The Easter Sunday Accords

[flak attack]

[quote name='Matt Miller' date='06 April 2010 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1270606335' post='2251062']
Matthew, thank you for the kind words, but I just can't let the PM bit slide. I posted on these very forums several times asking why Gramlins weren't taking my last defensive slot. You yourself promised to find someone to do something about it. I even sent ingame messages to some members of your alliance asking what was up with the lack of declarations. After several days of no response to my invitation to a spot on the carousel my wars ended and I took the opportunity to break a streak of 64 days straight of eating nukes. I'm sure I'll be back in the action at some point and look forward to seeing what Gramlins does in a war where they can't play the jackal pouncing on the already outnumbered prey.
[/quote]
I, for one, will not be happy until you're in my range. I was hoping to get to fight you and MOTU at the same time when you posted that topic, but you were about 10k to large IIRC.


You pretty much ruined my day.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='07 April 2010 - 02:40 AM' timestamp='1270604421' post='2251027']
Matt Miller is outstanding, and IRON is fortunate to have him.
However, he's now in PM.
[/quote]

Heh, you are something else. I believe Matt Miller's response sums up all of my thoughts.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Vladimir Stukov II

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='06 April 2010 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1270604421' post='2251027']
Matt Miller is outstanding, and IRON is fortunate to have him.
However, he's now in PM.
[/quote]
What, don't I count for anything?

Seriously though, peace is good. It's nice to see that we peaced with the alliances that we declared on.
To have someone who declared offensively on us to still be in the war despite the fact that their allies have peaced, well....we'll see.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Ubermeir' date='06 April 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1270590952' post='2250750']
Really not that much to argue about, really noone "put" Iron in this position. If this was not the peace you wanted, did not want the abilty to destroy Gre alone, then why sign the treaty.
It has been said that the defeated won because they held out and were strong. But now one 60 person alliance holds you hostage, and it is everyoneelse's fault because you agreed to the peace treaty that would allow you to smite them? Ah, but you can't, maybe Gre should have fought this war all by themselves?
Really, the depths people go to in these threads. I do not buy it.
Far be it for me to tell someone else what to do. But messing up Gre would be a good start, these words, particularly these words don't seem to be getting anyone very far. Saddle up, lock and load...they are on the battlefield alone...
[/quote]

wow seriously? do you actually have a clue what is going on or what has gone on for the say, past two months?

[quote name='Shamshir' date='06 April 2010 - 05:17 PM' timestamp='1270592211' post='2250778']
IRON and DAWN can end the war at any moment
[/quote]

Shamshir, you are better than this and you know that Gremlins are better than this. i know you do and i can't quite wrap my head around how you could possibly support an unconditional surrender. it simply bewilders me.

[Sephiroth]

I predict MHA betrays Gremlins. (or they'll do just to prove me wrong, then feel the Karma from all the former allies they've sided against in the past).

[Style #386]

How disappointing.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Style #386

[guus87]

[quote name='Methrage' date='07 April 2010 - 05:05 AM' timestamp='1270613132' post='2251254']
I predict MHA betrays Gremlins. (or they'll do just to prove me wrong, then feel the Karma from all the former allies they've sided against in the past).
[/quote]
I bet you are stoned, please tell me you are stoned.
On topic: I am glad we finally have peace

[Letum]

[quote name='Supertwigs' date='06 April 2010 - 08:44 PM' timestamp='1270583034' post='2250602']
I'm not sure that repeating "quantity of reps determine harshness" whilst sticking fingers in his ears and ignoring any other argument constitutes "destroying", tbqh.

I mean, if he really believes that, then the first amount of reps ever requested for a global war during surrender negotiations should be the "standard" by which all reps are determined, which, as I recall, were somewhere along the lines of 20 million.

So either ever amount of reps after that are draconian, or LUE was just the most kind alliance in the history of the world.
[/quote]

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but somebody saying "you are only disagreeing with me because this is a misinformation plot by NPO to make themselves look as the victims" is not an argument.

No counter-argument has been made in favour of "more tech available equals less of a burden to give a part of it away". It has simply been stated as an axiom. On the other hand, I have provided the argument that having more total tech available has zero effect on the ability to produce more (given the economic-preconditions which, as stated, are present), the "burden" of a reps agreement essentially means the amount of time and effort put into producing the required amounts, and therefore, increased overall levels do not translate to less of a burden to give out the same amount of tech.

To counter that theory, you would have to either show how more total tech = more production ability, or show that the burden is not equal to time and effort. So far, this has not been displayed, and it has nothing to do with me sticking my fingers in my ears.

