Alterego Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Yes, that is how these things work. You have a certain precedent having been set in the past years on what are considered harsh surrender terms (disbandment, viceroys, EZI, etc. etc.) and in comparison other surrender/peace terms which were more lenient. In the end, it's subjective on what it is fair and what is harsh. An end to harsh terms, virtually every alliance connected to Karma including Vox said they wanted an end to harsh terms. The same alliances now say they will inflict harsh terms as a form of punishment for past crimes. Its not subjective at all, you lot are demanding harsh terms and saying that other terms were harsher doesn't prove the terms being mentioned at the moment less than harsh. No amount of wordplay will change that. You are here to free the world from harsh terms and tyranny by inflicting harsh terms and acting tyrannically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 An end to harsh terms, virtually every alliance connected to Karma including Vox said they wanted an end to harsh terms. The same alliances now say they will inflict harsh terms as a form of punishment for past crimes. Its not subjective at all, you lot are demanding harsh terms and saying that other terms were harsher doesn't prove the terms being mentioned at the moment less than harsh. No amount of wordplay will change that. You are here to free the world from harsh terms and tyranny by inflicting harsh terms and acting tyrannically. Show me Karma government members, or people who will actually have a role in peace negotiations, who are for harsh terms. I'll save you the effort, there are none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 virtually every alliance connected to Karma including Vox said they wanted an end to harsh terms. Perhaps we do want an end to harsh terms. But few will say they want an end to terms in general. So don't go complaining when someone actually gets terms that are harsher than white peace or tech deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhunivelze Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 It's as simple as this can not be allowed to happen again, as much as I hate harsh terms, NPO has become an Alliance that can no longer be allowed to reign, if we do not restrict it eternally it will rise back up, and we will have to fight this war all over again. We can not allow an alliance such as NPO to continue dominating and ruling this way, we can not allow history to repeat itself. That is why I believe NPO should be required to completely disband, forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 It's as simple as this can not be allowed to happen again, as much as I hate harsh terms, NPO has become an Alliance that can no longer be allowed to reign, if we do not restrict it eternally it will rise back up, and we will have to fight this war all over again. We can not allow an alliance such as NPO to continue dominating and ruling this way, we can not allow history to repeat itself. That is why I believe NPO should be required to completely disband, forever. If you are so afraid of a single alliance that you would sell your own principles to see it destroyed then you should not be on our side. I have had enough of forced disbandments. Do not let your fear rule your reason, or your compassion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhunivelze Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 (edited) Do not let your fear rule your reason, or your compassion. I edited it to fit you: "Do not let your compassion rule your reason." would you have allowed Hitler or Mussolini to live so that they may see the day where they can commit the same atrocities? My principles are not against harsh terms, they are against unnecessary harsh terms, they are against terms that NPO has given to alliances on our own side, your signature says to never forgive, but by allowing NPO to regain power is essentially worse than forgiving them. Edited May 3, 2009 by Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 (edited) Perhaps we do want an end to harsh terms. But few will say they want an end to terms in general. So don't go complaining when someone actually gets terms that are harsher than white peace or tech deals. Harsher than white peace is not harsh. But specifically calling for "harsh" terms repeatedly is a different story altogether. Show me Karma government members, or people who will actually have a role in peace negotiations, who are for harsh terms. I'll save you the effort, there are none. Ive no idea who will be in those negotiations so I cant confirm or deny your statement. I also cant see who voted for what in the poll. Edited May 3, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I edited it to fit you: "Do not let your compassion rule your reason."would you have allowed Hitler or Mussolini to live so that they may see the day where they can commit the same atrocities? (Godwin's Law am I right?) My principles are not against harsh terms, they are against unnecessary harsh terms, they are against terms that NPO has given to alliances on our own side, your signature says to never forgive, but by allowing NPO to regain power is essentially worse than forgiving them. You are asking for unnecessary harsh terms. I value my enemies contributions to this game, both positive and negative, and I've fought them long enough to respect them. You are asking for us to give up everything we've fought for. As stated, if you are so afraid of Pacifica recovering, you should not have attacked them in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Ive no idea who will be in those negotiations so I cant confirm or deny your statement. I also cant see who voted for what in the poll. As of this post 728 people have voted. I think it's safe to say that most of them will not be present in the negotiations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenix700 Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I think some alliances should have to pay some reps, mostly those who have had a shady history. I think IRON should be given peace and maybe some terms, along with most of the larger alliances in this war. However, the big one (NPO), needs to go. I think they are the scum of the earth. They have forced so many decent alliances to disband it is ridiculous. I honestly hope this is their fate. And after they have disbanded, all their top government officials should be given a trial to determine their fate. Yes i said it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinKiac Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I am not Pacifica, and if I have any say, I would not be giving Pacifica style terms. Enough is enough. Those of you who ask for ridiculous terms or forced disbandments are clearly not committed to the change you so loudly asked for. I believe many feel that the change will come by getting rid of the primary alliances that handed out those terms previously. Once their power is taken away no one will have the power to hand out terms like that again, at least not for a while. However, I do not advocate PZI, disbandment or viceroyship, but I do advocate other harsh terms, such as max troop levels and destroying military wonders. You say they did it to others, so they deserve it to happen to them. But if you do it to them, you now deserve to have it happen to you, according to your own theory. That's why karma is such a stupid theory.I really ought to save some of the responses in this thread for the future. -Bama I dont think you truely understand the concept of karma(not the coalition). Karma is about balance. When one does negative things one acquires a negative point or points. Lets says Ive done 100 bad things, then my Karma score is -100. If someone then comes along and does the exact same things to me that I did to others then I am back at 0 again. The balance has returned. It is not a never ending cycle. The person handing out the retribution does not necessarily acquire the same negative points. On the other hand it would be utterly retarded to take down an alliance proven to be ambitious, dangerous, and willing to do anything to avenge any random slight they can think of down by several million NS and give them...white peace. If the alliances of the Continuum and One Vision are not given terms that make it indisputable that they lost then really we shouldn't have started this war in the first place - you fight to destroy your enemy's power, not to slap him on the wrist and pray pray pray they never come back looking for revenge. This ^^^^. I personally voted for big reps. Force them to get rid of their military improvements for a period, AND their military wonders along with a doable amount of cash or tech, preferable coming from their big nations(the ones that gained that tech through extortion and reps). I think the wonders part is a big one. By doing this the nations are prevented from regaining much of their power to wage wars for a longer period of time due to the 1/30 day limit on building wonders. It doesnt totally cripple their nations economically in any way, only prevents them from waging wars as effectively for a long(er) period of time. Yes. Even with 3x the nations and 3x the nukes, the average Horde nation is only just 3k NS bigger than the average Hegemony nation. Meaning Even with sheer numbers, the average nation in the Horde really isn't that big. Now, if the average NS was also 3x more than the average Hegemony NS, it would be some sort of an accomplishment. Your logic is flawed my friend. If the ANS of nation in the so called "horde" is 3k higher, that just means that on average the Karma nations are 3k bigger and stronger. Average NS doesnt go up with numbers, it stays relatively the same. If you were to take 3000 random nations from CN and figure out the ANS, and then take those same nations and add another 10000 random nations and figure the ANS again, it would be almost the same. I tend to agree with your sentiment, however I'll go ahead and play devils advocate.If a man murders another man, and is sentenced to death by execution by the court of his nation, is the person who executes him also guilty of murder? Very good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lackistan Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I think some alliances should have to pay some reps, mostly those who have had a shady history.I think IRON should be given peace and maybe some terms, along with most of the larger alliances in this war. However, the big one (NPO), needs to go. I think they are the scum of the earth. They have forced so many decent alliances to disband it is ridiculous. I honestly hope this is their fate. And after they have disbanded, all their top government officials should be given a trial to determine their fate. Yes i said it! Scum of the Earth? Quite the hyperbole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenix700 Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Scum of the Earth? Quite the hyperbole. Yes, its the way I feel about them. I'm just happy that for once in my time playing this game I can freely say what I think! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 These are the only suitable terms: DISBANDMENT OF NPO & PERMA-ZI OF ALL IMPERIAL OFFICERS AND TROLLS. Ditto for GGA. For IRON, TPF, Failhalla, et al, stiff reps, 6 month disarmament, disarm all military wonders and improvements, and bazillions of tech sent to enemies. Oh, and viceroys all around. Come and get them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 - An apology from mhawk to the former members of HotU. Really? "As some of you may have heard, recently Elysium went to war with the Heroes of the Union alliance. Well, things went south pretty quick. Turns out, most of Heroes of the Union (here after referred to as HotU) leadership skipped town, their forums were in disarray, and they were having some troubles.The war came to an end, and Elysium put up surrender terms, one of which was to get the alliance to move to the Purple sphere. The ultimate intention of Elysium was to help HotU rebuild itself into a better alliance... Now, I can't finish this post without giving a huge shoutout to the fine fellows at Elysium. When we showed concern about losing our Aquatic brethren, they readily agreed to let HotU stay on the team. Mhawk and his gang are stand-up fellows and we greatly appreciate and respect their understanding and willingness to cooperate with us on this. So, what I'm basically saying is Elysium is cool, and HotU will be too as soon as they get back on their feet." --Airmehttp://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=17861 Many of athen's members (former HoTU members) seem to count what happened as a good thing. I also find it interesting you hold so much over a 10 hour war that ended more than a year ago with offers of protection, reorganization of horrible forums, as well as promise of aid down the line with advisors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Come and get them. I believe he was being sarcastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diomede Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I've not really paid attention to this thread. But since I hadn't voted yet... I wish for white peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poet Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Disbandment all round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demonic Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Alliances in 1V and Q definitely deserve pretty harsh terms.Why should they get white peace? After what they have done to many alliances it is only fair, and in the spirit of karma, that they get a taste of their own medicine. ya it's about time they get what they need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabba202 Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 High level all the way, its not like NPO dont deserve it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 ya it's about time they get what they need. You realize Sparta was in Q until a few weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozaffar Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 An end to harsh terms, virtually every alliance connected to Karma including Vox said they wanted an end to harsh terms. The same alliances now say they will inflict harsh terms as a form of punishment for past crimes. Its not subjective at all, you lot are demanding harsh terms and saying that other terms were harsher doesn't prove the terms being mentioned at the moment less than harsh. No amount of wordplay will change that. You are here to free the world from harsh terms and tyranny by inflicting harsh terms and acting tyrannically. Describing the terms demanded by Karma (and other alliances on their side) in previous surrender deals and what top-level officials want to offer in future ones are very, very lenient. It is subjective, because ones lenient terms are harsh to others, in particular many nations on the Hegemony side (or with sympathies to that side) who in the past hailed some of the most harshest terms in history and now suddenly complain about reparations being harsh. Unless of course you are the ultimate moral authority on surrender terms and you get to decide what is harsh and what is lenient, in which case I apologize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperium of Poliz Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 (edited) Nulled because 'A Stern Talking To' is apparently not an option. Edited May 3, 2009 by Imperium of Poliz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich333 Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Don't even offer the NPO peace until their total NS hits 5M, then give them three simple terms: 1: no treaties for six months, 2: pay reps to OV within six months (with 10% interest added on for each month they delay), and 3: no wars (including raids) for at least six months, except for actual defense against direct attacks on their nations. Give anyone else on their side two simple terms to get out of the war before then: 1: don't re-enter the war (violation of which would result in them getting the same treatment as the NPO) and 2: reduce military down to minimal ground forces, with no more than 20 naval vessels per nation, and no more than six nukes per nation (so they can still defend themselves if attacked, but at the same time aren't in any position to suddenly re-enter the war). Any on the NPO side, other than the NPO, who remain in the war until the end should be given white peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Wizard Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I'm torn on whether those who bailed on their treaty obligations...and then do a 180 around after intense political pressure should get a harsh treatment. I'm inclined to say yes, as it's a public way to bring prestige and honor back to treaty obligations. But with the number of treaties voided, or canceled illegally before the war it is impossible to make sure that punishment is equal, so in that regard I'm not sure As for the NPO. Burn. Burn in the Nuclear fires you have created. You will get no remorse, no pity. 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.