Xavii Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 Peace is good. Goons is good. Goons growing is also good. Reps helping goons to grow is good. Reps to goons = good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dontasemebro Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='popsumpot' date='20 February 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1266647618' post='2193214'] Why? A large number of alliances entered this war on the SuperComplaints side using optional aggression. In fact, WAPA entered the war with an optional aggression clause. [/quote] Im arguing for your side, just because Im on the supercomplaints side doesn't mean Im a mindless troll, I was being sarcastic in his response to the criminalization of NATO/TFD for honoring an oA and demanding reps for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kortal Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Dontasemebro' date='20 February 2010 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1266647978' post='2193236'] So ask for reps from IRON and TOP, not the people that honored treaties to help a friend even when they made a mistake and were on the losing side of a major war. [/quote] You give too little credit to these alliances, they're hardly puppets of TOP and IRON, attacking whenever they wish. As with all alliances in CN, they make their own choices. They decided to declare wars and did some damage to the alliances they fought. Ergo, reparations. If you don't like it then, well, I guess when it comes time for you to negotiate your own surrender in some far off war, you can refuse to send any form of reps. Until then, I'm not certain what the problem is Edited February 20, 2010 by Kortal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='Kortal' date='19 February 2010 - 10:38 PM' timestamp='1266647928' post='2193232'] I believe the post that's been quoted was meant to imply that the LSF guy posting yesterday who was so vehemently opposed to paying reps was not saying LSF would never surrender, just that they wouldn't pay anything for the privilege. Not that LSF does not wish to surrender here [/quote] I think you are correct. That's the impression I got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupremePrince Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='Smacky' date='20 February 2010 - 06:39 AM' timestamp='1266647976' post='2193235'] TFD and NATO got off far too easy for what they did, what a load of horse !@#$. When you all get to calculating reps for TOP and IRON they better be proportional to that, or you can at least have the decency to admit you're only treating them differently because you're all too !@#$% to follow through equally. [/quote] They were just following treaties. If your allies ask you to activate the oA part, you would do the same knowing how PC love aggression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='Xavii' date='19 February 2010 - 10:40 PM' timestamp='1266648000' post='2193238'] Peace is good. Goons is good. Goons growing is also good. Reps helping goons to grow is good. Reps to goons = good. [/quote] If Peace = Good And GOONS = Good Then GOONS = Peace? I am outraged you'd suggest such a thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='Dontasemebro' date='20 February 2010 - 07:41 AM' timestamp='1266648084' post='2193240'] Im arguing for your side, just because Im on the supercomplaints side doesn't mean Im a mindless troll, I was being sarcastic in his response to the criminalization of NATO/TFD for honoring an oA and demanding reps for doing so. [/quote] If they enter with a oA they're making a conscious choice to support the war on their side. Does that make them jsut as bad as TIFDTT that started the mess? No. That's why the reps you see are light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dontasemebro Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='Kortal' date='20 February 2010 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1266648177' post='2193241'] You give too little credit to these alliances, they're hardly puppets of TOP and IRON, attacking whenever they wish. As with all alliances in CN, they make their own choices. They decided to declare wars and did some damage to the alliances they fought. [b]they won[/b]Ergo, reparations. [/quote] ADded a very necessary part of your reasoning. The only reason FoB "gets" reps in the CN world today is that their side won. Their ALLIES, not their PUPPET MASTERS, asked for ASSISTANCE, on an OPTIONAL clause. This was ACCEPTED by two alliances, and suddenly, they need to pay reps for the damage they did in honoring treaties. Dozens of alliances have gotten off without reps, but suddenly an oA clause isn't a good enough treaty to be worth honoring and make you free from having to pay reps? If the fact that FoB's side won vindicates from the SuperComplaints' crimes of honoring oA's and declaring wars and doing damage, please explain that. I had no idea that it's fair when winners are right and losers are wrong just because winners win and losers lose. Is that the karma world we want to have? Or do winners "deserve" reps because they won in your eyes? Does FoB get the reps because they were attacked? Okay, so I guess I gotta pay a lot of reps to TOOL because I attacked them. Umbrella is gonna have to pay a lot of reps to who they're fighting too. Can't say you were just honoring a treaty either. We've done the same crime NATO and TFD did, the only difference is we've won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted February 20, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='Smacky' date='19 February 2010 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1266647976' post='2193235'] TFD and NATO got off far too easy for what they did, what a load of horse !@#$. When you all get to calculating reps for TOP and IRON they better be proportional to that, or you can at least have the decency to admit you're only treating them differently because you're all too !@#$% to follow through equally. [/quote] Wow. Calm down. FoB determined what it wanted out of the settlement. I'm by no means afraid of getting nuked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 I don't know why people have such disdain for oA activations. I'd think it was !@#$%^&* as well if my allies were being taxed because they had the honor to come to my help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smacky Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='SupremePrince' date='19 February 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1266648340' post='2193245'] They were just following treaties. If your allies ask you to activate the oA part, you would do the same knowing how PC love aggression. [/quote] You don't get it. TFD and NATO are the lowest of the PEA alliances and they're getting off the easiest. Something stinks here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dontasemebro Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 (edited) [quote name='neneko' date='20 February 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1266648482' post='2193251'] If they enter with a oA they're making a conscious choice to support the war on their side. Does that make them jsut as bad as TIFDTT that started the mess? No. That's why the reps you see are light. [/quote] Honestly, a very fair and well put argument, but here is why I disagree: honoring an oA does not mean you support the reason for the war. It means you support your allies and will fight with them. If Ragnarok went into a war and made a mistake and it was a stupid war, Id go yell at Hoo or whoever their emperor is at the time (lol), but I'd honor an optional aggression clause to [s]defend[/s] help them. I'd also say the war was stupid and demand that we offer white peace. I would also understand if the attacked did not accept this white peace. Id also fight by RoK's side until they got peace, and never suggest they accept peace until they were given fair terms for the crime done (e.g. no viceroys, no gov't restrictions, IA changes, etc.) So just because NATO and co. were helping their allies the best way that they felt was possible, by ganging up on the alliances they felt were weaker (no offense to the skill of FoB, it's purely a #s game), doesn't mean that they supported the war. If they did support the war, and that was the crime, then they owe reps to the entire C&G bloc, no? edited and left mistake struck through Edited February 20, 2010 by Dontasemebro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alekhine Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='ktarthan' date='20 February 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1266648363' post='2193246'] If Peace = Good And GOONS = Good Then GOONS = Peace? I am outraged you'd suggest such a thing! [/quote] Fear not, good sir, for your logic is flawed and that is not the case. Rest assured that the conclusion GOONS = Peace does not follow from that set of premises and you can still sleep well tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dontasemebro Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 (edited) [quote name='ktarthan' date='20 February 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1266648363' post='2193246'] If Peace = Good And GOONS = Good Then GOONS = Peace? I am outraged you'd suggest such a thing! [/quote] I fix your logic below Nachos=good GOONS=good GOONS=nachos also nachos=peace Edited February 20, 2010 by Dontasemebro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='Alekhine' date='19 February 2010 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1266648781' post='2193261'] Fear not, good sir, for your logic is flawed and that is not the case. Rest assured that the conclusion GOONS = Peace does not follow from that set of premises and you can still sleep well tonight. [/quote] Thank you sir, I am truly relieved that it is not a transitive relationship. You have eased my worried mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 very happy to see this finalized. Special mention for WAPA.....for their resolve. It must have been a tough week, but i am sure this victory was well worth the effort o/ Btw, what about TPF, i thought they were also engaging WAPA, in defense of NATO. Now that NATO has peaced out, TPF is still fighting....more or less bcomes a no CB situation for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 Very happy to see peace for NATO. Good luck in the future TFD, you have been classy, never really expected otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavii Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='ktarthan' date='20 February 2010 - 07:46 AM' timestamp='1266648363' post='2193246'] If Peace = Good And GOONS = Good Then GOONS = Peace? I am outraged you'd suggest such a thing! [/quote] Chocolate = Good Goons = Chocolate? hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='Dontasemebro' date='20 February 2010 - 07:52 AM' timestamp='1266648762' post='2193260'] Honestly, a very fair and well put argument, but here is why I disagree: honoring an oA does not mean you support the reason for the war. It means you support your allies and will fight with them. If Ragnarok went into a war and made a mistake and it was a stupid war, Id go yell at Hoo or whoever their emperor is at the time (lol), but I'd honor an optional aggression clause to [s]defend[/s] help them. I'd also say the war was stupid and demand that we offer white peace. I would also understand if the attacked did not accept this white peace. Id also fight by RoK's side until they got peace, and never suggest they accept peace until they were given fair terms for the crime done (e.g. no viceroys, no gov't restrictions, IA changes, etc.) So just because NATO and co. were helping their allies the best way that they felt was possible, by ganging up on the alliances they felt were weaker (no offense to the skill of FoB, it's purely a #s game), doesn't mean that they supported the war. If they did support the war, and that was the crime, then they owe reps to the entire C&G bloc, no? edited and left mistake struck through [/quote] It's great and honorable to put friends first. Honoring treaties is usually a good thing even oA ones. That doesn't remove the responsibility you have for the actions you take though. In your scenario if RoK made a unjustified attack and requested your support through the oA clause then the other side won they'd most likely ask reps from you too and in my opinion they'd be fully justified to do that since you're still responsible for supporting their attack even if honoring the treaty was the right thing to do