I have no desire to ignore any counter-arguments, and even suggested some other factors that might come into play (such as size). If anyone wants to debate this matter without making constant references to the tag I wear, they are more than welcome to do so.

Also, to answer your analogy: if you paid careful attention to my argument, I stated that for it to work, an alliance has to develop to a certain economic level, a "floor" that most alliances today have. (Namely, the point where you are constrained not by how much a nation collects, but by slot number.) If there were no limits on aid, then there would be no "floor" to hit; however, since there are slot limits then it is easy to point out that an alliance at the time you refer to did not have the infrastructure to fund reparations production of this level.

And even so, in comparison 20m is pretty low, even for the economic levels that existed. After all, it did not take a year to come up with it.

[Chalaskan]

[quote name='AirMe' date='06 April 2010 - 06:31 AM' timestamp='1270564259' post='2250337']
I love how you revise history and ignore the facts to fit your agenda.

Grub led the NAAC when they disbanded. And it was the memberships doing, not Grubs. The Protector didn't have the power to disband the alliance. And in regards to the NpO, he worked his way up from a grunt to emperor. Sponge didn't even trust him at the start. What have you done? Grub accomplished more in his first 3 hours in the world than you have your entire life here. Might not always agree with him or his actions but you can't blame a guy for trying.

Give it up Chalaskan. If you used your brain occasionally you would realize the truth sometimes.
[/quote]

Are you serious? Honestly, he didn't disband them, but he left the DAY they disbanded and joined those that were responsible for disbanding the alliance he was a leader of!! Tell me what does that say about character? The only facts I changed was MOD to Leader which only fits my agenda better lmao.

If I was SGC and joined MK yesterday, how would that look to you?! Yeah, he was MOD when you were the leader of NAAC and Diablo was leaving you to go to FAN. You didn't seem to think I was stupid then...although I open myself up to subjection here. Regardless at the time you and many others were very intent on my help. Gimme a break Airme.

As to Grub not trusting him since day 1, who was it that couped him? Oh snap.

*edit for stupidity.*

Rather it points to the fact that I say things how I see them. measuring me IC is really just ignorant. My, how tables are turned...

Quoted below but edited the parts I regret saying...

Edited April 7, 2010 by Chalaskan

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Chalaskan' date='07 April 2010 - 12:46 AM' timestamp='1270615586' post='2251319']
Are you serious? Honestly, he didn't disband them, but he left the DAY they disbanded and joined those that were responsible for disbanding the alliance he was a leader of!! Tell me what does that say about character? The only facts I changed was MOD to Leader which only fits my agenda better lmao.

If I was SGC and joined MK yesterday, how would that look to you?! Yeah, he was MOD when you were the leader of NAAC and Diablo was leaving you to go to FAN. You didn't seem to think I was stupid then...although I open myself up to subjection here. Regardless at the time you and many others were very intent on my help. Gimme a break Airme.

I don't spend my life on the computer trying to run alliances, or aspiring to become some government wonder, like some...ahem. That has nothing to do with my intelligence as you so avidly allude to. I don't give this game the credence over my life you do.

Rather it points to the fact that I say things how I see them, and have a life outside this game. When I'm bored I come here unlike others who hover over IRC and try to make themselves so great IC. Really, My ooc life is my pleasure, so measuring me IC is really just ignorant. My, how tables are turned...
[/quote]
You just used the "Well, you suck at RL" defense... That's like CN's Godwin, but worse.

[Shinpah]

[quote name='Chalaskan' date='07 April 2010 - 12:46 AM' timestamp='1270615586' post='2251319']
I don't spend my life on the computer trying to run alliances, or aspiring to become some government wonder, like some...ahem. That has nothing to do with my intelligence as you so avidly allude to. I don't give this game the credence over my life you do.

Rather it points to the fact that I say things how I see them, and have a life outside this game. When I'm bored I come here unlike others who hover over IRC and try to make themselves so great IC. Really, My ooc life is my pleasure, so measuring me IC is really just ignorant. My, how tables are turned...
[/quote]

Classy, I must say

[Chalaskan]

[quote name='Shinpah' date='06 April 2010 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1270616260' post='2251332']
Classy, I must say
[/quote]

I really didn't intend that, it came out. I don't believe Airme sucks at RL, although I need to back away from this computer. I know very little about his RL, and it is definitely not an educated statement...I apologize for the statements that lead to this. Regardless, an attack stating I have not done things IC makes me stupid is pretty lame. The counter is even worse, sorry Airme.

My statements regarding Grub and NpO IC stand. That is what I was most vehement about and got carried away.

[Letum]

[quote name='Chalaskan' date='07 April 2010 - 05:46 AM' timestamp='1270615586' post='2251319']
I don't spend my life on the computer trying to run alliances, or aspiring to become some government wonder, like some...ahem. That has nothing to do with my intelligence as you so avidly allude to. I don't give this game the credence over my life you do.

Rather it points to the fact that I say things how I see them, and have a life outside this game. When I'm bored I come here unlike others who hover over IRC and try to make themselves so great IC. Really, My ooc life is my pleasure, so measuring me IC is really just ignorant. My, how tables are turned...
[/quote]

Suggestion: next time, you can just say something neutral such as "I do not have the necessary time required of leadership to commit to this game, but that has no impact on my intelligence or capacity to analyse" instead of trying to insult everybody else and imply that those that put forth extra effort have some form of inferiority.

[Lonely]

That makes the second time I've agreed with you in this thread, Letum. I feel dirty.

[D34th]

Chalaskan if you have all this stupid opinions about Grub why you joined NpO when he was our emperor? Also I could say: stop before say something idiotic, but looks like is too late.

[Supertwigs]

[quote name='Letum' date='06 April 2010 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1270614883' post='2251307']
I am sorry to burst your bubble, but somebody saying "you are only disagreeing with me because this is a misinformation plot by NPO to make themselves look as the victims" is not an argument.

No counter-argument has been made in favour of "more tech available equals less of a burden to give a part of it away". It has simply been stated as an axiom. On the other hand, I have provided the argument that having more total tech available has zero effect on the ability to produce more (given the economic-preconditions which, as stated, are present), the "burden" of a reps agreement essentially means the amount of time and effort put into producing the required amounts, and therefore, increased overall levels do not translate to less of a burden to give out the same amount of tech.

To counter that theory, you would have to either show how more total tech = more production ability, or show that the burden is not equal to time and effort. So far, this has not been displayed, and it has nothing to do with me sticking my fingers in my ears.

I have no desire to ignore any counter-arguments, and even suggested some other factors that might come into play (such as size). If anyone wants to debate this matter without making constant references to the tag I wear, they are more than welcome to do so.

Also, to answer your analogy: if you paid careful attention to my argument, I stated that for it to work, an alliance has to develop to a certain economic level, a "floor" that most alliances today have. (Namely, the point where you are constrained not by how much a nation collects, but by slot number.) If there were no limits on aid, then there would be no "floor" to hit; however, since there are slot limits then it is easy to point out that an alliance at the time you refer to did not have the infrastructure to fund reparations production of this level.

And even so, in comparison 20m is pretty low, even for the economic levels that existed. After all, it did not take a year to come up with it.
[/quote]

You're making the exact same arguments we are. We're arguing proportionality, whereas you argue time.
You've provided NO "evidence" as to why time is any better a gauge for reparations than proportionality, whereas there's a logical argument in that damage done during war should reflect the reparations paid.

[Letum]

[quote name='Supertwigs' date='07 April 2010 - 06:36 AM' timestamp='1270618543' post='2251366']
You're making the exact same arguments we are. We're arguing proportionality, whereas you argue time.
You've provided NO "evidence" as to why time is any better a gauge for reparations than proportionality, whereas there's a logical argument in that damage done during war should reflect the reparations paid.
[/quote]

Actually, I have. Harshness is determined by burden, and burden essentially means effort - time is part of that effort.

On the other hand, "damage done" has nothing to do with the burden placed upon the rep giving alliance. You might have misunderstood my argument; [b]it is not about what "should" or "should not" be given[/b], but about how to measure how "harsh" what is given is, regardless of it being right or wrong. Because yes, saying that when more damage is done, more reps should be given is logical. I agree. But it's still a large burden.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='guus87' date='07 April 2010 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1270613477' post='2251266']
I bet you are stoned, please tell me you are stoned.
On topic: I am glad we finally have peace
[/quote]
I might be stoned but that doesn't make it any less likely if Gremlins do get rolled for this already Harmlins are saying they don't know what they would do. They had a unbreakable bond with NPO and dropped them among other alliances. Harmlins seem like no exception that as soon as Gremlins step out of line with what they find acceptable the treaty will mean nothing.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

OOC:
Harshness is determined by a variety of factors, among them:
-The number of cash slots it takes to pay the reparations;
-The number of nations capable of sending cash to help pay the reparations;
-The number of tech slots it takes to pay the reparations;
-The number of nations capable of sending tech to help pay the reparations.

Realistically, terms that force an alliance to use its tech heavy nations to send tech are harsh, no matter what.

Asking direct tech from a mass-member alliance isn't the same as asking a high ANS alliance to send it. On the other hand, asking heavy cash reparations from an alliance with few "banks" (4k infra+, capable of sending cash) left can be labelled as harsh.

