The Easter Sunday Accords

[Schmoo]

I'm glad this is finally over. I cannot speak to the fighting abilities of all involved, but I can say that Farkistan and ODN were very impressive. Both alliances were well organized and fought hard. Good show! I hope that someday in the very near future we can see the ODN embassy reopened on our home forum. We had our war, now lets get back on speaking terms.

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='05 April 2010 - 05:44 AM' timestamp='1270442642' post='2248589']
glad to finally have peace. much respect to TORN and DAWN as well. had a blast fighting ya'll. The only thing i was disappointed about this war is that TORN and DAWN did not ZI me. i was down to only 21 infra too.
[/quote]

No rage at your alliance taking reps then?

[Taishaku]

Joyous news on a joyous day.

o/ Peace on Bob

[nikko]

[quote name='King sin' date='05 April 2010 - 09:33 AM' timestamp='1270452780' post='2248863']
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!
[/quote]

Ditto !

[nippy]

[quote name='Sargun' date='05 April 2010 - 05:58 AM' timestamp='1270439905' post='2248393']
Not that I want to be the first to start an argument over reps, but just for curiosity I'd like to see how these reps match up against others given out.
[/quote]


Oh, I'd say "nicely".

[Confusion]

[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]
One thing is coming in defense of an ally. Another is coming in defense of an ally and asking for reps when you weren't the ones to get attacked.... See were i'm getting at?

Edited April 5, 2010 by Confusion

[Joe32320]

Congrats on peace, especially our friends in OSA.

Also pleased to see that Gramlins have not been able to keep you all in with those stupid, unneeded terms they want. Good luck to IRON and DAWN getting respectable terms from them, which should be white peace only in Gramlins case.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Joe32320

[Poyplemonkeys]

[quote name='Starcraftmazter' date='05 April 2010 - 09:10 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]

NOIR holds no obligations, and hopefully never will.

[Cataduanes]

A worthy peace, many thanks for most of my own opponents for making this an awesome conflict.

[Denial]

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1270450757' post='2248832']
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]
Firstly, a psychological millstone can be as detrimental as an economic one. It has consequences for membership retention, activity, and leadership turnover - particularly for small alliances - and was arguably a factor in a number of disbandments during the Hegemony era. A psychological burden is more likely to eventuate when an alliance is ordered to pay reparations that constitute a high proportion of their end-of-war technology levels. Secondly, the economic usage of the word 'inflation' is not that word's only meaning. Thirdly, the rise in overall levels in technology, at both the individual and alliance level, is entirely relevant to the burden of reparations. There is a distinct difference in the ability of alliances from 3 years ago and alliances of today to pay the same amount of reparations. The heightened levels of technology in contemporary times displays an increased capacity to procure technology, thus making it easier for - as an example - mid-ranking alliances of 2010 to pay off 100k in reparations than mid-ranking alliances of 2007. What you are arguing for here, Letum, is that it would have been just as easy for TOP 2007 to source and send its owed 280k technology as it would be for TOP 2010. That is simply not the case; extracting 100k direct and 170k indirect technology from a post-war 2007 version of TOP would have been unthinkable, but to demand that amount from the post-war 2010 version of TOP (roughly 60% of their current technology) is justified punishment for waging a war of aggression.


[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1270450757' post='2248832']
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. [b]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.[/b] 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]
At least you openly admitted that last statement in bold. By stating that already yourself, you saved me time that had been used up trying to work out how the preceding two paragraphs had any relevance, or in any way countered one facet of my argument. You have consistently utilised the "more tech than we had" line as your primary ammunition whilst criticising the Karma War peace agreement, and no, you have not contained your usage of it in the manner you have claimed. If you are genuine when you state that you would believe your reparations would have been just as harsh had Pacifica had double the amount of tech at the conclusion of the Karma War, then I expect to see no more Letum posts complaining about the fact that NPO is paying out more technology than it possessed. If nothing else comes from this debate, it would have been worth it to wipe out the foundation of your campaign to play the victim.

