Jump to content
Ripper

Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Inst said:

EMC is both a bloc as well as a concept. BK defected from Obsidian Order in part because of conflicts with TKR, as well as desires to play "hard mode".

EMC didn't exist at the time, stop talking out your ass. The only person here who thinks you're smart is you, mate.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Akuryo said:

Isn't the only real difference that one is known about and the other isn't. 

Given the nature of paperless, that happens in general. So if that is the case I assume no one in this coalition has any paperless ties, otherwise seems pretty hypocritical that 'secret' treaties, which seem almost indistinguishable from paperless treaties, are only forbidden for the losing side.

But I am willing to see if someone can point out that difference to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2018 at 1:06 PM, ☠ϟħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™☠ said:

Buy me city 24 and I'll buy up nukes and nuke 'em post-war.

Shifty is a butcher for sale.

Also my boi Leo/Thanos dropping truth bombs like a B-52 over 'Nam.

The losers are losers and have zero say. Drive the knife in deep and twist. TKR sphere deserves this.

"Omg but you're making this CN 2.0." "Omg, you're making bad enemies and bad blood."

TKR needed their ego and teeth kicked in.

Guardian is smug, but they ain't that bad. (Exception)

TCW, who cares about pissing them off? They can't fight their way out of a paper bag.

GoB had it coming.

Tesla is basically dead and proved to be a useless offshoot of The Chola/Zodiac.

Statesmen, Nova Riata, Silenzio, and any other micros are irrelevant and should just be tossed to the raiders anyway.

Idk who the frick came up with this idea that this game doesn't need drama. Your stagnant shit filled minds keep coming up with ideas on how to kill any fun and conflict. Y'all rather have passive aggressive, "listen here pal" wars that end in nothing instead of salt filled, humiliating, and punishing defeats. The weak should fear the strong. 

Shifty says what's on everyone's mind, but they're too afraid to say it because they're playing model UN.

Prove me wrong

Protip: You can't.

*bump*, this needs to read by everyone again.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of what I did to The Communist Bloc during the great war on Petram. The war dodgers got it worse than anyone else.

Going paperless is the ultimate form of trust between allies. However.. I think such is a dangerous prospect if you are at all imperialistic.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Who wants to write paper treaties?  not me, no thanks, a simple i got your back, if you got my back handshake agreement is good enough for grumpy.

When compliance is to be expected a formal document is almost always required. I've seen this first hand. It also helps track compliance.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maelstrom Vortex said:

When compliance is to be expected a formal document is almost always required. I've seen this first hand.

If I told the people that compliance is to be expected, I wouldn't have a hand shake agreement with them.  But as long as I run grumpy, my word is the best I can give, and if I said I got your back, then I got your back. (See this war) If the other side doesn't see it that way, then I guess we reevaluate and move on if necessary.  Paper doesn't force compliance as we have seen many times. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2018 at 3:15 AM, Ripper said:

The thing that I still cannot understand is this, at least for TKR:

If you have 2 nations at 1,700-infra builds in VM, what's the reason they cannot sell their infra and then get rebuilt (or not, if you don't think they deserve it)? Why are you against this option exactly? Does it have to do something about pride (e.g. you don't want others to "make" your members do anything, no matter how little, that is against their or your will)? Does it come down to the fact that you want to save that little infra as you say and don't want to pay for their rebuild?

What's the reason you cannot accept getting nations to sell down to an X ammount of infra and then insta-rebuild?

I think that's the question that has been dodged more than it should. The same way you are asking about our intentions I think it's fair to ask for yours.

On 12/3/2018 at 10:41 PM, Nizam Adrienne said:

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.

I believe I've already answered this question but if I was unclear, allow me to clarify. The issue isn't to do with money or pride. The issue is you're presenting two contradictory goals. Either you care about addressing war dodging culture and want to accept our offer to help you actually deal with legitimate war dodgers or you just want to damage everyone equally and you don't care whether they're real war dodgers or not. We can work with either one but those two goals, as represented by the term, don't work together and I'm not okay with letting you set a false precedent for war dodgers. By trying to push both goals, that's what this is turning into. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

I believe I've already answered this question but if I was unclear, allow me to clarify. The issue isn't to do with money or pride. The issue is you're presenting two contradictory goals. Either you care about addressing war dodging culture and want to accept our offer to help you actually deal with legitimate war dodgers or you just want to damage everyone equally and you don't care whether they're real war dodgers or not. We can work with either one but those two goals, as represented by the term, don't work together and I'm not okay with letting you set a false precedent for war dodgers. By trying to push both goals, that's what this is turning into. 

They're really not contradictory, at all. Please stop bullshitting, it's not complicated logic in any sense at all. Those two goals are not in any way, shape or form, mutually exclusive. It sounds that way, if you ignore the given option to SELL DOWN instead of be slapped around for numerous rounds, which must be what you're doing.

Because of that given option, however, these are NOT mutually exclusive goals. They can do both. You work together to identify actual war dodgers. They get pummeled. You identify people with valid reasons (I know there's somebody in TKR, i forget who, that is currently hospitalized and in VM right now, as an example), these people sell their infra down.

Now can you explain to me, please, what about is so goddamn difficult to understand. They literally built-in to the term a way for you to punish your war dodgers and spare the innocent, while staying true to the terms.

So unless you can explain to me how selling 700 infra in every city is obscenely punitive and ridiculous, and i sincerely doubt anybody on this earth could, your solution has existed the entire time and you have either lacked the depth of thought to see it or have intentionally ignored it.

Scarf was right, why has this gone on for... 13, almost 14 pages now? It's not complicated is it? It doesn't feel complicated. It feels like its being intentionally made more difficult than it is.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Keegoz said:

Given the nature of paperless, that happens in general. So if that is the case I assume no one in this coalition has any paperless ties, otherwise seems pretty hypocritical that 'secret' treaties, which seem almost indistinguishable from paperless treaties, are only forbidden for the losing side.

But I am willing to see if someone can point out that difference to me.

Ripper has gone over the distinctions between regular paperless cooperation (but not alliance), so I will offer my understanding on the paperless treaty vs secret treaty thing.

The distinction I have seen made is about how open / acknowledged the relationship is. TEst/Arrgh/RW used to cooperate quite closely with each other and that cooperation was never denied or obfuscated. Guardian and SK probably come the closest to open paperless treaty. In the early days of the game we were both paperless but just as much 'allies' as most treatied alliances.We just didn't see the need to cement some formally binding contract to enforce that cooperation, or prevent us from going separate ways if we felt like it. We were also quite open about that relationship and everybody knew where we stood with each other. On the other hand, GoB held a similar relationship with Guardian without ever acknowledging it, and indeed denying it. Or so the complaint goes.

 

Edited by Mikey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

I believe I've already answered this question but if I was unclear, allow me to clarify. The issue isn't to do with money or pride. The issue is you're presenting two contradictory goals. Either you care about addressing war dodging culture and want to accept our offer to help you actually deal with legitimate war dodgers or you just want to damage everyone equally and you don't care whether they're real war dodgers or not. We can work with either one but those two goals, as represented by the term, don't work together and I'm not okay with letting you set a false precedent for war dodgers. By trying to push both goals, that's what this is turning into. 

Greetings again Princess of War,

Last time we met it was on a battlefield. I think your concern is the stigma associated with dodging a war. I think no such stigma need attached to the term. There are a number of reasons war dodging may have occurred, cowardice being only one of many possibilities including issues affecting the personal lives of various heads of state that prevented their participation. But the truth is, whatever the reason, they dodged the war... thus the title is accurate.

Regards,
Maelstrom

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Mad Titan said:

I am going to keep beating the dead horse of the goals being not contradictory. SOME of the alliances care about damaging everyone equally, SOME want to show that war can not be escaped. Both these goals are served by the term presented.

The dichotomy of these goals is irrelevant in the nature of demanding them sell to 1k. All of the diverse coalitions' goals are served by that whether it be due to pragmatism or precedent setting (which has already been set by Guardian and TKR before).

It's a shame she struggles so greatly understanding such basic and plain concepts.

 

3 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

I believe I've already answered this question but if I was unclear, allow me to clarify. The issue isn't to do with money or pride. The issue is you're presenting two contradictory goals. Either you care about addressing war dodging culture and want to accept our offer to help you actually deal with legitimate war dodgers or you just want to damage everyone equally and you don't care whether they're real war dodgers or not. We can work with either one but those two goals, as represented by the term, don't work together and I'm not okay with letting you set a false precedent for war dodgers. By trying to push both goals, that's what this is turning into. 

Shamelessly attempting to grandstand using such nonsense is unbecoming of your station.

Edited by The God Emperor of Mankind
The Emperor!
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

If I told the people that compliance is to be expected, I wouldn't have a hand shake agreement with them.  But as long as I run grumpy, my word is the best I can give, and if I said I got your back, then I got your back. (See this war) If the other side doesn't see it that way, then I guess we reevaluate and move on if necessary.  Paper doesn't force compliance as we have seen many times. 

You are correct, it doesn't force it, but it allows the organization of compliance. A document prevents misunderstanding and thus re-conflagration. it sets guidelines and clarifies terms.You have to operate more on trust, you have to come to mutual understanding and different cultures and dialects and cultures often have different terminology for the same meaning or words with more than one meaning. When it comes to ending a war properly in a means meant to fully settle it and prevent reconfiguration among a large set of bodies, while trust may work on one to one, the document will be a superior implement simply in regards to broadly accepted terminology and communication.  Treaties have value.

What usually happens when there is no document is that the peace does not last as long as either party intends over some simple misunderstanding resulting in a total re-conflagaration of hostilities and both sides then point at each other. The fault usually lies with the poorest communicator. A document that is well written and established and agreed upon, prevents that occurrence and limits the potential shuffling of blame. I respect that you want to govern based on relationships. I've done such before. I've also know what that kind of governing leads to. People can, and do.. use it as a weapons by intentionally misinterpreting terms to their advantage. I think everyone wants to avoid that here.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm late to this, but I figured I'd add that if someone did go into VM in GoG upon war start I would aggressively advocate them being kick-rolled regardless of whether or not they had a good excuse. I don't call the shots, but I think there's a convincing case to be made that they should be kick-rolled even if they DID have a good reason and even if they could prove it.

The very appearance of impropriety constitutes impropriety. The appearance of weakness constitutes weakness.

Edited by Ashland1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Keegoz said:

Given the nature of paperless, that happens in general. So if that is the case I assume no one in this coalition has any paperless ties, otherwise seems pretty hypocritical that 'secret' treaties, which seem almost indistinguishable from paperless treaties, are only forbidden for the losing side.

But I am willing to see if someone can point out that difference to me.

You're confusing secret agreements with paperless agreements. Both are made out of a disdain for legalism and in the belief that formal agreements are no better, and often worse, than informal ones. However, secret agreements achieve a second goal, which is to avoid alerting rivals to the nature of your partnerships, or even their existence.

The original conception of paperless agreements was for them to be just as well-publicized as traditional, legalistic agreements based on treaties. Their sole purpose was to foster better ongoing friendships and cooperation between allies. Ironically, that ethos has endured more continuously within treaties than without them: there are still many alliances that refuse to sign MDoAPs and favor MDPs instead because they feel the optional aggression clause is meaningless.

Secret treaties, on the other hand, are primarily meant to obfuscate. The chief difference between them and traditional treaties isn't a lack of formality; it's a lack of public information on them. For instance, SRD has rebranded GOB's partnerships as "handshake agreements". However, to my knowledge GOB has never announced a complete list of those "handshake agreements" or said anything about what they entail other than the obvious mutual defense elements. If GOB were operating in the same way Guardian and SK or TEst and Arrgh did, it wouldn't talk about nameless friends in the abstract or avoid going into detail about its present set of partners.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Edward I said:

You're confusing secret agreements with paperless agreements. Both are made out of a disdain for legalism and in the belief that formal agreements are no better, and often worse, than informal ones. However, secret agreements achieve a second goal, which is to avoid alerting rivals to the nature of your partnerships, or even their existence.

The original conception of paperless agreements was for them to be just as well-publicized as traditional, legalistic agreements based on treaties. Their sole purpose was to foster better ongoing friendships and cooperation between allies. Ironically, that ethos has endured more continuously within treaties than without them: there are still many alliances that refuse to sign MDoAPs and favor MDPs instead because they feel the optional aggression clause is meaningless.

Secret treaties, on the other hand, are primarily meant to obfuscate. The chief difference between them and traditional treaties isn't a lack of formality; it's a lack of public information on them. For instance, SRD has rebranded GOB's partnerships as "handshake agreements". However, to my knowledge GOB has never announced a complete list of those "handshake agreements" or said anything about what they entail other than the obvious mutual defense elements. If GOB were operating in the same way Guardian and SK or TEst and Arrgh did, it wouldn't talk about nameless friends in the abstract or avoid going into detail about its present set of partners.

Why do i need to? my friends know who they are, and frankly I don't give a crap about what anyone who considers themselves my enemies know about my alliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Why do i need to? my friends know who they are, and frankly I don't give a crap about what anyone who considers themselves my enemies know about my alliance. 

You don't need to; we want you to. We want you to because we value public information about other alliances' ties, because we prefer that alliances don't misrepresent the nature of their long-term strategic alliances (even by omission), and because we'd like the world to be a little closer to that ideal. We understand the limitations of what military force can accomplish, which is why we're only asking GOB to make its treaties handshakes public for nine months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2018 at 11:48 AM, MinesomeMC said:

I dont even recognize the people who are arguing with each other, I've never seen these lads. And I've played since 2017.

And have re-rolled like 3 times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually dont have to rebuild from 700 infra per city but when you zi, it is really fun to rebuild. The first 700 infra so cheap anyways. Just my two cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it as contradictory too.

Even so, it'd help clarify the stances of the three different sides in the coalition as well, so TKR and their allies will know what to expect come the future after the war and how to adjust their FA game.

I may discuss this verbally on my show, but there is (at least to me) a difference in how to approach alliances that are set forth in doing either "blanket damage" or "punishing legit dodgers".

For example:  If NPO, BK, TEst are pushing for blanket damage and Rose, Syndicate, CoS are pushing for punishing legit dodgers - then it would allow TKR and Friends to know exactly how to approach any of those alliances in the future if a conflict comes around and they're on the victorious side against them (Or what to expect if they're working alongside with them).

It would also let those sitting on the sidelines watching the expectations from these alliances as well.

 

Personally speaking, I'm awfully curious about how this will be settled.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

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