cam177 Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I DO hereby surrender to Karma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naamah Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Personally I prefer to fight, but very fair terms. Not at all what I was expecting to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Throne Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 These terms are pathetic, I demand harsher terms NAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrinceCaspian Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Desperate for nations to stop fighting you, eh? :lol: Better to die than lose an ounce of honor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keapponlaffin Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I join those who are surprised at individual surrender terms without alliance wide surrender terms. If you will, permit and forgive me for considering what really *ought* to be done here. As I'm sure all of you know, much of the value of CN comes from alliance affiliation. In an important way it defines who you are as a nation leader. To all those who have accepted the individual surrender terms, I don't envy you. You have your infra, or at least what remains of it, but you've missed out on some of the best experiences that CN has to offer. Karma, by proposing individual surrender terms so early, before alliance-alliance terms could be thoroughly considered, has done a great disservice to CN. It encourages petty nation protection. So, a cheers to the surrenderers. May they have high numbers. A cheers to Karma. May they have the satisfaction of an easier war. And, a cheers to the alliances upholding integrity. May they proudly fight, and if necessary perish, in a glorious defense of what makes this game so beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Desperate for nations to stop fighting you, eh? :lol: Better to die than lose an ounce of honor. This has been said before but I guess it needs to be stated again. You need to coordinate your trolling attempts. Either the terms are too lenient and we're desperate for people stop fighting or they're too harsh and we're evil oppresors. They can't be both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted April 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 So, a cheers to the surrenderers. May they have high numbers. A cheers to Karma. May they have the satisfaction of an easier war. And, a cheers to the alliances upholding integrity. May they proudly fight, and if necessary perish, in a glorious defense of what makes this game so beautiful. The irony is incredible. You do realize the other side has already been sending out terms? Heck, there's a topic in this forum about Soldier release the POW they already took to WTF. I'm not even going to start on the rest of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffasamini Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) 5. Expelling members and tearing down an alliance's government structures (Karma is not intending to do either of these things) Uh, yes they are. 7. Post your resignation from your alliance in the public resignation thread on the OWF here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=213 And really, did we just go backwards like two years? Haven't we pretty much seen that the whole POW\Forcing people to leave their alliances thing doesnt really work, and certainly isnt feasible on this scale. Furthermore, already? Seems a little pre-mature. The irony is incredible. You do realize the other side has already been sending out terms? Heck, there's a topic in this forum about Soldier release the POW they already took to WTF. I'm not even going to start on the rest of that. The hegemony has not approved any sort of peace terms at this time, this early in the war. Edited April 26, 2009 by muffasamini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Honor and defeat are not opposites. The good leader performs a service to one's own nation. If the nation's leader sees his people want an end to war, and the path of loss to that end is fair, it is that nation's leader's responsibility to accept defeat. You do not owe your alliance the blood of your nation. You are a sovereign entity. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. There is not yet a single alliance that demands you sacrifice your sovereignty. That you have given up that which your alliance cannot take away, for the sake of your alliance, is a noble and honorable service to it, and surrender cannot take that honor and nobility away. I judge the fairness of terms of surrender by the following standards: 1. Wonders not decomissioned? Check. 2. No war slavery? Check. 3. Soldier levels above 30%? Check. 4. No extortative reparation demands, either mid or post war? Check. These terms are excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Uh, yes they are. Gentlemen, allow me to demonstrate my favorite method of destroying this argument. Proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Verteidiger Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Furthermore, already? Seems a little pre-mature. Seems like 22 nations thought it wasn't too early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgsboson Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Very fair terms from Karma. There are always the clueless types who don't read the forums, don't read the wiki and don't really expect to see their nations destroyed, at least this gives them a way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) And really, did we just go backwards like two years? Haven't we pretty much seen that the whole POW\Forcing people to leave their alliances thing doesnt really work Nobody is being forced to leave their alliance. The POW is for people that wants to leave their alliance and the war and go to a safe place. If you're implying that we should let people stay in their alliance with no terms and drop in and out of the war when they feel like it then how about no? Edited for clarity. Edited April 26, 2009 by neneko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted April 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 The hegemony has not approved any sort of peace terms at this time, this early in the war. You might want to tell that to the people sending out surrender terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Falkner Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Fair enough. I'll get a couple of my guys together and we'll start filling that bucket for ya'. I think some of the guys from GLOF beat you too that. They filled up the bucket and then threw it at me, I'm pretty sure that's how they managed to finally anarchy me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) You might want to tell that to the people sending out surrender terms. what Delta is saying is that you should get with the alliances on your side that are sending out surrender terms edit: ...whoops, didn't read your sig there Delta Edited April 26, 2009 by Gn0xious Jr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrinceCaspian Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 This has been said before but I guess it needs to be stated again. You need to coordinate your trolling attempts. Either the terms are too lenient and we're desperate for people stop fighting or they're too harsh and we're evil oppresors. They can't be both. Who would I coordinate "trolling" attempts with? I'm not going to get into a flame war with you, but what I say is what I mean. I believe Karma is deperate to lessen the amount of nations fighting them, and that death is preferable to bowing to terms. Also, what are you on about with the "evil oppresors" stuff? When did I ever state that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Uh, yes they are. They are? Show me proof and I will speak out against those wanting to forcibly expel members from an alliance or disband an alliance's internal structures (like ministries, or government branches). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Who would I coordinate "trolling" attempts with? I'm not going to get into a flame war with you, but what I say is what I mean. I believe Karma is deperate to lessen the amount of nations fighting them, and that death is preferable to bowing to terms.Also, what are you on about with the "evil oppresors" stuff? When did I ever state that? there are those trolling that karma is desperate to lessen the amount of nations fighting... and... separate individuals trolling that karma are "evil oppressors" while you fit into the first category, there are those on your side of the fence that fit into the second category. it is suggested that you ALL work together to convey a single trolling stance, and stick to it. I'm all for your side sticking with the war. I need the land and tech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Archer Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Uh, yes they are. How is that forcing them out? They would leave their alliance on a voluntarily to take these terms... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) Who would I coordinate "trolling" attempts with? I'm not going to get into a flame war with you, but what I say is what I mean. I believe Karma is deperate to lessen the amount of nations fighting them, and that death is preferable to bowing to terms.Also, what are you on about with the "evil oppresors" stuff? When did I ever state that? You havn't stated that but 2 posts or so before your post we were being trolled for the terms being extremely harsh and they can't be both now can they? Also seeing how your side tries to brag about having even more lenient terms I think you're shooting yourself in the foot. Edited April 26, 2009 by neneko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrinceCaspian Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 You havn't stated that but 2 posts or so before your post we were being trolled for the terms being extremely harsh and they can't be both now can they?Also seeing how your side tries to brag about even more lenient terms I think you're shooting yourself in the foot. I'm not trolling you for harsh terms. I have not trolled you for harsh terms. I think you should just let this go, you obviously do not understand that people can have differing opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I'm not trolling you for harsh terms. I have not trolled you for harsh terms. I think you should just let this go, you obviously do not understand that people can have differing opinions. This is why I'm saying that you need to coordinate better with the others. At least one of you is obviously wrong. Since you failed to adress this. Your allies are bragging about having even more lenient terms. What does that say about how your side is doing in the war based on your earlier reasoning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US of Europe Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) Furthermore, already? Seems a little pre-mature. Please troll in your own cave. There have been enough requests already. In fact, we received the first request after exactly 4 hours of fighting on day 1 of the conflict... Edited April 26, 2009 by US of Europe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickdfresh Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) oh hey look, my name is Shigh707, I attempt to harass Mogar at every chance I can because I have some type of obsession with him!And? surrender is for pathetic people, if you aren't willing to die for your cause, you shouldn't be fighting for it to begin with. Except I noticed a lot of people in that cause are in peace mode while my nation is wrecked and repeatedly nuked.... Edited April 26, 2009 by Nickdfresh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts