Jump to content

A Call to Arms


Lord Tyrion
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Give or take that puts you back what a month, maybe a month and a half? Then you have a huge NAP period, which historically has always been adhered to, to rebuild thoroughly. Is that really that bad it's worth losing further members for?

That would individually put one of the large members of Coalition A like T$, GOB, or TKR back one month. Considering the combined peacetime income of the Coalition you're probably looking at two weeks max of earning potential lost. Most of which is bank loot they wouldn't have even generated normally. Truly a crippling blow.

Edited by Pop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok before this whole reps debacle continues, I think it’s important to note the point of reps isn’t to give some sort of economic advantage to the winner but rather to punish a losing side for what was seen as unfair play.  We’re talking about putting 50 billion in reps, @Do Not Fear Jazz you know I love you man but 30 ain’t much different, on a coalition that entered preemptively or was hit in the case of T$.  @Alexio15 has the logs on the validity of the CB, so we’re talking about rightful warfare here.  And for a time, coalition B won and accomplished its war goals which were to damage Chaos albeit on Chaos’ timeline versus rebuild.  

There isn’t a pretext for reps between the constant stalling and purposeful attrition coalition B has engaged in.  Rather, what this is, is a shameful corruption of yet another precedent by OD in how peace negotiations function.  Illegitimate CBs, breaking treaties, breaking NAPs wasn’t enough.  Every political institution we know is being exploited for the sake of realpolitik, and this is ironic given that NPO are the ones who espouse an ideology of working within a formalized framework.  If Polar got it’s bank hit, that is their fault no matter how much their FA gov might be great or want it back.  War better and play better.  Don’t utilize reps for something their not meant for because assuredly you’re setting a precedent that won’t be helpful for anyone, including you, in the future.

Its shameful really how desperate things have become.  Shame on everyone who wishes to instigate this dynamic and allow for reps to be a vehicle for personal piggybank, and I hope you don’t have to experience it as a taste of your own medicine.  

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

22 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

I don't think you'll find much opposition in that sentiment from our side.

If we actually owed them 5 billion that is. Instead epi loaned it to an unreliable individual (Nokia) who then falsely passed it off as a gift from his own funds.

Infact at the same time he did that, he did actually receive 5bn of his own funds from an offshore, so you can't even say which dollar is from where.

 

This also ignoring last I checked, Nokia is a member of/protected by Camelot. I didn't take any loans, and ya can't prove the 5b I was given wasn't the 5 from nokias own money, they won't be getting paid shit. Learn to invest properly.

Edit: this ignoring Camelot being used by it's 2IC (epi) to traffic NPs stolen bank of 5.3bn in last calculated values ?

Edited by Akuryo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Ok before this whole reps debacle continues, I think it’s important to note the point of reps isn’t to give some sort of economic advantage to the winner but rather to punish a losing side for what was seen as unfair play.  We’re talking about putting 50 billion in reps, @Do Not Fear Jazz you know I love you man but 30 ain’t much different, on a coalition that entered preemptively or was hit in the case of T$.  @Alexio15 has the logs on the validity of the CB, so we’re talking about rightful warfare here.  And for a time, coalition B won and accomplished its war goals which were to damage Chaos albeit on Chaos’ timeline versus rebuild.  

There isn’t a pretext for reps between the constant stalling and purposeful attrition coalition B has engaged in.  Rather, what this is, is a shameful corruption of yet another precedent by OD in how peace negotiations function.  Illegitimate CBs, breaking treaties, breaking NAPs wasn’t enough.  Every political institution we know is being exploited for the sake of realpolitik, and this is ironic given that NPO are the ones who espouse an ideology of working within a formalized framework.  If Polar got it’s bank hit, that is their fault no matter how much their FA gov might be great or want it back.  War better and play better.  Don’t utilize reps for something their not meant for because assuredly you’re setting a precedent that won’t be helpful for anyone, including you, in the future.

Its shameful really how desperate things have become.  Shame on everyone who wishes to instigate this dynamic and allow for reps to be a vehicle for personal piggybank, and I hope you don’t have to experience it as a taste of your own medicine.  

rep·a·ra·tion
/ˌrepəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun
  1. the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged.
     
    We view you as having wronged us by declaring on BK in a war that you assumed would be an easy curbstomp.

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:
rep·a·ra·tion
/ˌrepəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun
  1. the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged.
     
    We view you as having wronged us by declaring on BK in a war that you assumed would be an easy curbstomp.

 

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Ok before this whole reps debacle continues, I think it’s important to note the point of reps isn’t to give some sort of economic advantage to the winner but rather to punish a losing side for what was seen as unfair play.  We’re talking about putting 50 billion in reps, @Do Not Fear Jazz you know I love you man but 30 ain’t much different, on a coalition that entered preemptively or was hit in the case of T$.  @Alexio15 has the logs on the validity of the CB, so we’re talking about rightful warfare here.  And for a time, coalition B won and accomplished its war goals which were to damage Chaos albeit on Chaos’ timeline versus rebuild.  

There isn’t a pretext for reps between the constant stalling and purposeful attrition coalition B has engaged in.  Rather, what this is, is a shameful corruption of yet another precedent by OD in how peace negotiations function.  Illegitimate CBs, breaking treaties, breaking NAPs wasn’t enough.  Every political institution we know is being exploited for the sake of realpolitik, and this is ironic given that NPO are the ones who espouse an ideology of working within a formalized framework.  If Polar got it’s bank hit, that is their fault no matter how much their FA gov might be great or want it back.  War better and play better.  Don’t utilize reps for something their not meant for because assuredly you’re setting a precedent that won’t be helpful for anyone, including you, in the future.

Its shameful really how desperate things have become.  Shame on everyone who wishes to instigate this dynamic and allow for reps to be a vehicle for personal piggybank, and I hope you don’t have to experience it as a taste of your own medicine.  

lol. Please dude. You've done so many bad things this war that we smell like roses in comparison at this point.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate CB. If we saw you as a threat to competitiveness by having an easy curbstomp then it was valid to not let you decisively crush one side.  You've focused on the proximal reason and we had enough reasons to believe TKR's tension with us would escalate. .  We didn't break the NAP Kitschie and Immortals decided the NAP was dead because of TMC. This was a thin pretext for them to justify breaking it and entering to help you or TCW. They acted in bad faith with regards to the NAP.  You complain so much about game health but an upwards transfer of wealth of that scale from a larger amount of people to one person is terrible for it. Given the viciousness and sanctioning of actual bank theft, tricking people to help you, rigging wars, and so on, it's hard to make this case at this point. Anyone who did anything wrong becomes a saint in your eyes as long as they screw us. You embraced EM when he broke his own deal. You canonized Gorge. This pattern just increases the need for these terms. You've justified everything on the basis of being hunted to extinction when your own aspirations for dominance are the true motive.

 

 

-----

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

 

"There is no such thing as an illegitimate CB."

" Immortals decided the NAP was dead because of TMC. This was a thin pretext for them to justify breaking it and entering to help you or TCW. "

Do you read what you say before you post it ? 

 

One more blow to the house of cards that is your collective cognitive dissonance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Akuryo said:

If we actually owed them 5 billion that is. Instead epi loaned it to an unreliable individual (Nokia) who then falsely passed it off as a gift from his own funds.

Infact at the same time he did that, he did actually receive 5bn of his own funds from an offshore, so you can't even say which dollar is from where.

 

This also ignoring last I checked, Nokia is a member of/protected by Camelot. I didn't take any loans, and ya can't prove the 5b I was given wasn't the 5 from nokias own money, they won't be getting paid shit. Learn to invest properly.

Edit: this ignoring Camelot being used by it's 2IC (epi) to traffic NPs stolen bank of 5.3bn in last calculated values ?

Personally. I think that both North Point and Nokia should send 5 billion to Camelot.

And I, as their founder, should get 25%.

I think that both sides will find this agreeable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Canada2 said:

Do you read what you say before you post it ? 

 

One more blow to the house of cards that is your collective cognitive dissonance.

I mean we literally have logs from your government discussions with OD regarding the subject matter. I'd suggest you either go back and talk to your government about it. I'd posit that Roquentin probably has more information regarding the situation than you do as well ;) 

4 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

Its shameful really how desperate things have become.  Shame on everyone who wishes to instigate this dynamic and allow for reps to be a vehicle for personal piggybank, and I hope you don’t have to experience it as a taste of your own medicine.  

Shame on EMC indeed :) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

I mean we literally have logs from your government discussions with OD regarding the subject matter. I'd suggest you either go back and talk to your government about it. I'd posit that Roquentin probably has more information regarding the situation than you do as well ;)  

Let me make Roquentins words more clear since you went off topic 

"There is no illegitimate CB" 

"Immortals has an illegitimate CB" 

Continue to completely ignore the contents of my comment to say something irrelevant to it and pat yourself on the back like you won.

It shows my comment on your cognitive dissonance is correct 

Edited by Canada2
Explained why it's cognitive dissonance
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Roquentin said:

lol. Please dude. You've done so many bad things this war that we smell like roses in comparison at this point.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate CB. If we saw you as a threat to competitiveness by having an easy curbstomp then it was valid to not let you decisively crush one side.  You've focused on the proximal reason and we had enough reasons to believe TKR's tension with us would escalate. .  We didn't break the NAP Kitschie and Immortals decided the NAP was dead because of TMC. This was a thin pretext for them to justify breaking it and entering to help you or TCW. They acted in bad faith with regards to the NAP.  You complain so much about game health but an upwards transfer of wealth of that scale from a larger amount of people to one person is terrible for it. Given the viciousness and sanctioning of actual bank theft, tricking people to help you, rigging wars, and so on, it's hard to make this case at this point. Anyone who did anything wrong becomes a saint in your eyes as long as they screw us. You embraced EM when he broke his own deal. You canonized Gorge. This pattern just increases the need for these terms. You've justified everything on the basis of being hunted to extinction when your own aspirations for dominance are the true motive.

 

 

-----

 

 

The various logs which disprove your claims have at this point been buried in pages upon pages of your incoherent drivel. Adri just linked one. Must we go and find the rest again? 

 

You purposefully brought in tS, tcw and many others. It's undeniably proven. 

  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

The various logs which disprove your claims have at this point been buried in pages upon pages of your incoherent drivel. Adri just linked one. Must we go and find the rest again? 

 

You purposefully brought in tS, tcw and many others. It's undeniably proven. 

Why have I got the feeling that u love nascar racing as it seems u can only turn left and keep going in circles with the same one thought mind. Seriously I would think u would be coming with counter offers but then I guess u dont know how to turn right to the proper room u should be negotiating 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, brucemna said:

Why have I got the feeling that u love nascar racing as it seems u can only turn left and keep going in circles with the same one thought mind. Seriously I would think u would be coming with counter offers but then I guess u dont know how to turn right to the proper room u should be negotiating 

Counter offers are reserved for private channels, and those were at the time rejected. Every time talks have stalled it came due to strange behavior or an outright rejection/unwillingness to compromise on your side's part. You have not been privy to logs. Most of the people you argue with on here have seen them. You're wagging your finger blindly, unaware as to the bullshit your leadership is pulling.

I'll note that at least Jazz and Aero have been straightforward.

Edited by Prefonteen

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Counter offers are reserved for private channels, and those were at the time rejected. Every time talks have stalled it came due to strange behavior or an outright rejection/unwillingness to compromise on your side's part. You have not been privy to logs. Most of the people you argue with on here have seen them. You're wagging your finger blindly, unaware as to the bullshit your leadership is pulling.

I'll note that at least Jazz and Aero have been straightforward.

For and this is not on u personally I am surprised logs have not been posted on the counter to use in justification that our terms r to harsh. U r right we dont know what is in the private channels. As for what our leaders are saying we can say the same and have counter argued the perception u are trying to give.  The only bull I have heard is public slander.  Seriously though it is obvious to the word the PERCEPTION is different on both sides and no one should be called a liar. As mentioned before u have surrendered and yes negotiation involves rejection.  Now as I have mentioned my perception is that 2 years there were reps paid by three alliances of 525 mil. At that time the precedent was set for any AA to go that road. There may have been reps even before that but am just working off memory at the moment of what is mentioned here. SO reps in this instance are justified as it is just a matter of perception on how much. Forward teo years maybe almost 3 and we also have to look at the state of the world then and length of war.  Nations are bigger now .. as well axlonger war so damage and such is greater so pro rated the terms being suggested to u do not seem all bad  given thought

 That does not mean u dont have the right to negotiate and with that in mind knowing ur perception and the hold for the past u way low balled ur counter I would think to 1/8 of the original terms which is just a guess.  Mayne i am wrong maybe i am right but if u want this to end as u say u do then frick get on the ball and suck the road to get it done.  One thing I am sure of is given the diplomatic state of the game right now u have lots of time to rebuild. If u say NPO is vulnerable to be able to build a sphere of strength then man the longer and more bull u guys keep posting will ruin ur window to even get there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, brucemna said:

For and this is not on u personally I am surprised logs have not been posted on the counter to use in justification that our terms r to harsh. U r right we dont know what is in the private channels. As for what our leaders are saying we can say the same and have counter argued the perception u are trying to give.  The only bull I have heard is public slander.  Seriously though it is obvious to the word the PERCEPTION is different on both sides and no one should be called a liar. As mentioned before u have surrendered and yes negotiation involves rejection.  Now as I have mentioned my perception is that 2 years there were reps paid by three alliances of 525 mil. At that time the precedent was set for any AA to go that road. There may have been reps even before that but am just working off memory at the moment of what is mentioned here. SO reps in this instance are justified as it is just a matter of perception on how much. Forward teo years maybe almost 3 and we also have to look at the state of the world then and length of war.  Nations are bigger now .. as well axlonger war so damage and such is greater so pro rated the terms being suggested to u do not seem all bad  given thought

 That does not mean u dont have the right to negotiate and with that in mind knowing ur perception and the hold for the past u way low balled ur counter I would think to 1/8 of the original terms which is just a guess.  Mayne i am wrong maybe i am right but if u want this to end as u say u do then frick get on the ball and suck the road to get it done.  One thing I am sure of is given the diplomatic state of the game right now u have lots of time to rebuild. If u say NPO is vulnerable to be able to build a sphere of strength then man the longer and more bull u guys keep posting will ruin ur window to even get there. 

We have not posted logs for the sake of letting the talks continue, however shit they get.

Can you link me to the specific war where 525 mil was forced as reps, and specifically explain to me the circumstances of that war? Was it a justified aggressive war? A defensive war? 

All we know about this war is that your side has falsified information, attacked on false pretenses, attacked without CB, been caught plotting to attack, and so on, and so forth. However much your leadership has tried to spin, it has been for nothing because the logs are there to disprove them. Your justifications for reparations are shit- youre not extracting them as a punitive measure, but more as a "might makes right" thing. That's absolutely a valid approach, but also one which has the counterreaction of making opposition dig their heels. Politics are a two way street, and oppressive action without justification carries a political cost.

 

With regards to the negotiation itself and "lowballing": Perhaps if more moderate figures on your side like jazz and aero end up taking a lead role, we may get somewhere. Your initial negotiators acted like pricks who were unwilling to negotiate or compromise, who added terms mid-negotiation on multiple occasions, who removed negotiators' speaking rights when they did not get their way, throwing tantrums (I quote: "BYE BYE SEE YOU NEXT YEAR") and who more often than not made things personal in pretty shitty ways.

So no, there is no leg to stand on. I maintain my stance that your side is utter dogshit until an actual gesture toward peace is made. I was a moderate voice going into this back when I tried to get negotiations going in the first place. Having been retired and placed back in a lead role out of necessity. Over the past months the conduct of my opposing counterparts has been absolutely appaling to the point where even I harbor a personal dislike for certain parties. You have you gov to thank for that.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Canada2 said:

Let me make Roquentins words more clear since you went off topic 

"There is no illegitimate CB" 

"Immortals has an illegitimate CB" 

Continue to completely ignore the contents of my comment to say something irrelevant to it and pat yourself on the back like you won.

It shows my comment on your cognitive dissonance is correct 

But...he never said anything about the legitimately of Immortals CB? 

He said you considered the NAP void because you wanted to jump into war with the alliance(s) playing you like a fiddle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
13 hours ago, Princess Adrienne said:

*Coalition B not Opus Dei alone but since you asked nicely....

  • 10b bond (under easily exploitable conditions) from the KERCHTOGG half of Coalition A to Coalition B
  • 10b bond (under easily exploitable conditions) from the Starksphere half of Coalition A to Coalition B - as far as bonds go uhh no comment? Not really sure I understand but it seems like we asked to borrow 20 bil to pay back at a later date..?
  • 500m from TGH to GOONS - Fair. TGH pulled GOONs into the war anyway.
  • 500m from CoS to UPN (already paid) - as mentioned it's paid so won't be part of the terms anymore.
  • 50m from Soup Kitchen to UPN - 50m is nothing, moving on.
  • 300m from Soup Kitchen to TCW - no thanks, if anything let's make tCW pay Soup. Remove it.
  • ~15b in money/resources from KT to Polaris - uhhhhhh. Weirdly I don't really agree with this. Polaris was fairly looted. Maybe a few bil in reps is more fair then the entire sum? Think they one should be negotiated.
  • 2b combined from KT/TKR/t$ to UPN - Not insanely high by itself.
  • 2b from CoA to The Covenant - 1 bil is more fair i think.
  • 5b from CoA to BK - same with this, cut it in half. 
  • 50m from CoA to UPN - Ehh, this one isn't a biggie.
  • An undisclosed amount from t$ to Coalition B (Gringotts Bank term) - No comment since it hasn't seemed to actually have come out?

 

That all adds up to ~45.45b w/o the Gringotts term and that's just Coalition A and not TCWsphere.

Just my personal opinion I added into your quoted post. Just my 2 cents.

11 hours ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

@Tiberius, you better be careful. This ones coming for your crown of Best NPO Sheeple Mouthpiece. And with the divorce finalized, they might take my ❤️

 

Really man?! I'm offended again. I'm really trying hard to beat Tibs and your totally ignoring me. Ninja sad?

10 hours ago, Princess Adrienne said:

So much for "yeah, sure, come back to talks"

 

10 hours ago, Princess Adrienne said:

You're a little all over the place here, friend. First you invite us back to a non-existent server, then you tell us you're gonna sit on us forever, now you want us to make a server and invite you? This is a fun rollercoaster at least. 10/10 would ride again.

Sounds like your just lazy. If making a discord channel is too much effort for you I'm not surprised negotiations were going nowhere.

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

Counter offers are reserved for private channels, and those were at the time rejected. Every time talks have stalled it came due to strange behavior or an outright rejection/unwillingness to compromise on your side's part. You have not been privy to logs. Most of the people you argue with on here have seen them. You're wagging your finger blindly, unaware as to the bullshit your leadership is pulling.

I'll note that at least Jazz and Aero have been straightforward.

As quoted above you guys put up our asking price. Dunno why you can't post your counter-offer of that without posting a bunch of logs with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Princess Adrienne said:

Given that your coalition just broke a NAP against Farksphere, you'll forgive me if I don't have much faith in your word on this.

This is a level of cognitive dissonance I wouldn't expect from yourself.

TMC starts an aggressive war against a Camelot protectorate and refuses to back down, and the NAP is fine?

We counter them, and suddenly we broke the NAP?

Or do you mean the Immortals, who told us straight up they were attacking us, so we shot first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said:

Just my personal opinion I added into your quoted post. Just my 2 cents.

Really man?! I'm offended again. I'm really trying hard to beat Tibs and your totally ignoring me. Ninja sad?

 

Sounds like your just lazy. If making a discord channel is too much effort for you I'm not surprised negotiations were going nowhere.

As quoted above you guys put up our asking price. Dunno why you can't post your counter-offer of that without posting a bunch of logs with it.

We weren't allowed to negotiate the bigger picture by your negotiators. We were only allowed to do them one at a time, with each term being incredibly hard to get any leeway on. As of right now we're stranded on the bond.

- Regarding the gringotts term: The term itself is an undisclosed amount. The term is phrased as t$ paying any cash owed by gringotts (a defunct bank from 1.5 year ago which was not run by t$ and of which we have no accounts as its owners are inactive/gone). I.e. we agree to pay an undisclosed amount as anyone can claim they are owed cash. The term is hard to agree to in principle because its vague.

 

- On the bond: The bond is phrased in a way where if "the NAP" is broken by any party, the bond is voided and will not be returned. As the NAP is phrased in a way where a breach can be farily easily claimed, the term is problematic. We offered to look for other solutions which provide collateral, but there was no negotiating room, so talks stalled.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Epi said:

From memory, didn't Sphinx write half those terms? If we could agree on the principal of a bond, we can negotiate what would break it. 

We were willing to agree to the principle of providing collateral (as that was the stated desire of your negotiators). Specifics could be worked on to find a solution.

 

os9LcJK.gif

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.