Alterego Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I see, so you have no proof whatsoever. Inactivity was the real killer, in the lounge with the candlestick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The terms are cruel and vindictive. as is the alliance they are being set upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 It's not hypocrisy. The terms are a punishment to the NPO for having lost the war. Why the heck would a winner of the war subject themselves to that same punishment? That would be WGS, just like your claim of hypocrisy is. The argument wasn't over whether it's punishment; the argument was over whether NPO is able to order it. I'm sure that VE is not ordering its members to cycle in and out of peace mode. Somehow I don't think that they're using waves. The mere fact that they don't have 90% of their alliance in war mode shows that just being involved in an alliance war at this time of year makes that level of war mode participation unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I seem to remember somebody setting the precedent that ALL nations in peace mode would see war as part of surrender terms for a number of days equal to the amount of time spent in peace mode during the conflict. I can't seem to put my finger on who this was though... hmmm... i'm sure I'll think of it soon. I don't seem to remember those nations having to pay reps afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I see, so you have no proof whatsoever. I see you have the means to answer the question but refuse to. And since aid packages disappear after 10 days there is no way we can use NORMAL in game mechanics to check that either. Thank you for proving your ignorance though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) He told you what proof he has. It's not his fault your too lazy and too ignorant to check it. It is not my job to prove someone else's allegations, it is in fact their job, thus 'the burden of proof'. Since these alleged misdeeds are being used to justify destroying our alliance, you're damn right he has to prove them. Edited June 13, 2009 by James Dahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarai Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Well, Karma isn't getting paid tonight, but if you hit me up on IRC.... Wait, no, they told me I am not supposed to do this in public. Lets hit each other up and watch Karma implode with the distraction la? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I don't seem to remember those nations having to pay reps afterwards. I seem to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackSkellington Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The Terms were never made public. I'm sorry but I really can't take your word for it. PC & Co gave Soldier white peace but gave TP harsh terms? No proof of this at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) I don't seem to remember those nations having to pay reps afterwards. So, if we adhere to karma, would you then prefer that they have war for the entire period they were in Peace? It appears that's what you are angling for via this argument... Doesn't make much sense though Edited June 13, 2009 by Aurion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Arouet Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The Viridian Entente currently is below 90% of its alliance membership in war mode.VE is also does not have 90% of its nations over 4K infra in war mode. And yet, they demand the NPO - which is at war with rather a lot more alliances than the VE - move above these lines which they've been unable to cross themselves. Ah, hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is popular among victors. Your accusations seem to get more ridiculous by the thread, no matter which alliance you're flaming. I may not particularly agree with the necessity of some of these terms, but the fact is that the facts about VE you reference are totally irrelevant. Clearly the Karma alliances want NPO to stop keeping some of its top nations in peace mode and let them take damage. Applying that to VE is ludicrous because they're not on the losing side of the war and therefore their putting people into peace mode is not motivated by the same reasons. Victorious nations have the right to make demands before they give peace. What you're saying is equivalent to: "VE didn't pay reps for winning the conflict, so why should NPO pay them for losing it? Hypocrites!" See how silly that sounds? It's how silly your assertions are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King DrunkWino Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Where's kingzogs damn letter!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 It is not my job to prove someone else's allegations, it is in fact their job, thus 'the burden of proof'.Since these alleged misdeeds are being used to justify destroying our alliance, you're damn right he has to prove them. As stated, you can't check that because of the 10 day feature unless you have some kinda illegal program that checks these types of things. Where oh where could I get something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) I don't seem to remember those nations having to pay reps afterwards. Several PEACE nations in any alliance are setup as bankers. NPO has also set the precedent that ALL reps MUST come from internal. Thus, after attacking nations who were in peace mode for the FULL duration, would require them to pay reps. While NPO may not have made it clear that they MUST, with the small alliances/small memberships that NPO has laid to waste, the nations most certainly did. quick edit: at least you can admit that you feel it fair to force nations out of peace mode and see war for the number of days they were in peace mode during the conflict. Not just a set 14 days (2 rounds) which is far LESS than the total number of days in peace mode during the conflict. Edited June 13, 2009 by Gn0xious Jr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sande Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Dear NPO, You deserved these reps. Please admit your crimes and stop whining for we paid the reps as fast as we could even if it took several months. Sande. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Your allies in NPO are masters at unspoken terms and hidden terms. They pulled a few of those on us after we had agreed to terms as well under the justification that "everyone knows thats how we do things."For example, MK couldn't have people who were not in MK help with reps, which is something that was not stated in our terms. MK also couldn't pay the alliances we owed reps to individually, we had to send ALL the reps to the NPO. Infact, some of our allies actually paid reps for us and then were told that what they paid wouldn't be counted to our total and that they also wouldn't be getting their aid back, though I do believe ML told them that it would count to the reps no matter what the NPO said. I wonder sometimes if ML, VE, Echelon and OV ever got their reps from the NPO. Individual alliances were not allowed to waive our debt as well. So there are some examples of hidden and unspoken terms that have been imposed. Not to mention extending a lot of the terms for a month because we weren't done with reps, while we faced numerous delays