Jump to content

The Easter Sunday Accords


Recommended Posts

[quote name='CloudGT4' date='05 April 2010 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1270440696' post='2248487']
wow C&G turned into the new tC.. great job of proving you guys were better, and changing tech extortion in CN..

O/Torn
O/IRON
O/TOP for a good fight.

Much <3 for ya.
[/quote]

To be as respectful as I can to a former member....stop being an idiot.

That being said, glad to see peace could be reached. Even though we should have gotten here a week and a half ago if it weren't for certain people on our side.

Good fight TSO.

Good luck rebuilding everyone.

[quote name='CloudGT4' date='05 April 2010 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1270442604' post='2248586']
Pre-Emptively attacked to me, means C&G was plotting to attack TOP, IRON, and their friends, but were beat to the punch. When the numbers are against you, you do what you can to even the odds. So what if C&G would of gotten the first punch and demanded tech that would be bad?? But since someone out smarted them and got the first lick, its Okay to extort tech and money and such.. specially for the bandwagon alliances in the war.. I think I understand now.
[/quote]

You really should keep your mouth shut. You deserted Ronin in the middle of a war with out telling us and even if I did let you go without putting up a stink, that doesn't mean the act is erased from my memory nor should it be ignored from the public record.

Edited by AirMe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 930
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Congratulations to to al now a peace. I'm slightly disgusted with a few alliances taking reps when initially attacked. There seems to be quite few opportunistic buggers getting a nice undeserved Easter surprise.

Everyone who gave white peace should be proud they have done so.

For everyone saying us grämlins have been abandoned by our hitchhiker brother...we haven't what we do is of our own making.

En Taro Adun

Link to post
Share on other sites

Expansion or augmentation? CN has not expanded in the last year either (there are fewer nations now than then), and nor has TOP. Augmentation doesn't mean anything in this context, though it too means 'getting bigger' and is therefore not correct. But way to completely ignore the points in my post.

If you want to play the 'amount of tech left at the end of the war' game, C&G already proved itself to be worse than the Hegemony with the reps imposed on NPO, so I'm not sure you want to take that route.

Naturally I did read Azaghul's thread in full as I agree with his sentiments regarding reparations and proportionality ... unlike yourself, apparently. I quoted the part directly relating to an alliance of TOP's size because clearly that's more relevant to TOP's terms than other parts. However, Athens were a small alliance in member count as well as everything else at that time so the fact that 7/8 of their tech was harsh doesn't really argue against my point.

Oh, and since you made me go back and read that OP again, here's another gem for you:
[quote]For most alliances, the ability to pay reps and send internal rebuilding aid is usually not restricted by the development of their nations but by their organizational ability and aid slots which is dependent on membership count.[/quote]

The point about aggression against defence is a valid one, although it is far more semantic than you like to admit. In noCB, MK were primed and ready to hit NPO, and the moment the DoW hit the boards there were a huge stack of MK aggressive wars; yes, you were nominally defenders, but you made most of the running in the war. And in this war, you were prepared to chain in on TOP and IRON, and again you and your allies had all the war decs primed and ready, as can be seen in the rapidity of the counters. Again, you are legally defenders but only those in denial will still claim that you weren't going to be fighting TOP and IRON if they'd taken the 'textbook' entry on Fark. This war is [b]not[/b] like the Hegemony wars of aggression where a random alliance was picked out and attacked for no reason – it was a pre-emptive attack which you expected and encouraged.

Regardless of that, the comparison with the NPO terms in Karma – levied for not only starting an aggressive war but for their role in the injustices of the Hegemony era – is if anything unfair in the other direction. NPO's crimes were significantly more than TOP's (starting a war instead of merely continuing one, and enabling or supporting every Hegemony injustice instead of just some of them) and so TOP's reps should be proportionally lower than NPO's. But instead a 200 member alliance has been required to pay over 250,000 tech, when the 600 member NPO was required to pay around 500k (tech plus cash equivalent).

It was made very clear in Karma that the NPO terms were supposed to be a special case, based on their unique history at the head of the Hegemony. Now we see that C&G imposes terms which are member-by-member worse in the next war that they win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='05 April 2010 - 10:06 AM' timestamp='1270476395' post='2249059']
C&G are mostly evil and take too many reps when they win wars while complaining too much when they lose them.
[/quote]
People could just not attack C&G...that might work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='05 April 2010 - 10:06 AM' timestamp='1270476395' post='2249059']
Expansion or augmentation? CN has not expanded in the last year either (there are fewer nations now than then), and nor has TOP. Augmentation doesn't mean anything in this context, though it too means 'getting bigger' and is therefore not correct. But way to completely ignore the points in my post.

If you want to play the 'amount of tech left at the end of the war' game, C&G already proved itself to be worse than the Hegemony with the reps imposed on NPO, so I'm not sure you want to take that route.

Naturally I did read Azaghul's thread in full as I agree with his sentiments regarding reparations and proportionality ... unlike yourself, apparently. I quoted the part directly relating to an alliance of TOP's size because clearly that's more relevant to TOP's terms than other parts. However, Athens were a small alliance in member count as well as everything else at that time so the fact that 7/8 of their tech was harsh doesn't really argue against my point.

Oh, and since you made me go back and read that OP again, here's another gem for you:


The point about aggression against defence is a valid one, although it is far more semantic than you like to admit. In noCB, MK were primed and ready to hit NPO, and the moment the DoW hit the boards there were a huge stack of MK aggressive wars; yes, you were nominally defenders, but you made most of the running in the war. And in this war, you were prepared to chain in on TOP and IRON, and again you and your allies had all the war decs primed and ready, as can be seen in the rapidity of the counters. Again, you are legally defenders but only those in denial will still claim that you weren't going to be fighting TOP and IRON if they'd taken the 'textbook' entry on Fark. This war is [b]not[/b] like the Hegemony wars of aggression where a random alliance was picked out and attacked for no reason – it was a pre-emptive attack which you expected and encouraged.

Regardless of that, the comparison with the NPO terms in Karma – levied for not only starting an aggressive war but for their role in the injustices of the Hegemony era – is if anything unfair in the other direction. NPO's crimes were significantly more than TOP's (starting a war instead of merely continuing one, and enabling or supporting every Hegemony injustice instead of just some of them) and so TOP's reps should be proportionally lower than NPO's. But instead a 200 member alliance has been required to pay over 250,000 tech, when the 600 member NPO was required to pay around 500k (tech plus cash equivalent).

It was made very clear in Karma that the NPO terms were supposed to be a special case, based on their unique history at the head of the Hegemony. Now we see that C&G imposes terms which are member-by-member worse in the next war that they win.
[/quote]

I am sorry Bob, I have missed the part where C&G has asked for the decommissioning of wonders and improvements. I have also missed the part where they have required the cancellation of all treaties. Or demanded that internal alliance policies be changes. Or given secret terms. Or forced people to step down from gov. Or forced the disbandment of anyone.

If you break away from your tunnel vision and hatred, you can see what you are saying paints only part of the picture. I often wondered why you haven't just up and joined TOP or IRON so your rhetoric matches the colors you fly. Have you ever been on the losing side of a war since GW3? Didn't think so. I don't care how outspoken you are, you don't know what it's like to be held under harsh terms. Fight a war and lose and then serve some of the terms I have had to fulfill in the past and tell me these are harsh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' date='05 April 2010 - 10:21 AM' timestamp='1270477250' post='2249062']
People could just not attack C&G...that might work.
[/quote]

They all think it is a conspiracy and that's the funny part. C&G is the most laid back group of alliances on the planet. No long term plots. No plans for domination. Just roll with the punches and take it as it comes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' date='05 April 2010 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1270474446' post='2249038']
Im sure you will try to rewrite this chapter just as you have rewritten other parts of your history when you just couldnt do anything as your allies crushed alliances out of existance. If you dont like being in this position do something about it!



[/quote]

Lets talk about facts and allegations shall we?

You allege that MHA will support/allow Gramlins in crushing IRON. Yet the MHA Triumvirate hasn't made a single post saying anything to that extent. (As a matter of fact, the MHA triumvirate has hardly spoken in this thread).

The truth is, Gramlins stands as a sovereign alliance. Whether you believe it or not, the government of the Mostly Harmless Alliance has no jurisdiction over Gramlins. Their decision to remain in the war was one made by a sovereign Gramlins. You ask us to do something about it? Well, we declared a complete white peace with IRON and every other alliance that attacked us in the war. The truth remains that our policy towards our defeated enemies remains significantly more benevolent than several of our allies. We can determine our own response. We chose a response of relative benevolence. What other alliances do, yes, even our Harmlin brothers, is beyond our jurisdiction. You ask us to "do something bout it" and most assuredly I tell you, we have done everything within our legal boundaries to ensure a reasonably peaceable resolution from us.

In all due respect, throwing allegations at us without sufficiently providing facts or evidence doesn't reflect particularly well on you from an academic point of view.

Edited by fallin
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jerichoholic' date='05 April 2010 - 09:26 AM' timestamp='1270477584' post='2249067']
Congrats on peace.

Did Blackwater/OBR and FH peace out too?

Blackwater/OBR were on TORN, FH was on OG
[/quote]
On Blackwater and OBR v. TORN, a de facto peace exists on that front and a de jure peace will be announced separately at a later time, as I understand.

Cannot speak for FH.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]I am sorry Bob, I have missed the part where C&G has asked for [... other nasty terms][/quote]
Uh right, sorry, I was not clear there in my second post, which is talking about being 'worse than the Hegemony' with regard to reparations only. I stated in my first post here that I'm happy to see other oppressive terms are not present; perhaps you missed that post?

The resistance to non-monetary oppressive terms in Karma does seem to have been genuine across all the Karma alliances and fronts and for that we should all be thankful. The talk about 'proportional reps' and how the NPO's terms were a special case seems to have been genuine only for some alliances within Karma and for that we should be disappointed.

Edit: I think Blackwater are legally part of OBR. FH merged into Grämlins during the war.

Edited by Bob Janova
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='AirMe' date='05 April 2010 - 10:24 AM' timestamp='1270477431' post='2249063']
I am sorry Bob, I have missed the part where C&G has asked for the decommissioning of wonders and improvements. I have also missed the part where they have required the cancellation of all treaties. Or demanded that internal alliance policies be changes. Or given secret terms. Or forced people to step down from gov. Or forced the disbandment of anyone.
[/quote]

see

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='05 April 2010 - 12:14 AM' timestamp='1270440880' post='2248497']
If TIDTT felt that it was fair to pay reps, then something tells me they don't need you wailing to the heavens about injustice of it all or whatever.
[/quote]

Just replace "TIDTT" with anyone you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='fallin' date='05 April 2010 - 03:29 PM' timestamp='1270477759' post='2249069']
Lets talk about facts and allegations shall we?

You allege that MHA will support/allow Gramlins in crushing IRON. Yet the MHA Triumvirate hasn't made a single post saying anything to that extent. (As a matter of fact, the MHA triumvirate has hardly spoken in this thread).

The truth is, Gramlins stands as a sovereign alliance. Whether you believe it or not, the government of the Mostly Harmless Alliance has no jurisdiction over Gramlins. Their decision to remain in the war was one made by a sovereign Gramlins. You ask us to do something about it? Well, we declared a complete white peace with IRON and every other alliance that attacked us in the war. The truth remains that our policy towards our defeated enemies remains significantly more benevolent than several of our allies. We can determine our own response. We chose a response of relative benevolence. What other alliances do, yes, even our Harmlin brothers, is beyond our jurisdiction. You ask us to "do something bout it" and most assuredly I tell you, we have done everything within our legal boundaries to ensure a reasonably peaceable resolution from us.

In all due respect, throwing allegations at us without sufficiently providing facts or evidence doesn't reflect particularly well on you from an academic point of view.
[/quote]
The silence of a leadership sometimes says as much as a statement. Failure to denounce this and do something about while being there for them should anyone intervene to help save IRON from destruction is a very clear endorsment of this course of action. They are a soverign alliance as are you they have made their decision as have you.

[b]"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

"He who does not punish evil, commands it to be done"

"Every person has the choice between Good and Evil. Choose Good, and stand against those who would choose Evil"[/b]

Oh yes, your position is crystal clear.

Edited by Alterego
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='bigwoody' date='05 April 2010 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1270477906' post='2249071']
On Blackwater and OBR v. TORN, a de facto peace exists on that front and a de jure peace will be announced separately at a later time, as I understand.

Cannot speak for FH.
[/quote]
Great, thanks for the heads up.

Looks like FH merged into Gramlins

Edited by Jerichoholic
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='NeCoHo' date='05 April 2010 - 10:39 AM' timestamp='1270478363' post='2249076']
see



Just replace "TIDTT" with anyone you wish.
[/quote]

I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if you weren't in an alliance that pushed those types of terms on an alliance I was in. At the current stage of this world, cash is of no object to many nations and most of this tech is indirect so it will take up nothing but aid slots for a bulk of the reps. Where as alliances like MK were forced to pay the tech out internally with out any outside help.

Terms have come a long way since you and yours were handing them out. Nothing that has been handed out this war can ever compare to what you and your former cronies put us through. It would be wise to remember that before speaking, because you guys aren't to the point yet where people have forgotten your past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='AirMe' date='05 April 2010 - 09:59 AM' timestamp='1270475929' post='2249054']
To be as respectful as I can to a former member....stop being an idiot.

