SithPie Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Remember Pepsi crystal? Thats what Karma is. Something new, but still just crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Whatever helps you sleep at night brothaman. Okay, so the bloc that you claim isn't a bloc, bloc'd up to defeat the NPO for attempting to roll on OV?Now I am most thoroughly confused... Not too far from my natural state, but wowee... It's not a bloc, lol. Also you seemed to have missed this from before: A bunch of alliances realized that NPO was (again) going to try to roll people (in this case OV) and the affected alliances started planning, since, if going down in flames was required it would be far better to coordinate than to just take the hits. Slowly more and more alliances got involved, then NPO decided to start the war whilst negotiating, and more people were brought in etc. For convenience sake the label "Karma" was applied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinRa Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) In this war we have seen the NPO rapidly turn into a self mockery and have seen their true colours with the various retorts to Karma's ongoing counter offensive ranging from stating that 'you’ll be no better than we are' to the rather interesting view that ‘The Ordo Verde spy incident was merely an excuse, a trap carefully set up for months in the implicit goal of putting an end to the peace that had prevailed over CN for quite a while.’. In addition to this we've seen their recruitment adds shift from stating ‘We are the No. 1 alliance in the game! we rule all!’ to 'we've got a really good team spirit and we work together and are active.' I think it’s solved a few issues in terms of political power and alliance reputation, and it’s proven to be bloody funny at a few points. I personally can’t see what’s wrong with the war if we get more of this. Edited June 7, 2009 by ShinRa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrideAssassin Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 It's not a bloc, lol. Also you seemed to have missed this from before: A bunch of alliances realized that NPO was (again) going to try to roll people (in this case OV) and the affected alliances started planning, since, if going down in flames was required it would be far better to coordinate than to just take the hits. Slowly more and more alliances got involved, then NPO decided to start the war whilst negotiating, and more people were brought in etc. Sounds like a power bloc to me. Even got a spiffy name. Now all you need is a cape and a sidekick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 I think, if anything, this war taught everyone a lesson. You can survive pretty well as long as you don't disparage most of your allies and act in a diplomatically irresponsible way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Sounds like a power bloc to me. Even got a spiffy name. Now all you need is a cape and a sidekick. I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenoDurkster Posted June 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) You do realise when people said "we different" they were talking about not enforcing viceroys, EZI, forcing disbandments/eternal wars, bogus CB's etc, and not about disagreeing on reps figures right? you really think all of those will stop? rofl then sadly you have been misled by the Karma propoganda... Viceroys = this one has highest possibility of not being widely used because of how big of a deal it is that's why doesn't happen much. But some will still try to do it. EZI = They will be around as long as there are people who deserve them Force Disbanments = Not possible unless ur admin Eternal Wars = Vox basicly did this and you don't complain... Bogus CB's = I say the CB Karma alliances did was bogus.. This is completely opinionated until and official list of what is a CB is created Arguing on reps = is that even a serious thing you just stated? Also to anyone wanting to just hurt NPO in all of this your completely mistaken you made stronger easily.. not only will they be more cautious but will be better fighters,Better with squad fighting and teamwork due to this world. Have made them have to become the good guys... So really you did was set them up for a 100x position in the future. They were the most hated alliance on CN easy. But now you have turned some people into favoring them such as me. Edited June 7, 2009 by KenoDurkster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Sounds like a power bloc to me. Even got a spiffy name. Now all you need is a cape and a sidekick. So whenever alliances co-ordinate together, it means they're in a bloc with each other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrideAssassin Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Main Entry: bloc Pronunciation: \ˈbläk\ Function: noun Etymology: French, literally, block Date: 1903 1 a: a temporary combination of parties in a legislative assembly b: a group of legislators who act together for some common purpose irrespective of party lines 2 a: a combination of persons, groups, or nations forming a unit with a common interest or purpose <a bloc of voters> b: a group of nations united by treaty or agreement for mutual support or joint action In short: Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 So whenever alliances co-ordinate together, it means they're in a bloc with each other? You forget, he was on the side that included the Coalition of Cowards, who had multiple blocks but were prepared to let their allies die. I guess that's a side effect of being so familiar with that environment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenoDurkster Posted June 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Main Entry: bloc Pronunciation: \ˈbläk\ Function: noun Etymology: French, literally, block Date: 1903 1 a: a temporary combination of parties in a legislative assembly b: a group of legislators who act together for some common purpose irrespective of party lines 2 a: a combination of persons, groups, or nations forming a unit with a common interest or purpose <a bloc of voters> b: a group of nations united by treaty or agreement for mutual support or joint action In short: Yes. owned LB ;; <3 CSN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrideAssassin Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 You forget, he was on the side that included the Coalition of Cowards, who had multiple blocks but were prepared to let their allies die. I guess that's a side effect of being so familiar with that environment A common misconception, but please sir, carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 b: a group of nations united by treaty or agreement for mutual support or joint action This is the definition that 99% of CNers use with respect to "bloc." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 A common misconception, but please sir, carry on. Oh please, three of those alliances had gov members leave and go fight for the allies they just dropped and you are telling me that it is a "common misconception." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Bogus CB's = I say the CB Karma alliances did was bogus.. This is completely opinionated until and official list of what is a CB is created I'd like to comment on this particular line. All of Karma's CB's were through treaties. If you recall, MHA strictly prohibited non-treaty entrances in the war on Karma's side. If you consider treaty obligations bogus then I don't know what constitutes legitimacy in your mind. The rest of your points aren't really worth responding to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenoDurkster Posted June 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 of course but in "b" it doesnt state wether it is temporary or permenet. and in reality all Blocs no matter how much you say they will be there forever are not permenet leaving only temporary which would bring it to 1a... karma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 of course but in "b" it doesnt state wether it is temporary or permenet. and in reality all Blocs no matter how much you say they will be there forever are not permenet leaving only temporary which would bring it to 1a... karma That doesn't change the fact that 99% of CN assumes the phrase "bloc" used within a CN context refers to a treaty with more than 2 alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrideAssassin Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 This is the definition that 99% of CNers use with respect to "bloc." If you're not comfortable in your bloc, I'm certain you're free to repudiate them, aye? Also: Yay, I'm in the 1% loony catagory! Doesn't mean you're not a bloc, however. To argue otherwise is just silly. Taking your argument, much of "Karma"s acts were initiated through those darned ol' treaty chains. Oh pooh. There goes that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 of course but in "b" it doesnt state wether it is temporary or permenet. and in reality all Blocs no matter how much you say they will be there forever are not permenet leaving only temporary which would bring it to 1a... karma I believe his point was that blocs are formed through treaties. No one signed a treaty to form a bloc called Karma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrideAssassin Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 That doesn't change the fact that 99% of CN assumes the phrase "bloc" used within a CN context refers to a treaty with more than 2 alliances. Assumes. Key word. Reality>assumptions. Try harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyria Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Remember kids: Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is no "absolute power" anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrideAssassin Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 I believe his point was that blocs are formed through treaties. No one signed a treaty to form a bloc called Karma. That doesn't mean the bloc doesn't exist. Or are you telling me the "Karma" bloc was one bad dream? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrideAssassin Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 There is no "absolute power" anymore. Admin have mercy on your soul, heretic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Assumes.Key word. Reality>assumptions. Try harder. You aren't part of this "karma" organization and have no idea how it functions. I'd say that as someone who was involved in it at a gov level I would have a bit more experience as to whether or not Karma was a bloc. I would describe it as: "A wartime coalition formed for the purpose of coordinating military actions against an immediate and urgent threat" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 That doesn't mean the bloc doesn't exist. Or are you telling me the "Karma" bloc was one bad dream? See, I believe you're using the wrong term. You keep calling Karma a bloc, but that's simply not the correct term. Karma is a wartime coalition with no rigid structure besides a few organizers. To use an example, the Allies in WWII were not a bloc. They were a coalition of nations during wartime due to necessity/common enemy. As shown directly afterwards by the Korean War and the Cold War. the Allies were clearly not a bloc. NATO on the other hand is a bloc because it is held together by a treaty signed by all participants. To end, just because you have a common enemy or band together temporary for some reason doesn't make you a "bloc". If we were to use your definition of a bloc then almost any organization would be considered one. 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.