More peace

[ChesterStevensDevonn]

LOL this is epic full of muffins yet you forget I"m the greatest kind of muffin Mia and the rest of tool its cool you surrendered now you should take a bite out of me to see how good i am. I've been told i have healing properties.

[Lord Boris]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='28 February 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1267404407' post='2209107']
You mistook my point, in so far as the white peace in Karma was meant to give them a chance to reconsider their friendships and find a new niche for themselves in the world. Not necc. with SF or CnG or FB or anyone, but something new that wouldn't just lead to the same sides. Now that they've proven incapable (or unwilling) to do so on multiple occasions, the intent we approach TOOL and others with by nature has to shift to eliminating them as military threats; not trying to be nice.
[/quote]

So basically anyone who disagrees with you should routinely be wiped out... Once again you show why you are almost everything that is wrong with CN. I'd tell you to remove the upper part of your anatomy out of your posterior end of your anatomy, but those in the bodily position you routinely put yourself in have no use of their ears

[Krack]

[quote name='Lord Boris' date='28 February 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1267411033' post='2209269']
So basically anyone who disagrees with you should routinely be wiped out... Once again you show why you are almost everything that is wrong with CN. I'd tell you to remove the upper part of your anatomy out of your posterior end of your anatomy, but those in the bodily position you routinely put yourself in have no use of their ears
[/quote]

I'll address this on behalf of Aloha. Our policy is that anyone who disagrees with us, and aggressively and violently acts on it routinely (or supports an ally's violent aggression with their own military), should be reduced to a point where they cannot threaten aggressively again. I assume other alliances, particularly former Karma alliances, feel the same way.

There's a lot a two and three time losers on Planet Bob. It is not the responsibility of alliances to sit back and act as repeated punching bags because certain other alliances (and individual nations) can't get their _________ together and behave.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Krack

[Shodemofi-NPO]

[quote name='Krack' date='28 February 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1267411607' post='2209284']
I'll address this on behalf of Aloha. Our policy is that anyone who disagrees with us, and aggressively and violently acts on it routinely (or supports an ally's violent aggression with their own military), should be reduced to a point where they cannot threaten aggressively again. I assume other alliances, particularly former Karma alliances, feel the same way.
[/quote]
Funny. That's the exact rationale the NPO used for the eternal wars and EZIs, viceroys, etc. At what point have you gone too far in protecting your alliance?

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Krack' date='01 March 2010 - 02:43 AM' timestamp='1267411607' post='2209284']
I'll address this on behalf of Aloha. Our policy is that anyone who disagrees with us, and aggressively and violently acts on it routinely (or supports an ally's violent aggression with their own military), should be reduced to a point where they cannot threaten aggressively again. I assume other alliances, particularly former Karma alliances, feel the same way.

There's a lot a two and three time losers on Planet Bob. It is not the responsibility of alliances to sit back and act as repeated punching bags because certain other alliances (and individual nations) can't get their _________ together and behave.
[/quote]

Erm, but it's not either TOP or IRON who hold the record of misbehaviour since the end of Karma War. You might want to go look into how many debacles CnG was involved just this fall.

[Krack]

[quote name='Shodemofi' date='28 February 2010 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1267411920' post='2209290']
Funny. That's the exact rationale the NPO used for the eternal wars and EZIs, viceroys, etc. At what point have you gone too far in protecting your alliance?
[/quote]

Really? How many times did GPA aggressively attack NPO? How about OV?

[Diomede]

[quote name='Krack' date='01 March 2010 - 02:43 AM' timestamp='1267411607' post='2209284']
I'll address this on behalf of Aloha. Our policy is that anyone who disagrees with us, and aggressively and violently acts on it routinely (or supports an ally's violent aggression with their own military), should be reduced to a point where they cannot threaten aggressively again. I assume other alliances, particularly former Karma alliances, feel the same way.

There's a lot a two and three time losers on Planet Bob. It is not the responsibility of alliances to sit back and act as repeated punching bags because certain other alliances (and individual nations) can't get their _________ together and behave.
[/quote]
Obligatory reminder that if you ignore the bigger picture TOOL was on the defensive in both of the last two wars. Obligatory reminder that they're only aggressive [i]in the bigger picture[/i] in either case if you play the semantics game.

Seriously, that kind of mentality really discourages war. I'm not a fan in the slighest, because a: war is fun and b: it reminds me [i]far[/i] too much of post-GW3. WUT was in power. Nobody could stand up to them. They could do whatever they pleased and as a result the political climate was stale as week-old bread. Thankfully events led up to the Unjust Path and things got a bit interesting again.

[i]Edit.[/i]

Edited March 1, 2010 by Diomede

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='28 February 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1267404407' post='2209107']
You mistook my point, in so far as the white peace in Karma was meant to give them a chance to reconsider their friendships and find a new niche for themselves in the world. Not necc. with SF or CnG or FB or anyone, but something new that wouldn't just lead to the same sides.
[/quote]
Like who then, exactly?

Who would have been acceptable relevant allies that weren't in Superfriends, C&G, Frostbite or Citadel?

Oh right. VE.

[Krack]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='28 February 2010 - 08:50 PM' timestamp='1267412030' post='2209291']
Erm, but it's not either TOP or IRON who hold the record of misbehaviour since the end of Karma War. You might want to go look into how many debacles CnG was involved just this fall.
[/quote]

And you supported an attack on them over it. And lost. Such is life. If you felt so threatened that you had to do so, *shrugs shoulders* good for you I guess.

When my alliance feels threatened by them, if ever, I will begin to worry. As it is now, I worry about the alliances that spent the last three years acting like bullies and threatening people (and supporting these bullies) - that's not C&G, as far as I'm concerned.

[thomas20]

[quote name='Alexandros o Megas' date='28 February 2010 - 01:22 AM' timestamp='1267338356' post='2207772']
Glory for the winners of this war, respect for those who lost it, celebrations for peace achieved ...

[b]To those in doubt about Sparta results ex- Nr. 1 and 2 TOOL nations (Dealmaster, thomas20) can describe them a bit about their nice experiences, enjoying 4 times every day the damage they could offer me ...[/b]

Anyway, CN is better in peace, but Spartans are always ready to fight till the end ...
[/quote]

First of all you were a great opponent. I wasn't expecting to fight anyone with 18k tech and probably never will again. Plus you seemed to be a pretty nice guy.

But just to be clear you did 4 times as much damage by turtling because you were down to about 30 mil (I believe) and we were outnumbered. If peace talks had not been initiated we would have staggered you and by the next round you would not be able to afford nukes anymore (which admittedly did a huge amount of damage, gotta love 18k tech nukes lol).

We actually held off on doing damage to you at points because there was little point wasting resources knocking a 5k infra nation down when we had other wars especially since you had so little money left.

Both me and Dealmaster have billions in warchests to build back to where we were before very quickly and in a long war could have outlasted you if needed. We could have kept nuking for months while you were almost out of cash.

Again you obviously did a ton of damage and were a great opponent but lets not try to paint the situation in a different light.

[Heft]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='28 February 2010 - 08:09 PM' timestamp='1267409570' post='2209227']
I use the term as a blanket statement, I fully admit there are some people who genuinely do feel this is wrong, but I feel the vast majority of people complaining over terms are being disingenuous when doing so and my comments are largely directed at them, those who are taking a 'moral stand' out of political expediency rather than true conviction.
[/quote]
The "if you support them then support them materially" argument is really hard to apply in this situation. All my aid slots are busy sending out aid to NSO nations, and plenty of other people are already at war or only recently out of war. Even if we want to support TOOL, our options are kind of limited at the moment.

There are a lot of people up in arms about this because it's absolutely outrageous, because TOOL clearly did not deserve anything resembling these terms, and because enforcing such outrageous terms on an undeserving opponent has generally been accepted as being "Bad" since last year. Yes, plenty of people think that Sparta, MA, and I suppose Nemesis are !@#$%*, cowardly alliances, but that in itself isn't motivating the reaction here.

[Krack]

[quote name='Diomede' date='28 February 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1267412296' post='2209295']
Obligatory reminder that if you ignore the bigger picture TOOL was on the defensive in both of the last two wars. Obligatory reminder that they're only aggressive [i]in the bigger picture[/i] in either case if you play the semantics game.
[/quote]

Yes. Let's all ignore stuff; it makes it easier to promote false propaganda.

1. TOP and IRON attacked alliances (C&G) that were not participating in a war (normal people call this "being aggressive").
2. Alliances came to the military defense of these defending alliances (C&G); this should surprise no one, as active defense treaties were public knowledge.
3. TOOL attacked one of these alliances (Sparta) citing their support of IRON; this attack is viewed, justifiably, as recognition and support of IRON's initial aggression.

[quote]Our mutual friends and allies in the Independent Republic of Orange Nations have come under assault from many fronts. Such enemies shall be struck down ruthlessly, our vengeance shall be swift and just.[/quote]

4. Alliances came to the military defense of Sparta; again, no surprise.
5. TOOL was defeated by these alliances.

Just because TOOL lost does not mean it was "defensive"; it does mean they are branding themselves as an alliance that either does not think things through or does not value peace.

[b]tl;dr:[/b]

If your friends do something stupid, and you help them, and it results in you having a bloody nose, I don't feel sympathy for you. This is particularly true if my hand now hurts as a result of your friends' stupidity and your actions. If you continue to support your friends' stupid anti-social behavior, eventually my lack of sympathy will turn into a feeling of annoyance. Nobody likes to be annoyed constantly by the same person.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Krack

[Shodemofi-NPO]

[quote name='Krack' date='28 February 2010 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1267412228' post='2209294']
Really? How many times did GPA aggressively attack NPO? How about OV?
[/quote]

Both of those wars were fought, at least ostensibly, to protect the NPO. If I recall correctly Valid somehow offended Dilber and one of GPA's members aided someone at war with one of NPO's allies. OV was accused of spying on the NPO. The NPO chose to take actions by both of those alliances as aggressive action, hence the wars.

I'm not defending the NPO's CBs, not by any means, but you're fooling yourself if you think "so they'll never be a threat to me" is somehow different from NPO's excuse for surrender terms.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Krack' date='01 March 2010 - 03:00 AM' timestamp='1267412660' post='2209309']
And you supported an attack on them over it. And lost. Such is life. If you felt so threatened that you had to do so, *shrugs shoulders* good for you I guess.

When my alliance feels threatened by them, if ever, I will begin to worry. As it is now, I worry about the alliances that spent the last three years acting like bullies and threatening people (and supporting these bullies) - that's not C&G, as far as I'm concerned.
[/quote]

In regards to the "support", I am just going to refer you to page 24,25,26 and 27. Should have enough reading material there so you can educate yourself.

You worry about the alliances who acted as bullies? Ragnarok and their viceroys, perma-ZIs and government bannings mean anything to you? Does FOK and Umbrella destroying the GPA mean anything to you? There are no innocenets here, only those you selectively decided to paint as bullies.

Say you did it because it was the winning side, say you did it because you like the alliances fighting on your side, say you were outraged with a pre-emptive strike or even say you did it because that was the side of the bed you woke up this morning. Don't say, however, you're attacking the bullies, only FAIL and NpO were fighting on both sides of the war.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

[quote name='Krack' date='28 February 2010 - 09:11 PM' timestamp='1267413277' post='2209323']
Yes. Let's all ignore stuff; it makes it easier to promote false propaganda.

1. TOP and IRON attacked alliances (C&G) that were not participating in a war (normal people call this "being aggressive").
2. Alliances came to the military defense of these defending alliances (C&G); this should surprise no one, as active defense treaties were public knowledge.
3. TOOL attacked one of these alliances (Sparta) citing their support of IRON; this attack is viewed, justifiably, as recognition and support of IRON's initial aggression.



4. Alliances came to the military defense of Sparta; again, no surprise.
5. TOOL was defeated by these alliances.

Just because TOOL lost does not mean it was "defensive"; it does mean they are branding themselves as an alliance that either does not think things through or does not value peace.
[/quote]

Uh...what? Did you read the post you quoted? They pretty clearly said that IRON was attacked, and that was the reason they were entering the war. I don't see any mention of supporting IRON's initial aggression. Alliances honor treaties. That's not a bad thing. It's a good thing. I have no idea whether or not this is the case, but TOOL could have been vehemently opposed to IRON's DoW on CnG, and yet unless their treaty has a non-chaining clause (which I don't believe it does), they are obligated to defend IRON if IRON is attacked by alliances defending CnG.

