Jump to content

Public Notice from Karma


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 885
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You know I could have sworn half your side was going to cope out of this war..The irony of this statement makes me laugh.

I don't care what everyone else on my side does, and the majority of my side is quite pissed off at Pacifica for forcing us into this war, but we're all honorable enough to honor our treaties.

If that is how you feel, so be it.

It's how I've always felt, I'd gladly die to defend my friends and my allies, I wouldnt be friends and allies with them otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care what everyone else on my side does, and the majority of my side is quite pissed off at Pacifica for forcing us into this war, but we're all honorable enough to honor our treaties.

It's how I've always felt, I'd gladly die to defend my friends and my allies, I wouldnt be friends and allies with them otherwise.

Will you please stop tending to your post count and go away? You've used three posts to say the same exact thing.

We get it, you won't surrender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jamesis surrenders to the Karma PoW alliance and resigns from the GGA.

The first surrender.

Actually -Wolverine- of GGA was the first... but I suppose Jamesis was the first to follow through on the terms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care what everyone else on my side does, and the majority of my side is quite pissed off at Pacifica for forcing us into this war, but we're all honorable enough to honor our treaties.

Good on you than. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems too quick for terms to be offered.

there have been a large number just surrendering... some of which have no warchest... 4 million is not a warchest ppl...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I could have sworn half your side was going to cope out of this war..The irony of this statement makes me laugh.

I believe it was several Karma supporters who said that after this war everyone who backed out on NPO should be attacked next. If I get attacked for doing the honourable thing and honouring a treaty, and if I get attacked for backing out of that treaty, it sounds like I lose either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the SMUG being released by karma's self righteous prattle is creating a SMUG cloud of epic proportions.

:smug:

Also, to the guy who said we look like we want destroy nations or players. No we don't. We may greatly dislike players (some hate yes) and we may want to see some stuck up pricks humbled...but we don't want them gone. At the very least I run out of people to hate then!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not taking them, I'd rather be ZI'd than surrender, it's how I've always been, I never surrendered to GOONS, nor the alliances I fought in the UJW, it is not happening now.

Just to clarify, are you saying you won't surrender period as in you'll keep on fighting even if your alliance has gained peace or that you won't be surrendering individually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not if you read some of your posts on the forums. There seem to me to be quite a few of you who will likely be pushing for terms less fair post war.

First off, isn't that the way things work? Light terms for those willing to leave early, and harsher terms for those who continue to fight?

Secondly, I think you'll find that those opposing Karma have spoken far more about the supposedly unfair terms that Karma will eventually levy. Hopefully these very early and very reasonable individual terms will knock such silly ideas out of you people's heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you be called hypocrites for continuing to attack people who haven't surrendered? Isn't attacking people until they surrender the general way of things?

I am using Hegemony logic. It's not supposed to make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the difference between Karma and Hegemony. Karma has no intention of getting rid of anyone.

Individual surrender terms without any offers to alliances are the first step to eliminating enemy alliances. Who are you kidding? NPO and pretty much every alliance in CN has been willing to offer surrender to individual nations when battling enemy alliances. As soon as I see a thread about alliances engaged in this may back out no strings attached, I'll believe you actually are trying something different. Don't expect us to accept those terms, but it would make me think you actually believe in the nonsense you spout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9. Do not re enter the conflict, including spying on Karma nations, or send aid to anyone fighting in the conflict for its duration.

Just to clarify - that precludes aid to Karma nations as well?

On the one hand, it would be good not to be taking advantage of the defeated. On the other, some of those surrendering may want to start rebuilding as soon as it becomes practical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will you please stop tending to your post count and go away? You've used three posts to say the same exact thing.

We get it, you won't surrender.

I respond when people respond to me, it's normally how you converse.

Good on you than. ;)

Thank you.

Just to clarify, are you saying you won't surrender period as in you'll keep on fighting even if your alliance has gained peace or that you won't be surrendering individually.

I'll take alliance wide terms, but you can be sure I'll be at war until every other member nation of my alliance has peace, I don't leave anyone behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very merciful terms.

I would recommend that those in the Hegemony under the heaviest of fire swallow their pride and take them.

Would you follow your own recommendation if you were in our position?

Didn't think so...

Fair terms, I'll give you that. But no thanks.

o/ Hegemony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Individual surrender terms without any offers to alliances are the first step to eliminating enemy alliances. Who are you kidding? NPO and pretty much every alliance in CN has been willing to offer surrender to individual nations when battling enemy alliances. As soon as I see a thread about alliances engaged in this may back out no strings attached, I'll believe you actually are trying something different. Don't expect us to accept those terms, but it would make me think you actually believe in the nonsense you spout.

How does letting a few individual nations surrender and stop fighting kill an alliance? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...