An Announcement from The Sasori Initiative concerning the War

[Alterego]

Regardless of Legion and BAPS's current Stockholm syndrome, the fact remains that Legion was humiliated and viceroy'd and BAPS was perma-ZI'd by Valhalla.

You have no clue what you are talking about. You took something you saw someone else post and decided to post it yourself. It was months after the war before BAPS signed a treaty with Valhalla. During that time NoWedge had been destroyed and Valhalla was so different they were getting regular praise on the OWF for being a very different alliance from people who historically didnt like them. We didnt become brainwashed and anyone in Valhalla will tell you this. The fight was still going on after 2 months later and Valhalla was still eating regular nukes and even as it ended BAPS was rearming. This doesnt suggest BAPS had been brainwashed or submitted. Your choice of insult couldnt be more wrong, you should actually read the meaning of "Stockholm syndrome" and not just find out the dumbed down version and think you know why a treaty was signed on june 28th when the war ended on March 6th. Thats some delayed reaction (3.5 months after a white peace).

edit:fixed my english a little.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Alterego

[Master-Debater]

I’m amazed at how people think these terms are harsh.

They lost the war and when joining knew what was coming. Yes they honored a treaty, which apparently is hard to do these days, but they still knew what was coming.

What’s just amazing me is people seem to be overlooking how they are getting paid for the tech.

“omg you pai for teh tech!!! ebilll!!!!”

Seriously people. Its not like these alliances said “give us 10billion tech nao and we pay nothing.”

So the payment is 3 for 150. So? Honestly that’s likely to be the going rate very soon here as the world has a sudden surge of tech sellers because a bunch of people are getting whooped up so badly.

These aren’t the worst terms seen on bob, not by a long shot.

Imagine how the other side would have given these guys terms…….oh wait…….you don’t have to. Just go look up some of the terms handed out by the hegemony in the last few wars to people who honored treaties.

[Alterego]

I’m amazed at how people think these terms are harsh.

There's your answer, you are out of step with the times and think terms many others on the Karma side are calling harsh are in your opinion soft.

[Master-Debater]

There's your answer, you are out of step with the times and think terms many others on the Karma side are calling harsh are in your opinion soft.

If you’re going to try to call these terms harsh you really need to go look at what the hegemony has been giving out the past few years.

Are these terms harsh? No

Are they soft? No

To be honest it’s a mix of both. Its asking a lot of an alliance who honored a treaty but it could have been way worse. It’s a step in a direction that’s been taken, but it isn't a leap.

People act as if everyone in this war has the same ideals as everyone else. What one alliance may consider harsh another may consider soft. I am confused though how paying for tech out of a surrendering alliance is harsh. All you’ve basically done is force tech deals, which just about everyone on the planet agrees, are a good thing.

Tech deals=harsh? Really?

[Alterego]

If you’re going to try to call these terms harsh you really need to go look at what the hegemony has been giving out the past few years.

and now its your turn to dish it out.

To be honest it’s a mix of both. Its asking a lot of an alliance who honored a treaty but it could have been way worse. It’s a step in a direction that’s been taken, but it isn't a leap.

The whole point of the war, form what I gather was to take a leap in the other direction. It wasnt to continue business as usual. Its already begun, one disbandment and the terms from TSI were the reduced terms according to RV.

People act as if everyone in this war has the same ideals as everyone else. What one alliance may consider harsh another may consider soft. I am confused though how paying for tech out of a surrendering alliance is harsh. All you’ve basically done is force tech deals, which just about everyone on the planet agrees, are a good thing.

Tech deals=harsh? Really?

This lack of consistency is why the terms will skyrocket from this point on with some alliances disbanding and others being so totally destroyed they will cease to exist. Let the great genocide commence.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Alterego

[HeinousOne]

There's your answer, you are out of step with the times and think terms many others on the Karma side are calling harsh are in your opinion soft.

You do realize how transparent your argument is? Yours and every other Hegemony goon who wants tro cry out and call out karma on what peace terms will be given.

All it appears to be is an attempt to save infra and tech. Wouldn't have been nice if MK and NpO could have used the same tactic? Oh, right, they would have been mocked and laughed at.

Whats that age old saying? Oh, I remember. Karma's a !@#$%*.

[Alterego]

All it appears to be is an attempt to save infra and tech. Wouldn't have been nice if MK and NpO could have used the same tactic? Oh, right, they would have been mocked and laughed at.

Yeah you got me, you found me out. I love my infra and tech so much. :lol: That was sarcasm btw. Ive been sending out PMs looking for people to attack me.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Alterego

[HeinousOne]

Yeah you got me, you found me out. I love my infra and tech so much. :lol: That was sarcasm btw. Ive been sending out PMs looking for people to attack me.

Convenient that you only call out that line. Thank you for your approval of the rest.

[Alterego]

Convenient that you only call out that line. Thank you for your approval of the rest.

The lack of a response to everything you said doesnt mean I agree with you or you are right.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Alterego

[HeinousOne]

The lack of a response to everything you said doesnt mean I agree with you or you are right.

Actually it kind of does because you see I wasn't even talking to just you with that statement you boldened. I was merely pointing out that your calls for proper terms mirror those from many from the hegemony. You can go ahead and promote yourself but you have absolutely nothing to say about the others or anything else I posted because it is right. Go ahead and continue not saying whether it is right or wrong though, seems some qualities of Valhalla will never leave you.

[AirMe]

You realize valhalla removed the leader that gave the order and elysium attacked him for his other "issues". The best and fastest way to fix things isn't always via conspired plotting behind false treaties. Sometimes it comes from frank talks with friends on contested issues. Your generalization of events is the cheap way to unleash an anger on parties less involved in "crimes" than one would be led to believe by the mob.

As the precedent you guys set in the noCB, removing the leader of an alliance does not absolve that alliance from it's sins. Double standards run thick in you.

[Londo Mollari]

Congrats on peace. The reparations are a little harsh but nonetheless good luck on rebuilding.

EDIT: All the whiners, you know Hegemony would probably have given worse surrender terms if TSI had entered the war on the losing side. The entered a treaty, so did Athens, so did C&G and NpO in WoC. You all saw how that ended didn't ye?

Rather badly for NPO, I'd say.

[KinKiac]

you all collectively peed in my cornflakes with this rampant hypocrisy. and i am very protective of my cornflakes.

the facts are, karma isnt all that it chalks itself up to be. the 'big' alliances in this are mostly going to get harsh terms and its going to set a dangerous precedent for the future. conversely, if they dont get harsh terms, theyll pop right back up and take back their spot in no time. in other words it's lose-lose as far as 'changing the world' is considered

Set a dangerous precedent? Who are you trying to kid here. The terms that will be handed out to the big alliances in this are going to be much more lenient than what they been given in the past. Even if they are only slightly more lenient, they are still more lenient meaning the only precedent being set is going to be less harsh terms than what has been given in the past. This is at least a step in the right direction. Stop trying to gain PR points for the Hegemony side, you're failing.

You realize valhalla removed the leader that gave the order and elysium attacked him for his other "issues". The best and fastest way to fix things isn't always via conspired plotting behind false treaties. Sometimes it comes from frank talks with friends on contested issues. Your generalization of events is the cheap way to unleash an anger on parties less involved in "crimes" than one would be led to believe by the mob.

You do realize that NpO removed ES before the last war and it still didnt change anything. Where were the frank talks then when my alliance was hit with a preemptive attack just for having treaties with other alliances being attacked. We werent even in the war, oh wait, I forgot, we might as well have been because we honor ALL of our treaties without question, which is why we were attacked, hard, and then forced to pay reps. (Although some of the alliances we had to pay reps to waived them after the fact, and they gained our respect in that) <<<< thats called being honest and not spinning things for the betterment of my argument

There's your answer, you are out of step with the times and think terms many others on the Karma side are calling harsh are in your opinion soft.

This goes back to the fact that the Karma side has no formal affiliation and no formal guidelines. There are going to be alliances which disagree in regards to what is fair terms, and if they are to be held accountable for their actions then that should be done on an individual basis and not as a whole.

and now its your turn to dish it out.

The whole point of the war, form what I gather was to take a leap in the other direction. It wasnt to continue business as usual. Its already begun, one disbandment and the terms from TSI were the reduced terms according to RV.

This lack of consistency is why the terms will skyrocket from this point on with some alliances disbanding and others being so totally destroyed they will cease to exist. Let the great genocide commence.

Genocide? Genocide is when an entire ethnic group is killed, usually for political reasons. The alliance that disbanded, to my understanding, was not forced to disband. They were destroyed in war and decided that they might as well disband. If they did not want to disband then they could have surrendered, if not on an alliance basis then on an individual basis. The individual surrender terms are anything but harsh. When an alliance chooses to fight until the bitter end that is not genocide, it is war. Same goes if an alliance joins a war and just simply gets destroyed, thats a risk they have to take in entering a war. Also, regardless of the reasons, an alliance that "chooses" to disband shouldnt be used as an example of the Karma side being no better than the Hegemony.

