Jump to content

The Easter Sunday Accords


Recommended Posts

[quote name='King Puffington' date='05 April 2010 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1270440686' post='2248486']
Sweet. Who do we roll next time? :V
[/quote]

A bastion of classy behavior in the peace thread.

[quote name='Denial' date='05 April 2010 - 12:35 AM' timestamp='1270442133' post='2248560']
Right, because the New Pacific Order [i]attacking[/i] alliances and then extracting technology is the exact same as Complaints & Grievances being pre-emptively attacked and demanding reparations for damage inflicted. Reparations, by [i]their very definition[/i], were in order here.
[/quote]

So TOP and Co. did 481,300 units of tech in damage to your coalition? I didn't know that. You must be pretty bad at war if that's true.

EDIT: Typo

Edited by NeCoHo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 930
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Denial' date='05 April 2010 - 05:45 AM' timestamp='1270442733' post='2248596']
Are you and shahenshah having a private competition to see who can post the most nonsensical, idiotic commentary within the month of April?
[/quote]

is that the best you have? really.. nothing constructive? oh we have been fed bad propaganda. That's it. we have been lied to so C&G can look great. okay. Really if your gonna try to argue with me come with something to prove me wrong.

It was a "pre-emp strike" right out your own mouth. That means for it to be pre emp, you guys were plotting on them, and they beat you to the punch. Now to look good over your tech extortion.. lets say we all were fed bad propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='NeCoHo' date='05 April 2010 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1270442988' post='2248614']
So TOP and Co. did 481,300 units of tech in damage to your coalition? I didn't know that. You must be pretty bad at war if that's true.
[/quote]

I heard that sometimes infrastructure gets destroyed in war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that C&G was actively planning to attack TOP and IRON is foolhardy and ridiculous, a more apt description would be that they'd very likely get chained in and end up in conflict with TOP and IRON somewhere down the line. In any case, I'm not thrilled with the terms, but kudos to C&G for not taking the vindictive path like others may have. Frankly, if one were to be pre-emptively assaulted and dealt extraordinary damage from a seemingly relentless and determined foe, I feel that very few decrying these reps and critisizing MK and co would flippantly be stating "White peace for the aggressors, we don't mind the damage". Even as a staunch supporter of white peace in all circumstances, I'd have a hard time coming to that in such a circumstance. And all this coming from a guy who helped organized the offensive in the first place :wacko:. This isn't to say that the terms are light, they most certainly aren't, I think its important to take off the bias tinted glasses for a second though and look at it from both sides. In anycase, best of luck to my many friends on the TIDTT side in paying of these reps swiftly and rebuilding to bigger and better heights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lord of Destruction' date='05 April 2010 - 05:38 AM' timestamp='1270442277' post='2248566']
Quite honestly, anyone who claims these reps are unjust, "draconian" or harsh simply cannot do math.

Take a look at TOPs... If they do 40k a month, it'll take them 6.5 months. That's still ahead of schedule. There's a lot of leeway in these reps.
[/quote]

Is 6.5 months and 40k/month supposed to be something small? I mean, I know the NPO was given terms that were bigger, more restrictive and longer, but surely that cannot be used as the benchmark to which stuff is going to be judged against, is it?

Justice is a subjective thing, but harshness is absolute. Whether people think these are fair or not, they are harsh, will put these guys out of commission for a long time and pretty much destroy their fighting ability for a bit longer.

Unless we start redefining harsh as meaning "impossible", I am not quite sure what you are trying to get at. Yes, there reps are possible, and TOP won't die. But they are still pretty severe.

[quote]
Letum we are the best of friends, I hope we haven't given each other any wrong ideas to suggest anything to the contrary!

MK/NPO MADP '10
[/quote]

That's the spirit! After all, we have so much in common. Especially with all the ex-Pacificans running around the place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='The AUT' date='05 April 2010 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1270442942' post='2248612']
I never said it was as bad, I said it is the second worst only second to the reparations handed down to the NPO.
[/quote]

Well if it's not bad, it's good. That means these are the second [i]best[/i] reps ever asked!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CloudGT4' date='05 April 2010 - 12:51 AM' timestamp='1270443099' post='2248616']
It was a "pre-emp strike" right out your own mouth. That means for it to be pre emp, you guys were plotting on them, and they beat you to the punch. Now to look good over your tech extortion.. lets say we all were fed bad propaganda.
[/quote]

pre-emptive, n. : taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='NeCoHo' date='05 April 2010 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1270442988' post='2248614']
A bastion of classy behavior in the peace thread.

So TOP and Co. did 481,300 units of tech in damage to your coalition? I didn't know that. You must be pretty bad at war if that's true.

EDIT: Typo
[/quote]

Umm, C&G alone suffered upwards of 700 000 technology destroyed in the war. You are absolutely insane if you think anyone is in any way making a profit or even breaking even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='NeCoHo' date='05 April 2010 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1270442988' post='2248614']
A bastion of classy behavior in the peace thread.



So TOP and Co. did 481,300 units of tech in damage to your coalition? I didn't know that. You must be pretty bad at war if that's true.

EDIT: Typo
[/quote]
What is a nuke? What is a WRC? I seriously have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='The AUT' date='05 April 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1270442705' post='2248592']
These are the second highest reparations only second to those asked of Pacifica.

Perhaps TOP/IRON/TSO and co. deserved these high prices due to their preemptive strike but to say these terms aren't harsh or draconian when you've extracted the largest amount of monetary reparations since ever. Many of you are in Denial over it, but we can still see things unbiased enough to know that these terms are far from "light."
[/quote]
Comparing reparations in absolute numbers is purposely disinegenuous and is only performed by those attempting to manipulate the truth to incite some misguided outrage. It flagrantly disregards the rapid inflation that has been present within the Cyberverse, particularly during the era of the Hegemony. The only honest method of comparing the burden of reparations is to look at it proportionally; the percentage of technology/cash that an alliance must send out in relation to their remaining technology at the conclusion of the war. By that legitimate standard - and when you add into the equation that this peace settlement is extracting reparations from parties that are, incontrovertibly, the aggressors - this peace settlement is light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' date='05 April 2010 - 12:48 AM' timestamp='1270442903' post='2248609']
Harsh? Yes. Draconian? Maybe.

There is no argument for unjust. You made your bed when you declared pre-emptively on the Complaints and Grievances Union, and now you lie in it.
[/quote]
Perhaps. I'd like to think the relative justice of the terms lie more in the numbers than in the fact we are paying reparations.

That said, paying reparations were a given and I'm not faulting your coalition on asking them. My point would rather be: let's not set bad precedents by which the next terms can be judged. If people are too quick to label these terms as "merciful", I wish them luck and hope they won't end up on the other end of the stick. We're being asked - in TOP - to pay 33,750 units of tech a month, ammounting to 60.1% of our current technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CloudGT4' date='05 April 2010 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1270443099' post='2248616']
is that the best you have? really.. nothing constructive? oh we have been fed bad propaganda. That's it. we have been lied to so C&G can look great. okay. Really if your gonna try to argue with me come with something to prove me wrong.

It was a "pre-emp strike" right out your own mouth. That means for it to be pre emp, you guys were plotting on them, and they beat you to the punch. Now to look good over your tech extortion.. lets say we all were fed bad propaganda.
[/quote]
As Quinoa Rex has pointed out, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='NeCoHo' date='05 April 2010 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1270442988' post='2248614']



So TOP and Co. did 481,300 units of tech in damage to your coalition? I didn't know that. You must be pretty bad at war if that's true.

EDIT: Typo
[/quote]
I hit my head. Over and over.

[u][i]Really?[/u][/i]


[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 12:53 AM' timestamp='1270443196' post='2248620']


That's the spirit! After all, we have so much in common. Especially with all the ex-Pacificans running around the place.
[/quote]
Indeed! Sirwilliam :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='NeCoHo' date='05 April 2010 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1270442988' post='2248614']
So TOP and Co. did 481,300 units of tech in damage to your coalition? I didn't know that. You must be pretty bad at war if that's true.
[/quote]
Indeed. I can only hope and pray that the Pacifican war machine will teach us hopeless Shroomers how to prosecute a war without taking any damage. Specifically I want to see the rumored cruise missile jamming technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='NeCoHo' date='05 April 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1270442988' post='2248614']
So TOP and Co. did 481,300 units of tech in damage to your coalition? I didn't know that. You must be pretty bad at war if that's true.
[/quote]
TOP and co did 678k tech damage to C&G alone. IRON/TOP lost over 1.1million tech. It was a destructive war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lafayette' date='05 April 2010 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1270443447' post='2248638']
Indeed. I can only hope and pray that the Pacifican war machine will teach us hopeless Shroomers how to prosecute a war without taking any damage. Specifically I want to see the rumored cruise missile jamming technology.
[/quote]

You said it, not me.

I heard that the Tech Tyrant's war machines were vast and magical. I'm glad some recent posters have dispelled this rumor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='NeCoHo' date='05 April 2010 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1270443710' post='2248653']
I heard that the Tech Tyrant's war machines were vast and magical.
[/quote]
Pretty sure the First Great War and Karma War demonstrated that was incorrect :smug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Denial' date='05 April 2010 - 05:57 AM' timestamp='1270443415' post='2248635']
As Quinoa Rex has pointed out, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
[/quote]
So you had to have someone come fight your battle for you.. no matter how you dress the word up.. its still a deterrent to attack them.. you guys were going after them, they knew it. beat you to the punch. Here, someone on IRC had a good argument for you to use.. Inflation.. CN suffers from inflation. so its okay for you to extort tech.

Anyways before this turns to a senseless troll fest, or anything else of that matter I will stop posting, as there is still plenty more people calling you on your weak argument. However if you wish to attempt to sway me to believe C&G wasn't planning an attack on TOP, then find me in irc. I will be around for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Seerow' date='04 April 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1270440200' post='2248444']
So reading the post closer, I see Gramlins refused to budge on their ridiculous stance. It will be interesting to see where that policy gets them alone in the coming days.
[/quote]

I expect that the Gramlins "You must give us unconditional surrender" stance will change soon after they realize that if they want to keep alliances at war, they have to actually eat the nukes themselves instead of having someone else take the damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Denial' date='05 April 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1270443852' post='2248658']
Pretty sure the First Great War and Karma War demonstrated that was incorrect :smug:
[/quote]

You are obviously very confused, and I feel sorry for you because of it. Your "side" has extorted over 700,000 tech in less then a year. It must be a tech-induced high making your thoughts foggy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CloudGT4' date='05 April 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1270444064' post='2248663']
So you had to have someone come fight your battle for you.. no matter how you dress the word up.. its still a deterrent to attack them.. you guys were going after them, they knew it. beat you to the punch. Here, someone on IRC had a good argument for you to use.. Inflation.. CN suffers from inflation. so its okay for you to extort tech.

Anyways before this turns to a senseless troll fest, or anything else of that matter I will stop posting, as there is still plenty more people calling you on your weak argument. However if you wish to attempt to sway me to believe C&G wasn't planning an attack on TOP, then find me in irc. I will be around for a while.
[/quote]
As the one making the baseless accusations (C&G were 'plotting' to attack IRON & TOP), the onus is upon you to provide proof. Particularly considering asking me to provide proof is disingenuous; it's impossible for anyone to prove a negative. Besides providing you with my word - as C&G leadership have done countless times before - that TOP & IRON had no reason to suspect a C&G attack, unless they directly attacked an ally of ours (surprise, surprise, we follow treaties), there is nothing else I can do. But, somehow, I get the feeling that you won't accept that, as you're too deep into your own world of delusion and fanciful notions to be able to grasp fact or logic.

[quote name='NeCoHo' date='05 April 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1270444221' post='2248669']
You are obviously very confused, and I feel sorry for you because of it. Your "side" has extorted over 700,000 tech in less then a year. It must be a tech-induced high making your thoughts foggy.
[/quote]
Perhaps people should learn a lesson and stop attacking us and our allies. If you don't want to pay reparations, don't engage in wars of aggression. It's rather simple.

Edited by Denial
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CloudGT4' date='05 April 2010 - 01:08 AM' timestamp='1270444064' post='2248663']
So you had to have someone come fight your battle for you.. no matter how you dress the word up.. its still a deterrent to attack them.. you guys were going after them, they knew it. beat you to the punch. Here, someone on IRC had a good argument for you to use.. Inflation.. CN suffers from inflation. so its okay for you to extort tech.

Anyways before this turns to a senseless troll fest, or anything else of that matter I will stop posting, as there is still plenty more people calling you on your weak argument. However if you wish to attempt to sway me to believe C&G wasn't planning an attack on TOP, then find me in irc. I will be around for a while.
[/quote]

You're fighting an argument you can't win, and promoting points that almost everyone has noted as being incorrect.

Refer to my post earlier in the thread:

[quote]To say that C&G was actively planning to attack TOP and IRON is foolhardy and ridiculous, a more apt description would be that they'd very likely get chained in and end up in conflict with TOP and IRON somewhere down the line. In any case, I'm not thrilled with the terms, but kudos to C&G for not taking the vindictive path like others may have. Frankly, if one were to be pre-emptively assaulted and dealt extraordinary damage from a seemingly relentless and determined foe, I feel that very few decrying these reps and critisizing MK and co would flippantly be stating "White peace for the aggressors, we don't mind the damage". Even as a staunch supporter of white peace in all circumstances, I'd have a hard time coming to that in such a circumstance. And all this coming from a guy who helped organized the offensive in the first place :wacko:. This isn't to say that the terms are light, they most certainly aren't, I think its important to take off the bias tinted glasses for a second though and look at it from both sides. In anycase, best of luck to my many friends on the TIDTT side in paying of these reps swiftly and rebuilding to bigger and better heights[/quote]

If NPO or say Valhalla from back in Q days were in a similar spot as C&G, I'd bet my life savings that the aggressors wouldn't have lived to see the light of day (And I still love Chefjoe despite that). Theres not anything inherently wrong with that fact, the more powerful have the ability to inflict their will upon those less powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...