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1270450757' post='2248832']
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]
Your opposition is intrinsic and often implicit. While you do not declare it openly, you demonstrate it by being willing to flip-flop between conflicting economic and political points of view in an attempt to criticise those who were the victors in the Karma War and gain some form of political point. You jump at the chance to condemn those that checked and rejected Pacifican aggression in the war, throwing away consistency and principled thought in favour of adopting any position, no matter how illogical, that may allow you to verbally attack your betters. What you have argued here is intellectually fraudulent. You would have people believe that a direct comparison of absolute numbers from 2010 to absolute numbers from 2007 is perfectly valid. You would have people believe that alliances paying 90% of their technology face no heavier burden than an alliance paying 30% of their technology. You would have people believe that technology was as prevalent, and as easy to source+send, in the Hegemony era as it is in contemporary times. You would have people believe that simply because the numbers are larger, the TOP reparations are more severe than those faced by MK in the past. These are absolutely ludicrous claims that are motivated only by the pursuit of excusing Pacifican crimes of the past. It is quite clearly your belief that if you can persuade people to look only at absolute numbers, you can pass off contemporary reparations as far surpassing the severity of those enforced by the New Pacific Order. Let me tell you now, no one is buying it.

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1270450757' post='2248832']
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]
Oh, indeed. Anyone that can so freely switch from one perspective to another on an issue, in the lone pursuit of criticising their opponents, and without genuinely believing a word of their own commentary, is certainly someone that needs to be worked with in closer quarters. Through studying your quite sophisticated level of delusion, we may be able to grasp a better understanding of the enigma wrapped in a mystery that is Alterego.

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1270450757' post='2248832']
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.
[/quote]
Heh, you switch your approach to debate as frequently as you switch your opinion on political and economic matters. Need I remind you that it was you that first brought the burden of NPO's reparations into this discussion, and it was you that took the aggressive stance of informing me to "get over" the fact that my alliance had been victorious in its last two wars? Surely the fact that you have entered a topic that not only does not concern you, but also does not concern the reparations owed by Pacifica, and then complained at length about the money and technology NPO owe as punishment for previous actions, demonstrates that it is you that needs to move on from the past.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Denial

[ojiras ajeridas]

Finally!!! Now we all we can work again to get strong enough to bump our ego's to the infinite and ending in another war
Also, great pity that the legend of TOP had to come down like this. There were needed only a bit more than 20 alliances to bring TOP down - OK, not finally down, but to the point a slight majority of TOP were of the opinion it would be better to agree to reps than to continue to fight.

So, what did we learn from this fight? First of all, things never change. After the end of Karma war, everybody thought at big changes in alliances behaviour. But, well, the wars still end with significative reparation payments and big big big discussions if those amount were too lenient/fair/too harsh. Last time it was NPO to pay, now it is TDITT, next time maybe C&G (or SF or NpO or again TOP)... I don't expect any change in this. Maybe only Grämlins gave to the whole thing a new dimension...

Also we learnt that some alliances meant absolutely unable to fight (like ODN) can put up a nice battle, while other meant to be great warriors (and you won't get any names here, I'm an educated person ) showed to be douches.

We also saw that some alliances having the right to be offended for how this war began and went on showed like gentlemen, and that some alliances tried to get advantage of a certain situation... also this sounds somewhat familiar to me.

However, now finally peace has reached, and the only thing I want to summarize from this semi-serious post is the following: It doesn't matter who the winner and the looser of a war is... CN never will change. The only thing that changes are the names of the alliances receiving or paying reps. This shouldn't be an attack on anyone. I just enjoy these (a bit) silly discussions about the harshness of reparations, these eternal comparation of rep payments throughout CN's history

[Starcraftmazter]

[quote name='Confusion' date='05 April 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1270458627' post='2248911']One thing is coming in defense of an ally. Another is coming in defense of an ally and asking for reps when you weren't the ones to get attacked.... See were i'm getting at?[/quote]

Nope - I do see you getting told though.

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='05 April 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1270461173' post='2248919']NOIR holds no obligations, and hopefully never will.[/quote]

The obligations of a NOIR signatory are a reflection of their own philosophical beliefs, rather than the treaty

[Poyplemonkeys]

[quote name='Starcraftmazter' date='05 April 2010 - 11:10 AM' timestamp='1270462225' post='2248926']The obligations of a NOIR signatory are a reflection of their own philosophical beliefs, rather than the treaty
[/quote]

So, as I said, NOIR holds no obligations. Many people make the choice to defend those tbey consider friends, but you chose to enter this war, you had no requirement to do so.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Poyplemonkeys

[Starcraftmazter]

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='05 April 2010 - 08:14 PM' timestamp='1270462448' post='2248927']
So, as I said, NOIR holds no obligations. Many people make the choice to defend those tbey consider friends, but you chose to enter this war, you had no requirement to do so.
[/quote]

That implies we had the option of staying out though...

[Alterego]

Congratulations on allowing Gramlins to continue in their goal of dismantling and killing off IRON. Enjoy your party MK this will be waiting for you and your allies down the line.

[AVFC1]

[quote name='Ojiras Ajeridas' date='05 April 2010 - 11:10 AM' timestamp='1270462188' post='2248925']
However, now finally peace has reached, and the only thing I want to summarize from this semi-serious post is the following: It doesn't matter who the winner and the looser of a war is... CN never will change. The only thing that changes are the names of the alliances receiving or paying reps. This shouldn't be an attack on anyone. I just enjoy these (a bit) silly discussions about the harshness of reparations, these eternal comparation of rep payments throughout CN's history
[/quote]

You're paying reps because you attacked us, and you are only repaying a fraction of the damage you caused. We (MK) have fought wars in the past and demanded no reparations, however this is one of the few wars in CN history where reps were actually justified, and your own government in acknowledged this in the peace talks (that they owed reps to C&G, but not others as they hadn't declared offensively on them).

[Denial]

[quote name='Alterego' date='05 April 2010 - 08:59 PM' timestamp='1270463335' post='2248934']
Congratulations on allowing Gramlins to continue in their goal of dismantling and killing off IRON. Enjoy your party MK this will be waiting for you and your allies down the line.
[/quote]
[quote name='Alterego' date='01 April 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1270122362' post='2243576']
If everyone is ready to peace out then why not peace out. Gramlins said they are going it alone so leave them to their fate. This, like the attack on C&G is a new war and as such the terms of the last war shouldn’t encompass this new war. It is a new war because they are not here because of the attack on C&G they are here for another reason separate from the C&G/TOP-IRON war. If Gramlins want to fight this new war alone then leave them to stand alone as they wish.
[/quote]

Oh, okay then.

[LJ Scott]

Peace in our time?

[ojiras ajeridas]

[quote name='AVFC1' date='05 April 2010 - 12:37 PM' timestamp='1270463858' post='2248938']
You're paying reps because you attacked us, and you are only repaying a fraction of the damage you caused. We (MK) have fought wars in the past and demanded no reparations, however this is one of the few wars in CN history where reps were actually justified, and your own government in acknowledged this in the peace talks (that they owed reps to C&G, but not others as they hadn't declared offensively on them).
[/quote]
While I agree that these reps (at least the ones going directly go C&G) were about the more deserved ones in CN history, I'm pretty sure that every alliance demanding reps is of the opinion of deserving them.

[Simon De Montfort]

It's sad to see the path that Gre has taken.

[Letum]

[quote name='Denial' date='05 April 2010 - 11:03 AM' timestamp='1270461820' post='2248923']
Firstly, a psychological millstone can be as detrimental as an economic one. It has consequences for membership retention, activity, and leadership turnover - particularly for small alliances - and was arguably a factor in a number of disbandments during the Hegemony era. A psychological burden is more likely to eventuate when an alliance is ordered to pay reparations that constitute a high proportion of their end-of-war technology levels.[/quote]

Psychological factors are also not quantifiable, nor material. You can claim just about anything as being psychologically detrimental, including "you were mean to me" or, "I do not trust you". Trying to assess the actual strain upon an alliance based on it has no hard data and forms a slippery slope that can be used to justify or condemn just about anything. If you are going for the psychological angle, you might as well start claiming that the longer you fight, the more you hurt your opponent's morale, and therefore are being harsher when you impose reps.

