Aurion Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) Saying you laugh at people who take reps, and then saying there are cases where they are deserved seems a bit contradictory, at least on the surface. Do you laugh at the people who take them when you feel they're deserved, too, or... ? Can't say I agree with the rest of the assessment, either. Edited March 3, 2011 by Aurion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1299116769' post='2650297'] Penkala says you got less tech in reps than you lost during the delay. If you lost more than 20k tech in 2 weeks, my mind is blown--you must have been giving it away. [/quote] I lost about 1000 tech in one week of war - your opponents nukes, CMs, successful ground & air attacks backed by a 12k+ tech WRC will do that to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted March 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1299115667' post='2650249'] Then we sit an impasse as it seems that you don't have a definition of justice, which is fine. I initially asked for your definition of justice because the foundation of your post relies on a sense of justice/justifiability/justification. So I must ask: how can you claim (even in your own opinion) that one thing is just or justified when it seems that you are unable to define the very notion you are touting (I mean this with absolutely no disrespect; it is an honest and genuine curiosity). You don't have to answer if you don't want (as you told me on IRC, you've never taken a philosophy class so I wouldn't expect you to know where I am coming from). [OOC: If you ever have time, read [u]The Euthyphro[/u], [u]The Apology[/u], [u]The Crito[/u], and [u]The Phaedo[/u] (all by Plato). Plato's [u]The Republic[/u] discusses the issue of justice quite well too.] Cheers for sticking to the discussion for as long as you did... some people would have said "FFUUUUU" after the first correspondence. [/quote] Well let's turn the tables then. What is your definition of justice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1299116769' post='2650297'] Penkala says you got less tech in reps than you lost during the delay. If you lost more than 20k tech in 2 weeks, my mind is blown--you must have been giving it away. [/quote] 20k tech may be an absurd level for your alliance to lose, but CSN is a medium-sized alliance, so it's really not that bad. CMs, nukes, ground attacks... they all destroy tech. And there are hundreds of CMs fired at CSN nations per day, dozens of nukes, etc. I'm not sure why this is so shocking to you... Besides, in the end, CSN only got 10k tech, not 20k. If you're really going to maintain that CSN entered and continued this war, losing millions of NS, in order to "profit" off of 10k tech then I'm not sure we really have anything to discuss here. You're just so far from reality that there's no point in discussing the situation with you. Edited March 3, 2011 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrRulerGuy Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) Alliances who beg for rep are either doing one of the following: Rebuilding their alliance Crippling a fallen foe I see no other way, but what is this justice !@#$%^&*? Do you not know what war is? There is no justice in war, not in this war anyway. You keep fighting until it's over and you'll pick up what you can get, whatever advantage over the others you can find. If that means 102 million worth of currency, then so be it. Edited March 3, 2011 by MrRulerGuy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 I read this as "TOP and IRON deserved to pay because they are not my friends. Dark Templar do not deserve to because they are my friends" Since it's been made ABUNDANTLY clear that MK and indeed C&G as a whole were not "uninvolved parties", they were merely waiting for TOP to enter, they don't meet your uninvolved party criteria. TOP and the other nations that pre-empted merely attempted to sway the battle to a place of their choosing rather than C&Gs. Would I have done it? No, but I understand the thought process. On the subject of reps, I've never asked for, accepted or requested reps for a war (rogue nations are a different story). It's just not who the people in my alliance are. With that out of the way, I do understand and accept and to a small extent, support reasonable reperations when the situation warrants them. I also support whole heartedly the ability for the alliances involved to decide on said reps, not the peanut gallery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1299119552' post='2650438'] Besides, in the end, CSN only got 10k tech, not 20k. [/quote] We're probably only going to get 5k actually, since the other 5k can be paid in monetary form. The exchange rate in terms of aid slots is actually favorable to DT, so they'd be foolish not to take it. For all practical purposes the reparations are 5k tech and 150M to CSN, plus 300M to Legacy. Edited March 3, 2011 by Lord Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted March 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='janax' timestamp='1299119858' post='2650454'] I read this as "TOP and IRON deserved to pay because they are not my friends. Dark Templar do not deserve to because they are my friends" Since it's been made ABUNDANTLY clear that MK and indeed C&G as a whole were not "uninvolved parties", they were merely waiting for TOP to enter, they don't meet your uninvolved party criteria. TOP and the other nations that pre-empted merely attempted to sway the battle to a place of their choosing rather than C&Gs. Would I have done it? No, but I understand the thought process. On the subject of reps, I've never asked for, accepted or requested reps for a war (rogue nations are a different story). It's just not who the people in my alliance are. With that out of the way, I do understand and accept and to a small extent, support reasonable reperations when the situation warrants them. I also support whole heartedly the ability for the alliances involved to decide on said reps, not the peanut gallery. [/quote] I don't think I know anyone in Dark Templar. Fine if it's the words you don't like then unengaged instead of uninvolved. Either way it still deserves reps imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Scipio Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1299120278' post='2650470'] I don't think I know anyone in Dark Templar. Fine if it's the words you don't like then unengaged instead of uninvolved. Either way it still deserves reps imo. [/quote] Seriously explain to me what difference there is in attacking someone or waiting for them to attack you. Either way your at war, why does one deserve hundreds of thousands of tech while the other deserves white peace. All you've said so far "It's like my opinion man!" you've never even tried to explain why it's your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' timestamp='1299109504' post='2650052'] We'll impose reps to make people hate us even more than they do now and post lots of discussion threads like this one. [/quote] You guys probably will do that if given the opportunity this war, although I generally think demanding reps aren't worth how unpopular it makes the alliance asking them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted March 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1299120508' post='2650476'] Seriously explain to me what difference there is in attacking someone or waiting for them to attack you. Either way your at war, why does one deserve hundreds of thousands of tech while the other deserves white peace. All