James Wilson Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I've written up several responses throughout this thread. If you can't find them, let me know and I'll link you. Well, pointing that out might help, but most people only see what they want to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Read my response to Bama's post. What? The subjective speech? You looking greedy isn't subjective. It's plain as day. If you were any kind of smart you would've set down some steep reps and other terms and offered it to NPO and then told them about this little charade. That would've ended the war or at least got some out of peace while they thought about it. This terms before terms is stupid. Whoever thought it up should be pointed and laughed at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I've written up several responses throughout this thread. If you can't find them, let me know and I'll link you. You really have no idea what he said in that post, do you? I'll give you a clue: It's what everyone else has been saying. These "terms" give them no reason to come out of peace mode. They are ultimately fail. I have yet to see a sensible line of thought that refutes that aside from "They are doing it to themselves." and "They can just come out of peace mode." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I'm not going to argue the validity, sense or justness of these pre-terms, that is not for me to decide. Only KARMA alliance leaders have the power to end or maintain this war how they see fit. However, I'd like to clarify something for anyone that hasn't gotten it yet. These are NOT peace terms. If we accept these terms, we will NOT get peace. These are peace mode terms, meaning that they are penalties for having our banks and senators in PM and having fighters cycle in and out of it. If we accept them we do not get peace, we actually dont get anything, but we stop accruing penalties. Now, I believe your statement is incorrect. Everyone gets peace...whether through disbanding or surrendering is the alliance's choice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I'm not going to argue the validity, sense or justness of these pre-terms, that is not for me to decide. Only KARMA alliance leaders have the power to end or maintain this war how they see fit. However, I'd like to clarify something for anyone that hasn't gotten it yet. These are NOT peace terms. If we accept these terms, we will NOT get peace. These are peace mode terms, meaning that they are penalties for having our banks and senators in PM and having fighters cycle in and out of it. If we accept them we do not get peace, we actually dont get anything, but we stop accruing penalties. If your peace mode nations were actually cycling then we wouldn't be here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 All they need to do is come out and fight the war for real. Then they may be given peace, for we are merciful.Am I doing it right? I see what you did there Watching roles reverse and how people react to the reversal is always fascinating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I'm not going to argue the validity, sense or justness of these pre-terms, that is not for me to decide. Only KARMA alliance leaders have the power to end or maintain this war how they see fit. However, I'd like to clarify something for anyone that hasn't gotten it yet. These are NOT peace terms. If we accept these terms, we will NOT get peace. These are peace mode terms, meaning that they are penalties for having our banks and senators in PM and having fighters cycle in and out of it. If we accept them we do not get peace, we actually dont get anything, but we stop accruing penalties. If you have an issue with this tactic, you should direct it to your leaders who invented it when they decided to PZI any member of GATO who stayed in peace mode. We are using tactics that you yourself have deemed fair in a time of war. Part of the attraction of choosing them is knowing that the NPO would understand and sympathize with us, seeing as you have felt perfectly justified in acting far worse in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) If your peace mode nations were actually cycling then we wouldn't be here. Technically, you are assessing a punishment for even nations that are cycling through peace mode. Presuming, of course, some are. If you have an issue with this tactic, you should direct it to your leaders who invented it when they decided to PZI any member of GATO who stayed in peace mode.We are using tactics that you yourself have deemed fair in a time of war. Part of the attraction of choosing them is knowing that the NPO would understand and sympathize with us, seeing as you have felt perfectly justified in acting far worse in the past. Good sir, you are using a fail tactic against the people that devised it. How in the world do you expect it to work? Oh, wait, you didn't. You just fully admitted you did this to give NPO the proverbial "raspberry". I see what you did there Watching roles reverse and how people react to the reversal is always fascinating. I wish the same people who were acting so different when Karma's victory was very unsure could see how the "future them" are acting. Edited May 28, 2009 by Nizzle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) Technically, you are assessing a punishment for even nations that are cycling through peace mode. Presuming, of course, some are. This is doing that, but it wouldn't be policy if significant cycling had been occurring. Edited May 28, 2009 by bzelger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 You really have no idea what he said in that post, do you? I'll give you a clue: It's what everyone else has been saying. These "terms" give them no reason to come out of peace mode. They are ultimately fail.I have yet to see a sensible line of thought that refutes that aside from "They are doing it to themselves." and "They can just come out of peace mode." Having a bad day, Nizzle? I've been polite and respectful throughout this entire thread, would it be too difficult for you to do the same? The baseline terms have been posted for a while now, there are a variety of ways we could prove their veracity in a hypothetical future. Yes, it comes down to a certain degree of trust, and I understand why they would be wary of us. But in their position, trusting us WILL get them lighter terms. I'm not saying their point is invalid, I'm saying that I personally would act differently in their position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) If you have an issue with this tactic, you should direct it to your leaders who invented it when they decided to PZI any member of GATO who stayed in peace mode.We are using tactics that you yourself have deemed fair in a time of war. Part of the attraction of choosing them is knowing that the NPO would understand and sympathize with us, seeing as you have felt perfectly justified in acting far worse in the past. What is hilarious is that you guys are getting hard-line Karma supporters a month ago like KingSrqt and esteemed Gramlins like HellAngel to actually side with the opposition on this. If that isn't enough for you to rethink your strategy you guys are headed for troubled times. The bolded part is priceless. The "At least it wasn't as bad as them" line really doesn't cut it here. Trying to fly in under the radar by taking down the penalty a notch or two really doesn't make you seem too much better. It's a lesser of two evils deal. It flies in the face of all the morality talk that Karma alliances spouted in the build up to this war. Go ahead and say you never said any of that stuff if it makes you feel better but you all know damn well that that was the angle you played to garner support. Edited May 28, 2009 by magicninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 What they are saying is simply bringing forth this tidbit of information to the public. Basically as the days pass the total will go up and up and it will become less and less likely that NPO will accept.Basically unless this Karma ruling changes, NPO is now in a permanent war status. This does not give me warm fuzzies. I planned for a long war, but not that long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Yeah man, I've been re-elected for 6 months straight. Now here's my question to you: If you ever made a mistake in your life ever, would you eternally condemn yourself and live in depression? Or would you shrug your shoulders and learn from it? I ask this, because it appears that you seem to lack any sort of awareness on how people actually function. That is, making mistakes and then learning from them. Y'know I would go on here (in fact I had a decent size post written up already...) but it's not worth it to pursue publicly. If you're referring to leaving during the whole OOC fiasco, that's not what I hold against you, it never was. That's an issue of morales, and by the definition of OOC, outside of this game. It was your military leadership that had me curse you more than anyone else on either side of that war (anyone who was in MK at the time will vouch for this) that I hold against you. But you mentioned elections, so all is explained. Go back to arguing over whether NPO getting reparations increasing daily is valid or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I wish the same people who were acting so different when Karma's victory was very unsure could see how the "future them" are acting. Hmmm... /me looks into the past. /me knew this was going to happen. I honestly didn't care if e won or lost. Honor is more important. The fact that we get to watch NPO drop like a rock is just an added benefit . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Good sir, you are using a fail tactic against the people that devised it. How in the world do you expect it to work? Oh, wait, you didn't. You just fully admitted you did this to give NPO the proverbial "raspberry". No, I didn't. I said that I felt it would work because they have used it in the past. Thus, they would understand the thought process. That is all I said, stop reading extra words into what I am saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Izuzu Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 ...Their morale is very strangely high, and I'll never understand that about the NPO.... Not strange to me, nor should it be strange to anyone who was in the "friends before infra" crowd. I am just a relatively short-term grunt. I was not around for GW1, VietFan, etc. and do not have the shared history in the NPO that many of my comrades do, but I understand loyalty and honor. ZI means virtually nothing to me, since the value of my nation is not its NS, but its integrity. Would I prefer that I could rebuild quickly and painlessly? Certainly. Would I be willing to surrender my honor and betray my comrades by accepting individual surrender in order to accomplish that goal? Certainly not. If the cost of maintaining my self respect is the loss of my NS, then so be it. The former is internal and permanent, the latter is external and transitory. Thankfully, the majority of my comrades feel the same way. Those that do not have largely already left, some of them before shots were ever fired. *Glances contemptuously towards Christian Trojans, among others* Those of us who remain value loyalty over cowardice. It is really not very hard to understand. No, these are terms. They just aren't peace terms. Let's not have a semantics argument please. I just have to laugh at this. Yeah, I have read the posts attempting to justify such a concept, but still....LOL. The only terms that matter are actual surrender terms. Pre-terms, potential maybe terms, initial terms leading to prospective mid-terms, leading to possible peace terms but not really, etc. When actual surrender terms are offered, then we will see what happens. All I can say is that the ultimatum has not induced a willingness to surrender in the general membership, but has increased our resolve to persevere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) What is hilarious is that you guys are getting hard-line Karma supporters a month ago like KingSrqt and esteemed Gramlins like HellAngel to actually side with the opposition on this. If that isn't enough for you to rethink your strategy you guys are headed for troubled times. The bolded part is priceless. The "At least it wasn't as bad as them" line really doesn't cut it here. Trying to fly in under the radar by taking down the penalty a notch or two really doesn't make you seem too much better. It's a lesser of two evils deal. It flies in the face of all the morality talk that Larma alliances spouted in the build up to this war. Go ahead and say you never said any of that stuff if it makes you feel better but you all know damn well that that was the angle you played to garner support. Comparing what NPO did to unassuming alliances where the NPO was the aggressor to what is being done to them when they are the aggressors and hostile is unreasonable. This not taking the penalty down a notch or two, this is completely different. The NPO threatened peace mode nations. Polar nations were penalized post-war for being in peace mode. Karma is doing neither here. I just have to laugh at this. Yeah, I have read the posts attempting to justify such a concept, but still....LOL. The only terms that matter are actual surrender terms. Pre-terms, potential maybe terms, initial terms leading to prospective mid-terms, leading to possible peace terms but not really, etc. When actual surrender terms are offered, then we will see what happens. All I can say is that the ultimatum has not induced a willingness to surrender in the general membership, but has increased our resolve to persevere. You tried to surrender on the first day. Edited May 28, 2009 by bzelger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 No, I didn't. I said that I felt it would work because they have used it in the past.Thus, they would understand the thought process. That is all I said, stop reading extra words into what I am saying. While it was a horrid act at least what they did was effective. Something you guys may never understand. Not only does your method leave no incentive for them to jump out of peace mode it will give them more PR power when you try to throw "side" reps of hundreds of billions of cash and hundreds of thousands of tech at them. You really don;t see where you went wrong here? Retract this stupidity and give them flat rate penalties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 What is hilarious is that you guys are getting hard-line Karma supporters a month ago like KingSrqt and esteemed Gramlins like HellAngel to actually side with the opposition on this. If that isn't enough for you to rethink your strategy you guys are headed for troubled times. The bolded part is priceless. The "At least it wasn't as bad as them" line really doesn't cut it here. Trying to fly in under the radar by taking down the penalty a notch or two really doesn't make you seem too much better. It's a lesser of two evils deal. It flies in the face of all the morality talk that Larma alliances spouted in the build up to this war. Go ahead and say you never said any of that stuff if it makes you feel better but you all know damn well that that was the angle you played to garner support. Well I'm sorry you feel that way. Sadly, losing the support of two people won't change much. Hey...treat others as you would like to be treated. NPO treated GATO like this...so now we are going to treat the NPO like they did GATO. I see no problem here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 If I am understanding this situation correctly I do not believe these 'pre-terms' are something for you to accept or reject they are merely meant to be some sort of statement of fact. According to Revanche some magic number has already been agreed on and they will increas that number accordingly until the war ends based on the criteria they gave. That is not to say that your reaction is wrong however your assertion that you rejected these pre-terms seems off as I do not believe it is something you can actually reject. (unless all you mean by that is that you will not allow this to coerce you out of PM in which case