Arrgh Instruments of Surrender

[Tywin Lannister]

Ogaden I'm very unhappy with this agreement. Why is there no mention for Sheepy? He did all the hard work and now you don't even give him a mention? Guy paves all the way and now he's forgotten. Tsk Tsk.

 

On the other hand, congratulations to all parties involved in the agreement.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Tywin Lannister

[Josh Freer]

Technically won 2 global wars, just not recently. 

 

Which wars did DEIC apparently win?

[Kastor]

I'm wondering why Arrgh agreed to these terms. :/

[Kastor]

Which wars did DEIC apparently win?

While we're on the topic of failure, whens the last time BoC was even relevant?

[Clarke]

Which wars did DEIC apparently win?

Obviously not the two wars your alliance dropped out of.

 

While we're on the topic of failure, whens the last time BoC was even relevant?

BoC is awesome.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Clarke

[Emmad]

There have been additional complexities (aka additional details) discussed between the governments dealing with situations that may arise. There is no need for every little detail to be sent out as we intend and I'm sure Arrgh intends to uphold our deal. 

 

That said it was a pleasure working with Arrgh to reach a deal. And I personally have no complaints about them from the war, they were an intrepid and respectable adversary.

 

One member does not equate to an alliance, Saru. You are free to levy what terms you wish. I think the majority of the $yndicate does not have a strong opinion on this matter either way. Let's not make this another 'he said she said' between UPN and t$ as entities. I'd like to think that we have long moved on from that.

 

Best of luck rebuilding to you all.

 

If it comes to that I don't think Saru would be to blame. Defending the course of actions taken by ones alliance from those who either don't completely understand the situation at hand or have ulterior motives in their comments is in my mind perfectly understandable and permitted. 

 

While we're on the topic of failure, whens the last time BoC was even relevant?

 

o/ Kazy/Kastor <3 you!

[Saru]

One member does not equate to an alliance, Saru. You are free to levy what terms you wish. I think the majority of the $yndicate does not have a strong opinion on this matter either way. Let's not make this another 'he said she said' between UPN and t$ as entities. I'd like to think that we have long moved on from that.

 

Best of luck rebuilding to you all.

 

It was poorly worded, I will give you that. I don't actually know what tS' take on it is, although your vocal members seem to believe that the terms are really harsh. And I am just pointing out the silliness in it, given that they seemingly had no reservations when their alliance asked us and DEIC together to pay $1 billion, 100k steel, 100k Aluminum, 100k Gas and 100k Munitions (Edit: My memory may of let me down. Clarke has said it was 400m, 100k of gas/ammo, 50k steel/alum) to end the war -- an amount we did not have, and would of crippled us and not allowed us to rebuild infra for months. Now obviously it was your initial offer etc, and I don't want to rehash that debate again, but it is worth pointing out the inconsistency, given the main justification tS members were going with at the time, was that we deserved it because we preemptively attacked and lost, i.e what happened in this case. At least stay somewhat consistent. (If those critcising these did in fact criticise ones we have been pushed to accept/accepted in the past, then fair enough I guess. I can't recall who specifically did and did not, but I remember many tS members justifying heavy reps purely based on the fact that the one who declared lost.)

 

We have not taken any reparations to cover the damages caused and what has been lost in raids over the last few months, we are not expecting any recuperation of the money we invested into this war and the damages caused by Arrgh declaring on us. We merely want to avoid further raids from taking place on us, our allies and our protectorates, and do it in a way where Arrgh aren't entirely crippled and we're not responsible from pushing people away from the game. (those still remaining anyway.)

Edited April 12, 2016 by Saru

[Ogaden]

Ogaden I'm very unhappy with this agreement. Why is there no mention for Sheepy? He did all the hard work and now you don't even give him a mention? Guy paves all the way and now he's forgotten. Tsk Tsk.

 

On the other hand, congratulations to all parties involved in the agreement.

We remain at war with Sheepy, he must pay for his crimes

[Ekaterina Kalmyk]

 

Indeed, and I'm sure the integrity of their MDoAP allies are just the same!

 

Oh, wait. 

 

What's this supposed to be? Making fun of people who choose to fly (relatively) free?

 

Yeesh. (Sore winners always bothered me, I can't help it.)

 

 

>harsh terms
>Coming from people who demanded Millions of dollars to UPN and Deic in October,including Arrgh members.


All for the Peace!

 

I wasn't even here in October.

 

Those insistent on saying that these terms are harsh, all things considered, clearly have an agenda.

 

Eh, you think it's ridiculous and other people are just calling it like they see it. It's a difference of opinion, there doesn't have to be a hidden agenda behind it. And t$ members aren't the only ones with that opinion on it.

 

 

Yeah, the year binding is amusing.  What year are we talking about?  In-game year or out-of-game year?
 
That's going to open up a can of worms.

 

Everyone's just assumed it was a RL year, but yeah... should've been more specific. A year of real-life time is "harsh terms," a year of in-game time may not in fact be long enough. That along with raid vs. inter-alliance war clarification, as maybe this only applies to raiding. But as Emmad just said, there are additional complexities not covered here, so hopefully they've worked all that out.

 

There have been additional complexities (aka additional details) discussed between the governments dealing with situations that may arise. There is no need for every little detail to be sent out as we intend and I'm sure Arrgh intends to uphold our deal.

 

Okay, good, 'cos this seemed surprisingly lax on the details. Just so long as y'all and Arrgh know what's what. ;P

[Saru]

 

Eh, you think it's ridiculous and other people are just calling it like they see it. It's a difference of opinion, there doesn't have to be a hidden agenda behind it. And t$ members aren't the only ones with that opinion on it.

 

I expect at least some consistency...

 

There are people who are heavily against any kind of terms, no matter what the circumstances, and I take no issue with their opinion. However if you attempted to justify terms that are comparatively way worse than this, then it makes your criticism of this terms weak and it is just outright hypocritical. I would be interested to see what terms would of been placed, had those criticising us had been in our exact position.

[Clarke]

It was poorly worded, I will give you that. I don't actually know what tS' take on it is, although your vocal members seem to believe that the terms are really harsh. And I am just pointing out the silliness in it, given that they seemingly had no reservations when their alliance asked us and DEIC together to pay $1 trillion, 100k steel, 100k Aluminum, 100k Gas and 100k Munitions, to end the war -- an amount we did not have, and would of crippled us and not allowed us to rebuild infra for months. Now obviously it was your initial offer etc, and I don't want to rehash that debate again, but it is worth pointing out the inconsistency. (If those critcising these did in fact criticise ones we have been pushed to accept/accepted in the past, then fair enough I guess.)

Some people usually mistake a million for a billion but mistaking a billion for a trillion. 

400 million, 100k ammunition, 100k gasoline, 50k steel, 50k aluminum.

 

[Saru]

Some people usually mistake a million for a billion but mistaking a billion for a trillion. 

 

My attempt at spin has been foiled. Should remember not to bold the exaggerations next time. 

 

Haha, thanks for spotting it, I updated it. And from memory I thought it was 100k of each resource, but perhaps that is incorrect. What still stands though is I don't see how those justifying those reps in cases like that, are having the cheek to criticise our terms here -- which only request reps on raids made in the future.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Saru

[Clarke]

 

Eh, you think it's ridiculous and other people are just calling it like they see it. It's a difference of opinion, there doesn't have to be a hidden agenda behind it. And t$ members aren't the only ones with that opinion on it.

 

Everyone's just assumed it was a RL year, but yeah... should've been more specific. A year of real-life time is "harsh terms," a year of in-game time may not in fact be long enough. That along with raid vs. inter-alliance war clarification, as maybe this only applies to raiding. But as Emmad just said, there are additional complexities not covered here, so hopefully they've worked all that out.

 

 

A year of "hey don't raid us" is harsh? 

You keep saying its harsh but your logic is fundamentally flawed. You should explore the exact details in their full context and explain how much Arrgh is being abused by this "harsh deal". 

[Buorhann]

I don't find the terms harsh. Just find it funny.

 

3 Alliances go in, 6 come out with a deal. lol

[Ogaden]

I don't find the terms harsh. Just find it funny.

 

3 Alliances go in, 6 come out with a deal. lol

More than 6 actually, all their little protectorates too

[Ekaterina Kalmyk]

A year of "hey don't raid us" is harsh? 

You keep saying its harsh but your logic is fundamentally flawed. You should explore the exact details in their full context and explain how much Arrgh is being abused by this "harsh deal". 

 

Post the full details, then. Folks can only comment on what they see... and yeah, like I said, a year of real life is a really long time in this game, so maybe six to eight months instead. But it's all over with and done now, all parties have agreed on these terms. I just couldn't stand to say nothing when I saw these terms. Others can justify their positions however they want. *shrugs*

 

It kind of seems like the people replying to my post are not talking about me, though... Like, did I say Arrgh is being abused by this harsh deal?

 

Additionally, Saru, you seem to be talking mostly about some UPN-t$-Oktoberfest reps conflict that's got nothing to do to me and really very little (if anything) to do with the topic at hand, so I'm not going to respond to that, but I read and formally acknowledge your post. 

 

 

More than 6 actually, all their little protectorates too

 

Wow. O.o

 

And how many of them fought in the war? 

 

Or are protectorates benefiting from this kind of arrangement the norm? XD MDoAP allies I can understand, especially if they helped in the war, but... wow. I hope there's a clear list spelled out somewhere of the 6+ alliances so that no one violates it by accident. And do future protectorates of any of those alliances count for this, too, or just current ones? 

 

Anyway, most important thing is that everyone's clear on the specifics, to avoid unnecessary conflicts for the next year. 

Edited April 12, 2016 by AstraKatG

[Saru]

 

Additionally, Saru, you seem to be talking mostly about some UPN-t$-Oktoberfest reps conflict that's got nothing to do to me and really very little (if anything) to do with the topic at hand, so I'm not going to respond to that, but I read and formally acknowledge your post.  

 

I agree that it does not have anything to do with the topic itself, however given some criticising us have supported and seeked to justify heavier reps in the past, I think it's a fair point to make. (I don't recall the specific names of the individuals, so may be wrong as far as some are concerned.)

 

And all I am asking for is to be at least somewhat consistent. If I ever see you demanding or trying to justify terms that are objectively more harsh, under similar circumstances, then yes I will call you out -- if I remember it. 

 

Thanks for your formal acknowledgement.

[George Clooney]

 

Post the full details, then. Folks can only comment on what they see... and yeah, like I said, a year of real life is a really long time in this game, so maybe six to eight months instead. But it's all over with and done now, all parties have agreed on these terms. I just couldn't stand to say nothing when I saw these terms. Others can justify their positions however they want. *shrugs*

 

It kind of seems like the people replying to my post are not talking about me, though... Like, did I say Arrgh is being abused by this harsh deal?

 

Additionally, Saru, you seem to be talking mostly about some UPN-t$-Oktoberfest reps conflict that's got nothing to do to me and really very little (if anything) to do with the topic at hand, so I'm not going to respond to that, but I read and formally acknowledge your post. 

 

 

 

Wow. O.o

 

And how many of them fought in the war? 

 

Or are protectorates benefiting from this kind of arrangement the norm? XD MDoAP allies I can understand, especially if they helped in the war, but... wow. I hope there's a clear list spelled out somewhere of the 6+ alliances so that no one violates it by accident. And do future protectorates of any of those alliances count for this, too, or just current ones? 

 

Anyway, most important thing is that everyone's clear on the specifics, to avoid unnecessary conflicts for the next year. 

 

 

We are indeed clear on the specifics.  What I'm not clear on why this treaty is even remotely controversial.  Arrgh has a lot of things to worry about now that don't include a somewhat reduced menu selection.

[Saru]

Or are protectorates benefiting from this kind of arrangement the norm? XD MDoAP allies I can understand, especially if they helped in the war, but... wow. I hope there's a clear list spelled out somewhere of the 6+ alliances so that no one violates it by accident.

 

 

Our government tends to be very fair. I suspect that in cases of accidents and people maliciously trying to hurt Arrgh, the government will make exceptions. The point is that the stipulation is there to try and get Arrgh to be more proactive in stopping the consistently regular raids by their actual members. And our goal was to clear ourselves of the nuisance, obviously if they raided our protectorates, we would have to make it our business again... and the bring the whole thing back up. My only concern of this was that we didn't extend it to BK too, but Arrgh haven't bothered them to such an extent before -- so here's hoping that doesn't happen lol.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Saru

[Jodo]

More than 6 actually, all their little protectorates too

That's a long no raid list for an alliance of raiders.

 

Swift rebuild, good luck, etc. I always liked you guys, so I'm hoping you recover quickly.

[Ogaden]

That's a long no raid list for an alliance of raiders.

 

Swift rebuild, good luck, etc. I always liked you guys, so I'm hoping you recover quickly.

Thanks Jodo, we always bounce back

[Prefonteen]

 

 

 

If it comes to that I don't think Saru would be to blame. Defending the course of actions taken by ones alliance from those who either don't completely understand the situation at hand or have ulterior motives in their comments is in my mind perfectly understandable and permitted. 

 

 

 

Saru's defense of UPN's course of action is perfectly understandable and I do not fault him for it one bit. My mine gripe was with the opinion of a few vocal members (read: 2) being portrayed as being that of an entire alliance, and consequently being labeled as hypocrites. t$ consists of 96 members. Neither govt nor any of the other 94 members have condemned the course of actions taken in this thread. It seemed necessary to make that distinction, for the sake of the debate.

 

It was poorly worded, I will give you that. I don't actually know what tS' take on it is, although your vocal members seem to believe that the terms are really harsh. And I am just pointing out the silliness in it, given that they seemingly had no reservations when their alliance asked us and DEIC together to pay $1 billion, 100k steel, 100k Aluminum, 100k Gas and 100k Munitions (Edit: My memory may of let me down. Clarke has said it was 400m, 100k of gas/ammo, 50k steel/alum) to end the war -- an amount we did not have, and would of crippled us and not allowed us to rebuild infra for months. Now obviously it was your initial offer etc, and I don't want to rehash that debate again, but it is worth pointing out the inconsistency, given the main justification tS members were going with at the time, was that we deserved it because we preemptively attacked and lost, i.e what happened in this case. At least stay somewhat consistent. (If those critcising these did in fact criticise ones we have been pushed to accept/accepted in the past, then fair enough I guess. I can't recall who specifically did and did not, but I remember many tS members justifying heavy reps purely based on the fact that the one who declared lost.)

 

We have not taken any reparations to cover the damages caused and what has been lost in raids over the last few months, we are not expecting any recuperation of the money we invested into this war and the damages caused by Arrgh declaring on us. We merely want to avoid further raids from taking place on us, our allies and our protectorates, and do it in a way where Arrgh aren't entirely crippled and we're not responsible from pushing people away from the game. (those still remaining anyway.)

 

 

Aye. I have no issue with the content of your argument, nor do I really have any desire to return to arguing whether t$ demands at the time were justified: If you do wish to discuss the how's and why's, i'm happy to take this to private channels. The $yndicate's official stance is rather neutral on the terms levied. You had a right to defend yourself (as I have stated in another thread) and equally have the right to levy terms after what you consider an unjustified attack (I consider it as such, at least). That is all that matters to me personally.

 

I just hope that we can refrain from generalizing opinion of two members as being that of the entire alliance. Other than that... carry on .

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Nice work guys, lets see how long those terms hold up.  Not having to put up with arrgh's crap for a year is pretty nice tho.

[Ole]

 i'm happy to take this to private channels. 

 

>Private

>Partisan

[Ekaterina Kalmyk]

I agree that it does not have anything to do with the topic itself, however given some criticising us have supported and seeked to justify heavier reps in the past, I think it's a fair point to make. (I don't recall the specific names of the individuals, so may be wrong as far as some are concerned.)

 

And all I am asking for is to be at least somewhat consistent. If I ever see you demanding or trying to justify terms that are objectively more harsh, under similar circumstances, then yes I will call you out -- if I remember it. 

 

Thanks for your formal acknowledgement.

 

Mmm-kay, I hope you remember it, lol, 'cos my memory is kind of crap. Just remember it's somewhere in the Arrgh surrender topic, that'll help. ;D