DEIC Bank Content Anomaly

[Big Brother]

As far as I'm concerned, either DEIC pays up or we get to keep them around as a community punching bag until it crumbles and falls apart. If DEIC chose to send funds to another alliance and is unable to pay the required amount because of it, well then I guess we just have to keep fighting. Either way is fine by me.

[Crust]

So instead we fork over 300 million because it makes SK and company sad?

 

Look, normally most alliances can sort out some sort of agreement. However, when Partisan goes and gives BoC an ultimatum saying we have 24 hours to decide whether we pay the Coalition the money (not even just sending it back to DEIC) or risk tensions, although all the people who signed the peace treaty agreed to a 60 day NAP? Why would you insinuate that a group of alliances expecting us to do the "honorable" thing would do a "dishonorable" thing such as break a treaty?

You're aiding your enemies' enemy, although you've already surrendered and showed that you're not going to jump in to the war again. Though this type of thing isn't an act of Aggression per say, it is in a way an act of war. You can't expect to help your ally, who's still fighting, and not think you're gonna get !@#$ed over for it.

 

You have no allies who can back you up, you have no fight power to get them to back off, you have no bargaining chip. That treaty is a piece of paper that can be interpreted anyway you will and the winning party is the one who lays out the meaning of each word.

 

Taking that money was dishonorable to begin with, don't turn it in to an act of stupidity by being stubborn. Try to use this to your advantage instead. Forge new allies, split the money. Do something that isn't just you helping an ally who's both incompetent and more than willing to use you as a scapegoat.

[Lord of Puns]

You're aiding your enemies' enemy, although you've already surrendered and showed that you're not going to jump in to the war again. Though this type of thing isn't an act of Aggression per say, it is in a way an act of war. You can't expect to help your ally, who's still fighting, and not think you're gonna get !@#$ed over for it.

 

You have no allies who can back you up, you have no fight power to get them to back off, you have no bargaining chip. That treaty is a piece of paper that can be interpreted anyway you will and the winning party is the one who lays out the meaning of each word.

 

Taking that money was dishonorable to begin with, don't turn it in to an act of stupidity by being stubborn. Try to use this to your advantage instead. Forge new allies, split the money. Do something that isn't just you helping an ally who's both incompetent and more than willing to use you as a scapegoat.

 

Lets take this apart again. While yes in many cases, aiding an enemy would be considered aggression, the only "aid" we are doing is taking their money. We're not increasing the number of troops on the ground or providing them any sort of relief other than their heavy bank load. So if we were actually sending them money I'd agree, but in no way are we giving them any sort of advantage in the fight at hand.

 

You seem to be very pixel focused, if we get hit by them again, all I see is PR disaster, what are treaties then anyways, what are these words we give in faith and trust. 

 

This isn't an act of being stubborn it's called paying the !@#$ attention, if someone's calling you out to give them money for no !@#$ing reason, then what's the point. All I see here is: betray one set of allies and start entirely fresh, or keep the money because what everyone else is saying is bullshit and remain in what used to be the most powerful bloc on the planet of orbis...

[Sargun]

This isn't an act of being stubborn it's called paying the !@#$ attention, if someone's calling you out to give them money for no !@#$ reason, then what's the point. All I see here is: betray one set of allies and start entirely fresh, or keep the money because what everyone else is saying is bullshit and remain in what used to be the most powerful bloc on the planet of orbis...

Okay, pay the !@#$ attention to this:

 

You knew DEIC was at war.

 

You knew DEIC was sending you money to avoid paying reps.

 

You're lying about it here OR you're so hopefully, woefully incompetent that you thought a curbstomped alliance in the middle of peace talks sending you 2/3 of their money was totally okay and in no way did you question it.

 

Either you are absolutely terrible at this or you are lying.  Do you really want to double down on the path that BoC is completely incompetent at internal affairs, foreign affairs, and warfare altogether, or do you just want to fess up and walk away unscathed?

[Bollocks]

Secondly, BoC takes 300mil from an ally presumed to be aid from the war and it get's shit because we don't know what's going on in peace talks and such?

 

I mean, say you just got your ass handed to you in war, your ally sends you 300mil, first thought is obviously "hm wait this is probably money DEIC needs to pay off the peace treaty that we haven't even heard of. Those scandalous bastards them.", not "oh hey thanks guys for the great rebuilding aid, such wonderful allies you are."

 

Any competent leader's first thought would be "Why did we all of a sudden get 300 mil from an alliance that is still in war and peace talks?" and then would look at the transaction log and talk to the banker that sent the 300 mil. And then think of the follow-up questions such as 'Did this action violate the language and/or spirit of the peace we just agreed to?" and "Does this put my alliance in an unnecessarily precarious situation?"

 

A quick evaluation of the situation would have led most people to quickly return the 300 mil.

 

Despite some of the caustic rhetoric thrown at the BoC leadership, I know there is still much good-will reserved for BoC in our corner of Orbis. Don't burn it over a dumb issue.

[ELPINCHAZO]

So instead we fork over 300 million because it makes SK and company sad?

 

Look, normally most alliances can sort out some sort of agreement. However, when Partisan goes and gives BoC an ultimatum saying we have 24 hours to decide whether we pay the Coalition the money (not even just sending it back to DEIC) or risk tensions, although all the people who signed the peace treaty agreed to a 60 day NAP? Why would you insinuate that a group of alliances expecting us to do the "honorable" thing would do a "dishonorable" thing such as break a treaty?

The money itself wasn't even the issue to begin with,if you were even paying attention. It was the utter disregard for the truth and lack of good faith on the part of Clarke throughout the entirety of the war. Now that BoC has knowingly conspired with DEIC to hide the funds in hopes of better peace terms you've reengaged in the war.

 

But hey,if you want to be shady and try to hide behind  eLegalese  the other side can do that too. Imagine an AA not bound by the peace treaty suddenly gaining 300 members and declaring on BoC. That would probably suck,huh?

[Crust]

Lets take this apart again. While yes in many cases, aiding an enemy would be considered aggression, the only "aid" we are doing is taking their money. We're not increasing the number of troops on the ground or providing them any sort of relief other than their heavy bank load. So if we were actually sending them money I'd agree, but in no way are we giving them any sort of advantage in the fight at hand.

 

You seem to be very pixel focused, if we get hit by them again, all I see is PR disaster, what are treaties then anyways, what are these words we give in faith and trust.

 

This isn't an act of being stubborn it's called paying the !@#$ attention, if someone's calling you out to give them money for no !@#$ reason, then what's the point. All I see here is: betray one set of allies and start entirely fresh, or keep the money because what everyone else is saying is bullshit and remain in what used to be the most powerful bloc on the planet of orbis...

Aiding another alliance in having to pay less reps is aiding them, no matter how much you twist and turn it. Surrendering and paying reps is a part of any war, aiding an ally who still hasn't surrendered can and most probably will be seen as an act of indirect Aggression.

 

I don't care about your pixels. II honestly just don't want you to make a mistake that will lead to you losing your alliance members. How will you explain to them that you're getting rolled because of you?

 

If everyone within the alliance is on the same page then I guess that's that. But don't act as if it's totally uncalled for, or as if you haven't gotten any chances to turn this in to a way of getting stronger from the war.

[Prefonteen]

So instead we fork over 300 million because it makes SK and company sad?

 

Look, normally most alliances can sort out some sort of agreement. However, when Partisan goes and gives BoC an ultimatum saying we have 24 hours to decide whether we pay the Coalition the money (not even just sending it back to DEIC) or risk tensions, although all the people who signed the peace treaty agreed to a 60 day NAP? Why would you insinuate that a group of alliances expecting us to do the "honorable" thing would do a "dishonorable" thing such as break a treaty?

 

You do realize that the notion of BoC handing over the money was brought up by *your* representative? I'm happy to share the logs with you privately. Your representative was initially told that we saw this as a violation, that this was your problem, and that you best find a solution. He brought up the idea of forking the money over to us, as a potential solution, and I delved into it.

 

The 24 hour deadline has to do with the fact that you (and/or DEIC) have pissed various parties off to the point where they were ready to roll out on you last night. We gave you the courtesy of getting time to work out whether you want to be pulled back into this. 24 hours is plenty of time to have that discussion internally. Any more time would simply allow for stalling.

 

I will add that not everyone signed the NAP, and there are plenty of legaleze ways to circumvent it. You would have no grounds whatsoever to cry foul, given the actions of the covenant at the beginning of the war. DEIC did an excellent job of making a move like that fair game.

So again, we came to the table, instead of simply reengaging, out of courtesy. You are free to disagree with us, but attempting to frame this as anything other than you being (voluntarily or involuntarily) accomplice in DEIC's low move,  is not going to do you any good.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Partisan

[Clarke]

There seems to be some misconception that DEIC is hiding funds to avoid pay reparations or to get lower reparations. On the contrary the bank was moved to my nation and relocated again not to hide the bank or to avoid paying reps but merely to store money.

 

It was made pretty clear at the start that the longer the war goes on the less likely reps were to be paid, we ain't pretending we're broke to get better terms. Saying is the reps is too high isn't pretending to be broke. High is a matter of relativity to the situation which takes in a number of factors.

Overall I'm not surprised by people trying to break treaties and ruin the game.

[Lord of Puns]

You do realize that the notion of BoC handing over the money was brought up by *your* representative? I'm happy to share the logs with you privately. Your representative was initially told that we saw this as a violation, that this was your problem, and that you best find a solution. He brought up the idea of forking the money over to us, as a potential solution, and I delved into it.

 

This is actually useful, thanks. 

[Rozalia]

I'm not sure which is stupider. DEIC thinking this would work, or BoC thinking that as long as they cite the fact they've already surrendered that they are untouchable. 

[Prefonteen]

There seems to be some misconception that DEIC is hiding funds to avoid pay reparations or to get lower reparations. On the contrary the bank was moved to my nation and relocated again not to hide the bank or to avoid paying reps but merely to store money.

 

It was made pretty clear at the start that the longer the war goes on the less likely reps were to be paid, we ain't pretending we're broke to get better terms. Saying is the reps is too high isn't pretending to be broke. High is a matter of relativity to the situation which takes in a number of factors.

Overall I'm not surprised by people trying to break treaties and ruin the game.

 

Start of the war: DEIC refuses to honor its SK treaty. 

A few days into the war: DEIC engages in warfare against its ally in SK.

 

And now you claim that we are ruining the game by breaking treaties?

[Phiney]

Treaties that wouldn't even be broken

[Clarke]

Start of the war: DEIC refuses to honor its SK treaty. 

A few days into the war: DEIC engages in warfare against its ally in SK.

 

And now you claim that we are ruining the game by breaking treaties?

As pointed out to you on IRC no treaty was broken, being illiterate is no excuse for ignorance. 

[Prefonteen]

As pointed out to you on IRC no treaty was broken, being illiterate is no excuse for ignorance. 

 

Your rhetoric is the equivalent of calling a spade a spoon, and expecting the world to nod in agreement.

[Valakias]

Overall I'm not surprised by people trying to break treaties and ruin the game.

Teach me, master

[Clarke]

Your rhetoric is the equivalent of calling a spade a spoon, and expecting the world to nod in agreement.

Your rhetoric is ignoring the facts of a situation and coming up with your own imagined ideas to replace them. But the fact is treaty wasn't broken because it isn't gone because nothing broke the treaty. 

[Phiney]

Your rhetoric is ignoring the facts of a situation and coming up with your own imagined ideas to replace them. But the fact is treaty wasn't broken because it isn't gone because nothing broke the treaty.

Regardless if you claim this, we can use the same logic to not break any other treaty so this whole point is moot

[Prefonteen]

Your rhetoric is ignoring the facts of a situation and coming up with your own imagined ideas to replace them. But the fact is treaty wasn't broken because it isn't gone because nothing broke the treaty. 

 

Perhaps we should ask SK what they think.

 

 

I'm going to go ahead and second Phiney as well.

 

Regardless if you claim this, we can use the same logic to not break any other treaty so this whole point is moot

[Clarke]

Regardless if you claim this, we can use the same logic to not break any other treaty so this whole point is moot

No, no other treaty except that treaty allowed for that logic. 

Following that logic in treaties that don't allow for such a situation to occur would break them and make them void.

[ELPINCHAZO]

No, no other treaty except that treaty allowed for that logic. 

Following that logic in treaties that don't allow for such a situation to occur would break them and make them void.

You are just clueless no matter how many times they point out something.

[Phiney]

No, no other treaty except that treaty allowed for that logic.

Following that logic in treaties that don't allow for such a situation to occur would break them and make them void.

Yes, we don't have to even stoop to using the small print. Look at who hasn't signed that peace treaty brain box.

[Lu Xun]

Technically speaking, the legalese does give DEIC the right to attack SK without violating the terms of the treaty. That doesn't hide the fact that DEIC did attack its treaty partner, but the fact that you spun it successfully out of DEIC's hands does not obscure its legal status.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Inst

[ELPINCHAZO]

Technically speaking, the legalese does give DEIC the right to attack SK without violating the terms of the treaty. That doesn't hide the fact that DEIC did attack its treaty partner, but the fact that you spun it successfully out of DEIC's hands does not obscure its legal status.

You're not even in the same conversation.

[Lu Xun]

If screaming and repetition is the only argument you have, I'm well-served by seeing you trolled. After all, when it's the big against the small, the many against the few, it's a victory for the weak to command more effort from the strong.