astronaut jones Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 no stating how these terms are harsh, even though they have to pay their own tech and it's not being bought from them? man. what a difference a day makes, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parandiac Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 No, TSI took the first "heavy" (at least for this war) terms.ahh. missed those terms in the fray, what with all the rebuilding projects i've been planning in the shelter under my capitol building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinKiac Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 10k tech reps only? Well, to be fair, we did knock them out of sanction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 If they don't aid alliances listed under the Hegemony side on the Karma War wiki page then I'd say they should be fine. It is not hard to find the answers when you truly wish to. I'm sorry. I've been lead to believe that not every AA fighting continuum members, etc. is actually Karma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 no stating how these terms are harsh, even though they have to pay their own tech and it's not being bought from them?man. what a difference a day makes, huh? MCXA != TSI and other alliances on the hegemony side, MCXA was a part of the real hegemony, not just an ally defending an ally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Just saying it is a bit misleading to say they are independent as some sort of praise to VE, yet seems they are not quite. Any peace terms short of white peace infringe on an alliance, mhawk. I believe the comment was in reference to a lack of a viceroy and all the other trimmings such as banning people from government that you and your allies so loved to impose on vanquished foes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinKiac Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 And another one does, and another one does...Thank you to VE, AZTEC, and ARES for keeping us in their minds. We are glad to be making such great strides toward freedom. Very nice job on fair and reasonable terms, as well. Oh god Doitzel, did you have to change your avatar. I much prefer looking at the other one, and considering I like your posts I have to see it a lot. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's up to the signatories of course, but:Conflicting agreements, such as surrender terms, don't excuse you from your defense obligations. The Mobius Accords contain no clause for suspension, only cancellation. I suppose it depends what the other signatories think - assuming there will be any left. I do not think Continuum allies would have any issues with that nor would they seek to put MCXA in any awkward situation regarding the clauses. There is nothing to e-lawyer about Mobius accord and terms of peace. We are proud to have fought beside MCXA and I feel MCXA has upheld its obligations and broken from the past record it was infamous for while it had a different government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deruvian Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I'm sorry. I've been lead to believe that not every AA fighting continuum members, etc. is actually Karma. For the purposes of brevity in announcements that involve non-aggression or no aiding they should be unless you want us to list every single alliance we don't want you aiding. If we had to do that then MCXA would have had to wait a longer time for peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octovanyo Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 You ? I know by that you don't mean MCXA; last time I checked we (MCXA) did not cancel any treaties.Gre canceled on us. TOP canceled on us. VE canceled on us. So yeah...what treaties did we cancel, seriously, double check your facts. o/ MCXA o/ Peace oh what is this oh my it looks like MCXA canceling a treaty http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...677&hl=MCXA check your facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelchael Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 i thought karma's kick was to stop the senseless terms of mass payments of tech, etc. good to see a reversal of this policy, especially since it goes right back to embracing what you're fighting against.everyone that was in government when we sided with NPO is now running TSO. after ejecting them, we got dragged into this because of long-standing treaties. but i guess you watched the documentary already. I'd advise you against trolling your own surrender thread. As others have pointed out, these are extremely lenient payments that are more symbolic than anything else. 5% of your tech? That's a heck of a lot cheaper than continuing the war for another day. Have some faith that your government actually may have made the right decision today. If we wanted to follow typical hegemony surrender terms, it should've been 200k tech and either sentencing your peace mode nations to ZI or forcing them to refrain from aiding the rest of their alliance for the duration of these terms. I'd also advise you against trying to rewrite history when it's still fresh in so many peoples' minds. TSO wasn't 100% of MCXA's government, and MCXA didn't eject them. You also can't blame them for everything MCXA ever did. Further, this is about the current conflict, not the BLEU Revenge Wars. If this was about revenge and making you suffer, you'd see harsher terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Falkner Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Majority of people that were involved in that decision for MCXA fight alongside Karma If I am not mistaken? You good sir are right on that count, I was going to bring it up myself but you beat me to the punch. As for