that is how I personally expected you to react and how I myself also would have reacted.) Perhaps 'refused to comply' would be a better wording, but it amounts to the same thing. As far as this mystical 'magic number' goes, as I said, we have already had no shortage of them, each changing the moment we hit them. If there really was a magic number they would have nothing to lose and everything to gain from announcing it, yet they continue to evade the question and instead throw about various non-binding 'opinions' to try and entice us off the cliff (though the fact that they are various indicates that there is in fact no agreement inside Karma at all). Now, since this is what Virillus seemed to be getting at with his ever-so-witty one-liner (a classic of the Avoid actually debating what Vladimir said handbook), let me clarify that whether or not a number exists in Karma HQ is irrelevant to what I said. I was writing from the perspective of the NPO, and from our perspective there is no number. If there is something written somewhere that we cannot see, then it is meaningless since it a) may be completely unacceptable anyway, and (more importantly) b) can change at a whim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 What is hilarious is that you guys are getting hard-line Karma supporters a month ago like KingSrqt and esteemed Gramlins like HellAngel to actually side with the opposition on this. If that isn't enough for you to rethink your strategy you guys are headed for troubled times. The bolded part is priceless. The "At least it wasn't as bad as them" line really doesn't cut it here. Trying to fly in under the radar by taking down the penalty a notch or two really doesn't make you seem too much better. It's a lesser of two evils deal. It flies in the face of all the morality talk that Karma alliances spouted in the build up to this war. Go ahead and say you never said any of that stuff if it makes you feel better but you all know damn well that that was the angle you played to garner support. I outlined the difference in a response to Bama pages ago, Magicninja. The Crux is this: I feel the tactic is valid, because I feel that the NPO deserves it. You're free to disagree with that if you wish, it is your own prerogative. But saying we're wrong just because you have different personal morals doesn't make any sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Comparing what NPO did to unassuming alliances where the NPO was the aggressor to what is being done to them when they are the aggressors and hostile is unreasonable. This not taking the penalty down a notch or two, this is completely different. The NPO threatened peace mode nations. Polar nations were penalized post-war for being in peace mode. Karma is doing neither here.You tried to surrender on the first day. Keep telling yourself that. Also, Name the alliances at war with Polar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I just have to laugh at this. Yeah, I have read the posts attempting to justify such a concept, but still....LOL. The only terms that matter are actual surrender terms. Pre-terms, potential maybe terms, initial terms leading to prospective mid-terms, leading to possible peace terms but not really, etc. When actual surrender terms are offered, then we will see what happens. All I can say is that the ultimatum has not induced a willingness to surrender in the general membership, but has increased our resolve to persevere. This is the exact outcome to be expected from such a move, and how anyone could have thought that this idea was ever a good idea is beyond me, when the moment it hit the public everyone immediately recognized the sheer laughability of it. It's like the CN equivalent of "Bill Introduced As Joke Signed." Debating whether this is "just" or more or less mean than what the NPO or anyone else has done in the past is irrelevant, because I don't believe these "terms" can ever be effectively enforced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Now, since this is what Virillus seemed to be getting at with his ever-so-witty one-liner (a classic of the Avoid actually debating what Vladimir said handbook), let me clarify that whether or not a number exists in Karma HQ is irrelevant to what I said. I was writing from the perspective of the NPO, and from our perspective there is no number. If there is something written somewhere that we cannot see, then it is meaningless since it a) may be completely unacceptable anyway, and (more importantly) B) can change at a whim. Unfortunately, it seems you skimmed the thread and did not read my response. But I'll simplify it for ease of reading: The truth is that the sooner you drop peace mode, the easier things will be. You can disbelieve that if you wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I outlined the difference in a response to Bama pages ago, Magicninja. The Crux is this: I feel the tactic is valid, because I feel that the NPO deserves it. You're free to disagree with that if you wish, it is your own prerogative. But saying we're wrong just because you have different personal morals doesn't make any sense. It's different but not by much. The differences are this won;t work and the punishment is a little softer until it accrues beyond sane numbers anyway. Wait a minute.......... Then how can you call out NPO on their morality here? Keep digging Vir. 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.