More peace

[Ying Yang Mafia]

[quote name='Diomede' date='28 February 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1267419790' post='2209493']
Nice contribution to the current discussion there.
[/quote]

It is certainly a more valuable contribution than your response.

But in order to prevent myself from being hypocritical in my response, I am a firm believer that to the winner goes the spoils. I fail to see why it is immoral to require a defeated alliance to pay reps. Besides, these reps are hardly crippling.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='AirMe' date='28 February 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1267403989' post='2209099']
I am not actually arguing with you. I was only clarifying the actual position MK was in at the time. I cannot go as far to say that TOOL was not told that because I wasn't present in the negotiations.
[/quote]

ahhh... gotcha.

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='28 February 2010 - 06:42 PM' timestamp='1267404355' post='2209106']
One thing convinces me that the morale outrage crew is just spewing hot air above all else.

They refuse to do anything but complain.

TOOL was not forbidden outside aid, so until [url="http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?Page=1&searchstring=All&search=The%20Order%20of%20Light"]this screen[/url] is filled with aid from your alliance to TOOL, your words are empty. If this is so heinous, prove it, show your support.

We've always hated the 'do something about it' line, but now you can, and nobodies implying you'll get nuked for doing it.

Or keep whining while doing nothing, and I'll keep pointing and laughing.
[/quote]

well, when i am out of war i will dedicate at least one slot to helping TOOL out, though the rest will go to my alliance as needed.

[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.

I leave it to each individual to decide which group they fall into.

VE is a diverse alliance, the general theme of this discussion (and just about any other major events for that matter) get mirrored on our IRC and in our forums. We are rarely unanimous on anything as a membership, and it is this diversity that makes us strong. I would frankly be worried the day all 300 of us agreed on something, it'd be damn spooky.
[/quote]

well considering i am taking this stance against an ally (as well as against my own alliance in Ejay's blog), i am more of the true conviction meself. BobJanova i know to also be of the true conviction.

[TypoNinja]

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=196&showentry=1401"]Wow.[/url]

I had a feeling you guys should have saved your efforts for the TOP/IRON front.

[iamthey]

[quote name='Ying Yang Mafia' date='01 March 2010 - 06:04 AM' timestamp='1267423692' post='2209568']
It is certainly a more valuable contribution than your response.

But in order to prevent myself from being hypocritical in my response, I am a firm believer that to the winner goes the spoils. I fail to see why it is immoral to require a defeated alliance to pay reps. Besides, these reps are hardly crippling.
[/quote]

This position is interesting when discussed in theory, especially when you are on the side that stands to benefit from such a paradigm; however, when implemented it can be pretty monstrous. That being said it might as well have come from the mouth of tI.

[ooc]Not to mention this is the kind of behavior that ruins the game.[/ooc]

[thomas20]

[quote name='Thunder Strike' date='28 February 2010 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1267397681' post='2208930']
For people arguing that reps are too harsh TOOL could have gotten out the war a lot earlier if they wished, but they choose to stay in.
To those saying that it was to defend allies they weren't actually able to do or doing this since they were getting curbstomped. But either way they choose to stay in.

And to TOOL, next time can you actually put up a fight, my opinion on your alliance has gone way down throughout this war. My targets generally didn't care about fighting and prefered to turtle, I was very disappointed. Take some war lessons from Argent.
[/quote]

So you complain that we didn't put up much of a fight yet admit that we were badly outnumbered.

If you want a better fight next time come alone.

I'd be happy to fight you 1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3 etc

If you give us time to buy back nukes maybe we could even work out some big [b]friendly[/b] TOOL vs RIA thing since our numbers are pretty eerily similar now.

RIA was our lowest priority alliance for most of the war (nothing against you, just we had ARGENT on you guys) so I assume those you fought were mainly our inactives. It happens.

I have nothing against RIA at all. You didn't ask us for any reps which I appreciate especially considering you could have used your leverage to demand obscene amounts of tech/money.

If you want a better fight, come contact us (me) on IRC and lets do this before we all rebuy infra lol

Once again I hold no ill will against RIA at all, you guys have been some of our nicest opponents.

[Lafiel]

[quote name='Castles' date='01 March 2010 - 04:07 AM' timestamp='1267404044' post='2209101']
Logs or it didn't happen. Seriously. Whining? Really, I spend alot of time on IRC, whining was not the problem even when facing 7 alliances.
[/quote]

I have collected some whining post do you want me to post them here ?

or do you want me to post you logs that show how one of TOOL member asked one member of our alliance for Reps for the damage he inflicted on him in the war.

or you want me to show the post that one TOOL member agree to surrender then attack just before and after the update.

Or do you want me to post when one of your members say Took Failes him and changed it's alliance to :I Has one but It suckd"

Edited March 1, 2010 by Lafiel

[Lafiel]

[quote name='R3nowned' date='01 March 2010 - 07:21 AM' timestamp='1267415675' post='2209368']
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.
[/quote]

Oh , so now preemptively attacking a block which is not at war is not wrong , good to learn about it.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='01 March 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1267398272' post='2208953']
Much of the damage to Dealmaster has been done since VE declared. You can tell because he was in range of me at the start of our war. You did not even bother trying to coordinate with the rest of us as far as I know, which the Spartan did. He fought well, kudos to him (referring to Dealmaster, though Hellas also did well from what I head).[/quote]

Who are you refering to in this message?

As I told you back then ingame, when you declared on Dealmaster my war with him was to expire next update, and I had already done all my attacks of the day. Coordinating with Alexandros, as usual, through I generally had always to land attack before his nukes to avoid Dealmaster's army to fall below 5% chance of victory - the exception was when dealmaster had some army deployed himself, then we could nuke, force a defeat alert, then attack the undepoyed army.

Alexandros had still one more day of war with him, so I suppose you coodinated with him. Anyway I remember to have shared with you all intel regarding the target (connection times, when did he usually attack, warchest, etc.), including the fact that Alex and I had just wiped out the last blockade-breaker ships in Dealmaster's navy. Nukes with sub bonus are nice.

Alexandros and I did 49k NS damage to Dealmaster before your DoW. 7k NS more was done between my leave and Alexandro's. 9k NS more was done between Alexandro's leave and the end of the War. So, Dealmaster suffered 16k NS damage while you were at war with him, and all of it by attackers who, thanks to Alex's navy and mine, could benefit from nuke sub bonus, landing ship ground bonus and carrier aircraft bonus.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='thomas20' date='01 March 2010 - 05:45 AM' timestamp='1267418932' post='2209470']
If someone asked me I would tell them I have no idea as only one nation in MA (you) was even in range of any of our big nations. You personally fought well but its not really an indication of MA as much as it is us being out numbered and you getting to coordinate with an 18k tech nation (who wasn't in MA).

And lol sorry about the surrender messages, but they worked on a couple of big nations

Nice to meet you and best of luck to you as well in the future.
[/quote]

You didn't complain about outnumbering when it was dealmaster, you and graham on a 3-1 against me.

Beyond the personal level, I know some TOOL nations offered a poor show. Same as some MA nations. Every alliance has black sheeps. But, overall, good show.

Take care.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Thunder Strike' date='01 March 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1267403799' post='2209094']And I don't think TOOL were very effective at tying up Sparta's war slots since the only major counter I saw from them was against MA.[/quote]

Oh, really?

Reading this thread, I was having a difficult time to figure out why we lost 30% of our NS, with our front-line guys losing 40%-50%, if according to some here we didn't do anything in the war.

The fact that TOOL actually launched their reserves mainly against us may help understand the damage taken. And the reps asked for.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='28 February 2010 - 05:54 PM' timestamp='1267401465' post='2209033']
....and GOLD and \m/ and GOONS and ONOS and NAAC all had to accept disbandment.....Just because a choice is presented, doesn't mean it has to be accepted. FAN showed us that more so then anyone.

Though some may not want to admit it, might doesn't make right, it just makes you have the ability to ask for those reps, or to give the white peace. Might gives options, right gives a clean conscience.
[/quote]Might implies you have the power and possibly even the claim, that's two out of three of the mlitary meanings of "right" right there.

Not that I believe that at all, just saying.

[R3nowned]

[quote name='Krack' date='01 March 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1267420397' post='2209502']
You're right. What I should have said is "What R3nowned is complaining about (and what you've inquired about) is his alliances inability to roll people at will." And while I'm sure he finds it heartbreaking, I don't.
[/quote]
I love how you're twisting my words. I never said that. I'd rather more alliances get rolled more often just for the sake of keeping Bob interesting. Don't really care which side.