As others have stated in this thread, the fact that these terms are being are being cried over and people on both sides are calling them harsh is proof of the change that has already taken place since the last war. This war isnt even over yet and there is already a noticeable change in the opinions of much of this community. How much more proof do you need?

[Morey 2k7]

I'm amazed that people are calling these terms harsh, to those who it would be interesting to see what would you would call the terms that were actually 'harsh' in the past.

War isn't about a little scuffle and then both sides walking away hand in hand, its ensuring the losing side know they lost.

[mhawk]

As the precedent you guys set in the noCB, removing the leader of an alliance does not absolve that alliance from it's sins. Double standards run thick in you.

I had nothing to do with the "noCB" war other than honor my treaties, GR hit valhalla, so we hit GR. It gets tiring being accused of all the double standards. If you're going to make one liners at me, please make them sting with truth.

Edited May 5, 2009 by mhawk

[Great Lord Moth]

Finally! A surrender with realistic terms!

Yay, peace and tech deals.

[mhawk]

You do realize that NpO removed ES before the last war and it still didnt change anything. Where were the frank talks then when my alliance was hit with a preemptive attack just for having treaties with other alliances being attacked. We werent even in the war, oh wait, I forgot, we might as well have been because we honor ALL of our treaties without question, which is why we were attacked, hard, and then forced to pay reps. (Although some of the alliances we had to pay reps to waived them after the fact, and they gained our respect in that) <<<< thats called being honest and not spinning things for the betterment of my argument

First of all nearly every alliance that attacked NpO is on the karma side this war. I don't agree with pre emptive assaults on treaty partners and was completely caught off guard when some of our (elysium) bloc allies did such. I made it clear our position on that. I'm not out here trumping our horn that we honored our treaties and need to be let go. We went into this accepting full well the hatred that would be unleashed from all sides against us, some of it valid, some of it completely unreasonable. I just find it hard when statements like the above seem to paint this image of how I've run my alliances when there was no way I could have knowledge of the intent non allies (folks that hit polar/nv) or when being blamed for events decided by others, even as they fight on the opposite side of us.

[Alterego]

Actually it kind of does because you see I wasn't even talking to just you with that statement you boldened. I was merely pointing out that your calls for proper terms mirror those from many from the hegemony.

You quoted me and posted.

You can go ahead and promote yourself but you have absolutely nothing to say about the others or anything else I posted because it is right. Go ahead and continue not saying whether it is right or wrong though, seems some qualities of Valhalla will never leave you.

Ive never been in Valhalla. If having a treaty with Valhalla gives me these "qualities" then quite a few alliances have these "qualities" you talk about, including your own allies.

[Chinatownbus]

So the only form of surrender terms ever to be accepted on Planet Bob ever again is white peace. Got it.

[Master-Debater]

and now its your turn to dish it out.

The whole point of the war, form what I gather was to take a leap in the other direction. It wasnt to continue business as usual. Its already begun, one disbandment and the terms from TSI were the reduced terms according to RV.

This lack of consistency is why the terms will skyrocket from this point on with some alliances disbanding and others being so totally destroyed they will cease to exist. Let the great genocide commence.

1. Two out of three alliances that =WE= engaged in this war were given white peace. The third has told us they have no intentions of surrendering for a long time. Guess that white peace thing is rather cruel for those guys isn’t it?

2. The leap was taken when the entire world stood up and said “oh hell no” to the BS CBs and threats that the hegemony was dishing out. Surrender terms have already taken massive leaps forward with the amount of white peace that has been given out. Its like all of a sudden an alliance doesn’t get white peace and it “business as usual”. If it were business as usual where is the forced decoms? The forced disbandment of treaties? Forced execution of its leadership? Massive amounts of reparation money?

3. Oh yea, this war is a 100% genocidal war.

I’m curious, do you even realize what you just said? The only “genocidal” act committed in this war has been the massive amounts of casualties so far.

There have been no force disbandment’s of major alliances. No PZIs of entire alliances. No forced permanent states of war for alliances.

Do you even know what the hegemony has done to people in the past few years?

How many players have been forced to leave this world because of constant attacks?

How many alliances have been forced to disband because they were given terms so harsh that it was impossible to complete?

How many alliances have not even been given terms?

Have you had alliances you were in disband and friends you had made in this world quit because the hegemony has said they are “unworthy” to live here?

Come back and have a chat when you’ve had even a taste of what the hegemony has done to people, maybe then you can actually understand something about this world.

[Haflinger]

As the precedent you guys set in the noCB, removing the leader of an alliance does not absolve that alliance from it's sins. Double standards run thick in you.

To be fair, the precedent on that issue was set by the coalition that attacked the New Polar Order, i.e. the Joint MCXA/TOP/Grämlins/Umbrella/FOK/RnR/FARK Announcement. I would note that all of the alliances in that announcement except MCXA are currently fighting on the Karma side of this war, and the two MCXA Co-Chancellors who signed that announcement are now in TSO, on the Karma side, although TOP and TSO are not a part of Karma.

mhawk and Elysium defended Valhalla against Greenland Republic, who were defending Hyperion against Valhalla. You can argue all you want about the appropriateness of that action but at least get your history right.

[Alterego]

1. Two out of three alliances that =WE= engaged in this war were given white peace. The third has told us they have no intentions of surrendering for a long time. Guess that white peace thing is rather cruel for those guys isn’t it?

You may have given white peace but thats not what you are condoning now. Compared yo a white peace they are harsh and using the hegemony as your guide to what terms to charge is interesting.

If you’re going to try to call these terms harsh you really need to go look at what the hegemony has been giving out the past few years.

2. The leap was taken when the entire world stood up and said “oh hell no” to the BS CBs and threats that the hegemony was dishing out. Surrender terms have already taken massive leaps forward with the amount of white peace that has been given out. Its like all of a sudden an alliance doesn’t get white peace and it “business as usual”. If it were business as usual where is the forced decoms? The forced disbandment of treaties? Forced execution of its leadership? Massive amounts of reparation money?

Only days ago people were saying no treaty or CB was necessary in this war because it was too important a war to lose. I will revisit the rest of this when the war is over and we see what the full "justice" of Karma looks like.

3. Oh yea, this war is a 100% genocidal war.

I’m curious, do you even realize what you just said? The only “genocidal” act committed in this war has been the massive amounts of casualties so far.

There have been no force disbandment’s of major alliances. No PZIs of entire alliances. No forced permanent states of war for alliances.

Do you even know what the hegemony has done to people in the past few years?

How many players have been forced to leave this world because of constant attacks?

How many alliances have been forced to disband because they were given terms so harsh that it was impossible to complete?

How many alliances have not even been given terms?

Have you had alliances you were in disband and friends you had made in this world quit because the hegemony has said they are “unworthy” to live here?

Come back and have a chat when you’ve had even a taste of what the hegemony has done to people, maybe then you can actually understand something about this world.

You must not have read the thousands of posts in the last two weeks calling for total destruction, super reps, viceroys, PZI, EZI, removal of leaders, disbandment etc.

[AirMe]

I had nothing to do with the "noCB" war other than honor my treaties, GR hit valhalla, so we hit GR. It gets tiring being accused of all the double standards. If you're going to make one liners at me, please make them sting with truth.

This is one of the worst comebacks possible. You mentioned in your original post that holding Valhalla responsible for something in the past is moot because they removed that leader long ago. I was pointing out your hypocrisy by pointing out that in the noCB war NpO had removed sponge but NpO was still punished for the crimes of a leader that they removed.

Way to attempt to complete ignore the point of the post to try to make yourself look better.

[janax]

Thousands of posts calling for such things sounds like hyperbole to me.

Many don't condone, or denounce these reps. The alliances handing them out are able to make their own choices, and have to live with those choices.

No one dictated any terms that we "had" to offer, or anything that we couldn't offer. We simply made our choices based on our own values. Any KARMA reps were there only in an advisory capacity, and didn't even need to do much of that.

Granted, we'd only had about 150K in damages, so reps were way out of line anyway, and regardless, we wouldn't have asked for them in a war that we went into using an Offensive clause of a treaty. Again, that is who we are. We don't expect everyone (heck, ANYONE) to think exactly as we do, which is why they all made their own choices on the peace terms given.

Blast the alliances involved if you think it's warranted, but just like most of us don't blame MHA (along with others) for harsh surrender terms during their "Hegemony" days, don't paint with such a broad stroke over KARMA alliances. Not all are out to rob the former kings of the land and elevate themselves to the top.

[Shermanaslovakia]

This is an insane amount of reps. I'm not impressed with anyone on the Karma side here. You want to prove that we were on the right side of this war? Show some class.