Public Notice from Karma

[Mogar]

wasnt saying i wasnt trolling.

really?

ok, so you weren't talking about defending NPO directly. I see. So the subject was 2 different people. My apologies for confusing them.

ok, so if your alliance you're defending surrenders they are "pathetic" because they "wouldn't go to ZI for their cause?" (I think those were the words used, I apologize in advance if I misquoted)

No, alliance wide surrenders are completely different, when you join an alliance you're expected to defend it, so surrendering individually is dishonorable, surrendering as an alliance is not.

[Obiwan]

Yes, you should take words, and then give them a different meaning in order to make yourself look good.

that is not what I was doing. I was seriously asking a question.

Everybody knew he was initially talking about individual surrender terms in those first two posts.

That is, except you.

Apparently, and now it is cleared up. And thank you for not contributing.

[Shigh707]

L.O.L.

Quoted for truth!

Kobi gave us root admin in a timely manner, so I don;t know where you're getting this crying to TPF crap from.

Just because dutchy merged to TFO because he loves bleach24 so much doesn't mean IRAN was ever gonna do it.

TPF's control over OPP nations is more lax than you think

I don't see how all our other 58 nations at the time of the proposed merger were not in any way "noteworthy". However, if by "noteworthy" you mean ******** like yourself, then you were right.

HA I know what opp TPF relations are like. And btw i had talked to ducthy about merging into a said alliance way before mogar was forced into GOV. SO, sir you fail.

NOT to mention i have wonderful logs of Mhawk saying you guys approached him about a "spy and recruiting" problem with TFO. Its not style to drop logs on OWF, query me on IRC if ud like them

And no, when i say noteworthy. i mean their likeleyness to win in war. Trust me, at one point we thought IRAN and TPF were gonna declare on us(cuz u cried spy) I kno exactly what condtion IRAN's nations are in.

[Obiwan]

No, alliance wide surrenders are completely different, when you join an alliance you're expected to defend it, so surrendering individually is dishonorable, surrendering as an alliance is not.

I just wanted to be sure. Some people actually do feel that it is dishonorable to surrender as an alliance. I am glad to know that you aren't one of them.

[Heyman]

that is not what I was doing. I was seriously asking a question.

Apparently, and now it is cleared up. And thank you for not contributing.

I take my time writing. You are welcome.

[Sceptor o Sordidness]

You're comparing offering individual surrender terms in which national leaders must humiliate their people by adopting an affiliation to a PoW camp to breathing air? You people are more hopeless than I ever could have imagined. Nothing has changed. Perhaps something will, but in all likelihood it'll just be the names of the alliances running things.

How about this, I'll make my own terms. If any of my enemies surrender to me, I'll send you $6m and a message that says "I love you."* Tell me, is that the change you're looking for? There's simply not that much you can do to individual surrender terms within the confines of allowing the war to remain manageable, nor would I consider these to be at all 'dishonorable' or anything to take issue with. Honestly, it's almost hilarious you'd be so offended by the nerve of Karma to accept individual surrenders.

*Oh, and Hai kingsuck. You don't have to surrender for such messages from me .

[Denial]

The PoW thing wasn't instituted until about GWII. However, that's neither here nor there and you've basically contradicted all those allies of yours in here suggesting this is some magnanimous move on the part of you and your allies. Some move that should be celebrated as a great leap forward. Some move that would never have occured under the oppressive regime of those you battle. It's just business as usual. I appreciate that you acknowledge that, even if you fail to correct your allies that suggest otherwise.

Oh, please. You are really grasping at straws here. Karma is not proclaiming to change every aspect of the Cyberverse or all established norms. What we seek to accomplish is to check and reject unjustified aggression and conclude this war in a manner that provokes a higher level of interaction between alliances. Alliance surrender terms will reconcile fairness with justice. For now, just several days into the conflict, we are offering an opportunity for those rank-and-file nations to remove themselves from the war that their imprudent leaders led them in to. We have provided this avenue towards peace in a fashion that is far less detrimental to these nations than previous individual surrender terms offered by Pacifica and its allies; we only ask that rulers pledge noninvolvement, maintain a specific alliance affiliation for no longer than a month, and decommission their military to a point where it would be at least somewhat difficult for the nations to re-enter the war against us.

You act as if Karma are hypocrites unless we do the exact opposite of every action the Hegemony ever took. What would you rather we do? Not offer individual surrender terms at all?

[Mogar]

HA I know what opp TPF relations are like. And btw i had talked to ducthy about merging into a said alliance way before mogar was forced into GOV. SO, sir you fail.

NOT to mention i have wonderful logs of Mhawk saying you guys approached him about a "spy and recruiting" problem with TFO. Its not style to drop logs on OWF, query me on IRC if ud like them

And no, when i say noteworthy. i mean their likeleyness to win in war. Trust me, at one point we thought IRAN and TPF were gonna declare on us(cuz u cried spy) I kno exactly what condtion IRAN's nations are in.

No, you dont know what OPP-TPF relations are, you know what Dutchy told you, there's a significant difference, since I actually, you know, do my job and am regularly in contact with TPF, and don't force them to constantly attempt to get into contact with IRAN's government, I'm actually available whenever they want to talk, or when anyone wants to talk. You';re correct, we did approach him due to 3 of our members leaving at the same time to join your alliance, which is somewhat normal, but still suspicious, and as I stated, Dutchy left our alliance and continued to have root admin, as I recall, someone from a Q government alliance installed a script on the Q forums and was using it to spy, even while not in a Q alliance, so it was a concern. so I spoke with mhawk about it, due to it being a potential problem, considering actively recruiting from an alliance is considered an act of war, and nom you knew what condition our nations were in when Dutchy left, you have no idea what our condition is now, and old information is irrelevant, you need constant sources of new information for it to be useful.

[Nizzle]

You're comparing offering individual surrender terms in which national leaders must humiliate their people by adopting an affiliation to a PoW camp to breathing air? You people are more hopeless than I ever could have imagined. Nothing has changed. Perhaps something will, but in all likelihood it'll just be the names of the alliances running things.

Yeah! More of the same!

fakeedit:

Where's the bit about nations in peacemode not being able to surrender until they suffer through one war cycle? Or the bit that they will have to face ZI if they don't come out of peacemode by the Xth of X?

Ohshi- I just pointed out how you were doing it wrong.

[Desperado]

My Answer.

[Gruthenia]

My Answer.

Bon Jovi? Keep that up and I'll surrender to you

[FreddieMercury]

My Answer.

I lol'd

[Tiggah]

I think there is something going on here that you clearly don't grasp as shown by your repeated complaints about these terms. Karma is not here to do away with universally accepted parts of war like individual surrender terms and it is not here to do every single thing in a different way than the NPO and allies did. Some of the things the NPO did in the past were good things and should not be changed.

What Karma is here for is to put an end to the bad things the NPO did. Things like PZI, viceroyships, eternal wars, and other gross abuses of power.

So now POW camps are good things? I recall a massive outcry about them when they were first enacted, though you may have been on the NPO around that time and part of the enacting, so I supposed you've been consistent in support for them. Similarly, you supported the NPO long after they had first engaged in the concept of viceroyships. Long after they engaged in wars that extended well beyond reasonability. Long after nations were driven to deletion to escape their wrath. If not as a member of NPO, then as a member of GATO when they supported the NPO.

When your alliance decided they'd had enough, I seem to recall you abandoning GATO and joining the NPO. At what exact moment did you become so certain about what is right and wrong? At what point did it push you over the edge? Like so many of those you fight alongside, you've been an accomplice in what you claim to wish to abolish. Are we expected to believe that so many of you have suddenly decided that what you were doing for several months was wrong and that you did so all at once? Or is it the far more likely reality that you fellows felt it was time you spread your wings and take a shot at running things?

[The Manbearpig]

HA I know what opp TPF relations are like. And btw i had talked to ducthy about merging into a said alliance way before mogar was forced into GOV. SO, sir you fail.

NOT to mention i have wonderful logs of Mhawk saying you guys approached him about a "spy and recruiting" problem with TFO. Its not style to drop logs on OWF, query me on IRC if ud like them

And no, when i say noteworthy. i mean their likeleyness to win in war. Trust me, at one point we thought IRAN and TPF were gonna declare on us(cuz u cried spy) I kno exactly what condtion IRAN's nations are in.

dutchy /= IRAN

My statement on us going to TPF has been retracted, you got me there.

So, our condition was not noteworthy because was we were going to declare on you for essentially stealing our strongest member and then having him hand over our valuable information?

And if by noteworthy you indeed mean likeliness to win the war, please notice that all 4 of the FoB nations who are attacking me are in anarchy and have been since the second day of the freakin' war! So perhaps by your twisted standards, all of those 4 nations are incredibly not noteworthy because they can't beat a nation, myself, who is not noteworthy? Give me a break.

[neneko]

You're comparing offering individual surrender terms in which national leaders must humiliate their people by adopting an affiliation to a PoW camp to breathing air? You people are more hopeless than I ever could have imagined. Nothing has changed. Perhaps something will, but in all likelihood it'll just be the names of the alliances running things.

Surrendering and abandoning your alliance in a war is humiliating no matter what your reasoning behind it is. Now please tell me what is it you react so strongly to. Is it that it is called POW or is it that we're allowing nations to surrender?

If it's the first I'm sure we can make exceptions where surrendering nations go under 'flower power' aa. If it's the later do you think it's more honorable to shoot at fleeing troops in the back rather than to let them surrender and get peace?

Edited April 26, 2009 by neneko

[Trinite]

No, alliance wide surrenders are completely different, when you join an alliance you're expected to defend it, so surrendering individually is dishonorable, surrendering as an alliance is not.

Ew, I agree with Mogar.

[Tiggah]

How about this, I'll make my own terms. If any of my enemies surrender to me, I'll send you $6m and a message that says "I love you."* Tell me, is that the change you're looking for? There's simply not that much you can do to individual surrender terms within the confines of allowing the war to remain manageable, nor would I consider these to be at all 'dishonorable' or anything to take issue with. Honestly, it's almost hilarious you'd be so offended by the nerve of Karma to accept individual surrenders.

*Oh, and Hai kingsuck. You don't have to surrender for such messages from me .

I'm offended by Karma suggesting that individual surrenders are some great leap forward. As for change? Why would I want change? You are the people looking for change. I'm just pointing out how little you are accomplishing in that regard.

[magicninja]

Words about stuff

Umm....you sure you meant to quote Raga when you said all that?

[Matthew Conrad]

These are fair and generous terms gentlemen. Alas, I have to decline.

Thank you for the good fight.

I don't understand why Hegemony supporters can't post this instead of "LULZZZZ I WILL STILL WIN!!!"

If you believe your side will win, that's just fine. Some people would like to surrender and this post is for them. If you think they're unfair terms, list out why instead of spewing out nonsense.

Thank you sir for setting an example.

[Delta1212]

I'm offended by Karma suggesting that individual surrenders are some great leap forward. As for change? Why would I want change? You are the people looking for change. I'm just pointing out how little you are accomplishing in that regard.

I'm pretty sure you're the only one that's brought up massive leaps forward. Pretty much everyone else in the thread has either said "Fair terms. You should take them." or "Fair terms, but no thank you." I'm really not sure what you have been ranting about but most of it has been incredibly nonsensical, especially that rant at ragashingo.

[hizzy]

Complaining about the terms? Seriously?

Give'em rope and now they wanna be cowboys.

[Mogar]

I don't understand why Hegemony supporters can't post this instead of "LULZZZZ I WILL STILL WIN!!!"

If you believe your side will win, that's just fine. Some people would like to surrender and this post is for them. If you think they're unfair terms, list out why instead of spewing out nonsense.

Thank you sir for setting an example.

I don't understand why Karma supporters cant simply remain respectful while discussing these subjects, you have and I am glad some of you are, but others are acting like jackals and it makes me wonder if the world really will change if some of them are in charge of this new world you'll be bringing.

[KingEsus]

These are fair terms. Unfortunately a misguided sense of honour and duty means I will not be able to accept them.

[neneko]

I'm offended by Karma suggesting that individual surrenders are some great leap forward. As for change? Why would I want change? You are the people looking for change. I'm just pointing out how little you are accomplishing in that regard.

No you're pointing out how little have changed in one specific area that we're not trying to change thus my earlier analogy. I'd do another analogy but since you managed to misunderstand the breathing one I'm not sure I can simplify it enough for you.

[KingSuck]

*Oh, and Hai kingsuck. You don't have to surrender for such messages from me .

I'd never even dream of it