in paying them because of NPO being slow in giving us targets. There were at least 3 weeks worth of delays because of that, while there was nothing in the terms about having to be done with reps for that first set of terms to expire. Edited June 13, 2009 by Azaghul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Your accusations seem to get more ridiculous by the thread, no matter which alliance you're flaming. I may not particularly agree with the necessity of some of these terms, but the fact is that the facts about VE you reference are totally irrelevant. Clearly the Karma alliances want NPO to stop keeping some of its top nations in peace mode and let them take damage. Applying that to VE is ludicrous because they're not on the losing side of the war and therefore their putting people into peace mode is not motivated by the same reasons. Victorious nations have the right to make demands before they give peace. What you're saying is equivalent to: "VE didn't pay reps for winning the conflict, so why should NPO pay them for losing it? Hypocrites!" See how silly that sounds? It's how silly your assertions are. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1611575 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 It is not my job to prove someone else's allegations, it is in fact their job, thus 'the burden of proof'.Since these alleged misdeeds are being used to justify destroying our alliance, you're damn right he has to prove them. Give me access to your Unimatrix0 database and I will prove the point. I also know that TDSM8 was one of the most trusted alliances in the game, they never have given me a reason to dispute their word. And even besides that, the misdeeds of your alliance are well documented through out history that even without the TDSM8 saga, there is enough evidence there to more than justify what is happening to you right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scythegfx Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 So, if we adhere to karma, would you then prefer that they have war for the entire period they were in Peace?It appears that's what you are angling for via this argument... Doesn't make much sense though Karma's logic doesn't make much sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Maximus Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Any proof to back up this claim? I'm sorry but I really can't take your word for it. PC & Co gave Soldier white peace but gave TP harsh terms? No proof of this at all? If the ex leaders of TP want to bring the terms they were offered into light then thats their business and its not my place to do so, but being gov in another TPF protectorate at the time I think I would know the reasons my allies were disbanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Not to mention extending a lot of the terms for a month because we weren't done with reps, while we faced numerous delays in paying them because of NPO being slow in giving us targets. There were at least 3 weeks worth of delays because of that, while there was nothing in the terms about having to be done with reps for that first set of terms to expire. Now now Azaghul, we don't have proof of this so therefor according to them it never happened. MIDOINITRITE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cripple Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I will admit that I have some limited sympathy with the announcement. However, I feel that it is very important that everyone understands clearly that the precedent that the most contraversial term follows was set by Pacifica; if you recall, it is they who in the past have specified that any nation in peace mode prior to the conclusion of war would be attacked for a set period, equivalent to the number of days of war which they avoided, starting from the moment at which the rest of the alliance was given peace. The NPO have had the majority of their high strength nations in peace mode for more than fourteen days, so this is not going beyond anything which has been done before. Let us be clear; the fact that 'they did it first' is not a moral justification. However, there is no room here for Pacifica to claim that these terms are harsher than anything previously issued. The reparations are larger than any previous single sum, but this war has been considerably bigger than any that has gone before - increased reparations go hand-in-hand with that. Let us also not forget that many in Karma see these reparations as a repayment for all the damage that Pacfica has done over the course of the last few years, not just for this war. Indeed, some of the terms that Pacifica has issued in the past upon conclusion of its wars have arguably been worse; namely, those leading directly to the disbandment of an enemy alliance. Make no mistake, Karma as a coalition has the power to enforce a ZI order - but the line is drawn; that is beyond the pale. The reason for that is that within the ranks of Karma, there is a strong feeling that we must not be hypocrites in victory. The line between justice and excess is one that must be pinned down firmly. There are good reasons to be optimistic. The removal of the Moldavi Doctrine is an excellent first step on the path to reconcilliation. That is a path that I want us to follow. Yes, I believe that the cycle of revenge can be broken; it can end right now! The difficulty is that there is a strong distrust of Pacifica. There will not be a repeat of GW I. That is why Karma wants these terms - effectively, we want Pacifica to accept them, and when the terms expire, we'll call it quits. But the feeling is that before forgiveness, there must be penance. I've gone on for far too long already: to conclude let us drop the partisan behaviour, and talk frankly about the terms. Both sides. Cripple (Senator, Greenland Republic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nada2486 Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Well, it's being used as a big example of why NPO 'deserves' to be ground into dust, so if it wasn't such a big deal anyways, what justification do you have? I don't really think NPO deserves to get ground into dust, i mean they've suffered what they must, think they should at least be kept alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Thank you Voodoo...So judging by that would that mean that these reps will increase? You'd have to ask someone in Karma, I'm not in the position to make those judgments. It is not my job to prove someone else's allegations, it is in fact their job, thus 'the burden of proof'.Since these alleged misdeeds are being used to justify destroying our alliance, you're damn right he has to prove them. TDSM8 members always have and always will have more credibility to you. Now go think before you speak on events and the aftermath of such events from before you joined. Edited June 13, 2009 by Voodoo Nova Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twizzler Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 If the ex leaders of TP want to bring the terms they were offered into light then thats their business and its not my place to do so, but being gov in another TPF protectorate at the time I think I would know the reasons my allies were disbanding. Well you've certainly convinced me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts