Justice For Traitors

[John Michaels]

As someone who has been a member since the days when GATO and the NPO were bound by the Imperial Covenant, I've seen the highs and lows of that alliance's power. I understand the moral arguments, but ultimately we're running in circles here. As someone who has been around long enough, I can tell you morals are less important than pragmatic, logical reasoning. Not that morals aren't, but you cannot allow yourself to be caught up in emotional arguments. To that end, I think that based on the precedent the NPO and their allies have established, their history, they cannot be trusted to simply accept their place and magically become good guys. I don't think anyone is proposing anything that stupid, but I am seeing arguments "If we do what they have done, we will become them!!!" While there is certainly the risk that Karma, in their desire to see justice served, we might push ourselves too far and become what we have feared. On the other hand, a simple white peace is insufficient to ensure the security of the Karma nations.

Let us consider the example of the First Great War: The Legion entered a deadlocked battle and turned it into something of a rout. Were it not for the ladder system which severely limited one's choice of opponents, allowing the top nations of the Order to remain relatively intact. The Legion (and ODN) made the idiotic decisions of withdrawing from the conflict with nothing more than a stern talking-to for the Order, leaving CoaLUEtion leaders with little leverage in peace negotiations. NPO got out of the war without significant punishment and within weeks was back to the biggest of nations. They then made good choices of friends with small alliances, exploited the divisions between the CoaLUEtion side, and established the hegemony that has ruled Cybernations for so long.

Now we are presented with an opportunity not only to establish a new order, but to eliminate the old one. While we should not resort to the Draconian terms that have become a staple of the Order's postwar repetoire, we cannot allow them to simply rebuild and return to power. They have proven before they willingly carry grudges over the course of months, even years. If you believe that they will simply move forward, it reflects a degree of naiveté born from an incomplete understanding of these alliances, not only NPO, but their allies as well. What we must do is look out for our own self-interests, impose peace terms that, while not crippling, will slow their growth enough to give us a long-term head start. Reparations, military force limits, decommissioning of nuclear weapons, and perhaps diplomatic limits on the treaties they may sign. I have been out of the loop so long I cannot begin to explore the absolute numbers, I can tell you from experience white peace is not an extended hand to join in a new world order, it is an oppurtunity to exploit the weakness of will possessed. Do not allow yourself to be blinded by high-minded morals; the NPO has no such scruples and has proven they say one thing and do another. You have attacked them, destroyed them, and shattered their invincibility. If you think that no grudges will develop you are a fool, plain and simple.

[Deadshot]

If Pacifica and their lackies are given white peace, we know damn well what the next move will be for them. They will kick down our door, ransack our homes, and force us to disband.

All of you squeak and squabble of "turning the other cheek" and "being lenient," but when ever has Pacifica and their allies been lenient? No one has ever been given a second chance.

In short, they will take advantage of Karma's inevitable kindness and destroy us all.

Why should we allow that?

So you would rather disband alliances while fighting on a side that is fighting because the hegemony disbanded alliances? I'm not sure but I think that logic fails. While the majority of "Karma" people I have talked to are wonderful people, it's ones with your sentiment that are giving a bad name to your side. I cannot speak for others, but I know of not one time inthe year and a half I have served for NATO where we disbanded an alliance, where we did not wave the mahority of surrender terms, etc. Keep in mind I am talking about the 7 wars that were NATO lead.

Again I can't speak for everyone, but your complete lack of faith and trust in the banner under which you fight is baffling. If the hegemony were to rise up again, why would you not knock it down again? And at which point in the future are you going to get bored again and rally the troops anyway? The people on your side need a story to stick to. Either you want change, or you want the same under a different name.

I do not call for painfully harsh terms for Pacifica. Fair terms, painful perhaps, but ultimately terms that fit the "crime", not terms like they imposes upon others.

I reserve my harshest critique and my greatest loathing for the Coalition of Cowards who retreated from this conflict, only to be shamed into this war after one of the few honorable men among other side decided to speak up. Dr Fresh, who I had erroneously lumped together with the traitors, rallied the cowards to stand up and fight, and that is commendable. However, the rest of those people who abandoned NPO only to return due to shame deserve harsh terms and due punishment. Though some might say they are merely the hands and feet of the Hegemony, they have grown to become their own unique brands of "wrong", and deserve to be punished on those merits.

I fought on Pacifica's side for far too long to hate my Pacifican brothers, and even if I think this war is merited, I do not believe they deserve the harshest of terms. Save those for the traitors, the oath-breakers, and the yellow bellied members of the Coalition Of Cowards.

CoC or not, Q was honored, you can spin it any way you like. Maybe if you continue this venom, Ill send you some personal screen shots so you can stop your nonsense.

You catch more flies with honey Margrave. I have nothing against you personally, and I assume you are probably a great guy. But I don't think your calls for death are warranted, and I look forward to proving you wrong. Not all alliances will harbor resentment. I know NATO is moving on regardless of what anyones opinion is. If some consider us cowards, I look forward to the challenge of proving them wrong.

With that, I have work to finish. Its a nice night outside and I need to check on my plant I run. I hope you have a good night too Margrave.

[RandomInterrupt]

You know Random, I agree with your first assertion but you are allowing your bitterness to filter what what I am saying. I know Polaris is different in many respects to many other alliances. I am proud of it, it was a lot of hard work by lots of people to get it to that point. The people within Polaris are a strange mix of personalities, political views, ages, sexes (male, female and unknown at the very least) and aggression levels BUT, apart from few individuals, the people in my alliance are much the same as you, much the same as Pacifica and much the same as everyone else. It is the few individuals you have issue with Random, you know who they are, you rode with them for a long time, you know. It is not Pacifica that is at fault here, if your view is to be accepted, but rather the select few who control every aspect of that alliance. The rank and file are no different to the rank and file of any other alliance (there are exceptions to the rule, I will accept that there are alliances full of strange people)

Polaris has no intention of interference, but I will stand here and hold you to your own standards, standards that I am prepared to hold myself to. I have not supported this war because I do not like the boil-over, out of control nature of the war, I do not like a lot of the people driving the war being recent refugees from Pacifica's mantle of power, and honestly I think you are all mad if you think that kicking the crap out of Pacifica is going to change anything. There are plenty of people waiting in your team to seize control and I can forsee easily that their rule will be no less pleasant for significant portions of the community.

Please do hold me to these standards. I believe I am perfectly within them. And I do feel that at a core level your alliance is different than the NPO. At the top, middle, and bottom. Why? Because I do not believe that Polars would actually be a part of an alliance that would do the things the NPO has over the past year. Yes, I am somewhat bitter, but I do not belief that bitterness has changed my opinion here. All I have said is, the NPO needs surrender terms that fit their crimes, and while you may not admit it here, their crimes are many. I am not (in this venue anyway) calling for their destruction. That would be hypocritical. But to let them off with a slap on the wrist would be to waste the opportunity presented to restore some fun and balance to the game.

I am not a part of Karma nor an official supporter of it because I do agree with you on one aspect. Those who willingly did the NPO's dirsty work have no ability to claim to be Karma incarnate. They simply don't. However others, such as MK, are in wars that I support both in word and with nukes. Perhaps the new boss will be the same as the old boss, but we can not know that now.

Let it all out Random, let the hate consume you, become the DarkSide's Sith Lord you are destined to be... but spare me the crap because I know you are a nice guy

Shhhh, I have a rep here.

If those are the terms, they seem not unlike the unfair terms that you were subjected to..... by a party that wasn't involved in the war? I know what needs to happen to the NPO, so do you, so why saddle the whole alliance with servitude to get the job done when this could be a simple exercise.... it can and you know it.

My terms were just something I came up with off the top of my head as an example of something that did not kill the Pacifican community (if such a thing exists anymore) but removed their ability to continue their abuses. Were I to be a part of the decision of surrender terms I am sure I'd come up with something more appropriate.

Angry Random much. You and I are not part of Karma, why? I am sure you have a reason as much as I do. Your opinion means a lot to a lot of people, use it wisely please. Also Hello.

I think I covered why I am not a part of Karma above. Sometimes I do think my opinion matters to some, othertimes I am less sure. I am a person who has seen most of my work ripped apart or crumbled with atrophy. Your own members post in public that I am a type of person, yet I spent a large percentage of my time attempting to create an alliance that was the opposite. If Polaris thinks I am a person who suffered no dissent, then my legacy must be completely eroded. That is depressing as all hell. Perhaps this is just one member with a rogue opinion, which is fine. I'd be relieved if that were the case.

Sorry if you see it as an attack on your character but I though it was an OCC forum and the problem really exist, I disagree with something about KARMA and what you say? That I'm against them or that I'm a NPO defensor.

I didn't say that at all. Now you are putting words in my mouth. Don't do that.

I keep seeing this argument "NPO did bad things so I can do bad thing too while I'm not as bad as they were"

Two wrongs not make a right.

I didn't say that either. Now you are just lying.

1.Yeah you aren't part of KARMA but is a big deffensor of them and I think you share their ideals. May be I'm wrong may be not.

2.I'm not attacking you, I read your arguments and was dealing with it until you start this "OMG you attacked my character"

3.Elaborate, I'm really interested in see why I'm the reason of gag orders exist.

4.I'm not talking as an NpO member here, this is an OCC forum, and what I'm seeing is that you refuse to tolerate an opposing view doesn't matter what your past history was.

1. Why am I a big "deffensor" of Karma? Because I attempted to correct misinformation being spread about them? And again you put words in my mouth. I do not "share their ideals", whatever that means.

2. Excellent "no u" attack.

3. The reason gag orders exist in alliances is to prevent one rogue member from creating the image that their alliance support or believes in something that isn't true. As stated above, I hope you have an opinion that is not shared amongst most Polars.

4. I still haven't posted anything that could be construed as "refuse(ing) to tolerate an opposing view". Why wouldn't my past matter? You state that I do not tolerate dissent, and my history clearly shows that I am a person who welcomes differing opinions and enjoys debating the merits of.

Out of respect for Grub I will be ending our little exchange here. If you wish to continue hit me up on IRC some night or in private message.

[Margrave]

CoC or not, Q was honored, you can spin it any way you like. Maybe if you continue this venom, Ill send you some personal screen shots so you can stop your nonsense.

You catch more flies with honey Margrave. I have nothing against you personally, and I assume you are probably a great guy. But I don't think your calls for death are warranted, and I look forward to proving you wrong. Not all alliances will harbor resentment. I know NATO is moving on regardless of what anyones opinion is. If some consider us cowards, I look forward to the challenge of proving them wrong.

With that, I have work to finish. Its a nice night outside and I need to check on my plant I run. I hope you have a good night too Margrave.

In your particular case, I would say you have several charges of cowardice to prove wrong. Ask somebody about the way NATO betrayed it's allies in the UJP sometime.

[The Poet]

I still say forced disbandment is the only way to go for 1V/Q/CoC and maybe some other !@#$% alliances too. GET OUT OF MY GAME

[Deadshot]

In your particular case, I would say you have several charges of cowardice to prove wrong. Ask somebody about the way NATO betrayed it's allies in the UJP sometime.

I would but that is over a year and a half ago, before my time playing. I've heard all about it and quite frankly couldn't care. Because it was a year and a half ago. As for the other charges, we are dealing with them as we speak. So don't worry there buddy.

To be quite honest, I speak for myself and for the future of NATO. With leadership changes comes alliance changes. You will soon see that holds true. What an alliance did before I came into its ranks holds little meaning for me. Because it is not something i could change even if i wished to. As for what we have done recently, and for the past year, I can do something about that.

I still say forced disbandment is the only way to go for 1V/Q/CoC and maybe some other !@#$% alliances too. GET OUT OF MY GAME

This is why I will always love MK. Such a stark difference between leadership and members

[The Poet]

I would but that is over a year and a half ago, before my time playing. I've heard all about it and quite frankly couldn't care. Because it was a year and a half ago. As for the other charges, we are dealing with them as we speak. So don't worry there buddy.

To be quite honest, I speak for myself and for the future of NATO. With leadership changes comes alliance changes. You will soon see that holds true. What an alliance did before I came into its ranks holds little meaning for me. Because it is not something i could change even if i wished to. As for what we have done recently, and for the past year, I can do something about that.

This is why I will always love MK. Such a stark difference between leadership and members

Archon is a traitor to his people.

[Homura]

The worst thing about calling the movement "Karma" is that it relies on the idea of moral superiority and not doing anything that would have been protested before. It prevents you from striking down the NPO and their allies with all your vengeance and hate, gaining strength through passion and all that.

See, I didn't have a problem with most of the stuff NPO did (including declaring war on Ordo Verde), until they started pulling OOC crap as an excuse for war, expelling their founders for absurd reasons, and plotted against the alliance that was supposed to be a second NPO of sorts just to suck up to their pathetic allies that just ended up abandoning them anyway. Which were extremely dumb moves in my opinion and the biggest reasons they're in this mess right now. But a lot of what they did actually worked, even though I personally wished for a kinder world.

So, If NPO and its allies get white peace, they're going to want to find a way to get revenge. If they get harsh peace terms, they're going to want revenge even more and will get more help doing it but it's going to take longer. I don't think the people with those "Spirit of '06" C&G sigs are going to want to let the NPO off with a slap on the wrist this time, but one needs to keep in mind that *all* actions have consequences. Don't assume there's a right answer.

[KingSuck]

no peace; eternal war

[Trout]

Well, they'll be bitter after the war, build up a bit, more warz in the future. WHO DOESN'T WANT MORE WARZ?!

[LJ Scott]

Kill them all, God will recognise his own.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Electron Sponge, I dont usually agree with you, but you have been making some good points here.

The argument that demanding "harsh" terms (where harsh has very different meanings depending on who is talking) of the NPO would be hypocrisy is wrong. Claiming that is nothing by propoganda and hyperbole, similar to claiming that it is hypocritical to be against murder yet in favour of the death penalty. There wouldnt be anything particularly hypocritical against imposing on them the same sort of terms they have imposed on others during their reign of terror which by my count lasted about 2 years.

However, that doesnt mean that this should be done either, simply that claiming it must be taken off the table a priori is is nothing but a propoganda ploy that shouldnt be taken seriously. There *are* some good reasons why some of the terms they've given out in the past shouldnt be used *even though it would be just* because the predictable outcome would still be bad.

As an example the fate of the UJP alliances should be considered. Bloodthirsty warmongers, and deserving of their fate (as Margrave proves yet again in this very thread!) AND YET it didnt really work out so well in practice nonetheless. UJP members dispersed all across the planet and became more, not less, dangerous.

In retrospect less "harsh" terms would have actually been more effective, in that case and others. A lesson I hope the alliances who are actually at war with the NPO directly will take to heart when the time does come for them to give terms to their foes.

So neither true white peace, nor the ultra-light terms that people keep referring to incorrectly as white peace, are appropriate - but on the other side forced disbandment and most thoughts along that line are very poor ideas as well. Even if the opponent deserves them, they are just guaranteed to backfire and do more harm than good.

However IMOP forced neutrality might be a better option, if care is taken with the implementation. But again, this is for good or ill something that really only those directly at war with the NPO get a say in, the rest of us can only advise.

[Margrave]

Electron Sponge, I dont usually agree with you, but you have been making some good points here.

The argument that demanding "harsh" terms (where harsh has very different meanings depending on who is talking) of the NPO would be hypocrisy is wrong. Claiming that is nothing by propoganda and hyperbole, similar to claiming that it is hypocritical to be against murder yet in favour of the death penalty. There wouldnt be anything particularly hypocritical against imposing on them the same sort of terms they have imposed on others during their reign of terror which by my count lasted about 2 years.

However, that doesnt mean that this should be done either, simply that claiming it must be taken off the table a priori is is nothing but a propoganda ploy that shouldnt be taken seriously. There *are* some good reasons why some of the terms they've given out in the past shouldnt be used *even though it would be just* because the predictable outcome would still be bad.

As an example the fate of the UJP alliances should be considered. Bloodthirsty warmongers, and deserving of their fate (as Margrave proves yet again in this very thread!) AND YET it didnt really work out so well in practice nonetheless. UJP members dispersed all across the planet and became more, not less, dangerous.

In retrospect less "harsh" terms would have actually been more effective, in that case and others. A lesson I hope the alliances who are actually at war with the NPO directly will take to heart when the time does come for them to give terms to their foes.

So neither true white peace, nor the ultra-light terms that people keep referring to incorrectly as white peace, are appropriate - but on the other side forced disbandment and most thoughts along that line are very poor ideas as well. Even if the opponent deserves them, they are just guaranteed to backfire and do more harm than good.

However IMOP forced neutrality might be a better option, if care is taken with the implementation. But again, this is for good or ill something that really only those directly at war with the NPO get a say in, the rest of us can only advise.

Do not speak on the Unjust Path; your bias stands out far too clearly when it comes to that. OOC attacks or no, you do wrong to define us by blood and blood alone.

[Lennox]

I will not stand and watch myself become the monster i am fighting. True virtues are consistent.

Have you destroyed those monsters yet?

[President Obama]

Do not speak on the Unjust Path; your bias stands out far too clearly when it comes to that. OOC attacks or no, you do wrong to define us by blood and blood alone.

Your "bias"[i.e. thoughts on] what you call the 'Coalition of Cowards' is evident as well. Yet you post on them. I see no problem with Sigrun posting on the UJP despite her disagreeing with them.

[Senes]

Those of you in Karma who's alliances have come back from ruination to rise in this war, please raise your hand.

Turning the war into a lynching will do nothing more than continue along the same path that Bob has already been traveling down. If you support that then it's none of my business, but if you don't want it then you have to fully realize that you don't want it so that you can prevent yourself from creating it.

"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history."

- George Bernard Shaw

[Kevin Cash]

I stand before you today amazed.

As yet another member of the Coalition of Cowards receives an easy, merciful peace, I am stunned to think that within the last few weeks the cries for blood that rang from the heart of the Cyberverse seem to have ended abruptly. I recall with perfect clarity the howls that erupted once the CoC decided to jump ship, only to be shamed back into the conflict by Doctor Fresh of MXCA. I recall the promises of destruction, before and after their decision that Shame>Infra. I saw many notable and influential people declare that these cowards and traitors would be justly punished for their crimes.

I see now nothing but easy peace and pats on the head. Is this how you will reward Oath-Breakers and Cowards, Karma? Are you truly so blinded by idealism that you do not see that these people have betrayed their kindred and in doing so forfeited their right to stand equally amongst the community of nations? I implore you to look at the future you create by rewarding the Cowards such easy peaces!

Karma, you are creating our next war already by leaving these alliances virtually untouched. Instead of finishing this off once and for all you have already composed a chain of events that damn us to face this Coalition of liars and cowards again, because you do not wish to have the "dishonorable behavior" of Pacifica associated with your name? I ask you, what matters most? A Temporary Perception of a small group (Because I know it to be fact from many conversations in IRC that most of the footsoldiers of Karma want harsher terms) that Karma is "Replacing the Hedgemony"? Or doing what is right and ending this once and for all? Stop this foolish and idealistic action. You have already manufactured the next Great Conflict out of the fabric of these White Peace's, do not intensify that coming conflict with even one more easy surrender from Anyone who cowardly and traitorously abandoned their brothers in a time of crisis. Do not be fooled by their sweet words and their easy-to-make promises. Destroy their power, erase their political capital, and end once and for all the stench of their cowardice among the Family of Nations.

No False Peace. No Turning Back.

Destroy them.

sparta, mha, fark, gremlins, top, the rest of citadel (minus og), and of course who can forget our favorite alliance odn

these people ignored their obligations as well

the only difference is they didnt make up for their mistake by later entering to atone for their mistake, each of them ignored their obligations to the so-called 'hegemony' side until the treaties on the karma side finally chained their way up to them so they could betray those who lifted them to the level they are at now (with the exception of the optional defense network who simply jump ship every time a big war comes their way)

may i ask, margrave, what sort of punishment you have in mind for these people, who are arguably worse that those who atoned (ie admitted) for their mistake by entering anyway?

or are they somehow justified because this thread only exists for you to rage at the other side for being 'evil' or whatever the hell it is you actually believe, and this is merely a convenient cover for your true feelings?

i also enjoyed the part were you raged at the fact that innocent alliances who merely honored their word got white peace. what crime are these alliances guilty of, a number of them small protectorates who, ignorant of global politics, are entering to defend the only friends they know. seriously, the op makes you look like the biggest fool if one only takes a minute to read between the lines, but then, that was alwas who you really were, right, margrave?

(in before ad-hominem attacks)

[King Tom]

In your particular case, I would say you have several charges of cowardice to prove wrong. Ask somebody about the way NATO betrayed it's allies in the UJP sometime.

LOL

Ya we could have fought with \M/ and betrayed are allies on the the other side. No mater what we did some one would have been mad at nato. And scream we betrayed them.

We had 3 mdp with alliance in the UJP and 5 mdp with the other side. 5 is more than 3 so we went, were most of are treaties were.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Look Margrave, I have no beef with former UJP members. Some are really good folks, and they were then too.

But the UJP *alliances* as alliances had been begging for a thrashing for a long time before that point. I spent way too much time dealing with them to forget what they were, and if the war hadnt ended so quickly and so poorly I probably would have left my own alliance to fight against them then.

Obviously you arent going to agree with my perspective, any more than I am going to with yours, but understand that just as you have a right to try and propound your view I have the same right to my own.

I dont think you will disagree with the core of my point in bringing UJP up though - the disbandment of those alliances, in the end, merely resulted in a lot of former UJP members with every reason to carry a grudge dispersed through alliances all across the planet, which was one of several converging factors leading to the abrupt loss of station the NPO is now experiencing. Imposing the same kind of terms again is likely to lead to the same outcome, no?

[Kevin Cash]

LOL

Ya we could have fought with \M/ and betrayed are allies on the the other side. No mater what we did some one would have been mad at nato. And scream we betrayed them.

We had 3 mdp with alliance in the UJP and 5 mdp with the other side. 5 is more than 3 so we went, were most of are treaties were.

youre supposed to declare on whoever of your allies is first attacked; if allies on both sides enter at the same time, you declare neutrality.

because if you dont enter when youre first supposed to and wait until your allies wind up on the other side, standing with them doesnt mean jack !@#$, and bringing it up later is a logically invalid defense, as they would have all been on the same side had you any sense of honor.

i havent recently read the exact timeline of events in that war, but im pretty sure \m/ was in there early.

[Kevin Cash]

Look Margrave, I have no beef with former UJP members. Some are really good folks, and they were then too.

But the UJP *alliances* as alliances had been begging for a thrashing for a long time before that point. I spent way too much time dealing with them to forget what they were, and if the war hadnt ended so quickly and so poorly I probably would have left my own alliance to fight against them then.

Obviously you arent going to agree with my perspective, any more than I am going to with yours, but understand that just as you have a right to try and propound your view I have the same right to my own.

I dont think you will disagree with the core of my point in bringing UJP up though - the disbandment of those alliances, in the end, merely resulted in a lot of former UJP members with every reason to carry a grudge dispersed through alliances all across the planet, which was one of several converging factors leading to the abrupt loss of station the NPO is now experiencing. Imposing the same kind of terms again is likely to lead to the same outcome, no?

it will, but probably not against those actually responsible, much like npo has become a scapegoat for a lot of the bad stuff that happened in that war

[Margrave]

Look Margrave, I have no beef with former UJP members. Some are really good folks, and they were then too.

But the UJP *alliances* as alliances had been begging for a thrashing for a long time before that point. I spent way too much time dealing with them to forget what they were, and if the war hadnt ended so quickly and so poorly I probably would have left my own alliance to fight against them then.

Obviously you arent going to agree with my perspective, any more than I am going to with yours, but understand that just as you have a right to try and propound your view I have the same right to my own.

I dont think you will disagree with the core of my point in bringing UJP up though - the disbandment of those alliances, in the end, merely resulted in a lot of former UJP members with every reason to carry a grudge dispersed through alliances all across the planet, which was one of several converging factors leading to the abrupt loss of station the NPO is now experiencing. Imposing the same kind of terms again is likely to lead to the same outcome, no?

I would really like for people to understand that I am crying out against the lenient terms. I don't believe in forcing alliances to disband. But I believe that due punishment should be given to all of the alliances on the other side of the war, and I am shocked and angry (As MANY are) that some of them are getting away so lightly.

[Senes]

But I believe that due punishment should be given to all of the alliances on the other side of the war, and I am shocked and angry (As MANY are) that some of them are getting away so lightly.

Punishment for what, treaty activations... or lack thereof? Fighting too much while fighting too little maybe?

It could be argued that NPO attacked OV and thus is the aggressor in its respective conflict. But then they called two friends, and they each called two friends, who called two friends of their own..... basically somewhere around ~85% of the war right now is happening because it's just what we do here on Bob. Think of it as the ubiquitous parties on TV where a couple of people see a good occasion, and then all of a sudden loud music starts thumping and drinks are being distributed amongst hundreds of people.

Or another example from my earlier days... one cowboy punches another, then all of a sudden the entire saloon is fighting. Not all of us feel emotionally distraught over it.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Senes

[Detlev]

As a foot soldier of Karma (what a lame name that is), I oppose mercy for the enemy. I want to see these alliances broken and butchered. Especially NPO. Eternal-ZI for all of the IOs and trolls and disband the alliance.

[Kevin Cash]

As a foot soldier of Karma (what a lame name that is), I oppose mercy for the enemy. I want to see these alliances broken and butchered. Especially NPO. Eternal-ZI for all of the IOs and trolls and disband the alliance.

the irony is that it is people with your extreme mentality that validated npos fears and caused them to act the way they did

when ov conspired with blackstone, it is this mentality which affirms their fears that they were defending their very right to exist