What I don't like is how you're insinuating from your post that, just because an alliance is small, they should be exempt from attack or something, which is stupid and ridiculous. Please correct me if I'm wrong. A day at [OOC: University] really ruins my ability to think straight on Bob afterwards.

[quote]Oh , so now preemptively attacking a block which is not at war is not wrong , good to learn about it.[/quote]
Nope. Not in my opinion. If there's no one willing to attack someone else, then were will we get war besides stupid war games between treaty partners? It just sounds like you're bawwing that you're losing infra or something from the attack. You should be rejoicing in the nuclear fireworks (in my opinion).

I don't care about the circumstances in which the war came about. All I care about is that I got to blow some infra up and got my infra blown up in return. Fun stuff. It doesn't happen often enough.

[Krack]

[quote name='R3nowned' date='01 March 2010 - 03:50 AM' timestamp='1267437265' post='2209789']
What I don't like is how you're insinuating from your post that, just because an alliance is small, they should be exempt from attack or something, which is stupid and ridiculous. Please correct me if I'm wrong. A day at [OOC: University] really ruins my ability to think straight on Bob afterwards.
[/quote]

Um ... not only did I not insinuate that, I don't even believe it. You can attack any alliance you want, regardless of their size. However, if you lose and the defending alliance (and friends) basically enslaves you with reps, I don't want to hear you whine and complain about it. That's the price you pay for being opportunistic and aggressive; people don't have sympathy for you when things go south.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Krack

[PrideAssassin]

[quote name='Krack' date='01 March 2010 - 02:00 AM' timestamp='1267437865' post='2209791']
Um ... not only did I not insinuate that, I don't even believe it. You can attack any alliance you want, regardless of their size. However, if you lose and the defending alliance (and friends) basically enslaves you with reps, I don't want to hear you whine and complain about it. That's the price you pay for being opportunistic and aggressive; people don't have sympathy for you when things go south.
[/quote]
Opportunistic and aggressive. That would describe your side to a T.
After all, we're only warring 33-34 Alliances. This is so currently an offensive war on our part.
I suppose your shame and greed know no bounds though, aye?

Edited March 1, 2010 by PrideAssassin

[Tromp]

[quote name='PrideAssassin' date='01 March 2010 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1267443175' post='2209814']
Opportunistic and aggressive. That would describe your side to a T.
After all, we're only warring 33-34 Alliances. This is so currently an offensive war on our part.
I suppose your shame and greed know no bounds though, aye?
[/quote]
The number of alliances you're fighting does not make you all of a sudden "the defender" of this war.
You knew what you were going into by agressively attacking CnG, at least I would hope so.

[Krack]

[quote name='PrideAssassin' date='01 March 2010 - 05:29 AM' timestamp='1267443175' post='2209814']
Opportunistic and aggressive. That would describe your side to a T.
After all, we're only warring 33-34 Alliances. This is so currently an offensive war on our part.
I suppose your shame and greed know no bounds though, aye?
[/quote]

I know this ... if my alliance attacked FARK tonight, you wouldn't see me on here 24 hours later crying a river that SuperFriends was bashing our heads in.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Krack

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Krack' date='01 March 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1267446151' post='2209835']
I know this ... if my alliance attacked FARK tonight, you wouldn't see me on here 24 hours later crying a river that SuperFriends was bashing our heads in.
[/quote]

but but but... i see you here saying how horrible our side is for 24 hours a day... are you by chance trying to convince yourself of that?? cause it sure looks like insecurity to me

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='PrideAssassin' date='01 March 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1267443175' post='2209814']
[b]Opportunistic and aggressive. That would describe your side to a T.[/b]
After all, we're only warring 33-34 Alliances. This is so currently an offensive war on our part.
I suppose your shame and greed know no bounds though, aye?
[/quote]


The shear hypocrasy of him using that description for anyone other than TOP & IRON is

[Krack]

[quote name='junkahoolik' date='01 March 2010 - 07:00 AM' timestamp='1267448669' post='2209853']
but but but... i see you here saying how horrible our side is for 24 hours a day... are you by chance trying to convince yourself of that?? cause it sure looks like insecurity to me
[/quote]

Luckily (for both of us), we don't need to find out because I'm not stupid enough to attack someone, with no provocation, that have enough powerful friends to ensure my alliance was annihilated. I mean, I would have to be a real moron (some might say "a complete idiot") to aggressively attack an alliance (or group of alliances) just because I don't like them; particularly when I know they don't like me either. I would be massively, massively dumb to do that, wouldn't you say?

I feel very secure in the knowledge that I would never do something that incomprehensibly foolish.

[size="1"]*To answer your question, I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. I'm not even trying to convince the people on your side that many are in alliances with long histories of terrible behavior. And I don't care what uninvolved third parties think either. I am primarily concerned with convincing those on my own side that letting TOP/IRON off the hook would be (as Diane Court would say) monumentally dumb. Have I had concern that they might do so? Absolutely - it already happened once six months ago and resulted in the current fiasco. I am doing my best to prevent it from happening a second time within a year.[/size]

Edited March 1, 2010 by Krack

[junkahoolik]

krack, if i was to ask everyone if they are insecure, they all would say they aren't insecure. behavior is all that matters really...



([ooc]fun fact: i saw a show where a guy asked the audience to close their eyes then lift their hands if they thought they were a bit smarter then the average. guess how many people raised their hands??

just to clarify, no insinuations here [/ooc])

Edited March 1, 2010 by junkahoolik

[Krack]

[quote name='junkahoolik' date='01 March 2010 - 07:29 AM' timestamp='1267450366' post='2209868']
krack, if i was to ask everyone if they are insecure, they all would say they aren't insecure. behavior is all that matters really...
[/quote]

Aloha is currently accepting individual surrenders from DAWN. Just switch your AA to "Aloha-POW" and [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=213"]go here[/url] and post "Uncle!"; you will, of course, want to stay out of all further military engagements and decommission your nuclear weapon.

[Sam Winters]

Sigh...

I do believe this thread is about Peace being declared on the TOOL front, no?

If you want to debate the merits of what started the conflict, there are about a dozen topics to do so in.

On the issue of reps, whether or not TOOL deserved them, or can pay them (and they can, it's not an impossible task), it's in the eye of the beholder.

I originally joined in June of 2007. LOSS was my first alliance, and I joined a defeated alliance with only a few financially strong nations on the pink team. This alliance didn't have any military treaties and was on pink for more than a year. Those were terms given to my alliance for fighting for their allies.

More than anything, those conditions were meant to crush the alliance, and they almost did. When you have trouble finding trade partners in a whole sphere, and when your whole alliance can't get any military training, that's a problem. When you fear that any wrong statement on the OWF or even your own forums will get the whole alliance rolled, that's a problem.

While I think TOOL isn't at fault for following it's treaties, I think it is important for them to re-evaluate the relationships they have. This war was unprovoked, and this war is leading to the crushing of yet another impressive alliance, TOP. On the issue of reps, I've always been against them, but that may be because I saw first hand what types of reps the "Hegemony" was imposing on people in 2007 and 2008. In fact, most of the people who are in LOSS government have been here long enough to remember, hence no reps for us. However, I won't blame our allies for seeking reps, especially in light of the war circumstances.

[DocOctane]

o/ TOOL and her sacrifices.

To those of you who foolishly claim TOOL didn't put on a decent war effort I give you another kind of salute.[i](For the Dense: It's the one fingered kind of salute.)[/i]

[franciscus]

[quote name='Krack' date='01 March 2010 - 01:40 PM' timestamp='1267451034' post='2209880']
Aloha is currently accepting individual surrenders from DAWN. Just switch your AA to "Aloha-POW" and [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=213"]go here[/url] and post "Uncle!"; you will, of course, want to stay out of all further military engagements and decommission your nuclear weapon.
[/quote]
We'll be waiting here for an attack from Aloha first before surrendering. I mean, an attack with more than words. Although I have to admit, every time I read a post of yours, one more neuron of mine dies....
hmmm...surrender sounds like a good alternative. If I surrender, promise you'll stop posting and allow my neurons to live a bit longer?

Also, congrats on peace TOOL. Sorry for the reps, though. You surely didn't deserve them.

Edited March 1, 2010 by franciscus

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Krack' date='01 March 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1267451034' post='2209880']
Aloha is currently accepting individual surrenders from DAWN. Just switch your AA to "Aloha-POW" and [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=213"]go here[/url] and post "Uncle!"; you will, of course, want to stay out of all further military engagements and decommission your nuclear weapon.
[/quote]

crank, i'm planning to decommission my nukes later today really no need to thank me though!! thank the poor poor guys who like them so much that they want to really feel them!!

also, how is Big Jeff?? fine i hope... he hasn't had any play partners since me from what i see...