Jump to content

Global War Peace Terms - Discussion


Ripper
 Share

Recommended Posts

I want to point out that IQ's Kosonome condition is essentially implicit reps; i.e, the cessation of TKR-sphere algorithmic trading implies that TKR will no longer profit from its scripts (although not necessarily bots), while other alliances will cease to lose money on fat finger trades, meaning that it becomes an implicit transfer from TKR-sphere to other alliances.

 

I also want to point out that this war is a stalemate and that reps are the best way to end this war early by allowing SynDIQ to achieve its war ends (crippling of TKR upper-tier dominance), but I would prefer not to go into details on either.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Noctis said:

Anyways, anyone opposed to IQ & calling this war Global; I’ll have no sympathy for if they get rolled later with no assistance. I think all of them will have brought it upon themselves & shouldn’t expect help when it’s them getting rolled. ?

Gotta admit, love the reputation building: don't even have the score chalked up yet and we've already geared up to an unopposed reign of terror. Go us hey.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Inst said:

I want to point out that IQ's Kosonome condition is essentially implicit reps; i.e, the cessation of TKR-sphere algorithmic trading implies that TKR will no longer profit from its scripts (although not necessarily bots), while other alliances will cease to lose money on fat finger trades, meaning that it becomes an implicit transfer from TKR-sphere to other alliances.

 

I also want to point out that this war is a stalemate and that reps are the best way to end this war early by allowing SynDIQ to achieve its war ends (crippling of TKR upper-tier dominance), but I would prefer not to go into details on either.

7ZWBi5M.png

It's not a rep term, implicit or otherwise, simply because there's no transfer of wealth to be had, which is the main factor for reparations in this context. The mistakenly posted trades that were taken advantage of aren't (to my knowledge) going to be returned/paid back.

TKR (or whoever) not being able to make use of the bot doesn't mean they're paying 'implicit reps' or something of the sort. It simply means that they'd no longer profit from mistakes anymore. 

And monetary reps are usually not something people are forthcoming in accepting, especially when the side that's making the payments are the ones that got attacked (and such a precedent is a precedent that people try to avoid setting, due to obvious reasons). Plus, as already portrayed here several times, the different members in Coalition A have different motivations for their terms, so reparations would not be suitable for what they want either way (some want to see those pixels burned or torn down, not have them spared in exchange of resources).

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider two hypothetical situations. One is a universe where TKR accepts Kosonome script conditions, another is a universe where, with no other changes, the Kosonome script continues to run.

 

Universe 1:

TKR-sphere does not make additional money, rest of world does not lose additional money.

 

Universe 2:

TKR-sphere makes additional money, rest of world loses additional money.
 

Now, let us add a third universe. Let TKR pay reps equivalent to the gain of Kosonome script profits to fat-finger traders, but the Kosonome script continues to run.

 

Universe 3:


TKR-sphere makes additional money, rest of the world loses additional money

THEN

Reps are paid, so that TKR makes no money and the rest of the world loses no money.


In this case, is Universe 3 equivalent to Universe 1? Obviously, small details (i.e, perceptions, labor involved in paying reps, reputation, etc) are different, but Universe 1 is also equivalent to Universe 3, hence the termination of the Kosonome script is equivalent to reps.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except case three would become case two because (there is no point in talking hypotheticals that will not materialize) TKR may not return the resources, and after some time has passed the likelihood of someone going to war over this is close to nil.

For reps to happen there needs to be a transaction of the sort. That is the core definition of it. There's none to be had here. In fact, it'd terminate future trades that came to be as a result of a mistake. Stop trying to bend definitions so to try to portray your rivals as of doing something they are not.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As others have stated before, I'm not TKR.

 

As I've implied, "implicit reps" are not the same as "explicit reps". These are functional reps insofar as TKR-sphere pays money, and FYI, to date, I have been a supporter of reps as a mechanism to remove TKR-sphere as a threat for the next war round.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Inst said:

Consider two hypothetical situations. One is a universe where TKR accepts Kosonome script conditions, another is a universe where, with no other changes, the Kosonome script continues to run.

