KingSuck
-
Posts
674 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by KingSuck
-
-
I blame the emergence of !@#$ polls on Karma.
YOURE JUST AS BAD AND/OR WORSE THAN THE HEGEMEMEON!!
ha. ha.
satire can be overdone you know
-
what?
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
-
It's only brought up continuously because of the amount of hypocrisy that NPO has demonstrated in this war, not because peace mode isn't a valid war strategy, but because NPO has in past wars openly attacked other alliances for using it.
But when it comes time that NPO gets its turn to get pushed into a corner, peace mode magically becomes ok to use.
I do believe this has been explained many of times by now.
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
-
Look folks, you can sit here and whine till your blue in the face or can go join NPO and fight the "good fight".
and we're back at 'do something about it'.
-
You missed the point, telling someone you are going to kick their $@! as soon as you get the chance is not the best way to convince that person to be nice to you.
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
-
'Draconian' is in the eye of the beholder. The numbers are high, but this is a unique war; as Srqt says, the aggressor has been humbled, and also has a long list of past issues to deal with. The NPO offered to pay more, so they clearly aren't even at the upper limit of reason, and therefore the numbers alone can't be considered draconian for the NPO.
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.
-
They went with the standard definition of draconian ("unusually severe or cruel") and then imposed terms that were less than that; terms that were far less than NPO had imposed on others; terms that reflect the amount of money/tech NPO extorted from others over the course of years (plural); terms that relect the extraordinary amount of damage NPO needlessly caused during this war to the victors; terms that are easily complied with under the NPO's own standards; and terms that will serve as a punishment for past deeds and as a deterent for alliances considering similar behavior in the future.
tl;dr:
They didn't let the people who got their behinds kicked redefine the word "draconian" to serve their own purposes.
Have you actually read the terms?
-
Its not so much fear as "they said they would."
NPO has frequently and publicly expressed its desire to gain revenge for any slight, no matter how long it takes. With an attitude like that, is it any wonder we are not inclined to be generous when it comes to surrender 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?
-
@everyone quoting archon - Lets look at all the other alliances that have surrendered. NPO is an exception, they will have to pay for past wrongs. Terms have been easy for almost everyone.
and the fact that that Archon's post was addressed at the NPO?
-
We will fight this war with no joy, and we will fight it with honor and dignity. We will not impose draconian terms
On behalf of Karma,
Archon
So uhhh, what happened to this?
-
This massive fear that we're going to rebuild too quickly and come looking for vengeance is so funny. How exactly are we going to do that?
Our alliance is crushed. Our allies mostly gone. Q is gone. Agora is gone. OV is mostly gone. So are you lot really peeing your Depends in terror over some sort of fantasy that we'll rebuild, even back to number 1 status, and fight 2 thirds of bob again, on our own? Seriously, think about it and get a grip.
but what about GW1?
Seriously though, those terms are horrific.
-
So are you implying that NPO's mindset has changed?
Interesting. Perhaps even worthy of :insertdismissiveemoticonhere: love.
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.
-
Yes, they changed the terms. See term number 1: We were suppose to be able to remilitarize when the conflict ended. When it was announced that your side had won and everyone was out we went to NPO to ask if we could now. They told us that we'd be able to when we finished all our other terms and then when they decided we should be allowed to do so.
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?
-
and yet again, NPO is getting what they deserve. Karma has not pushed harsh terms on alliances that have been given peace already. If Karma was truly NPO, EVERY alliance that has been given peace, would have been given 3-6 months of terms, or MORE. Karma is not equal to the NPO, no matter how you try to spin it.
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.
-
NPO's gotten ridiculously lenient terms once before.
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
-
I believe she was referring to Bill n Ted's hypocrisy.
Seeing as he quite vocally took delight in the the terms meted out to alliances back in August/September it is quite hypocritical of him to now cry foul when an alliance he is friendly with gets terms that are far less than those he celebrated.
If you don't consider that hypocrisy then it is just you.
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
Congratz to MHA!
in Open World RP
Posted
yep, this changes everything