Nizzle Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) I can understand some of your confusion. However, let me frame it the way I see it. First, it would be an eventual PR disaster if NPO complied with our pre-terms and we purposely never offered any exit terms (barring they don't do something dumb). Secondly, it has been publicly stated that we don't want to impose eternal war on someone who is actively trying to get peace in a respectable way. They haven't helped themselves in that department with miscalculated PR moves. If NPO comes out of peace mode, fights, and seeks peace in a respectful manner and the Karma alliances fighting them refuse them any kind of peace, consider my foot in my mouth. You aren't getting it. The pre-terms never stated that failure to comply would result in no peace. They add on to FINAL peace. That's what I have been trying to resolve here, and you folks keep giving two different answers. I'm not sure if some are gov and some aren't...but I think it was a MoD that said "exiting peace was never a requirement for peace terms" and then you saying it is. Making any sense yet? EDIT: Gen_Lee: the Karma front on NPO has some instructions regarding peace moded nations you can take em or leave em: Gen_Lee: -NPO has five days to move all their nations out peace mode with zero penalty. Moo-Spock: we will never move our banks Moo-Spock: never have Gen_Lee: -6th Day and on:.For every NPO nation above 5k NS in peace mode, 3 mil and 100 tech in reparations will be added to any peace terms, per day. The duration of all peace terms will also be increased by 2 days for any day any NPO nation above 5k is in peace after the 5th day. Edited June 1, 2009 by Nizzle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 You aren't getting it. The pre-terms never stated that failure to comply would result in no peace. They add on to FINAL peace. That's what I have been trying to resolve here, and you folks keep giving two different answers. I'm not sure if some are gov and some aren't...but I think it was a MoD that said "exiting peace was never a requirement for peace terms" and then you saying it is.Making any sense yet? I'd assume that non-compliance would result in no peace, at least in the foreseeable future. Otherwise, the declaration wouldn't have been issued. Anyways, that's how I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Is Karma now retracting all criticisms of terms offered by the NPO and its allies in the past? What does when terms getting offered and who is in control have to do with criticism? Is it? Then why does Karma refuse to give us the base numbers -- how long the war would be and how much the terms would cost? So far all I have seen is 'in my opinion', and that is also something I have seen throughout this conflict (and in this very thread) used in 'well, that was only his opinion, not official policy, so we don't have to abide by it'. For all we know we could all come out of peace mode and be at war for decades. Since you think this is such a good idea, I repeat again what no one has answered, when has NPO ever released the terms or timeline for a war before they were willing to give terms in the 1-2 dozen where you gave terms? The precedent set by your own alliance is against you. Why didn't you do it in those wars? Based on consistent statements, you know what is by far the most likely possibility, and that is peace in roughly a couple weeks after those nations leave peace mode. Especially because it's been explained to your leadership by numerous people officially representing those fighting you. Pretending otherwise is just intentional ignorance. Then I look forward to seeing Karma laying down the necessary base numbers so that an informed decision can be taken. As I have already said, there is absolutely no reason to withhold them unless you intend to go back on the 'that was only an opinion, welcome to a decade of war' trail. Obviously there is, because your alliance didn't release the base numbers before they were at the point where they were willing to give terms and didn't go down the "decades of war" trail. Again the precedent set by your own alliance is against you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I can understand some of your confusion. However, let me frame it the way I see it. First, it would be an eventual PR disaster if NPO complied with our pre-terms and we purposely never offered any exit terms (barring they don't do something dumb). Secondly, it has been publicly stated that we don't want to impose eternal war on someone who is actively trying to get peace in a respectable way. They haven't helped themselves in that department with miscalculated PR moves. If NPO comes out of peace mode, fights, and seeks peace in a respectful manner and the Karma alliances fighting them refuse them any kind of peace, consider my foot in my mouth. I think we all understand the way you see it. I think the confusion is in how to reconcile this view with very real concerns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I'd assume that non-compliance would result in no peace, at least in the foreseeable future. Otherwise, the declaration wouldn't have been issued. Anyways, that's how I see it. Then that would be punishment all by itself, and to be honest I believe it would be more effective then what is in place now. *shrugs* Thanks for the chat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I'd assume that non-compliance would result in no peace, at least in the foreseeable future. Otherwise, the declaration wouldn't have been issued. Anyways, that's how I see it. By reading those preterms, NPO has complied with them. Thay've chosen more reps as opposed to coming out of peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 By reading those preterms, NPO has complied with them. Thay've chosen more reps as opposed to coming out of peace. It was more of an ultimatum followed with consequences if it wasn't followed. They didn't comply with the ultimatum so they chose the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) Vox et al reborn.Eveything said still stands. If not intelligent enough to not insert yourself in affairs that are not your concern, don't. Never was in Vox either. Boy, it must be nice to be ignorant and unintelligent. Carry on though, it's fun watching you insult yourself. Edited June 1, 2009 by bkphysics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Paul Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I'd assume that non-compliance would result in no peace, at least in the foreseeable future. Otherwise, the declaration wouldn't have been issued. Anyways, that's how I see it. Really, that wasn't how I read the pre-terms at all. I simply read it in a manner that when the terms got to an appropriate level Karma would be offering the Order final peace. I'm sure that if that was the case, a representative of Karma, acting on behalf of and with the authority of the 18 alliances on the Pacifican Front, would have simply stated that the war will continue until the Order removed all nations from peacemode. That's how I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Really, that wasn't how I read the pre-terms at all. I simply read it in a manner that when the terms got to an appropriate level Karma would be offering the Order final peace. I'm sure that if that was the case, a representative of Karma, acting on behalf of and with the authority of the 18 alliances on the Pacifican Front, would have simply stated that the war will continue until the Order removed all nations from peacemode. That's how I see it. Well, we read the same logs and came to different conclusions. I don't really know how to rectify that so I suppose we just have to agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Vox et al reborn. Do you really want to go there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Well, we read the same logs and came to different conclusions. I don't really know how to rectify that so I suppose we just have to agree to disagree. He was being funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentkiller Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 He was being funny. As far as I can tell, the only similarity is it involves peace mode nations not being in peace mode...Edit: And for the 4th time, no where in this notice does it state that the war will continue until all nations leave peace mode, only that the number counter will continue for peace mode nations until they are not in peace or the war is concluded. Doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooner Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 *Snip*No, I don't remember ever ridiculing anyone for that, nor do I remember the NPO being overly involved in such ridiculing (that was really reserved for the more OWF-active Karma alliances). However, we do go through private channels, what I am doing here is clarifying the situation and responding to comments that have misjudged or misrepresented it. GW3, the Viridicide, The Dove War, the FAN war.... I think you need to start taking some Ginko, old chap. I wasn't even referring to this war but previous wars. Your selective memory is failing you. Face it. NPO has never been able to admit that is has ever made a mistake. To do so would be to admit defeat, which we all know, NPO will never do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 He was being funny. Heh I guess I don't get his humor much then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 NPO has never been able to admit that is has ever made a mistake. I can admit when I make a mistake. And I made a mistake ... Of course, I don't need to remind you of that thread. You even posted in it. Viridia supports Pacifica and will stand by her in the time of need. Oh wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I think we all understand the way you see it. I think the confusion is in how to reconcile this view with very real concerns. On the NPO end I'm pretty sure it's just bluffing. Really, that wasn't how I read the pre-terms at all. I simply read it in a manner that when the terms got to an appropriate level Karma would be offering the Order final peace. I'm sure that if that was the case, a representative of Karma, acting on behalf of and with the authority of the 18 alliances on the Pacifican Front, would have simply stated that the war will continue until the Order removed all nations from peacemode. That's how I see it. From what I've seen and discussions with them, the war will continue until NPO has removed their nations from peace mode and those nations have fought. This declaration was simply stating that extra reps would be added for delaying in doing so, but that that still has to happen for the war to end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Ellen Red Posted June 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 New Pacific Order Reps Race Day 6 Old Total 774 Nation Violations 2.322 Billion 77,400 Tech +10 days of terms Today's Add-on's 136 Nations Violated 408 Million 13,600 Tech + 2 days of terms Total so Far 910 Nation Violations 2.730 Billion 91,000 Tech +12 days of terms Comments: I have not had a chance to read any comments after the Day 5 post. But anyway, thanks everybody we broke 1k in posts... even if most of it is flames... pretty much. Broke 1,000 posts! Also before you ask, yes i did triple check the numbers, and yes there is a good drop in PM above 5k ns. Also, i would like to note that if banks "leave" NPO, then there is no way i can track them. And also if they "leave" NPO, they don't actually count on the terms. So if all NPO bank Nations "leave" NPO for the rest of the war, there terms won't go up, because nothing in the terms says anything about banks leaving NPO. If they just leave the AA, they don't count. Or if they surrender, there is nothing that says he terms will go up or they will get attacked or they will have to come out of PM, IIRC. [Disclaimer: Now this topic isn't a debate about those terms, as the title says, I made this to inform everyone what those terms would be, if added up. I am simply informing you what they are, so please don't write mis-informing reports. I am not here to debate how good/bad/ok/not-ok the terms are. I am just simply writing what they would be. So please don't throw tons of flames out there. Pwease ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I think an official statement from Karma leadership on whether Pacifica is required to have its nations exit peace mode before peace negotiations can begin would be useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Wow. Almost 3 billion and 100k tech already. Remain steadfast Karma, this plan is just about to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Paul Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 On the NPO end I'm pretty sure it's just bluffing.From what I've seen and discussions with them, the war will continue until NPO has removed their nations from peace mode and those nations have fought. This declaration was simply stating that extra reps would be added for delaying in doing so, but that that still has to happen for the war to end. I thank you for passing on the intellegence. Why I have to get this information from a helpful ally as opposed to directly from the group of 18 is curious. Could you let me know specifically who the "them" is that you are refering too? If you wish to keep your sources secret I understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I think an official statement from Karma leadership on whether Pacifica is required to have its nations exit peace mode before peace negotiations can begin would be useful. I'm pretty sure NPO leadership has been told that privately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 For the curious once again the numbers; 2.730 Billion and 91,000 Tech could be paid off by the top 60 NPO peace mode nations in 2.5 aid cycles for the cash and 5 aid cycles for the tech. Though like previously smaller nations have an easier time moving tech than cash, so with other nations helping on the tech end this amount would still take under 3 aid cycles to pay off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) Oh wait. Attacking one of our closest allies in the middle of peace negotiations does not count as a "time of need" but rather a "cause for war", and we hold no treaty with them, so I'm not sure why you would dig that quote up. I think an official statement from Karma leadership on whether Pacifica is required to have its nations exit peace mode before peace negotiations can begin would be useful. I think an official private request by NPO leadership on whether Pacifica is required to have its nations exit peace mode before peace negotiations can begin would be useful. (Hint, see my responses a few pages back) I thank you for passing on the intellegence. Why I have to get this information from a helpful ally as opposed to directly from the group of 18 is curious. Could you let me know specifically who the "them" is that you are refering too? If you wish to keep your sources secret I understand. Cute, but don't act like you did not read the thread... I don't know how many times it needs to be said: NPO has not asked leadership on our front about how peace mode nations relate to the time frame of the war. NPO has not expressed a desire to surrender, nor have they had any official contact on the subject at all. If those such as Sir Paul above wish to sit here and act as if they are being held in warfare after pleading for surrender and respond to posts that he knows are not official rather then actually try and set the wheels in motion for peace, that is not an issue of us on the NPO front. You can claim confusion, portray yourself as a victim, and practice selective hearing all you want, but it still will not change facts. Edited June 1, 2009 by Il Impero Romano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 NPO has not expressed a desire to surrender, nor have they had any official contact on the subject at all. They haven't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.