TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

by Lord Ishurue Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:47 pm

well before The TOC vs TIE thread gets spammed up , as well as keeping the war topics semi organized .

If the time comes when the war ends as well as the Peace Treaty etc .

Lets post the stuff here . ( Main reason is if a player is looking for a new game to play and they want a history of Wars as well as the Diplomacy during wars , its easier to find with cut and dry titles )

1. 2 days before The War TOC offered terms to prevent the war ( Type 2 NAP Discussion )

2. TIE offered TOC peace around June 11th 2010 . result TOC rejected .

3. Some time around june 15th TOC and TIE leaders talk about peace and estimated end dates for the war . Result Nothing happened other then ideas being shared .

4. As of June 24th No in depth Discussion about Peace . War is still continuing as usually

by ian Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:07 pm

Well the below posts are of relevance which me & Jiro had:

ian wrote:
Jiro wrote:Ian, my summary of the "peace" talks is that we couldn't even get you to agree that you started this war, nor arrive on a common understanding of aggression, let alone move on towards finding a peaceful solution.
As for accuracy of the numbers, I don't care. TIE's total power has gone down by 175 billion since the start of the war. It may need to go down to such a level that TIE is willing to talk peace on equal footing, either through you or your successor.

1.) Noone's denying The Imperium Empire started this war.... we DID start this war via the opening shots being fired by US against Castravate.

2.) Why don't you give us a definition of what you define aggression? Here's my definition:

- Conducting hostile missions against someone else. Hostile Missions = Invasions, Destruction, Assault, Sabbing, Assassinating.
- Using abusive hostile language in your dealings with other people i.e. often being rude is a form of simple aggression & there's simply no need for it
- Threatening other's with destruction, annihilation or something along those lines.
- Intentionally misleading, lieing or attempting to cover up the truth when it coms to use of force.

So... in summary

- The Imperium was aggressive to T.O.C via intentionally attempting to mislead you from when we went hidden right up untill the opening shots of the war
- Clearly aggressive via starting the war i.e. performing hostile missions.
- Clearly aggressive when it came to Lord Ishurue's PM which strongly implied he would deliberately violate and contradict TIE's farming policy.
- Clearly aggressive when it came to threatening to use military force to those who broke our farming policy.

I don't think anyone disagree's with the issue that The Imperium was aggressive. What we seem to disagree on however is that T.O.C aren't the angels and innocent defenceless passive alliances your trying to sell to the server. T.O.C was pretty aggressive as well:

- The sabbing & assassination of various Imperium members by T.O.C members proceeding the war.

- The attempt by T.O.C to mislead The Imperium concerning these attacks i.e. only once was the sabbing/ assassinating of our members confirmed by T.O.C - that was concerning Command92 - and even then information pertaining to who exactly was responsible for the attacks was withheld, denying The Imperium the right to seek justice. Granted compensation was provided - but that still doesn't make the sabbing/ assassination any less aggressive.

- The threat of military action against those who broke your farming policy's.

- The direct and very real threat issued to The Imperium by Kenzu & Kingofshinobis concerning the suppossed sabbing/ assassination of your members - where The Imperium despite NOT being responsible, and despite making this clear - was threatened with a "bloodbath". This resulted in us going hidden upon reciept of Kingofshinobis's message believing an attack to be imminent.

- The direct, hostile and downright aggressive attitude shown to The Imperium by Lord Ishurue once we had gone hidden in which the entire conversation basically amounted to an discussion of when war was going to happen, up untill the pre-N.A.P agreement was proposed. Proposing something at the end of whats been basically a huge-ass conversation in which war was being seriously considered by FIRE for no other reason other than The Imperium's going hidden and the suspicion there is a ulterior motive does NOT simply erase whats been said or the impression it gives.

- The deliberate misleading of The Imperium the last time FIRE/ TIE came to a crisis - in which basically a mere 12hours after it being promised to TIE FIRE would continue to cooperate in finding Cabal... we came under a suprise attack by FIRE. This played a very real and direct role in making us unwilling to believe there was any intention to abide by the Pre-N.A.P - resulting in us attacking when we heard about T.O.C preparing to assemble strike teams.

Did The Imperium Empire start the war? Yes
Did The Imperium Empire show hostility & aggression before the war? Yes
Did The Coalition of Chaos (exception: Emperor's) show hostility & aggression before the war? Yes

Simply put: If you threaten another alliance with war don't be suprised or try and act innocent when that alliance takes your threat literally and then launches its own suprise assault first - and ESPECIALLY don't act suprised or try to act innocent when you threaten an alliance with war which for the proceeding weeks some of your members have been sabbing & assassinating. Sabbing & Assassinations + Threat kinda gives the impression to that alliance that a war is already being waged against it....

I have no issues admitting The Imperiums outright hostile and aggressive actions we undertook leading up to the war. It is T.O.C which needs to seriously consider its own actions and actually get down from the moral high-ground your attempting to sell to the server and your members. I also won't apologise for The Imperium's resorting to force - the moment T.O.C threatened The Imperium as an entirety for something we never did, and then followed that threat up with even more threats when we went hidden - you invited this war on yourselves.

Jiro wrote:Hi Ian,
I think your post sums it up really well:
1) You deny denying that you started, but then elaborate on how our aggression started before yours.
2) One definition of aggression is invading territory you did not have before. This can be either literal or figurative. So agression can be invading Poland with tanks and it can be trying to maneuver yourself into a position of power against him/her where he/she had that power him/herself. Like designating yourself the person who can decide who does the dishes, where that power used to be shared. (This definition comes from No trespassing!:
Explorations in human territoriality, Bakker & Bakker-Rabdau, 1973).

The deliberate misleading of The Imperium the last time FIRE/ TIE came to a crisis - in which basically a mere 12hours after it being promised to TIE FIRE would continue to cooperate in finding Cabal... we came under a suprise attack by FIRE. This played a very real and direct role in making us unwilling to believe there was any intention to abide by the Pre-N.A.P - resulting in us attacking when we heard about T.O.C preparing to assemble strike teams.
Apparently you are fond of this example, so let me explain what happened: between the NAP and the hostilities you posted a post on your SHC forum containing the following things:
1) The suckers from WR and FIRE fell for your story when they agreed to seach for cabal with you. You included convo's with WR and with me in them as evidence.
2) Your forum was never hacked, that story was an intentional ruse.
3) Dune, at that time 2IC of FIRE alliance Fedaykin, was a spy for TIE.
4) TIE was responsible for the hacking of our forum.
The contents of that post were sent by cabal to us, at a time when Ishurue and a lot of the best strikes were online on MSN. So we struck immediately in outrage, having been purposefully deceived by you personally.
There was no deliberate misleading by us there.
When I came online and saw what was happening, I contacted you and we worked out a peace that included we'd both forget and forgive what happened. We let it rest, why don't you?
As for the rest of your post, I think I made my point clear: I personally am ready to fight, regardless the cost, as long as TIE is unwilling to discuss lasting peace on an equal footing. As soon as you are, let me know.

ian wrote:
Jiro wrote:Hi Ian,
I think your post sums it up really well:
1) You deny denying that you started, but then elaborate on how our aggression started before yours.
2) One definition of aggression is invading territory you did not have before. This can be either literal or figurative. So agression can be invading Poland with tanks and it can be trying to maneuver yourself into a position of power against him/her where he/she had that power him/herself. Like designating yourself the person who can decide who does the dishes, where that power used to be shared. (This definition comes from No trespassing!:
Explorations in human territoriality, Bakker & Bakker-Rabdau, 1973).

The deliberate misleading of The Imperium the last time FIRE/ TIE came to a crisis - in which basically a mere 12hours after it being promised to TIE FIRE would continue to cooperate in finding Cabal... we came under a suprise attack by FIRE. This played a very real and direct role in making us unwilling to believe there was any intention to abide by the Pre-N.A.P - resulting in us attacking when we heard about T.O.C preparing to assemble strike teams.
Apparently you are fond of this example, so let me explain what happened: between the NAP and the hostilities you posted a post on your SHC forum containing the following things:
1) The suckers from WR and FIRE fell for your story when they agreed to seach for cabal with you. You included convo's with WR and with me in them as evidence.
2) Your forum was never hacked, that story was an intentional ruse.
3) Dune, at that time 2IC of FIRE alliance Fedaykin, was a spy for TIE.
4) TIE was responsible for the hacking of our forum.
The contents of that post were sent by cabal to us, at a time when Ishurue and a lot of the best strikes were online on MSN. So we struck immediately in outrage, having been purposefully deceived by you personally.
There was no deliberate misleading by us there.
When I came online and saw what was happening, I contacted you and we worked out a peace that included we'd both forget and forgive what happened. We let it rest, why don't you?
As for the rest of your post, I think I made my point clear: I personally am ready to fight, regardless the cost, as long as TIE is unwilling to discuss lasting peace on an equal footing. As soon as you are, let me know.

My apologies Jiro. I believe you misintepreted what i said.

I am NOT saying or commenting on who started the aggression first. I have no wish to comment on that either. I am merely pointing out aggression was on BOTH sides - not just 1 or the other. Point to me where i state your aggression started first please. I believe i clearly stated one of TIE's aggressive points was our farming policy - and as ANYONE knows it was The Imperium who first published farming policies and began to actively enforce them. That would indirectly imply we started the whole ball rolling on aggression.... would it not? Though i would point out our farming policy was done with good reason (very heavy farming of our ranks by members outside of TIE - damaging our players substantially)... so it was definately not the wrong decision.

I ll say it another time (i think i ve said it a couple of times now btw). The Imperium WAS aggressive before and leading up to this war. I honestly don't know how else i can say it simply enough. Just like T.O.C was also aggressive leading up to this war. Thats not to put the blame on T.O.C - nor is it to put the blame entirely on T.I.E. BOTH sides are responsible.

Now... i think i ve made it clear TIE is interested in equal peace. As for "lasting peace" - situations occur which can't possibly be predicted or anticipated. There is no way T.I.E could ever bind itself to the unknown - nor is there anyway T.O.C can either. We d be prepared to agree to a peace-treaty however with a set exit clause (which could be used in the event a future situation ever warrants it). That should give a reasonable assurance of long-term peace between our alliances.

I have a question for you to consider btw: What is the point in playing Aderan Wars and developing your account if all you are ever going to do with it is bank, trade and grow army size/ U.P? This is a rhetorical question - i know many in T.I.E enjoy peace but also develop their accounts in peace with the aim of ensuring they survive in war-time. If there is to never be war again - what motivation is there to keep playing/ pushing yourself?

Its up to you how you choose to intepret this post. T.I.E is genuinely interested in a equal peace and we ve attempted this several times now. Each time T.O.C has rejected it flat or not taken us seriously.

So.. again i invite someone from T.O.C to engage with T.I.E on finding a solution to this war which does not involve in the next several months being a slogging match where numerous TIE & TOC accounts get ruined.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the bit about the SHC post and Cabal. I actually explained the night before TIE came under attack we were attempting to flush out the spy via posting deliberate false information on our forum's which we hoped would then be forwarded to FIRE - who would then tell us that information and we would be able to identify the spy based on the information listed (each forum had a slightly different piece of information i.e. a different time-frame for what was being discussed). We made what we were doing known to FIRE. THAT was the cooperatation we were hoping to have & under the impression we had agreed upon before we were then attacked - the messages FIRE recieved being sent to TIE so we could find out who Cabal was via the unique "markers" in the post.

It was an unfortunate circumstance which led to the attack on T.I.E - but it has always been present in T.I.E considerations when it comes to FIRE since then..... Just like any future dealings you have with TIE you will always keep in mind how this war began (TIE starting it).

ian wrote:
Jiro wrote:With lasting peace I mean peace that is not broken at the first available opportunity. And that has enough of a mechanism to resolve conflicts to prevent stupid little things leading to war.
I'd like to die for a big cause, rather than a small one.

That is something i attempted to do with the previous proposed peace treaty. If you can think of any suggestions/ modifications then do please make them known....

I don't think anyone particuarly enjoys the shadow of war hanging over their alliance - The Imperium included. Believe it or not i d like to be able to to refocus The Imperium back more in favour of economic growth vs. Military development - something we ve not been able to do for the last 6 - 8 weeks since tensions started increasing.

Incidentally - there seems to be a perception that The Imperium "breaks things" at first opportunity. I ll point out some dates here for you to consider:

- October the 13th 2009. 1st WR/ TIE war commences - later joined in by GD & Hachigan.
- 2nd of December 2009 1st WR, Geto-dacii & Hachigan/ TIE war ends

- 28th of December 2009 2nd WR/ TIE war commences.
- 4th of January 2010 2nd WR/ TIE war ends.

- Febuary the 8th 2010. First FIRE/ TIE War (really a skirmish) commences.
- Febuary the 9th 2010. First FIRE/ TIE war ends.

- June the 8th 2010. First TOC/ TIE war commences.

In between when this war commenced and when the last WR war ended The Imperium & WR had peaceful relations for 154 days.
In between when this war commenced and when the last FIRE skirmish ended, The Imperium & FIRE had peaceful relations for 120 days.

If it wasn't for the FIRE skirmish.... TIE & FIRE's relations would have been as peaceful for the same duration as our's were with WR's.

To say The Imperium breaks agreement's at first opportunity i personally feel is a complete exaggeration. We were at peace for 42% (4/10's) of a entire year with World Republic between now and our last war. We were at peace with FIRE for 33% (3/10's) of a entire year between our last war and now.

CLEARLY the facts do not support the view The Imperium attacks at "first opportunity". If we did there would not be such prolonged periods of peace. Perhaps moving onto a peaceful-solution to this war would be easier if people adopt a more objective/ detached view of events?

Edit: Incase anyone is wondering on what the figures are - Since October the 13th (the first day of the first TIE/ WR war) The Imperium has spent 180 days at peace and 74 days at war - this includes today (June the 21st). Thats about 29.13% of our time spent at war.....

As of June the 24th war will continue on indefinately untill such a point as T.O.C is also prepared to accept their own responsibility in playing a part in making this war happen - namely that threatening another alliance with bloodshed and war, then being incredibly hostile to that alliance when it goes hidden in response to those threats DOES give that alliance in question considerable and logical reason to consider an attack to be imminent. Especially when the last time a situation like this arose it resulted in a suprise attack on the alliance in question (despite having an agreement that attack would not happen)... and especially considering the various sabbing/assassinations which happened against TIE proceeding this war...

So... untill T.O.C is prepared to accept its own responsibility for making thing's as bad as they are... No peace will be discussed. Its that simple.

I m sick & tired of all this "TIE is the aggressors" and "holier than thou" attitude T.O.C has adopted. IF your so peace-loving and kind why threaten TIE with war over something we repeatedly stated we did not do? Why threaten TIE with war when we went hidden/ tried to convince the server of our disbandment in response to the first threat? Why were sabbings & assassinations of TIE members by TOC members permitted to continue? Why be so eager to start massing TIE members who violate your own policy despite TIE never having massed any of yours and always given them addittional chances when they broke our policy?

My patience has run out. TIE accept's its part in starting this war and in the events leading up to this war - we now fight to make T.O.C accepts its own responsibility... and if your unable to then this war will continue untill either TOC or TIE is dead. Simple.

by Kenzu Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:34 am

When did TOC threaten TIE with war?

I believe the problem was that you didnt accept a TOC delegate to check the attack logs of TIE members in question, who were suspected to have done sab attacks against TOC members, just like the last time there have been sabs against TOC, it turned out that it was done by TIE members.

There was no reason why to believe that this time TIE is innocent.

by seaborgium Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:51 am

well I know I talked to King about it, after I was told so before, now I doubt that is the full message

6/3/2010 9:00:19 PM Seaborgium Kingofshinobis " This has got to stop ian. Unless you want a bloodbath you better keep your members in check.".
6/3/2010 9:00:31 PM Kingofshinobis Seaborgium lol
6/3/2010 9:00:36 PM Kingofshinobis Seaborgium yeah i did send that Razz

6/3/2010 9:00:39 PM Kingofshinobis Seaborgium i was angry
6/3/2010 9:00:47 PM Kingofshinobis Seaborgium i may have been too rash :S
6/3/2010 9:01:04 PM Seaborgium Kingofshinobis as I said, I didn't find you in any logs
6/3/2010 9:01:23 PM Kingofshinobis Seaborgium well im sorry for accusing TIE then.

by ian Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:49 am

Kenzu wrote:When did TOC threaten TIE with war?

I believe the problem was that you didnt accept a TOC delegate to check the attack logs of TIE members in question, who were suspected to have done sab attacks against TOC members, just like the last time there have been sabs against TOC, it turned out that it was done by TIE members.

There was no reason why to believe that this time TIE is innocent.

So you decided to threaten TIE with war because you suspected we were behind the attacks? Your exact words were "there is noone else other than TIE powerful enough to sabb/assassinate TOC players" or something along those lines. You threatened us with war based on a screwed up assumption. You also demanded access to TIE's private details - gaining access to our members strength, our ST supplies, our AT reserves, our technologies, our bank sizes etc... ALL of which could be used to help T.O.C plan a effective war. I d also remind you when FIRE sabbed TIE they NEVER gave us access - merely admitted to doing it and REFUSED to give us the identity of the aggressor. What right do you & TOC have of demanding one thing and treating others differently when your placed in that situation?

You also haven't even attempted to comment on the fact The Imperium was being sabbed & assassinated by T.O.C several times before the war. You ve merely attempted to justify threatening a alliance with war based on a screwed assumption and with no evidence other than your personal bias (noone else strong enough to sabb/assassinate TOC other than TIE - what kind of BS thinking is that?) - and you wonder why The Imperium attacked T.O.C when thats how you think concerning TIE?

by Jiro Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:12 am

Ian, the whole business of sabbs/assassinations that triggered this war is unclear to me. It has never been clear to me who was sabbed/assassinated by whom. Apparently there have been sabbs/assassinations on TIE, Mujengan and World Republic just before the war.
It is clear that this is something that contributed, given that it is the first thing that comes up in the peace talks. I don't think we got to the bottom of this and it might be important to. Maybe it is time for us to make a list of things we need to discuss if there is to be peace.
I've started below and will add things that both sides bring up (if they're interested):
1) The sabbs/assassinations
2) A way to resolve conflicts if the parties directly involved cannot.

by seaborgium Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:17 am

Jiro theres nothing really to talk about the logs are long gone.

Kenzu I can show you 5 others that are strong enough with out even leaving the first page of the ranks, and they won't be anyone in this war.

Just bc we have the levels and techs doesn't mean someone couldn't send a LOT of UU to do the job.

by Lord Ishurue Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:05 pm

ian wrote:
So... untill T.O.C is prepared to accept its own responsibility for making thing's as bad as they are... No peace will be discussed. Its that simple.

LOL . if that is the Case TIE are acting like a bunch of Biotches .

When Kingofshinobis "threatened" for a Bloodbath . u should have contacted me about this But instead u Attacked us .

Kingofshinobis was very upset to see his defense Assassinated .

His threat was . ian if you dont get your members under control their will be a bloodbath .

People Take Mudbaths as some sort of skin treatment .

I wouldn't be Surprised if Special Forces in Military Branches Take Bloodbaths as a means to prepare their mind and body for any situation .

Lets re read it as . Ian if u dont get your members under control I will prepare for anything .

Anyways .

When I farmed SA47 . he was upset and threatened me .

I could of done the same thing your doing ian .

I could have said BS like this .

TIE is slowly taking steps for a no hit policy .

Considering SA47 showed Hostilities over a non hostile action .
By Right that gave us enough for a cause to declare war on TIE .

BUT GUESS WHAT Happened .

SA47 and I settled it 1 vs 1 . and we each informed our alliances about the dispute, sent each other the PMs we sent wide .

____________________________

In Short Kingofshinobis ( 4mil army size ) Scared TIE ( at the time 240mil Army size )

We aint accepting any responsibility for this war . Nor do we Expect TIE to accept responsibility for this war as well . so looks like no peace is gonna happen .

i will say a few more things .

The events leading up to the war reminded me of The Jerry Springer show . ( Lame )

The War is awesome ( lots of fighting )

So any peace treaty discussion should be awesome as well .

by ian Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:34 pm

The war is definitely awesome. I ll keep this short and simple given I m on my phone. If TOC doesn't try to make TIE accept responsibility for the war then we won't make TOC. We were under the impression from previous comments by TOC that a peace would not be possible without accepting some responsibility...... as for the other comments, I d say they are pretty inaccurate and fail to look at the bigger picture where all the other factors contributed to TIE believing an attack to be imminent.... but I ll leave it at that.

by Special Agent 47 Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:24 pm

To set the record Straight Ishurue, I never threatened you, I gave you two options.

And for myself, it was your actions alone that meant war for me. Not that attack, but your "new farming policy" which was nothing more then a way for you to ensure a war.

Wonder how many TOC members knew about that?

by Magnus Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:46 pm

Special Agent 47 wrote:To set the record Straight Ishurue, I never threatened you, I gave you two options.

And for myself, it was your actions alone that meant war for me. Not that attack, but your "new farming policy" which was nothing more then a way for you to ensure a war.

Wonder how many TOC members knew about that?

Yep can confirm that. The Farming policy enstated by Ish was in my opinion a way to make sure a slow growing game gave into a fun warring game. cheers

I do not have a thing against it, but guys and gals keep this straight and sane. A Farming policy in such a margin as TOC had was definetly to cause havoc among the 2 partys.
People get over your grudges and lets talk peace if you want to. There is no reason to keep throwing post after post after post at each other.
Notice the only thing that is happening is accusations. Look I am having fun at this as much as you are, but consider the smaller players who will leave the alliances. For the Game this surely is very good. New Alliances and players fending by themselves. FUN HELL YEAH, but good for the Alliances in play ? Lets just see, but guys how about just posting in here," WHAT PEACE WE CAN ACHIEVE AND HOW !", or just leave it in the other threads. geek

by Lord Ishurue Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:49 pm

Special Agent 47 wrote:To set the record Straight Ishurue, I never threatened you, I gave you two options.

Give the kuwal back or get massed .

Still an ultimatum , which is a threat . But the main point is , Both you and I didn't let it escalate beyond a personal level

Special Agent 47 wrote:
And for myself, it was your actions alone that meant war for me. Not that attack, but your "new farming policy" which was nothing more then a way for you to ensure a war.

Wonder how many TOC members knew about that?

really ? if i got massed from it i wouldn't of let it escalate . I always have ~5-9% military So for me to get massed is no big deal .

Prolly not a lot knew about my personal Farming Policy ( a deal was made and it lasted no more then 24 hours ) . This is what lead to its creation.

1. The night before , Some mishaps happend ( Seaborgium was TIE diplomat )
I wanted to speak to ian about this issue , I think it was a Mass & Raid or something but dont call me on that part .

2. Sea got offended that no1 wanted to speak to him .

3. I made the Personal Farm policy and sent it to him first to cheer him up ( from being upset that no1 wanted to speak to TIE diplomat ) .

by Special Agent 47 Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:58 pm

Ishurue wrote:
Special Agent 47 wrote:To set the record Straight Ishurue, I never threatened you, I gave you two options.

Give the kuwal back or get massed .

Still an ultimatum , which is a threat . But the main point is , Both you and I didn't let it escalate beyond a personal level

Special Agent 47 wrote:
And for myself, it was your actions alone that meant war for me. Not that attack, but your "new farming policy" which was nothing more then a way for you to ensure a war.

Wonder how many TOC members knew about that?

really ? if i got massed from it i wouldn't of let it escalate . I always have ~5-9% military So for me to get massed is no big deal .

Prolly not a lot knew about my personal Farming Policy ( a deal was made and it lasted no more then 24 hours ) . This is what lead to its creation.

1. The night before , Some mishaps happend ( Seaborgium was TIE diplomat )
I wanted to speak to ian about this issue , I think it was a Mass & Raid or something but dont call me on that part .

2. Sea got offended that no1 wanted to speak to him .

3. I made the Personal Farm policy and sent it to him first to cheer him up ( from being upset that no1 wanted to speak to TIE diplomat ) .

Mate, I respect you so please I ask you to tell the truth, do not lie nor put words in my mouth.

I NEVER said what those 2 options were, you decided what those 2 options were. ALL I said was you had 2 options.

I would have accepted pretty much any offer you had made, all I wanted was a statement that you knew what you did was wrong. I didn't want it all back, by game mechanics it was a good hit as I told you, and just as I told you if you were honest you knew you deserved the beating you took for it.

And you knew good and well when you got massed repeatedly that your alliance would have to respond. You knew TIE has a policy about Defense sizes, roughly 10 days worth of resources. You purposely set your farming policy to "anything over 8 days worth is excessive". You knew what you were doing mate, and you played it well.

by Lord Ishurue Sat Jun 26, 2010 5:31 pm

[quote="Special Agent 47"]

Ishurue wrote:
Special Agent 47 wrote:To set the record Straight Ishurue, I never threatened you, I gave you two options.

Give the kuwal back or get massed .

Still an ultimatum , which is a threat . But the main point is , Both you and I didn't let it escalate beyond a personal level

Special Agent 47 wrote:
And for myself, it was your actions alone that meant war for me. Not that attack, but your "new farming policy" which was nothing more then a way for you to ensure a war.

Wonder how many TOC members knew about that?

really ? if i got massed from it i wouldn't of let it escalate . I always have ~5-9% military So for me to get massed is no big deal .

Prolly not a lot knew about my personal Farming Policy ( a deal was made and it lasted no more then 24 hours ) . This is what lead to its creation.

1. The night before , Some mishaps happend ( Seaborgium was TIE diplomat )
I wanted to speak to ian about this issue , I think it was a Mass & Raid or something but dont call me on that part .

2. Sea got offended that no1 wanted to speak to him .

3. I made the Personal Farm policy and sent it to him first to cheer him up ( from being upset that no1 wanted to speak to TIE diplomat ) .

Special Agent 47 wrote:Mate, I respect you so please I ask you to tell the truth, do not lie nor put words in my mouth.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth nor lying .

Special Agent 47 wrote:
I NEVER said what those 2 options were, you decided what those 2 options were. ALL I said was you had 2 options.

I would have accepted pretty much any offer you had made, all I wanted was a statement that you knew what you did was wrong. I didn't want it all back, by game mechanics it was a good hit as I told you, and just as I told you if you were honest you knew you deserved the beating you took for it.

TBH i didnt even think of sending some back to avoid 1 vs 1 . atm my mind went 1v1 or send all back . Embarassed

Special Agent 47 wrote:And you knew good and well when you got massed repeatedly that your alliance would have to respond. You knew TIE has a policy about Defense sizes, roughly 10 days worth of resources. You purposely set your farming policy to "anything over 8 days worth is excessive". You knew what you were doing mate, and you played it well.

Personal Farming policies should not be enforced by a whole alliance .
I told ian on MSN when it happened that i wouldnt activate the MDT with WR if i got massed over my personal farm policy .

Like We both did with the 1 vs 1 . I would have informed TOC not to get involved if i got massed over my personal Farming policy .

by Admin Sat Jun 26, 2010 5:36 pm

I think this is going a bit outside of TIE- TOC conflict.
Although there might be some rooted causes so i'm not going to be warning anyone or deleting anything just yet.

just stick to the thread title

by Special Agent 47 Sat Jun 26, 2010 5:38 pm

Mate you said I said give the kewal back or get massed. I NEVER said that and we both know it. That is all I am referring to. I am very well aware you wanted a 1 on 1 and honestly I was just as bored as you so we had our fun. Sadly you did little more then take a beating, but you played your hand as best possible and for that I congratulate you.

But you will just have to excuse me if I can't buy into your suggested line of thinking. You adopt a farming policy aimed directly at TIE, and sign a "friendly defense" treaty with WR and publicly state, We will defend each others farming policies.

No one else sees any problem with this?

This isn't about who's fault what is. This is a war game, this is what we are suppose to do. Just don't try to hide your part in it, be proud of it. Hell this is the biggest and best war in AW history and we should all be proud.

*Edit, @ Admin

One of the entire reason I backed and fought this war is over Lord Ishurues adopted farming policy. One that made 90% of TIE a legal farm in less then 8 hrs and one where if you had more then 8 days resources in your defense then it gave him rights to hit even sooner. All this knowing TIE had a 10 day defensive resources rule, so its easy to see the farming policy was aimed at TIE, and aimed to start a conflict because he leads FIRE and no one here is dumb enough to think that him being massed repeatedly would not be answered by his alliance. Not to mention the fact WR clearly stated they would enforce each others farming policy.

I mean lets get down to brass tacks, and the main reason I fight this war. Every alliance should stand on their own two feet especially when being an aggressor. FIRE and WR signed a treaty saying if you touch one you fight both, coupled with the farming policy Ishurue adopted there was no other course then war.

If an alliance starts something they should finish it win lose or draw, only if they are defenders and/or have tried to end something diplomatically should they ask for help. FIRE, WR, and (O) do the opposite. They all fight together first so there is no chance in dealing with just 1. Sad to know that if TIE had no influence here that WR practices of hording inactive solely for their own farming, practices of massing anyone who touches one of them even when they are defending themselves and with no attempts at diplomacy, policies of intentionally trying to break up and cause paranoia in other alliances, practices of repeated slandering of those they just signed peace treaties with, FIRE's policies of mass raiding active accounts with standing defenses, making farming policies aimed directly at specific alliances and done for the sole reasons of causing a conflict they know they don't have to fight alone, all these things would have continued unchecked.

If that comes across as spam then I don't need to be here.

by Admin Sat Jun 26, 2010 5:51 pm

i'm just saying, dont let it derail if possible

I cherish my holidays now that they started

by Kenzu Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:16 pm

It should be clear that TOC proposed peace to TIE some time ago, but this peace was to be signed in july, and not in june.

The conditions of such treaty have not been made public yet.

by seaborgium Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:41 pm

I don't remeber seeing anything about peace

by ian Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:48 pm

seaborgium wrote:I don't remeber seeing anything about peace

By proposed, Kenzu means Lord Ishurue put forward the view the war should end July the 4th, and Kenzu July the 7th. Thats the ENTIRE peace proposal...and it was merely a suggestion. No terms, no details... just something very very very very vague which at the time was weeks away.

Not a proposal, more a vague suggestion.

by seaborgium Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:30 pm

Oh that... I thought that was a joke.

by Magnus Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:52 am

Kenzu wrote:It should be clear that TOC proposed peace to TIE some time ago, but this peace was to be signed in july, and not in june.

The conditions of such treaty have not been made public yet.

Oh my god. How about a real proposal and something that might even work. Plus SA I can understand completly what you are talking about. It is irresponsible of a coalition of alliances who point a finger ALLLLL THE TIME to have such a treaty. Actually it is hurtful to the game.

Stop the personal fighting and understand that there are other people in this game who would like to play on. I am having fun with this war, but I am very sure we lost players that would have loved to play on. Evil or Very Mad

by Kenzu Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:18 am

We, the TOC as well as ian are making progress in the peace treaty negotiations. I talked more into detail with ian.

NEGOTIATIONS
I can reveal to you already that some of the points that this peace treaty will have will be about farming policies, and also about how to deal with sabbings and assassinations.

SABS/aSSASSINATIONS
If a player of TOC or TIE got sabbed, immediately after he proves its true (by becomming an officer of the other alliance, or a member), both empires will send a member to the other alliance and grant him alliance status. Within 24 hours they will leave and they will check the logs to find the person who is guilty. With this method no alliance can ever claim that a innocent alliance has done anything, since this information will be revealed to them and thus a future war can be prevented.

This method has been welcomed by TIE, by ian in particular.

IAN'S PERSONAL FARMING POLICY
There is however a big roblem related to ian's personal policy.
Currently ian's stance is such that he doesn't allow anyone to farm him, and will mass anyone who farms him, while at the same time he is farming other people. This is obviously not acceptable.

He claims that everyone can make such a policy, however this is not possible, because only the strongest players have enough power to mass other big players and thus will will feared. If a small player makes such a policy, he will be farmed nonetheless, because he cannot mass the person who farms him. Since WR defends fair play, and equal treatment of all players, this cannot be tolerated. Ishurue is also against personnal not farming policies, because no farming destroys the game.

There are 2 possible outcomes which this can lead to, either TOC responds in a manner to make a no-farming policy possible for all, by making an no-farming policy of our own and massing anyone who dares to farm a TOC member, or more likely, the second outcome which is:

That TOC will ignore the no-farming policy altogether.

Obviously TOC will mass anyone who commits hostile missions against our members, which means that if ian massed a single member of TOC who farmed TIE according to TIE's farming policy, this would lead to the massing of ian by TOC, which could possibly result in a new server war.

CONCLUSION
As you can see there are many issues being discussed, however to peace to start, ian will have to end his intolerant personal policy, and once peace starts, no one is allowed to have a no farming personal policy. You may ask politely not to be farmed, but you should not make any threats about massing others, and of course you should not make any hostile attacks against normal farming hits.

by kingkongfan1 Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:48 am

"Ishurue is also against personnal not farming policies, because no farming destroys the game."

Hey Guys, gotta throw my two cents worth in right here... I have played this game for 6 months now, with a very few exceptions, I farm ONLY inactives with a zero defense. the above statement that I have put in quotations is such a load of BS... yes, farming is good for the game, but in my time playing here I have found out that there is NO need to farm active players with a defense.(unless they have several days kuwal out to make it worth it). there are enough inactive accounts that farming them is enough. Players that feel the need to farm actives, are generally lacking in their economy, therefore build it up... simple... sorry if I spammed, just wanted to make a point... king

by Kenzu Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:41 am

good point.

Of course you wont be farmed, because you have a proper defense.
3 billion with 2.2 million population.

The problem that TIE face is that many TIE keep low defense on purpose, because its their strategy (so that they can rebuild after massing fast), however this invites everyone to farm them if they didnt bank for 10 hours.

the farming policy stops some of the attacks from happening my making sure profits are substantial.

If theoretically all of TIE make a "no farm or else mass policy" they can theoretically have 0 defense and will never be farmed and still will farm others if there was no empire strong enough to stop them.

The second point:
You can farm inactives, but if you farm actives as well, you will earn much more kuwal each day, at least a billion more each day and thus you will grow faster than others who only farm inactives.

Farming actives means that you will keep a strike of certain size, which means you are better prepared for a war than someone who only needs 1 soldier to farm inactives.

by Sponsored content

TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion