Jump to content
Ripper

Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Article 5 is very clearly and directly punitive, as it is currently written. Everyone that went into VM on one side gets punished... and nobody on the other side that went into VM gets punished?

The answer a few posts above...

2 hours ago, Ripper said:

No one is going after them. They have the option to sell their infra, as you can see in the terms. If their alliance loves them so much, they can just rebuild them with their own funds. Sell down to 1k and then just rebuild. That easy.

I see no reason (from an IC point of view) to let nations again and again VM and then get "punished" by their alliances by getting taxed. These taxes are used to rebuild faster the alliances that were hit. Believe it or not, some alliances want to cause as much damage as possible to the opposing side and having VMers coming back post-war to rebuild the rest is not really appreciated.

Also... these nations are not punished. They get exactly the same treatment as their team-mates. The non-VMed TCW nations are at 1k infra level. The VMers will get to that level too. "Punishment" would imply that they get special treatment and worse terms than their team-mates, which is not the case.

Plus...

I see no reason to include VMers of our side in the peace treaty, since the terms are demands towards the other side... Why would they sign a paper about our own VMers? We will deal with them on our own anyway.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

*Pre's quote*

Tbh, I think that Pre was being facetious with that offer.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Except you, and Shifty.

And neither of us are gov. My comment was a joke at the absurdity of of viewing the present terms as harsh. Stick to your missile obsession, you'll fair better than playing in the deep end. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

IQ is included within the peace terms, so my point about the double standard still stands.

I'm not following, how is holding a few members of BC gov accountable for the leaks anywhere a double standard to this wars negotiation?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ripper said:

I see no reason to include VMers of our side in the peace treaty, since the terms are demands towards the other side... Why would they sign a paper about our own VMers? We will deal with them on our own anyway.

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:

11 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

And neither of us are gov. My comment was a joke at the absurdity of of viewing the present terms as harsh. Stick to your missile obsession, you'll fair better than playing in the deep end. 

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

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

If you are going to deal with them that way, then why wouldn't you sign an agreement and make that an official term of the peace?

Because this is not a social or trade contract. It's demands of one side to another.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

I'm not following, how is holding a few members of BC gov accountable for the leaks anywhere a double standard to this wars negotiation?

 

Fairness in trading was a term submitted by IQ, and instead of holding their own members accountable for not taking the 5 seconds to ensure the security of their resources, they are instead choosing to create a term outlawing someone else's creation.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Fairness in trading was a term submitted by IQ, and instead of holding their own members accountable for not taking the 5 seconds to ensure the security of their resources, they are instead choosing to create a term outlawing someone else's creation.

Again, how is this a double standard to something involving BC?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Again, how is this a double standard to something involving BC?

IQ was persistently preaching about holding the BC gov accountable for their leaks, so why can't they also hold their own members accountable for being naive and lazy? Unfortunately, I'm not sure this is a question you could answer for me since you're not IQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ripper said:

Because this is not a social or trade contract. It's demands of one side to another.

Yes, fine. What is being said is that demand is mechanically punitive, and leaves one side's deserters safe while the other side's deserters have to sell infra. That's not a precedent I'd like to see set (or upheld, as the case may be), since, as I have said, frick deserters.

I will say that I do like the idea in principle; it is a brilliant solution to the problem of VM deserters and I think it should be done far more regularly. I'm just saying it should work against all the deserters instead of just the ones from the losing side. There's more deserters on the losing side every time anyway.

11 minutes ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said:

IQ was persistently preaching about holding the BC gov accountable for their leaks, so why can't they also hold their own members accountable for being naive and lazy? Unfortunately, I'm not sure this is a question you could answer for me since you're not IQ.

That's not relevant to this discussion though; you're drawing a parallel out of context. This thread has nothing to do with BC either way.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Yes, fine. What is being said is that demand is mechanically punitive, and leaves one side's deserters safe while the other side's deserters have to sell infra. That's not a precedent I'd like to see set (or upheld, as the case may be), since, as I have said, frick deserters.

That's not relevant to this discussion though; you're drawing a parallel out of context. This thread has nothing to do with BC either way.

I know these terms are not directed at BC. I still think it's hypocritical for IQ to submit a term that punishes TKR instead of telling their own members to suck it up because in the end, those members are the ones accountable for their losses. Just because this thread does not involve them, does not mean I can't say they're hypocritical for submitting this term, IMO.

Edited by ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ

Share this post


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

I know these terms are not directed at BC. I still think it's hypocritical for IQ to submit a term that punishes TKR instead of telling their own members to suck it up because in the end, those members are the ones accountable for their losses. Just because this thread does not involve them, does not mean I can say they're hypocritical for submitting this term, IMO.

Shockingly, IQ alliances consider it an ongoing duty to protect their members and don't mind that much if it means that TKR's goofballs have forgo the alleged freedom to screw with them.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

 So why is it that pixelhugging deserters on one side get the nail and the pixelhugging deserters on the other side get off scot-free? Honestly, asking for that is a bit of a pivot from CoS's position on the matter a couple months back when they did the Nothining to punish war dodgers "regardless of their alliance", and that makes the demand very tasteless in my view.

Oh hello. I was wondering when someone would try and bring this up.

First off, I'll note that I made the nothining terms literally by myself, and this dodger term was presented by an entire coalition.

I could certainly go on about this, but I think it's important to note that when I hit those people, I used a variety of means like troop kills and nation age (like I actually made a point-based system, like a true nerd) to try and separate "people who use vacation mode" from "people who systematically try to avoid war, placing an unfair burden on their alliance mates".

I don't have a problem with people using vacation mode for vacations or whatever... all the more power to them. It's when it becomes a pattern of behavior that it bothers me. I have a bit of trouble imagining how anyone could have gotten through a month+ on tkr's side without having taken fairly significant damage, though.... a month is a long time. So it should be a nonissue, in theory.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

Oh hello. I was wondering when someone would try and bring this up.

First off, I'll note that I made the nothining terms literally by myself, and this dodger term was presented by an entire coalition.

I could certainly go on about this, but I think it's important to note that when I hit those people, I used a variety of means like troop kills and nation age (like I actually made a point-based system, like a true nerd) to try and separate "people who use vacation mode" from "people who systematically try to avoid war, placing an unfair burden on their alliance mates".

I don't have a problem with people using vacation mode for vacations or whatever... all the more power to them. It's when it becomes a pattern of behavior that it bothers me. I have a bit of trouble imagining how anyone could have gotten through a month+ on tkr's side without having taken fairly significant damage, though.... a month is a long time. So it should be a nonissue, in theory.

I can respect that, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Again, the only thing that sticks in my craw is that it's a unilateral demand, and not a bilateral screw-deserters initiative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Auctor said:

Shockingly, IQ alliances consider it an ongoing duty to protect their members and don't mind that much if it means that TKR's goofballs have forgo the alleged freedom to screw with them.

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.

Edited by ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ

Share this post


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

I can respect that, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Again, the only thing that sticks in my craw is that it's a unilateral demand, and not a bilateral screw-deserters initiative.

I mean there is definitely a disparity in who's in a position to post unilateral demands. If I was doing the negotiating I might entertain the idea of making it bilateral, but that would take a lot of negotiating give-and-take probably.

A long time ago, in Silent, I pushed a similar term calling for a larger nation to be hit because the war hadn't gotten to him yet. Some people were upset, saying I singled that nation out, and it's not a totally invalid view, but I looked at it more as a price to be paid for ending the war before our side would have otherwise wished to.

...it's all negotiating, at the end of the day. If you don't like something, propose a counter for it or keep fighting.

... it just occurred to me that this time I'm going on a stupid, historical digression, it's actually in the spirit of the original intent of the thread. Go me!

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 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.

Vae Victis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Mad Titan said:

Vae Victis

Sure, or TKR and allies can keep on fighting which is not entirely in either of your best interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:

Vae Victis

Et vias illius operatur, you know.

 

Share this post


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

I can respect that, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Again, the only thing that sticks in my craw is that it's a unilateral demand, and not a bilateral screw-deserters initiative.

I get what you're saying, i just don't think it would work the way you're imagining it.

For fun lets take it as read that it is a 'bilateral screw-deserters initiative'. How do you envision that working as a condition within a peace treaty?

If it is a bilateral agreement do you intend on having the losing coalition somehow enforce the terms on the winning coalition? If it isn't enforced to eithers satisfaction who has broken the terms of the peace treaty?

As fun as i imagine requiring the loser to try and enforce conditions on the winner, i'm not sure if that's a precedent you'd be after either.

Best case I guess would be an unactionable agreement, but that achieves frick all and has no reason to be in a treaty.

 

 

Share this post


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

I get what you're saying, i just don't think it would work the way you're imagining it.

For fun lets take it as read that it is a 'bilateral screw-deserters initiative'. How do you envision that working as a condition within a peace treaty?

If it is a bilateral agreement do you intend on having the losing coalition somehow enforce the terms on the winning coalition? If it isn't enforced to eithers satisfaction who has broken the terms of the peace treaty?

As fun as i imagine requiring the loser to try and enforce conditions on the winner, i'm not sure if that's a precedent you'd be after either.

Best case I guess would be an unactionable agreement, but that achieves frick all and has no reason to be in a treaty.

 

 

Well if the winners didn't enforce it on their side, it would give the losers a cb that I'm sure they'll be searching for once the war's all said and done lol

Share this post


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

Well if the winners didn't enforce it on their side, it would give the losers a cb that I'm sure they'll be searching for once the war's all said and done lol

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute 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.

Yeah I wasn't really making a serious comment when I said that, just a random statement honestly.

Share this post


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

Well if the winners didn't enforce it on their side, it would give the losers a cb that I'm sure they'll be searching for once the war's all said and done lol

It would also invalidate the peace, justifying the winners re-engaging in the conflict?

Share this post


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

It would also invalidate the peace, justifying the winners re-engaging in the conflict?

Theoretically, the current winner would have already invalidated the peace by not enforcing it on their side but, as stated above it was just a random statement.

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.