willirica Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 lol @ the trolls, give it up already honostly. o/ sssw18 for sticking it out, you guys were cool to battle with and to work with diplomatically; hopefully we can become closer given the plight of the dodo bird federation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattski133 Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I'm disappointed you gave SSSW18 terms instead of white peace. They rejected our initial offer of white peace which was presented to VA, GRAN, and SSSW18 two days ago. I was not party to this second negotiation but it is safe to say that if you reject an offer to walk away as a free alliance and then two days later want to discuss it after TOOL folds up, things will have changed. The alliances that had good KARMA were given an option to walk away with honor intact for standing by their poorly chosen treaties. I think that is ending now as the good guys leave the fight. SSSW18 were strong opponents, though I did not personally engage them, and stood by their allies as long as they could, in my opinion, probably longer than they should have. I hope that these mandatory tech deals will at least help in their rebuilding process as much as ours. Good Fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIdiot the Great Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Oh, the horror. THE HORROR! They have to do tech deals? DEAR GOD. How can this stand? I remember at the end of the NoV war, we had to pay 750 tech. Straight up. And those were exceptionally light terms at the time (and in my opinion they are still extremely light). Damn you LSR and DT! How could you? Ok, I'm done ranting at the heinous nature of the reps. Who knows, maybe through completing tech deals at market rate, these alliances might -gasp- become friends! Can't have that in my CN. Good luck to all parties in your draconian terms! Regards, VI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taget Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) If an alliance denies you white peace when you offer it to them, what are you supposed to do? Just keep going back saying "PLEASE GIVE ME PEACE!! I DONT WANT ANYTHING!!!"They were lucky to get the original white peace offer in the first place, and they never would have if the Hegemony were winning this war (edit: and they were on Karma's side) We're fine with the final agreement but please do not condescend as there is a lot more involved that you are not privy to. Second your suggestion that our alliance would have in this war supported punitive terms is way off base. Though certainly some alliance on our side (as well as yours) enthusiastically supported some awful ones in the past. I said this beforehand but probably should repeat it to be clear. Thanks to the leadership of Karma for their help. You've been doing a great job putting pressure on your members to settle wars the way they should be settled. Edited May 1, 2009 by Taget Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craziekyng Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) Agreed with Taget. If we, SSSW18, can accept the terms with no problem, then Im am most certainly sure the rest of CN can as well. EDIT: Spelling Edited May 1, 2009 by craziekyng Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goallout2161 Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 We came to the battlefield in defense of our friends and allies. It was a great fight. The best I have ever been involved in during my years in CN. You were all great opponents and I commend you for that. Cheers to Peace and Cheers to rebuilding our great alliances! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) We're fine with the final agreement but please do not condescend as there is a lot more involved that you are not privy to.Second your suggestion that our alliance would have in this war supported punitive terms is way off base. Though certainly some alliance on our side (as well as yours) enthusiastically supported some awful ones in the past. SSW18 has had no problem accepting punitive reparations from alliances that only fought to honor treaties. @Bama: There are different alliances at war on different fronts, the fact that some have elected to give white peace should not be taken to mean that everyone can expect the same terms. Karma is the moniker of a loose association of alliances, not a bloc with a rigid government. Comparing these terms to other terms given in this war is silly. If you (a general "you" now, as Bama has clearly agreed that these terms are reasonable) want to assess whether these are "harsh," compare them to historical terms. Edit: removed some redundancy. Edited May 1, 2009 by bzelger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Blake Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I'd like to thank the Karma alliances for their help in getting this done as well as VA, GRAN, and TOOL who showed great honor and courage in this war. Anytime, I had a good time coordinating my hits with Lord Chris on our DT target (who also won me 100 tech for nuking me before Captain Mudfoot got nuked). Wish we could have gotten you out in our peace though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wargarden Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Reps!!?!?!!trolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrollt rolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltr olltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltro lltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrol ltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltroll trolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrollt rolltrolltrolltroll Nah! I kid. SSSW18 are awesome! They'll have no problems with little tech deals like that. Good to see you guys out of the line of fire. Felt wrong being on the other side of you guys. o/ SSSW18! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdnss69 Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Yea... Karma... its beginning to sound like another name for a glorified tech raid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Yea... Karma... its beginning to sound like another name for a glorified tech raid. You realize that Karma is the defending party, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 SSW18 has had no problem accepting punitive reparations from alliances that only fought to honor treaties. Hmmm. USN - White peace TDSM8 - No reps to SSSW18 Athens - Paid tech reps to SSSW18 (3M/100T) STA - Reparations demanded. I'm not seeing a pattern of behaviour similar to the one you describe here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I didn't describe a pattern, I cited an instance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 The fact that you "require" it in exchange for peace makes you a monster.whether the requirement is 100 tech for 3 million or 10,000 tech at no charge it is still a required term why is asking for reparations wrong? as long as the reparations are reasonable than I see no issue. besides SSSW18 had a chance to leave this conflict with a white peace, they refused. Any attempt to paint Karma as hypocrites do to this is futile since all you need to do is find the cases where gramlins gave these same terms to alliances and watch how the members and leaders of Karma hailed them for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) There's no way a 64 person alliance could swing 2500 tech to each of those alliances in 3 months, you're kidding yourselves with those terms guys As someone who organized approximately that many sellers to send 82,000 tech in <4 months that was completely extorted (not paid for), this is nothing. 64 sellers using all slots (incoming the incoming money) could pay this off in one round. Edited May 1, 2009 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) Two things I have hated in CN for a long time have both cropped up ITT: 1) The sarcastic dismissals. Okay, we get it, the terms aren't horrible. Are you going to use the 'OH NOES KARMA IZ SO HORRIBLE FOR GIVING OUT THESE TERRIBLE TERMZ11! lines in every surrender thread? It's not clever or funny, and it's going to get really boring really quick. 2) The idea that the term regarding tech deals is some kind of honourable mutual re-growth scheme. Get real, it's punishment for the war. Granted, it's very light punishment, but punishment nonetheless. If it were not punishment, there would be no need for it to be a part of the agreement at all, the alliances involved would simply arrange it at their convenience. Edited May 1, 2009 by Aimee Mann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wargarden Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) (Leetopia II @ Apr 30 2009, 11:26 PM) There's no way a 64 person alliance could swing 2500 tech to each of those alliances in 3 months, you're kidding yourselves with those terms guys After the last war we paid 2000 to NPO and 4000 to TPF and we finished early and with 59 nations. And they weren't deals, it was straight out payments of tech. So, nyah. Edited May 1, 2009 by Wargarden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riftear Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Athens - Paid tech reps to SSSW18 (3M/100T)It's actually 2M/150tech, and we have to pay them even though we're never at war with them during the NoCB War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Cato Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Congrats to DT, Moon BH and LSR! Good terms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBRaiders Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 It's actually 2M/150tech, and we have to pay them even though we're never at war with them during the NoCB War. Boy, that sure sheds new light for those that are complaining. My favorite term for an alliance who surrenders would be to have them pay back any tech they extorted through terms from offensive wars they've been involved with for the last year. If you beat an opponent and demanded reps, now you have to pay them back. Hard for anyone to cry about those "terms" because you aren't demanding anything other than what they've stolen to be returned. I know nobody would actually put that term out there, but I'd still love to see the totals for some of these guys. I have no problem with the 3 mil/100 tech terms because it does help both sides, but agree with whoever posted before that it didn't need to be a part of terms and the alliances can just work those deals on the side. Hahaha. Yeah, preach the moral high ground now, wait until you see the terms for the actual war participants. I can guarantee that they'll be as bad as anything "hegemony's" ever come up with. If Karma really wanted to do this right, we'd see an announcement soon stating that if you want white peace you have until XXXX date to get it. That way when those who continue to fight to support NPO in it's aggressive war do end up paying reps to pay for damage caused, they can only blame themselves for pushing this fight well past the date when the outcome was already decided. White peace was cool for the people who got pulled in by treaties from their treaty partner who got pulled in from another treaty partner, but if you are directly tied to NPO and choose to continue this fight, the "white peace" flag should have an expiration date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craziekyng Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 If Karma really wanted to do this right, we'd see an announcement soon stating that if you want white peace you have until XXXX date to get it. That way when those who continue to fight to support NPO in it's aggressive war do end up paying reps to pay for damage caused, they can only blame themselves for pushing this fight well past the date when the outcome was already decided.White peace was cool for the people who got pulled in by treaties from their treaty partner who got pulled in from another treaty partner, but if you are directly tied to NPO and choose to continue this fight, the "white peace" flag should have an expiration date. I agree, and as stated SSSW18 has accepted responsibility for the choices made by us. Even now our government is working to see these terms are met. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I'd rather not see terms get increased to punish people for defending their treaty partners. I can't imagine anyone arguing that alliances at war in defense of Pacifica or other allies now are doing it in hope of great profits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coursca Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I've yet to see white peace hurt an alliance Yes. This needs more white peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coursca Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) There's no way a 64 person alliance could swing 2500 tech to each of those alliances in 3 months, you're kidding yourselves with those terms guys Actually, they're pretty reasonable in terms of logistics. This isn't really a problem (of logistics). COUR-EDIT: Clarification. Edited May 1, 2009 by Coursca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Yes. This needs more white peace. No. No it doesn't. 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.