A Statement from the Mushroom Kingdom

[Earogema]

Also MK, you know you should have negotiated the reps that NPO forced on you. They expected you to negotiate that number.

[SoulVici]

So does this mean there [i]isn't[/i] going to be a war between MK and NSO?

Dammit, I wasted hours following this crap. Talk about anti-climactic.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Partisan' timestamp='1289337699' post='2508477']
When 2 of your underlings enter negotiations with official government authority it is safe to assume that they have the backing of your prince/king. As such, anything said or demanded by them will likely be taken as MK's word. When I am in a diplomatic discussion with officials representing another alliance I won't double check every single thing with their superiors either as I take their words as official.

As for RV dropping that line: Ofcourse he knew what he was doing, otherwise he wouldn't have done it. It does not really matter though as the actual content of that line is basicly the truth: It was a backroom extortion. It was in a private channel (read: backroom) and (unreasonably much) money was being demanded under the implied threat of war. add it up and you get the word we're looking for.
[/quote]Backroomunreasonably much is not a word [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/eng99.gif[/img]

Edited November 9, 2010 by Rocky Horror

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Partisan' timestamp='1289337699' post='2508477']
When 2 of your underlings enter negotiations with official government authority it is safe to assume that they have the backing of your prince/king. As such, anything said or demanded by them will likely be taken as MK's word. When I am in a diplomatic discussion with officials representing another alliance I won't double check every single thing with their superiors either as I take their words as official.
[/quote]

If you find it so outrageous and you fail to double-check, that is your fault. As for the word you're looking for, I think you need to reread the definition as I do not see the threat of war anywhere in those logs.

[quote name='Partisan' timestamp='1289337835' post='2508478']
Starting out with an unreasonably high number just to negotiate it down to another unreasonably high number (given the situation) is not what I call a sound diplomatic tactic. Though I probably would have tried a low number first if I were in RV's shoes I certainly see why he decided to not even try.
[/quote]

I daresay your position on this is "Partisan".

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1289338214' post='2508488']
Also MK, you know you should have negotiated the reps that NPO forced on you. They expected you to negotiate that number.
[/quote]MK did negotiate the reps. Have you ever been in a real alliance?

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Partisan' timestamp='1289337268' post='2508464']
To demand reps from the alliance as a whole at all would have been unreasonable. By giving you the go-ahead to hit the nation they lost any and all responsibility. You can speculate about them playing an evil trick on you by taking him back in after he rerolls all you want but thats just that: speculation. If they'd do that and you would find evidence you'd be in the right to demand reps. Now...you arent.

Demanding 15 mil and 250 tech is simply a far to high start for such a petty issue, especially as NSO as an alliance was not in the wrong when the talks were initiated. For some reason I also doubt MK would allow for 15 mil and 250 tech to be negotiated down to 3 mil or 6 mil (which would still be unreasonable, but something NSO could have agreed on)
[/quote]
I'm not trying to make any arguments for MK, because like most people, I think they made mistakes as well. However, one thing I will say is that I truly believe that those who talked with NSO would have expected the exact same offer for the same situation if the shoe was on the other foot. Maybe that's hopeful and naive of me, but that's what I believe.

And sure, it was too high to start. That doesn't give me any more sympathy for those who convince themselves to not try.

Even if NSO personally feels that the amount doesn't matter and that it's the principle, the reality is that the public outcry would have scaled down with the reps if they were lessened, as can be evidenced by the opinions of many people throughout both the the threads on the matter. The NSO's PR smear actually depended on keeping the reps higher.

Edited November 9, 2010 by ktarthan

[Earogema]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' timestamp='1289338329' post='2508495']
MK did negotiate the reps. Have you ever been in a real alliance?
[/quote]
Then why did they whine about them for literally years?

OH WAIT

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1289338114' post='2508486']


Or you could...ya know...offer fair terms in the first place.
[/quote]

Or RV could have suggested fairer terms but he rolled over like a dog.

Edited November 9, 2010 by tamerlane

[Ardus]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1289337902' post='2508480']
In fact, I doubt there has EVER been a situation where a party that was winning started high and then was dropped (significantly) lower by the losing/smaller party.[/quote]
The initial terms offered to both NPO and TOP were considerably higher than those ultimately agreed to.

[Partisan]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' timestamp='1289338252' post='2508490']
Backroomunreasonably much is not a word [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/eng99.gif[/img]
[/quote]

You know, when you try to be witty you should learn how to read. As you can see the 'read' was typed [b]within[/] the ( ), thus it was not an active part of the sentence and the words were not tied together. Nice try though.

Perhaps you can you know, actively engage in the discussion at hand instead of searching every single sentence for typos like a real drone?

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1289338399' post='2508497']
Then why did they whine about them for literally years?

OH WAIT
[/quote]


It was laid out quite clear what would happen to us if we didn't accept, that is not the case here. We were told by NPO et co "Accept or war will continue". Please point to the place in the logs (in RV's thread as this is indeed now a threat) where we said we'd declare war.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1289338399' post='2508497']
Then why did they whine about them for literally years?

OH WAIT
[/quote]Because negotiation does not necessarily end with a fair result. Negotiations with the NPO back in the day ended with the other side being crippled for most of a year just for fighting back. Which is clearly not the situation here. Although again, I am aware that some alliances need $15m and 250 tech to stay alive, apparently.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1289338461' post='2508501']
The initial terms offered to both NPO and TOP were considerably higher than those ultimately agreed to.
[/quote]
So the terms were even higher than how much they actually paid? I thought the original terms were high.

Well jeez.

Anyway I suppose I understand. Like I said I believe peace terms are the only time where a party is justified in starting high and expecting negotiations. The ironic thing that the alliance that negotiated will still complain.

I would personally never ask for reps, but whatever.

[Branimir]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1289338458' post='2508500']Or RV could have suggested fairer terms but he rolled over like a dog.[/quote]
Its RV's fault that you asked for what people deem excessive "reps"!

Honestly, I cant believe this twisted logic is still being argued. lol

Edited November 9, 2010 by Branimir

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1289338461' post='2508501']
The initial terms offered to both NPO and TOP were considerably higher than those ultimately agreed to.
[/quote]
The Great Patriotic War as well.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1289338650' post='2508507']


Anyway I suppose I understand. Like I said I believe peace terms are the only time where a party is justified in starting high and expecting negotiations. The ironic thing that the alliance that negotiated will still complain.

I would personally never ask for reps, but whatever.
[/quote]

You are a far better man than any of us. Go forth and let the light shine from your orifices and send evil cowering into the dark crevices from whence it came

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1289338650' post='2508507']
Like I said I believe peace terms are the only time where a party is justified in starting high and expecting negotiations.
[/quote]
That's a silly belief. What reason would there be for [i]not[/i] allowing negotiations in other situations?

[Earogema]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' timestamp='1289338561' post='2508505']
Because negotiation does not necessarily end with a fair result. Negotiations with the NPO back in the day ended with the other side being crippled for most of a year just for fighting back. Which is clearly not the situation here. Although again, I am aware that some alliances need $15m and 250 tech to stay alive, apparently.
[/quote]
So you're saying that even if negotiations occurred, the result may not have been fair. This is regardless of the fact that 3 million is the only concrete number and regardless of the fact that said concrete number could have been used as the basis of the negotiation.

Even if it doesn't cripple the alliance, it's still unfair. A canceled trade doesn't cripple MK, but you did something about it right?
[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1289338559' post='2508504']
It was laid out quite clear what would happen to us if we didn't accept, that is not the case here. We were told by NPO et co "Accept or war will continue". Please point to the place in the logs (in RV's thread as this is indeed now a threat) where we said we'd declare war.
[/quote]
Are you saying MK would not have taken any action? Are you saying it would be odd to expect a much smaller alliance to feel threatened (either militarily or politically) by MK?

If you gives yourselves so much credit, you really ought to expect others to give you the same credit. Now while I think RV should not have paid, I could (and I believe that MK can as well) see where he was coming from in accepting.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Earogema

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1289338778' post='2508510']
Its RV's fault that you asked for what people deem excessive "reps"!

Honestly, I cant believe this twisted logic is still being argued. lol
[/quote]

If RV didn't like it, he didn't have to agree to it. We've already established that no gun was put to his or NSOs head so why did he just up and accept the terms?

Why are we here again? Branimir! you got us lost again!

Edited November 9, 2010 by tamerlane

[Partisan]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1289338339' post='2508496']
I'm not trying to make any arguments for MK, because like most people, I think they made mistakes as well. However, one thing I will say is that I truly believe that those who talked with NSO would have expected the exact same offer for the same situation if the shoe was ont he other foot. Maybe that's hopeful and naive of me, but that's what I believe.

And sure, it was too high to start. That doesn't give me any more sympathy for those who convince themselves to not try.

Even if NSO personally feels that the amount doesn't matter and that it's the principle, the reality is that the public outcry would have scaled down with the reps if they were lessened, as can be evidenced by the opinions of many people throughout both the the threads on the matter. The NSO's PR smear actually depended on keeping the reps higher.
[/quote]

I don't really care about what the situation would have been if it was the other way around. The only reason I am siding with NSO here is because I honestly believe this to be wrong. Had NSO done the same to another alliance I would have protested too. If MK did not want a smear on their PR they should have asked for lower reps. Its simple as that: doing something bad results in bad PR. Start out reasonable and you gain good PR. CN for dummies

It seems like we will have to agree to disagree on the sympathy bit.

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1289338253' post='2508491']
If you find it so outrageous and you fail to double-check, that is your fault. As for the word you're looking for, I think you need to reread the definition as I do not see the threat of war anywhere in those logs.



I daresay your position on this is "Partisan".
[/quote]

The only way for an alliance to 'demand' something is under threat of war. If an alliance demands a set amount of reps it is safe to assume that there will be consequences if the demand is not met. By percedent, this is usually war. (which in the end appeared to be true, given the deadline in the OP)

As for your reference to my name: all I can say is: 'irrelevant'.

EDIT: typo

Edited November 9, 2010 by Partisan

[Earogema]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1289338924' post='2508516']
That's a silly belief. What reason would there be for [i]not[/i] allowing negotiations in other situations?
[/quote]
It's pretty much the only time where you don't have a concrete figure since the damages are so high that nobody wants to really calculate them and even if they did it would be too high for the alliance to pay.

Any other situation can and should have a concrete number, with the possible exception of rogues.

I will relent and say that I believe one can negotiate rogue damages, but eh, I say you war him and let him go. I'm not a fan of rogue reps.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Earogema

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1289338786' post='2508511']
The Great Patriotic War as well.
[/quote]
And both times GOONS dealt with Methrage.

[Branimir]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1289338957' post='2508518']If RV didn't like it, he didn't have to agree to it. We've already established that no gun was put to his or NSOs head so why did he just up and accept the terms?[/quote]
I believe he already answered, that he felt otherwise. Anyway, I just found it funny how you are still trying to deflect from the fact you asked for unreasonably high "reps", even when your King here said that-- it was an error.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1289339051' post='2508521']
It's pretty much the only time where you don't have a concrete figure since the damages are so high that nobody wants to really calculate them and even if they did it would be too high for the alliance to pay.

Any other situation can and should have a concrete number, which the possible except of rogues.

I will relent and say that I believe one can negotiate rogue damages, but eh, I say you war him and let him go. I'm not a fan of rogue reps.
[/quote]
This situation we're posting about right now is another situation - ie: The 15m/250t wasn't based on some calculation, it was simply the mark MK set. Whether or not you agree that reps should even been proposed in this situation does not change the fact that the number fits within your standards of negotiation.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1289338926' post='2508517']


Are you saying MK would not have taken any action?[/quote]
Im saying there is absolutely no evidence that we would have.

[quote] Are you saying it would be odd to expect a much smaller alliance to feel threatened (either militarily or politically) by MK?[/quote]
Oh its not odd that they felt threatened but spinelessness, until this point, has never been a characteristic of the NSO. Fear for "their lives" was nothing quoted to any alliance before. This is the alliance that would not surrender under terms, remember?

[quote]If you gives yourselves so much credit, you really out to expect others to give you the same credit. Now while I think RV should not have paid, I could (and I believe that MK can as well) see where he was coming from in accepting.
[/quote]
See above.