Accepting the Consequenses of War

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='Voytek' date='14 March 2010 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1268581272' post='2225340']
No he's not, he's using the size of the reps you gave to Polar as a point of comparison to show that a) the terms being offered to you are pretty damn light and b) you don't have any room to complain.
[/quote]

So the main argument supporting your excessive reps is what we did to Polar? How does that have anything to do with this war? The only way it should factor in is if you guys are trying to seek revenge for our past actions.

The funniest thing is how long you guys have complained about the excessive reps you had to pay to NPO. Now when you are in the same position as them you do the exact same thing. At least accept that you are the same as the NPO led hegemony. They too had this overwhelming OWF support at one point. Just remember that if you repeat the same actions as them you will suffer the same fate.

[Voytek]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='15 March 2010 - 02:43 AM' timestamp='1268581726' post='2225346']So the main argument supporting your excessive reps is what we did to Polar? How does that have anything to do with this war? The only way it should factor in is if you guys are trying to seek revenge for our past actions.[/quote]
Man you just really like this line of argument, don't you? Think you've got a nice little hook in?

The reps you gave to Polar only became an argument when you started moaning about how "crippling" they were (they are large, certainly, but calling them crippling is pure hyperbole). They are not the main argument for them, nor are they even a major one. Given TOP's participation in Karma I would not have expected you to take such umbrage at the usage of past reps as a point of comparison to current ones.

(edit: Before you try and latch onto that - no, I am not saying that this is "TOP's Karma")

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='15 March 2010 - 02:43 AM' timestamp='1268581726' post='2225346']The funniest thing is how long you guys have complained about the excessive reps you had to pay to NPO. Now when you are in the same position as them you do the exact same thing. At least accept that you are the same as the NPO led hegemony. They too had this overwhelming OWF support at one point. Just remember that if you repeat the same actions as them you will suffer the same fate.[/quote]
We have accepted that we are the same as the NPO for quite some time now, haven't you seen the sigs?

Edited March 14, 2010 by Voytek

[Shafer]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='14 March 2010 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1268581726' post='2225346']
So the main argument supporting your excessive reps is what we did to Polar? How does that have anything to do with this war? The only way it should factor in is if you guys are trying to seek revenge for our past actions.

The funniest thing is how long you guys have complained about the excessive reps you had to pay to NPO. Now when you are in the same position as them you do the exact same thing. At least accept that you are the same as the NPO led hegemony. They too had this overwhelming OWF support at one point. Just remember that if you repeat the same actions as them you will suffer the same fate.
[/quote]
Essentially what you're saying is "Be the bigger man, don't punish us for our past actions." No They had a right to punish the alliances who demanded reps of them. If you subtract all the tech they had to pay to the Hegemony they really weren't asking for much, just merely getting their money and tech back.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='Voytek' date='14 March 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1268582415' post='2225352']
Man you just really like this line of argument, don't you? Think you've got a nice little hook in?

The reps you gave to Polar only became an argument when you started moaning about how "crippling" they were (they are large, certainly, but calling them crippling is pure hyperbole). They are not the main argument for them, nor are they even a major one. Given TOP's participation in Karma I would not have expected you to take such umbrage at the usage of past reps as a point of comparison to current ones.
[/quote]

The terms are pretty crippling considering it will take us over half a year to pay them off. I know you say they can be paid off in a couple months as if we have 100% slot efficiency and an unlimited amount of tech dealers laying around. Also, as far as I know TOP gave white peace to everyone it attacked in the Karma war.

[Voytek]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='15 March 2010 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1268583067' post='2225360']The terms are pretty crippling considering it will take us over half a year to pay them off.[/quote]
It will take considerably longer than that for the alliances [i]you[/i] started this fight with to rebuild from the damage you've done.

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='15 March 2010 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1268583067' post='2225360']I know you say they can be paid off in a couple months as if we have 100% slot efficiency and an unlimited amount of tech dealers laying around.[/quote]
I don't think anybody actually thinks 100% efficiency is going to happen, but TOP is a very well-organised and active alliance. I don't see it taking too much longer than the optimal timeframe if you put enough effort into it.

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='15 March 2010 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1268583067' post='2225360']Also, as far as I know TOP gave white peace to everyone it attacked in the Karma war.[/quote]
Did it have any issues with the terms that were given?

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='Voytek' date='14 March 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1268583822' post='2225364']
It will take considerably longer than that for the alliances [i]you[/i] started this fight with to rebuild from the damage you've done.
[/quote]

The alliances we were going to be at war with anyway since they were on the opposite side of NpO.

[quote]
I don't think anybody actually thinks 100% efficiency is going to happen, but TOP is a very well-organised and active alliance. I don't see it taking too much longer than the optimal timeframe if you put enough effort into it.
[/quote]

The reps don't just have to do with TOP. It has to do with your side being able to accept all of it and also finding enough 3rd party tech dealers.

[quote]
Did it have any issues with the terms that were given?
[/quote]

Yes... I guess you didn't notice we had to give Echelon separate terms since we did not agree with what was demanded from them.

[President Sitruk]

C&G isnt the new hegenomy in that they were attacked in this war. hell, no one is being hegenomic in this war. asking for reps can be expected even though the original war was white peaced. however, asking the kind of reps they are for a few alliances is kind of rediculous and isnt going to happen. cant speak for the others.

[Voytek]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='15 March 2010 - 03:24 AM' timestamp='1268584210' post='2225374']The alliances we were going to be at war with anyway since they were on the opposite side of NpO.[/quote]
See now you would have had [i]so[/i] much more ground to stand on if you'd kept things defensive rather than ignoring all the advice you were given from pretty much everybody and trying to pre-empt. I guess it was a case of "hey, it worked before right?" or something.

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='15 March 2010 - 03:24 AM' timestamp='1268584210' post='2225374']The reps don't just have to do with TOP. It has to do with your side being able to accept all of it and also finding enough 3rd party tech dealers.[/quote]
Some alliances will finish paying their reps sooner than others on account of either more slots to pay them with or simply smaller amounts that need to be sent. I'm not hardcore enough to do those kinds of calculations so I can't go into a whole lot of detail on this point, unfortunately. Hopefully someone with a bit more acumen will come along.

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='15 March 2010 - 03:24 AM' timestamp='1268584210' post='2225374']Yes... I guess you didn't notice we had to give Echelon separate terms since we did not agree with what was demanded from them.[/quote]
That wasn't quite what I meant, but I'm too tired to keep arguing with you tonight. Maybe tomorrow or something.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='12 March 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1268448491' post='2223918']
Finally, someone sees reason!
[/quote]
I'm sure you would like to see them continue to face outrageous reps until they disband, maybe in the Unjust War the part you guys regretted the most was not being on the side causing an alliance to disband over unacceptable terms. I suppose this time you and NpO get to work together setting the stage for another era of harsh terms like what came after the first Unjust War.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Methrage' date='15 March 2010 - 12:37 AM' timestamp='1268628194' post='2226046']
I'm sure you would like to see them continue to face outrageous reps until they disband, maybe in the Unjust War the part you guys regretted the most was not being on the side causing an alliance to disband over unacceptable terms. I suppose this time you and NpO get to work together setting the stage for another era of harsh terms like what came after the first Unjust War.
[/quote]

Didn't you hear... NPO is joining CnG

Edit: Actually to be fair, I have also heard on good authority they are switching to orange and joining LEO

Edited March 15, 2010 by Lord Curzon

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Methrage' date='14 March 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1268628194' post='2226046']
I'm sure you would like to see them continue to face outrageous reps until they disband, maybe in the Unjust War the part you guys regretted the most was not being on the side causing an alliance to disband over unacceptable terms. I suppose this time you and NpO get to work together setting the stage for another era of harsh terms like what came after the first Unjust War.
[/quote]
I did regret being defeated in the Unjust War, yes. However, these days we make no such mistakes

Edited March 15, 2010 by Sandwich Controversy

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='15 March 2010 - 01:37 AM' timestamp='1268631767' post='2226095']
I did regret being defeated in the Unjust War, yes. However, these days we make no such mistakes
[/quote]
I haven't regretted being defeated in the two alliance wars I've fought in and lost, as I fought regardless of odds for a worthwhile cause knowing it was a losing battle from the start. I'd rather fight an honorable battle and possibly lose than fight on a side extorting unjust reps, as thats not something I wish to fight in support of ever.

[uaciaut]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='14 March 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1268581726' post='2225346']
So the main argument supporting your excessive reps is what we did to Polar? How does that have anything to do with this war? The only way it should factor in is if you guys are trying to seek revenge for our past actions.

The funniest thing is how long you guys have complained about the excessive reps you had to pay to NPO. Now when you are in the same position as them you do the exact same thing. At least accept that you are the same as the NPO led hegemony. They too had this overwhelming OWF support at one point. Just remember that if you repeat the same actions as them you will suffer the same fate.
[/quote]

This is a killer post. Let's have a big recap on it:

1. You're saying that we're asking you for reps because of you asking Polar reps. This makes no sense whatsoever. TOP has their fair share of asking people for huge reps when they had the possibility of rubbing it in, especially when it was against someone they didn't like and they attacked when they were at their weakest - which is a pretty similar scenario to what you did here.
Regardless of what bigwoody claims i'm fairly confident that TOP would have demanded reps should things have gone their way, and quite big ones. Most people that know you well enough probably think the same.
I do enjoy you playing off your goodie PR with the Karma was when it was a war you did not want to enter and when you complained and whined throughout most of the it because people didn't do what you wanted to and it didn't go your way. Not to mention those "let's not use nukes" pacts you did on a few fronts when most of the other people got nuked. Huge proactive involvement you had there, hands down.

2. The "you're the new hegemony" attempt of PR labelling. Sorry we're not dumb enough to give you leeway into rebuilding and not turning the other cheek after you attack us as soon as you saw the chance of us being weakened. Would you like us to modify all our MDP's to say "does not activate if attacker is TOP and they have no CB" along with it or what?
Funniest part is that you're associating us with NPO in particular when you stood by and politically supported the crap they pulled for so long yet somehow it's easy for you to use them as a "bad guy" comparison right now.
And yes, i'm sure us defending ourselves and demanding reps from the people that aggressively attacked you with pretty much 0 reason is the same as what keeping alliances into perma-zi, declaring aggressive wars without a CB (lol deja vu), threatening people with perma-zi etc etc


Now keep complaining about how the reps are too big when you've been given examples of alliances paying MORE than you are asked to (as compared to their tech levels at the time) for BEING ATTACKED (with pretty much 0 reason, at least in our case) rather than making the mistake of attacking someone without a CB.

You corner me at every turn with your incredible use of logic.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='uaciaut' date='15 March 2010 - 06:26 AM' timestamp='1268649089' post='2226212']
This is a killer post. Let's have a big recap on it:

1. You're saying that we're asking you for reps because of you asking Polar reps. This makes no sense whatsoever. TOP has their fair share of asking people for huge reps when they had the possibility of rubbing it in, especially when it was against someone they didn't like and they attacked when they were at their weakest - which is a pretty similar scenario to what you did here.
Regardless of what bigwoody claims i'm fairly confident that TOP would have demanded reps should things have gone their way, and quite big ones. Most people that know you well enough probably think the same.
I do enjoy you playing off your goodie PR with the Karma was when it was a war you did not want to enter and when you complained and whined throughout most of the it because people didn't do what you wanted to and it didn't go your way. Not to mention those "let's not use nukes" pacts you did on a few fronts when most of the other people got nuked. Huge proactive involvement you had there, hands down.

2. The "you're the new hegemony" attempt of PR labelling. Sorry we're not dumb enough to give you leeway into rebuilding and not turning the other cheek after you attack us as soon as you saw the chance of us being weakened. Would you like us to modify all our MDP's to say "does not activate if attacker is TOP and they have no CB" along with it or what?
Funniest part is that you're associating us with NPO in particular when you stood by and politically supported the crap they pulled for so long yet somehow it's easy for you to use them as a "bad guy" comparison right now.
And yes, i'm sure us defending ourselves and demanding reps from the people that aggressively attacked you with pretty much 0 reason is the same as what keeping alliances into perma-zi, declaring aggressive wars without a CB (lol deja vu), threatening people with perma-zi etc etc


Now keep complaining about how the reps are too big when you've been given examples of alliances paying MORE than you are asked to (as compared to their tech levels at the time) for BEING ATTACKED (with pretty much 0 reason, at least in our case) rather than making the mistake of attacking someone without a CB.

You corner me at every turn with your incredible use of logic.
[/quote]

Alright, I'll take a stab at this.

With respect to 1. Vlad is not saying that you are giving them high reps because of Polar. He is saying that the amount of reps they asked from Polar is immaterial to the reps you are offering now. That each case should be evaluated individually. If I recall correctly that post was in response to an CnGer saying "well you asked for high reps from Polar" in response to our sarcasm which implied "these are high reps." Interestingly, you did the exact same thing. You said (excuse me for paraphrasing you) "No we're not making you pay because of NpO... but you made NpO pay a lot so our reps are OK." You've got some nice circular reasoning going on there. Either TOP's harsh reps in the past justify your harsh reps now, or they don't.

Also, it is not just bigwoody claiming TOP agreed to no reps either. I was there and I'll vouch that TOP agreed to "light or no reps". But don't take my word for it, think about it logically. If the preemptive strike was an attempt to overcome our side's strength deficit, it would not make sense to offer terms that would give CnG an incentive to stay in the fight. If you are trying to hit, knock out, then redeploy the "knock out" is easier if there are no reps.

[Chalaskan]

[quote name='Methrage' date='14 March 2010 - 10:23 PM' timestamp='1268634530' post='2226132']
I haven't regretted being defeated in the two alliance wars I've fought in and lost, as I fought regardless of odds for a worthwhile cause knowing it was a losing battle from the start. I'd rather fight an honorable battle and possibly lose than fight on a side extorting unjust reps, as thats not something I wish to fight in support of ever.
[/quote]

I like you more and more..cause great minds think alike. I would be much larger then most nations my age if I had taken an easy route. Instead I am a third most of their sizes due to my honor.

Something that is lacking in this game regardless of the preminitions given during Kharma.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Chalaskan' date='16 March 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1268730007' post='2227171']
I like you more and more..cause great minds think alike. I would be much larger then most nations my age if I had taken an easy route. Instead I am a third most of their sizes due to my honor.

Something that is lacking in this game regardless of the preminitions given during Kharma.
[/quote]
I would of loved to of seen the world that karma implied would arise after the karma war. But that world was a phantasm, a convenient misconception allowed to spread because it was good PR at the time. If Karma had of delivered this then they would of been universally hailed as heroes. But I guess sometimes it is convenient to allow people to have mistaken beliefs if they support you because of them.

[Captain Enema]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='14 March 2010 - 10:05 AM' timestamp='1268583067' post='2225360']
The terms are pretty crippling considering it will take us over half a year to pay them off. I know you say they can be paid off in a couple months as if we have 100% slot efficiency and an unlimited amount of tech dealers laying around. Also, as far as I know TOP gave white peace to everyone it attacked in the Karma war.
[/quote]

Back in the Novision war the CSN had a huge amount of their reps paid off by their friends. Maybe your friends will do the same for you, doubt it though.

[Crazy Carrot]

[quote name='Chalaskan' date='16 March 2010 - 09:54 AM' timestamp='1268730007' post='2227171']
I like you more and more..cause great minds think alike. I would be much larger then most nations my age if I had taken an easy route. Instead I am a third most of their sizes due to my honor.

Something that is lacking in this game regardless of the preminitions given during Kharma.
[/quote]

TOP picking honour over their nations? Are you kidding me?

I bet that at least 90% of the nations that have belonged to CN-alliances at some point have suffered more in NS than TOP-nations prior to this conflict. There are countless examples out there of alliances, also the ones you are now putting in the "dishonorable" corner because they are on the winning side of a beat down TOP instigated itself, that have fought against insane odds and kept fighting. TOP losing a bit of NS doesn't make you the heroes of CN in fighting Evil. More have done so in the past, often against TOP. And they had to pay reps as well. Often big reps. Made possible, in part, by TOP.

It's not that great minds think alike, it's more a case of delusional minds thinking alike...

[Voytek]

[quote name='Chalaskan' date='16 March 2010 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1268730007' post='2227171']Instead I am a third most of their sizes due to my honor.[/quote]

Since when did "honour" become interchangeable with "ego"?

