More peace

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Co God Ben' date='28 February 2010 - 05:11 AM' timestamp='1267352070' post='2208086']
Lemme try to say everything in one post.

First of all, TOOL were a tougher opponent than I expected them to be, partially because of the coalition that went in on them being stretched from wars with TOP, IRON, Argent, VA and others, but also because TOOL had a lot more nations who were prepared for war than I expected. I'm accustomed to thinking of sanctioned alliances as bloated with cowards, but TOOL was not that (besides Nykon's boy).

And despite being kicked more than once from your public channel, I came to like the TOOL people I did talk to. I can see why your allies value you so much.


Things like this make me wish we demanded reps. I don't care for LOSS' name to be used as a rhetorical tool to try to shame any of our friends. We know you hate us, don't pretend otherwise just for your drone-like owf propaganda war. Seriously, screw off.


Oh, you
[/quote]
But we don't hate you.. .I was actually quite impressed by the LoSS nations I fought. They took me down quite a long ways. My round I fought with LoSS took me down twice as much as my other round.

[Huang Ti]

Wow, i'm actually kinda disappointed in TOOL for accepting those reps

[Salmia]

[quote name='King Death II' date='28 February 2010 - 08:54 AM' timestamp='1267365468' post='2208230']
We didnt force anything on them. We gave them our terms, said if you want to take them, take them, if not keep fighting. If they thought reps were too harsh, they could just as easily kept fighting. Most of them were turtles/peace mode anyways so its not like they would have taken more damage.
[/quote]

Turtle? Peace mode? I would like to know if the people you're saying turtle were ones you were fighting after a few weeks. I was turtling near the end after having been at war for 3 weeks and at one time, have fought six wars all at once with four active updaters ( LoSS and RIA, great fun to fight!).

And peace mode? I'd like to see someone who stayed in peace mode the entire war. Escaping a stagger and getting into peace mode to avoid nuclear anarchy is a tactic so you can declare again. No point in fighting a war by staying out as a sitting duck.

I am not saying anything on the terms, but please don't claim that we peace moded this war. I know that isn't true.

[Diomede]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='28 February 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1267373022' post='2208352']
[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...
[/quote]
Using that logic means Argent entered on an aggressive front too, and we effectively got white peace. The lack of a chaining clause in our treaty aside (trolling for TOOL not activating it anyway in 3... 2... 1...) how is the situation different?

[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]
Agreed with this, it's a reason why Argent ended up as a 5th treaty chain instead of defending TOP. Part of being a good ally is backing them up while telling them how stupid they are for getting the two of you into that situation though.

[Coursca]

You know you've messed up when you get Mia, easily one of the most easy-going people on the planet, upset at you...

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='28 February 2010 - 10:05 AM' timestamp='1267373368' post='2208357']
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
[/quote]Treaty partners and members of the same coalition aren't necessarily friends. We can safely say TOOL were acting as IRON's friends rather than their treaty partners in this instance, oui? And that they were using a treaty as a legal justification to help out their friends, rather than honouring an obligation.

But as I am sure your mother told you, you shouldn't jump off a bridge just because your friend did it. There is a dignified and honourable obligation that saw FOK declare on their friends earlier this week, so if the war weighed up differently, I would be outraged to see them having to pay reps. However, TOOL chose an aggressive route, leading to having to pay reps if they lost in their fight to defend their allies. I am sure they were proud to do so.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='King Death II' date='28 February 2010 - 05:49 AM' timestamp='1267365165' post='2208225']
4. We won, TOOL lost. If our side wants to take reps, they have every right to take whatever amount they want.
[/quote]

Good glad to hear it.

Then I suppose you've never been pissed off at the former Hegemony's terms given to their defeated alliances?

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Diomede' date='28 February 2010 - 10:12 AM' timestamp='1267373736' post='2208365']
Using that logic means Argent entered on an aggressive front too, and we effectively got white peace. The lack of a chaining clause in our treaty aside (trolling for TOOL not activating it anyway in 3... 2... 1...) how is the situation different?[/quote]I have no idea how Argent entered, but if they did enter on an aggressive front then they could well have paid reps. My justification doesn't mean that every aggressive alliance MUST pay reps, just that I can see the reasoning behind terms with reps for major TOP-side alliances.

[Bob Janova]

[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.[/quote]
So FOK would abandon their friends when they do something 'wrong'? Oh wait, you used an oA to enter this war right back at the start (in fact it could be said it's your fault it escalated at all). TOOL defended IRON from a beatdown, and several alliances piled onto them and then demanded a cash payoff to stop punching. That is extortion, almost by definition. Sparta have an argument for some reparations, though imposing high reps on auxiliary alliances is not something that I support (and TOOL only declared on them to defend their friends), but the other two do not.

[quote]Part of being a good ally is letting them know when they are barking up the wrong tree. [/quote]
Certainly, and from what I've heard TOP and IRON's allies and coalition partners told them that. That doesn't mean they should abandon them to an indefinite stomping.

[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.[/quote]
And yet ... and yet those reps, which you still whinge about 18 months later, were considerably lower than these, and undoubtedly much much lower than what C&G is planning to extort at the end of this. NoCB does not give you (or others; I know this is SF and fringe alliances not C&G) carte blanche to impose draconian reps forever. You don't really have any reason to complain about noCB if you're going to take the stance that harsh reps are not unjust when you do them.

[Diomede]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='28 February 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1267374170' post='2208374']
I have no idea how Argent entered, but if they did enter on an aggressive front then they could well have paid reps. My justification doesn't mean that every aggressive alliance MUST pay reps, just that I can see the reasoning behind terms with reps for major TOP-side alliances.
[/quote]
The tl;dr version is that Citadel imploded because most of us put outside treaty partners as more important than the bloc. Consequently Argent remained neutral until TOOL was attacked and then we activated the MDP section of our MDoAP.

Also, no, you shouldn't jump off a cliff with your friend. But if you're sober and your friend is drunk in a bar, then you should certainly try and stop a fight he started.

[iamthey]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='28 February 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1267373022' post='2208352']
[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...
[/quote]


IIRC wasn't TOOL/IRON et al being goaded by CnG and co for not defending TPF (tpf war)- even tough many interpretations of their treaty much less the war placed TPF within the catagory of aggressor? Hmm >_>... Even if it was only an option to defend, that doesn't mean they should have left their allies to burn by themselves.

Edited February 28, 2010 by iamthey

[Tulafaras]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 February 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1267374377' post='2208376']

And yet ... and yet those reps, which you still whinge about 18 months later, were considerably lower than these, and undoubtedly much much lower than what C&G is planning to extort at the end of this. NoCB does not give you (or others; I know this is SF and fringe alliances not C&G) carte blanche to impose draconian reps forever. You don't really have any reason to complain about noCB if you're going to take the stance that harsh reps are not unjust when you do them.
[/quote]
Seriously Bob are you truly so biased that you can write such drivel with a straight face? The reps on TOOL have no restrictions placed on them except for a timeframe (which isn't even short). They do not include clauses on who must pay, they do not ban internal aid. The total amount is less than the warchest of 5 decent high end nations (frankly it's less than the warchest of 2 high end nations) and you call them draconian?

Why don't you save your whining until someone actually does something harsh to the agressors (because no matter how you try to spin it, TOOL did enter on the agressive side of that conflict. Maybe they were obliged to, maybe their honor demanded it, fact is that they did not have to. I don't blame them for entering and supporting their friend, but if you back up a wrong, it might make you honorable but it doesn't make you right.)?

