NATO/TFD/GUN/LSF/ADI/LSN Surrender

[Kortal]

I edited out that line in the hopes that you will actually go back and read the rest. I sincerely think it will be informative

[JT Jag]

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='20 February 2010 - 01:55 AM' timestamp='1266648954' post='2193264']
I fix your logic below
Nachos=good
GOONS=good
GOONS=nachos



also nachos=peace
[/quote]Logical fallacies are delicious!

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='19 February 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1266649712' post='2193289']
Oh I stopped reading
[/quote]

Oh I stopped reading right about there. But I'm sure you rebutted their argument instead of asking an inane question.

[Xavii]

[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. [/quote]

Then why sign optional treaties? I mean the optional part is there keep people from following stupid moves.

If you wanna have their back regardless then you can go ahead and sign a MADP.

[SonOfHoward]

GOONS & FoB keepin' it draconian. Fo realsies

[Dontasemebro]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='20 February 2010 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1266649520' post='2193283']
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.
[/quote]

Yes, it is reason enough to sit it out. But it's also completely fair and just to NOT sit it out, and very honorable to NOT sit it out. Especially when it's the losing side. Especially when the war isn't justified and most of their allies will abandon them. That's when they need your help the MOST. Not when they're fighting a winning crusade with everyone's support.

If the CRIME is the SUPPORT of the war against C&G (which we agree was wrong), then all of C&G deserves reps. But I argued that honoring an oA clause is not support. Just because you have the option to leave your allies hanging to dry doesn't mean that choosing to stand by them even when they've made a mistake is a crime worthy of having to pay reparations.

If the CRIME was INFRA/tech damage, we're all guilty of that, and victors should not be vindicated of crimes "just cuz we won yo."

If there was no unique crime to what NATO/TFD did over what other alliances did, then it was simply due to the massive hurt they placed on FoB, and it seems both parties are okay with NATO/TFD sending money to fix what they broke. I asked why, FoB/NATO answered with "Well, lots of FoB is broken right now, and we asked help to fix it, and NATO/TFD said okay. It isn't much anyway."

[D34th]

After see alliances like GOONS and FoB receiving reparations in a war who started because of raid I have to admit, we failed hard and hope for a better cyberverse is no more.

[SonOfHoward]

[quote name='D34th' date='19 February 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1266650045' post='2193300']
After see alliances like GOONS and FoB receiving reparations in a war who started because of raid I have to admit, we failed hard and hope for a better cyberverse is no more.


[/quote]

Hope is still there...just not for those two alliances.

Edited February 20, 2010 by SonOfHoward

[Kortal]

[quote name='D34th' date='20 February 2010 - 02:14 AM' timestamp='1266650045' post='2193300']
After see alliances like GOONS and FoB receiving reparations in a war who started because of raid I have to admit, we failed hard and hope for a better cyberverse is no more.


[/quote]
Well you got about a fifth of that sentence correct

[Believland]

[quote name='Smacky' date='20 February 2010 - 01:39 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]
u mad?

[quote name='Xavii' date='20 February 2010 - 02:11 AM' timestamp='1266649872' post='2193293']
Then why sign optional treaties? I mean the optional part is there keep people from following stupid moves.

If you wanna have their back regardless then you can go ahead and sign a MADP.
[/quote]
Some alliances don't like to hand over their sovereignty

I'm way too tired to be talking. Night all. Enjoy your peace. Someone will be knocking on your doorstep in a couple of months over some stupid thing. That really just seems moronic.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Believland

[neneko]

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='20 February 2010 - 08:04 AM' timestamp='1266649460' post='2193280']
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.
[/quote]
As I said doing the honorable thing doesn't remove any of the responsibility for your actions. If you choose to support a unjustified war then you're responsible for that decision even if your friend went in first.

[Dontasemebro]

[quote name='Kortal' date='20 February 2010 - 02:06 AM' timestamp='1266649616' post='2193286']
1. Reparations have no absolute rules or standards attached to them. [b]agreed, we're talking about a better karma world here[/b] In every situation they are unique. By arguing as if there are any set rules for them, you immediately start off in the wrong. [b]If I were doing that, I agree I would be in the wrong, but I am not arguing objective standards, just questioning the standards, and FoB/NATO have answered, and I have accepted their answer[/b]

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?[b]You're absolutely right, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are free from responsibility for what they did. They absolutely are even MORE responsible for what they did because it was optional, and not a binding treaty.[/b]

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.
[b]I don't accept "how the world works." "The Orders run things" used to be how the world works. "The Initiative/Continuum decides which alliances are allowed to stick around" used to be how the world works. The winner "deserving" reparations is exactly what Im arguing against here. I am asking why the winning side, SuperComplaints (pretty much decided by now), is vindicated from doing 100% of the crimes that NATO and TFD have done, and no longer have to pay reps. I know that the world "works" where the winner gets to get reps and the loser gets screwed even though they didn't do anything wrong. That's how it's always been with some alliances. I'm voicing my disagreement with THAT standard. Your very first point, that there is no concrete standards for how reps work, I believe invalidate this argument. Reps can work a different way.

Don't take my argument against how the world works as a sign that I don't know why or how it works.[/b]

I could probably go on but I'm hoping you've a better understanding of how reparations work at this stage. [b]I too hope you have a better understanding of where I'm coming from, and wish to keep this discussion respectful of both sides' intelligence levels.[/b]
[/quote]

There we go, bold because Im line-by-line like that.

[neneko]

[quote name='Believland' date='20 February 2010 - 08:19 AM' timestamp='1266650371' post='2193306']
Some alliances don't like to hand over their sovereignty.
[/quote]
A sovereign alliance is free to make their own decisions and is also responsible for their own decisions. See what we're getting back to here?

[Believland]

[quote name='neneko' date='20 February 2010 - 02:21 AM' timestamp='1266650480' post='2193311']
A sovereign alliance is free to make their own decisions and is also responsible for their own decisions. See what we're getting back to here?
[/quote]
Not when you sign a MDAP. You and I both know it.

[Scorbolt]

[quote name='Believland' date='20 February 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1266650666' post='2193313']
Not when you sign a MDAP. You and I both know it.
[/quote]

From what I have heard it would be foolish to view the TFD/NATO treaty as anything less than a MDAP.

[neneko]

[quote name='Believland' date='20 February 2010 - 08:24 AM' timestamp='1266650666' post='2193313']
Not when you sign a MDAP. You and I both know it.
[/quote]
I think you missed my point. They sign oA instead of A because they want to keep the sovereignty. That also means that when they act on that oA as a sovereign alliance they are responsible for their own actions.

[Dontasemebro]

[quote name='Xavii' date='20 February 2010 - 02:11 AM' timestamp='1266649872' post='2193293']
Then why sign optional treaties? I mean the optional part is there keep people from following stupid moves.

If you wanna have their back regardless then you can go ahead and sign a MADP.
[/quote]

Oh, well, if RoK was attacking FARK, I wouldn't go in with them, just FYI. I also wouldn't go if RoK was under the impression that they needed to attack Sparta "because our beans are about to be rotten."

I may have their back if they've made a mistake and acknowledge that with me, but not if they are doing something wrong and think it's right, and I'd probably support canceling the MDoAP because we clearly would be at a different level if they went to war with one of our allies for such inane reasons.

Obviously, Im using extreme examples. But my bottom line here is that there are some cases I would not have RoK's back in the aggressive way. There are no cases where I would not have their back in the defensive way. Hence, MDoAP.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='20 February 2010 - 02:26 AM' timestamp='1266650777' post='2193317']
Oh, well, if RoK was attacking FARK, I wouldn't go in with them, just FYI. I also wouldn't go if RoK was under the impression that they needed to attack Sparta "because our beans are about to be rotten."

I may have their back if they've made a mistake and acknowledge that with me, but not if they are doing something wrong and think it's right, and I'd probably support canceling the MDoAP because we clearly would be at a different level if they went to war with one of our allies for such inane reasons.

Obviously, Im using extreme examples. But my bottom line here is that there are some cases I would not have RoK's back in the aggressive way. There are no cases where I would not have their back in the defensive way. Hence, MDoAP.
[/quote]
And they invoked an oA on FoB when TOP and IRON used "we think you don't like us" as their reason to attack.

[Believland]

[quote name='neneko' date='20 February 2010 - 02:26 AM' timestamp='1266650776' post='2193316']
I think you missed my point. They sign oA instead of A because they want to keep the sovereignty. That also means that when they act on that oA as a sovereign alliance they are responsible for their own actions.
[/quote]
Bro, I'm **** tired right now. I have no idea what your point was. But, hey if FoB wants reps more power to them. I don't care, it's not coming from my nation.

[Kortal]

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='20 February 2010 - 02:20 AM' timestamp='1266650446' post='2193309']
There we go, bold because Im line-by-line like that.
[/quote]
I appreciate both your going back to the post and your reasonable arguments.

In regard to the last paragraph or so, SF alliances don't need to pay reparations because again, such things are paid in order for another alliance to cease attacks upon those paying them. While the winner in the conflict is generally the one that proposes the amount of reps to be payed and to whom, they are in effect something offered by the loser so that the war will end. They're in the exact same category as changing one's AA to "x alliance pow" or decommissioning troops. People just associate them as being different because they last far beyond the actual war, or so I imagine is the case.

I would also reiterate that just because an alliance feels it has a legitimate reason for declaring war on another alliance, even if everyone in CN feels they have a good reason, doesn't mean they're not responsible for the attack. If an alliance makes the honorable call and comes to the defense of an ally regardless of their feelings on the war or how many people are against them, I for one approve of them, and in general the majority if not all of CN feels similarly. They're an alliance I'd want to be allied to myself. But again, this doesn't mean they don't have to face up to the attack, and if they're defeated, it doesn't mean they don't have to worry about any sort of terms imposed by the winner. They may be great guys, but they still attacked an alliance and in general, that's not something people are quick dismiss.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='19 February 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1266650446' post='2193309']
There we go, bold because Im line-by-line like that.
[/quote]

(Replying to this post and hoping it'll also address the response you gave to me)

I don't think that in this situation the reps indicate that NATO/TFD were "bad" or "wrong" in the sense it is implied. When surrender talks came up, FoB (and GOONS) thought "You know, I'd like some recompense for the damage I have suffered". Do you think it is wrong for them to want to recoup some (very small) bit of their losses?
They brought this as terms for the surrender, and after discussing it, an agreement was reached. Just because no one else in this conflict has asked for reps does not mean that anyone else is undeserving of them.

I do not think that the winning side is "vindicated" from having to pay reps, but the winning side has more leverage to get what they want. Both sides would obviously love to get rebuilding money, but only one has the leverage to do so.

[Dontasemebro]

[quote name='flak attack' date='20 February 2010 - 02:29 AM' timestamp='1266650982' post='2193320']
And they invoked an oA on FoB when TOP and IRON used "we think you don't like us" as their reason to attack.
[/quote]
Actually, to be fair, I dont think C&G did like them, so that part of the CB was at least true

Buut yeah, there's no question that TOP/IRON made a huge mistake. I take some assumption as to why NATO/TFD helped, and that they didn't necessarily support that part...but regardless of how terrible TOP/IRON are in the winning sides' eyes, I argue that honoring an optional clause is not something that means you should ever pay reps.

I have a question to propose to you. if NATO was ODP'd to TOP, and your alliance declared war on TOP in defense of your ally (athens for arguments sake) and they honored the oDp, would they suddenly be in support of TOP's aggression on athens? No, they'd be defending their ally.

If instead of invoking their oA, they had declared based on their MD and hit someone who was hitting them, would they really have been free of reps? No guarantees in this world. But the TOP/IRON krew determines that NATO and TFD needed to hit FoB for some reason, and that was the best way to help the TOP/IRON side at the time. (this is a decent amount of assumption)

Also, everyone does realize that I agree with the reps now because NATO said "We're glad to help fix what we broke, we did a lot of damage to you"

[Dontasemebro]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='20 February 2010 - 02:35 AM' timestamp='1266651335' post='2193326']

(Replying to this post and hoping it'll also address the response you gave to me)

I don't think that in this situation the reps indicate that NATO/TFD were "bad" or "wrong" in the sense it is implied. When surrender talks came up, FoB (and GOONS) thought "You know, I'd like some recompense for the damage I have suffered". Do you think it is wrong for them to want to recoup some (very small) bit of their losses?
They brought this as terms for the surrender, and after discussing it, an agreement was reached. Just because no one else in this conflict has asked for reps does not mean that anyone else is undeserving of them.

I do not think that the winning side is "vindicated" from having to pay reps, but the winning side has more leverage to get what they want. Both sides would obviously love to get rebuilding money, but only one has the leverage to do so.
[/quote]
Absolutely agreed. Especially considering your last point. Hey, look, an AP debate went well.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Dontasemebro' date='19 February 2010 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1266651493' post='2193334']
Absolutely agreed. Especially considering your last point. Hey, look, an AP debate went well.
[/quote]

Wait... what? This is where you counter with a "might makes right" argument!

[Dontasemebro]

[quote name='Kortal' date='20 February 2010 - 02:35 AM' timestamp='1266651331' post='2193325']
I appreciate both your going back to the post and your reasonable arguments.

In regard to the last paragraph or so, SF alliances don't need to pay reparations because again, such things are paid in order for another alliance to cease attacks upon those paying them. While the winner in the conflict is generally the one that proposes the amount of reps to be payed and to whom, they are in effect something offered by the loser so that the war will end. They're in the exact same category as changing one's AA to "x alliance pow" or decommissioning troops. People just associate them as being different because they last far beyond the actual war, or so I imagine is the case.

I would also reiterate that just because an alliance feels it has a legitimate reason for declaring war on another alliance, even if everyone in CN feels they have a good reason, doesn't mean they're not responsible for the attack. If an alliance makes the honorable call and comes to the defense of an ally regardless of their feelings on the war or how many people are against them, I for one approve of them, and in general the majority if not all of CN feels similarly. They're an alliance I'd want to be allied to myself. But again, this doesn't mean they don't have to face up to the attack, and if they're defeated, it doesn't mean they don't have to worry about any sort of terms imposed by the winner. They may be great guys, but they still attacked an alliance and in general, that's not something people are quick dismiss.
[/quote]

I would disagree with your first paragraph for the following reason: Decomms and changing AAs and peace mode restrictions are made to keep the other side from re-engaging dishonestly and against the terms of one's surrender. They are meant to discourage rogues. Nowadays, with warchests the way they are, the only decomms that really have an effect are nuclear and naval decomms. But nobody can really stop someone from going into peace mode, building up a military, and coming out. Nobody can stop a surrendered alliance from doing it collectively. The only thing is that it's looked down upon. Reps, however, are in a different category. They're an apology for a wrong-doing, and my argument was that there was no such wrong-doing.

The main philosophical disagreement we have is that you determine responsibility for one's action once victory is determined. I would have you determine reps for both sides purely based on actions of both sides, and not of NS or victories or previous surrenders. That means if FoB lost, you would say that they shouldn't have gotten reps. This I cannot agree with. Victory cannot be such a pivotal point in whether an alliance deserves an apology. In the case of TOP/IRON vs C&G, the losing side will apologize simply to get out of having to lose more infrastructure. I sincerely doubt one side will honestly believe that they are wrong. So in the case of the main players in this war, victory determines the reps de facto. But when you're coming in simply to honor a treaty, optional or not, and you lose, and the other side is only getting reps because they're on the winning side, I disagree with that precedent.