That's why Polaris and MK terms of 08 were harsh. That's why Pacifica's terms of 09 were harsh. And that's why I consider our terms as harsh, even if a month of negotiations made them more... manageable.

[KingEd]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='07 April 2010 - 12:38 AM' timestamp='1270597075' post='2250878']
RnR could jump in to defend their treaty partner from these idiotic demands the gRAMlins are making. You think members of CnG or MHA will touch a member of SF and LEO? I highly doubt it.
[/quote]

Of course they won't (CnG). That would be another $%&@-fest and you know it. But RnR wont either...I doubt Fark would be pleased with RnR attacking Ram's Ego.

[Sephiroth]

The lack of anyone in Gremlins caring to say anything important on the issue or deny Ramirus is in full control makes me think he is without real opposition. While its quite possible they would give white peace as soon as they get an unconditional surrender (or a tech farm). They're now in a position to decide if we end up in another global war by continuing the fight until they get countered or peace out where everyone rebuilds again remembering this war. They're probably bored of peace and are waiting to be counter as they keep fighting. They been on the winning side this whole time and haven't gotten their fill of fighting with slot shortage due to massive pile ons.

[Venizelos]

Grämlins problems are Grämlins problems. since all sides are satisfied, all this whining and speculation about them makes no sense.

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Venizelos' date='07 April 2010 - 10:03 AM' timestamp='1270630979' post='2251476']
Grämlins problems are Grämlins problems. since all sides are satisfied, all this whining and speculation about them makes no sense.
[/quote]

Welcome to the internet, a magical place where people like to argue and discuss topics set forth by the OP.

On a side note, I hope Grämlins sort this out asap, it's just pointless and not needed.

[Joe32320]

[quote name='Venizelos' date='07 April 2010 - 09:03 AM' timestamp='1270630979' post='2251476']
Grämlins problems are Grämlins problems. since all sides are satisfied, all this whining and speculation about them makes no sense.
[/quote]

Tell that to IRON and DAWN, I'm sure they'd disagree with you.....

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='06 April 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1270571617' post='2250432']
I will wear an RnR sig for a month if they came in and helped IRON with Gramlins. It would be just glorious.
[/quote]

Almost makes it worth it wouldn't it

[quote name='goldielax25' date='06 April 2010 - 08:38 PM' timestamp='1270582718' post='2250593']
If VE were to 'do something' about it, it would not be without first discussing it with many different alliances.

Silentkiller, I agree with the point you made, I worded improperly. What I meant to say, is that there is nothing ridiculously urgent about this. This isn't a Ramlins alliance that blitzed the crap out of IRON and has done a ton of damage, there is time to work this out and ensure that two precedents are maintained: that the concept of unconditional surrender and keeping alliances in war after peacing out with an entire coalition is not something the world will support or tolerate, and that terms signed by surrendering alliances, especially light, simple, and easy to follow ones like no re-entry will continue to be followed. I will borrow a page from the coincidence coalition and say that diplomacy should take the day here. If diplomacy can not work, then perhaps more extreme measures can be looked in to, but luckily for everyone involved, IRON is not in need of an immediate conclusion to this at whatever cost, so we have the time to work for the best possible solution.
[/quote]


On the speculations around R&R i can say a few words, at this moment we have yet to receive any official request for back-up by IRON, R&R has no desire to prolongue this conflict any longer then neccessary and has no desire to mix up the sides again to add a 3rd round to this conflict.

However, we strongly urge Grämlins to seek a peaceful ending to this conflict immediatly. I know IRON well enough to state they will never go for the unconditional surrender Grämlins is looking for and we can not and will not stand by forever while one of our long time allies is kept into a state of (perma-)war.

I also agree with goldielax's assesment here, taking hasty steps in the matter will only cause a @#!&storm that noone on either side is waiting for and could easily lead to a situation in which our intentions to help would turn out to become an even bigger war for IRON.

As of now we are keeping an eye on the situation and hoping for the best, while sadly expecting the worst.

[quote name='KingEd' date='07 April 2010 - 06:53 AM' timestamp='1270619616' post='2251380']
Of course they won't (CnG). That would be another $%&@-fest and you know it. But RnR wont either...I doubt Fark would be pleased with RnR attacking Ram's Ego.
[/quote]

Your statement makes sense in a way, but you forget the fact that R&R is a sovereign alliance with their own treaties, friends and decissions. We are by no means a puppet of Fark nor have they ever treated us as such. And altough i have very little doubt about how Fark would react to a possible intervention from R&R, in the end it's up to us to decide what we do and up to fark to decide if they back us on the matter.