Vulkan Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) The only terms I care about are the NPO's. - No reparations. - Peace for FAN and Vox (and anyone else on their PZI list). - The dissolution of the Moldavi Doctrine. Edited May 1, 2009 by Vulkan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 NPO's strategy of pre-emptively calling Karma "as bad as [them]" is really hilarious. If Karma were equal in mindset to the Hegemony, why on Earth would your incessant whining about how evil they are matter? We have watched for months and months as the Hegemony has shrugged off proof after proof of their draconian and repressive actions toward other players and alliances. Their mantra has been for years, "do something about it" and they have championed the morality of "might makes right". They have scoffed at accusations of their own hypocrisy and if Karma is as bad as the Hegemony, they'll scoff in just the same fashion. What's more is the implication there is that they are, indeed, draconian and repressive and that the Hegemony thinks these are bad things. It's the final admission by the Hegemonists that they have done wrong, perhaps? Unlikely. You're just using it as a tool of political convenience, as you use everything. Well guess what. A few of us are wise to that game by now and this is not 2006. You can't play the same serenade and expect the same responce. Shape up. That said, as we have seen from the alliances who have surrendered so far, harsh peace terms are not a trend thus far. I do not think they will become a trend. I would be surprised to see any harsh peace terms at all (though perhaps it should depend on whether NPO comes out of peace mode and fights). We have seen just why Karma has popular support and why people even on the Hegemony's side are jumping ship as fast as they possibly can. On Karma's side we have a series of blocs bound by friendship fighting alongside one another for their survival and for the common good -- the good of the broader community. On the other side we have alliances that regularly backstab and destroy their friends to further their political goals, drive people from the game, and would probably murder their own families if it expedited them on the power path. For all their crimes I surely want to see these alliances burn. I want to see them suffer adversity. I think many of them deserve a death that has long hounded them and I think a few will even receive. But when the fighting stops there is little more to ask beyond that. Enshrining bitterness to be carried on to the next political era is foolhardy and I think things should be dropped there, though I think we all know that the grudges of this war will be carried into the future. Nevertheless what I personally would like to see is nothing more than a clean slate for everybody. Peace for everyone on all the ZI and PZI and EZI lists, freedom for all the alliances being forcibly held down, and a future for every player of this game no matter the grudges that a few self-important players think give them the right to deny others the ability to play freely. An end to the Moldavi Doctrine would be nice, an apology to GATO, an admission of defeat, etc. But what everyone really deserves is a blank ticket to the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) Joker i agree it would be foolish to pick a fight and then just turn your back and walk away I dont think I have argued that at all. KARMA on the other hand says this isnt how this should be. Its nice to see some one finally admit that many in KARMA were looking for this war, and even though they didnt declare first they still wanted it, and were waiting for revenge for past transgressions. MK, out of any alliance that still is here, has more of a right to feel that way than most. I understand that lets just call this for what it is. Revenge.Terms should be fitting I never agreed with decom of wonders I do however feel that limiting military is a smart choice anything over 3 months is way excessive. Tech and money should be with in reason. Some top heavy alliances would never be able to meet some tech requirements so cash would have to do. Winners reap the rewards it shouldnt be crippling but it shouldnt necessarily be light either. I applaud Karma for letting smaller alliances who have done nothing more than honor their treaties go with White Peace. 1v and Q on the other hand should we loose, I will expect harsh terms as I still believe this isnt about doing anything for Bob but its simply out of revenge. No offense Archon im sure you are doing exactly what you stated in your proclimation but I fear those that are with you have a secondary agenda. Well, I think the whole "what goes around comes around" thing kind of implied it was about revenge from the get go. And for tech reps, well, reps are meant to be punitive generally speaking, not really a "oh, give me whatever's convenient for you I guess" thing. So, if top heavy alliances must pay tech reps, they'll just have to deal with it. It will put them behind in the never stopping "tech race", but let's face it, traditional "you give me tech/cash or else" type terms are as much about denying the other alliance growth as helping your own alliance grow. Losing a war isn't supposed to be nice - while it could do to be a good deal nicer than it has been in the past with forced government changes, perma-ZIs and viceroys, it still needs to have clearly punitive consequences otherwise warfare loses much of its deterrent effect at which point we might as well just play CN:TE and bash on each other randomly for no apparent reason. Edit to avoid double posting: Damn, you owe us. what Edited May 1, 2009 by Matthew George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Well, I think the whole "what goes around comes around" thing kind of implied it was about revenge from the get go. And for tech reps, well, reps are meant to be punitive generally speaking, not really a "oh, give me whatever's convenient for you I guess" thing. So, if top heavy alliances must pay tech reps, they'll just have to deal with it. It will put them behind in the never stopping "tech race", but let's face it, traditional "you give me tech/cash or else" type terms are as much about denying the other alliance growth as helping your own alliance grow. Losing a war isn't supposed to be nice - while it could do to be a good deal nicer than it has been in the past with forced government changes, perma-ZIs and viceroys, it still needs to have clearly punitive consequences otherwise warfare loses much of its deterrent effect at which point we might as well just play CN:TE and bash on each other randomly for no apparent reason.Edit to avoid double posting: what Fair enough i wont disagree with that at all. My only question is then why do people continue to say its not. Attempting to put a spin on this that is laughable. Thats my only problem with it other than that this has been fun and what ever happens happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 My only question is then why do people continue to say its not. You're not facing a monolithic bloc with unity of purpose. You're fighting a group with myriad agendas and conflicting ideas and ideals. Some want to see you disbanded, I'm sure. Others genuinely would like to see you have essentially no terms at the end. Where it ends up, I would bet, is closer to the latter than the former. Don't expect a conistent message on the boards when you're fighting a loose conglomerate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 The "if it was up to me" and "what should happen" are two vastly different things. That said, I voted, and my way is my own. Indeed. I would add a third possibility, namely "what will happen." My way: Their alliances dissolved. Their lands salted. Their names removed from all records. What should happen: Their alliances dissolved. Their lands salted. Their names removed from all records. What will happen: White peace/mild reps, but only when the NPO actually engages in the war instead of allowing its allies to bleed on its behalf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBone Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Not if every "The phoenix hungers" counts as a "do something about it" post LOL...if every post mocking The Phoenix Hungers is counted as a counter "do something about it" +11tybillion for us......scrappyspider(ask hoo) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr hairy Ballz Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 NPO gets harsh terms, the rest are treaty bound so I would say white peace or close to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 (edited) Nothing to see here, HEY.. what did that guy just write in the post below this? Edited May 2, 2009 by ModusOperandi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 scrappyspider(ask hoo) - two karma points for you my fine gentleman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Moldavi Doctrine needs to go and FAN needs to be given peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Moldavi Doctrine needs to go and FAN needs to be given peace. You forgot Vox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 They all need to be off the Sanction list. So just let the war continue. Other than that, no doctrines, no reps, peace for Vox and FAN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Boris Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Terms should be fitting I never agreed with decom of wonders I do however feel that limiting military is a smart choice anything over 3 months is way excessive. Tech and money should be with in reason. Some top heavy alliances would never be able to meet some tech requirements so cash would have to do. Winners reap the rewards it shouldnt be crippling but it shouldnt necessarily be light either. Funny how polaris never had a problem paying you most of their tech reps from their larger nations, I didn't know that you were prohibited from being able to send tech if you have over 50 on hand. Then again, I think those terms were ment to cripple them. If Karma is going to live up to it's name NPO/IRON/MCXA/GGA/Valhalla/TPF/NATO should get the same kind of terms they were so fond of dishing out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 You forgot Vox. I'd actually be somewhat surprised if VOX "survives" this war as to my knowledge, the main (or sole) reason for their creation was to upset the powers that be and overthrow the hegemony. Now that their mission has been accomplished, my guess is that they'll see their membership part ways and go on to other alliances. Then again, maybe I'm wrong and they'll stick around and just find a new vision to rally around... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildeKaard Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Q and 1V alliances should be required to repay all reparations they have ever received from other alliances as a result of war. Also they should be required to drop all treaties for duration of terms (2-3 months) and normalize relations with all other alliances for at least the same amount of time, meaning white peace with (NAAC, FAN, GOONS, \m/, IAA, Vox, etc.). Also dismantle Moldavi and Revenge Doctrines and enforce some type of additional punishment for nations that hid in peace mode. At which point we will barely be able to conceal our quiet grins at Karma becoming what it despised so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 I'd actually be somewhat surprised if VOX "survives" this war as to my knowledge, the main (or sole) reason for their creation was to upset the powers that be and overthrow the hegemony. Now that their mission has been accomplished, my guess is that they'll see their membership part ways and go on to other alliances.Then again, maybe I'm wrong and they'll stick around and just find a new vision to rally around... Exactly - If the need for a Vox no longer exists its time will run its course. Frankly Vox leadership are all far too talented to be held up in vox longer than necesary. they are needed elsewhere in CN. Soon, there will be a new CN world to navigate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opethian Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Exactly - If the need for a Vox no longer exists its time will run its course. Frankly Vox leadership are all far too talented to be held up in vox longer than necesary. they are needed elsewhere in CN. Soon, there will be a new CN world to navigate. A CN world, most assuredly, ruled by the PPF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiggah Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 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? If a man hunts down and murders someone that murdered his friend, then yes, it does make him a murdere. A court, in any nation of worth, is unbiased and does not pass judgement out of a thirst for vengeance. About as close as you could get here would be to have the GPA hear the case and determine punishment, though even they have had their altercations with the alliances involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobjohnny Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 (edited) Personally i feel that. Karma is just the definition. You should receive as you dish out. So, what the NPO and it's "friends" have demanded of others should be repaid. Not necessarily to the alliance rom which they stole it. Because many of those alliances do not exist. But I doubt our side would be so cruel as to make NPO disband. Basically. FAN & Vox & all other alliances the Hegemony is still at war with = peace. Clear the PZI and EZI lists. For Karma to meet its definition reps are required. But, no disbandment. The spin many of you are using on Valhalla had every intention of fighting the membership as well as govt had no desire to sit this one out, sorry to break the spin on this but truth is truth. I'm sorry to break this to you. But, pics or it didn't happen. Edited May 2, 2009 by bobjohnny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 I'd actually be somewhat surprised if VOX "survives" this war as to my knowledge, the main (or sole) reason for their creation was to upset the powers that be and overthrow the hegemony. Now that their mission has been accomplished, my guess is that they'll see their membership part ways and go on to other alliances.Then again, maybe I'm wrong and they'll stick around and just find a new vision to rally around... They still need peace first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiggah Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 A great deal of typing. I don't see any suggestion that any terms levied would be wrong or unreasonable from our perspective. What I see are calls of hypocrisy should such terms be levied. We are saying that imposition of such terms would be a greater victory for our side than any military domination ever could be. It would essentially be an admission by your side that you have no better way of doing things. You have no "change" to bestow and that everything spewed forth from your forked tongues was, and is, nothing but political posturing. Our alliances and affiliations may no longer populate the land after this war, but it is becoming clearer everyday that our ideals and our goals will continue on as they always have. I've personally tried fighting alongside the "good" guys, but unfortunately they have no stomach for victory. I guess we'll see who, if anyone, within your ragtag band of yokels does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opethian Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 If the NPO has acted criminally in the past, then they are due a strict --perhaps ironically similar to their own crimes-- sort of punishment. Since they have cried foul about the mere possibility of being treated in the same manner that they have treated others, they have, in a de facto manner, admitted that the way they behaved was in fact cruel and criminal. Therefore they should be treated as criminals, and open themselves to the removal of the rights of the average citizen/nation/alliance of planet Bob as per any judicially sound sentencing. After all, if what they had done was fair and just, then surely they would not have a problem being treated in the same manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 I personally feel they should all receive nothing more than white peace and an admission of surrender. What's the point of winning if they don't get to come back for round two? It's a game, this was a blast, I want to do it again;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiabelly Posted May 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 I don't see any suggestion that any terms levied would be wrong or unreasonable from our perspective. What I see are calls of hypocrisy should such terms be levied. We are saying that imposition of such terms would be a greater victory for our side than any military domination ever could be. It would essentially be an admission by your side that you have no better way of doing things. You have no "change" to bestow and that everything spewed forth from your forked tongues was, and is, nothing but political posturing. Our alliances and affiliations may no longer populate the land after this war, but it is becoming clearer everyday that our ideals and our goals will continue on as they always have. I've personally tried fighting alongside the "good" guys, but unfortunately they have no stomach for victory. I guess we'll see who, if anyone, within your ragtag band of yokels does. That would be true if the only "crime" the Hegemony committed was harsh reps. That is only part of the reason many call for Q and 1V blood. If we win and become a might makes right jackbooted force silencing all against us...then you would have a point. Harsh reps is not equal to that. It would also be true if we forced NPO to disband like NAAC or go to a VietNPO situation. While some are calling for that, I don't see it happening. So if it makes you feel better to believe that a one time harsh set of reps makes us the new you, then go ahead. Feeling it doesn't make it so though. 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.