Prefontaine Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 5 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Except you, and Shifty. 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. 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: IQ is included within the peace terms, so my point about the double standard still stands. I'm not following, how is holding a few members of BC gov accountable for the leaks anywhere a double standard to this wars negotiation? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Ripper said: 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. 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 11 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: 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. I see, you meant that nobody was asking for money officially. Fair enough then. Edited December 3, 2018 by Sir Scarfalot 2 2 1 Quote 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: If you are going to deal with them that way, then why wouldn't you sign an agreement and make that an official term of the peace? Because this is not a social or trade contract. It's demands of one side to another. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 3 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: I'm not following, how is holding a few members of BC gov accountable for the leaks anywhere a double standard to this wars negotiation? Fairness in trading was a term submitted by IQ, and instead of holding their own members accountable for not taking the 5 seconds to ensure the security of their resources, they are instead choosing to create a term outlawing someone else's creation. 2 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 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Just now, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: Fairness in trading was a term submitted by IQ, and instead of holding their own members accountable for not taking the 5 seconds to ensure the security of their resources, they are instead choosing to create a term outlawing someone else's creation. Again, how is this a double standard to something involving BC? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Just now, Prefontaine said: Again, how is this a double standard to something involving BC? IQ was persistently preaching about holding the BC gov accountable for their leaks, so why can't they also hold their own members accountable for being naive and lazy? Unfortunately, I'm not sure this is a question you could answer for me since you're not IQ. 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...
Sir Scarfalot Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Ripper said: Because this is not a social or trade contract. It's demands of one side to another. 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. 11 minutes ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: IQ was persistently preaching about holding the BC gov accountable for their leaks, so why can't they also hold their own members accountable for being naive and lazy? Unfortunately, I'm not sure this is a question you could answer for me since you're not IQ. 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. Edited December 3, 2018 by Sir Scarfalot 2 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: 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. 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. I know these terms are not directed at BC. I still think it's hypocritical for IQ to submit a term that punishes TKR instead of telling their own members to suck it up because in the end, those members are the ones accountable for their losses. Just because this thread does not involve them, does not mean I can't say they're hypocritical for submitting this term, IMO. Edited December 3, 2018 by ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ 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...
Auctor Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 3 minutes ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: I know these terms are not directed at BC. I still think it's hypocritical for IQ to submit a term that punishes TKR instead of telling their own members to suck it up because in the end, those members are the ones accountable for their losses. Just because this thread does not involve them, does not mean I can say they're hypocritical for submitting this term, IMO. Shockingly, IQ alliances consider it an ongoing duty to protect their members and don't mind that much if it means that TKR's goofballs have forgo the alleged freedom to screw with them. 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 30 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: 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. 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. 4 Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said: 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. I can respect that, and I agree wholeheartedly. Again, the only thing that sticks in my craw is that it's a unilateral demand, and not a bilateral screw-deserters initiative. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Auctor said: Shockingly, IQ alliances consider it an ongoing duty to protect their members and don't mind that much if it means that TKR's goofballs have forgo the alleged freedom to screw with them. I'm not shocked NPO or any alliance for that matter wants to protect its members (Yes I knew it was sarcasm), and sometimes protecting your members can come at a cost, like being hypocritical and as long as you're winning that's fine right? Sure it is, but does it mean I will justify it? Not at all sir. Edited December 3, 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...
Spaceman Thrax Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 minute ago, Sir Scarfalot said: I can respect that, and I agree wholeheartedly. Again, the only thing that sticks in my craw is that it's a unilateral demand, and not a bilateral screw-deserters initiative. 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! 4 Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: I'm not shocked NPO or any alliance for that matter wants to protect its members (Yes I knew it was sarcasm), and sometimes protecting your members can come at a cost, like being hypocritical and as long as you're winning that's fine right? Sure it is, but does it mean I will justify it? Not at all sir. Vae Victis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 minute ago, The Mad Titan said: Vae Victis Sure, or TKR and allies can keep on fighting which is not entirely in either of your best interests. 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...
Sir Scarfalot Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 3 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said: Vae Victis Et vias illius operatur, you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: I can respect that, and I agree wholeheartedly. Again, the only thing that sticks in my craw is that it's a unilateral demand, and not a bilateral screw-deserters initiative. I get what you're saying, i just don't think it would work the way you're imagining it. For fun lets take it as read that it is a 'bilateral screw-deserters initiative'. How do you envision that working as a condition within a peace treaty? If it is a bilateral agreement do you intend on having the losing coalition somehow enforce the terms on the winning coalition? If it isn't enforced to eithers satisfaction who has broken the terms of the peace treaty? As fun as i imagine requiring the loser to try and enforce conditions on the winner, i'm not sure if that's a precedent you'd be after either. Best case I guess would be an unactionable agreement, but that achieves frick all and has no reason to be in a treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 minute ago, Cliveiudeaus said: I get what you're saying, i just don't think it would work the way you're imagining it. For fun lets take it as read that it is a 'bilateral screw-deserters initiative'. How do you envision that working as a condition within a peace treaty? If it is a bilateral agreement do you intend on having the losing coalition somehow enforce the terms on the winning coalition? If it isn't enforced to eithers satisfaction who has broken the terms of the peace treaty? As fun as i imagine requiring the loser to try and enforce conditions on the winner, i'm not sure if that's a precedent you'd be after either. Best case I guess would be an unactionable agreement, but that achieves frick all and has no reason to be in a treaty. Well if the winners didn't enforce it on their side, it would give the losers a cb that I'm sure they'll be searching for once the war's all said and done lol 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...
Sir Scarfalot Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: Well if the winners didn't enforce it on their side, it would give the losers a cb that I'm sure they'll be searching for once the war's all said and done lol Or, since there's 3 distinct spheres in play, the agreement could be enforced by the cooperation of the other two against the noncomplying third. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 minute ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Or, since there's 3 distinct spheres in play, the agreement could be enforced by the cooperation of the other two against the noncomplying third. Yeah I wasn't really making a serious comment when I said that, just a random statement honestly. 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...
Clive Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 9 minutes ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: Well if the winners didn't enforce it on their side, it would give the losers a cb that I'm sure they'll be searching for once the war's all said and done lol It would also invalidate the peace, justifying the winners re-engaging in the conflict? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Just now, Cliveiudeaus said: It would also invalidate the peace, justifying the winners re-engaging in the conflict? Theoretically, the current winner would have already invalidated the peace by not enforcing it on their side but, as stated above it was just a random statement. 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...
Clive Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 3 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Or, since there's 3 distinct spheres in play, the agreement could be enforced by the cooperation of the other two against the noncomplying third. Winners justifying declaring each other due to an interpretation of a peace agreement despite being collectively considered a single entity (coalition A) within the agreement? Wierdly i'm into it just to see the byzantine legalese arguments that the DoW would have in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 48 minutes ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: I'm not shocked NPO or any alliance for that matter wants to protect its members (Yes I knew it was sarcasm), and sometimes protecting your members can come at a cost, like being hypocritical and as long as you're winning that's fine right? Sure it is, but does it mean I will justify it? Not at all sir. How does making a mistake in putting up a trade = leaking on an alliances and their opsec data? 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.