[Diomede]

[quote name='Krack' date='01 March 2010 - 03:11 AM' timestamp='1267413277' post='2209323']
Yes. Let's all ignore stuff; it makes it easier to promote false propaganda.

1. TOP and IRON attacked alliances (C&G) that were not participating in a war (normal people call this "being aggressive").
2. Alliances came to the military defense of these defending alliances (C&G).
3. TOOL attacked one of these alliances (Sparta) citing their support of IRON; this attack is viewed, justifiably, as recognition and support of IRON's initial aggression.



4. Alliances came to the military defense of Sparta.
5. TOOL was defeated by these alliances.

Just because TOOL lost does not mean it was "defensive"; it does mean they are branding themselves as an alliance that either does not think things through or does not value peace.
[/quote]
You're right, TOOL losing doesn't make it defensive. Them defending their ally because they $%&@ed up does though.
Also, of course TOOL desn't value peace. They're not GPA or TDO or any other neutral. They're an alliance that has friends and supports them, right or wrong.

[Vesalius]

[quote name='Lord Boris' date='28 February 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1267411033' post='2209269']
So basically anyone who disagrees with you should routinely be wiped out... Once again you show why you are almost everything that is wrong with CN. I'd tell you to remove the upper part of your anatomy out of your posterior end of your anatomy, but those in the bodily position you routinely put yourself in have no use of their ears
[/quote]
Of course. Xiphosis is epitome of insanity, it's rather foolish to attempt to stand in his way regardless.

Honestly, I have no idea where you pulled that out of his argument, but kudos for your creativity.

[Krack]

[quote name='Diomede' date='28 February 2010 - 09:17 PM' timestamp='1267413659' post='2209330']
You're right, TOOL losing doesn't make it defensive. Them defending their ally because they $%&@ed up does though.
Also, of course TOOL desn't value peace. They're not GPA or TDO or any other neutral. They're an alliance that has friends and supports them, right or wrong.
[/quote]

And in this instance, the friends were wrong. And I, therefore, have no sympathy for TOOL, despite the complaints from the peanut gallery.

[Krack]

[quote name='Shodemofi' date='28 February 2010 - 09:13 PM' timestamp='1267413415' post='2209326']
Both of those wars were fought, at least ostensibly, to protect the NPO. If I recall correctly Valid somehow offended Dilber and one of GPA's members aided someone at war with one of NPO's allies. OV was accused of spying on the NPO. The NPO chose to take actions by both of those alliances as aggressive action, hence the wars.
[/quote]

I'll tell you what ... it makes perfect sense when you say it like that. Particularly when you remember all the times that 3.4 score alliances like OV aggressively attacked 70+ score alliances. Or if you remember the multitude of times that the neutral menace has reared it's ugly head and militarily dominated the largest alliance in the game. Perfect sense.

Did you hear that rumor about how Aloha is preparing itself to go after MHA at the conclusion of the current war? I hear they think Douglas Adams is boring and is prepared to do something about it. MHA would be totally justified to attack them first before Aloha gets the upperhand militarily and knocks them out of the top spot. There's only a 50 score difference there, they better get Gramlins to help, too (just to be sure).

[quote]I'm not defending the NPO's CBs, not by any means[/quote]

Yes, you are. Saying you're not doing something does not mean that you are actually not doing it.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Krack

[R3nowned]

[quote name='Krack' date='01 March 2010 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1267414704' post='2209351']
And in this instance, the friends were wrong. And I, therefore, have no sympathy for TOOL, despite the complaints from the peanut gallery.
[/quote]
Wait, so because their friends were wrong, they get slammed with the bill?

I do question your logic.

You're meant to punish the perpetrators, not friends of perpetrators. Even then, in my view, IRON/TOP did nothing "wrong". It is your viewpoint that any aggressive action is wrong. That kind of mentality results in stagnation for Planet Bob. That kind of mentality prevents wars, and results in what happened in the WUT era (not that I was there, just from what I've read and heard).

The reps are certainly payable. Indeed, ANYONE can pay it if given enough time (there is a time restraint in the terms so eh). That does NOT make it acceptable.

[Diomede]

[quote name='Krack' date='01 March 2010 - 03:34 AM' timestamp='1267414704' post='2209351']
And in this instance, the friends were wrong. And I, therefore, have no sympathy for TOOL, despite the complaints from the peanut gallery.
[/quote]
Out of curiousity if not the peanut gallery, what are you? I'm being totally serious here. I have no idea who Aloha is or who they fought or who your friends are, for that matter. As far as I'm aware your participation on this front was similar to that of Lusitan's.

Of course you have no sympathy for TOOL. The mentality shared by you and Xiph with whoever else is going to lead to me sitting on my hands doing nothing. Politics is what drives this game because the game is in all fairness, pretty boring. Log in, pay bills, maybe send/accept aid, done. Am I being selfish wanting to see a little war a little more often?

Edit: I only joined CN just prior to GW3 (Been playing 3 years as of the 24th), but from what I know post-GW3 you'd be right Renowned.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Diomede

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Krack' date='28 February 2010 - 10:34 PM' timestamp='1267414704' post='2209351']
And in this instance, the friends were wrong. And I, therefore, have no sympathy for TOOL, despite the complaints from the peanut gallery.
[/quote]
What kind of treaty partner would anyone be if they followed this course of action? Should no one have defended \m/ because they thought they were wrong? Or should people not have defended Polar. That can be spun so many ways. A treaty partner is a treaty partner. You don't cancel as soon as something bad happens. What worth would your treaties have then?

[R3nowned]

[quote name='Krack' date='01 March 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1267415514' post='2209364']
I'll tell you what ... it makes perfect sense when you say it like that. Particularly when you remember all the times that 3.4 score alliances like OV aggressively attacked 70+ score alliances. Or if you remember the multitude of times that the neutral menace has reared it's ugly head and militarily dominated the largest alliance in the game. Perfect sense.

Did you hear that rumor about how Aloha is preparing itself to go after MHA at the conclusion of the current war? I hear they think Douglas Adams is boring and is prepared to do something about it. MHA would be totally justified to attack them first before Aloha gets the upperhand militarily and knocks them out of the top spot. There's only a 50 score difference there, they better get Gramlins to help, too (just to be sure).
[/quote]
What's your point? NPO was reacting to aggressive actions against her. They are widely accepted as CBs right? Especially spying? What does size have ANYTHING to do with it?

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Krack' date='28 February 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1267412228' post='2209294']
Really? How many times did GPA aggressively attack NPO? How about OV?
[/quote]

Don't forget VE. We were destabilizing the Green Sphere.

[Turbulent]

[quote name='Krack' date='28 February 2010 - 09:34 PM' timestamp='1267414704' post='2209351']
And in this instance, the friends were wrong. And I, therefore, have no sympathy for TOOL, despite the complaints from the peanut gallery.
[/quote]

We are not asking for you sympathy. For the most part, us Tools have been rather silent on this. There are a few postings with disgust of the reps. Who likes paying reps in all reality? But one thing one must remember, is that one day, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not within the next few months, but every single one of these alliances will be in our position. And with such demands that we had received here, those nations demanding such things may demanded 10 fold. I applaud those that gave us leniency and asked for no reps. Sparta, I can understand asking for reps. We did quite a bit of damage to them. The others...well...I have nothing else to say about that matter.

One last thought. During negotiations, was Tool offering more reps to get the 7 alliances to agree to peace, or were those 7 alliances demanding more reps and we finally settled on these reps that we were given? I dont know myself, as Im not privy to said information, but I have an idea. If you have the advantage of sheer numbers, who is going to make the demands at the negotiation table? My belief is that we were offered reps of more then the 1.7 billion that we had received, and we negotiated downward. Can you imagine paying 3 or 4 billion dollars, or possibly even more for reps? These things wont be forgotten.