The Easter Sunday Accords

[Branimir]

[quote name='AirMe' date='06 April 2010 - 02:39 AM' timestamp='1270514375' post='2249787']You and I both know that logic and reason have no place in this world.[/quote]
Heh, I know. But I can only reassure everybody that, NPO is really not suicidal lol

[Ubermeir]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='05 April 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1270506952' post='2249631']
Uber,

Threats, trolling, and hostile sentiments expressed by regular members don't actually mean anything. That is one of the thing that this war has set in stone. Shardoon is a regular member. His posts don't mean anything, and you should not construe them as being indicative of TOP-policy.

I am not a government member either. Things that I say do not count.

We will bury you all. I am serious. You should take me seriously.

^You should not take this seriously. I am not a government member, and non-government members saying stuff like this should be disregarded.

But you'll know the truth when I destroy you once and for all.

^Again. Gibberish. Please disregard.

Except not really.

Yes, really. Don't listen to a word I say.
[/quote]


Thanks, not really.
I will go back to reading and not posting on the BBs, maybe.
Congrats on peace, sort of, lol definately.

[Doitzel]

[quote name='Branimir' date='05 April 2010 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1270514068' post='2249784']
Lol, just use your head for a second. How are we suppose to "get" anyone, while we have really, just a handful of friends which are all beaten up (courtesy of this and previous war, lol) and there is still enough haters out there that if we even looked at them the wrong way would bring the avalanche of gazillion of alliances on us.

Using the NPO as the bogeyman to be the glue for a lot of your ties, is quite an empty propaganda rhetoric.
[/quote]
More impressive resurgences have been displayed, heretofore, by your alliance and others. If truly you are convinced of the static nature of the political landscape, then perhaps you are right, but I give you more credit than that. Feigning weakness and victimisation is unbecoming of Pacific.

[Lennox]

[quote name='Penkala' date='05 April 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1270512591' post='2249754']
none of us are stupid or complacent either.
[/quote]

Oh sweet, sweet, irony.

[Natan]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='05 April 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1270513691' post='2249773']
Actually assuming the next war finds you and I on opposite sides (far from certain given some of the potential fault lines my think tank projects), and myself victorious...

Some of us actually believe in what we say about breaking the cycle of revenge reps, and have the guts to walk the walk when the time comes.

Until then, we will see what the fates have in store for the world.
[/quote]

You didn't receive any revenge reps, nor was there a cycle anyway.

TORN got pretty lenient reps for engaging in a pre-emptive strike. And you can't enact revenge reps when the alliance didn't really partake in the last war (Karma) and took very very few reps in WoTC.

However I'm happy to see that you won't be engaging in anything but white piece should you win a war, not that I really expected otherwise.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='05 April 2010 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1270507361' post='2249637']
You're welcome to make all the threats and comments toward us you like, but it will always remain that it was [i]you[/i] that were defeated by us.
[/quote]
I do hope that when you say "us" you are referring to the coalition of [i]23[/i] that it took to knock us down. Afterall, I'd hate for you to downplay their importance.

Also, we acknowledge that the pre-emptive attack was wrong and that we are willing to pay reps for that mistake, however, do not think that the reps we agreed to was solely based on that.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Doitzel' date='06 April 2010 - 02:43 AM' timestamp='1270514562' post='2249794']More impressive resurgences have been displayed, heretofore, by your alliance and others. If truly you are convinced of the static nature of the political landscape, then perhaps you are right, but I give you more credit than that. Feigning weakness and victimisation is unbecoming of Pacific.[/quote]
My post is clear and its a realistic laying down of things.

If you are talking about shifting of the landscape, man I have been here for almost 4 years, I know everything about that as I have seen it as a foot soldier. Yes, of course we would like to ride the waves of the changing of the landscape the best way possible for us. Everybody wants to. That has nothing to do with the premise I addressed, that the *next* major thing to shake this world, or a thing to shake this world in any foreseeable future, will be a vengeful NPO smashing heads with the current line up that was victorious here. That is not feasible, not even conceivable.

But we are off track now,...

Edited April 6, 2010 by Branimir

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Natan' date='05 April 2010 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1270514909' post='2249806']
You didn't receive any revenge reps, nor was there a cycle anyway.

TORN got pretty lenient reps for engaging in a pre-emptive strike. And you can't enact revenge reps when the alliance didn't really partake in the last war (Karma) and took very very few reps in WoTC.

However I'm happy to see that you won't be engaging in anything but white piece should you win a war, not that I really expected otherwise.
[/quote]
1) You may be surprised to learn that my belief on reps goes beyond what my own alliance requests.

2) I did not say we will never take anything but white peace (necessarily).

[Heft]

Is there an official position on what will happen should someone defend IRON/DAWN from Gramlins? I've seen some discussion here but it looked like mostly hearsay and speculation.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='Penkala' date='05 April 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1270513301' post='2249765']
No, you're being asked to send 142k technology -- 31.2% of the total technology on your alliance affiliation. That percentage is also high because you have other nations off your AA with tens of thousands of tech. So you're being asked for about 30% of your tech, or less than one third. Let's not twist the facts here, please.

Just wanted to make that clear if it wasn't already rebutted.
[/quote]
You're unwell, Penkala?

270k is being asked of us. I absolutely don't know how you're coming up with that 142k number. If you wanted to go the "direct reps are the only ones who matter", you'd logically say only 100k.

[Snowbeast]

[quote name='Heft' date='05 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1270517742' post='2249838']
Is there an official position on what will happen should someone defend IRON/DAWN from Gramlins? I've seen some discussion here but it looked like mostly hearsay and speculation.
[/quote]
Why don't you do it and find out.

[Natan]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='05 April 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1270517509' post='2249837']
1) You may be surprised to learn that my belief on reps goes beyond what my own alliance requests.

2) I did not say we will never take anything but white peace (necessarily).
[/quote]

Aren't we the little spokesman.

You could have just gone with the compliment, but w/e.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Natan

[AirMe]

[quote name='Snowbeast' date='05 April 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1270518786' post='2249852']
Why don't you do it and find out.
[/quote]

No need to be a jerk about. All he is doing is asking for clarification that many of us before him have asked for. Pick on all of us instead of one of us next time you decide to single someone out.

[Heft]

I was even being polite about it. Such a lack of manners and grace. Sad.

[Janosik]

I now consider myself a true CN war veteran. Thanks for the exp CnG. I gained so many levels after battling the Elite 23.

I've eaten more nukes than most countries own.

[TheEraser]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='05 April 2010 - 08:49 PM' timestamp='1270514935' post='2249807']
I do hope that when you say "us" you are referring to the coalition of [i]23[/i] that it took to knock us down. Afterall, I'd hate for you to downplay their importance.

Also, we acknowledge that the pre-emptive attack was wrong and that we are willing to pay reps for that mistake, however, do not think that the reps we agreed to was solely based on that.
[/quote]
there may have been 23 or so DoW against you guys, but lets be serious only 3 or 4 alliances did all the heavy lifting, not that it matters much at this point.

good luck on cramming your nukes down Gremlins throat IRON

[Goldie]

[quote name='Heft' date='05 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1270517742' post='2249838']
Is there an official position on what will happen should someone defend IRON/DAWN from Gramlins? I've seen some discussion here but it looked like mostly hearsay and speculation.
[/quote]

It would be up to any alliance that was on the SG side to determine how to handle the alliance that broke their surrender terms. But it would be interpreted as breaking their surrender terms.

[grobend123]

Mmm, Grämlins, you stay classy

[Letum]

[quote name='goldielax25' date='06 April 2010 - 03:59 AM' timestamp='1270522781' post='2249935']
It would be up to any alliance that was on the SG side to determine how to handle the alliance that broke their surrender terms. But it would be interpreted as breaking their surrender terms.
[/quote]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. What surrender terms would be broken if someone defends IRON from Gramlins?

I think the question was geared more towards - if someone intervenes in the conflict, will Gramlins' friends also intervene, starting up a whole new war, or something along those lines.

[Canik]

Congratulations to the rest of TIFDTT on getting peace. Good to see you all found terms you could agree to.

Unfortunately this means FEAR has to start paying it's reps.

[Smacky]

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1270524054' post='2249955']
I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. What surrender terms would be broken if someone defends IRON from Gramlins?

I think the question was geared more towards - if someone intervenes in the conflict, will Gramlins' friends also intervene, starting up a whole new war, or something along those lines.
[/quote]
It's the same war it has always been, and if an alliance (re)declares after previously surrendering they'll be breaking their surrender terms.

[Goldie]

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1270524054' post='2249955']
I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. What surrender terms would be broken if someone defends IRON from Gramlins?

I think the question was geared more towards - if someone intervenes in the conflict, will Gramlins' friends also intervene, starting up a whole new war, or something along those lines.
[/quote]

Coming from NSO gov, I answered the question as it would be relevant to his alliance.

If an alliance who surrendered with a term stipulating that they not re-enter were to re-enter, then it would be treated as a violation of terms.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Snowbeast' date='05 April 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1270518786' post='2249852']
Why don't you do it and find out.
[/quote]
It would be amusing to see the whole world erupt into war again so soon. Maybe it would be worth it in the end.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Methrage

[Bilrow]

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 10:21 PM' timestamp='1270524054' post='2249955']
I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. What surrender terms would be broken if someone defends IRON from Gramlins?

I think the question was geared more towards - if someone intervenes in the conflict, will Gramlins' friends also intervene, starting up a whole new war, or something along those lines.
[/quote]


All IRON has to do is wait fore Gramlins to come to their senses and while they don't the reps due won't be flowing out to these alliances in the OP. Eventually if Gramlins continues to be hardheaded, those waiting for reps will eventually get fed up enough to do something about it.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Bilrow' date='05 April 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1270525219' post='2249984']
All IRON has to do is wait fore Gramlins to come to their senses and while they don't the reps due won't be flowing out to these alliances in the OP. Eventually if Gramlins continues to be hardheaded, those waiting for reps will eventually get fed up enough to do something about it.
[/quote]
If Gramlins do get hit though for continuing the war I imagine many will come back to the battlefield to help Gremlins, but many are fed up with this dragging on and don't want to go back to the battlefield to fight for something they don't believe important. On the flip side if this escalated many alliances with good relations with IRON have been rebuilding longer and aren't under any terms whatsoever so they could bring considering help if a new war escalates from this.

Gremlins not holding any treaties means nobody has any obligation to help Gremlins from what results of actions they disapprove of.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Methrage