KingSuck

yep, this changes everything

ha. ha. satire can be overdone you know

I believe the point he was making was that those alliances were never 'true allies' of the NPO and thus in the end contributed to their downfall. Looking at it in a cost/benefit kind of way, NPO gained very little in the end from having you as allies (no offence but they never really needed you untill this war and well, look how that turned out). At the same time it could also be argued that having you guys as allies lulled NPO into a false sense of security, which is fair enough seeing as Sparta for example dropped their MDoAP with NPO just to attack ~2 days later, which is quite the reversal in relations. Another point worth looking at is you guys were a major driving force; if not the major driving force behind the BLEU war; which split the Orders and arguably lost the NPO a huge amount of potential strength (through NpO and their allies). I remember one of the arguments BLEU members were making towards NPO in the BLEU war were "who will fight for you when Citadel betrays you?". Whether you want to call it a betrayal or not, the sentiment behind the idea is the same. I think that's what Mussolandia meant but he can feel free to correct me If I misinterpreted

Yes, yes it has. And as sweet as I'm sure the irony is, the peace mode talk is still stupid.

It's 'affected'.

something tells me if/when you guys do get peace terms your surrender thread is going to beat ours length-wise

and we're back at 'do something about it'.

no no I got the point perfectly. why don't you mull over it for a while; I'm sure it'll come to you

Ummm no. Just because the reps could be bigger doesn't mean they are not already draconian. Arguing that these terms are not extremely harsh is just going beyond the realm of stupidity. You can bang on all day long about how NPO may or may not deserve these terms but please for the love of admin drop this line of argument; it's painful to read.

Have you actually read the terms?

You do realise that that line of thinking is directly parallel to the one that the NPO used with FAN right? The one they were repeatedly condemned for?

and the fact that that Archon's post was addressed at the NPO?

So uhhh, what happened to this?

but what about GW1? Seriously though, those terms are horrific.

I don't know or particularly care if NPO's mindset has changed. However CN has changed and the aftermath of GW1 would be pretty much impossible to replicate as a result.

I don't really see how that contributed to your disbanding at all. Right or wrong, the only effect removing your mil for longer (whilst protected) would have had was decreasing your bills, surely that would help with the economic side of things?

Karma is a loose bunch of alliances only connected due to their side (please correct me if it's changed again). I think it's pretty obvious that the alliances within Karma have very different views on peace terms. So using 'Karma' collectively when discussing peace terms is just plain wrong. Just because an alliance on your side gave light terms elsewhere does not make other alliances on your side better.

Yes because CN is exactly the same as it was ~3 years ago

I was expecting harsh terms but those are ridiculous.

Bill N Ted of Valhalla. He's got a great heart, he's just misunderstood.

seriously?

Dilber without a shadow of a doubt

SPH and Bill N Ted

message received and understood

well actually; 1- the time-lag means it's quite possible his opinion on such practices has changed 2- at the end of the day it would be double standards, not hypocricy semantics aside; congrats on peace once again IRON