Arrgh Sails again

[TheNG]

snip

 

I'm perfectly happy to admit I'm biased, just as you are. Everybody is biased, and I will not say your posts have been completely bias-free because they were not, and that is a fact. However, if I misread your intentions, then I apologize, but that is the impression I got from reading your posts, and your accusations that I "changed the subject" are rather troubling, but that's neither here nor there. With bias on both sides in mind, we can drop your point 4.

 

To be clear, I never said anything about whether Arrgh broke the terms or not, (I don't believe Arrgh technically violated any of them) or whether the treaty was liked by both sides, or whether it was done in good faith. The term exploited has an inherent negative connotation, and whether or not you intended to use it that way, when applied to peace treaties it becomes meaningless. Allow me to explain.

 

Let's first look at the definition you've provided, to exploit is to "obtain (something) by force, threats, or unfair means." Note the "or unfair means", extortion isn't always unfair, but can just be something obtained by force or threats.

​As I pointed out before, all peace negotiations are convened to obtain peace, i.e. to avoid any further violence. There is always the knowledge (stated or unstated) that should no agreement be reached, then the war will resume, and the threat of force/further violence is a powerful motivator for an alliance, particularly a defeated one, to accept terms and reach a peace. Note that a losing side can propose terms, negotiate, or participate in a number of wars in the process, but the threat of violence is always present should negotiations fail, and this usually means that the victor alliance has a large bargaining chip that makes getting their way easier. As such, under the definition of exploit, this threat of violence means that all peace treaties can be considered a form of exploitation. Again, the treaty can be fair or unfair, popular or unpopular, followed strictly or ultimately ignored, but it can still be called exploitation. We see that in Orbis that when terms have been refused during wars, the war simply resumes until one side tries again.

 

White peace as a peace term is included in this. Let's look at the war between tS and Alpha where tS offered white peace to end the war, but made perfectly clear they would continue if Alpha refused. Alpha did, and the war has continued. In addition, at the end of the 168 Day War, a white peace ended the conflict. Both sides in that war had the capability to hurt the other, and so the threat of further destruction from each other motivated both to seek an end to the war, which ended up as white peace. So you see, the threat of continued violence is present even when white peace is on the table, and again provides an incentive to agree to the term, meaning that is extortion under the definition.

 

​So, I hope you see what I'm getting at here. The threat of violence/additional use of force present at all peace negotiations, no matter the terms (be they reps, white peace, or anything else) means that treaties obtained from these can be classified as a form of extortion. Thus, either the term is applied to all peace treaties, or none, and either way, it loses its intended impact and meaning.

​If you were using extortion to imply unfairness, undue harshness, or something else, then perhaps it would've been better to just say that. ​ 

Edited June 19, 2016 by TheNG

[Prefonteen]

For someone that has never had a single conversation with me, you seem to think you know a lot about me or the amount of fun I and Alpha has had nuking people this war.

 

You could've just summarized this "log" because I know the one you think proves your point (and doesn't), used without complete context of hours of hours of logs I had with tS gov that war.  You also fail to acknowledge that one of my allies attacked the other directly and how that became Alpha's betrayal vs. that ally's is an interesting spin on the level of "the bigger the lie the more they will believe it".  But I think you will drop this because all the arguments you can make can be easily proven false.  And every single one of your claims of treaty violation are pre-dated by tS breaking the intel clause with Alpha.  At which point the treaty is dead.  I made 100% clear I supported Rose's defense of Vanguard, I viewed Mensa as the aggressor, and I don't believe their MDPs should've triggered, even if I understood that tS most likely would activate them.  This is just my opinion, one that is in the minority I realize, but the important part is where I communicated this very very clearly to everyone including tS.  I fulfilled my intel clause with them by being 100% upfront at every stage of that war, and there were many stages.  When Roz hit, we were obligated to attack them.  At which point that was our full involvement if the war remained unchanged.  Since I cannot predict who was going to hit Rose, I also couldn't predict how Alpha would be obligated to react to a change in the war.  That change happened twice and Alpha's involvement changed accordingly.  To say we violated any treaty that war is just plain untrue.  You can say all you want about how awful you think I am or how stupid you think I am or how "unhinged" you think I am.  But stick to that, and not the case you are trying to make.  I realize you think I'm low-hanging fruit right now and you know that any post you make that is poking fun at me will get 10 likes and lots of o7 o7 o7 we love you! o7 o7 o7's.  But this doesn't change facts.  I know we helped to roll you in Oktoberfest and I wish I could change our involvement knowing that we were used, but I can't and hindsight is 20/20.

 

Steve. We have repeatedly gone over this; Your evidence generally can be boiled down to you putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "LIES LIES LIES'.

 

Logs. Bring us logs. Until then, our side is done even entertaining the abomination that is your 'logic'.

[greatkitteh]

I find it Ironic TheNG of DEIC os arguing about "unfair" peace terms and "extortion."

[Ekaterina Kalmyk]

I couldnt find his nation and I was sad

 

Vacation Mode is brutal, bro (or sis)! 

 

Yeah, my first reaction to it was, wait, we "just" can't raid them, but DoWs are ok, right? Also, for obvius reasons, I refrained form mentioning it publicly, last thing I wanted was for someone on winning side to realize it and firce chage the terms.

 

Fortunately, they didn't take that possibility seriously. 

 

---------------

 

Also, nice to see Fistandantilus posting on the forums.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Ekaterina Kalmyk

[Tywin Lannister]

I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim, something which you conveniently ignored TheNG. 

[Placentica]

Dont think or said you where awful or stupid, or that you where "unhinged" but you seem to be, i dont think that you are, but i think the stress of this spring has eaten at you in some fasion, and that a break might do you some good.

 

2. Did i say that? if so one of us needs glasses. Ill try again, what i tried to say is you seems "unhinged" alot of the time, might want to take a break. And by break i dont mean quit, i mean do like i did, fade out alittle, comeback with new energi and have fun again, cause it just seems you spend your time on thngs that dosent make you happy. And from time to time the rest of us too...

 

This is an IC forum, so when I post it's IC unless noted.  [OOC]If you want to say I'm RP'ing an unhinged player that is your right, but am i not allowed to defend the alliance i created and funded it's growth with a ton of my own in-game money?[/OOC]

 

 

Dont think you are a weakling to poke fun at, but tS and most of their friends have stoped responding to you, so i figured i would : )

 

They actually respond constantly with no-content or shitpost replies (case in point, see the poster below me).  As is their right.  I do appreciate an exchange that has content though.

 

It would make the forums cleaner if they didn't constantly shitpost, but I don't really care if they do or don't respond, but when people say things that I feel are wrong and I can provide info, contrary of that claim, I have a right to do so.  Nothing personal, 95% of the posts have no content about me, and thus I don't respond.  Yours did, so I responded with a timeline of events that you can verify as you wish (but honestly, don't waste your time, it doesn't matter since no one cares about honoring treaties here or being loyal to their allies....maybe Pref is right about paperless, lol).  And in the end, Prefontaine's head will pop up and say, "Conflicting treaties, told you so!" (and I mean that in joking way, agreeing he was right to some degree if not all, lol).

 

Dont give a shit, and your bad luck, and i dont even care that you helped VE spoil my fun when i was in SK. I got you back in our last war so in my book we're all good.

Sure, of course, no denying that.  Alpha isn't about hugging pixels and most our members are loving the competition for most nukes launched contest and seeing how much infra we can destroy.  And TEst by in large, not all, but most, earned much more respect from Alpha membership due to your much higher per-capita contribution to the tS-Alpha war.  Ironically, the best tS guy we fought was Critters, who is ex-TEst, go figure. 

Edited June 19, 2016 by Placentica

[Prefonteen]

Terminus Est public service announcement:

 

Hey kids! Remember, when dealing with Placentica you must constantly be aware that he lives in his own personal reality. This reality is very different from the one you and I inhabit, it's devoid of logic, reason, basic sanity and things of that sort. When dealing with such irrational behavior, make sure to use simple, yet assertive words. "No", is an excellent example. Whenever you encounter this lunatic, simply say "no" in an commanding tone, then seek out and adult, or police officer and inform them you've run across Placentica.

 

Okay let me try this:

 

This is an IC forum, so when I post it's IC unless noted.  [OOC]If you want to say I'm RP'ing an unhinged player that is your right, but am i not allowed to defend the alliance i created and funded it's growth with a ton of my own in-game money?[/OOC]

 

 

 

They actually respond constantly with no-content or shitpost replies.  As is their right.  I do appreciate an exchange that has content though.

 

It would make the forums cleaner if they didn't constantly shitpost, but I don't really care if they do or don't respond, but when people say things that I feel are wrong and I can provide info, contrary of that claim, I have a right to do so.  Nothing personal, 95% of the posts have no content about me, and thus I don't respond.  Yours did, so I responded with a timeline of events that you can verify as you wish (but honestly, don't waste your time, it doesn't matter since no one cares about honoring treaties here or being loyal to their allies....maybe Pref is right about paperless, lol).  And in the end, Prefontaine's head will pop up and say, "Conflicting treaties, told you so!" (and I mean that in joking way, agreeing he was right to some degree if not all, lol).

 

Sure, of course, no denying that.  Alpha isn't about hugging pixels and most our members are loving the competition for most nukes launched contest and seeing how much infra we can destroy.  And TEst by in large, not all, but most, earned much more respect from Alpha membership due to your much higher per-capita contribution to the tS-Alpha war.  Ironically, the best tS guy we fought was Critters, who is ex-TEst, go figure. 

 

*ahem*

 

No.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Partisan

[vonnorman]

I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim, something which you conveniently ignored TheNG.

You seem to be searching for a deeper meaning, theNG legitimately has been making ONE point that by DEFINITION, all peace treaties are extortion meaning that using the term "extortion" is pointless. Maybe instead using the terms "extensive" or "generally more extortive" to possibly describe how you feel about it? Im a third party observer just trying my hand at helping understandings be mutual

[TheNG]

I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim, something which you conveniently ignored TheNG. 

Well, my apologies, I didn't notice your post right off the bat.

I would direct you to a number of the threads from back then where it was claimed multiple times that we had somehow manipulated Sheepy into making changes that disadvantaged Arrgh, that UPN and others were dishonest and misleading in their conduct with Arrgh. That combined with the refusal to negotiate an end to the Arrgh raids despite several attempts created a rather nasty atmosphere and helped start that war.

I think the war speaks for itself honestly.

To their credit, after taking over, Ogaden was gracious in making peace, and Arrgh has abided by the treaty ever since, so I wish them luck in this war. If you really want to re-hash this, perhaps this isn't the best choice of venue.

[Tywin Lannister]

Well, my apologies, I didn't notice your post right off the bat.

I would direct you to a number of the threads from back then where it was claimed multiple times that we had somehow manipulated Sheepy into making changes that disadvantaged Arrgh, that UPN and others were dishonest and misleading in their conduct with Arrgh. That combined with the refusal to negotiate an end to the Arrgh raids despite several attempts created a rather nasty atmosphere and helped start that war.

I think the war speaks for itself honestly.

To their credit, after taking over, Ogaden was gracious in making peace, and Arrgh has abided by the treaty ever since, so I wish them luck in this war. If you really want to re-hash this, perhaps this isn't the best choice of venue.

 

 

I can't seem to remember any such posts by members of Arrgh which came under "slander, insults" Maybe my memory is weak and I'm forgetting but if you're making the claim of Arrgh posts containing slander and insults, which Arrgh never used to do then from what I remember, then, they should be backed by proof to not make it slander yourself.  

[Charles Bolivar]

Okay let me try this:

 

 

*ahem*

 

No.

 

 

[Fistandantilus]

I'm perfectly happy to admit I'm biased, just as you are. Everybody is biased, and I will not say your posts have been completely bias-free because they were not, and that is a fact. However, if I misread your intentions, then I apologize, but that is the impression I got from reading your posts, and your accusations that I "changed the subject" are rather troubling, but that's neither here nor there. With bias on both sides in mind, we can drop your point 4.

 

To be clear, I never said anything about whether Arrgh broke the terms or not, (I don't believe Arrgh technically violated any of them) or whether the treaty was liked by both sides, or whether it was done in good faith. The term exploited has an inherent negative connotation, and whether or not you intended to use it that way, when applied to peace treaties it becomes meaningless. Allow me to explain.

 

Let's first look at the definition you've provided, to exploit is to "obtain (something) by force, threats, or unfair means." Note the "or unfair means", extortion isn't always unfair, but can just be something obtained by force or threats.

​As I pointed out before, all peace negotiations are convened to obtain peace, i.e. to avoid any further violence. There is always the knowledge (stated or unstated) that should no agreement be reached, then the war will resume, and the threat of force/further violence is a powerful motivator for an alliance, particularly a defeated one, to accept terms and reach a peace. Note that a losing side can propose terms, negotiate, or participate in a number of wars in the process, but the threat of violence is always present should negotiations fail, and this usually means that the victor alliance has a large bargaining chip that makes getting their way easier. As such, under the definition of exploit, this threat of violence means that all peace treaties can be considered a form of exploitation. Again, the treaty can be fair or unfair, popular or unpopular, followed strictly or ultimately ignored, but it can still be called exploitation. We see that in Orbis that when terms have been refused during wars, the war simply resumes until one side tries again.

 

White peace as a peace term is included in this. Let's look at the war between tS and Alpha where tS offered white peace to end the war, but made perfectly clear they would continue if Alpha refused. Alpha did, and the war has continued. In addition, at the end of the 168 Day War, a white peace ended the conflict. Both sides in that war had the capability to hurt the other, and so the threat of further destruction from each other motivated both to seek an end to the war, which ended up as white peace. So you see, the threat of continued violence is present even when white peace is on the table, and again provides an incentive to agree to the term, meaning that is extortion under the definition.

 

​So, I hope you see what I'm getting at here. The threat of violence/additional use of force present at all peace negotiations, no matter the terms (be they reps, white peace, or anything else) means that treaties obtained from these can be classified as a form of extortion. Thus, either the term is applied to all peace treaties, or none, and either way, it loses its intended impact and meaning.

​If you were using extortion to imply unfairness, undue harshness, or something else, then perhaps it would've been better to just say that. ​ 

 

There is a difference between implied threat and strong arming/Forcing/Threatening. There is a clear line. All actions have consequences, but extortion is more then that, per it's own definition. To apply your definition of extortion, the word would mean: A situation where a individual or party has negative consequences unless they appease the other person/party. That is not the definition, it is specifically forcing or threatening or using unfair means. You are changing the definition in your point, from extortion, to something similar but different to fit your views. If you attacked my alliance and I said give us 50m for reps, and you felt pressured to do so for peace and to save some infra, and accepted, that is not extortion. If in the same example, I asked for 50m and you didnt want to do it, and I said okay and the war continued. That is not extortion. If once again in the same example, I requested 50m, you declined, and I said I will rape your alliance for the next 2 months if you didn't accept. Or said that I would never end the war and keep destroying your AA until I got my 50m. *That* is attempted extortion.

 

Lastly, it is ofc possible to be unbiased and accurately perceive reality or a situation, it requires some level of awareness though. My points all still stand, you are just misunderstanding what extortion means and changing it to something else.

 

But alas, you dodged several of my points again(How it was extortion, how my example clearly shows how your are being biased here, and not me. How I have not spun anything, while you have exaggerated), and running around in circles is not what I'm here to do. Let's just agree to disagree as they like to say

Edited June 19, 2016 by Fistandantilus

[Clarke]

This is dumb, the word extortion used in this context means unreasonable extortion. What is unreasonable extortion? Anything that has serious negative consequences.

>Arrgh being asked to not raid us anymore =/= Extortion

>DEIC being forced to pay 500, 400, 300 million and various other stuff == Extortion

 

The reasonable extortion doesn't get called extortion because it downplays the true extortion which happened us. 

Seriously, lecturing us about extortion.

[greatkitteh]

There is a difference between implied threat and strong arming/Forcing/Threatening. There is a clear line. All actions have consequences, but extortion is more then that, per it's own definition. To apply your definition of extortion, the word would mean: A situation where a individual or party has negative consequences unless they appease the other person/party. That is not the definition, it is specifically forcing or threatening or using unfair means. You are changing the definition in your point, from extortion, to something similar but different to fit your views. If you attacked my alliance and I said give us 50m for reps, and you felt pressured to do so for peace and to save some infra, and accepted, that is not extortion. If in the same example, I asked for 50m and you didnt want to do it, and I said okay and the war continued. That is not extortion. If once again in the same example, I requested 50m, you declined, and I said I will rape your alliance for the next 2 months if you didn't accept. Or said that I would never end the war and keep destroying your AA until I got my 50m. *That* is attempted extortion.

 

Lastly, it is ofc possible to be unbiased and accurately perceive reality or a situation, it requires some level of awareness though. My points all still stand, you are just misunderstanding what extortion means and changing it to something else.

 

But alas, you dodged several of my points again(How it was extortion, how my example clearly shows how your are being biased here, and not me. How I have not spun anything, while you have exaggerated), and running around in circles is not what I'm here to do. Let's just agree to disagree as they like to say

>Argues with DEIC

>Oktoberfest

 

[DragonK]

This is dumb, the word extortion used in this context means unreasonable extortion. What is unreasonable extortion? Anything that has serious negative consequences.

>Arrgh being asked to not raid us anymore =/= Extortion

>DEIC being forced to pay 500, 400, 300 million and various other stuff == Extortion

 

The reasonable extortion doesn't get called extortion because it downplays the true extortion which happened us. 

Seriously, lecturing us about extortion.

You're forgeting a crucial difference. Forrbiding Arrgh to raid certain people for a YEAR nets us MORE LOSS than you giving away 300-600 Millions. With current situation I get 10-15M per target and I raid a guy a week.  My prefered target choice is people with 30+ days of inactivity. So 52 weeks x 10-15M = 520-780M of money I earn per year. Takign into accoutn that UPN and ROSE had most inactives overall it could be safely assumed that I'd earn the same from those. So to me alone, you made 520-780M of loss. Comapraed to your enutre alliance lossing mere 300-600M. And before you start all the "you steal others money", yes, that is waht we're based on. Our revenue coems from other people's producition. You CAN'T expect us to NOT raid and grow pixels and what not. Besides 60% of peopel I raid never coem back and their nation gets deleted. I'm recycling unused resourecs as I see it. And for those 40% that do come back, why did you leave you nation for 30+ days? is it SO HARD to log in once a day or a week? If you need to go away for longer period there is this handy feature called VACATION MODE. Oh, you don't get revenue in it? Well too bad, prepare to be boarded then.

Edited June 19, 2016 by DragonK

[greatkitteh]

You're forgeting a crucial difference. Forrbiding Arrgh to raid certain people for a YEAR nets us MORE LOSS than you giving away 300-600 Millions. With current situation I get 10-15M per target and I raid a guy a week. My prefered target choice is people with 30+ days of inactivity. So 52 weeks x 10-15M = 520-780M of money I earn per year. Takign into accoutn that UPN and ROSE had most inactives overall it could be safely assumed that I'd earn the same from those. So to me alone, you made 520-780M of loss. Comapraed to your enutre alliance lossing mere 300-600M. And before you start all the "you steal others money", yes, that is waht we're based on. Our revenue coems from other people's producition. You CAN'T expect us to NOT raid and grow pixels and what not. Besides 60% of peopel I raid never coem back and their nation gets deleted. I'm recycling unused resourecs as I see it. And for those 40% that do come back, why did you leave you nation for 30+ days? is it SO HARD to log in once a day or a week? If you need to go away for longer period there is this handy feature called VACATION MODE. Oh, you don't get revenue in it? Well too bad, prepare to be boarded then.

I did English better when I first played this game.

 

Here's an idea though - what if you just play the game properly and build a real nation instead of !@#$ing around when DEIC reacts to your raiding?

[Pangui]

You're forgeting a crucial difference. Forrbiding Arrgh to raid certain people for a YEAR nets us MORE LOSS than you giving away 300-600 Millions. With current situation I get 10-15M per target and I raid a guy a week.  My prefered target choice is people with 30+ days of inactivity. So 52 weeks x 10-15M = 520-780M of money I earn per year. Takign into accoutn that UPN and ROSE had most inactives overall it could be safely assumed that I'd earn the same from those. So to me alone, you made 520-780M of loss. Comapraed to your enutre alliance lossing mere 300-600M. And before you start all the "you steal others money", yes, that is waht we're based on. Our revenue coems from other people's producition. You CAN'T expect us to NOT raid and grow pixels and what not. Besides 60% of peopel I raid never coem back and their nation gets deleted. I'm recycling unused resourecs as I see it. And for those 40% that do come back, why did you leave you nation for 30+ days? is it SO HARD to log in once a day or a week? If you need to go away for longer period there is this handy feature called VACATION MODE. Oh, you don't get revenue in it? Well too bad, prepare to be boarded then.

You shouldn't raid us to begin with. The reason you got away with it was because their where high city count nations with max out nations who where out of range of nations with comparable city counts and could run rampant in the middle and lower tier. The only nations that could of struck them was nations with 4, 5 or even 6 less cities. You can raid anyone you wish so long as it didn't touch on the listed alliances. You're government also agreed to the terms, without much debate. You are attacking us now because you believe we can't do anything about it. You know that if we weren't at war you could get away with it since we would beat your ass down like we did before, even though you got the advantage of hitting us first. You don't like the terms? Don't start wars you can't win. 

[Clarke]

You're forgeting a crucial difference. Forrbiding Arrgh to raid certain people for a YEAR nets us MORE LOSS than you giving away 300-600 Millions. With current situation I get 10-15M per target and I raid a guy a week.  My prefered target choice is people with 30+ days of inactivity. So 52 weeks x 10-15M = 520-780M of money I earn per year. Takign into accoutn that UPN and ROSE had most inactives overall it could be safely assumed that I'd earn the same from those. So to me alone, you made 520-780M of loss. Comapraed to your enutre alliance lossing mere 300-600M. And before you start all the "you steal others money", yes, that is waht we're based on. Our revenue coems from other people's producition. You CAN'T expect us to NOT raid and grow pixels and what not. Besides 60% of peopel I raid never coem back and their nation gets deleted. I'm recycling unused resourecs as I see it. And for those 40% that do come back, why did you leave you nation for 30+ days? is it SO HARD to log in once a day or a week? If you need to go away for longer period there is this handy feature called VACATION MODE. Oh, you don't get revenue in it? Well too bad, prepare to be boarded then.

 

The crucial problem with that even though it is unacceptable is that you didn't just raid inactives. 

[DragonK]

I did English better when I first played this game.

 

Here's an idea though - what if you just play the game properly and build a real nation instead of !@#$ around when DEIC reacts to your raiding?

We are playing properly. It's you who isn't raiding all around and making treatys. Who are you to tell other peopel how to play a game? Isn't one of goals that Sheepy envisioned for this game different play styles? Besides it'd be boring to play it like you do.

 

You shouldn't raid us to begin with. The reason you got away with it was because their where high city count nations with max out nations who where out of range of nations with comparable city counts and could run rampant in the middle and lower tier. The only nations that could of struck them was nations with 4, 5 or even 6 less cities. You can raid anyone you wish so long as it didn't touch on the listed alliances. You're government also agreed to the terms, without much debate. You are attacking us now because you believe we can't do anything about it. You know that if we weren't at war you could get away with it since we would beat your ass down like we did before, even though you got the advantage of hitting us first. You don't like the terms? Don't start wars you can't win. 

True and then the game changed and we got beaten. The game mehanics that are in place now make it easy to predict how wars will go so it's retarded to begin a war you know you can't win. I'm not denying we're hitting you now cause we know we can win, but we're also payed to do so. We almost ended up on your side as well.

 

The crucial problem with that even though it is unacceptable is that you didn't just raid inactives. 

True, some of us got too greedy. Even me few times. But I was speaking about current situation, after the last war. If you wish to hear how much you coudl make daily before the change jsut ask Tywin Lannister how much he made DAILY.

 

 

 

And let me jsut put this out there, I wasn't trying to be objective, I was merely pointing out an alterantive point of view on situatuion and why most of Arrgh didn't like the peace one bit.

Edited June 19, 2016 by DragonK

[Filthy Fifths]

They are just mad because they are losing their tax farms.

[Crust]

Meh. I've never been a fan of arrgh and I'll be the last one to cry over their losses, but them being honorable or not is irrelevant. They're not Knights, they're pirates.

 

 

I've fought against them and with them. They're not honorable, but they've never claimed to be. And that's honestly one of the most redeeming things about them.

[Clarke]

Screw my allies, I need to post about the war from two months ago that has no relevance to me.