Jump to content

Global War Peace Terms - Discussion


Ripper
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

The term I'm referencing immediately starts off by insulting our members and directing what we do with "war dodgers". War dodgers have traditionally been defined by this community as individuals who have an established pattern of behavior in avoiding wars, either through VMing or deserting. This is something we all recognize as an issue in the community and, per that belief, we each have our own internal methods for handling war dodgers. Our issue with this term is that, given our knowledge and understanding of our members, we fundamentally disagree with the opposition that all of the members they specifically outlined in their terms were true war dodgers. If holding war dodgers to the same standard as their non-war dodging alliance mates was the goal, no research was done to determine if there was a historical reason to classify those members as war dodgers. Additionally, given that the opposition has accepted war deserters from our side into their alliances and sent messages to our members to try and encourage them to desert, we believed the perceived intent behind this term to be misguided and hypocritical. Based on that viewpoint and despite our feelings regarding the opposition's actions with our war dodgers/deserters, a counter to the term was suggested, which outlined our plans for dealing with our actual war dodgers. It ultimately got rejected.

Following the rejection of our counter offer, a significant amount of time and energy was put into trying to understand the opposing coalition's viewpoint on this term and why they wanted it, so that we could work on presenting a new counter offer that addressed both our concerns. Every time we thought we finally understood what it was they were trying to achieve with this term and started trying to work on a new counter, another opposition representative chimed in with something that contradicted the prior stated goal and we were back to square one. There was no consistent message being presented and every effort we made to understand was being met with derision and/or trolling by nearly all the opposing coalition representatives. We didn't hold much faith the discussions on the other remaining terms would fare any better if that was the environment we were going to be met with.

This is actually well worded, and I can definitely see why you folks would have an issue with it.

If a side is going to punish war dodgers, research needs to be presented to make sure that they are effectively war dodgers and not legitimate vacation mode players.  I can understand punishing leaders, regardless, but regular players - that's...  detrimental to the overall community and game here if we're going to start setting this precedent.

So basically the hang up is pretty much on both sides on how to deal with the VM'ers, whether or not they're actual dodgers?

8 hours ago, The Mad Titan said:

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.

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

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.

These two statements contradict you.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

This is actually well worded, and I can definitely see why you folks would have an issue with it.

If a side is going to punish war dodgers, research needs to be presented to make sure that they are effectively war dodgers and not legitimate vacation mode players.  I can understand punishing leaders, regardless, but regular players - that's...  detrimental to the overall community and game here if we're going to start setting this precedent.

So basically the hang up is pretty much on both sides on how to deal with the VM'ers, whether or not they're actual dodgers?

Our side doesn't care if they're legitimate or not. Same damage for all.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

This is actually well worded, and I can definitely see why you folks would have an issue with it.

If a side is going to punish war dodgers, research needs to be presented to make sure that they are effectively war dodgers and not legitimate vacation mode players.  I can understand punishing leaders, regardless, but regular players - that's...  detrimental to the overall community and game here if we're going to start setting this precedent.

So basically the hang up is pretty much on both sides on how to deal with the VM'ers, whether or not they're actual dodgers?

Our point is that it does not matter if it is legitimate or not. They would have been reduced to 1000 infra if they had been present, and they were not. They are not being singled out in more so than the average member, who is at a similar level of infra. It is up to TKR and their side to determine whether they will continue to house members who avoided the war, but that is irrelevant to the act of ensuring they were damaged as if they had participated in the war.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Prefontaine said:

Our side doesn't care if they're legitimate or not. Same damage for all.

Then I see the hang up on the confusion.  Your side is declaring that they need to be reduced for X reason, but overall you simply don't care and feel that regardless of any reason - they just need to be reduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

These two statements contradict you.

It's not contradictory. Punish would imply they are being treated harsher than the average member, when it is simply demanding they match their fellow alliance members infra levels. 

Determine the legitimacy is on their side, but that occurs after they are damaged not before. Missing the war does not entitle you to no damage regardless of why you missed it.

"Burn them all, TKR will know their own"

Edited by The Mad Titan
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Mad Titan said:

It's not contradictory. Punish would imply they are being treated harsher than the average member, when it is simply demanding they match their fellow alliance members infra levels. 

It's contradictory in the sense that you're not "seeking to punish", but you have very clearly stated your intent to keep their alliance from rebuilding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the losing side it seems pretty simple:  One way or another every City in all your Nations needs to be reduced, one way or another, to <=1000 Infra.

It really does not seem so complex.

Edited by Esentia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

It's contradictory in the sense that you're not "seeking to punish", but you have very clearly stated your intent to keep their alliance from rebuilding.

It's more everyone in the alliance should have taken damage, we're happy to keep going until that's accomplished. Had a handful went into VM to avoid fighting it would have been one thing, but with the numbers whom have, it needs to be addressed. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

It's contradictory in the sense that you're not "seeking to punish", but you have very clearly stated your intent to keep their alliance from rebuilding.

I mean you can argue TKR is being punished, but that’s pretty much the point of war. Their argument is that  we are specifically punishing VM nations more than the average player, which is not true. 

Edited by The Mad Titan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Then I see the hang up on the confusion.  Your side is declaring that they need to be reduced for X reason, but overall you simply don't care and feel that regardless of any reason - they just need to be reduced. 

I can see how this would be confusing if you'd just seen the proposed terms for the first time. We spent weeks bashing their side for harboring huge numbers of nations in VM, many if not most of which appeared to have gone to VM to avoid the war.

However, multiple people from the IQ-Syndisphere-Paperless coalition have explained - repetitively, ad nauseam - that this isn't about shaming VM users, despite our opinions of them. This is about destroying infrastructure. Either people aren't reading the thread or they're being deliberately obtuse.

 

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

It's contradictory in the sense that you're not "seeking to punish", but you have very clearly stated your intent to keep their alliance from rebuilding.

No, we've stated our intent to keep them from rebuilding with funds produced by VM nations. We're not doing anything worse than war does in the first place. If these nations weren't in VM, their infra levels would already be at roughly 1k per city. This isn't any more punitive than successfully waging war on Radiantsphere is. We're not demanding the VM users are disciplined or treated differently in any way than other Radiantsphere nations whose infra we're currently blowing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:

Our point is that it does not matter if it is legitimate or not. They would have been reduced to 1000 infra if they had been present, and they were not. They are not being singled out in more so than the average member, who is at a similar level of infra. It is up to TKR and their side to determine whether they will continue to house members who avoided the war, but that is irrelevant to the act of ensuring they were damaged as if they had participated in the war.

Just keep in mind that ya'lls coalition is setting new precedents here that will probably be cited right back against you in the future.

Earlier in the thread, I had stated that Ripper made a good point with his post.  TKR/TCW/TRF had a pretty ridiculous list of demands against TGH/KT as well, and we held off on those until more information came to light in public.

If some of those terms are what you guys really want to push, that's entirely on ya'll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

Just keep in mind that ya'lls coalition is setting new precedents here that will probably be cited right back against you in the future.

Guardian and TKR set this exact precedent for ensuring equal damage when they made Rose's upper tier get rolled in Silent War, this is hardly a new concept.

Additionally TKR allowed Test no more than 700 infra per city post papers please.

Acting like these are new conditions is just plain false, simply no war since Papers Please has there been a victor decisive enough to enact them.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Just keep in mind that ya'lls coalition is setting new precedents here that will probably be cited right back against you in the future.

You were apart of the coalition that instituted a 700 infra average cap on TEst during papers please. We were also told anyone in VM that tried to avoid it would have to comply. It's not new.

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

You were apart of the coalition that instituted a 700 infra average cap on TEst during papers please. We were also told anyone in VM that tried to avoid it would have to comply.

I'm looking through what logs I have left of that time, and even the peace thread of that war (Unless I'm missing it), has no statements of such a thing.  Then again, I wasn't much part of the peace talks there either, so was that a backroom private conversation between the two of you?

I do see a frickton of logs between Rozalia having issues with TKR during Papers, Please talks though, at which I had to mediate for clarification between the two alliances.

 

EDIT:

Not only that, there's a image you posted that shows the 700 Infra average cap was not instituted.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I'm looking through what logs I have left of that time, and even the peace thread of that war (Unless I'm missing it), has no statements of such a thing.  Then again, I wasn't much part of the peace talks there either, so was that a backroom private conversation between the two of you?

I do see a frickton of logs between Rozalia having issues with TKR during Papers, Please talks though, at which I had to mediate for clarification between the two alliances.

 

EDIT:

Not only that, there's a image you posted that shows the 700 Infra average cap was not instituted.

We were definitely below 700 for everything after the second round, with exception of maybe the last few days as people started rebuilding from beige.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

We were definitely below 700 for everything after the second round, with exception of maybe the last few days as people started rebuilding from beige.

I had your statement confused then.  I thought you were talking about TKR forcing TEst to remain at 700 or lower at peace talks or something.

EDIT:

(On a sidenote: Looking through those logs was nostalgic.  Odd looking back then to now and seeing where we've all ended up at)

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I had your statement confused then.  I thought you were talking about TKR forcing TEst to remain at 700 or lower at peace talks or something.

EDIT:

(On a sidenote: Looking through those logs was nostalgic.  Odd looking back then to now and seeing where we've all ended up at)

Nah, I would never be in support of something like that. Doing it or having it done. For me, maybe not everyone, the point of enforcing VM-ers selling off infra is because is to send a message that you can't hit that VM button and come out unscathed. I understand it does get used legitimately, I had a vacation I went on during this war and had I been needed to be active during that time I would have likely hit VM myself. Should people be punished for legitimately using VM during a war? No. But I'm not going to dive through 40ish cases of VM to determine which are legitimate or not.


Had the amount of VM been isolated, there wouldn't have been a term. But on the scale it was done everyone will have to pay the price, even the ones whom don't deserve to. Nothing is there to keep them from instantly buying everything back if they can. Feel bad for the person who has to verify that they did it though. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about you all just demand the alliance income to go directly to you guys for like a week or so and drop the demands to knock infra down.  That way you get the monies and the VMs don't end up benefiting TKR and their elitists. 

Listen to J Kell's new single: 

 

About The Author

 An early member of Roz Wei in 2015, J Kell went on to stay within the paperless world of Empyrea before signing with Soup Kitchen while scoring a record deal in 2019. J Kell went on to release multiple Orbis Top 40 hits. In 2020, J Kell took a break from Orbis. He's back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Balish said:

How about you all just demand the alliance income to go directly to you guys for like a week or so and drop the demands to knock infra down.  That way you get the monies and the VMs don't end up benefiting TKR and their elitists. 

Because they won't do that either. This is a political climate where reps including anything more serious than jokes is setting bad precedents is something everybody seems to be afraid of.

Ironically on that note, how long has everyone been complaining about stagnation? Can someone explain to me how one can complain about stagnation, AND new political precedents being set; something that seems to be changing from the stagnant norm?

That's the part about all this I find confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Balish said:

How about you all just demand the alliance income to go directly to you guys for like a week or so and drop the demands to knock infra down.  That way you get the monies and the VMs don't end up benefiting TKR and their elitists. 

I don't think demanding billions in reparations would be considered a better deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:

I don't think demanding billions in reparations would be considered a better deal.

But it's only costing their side a small part of their future while the alternative is setting them back further.

 

11 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Ironically on that note, how long has everyone been complaining about stagnation? Can someone explain to me how one can complain about stagnation, AND new political precedents being set; something that seems to be changing from the stagnant norm?

 

This is a new precedent and I think one that would be better than the alternative of more destruction. 

Listen to J Kell's new single: 

 

About The Author

 An early member of Roz Wei in 2015, J Kell went on to stay within the paperless world of Empyrea before signing with Soup Kitchen while scoring a record deal in 2019. J Kell went on to release multiple Orbis Top 40 hits. In 2020, J Kell took a break from Orbis. He's back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Our side doesn't care if they're legitimate or not. Same damage for all.

33 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:

"Burn them all, TKR will know their own"

3 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

For me, maybe not everyone, the point of enforcing VM-ers selling off infra is because is to send a message that you can't hit that VM button and come out unscathed.

This was one of the examples of the switching goals thing. I asked you all specifically which one was your goal - damage parity or making an example of "war dodgers" and I essentially got a non-committal "we're too big of a coalition, there are too many goals/expectations/intents" as a final response. First, Leo/Ripper stated that the goal was to get everyone under 1k infra, as Leo said above. When that was said, we thought we were starting to understand what it was you were looking for and were discussing it. Then, the next day, we get a different answer that one of the goals is "setting a precedent for strategic use of VM" or making an example of "war dodgers", which we have issues with for the reasons stated above.

I can only speak for TKR when I say this but I was willing to discuss and work on something to address the damage parity/rebuilding concerns in spite of the somewhat silly implication that two 21-city nations with 1700-infra builds would be able to rebuild TKR. However, I will never agree to label the nations you wanted to call war dodgers as such, given their contributions to TKR over their time with us. They neither fit nor deserve the title. And your side's gibe that we can call them "war heroes" and the accompanying trolling rewrite of the term during the talks only reaffirms my point about your unwillingness to work with us.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2018 at 11:21 AM, The Mad Titan said:

Wheres my money, punk.

These aren't punitive at all lol. Just because your side wants to protect deserters doesn't make everyone else evil. 

We haven't enough offensive slots to occupy you all.  Sorry.

We'd like to, but we can't accept your surrender.

Was there anything else?

  • Upvote 1
Quote

Former leader of Chocolate Castle 4/1/2021

"It's pretty easy to get abused by Rosey without being a weirdo about it" - Betilius

"Rosey is everything I look for in a fighter" - partisan

"I’m very much not surprised that Lossi has you blocked tbh" - @MCMaster-095

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.