thisperson Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I meant I will be at perma ZI under the Karma jackboot. Well that's your prerogative. There is an option, a way out. Logic dictates you take it. However, your misguided dedication is commendable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Obama Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I would rather there be no terms at all. But I'm probably far too idealistic in these matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capitalC Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 This is a good sign that the war might be beginning to die down. Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. - Winston Churchill o/ Karma! :jihad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 All that was supposed to be taboo is now up for debate openly by the Karma side. If you got the upper hand would you roll an alliance on your side who would only take excessive terms? because some seem to want to reap the spoils of war and arent afraid to say it. Who are these alliances? I haven't seen any alliance leaders on our side demand harsher terms in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 All of Karma have agreed to use these terms. There's really nothing more to say than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulafaras Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 All that was supposed to be taboo is now up for debate openly by the Karma side. If you got the upper hand would you roll an alliance on your side who would only take excessive terms? because some seem to want to reap the spoils of war and arent afraid to say it. blah blah blah blah blah seriously, do you honestly believe the !@#$ you are shoveling here? The very idea that we would roll an alliance on our own side just to impose harsher terms is so absurd i can hardly believe you even voiced it. Spoils of war? The only spoils of this war will be nuclear devastation, that much is clear already. Even the winning side will take massive amounts of damage. Now seriously, for the last time, could you either turn down your drivel to a somewhat realistic level or take a course in reading comprehension? Steps to surrender (as agreed by Karma) 1) post in resignation thread 2) send message to nations directly fighting you that you are surrendering (link to your resignation post if your an overachiever) 3) send peace offers 4) decom relevant improvements/soldiers 5) change AA to Karma POW so, keeping this list in mind how can you surrender to the wrong alliance? As long as you do not forget to message your individual war opponents (if you have any) nothing is connected to any specific alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demetrus Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 All of Karma have agreed to use these terms. There's really nothing more to say than that. That's nice. But who's Karma? Can we have a list of alliances? To an uneducated person it would seem that Karma encompasses ALL nations fighting the "Hegemony", but as was stated previously the NSO does not consider itself to be part of Karma, and yet is fighting (in some convoluted way) on your side. So what alliances comprise Karma? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affluenza Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I would rather there be no terms at all. But I'm probably far too idealistic in these matters. I think there should be harsh terms only for NPO, TPF and Valhalla... I would give everyone else white peace...just my opinion ofcourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 They do. They also complain when the side of "high morals" cant wait to get decommissioning our wonders and getting the harsh terms they are after. We cant even get a straight answer when we ask who is in Karma and who agreed to offer these terms. Doesn't matter. These are the terms. 'high morals' is nonsense excuse for your reasoning. We wont EZI, predominantly PZI, we wont add viceories, forcing alliances to disband, etc. THIS is immoral, not decommissioning. Yes, we have a different approach to the game: We don't believe in stopping players from playing the game, but we DO realize this IS a war, these ARE surrender terms, and it is NOT forcing anyone to do anything which Hegemony hasn't done - except we are more leinent. You expect juice and a naked stripper, this isn't Valhalla (The place, not the alliance - believe me), this is war and there is a problem with being too leinent. Either way, you'll complain unless you get absolutely no terms, till then, we are satisfied and even some of the opposing side is. You need to reevaluate what exactly is ruining [ooc]the game[/ooc], what is considered lenient, and what is considered mere nonsense (Former actions from The Hegemony). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 blah blah blah blah blahseriously, do you honestly believe the !@#$ you are shoveling here? The very idea that we would roll an alliance on our own side just to impose harsher terms is so absurd i can hardly believe you even voiced it. Spoils of war? The only spoils of this war will be nuclear devastation, that much is clear already. Even the winning side will take massive amounts of damage. Now seriously, for the last time, could you either turn down your drivel to a somewhat realistic level or take a course in reading comprehension? Likewise about the course. If someone from your side (one of the alliances fighting with you but say they are not in Karma) wants to negotiate their own terms and they are excessive will you let them? How will you stop them? No thanks on the surrender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o ya baby Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 They do. They also complain when the side of "high morals" cant wait to get decommissioning our wonders and getting the harsh terms they are after. We cant even get a straight answer when we ask who is in Karma and who agreed to offer these terms. Even though decommissioning your wonders wouldn't be enough to punish your side for what they've done, ti's not going to happen, so stop trying so hard to get yourself EZI'd to prove a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Alterego you're making a fool of yourself. Check out my sig. Last september I predicted ChairmanHal eating his own words. Do you want to end up in my sig a month from now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 All that was supposed to be taboo is now up for debate openly by the Karma side. If you got the upper hand would you roll an alliance on your side who would only take excessive terms? because some seem to want to reap the spoils of war and arent afraid to say it. You like to take the words of a few base level members and apply them to the entire group. Your methods are foolish and you repeatedly show your ignorance. You have yelled about how harsh terms will be from the start and now that fair surrender terms have been presented for individual nations you move on to saying how harsh terms will be on an alliance level. We will not be levying harsh terms there will be no EZis no forced disbandment no unreasonable reparations or any of the things that you are so used to seeing in war. Just give it a rest all you are trying to do is slander your opposition and everyone sees through you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Even though decommissioning your wonders wouldn't be enough to punish your side for what they've done, ti's not going to happen, so stop trying so hard to get yourself EZI'd to prove a point. My side? Man most of you guys were this side only weeks ago. Not my side like us, connected to Q via other treaties but in Q! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingSuck Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 My side? Man most of you guys were this side only weeks ago. Not my side like us, connected to Q via other treaties but in Q! they move on quickly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itastenice Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Great terms. Decommisioning military won't stop anyone playing the game, they can always keep building. People should stop complaining and think themselves lucky noone is enforcing ZI yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 My side? Man most of you guys were this side only weeks ago. Not my side like us, connected to Q via other treaties but in Q! Pardon me, but how could most of the Karma alliances be in the Continuum when the Continuum never had more than twelve member alliances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongol Federation Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Why would we surrender to you of all people? Karma is hardly intimidating. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Alterego you're making a fool of yourself.Check out my sig. Last september I predicted ChairmanHal eating his own words. Do you want to end up in my sig a month from now? My guess is that Alterego will likely not accept any terms, no matter how lenient, outside of white peace, in a rather piss-poor attempt of transforming himself into some pathetic martyr in the post-war world. "Look, Karma is still at war with my nation, they're tyrants! Ignore the fact that I could get peace if I just decommission my military and change my alliance affiliation!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) Pardon me, but how could most of the Karma alliances be in the Continuum when the Continuum never had more than twelve member alliances? Ok, slight exaggeration. Still true though. Edited April 26, 2009 by Alterego Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate165 Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Ah, 'tis good to be engaged with those who value honor and fairness! o/ My advice to those who are digging in is to seek these terms now. Methinks such generous offers will only last for a while, and those that really dig in may not get such kind terms. "You reap what you sow." o/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongol Federation Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 My guess is that Alterego will likely not accept any terms, no matter how lenient, outside of white peace, in a rather piss-poor attempt of transforming himself into some pathetic martyr in the post-war world. "Look, Karma is still at war with my nation, they're tyrants! Ignore the fact that I could get peace if I just decommission my military and change my alliance affiliation!" That's asking alot for anyone with even a shred of loyalty. You'll not be getting my surrender unless it's alliance wide. Personal surrenders = treason if not an indi nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 That's asking alot for anyone with even a shred of loyalty. You'll not be getting my surrender unless it's alliance wide. Personal surrenders = treason if not an indi nation. How is having individual surrender terms asking anything? You cannot make someone surrender if they do not want to, but the terms are there for those who want out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordBucks Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) That's asking alot for anyone with even a shred of loyalty. You'll not be getting my surrender unless it's alliance wide. Personal surrenders = treason if not an indi nation. You don't have to do it. This is for the people who want to do it. Honestly, I can respect that. But like I said, this isn't for you if you don't want to. Edited April 26, 2009 by Lord Bucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongol Federation Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 How is having individual surrender terms asking anything? You cannot make someone surrender if they do not want to, but the terms are there for those who want out. And I'm saying anyone who accepts said terms is a traitor. Joining an alliance then bailing when they ask you to repay them for there protection of your nation is the worst of the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts