Jump to content

Global War Peace Terms - Discussion


Ripper
 Share

Recommended Posts

Petition to change the war name to the Apathy War, because neither side gives a flying rainbow colored stoned on meth hippogriff shit about when it ends or how utterly pointless its become at this point.

 

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2019 at 8:44 AM, Buorhann said:

Holy hell, how many members did TCW lose?  Weren’t they and TKR above 100 this summer?

On 1/8/2019 at 9:14 AM, Akuryo said:

TCW was at 97, has lost 36. TKR was at 157 and has lost 60.

We started the war at 96 members, (93 + 3 in offshores), we are now down to 65 members (tCW + Offshores) with 18 members at 7 days or more inactive. Considering some of the VM users have told us they will be quitting, and expecting several of the inactives won't be coming back we could be down to 50 members at a worse case scenario. Needless to say we've taken a massive hit but our core membership group is still here and we can recover from this. 

On 1/9/2019 at 2:26 AM, Akuryo said:

Snip

Ultra cringe........ 5 years of University history that's probably one of the worst comparisons I've ever read. Did someone seriously compare this peace treaty to the treaty of Versaille?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sphinx said:

We started the war at 96 members, (93 + 3 in offshores), we are now down to 65 members (tCW + Offshores) with 18 members at 7 days or more inactive. Considering some of the VM users have told us they will be quitting, and expecting several of the inactives won't be coming back we could be down to 50 members at a worse case scenario. Needless to say we've taken a massive hit but our core membership group is still here and we can recover from this. 

Ultra cringe........ 5 years of University history that's probably one of the worst comparisons I've ever read. Did someone seriously compare this peace treaty to the treaty of Versaille?

 

Yes. Dr Rush of Guardian, to be specific. To be ultra specific, some no-name in T$ said it, and Rush readily agreed and continued on from that point. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Akuryo said:

Yes. Dr Rush of Guardian, to be specific. To be ultra specific, some no-name in T$ said it, and Rush readily agreed and continued on from that point. 

I mean the treaty was pretty punitive but its nowhere near Versaille level of punishment. You also forgot the part where they blamed Germany for starting the war. ;,P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sphinx said:

I mean the treaty was pretty punitive but its nowhere near Versaille level of punishment. You also forgot the part where they blamed Germany for starting the war. ;,P

That too.

It's honestly not that punitive. It affects like 15 people, who can sell down. It makes the war shorter, and gives you more time to recover and wait for the SyndIQ divorce to divide and conquer.
Simultaneously, its also not worth the effort for anyone because of how little it actually affects anything. Just  a waste at this point. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

That too.

It's honestly not that punitive. It affects like 15 people, who can sell down. It makes the war shorter, and gives you more time to recover and wait for the SyndIQ divorce to divide and conquer.
Simultaneously, its also not worth the effort for anyone because of how little it actually affects anything. Just  a waste at this point. 

The VM part isn't that bad and since most of the people got hit anyway so its basically fulfilled. Articles VI-VIII are worse than Article V. 

Not going to say anything that may jeopardise talks on-going, but I think its pretty clear the outcome of the war was decided weeks ago.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sphinx said:

The VM part isn't that bad and since most of the people got hit anyway so its basically fulfilled. Articles VI-VIII are worse than Article V. 

Not going to say anything that may jeopardise talks on-going, but I think its pretty clear the outcome of the war was decided weeks ago.

 

If that's what's considered punitive these days no wonder politics is boring. Everyones too whiny about everything.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sphinx said:

The VM part isn't that bad and since most of the people got hit anyway so its basically fulfilled. Articles VI-VIII are worse than Article V. 

Not going to say anything that may jeopardise talks on-going, but I think its pretty clear the outcome of the war was decided weeks ago.

 

Not entirely sure why you'd want a treaty with GoB at this point. So I'd just void the article by saying no treaties exist.

Does the trading bot matter that much at this point?

I mean you can still counter arrgh...

[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

25 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

Not entirely sure why you'd want a treaty with GoB at this point. So I'd just void the article by saying no treaties exist.

Does the trading bot matter that much at this point?

I mean you can still counter arrgh...

The complaint about the Arrgh one is TKRs protectors. Even though I’ve personally known from day one that this was expected and that it would be changed if asked because it’s perfectly damned reasonable.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sphinx said:

The VM part isn't that bad and since most of the people got hit anyway so its basically fulfilled. Articles VI-VIII are worse than Article V. 

Could you explain how exactly is Article VI terrible/worse than other articles quoted exactly? 

Edited by Shadowthrone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Could you explain how exactly is Article VI terrible/worse than other articles quoted exactly? 

If it’s within the rules (with it being made clear in this thread for everyone it is allowed), I’m sure other alliances with the skills needed are creating or have created their own similar bots. So giving up their bot they’ve put a lot of work into making wouldn’t make much sense in my opinion.

So that would probably be the most damaging term for them long term or at least I would think so. The more people make a big deal out of their bot, the more useful it sounds.

libertyribbon.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Akuryo said:

The complaint about the Arrgh one is TKRs protectors. Even though I’ve personally known from day one that this was expected and that it would be changed if asked because it’s perfectly damned reasonable.

Yeah, also just like to point out that their protectorates are also pretty dead now. :P

[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

This is the equivalent to Neville Chamberlain’s peace in our time

"There's nothing you can know that isn't known,
Nothing you can see that isn't shown,
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be,
All you need is love,
Love is all you need."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Akuryo said:

The complaint about the Arrgh one is TKRs protectors. Even though I’ve personally known from day one that this was expected and that it would be changed if asked because it’s perfectly damned reasonable.

They haven't gotten to that one yet.

6 hours ago, Keegoz said:

Not entirely sure why you'd want a treaty with GoB at this point. So I'd just void the article by saying no treaties exist.

Does the trading bot matter that much at this point?

I mean you can still counter arrgh...

The consensus is its an attempt to control the FA direction of Grumpy. People from TKR and other alliances aren't happy with Article VI and VIII so until we as a unified front are in agreement the terms cannot be accepted, talks are still on-going so maybe something may result from them soon. But until then the war continues. I'd hope we can at least get to $1 trillion in total damages before the war ends though.

8 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

#14 and falling.

 You clearly have no concept of what influence is and isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sphinx said:

They haven't gotten to that one yet.

The consensus is its an attempt to control the FA direction of Grumpy. People from TKR and other alliances aren't happy with Article VI and VIII so until we as a unified front are in agreement the terms cannot be accepted, talks are still on-going so maybe something may result from them soon. But until then the war continues. I'd hope we can at least get to $1 trillion in total damages before the war ends though.

 You clearly have no concept of what influence is and isn't.

What FA direction. Aren't they supposedly paperless? Seems like an easy answer to me if so. SRD's a charming old bloke i'm sure he can woo some new friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paperless doesn't exist, except that there's a lot less "legal" ties forcing an alliance to defend its allies. But then again, as TFP shows, an alliance, even when treatied, could ignore or be asked to ignore a MDP pact.

 

In practice, all paperless have relationships, some of which are de facto secret treaties. The paperless commitment basically adds ambiguity, as none of their de facto allies are officially obliged to protect them, and to the casual observer it's unknown who their de facto allies are. It also increases their ability to attack other alliances, as since every war they attack in is a bandwagon, it becomes less of a bandwagon when they engage.

 

I see the GoB treaty term as hypocritical, but enforceable and reasonable. The paperless alliances are basically asking Grumpy to cease being considered a paperless alliance, in effect kicking them out from paperless.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sphinx said:

The consensus is its an attempt to control the FA direction of Grumpy. People from TKR and other alliances aren't happy with Article VI and VIII so until we as a unified front are in agreement the terms cannot be accepted, talks are still on-going so maybe something may result from them soon. But until then the war continues. I'd hope we can at least get to $1 trillion in total damages before the war ends though.

It doesn't control their direction, it controls the means in which they do it. If their FA direction depends on hiding their treaties then I suggest you oust them now.

[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

6 minutes ago, Inst said:

Paperless doesn't exist, except that there's a lot less "legal" ties forcing an alliance to defend its allies. But then again, as TFP shows, an alliance, even when treatied, could ignore or be asked to ignore a MDP pact.

 

In practice, all paperless have relationships, some of which are de facto secret treaties. The paperless commitment basically adds ambiguity, as none of their de facto allies are officially obliged to protect them, and to the casual observer it's unknown who their de facto allies are. It also increases their ability to attack other alliances, as since every war they attack in is a bandwagon, it becomes less of a bandwagon when they engage.

 

I see the GoB treaty term as hypocritical, but enforceable and reasonable. The paperless alliances are basically asking Grumpy to cease being considered a paperless alliance, in effect kicking them out from paperless.

Paperless absolutely exists, not sure what you're talking about.

  • Like 1
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.