new NEW news

[Branimir]

Not the most typically formatted peace instrument.

Lenient terms, that is for sure. Not even an admittance of surrender was included. Also, very reasonable solution to the "migrating nations" issue.

[Timmmehhh]

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1293641820' post='2557389']
Who started sending people onto the AA first?
[/quote]
Hmm no-one did send people over. I was one of the first high tier nations to join and I was more like "Hmm I am going to defend NEW, like I told them I would". And after that more nations made the same decision. Believe it or not but it wasn't some plan to send people over. After the attack many nations felt bad for NEW and decided to help them.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Näktergal' timestamp='1293635670' post='2557323']
Ehh, it's kind of unrealistic (if not opportunistic) to view it that way.

Honestly, I'd say it's more a case of when you engage in something that is generally seen as being pretty dishonorable in wartime by a majority of the rest of the world, you kind of forfeit the right to complain when your enemy turns around and does the exact same thing back to you in retaliation. Balancing the pans isn't even remotely as bad as skewing them in the first place.

(In a way, it's almost like two alliances agreeing in advance not to nuke each other, then one alliance nukes first, and whines when the other guy nukes back. You don't GET to complain at that point - and the first guy IS still in the wrong. The reaction does not invalidate the initial fault, though the initial fault does tend to justify the reaction.)

I'd also say that this isn't a sign of things to come or precedent for future crapiness, because the e-lawyers of the Cyberverse are clearly going out of their way to establish that doing it should be seen as a very big no-no, closing that particular door to future use. Expect future DoWs to include clauses that anyone joining a war after the start of hostilities can be treated as rogues - it's pretty much inevitable at this point.

But fair and just law doesn't work by retroactively punishing people who did something before it was made an official offense in the first place. Which is why the nations that joined NEW aren't currently being forced to negotiate separate peace agreements or being ZIed for roguery (which is absolutely what would have happened to them if they WERE treated like rogues in this war). They're currently being treated as honest (if defeated) combatants, which is probably more than any AA-jumpers can expect in the future.

Much like how all truly effective systems work, a questionable issue arose, it was dealt with improvisationally on the fly, and steps will be taken to create procedure for dealing with (or preventing) it in the future. Far from a failure of politics or yet another example of "the guy with the biggest stick makes the rules", I'd actually say this is probably going to be one of the fairer outcomes in any CN dispute.
[/quote]

I missed your posts.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1293605243' post='2557107']
Still, these are fair terms, and primarily it's because of who the reps are to be paid to, something Alterego's ignoring.
[/quote]
Ignored it? I commented on it. I acknowledged they weren't heavy

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1293603405' post='2557069']
Known crazy raiding alliance does crazy raid, what PR hit? Unless their allies ditch them in peacetime the way they ditched them during the war there will be no hit.

[b]As for the reps being lenient, If they weren’t smack bang in the middle of the hegemony web this would be 80k tech[/b]. Imposing the same reps they have been handing out for the last two years to one of their own could cause a split in the hegemony and they cant have that. They will just add the reps they couldn’t demand on to the next surrendering non hegemony alliance they fight.

0/ The Hegemony, fear of a real war keeps them together.
[/quote]

See! I said they could have been heavy. I didnt ignore the fact they weren't heavy.

[Rampage3]

Congratulations to our allies in Fark. Your patience far exceeds mine and I applaud you for that.

[Penkala]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1293642374' post='2557399']Rather, the only problem anyone in NEW ever saw was that while we were still labeled as rogues, FARK, INT, and TPE all brought in their own rogues, but they weren't called rogues of course. It was also just funny seeing INT bring in low NS ghosts, where they held more than enough of an advantage.
[/quote]

And that's been handled in my post and others. It's the same reason NEW is paying reps rather than Fark, even though Fark "did the same thing" in declaring war on an alliance. NEW started it, NEW gets punished. NEW's initiation of such an action was what caused Fark, Int. etc. to react. Not the other way around. That's why NEW is being punished and Fark isn't.

Also see:

[quote]Honestly, I'd say it's more a case of when you engage in something that is generally seen as being pretty dishonorable in wartime by a majority of the rest of the world, you kind of forfeit the right to complain when your enemy turns around and does the exact same thing back to you in retaliation. Balancing the pans isn't even remotely as bad as skewing them in the first place.

(In a way, it's almost like two alliances agreeing in advance not to nuke each other, then one alliance nukes first, and whines when the other guy nukes back. You don't GET to complain at that point - and the first guy IS still in the wrong. [b]The reaction does not invalidate the initial fault, though the initial fault does tend to justify the reaction.[/b])[/quote]

Emphasis mine.


[quote]Hmm no-one did send people over. I was one of the first high tier nations to join and I was more like "Hmm I am going to defend NEW, like I told them I would". And after that more nations made the same decision. Believe it or not but it wasn't some plan to send people over. After the attack many nations felt bad for NEW and decided to help them. [/quote]

I should have worded that as "Who accepted ghosts first, NEW or Fark?"

Edited December 29, 2010 by Penkala

[AnCapistan]

The term prohibiting the ghosts from leaving is pretty harsh.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Mr Damsky

[Locke]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1293649168' post='2557494']
The term prohibiting the ghosts from leaving is pretty harsh.
[/quote]
If they really wanted to be there as legitimate NEW members, they can continue to be legitimate NEW members. If they were only ever there for their own amusement, it's punishment and just punishment at that; if they were there because of a genuine love of NEW, then they should be happy to remain for the duration of the reps and aid their alliance members in the paying of reps.

[Monster]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1293649168' post='2557494']
The term prohibiting the ghosts from leaving is pretty harsh.
[/quote]

How is it when the reps can be paid off in a single day? It gets kind of absurd when people think of that as harsh.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1293649168' post='2557494']
The term prohibiting the ghosts from leaving is pretty harsh.
[/quote]

Why should people who purposefully joined NEW to get in shots at DF's allies be allowed to leave and leave NEW's regular members holding the bag? If the DF side had considered them rogues and ZIed them, that would be harsh but not completely unjustified either. It's a light term, much lighter than I expected.

[Thrash]

So the next time a random AA is participating in a beatdown on another AA and people ghost the winning side (as ALWAYS happens) and none ghost the losing side, then the losing side can ZI those people who joined the winning side? I look forward to this.

edit:typo

Edited December 29, 2010 by Thrash

[UltimateDogg]

[quote name='Timeline' timestamp='1293634936' post='2557316']
Hello

Is this going to be another case by case trial for those who leave before reps are fully paid ?, Also are you really making the statement that you will attack nations that are official members of iFOK and PC ?, damn I would love to see you try, I have a feeling you will be on the end of a curb stomp just as NEW was.
[/quote]
it is on a case by case basis, they are officially members of NEW (otherwise it would be roguery and they arent rogues remember ), good luck getting that curbstomp on us going though. But really though, its like 30 aid slots (if that). I have faith in NEW to complete it soon.

[quote name='EViL0nE' timestamp='1293624750' post='2557239']
Sadly, no one will ever verify if your statement is even correct or not. With all the AA jumpers, and counting damage done to all of the alliances who were part of this conflict, including FEAR, Europa, ODN, Sparta, Paragon, it would take hours just to collect all the numbers.
[/quote]
not doing all the alliances, but i did the INT, TPE, FARK and NEW stats in about 10 minutes

[quote name='TwistedRebelDB47' timestamp='1293637315' post='2557340']
Did you stop a raiding alliance from raiding?
[/quote]
we dont want them to stop raiding. If they want to raid thats fine. If they want to raid our allies, that is not fine. And yes, we did stop that, unless you see some wars on DF I missed.

[quote name='TwistedRebelDB47' timestamp='1293637315' post='2557340']
Did you sustain less damage than NEW?
[/quote]
1502060.098 Lost by NEW (not counting the NS lost by all the ghosts/new members)
2037225.098 Lost by NEW (counting the NS change by all the ghosts/new members)

814914.997 Lost by FARK (not counting the NS lost by all the ghosts/new members)
941127.997 Lost by FARK (counting the NS change by all the ghosts/new members)

856375.272 Lost by INT (not counting the NS lost by all the ghosts/new members)
304061.285 Lost by TPE (not counting the NS lost by all the ghosts/new members)
didnt count any of INT or TPEs ghosts NS changes, since they all gained NS

This gives you a slight damage lead 2101564.554 on our side to 2037225.098

It should be noted that INT and TPE were also fighting the other wars for a day or two. A random sampling of INTs wars show that 158/204 INT wars were with NEW, which is about 75%. Since NEW are much more capable fighters then the others on their side and this war was longer, we will say 95% of their damage is from NEW. Either way, its clear the war was pretty even damagewise. Ill cut off your next statement with:

[img]http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/2371/sortofadraw.jpg[/img](thanks trey)

[quote name='TwistedRebelDB47' timestamp='1293637315' post='2557340']
Did you prove any sort of military prowess during this affair? Did you make a resounding statement with your actions? Did you display some massive warchests?
[/quote]
most everyone seems to think so in this thread, but everyone is entitled to their opinon, so I'll leave it to each person to decide those.

Edited December 29, 2010 by UltimateDogg

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1293651823' post='2557531']
So the next time a random AA is participating in a beatdown on another AA and people ghost the winning side (as ALWAYS happens) and none ghost the losing side, then the losing side can ZI those people who joined the winning side? I look forward to this.

edit:typo
[/quote]

Most of the people who ghosted alliances in this war ghosted NEW (who lost). I am totally confused as to what point you're trying to make.

[Comrade Craig]

[quote name='Marx the Great' timestamp='1293612559' post='2557183']
Grammar check for the loss! It's an official announcement. Try to make it look like one next time.
[/quote]

Freakin' non-native English speakers! What can we do? He was democratically elected.

-Craig

[Comrade Craig]

[quote name='mushi' timestamp='1293619888' post='2557222']
Should have tired, and see how it ended up for you.


Well FARK and Co took more damaged than dished out, so i guess they lost. Would call it more a stalemate.
[/quote]

Only one side crumbled and accepted terms. That's the definition of a loss, my friend.

-Craig

[Thrash]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1293651965' post='2557537']
Most of the people who ghosted alliances in this war ghosted NEW (who lost). I am totally confused as to what point you're trying to make.
[/quote]

The point is very rarely do people ghost the losing side in a war, at least on the scale we saw here. In contrast to that, many many many people always ghost the winning side of a war. So I guess the point I'm trying to make is what Locke said earlier: "might makes right."

[Daikos]

This was a stupid war.

[Comrade Craig]

[quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1293652470' post='2557544']
The point is very rarely do people ghost the losing side in a war, at least on the scale we saw here. In contrast to that, many many many people always ghost the winning side of a war. So I guess the point I'm trying to make is what Locke said earlier: "might makes right."
[/quote]

In the end, your argument is based on false moral equivalency. Fighting FOR injustice is not the same as fighting AGAINST it, despite the fact that both phrases contain the word "fighting." I'm honestly surprised that you can't grasp this distinction.

-Craig

[i]edit: [OOC]From the Nuremberg trials: "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[/OOC][/i]

Edited December 29, 2010 by Comrade Craig

[Locke]

[quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1293652751' post='2557549']
This was a stupid war.
[/quote]
The one thing everyone here should be able to agree on, at least.

[ArneS]

Good to see this come to an end.

[Link Gaetz]

As always, kudos to NEW for not being another infra-hugging alliance. You guys do things right!

[Vol Navy]

I'll give further kudos to some of our old former TPF brothers in PC who stood up and walked the walk like they always have in the past.

[James IV]

I find it amusing that people think an apology means anything in this world still. lol Also the keeping those who fought for NEW on that AA is just a silly term.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Unfortunately no one will read UltimateDogg's post because it uses statistics to demolish a (really silly) argument. Which is unfortunate because Trey's image there is great.

[Penkala]

[quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1293651823' post='2557531']
So the next time a random AA is participating in a beatdown on another AA and people ghost the winning side (as ALWAYS happens) and none ghost the losing side, then the losing side can ZI those people who joined the winning side? I look forward to this.

edit:typo
[/quote]

Is there something in the water over at Invicta? Nobody is being ZIed here...