  • Universe 1: TKR-sphere does not make additional money, rest of world does not lose additional money.
  • Universe 2: TKR-sphere makes additional money, rest of world loses additional money.

Now, let us add a third universe. Let TKR pay reps equivalent to the gain of Kosonome script profits to fat-finger traders, but the Kosonome script continues to run.

  • Universe 3: TKR-sphere makes additional money, rest of the world loses additional money THEN Reps are paid, so that TKR makes no money and the rest of the world loses no money.
  • In this case, is Universe 3 equivalent to Universe 1? Obviously, small details (i.e, perceptions, labor involved in paying reps, reputation, etc) are different, but Universe 1 is also equivalent to Universe 3, hence the termination of the Kosonome script is equivalent to reps.

Great arguement and demonstration of logic. Let me use it.

"Consider two hypothetical situations. One is a univere where I raid profitable targets (you included?), another is a universe where, with no other changes, I do not go for the raids.

  • Universe 2: I do not make additional money, rest of world does not lose additional money.
  • Universe 1: I make additional money, rest of world loses additional money.

Now, let us add a third universe. Let me pay reps equivalent to the gain of the raids to raidees, but I continue to raid people.

  • Universe 3: I make additional money, rest of the world loses additional money THEN reps are paid, so that I make no money and the rest of the world loses no money.

In this case, is Universe 3 equivalent to Universe 2? Obviously, small details (i.e, perceptions, labor involved in paying reps, reputation, etc) are different, but Universe 2 is also equivalent to Universe 3, hence the non-initiation of raids is equivalent to reps."

So, Universes 2 and 3 are the same! Thus, when I do not raid people and I do nothing, it's the same with paying reps!

You are welcome, Orbis! :D

Edited by Ripper
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Inst said:

As others have stated before, I'm not TKR.

 

As I've implied, "implicit reps" are not the same as "explicit reps". These are functional reps insofar as TKR-sphere pays money, and FYI, to date, I have been a supporter of reps as a mechanism to remove TKR-sphere as a threat for the next war round.

TKR wouldn't pay anything. The trades are simply undone and each party gets back what they had pre-transaction.

Try again.
 

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, mass-raiding an ally with previous understandings is called a war game.

 

Another difference is that even if you pay reps during the raid, it's a negative sum affair where you lose resources because your damages are not compensated for.

 

Shiho Nishizumi: I mean, if you don't understand modeling logic, you're free to do so. I am not continuing this line of conversation with you.

Edited by Inst

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Inst said:

Why the horse always gotta be white?

Somebody call Kosmo, quick.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>People actually interacting with Inst

It's well known by now he has barely any comprehension of this game, doesn't play and in general is just a pest. Not sure why you even bother humouring him at this point.

  • Upvote 3

[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

41 minutes ago, Inst said:

Your Wikipedia skills are amazing if you ever get to University you should make sure you reference them in every essay you do, I hear Professors love that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

No, I simply saw your page of incompetence and noted it as such. But by all means, go through all of my posts. I encourage you to actually read them (though apparently that is a difficult task for you) as you might just learn something.

wJxPdiH.gif

I don’t think him going through your posts will do much. His reading comprehension days are long past. The last brain cells are holding on for dear life.

Below is Noctis’s credo:

drug-life_o_605977.jpg

Edited by Kevanovia
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

image.gif.d80770bf646703bba00c14ad52088af9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Sphinx said:

Your Wikipedia skills are amazing if you ever get to University you should make sure you reference them in every essay you do, I hear Professors love that.

I mean, if you want, I could use Stanford's Plato Encyclopedia.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/school-names/#6.1


But hey, flames, the typical discourse of the forum!

 

===


The example shown here is that "a white horse is not a horse", i.e, the concept of white horse is not identical to the concept of a horse, because a horse is a general category that is broader than that of a white horse, which is a horse that is specifically white. When we consider them as categories, "a white horse" != "a horse".

 

The point being, implicit / functional reps are not the same as reps. Implicit / functional reps are similar to reps in some ways, but are different in other ways.

Arguing that I'm not using "reps" correctly is incorrect because the "implicit" and "functional" modifiers change the meaning of the term rep to something similar, yet different.

Edited by Inst

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sphinx said:

 

I'd like to tax the war-dodgers for as many days as they spent in VM not fighting, now obviously you don't want this as it will go to help our rebuild. So instead of writing elaborate posts trying to explain this "logic" behind your reasoning you could've just summarised it as your side wanting to inflict as much punitive damage on our sphere as possible, whilst hiding behind a veneer of "punishing the war dodgers", and breaking our so called "monopoly". Additional many of the so called "War-Dodgers" are in VM for legit reasons, I understand that you wouldn't know the exact details of why a person is in VM, but to tar all of those in VM as "war-dodgers" isn't acceptable. From tCW's perspective with -$45b in net damage we've been punished down the stairs and now you just want to stab us to make sure we're as dead as we can be.

This entirely proves why this is necessary. You just said that there will be no accountability for vm nations and they will be allowed to stay intact due to their economic impact.

 TCW also hasn't been rolled since the GPA wars of 2016, so you have had 2 1/2 years of nothing to build up your alliance bank for rebuild. You also keep beating a dead horse on "punishing vm nations", when it has been shown many times they are being treated no differently than their compatriots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The Mad Titan:

 

The objective of this war is destroy TKR-sphere power. A big question mark is whether the TKR-sphere has enough warchest to just press "refloat" post-war and bump all of its cities back to 2k infra. Then, it's like this war never happened and it'll be up to SynDIQ to do it again, or more likely, just fall before TKR-sphere power.

 

Taking out VM nations makes this possibility less likely, because VM nations that avoid infra-destruction reduce the total cost imposed on TKR-sphere nations to rebuild, as well as increase the income generation of these VM-ed nations and enhance rebuilding in the short-term

Edited by Inst
  • Upvote 1

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Inst said:

@The Mad Titan:

 

The objective of this war is destroy TKR-sphere power. A big question mark is whether the TKR-sphere has enough warchest to just press "refloat" post-war and bump all of its cities back to 2k infra. Then, it's like this war never happened and it'll be up to SynDIQ to do it again, or more likely, just fall before TKR-sphere power.

Considering that's the party line is the war doesn't matter they will just rebuild instantly, they seem to think so, or are at least posturing as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

I don’t think him going through your posts will do much. His reading comprehension days are long past. The last brain cells are holding on for dear life.

Below is Noctis’s credo:

drug-life_o_605977.jpg

Hope you’re really high right now, lol 

libertyribbon.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:

Considering that's the party line is the war doesn't matter they will just rebuild instantly, they seem to think so, or are at least posturing as such.

Except that TKR-sphere, in the early stages of the war, lost 10-15% of its members. Member losses have slowed dramatically since then, since the initial loss were in "Easy Mode Coalition"-type members who wanted to be there in order to win. But you can't rebuild nations that you no longer have, after all.

 

On the other hand, SynDIQ still has about 80-160bn in infrastructure remaining. It has control (i.e, can defend with overwhelming force), but TKR-sphere is moving to destroy this infrastructure slowly.

So this is what I mean by this war being a stalemate, SynDIQ can hope that TKR-sphere members leave, while TKR-sphere can hope they can whittle down the last of SynDIQ's infra.

 

4 month war, double the length of DDR / 68 days war anyone?

Edited by Inst
  • Upvote 1

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Inst said:

On the other hand, SynDIQ still has about 80-160bn in infrastructure remaining.

We have a winner!

All of our expensive Infra was lost weeks ago, but we still have plenty of stuff to kill on our enemies side. I see a few whales with 2.5k Infra for example that need an EMC visit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Inst said:

Your opfor hasn't mass-deployed alliance-killer tactics, for the obvious reasons that whichever part of SynDIQ started, would end up alienating TKR-sphere for the post-war. So both sides have cards they can play.

Enlighten me on these "mass-deployed alliance-killer tactics". I am woefully uninformed.

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.