Proportionality: reps and the new NPO myth that we are "as bad as them."

[Nizzle]

If you were part of Karma, you could see the discussion on this matter. This wasn't just from RoK. This was a consensus that came from a 5 day long discussion on terms.

I'm glad I'm not part of Karma, especially with penalties for nations in PM and aggressive nations getting reps.

[Ninja Colt]

Just trying to clear some of the confusion on what's what and who's who and who did wut blah blah.

By looking at those two responses, I presume then that A: This offer came from Karma, not RoK and B: You yourself are not part of Karma?

MK has only been fighting against TPF and briefly ML this whole war.

[Bob Janova]

So apparently, if i am getting this correct, the terms are based off previous terms that you didn't agree with, but you are now condoning these terms? Yes, giving them equally "bad" terms as they have given to other alliances is Karma, but will a form of Karma not come for you now? You might think it is different, but it is not. You are still giving !@#$ terms and people will still oppose them. The cycle will continue as long as you let it.

Hermes

Yes it is. Locking up a murderer and locking up an innocent man are different, even though the action is the same. Similarly, giving harsh terms to an innocent alliance and giving harsh terms to the NPO in recognition of their long history of 'crimes' are entirely different – if indeed the terms finally offered are harsh, which we don't know yet.

[Roadie]

MK has only been fighting against TPF and briefly ML this whole war.

That wasn't what I intended to ask, but I can understand how it came across like that. Poor choice of words fail is fail.

[Roadie]

Yes it is. Locking up a murderer and locking up an innocent man are different, even though the action is the same. Similarly, giving harsh terms to an innocent alliance and giving harsh terms to the NPO in recognition of their long history of 'crimes' are entirely different – if indeed the terms finally offered are harsh, which we don't know yet.

This gives me a fantastic idea. Next time we go to war against someone, I'm going to try to get us to call it a Police Action instead of a war so we don't have to DoW. Boy howdy could we get some rip-roarin'-elawyerin' done on that little dilly.

[Bob]

I'm glad I'm not part of Karma, especially with penalties for nations in PM and aggressive nations getting reps.

I'm glad you aren't either, what with your attitude of superiority and all. People should definitely be forgiven what they have done in the past blindly and not even consider the possibility that they will do it again in the future

Edited May 26, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris

[AirMe]

Just trying to clear some of the confusion on what's what and who's who and who did wut blah blah.

By looking at those two responses, I presume then that A: This offer came from Karma, not RoK and B: You yourself are not part of Karma?

Yes, MK is part of Karma, however, each front sets their own terms. Since MK is not engaged on that front, our input gets outweighed by those who are actually fighting. It, for the most part has worked out well for us as long as communication stays open. Its when the comm lines go down is the issue and you see things like the Valhalla thread happen.

I'm glad I'm not part of Karma, especially with penalties for nations in PM and aggressive nations getting reps.

You should talk to your allies in Athens. They are heavily engaged with the NPO and supported this move.

[Hermes]

Yes it is. Locking up a murderer and locking up an innocent man are different, even though the action is the same. Similarly, giving harsh terms to an innocent alliance and giving harsh terms to the NPO in recognition of their long history of 'crimes' are entirely different – if indeed the terms finally offered are harsh, which we don't know yet.

To the NPO, the ones giving out the terms, they were not innocent, hence the DoW. At the time of the events, each alliance looked guilty of something (not saying i agree with most of the crap) but from the perspective of the attacking alliance(s) they did look guilty, as the NPO does now.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Hermes

[AirMe]

EDIT: You edited on me

Edited May 26, 2009 by AirMe

[Nizzle]

I'm glad you aren't either, what with your attitude of superiority and all. People should definitely be forgiven what they have done in the past blindly and not even consider the possibility that they will do it again in the future

Now it's superiority? I thought it was having a personal view on how things should be handled. I'm also getting tired of hearing the last sentence, too. Here's a big clue: Don't let them do it in the future. Meager reps, threats towards PM nations...they don't prevent future action. If anything, they inflame and unite an alliance towards seeking revenge.

Yes, MK is part of Karma, however, each front sets their own terms. Since MK is not engaged on that front, our input gets outweighed by those who are actually fighting. It, for the most part has worked out well for us as long as communication stays open. Its when the comm lines go down is the issue and you see things like the Valhalla thread happen.

It was my understanding the commo lines were open for the Valhalla thread, but you felt the need to flame on anyway. (Of course, they may not have been open. I was assured by a member of STA that there was a long thread discussing the Valhalla terms on some secret Karma board.) Which I don't understand, since you admit each front sets their own terms. I just can't nail down your beliefs, and that's very alarming to me since I thought I had them nailed down. It's crazy how the outcome of this war has changed the views of so many.

You should talk to your allies in Athens. They are heavily engaged with the NPO and supported this move.

Why should I speak with them? If they thought it appropriate or not is their own business, and I dare not go after them to enforce my own beliefs. You must have me confused for some of your own allies in that sense.

I merely stated I am glad I was not party to this. I'm sorry I struck such a nerve. Do let me know how penalizing nations in peace mode goes towards securing a surrender...and if you get all of those reps. I don't think you will get anything positive out of it, but that's just my opinion.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Nizzle

[neneko]

To the NPO, the ones giving out the terms, they were not innocent, hence the DoW. At the time of the events, each alliance looked guilty of something (not saying i agree with most of the crap) but from the perspective of the attacking alliance(s) they did look guilty, as the NPO does now.

What NPO did wrong was not simply that they demanded reps. It's that they extorted reps for non-existant crimes. When alliances that only went into the war because of a defensive treaty get to pay more tech than their whole alliance own then something is wrong.

You claim that the guilt is subjective and it is to some degree but are you honestly saying that you can't see any objective difference betwen what NPO have done and what MK or STA did last war you're blind as a bat.

Edited May 26, 2009 by neneko

[AirMe]

It was my understanding the commo lines were open for the Valhalla thread, but you felt the need to flame on anyway. (Of course, they may not have been open. I was assured by a member of STA that there was a long thread discussing the Valhalla terms on some secret Karma board.) Which I don't understand, since you admit each front sets their own terms. I just can't nail down your beliefs, and that's very alarming to me since I thought I had them nailed down. It's crazy how the outcome of this war has changed the views of so many.

As I stated many times in that thread, I was posting out of frustration and respected the decision of Umbrella to offer the generous terms. Then it fired up again with the superior and condescending tone of a certain alliance.

You can make a decision and I can respect that, but that sure as hell doesn't mean I have to like it when I have perfectly valid reasons for disliking an alliance. Which is a concept that I have noticed you just can't grasp because it keeps coming up with you thread after thread after thread.

From this point on, I am just going to agree to disagree with you.

[Nizzle]

As I stated many times in that thread, I was posting out of frustration and respected the decision of Umbrella to offer the generous terms. Then it fired up again with the superior and condescending tone of a certain alliance.

You can make a decision and I can respect that, but that sure as hell doesn't mean I have to like it when I have perfectly valid reasons for disliking an alliance. Which is a concept that I have noticed you just can't grasp because it keeps coming up with you thread after thread after thread.

From this point on, I am just going to agree to disagree with you.

It's hard to accept someone's dislike for an alliance, and therefor the terms issued, when they do it in such an inflammatory manner. And yes, that does illicit an inflammatory response as it feels like having a knife stuck in your back.

Now, when you phrase your disagreement civilly it's a different story. I haven't had issue with others who have done so. You are entirely correct, agree to disagree. Wait...or should it be "You are entirely wrong"?

[Neo Uruk]

I'm glad I'm not part of Karma, especially with penalties for nations in PM and aggressive nations getting reps.

Best attitude to have when an ally is one of these "aggressive" Karma members.

[AirMe]

It's hard to accept someone's dislike for an alliance, and therefor the terms issued, when they do it in such an inflammatory manner. And yes, that does illicit an inflammatory response as it feels like having a knife stuck in your back.

Now, when you phrase your disagreement civilly it's a different story. I haven't had issue with others who have done so. You are entirely correct, agree to disagree. Wait...or should it be "You are entirely wrong"?

Ok this is the last time I am going to attempt it. I swear.....

A man walks into your house rapes your sister in front of your whole family. 5 witnesses plus a victim. You go through the court system and the Judge lets him off on a technicality and he does 2 years probation and no jail time. How will you react?

[bzelger]

This gives me a fantastic idea. Next time we go to war against someone, I'm going to try to get us to call it a Police Action instead of a war so we don't have to DoW. Boy howdy could we get some rip-roarin'-elawyerin' done on that little dilly.

I get funny looks every time I bust out the phrase "boy howdy," so I'm pleased to see it in use.

[Nizzle]

Best attitude to have when an ally is one of these "aggressive" Karma members.

Wow! How did you get "aggressive Karma members" out of that post! Show me your ways, master.

My post in no way reflects on the actions of Athens, and merely states my thoughts on the presence of PM penalties and aggressive (Rey: That means people who declared war on an alliance but were not attacked) alliances getting reps.

I shall, henceforth, restrain my criticism of the New World Order while Karma is in power. My apologies.

Ok this is the last time I am going to attempt it. I swear.....

A man walks into your house rapes your sister in front of your whole family. 5 witnesses plus a victim. You go through the court system and the Judge lets him off on a technicality and he does 2 years probation and no jail time. How will you react?

Raise money for the appeal, unless it's a public defender.

I don't know if you noticed, but I thought we agreed to disagree and that I understand your frustration so long as it's expressed with some civility.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Nizzle

[Hermes]

What NPO did wrong was not simply that they demanded reps. It's that they extorted reps for non-existant crimes. When alliances that only went into the war because of a defensive treaty get to pay more tech than their whole alliance own then something is wrong.

You claim that the guilt is subjective and it is to some degree but are you honestly saying that you can't see any objective difference betwen what NPO have done and what MK or STA did last war you're blind as a bat.

Thank you for calling me as blind as a bat. Defending a treaty is all and good with me but obviously NPO thinks differently, perhaps they believe the alliance who is defending a treaty partner is also condoning the "reason for war" that NPO has used for their attack.

Note: Defending NPO is harder then it looks.

[neneko]

I shall, henceforth, restrain my criticism of the New World Order while Karma is in power. My apologies.

You need some help getting up on that cross?

[Nizzle]

You need some help getting up on that cross?

Could you? Just a hand up, if it's at all possible.

[Neo Uruk]

Wow! How did you get "aggressive Karma members" out of that post! Show me your ways, master.

My post in no way reflects on the actions of Athens, and merely states my thoughts on the presence of PM penalties and aggressive (Rey: That means people who declared war on an alliance but were not attacked) alliances getting reps.

I shall, henceforth, restrain my criticism of the New World Order while Karma is in power. My apologies.

Of course. Aggressive=/=aggressive. How did I miss it?

Your post is in regards to alliances (such as Athens) receiving reps when they were not attacked. Did you not read up on why Athens was here? (I know what aggressive means, but it can actually be taken several ways, as some Karma alliances have been referred to as "bloodthirsty," so no need to insult intelligence or give condescending comments ) Anyway, who said these alliances were even getting the reps? For all we know, OV could spend a few months receiving reps.

[AirMe]

Raise money for the appeal, unless it's a public defender.

I don't know if you noticed, but I thought we agreed to disagree and that I understand your frustration so long as it's expressed with some civility.

In our court system, the prosecution can't appeal. Once you get sentenced or found not guilty, double jeopardy applies. So that is not an option. And you didn't tell me how you would feel. You just told me what you would do.

Edited May 26, 2009 by AirMe

[Nizzle]

Of course. Aggressive=/=aggressive. How did I miss it?

Your post is in regards to alliances (such as Athens) receiving reps when they were not attacked. Did you not read up on why Athens was here? (I know what aggressive means, but it can actually be taken several ways, as some Karma alliances have been referred to as "bloodthirsty," so no need to insult intelligence or give condescending comments ) Anyway, who said these alliances were even getting the reps? For all we know, OV could spend a few months receiving reps.

The way you used aggressive was misleading of my original post. As you used it contrast to my intent, I felt the need to explain how I meant it.

I don't believe Athens received reps when they were not attacked, but instead got them after being attacked by the surrendering alliance.

[neneko]

Thank you for calling me as blind as a bat. Defending a treaty is all and good with me but obviously NPO thinks differently, perhaps they believe the alliance who is defending a treaty partner is also condoning the "reason for war" that NPO has used for their attack.

Note: Defending NPO is harder then it looks.

So you stay by your claim that guilt in this case is completely subjective. If I got umbrella to attack you because I didn't agree with you I assume you would have no complaints since you'd be guilty in my eyes, right?

No alliance deserve to pay off reps for months because they honored a treaty.

What this boils down to is that you think might makes right. Because a alliance have the power to do something it is justified. That's not true though. The fact that they claim someone is guilty does not make it true no matter if they can back it up or not.

[Neo Uruk]

I don't believe Athens received reps when they were not attacked, but instead got them after being attacked by the surrendering alliance.

HINT: NPO hasn't surrendered yet, and Athens is on the frontlines.