[SunnyInc]

[quote name='uaciaut' date='15 March 2010 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1268649089' post='2226212']
This is a killer post. Let's have a big recap on it:

1. You're saying that we're asking you for reps because of you asking Polar reps. This makes no sense whatsoever. TOP has their fair share of asking people for huge reps when they had the possibility of rubbing it in, especially when it was against someone they didn't like and they attacked when they were at their weakest - which is a pretty similar scenario to what you did here.
Regardless of what bigwoody claims i'm fairly confident that TOP would have demanded reps should things have gone their way, and quite big ones. Most people that know you well enough probably think the same.
I do enjoy you playing off your goodie PR with the Karma was when it was a war you did not want to enter and when you complained and whined throughout most of the it because people didn't do what you wanted to and it didn't go your way. Not to mention those "let's not use nukes" pacts you did on a few fronts when most of the other people got nuked. Huge proactive involvement you had there, hands down.

2. [b]The "you're the new hegemony" attempt of PR labelling. Sorry we're not dumb enough to give you leeway into rebuilding and not turning the other cheek after you attack us as soon as you saw the chance of us being weakened. Would you like us to modify all our MDP's to say "does not activate if attacker is TOP and they have no CB" along with it or what?[/b]
Funniest part is that you're associating us with NPO in particular when you stood by and politically supported the crap they pulled for so long yet somehow it's easy for you to use them as a "bad guy" comparison right now.
And yes, i'm sure us defending ourselves and demanding reps from the people that aggressively attacked you with pretty much 0 reason is the same as what keeping alliances into perma-zi, declaring aggressive wars without a CB (lol deja vu), threatening people with perma-zi etc etc


Now keep complaining about how the reps are too big when you've been given examples of alliances paying MORE than you are asked to (as compared to their tech levels at the time) for BEING ATTACKED (with pretty much 0 reason, at least in our case) rather than making the mistake of attacking someone without a CB.

You corner me at every turn with your incredible use of logic.
[/quote]

Did it ever occur to you that Pacifica imposed harsh reps for the exact same reason as you just outlined? Of course not because that would hihglight the already widely recognized fact that you are the same rapacious fiends you accused your predecessors of being.

Edited March 16, 2010 by SunnyInc

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Voytek' date='16 March 2010 - 07:26 AM' timestamp='1268739118' post='2227203']
Since when did "honour" become interchangeable with "ego"?
[/quote]
As soon as you saw it them as interchangeable and used them as such it became true, so situational from your perspective. Has honour ever been much different than ego?

[Teddyyo]

I think one of the main problems is the loss of the meaning of the word 'Reperations'. 'Reperations' are something forced upon an alliance as a result of a war. 'Rebuilding aid' is given to make an alliance as strong as it was pre-war. They should NOT be used interchangeably, ie These are not reps. They are rebuilding aid packs.

Now then, if I were a C&G nation at my size (50k) or lower I would be living in fear of the update rush nuke daily like a terrorist attack.

[Voytek]

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 March 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1268740218' post='2227209']As soon as you saw it them as interchangeable and used them as such it became true, so situational from your perspective.[/quote]
Cute, but a little weak.

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 March 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1268740218' post='2227209']Has honour ever been much different than ego?[/quote]
Uh, yes? I can see how you might confuse the two in a CN context given how much everyone who sees themselves as "honourable" loves to advertise just how "honourable" they think they are, but they are definitely not inescapably bound to each other.

[quote name='Teddyyo' date='16 March 2010 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1268740746' post='2227211']I think one of the main problems is the loss of the meaning of the word 'Reperations'. 'Reperations' are something forced upon an alliance as a result of a war. 'Rebuilding aid' is given to make an alliance as strong as it was pre-war. They should NOT be used interchangeably, ie These are not reps. They are rebuilding aid packs.[/quote]
You... this...

It's too much. I don't know where to begin.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Voytek

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Voytek' date='16 March 2010 - 08:01 AM' timestamp='1268741197' post='2227212']
Uh, yes? I can see how you might confuse the two in a CN context given how much everyone who sees themselves as "honourable" loves to advertise just how "honourable" they think they are, but they are definitely not inescapably bound to each other.
[/quote]
I guess there goes the answer to your own question, he never mentioned the two so not much to do his post though, something you brought up.

[Voytek]

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 March 2010 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1268741435' post='2227215']
I guess there goes the answer to your own question, he never mentioned the two so not much to do his post though, something you brought up.
[/quote]
Which post are you talking about? He certainly mentioned them in his last one - the one that the post you quoted was replying to. White knight harder.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Voytek