An agreement of peace

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1299374777' post='2653948']
I mean, NPO wasn't keeping them at war, they totally had an option to surrender!
[/quote]

No they didn't, you however do.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Johnny Apocalypse

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1299375205' post='2653958']
No they didn't, you however do.
[/quote]
Ah, but they did. What was it? I think they had to all come out of peace mode and let NPO hit them for 2 weeks without fighting back, and then probably pay a mountain of reps to NPO. It was their [i]choice[/i] to keep fighting. And rightfully so, they'd have to be insane to accept what NPO wanted.

Which is my point. Using faux terms to keep an alliance down whilst claiming the moral high ground and that you are "giving them a way out" is such an ancient trick, and by now there is scarcely a soul who can't see through it.

[quote name = "Beefsafari"]What makes you think they'd be "ridiculously harsh terms" when we haven't even discussed them? You said you wouldn't even pay a cent. If we demanded something your 9 alliances could easily pay, and you said no, would that still be our fault that we're still fighting? I'm sure you'd love to think so.[/quote]

Having seen the terms you offered CoJ, I think I have a fairly good idea of what we are going to be offered, but please, by all means, surprise me.

We still aren't going to reward you for an unprovoked attack. In case you haven't realized, we aren't looking to win this, we are looking to make you pay the price for your actions, and if we rebuild you after this war at our own expense, it would completely defeat the purpose of our actions.

[HeroofTime55]

edit: Oh, derp. nvm.

Edited March 6, 2011 by HeroofTime55

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1299367589' post='2653847']
Yet, when alliances make a clear [i]choice[/i] to be involved in the counter-attack - that is, they acted though optional treaty clauses, or no treaty at all - they better believe they are going to receive a swift and devastating reprimand for such action upon losing the war.
[/quote]
No significant alliances acted without any treaty at all. (That is to say, Mr Damsky declared war without a treaty. Good luck squeezing reps out of him. You should probably get them right after thedestro sends UPN some reps.)

Alliances who attacked GOONS due to mandatory treaty clauses:
Invicta
Legion
NSO
Olympus
TPF

Alliances who attacked GOONS due to optional treaty clauses:
64 Digits
Avalon
CoJ
The Last Republic
NAC
Sanitarium

That's it.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1299376446' post='2653970']
We still aren't going to reward you for an unprovoked attack.
[/quote]
Is that how it works? You've single-handedly eliminated reps from the planet Bob by deciding you don't want to pay them? The loser just refuses to pay any reps whatsoever and then claims they're being VietFANned? Good luck with that.

I wasn't aware we offered terms to CoJ. But then again I have been "out of town" for the last week or so, so to speak. So it's possible. All I can say to that is the terms I was pushing for myself were more than reasonable.

[Matthew Conrad]

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1299373385' post='2653915']
You forget TPF. Don't let the ball drop on intelligence now rookie, not this far in, not after all that average strength lost.

I think it would sure as Hell be fun to see a bunch of alliances committing to eternal war against GOONS. I myself would go through ZI fifty times before I payed a single note of my currency to a nation of GOONS. And yeah, you may already be recieving reps from those who have already surrendered but then again, they've made no such announcements that they will be paying nothing to GOONS.
[/quote]

How are you calling him a rookie?

Anyways, you make it sound like some of us wouldn't love if TPF decided to martyr themselves again. You are literally saying you would rather destroy yourselves and remain that way indefinitely rather than pay reps and actually think this is a "threat" to us, like we don't actually prefer that. These gems just keep on coming.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1299377034' post='2653977']
You've single-handedly eliminated reps from the planet Bob by deciding you don't want to pay them?
[/quote]
Actually, yes, that is how it works. Reps only exist when alliances decide to pay them. If no alliances decide to pay reps, then that does actually eliminate them from planet Bob.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1299377577' post='2653985']
Actually, yes, that is how it works. Reps only exist when alliances decide to pay them. If no alliances decide to pay reps, then that does actually eliminate them from planet Bob.
[/quote]
Well, kudos to 64Digits for ushering in a new age of no reps then.

[Denial]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1299376690' post='2653973']
No significant alliances acted without any treaty at all. (That is to say, Mr Damsky declared war without a treaty. Good luck squeezing reps out of him. You should probably get them right after thedestro sends UPN some reps.)

Alliances who attacked GOONS due to mandatory treaty clauses:
Invicta
Legion
NSO
Olympus
TPF

Alliances who attacked GOONS due to optional treaty clauses:
64 Digits
Avalon
CoJ
The Last Republic
NAC
Sanitarium

That's it.
[/quote]

... And your point is what, exactly? I really do wonder whether you just make up posts in your mind to respond to, or just entirely misinterpret everything anyone ever says.

If you look back to my post, you'll notice I said "when alliances make a clear choice to be involved in the counter-attack - that is, they acted though optional treaty clauses, or no treaty at all". So uhh, thanks - I guess - for providing me with a concise list of all those who will be subject to a higher degree of punishment following the war's conclusion (those entering on optional grounds, i.e. made the choice to enter).


[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1299377577' post='2653985']
Actually, yes, that is how it works. Reps only exist when alliances decide to pay them. If no alliances decide to pay reps, then that does actually eliminate them from planet Bob.
[/quote]
If a tree falls in the forest, but nobody is there to hear it, does it really make a sound?

makes u think...

Edited March 6, 2011 by Denial

[Feuersturm]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1299378353' post='2653994']

If a tree falls in the forest, but nobody is there to hear it, does it really make a sound?

makes u think...
[/quote]


[nerd]Yes and no, as sound is based on the release (or better yet, conversion) of the energy gained while falling. If bark snaps, it is the release of built-up energy that caused said snapping. It would be egotistical of humanity to believe that the release of energy is dependent on whether or not man is around it.

However, since sound as we know it is the conversion of the energy transfer into our eardrums that makes the energy audible to us, 'sound' as we know it would not be heard if anyone was around, but the tree is still releasing energy upon impact. Any creature with eardrums perceptive enough to hear the fall (threshold of hearing) would indeed hear it.[/nerd]

On topic:

Reps?

Edited March 6, 2011 by Feuersturm

[Sardonic]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1299376446' post='2653970']
Having seen the terms you offered CoJ,
[/quote]
No formal terms have been given to CoJ, nor have they approached us in an official capacity. What I said to egomania, or whatever his name is, was just an approximation which I hadn't given a great deal of thought to (the rep number anyway), and if the primary heft of the reps were filled sufficiently, the numerical rep amount would be a pittance anyway.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Sardonic

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1299382709' post='2654045']
No formal terms have been given to CoJ, nor have they approached us in an official capacity. What I said to egomania, or whatever his name is, was just an approximation which I hadn't given a great deal of thought to (the rep number anyway), and if the primary heft of the reps were filled sufficiently, the numerical rep amount would be a pittance anyway.
[/quote]

So the 50-page graded legal research paper you wanted Schatt to write was an actual term? More considered than the half billion reps you wanted, I mean?

How generous. Who needs beer reviews when you want a whole legal treatise squeezed out of him in return for peace? Oh, that or the 5 act Shakespearean play, with I believe it was 4 scenes per act? Truly, a mere pittance.

Edited March 6, 2011 by HeroofTime55

[Eddard Stark]

I suggest we focus on the original topic now.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1299384892' post='2654076']
So the 50-page graded legal research paper you wanted Schatt to write was an actual term? More considered than the half billion reps you wanted, I mean?

How generous. Who needs beer reviews when you want a whole legal treatise squeezed out of him in return for peace? Oh, that or the 5 act Shakespearean play, with I believe it was 4 scenes per act? Truly, a mere pittance.
[/quote]
You must really work to be that misinformed, because the 50-page graded legal research paper was explicitly what I decided I didn't want. The play on the other hand will be quite glorious. When the play was presented, it would be graded, and the grade would be the % off a stated rep amount. But don't let the facts get in the way of your delusions, it's so funny to watch you try to play around with your misconceptions to try to craft a cohesive narrative that you think people will buy into.

EDIT OOC: just saw mod post, will shut up now with regard to this.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Sardonic

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1299378353' post='2653994']
If you look back to my post, you'll notice I said "when alliances make a clear choice to be involved in the counter-attack - that is, they acted though optional treaty clauses, or no treaty at all". So uhh, thanks - I guess - for providing me with a concise list of all those who will be subject to a higher degree of punishment following the war's conclusion (those entering on optional grounds, i.e. made the choice to enter).
[/quote]

Every alliance makes a choice to enter or not. How many alliances do you know of who have actually held a bunch of nukes to the other alliances head to sign a a "mandatory" treaty with them - thus being 'forced' to join any given war? LOL - I really do want to know if any actually have!

People can demand reps or not as they please, the groups that are told to pay them can either pay or refuse. It's a matter of the alliance who is being asked for peace being willing to sell peace and at what price and whether or not the other alliance is willing to pay.

The politicians on this planet tell people otherwise, but the only way to avoid maybe having to pay reparations as an alliance is to respect war AND peace enough for both not to put it on the market.

Edited March 6, 2011 by White Chocolate

[Denial]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1299387553' post='2654128']
Every alliance makes a choice to enter or not. How many alliances do you know of who have actually held a bunch of nukes to the other alliances head to sign a a "mandatory" treaty with them - thus being 'forced' to join any given war? LOL - I really do want to know if any actually have![/quote]
Sure, if you want to reduce it down to an issue of free will, then no alliance can ever be forced to do anything. But then, this is a fairly pointless argument and I have no idea why you even quoted me while making it; my point still stands, as there is a clear distinction between alliances that are 'legally obliged' to enter via mandatory treaty clauses, and those that choose to enter a conflict via invoking optional clauses. That distinction will be a leading factor in determining the nature of final peace agreements, as it was with this one.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Denial

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1299389196' post='2654146']
my point still stands, as there is a clear distinction between alliances that are 'legally obliged' to enter via mandatory treaty clauses, and those that choose to enter a conflict via invoking optional clauses. That distinction will be a leading factor in determining the nature of final peace agreements, as it was with this one.
[/quote]

You're wrong, and in fact are doing it backwards. There is NO "clear distinction" in terms of which is the better policy. You could argue just as reasonably that alliances that enter on a mandatory treaty are doing something far worse "legally" (as if there is ANYTHING that can be pointed to that's been written down that can be appealed to some sort of higher power on these matters) than one entering on an optional treaty and make up some reason that sounds at least as good.