at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dontasemebro Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='neneko' date='20 February 2010 - 02:01 AM' timestamp='1266649296' post='2193276'] It's great and honorable to put friends first. Honoring treaties is usually a good thing even oA ones. That doesn't remove the responsibility you have for the actions you take though. In your scenario if RoK made a unjustified attack and requested your support through the oA clause then the other side won they'd most likely ask reps from you too and in my opinion they'd be fully justified to do that since you're still responsible for supporting their attack even if honoring the treaty was the right thing to do at the time. [/quote] That's very interesting that you would find the victorious side justified for asking for reps for something that was the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='Dontasemebro' date='19 February 2010 - 10:52 PM' timestamp='1266648762' post='2193260'] Honestly, a very fair and well put argument, but here is why I disagree: honoring an oA does not mean you support the reason for the war. It means you support your allies and will fight with them. If Ragnarok went into a war and made a mistake and it was a stupid war, Id go yell at Hoo or whoever their emperor is at the time (lol), but I'd honor an optional aggression clause to [s]defend[/s] help them. I'd also say the war was stupid and demand that we offer white peace. I would also understand if the attacked did not accept this white peace. Id also fight by RoK's side until they got peace, and never suggest they accept peace until they were given fair terms for the crime done (e.g. no viceroys, no gov't restrictions, IA changes, etc.) So just because NATO and co. were helping their allies the best way that they felt was possible, by ganging up on the alliances they felt were weaker (no offense to the skill of FoB, it's purely a #s game), doesn't mean that they supported the war. If they did support the war, and that was the crime, then they owe reps to the entire C&G bloc, no? edited and left mistake struck through [/quote] I guess it is a difference of opinion, but in the case of an optional clause into a war that you do not support, I feel that it is entirely reason enough to sit that one out. Is that not what optional clauses are for? They would not owe reps to all of C&G because they chose to inflict damage upon FoB alone, and the reps are the result of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kortal Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Dontasemebro' date='20 February 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1266648514' post='2193253'] ADded a very necessary part of your reasoning. The only reason FoB "gets" reps in the CN world today is that their side won. Their ALLIES, not their PUPPET MASTERS, asked for ASSISTANCE, on an OPTIONAL clause. This was ACCEPTED by two alliances, and suddenly, they need to pay reps for the damage they did in honoring treaties. Dozens of alliances have gotten off without reps, but suddenly an oA clause isn't a good enough treaty to be worth honoring and make you free from having to pay reps? If the fact that FoB's side won vindicates from the SuperComplaints' crimes of honoring oA's and declaring wars and doing damage, please explain that. I had no idea that it's fair when winners are right and losers are wrong just because winners win and losers lose. Is that the karma world we want to have? Or do winners "deserve" reps because they won in your eyes? Does FoB get the reps because they were attacked? Okay, so I guess I gotta pay a lot of reps to TOOL because I attacked them. Umbrella is gonna have to pay a lot of reps to who they're fighting too. Can't say you were just honoring a treaty either. We've done the same crime NATO and TFD did, the only difference is we've won. [/quote] 1. Reparations have no absolute rules or standards attached to them. In every situation they are unique. By arguing as if there are any set rules for them, you immediately start off in the wrong. 2. Just because an alliance feels they have legitimate cause to attack another alliance, does not mean such an attack is forgivable or easily dismissed. By what stretch of logic do you maintain that this is so? Alright, an alliance goes in because an ally requests that they honor an oA agreement, or defensive, whatever. They have a recognizably legitimate reason for going to war, and that's pretty cool. But in what way does a good reason for going to war excuse one from the repercussions of one's actions? How are they not responsible for attacking another alliance just because they have good reason to? 3. You're right, winners decide who gets reparations and how much (pending the losing side agreeing to said terms of course). That's just how the world works. Lets not forget that aside from being a possible punitive or compensatory tool, reparations are part of an alliances surrender terms. They are acknowledging that they have lost and are paying this money for the incredibly under-appreciated move on the victor's part of not continuing to beat them into the ground. I could probably go on but I'm hoping you've a better understanding of how reparations work at this stage Edited February 20, 2010 by Kortal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 Peace in our time o/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='ktarthan' date='20 February 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1266648363' post='2193246'] If Peace = Good And GOONS = Good Then GOONS = Peace? I am outraged you'd suggest such a thing! [/quote] Wait, war = Good so, peace = Good = war Now, according to NSO peace = 1 lie So that means that war = peace = 1 lie So war is peace and both are a lie, meaning everything is a lie, since it must be one or the other, meaning that the above statements are lies, which means the whole argument is false, but that means... n b4 nso has a collective brain aneurysm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dontasemebro Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='Kortal' date='20 February 2010 - 02:06 AM' timestamp='1266649616' post='2193286'] You don't understand how things work I'm afraid. This is not surprising frankly [/quote] Oh I stopped reading right at the end of that line. Do you even know me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts