Jump to content
Ripper

Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

How does making a mistake in putting up a trade = leaking on an alliances and their opsec data? 

They both relate to holding people accountable for their actions. The 'mistake' is easily avoidable and requires 5 seconds of effort.

Edited by ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said:

They both relate to holding people accountable for their actions. The 'mistake' is easily avoidable and requires 5 seconds of effort.

 

Lol. Thats based on the premise that the leaks are even on the same level as mistakes in trading. One is intentional, designed so as to harm an entire alliance, while the other is literally something that can be rectified in 5 seconds or less if not for an API screwing out folks. Like literally, you're trying really hard here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said:

They both relate to holding people accountable for their actions. The 'mistake' is easily avoidable and requires 5 seconds of effort.

So salty. It’s also a fallacy to imply high gov and general members to have the same level of accountability. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Lol. Thats based on the premise that the leaks are even on the same level as mistakes in trading. One is intentional, designed so as to harm an entire alliance, while the other is literally something that can be rectified in 5 seconds or less if not for an API screwing out folks. Like literally, you're trying really hard here. 

I don't think the severity matters, if you expect to hold people accountable for their mistakes then you must do the same.

 

5 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:

So salty. It’s also a fallacy to imply high gov and general members to have the same level of accountability. 

I'm just stating my opinion is that so wrong? Meanwhile you're being aggressive (as a representative of your alliance, mind you) to someone whose been calm and to be frank not shown any signs of being salty. All these things I say are genuine concerns of mine.

Edited by ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said:

I don't think the severity matters, if you expect to hold people accountable for their mistakes then you must do the same.

 

The severity does matter? I would not be rolling BC for making a bad trade lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shadowthrone said:

 

The severity does matter? I would not be rolling BC for making a bad trade lol. 

I meant it does not matter for the point I'm trying to make about setting a proper precedent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said:

I meant it does not matter for the point I'm trying to make about setting a proper precedent. 

 

Once again, one can set a precedent for past actions, i.e not leaking stuff. How again does this equal to trading? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shadowthrone said:

 

Once again, one can set a precedent for past actions, i.e not leaking stuff. How again does this equal to trading? 

To be completely honest, I really don't wish to tread through another back and forth right now, I hope you will respect that. Have a good night Shadowthrone.

Share this post


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

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 :popcorn:

I see, you meant that nobody was asking for money officially. Fair enough then.

Wait, you mean the winning side imposes terms on the losing side and not on themselves?

Thanks for clarifying that.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went to reply, saw Pre's response... enough said for that La Mafia guy. Now on the topic of that term, I saw someone say "TKR will give the money back if you draw art" or something like that. While they do sometimes allow that to happen, it is not always the case. For example i once messed up a 100mil trade, and within the time i could get to the trade screen it was accepted by TKR, i made a pic and got it back. However i also had a friend on here mess up a sizable trade, get taken and refused to be returned. it would be one thing if TKR's members were simply lucky picking up the trades but thats not the case, there using a bot that constantly checks for mistakes to happen for the sole reason of making a profit. This term does not just help IQ or our colo for that matter, it helps every nation that made a mistake. 

 

As for the meme terms, In fact i like some of the meme terms, sure they may not be "needed" in a IC sense but it adds a bit of fun to the game. When i first saw the terms I actually thought that there more than fair and TKR & Co would immediately accept them, turns out I was wrong. but why shouldn't people have some fun in the terms, its a game after all.... We won this one and get to make the terms but the next one we may not, as long as the terms are not absurd in nature who cares?

 

VM nation term is more than acceptable, history has shown that not all war dodgers will be punished by their alliances simply because they can be taxed and help rebuild the alliance at a fast pace. i use punished for a lack of good wording, they are not being punished at all, their just being forced to take the same damage their alliance mates have already taken, the alliance can then choose to punish them by refusing rebuild aid or kicking them. Allowing these nations to skate by and help tkr and co rebuild fast would be counter productive to the entire war, so this term is more than acceptable imo.

Edited by Pestilence
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, if the bot is allowed by sheepy and given how butt hurt you people are being about it I'm sure you have complained and tried to get him to ban it, why do you think it is acceptable to try and ban it yourselves?

As many others have said, check your trades or learn from your mistakes.

As for the VM term, I doubt you would think it was acceptable it it were being imposed on you and your alliances.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Who Me said:

First, if the bot is allowed by sheepy and given how butt hurt you people are being about it I'm sure you have complained and tried to get him to ban it, why do you think it is acceptable to try and ban it yourselves?

...because we don't like it? I'm not sure why something being allowed by the rules means it's off-limits to player regulation.

12 minutes ago, Who Me said:

As for the VM term, I doubt you would think it was acceptable it it were being imposed on you and your alliances. 

Applied conservatively (nothing under 1k infra) and leniently (selling rather than fighting is fine), no, we wouldn't. Or at least not any more than we find losing wars unacceptable. The proposed penalties against VM users aren't unfair to them any more than the losses incurred by the war are unfair to the other nations in your coalition. We already pointed out the ridiculous number of war dodgers in your coalition on the forums; this is about destroying their infrastructure, not pointing out that they're pixel huggers for the umpteenth time.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Edward I said:

...because we don't like it? I'm not sure why something being allowed by the rules means it's off-limits to player regulation.

Applied conservatively (nothing under 1k infra) and leniently (selling rather than fighting is fine), no, we wouldn't. Or at least not any more than we find losing wars unacceptable. The proposed penalties against VM users aren't unfair to them any more than the losses incurred by the war are unfair to the other nations in your coalition. We already pointed out the ridiculous number of war dodgers in your coalition on the forums; this is about destroying their infrastructure, not pointing out that they're pixel huggers for the umpteenth time.

Because you don't like it? lolololol  Poor babies, teach your people to check their trades if you don't like them screwing them up.

 

If you are OK with the term, then apply it to all of your people that went into VM to dodge the war. Seems reasonable.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Who Me said:

Because you don't like it? lolololol  Poor babies, teach your people to check their trades if you don't like them screwing them up.

If you don't like the term, fight until we're willing to drop it or force us to rescind it later.

Just now, Who Me said:

If you are OK with the term, then apply it to all of your people that went into VM to dodge the war. Seems reasonable. 

I just explained that it's to destroy their infra, not to punish them for using VM. The whole point of this war was to burn upper tier pixels. It's not hypocritical to not demand the same of anyone using VM on our side because, again, this isn't to punish VM use - it's to destroy their infrastructure for the sake of destroying their infrastructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I would have told you the shove everything after article 2 but others are much nicer than I am.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Who Me said:

Enlighten me please.

Go back to the war before this one. You imposed terms as an alliance that offensively hit and won with a dogpile.

Don't whinge when the same shit happens to you. Maybe next time you go on the offensive you'll take the W and leave it at that, you don't get to act like an innocent party in all this though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Who Me said:

 

 

If you are OK with the term, then apply it to all of your people that went into VM to dodge the war. Seems reasonable.

 

why do terms need to be self righteous bullshit where every side does what's 'fair', might as well just ask for the other coalition to impose all the other terms on themselves too. Seems reasonable.

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Freakzilla said:

is it too late to add No Fat Chicks to Article III? 

looks around

whispers

We can arrange something.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ripper said:

Could you please pin-point the punitive terms?

 

Quote

All members of Coalition B must state that it is their sincerely and dearly held belief, now and forever, that Clarke did nothing wrong. This statement can be made in an announcement on the Foreign Affairs subforum of the P&W forums.

 

This punishes the community more than anything I could ever think up.

  • Upvote 6

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.