That being said, glad to see peace could be reached. Even though we should have gotten here a week and a half ago if it weren't for certain people on our side.

Good fight TSO.

Good luck rebuilding everyone.



You really should keep your mouth shut. You deserted Ronin in the middle of a war with out telling us and even if I did let you go without putting up a stink, that doesn't mean the act is erased from my memory nor should it be ignored from the public record.
[/quote]

Cloud's point, lost on you apparently because you are still a bit hurt regarding his departure from your alliance (and completely irrelevant to this conversation, sorry), is that there were no innocent parties here. Is it wrong to be ready in case of an attack? Clearly not, Valhalla itself was ready for a preemptive attack as soon as the balloon went up on the first phase of this war. Was the attack by TOP, IRON and the others the best move in CN history? Nope. Both in foresight and in hindsight, it would have been better to figure out a way to come in on the side of \m/ or Polaris or another participant in the first phase of this fight and chain things in that way.

However, make no mistake: [b]all[/b] sides in this conflict wanted war. They had wanted war since December and the dust up between Polaris and \m/ provided just enough spark to set it off. C&G wasn't sitting home knitting when they saw TOP and IRON charging across the border with their rifles and tanks. If anything, they were sitting in a foxhole with a machine gun and an AT weapon praying that TOP and IRON would do exactly what they did.

So everybody got what they wanted, and while some side issues were settled (the new \m/ would continue to exist, FAN returned to the field of battle, etc.) the main war objectives of both sides as stated early on were simply not achieved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='05 April 2010 - 10:44 AM' timestamp='1270478661' post='2249083']
Cloud's point, lost on you apparently because you are still a bit hurt regarding his departure from your alliance (and completely irrelevant to this conversation, sorry), is that there were no innocent parties here. Is it wrong to be ready in case of an attack? Clearly not, Valhalla itself was ready for a preemptive attack as soon as the balloon went up on the first phase of this war. Was the attack by TOP, IRON and the others the best move in CN history? Nope. Both in foresight and in hindsight, it would have been better to figure out a way to come in on the side of \m/ or Polaris or another participant in the first phase of this fight and chain things in that way.

However, make no mistake: [b]all[/b] sides in this conflict wanted war. They had wanted war since December and the dust up between Polaris and \m/ provided just enough spark to set it off. C&G wasn't sitting home knitting when they saw TOP and IRON charging across the border with their rifles and tanks. If anything, they were sitting in a foxhole with a machine gun and an AT weapon praying that TOP and IRON would do exactly what they did.

So everybody got what they wanted, and while some side issues were settled (the new \m/ would continue to exist, FAN returned to the field of battle, etc.) the main war objectives of both sides as stated early on were simply not achieved.
[/quote]

You fail to understand that there was no C&G plot to take IRON and TOP down. Cloud knows this from having access to the Ronin discussion board leading up to the war. He knew that we did not intend to support C&G if they were going to roll in the conflict that was at hand. He also knew from the discussions we were having that they were working to secure peace between the 2 sides before TOP preempted.

So you should check your knowledge before telling me that Cloud's information is correct. He knew exactly what the stance of Ronin and by extension C&G was at the start of this war and his claims that they were setting up TOP and IRON are just not true. And he is arguing the exact opposite of what the information he had access to supports.

Edited by AirMe
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' date='05 April 2010 - 02:42 PM' timestamp='1270478515' post='2249078']
The silence of a leadership sometimes says as much as a statement. Failure to denounce this and do something about while being there for them should anyone intervene to help save IRON from destruction is a very clear endorsment of this course of action. They are a soverign alliance as are you they have made thrir decision as have you.

[b]"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

"He who does not punish evil, commands it to be done"

"Every person has the choice between Good and Evil. Choose Good, and stand against those who would choose Evil"[/b]

Oh yes, your position is crystal clear.
[/quote]

I appreciate your apparent ESP ability. One is glad to see that you have the apparent ability to read the mind of my triumvirate.

The Gramlins, though in a state of disagreement with us, are still our brothers. Has it occurred to you that out of respect for our friendship, my government might have spoken to the Gramlins in private about our views?

And no. Throwing cliched quotes at me doesn't count as empirical evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='AirMe' date='05 April 2010 - 09:43 AM' timestamp='1270478610' post='2249082']
I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if you weren't in an alliance that pushed those types of terms on an alliance I was in. At the current stage of this world, cash is of no object to many nations and most of this tech is indirect so it will take up nothing but aid slots for a bulk of the reps. Where as alliances like MK were forced to pay the tech out internally with out any outside help.

Terms have come a long way since you and yours were handing them out. Nothing that has been handed out this war can ever compare to what you and your former cronies put us through. It would be wise to remember that before speaking, because you guys aren't to the point yet where people have forgotten your past.
[/quote]
I think his argument was pretty straightforward no matter what his AA is. Saying terms are reasonable because the surrendering alliances acquiesced to them (usually as an alternative to disbandment) is not valid. You MUST agree with what he is saying, because you are trashing terms you have been under, which you also agreed to.

Surely, you either agree with his point (and thus disagree with Archon's assessment he was replying to), or you no longer feel there have ever been unjust reps, ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='AirMe' date='05 April 2010 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1270478610' post='2249082']
I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if you weren't in an alliance that pushed those types of terms on an alliance I was in. At the current stage of this world, cash is of no object to many nations and most of this tech is indirect so it will take up nothing but aid slots for a bulk of the reps. Where as alliances like MK were forced to pay the tech out internally with out any outside help.

Terms have come a long way since you and yours were handing them out. Nothing that has been handed out this war can ever compare to what you and your former cronies put us through. It would be wise to remember that before speaking, because you guys aren't to the point yet where people have forgotten your past.
[/quote]

Clouding arguments with emotion is bad argumentation. (edited for clarity)

As has been proven over these past many months, agreeing to reps is agreeing to reps full stop. Whenever anyone brings up the opinion that this fact should be applied to all cases, and not just cases [b]you[/b] agree with, it's right back to the "Well you were still bad" argument.

Edited by NeCoHo
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='05 April 2010 - 10:44 AM' timestamp='1270478661' post='2249083']
Cloud's point, lost on you apparently because you are still a bit hurt regarding his departure from your alliance (and completely irrelevant to this conversation, sorry), is that there were no innocent parties here. Is it wrong to be ready in case of an attack? Clearly not, Valhalla itself was ready for a preemptive attack as soon as the balloon went up on the first phase of this war. Was the attack by TOP, IRON and the others the best move in CN history? Nope. Both in foresight and in hindsight, it would have been better to figure out a way to come in on the side of \m/ or Polaris or another participant in the first phase of this fight and chain things in that way.

However, make no mistake: [b]all[/b] sides in this conflict wanted war. They had wanted war since December and the dust up between Polaris and \m/ provided just enough spark to set it off. C&G wasn't sitting home knitting when they saw TOP and IRON charging across the border with their rifles and tanks. If anything, they were sitting in a foxhole with a machine gun and an AT weapon praying that TOP and IRON would do exactly what they did.

So everybody got what they wanted, and while some side issues were settled (the new \m/ would continue to exist, FAN returned to the field of battle, etc.) the main war objectives of both sides as stated early on were simply not achieved.
[/quote]
We always pray that the alliances who wish to harm us do stupid things.

And can we please drop the "both sides are at fault" entrapment argument? You're hardly the first person from TOP's side to use it and it's getting quite old. If we had attacked TSO to draw out TOP, it might hold water. Instead it seems your side uses it as some sort of self-rationalizing coping mechanism.

"We attacked C&G because we thought they were a threat, so they must have deserved it."

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='bigwoody' date='05 April 2010 - 10:49 AM' timestamp='1270478940' post='2249092']
I think his argument was pretty straightforward no matter what his AA is. Saying terms are reasonable because the surrendering alliances acquiesced to them (usually as an alternative to disbandment) is not valid. You MUST agree with what he is saying, because you are trashing terms you have been under, which you also agreed to.

Surely, you either agree with his point (and thus disagree with Archon's assessment he was replying to), or you no longer feel there have ever been unjust reps, ever.
[/quote]

Given the month + of negotiations that went into these reps, yes these are VERY reasonable given the amount of back and forth that went into these. These are something that both sides truly work to. Where as in the past it was take these terms or we disband you. At no point was it ever said to TTItD that "these are your terms, take these or you will never see any ever again." Which is a line that was uttered A LOT prior to Karma. You cannot compare how negotiations have gone down from Karma on to the way negotiations were handled prior.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='05 April 2010 - 10:06 AM' timestamp='1270476395' post='2249059']
And in this war, you were prepared to chain in on TOP and IRON
[/quote]
No, we weren't. CnG was doing everything we could to stop the war from expanding, hence the FoB exodus to PC.

[quote name='bigwoody' date='05 April 2010 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1270477906' post='2249071']
Cannot speak for FH.
[/quote]
FH merged into Gre.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...