[Kataklizm the Great]

Since this is a surrender/peace thread, not an "agitation about reps" thread from people NOT in TOOL, I'd like to give kudos to the members of TOOL. I fought 10 TOOL nations and no one was ever disrespectful. I thank Scarlett Phoenix for earning me the "Nuke Eater Ribbon" (although we are having to concrete over that crater) and Mikedabomb, who I could see becoming friends with.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 February 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1267374377' post='2208376']
So FOK would abandon their friends when they do something 'wrong'? Oh wait, you used an oA to enter this war right back at the start (in fact it could be said it's your fault it escalated at all). TOOL defended IRON from a beatdown, and several alliances piled onto them and then demanded a cash payoff to stop punching. That is extortion, almost by definition. Sparta have an argument for some reparations, though imposing high reps on auxiliary alliances is not something that I support (and TOOL only declared on them to defend their friends), but the other two do not.


Certainly, and from what I've heard TOP and IRON's allies and coalition partners told them that. That doesn't mean they should abandon them to an indefinite stomping.


And yet ... and yet those reps, which you still whinge about 18 months later, were considerably lower than these, and undoubtedly much much lower than what C&G is planning to extort at the end of this. NoCB does not give you (or others; I know this is SF and fringe alliances not C&G) carte blanche to impose draconian reps forever. You don't really have any reason to complain about noCB if you're going to take the stance that harsh reps are not unjust when you do them.
[/quote]

Only people talking about indefinite curb stomping are idiots who don't know any better.

Stop being an idiot Bob. You know damn well these reps are nothing close to what C&G paid in the past. TOOL is a lot bigger than C&G was when they paid those reps. FFS, the tech portion alone of these reps is less than 10 percent of TOOL's current tech. OH THE HORROR!

How could I have been so wrong, paying out some cash and less than 10% of their tech is a lot worse than an alliance with 16k tech having to pay 12k of it out.

Can you teach me how to throw logic and common reasoning out the window like you have?

EDIT: The only thing harsh about these reps is MA receiving what they are getting. There is no way they deserve the lions share of them. You were in an alliance that masters at numbers. Get out some of your calcs, use your head and run the numbers you will find the reps are not harsh at all. Unwarranted, yes. Harsh, no not by a long shot.

Edited February 28, 2010 by AirMe

[FreddieMercury]

Not exactly unexpected on Sparta's part, hell, TOOL you didn't even have your average membership trash talk about them.

But really, kicking somebody this hard when they are down, lets just say I'm glad to see people with a sense of decency in this thread.

[Bob]

[quote name='iamthey' date='28 February 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1267374744' post='2208382']
IIRC wasn't TOOL/IRON et al being goaded by CnG and co for not defending TPF (tpf war)- even tough many interpretations of their treaty much less the war placed TPF within the catagory of aggressor? Hmm >_>... Even if it was only an option to defend, that doesn't mean they should have left their allies to burn by themselves.
[/quote]
Really? I seem to recall all of them claiming that TPF was not the aggressor and Athens and RoK were, thus making them mandated. As such, regardless of our own personal interpretation of TPF as the aggressor, they should have been defending TPF.

Sorry.

[Rocky Horror]

[b]@BOb Janova:[/b]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32875

Term IV.

We had 38 WRCs. WRCs cost $150,000,000. They made one alliance of 170 members destroy $5.7bn in HALF A TERM.

Kindly, admit you are wrong.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Rocky Horror

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='28 February 2010 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1267373866' post='2208368']
Treaty partners and members of the same coalition aren't necessarily friends. We can safely say TOOL were acting as IRON's friends rather than their treaty partners in this instance, oui? And that they were using a treaty as a legal justification to help out their friends, rather than honouring an obligation.

But as I am sure your mother told you, you shouldn't jump off a bridge just because your friend did it. There is a dignified and honourable obligation that saw FOK declare on their friends earlier this week, so if the war weighed up differently, I would be outraged to see them having to pay reps. However, TOOL chose an aggressive route, leading to having to pay reps if they lost in their fight to defend their allies. I am sure they were proud to do so.
[/quote]
My mother also told me never to use RL analogies in Bob as they hardly ever apply, especially in this case. I never stated anything about Coalitions being friends, but if an alliance is drawn into said coalition, it is, for the most part, because of a friendly obligation. So yes, that one friend is who they are with through thick and thin. You're also comparing a RL situation in which results cognitive, or physical, consequences, where such events do not exist outside the virtual realm.

