Alekhine Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='Fireandthepassion' date='16 February 2010 - 02:40 AM' timestamp='1266306004' post='2185215'] You can not suspend something that does not exist. FOK, ROK and a few others are not owed reps. How can you meet requirements that no longer exist? Why would you approach someone that you don't owe reps and have to meet any sort of minimal payments to? [/quote] The surrender terms, as I recall, stipulated minimum monthly payments be made that did not depend on what alliances they were sent to. They had to send out a certain number each month, but it didn't matter for those purposes which alliances they sent it to. The reps breakup wasn't a part of that thread as I recall, and each alliance that signed the terms still has a hand in policing the fact that those "global" minimums get met every month. So it would be legitimate for say, FOK, to declare NPO in violation of surrender terms if they didn't send out their monthly minimum to say, GOD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Zeta Defender' date='16 February 2010 - 02:42 AM' timestamp='1266306121' post='2185218'] All of them except for GOD. [/quote] Edit: Thanks to the clarification by bakamatai Edited February 16, 2010 by WarriorConcept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse End Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='WarriorConcept' date='16 February 2010 - 12:37 AM' timestamp='1266305828' post='2185203'] So which alliances actually had reps due to them still from NPO? Oh don't tell me they're all in FOK's situation now and you're using this number of 14/15 agreeing to suspend reps when most of them don't have any reps due to them as a blatant PR slam attempt [/quote] We currently owe varying amounts of reps to Ordo Verde, Viridian Entente, Global Order of Darkness, Vanguard, Greenland Republic, Athens, RnR, =LOST=, DICE. All agreed to a suspension of reps with the exception of GOD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='Fireandthepassion' date='16 February 2010 - 07:31 AM' timestamp='1266305514' post='2185190'] You do realize you just defeated your argument and validated everything WC has been saying about those not having reps have nothing to suspend right? It also kind of validates Xiphosis' (Legion NoFISH maybe) about how this is a PR attempt to make GOD look bad by saying 14/15 have agreed to suspended parts of the surrender when obligations of payments had ended. [/quote] I think that what makes GOD look bad is forcing a sovereign alliance to commit an act of war against their will, not the specifics of our negotiations with the other G15 parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='Branimir' date='16 February 2010 - 01:18 AM' timestamp='1266301136' post='2184986'] It is not known if GPA asked for the suspension or not, nobody remembers since it was two years ago,.... [/quote] Your memory may have problems, but I explicitly remember us being told by NPO that we would be required to keep payment going. I don't remember if we asked for it or you were just preempting it, but we were told it wouldn't be happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse End Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='Fireandthepassion' date='16 February 2010 - 12:40 AM' timestamp='1266306004' post='2185215'] You can not suspend something that does not exist. FOK, ROK and a few others are not owed reps. How can you meet requirements that no longer exist? Why would you approach someone that you don't owe reps and have to meet any sort of minimal payments to? [/quote] Like I've said many times already, as a signatory to our terms, they enforce our terms, including the minimum monthly requirements. We contacted them to ensure that we were covering all of our bases while GOD does not have enough aid slots to possibly meet minimum requirements. How many times do I have to say this before you understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakamitai Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='Alekhine' date='16 February 2010 - 02:43 AM' timestamp='1266306193' post='2185221'] The surrender terms, as I recall, stipulated minimum monthly payments be made that did not depend on what alliances they were sent to. They had to send out a certain number each month, but it didn't matter for those purposes which alliances they sent it to. The reps breakup wasn't a part of that thread as I recall, and each alliance that signed the terms still has a hand in policing the fact that those "global" minimums get met every month. So it would be legitimate for say, FOK, to declare NPO in violation of surrender terms if they didn't send out their monthly minimum to say, GOD. [/quote] Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself. There are two issues here: suspension of reps to individual alliances, and the overall monthly minimums. These are separate terms, and can be enforced separately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Hrmm Wouldn't forcing a nation in semi protectorate status such as surrender terms to commit an act of war; such as GOD has done, constitute an act of war by the forcing party; God in this case, against the parties which are being offended; other surrender term recipients in this case and not upon the part of the entity that is simply abiding by its agreements; the NPO in this case? Interesting thing to ponder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Letum' date='16 February 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1266306399' post='2185227'] I think that what makes GOD look bad is forcing a sovereign alliance to commit an act of war against their will, not the specifics of our negotiations with the other G15 parties. [/quote] I wonder what the reception here would be had the NPO done the right thing and refused to comply? edit, grammar fail Edited February 16, 2010 by Fantastico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havvy Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 To alleviate confusion, I shall try to explain what is going on, using only the information gleaned from the arguing in this thread. At the end of a war, the NPO had to pay reparations to fifteen alliances under surrender terms. Part of these reparations was a minimum monthly amount. If the NPO failed to meet the minimum monthly amount before all reparations were paid, by default, all fifteen alliances would be in a state of war against the NPO, whether or not reparations were fully paid. Then, this war started, and alliances are at war. Since sending aid to nations at war is an act of war, and the NPO did not want to be declared on alliances that are considered its 'allies', the NPO asked for a temporary suspension of the agreements. Fourteen alliances, supposively, out of the fifteen, agreed to suspending the terms until the wars were over. Only one alliance (again, supposively), GOD, did not agree to this. As such, the NPO must send its minimum reparations to GOD, or the treaty will enact. Now, I'm not sure in this case if only GOD would be declaring or whether all fifteen alliances would be. I'm not even sure if it is possible for fourteen alliances to change the terms when there is one defecting from agreement. In effect, there should be a declarative statement of action from these fourteen alliances saying what parts exactly they are suspending. As long as the monthly minimum is suspended by these fourteen alliances, these alliances do not have to declare war for breaking the treaty. Now, you might ask what right do they have to suspend parts of the treaty? That I cannot answer unless there is an unwritten agreement about surrender terms that alliances do not have to act if the terms are broken. Or maybe the surrender term gives them a CB to declare war, but not a mandate? In any case, it seems that the fact that fourteen alliances agreed to suspending this part of the treaty is challenged. Further, if the challenge is true, the NPO can technically send reparations to alliances that do not need reparations anymore, unless there is a clause against that. The clause for how much to send before terms end and the clause for minimum reparations per month are separate. At least, that is my understanding of this mess. All in all, it is a good case study of contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse End Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='Fantastico' date='16 February 2010 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1266307030' post='2185241'] I wonder what the reception here would be had the NPO done the right thing and refused to comply? edit, grammar fail [/quote] I'm fairly sure that all of the G15 who are holding us under terms would then attack us for violating surrender terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 (edited) We are doing the right thing by upholding our agreements. The one not doing the right thing is the ones forcing our hands if anyone is really doing anything wrong. It was GOD's choice after all. It's also within their rights. Edited February 16, 2010 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Foreign aid on the scale and type we're talking about won't have much of an impact on war these days anyway. I don't particularly mind the bending of this norm, especially considering how long the reparation period has already been and how anxious you must be to be finished with it as soon as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='Fantastico' date='16 February 2010 - 01:57 AM' timestamp='1266307030' post='2185241'] I wonder what the reception here would be had the NPO done the right thing and refused to comply? [/quote] In that case, you would be arguing that NPO did the wrong thing because they didn't follow the terms GOD was giving them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='Jesse End' ] I'm fairly sure that all of the G15 who are holding us under terms would then attack us for violating surrender terms. [/quote] [quote name='Maelstrom Vortex'] We are doing the right thing by upholding our agreements. The one not doing the right thing is the ones forcing our hands if anyone is really doing anything wrong. It was GOD's choice after all. [/quote] I understand and agree. I am not the type of person who blames victims. To those who call this a PR stunt, this announcement seems to be the only peaceful alternative the NPO had. They could have refused to comply. I think we all know how that would have ended. [quote name='Baldr' ] In that case, you would be arguing that NPO did the wrong thing because they didn't follow the terms GOD was giving them. [/quote] Oh would I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ephemeral Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 All of the *Orders seem to be spitting out quite the number of gambits lately. Makes for an interesting show, nevertheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Who here really expected anything better from GOD? OOC: And if this thread hadn't been posted, someone would have made an 'NPO commits acts of war' thread in world affairs or w/e. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='Ellis' date='16 February 2010 - 04:02 AM' timestamp='1266310976' post='2185302'] Who here really expected anything better from GOD? OOC: And if this thread hadn't been posted, someone would have made an 'NPO commits acts of war' thread in world affairs or w/e. [/quote] Sure they would have, people will post anything for drama, and they like you will conveniently overlook the difference between military action and an act of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonely Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Pathetic move on GOD's part, but that's only to be expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenann Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='Penguin' date='16 February 2010 - 03:02 AM' timestamp='1266307332' post='2185253'] Foreign aid on the scale and type we're talking about won't have much of an impact on war these days anyway. I don't particularly mind the bending of this norm, especially considering how long the reparation period has already been and how anxious you must be to be finished with it as soon as possible. [/quote] Thank you Penguin for being understanding. Hearing about this decision has been brutal and I hate it, but being bound by our word we have done everything we can to make this as bloodless as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Poor show, GOD, making NPO go to war just to send reps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='16 February 2010 - 02:03 AM' timestamp='1266314609' post='2185336'] Poor show, GOD, making NPO go to war just to send reps. [/quote] NPO is going to war? Did I miss something? edit: honest question, I haven't read the whole thread. Edited February 16, 2010 by Moridin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenann Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='Moridin' date='16 February 2010 - 05:09 AM' timestamp='1266314951' post='2185338'] NPO is going to war? Did I miss something? edit: honest question, I haven't read the whole thread. [/quote] We are not going to war... we are continuing our reps to GOD. It may and has in the past been seen as an act of war against those currently fighting GOD. In this case I hope not, but we have done what we can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterana Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='WarriorConcept' date='16 February 2010 - 05:34 PM' timestamp='1266305644' post='2185195'] This is a blatant PR attempt to make GOD look bad, I don't think they'd deny it at all to be fair [/quote] We don't need to make GOD look bad. They are doing a perfectly fine job of that without any help from us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lackistan Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Welp, that is kind of a dick move on GODs part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.