Leaderboard

So a more serious breakdown of why the VM needs to happen in the opinion of our coalition. Start by taking look at these links: TCW TKR GoB TCW obviously loses the most in this arrangement, and its obvious these VM nations are the rebuild plan for their side. Allowing this to happen is simply unacceptable when addressing the economic disparity of sides. Those TCW nations can generate over 300 million a day for TCW's rebuild, something that we won't allow to happen. You can argue some of the VM is legitimate reasons, but the simple fact is it doesn't matter. We don't care if it's legitimate. I fully agree that it's their responsibility to decide if they want to keep deserters in their alliance or not. However, this occurs after we equalize the damage dealt to them, not before. The argument is we are "punishing" them, which is flat out wrong. Lets start with the definition of punish: Punish VERB Treat (someone) in an unfairly harsh way. Their VM nations are not being treated in an unfair way relative to their alliance mates. All members still fighting are below 1k infra, or on their way there. In fact, most are substantially below that so VM nations are being treated less harshly. Then the argument that the winning side should do the same is also frankly ridiculous. This isn't a Global Summit building a player consensus, this is a war they lost and that's the demands for peace. We are holding their members accountable, since we don't trust them to do so. The winners can deal with their own, and owe nothing to those who lost in the most complete loss in a global since NPO's first time. Sure they can stay at war, but it's a lot harder to maintain a losing war than a winning one. If they want to keep going so be it, but it is easier to sell making sure perennial war deserters lose their infra to the winning coalition's members than protecting them to the losing side's members. Ultimately it will come down to their membership to deciding when they no longer want to protect pixel huggers at their own expense.

A misclick is usually fixable on trading just simply deleting right after after it's posted. With the bot, they don't have that option and it's constantly retrieving the information. Point of the matter is, we don't like it and we're rectifying it. You're free to continue posturing against IQ but I don't care. Your analogy is trash as leaving your bike unattended doesn't excuse the theft. Feel free to make the thieves into the good guys. It's totally not transparent.

If only my private negotiations had come through, we would've had peace, but alas. My gracious terms were rejected, shown here in an re-enactment.

Yes, it can be. You're a gov member of an alliance who's only meaningful tie is being protected by the Syndicate, an alliance fighting on the side you are currently criticizing for their terms. Not to mention the side which will possibly be the top sphere post war. Putting you're opinion out there can be a dangerous thing if it goes against the powers that be, or popular opinion. First thing I did when I saw you posting you're highly misconstrued statements which were pieced together poorly, was look at your alliance. I looked to size you up, to see if you were worth hitting. Thankfully, for you, none of your alliance nations are in my range so I lost interest. But now your alliance is on my radar, are probably on others as well. It's what happens when you come here talking the nonsense you have. You get noticed, and not in good ways. There is zero parallel between a bot which patrols the trade market for mistaken trades in to profit off of those mistakes and BC being held accountable for leaking sensitive information. You're flat out wrong. Bot's for that sort of advantage are widely frowned upon in these sorts of circles, and to claim we can simply "tell our members to take 5 seconds", is asinine. What about other nations? What if a member of your alliance lost 100M worth of resources by mistakenly clicking to post a public trade when they meant a private one, and an automated bot sprung into action to snag those resources before the person could delete it seconds later? Perhaps we just want the removal of them all together? Regardless it doesn't involve you, because it's what we want. It also doesn't have any connections to BC. You leak intel, you run the risk of paying the consequences for it. One's a conscious choice, and one's a mistake.

Lets go through the terms in a condensed form Article 1 and 2: Obvious end of the war. Article 3: cosmetic terms for various alliances. I can tell you the TEst ones come from the Mensa guys forcing people to write a Dio-based essay, so this is just a jab back. I fully expect something mocking Khorne. The GPA one is a result of our love for GPA, and the fact that it's what tCW effectively is in our opinion (and it's only a week). Article 4: Color names, if you care about this, you deserve more war. Article 5: War dodging, the main problem apparently. Some people VM'd legitimately, some people did not. During papers please TKR and friends issued a "no nation above 700 average infra" clause in the wars peace terms. This is basically no different. The people who tried to hide from damage, legitimately or not, need to have a certain infra level. Article 6: The answer to fake paperless alliances. Article 7: Arrgh was in perma-war with TKR for being pirates. Call it square and let them pirate, unless they pirate you, then defend against those pirating you. There are no "harsh" terms anywhere in there if you look at the history of terms imposed by alliances in this game. If any of these terms are too unacceptable, a coalition wide payment of 10B per term that needs to be removed could probably be arranged.

Buy me city 24 and I'll buy up nukes and nuke 'em post-war. Shifty is a butcher for sale. Also my boi Leo/Thanos dropping truth bombs like a B-52 over 'Nam. The losers are losers and have zero say. Drive the knife in deep and twist. TKR sphere deserves this. "Omg but you're making this CN 2.0." "Omg, you're making bad enemies and bad blood." TKR needed their ego and teeth kicked in. Guardian is smug, but they ain't that bad. (Exception) TCW, who cares about pissing them off? They can't fight their way out of a paper bag. GoB had it coming. Tesla is basically dead and proved to be a useless offshoot of The Chola/Zodiac. Statesmen, Nova Riata, Silenzio, and any other micros are irrelevant and should just be tossed to the raiders anyway. Idk who the frick came up with this idea that this game doesn't need drama. Your stagnant shit filled minds keep coming up with ideas on how to kill any fun and conflict. Y'all rather have passive aggressive, "listen here pal" wars that end in nothing instead of salt filled, humiliating, and punishing defeats. The weak should fear the strong. Shifty says what's on everyone's mind, but they're too afraid to say it because they're playing model UN. Prove me wrong Protip: You can't.

Fark and WTF at the beginning of the war

No one is going after them. They have the option to sell their infra, as you can see in the terms. If their alliance loves them so much, they can just rebuild them with their own funds. Sell down to 1k and then just rebuild. That easy. I see no reason (from an IC point of view) to let nations again and again VM and then get "punished" by their alliances by getting taxed. These taxes are used to rebuild faster the alliances that were hit. Believe it or not, some alliances want to cause as much damage as possible to the opposing side and having VMers coming back post-war to rebuild the rest is not really appreciated. Also... these nations are not punished. They get exactly the same treatment as their team-mates. The non-VMed TCW nations are at 1k infra level. The VMers will get to that level too. "Punishment" would imply that they get special treatment and worse terms than their team-mates, which is not the case.

Dear citizens of Orbis, Since the terms that are the main topic of the peace negotiations for the current on-going war are no secret (and the corresponding document has been circulated openly to the membership of several alliances), it has been decided to officially present them to the public. This thread is by no means a part of the official negotiations, for which a Discord server is already used by leaders and representatives of alliances participating to the war. Enjoy debating. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Article I - Cessation of hostilities Article II - Official Surrender Article III - Public Statements / Announcements Article IV - Color Blocs Article V - War-dodgers Article VI - Fairness in Trading Article VII - Secret Treaties Article VIII - Giving Piracy a Chance Apendix I- Coalitions Apendix II - War-dodgers

All good things come to an end. So does my time in PW. It no longer fits with my RL and so i'm moving on. Shit's been fun. Sometimes vexing. No bad blood to anyone from me- it was all cool. Thanks for playing, maybe i'll see you around. Uhh, i've VM'ed and will be deleting from discord after i've said my personal goodbyes (no public shoutouts SORRY).

Quoting the terms served to TGH/KT at the previous war, terms that your alliance and TKR within the coalition of that war supported: "- CB Validations (recognize their legitimacy to pursue this war) - Thalmor apologizing to Queen M (for OOC reasons) - Buorhann apologizing to Felkey - TGH flies a flag by custom design of TCW for a month (Without us knowing, TCW got a similar term in this war!) - KT flies TRF war flag for a month - Knights Templar place 2 pictures on their alliance page for a month (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/464071431974551571/470625344983007252/image.jpg, https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/464071431974551571/470625371939799050/image.png) - KT puts TRF war flag on their alliance page for a month - KT puts up a text "Revolution was here" on their alliance page for a month - KT puts an image on their alliance page of TRF pissing on the KT flag on their alliance page for a month - KT/TGH write a glorifying story about TRF and Queen M on the OWF" I thought you liked ending wars with white peace. Probably that's the case only when you are losing. I didn't know about the terms till yesterday, but now I am not surprised at all that your side did accept Articles I, II and III, at least at the beginning of the negotiations. Such kinds of terms were already familiar to you. Although ours are less "punishing".

This punishes the community more than anything I could ever think up.

Bye Partisan, glad to see things went out on a high note. Good luck out there.

Or, if people dont want to be ripped of by their own mistake, they could just double check whenever posting trades.

So the quality of life problem that I have with the war screen is that there is no timeline link to the war on your war screen unless it's finished. Now, this isn't a mechanic or a necessary change, but it just makes it a lot more convenient and saves time, rather than having to click on every nation you're fighting individually and check the timeline for your stats for that war. So all it would do is have that timeline link at the end somewhere next to your current wars so you can check out the stats for the wars you're currently fighting straight from the war screen. I can't be the only one that would get on their knees for this addition.

I would like more something like this So I don't have to open their nation page to see their units

I mean there is definitely a disparity in who's in a position to post unilateral demands. If I was doing the negotiating I might entertain the idea of making it bilateral, but that would take a lot of negotiating give-and-take probably. A long time ago, in Silent, I pushed a similar term calling for a larger nation to be hit because the war hadn't gotten to him yet. Some people were upset, saying I singled that nation out, and it's not a totally invalid view, but I looked at it more as a price to be paid for ending the war before our side would have otherwise wished to. ...it's all negotiating, at the end of the day. If you don't like something, propose a counter for it or keep fighting. ... it just occurred to me that this time I'm going on a stupid, historical digression, it's actually in the spirit of the original intent of the thread. Go me!

Oh hello. I was wondering when someone would try and bring this up. First off, I'll note that I made the nothining terms literally by myself, and this dodger term was presented by an entire coalition. I could certainly go on about this, but I think it's important to note that when I hit those people, I used a variety of means like troop kills and nation age (like I actually made a point-based system, like a true nerd) to try and separate "people who use vacation mode" from "people who systematically try to avoid war, placing an unfair burden on their alliance mates". I don't have a problem with people using vacation mode for vacations or whatever... all the more power to them. It's when it becomes a pattern of behavior that it bothers me. I have a bit of trouble imagining how anyone could have gotten through a month+ on tkr's side without having taken fairly significant damage, though.... a month is a long time. So it should be a nonissue, in theory.

Yes, fine. What is being said is that demand is mechanically punitive, and leaves one side's deserters safe while the other side's deserters have to sell infra. That's not a precedent I'd like to see set (or upheld, as the case may be), since, as I have said, frick deserters. I will say that I do like the idea in principle; it is a brilliant solution to the problem of VM deserters and I think it should be done far more regularly. I'm just saying it should work against all the deserters instead of just the ones from the losing side. There's more deserters on the losing side every time anyway. That's not relevant to this discussion though; you're drawing a parallel out of context. This thread has nothing to do with BC either way.

Perhaps, but would you deal with them by having them sell down infra to match whatever damage would have been done to them had they stuck around for the war? If not, then the terms are punitive and unilateral, since the VMers on your side wouldn't be getting "exactly the same treatment as [their] teammates". Either way, it doesn't look like the war is going to end for some time anyway I see, you meant that nobody was asking for money officially. Fair enough then.

Except you, and Shifty. Article 5 is very clearly and directly punitive, as it is currently written. Everyone that went into VM on one side gets punished... and nobody on the other side that went into VM gets punished? Lest we forget, stacked infra is a prime target for nuclear and conventional missile strikes from the underdog side, and VM can and often is abused to protect pixelhuggers from said attrition warfare. So why is it that pixelhugging deserters on one side get the nail and the pixelhugging deserters on the other side get off scot-free? Honestly, asking for that is a bit of a pivot from CoS's position on the matter a couple months back when they did the Nothining to punish war dodgers "regardless of their alliance", and that makes the demand very tasteless in my view. I really mean it when I say it should work both ways. Screw ALL the deserters! Let no pixelhugger escape!

I'm a simple man. I see Ripper, I upvote.

The war will continue until TheNG recognizes that I am the New and Improved Pigeon

May this blyatiful agreement bring glory to the workers of the world and the glorius Red Army! Down with the vile Tsar up with the Prolitariot worker! HURA!!!

You guys had 3 weeks to hit Endiness, I cant help that you took your time to get around to it. And its fascinating how now that IQ isnt losing a war, that now is the time to push a bunch of terms at people. But if you want to push terms that violate our sovereignty, then we can keep fighting till you change your minds.

Despite having been on Politics and War for months, this is the first time I have been on the forums. So uh, hey guys, nice to see you in a very un-discordlike place. *walks out with much slickness*

First, if the bot is allowed by sheepy and given how butt hurt you people are being about it I'm sure you have complained and tried to get him to ban it, why do you think it is acceptable to try and ban it yourselves? As many others have said, check your trades or learn from your mistakes. As for the VM term, I doubt you would think it was acceptable it it were being imposed on you and your alliances.

Wait, you mean the winning side imposes terms on the losing side and not on themselves? Thanks for clarifying that.

Me too. Sweet dreams, Shadowthrone.

And neither of us are gov. My comment was a joke at the absurdity of of viewing the present terms as harsh. Stick to your missile obsession, you'll fair better than playing in the deep end.

This thread has nothing to do with BC.

No one expects them to merely submit without whining about it properly.

Guess they can go to war to get the bot to be allowed again. Or stay in perma war to keep it going. The choice is theirs. There are no bandwagon terms, unless you count SK's term of requiring GOB to post something about cereal. Not that SK was really a bandwagon. Anyway, you'd think to really get any sort of reps an alliance would have to be a major part in the war. If UPN showed up demanding they get money, with how they performed they'd get laughed at. They probably would've gotten laughed at even if they performed well (pro-tip Under never performs). Now if an oppertunist alliance tries to jump on them as the war is wrapped up that's another matter, and they'd probably be effed shortly after the main forces pulled out (heh). And as Shiho said, no one's asking for money.

It isn't only Kosonome that uses it. He just made it and all of TKR uses it. Some may not be as willing to give stuff back. In the past people like Woot only would make the art thing available to allies. All in all the bot push notifying people about mistrades right away before the person can fix them isn't a good thing and people have made a lot of money off the mistrades while leveraging in-game power to avoid reproach. No one else could get away with doing it without political backlash.

The times I've offered peace by accident while I was just trying to check the war timeline...

Well, I'm not that desperate for that change, but it would be a good addition.

From The Desk of Uncle Traveling Matt The Best Nation Ever, Fraggle Rock Greetings!! This peace accords is trash. Many Hugs, Uncle Traveling Matt

Sort of pointless for it to oblige side A to do so, since it's already on their best interest to cleanse their own deserters.

No no no, we can't have peace yet!!! ... the war dodger clause should absolutely count both ways, IMO. frick ALL the deserters, not just the ones from the losing side; at least they had a reason.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA No peace terms, only white peace (cit.) Also fixed

Orbis: 15 pages of spicy hot memes and good times. Leoboyvdlp:

Hello! Welcome to Orbis, we've noticed you've used the words "Alex" and "change" in a sentence. Please note that this behavior is taxing to great lord emperor Alex, but if you would like to light a candle at the Altar of Please make this game less suck, please deposit 1 donation into the box. We'll even give you shiny credits with which to make your game less suck!

Went to reply, saw Pre's response... enough said for that La Mafia guy. Now on the topic of that term, I saw someone say "TKR will give the money back if you draw art" or something like that. While they do sometimes allow that to happen, it is not always the case. For example i once messed up a 100mil trade, and within the time i could get to the trade screen it was accepted by TKR, i made a pic and got it back. However i also had a friend on here mess up a sizable trade, get taken and refused to be returned. it would be one thing if TKR's members were simply lucky picking up the trades but thats not the case, there using a bot that constantly checks for mistakes to happen for the sole reason of making a profit. This term does not just help IQ or our colo for that matter, it helps every nation that made a mistake. As for the meme terms, In fact i like some of the meme terms, sure they may not be "needed" in a IC sense but it adds a bit of fun to the game. When i first saw the terms I actually thought that there more than fair and TKR & Co would immediately accept them, turns out I was wrong. but why shouldn't people have some fun in the terms, its a game after all.... We won this one and get to make the terms but the next one we may not, as long as the terms are not absurd in nature who cares? VM nation term is more than acceptable, history has shown that not all war dodgers will be punished by their alliances simply because they can be taxed and help rebuild the alliance at a fast pace. i use punished for a lack of good wording, they are not being punished at all, their just being forced to take the same damage their alliance mates have already taken, the alliance can then choose to punish them by refusing rebuild aid or kicking them. Allowing these nations to skate by and help tkr and co rebuild fast would be counter productive to the entire war, so this term is more than acceptable imo.

How does making a mistake in putting up a trade = leaking on an alliances and their opsec data?

Fraggle is not a participant of this global war, and she posted that as a joke. Check the OP to see the actual participants.

Guess it's been awhile since some of the people proposing these terms have won a war. They better hope they don't lose one again any time soon. At one point we had some friends on the other side of this one, but that is clearly no longer the case.

Ah, it's the old "Everyone in the coalition submit the terms you want and we'll just forward them all along"

This makes me mad, why not wasting them on keno?