Matthew Conrad Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Considering that white peace is on the table for just about every alliance fighting the war right now, I'm also confused as to where our hypocrisy comes into play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venizelos Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Talk when you don't jump ships in great wars. You didnt even have a stomach to feel disgust when jumping ships. But oh well, the history repeats itself , you are used to it, we arent, sorry we 'felt' something and met our obligations despite being thrown into a mess by our good allies. heh. if you knew anything about ODN you wouldn't say such crap. hearing RON complaining and being surprised that ODN didn't want to be bossed around by them gets boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 heh.if you knew anything about ODN you wouldn't say such crap. hearing RON complaining and being surprised that ODN didn't want to be bossed around by them gets boring. I know enough to know that I dont need to know anymore. As for bossing around, its good you guys try and attempt to fix your own problems from now onwards instead of dragging us into your mess. Seriously I'll be happy when ODN actually does that, don't goto Karma bosses next time when likes of VE and yourself cant fix problems amongst themselves and bring around the blood brother..suddenly the blood brother turns into a boss comes a great war. o\ Optional Defense Network. Good Luck anyway and I genuinely wish OrangeDN good luck and I hope they do stand up and take a better place in the world in times ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobgoblin70 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 I don't see it makes any difference. I don't think honouring a treaty is a crime and I don't think fighting for your ally as long as you can is a crime either. Personally speaking, I don't go to war via a treaty to make a profit. I go to defend my allies to the best of my ability, win or lose. Seeing as that is the case, I can hardly fault others for doing likewise. I know that by going to war I'm going to lose money and infrastructure and technology but it doesn't matter because when I sign a treaty to defend an ally I accept that as a consequence and would not sign the treaty if I felt that price was too much to pay. It wasn't suggested as a profit making venture. . At some point there will be peace and I don't think it is practical to say all alliances will achieve peace in one fell swoop. If an alliance is willing to fight to the bitter end with the original, aggressive alliance because of a treaty, aren't they in fact fighting to protect the policies of the aggressive alliance? If they all want to stick together til the end, shouldn't they all be treated the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolak Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 (edited) *will note that, though it went largely overlooked, GOD gave out more or less white peace in the BLEU War to CCC* GOD, TTK & FFC were being lenient during a time when it hadn't been seen in a long time, but I think more people noticed than you think B) *will note that CCC is now fighting along side G.O.D. and T.T.K. on the same side in the Karma Coalition, rather than against it... CCC will not forget your kindness Edited April 28, 2009 by Bolak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Any side will complain. People need to realize this is a war stimulation, peace terms aren't too be too lenient and expect decommissioning, etc, but what is unorthodox is PZI/EZI (In most cases), destruction of alliances, viceroys, tech farms, etc. The terms which were given are lenient and anyone complaining about them has lost any sense of rational thought in an attempt to argue and degrade an opposing side which really is demonstrating leniency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 GOD, TTK & FFC were being lenient during a time when it hadn't been seen in a long time, but I think more people noticed than you think B) *will note that CCC is now fighting along side G.O.D. and T.T.K. on the same side in the Karma Coalition, rather than against it... Aye, I was just making the point that some of us have actual track records to back up the claims that we'll be decent people about this war, and people need not take our words for it. -shrug- I'm well aware CCC is doing it's part for our side and have, in actuality, gotten a few PMs from CCCers making sure I noticed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 I think it is far simpler than that. Those who we call the Hegemony have a vested interest in painting the Karma coalition as "no better" than they were. So, anything Karma does that resembles something meted out during their reign will be seized upon as an example of new boss, just like the old boss.From my perspective, white peace across the board is folly. Alliances that were dragged into the conflict via treaties would obviously be prime candidates for a white peace. The main protagonist(s) on the other hand should be punished for what they did to precipitate this war. I don't believe in disbandment or regime change (if regime change happens it is far better it be an internal event than one forced from outside). I do believe that terms should be designed to weaken such alliances politically to prevent them stepping back to where they were in a few months. I do enjoy when Tyga posts in a thread before me. Saves me a lot of typing. I know enough to know that I dont need to know anymore. wat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted April 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 I find it more ironic that people who have supported and thrived in the hegemony for years have recently changed sides and are now acting all high and mighty and self righteous about teh ebil NPO (and I'm not talking about you or VE, for the record ) Although you state that you are not referring to me, I feel compelled to explain that although I was in MCXA, for as long as I was in government I was pro-Karma and was well-known for my stance against EZI, etc etc etc. And as far as NPO goes, I advocated leaving One Vision as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 It's not that simple.Karma wasn't put together in a couple of months, it took several months, and the OPSEC it required to take down NPO meant that those involved developed much stronger bonds than the coalition that formed to take down Polaris/BLEU or the coalition that was responsible for breaking up the UJP. While it is true that the motivations of many of the members are similar--perceived injustice, slights accumulated over an extended period of time, etc. and no doubt some members are...a bit flighty and unuse to taking decisive action and will likely spin away at some point, the essential core of Karma will stay in place for an extended period of time. The question is what new bloc(s) will form to oppose it and what fights small and large will happen in the meantime. You talk a lot for someone who's not been in an alliance currently flying under Karma, for someone who has a history of not knowing what he's talking about and for someone who is spectacularly wrong. Karma was put together in well under a month, when we began to be concerned that One Vision would lash out against the peaceful change in the political scene. The fact that so many diverse alliances came together in order to prevent that attack from succeeding is testament to how many people don't like you. And once you are gone, the glue that binds Karma together to defeat you will also be gone. There will not be a new hegemon at the end of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brass Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 I doubt Karma will give any of the Hegemony alliances a "peace offer" nowhere close to what the Hegemony has Happily given: LUE, GATO, GOONS, \m/, VE, CIS, FAN, and Many Others. I believe they need to be harsh, but not force people from the game. I have no say in it, but I do not see anything in this for "Karma" as a group trying to make a power grab. It would seem that the Hegemony alliances simply have no clue what they've done, and will try to spin it to anybody that will listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shimmer Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 It's not that simple.Karma wasn't put together in a couple of months, it took several months, and the OPSEC it required to take down NPO meant that those involved developed much stronger bonds than the coalition that formed to take down Polaris/BLEU or the coalition that was responsible for breaking up the UJP. It's easier just to label this as false, baseless and your "imagination" of what you believed to have happened. Just stop before someone actually believes you and we have mass ignorance running around the forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 It's funny because Hal speaks with such conviction, like he knows absolutely everything and then half the world comes along and smacks the smug smirk off his face and it becomes pretty clear he hasn't got a clue. About anything. Ever. This 'Karma is as bad as us!' is about the saddest PR tactic I've seen in a long time and if it's the bes they can muster to stem the tide it says something about why they're in this position to begin with. At least they're finally admitting that they're game-destroying, repressive bullies though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgrum Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 (edited) This 'Karma is as bad as us!' is about the saddest PR tactic I've seen in a long time and if it's the bes they can muster to stem the tide it says something about why they're in this position to begin with. At least they're finally admitting that they're game-destroying, repressive bullies though. Its not like there is a list of other options for them to draw upon. Shouting down the enemy may be in line with the politics of the day but often it is wiser to listen to the theme presented. Causing injury to an entity and allowing them to live on and continue to struggle with that injury cross to bare often yields negative outcomes. being gracious, while not required, or necessitated by historical precedent does infact give one the moral high ground. Perhaps they finally learned the lesson? If anyone could comprehend this premise it would be a member of Vox. Edited April 28, 2009 by Thorgrum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyriq Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Attempting to dissolve the NPO would be a spectacular mistake I think. It would show callous hatred unbecoming of the revolution and it would create another Vox scenario. However, if the NPO isn't destroyed than I think this war is only act I in a struggle for the ages. The bonus being that this scenario is much funner for everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Näktergal Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 I doubt Karma will give any of the Hegemony alliances a "peace offer" nowhere close to what the Hegemony has Happily given: LUE, GATO, GOONS, \m/, VE, CIS, FAN, and Many Others.I believe they need to be harsh, but not force people from the game. I have no say in it, but I do not see anything in this for "Karma" as a group trying to make a power grab. It would seem that the Hegemony alliances simply have no clue what they've done, and will try to spin it to anybody that will listen. So, no forcing the NPO to shift en masse into Yellow and appointing atrophis and mpol as co-Viceroys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Hegemony = Karma Same thing different name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Hegemony = KarmaSame thing different name. How's that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 My favorite thing is the "You're just as bad as us!" routine. It really shows how you didn't care how the world was run, but that you were in power. Even if Karma is the same, watching the downfall of the power hungry fools is more than worth it. However, Karma is not the Hegemony. It's been proven twice now. Karma's individual terms are lighter than Hegemony's and so are the alliance terms. Face it. All of you saying Karma is the exact same have never once actually put forth a legitimate argument for why Karma is the same as The Hegemony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 My favorite thing is the "You're just as bad as us!" routine. It really shows how you didn't care how the world was run, but that you were in power. Even if Karma is the same, watching the downfall of the power hungry fools is more than worth it. However, Karma is not the Hegemony. It's been proven twice now. Karma's individual terms are lighter than Hegemony's and so are the alliance terms. Face it. All of you saying Karma is the exact same have never once actually put forth a legitimate argument for why Karma is the same as The Hegemony. We haven't addressed any surrender terms. Try again sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facade Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 so, so true. it's funny to see what happens when people get put on the other side of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 We haven't addressed any surrender terms.Try again sir. You have a buttload of ridiculous surrender terms that you've given to alliances over the last 2 years or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 (edited) How's that? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once these great powerhouses are gone they have total control. So what you guys are trying to do it remove a pile of crap to put in a new pile of crap? Edited April 28, 2009 by kevin32891 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 You have a buttload of ridiculous surrender terms that you've given to alliances over the last 2 years or so. They can't be ridiculous if we haven't addressed them. This is a different war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 We haven't addressed any surrender terms.Try again sir. The OP can actually state otherwise. Many Karma nations have been offered terms actually. Well, looks like you should all get on the same page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.