magicninja

I see your point but it just seems a little off base. You're right of course. I'm talking about the practice. So about your opinion on this.......

Having the opinion of the rank and file of an alliance held against an entire alliance sounds like something only a heartless, evil, alliance would do. I'm here to try to talk sense into you guys and what is your opinion on this whole affair since you made me wonder?

i.e. Have an opinion different form us and we won't like you.... Gotcha.

That's not exactly what we were talking about Vir. I have no idea how you got to this point. You said, "That me thinking you were wrong because of my own morality didn't make sense." I asked "Then how can you say NPO was wrong because of your own personal morality?" You. "I never said they were wrong. It's only my opinion that they are wrong, so I acted on it." I really don't see what this post has anything to do with that little exchange except that you certainly did not move on. You have tried using their tactics against them regardless of morality.

Soooooo.....His opinion that they did the wrong thing isn't the same as saying they did the wrong thing? Maybe I don't get it. Explain the difference to me.

Hmmmm... Right here in this post apparently. Good show.

All you're doing is trying to set up rules to when you can and can't use a tactic. Sorry, man not everyone is gonna play by your rules.

So those are your own moral views then? "Saying they were wrong just because you have different personal morals doesn't make any sense."

I see a problem. Are you GATO? Did GATO ask you to fight for them and right wrongs that were done to them? No? Then drop the act. GATO's AC has already posted a thread calling you out for using GATO as an excuse. You just look like opportunistic clowns here.

It's different but not by much. The differences are this won;t work and the punishment is a little softer until it accrues beyond sane numbers anyway. Wait a minute.......... Then how can you call out NPO on their morality here? Keep digging Vir.

Keep telling yourself that. Also, Name the alliances at war with Polar.

While it was a horrid act at least what they did was effective. Something you guys may never understand. Not only does your method leave no incentive for them to jump out of peace mode it will give them more PR power when you try to throw "side" reps of hundreds of billions of cash and hundreds of thousands of tech at them. You really don;t see where you went wrong here? Retract this stupidity and give them flat rate penalties.

What is hilarious is that you guys are getting hard-line Karma supporters a month ago like KingSrqt and esteemed Gramlins like HellAngel to actually side with the opposition on this. If that isn't enough for you to rethink your strategy you guys are headed for troubled times. The bolded part is priceless. The "At least it wasn't as bad as them" line really doesn't cut it here. Trying to fly in under the radar by taking down the penalty a notch or two really doesn't make you seem too much better. It's a lesser of two evils deal. It flies in the face of all the morality talk that Karma alliances spouted in the build up to this war. Go ahead and say you never said any of that stuff if it makes you feel better but you all know damn well that that was the angle you played to garner support.

What? The subjective speech? You looking greedy isn't subjective. It's plain as day. If you were any kind of smart you would've set down some steep reps and other terms and offered it to NPO and then told them about this little charade. That would've ended the war or at least got some out of peace while they thought about it. This terms before terms is stupid. Whoever thought it up should be pointed and laughed at.

Then why wait? Why use this as a way to bolster the reps? Seems you guys are just being greedy now. You're not helping.

Karma went about it all wrong. There will come a time when the side reps are larger than the actual surrender reps. There is no incentive for them to do anything. If you try to enforce that you guys will look like clowns. The better strategy would have been to tell Pacifica they had 7 days to get as many as possible out of peace for 1 round of wars by a certain day before they got offered the terms of surrender then have flat rates for the percentages of nations that stayed in peace mode. You could have made those numbers steep to offer some incentive to take the damage rather than the reps. This adding on per day thing isn't going to work. By the end Pacifica could conceivably be looking at hundreds of billions in cash and half a million tech on the side of whatever the real reps would be. C'mon are you guys really ready to ask for that?

That is to be commended but don't go back on it now. Actually make the punishment reasonable.

Same excuse can be used for everything Pacifica did.

Get away with what exactly? Saving a little bit back to rebuild? Yes, a future full power Pacifica could be a dangerous thing but only if they have large and powerful friends beside them. They won't have that for a long, long time if ever. They will be on their own for the most part after this war and I don't think alliances will be lining up to be friends with them. Well at the very least you should think of capping the overall penalty. Keep it steep. Maybe 1bil and 25k tech just on the side of whatever else they are paying. If you don't the numbers would get out of hand to the point where you wouldn't really be able to ask for it anyway.

Good to see someone from that side of the aisle can see reason.

Look, I just don't think you guys need to act anything like them. I now what you propose is not as bad as what they did but it is still in the same vein and I would like to see you guys able to soundly and thoroughly beat them without having to to do anything that remotely resembles what they did. To me when you do do it, it almost shows that Pacifca's way of getting to the top was the only way to do it. I think you guys are good enough to take a better route.

Actually, yes they are.

The only ones that are able to use that as an excuse is GATO. Worry about things that NPO has done to you.

You left out my first posts where I was disappointed by the announcement. No so much what was contained but the motive I guess. Still I never claimed to be the harbinger of good and that is the difference.

How many times do I have to say that I know there is a difference? Then why are you using NPO's use of the same tactic against GATO as an excuse? WHite Peace? No, of course not. I fully expect heavy reps for NPO and I won't even argue that. There's no need to try to force their nations out of peace mode. Just make sure that those nations are the ones paying the reps. Tie up their slots for awhile. NPO isn't a danger without friends and I don;t think they have many of those left.