Jump to content

A Call to Arms


Lord Tyrion
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest PhantomThiefB
5 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

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.

Well rest assured I was not a player during the gringotts thingy, but since it seems to not involve me due to it being so far in the past I think I'll stay clear an opinion on that until I understand it better/reach a full understanding.

So the amount isn't the issue regarding the bonds then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SleepingNinja said:

Well rest assured I was not a player during the gringotts thingy, but since it seems to not involve me due to it being so far in the past I think I'll stay clear an opinion on that until I understand it better/reach a full understanding.

So the amount isn't the issue regarding the bonds then?

Total amounts shelled out are an issue for sure. I only clarified why we took issue with the bond's principle (i.e. it being more than just a loan)/why we considered it defacto reparations.

Someone mentioned that the amounts themselves are meant to be negotiated, so i'll steer clear from commenting on that. Talks had not reached that phase yet :P .

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
Just now, Prefonteen said:

Total amounts shelled out are an issue for sure. I only clarified why we took issue with the bond's principle (i.e. it being more than just a loan)/why we considered it defacto reparations.

Someone mentioned that the amounts themselves are meant to be negotiated, so i'll steer clear from commenting on that. Talks had not reached that phase yet :P .

No I do agree amounts can absolutely be negotiated. At least most of them. anything sub 1 billion shouldn't really be an issue but that's just me.

As far as the loans go I'd personally be willing to cut them in half at the least but I'm not part of the process so hopefully you guys might be willing to work on it. We'll see I suppose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, 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. 

Makes sense ... as a matter of fact I think bonds at naps are good as they are almost a guarantee no one will make a stupid excuse for breaking them at will.  As loans maybe should be a subsection of the peace agreement on a pending approval without holding peace I would think with a financial review of some kind with the borrowing AA 

Edited by brucemna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

I only clarified why we took issue with the bond's principle (i.e. it being more than just a loan)/why we considered it defacto reparations.

I mean the idea of it is basically to hold a large sum of money to ensure that all terms are completed, and give it back once they have been. We just recently ran into an issue ourselves where that might have been a good idea, where TLE decided to cancel our NAP and attack us because they thought they were getting a jump on us(RIP TLE).

I understand the concerns about "what breaks the NAP", but realistically, if the NAP was considered broken, I'd imagine we'd all be back at war again anyway, and you wouldn't expect to get your money back regardless, much like we wouldn't expect you to fulfill any remaining terms. I doubt either side wants that scenario.

That said, I'd imagine when it's all said and done, both parties could hash out some specifics for what they consider to be "breaking the NAP".

Edited by Salt Meat
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Epi said:

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but unlike members of Coalition A. we haven't violated our peace agreements. If a 10bil bond discourages rogues from your coalition, there's probably a cackling Keshav somewhere saying " it's working just as intended". Perhaps the damage received from rogues could be deducted from the 10bil,  instead of the whole amount being forfeited if something goes wrong.

Additionally we could split the bond up in proportion to alliance size / city count. And if any individual alliance went rogue or a majority of rogues came from one particular alliance. Only that % of the bond is forfeit. Not all of them.

The thing is that you did violate multiple agreements to get people into the war, killed off multiple allies out of spite and backstabbed people. Your POV disagrees, that's cool. It doen't change why we don't really believe you on good faith.

The issue is that the bond does not dissuade rogues. It just allows you to attack us for things we can not control.

6 minutes ago, Critters said:

Did someone say Terminal Jest?!?

Greetings, friend!

  • Like 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats Ty ☆*:.。. o(≧▽≦)o .。.:*☆
Still one of my fave alliances/leaders 

though not a fan of the overused "game killing" rhetoric 

That's so meta 

but good luck with everything else ~(*≧▽≦)

Oh right, that means we're at war now, too 


be gentle pls (T▽T)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

The thing is that you did violate multiple agreements to get people into the war, killed off multiple allies out of spite and backstabbed people. Your POV disagrees, that's cool. It doen't change why we don't really believe you on good faith.

The issue is that the bond does not dissuade rogues. It just allows you to attack us for things we can not control.

Greetings, friend!

Well it is a game and you gotta take risks.

it's like a gamble you should take when you're bored and want something to "happen"

(not everyone trusts the casino bar owner but still takes a risk, some win.)  kinda a bad metaphor (since if you ask me I find Frawley quite trustworthy) but still conveys the point. 

essentially this argument sums up to "okay, Epi is fair about holding the collateral bond $ to the percentage of organizations who *don't defect* from the deal. However, in the end I still don't trust the issuing party." 

Well that's why it's called a gamble when you don't have other options.

or just make do. 

good luck deciding XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

The thing is that you did violate multiple agreements to get people into the war, killed off multiple allies out of spite and backstabbed people. Your POV disagrees, that's cool. It doen't change why we don't really believe you on good faith.

The issue is that the bond does not dissuade rogues. It just allows you to attack us for things we can not control.

Greetings, friend!

I can understand ur concern for the rogue part but generally I think most AAs have a policy if rogues or unaligned raiders attack them they come up with a target list to deal with them on a individual basis. Maybe if someone rogues u can boot them off the AA they maybe on or using them both sides can agree they are fair game for anyone.  That way they are not thinking for say if it is a TS (just a example dont overread or think) u can kick them off ur AA and attack them as well as members of the AA they attack until some kind of resolution  comes .. though one could say slots can be filled but in that regard then ur AA would be responsible to produce battle logs to show effort in dealing with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, brucemna said:

I can understand ur concern for the rogue part but generally I think most AAs have a policy if rogues or unaligned raiders attack them they come up with a target list to deal with them on a individual basis. Maybe if someone rogues u can boot them off the AA they maybe on or using them both sides can agree they are fair game for anyone.  That way they are not thinking for say if it is a TS (just a example dont overread or think) u can kick them off ur AA and attack them as well as members of the AA they attack until some kind of resolution  comes .. though one could say slots can be filled but in that regard then ur AA would be responsible to produce battle logs to show effort in dealing with it. 

Where was your smarts and wisdom when we needed it? You my friend have got it all going on.

  • Upvote 1

Chief Financial Officer of The Syndicate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Yuno said:

Well it is a game and you gotta take risks.

it's like a gamble you should take when you're bored and want something to "happen"

(not everyone trusts the casino bar owner but still takes a risk, some win.)  kinda a bad metaphor (since if you ask me I find Frawley quite trustworthy) but still conveys the point. 

essentially this argument sums up to "okay, Epi is fair about holding the collateral bond $ to the percentage of organizations who *don't defect* from the deal. However, in the end I still don't trust the issuing party." 

Well that's why it's called a gamble when you don't have other options.

or just make do. 

good luck deciding XD

It is definitely a game. You guys take risks, we take risks. There is a rationale between our decisions and statements, and there is one between yours. I hope Epi can get their negotiators to discuss solutions with us in private in a similar manner as to what he is doing in here. The entire issue has been that there has been no room for dialogue along these lines in private (as we have been essentially stonewalled by the main negotiators, until jazz started asserting himself a bit).

If moving forward this is the approach during the negotiations themselves, there may be a chance for success.

29 minutes ago, brucemna said:

I can understand ur concern for the rogue part but generally I think most AAs have a policy if rogues or unaligned raiders attack them they come up with a target list to deal with them on a individual basis. Maybe if someone rogues u can boot them off the AA they maybe on or using them both sides can agree they are fair game for anyone.  That way they are not thinking for say if it is a TS (just a example dont overread or think) u can kick them off ur AA and attack them as well as members of the AA they attack until some kind of resolution  comes .. though one could say slots can be filled but in that regard then ur AA would be responsible to produce battle logs to show effort in dealing with it. 

I can imagine that would be an area where we can find a way to compromise/make it work between our coalitions.

  • Thanks 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I can't speak for gov, I don't see any situation in which they would refuse to negotiate in good faith if good faith was shown to us in return. This war has gone on for far too long, hell I've only been involved a week and I'm sick to death of it, can't get shit done because it's taking up too much time.

However, I don't see a reason T$ should pay back money owed by a bank that ceased operations 18 months ago, that's just silly.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, namukara said:

Although I can't speak for gov, I don't see any situation in which they would refuse to negotiate in good faith if good faith was shown to us in return. This war has gone on for far too long, hell I've only been involved a week and I'm sick to death of it, can't get shit done because it's taking up too much time.

However, I don't see a reason T$ should pay back money owed by a bank that ceased operations 18 months ago, that's just silly.

Just imagine what you are feeling now continuing on for 7 months straight without end.  That's how we've pretty much felt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jeric said:

Why don't we all just end it now and revisit this conflict in say, 6months? No winners no losers just shake hands and go back to our own corners? 

no thanks

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, namukara said:

Although I can't speak for gov, I don't see any situation in which they would refuse to negotiate in good faith if good faith was shown to us in return. This war has gone on for far too long, hell I've only been involved a week and I'm sick to death of it, can't get shit done because it's taking up too much time.

However, I don't see a reason T$ should pay back money owed by a bank that ceased operations 18 months ago, that's just silly.

imagine thinking you have leverage when you're razed. That's not how negotiations work.

The winners dictate the terms, and they're negotiated. Your side has the terms, they were released, and if coalition A doesn't want to negotiate them down or accept them, then we continue with war. That's how this works.

If you just say no, and don't negotiate, don't get all pikachu face as we continue razing you

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Leonard J Crabs said:

imagine thinking you have leverage when you're razed. That's not how negotiations work.

The winners dictate the terms, and they're negotiated. Your side has the terms, they were released, and if coalition A doesn't want to negotiate them down or accept them, then we continue with war. That's how this works.

If you just say no, and don't negotiate, don't get all pikachu face as we continue razing you

We haven't said "just no", friend :)

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SleepingNinja said:

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

If I knew I was in this high of a demand in NPO, I might have liked you guys more. ❤️

  • Haha 1

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

-snip-

It doesn't matter how valid the pre-empt was, by attacking first you are aggressive and must therefore pay reps to the defending side. This precedent was established by TS-sphere in 2015.

  • Upvote 1

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

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.