More peace

[AirMe]

[quote name='Alterego' date='28 February 2010 - 07:26 AM' timestamp='1267360172' post='2208161']
Athens cried for a year about having to pay 12k tech in reps and sell another 2k tech. There was no viceroy and no disbandment but you whined for a year, whats up with that?
[/quote]

Yeah they only had 16k tech at the time. TOOL currently has 247k Tech. Can you see the disconnect? CAN YOU SEE IT?

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='28 February 2010 - 08:31 AM' timestamp='1267364084' post='2208207']
an aggressive alliance of TOOL's size
[/quote]
Wait, TOOL is an aggressive alliance now?

[NotYou]

Good show by those who didn't ask for reps. Good job TOOL for taking so much out of the others that they needed reps.
And congrats on the peace TOOL

[iamthey]

[quote name='AirMe' date='28 February 2010 - 02:58 PM' timestamp='1267369328' post='2208284']
Yeah they only had 16k tech at the time. TOOL currently has 247k Tech. Can you see the disconnect? CAN YOU SEE IT?
[/quote]

In terms of the real value of the reps demanded... thats still like 25% of their alliance's tech (or potentially gained tech if we are talking cash). Sure Athens isn't a good comparison, but thats not the point. The point is both cases are really unacceptable amounts, and applications of reparations.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 February 2010 - 08:25 AM' timestamp='1267363745' post='2208203']
Glad to see peace. Sad to see that our strength has been used by others to demand extorted reps for wars that they declared.

We're really filling up the Hegemony bingo card in this thread. So far they've been 'justified' by ...
- 'We're not as bad as the Initiative!'
- 'But they agreed to them, they must be ok!' (That makes every surrender ever ok, including those ones that you all complain about like noCB)
- 'We don't care what you think anyway'
- 'The winners set the terms'

Apart from the first one, it's just like being in 2007. You have set reparations that would have been of a record size before Karma, for an alliance which was supporting its allies and which most of you declared on by your own choice. Karma was supposed to mark an end to attacking alliances and then extorting reps from them.

Edit: on a more positive note, a shout-out to Fish Master who put up a good fight and reduced my bill significantly.
[/quote]

Before I post this, let me add the disclaimer that I don't understand why MA needs 22.5k tech from TOOL. From the looks of it they didn't even do that much fighting. That being said...

Bob, if you get past the propaganda and then take inflation and the actual size of TOOL into consideration, these reps are not record setting. In fact they are just a drop in the bucket for TOOL. I think someone earlier in the thread someone pointed out that 54 TOOL nations using 5 aid slots a piece can do this in one cycle. TOOL has 247k Tech right now. And in an era of warchest like we are in the monetary shouldn't even dent the rebuilding effort for TOOL.

I also agree that reps in this case are unwarranted but again, you are being intentionally misleading with your post.

[Yankees Empire]

"Drop your treaty with IRON" should've been a term, since that's obviously what everyone wants, they just don't want to get their hands dirty.

But congratulations on getting peace, TOOL

[CylonNL]

You truly deserved peace TOOL.

Those who dared to ask reps should be ashamed of themselves.
I'm glad my former Alliance didn't

[LoweAlpine]

Congratulations on peace to all parties involved.

[Alterego]

[quote name='AirMe' date='28 February 2010 - 02:58 PM' timestamp='1267369328' post='2208284']
Yeah they only had 16k tech at the time. TOOL currently has 247k Tech. Can you see the disconnect? CAN YOU SEE IT?
[/quote]
I can, can JD? the guy I quoted saying it was ok to ask for reps for damage taken. I didnt say it, he said it. CAN YOU SEE THAT?

[AirMe]

[quote name='iamthey' date='28 February 2010 - 10:03 AM' timestamp='1267369598' post='2208291']
In terms of the real value of the reps demanded... thats still like 25% of their alliance's tech (or potentially gained tech if we are talking cash). Sure Athens isn't a good comparison, but thats not the point. The point is both cases are really unacceptable amounts, and applications of reparations.
[/quote]

Except that the cash won't be converted to tech. And to be fair 3 million is nothing for most nations. And if TOOL has a good financier, then can actually use the reps to grow themselves or set themselves up for the next war.

Before you tell me I am full of crap, we did it when I was in MK. Twice.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Alterego' date='28 February 2010 - 10:08 AM' timestamp='1267369933' post='2208304']
I can, can JD? the guy I quoted saying it was ok to ask for reps for damage taken. I didnt say it, he said it. CAN YOU SEE THAT?
[/quote]

Hadn't gotten that far yet. Yes that guy was an idiot. But my point still stands.

[Sir Dingly Dang]

[quote name='Farnsworth' date='27 February 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1267331914' post='2207515']
Congrats on peace, TOOL!

I am glad to see Viridia continue on with a no-reps policy.

o/ Viridia
[/quote]
Agreed

o/ VE
o/ peace

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Tyekuso' date='28 February 2010 - 08:47 AM' timestamp='1267368658' post='2208270']
What's this?? An extremely intelligent post? What's the OWF coming too?

No one likes paying reps, but it's war. Victors will demand what they desire, tis the nature of war. No hard feelings, even though as a member of TOOl I'll end up sending a bunch out. However, what really shocks me, is the change in tone of MK. I'd never thought that this alliance who strove to fight 'tyranny' with valor and style could allow its members to convert to trolling. Echoing what the dakotans said, it boggles the mind what TOOL did to have MK members want to troll us so viciously.

Seems to me that the old adage holds true in this case. Power corrupts!
[/quote]MK has always trolled. There was a short period when we were all OWF-gagged, because suggesting Moo wasn't the lord God of everything would've meant MK's immediate trouncing by 400 alliances, but the alliance has always had a strong presence on the forums defending the spirit of the membership's views.

To pretend you're shocked at an alliance with such an outspoken membership defending their allies on the forums is immensely facetious.


[quote name='Haflinger' date='28 February 2010 - 09:00 AM' timestamp='1267369429' post='2208287']
Wait, TOOL is an aggressive alliance now?


[/quote]I'm sure you've played this game long enough to know what the oA stands for in MDoAP, dear. There was an option to act in aggression and they took it. Don't try and attach any further connotation to the word, you wouldn't be doing anyone any favours.


[quote name='AirMe' date='28 February 2010 - 09:08 AM' timestamp='1267369935' post='2208305']
Except that the cash won't be converted to tech. And to be fair 3 million is nothing for most nations. And if TOOL has a good financier, then can actually use the reps to grow themselves or set themselves up for the next war.

Before you tell me I am full of crap, we did it when I was in MK. Twice.
[/quote]I would like to second this, CnG in general and MK and Athens in particular know what it is like to suffer truly draconian reps.

Now, I'm not sure quite what happened in this war that justifies 22.5k tech to MA (in fact, TOOL only fought 13 offensive wars against them...and MA only lost 0.85mil NS...hm) but otherwise the terms seem fair to me. Maybe the other alliances forewent their reps from TOOL in order that MA might get some tech, how am I to know what happens in the back-channels?

But TOOL's reps aren't crippling. They're not going to have to disband, or lose their core membership over it. They're not going to have 10 months where their growth is stagnant -- in fact I don't doubt their growth will start properly this week. Their membership, much to their credit, aren't whining and kicking up a public fuss.

The reps are big. They're a deterrent. But they are not, and cannot be described as, draconian or "disgusting".

[orangbaik]

o/ TOOL

our EX ally..

[silentkiller]

[quote]I'm sure you've played this game long enough to know what the oA stands for in MDoAP, dear. There was an option to act in aggression and they took it. Don't try and attach any further connotation to the word, you wouldn't be doing anyone any favours.[/quote]

Is the concept of chaining and non chaining treaties really that hard to understand?

Edited February 28, 2010 by silentkiller

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='28 February 2010 - 09:32 AM' timestamp='1267371358' post='2208329']
Is the concept of chaining and non chaining treaties really that hard to understand?
[/quote]No need to bring complications in here. The long and the short version was that they had an optional (implying choice) aggression pact with an aggressor. There was no obligation (implying imperative).

[Tromp]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='28 February 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1267369429' post='2208287']
Wait, TOOL is an aggressive alliance now?
[/quote][quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 February 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1267363745' post='2208203']
Apart from the first one, it's just like being in 2007. You have set reparations that would have been of a record size before Karma, for an alliance which was supporting its allies and which most of you declared on by your own choice. Karma was supposed to mark an end to attacking alliances and then extorting reps from them.
[/quote]
Bob, you do realize that TOOL (amongst others in this war) decided to back up TOP/IRON/etc. in their war of agression.
This is in no way extortion.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Tromp

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='28 February 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1267371709' post='2208335']
No need to bring complications in here. The long and the short version was that they had an optional (implying choice) aggression pact with an aggressor. There was no obligation (implying imperative).
[/quote]


I was going to reply with how chaining treaties work, but then I read Iron-TOOL treaty and its non-chaining as far as I can tell. Guess you were right . Oh and the activated optional defense not optional agression.

Edited February 28, 2010 by silentkiller

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='28 February 2010 - 09:43 AM' timestamp='1267372020' post='2208339']
I was going to reply with how chaining treaties work, but then I read Iron-TOOL treaty and its non-chaining as far as I can tell. Guess you were right . Oh and the activated optional defense not optional agression.
[/quote]It's pointless semantics whether they declared "in defence of an attacking alliance" or "attacking alongside an attacking alliance". One sounds better, so alliance leaders and DoWs will always use it. But it is still a war of aggression.

However, I am glad you concede that this was not an old-style massive tech raid.

[Diomede]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='28 February 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1267372307' post='2208342']
It's pointless semantics whether they declared "in defence of an attacking alliance" or "attacking alongside an attacking alliance". One sounds better, so alliance leaders and DoWs will always use it. But it is still a war of aggression.

However, I am glad you concede that this was not an old-style massive tech raid.
[/quote]
I entirely agree, it is pointless semantics. Stop using them.
TOOL defended IRON. How and why doesn't matter, it was a defensive move.

These reps are disappointing to say the least. I'm fine with the reps in general, sans the opportunism of MA. Considering how painfully tech light they are, it's understandable though I guess.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Tromp' date='28 February 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1267371734' post='2208336']
Bob, you do realize that TOOL (amongst others in this war) decided to back up TOP/IRON/etc. in their war of agression.
This is in no way extortion.
[/quote]

Claiming that TOP or IRON did the right thing is something that no one does and no one supports. Pretty much all the alliances fighting on the side we did did so because they saw their friends in a difficult position, fighting an outnumbered war. A friend is there on the good and the bad moments (unless you're Sparta) and that is why most alliances went to war, like your buddies in MK were ready to do in the Knights of Ni! debacle. Now, you can be blunt and keep telling yourself we were all supporting TOP and IRON's plan, or you can accept the fact that it is not that simple. However, accepting that fact requires you to give up your propaganda line and find something more intelligent to repeat again and again.

[Rocky Horror]

[b]@Diomede:[/b] They didn't have to defend them. Their treaty exists to give them the option to defend their allies if they think it's worth it. Sadly, they entered on an aggressive front and so could expect to pay reparations on defeat, perhaps not as heavily as they did. It's semantics whether you want to call it aggression or defence, but in the only way it matters re: reps it was an aggressive war.

[ooc]I like your CNTE nation name, we tend to start at Bobby's and work to the other end of the Grassmarket...

Edited February 28, 2010 by Rocky Horror

[AirMe]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='28 February 2010 - 10:56 AM' timestamp='1267372808' post='2208350']
Claiming that TOP or IRON did the right thing is something that no one does and no one supports. Pretty much all the alliances fighting on the side we did did so because they saw their friends in a difficult position, fighting an outnumbered war. A friend is there on the good and the bad moments (unless you're Sparta) and that is why most alliances went to war, like your buddies in MK were ready to do in the Knights of Ni! debacle. Now, you can be blunt and keep telling yourself we were all supporting TOP and IRON's plan, or you can accept the fact that it is not that simple. However, accepting that fact requires you to give up your propaganda line and find something more intelligent to repeat again and again.
[/quote]

The difference is, in the Knights of Ni! thing and in the original Polar \m/ conflict there were allies of C&G that said they would not fight under those circumstances. As soon as TITFtD preempted that all changed for those of us who had that stance.

Part of being a good ally is letting them know when they are barking up the wrong tree.

Edited February 28, 2010 by AirMe

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Tromp' date='28 February 2010 - 10:38 AM' timestamp='1267371734' post='2208336']
Bob, you do realize that TOOL (amongst others in this war) decided to back up TOP/IRON/etc. in their war of agression.
This is in no way extortion.
[/quote]
I am sorry, but I disagree. Friends are friends through thick and thin. The idea of only being there when your ally is "right" is what plagues Bob. When friends were really friends, people were more conservative with those who they truly called friends. As a result, four things happened:
1. Political entanglement and more treaties
2. The word friend no longer being pure, but rather being of something else; such as, being there when you're 'right' but not when you're 'wrong'.
3. E-lawyering occurred more frequently with technicalities
4. Friends became more unreliable

Edited February 28, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[Lusitan]

[quote name='AirMe' date='28 February 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1267373039' post='2208353']
The difference is, in the Knights of Ni! thing and in the original Polar \m/ conflict there were allies of C&G that said they would not fight under those circumstances. As soon as TITFtD preempted that all changed for those of us who had that stance.

Part of being a good ally is letting them know when they are barking up the wrong tree.
[/quote]

The other part of being a good ally is to be there when the damage is done and it can't be stopped. Sadly the part you mentioned doesn't apply to the situation.