Angrator Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 see, that is where you have harsh terms being painted in a single brush, when in fact, harsh terms is relevant to the crimes committed. much as the harsh terms of Polaris were deemed appropriate for the crimes they committed, NPO has committed many, many, many more. For example, a surrender term for NPO could include having to pay back every single rep they ever collected, is appropriate. sure that would be hundreds of thousands of tech and billions in money. but if that is how much they collected, is it truly a harsh term? Wow! This idea wins. I would definitely support this. No, magicninja. Nobody gets your argument. ES isn't a warmonger, NPO is, was, and always will be. ES shouldn't be punished, the NPO should be. Case closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) So you agree that Sponge and NPO have no responsibility for the disbanding of those alliances? i have been stating that this entire thread..... Wow! This idea wins. I would definitely support this. No, magicninja. Nobody gets your argument. ES isn't a warmonger, NPO is, was, and always will be. ES shouldn't be punished, the NPO should be. Case closed. dude, even i state that ES was a warmonger and most likely still is. Sponge as a Polar Emperor could be a heavy-handed diplomat. Edited May 16, 2009 by Dochartaigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 i have been stating that this entire thread..... Then why you arguing with me? That's all I've been saying. Also, Angrator takes the Double Standard route. Classy. I guess that's not one of the things karma is fighting to abolish from PB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Then why you arguing with me? That's all I've been saying. your posts were somewhat confusing due to you seemingly flip-flopping from agreeing with him to stating that since others don't agree with him, should he be punished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 your posts were somewhat confusing due to you seemingly flip-flopping from agreeing with him to stating that since others don't agree with him, should he be punished. I was asking questions not really stating anything. I think my opinion was obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrator Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 dude, even i state that ES was a warmonger and most likely still is. Sponge as a Polar Emperor could be a heavy-handed diplomat. Yeah maybe you're right. I suppose I just have a soft spot for dictators who fell from power and who are fighting back against the powers that brought him down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deerokus Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) As a reroll I wish to clarify some issues! \m/ was destroyed by a number of factors. During the war new leaders such as Chairman Hal and Virillus had just taken over, leaders who were fairly inept in comparison to the departed leaders who had built the alliance up, and also seemed to me at least to lack an emotional attachment and understanding of the alliance's culture. During the war itself, morale wasn't helped by the fact that where we had fought alongside our allies almost all of our own 'allies' had bailed on us or even joined the opposing side, simply to save their own skins. Then the OOC farce broke out. Virillus took it upon himself to announce that \m/ was surrendering, and then abandoned the alliance to join one of the alliances who had betrayed us! A great example of leadership you will agree. I am not sure who actually took this decision, but the important point here is that this was against the wishes of a majority of the alliance, as I recall, as most of us were enjoying the war, and more importantly, we were suddenly abandoning our allies, and we appeared to be betraying them. Various other UJP alliances did the same, however no one had a clue what was going on, our military commander during the war had dropped us in it, and a number of factions developed and started arguing with each other over the rights and wrongs of the OOC issue, our allies and so on. This destroyed any semblance of morale and soon swathes of members left, some of them were dedicated players who had left to continue the war when Virillus surrendered, others weren't. At this point what was left was a shell, and it had been coming for a long time before that war. The terms were the coup de grace but they merely confirmed the inevitable, but really that was all. There was no possibility or point in doing a FAN, really, although there were a few of us who kept the \m/ flag until the destruction of our nations. Bearing in mind everything after the OOC event happened in the space of less than 24 hours, I'm not sure any alliance would have survived such events, at least in any recognisbale or worthwhile form. I expect this type of thing is the typical cause of disbandments. Edited May 16, 2009 by jonny cardboard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Plainview Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Hmmm I'm gonna have to agree with Sponge on this one. No one can force your alliance to disband, if you don't like the peace terms (whatever they may be: disband, pay tech, no beer before 5 o'clock, eat your vegetables) man-up grow a pair and keep on fighting for what you believe in until favorable terms are offered or until you win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozaffar Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Hmmm, my memory must be messing with me, I just totally forgot about Sponge imposing viceroys for like a year on alliances, getting alliances to pay heavy reperations for basically just honoring treaty obligations, going to war for minor infractions of (heavy) surrender terms, engaging in alliances in perpetual wars and keeping scores of people on PZI. Yeah Sponge is completely as bad as the NPO (if not worse) and we are all hypocrites for questioning the benevolent NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozaffar Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) -double post- Edited May 16, 2009 by Mozaffar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Khan Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 If you want an even better example of never giving in than FAN or Vox, look at Fark. They were attacked pretty much from the get go and at war for so long that only VietFAN can even really compare. And you know what? They're still here while GOONS isn't (well, old GOONS at least ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alter Leader Nabla Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 ITT : I Bawww that you Bawww so stop Bawwwing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 This reminds me of NPO's claims of GW1 victory thread. It however lacked the awesomeness of bawwwwing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 This reminds me of NPO's claims of GW1 victory thread. It however lacked the awesomeness of bawwwwing. At least this one presents some interesting points of argument. That thread was based on a made up definition of winning a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Like I said, this thread is more awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninja Colt Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 For example, a surrender term for NPO could include having to pay back every single rep they ever collected, is appropriate. sure that would be hundreds of thousands of tech and billions in money. but if that is how much they collected, is it truly a harsh term? 92,100 Tech and $500,000. Couldn't find the surrender terms from the Polar and Citrus Wars, but they couldn't be a much anyway. Were you expecting more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 92,100 Tech and $500,000.Couldn't find the surrender terms from the Polar and Citrus Wars, but they couldn't be a much anyway. Were you expecting more? Now this is interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 92,100 Tech and $500,000.Couldn't find the surrender terms from the Polar and Citrus Wars, but they couldn't be a much anyway. Were you expecting more? $800 000 000 from The Legion after GW3. http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/GW3_Leg...Surrender_terms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninja Colt Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Ah, I had a hard time finding that one. Still, that $800,000,000 was divided amongst the Initiative, not Pacifica solely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chet Ubet Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Sponge did it again with his handsome smart self,anyway I have to agree if \m/ or Gen[m]ay were that good of alliances they should of kept fighting,I'm sure they would of had peace by now especially with the karma war Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincongrad Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 An alliance disbands when it has lost the will to live, not when outside factors force it to. Speaking as one who has been in an alliance which came back from the brink, I know this. We were fortunate in that we found a way out without having to resort to months of guerilla warfare. When our leadership disbanded many general members were ready to fight, however when the government members who had not been part of the disbandment decision got online/back from their LoAs we were able to stabilize the situation and realize that the disbanding government had not fully explored all possibilities for terms. Even so, those disbanding government members could have decided to fight on. It was their will, not NPO's aggression, which almost caused the destruction of the alliance. NPO were simply the catalyst. So yes, the OP is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rajistani Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Thank you E_S for restoring my faith and re-proving to me that you are worth being in my sig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Every time I'm absent from these boards for a while, I'm shocked upon returning at how hostile and arrogant people are. It's glorious. Keep up the good work, men! As far as the discussion goes, Jonny Cardboard said the truth. Thank you, sir. Good work. 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.