More peace

[bigwoody]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='28 February 2010 - 11:57 AM' timestamp='1267380055' post='2208517']
[i]OOC: Yeah, it worked wonders when the victorious Allies demanded crushing reparations in the Treaty of Versailles...absolutely nothing went wrong. [/i]

IC: Heavy reparations have been an issue that have caused bitterness and additional conflict since the beginning. So what's wrong with breaking the cycle? It's not traditional?
[/quote]
I think you missed the main point, or at least the way I read it. Sparta is fully capable of enforcing a requirement of blood money for this war. They have the upper hand and a sovereign right to use it as they please.

However, as has been said many times, its a dangerous game to exercise that right.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 February 2010 - 11:07 AM' timestamp='1267377050' post='2208435']


I'm saying that wonder decommission, viceroys, removing people from government and all the other unjust terms you can pick out from history [b]are not reps[/b].

Edit: Rocky, thanks for acknowledging your mistake. Indeed, 2 billion of reps is not as bad overall terms as you got in noCB. But the reps [i]are[/i] comparable.
[/quote]It's a power of rounding up to get to $2billion, but yes they are comparable. 7 is comparable to 3248594782350987435094378594387437860576085675 thusly:

The latter number is much bigger. Unlike 7 it does not begin or end with a "7", but paradoxically it does include more "7"s than the number 7.

Just because you can compare the two sets of terms (as you can any quantitative data) doesn't mean that they are "comparable" in any useful sense.

[quote name='iamthey' date='28 February 2010 - 11:10 AM' timestamp='1267377241' post='2208443']
They are draconian- or a better term unacceptable.

But in my book so is imposing anything (beyond no-reentry) on an alliance that entered due to treaty/allied [color=red][b]obligations[/b][/color]. I do not like or support the idea of reps in general, I wouldn't demand them of any alliance. However, I may be able to [i]understand[/i] reps imposed on aggressive alliances at the initial point of the conflict. But even then- TOOL was not among those.
[/quote]This is a popularly misused word. I am afraid you are putting it to its popular misuse.


[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='28 February 2010 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1267379734' post='2208508']
Whether or not Bob Janova is right, it doesn't make the reparations that are part of the surrender terms the right thing to do, and it absolutely doesn't make the amount demanded justifiable.

For me the question is not whether or not reparations are excessive, the question is why are we even here having yet another debate because an alliance(s) felt like someone else should involuntarily help in their recovery from war and/or be punished for the "crime" of following treaties.
[/quote]They did not "follow" treaties. They [i]chose to act[/i] on treaties which gave them the [i]option[/i] of entry.

Now, I personally believe the reps are excessive. But their right to seek reasonable reps here is not to be brushed away by the fact there was a treaty allowing them legal entry.

[janax]

[quote name='Tromp' date='28 February 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1267378346' post='2208473']

The point is that all alliances that chained in from TOP/IRON [i]were not obliged[/i] to help them in any way or form, since they started a war of agression. Now, all of them did [i]choose[/i] to chain in, so they [i]intentionally[/i] made TOP/IRONs cause theirs. Is it that hard to understand that you are helping the war effort of TOP/IRON by chaining into that war?

[/quote]

Nice to see that FOK supports tech raiding 30+ member alliaces and racially deragatory statements. Since you "chained in" to the Polar-\m/ war aggressively, you made their cause yours.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Lord GVChamp' date='28 February 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1267379781' post='2208510']
Yet people WERE utterly livid about it.

I can't remember Athens's composition at the time or the exact terms. 12k tech out of 16k tech in an alliance would not horrible, though, so tech proportionality isn't really the best method. The same proportion from, say, FCC, would be utterly devastating.
[/quote]

Read his statement again. He was talking about the wonder decommission term ONLY.

[DRail]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='28 February 2010 - 01:41 AM' timestamp='1267339500' post='2207818']
Are you mental? Your nations were turtle mainaics. My first tool guy is in bill lock ( you wanna teach em warchests better) and my second guy didn't even land battle me a single time. Classy in victory ohh thats right you lost, enjoy and thanks for the reps
[/quote]


No point in looking for you to be classy in victory. Make sure you enjoy those reps.

The reps say it all, obviously TOOL put down some heavy damage for Sparta to think they deserved such reps.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='28 February 2010 - 06:42 PM' timestamp='1267379175' post='2208492']
I seem to recall Archon the other day explained that 2+2=4, perhaps you should go take a few lessons with him, because helping TOP/IRON's war effort does not mean one embraces their cause or even agrees with it. Might simply mean one wants to do the best possible to avoid TOP/IRON from geting killed - which indeed does in this case - which is why they went in without, in your opinion, any obligation.
[/quote]
Yeah, how is this different from what I was saying. Thanks for agreeing.

[Lord GVChamp]

[quote name='AirMe' date='28 February 2010 - 12:01 PM' timestamp='1267380328' post='2208527']
Read his statement again. He was talking about the wonder decommission term ONLY.
[/quote]
Was he? That's not how I read it. Seemed he was saying "if you look just at the tech terms, these are 63% as bad, and those weren't even the worst terms imposed." And yet, people were indeed whining about those tech terms too, quite justifiably if I do say so myself.

[William Blake]

[quote name='garbucs' date='28 February 2010 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1267378096' post='2208467']
Its a good day. TOOL once again surrenders in back to back wars and then wants to talk about how Inferior there foe fought.
[/quote]
You sure you didn't surrender to us after the last war?

Also, congrats on peace, TOOL. Sound like you did a great job. Props to VE, LoSS, RIA, and LOUD.

[chefjoe]

Disgusting amount, You should have just said 'no' TOOL and kept on nuking.

You would have more fun watching the nukes hit em then paying this over the next 120 days or so.

Just my .02

Edited February 28, 2010 by chefjoe

[Penkala]

[quote]Pathetic. To Sparta and the others who asked for exorbitant reps: people are taking notice. The post-war world, politically, could be chaotic. Remember that some of us will define our foreign affairs by actions such as these.

Good luck TOOL. [/quote]

Honestly, while an aspect of this is true, I'm not buying it for your alliance. Or about 40 others. You've decided your friends. You've decided the political climate you want to live in (hint: it's one where these would be considered [i]light[/i] reps for a 4m NS alliance). You didn't switch sides when we gave almost every single one of you white peace or extremely lenient terms last time. We can't go any lower than nothing. So if giving out no reps didn't convince you to side with us, then nothing will.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Lord GVChamp' date='28 February 2010 - 06:47 PM' timestamp='1267379430' post='2208500']
And given the logic expressed here, FOK, had its side of the war lost, should have had some of the most crippling reps of all time imposed on it,
[/quote]
My alliance was ready to go in with full knowledge what could happen. This has never been disputed.

This is an academic debate, not really all that relevant imo. We could go on about 'if B then C', but that seems useless to me.

[SonOfHoward]

Again Sparta leading the charge in outlandish reps. Too bad about MA and Nemesis deciding to allow themselves to be painted with the same brush as Sparta. I can't say this won't come back to bite Sparta, MA and Nemesis in the future...

[Tromp]

[quote name='janax' date='28 February 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1267380322' post='2208526']
Nice to see that FOK supports tech raiding 30+ member alliaces and racially deragatory statements. Since you "chained in" to the Polar-\m/ war aggressively, you made their cause yours.
[/quote]
This has been debated to death the week it happened.
Facts:
- there was nothing racist said
- FOK allows the raiding of up to 20 member 'alliances'.
- FOK went in to support PC, even though I can agree with you that we were thus helping \m/s war effort as well. That wasn't our concern though.

Also, see my reply above.

[Lord GVChamp]

[quote name='Tromp' date='28 February 2010 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1267381685' post='2208563']
My alliance was ready to go in with full knowledge what could happen. This has never been disputed.

This is an academic debate, not really all that relevant imo. We could go on about 'if B then C', but that seems useless to me.
[/quote]
Full knowledge that it could happen is hardly the same as something that SHOULD happen. I know it could be that NPO decided in the course of the war that terms didn't apply to them and they attacked VE and the Orders would've torn us to pieces, but this is not something I would be perfectly okay with.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Lord GVChamp' date='28 February 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1267381593' post='2208559']
Was he? That's not how I read it. Seemed he was saying "if you look just at the tech terms, these are 63% as bad, and those weren't even the worst terms imposed." And yet, people were indeed whining about those tech terms too, quite justifiably if I do say so myself.
[/quote]

That wasn't how I read it at first either. I am pretty sure that is what he meant. Delta is sneaky like that.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Lord GVChamp' date='28 February 2010 - 07:27 PM' timestamp='1267381873' post='2208573']
Full knowledge that it could happen is hardly the same as something that SHOULD happen. I know it could be that NPO decided in the course of the war that terms didn't apply to them and they attacked VE and the Orders would've torn us to pieces, but this is not something I would be perfectly okay with.
[/quote]
Ok, just to answer what I feel would've been just or not in that particular case.

I would disagree with any form of terms/reps, since Polar unjustly started that war.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Tromp

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='28 February 2010 - 01:52 AM' timestamp='1267343782' post='2207963']
No not really, you are attempting to pass off a fallacy as sound reasoning, while ignoring relative damage, and starting strengths.[/quote]

if this is true, then no one needed reps and thus, they are forcing reps when they are unneeded. that is taking all into account, which is what i was getting at to begin with. it seems you are ignoring things as well and are attempting to make it seem that while TOOL took more relative damage than any alliance fighting TOOL, they are obviously in this wonderful state to be capable of rebuilding and paying reps. i will admit, most likely they are in a position where they [i]can[/i] do this. but if TOOL is in this position, then those alliances wanting reps should also be in said position. it is logical deduction that if one alliance is capable of doing it then all alliances are. if one alliance is defeated after fighting 7 alliances for a few weeks, losing half its NS, and being involved in a nuke heavy war to so [i]easily[/i] pay 1.7 billion as you pointed out. then why is T-O-P stating that Nemesis is in such need of reps that they will basically disappear without them, why does Sparta need $800 million, and MA need 22.5k tech? obviously if TOOL will have such this easy time with paying reps and rebuilding, then it is equally obvious and true that Sparta, Nemesis, and MA don't need reps as they should be more than capable of rebuilding without any reps or outside aid whatsoever.

i mean that is only logical if it is sooooooooo logical that TOOL will have this super-easy time with reps and rebuilding.



[quote]Well of course from TOOL's point of view they'd rather spend their own money on them selves, but golly gee willikers batman, that's just not how it works when you lose a war.[/quote]

why golly gee willikers robin, you must have ignored the reasoning why i stated that. but good job making yourself look like an $@! by trying to make me look like one.



[quote]Try harder, it didn't work.
[/quote]

it worked a whole lot better than you did. i would suggest you don't open your mouth until you actually look at everything instead of just a tiny portion.

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='28 February 2010 - 01:54 AM' timestamp='1267343878' post='2207965']
Terms are not meant to help the victor rebuild, it's to make the loser take longer to do so. What kind of naive world do you live in, Doch?
[/quote]

i know reps are punitive. does not mean i see the need for them unless it is the primary alliances involved. those just honoring treaties are now supposed to get reps from what you say? yet, i remember many on CnG/SF's side whining when it happened to them. honestly, all this talk about how CnG and their allies were not a threat to TOP/IRON/friends accept through the Polar-\m/ war is starting to look more and more like a crock of !@#$ the longer this goes on. if for some reason, CnG/SF hadn't gotten their chance now to take out TOP/IRON/friends, i have a good feeling some pathetic excuse would have been found to hit them.

[quote name='Lord GVChamp' date='28 February 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1267344863' post='2207991']
Nothing to cry about, perhaps, but not the kind of behavior I really would want and I see nothing wrong with expressing that viewpoint. Reparations are kicking a defeated alliance while they are down and should really only be reserved for special circumstances. Not this idea of "well, you lost a war, therefore you pay reps" or "you might be a threat in the future, so you pay reps" or "these reps aren't that bad."

I mean, !@#$, if you are making the argument that the reps aren't bad because chests are so huge, I don't see the big problem with wonder decommission. It's only ONE month back and it's ONLY $150 million out your gargantuan chest. Hell, I suspect it will be REQUIRED if we really adopt the "you have a warchest therefore you will be a threat forever" type of thinking.
[/quote]

well given the way things are going we have already seen improvement decommissioning, which means wonder decommission will most likely occur, possibly in this war. we will most likely progress all the way back to viceroys and all those really nasty things the Heg did back in the day. all the while, NPO/Heg would still always be worse and have always done worse things somehow.

[quote name='Delta1212' date='28 February 2010 - 02:21 AM' timestamp='1267345516' post='2208001']
Oh, most of them can be quite nice when they want. I'm even friends with a few people that I know for a fact have acted like jerks in negotiations and things, though you wouldn't know it talking to them in any other context. To be perfectly honest, I've always been quite sure you act the way you do because you really have no idea what you inherited and I imagine it would make the reactions to it very difficult to understand or put in context.

Attitudes in CN have shifted [I]drastically[/I] over the years, and most of the people complaining today don't know what it was like it legitimately live in fear of having your alliance rolled if you said the wrong thing. Bros used to do a Sims house based on CN called WUT house where he made prominent characters and told stories about what they did in the house with screen grabs. He had bidding going at one point to get to pick a character (or made it was advertising? He did a couple bidding things and I forget which this was). WUT won the bidding by threatening to roll anyone who outbid them. Hell, I was afraid FAN would even notice my alliance existed because they used small alliances for training exercises.

