, is that the opposing forces largest nations won't be collecting in anarchy in perpetuity; the opposing forces will regain their upper-tier as a result of the sheer numbers of nations involved. It will only take 250 nations at a time to keep TOP pinned in anarchy and, while I haven't run the numbers, I estimate that leaves about 5 to 6 thousand nations to rebuild and grow unencumbered by war. Every week, you cycle in a new set of 250 nations.

Will it be a long, tedious process in which TOP's nations will be constantly putting the mid-sized nations of it's opponents in ZI? Yup. But as I stated earlier, once the war is over, those nations can be restored fairly quickly with aid. And it would be worth it to remove TOP's tech and war chest advantages (that they are so fond of holding over peoples' heads) - once it's gone, it'll never come back.
[/quote]
Also, just saw this. This is why we aren't given any peace terms? All of this is just funny to me personally after the whole Karma war.

[Krack]

[quote name='Urmom(U)' date='27 February 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1267314115' post='2207096']
Also, just saw this. This is why we aren't given any peace terms? All of this is just funny to me personally after the whole Karma war.
[/quote]

My opinion is that you aren't getting peace terms because your alliance is not well liked [u]and[/u] because you pose a future threat to the people you are currently losing to right now. If you want terms from Aloha, you can always ask me.

The text you quoted is simply me pointing out (again) why Bob is wrong and a long term war (months) favors the C&G+SFs side as opposed to TOP.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Krack

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Urmom(U)' date='27 February 2010 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1267313297' post='2207079']
Holy walls of text.

I'm not going to bother to try to jump in on this. Just wanted to comment on one part since it is brought up a lot.

Dochartaigh: Do you think we were wrong in the Polar war in attacking Polaris? I feel that we were right in attacking them (their leaders said they would like to dance on our graves, and leaked screenshots showed them harboring resentment for us), although we could have probably handled the reps better. I think TOP received 20k in tech from NpO, I forget how it was structured. It's rather subjective to call us the bullies, since we would not have attack NpO if it weren't for us feeling we were bullied/threatened. And we would not have attacked CnG if we did not think they would attack us down the line in the war, since they constantly "joked" about rolling us and were the only group of nations to somewhat matchup to us.

Anyways, I think it's funny that we will most likely receive tremendous reps comparable to NPO's (at least from what everyone has been saying). We have been trying to get out of this war for a while, and it would have prevented a LOT of damage to CnG if they just accepted peace at the beginning. I don't think we are at fault for most of the damage we've done.

/.02$
[/quote]

1) My opinion has always been that Polaris got what it deserved in the SPW/WoTC.
2) As for calling ya'll bullies- again, i only used Ejay's analogy against him. if he had not brought in the analogy, i would never have said anything related to bullying.
3) There was no conceivable way they would have attacked TOP directly. In fact, had IRON gone in using the NSO treaty, then CnG would have hit IRON and then TOP would have hit CnG. so unless TOP went in via an aggressive clause to defend NSO, there was no way that TOP would have been attacked by CnG.
4) I would blame Crymson and your gov for allowing the wording of the DoW on CnG. put that DoW together with a preemptive strike and you get a negative reaction towards allowing TOP off lightly.

[Urmom]

[quote name='Krack' date='27 February 2010 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1267315862' post='2207136']
My opinion is that you aren't getting peace terms because your alliance is not well liked [u]and[/u] because you pose a future threat to the people you are currently losing to right now. If you want terms from Aloha, you can always ask me.

The text you quoted is simply me pointing out (again) why Bob is wrong and a long term war (months) favors the C&G+SFs side as opposed to TOP.
[/quote]

I really doubt we pose a significant threat to CnG right now since we've pretty much exhausted our political influence and will most likely have to pay reps for a few months. And I'm not really sure if a long term war would favor CnG. If they continue to attack us, they will just keep bleeding NS more and more and other alliances and blocs will overtake them.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='27 February 2010 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1267316174' post='2207143']
1) My opinion has always been that Polaris got what it deserved in the SPW/WoTC.
2) As for calling ya'll bullies- again, i only used Ejay's analogy against him. if he had not brought in the analogy, i would never have said anything related to bullying.
3) There was no conceivable way they would have attacked TOP directly. In fact, had IRON gone in using the NSO treaty, then CnG would have hit IRON and then TOP would have hit CnG. so unless TOP went in via an aggressive clause to defend NSO, there was no way that TOP would have been attacked by CnG.
4) I would blame Crymson and your gov for allowing the wording of the DoW on CnG. put that DoW together with a preemptive strike and you get a negative reaction towards allowing TOP off lightly.
[/quote]

1/2) Ah ok thanks for the clarification.
3) I forget the exact discussion, but I think it was similar to how CnG would then hit IRON. So we just skipped right to the fight to give us the upper hand. I don't necessarily agree with what we did either that's the reasoning behind it.
4) The wording in the DoW was a big mistake that we've admitted and it came out really wrong from what our intentions really were. Our true intentions were to really defend Polar.

[Krack]

[quote name='Urmom(U)' date='27 February 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1267328520' post='2207417']
I really doubt we pose a significant threat to CnG right now since we've pretty much exhausted our political influence and will most likely have to pay reps for a few months. And I'm not really sure if a long term war would favor CnG. [b]If they continue to attack us, they will just keep bleeding NS more and more and other alliances and blocs will overtake them.[/b]
[/quote]

Other alliances and blocs don't threaten them. You think C&G is sitting around worried about a Super Friends attack? They shouldn't be. The only alliances on Bob that pose a threat to C&G are TOP, IRON and NPO. And NPO and IRON are nothing without TOP's tech advantage in the highest tier. If they take care of that problem now, they'd have years before their safety was a concern.

You still don't get it, do you? The Karma alliances may not all get along and love each other, but (1) they aren't looking for fights amongst each other and (2) they are all convinced the remnants of the old Hegemony are distasteful and untrustworthy. This stunt did nothing to change their opinion. You're not losing because you got stabbed in the back, or because you miscalculated some formula, or because people conspired against you. You are losing because you are disliked (and more importantly, not trusted) by everyone else.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Krack' date='27 February 2010 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1267331419' post='2207490']
Other alliances and blocs don't threaten them. You think C&G is sitting around worried about a Super Friends attack? They shouldn't be. The only alliances on Bob that pose a threat to C&G are TOP, IRON and NPO. And NPO and IRON are nothing without TOP's tech advantage in the highest tier. If they take care of that problem now, they'd have years before their safety was a concern.
[/quote]
CnG shouldn't be worried now. Down the road though? TOP, IRON, NPO, ex-Heg alliances aren't going to be in any shape to do anything politically for a very long time. Either we see some conflicts boiling up between those two bloc's sphere of influences or we see an incredibly long period of peace (year+). Should be interesting.

[Urmom]

[quote name='Krack' date='27 February 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1267331419' post='2207490']
Other alliances and blocs don't threaten them. You think C&G is sitting around worried about a Super Friends attack? They shouldn't be. The only alliances on Bob that pose a threat to C&G are TOP, IRON and NPO. And NPO and IRON are nothing without TOP's tech advantage in the highest tier. If they take care of that problem now, they'd have years before their safety was a concern.

You still don't get it, do you? The Karma alliances may not all get along and love each other, but (1) they aren't looking for fights amongst each other and (2) they are all convinced the remnants of the old Hegemony are distasteful and untrustworthy. This stunt did nothing to change their opinion. You're not losing because you got stabbed in the back, or because you miscalculated some formula, or because people conspired against you. You are losing because you are disliked (and more importantly, not trusted) by everyone else.
[/quote]

After this war, you haven't realized that anything can happen? I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss any attack from anybody against anyone. After we are sufficiently beaten and turned into an eternal tech farm planet Bob will be peaceful for years to come and everybody can be friends, since the big bad IRON TOP and NPO have all been defeated! Lets rejoice!

Seriously though, I can understand all this built up hate against the NPO, but what has TOP done to warrant all this anger all of a sudden. I acknowledge that our previous council screwed up a bit in preemptively attacking CnG and then strained relations with good allies in the process (which hopefully our new council can fix), but aside from that we were a pretty respected alliance. The GPA war would be our only hiccup and most of us wanted to fix that. We didn't abuse our #1 ranking and were pretty low key... Is this one war going to change our image that much?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Urmom(U)' date='27 February 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1267328520' post='2207417']
3) I forget the exact discussion, but I think it was similar to how CnG would then hit IRON. So we just skipped right to the fight to give us the upper hand. I don't necessarily agree with what we did either that's the reasoning behind it.
4) The wording in the DoW was a big mistake that we've admitted and it came out really wrong from what our intentions really were. Our true intentions were to really defend Polar.
[/quote]

3) oh i get the reasoning behind the preemptive attack. i also don't agree with it.
4) well, that is a lesson learned then. hopefully ya'll won't make the same mistake in the future.

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='28 February 2010 - 12:29 AM' timestamp='1267338753' post='2207788']
CnG shouldn't be worried now. Down the road though? TOP, IRON, NPO, ex-Heg alliances aren't going to be in any shape to do anything politically for a very long time. Either we see some conflicts boiling up between those two bloc's sphere of influences or we see an incredibly long period of peace (year+). Should be interesting.
[/quote]

or you could just be worried yourself. i doubt there will be any conflict between CnG and SF but that ain't gonna mean that they won't gun for ya'll(your side) down the road. reading what Xiph has written in the TOOL peace thread, seems he is itching to fight ya'll(your side) again.

[quote name='Krack' date='27 February 2010 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1267331419' post='2207490']
You still don't get it, do you? The Karma alliances may not all get along and love each other, but (1) they aren't looking for fights amongst each other and (2) they are all convinced the remnants of the old Hegemony are distasteful and untrustworthy. This stunt did nothing to change their opinion. You're not losing because you got stabbed in the back, or because you miscalculated some formula, or because people conspired against you. You are losing because you are disliked (and more importantly, not trusted) by everyone else.
[/quote]

2) not true. i honestly see more threat from certain CnG alliances as well as certain SF alliances than i do from any of the old Heg alliances.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Dochartaigh

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='28 February 2010 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1267339615' post='2207828']
or you could just be worried yourself. i doubt there will be any conflict between CnG and SF but that ain't gonna mean that they won't gun for ya'll(your side) down the road. reading what Xiph has written in the TOOL peace thread, seems he is itching to fight ya'll(your side) again.
[/quote]
Who said we wanted to be on anyone's side after this is all over?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='28 February 2010 - 01:03 AM' timestamp='1267340807' post='2207864']
Who said we wanted to be on anyone's side after this is all over?
[/quote]

meh, that was not my intent. i just did not want to have to type out TOP, IRON, NPO, ex-Heg and so on and so forth.

[Krack]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='28 February 2010 - 12:29 AM' timestamp='1267338753' post='2207788']
CnG shouldn't be worried now. Down the road though? TOP, IRON, NPO, ex-Heg alliances aren't going to be in any shape to do anything politically for a very long time. Either we see some conflicts boiling up between those two bloc's sphere of influences or we see an incredibly long period of peace (year+). Should be interesting.
[/quote]

My money is on peace. Neither bloc is dumb enough to squabble over something stupid and manufactured out of boredom, when they both know it would only result in weakening themselves and giving the old Hegemony an opportunity to make a power play.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Krack

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Krack' date='28 February 2010 - 02:08 AM' timestamp='1267344733' post='2207986']
My money is on peace. Neither bloc is dumb enough to squabble over something stupid and manufactured out of boredom, when they both know it would only result in weakening themselves and giving the old Hegemony an opportunity to make a power play.
[/quote]
I guess we'll have to see. I just don't see the politics on this planet shutting down for such a long time.

[Rocky Horror]

There seems to be some assumption that CnG are some boring, calculating, anaemic, power-hungry force. Anyone speculating, pro- or anti-CnG, seems to be working on a basis where we're seeking to make everyone so weak that the game is boring and we get to be mega-pacifica. That's a lot to extrapolate from our stance of not wanting to be walked all over by the escapees from the Hegemony.

I know it's hard to think of someone who thinks differently from you, but that's MK and its allies.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Rocky Horror

[Bob Janova]

[quote]I would like to remind you the reader that this war has barely spanned half a month. Those campaigns of the Hegemony lasted far longer and were far more brutal and oppressive in nature[/quote]
So, it's been a month now. NoCB, the Hegemony war that C&G like to wheel out as the injustice applied to them, lasted for a month. GPA war, a month. This excuse is running thin now.

[der_ko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 February 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1267364182' post='2208209']
So, it's been a month now. NoCB, the Hegemony war that C&G like to wheel out as the injustice applied to them, lasted for a month. GPA war, a month. This excuse is running thin now.
[/quote]
Wars were much shorter back in the day because it was possible to defeat an enemy quickly then. With modern warchests/wonders that's no longer possible, thus, wars last much longer.

[Rocky Horror]

Your point, caller?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='28 February 2010 - 07:15 AM' timestamp='1267363128' post='2208199']
There seems to be some assumption that CnG are some boring, calculating, anaemic, power-hungry force. Anyone speculating, pro- or anti-CnG, seems to be working on a basis where we're seeking to make everyone so weak that the game is boring and we get to be mega-pacifica. That's a lot to extrapolate from our stance of not wanting to be walked all over by the escapees from the Hegemony.

I know it's hard to think of someone who thinks differently from you, but that's MK and its allies.
[/quote]

really? you gonna go with that when if you read the first 2/3rds of this thread and you have MK and its allies all over talking about destroying TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN/FEAR/TSO to ensure that they are basically never a threat again. but yeah, no one has a basis whatsoever to believe that MK and their allies will ever make everyone else, other than their allies, so weak. no of course not. shoot even their allies are pieces of sunshine with Xiph talking about how he feels every alliance who fights against GOD or GOD's allies should pay reps and each time the same alliance(s) fights and loses should pay ever-increasing reps.

but nah dude, you totally right in thinking that MK and allies don't want to weaken alliances at all and thus, not totally a logical leap to feel that they would do this in other wars at all. i mean it is not like in Karma MK and her allies did not take huge reps from alliances at all. i mean it is not like a certain alliance is [i]still[/i] paying reps now (oh i know they have been waived except for GOD) almost/over (?) a year later.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='28 February 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1267381382' post='2208555']
really? you gonna go with that when if you read the first 2/3rds of this thread and you have MK and its allies all over talking about destroying TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN/FEAR/TSO to ensure that they are basically never a threat again. but yeah, no one has a basis whatsoever to believe that MK and their allies will ever make everyone else, other than their allies, so weak. no of course not. shoot even their allies are pieces of sunshine with Xiph talking about how he feels every alliance who fights against GOD or GOD's allies should pay reps and each time the same alliance(s) fights and loses should pay ever-increasing reps.

but nah dude, you totally right in thinking that MK and allies don't want to weaken alliances at all and thus, not totally a logical leap to feel that they would do this in other wars at all. i mean it is not like in Karma MK and her allies did not take huge reps from alliances at all. i mean it is not like a certain alliance is [i]still[/i] paying reps now (oh i know they have been waived except for GOD) almost/over (?) a year later.
[/quote]I consider the NPO's reps to be a special case and not comparable to any other in the history of cybernations. They are one of two alliances I would have had little trouble in disbanding, and the other one isn't TOP.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='28 February 2010 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1267382000' post='2208577']
I consider the NPO's reps to be a special case and not comparable to any other in the history of cybernations. They are one of two alliances I would have had little trouble in disbanding, and the other one isn't TOP.
[/quote]

so why is it a special case? because it is the NPO? that is not really a good reason. but remember NPO was not the only ones to have terms.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='der_ko' date='28 February 2010 - 08:40 AM' timestamp='1267364650' post='2208217']
Wars were much shorter back in the day because it was possible to defeat an enemy quickly then. With modern warchests/wonders that's no longer possible, thus, wars last much longer.
[/quote]
OOC: Upper-tier wars are also much more bloody: a lot of upper tier nations lost more than 50% of their NS in their first week of war. I'd say TOP/IRON are as "defeated" as C&G was during the noCB war; that is having lost around 66% of their pre-war NS. Difference, here, is that the Hegemony prefered to take reparations while C&G/Friends seems to prefer pounding their enemies (not all of them but NPO, IRON, Echelon, TOP, etc.) for a tad longer, to ensure that enemy warchests are spent waging war, instead of rebuilding.

I don't really mind, both tactics are equally valid to make sure your enemy is no longer a threat in the foreseeable future.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Urmom(U)' date='28 February 2010 - 01:41 AM' timestamp='1267339529' post='2207821']
Seriously though, I can understand all this built up hate against the NPO, but what has TOP done to warrant all this anger all of a sudden. I acknowledge that our previous council screwed up a bit in preemptively attacking CnG and then strained relations with good allies in the process (which hopefully our new council can fix), but aside from that we were a pretty respected alliance. The GPA war would be our only hiccup and most of us wanted to fix that. We didn't abuse our #1 ranking and were pretty low key... Is this one war going to change our image that much?
[/quote]
They hated you guys for opposing heavy terms for Hegemony alliances during the Karma War.

[Chickenzilla]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='28 February 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1267381382' post='2208555']
really? you gonna go with that when if you read the first 2/3rds of this thread and you have MK and its allies all over talking about destroying TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN/FEAR/TSO to ensure that they are basically never a threat again.
[/quote]
Nonsense. We don't want to destroy FEAR.

[Tomcat]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='28 February 2010 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1267390146' post='2208764']
They hated you guys for opposing heavy terms for Hegemony alliances during the Karma War.
[/quote]

Yeah that's pretty unlikely.

I'd think it would be more something like: TOP has been around since 2006 and despite always being a relatively small alliance, they had connections to big powerful alliances and got to join in on the winning side of just about every war since then, all the while collecting obscene amounts of tech.