For instance, if I were a power broker, I would want to "punish" (aka: discourage as against my alliances interests) mandatory treaties with my enemies over optional ones.

Alliances that enter under a mandatory treaty agree in advance to tie their politics directly to those of the other alliance. This being the case, assuming the first alliance actually deserves to be attacked and pay some sort of price in reparations to be allowed 'out' of the war, than any alliance that willingly tied itself so completely to supporting the policies of that first alliance deserves the same treatment. Those that signed optional treaties less so.

It makes as much sense (which is none at all really, but sounds just as convincing as a 'spin' in the same way as saying optional treaties are somehow 'worse') as a 'moral' argument and makes MORE sense politically.

What alliances should do is encourage other alliances to MOVE AWAY (aka: downgrade or drop) their treaties with one's enemies. The way to do that is encourage ONLY optional treaties (if any), not discourage them by demanding reps when one enters a war without a mandatory treaty! To say "oh, your treaty was mandatory, so it's okay" is extremely counter productive. I don't get why an alliance willing to fight against one would let that same alliances BEST friends "off" with anything less. The "so so" friends who only signed something optional in the first place should be encouraged to leave the field, including by using tactics such as saying the DON'T have to pay any reperations.

Speaking entirely from a pragmatic standpoint, it could be argued that it's the better policy for alliances on the opposite side of any given war to NOT demand any reps from someone entering on an optional treaty. Acting as if an "optional" treaty is worse is opposite to the first alliances interests - it says to the optional treaty partner "you should have signed a mandatory treaty with my enemy." Why would any alliance want to push an alliance NOT entirely in an enemies "camp" to join them fully next war?

[Heft]

It makes no difference what sort of treaty obligation an alliance used to enter this conflict, and no, people did not pile on GOONS just because they don't like you. People joined the defense because they believed it something necessary for them to do, and GOONS was the first major target because that was what made sense.

Anything else is just a thin attempt to justify punitive terms in a situation where no punishment could possibly be warranted.

[Denial]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1299395223' post='2654210']
<snip>
[/quote]
Your entire naive viewpoints on Cyberverse politics can be answered with one simple sentence:

Because it is necessary - and always has been - to build an opponent.

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1299395553' post='2654218']
It makes no difference what sort of treaty obligation an alliance used to enter this conflict
[/quote]
Actually, yes, it does. And considering we'll be the ones determining the peace terms, it looks like your argument has lost all foundation!

[Crymson]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1299396354' post='2654228']
Actually, yes, it does. And considering we'll be the ones determining the peace terms, it looks like your argument has lost all foundation!
[/quote]

I advise against engaging Heft and his gigantic arsenal of arbitrary, absolutist statements.

[Heft]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1299396354' post='2654228']
Actually, yes, it does. And considering we'll be the ones determining the peace terms, it looks like your argument has lost all foundation!
[/quote]
I suppose I should clarify the point. Obviously your side has make it clear that they will seek punitive terms, and obviously now some on your side are making an effort to at least kind of justify that intended course of action.

That doesn't mean that it is actually justified.

[Heft]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1299396961' post='2654231']
I advise against engaging Heft and his gigantic arsenal of arbitrary, absolutist statements.
[/quote]
All I got out of this post is that apparently you're a fan of the letter A.

[Denial]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1299396995' post='2654232']
I suppose I should clarify the point. Obviously your side has make it clear that they will seek punitive terms, and obviously now some on your side are making an effort to at least kind of justify that intended course of action.

That doesn't mean that it is actually justified.
[/quote]
Well, I mean, we [i]could[/i] use your logic and just give all alliances - no matter how they entered the war - the same firm punitive terms.

[Heft]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1299398133' post='2654242']
Well, I mean, we [i]could[/i] use your logic and just give all alliances - no matter how they entered the war - the same firm punitive terms.
[/quote]
Considering that my logic is that no one on my side of the war has done anything warrant punitive terms (or any terms), that doesn't really make a lot of sense.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1299396354' post='2654228']
Your entire naive viewpoints on Cyberverse politics can be answered with one simple sentence:

Because it is necessary - and always has been - to build an opponent.
[/quote]

IF that were really the case, you wouldn't be giving anyone reps. It builds much better opponents not to.

Of course, perhaps I'm assuming too much and you actually believe that (as opposed to it just being fun to get reps in the first place regardless of what sort of treaty they entered on) and it's actually your viewpoint that is naive.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't actually blame GOONS for giving reps to everyone. You were attacked en mass, which even makes me feel that GOONS response is okay. If the attacks were spread out more equally (or even concentrated on - er, never mind ...your not going to like the rest of that post and it's not a huge point...) Anyway, I don't WANT to agree with GOONS on this but I don't have any major complaints about the reps. What I do not like is the belief (and actually many of the GOONS do not say this at all, to their credit) that it's BECAUSE of the type of treaty.