Kevin Cash

ahh, thats more like it, it just didn't feel right with twisted going on and no blind rage from other karma folks.can i get some 'twisted doesnt represent the opinions of karma' now? i mean, i know you guys have no central leadership ('high command' and 'karma gov channel' refer to completely different thins guys), but can we get some big figures to remark on behalf of this organization that doesnt exist that if it did exist they wouldnt support poison clans actions?

i heard they cried to daddy for help when things got rough

so with twisted in all his drunken glory revealing his true opinions of alliances like tsi (yay alcohol, the bearer of truth and honesty), my question is why arent all the karma supporters rushing in to argue pc is not representative of karma, or do they only say that to save face after you call them out on it? ill start then: look at this, what pc is doing, such disrespect for alliances who honor their treaties, they make karma look horrible now can you guys come in here and pretend to be upset at pc.

i agree, tsi are scum for defending their ally and upholding their treaty. shame on you tsi, you deserved to be extorted, cybernations doesnt need scum like you

would you kindly read the next line in my post which you have quoted? thanks

in other words you would only enter a relationship while it served your political means, and dump them as soon as your ally is in a tight spot. nice.i am not saying that is why polaris canceled (i need more information before i try to figure that out), merely commenting on your reply here. also, thats not what the word 'redundant' means.

two protectorates disbanded and a third extorted with literally the harshest per-ns terms this war by far... keep up the good track record tfo!

remove the bolded section and you have what is generally accepted as white peace. it may or may not be the case that it is considered a draw; often, there is a winner and a loser, and sometimes one party simply decides to leave a war with no stipulations whatsoever when it is clear they are not needed (i believe nso did this). the basis of white peace is that no party has any stipulations beyond not re-entering the war and, usually, an admission of defeat. anything as much as an apology beyond that is not white peace, and the terms given to valhalla most certainly are not.

please list the surrender terms from this war in which the 'hegemony' has extorted anyone. actually, please show me where any alliance surrendered at all to 'hegemony' this war.

and i agree that these terms are far more merciful than i think anyone expected, and that is respectable. i am just pointing out that this is not white peace.

will you be seeking to extort tech out of avalon like you did to the other alliances you fought with?

i am pleased to see that the previous pattern of extortion among karma has, at least with the most recent surrenders, seemingly been retracted. these are good terms, congratulations baps

the lack of tech extortion does not make these terms the equivalent of white peace. their treaties are suspended, and, not the importance of this next one, they are allowed no external aid. that means torn, among others, cannot assist them in rebuilding for three months. that is a term that borders on being harsh and potentially extends towards cruelty, depending largely on the general financial status of valhalla.there is a whole lot more to white peace than the lack of extortion, and i am sad to see many people ignorant of that.

is it not true that polaris under sponge worked to orchestrate the unjust war in an attempt to isolate the new pacific order with whom they were directly tied with a 'blood pact' of sorts, the ordinance of order?i thought even sponge himself admitted this im not here to participate in your thread derailment, so i will just reiterate, that sponge should not assume everyone acts the way he does, and the idea that valhalla are going to actively go after the folks who granted them terms immeasurably lighter that what was expected, well, it seems rather ridiculous that they would be largely ungrateful, let alone enraged. in fact, i predict the opposite, and believe these will in fact ease the tensions with valhalla, to a certain extent. they entered this war expecting far worse than what they got.

sponge, maybe you should consider that not everyone is a backstabbing traitor like you, that not everyone is plotting day and night to screw over their friends and anyone else within arms reach.just a thought

im sorry, i couldnt resist. congrats on peace guys! these are impressive terms, given the amount of hatred people have for you, i am very impressed. it shows that there are some good elements in karma who do not believe in extortion... i wonder how hard it was for pc to let that opportunity go though

and economic penalties? the idea that these folks dont have every right to defend themselves is foolish. and with recent suggestions from those o the 'karma' side that red be raided en masse during or after this war for the sake of spiting npo when they are powerless to uphold the revenge doctrine, i would be worried too if i were an independent member of the red team. they have every right to defend themselves.

anyone who believes this can count themselves amongst the biggest fools in cn. in fact, with the a giant gap in power left behind by the npo, the world is about to get a whole lot more violent, as alliances make power plays to take over the role npo held for 3 years

the moldavi doctrine enables the revenge doctrine; npo is only able to protect red because red is their sovereign territory.it is becoming increasingly obvious that that is likely to change by force, and when it does, npo no longer will have the legal right to protect red nations.

making claims without supporting evidence is not 'proving me wrong'if these lists are as extensive as you claim, it should be a piece of cake to quickly assemble a convincing list of people who are or were on ezi. why wot you do it? it's a rather simple task, if you are right, to make me eat my words. its almost illogical to not do so, unless you are in fact claiming as fact your opinions which you cannot back up with evidence. since there is no way to prove they dont exist, the burden of proof is on you. and as much a ive seen your kind bicker about ezi i have never once seen more than a few scarce cases. if its as common as you claim, prove it, otherwise i am calling your bluff.

you upheld your word on the treaties, and though i think you partially defeated the purpose of a nap by withdrawing simply because you did not want to continue upholding the non-aggression agreement (which in my mind is only worth signing to prevent specific conflicts in large scale wars such as this), it is still far more respectable than other actions i have seen performed by the 'karma' faction in this war

tp, soldier, and some other alliance i wasnt familiar with and forget the nameat least one of those disbandments was cheered on by members of 'karma'

karma has already caused no less than 3 alliances to disband. is there any reason to believe they are going to bring about any 'change' that is for the better?

actually hes really only stating the obvious.

i suppose they should handle it in private so as to spare karma the public embarrassment, right? i remember another group of alliances who used to do that...