Schattenmann Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I'm more shocked anyone had actually read my law. I'm a longtime fan of That Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 To be fair, those fighting Echelon did ban Caffine from Echelon government as a part of their terms. After he already left the government. They didn't force him out, he left of his own accord, and is just barred from returning to government in Echelon. Not barred from being in Echelon, but just government in Echelon. Not kicked out of gov in Echelon, because he wasn't gov in Echelon when the terms were signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 This was an amazing post. o/ Polaris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 If NpO can change its public image by putting a real effort into it, both internally and externally, why can't you? Because NPO still wants to act in control of the situation and not change their behaviour one bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 "They're only doing some of the things they preached against..." Are you trying to tell me it's better than all the things they've fought against? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 After he already left the government.They didn't force him out, he left of his own accord, and is just barred from returning to government in Echelon. Not barred from being in Echelon, but just government in Echelon. Not kicked out of gov in Echelon, because he wasn't gov in Echelon when the terms were signed. That's not the point though. Saying he already left doesn't negate the fact that the term was made a part of the surrender terms for Echelon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Greenberg Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) Great Post by Grub. I agree with every statement you say. These terms given to Echelon were horrible. How can they be blamed for the war when they joined because of a defense treaty. o/ Polaris o/ Grub Edited July 7, 2009 by Ryan Greenberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) If NpO can change its public image by putting a real effort into it, both internally and externally, why can't you? They don't want to. The core of their belief is that they are right, their way is correct, and they don't have to change. Change doesn't come quick. That's not the point though. Saying he already left doesn't negate the fact that the term was made a part of the surrender terms for Echelon. Yes it is the point. Karma didn't force anyone out of Echelon's government. The member in question was not in Echelon government at the time. This is in direct contradiction to Echelon's actions in the past supporting and performing surrender terms calling for the expulsion of certain members in other alliances. Edited July 6, 2009 by Caliph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George the Great Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Wait, so you can use the excuse "I wasn't here for that, but mhawk can't?" Yeah... right. So basically you admit you broke the non aggression and intelligence clauses of Continuum? To those of you saying that the NPO will rise again and come back for the Karma alliances, are you all saying that the Karma alliances are so incompetent that they cannot defend themselves? Even after all the time they would have to prepare? Not really. All of the planning was if NPO and co. attacked an ally of ours, and we'd have to go in defensively. That's how bad it gotten, a whole bunch of alliances got together to plan a defensive war. Guess what, it happened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elendil old Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 They don't want to. The core of their belief is that they are right, their way is correct, and they don't have to change.Change doesn't come quick. Don't make blanket statements unless you are privy to our alliance forums which I believe you aren't. Seriously it gets annoying when others who aren't even in the alliance decide to make comments on the behalf of the membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 See, you said that they'll revert to their old ways "Only if we let them." This implies that they will not change, and that they only way to prevent them from acting up again is if we continue to keep them down. I don't really consider striking back at those they feel to have wronged them to be "reverting to their old ways." At least, not the old ways which everyone is up in arms about. It's a natural thing for a proud alliance to do, and hardly unique to the NPO. Whether or not they will "change" I can't really say. I would guess they would still be proud and a bit $@y or arrogant, but that's perfectly fine with me. I would guess that they would retain some of their tendency for antagonism, but that is also perfectly fine with me, and should be with most everyone else. I'm not sure if you want to make them "change" or if you just want to neuter them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) After he already left the government.They didn't force him out, he left of his own accord, and is just barred from returning to government in Echelon. Not barred from being in Echelon, but just government in Echelon. Not kicked out of gov in Echelon, because he wasn't gov in Echelon when the terms were signed. As stated previously, original terms stated that caffine was to be ejected and various levels of EZI. It also had some slightly ooc stuff specifically for caffine contained within the terms. If he didn't choose to leave a week ago these terms would still be there. Edited July 6, 2009 by Desperado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israfeel Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Are you trying to tell me it's better than all the things they've fought against? Why can't they fight against it and not impose ridiculous terms?! Humiliating and forcing an alliance to become a tech farm for honorably defending an ally, for fulfilling a treaty obligation is monstrous by any standards. So many alliances profiting from the corruption of Karma is quite frankly disgusting. As grub said, Karma has its hands on some power and it is using it to push this community back to the stone age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) <snip> Care to clarify your views on morality? You seemed to indicate that each person has his or her own views regarding the ethics of CN, which is clearly true, and it could have an entirely different effect on how Chaosism () works. Do you think that an alliance's downfall is sealed when its actions violate the personal moral codes of greater than 50% of the rest of Bob, or when that alliance simply makes too many personal enemies? Or, perhaps, you believe that an alliance's downfall is determined when it makes too many personal enemies (determined by power of enemies made combined) and that some people consider themselves the personal enemies of alliances that violate their individual moral codes? EDIT: On that line of thought, I suppose "personal enemies" would have to include people who are strategically harmed by the existence of the alliance in question, everyone who has a grudge against the alliance, and whomever thinks the alliance crossed the threshold between morality and immorality. Edited July 6, 2009 by Stonewall Jaxon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Don't make blanket statements unless you are privy to our alliance forums which I believe you aren't. Seriously it gets annoying when others who aren't even in the alliance decide to make comments on the behalf of the membership. He's telling you how you guys come off on the forums. Maybe you guys did change on the inside, but until you're willing to show that change in public can you fault us for not changing our views on you guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I thought this was one of the most amazing announcements in our time. Well worth the read.I was a member of the Viridian Entente for the first part of this war. I destroyed my nation for Karma, first fighting against the MCXA chancellors and Minister of Finance who swooped down and took the opportunity to attack me alone (VE had overdeployed on Pacifica at that point, and was getting hit hard by MCXA.) I then went on to fight numerous Pacificans, so many I literally lost count. I fought Moo, Mary, Bilrow and others, and personally ZIed Moo and Bilrow. I believed I was fighting on the moral side of the war, for justice, and honour, and other values I hold dear. Gradually I began to wonder, though, if Karma was really fighting ethically. VE didn't give me the impression that they were upholding the morals I had valued for so long, and neither did Karma as a whole. This was demonstrated when on the VE boards, they claimed that they would be happy to give terms to NPO, if NPO would merely come and negotiate with them about it. NPO did so, but VE refused to give terms on the basis that Karma collectively needed to decide on them, and not individual Karma alliances. Because Karma lacks an overall leader or co-ordinator, this gave them the excuse to continue the war indefinitely. I was more than a little upset at the idea, because I was a Voxian, and I fought against NPO because they condoned things like eternal war. Then terms were finally given, and I felt sick to the core. They were the opposite of what I had fought for- I had fought for change, for a world that would enable the largest number of people to have fun, for a moral world. Therefore, I left VE the same night. Many of them did not understand, and I was briefly placed on VE's ZI list. After extensive negotiations with their Lord, I was asked to pay 12m and 100 tech instead of a ZI (which wouldn't have meant much at that point, as I had just taken two more Pacifican nukes and was only at 200 infra.) This announcement by Polar puts into words that which I could not previously express effectively. I wholeheartedly agree with it. Hail Polaris. Ah dammit Fran, sometimes you make it so hard to hate you. To many of the Karma types in this thread: "But we're only doing SOME of the things they did that we hated! And we're only doing it to SOME of them!" Lol. -Bama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the damned Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Forced an alliance off a color sphere and directly caused disbandment (in your own definition of 'cause' not mine). We may have been a bit harsh with Big Biz but CK attempted to outright steal members from Sparta to join his alliance. As for the actual details you have to talk to some of the upper crust Spartans at the time. sorry im not too much help there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 They don't want to. The core of their belief is that they are right, their way is correct, and they don't have to change.Change doesn't come quick. Yes it is the point. Karma didn't force anyone out of Echelon's government. The member in question was not in Echelon government at the time. This is in direct contradiction to Echelon's actions in the past supporting and performing surrender terms calling for the expulsion of certain members in other alliances. You are barring someone from entering government of an alliance. This is the exact same thing NPO did to GATO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Why can't they fight against it and not impose ridiculous terms?!Humiliating and forcing an alliance to become a tech farm for honorably defending an ally, for fulfilling a treaty obligation is monstrous by any standards. So many alliances profiting from the corruption of Karma is quite frankly disgusting. As grub said, Karma has its hands on some power and it is using it to push this community back to the stone age. Spare me your moral indignation, most of the alliances got off with light terms, mostly even white peace, while some of the main perpetrators of what you so willingly labeled "the stone age" got the just punishment its deserved. The main calling here is about NPO's terms, and they were not in fulfilling a treaty obligation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elendil old Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 He's telling you how you guys come off on the forums. Maybe you guys did change on the inside, but until you're willing to show that change in public can you fault us for not changing our views on you guys? I read it as a blanket statement but you do have a point heh. And Yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Don't make blanket statements unless you are privy to our alliance forums which I believe you aren't. Seriously it gets annoying when others who aren't even in the alliance decide to make comments on the behalf of the membership. Perhaps you have changed on the inside, on your internal forums. But you have yet to come across publicly as an alliance who has made, or realizes they must make, real change, like Polaris did. Warrior Concept got it. Perhaps if you showed the public in CN, and not just those who you are negotiating with in Karma, how you have changed, perhaps more of the public would support lesser terms for NPO, and at least realize that NPO truly has changed. If you have changed, show us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I read it as a blanket statement but you do have a point heh. And Yes? As long as you understand where we're coming from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Spare me your moral indignation, most of the alliances got off with light terms, mostly even white peace, while some of the main perpetrators of what you so willingly labeled "the stone age" got the just punishment its deserved. The main calling here is about NPO's terms, and they were not in fulfilling a treaty obligation. And again: "But we only did it to SOME of them!" -Bama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrototyoeRuler Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) I have to say I am on the fence in the grand scheme of things. I fought for Polaris, and left ODN for the injustices served to our allies. I became an active member, learning for the beat down as a player in this game. I saw the changes Polar has forced itself to overcome, the large reps, the ejection of our beloved government. I sat frustrated, and frankly not happy. But being a polar member teaches you many things and holding a grudge is not one of them. I value your opinion Gurb, and your respect and that of your government is amazing. Your patience and your truth will always shine in this realm. But, I have to go ahead and say enough is truly enough. I don't like NPO or the allies the least bit and it has always been known. But, this has gone on for to long. Edited July 6, 2009 by PrototyoeRuler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Forced an alliance off a color sphere and directly caused disbandment (in your own definition of 'cause' not mine). Besides the fact he worked to undermine Sparta while in our AA, do you really want to talk about making alliances disband? I'm not sure you want to go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts