Sal Paradise Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 My question is an expansion of the topic. When you release individual terms, you assume you're winning. When you win, things end up your way. If things end up their way, will they be against change? Man, that's so dumb I cannot believe you actually mean that seriously. You don't do you? Please tell me you don't. Well, how about this? Starting where you left off: if Karma is against change, then you can't ride the bus. If you can't ride the bus, you might have to take a bicycle (assuming that you don't have a car because who would ride the bus when they had a car?). If you take a bicycle, you should wear a helmet to protect your head. But should wearing a helmet be the law? What of individual freedom of choice? If I don't want to wear a helmet, what business is it of the government's? As this thread is obviously related to helmet laws, as per LoD's theory of spaghetti brained logic, the question must be asked: What is Karma's stance on bike helmets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cool3atool Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 o/ KARMA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 My PERSONAL belief is...making a nation decom wonders is not a good thing. But do as you all wish... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) My personal honor is more important to me than my nations infra or my land or my tech, I'd rather be the leader of a 3rd world country(OOC:ZI'd and etc) and have my own personal satisfaction in knowing I defending my friends, if the entire Karma side actually got along(You Don't) then maybe you'd know what I mean, and no, most on my side fight to defend their allies, everyone should fight to defend their allies, if you wont defend them you shouldn't have signed a treaty to begin with. You're the one that said you hated NPO earlier in this thread. Maybe foot in mouth disease applies to all of Hegemony. The point I'm making is you're only fighting this war because you are obligated to. You know your "friends" created this war by doing stupid things, but you weren't given a choice to not defend them. Essentially you are fighting for a cause that you know is wrong, which is just sad. Also, as a whole Hegemony has proven to be quite incompetent when it comes to war (see GGA). I'll admit that if every other alliance in the game joined Hegemony right now they might have a chance of winning, but I strongly doubt that happening. Anyways, you guys enjoy losing your nations for the mistakes of your arrogant leaders, but I'll continue to fight for a future where one can speak their minds freely without getting rolled the next morning. Edited April 26, 2009 by lcdt94 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryievla Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 This is the main difference between Hegemony and Karma. Karma fights because it wants to in order to make Bob a better place, whereas Hegemony is fighting because they are forced to through treaty obligations. Enjoy your "honor" once your nation is in shambles, you fool. I will fight to fulfill my treaty obligations, certainly, but there are other reasons as well. Reasons like friendship, and community. That is what our treaties are generally founded on, so I felt I ought address your comment on how we only are here to honor stuff. As for enjoying my honor when my nation is in shambles, nations can be rebuilt. Honor, once lost, cannot be regained. While I thank Karma for what are fairly reasonable terms, I think I will keep fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) My PERSONAL belief is...making a nation decom wonders is not a good thing. But do as you all wish... We aren't making anyone decom wonders. Where did you get that impression? Decomming improvements, especially military improvements really isn't that bad. Edited April 26, 2009 by Nausea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extraduty Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 My PERSONAL belief is...making a nation decom wonders is not a good thing. But do as you all wish... Go ahead and reread the OP, there is nothing that says to decom wonders, only improvements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nonvalid Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 My interpretation would say no. To me, military improvements ould be barracks, guerilla camps, satellites, missile defences and naval improvements. Maybe intelligence agencies at a stretch but I don't see those as beng a major issue. It would seem that some nations have been granted peace without completing all of the requirements for peace. It appears Karama is granting peace without fully reviewing the conditions. Forgive me if I come off as rude, that is not my intent. Simply an observation. It is my belief that respect should be shown at all times. (To those that are deserving, of course.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 It would seem that some nations have been granted peace without completing all of the requirements for peace. It appears Karama is granting peace without fully reviewing the conditions.Forgive me if I come off as rude, that is not my intent. Simply an observation. It is my belief that respect should be shown at all times. (To those that are deserving, of course.) Or nations are switching to the Karma POW before completing their decom. There are restrictions on decommisioning troops and tanks after active battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nonvalid Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Or nations are switching to the Karma POW before completing their decom. There are restrictions on decommisioning troops and tanks after active battles. The nation of which I am referring has peaced out his wars. For me it would make sense to enforce the stated conditions before allowing peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 We aren't making anyone decom wonders. Where did you get that impression? Decomming improvements, especially military improvements really isn't that bad. Misread...thanks for the clarification. My bad...I approve of this criteria..not that it means anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 What is Karma's stance on bike helmets? Karma isn't an official organization, so they have no stance on bike helmets Also, as a whole Hegemony has proven to be quite incompetent when it comes to war (see GGA). I'll admit that if every other alliance in the game joined Hegemony right now they might have a chance of winning, but I strongly doubt that happening. Anyways, you guys enjoy losing your nations for the mistakes of your arrogant leaders, but I'll continue to fight for a future where one can speak their minds freely without getting rolled the next morning. lcdt94, are you having fun drinking the Kool Aid? Are you enjoying the propaganda of your side so much that you're that blind? If we were incompetent when it came to war, do you think we would have ever made it as far as we have? As for being arrogant, you can take that claim, and push it back into wherever it came from as you too are being arrogant. Not only are you being arrogant by assuming that we're going to lose, but you're being hypocritical for attempting to crucify us for being arrogant while being arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhihao Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) To the surrendering terms, Your wasting your time with us Edited April 26, 2009 by zhihao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) Karma isn't an official organization, so they have no stance on bike helmets lcdt94, are you having fun drinking the Kool Aid? Are you enjoying the propaganda of your side so much that you're that blind? If we were incompetent when it came to war, do you think we would have ever made it as far as we have? As for being arrogant, you can take that claim, and push it back into wherever it came from as you too are being arrogant. Not only are you being arrogant by assuming that we're going to lose, but you're being hypocritical for attempting to crucify us for being arrogant while being arrogant. Oh cool, don't even try to argue against me. Just insult me, that's a perfectly good way to win an argument. The only reason NPO has made it as far as they have is because they are damn good with politics. Apparently that didn't save you this time though, better luck next time. I don't enjoy your subtle hints of racism either. You can take that elsewhere as it does not belong on these forums. Edited April 26, 2009 by lcdt94 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony_Gunz Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 lol those terms are quite weak so im guessing u made it easy so more people would surrender u dont think u can win this fight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 The nation of which I am referring has peaced out his wars. For me it would make sense to enforce the stated conditions before allowing peace. I haven't looked at any specific surrenders as its not really anything to do with me. I offered my support to the terms you now see but that is the extent of my involvement. I do agree with you that it would be best to have those nations surrendering comply with the terms before accepting peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted April 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 lol those terms are quite weak so im guessing u made it easy so more people would surrender u dont think u can win this fight I'm of the opinion that you should treat every alliance in diplomatic talks with the respect you would afford someone bigger than you, offer individual terms as if you were losing, and alliance terms as if you were accepting them. Essentially, I don't support the idea of making people do things just because you can. It's a novel concept, I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 lol those terms are quite weak so im guessing u made it easy so more people would surrender u dont think u can win this fight Whatever it takes to keep you believing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 lol those terms are quite weak so im guessing u made it easy so more people would surrender u dont think u can win this fight You people need to coordinate your criticism campaign. Either Karma are malevolent hypocrites determined to impose terrible injustices on individual nations, or Karma are concerned about the outcome of the war and are subsequently offering 'weak' and easy surrender terms. Which one is it? You can't have both; they're rather contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nonvalid Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I haven't looked at any specific surrenders as its not really anything to do with me. I offered my support to the terms you now see but that is the extent of my involvement.I do agree with you that it would be best to have those nations surrendering comply with the terms before accepting peace. I see. I must say, I believe you to be an honorable leader. I sincerely hope our alliances can establish friendly relations in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortale Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Merciful terms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I don't enjoy your subtle hints of racism either. You can take that elsewhere as it does not belong on these forums. I don't enjoy you calling me a racist. I do not 'hint' at anything. I say exactly what I mean. This may be a new tactic to you as you may be used to seeing everyone try to be cloak and dagger with what they say, but I do not do that. It is a waste of my time. Take your accusations elsewhere, as that doesn't belong here, or anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Templar Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I have trouble seeing how anyone can have a problem with these terms, based upon the terms themselves. They are quite fair and equitable, and in fact are lighter for the most part then has been seen in many wars past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEWBert Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 LoD's reference to Kool Aid was not racist, you making the assumption that he was referring to the "black people drink kool aid" stereotype was racist. His reference to Kool Aid might be better understood if you google Jim Jones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geiseric Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 For those who won't accept the surrender terms,... it's your right to ignore it. It's all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts