Waterana
-
Posts
251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Waterana
-
-
I'm not sure why you think I'd say that; I don't think I haven't accused you of whining yet. I sought to point out how hypocritical and indefensible your stance that Karma cannot do the same thing to the NPO that Pacifica did to GATO is, and I would have appreciated a reasonably constructed argument justifying your position. It is unfortunate that you would dismiss my arguments based on perceived amounts of 'bile' rather than by the merits of what I actually wrote.
However while I am an insignificant member of a small alliance, I would say that the NPO is not so high and mighty right now that it could afford to publicly flaunt its disdain for sympathies from alliances it is at war with.
You personally might not have but you the NPO did.
I never said they couldn't do it. I said surrender terms have never to my knowledge, by us or anyone else, included extra weeks of war enshrined within the terms themselves that take place after the terms are signed to nations that under other parts of those terms will be not be allowed to defend themselves (no hostility allowed) and be disarmed. They can also not receive any help from the rest of us. Shooting fish in a barrel. Is that what we did to GATO?
My post was aimed at you, not your alliance.
-
Ah, so all Karma has to do is apologize to you a year from now, and it will be all good, right?
Also, you keep saying how the policy was "never enacted". That's a complete and utter lie. You might not have actually PZIed anyone, but that's because they all complied. If you hold a gun to someone's head and tell them to jump off a bridge and they do it, you can't later say "oh well I didn't pull the trigger, so really I didn't do anything". The threat was there, and it was effective.
I love this quote even more than the Bakunin one.
I've never 'kept saying it'. This is the first time I've discussed the GATO subject and have only said it once. You need to get that double/triple/whatever vision checked.
-
To illustrate how hypocritical what your are saying is, consider this. Say if Tim went out on to the streets and randomly decided to murder John. Can Tim now claim that, because John was the only person to ever be killed by Tim, now no one besides John could punish Tim? Clearly this is not so. What is happening here is that the NPO tried to commit something heinous and showed no sincere regret for their actions. And accordingly they are reaping what they sowed.
Now if the NPO had spontaneously issued an apology to GATO without trying to whine about their 'unfair' treatment at the hands of Karma in the same thread then I might be inclined to think differently.
Kudos to you. But then you can't complain about a never-ending war if you aren't going to accept the terms. Again if NPO hadn't been so determined to whine about the terms at every opportunity then I might feel disgusted at the sort of terms offered. But the attitude displayed in that 200 page trainwreck makes it real hard to sympathise.
From the attitude and amount of bile in your posts, I doubt anything I say would be acceptable to you and would just be fobbed of as 'whining', so won't bother. We don't want or need your sympathy.
-
So let me get this straight the rules your trying to be put for just and morally justifiable surrender terms are, according to you, that the alliance needs to have personally underwent the very same surrender terms they are proposing to another alliance. Strange that NPO & friends only thought up this doctrine when they could very well be on the receiving end of these terms.
edit: For the reason of keeping the game interesting and I think some lingering nostalgia I support not too harsh peace terms for the NPO. But certainly not because of the NPO membership coming to this forum talking about how harsh peace terms are unfair.
For that one offense as it was only ever threatened to one alliance (and never acted on), then yes, I do believe in this case GATO are the only ones who have any right to 'punish' us for it. For the other terms, no I don't feel that way. The tech thing confused me because hizzy said something about us setting the precedent, but I couldn't remember us ever doing that particular term to anyone else, so asked him for examples.
I'm not saying we should get off scot free or get white peace, nor that we've never done anything to deserve the beat down we're getting now. The Karma side fighting us need to understand however that they can try to force any terms on us they wish, and use any excuse they wish, but we also can choose to say no, which we did.
They may feel justified in demanding we hand over our banks so they can dump our AS, but we don't agree to that so they aren't going to get the chance to do it. As I've said in a past post, those nations are member of the NPO and our government has a duty of care to all our members. By rejecting those terms and remaining at war, the better option, they are doing just that.
-
That's beside the point. You did it to GATO, how could you complain when someone else do it to you? That's blatant double standards.
You really should just take Hizzy's advice. I could almost feel sorry for the NPO, but reading posts by Pacificans kills it.
The peace nation thing applies only to GATO, who aren't one of the alliances at war with us. If GATO want to declare on us and make that term their part of the surrender terms, then I'd understand and accept their right to do so, but not a group of fear and vengeance driven alliances acting in their name, especially as GATO themselves have requested they be kept out of this. Besides, wanting to kill our banks has nothing to do with what we did to GATO, that is just the excuse being used. It is to knock down their strength and get us out of sanction. We already know that.Yes, we did it to GATO, and our Emperor apologised to them for it. Not that most of the ardent haters care. As I said in the quote above, our Karma opponents don't want to kill our banks because of GATO. That is only the catch cry they keep throwing out to justify it. Doesn't matter much anyway, as the terms have been rejected and our banks will remain safe in peacemode until they are free to emerge without the threat of war hanging over their heads. Personally, I consider myself to be fighting to ensure their protection now.
-
The peace nation thing applies only to GATO, who aren't one of the alliances at war with us. If GATO want to declare on us and make that term their part of the surrender terms, then I'd understand and accept their right to do so, but not a group of fear and vengeance driven alliances acting in their name, especially as GATO themselves have requested they be kept out of this. Besides, wanting to kill our banks has nothing to do with what we did to GATO, that is just the excuse being used. It is to knock down their strength and get us out of sanction. We already know that.
I'm not calling you a liar, but can't think of us using the only high tech nations can pay tech reps in any set of terms we've given other alliances. Do you have any examples of us ever doing that?
-
Your not reprimanding, you're crippling.
Exactly. Which is why those terms were rejected by our government. Our opposition doesn't seem to get it. Surrender terms are supposed to be a better alternative for the defeated alliance than staying in the war so they want to accept them. Those terms make remaining at war the much better option for our nations and alliance overall, so the Emperor said 'no thanks' and we keep fighting.
When an alliance surrenders it is supposed to mean peace, not a continuation of the war. The restriction on who can pay tech reps is also another method of continuing to damage us (and Echelon for that matter) after terms are signed as only nations with a lot of tech can pay them. As buying tech is very expensive for them, they are forced to give up their own supply and significantly weaken both themselves and our alliance strength doing it. Small nations, such as mine, can buy rep tech cheaply and easily and not have the loss cost our own alliance its overall strength, which is why we'd not be allowed to.
-
So basically Grub eats Spartans for breakfast. That's what I got out of this.
Wish he would. Be a few less for us to worry about then
-
Actually I would prefer that you not disband. Take that how you will, it is the truth.
And speaking for myself, I would not have had a problem with Karma dropping the demand for an additional two weeks of warfare, were it not for the propaganda campaign that you've engaged in in place of negotiations. I was never a fan of that particular term. Thus, if you had shown any signs of contrition I would have said increase the reps and let them go. But the unbelievable amount of lies, slander and distortions that have been hurled against Karma have convinced me that reparations alone will not be enough.
Our government were repeatedly told the terms were non negotiable. What you call propaganda, we call truth and getting our feelings out in the open. From our side of the fence, especially us normal members who aren't privvy to any of the back room stuff, we can only comment on what we see. What we see is a number of alliances fighting us determined to destroy our alliance out of fear and vengeance.
You claim that isn't true, but we only have your word on that, and sorry, few Pacificans, if any, trust anything coming from the bit of Karma at war with us. We have had no reason to. It is actions not words that count, and so far actions by our slice of the Karma cake only point to wanting us dead and gone, with our without those terms. Yes our alliance has done some bad things in its past, and we acknowledge that, but anything the Emperor or IOs try to say on these boards is met with jeers and 'PR stunt'.
We gave up the Moldavi doctrine. To us, control of the red sphere was the cornerstone of our alliance. That doctrine was a large part of our identity and losing it ripped a small bit out of the heart of every NPO member. That sacrifice also was met largely with jeers, jibes, sneers, and the usual cries of 'it's just a PR campaign'. Are you beginning to understand yet why we aren't on this board in sackcloth and ashes begging for forgiveness?
Pacificans are constantly accused of being arrogant and too full of pride. I do have a lot of pride in my alliance, but that doesn't mean I don't think we do need to change and that I think everything we ever did was ok. The arrogance isn't all one way either. Plenty of those on the other side of the fence are displaying an incredible amount of it as well.
-
This over the top rhetoric is why I refuse to take the vast majority of Karma complainants seriously. You hypocrites point to the cracks in Karma which already exist, and out of the other side of your mouths proclaim that we're about to create a new Hegemony. Karma will not exist after the war against the NPO has been concluded, you can be sure of that.
And I've actually invited comments from several who disagree with me. Funny thing is, they usually don't respond back. I don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with me. I do have a problem with propaganda being used in place of proper arguments - propaganda of the type which I've quoted above, for example.
Karma is worse than the Hegemony? What can I do but laugh? Point to me where Karma has disbanded alliances, imposed Viceroys, taken over forums, or refused to offer terms to defeated alliances. Point to me where Karma has done all these things not once but repeatedly, then come back to me and I'll listen to you.
The NPO is broken, defeated and isolated? I think not. All the support they're receiving in this thread demonstrates most clearly that they are not as isolated as you would have us believe. Nor have they been broken. Their leadership and membership is as unrepentant as ever. They have never once wavered from the position that this war is unjustified; and their actions after this war has been concluded are as certain as the prediction that the sun will rise tomorrow. They will come looking for revenge. And that is why the presence of so many high strength nations in peace mode, with large warchests and high tech levels, are problematic. No one who is fighting the NPO now wants to repeat this war in six months time.
I've been called a coward, and for what? For putting myself on the front lines? For being willing to take a stand and get my hands dirty in order to help create a new era on Planet Bob, while others remain safe on the sidelines and make periodic pronouncements as to their moral superiority?
Enjoy the view from the cheap seats, but save us the rhetoric please.
Us disbanding really is the only thing that would satisfy you and make you feel safe, isn't it? Fear and paranoia. We are isolated. The people in this thread aren't supporting us, they are speaking out against the alliances fighting us and Echelon handing out the kind of treatment they claim to despise and be fighting against. Our allies are gone, our blocs are gone, our political capital with practically every alliance is gone.
I promise you, we aren't going to come looking for revenge, unless you expect us to wipe you all out on our own, because no alliance is going to be the least bit interested in allying with us after this mess. Not for a very long time if ever, but I guess your fear of us is so strong you really believe we are capable of doing it alone. That is working out so great for us now, right?
The nations in peace mode aren't there to rebuild us into some revenge seeking super alliance that is going to sweep bob clean of all those we don't like. They will be used to rebuild our nations so rebuild our alliance, and pay reps if we get offered terms acceptable to our government. Fear of us 'coming for you' is stupid, panicking about us 'coming for you' is stupid, paranoia of us 'coming for you' is stupid. We are broken, we are beaten, I'm sure our government would be willing to accept terms that don't have a clause requiring more war for any of our nations. They have a duty of care to us, the members, not any alliance fighting us.
-
MK never once, to my knowledge, complained about the reps.
I haven't seen Echelon really complain en masse here either.
So far they are manning up to their decision to accept terms.
11. Echelon must maintain a cute demeanor for the duration of these terms. Any change in demeanor from cute is grounds for the immediate resumption of hostilities. Refusal to comply with the above terms on a mass scale will result in continued warfare.I'm not surprised Echelon aren't speaking up. The terms have them effectively muzzled.
-
So you completely ignore my statements stating that NPO has attempted history revisionism, and was engaged in active history revisionism campaigns? I'll take your lack of a reply as an admission of guilt.
Why is it bad when 'Karma' does it, but good when you do it?
I did answer it with what I know. You brought up Vladamir and the IOs, I'm not either so can't comment on something I know little about. Also wasn't in the NPO (was a barely interested indie at the time) for GW1 so stay out of most arguments concerning it.
-
Echelon was as goaded into war as they goaded many others with the threat of BLEU and One Vision.
I just don't see a reason to be that worked up about it. I mean, Echelon goaded many others under the threat of One Vision or BLEU military action. They had no problem with such bully tactics then, why should their stance change now? Either something is immoral, or it is not. The belief that "its fine if I do it but wrong if you do" is not a valid, sound, or legitimate point of view.
So either you don't mind such actions, or you do. Judging by Echelon's past behavior, I must say they had no problem with such treatment. Judging NPO's past behavior, especially regarding the FAN wars, NPO has no problem with such behavior. So how come theres an outcry by you folks now about this behavior when just months ago you both were doing it?
So our allies such as Valhalla
and GGA who were equally accused of many terrible 'crimes' throughout their histories and under the logic of some of you are just as much aggressors, walk away with light terms, but Echelon gets nailed to the wall? Like I said, drunk on power certainly applies to some of the Karma alliances in this war. Echelon aren't being punished for their 'sins', they're being punished for declaring on the wrong alliances in defence of us, and peeving people off for not surrendering soon enough.Besides, I thought all the bad stuff was our doing and our allies just puppets doing what NPO told them to do?
Technically Echelon DOWed several alliances, and thus started, by their own accord, the war between Echelon and (insert all the alliances Echelon was at war with during the Karma war here). Its a bit too reliant on tricky wordplay for my liking, but the argument can be successfully made for such an interpretation.Then, by that logic, all the alliances that declared on us in defence of OV are also aggressors. Can't have your cake and eat it too in this. Either a defence treaty is a defence treaty or it isn't, but either way, it applies equally to both sides. The only aggressor in this war, any part of it, is the NPO.
And revisionist history and amnesia weren't rife in the "old world'?I seem to remember Vladimir trying very hard to tell the world how the NPO never lost a war, and in fact won GW1. I remember the NPO stating they never violated a treaty, when IO's stated the NPO, and Emporer Moo Cows, were in planning sessions for war on the WUT (of which the NPO was a member at the time) and the UJP. I remember plenty of history revisionism in those times, mate, stop acting like its a new thing. The NPO did it plenty of times, why are you so against it now?
Because from all the blurb at the beginning of this war, I was under the impression all Karma alliance were united in one thing. Wanting the hegemony gone, and not repeating it's 'mistakes'. Obviously I was wrong about that because over the last few weeks, all I'm seeing is parts of Karma rapidly becoming indistinguishable from the old hegemony. The king is dead, long live the king.
-
Despite the convenience, there are still serious issues to consider when doing so: Have all alliances in "Karma" given harsh terms (for the sake of argument here we can call them such)? Is it actually the same people who were shaming IRON/etc. for dropping the NPO who are now giving Echelon terms for "simply following their treaty"? Is it true that these alliances gave the terms that they did because and only because Echelon honoured a treaty? Are the terms given to Echelon a manifestation of the will of all those alliances under the banner of Karma?
These are questions you need to answer before you embark on criticizing "Karma" as a whole. I suspect the answers to those questions will not bear out the way you (and many, many others) are currently trying to frame the discussion.
You have a point actually. I will watch my wording from now, and be sure to state something along the lines of 'karma alliances at war with *insert AA*".
They are giving Echelon these terms because those karma alliances who were at war with them have the upper hand and are drunk on power. I know they are trying to spin it different, but that is the whole of why an alliance that entered to defend an ally, nothing more or less, is now being treated so badly.
-
I love how after all this time, people are still referring to "Karma" as if it's some monolithic thing.
Yet in my nation, when I make baseless, general statements about ethnic minorities *I'm* the bad guy!
It's easier than typing out 90 (or however many there are) alliance names that are on that side. Besides, they came up with the name, not us. Don't blame us for using it.
-
Actually they're typically optional defense clauses that are activated as most treaties are worded that they're Mandatory defense unless a signatory is the agressor, at which point they become optional.
For it to be an optional aggression being implemented, they would have to be attacking the original target in a joint effort with the original attackers. In this scenario (iirc) Echelon attacked those who attacked the NPO - therefore they entered on an optional defense clause.
The defence clause wasn't optional.
Am I the only one who remembers the cries of outrage from Karma when our allies canceled their treaties with us right at the beginning of this war, and looked like they weren't going to come to our defence? They were called cowards, dishonourable, back stabbers, and many other gems. Karma goaded them into entering the war, and now harshly punishes one, just one, for daring to do what they were being insulted into doing. On top of everything else, Echelon is being accused of being an aggressor and starting the war. Seems revisionist history and amnesia are rife in this 'brave new world'.
-
Just to clarify, I, and by automatic extension the NSO, have never stated a dislike for the NPO.
I'm going by member posts over time Ivan. If I'm wrong about NSO, then I do apologise.
-
Anyone who thinks Frostbite, or even Polar alone for that matter, are defending the NPO here needs a reality check. All 4 alliances in that bloc don't like us. Will go so far to say at least 2 despise us. The fact there are some ex Pacificans within those alliances doesn't automatically mean they are in any way sympathetic to what is happening to NPO now. Again, take off the tin foil hats people.
I read the OP as Grub calling out some Karma alliances and carpeting them for their actions in relation to the stated ideals of what Karma was supposed to stand for. He is free to correct me if I'm wrong on that. The Frostbite alliance members I've seen posting in this thread are, mostly, making the same arguments.
-
It isn't a question of who's right and who's wrong, it's a question of who fired the first shot. Whoever attacks first is engaged in an offensive operation, regardless of justification or motive.
I'll agree with you that it was stupid term and poorly written. However I believe the intent was to convey that it was Echelon that sought out GOD (etc) as a target, not the other way around. I don't think anyone was purposely trying to suggest that Echelon somehow started the overall Karma War, although I admit it looks like that - as I said, I think it was poorly written.
And that was us, the NPO. We fired the first shot. Not Echelon. No amount of wordplay will change that. It doesn't matter which side they were on. Echelon entered the war under the defence clause of a treaty with us after we were attacked by OV's defenders. Trying to demonise that and make them look like aggressors just make anyone saying it look stupid. Who they attacked is irrelevant. GOD were one of many alliances hitting the NPO. They were a valid target for any one of our allies.
-
I'm a bit more of an optimist and assume that the nations who fill the power vacuum after NPO etc will learn from past mistakes and not abuse their power. Maybe I'm too trusting. However, feel free to continue to do as others have, and force your words and ideals upon me as if they weigh more than my own.
They're already abusing it. The Echelon terms are proof of that. Same cart, new driver.
-
Sexy, Sexy
I choose you Picachu!!
He's in Legion
-
Might wanna check your source there high speed, You guys are losing members and your AS Score still dropping, Even if you do gain some, it will not be as much as you would if this War would have ended.
If you guys want a Perma war then thats what you will end up getting. Stop spinning the tables and making it look like were the bad guys in this situation. We offered you reasonable terms, nothing more worse than what you've done before. And just in spite of your cultural social decree that nothing can touch NPO, you guys will deny these terms if it means you take everyone else down with you? Who's more selfish you or us?
I'm thankful i have nothing to do with NPO your arrogance even in defeat amazes me. You don't get the right to dictate terms, Only the winning side does. So please enough with the whining, the ridiculous propaganda you seem to enjoy, however fruitless that maybe and just accept the terms.
Then again you guys seem to enjoy the Hippy stance.
Did you seriously say that? Have you read the terms? We've been gaining AS for days now, and there is no reason we can't continue to do it. Karma has hurt us about as much as it can at this point. Only thing that can hurt us more is accepting those impossible to honour terms and allowing them to destroy our banks. A resumption of war would quickly follow.
We aren't dictating the terms, we're rejecting them, as we were supposed to do when they were offered to us. Or perhaps I'm wrong there and we were supposed to accept them. Only way Karma can get our banks is if we hand them over. Well that isn't going to happen. Karma get to suck it up and keep fighting, or come up with something else. The choice is theirs.
-
Those promises will either be kept or broken after the battle is over. We are still waging this war, this isn't the "post NPO" era, and it will only be that once they have surrendered. If then you will find us resembling the former hegemony in the way we treat others, you are fully entitled to call us hypocrites. It's only by virtue of the long period of time the war has been raging for that they can even insolently complain about us not letting them go with easy terms. The war is not over, it's the exact same war, the bloody war needed so that future wars will not resemble those of the past. Everybody wants a fair happy world, but few people seem to understand that in order to achieve it, you need to get your hands dirty in the process.
Lots of 'us' and 'we' in there for a loose coalition, and the part of it fighting us denying they were ever a part of Karma. Last time I looked, MK weren't involved in our front of this war, nor our surrender terms. Did I miss a DoW or something?
-
...for NPO.
See you at Christmas dinner.
We'll still be here, free and fighting hard, so it's a date.
and GGA who were equally accused of many terrible 'crimes' throughout their histories and under the logic of some of you are just as much aggressors, walk away with light terms, but Echelon gets nailed to the wall? Like I said, drunk on power certainly applies to some of the Karma alliances in this war. Echelon aren't being punished for their 'sins', they're being punished for declaring on the wrong alliances in defence of us, and peeving people off for not surrendering soon enough.
Imperial Decree - New Polar Order
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
I'll be honest, the GATO peace mode thing is one of the NPO actions I personally regret, a lot. Wasn't in NPO when that war started, was taking a 6 week holiday in Valhalla so missed the bulk if it (the war started only a couple of days after I left). I can't and won't defend it, and have managed up to tonight not to raise the subject, but had to tonight as someone answering one of my previous posts did, so couldn't ignore it. That is the reason my answers on this subject are shaky.
I'm not dismissing what happened, but the peace mode term affects my own alliance, and I'd be a pretty miserable person if I didn't put the NPO's interests first. Yes, that term hurt GATO, not denying that in the least. The payback term will hurt the NPO, so we've chosen to say no to the surrender terms that include it.