the person who said we ran people out of the alliance, they in fact ran each other out. They got a little angry at each other and started expulsion proceedings against each other. I know it sounds crazy but that's what happened. If I was making stuff up, I wouldn't make up something that implausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) I'm sorry. I've been lead to believe that not every AA fighting continuum members, etc. is actually Karma. The only information required to answer your query is who is opposing the Karma side. Those alliances listed under Hegemony on the Karma War wiki page are those alliances and are the ones MCXA should avoid aiding. Who makes up Karma is not really relevant to the situation you enquired about. If MCXA avoids aiding those alliances listed under Hegemony on the wiki page then they should be fine. Edited May 7, 2009 by Tygaland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 oh what is this oh my it looks like MCXA canceling a treatyhttp://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...677&hl=MCXA check your facts An ODP and a PEACE treaty? that's the best you can find? we both know those means about the same as toilet paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 MCXA != TSI and other alliances on the hegemony side, MCXA was a part of the real hegemony, not just an ally defending an ally. Oh, okay.. so mcxa wasn't one of NPOs allies and they weren't defending them either. that makes everything better now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooner Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Any peace terms short of white peace infringe on an alliance, mhawk.I believe the comment was in reference to a lack of a viceroy and all the other trimmings such as banning people from government that you and your allies so loved to impose on vanquished foes. Tygaland beat me to the response. He is correct. We think MCXA can make their own choices without a guiding hand even though they may need one. They were given some much needed advice during the war and will receive much after. We hope to see MCXA solve their issues internally without outside assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) everyone has been getting white peace: no terms. everyone just stops fighting. MCXA is basically the first alliance to take one in the keister, so to speak. SSSW18 received the first non-white peace, while TSI got heavy reps as well. Technically TPF paid reps to NSO as well, but I don't really count that dollar. 10,000 tech hardly repairs their betrayal of BLEU. It's half the tech MCXA received from Polaris. I suppose the other half is probably in TSO. Boy, that Polar tech sure does get around. Edit: Given the relative size of the alliances involved, I would suggest that these reps are easier than TSI's actually. Edited May 7, 2009 by Haflinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEd Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Funnily enough everyone else on planet bob knew that war was coming. - Basically your claiming you were blindsighted by a train that had been tooting its horn for the last mile until it hit you.Also you're implying that if you knew a war was coming that you would have choosen different treaties to cancel. Sorry, the MCXA doesn't have its own Spy Network to feed it every other alliances plans and intel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octovanyo Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 An ODP and a PEACE treaty? that's the best you can find? we both know those means about the same as toilet paper. True but he didn't say what kind of treaty just treaty in general Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I love these terms. o7 Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy2e Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) Funnily enough everyone else on planet bob knew that war was coming. - Basically your claiming you were blindsighted by a train that had been tooting its horn for the last mile until it hit you.Also you're implying that if you knew a war was coming that you would have choosen different treaties to cancel. Seriously? Clearly you have never had to replace and stabilize a entire government in 3 weeks. The treaty re-evaluation was my personal project and as the person running it I am sure i would have known. Edited May 7, 2009 by Jimmy2e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deruvian Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Boy, that Polar tech sure does get around. Nueva Vida is secretly Polar 2.0. Look at all the former Polars in our gov. That tech is back in the family Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naamah Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 yes, TSI had terms: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...c=56700&hl= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 oh what is this oh my it looks like MCXA canceling a treatyhttp://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...677&hl=MCXA check your facts Two treaties actually. Nevertheless, those treaties were not cancelled - for my part at least - in anticipation of a future conflict. We did not enter into conflict with those two alliances during this episode, nor do I think that these two ODPs would have had the power to prevent a global war or our entry into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Oh, okay.. so mcxa wasn't one of NPOs allies and they weren't defending them either.that makes everything better now. No, MCXA was in Q AND 1V, the Q/1V alliances should be punished with respectable reps, where the alliances who were not directly involved shouldn't have had to pay reps whatsoever, since they were simply honoring treaties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts