Doug Falkner Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Then you can hardly blame everyone else for you taking your eye off the ball. It was your allies that started the war, not anyone on the Karma side. Aren't your allies required to inform you about their intention to go to war under the Continuum treaty? As for the first question, I don't think we're blaming anyone for anything. I was just clearing up the situation. As for the second question, that's above my pay grade to answer. I'll leave that to Jimmy, Fresh, Ed, or Gopher to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 No, not at all. I just found it rather amusing how quickly they declared on NPO. A few nations hitting peace mode. Another hour wouldn't have hurt. There were terms on the table, and a time set to accept or deny them. Though, I recall one of the terms being purposely vague, with no intention of ever being cleared up. Even when asked directly about that term, those in the room shrugged it off or ignored it. A time frame that more than expired when war was declared. When Moo was gone, nothing happened, and whether he was stalling or not isn't really the issue, but talks were ongoing, and were not finished. Could have easily waited a bit to let them run their course, which still would have had the same result most likely, but would have made Karma (or OV allies if you prefer) look a bit better. You don't see any difference between NPO and OV being attacked, with respect to discussions that were happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 As for the first question, I don't think we're blaming anyone for anything. I was just clearing up the situation. As for the second question, that's above my pay grade to answer. I'll leave that to Jimmy, Fresh, Ed, or Gopher to answer. Yes - Fresh, Ed, and myself were aware that military action in regards to the situation was a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 This terms are pretty fair. Its only 10,000 tech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 You don't see any difference between NPO and OV being attacked, with respect to discussions that were happening? Two wrongs do not make a right. Isn't that what this war is all about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Make no mistake, I'm with NPO in this war, for the very tiny bit that my nation is worth, but I don't condone their war against OV. As far as I know, they didn't even let their close allies know about it in advance. That's a guess, though. I'm not exactly "in the loop" with 1V or even Echelon anymore. I am supporting NPO, but I don't support NPO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossGarner Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) The spirit of the deal, however, is present. This will not be misunderstood. Because of the alliances on the otherside, I agree it probably will; but vague and poorly worded peace agreements have in the past led to bad peaces post-war, with LUE's surrender to GOONS in GWII and FAN's surrender to the NPO being the most prominent examples. EDIT: Also hello former Queen. Edited May 7, 2009 by RossGarner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fatbeard Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) Damn, MCXA, you've got to decommission everything and pay alot of tech (well, i guess it's not alot for a big alliance like you, but it still seems like alot to a wee little nation like mine). Too bad you weren't lucky enough to be at war with NSO, STA, or NpO; they're very nice people when it comes to surrendering to them. Better luck next time. o/ KARMA Edited May 7, 2009 by Captain Fatbeard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) This terms are pretty fair. Its only 10,000 tech. Yeah, let me put this into perspective: The terms given to Browncoats in the staged Bubblegum war--which were the only part of the war that was NOT pre-arranged--were 5000 tech. At the time Browncoats had 43 members. As already pointed out, MCXA could send this amount of tech within a week. Edit: was not Edited May 7, 2009 by Schattenmann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im317 Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 cant take the time to read all of this but i have to say i am surprised by the light terms here and am disappointed that the hegemony alliances are trying to call them harsh. not based on previous hegemony terms but by the fact that these really are far better terms then anyone could have reasonably expected. even propaganda wise calling these harsh is not going to work, i mean what will you call the more harsh terms should they come? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I am supporting NPO, but I don't support NPO. I fight for NPO, because NPO was the best and oldest ally that ALL of my past alliances ever had. I can still support the power that lent me their strength so many times, without supporting their recent actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I fight for NPO, because NPO was the best and oldest ally that ALL of my past alliances ever had. I can still support the power that lent me their strength so many times, without supporting their recent actions. No, not really. On sooooo many levels. Not the least of which is that NPO's aggressive war against OV and OV's allies is not some wild leap by NPO, but simply a continuation of NPO's attitudes and policies that you've also managed to unabashedly support with your every breath and very life. It's alliance leaders and nation rulers like you that would be best served to just join NPO rather than bother with the technicalities of running a nation or alliance that's not part of NPO like a member of NPO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 No, not at all. I just found it rather amusing how quickly they declared on NPO. A few nations hitting peace mode. Another hour wouldn't have hurt. There were terms on the table, and a time set to accept or deny them. Though, I recall one of the terms being purposely vague, with no intention of ever being cleared up. Even when asked directly about that term, those in the room shrugged it off or ignored it.When Moo was gone, nothing happened, and whether he was stalling or not isn't really the issue, but talks were ongoing, and were not finished. Could have easily waited a bit to let them run their course, which still would have had the same result most likely, but would have made Karma (or OV allies if you prefer) look a bit better. Make no mistake, I'm with NPO in this war, for the very tiny bit that my nation is worth, but I don't condone their war against OV. As far as I know, they didn't even let their close allies know about it in advance. That's a guess, though. I'm not exactly "in the loop" with 1V or even Echelon anymore. Dude, the NPO started a war! The fact that Karma was nice enough to attempt peace talks at all after the NPO attacked is far too generous in my opinion. When someone attacks me or my ally I'll hit them back as hard as I can as soon as I can and worry about being nice to the enemy later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Took the liberty to correct your post. Those are actually more powerful than you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossGarner Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 No, not really. On sooooo many levels. Not the least of which is that NPO's aggressive war against OV and OV's allies is not some wild leap by NPO, but simply a continuation of NPO's attitudes and policies that you've also managed to unabashedly support with your every breath and very life.It's alliance leaders and nation rulers like you that would be best served to just join NPO rather than bother with the technicalities of running a nation or alliance that's not part of NPO like a member of NPO. Loyalty to ones allies is a quality I think should be reinforced, especially when those allies protected you from day one, and have looked out for you from our humble beginnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Andrew IV Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Sorry if I'm a little late & the discussion has already moved on. There seems to be a lot of hammering on about the "absolution" of the past sins of FOK, Sparta, & others by dropping their treaties at the last minute. In their defense, at least they have realised their support of the Hegemony was misplaced. A good step in right direction. But if the tables are turned and one day their support of such harsh terms in the past comes back to haunt them would it be unfair to them? No. Karma isn't perfect. I believe some of the former Hegemonic alliances that now fly the banner of Karma would like to take back some of their actions. Thus their implied support for what would later become "Karma" in the time leading up to this war. I believe if roles were reversed alliances like FOK & Sparta would accept reasonable reps knowing that their hands have not always remained blood free. In what I have come to know of them I strongly feel they have the requisite honor to do so. Accepting responsibility is important, trying to deflect it is shameful. With that said, I am very happy to see MCXA receive peace and wholeheartedly wish them the best in their rebuilding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) Loyalty to ones allies is a quality I think should be reinforced, especially when those allies protected you from day one, and have looked out for you from our humble beginnings. If you are only ever going to look out for yourself then what you said would be correct. If you plan on taking even a little glimpse of the world outside your alliance then loyalty must be weighted against what else your protector has done. If they protected one (your alliance) but wrongly destroyed, bullied, and intimidated twenty others should you still have loyalty? Edited May 7, 2009 by Ragashingo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Loyalty to ones allies is a quality I think should be reinforced, especially when those allies protected you from day one, and have looked out for you from our humble beginnings. However that loyalty must be examined after other alliances, allied with the NPO, were cast aside and left to die, even though they were completely loyal to the NPO. Such as \m/. NPO let my old alliance die when we were completely loyal to NPO, and they let us die without so much as a second thought. So you'll excuse me if I don't believe in being loyal to the NPO, because I've seen how they treat their allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Loyalty to ones allies is a quality I think should be reinforced, especially when those allies protected you from day one, and have looked out for you from our humble beginnings. Qualities that got the STA smashed and required to pay more in reps than MCXA is being asked to pay here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Loyalty to ones allies is a quality I think should be reinforced, especially when those allies protected you from day one, and have looked out for you from our humble beginnings. Lady Gaga's nation does not belong to any alliance that is or has been allied to NPO, and her nation has never benefited from NPO. Her existence is in support of NPO's actions in the past--actions which have made it so easy for so many to declare war on them or abandon them--and in direct support of their current aggressive war. Like MCXA's war, Lady Gaga's is not loyalty to an ally, but loyalty to a system: NPO's system. It is a symbolic stand in defense of viceroys, wars without end, wars amidst peace talks, PZI, treaty entanglements, ownership of color spheres, spying, and the list goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodivine Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I agree perhaps we should have been paying a bit more attention but as I just noted we were a bit busy with internal affairs. Democracy seems to have had bad timing for us. Due to your ties in Both Q and 1V you're suppose to be informed of any military action the other takes. So NPO didn't communicate this to it's allies that it was going to go to war? Seems that would mean that NPO violated their obligations to their allies in these blocks if that happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Ragashingo, Tygaland, Caliph: B-b-b-b-but that was different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Ragashingo, Tygaland, Caliph:B-b-b-b-but that was different. Ain't it always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Just got on and saw this topic...... MCXA, you guys are very honorable allies, standing by your friends when they needed you most. frankly, we were not expecting much of a fight from your membership, but they had us believe otherwise. Even though the odds were not in their favor, each member gave it his all and fought till the every end. o/ MCXA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Meh, they're just standard terms. I coulda swore I seen 6 digit tech terms before. Nothing to get worked up over. Good luck to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts