Geiseric Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 A way out has been given, more lenient than history would've retold, ... accepting or not said terms are your choice, just don't accuse the victors as tyrants because of the choice you made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongol Federation Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 A way out has been given, more lenient than history would've retold, ... accepting or not said terms are your choice, just don't accuse the victors as tyrants because of the choice you made. Who said anything about calling the victors tyrants? Most of the allinces hre, mine included, are here by treaty, not personal grudges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havamil Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 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. 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/ Well which is it? Or is nate1865 just one of those base members you speak of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Thank you Blacky, I already knew that. And yes, you are being much more lenient. We generally wait at least a week or two before releasing individual terms.That, however, was not the question. Do you think the alliances that support Karma will be against the next large change in Bob? Once they get things to the way they want them, will they be against change? im pretty sure the only change karma absolutely wants is the dismantlement of NPO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn 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/ Please forgive any perceived hostile tone, but what precisely has the Initiative sown that they shall now reap? Was it our honoring our commitment to defend our protector? Perhaps is the respectful tone that I have worked to maintain throughout this conflict? If the terms offered to an alliance will be commesurate with the behavior they have displayed then what is there to fear in regards to a timeline? If the "Karma" movement is sincerely commited to fairness then I would hazard there is nothing to fear in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 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. Not the worse, but I hear you. It is more for sanctioned alliances with players who just play the game for themselves rather than the alliance they are in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Please forgive any perceived hostile tone, but what precisely has the Initiative sown that they shall now reap? Bok Choy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Tolkien Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 im pretty sure the only change karma absolutely wants is the dismantlement of NPO In a sense: No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Ok, slight exaggeration. Still true though. Well, no. See, if you just admitted that your statement is an exaggeration, then it can't be true. That's not how things work. Like, if I tell you that the ocean is red, and you say "no it's blue", I can't say "oh ya it is, but I'm still right." Doesn't work. 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. I admire your loyalty, I really do, but you're blowing it out of proportion. Not all members agree with the things their government does, and sometimes it takes getting triple-teamed to realize it. If those members disagree with their own leaders and don't want to support them, they are let go. If you support your alliance then you can keep getting hit with them until the alliance terms are released, which, even then shall be relatively generous, the major difference will be how long you're going to be at war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) Well which is it? Or is nate1865 just one of those base members you speak of? Just because alliance wide terms may not be *this* lenient does not mean they will be harsh or unreasonable. My and Nate's statements are not mutually exclusive. we are basically giving individual nations a white peace with certain stipulations to protect ourselves form those who would pretend to surrender in order to strike back at us. Edited April 26, 2009 by KingSrqt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geiseric Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Who said anything about calling the victors tyrants? Most of the allinces hre, mine included, are here by treaty, not personal grudges. Nah, I was talking about the massive irrational "ZOMGs MORALITY SCHMORALITY!" Okay, you don't accept the terms, you accept the terms, you hold grudges against the people who accepted the terms, you claim to be patriots, you claim to be dragged, okay it's part of the political landscape of ugh... Planet ... Bob. Makes me wanna wring someone's neck when I see "so this is how Karma actually works",... Karma don't work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkahoolik Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 what?? so fast?? after all this peace and quietness, we finally get a war and you're already trying to pull the plug?? you make papa bear sad!! nice surrender terms though. after i kill some of you guys and some of you guys try to kill me, i might consider them... or maybe not. i'll see!! good war, have fun!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Rahl Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 9. Do not re enter the conflict, including spying on Karma nations, or send aid to anyone fighting in the conflict for its duration. I believe this term needs to be clarified. If not, it could potentially lead to hounding individual s forever if you guys deem their aggression as part of this "conflict". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I believe this term needs to be clarified. If not, it could potentially lead to hounding individual s forever if you guys deem their aggression as part of this "conflict". What needs clarifying? If you're out of the war, you're out. No sitting on the sidelines and tossing aid to your buddies who are still fighting. If you want back in, you'll be voiding the surrender and war you shall have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 errr? how naive are you?Whoever wins this, will of course demand reparations now that this has gone fully nuclear. If you consider THAT news you must not have paid attention in any past war. How harsh these terms will be will definitly not be decided at my level (that being grunt) so ask Delta Argent will not be requiring any reperations. Argent will be granting white peace when this is over, and we expect our allies in our current war will respect that decision and support us by doing the same with our common target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hob Dobson 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. As Tyga has said, there are time limits before it is even possible to withdraw military equipment. What you are saying does make tactical sense, in that a surrendering nation can initiate surrender procedures, stop attacking, and draw down before peace is accepted. This has the benefit of not releasing defensive openings to potential tech raiders in the middle of proceedings ( In each war there are always jackals looking for easy prey. I am certain neither side in this conflict wishes to encourage such behavior even by accident or oversight. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Congrats to Karma PoW as the next sanctioned alliance! Ok - thats going to be just too awesome to watch with my own eyes. I'm VERY pleased to see these lenient individual terms from Karma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Rahl Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) What needs clarifying? If you're out of the war, you're out. No sitting on the sidelines and tossing aid to your buddies who are still fighting. If you want back in, you'll be voiding the surrender and war you shall have. The part that needs clarifying is what constitutes "this conflict" Is it when NPO surrenders. Is it when everyone supporting NPO surrenders? Is it after one month? The way it is currently written, the anti-NPO sode could stretch this conflict for as long as they want to hound individual nations, whether that was their intent or not. e; Argent will not be requiring any reperations. Argent will be granting white peace when this is over, and we expect our allies in our current war will respect that decision and support us by doing the same with our common target. This is very honorable, and something I thought karma was all for. If there is anything other than white peace at the end of "this conflict" for everyone involved (that wants it of course, can't account for those that would rather keep fighting), then karma will be no better than their enemies. Edited April 26, 2009 by Richard Rahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonamemark Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I actually spat coffee on my screen when I laughed at that announcement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I hate when people ignore valid arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hob Dobson Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 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. While you are entitled to have your own personal views of another's actions, I assure you that the actual determination of treason is very much for that person's alliance to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I hate when people ignore valid arguments. You must be under the impression that you're on a different Planet Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Rahl Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Just because alliance wide terms may not be *this* lenient does not mean they will be harsh or unreasonable. My and Nate's statements are not mutually exclusive.we are basically giving individual nations a white peace with certain stipulations to protect ourselves form those who would pretend to surrender in order to strike back at us. White peace has no stipulations. This is most definitely NOT white peace. Stop trying to make out as if you guys have the moral high ground. Also, you're beginning to you sound like the NPO. "Just because alliance wide terms may not be *this* lenient does not mean they will be harsh or unreasonable". Now your side alone gets to define leniency, and what constitutes harsh or unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 The part that needs clarifying is what constitutes "this conflict" Is it when NPO surrenders. Is it when everyone supporting NPO surrenders? Is it after one month?The way it is currently written, the anti-NPO sode could stretch this conflict for as long as they want to hound individual nations, whether that was their intent or not. e; This is very honorable, and something I thought karma was all for. If there is anything other than white peace at the end of "this conflict" for everyone involved (that wants it of course, can't account for those that would rather keep fighting), then karma will be no better than their enemies. Anybody who aids a nation at war with us will have to answer to us. I think that's pretty clear. Alliances that have surrendered as a whole could receive aid without bother unless there's something specifying to the contrary (which I doubt will occur). And you really think that anything other than white peace makes us no better than our enemies? Remember that we're fighting a defensive war here. Go look at some of the terms offered recently by the winners of aggressive wars and then try to tell me that something like, say, reparations for the damages done to the unjustly-attacked Ordo Verde would make us as bad as those who have practiced the obscene extortion of recent times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 White peace has no stipulations. This is most definitely NOT white peace. Stop trying to make out as if you guys have the moral high ground. Also, you're beginning to you sound like the NPO. "Just because alliance wide terms may not be *this* lenient does not mean they will be harsh or unreasonable". Now your side alone gets to define leniency, and what constitutes harsh or unreasonable. Seeing as most of Karma has, at some point, experienced NPO's brand of 'harsh or unreasonable'...I can tell you it won't be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts