[Skibum56]

Recently I have seen some of the terms offered too NPO in order to obtain peace. Some of these terms have been criticized as too harsh. I want your opinions. Do you believe the terms presented by Karma to the NPO are too harsh?

Edit: In no way is this Ragnarok's personal opinion this is only based off my opinion.

This post has been edited by jorjor110: 13 June 2009 - 08:58 PM

[Systemfailure]

for those that missed the news Ragnarok is now the new head of KARMA and yes we are planning to re-name NPO, OTTO (Old Trashed Techless Order) this will be brought up in a 117+ page thread next week.

[Hermann Hoth]

Systemfailure, on Jun 13 2009, 10:55 PM, said:

for those that missed the news Ragnarok is now the new head of KARMA and yes we are planning to re-name NPO, OTTO (Old Trashed Techless Order) this will be brought up in a 117+ page thread next week.

This got a genuine chuckle out of me - thank you for that

As for harshness, becoming what is being sought to be destroyed/curbed/whatever, the rules of the Cyberverse are what they are. To remain on top you must keep someone else down lest they steal your place.

[Sal Paradise]

In Bat Country we execute war criminals.

[Jonathan Archer]

Systemfailure, on Jun 13 2009, 10:55 PM, said:

for those that missed the news Ragnarok is now the new head of KARMA and yes we are planning to re-name NPO, OTTO (Old Trashed Techless Order) this will be brought up in a 117+ page thread next week.

God I love you System.

[Brinoceros]

Sal Paradise, on Jun 13 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

In Bat Country we execute war criminals.

You too?

That last bit about them moving there nations out of peace mode was tough but NPO shouldn't complain after what they did in the past.

also, hey jorjor, it's been a while.

[King Death II]

Also no we are not harsh. We were just. They got what they deserved.

[steodonn]

CoaLUEtion: LUE, GATO, CGS(CDS), SRI, ICSN, DDA, AoAN, GGA, TAGA, OIN, NAAC, ONOS, FIS, LOSS, ODN

How many of these alliances are still around
Then how many alliances are shadows of what they once were

NPO get to continue to play the game. Anything less than forced disbandment are light terms

[Locke]

Not harsh so much as illogical unless the goal is anything but to continue the war even long past the end of the war, which won't be for some time if the terms are kept the way they are. Terms are supposed to entice the other side to give in as opposed to continue fighting, not galvanize them against you.

[Jens of the desert]

Dont we have too many of these threads already?

Also, high jorjor

[FeaR_LeSs]

I think terms are too light. If they were us, they would make us disband the AAs and owe them more tech/$$ then we are asking from them. You should make interest go up everytime they turn it down. What do you have to lose? You're beating NPO anyways right?

[BastardofGod]

steodonn, on Jun 14 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

CoaLUEtion: LUE, GATO, CGS(CDS), SRI, ICSN, DDA, AoAN, GGA, TAGA, OIN, NAAC, ONOS, FIS, LOSS, ODN

How many of these alliances are still around
Then how many alliances are shadows of what they once were

NPO get to continue to play the game. Anything less than forced disbandment are light terms

Its easy to sit back and blame their troubles on the Pacific. They started it. NAAC chose their own disbandment. ODN is still kicking. Its foolish to try to lay all of histories troubles in Pacifica's lap.

[steodonn]

Locke, on Jun 14 2009, 05:41 PM, said:

Not harsh so much as illogical unless the goal is anything but to continue the war even long past the end of the war, which won't be for some time if the terms are kept the way they are. Terms are supposed to entice the other side to give in as opposed to continue fighting, not galvanize them against you.

No they are not. They are meant to punish the loser. Its terms or a very long war NPO have no hope of winning. I personally don't care what NPO. I am happy to keep fighting them

Quote

Its easy to sit back and blame their troubles on the Pacific. They started it. NAAC chose their own disbandment. ODN is still kicking. Its foolish to try to lay all of histories troubles in Pacifica's lap.

NPO have started the vast majority of the wars in CN

Answer me this. Has NPO ever had war declared against it ( in a serious way ) with out the other allaince being obligated due to a treaty to declare war

This post has been edited by steodonn: 14 June 2009 - 11:31 AM

[Newhotness]

obviously voted no. they are only "too harsh" because its NPO receiving them now instead of handing them out.

[BastardofGod]

steodonn, on Jun 14 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

No they are not. They are meant to punish the loser. Its terms or a very long war NPO have no hope of winning. I personally don't care what NPO. I am happy to keep fighting them



NPO have started the vast majority of the wars in CN

Answer me this. Has NPO ever had war declared against it ( in a serious way ) with out the other allaince being obligated due to a treaty to declare war

Peace and prosperity is our game brother. Pacifica brought about eras of peace. LUE and the likes were to blame for past conflicts. Many of them jealous and others just having a blind hatred. You cannot blame all past wars on Pacifica. Unless your intent is to distort history.

I didn't quite follow your question....

[gantanX]

Quote

OP

I don't think the terms is harsh..
you just scared of their revenge

[TypoNinja]

I voted no because the question was 'too harsh'.

Yes these terms are harsh, thats the point. The NPO has earned harsh terms, the harshest CN has seen to date, they have earned every penny, every lost infra, every peice of tech gone. They earned it and more.

So yes, harsh. But no, not Too harsh. Because there is a lot of terms in there you don't see.

You don't see a demand for disbandment, you don't see a viceroy, you don't see forced government expulsions, you don't see indefinite tribute or disarmament, you don't see attempts to put our men in their leadership, you don't see a demand to rewrite their charter to our liking, you don't see wonder decoms, I could go on, but you get the point.

[Locke]

steodonn, on Jun 14 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

No they are not. They are meant to punish the loser. Its terms or a very long war NPO have no hope of winning. I personally don't care what NPO. I am happy to keep fighting them

All I can say is, Treaty of Versailles vs. the end of WWII. In WWI, many of the agrieved countries heavily pushed for not only damages, but punitive reps as put forth here. History proves how well that worked out. Then at the end of WWII, rather than punishing Germany or Japan, America involved themselves in the rebuilding efforts. History proves how well that worked out too.

Punitive reps are just a bad joke that fail in real life and fail in CN. Reps for damage are only slightly less so. The way I see it, you can't ask for it both ways: you either ask for reps or you ask for war. Asking for both is plain retarded. NPO offered not only to pay the large reps, but offered to pay more. This was, of course, denied by those who claim they don't want an eternal war. If they don't want an eternal war, they need to learn that peace is about compromise. Dictating this, that, and the other thing just doesn't work. If peace is truly desired, reason and logic must be respected. It is not logical to ask for large reps and then destroy the banking nations. "But surely the NPO has large warchests!" people cry. Yes, I'm sure they did at the beginning of the war. I'd be willing to wager not nearly so much so by now. The way I see it, ask for war, or ask for peace. Either accept the NPO's offer to pay plus a billion more, or keep fighting. The way I see it, if Karma is so eager for blood, lower the rep requirements, if they 2 weeks of war need to be there. Something that more battered nations can actually pay. If it was up to me, I'd say just drop the reps and have 3 weeks of no-peace mode war, and that any nation that doesn't exit peace mode within a week has to personally pay reps of some amount depending on how long they were there(no need to punish the whole alliance for the insubordination of a few). Have a set start and end time and be done with it. The way this war is currently going, it's looking less and less like a war, and more and more like a PZI sentence.

[TypoNinja]

These reps are neither punitive, nor do they cover damages.

The top one nation from each alliance fighting NPO could probably account for all 7 billion in damages before you even have to look at the rest of their members.

I know its hard to believe but 7 billion dollars amounts to TOKEN reparations.

[neneko]

Totally unfair terms for NPO. They should simply be held to the same standard they held other alliances to and after that pay a sum equal to the one they extorted from others.. oh wait..