Keegoz Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 48 minutes ago, Who Me said: For anyone that plays/played CN you already know where terms like this are going to lead. Welcome to CN 2.0. Congratulations you morons. Everyone already knows who won and who lost, punitive terms won't change that nor will white peace. Maybe you shouldn't have started the trend then huh? Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Me Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 33 minutes ago, Ripper said: Could you please pin-point the punitive terms? Going after people that went into VM, for whatever reason they did so is punitive. If they need to be punished that should be up to their own alliances, not you. 31 minutes ago, Keegoz said: Maybe you shouldn't have started the trend then huh? Enlighten me please. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prefontaine Posted December 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 2, 2018 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. 2 20 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ripper Posted December 2, 2018 Author Popular Post Share Posted December 2, 2018 19 minutes ago, Who Me said: Going after people that went into VM, for whatever reason they did so is punitive. If they need to be punished that should be up to their own alliances, not you. 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. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 18 hours ago, Micchan said: I know it seems that it's a bot that does everything but it's actually Koso that accepts the trades, the bot just check all the new trades and gives him a broader view of the market, but he's there to check and manually accept the trade, he's the human bot online 24/7 Complete automatic bots are banned btw And if you want back your resources/money you just have to message him, he wants a piece of art in exchange but he's not demanding on quality 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. 5 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRebelMan Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 49 minutes ago, Roquentin said: 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. Or, if people dont want to be ripped of by their own mistake, they could just double check whenever posting trades. 1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 I don't think it's fair to take away someone's hard work, the person spent a lot of time on that bot I'm sure, and like Rebelman said: people can just double check their trade offers before posting them. 4 1 Quote I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 1 minute ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: I don't think it's fair to take away someone's hard work, the person spent a lot of time on that bot I'm sure, and like Rebelman said: people can just double check their trade offers before posting them. Someone spent time collecting those resources they were trying to sell as well, gone with the accidental click. 4 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: Someone spent time collecting those resources they were trying to sell as well, gone with the accidental click. They didn't work hard enough, otherwise they would have double checked their trade offer before posting. Edit: It's basically the same as not putting a lock on your bike before leaving it unattended, if you don't take the time to ensure it's security then oh well, sucks to suck. Edited December 2, 2018 by ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ 3 3 Quote I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Anarch Caelum Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 I think terms can make sense if an alliance wants to try getting peace before they get rolled. Although if an alliance would rather just fight until given peace without terms despite being rolled hard, I think it should be a viable option. Would be lame if this place ends up one where the greediest alliances bandwagon on the winning side in wars just so they can extort those getting rolled for reps when they’re already down. So winning alone doesn’t make one entitled to reps, depends why you were fighting in the first place & if they should be paying it regardless for something they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, Noctis said: I think terms can make sense if an alliance wants to try getting peace before they get rolled. Although if an alliance would rather just fight until given peace without terms despite being rolled hard, I think it should be a viable option. Would be lame if this place ends up one where the greediest alliances bandwagon on the winning side in wars just so they can extort those getting rolled for reps when they’re already down. So winning alone doesn’t make one entitled to reps, depends why you were fighting in the first place & if they should be paying it regardless for something they did. Could you even be bothered to read the OP? There are no reparation demands. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 1 minute ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: They didn't work hard enough, otherwise they would have double checked their trade offer before posting. 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. 2 minutes ago, Noctis said: I think terms can make sense if an alliance wants to try getting peace before they get rolled. Although if an alliance would rather just fight until given peace without terms despite being rolled hard, I think it should be a viable option. Would be lame if this place ends up one where the greediest alliances bandwagon on the winning side in wars just so they can extort those getting rolled for reps when they’re already down. So winning alone doesn’t make one entitled to reps, depends why you were fighting in the first place & if they should be paying it regardless for something they did. 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. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Anarch Caelum Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 1 minute ago, Shiho Nishizumi said: Could you even be bothered to read the OP? There are no reparation demands. Someone posted an offer for peace if they pay after & that was newer. The issues with OP others have went over; I personally think it’s over complicating something which doesn’t need to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 Just now, Noctis said: Someone posted an offer for peace if they pay after & that was newer. The issues with OP others have went over; I personally think it’s over complicating something which doesn’t need to be. Fraggle is not a participant of this global war, and she posted that as a joke. Check the OP to see the actual participants. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Roquentin Posted December 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 2, 2018 36 minutes ago, TheRebelMan said: Or, if people dont want to be ripped of by their own mistake, they could just double check whenever posting trades. 10 minutes ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: They didn't work hard enough, otherwise they would have double checked their trade offer before posting. Edit: It's basically the same as not putting a lock on your bike before leaving it unattended, if you don't take the time to ensure it's security then oh well, sucks to suck. 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. 4 13 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Roquentin said: 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. Only if you take the analogy further than it needs to go. Edit: I mean, one of the reasons this war started stems from the subject of accountability. The analogy was meant to get a point across that being naive is basically shooting yourself in the foot. If you don't want to take the extra maybe 5 seconds it takes to check and make sure your post is all good and dandy then don't be upset when someone takes the opportunity to make some cash. Also keep in mind this is a video game, thievery in a game is different than thievery in real life. And to clarify, I'm only stating that I think the term is unfair however, I don't think that means the losing side can't be treated a little unfairly. But if the goal is to get this peace agreement finished as soon as possible, you shouldn't just expect TKR and allies to immediately adhere to those terms without push back. Edited December 2, 2018 by ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ 1 2 Quote I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 No one expects them to merely submit without whining about it properly. 2 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Anarch Caelum Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 20 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said: Fraggle is not a participant of this global war, and she posted that as a joke. Check the OP to see the actual participants. I guess I’m just not aware of what they did to really deserve these terms. If the losing side wants peace & doesn’t think the terms are unfair; then nothing wrong with accepting. Although if they agree to the terms & think they’re unreasonable; they mostly just have themselves to blame for accepting an offer they’re unhappy with. Would the alliance who needs to help another in their color politics rather do that or keep fighting? Then there are a bunch of other terms they need to make same decision on, although maybe progress can be made if they separate out which they’re willing to do. Maybe the other side should pick one or two of them they’re willing to do & counter offer with that. (This was posted as a discussion, rather than a take it or leave it proposition.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 20 minutes ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: Edit: I mean, one of the reasons this war started stems from the subject of accountability. As effectively the person who first pushed this war, would you mind clarifying? Accountability for what? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: As effectively the person who first pushed this war, would you mind clarifying? Accountability for what? IQ specifically have been persistent about holding a few particular members of BC gov accountable for leaks against IQ. Edit: The last bit wasn't necessary so I removed it. Edited December 2, 2018 by ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ Quote I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 1 minute ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: IQ specifically have been persistent about holding a few particular members of BC gov accountable for leaks against IQ. Edit: The last bit wasn't necessary so I removed it. This thread has nothing to do with BC. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: And as Shiho said, no one's asking for money. Except you, and Shifty. 2 hours ago, Prefontaine said: 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. 3 hours ago, Ripper said: Could you please pin-point the punitive terms? 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! Edited December 3, 2018 by Sir Scarfalot 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 12 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: This thread has nothing to do with BC. IQ is included within the peace terms, so my point about the double standard still stands. 2 Quote I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripper Posted December 3, 2018 Author Share Posted December 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: 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? The answer a few posts above... 2 hours ago, Ripper said: 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. Plus... I see no reason to include VMers of our side in the peace treaty, since the terms are demands towards the other side... Why would they sign a paper about our own VMers? We will deal with them on our own anyway. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 5 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: *Pre's quote* Tbh, I think that Pre was being facetious with that offer. 1 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.