[quote]Thirdly, the rise in overall levels in technology, at both the individual and alliance level, is entirely relevant to the burden of reparations. There is a distinct difference in the ability of alliances from 3 years ago and alliances of today to pay the same amount of reparations. The heightened levels of technology in contemporary times displays an increased capacity to procure technology, thus making it easier for - as an example - mid-ranking alliances of 2010 to pay off 100k in reparations than mid-ranking alliances of 2007. What you are arguing for here, Letum, is that it would have been just as easy for TOP 2007 to source and send its owed 280k technology as it would be for TOP 2010. That is simply not the case; extracting 100k direct and 170k indirect technology from a post-war 2007 version of TOP would have been unthinkable, but to demand that amount from the post-war 2010 version of TOP (roughly 60% of their current technology) is justified punishment for waging a war of aggression.[/quote]

Provided an alliance has a similar size and economic power (about 600k daily post-bill income per nation), then there is no difference whatsoever in their ability to produce and pay tech. All comparable reps situations fulfil those two self-evident caveats, and the total size of a tech pool makes no difference whatsoever. My nation was able to send 300 tech per cycle when I was full of tech, it is still able to send that amount now when my tech is much reduced. Since the price of producing tech has remained at a constant, from the moment that a nation hits the economic "floor" of being able to pay for a full slot-load of tech, then there is no difference conferred upon their ability to produce it, no matter how much tech they accumulate. Since most alliances have hit the floor in question severalyears ago, and warchests ensure that they are able to remain above it after any war, then indeed, their total level of tech does not change what they can pay. MK had long hit the floor at the time of their reps, NPO had long hit the floor at the time of their reps, and TOP had long hit the floor at the time of their reps, and no change in tech levels would consequently affect what they can do.

If that is wrong, then please explain how, ceteris paribus, had TOP held a tech level of 800,000 at this moment, they would consequently be able to pay more reps. Would their nations have more slots? no. Are their nations currently unable to self-buy tech if they ran out, giving them an advantage if they had a larger pool? no. Ergo, the factor of total tech level is irrelevant when judging ability to pay.

I think that the flaw within your reasoning is that you do not hold to the principle of keeping all other factors static, thereby not allowing for the examination of the tech size factor in isolation, thereby muddling your conclusion via its correlations with stuff like alliance size.

Furthermore, if it were not for the precedents set by you, I would have thought 270k tech as unthinkable today.


[quote]
At least you openly admitted that last statement in bold. By stating that already yourself, you saved me time that had been used up trying to work out how the preceding two paragraphs had any relevance, or in any way countered one facet of my argument. You have consistently utilised the "more tech than we had" line as your primary ammunition whilst criticising the Karma War peace agreement, and no, you have not contained your usage of it in the manner you have claimed.
[/quote]

I illustrated quite simply how, my sole two-sentence reference to that fact was as an employment of the logic you used. You were the one who took issue with such a brief reference and decided to seize upon it as some form of example of victimisation and a campaign of disinformation. I have indeed contained it within that manner, and it is your presumed desire to "read between the lines" that has made you believe otherwise. Given how the NPO is absolute evil, then it would make sense that when I make a comment, I use your standards, not mine; and as such I will continue to hold you accountable to your own words, no matter how much you would desire otherwise.

[quote]
Your opposition is intrinsic and often implicit. While you do not declare it openly, you demonstrate it by being willing to flip-flop between conflicting economic and political points of view in an attempt to criticise those who were the victors in the Karma War and gain some form of political point. You jump at the chance to condemn those that checked and rejected Pacifican aggression in the war, throwing away consistency and principled thought in favour of adopting any position, no matter how illogical, that may allow you to verbally attack your betters. What you have argued here is intellectually fraudulent. You would have people believe that a direct comparison of absolute numbers from 2010 to absolute numbers from 2007 is perfectly valid. You would have people believe that alliances paying 90% of their technology face no heavier burden than an alliance paying 30% of their technology. You would have people believe that technology was as prevalent, and as easy to source+send, in the Hegemony era as it is in contemporary times. You would have people believe that simply because the numbers are larger, the TOP reparations are more severe than those faced by MK in the past. These are absolutely ludicrous claims that are motivated only by the pursuit of excusing Pacifican crimes of the past. It is quite clearly your belief that if you can persuade people to look only at absolute numbers, you can pass off contemporary reparations as far surpassing the severity of those enforced by the New Pacific Order. Let me tell you now, no one is buying it.
[/quote]

My argument has been very consistent: your transparent attempts to fool people into thinking that the large amounts your group is in favor of imposing are somehow "reduced" by an unquantified and magical factor that you first call inflation, and then proportion to tech level are irrational and false. You have yet to illustrate how the factor of having more tech is in any way capable of giving an alliance extra production ability, instead being content to make unjustified grandiose claims. Tech is not some form of interest-bearing investment - the first 1000 costs as much as the last 1000.

[quote]
Oh, indeed. Anyone that can so freely switch from one perspective to another on an issue, in the lone pursuit of criticising their opponents, and without genuinely believing a word of their own commentary, is certainly someone that needs to be worked with in closer quarters. Through studying your quite sophisticated level of delusion, we may be able to grasp a better understanding of the enigma wrapped in a mystery that is Alterego.
[/quote]

Your insults are very cute. Who is Alterego, and what does he have to do with reps?

[quote]
Heh, you switch your approach to debate as frequently as you switch your opinion on political and economic matters. Need I remind you that it was you that first brought the burden of NPO's reparations into this discussion, and it was you that took the aggressive stance of informing me to "get over" the fact that my alliance had been victorious in its last two wars? Surely the fact that you have entered a topic that not only does not concern you, but also does not concern the reparations owed by Pacifica, and then complained at length about the money and technology NPO owe as punishment for previous actions, demonstrates that it is you that needs to move on from the past.
[/quote]

Perhaps you do not understand what I mean when I say get over.

I mean that you should stop using your personal feelings to exhibit wanton aggression towards other parties. And yes, you have been aggressive throughout this conversation, making malicious accusations such as:

"[i]Pacifica is working assiduously to be seen as the poor victim of a world that is out to get them, but there's a time and a place for your tired propaganda[/i]", "[i]the underhanded and manipulative actions of Pacifica[/i]" and "[i]a concerted misinformation campaign by you and your ilk[/i]".

That is the kind of behaviour that you must get over if you have any semblance of maturity. I am attempting to engage your claims of relative inflation in a reasoned manner, and you respond with aggressive statements and accusations, which effectively border on Ad hominem attacks. Your demeanour is not how honest debate is conducted. I am not quite sure if it my tag that triggered your acidic tongue or if you generally exhibit such behaviour, but you please pay careful attention to this:

Get over yourself. Stop taking so much time trying to discredit my argument by calling into question my motivation or character, and spend more time trying to actually argue economics. This is not some partisan election campaign, so there is no need for such tactics.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Letum

[delendum]

[quote name='Alterego' date='05 April 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1270463335' post='2248934']
Congratulations on allowing Gramlins to continue in their goal of dismantling and killing off IRON. Enjoy your party MK this will be waiting for you and your allies down the line.
[/quote]

Gramlins are a sovereign alliance, we didn't allow them to kill off IRON just as they didn't ask us for permission.

Well you know what they say, he who waits, cares.

[dev0win]

o/ IRON and our other allies at war.
Cheers to this dreadful thing ending (hopefully soon for EVERYONE involved)

[Timeline]

[quote name='CloudGT4' date='05 April 2010 - 06:31 AM' timestamp='1270445448' post='2248716']
Now we were having civil arguments.. thanks to MHA for a meaningless and flamming troll. You just made your whole side look bad. You see how you lose against me every time.
[/quote]

flaming*

I did not troll and my views are not meaningless, maybe to you, who is unable to understand the bigger picture, it would seem I was trolling but that's only becuase you are short sighted and bias, you lack the skill need to see the bigger picture.

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='Denial' date='05 April 2010 - 05:28 AM' timestamp='1270441669' post='2248539']
As for TOP, IRON, Purple & friends, I imagine we'll be seeing you all again in a few months' time when your pied piper in Red returns to the political arena.
[/quote]

Son, while there's breath in these here lungs, you'll never see TOP march with the NPO ever again.

Yay peace and that.