Being proud in paying reps is completely irrelevant, following your treaty obligations is. I am sure they are proud to have followed their treaty obligations rather than paying reparations in extensive amounts to some alliances whom I personally do not agree deserve it. Perhaps some do, perhaps some do not, but it comes down to subjective opinions, but no shape in form does this 'coalition' have anything to do with my said statements.

In terms of legality; it doesn't exist. Anyone can do anything they wish so long as they feel it is the right thing to do.

If there is any confusion, let me know.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[iamthey]

[quote name='Kataklizm the Great' date='28 February 2010 - 04:29 PM' timestamp='1267374809' post='2208386']
Since this is a surrender/peace thread, not an "agitation about reps" thread from people NOT in TOOL...
[/quote]

Why is discussion of the terms, within a thread created by posting terms of surrender illegitimate?

[Diomede]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='28 February 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1267374947' post='2208390']
Really? I seem to recall all of them claiming that TPF was not the aggressor and Athens and RoK were, thus making them mandated. As such, regardless of our own personal interpretation of TPF as the aggressor, they should have been defending TPF.

Sorry.
[/quote]
Ah, yes. Semantics strikes again.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Diomede

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='28 February 2010 - 08:33 AM' timestamp='1267375011' post='2208391']
[b]@BOb Janova:[/b]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32875

Term IV.

We had 38 WRCs. WRCs cost $150,000,000. They made one alliance of 170 members destroy $5.7bn in HALF A TERM.

Kindly, admit you are wrong.
[/quote]

But they won. Don't they get to impose whatever terms they want???!!!

[Kataklizm the Great]

[quote name='iamthey' date='28 February 2010 - 11:34 AM' timestamp='1267375084' post='2208393']
Why is discussion of the terms, within a thread created by posting terms of surrender illegitimate?
[/quote]

It's not. They have been discussed unto death in 20 plus pages. We are only left with the agitating part I referred to. Have a nice day.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='28 February 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1267375056' post='2208392']
My mother also told me never to use RL analogies in Bob as they hardly ever apply, especially in this case. I never stated anything about Coalitions being friends, but if an alliance is drawn into said coalition, it is, for the most part, because of a friendly obligation. So yes, that one friend is who they are with through thick and thin. You're also comparing a RL situation in which results cognitive, or physical, consequences, where such events do not exist outside the virtual realm.

Being proud in paying reps is completely irrelevant, following your treaty obligations is. I am sure they are proud to have followed their treaty obligations rather than paying reparations in extensive amounts to some alliances whom I personally do not agree deserve it. Perhaps some do, perhaps some do not, but it comes down to subjective opinions, but no shape in form does this 'coalition' have anything to do with my said statements.

In terms of legality; it doesn't exist. Anyone can do anything they wish so long as they feel it is the right thing to do.
[/quote]I doubt she did.

My point wasn't to make an artful analogy, I was just trying to suggest that the whole "i did it for my friends!" thing is an emotive way to muddy the issue of rights to reparations.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='28 February 2010 - 11:39 AM' timestamp='1267375364' post='2208401']
But they won. Don't they get to impose whatever terms they want???!!!
[/quote]

If they are idiots.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='28 February 2010 - 11:40 AM' timestamp='1267375434' post='2208404']
I doubt she did.

My point wasn't to make an artful analogy, I was just trying to suggest that the whole "i did it for my friends!" thing is an emotive way to muddy the issue of rights to reparations.
[/quote]
Don't assume.

In terms of your wording, that is what treaty partners in the traditional sense represent; friends. That IS what they did, I am failing to follow your rhetoric.