People today have no concept of what living in fear is actually like.
[/quote]

so before FAN used small alliances as training exercises. now we have PC, \m/, GOONS, Athens, FoB, and even NEW who essentially do just that. i think both incidents the "we wanted to train our noobies" was used (well i know for Athens/FoB it was).

as for threatening- should we look at Xiph in this thread. sure he ain't exactly threatening to "roll" anyone but he is stating that anyone who has fought on the opposite side of GOD/allies, should pay more and more reps just because they fought against GOD/allies and they should not be capable of doing so with impugnity.

we have CnG stating they will not even consider terms until TOP/IRON are destroyed just to ensure that they are no longer a threat.

so sure, we are not in the exact state as before, but we are getting closer and closer to a mirror image. so sure, your alliance should not be afraid considering you are tied into SF directly and tied to CnG as well. but from the attitudes of many on CnG's side, anyone considered in the ex-Heg side should worry. i would suggest if you wish to be taken seriously, you should start by changing the attitudes of your many allies, since this may not be full on Heg, but it becoming Heg-lite is only a precursor for full on Heg.

[Lord GVChamp]

[quote name='AirMe' date='28 February 2010 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1267381986' post='2208576']
That wasn't how I read it at first either. I am pretty sure that is what he meant. Delta is sneaky like that.
[/quote]
Sneaky Delta

[quote name='Tromp' date='28 February 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1267382151' post='2208582']
Ok, just to answer what I feel would've been just or not in that particular case.

I would disagree with any form of terms/reps, since Polar unjustly started that war.
[/quote]
Which Polar certainly doesn't agree with I would dare say if they won the war and imposed reps, they could have used much the same logic I've seen in parts of this thread, though

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Penkala' date='28 February 2010 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1267381673' post='2208562']
Honestly, while an aspect of this is true, I'm not buying it for your alliance. Or about 40 others. You've decided your friends. You've decided the political climate you want to live in (hint: it's one where these would be considered [i]light[/i] reps for a 4m NS alliance). You didn't switch sides when we gave almost every single one of you white peace or extremely lenient terms last time. We can't go any lower than nothing. So if giving out no reps didn't convince you to side with us, then nothing will.
[/quote]

okay, this is the most pathetic argument. i have seen !@#$ like "well at least we didn't [b]cancel[/b] your treaties!!!!!!!" but the moment that they [b]stay[/b] with their allies, we have "well you did not come over here on your own free will when we gave you white peace or lenient terms, so you deserve everything you got."

i can't believe this is the argument being used now. it is the stupidest, most retarded one yet. sure you did not cancel their treaties, but instead you basically want to force them to your side or war them because they stayed with their friends and allies. yeah, anyone using this argument does not sound just straight pathetic and nothing like a bully at all.

[Heft]

I will be disappointed if TOOL pays these reparations. I'm already disappointed TOOL agreed to them.

This is just dumb and pathetic.

[Kill Joy]

Those are some awfully high reps there... congrats on peace tho TOOL if this is acceptable to you

[Bob]

[quote name='Heft' date='28 February 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1267384133' post='2208625']
I will be disappointed if TOOL pays these reparations. I'm already disappointed TOOL agreed to them.

This is just dumb and pathetic.
[/quote]
Huh?

You want them to agree to reparations, and then /not/ pay them?

[D34th]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='28 February 2010 - 05:46 AM' timestamp='1267346986' post='2208021']
I'm willing to have a reasonable one, if you're game.
[/quote]

I really would like to hear a reasonable argument about why TOOL need to pay over 1bi in reparations.

[OOC]I was sleeping, so I'm a bit late [/OOC]

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='28 February 2010 - 02:54 AM' timestamp='1267343878' post='2207965']
Terms are not meant to help the victor rebuild, it's to make the loser take longer to do so. What kind of naive world do you live in, Doch?
[/quote]

Why weren't you stating just an openly bland statement as that when NPO was in rule and you were !@#$%*ing in the back channels?
Not comparing these terms to hegemony, but laughing at such a general statement.

[CylonNL]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='28 February 2010 - 11:57 AM' timestamp='1267380055' post='2208517']
[i]OOC: Yeah, it worked wonders when the victorious Allies demanded crushing reparations in the Treaty of Versailles...absolutely nothing went wrong. [/i]

IC: Heavy reparations have been an issue that have caused bitterness and additional conflict since the beginning. So what's wrong with breaking the cycle? It's not traditional?
[/quote]

Comprehensive reading is a gift.

The victors always have the final say.
That's what I meant with the piece of text you quoted.
Whining and creative e-lawyering doesn't change that.