The Easter Sunday Accords

[John Ron]

[quote name='V The King' date='05 April 2010 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1270448466' post='2248797']
Also who is DF and why are they getting reparations?
[/quote]
They are getting reps at Aircastle's request. Remember when you attacked our other allies with a stupid CB?

Edited April 5, 2010 by John Ron

[Commander Cato]

Congrats on Peace

[SiCkO]

[quote name='V The King' date='04 April 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1270448466' post='2248797']
Also who is DF and why are they getting reparations?
[/quote]

Dark Fist is the name of the alliance.

[Denial]

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1270447047' post='2248767']
Ah, I see you have switched from making an argument on the basis of inflation, to one of the basis of size. A wise choice. I am glad that, by omission, you have tacitly accepted my conclusive rebuttal of any inflationary argument.[/quote]
My original comment regarding inflation was not in relation to the economic sense of the word (an increase in the price of technology), but in the more literal sense. Levels of technology possessed by both individual nations, and alliances in total, increased dramatically (i.e. inflated) during the period of the Hegemony, all the way up to the outbreak of the Karma War. This historical fact adds credence and nuance to the sensible rule of comparing an alliance's ability to pay, and thus the burden of reparations, when attempting to find which surrender terms are lenient and which are onerous. In other words, a mid-level alliance of 2010 is much more capable of paying 100k technology than was a mid-level alliance of 2007, thus rendering the juxtaposition of absolute numbers from years ago to absolute numbers from contemporary times illogical and dishonest. Many peace agreements handed down by the Hegemony were far more severe than the current peace agreement, despite the large disparity in absolute numbers.

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1270447047' post='2248767']
I would make a further suggestion, and say that you might want to switch from arguing about proportion of total tech to size, as the former has little effect on an alliance's ability to pay, and consequently the burden placed upon them. The nations in question would be, rather readily, able to fund a constant output of full slots of tech whether they started from 10,000 or 1,000. Therefore, absolute amounts would be very relevant within the framework in question, and even more so after your claims of some magical inflation have been discredited. In fact, it would be the proportion of total tech argument that would be the most dishonest, as it would imply that a tech-rich alliance would face less of a burden giving a similar amount of tech away than a tech-poor alliance. That is not true: it would cost the same to replace the lost tech no matter how high of a starting point you were left with.[/quote]
So, if we are to take your argument here that a tech-poor alliance is just as capable as a tech-rich alliance, at end-of-war standings, of paying sizeable reparations, why is it that you subject the Cyberverse to lengthy diatribes regarding the fact that Pacifica must pay more technology reparations than it possessed at the conclusion of the war? In fact, there is a complaint of that nature in this very topic of discussion. What you say here completely undermines many of your own arguments regarding the supposed 'injustice' of Pacifica's terms. It is amusing how you will switch from one economic position to the other depending on what/who you are trying to criticise at a particular moment.

It is lucky for you that I do not accept your current argument, and from the very onset of the signing of Pacifica's surrender terms, I have been open with my opinion that the burden on Pacifica was high. The peace settlement was intended to be as such. The fact of the matter is, throughout the history of peace settlements involving technology reparations, those alliances that have had to part with a higher proportion of their final technology figure have had significantly more difficulty than those alliances ordered to pay a smaller proportion. It is one of the primary reasons why each alliance that has been subjected to such a thing has spoken out against their treatment so fervently (as Pacificans have done, ad nauseam). The difference between you and I is that I have remained constant with my objective and accurate measurements of the burden of reparations, whereas you are willing to adopt any position so long as it assists you in criticising the latest movement by your perceived opponents.


[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1270447047' post='2248767']
If you will permit me once again to copy your writing style, thank you for your predictable attempt to portray the New Pacific Order as some dishonest bogeyman (what's a Denial post without it?). I am also glad that you have admitted that harshness and justification are two separate concepts, which was part of my original argument. I am not quite sure why you would see the need to include a rather irrelevant attempt to repeat your justifications for the Karma war, as no attempt to call them into question or start a new debate over an issue that has been beaten to death has existed. I am sure that you are working quite assiduously to continue an unnecessary and irrational grudge, though I am not quite sure for what reason that may be. Perhaps you interpreted my attempt to argue against the logic of inflation as some personal slight - the lack of any attempt to protect that discredited argument would support that, though I am loathe to jump to that assumption at this point. Nevertheless, I wish you the best, and hope that you will cease your own tired attempts against us. You won, and then you won again; get over it already.
[/quote]
I have noticed quite a few fans of my linguistic ability over the years, but it has dramatically increased in the past few months. It is very flattering. Perhaps I should create some sort of formalised institution in order to instruct my growing number of immitators? Professor Denial's School for Gifted Leaders may soon be established over at The Castle Hall, and I will make sure that you are amongst the first to receive an invite. Anyway, I digress. If you wish for me to stop placing a spotlight of truth upon the underhanded and manipulative actions of Pacifica, perhaps you should take my advice and not involve Pacifica and its past military losses in topics of discussion that you and your alliance are not relevant to? It is also amusing that you would attempt to instruct me to "get over" the two-time successful defence of my alliance and its allies, when I am perfectly humble in victory and only seek to prevent any erroneous beliefs taking hold as a result of a concerted misinformation campaign by you and your ilk. I think you may need to heed your own words in terms of moving on.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Denial

[Madtrixr]

Peace is


Congrats to all parties, You fought well.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Madtrixr

[Gizmo]

o/ IRON for fighting an honorable fight against us and
o/ to our wartime comrades Aircastle, Aloha, Christian Coalition of Countries, FOK, Global Alliance And Treaty Organization, League of Small Superpowers, New Polar Order, Prism Protection Front, Siberian Tiger Alliance, The Brigade, The Jedi Order, and Umbrella [b]for demanding no Reps and offering White Peace.[/b]

Edited April 5, 2010 by masterbake

[Confusion]

Congrats on the [s]victory[/s] peace agreement, TOP.

It's also nice to see some things never change, the only alliances who deserved the reperations were CnG Union but that's pretty obvious.
Anyways Good Luck rebuilding, everyone.

o/ Peace

Edited April 5, 2010 by Confusion

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

Congratulations to all parties involved in achieving peace.

[Zekarde]

Perhaps I'm not in tune with the typical CN political correctness, but I consider letting a friend march into battle alone because of popular opinion to be an act of cowardliness.

Dark Fist does not abandon allies, and suffered far more damage than any gains from these terms. Also, 'war profiterring' from nuclear war with WRC nations many of whom have 8-10k tech... seriously?

All the thick shades of grotesque bias aside, TOP you fought very fiercely and remained polite and honorable the whole time.
Thank you for the fight good sirs, I have nothing but gained respect for you.

Also, cheers to ODN and MK, I fought alongside some of you and found good company.

o/ Aircastle
o/ Dark Fist

[President S O]

This is good to see. Best of luck to TOP, IRON, DAWN, TSO, and TORN

o/

Good fight, everyone.

[Letum]

[quote name='Denial' date='05 April 2010 - 07:29 AM' timestamp='1270448947' post='2248807']
My original comment regarding inflation was not in relation to the economic sense of the word (an increase in the price of technology), but in the more literal sense. Levels of technology possessed by both individual nations, and alliances in total, increased dramatically (i.e. inflated) during the period of the Hegemony, all the way up to the outbreak of the Karma War. This historical fact adds credence and nuance to the sensible rule of comparing an alliance's ability to pay, and thus the burden of reparations, when attempting to find which surrender terms are lenient and which are onerous. In other words, a mid-level alliance of 2010 is much more capable of paying 100k technology than was a mid-level alliance of 2007.
[/quote]

The economic sense of inflation is also the literal one; trying to include the rise in overall levels as some form of justification for an increase in reparation size has no credence in it at all, for it affects neither their ability to pay nor the cost of replacement, and thus is irrelevant to their burden. A mid-level alliance of 2010 would have to spend the same amount of time, and produce at the same cost, 100k technology as a mid-level alliance of 2007. Any perceived "extra burden" on the latter would be psychological and not material in nature. There is no decreasing marginal cost when talking about tech.

[quote]
So, if we are to take your argument here that a tech-poor alliance is just as capable as a tech-rich alliance, at end-of-war standings, of paying sizeable reparations, why is it that you subject the Cyberverse to lengthy diatribes regarding the fact that Pacifica must pay more technology reparations than it possessed at the conclusion of the war? In fact, there is a complaint of that nature in this very topic of discussion. What you say here completely undermines many of your own arguments regarding the supposed 'injustice' of Pacifica's terms. It is amusing how you will switch from one economic position to the other depending on what/who you are trying to criticise at a particular moment.
[/quote]

I have not made the argument that the harshness of our reps derives from their relation to the absolute level tech that we had. Any mention of the "more tech than we had" line is always as a response to the use of said yardstick as a mechanism of criticism or justification by other parties, and is usually, but not always, aimed at highlighting hypocrisy. In this specific situation, it was meant to highlight that any attempt to judge rep harshness by proportion would lead to the promotion of the position that the NPO suffered harsh reps, a position which whilst you have personally stated your belief in, nevertheless does not have universal acceptance, and is not viewed as something desirable to promote. In effect, when this line is used it serves as an attempt to hold the people it is used against to their own standards, not to our beliefs.

If you make a note of how the paragraph wherein that fact was contained began (and really, a single paragraph is far from a lengthy diatribe), you will note that it referenced your metric, and used it to its logical extension in order to highlight just that point; that arguing in favour of that metric means arguing in favour of the view the NPO was treated harshly. Now granted, that reference has no effect on you as you have admitted your belief for the object of said promotion, but it is nevertheless a point of relevance to the wider audience. I assure you, I would believe our reps would be just as harsh had we double the amount of tech that we had at the end of the war.

[quote]
It is lucky for you that I do not accept your current argument, and from the very onset of the signing of Pacifica's surrender terms, I have been open with my opinion that the burden on Pacifica was high. The peace settlement was intended to be as such. The fact of the matter is, throughout the history of peace settlements involving technology reparations, those alliances that have had to part with a higher proportion of their final technology figure have had significantly more difficulty than those alliances ordered to pay a smaller proportion. It is one of the primary reasons why each alliance that has been subjected to such a thing has spoken out against their treatment so fervently (as Pacificans have done, ad nauseam). The difference between you and I is that I have remained constant with my objective and accurate measurements of the burden of reparations, whereas you are willing to adopt any position so long as it assists you in criticising the latest movement by your perceived opponents.
[/quote]

I am not quite sure what you are trying to prove here; but I should note that alliances paying a higher proportion of their final tech figure would have a high correlation with those paying a high amount in the absolute sense, and it would therefore make sense if they were found to have a higher burden. Furthermore, any perception of opposition does not come from me, nor have I made any such claim. Quite the opposite in fact.

[quote]
I have noticed quite a few fans of my linguistic ability over the years, but it has dramatically increased in the past few months. It is very flattering. Perhaps I should create some sort of formalised institution in order to instruct my growing number of immitators? Professor Denial's School for Gifted Leaders may soon be established over at The Castle Hall, and I will make sure that you are amongst the first to receive an invite.
[/quote]

I would accept such an invite, and would find it very refreshing to engage in such linguistic exchange without the shadow of partisanship. I am also grateful that you seem to hold the view that I would fit in a school for gifted leaders.

[quote]
Anyway, I digress. If you wish for me to stop placing a spotlight of truth upon the underhanded and manipulative actions of Pacifica, perhaps you should take my advice and not involve Pacifica and its past military losses in topics of discussion that you and your alliance are not relevant to? It is also amusing that you would attempt to instruct me to "get over" the two-time successful defence of my alliance and its allies, when I am perfectly humble in victory and only seek to prevent any erroneous beliefs taking hold as a result of a concerted misinformation campaign by you and your ilk. I think you may need to heed your own words in terms of moving on.
[/quote]

I have made no attempted to characterise any group you claim loyalty to as possessing any negative traits, therefore I am not quite sure what point I am supposed to move on from. I do take some issue with the claim that an argument backed up with reasoning is, rather than being countered outright in a similar manner, instead being attacked as a misinformation campaign.

[ClaytonG]

glad to finally have peace. of all the wars i fought i only had 1 opponent that was a jerk. very glad that i fought over 15 different opponents. a 1:14 ratio is good in my book. Good fight TOP you have reduced my infra levels again and again and i hope we can do it again some day lol

[o ya baby]

Oh hey, what do you know. We won.

[Zangmonkey]

Congratulations to our comrades for securing an end to the conflict.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='05 April 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1270445148' post='2248705']
They can buy the tech from others and have those others sent to the receiving alliance.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]If that is the case I will have to be in touch with TOP. As much as I do not want to see CnG get tech, I would be satisfied to see TOP out of these unnecessary terms as soon as possible.

In regards to Dark Fist, so they chained from Aircastle who chained from Vanguard. After so much chaining, do you really think it can be called defensive. Also, DF had no obligations to NOIR. It is an ODP. They chose to enter. They wanted war. They should have accepted that they would take some damage. That kind of thing happens when you consciencely choose to enter a war.

Also, Sparta does not deserve reparations either. And certainly not the amount they have gotten from this war.[/color]

[Sin]

I pray to the almighty admin that IRON come out of peace mode and roll Gramlins like there is no tomorrow!

ALL HAIL IRON o/

Make 'em squeal like pigs!

[lebubu]

All hail the invincible armies of the Mushroom Kingdom [size="1"](&friends)[/size]!

[fallin]

Lets be frank gentlemen. This isn't a peace. This is a 8 month armistice.

[R3nowned]

All hail peace

Though that is a lot of tech CnG + Co. are getting :|

[V The King]

[quote name='John Ron' date='05 April 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1270448631' post='2248801']
They are getting reps at Aircastle's request. Remember when you attacked our other allies with a stupid CB?
[/quote]

Strong hostility! Man, you sure are a flamboyant tough-guy.

[quote]Lets be frank gentlemen. This isn't a peace. This is a 8 month armistice. [/quote]

As any peace agreement ever signed in Bob. It's like a never-ending cycle - when will the madness stop?

Edited April 5, 2010 by V The King

[Starcraftmazter]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='05 April 2010 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1270452653' post='2248859']In regards to Dark Fist, so they chained from Aircastle who chained from Vanguard. After so much chaining, do you really think it can be called defensive. Also, DF had no obligations to NOIR. It is an ODP. They chose to enter. They wanted war. They should have accepted that they would take some damage. That kind of thing happens when you consciencely choose to enter a war.[/quote]

There was no chaining anywhere, Aircastle came in defense of it's treaty partner, and we came in defense of them. And we absolutely have an obligation to NOIR. Just because you don't honour treaties, don't mean others don't.

Nah dude - you got TOLD. Try again another time.

[fallin]

[quote name='V The King' date='05 April 2010 - 08:07 AM' timestamp='1270454821' post='2248885']
As any peace agreement ever signed in Bob. It's like a never-ending cycle - when will the madness stop?
[/quote]

For the sake of my overall enjoyment in this realm, I hope never.

A toast to my TOP brother in this world. May you come back in a couple of months to club me on the head.

Afterall, war and drama is the spice of life.

[color="#483D8B"]*fallin toasts V The King
[/color]

Edited April 5, 2010 by fallin

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Starcraftmazter' date='05 April 2010 - 04:10 AM' timestamp='1270455016' post='2248886']
There was no chaining anywhere, Aircastle came in defense of it's treaty partner, and we came in defense of them. And we absolutely have an obligation to NOIR. Just because you don't honour treaties, don't mean others don't.

Nah dude - you got TOLD. Try again another time.
[/quote]

What you just described is the commonly accepted definition of chaining, ie your ally fulfills its obligation to another ally, and you decide to come in to help out your ally. That is what chaining means. Unless aircastle was independently declared on, your involvement would be via chain.

[Starcraftmazter]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='05 April 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1270455461' post='2248889']
What you just described is the commonly accepted definition of chaining, ie your ally fulfills its obligation to another ally, and you decide to come in to help out your ally. That is what chaining means. Unless aircastle was independently declared on, your involvement would be via chain.
[/quote]

Why so told dude?

You have one perspective, someone has another. Get over it.

[Amicus curiae]

Good to finally see this end.