you've said so far "It's like my opinion man!" you've never even tried to explain why it's your opinion. [/quote] Well in one instance you take an aggressive stance outside of the normal way things have gone. Could be a good idea or a bad one. If it fails you deserve reps. If you just follow your treaties and let the cards fall then you should at least be allowed the benefit of the doubt. No such scenario when you decide to hit the people waiting on the sideline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Reps are bad hmmmk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='janax' timestamp='1299119858' post='2650454'] I read this as "TOP and IRON deserved to pay because they are not my friends. Dark Templar do not deserve to because they are my friends" Since it's been made ABUNDANTLY clear that MK and indeed C&G as a whole were not "uninvolved parties", they were merely waiting for TOP to enter [/quote] [b]merely waiting for TOP to enter[/b] [b]merely[/b] [i]Spins like top[/i] comes to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1299120851' post='2650492'] Well in one instance you take an aggressive stance outside of the normal way things have gone. Could be a good idea or a bad one. If it fails you deserve reps. If you just follow your treaties and let the cards fall then you should at least be allowed the benefit of the doubt. No such scenario when you decide to hit the people waiting on the sideline. [/quote] What if you declare against the side you have the most treaties with, citing a color ODP whose signatories are also mainly on the side you're attacking? Yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='kevin32891' timestamp='1299120897' post='2650497'] Reps are bad hmmmk [/quote] With your alliance's military record, it must be easy for you to be of this opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299115510' post='2650246'] So reparations are used to punish those that surprise you, and to deter others from surprising you?[/quote] Reparations are an exchange of cash and tech for peace. Having said that, some alliance leaders may demand reparations with the intent to deter behavior the leaders see as against the interests of their group. Surprise attacks fit into that category. [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299115510' post='2650246']Where do optional treaties fit in here?[/quote] Better to know a group might become involved in advance than to have no clue. Having said that, I think many leaders assume (sometimes wrongly) that another alliance will only activate an optional treaty when they are assured of victory. Thus the "bandwagon" reputation of optional treaties. Personally, I think optional treaties are far more useful than they are credited. Again, from the perspective of someone planning a war, they can be seen as problematic. However, better to assume that an ally of one's enemy via an optional treaty will enter a war and take a benefit when it doesn't happen than ensure that one does by forcing more nations onto the other "side" in every war. Attempting to "deter" a group can backfire - I think insisting all treaties be mandatory only pushes groups that might otherwise stay uninvolved in the fight, most likely on the opposite side of the one doing the pushing. [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299115510' post='2650246']What about treaties with alliances with reputations of not honoring their treaties?[/quote] Treaty signer beware. [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299115510' post='2650246']I'm genuinely intrigued, this is the first practical argument I've heard for why attacking with a treaty should not be punished and attacking without should. [/quote] I'm not necessarily advocating the position (or arguing against it) and it's certainly not anything original on my part. There are practical reasons for all the unwritten rules, at least based on what was happening at some point in history. On the other hand, I fully support questioning the status quo as times change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1299119546' post='2650437'] Well let's turn the tables then. What is your definition of justice? [/quote] I don't claim to know what justice is as I don't know. Though there exists an archetypal Form of Justice, I have yet to personally experience or, perhaps, learn and understand it. So I do suppose that, for the time being, I can't rely on justice but rather integrity and hope that it leads me to a just and logical conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1299124271' post='2650638'] With your alliance's military record, it must be easy for you to be of this opinion. [/quote] Hey much better than being led my someone who resembles an angry teenage girl. To each their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1299121921' post='2650554'] [b]merely waiting for TOP to enter[/b] [b]merely[/b] [i]Spins like top[/i] comes to mind. [/quote] They were fully planning on hitting TOP and IRON as soon as they entered the war somewhere.. There is no spin. Ask around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='janax' timestamp='1299128581' post='2650782'] They were fully planning on hitting TOP and IRON as soon as they entered the war somewhere.. There is no spin. Ask around. [/quote] I think he's actually saying that you're spinning things the other way, in C&G's favor. Although I'm not sure how that makes much sense either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='Sithis' timestamp='1299109351' post='2650041'] Reps and warfare go hand in hand. If you're going to have an inter-alliance war, and both sides agree to discuss terms of ending hostilities, then the winning alliance has every right to dictate the terms over the losing alliance, doesn't matter what they are. A few years ago, it was tech raiding. Now apparently reps are the cool new thing to dislike on Planet Bob. [/quote] Tech raiding is very much still [i]in[/i], I assure you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefspari Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 I demand reps for this horribly ill-conceived thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 I don't laugh at them. That would be mean and cruel, just like those that demand reps. I am a shining beacon of honor. An exemplar example of excellence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alekhine Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) Reps aren't about justice; they're about Winning. Duh. Edited March 3, 2011 by Alekhine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted March 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1299121974' post='2650557'] What if you declare against the side you have the most treaties with, citing a color ODP whose signatories are also mainly on the side you're attacking? Yeah. [/quote] People choose treaties over others for a variety of reasons. I don't think more treaties here or there should be a top consideration when making that choice. Just seems like a shallow hollow reason to me but far be it from me to tell any alliance how they should go about choosing which treaties to honor. That is a decision that they have to make on their own. It certainly shouldn't have any bearing on whether they receive reps or not. Even more so when they go against what their other allies are doing to join a losing cause. Then you know they didn't make the choice out of self preservation but out of care for the friends they did defend or at least to stay in line with their own values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.