Chrono Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 ROFL at the demand for NPO banks to come out for a 2 week beating. Man, Karma alliances are just so desperate to pass them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Let's be fair here: people have argued that the NPO is oh-so-terrible and they've committed countless offenses against decency and good taste... very well. The counter-argument is that alliances on the Karma side have participated in furthering the Pacifican agenda to which they [Karma] would reply that it's possible for lessons to be learned. Why is it impossible then for the New Pacific Order to learn from its mistakes? What makes you "reformed" wrongdoers qualified to dish out justice to the NPO while evading the same by claiming that you've learned your lessons whereas your adversaries can't do the same? NPO is the only alliance receiving "harsh" terms. Others that have sought peace, that were simply honoring their treaties for their ally NPO, have been let off with little, if any reps. These actions were in the hopes that fair terms would be sought in the future. NPO is getting what they deserve. Those that helped via treaties, and have since received peace, have not been given harsh terms of any sort. NPO needs to experience what 3-6 months of stagnation and rep-paying feels like, to truly understand their wrongdoings, i'm not going to lie, it sucks, we've all been there, aside from NPO. They can dish out, but they can't take it, and that's the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Only to those who have yet to fight. Why do they deserve to go unpunished? Everyone fights in their own way, some fire nukes, others send out money and tech to those who are bill locked. And just assuming that NPO deserves to be heavily punished for its actions; last I checked members don't make decisions in the NPO, why are you punishing them for what they are not responsible for. Edited June 13, 2009 by iamthey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 So 2 weeks of war as opposed to just war for a few more months with no guarantee of peace is just as bad? The question was do Karma want peace or more war, the answer is crystal clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Karma wants this war to continue, NPO does not. No, we dont. We offered them terms they can do, they chose not to. Your memory is not what it used to be, dear uncle. With my youthful memory, I recall that before the OV war escalated it was Karma that walked out of the peace talks. Actually they attacked OV during peace talks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrono Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) NPO is the only alliance receiving "harsh" terms.Others that have sought peace, that were simply honoring their treaties for their ally NPO, have been let off with little, if any reps. Wrong. Echelon received very similar offers, minus the 2 week war demand. No other offers have been brought to the table. Edited June 13, 2009 by Chrono Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Everyone fights in their own way, some fire nukes, others send out money and tech to those who are bill locked. And just assuming that NPO deserves to be heavily punished for its actions; last I checked members don't make decisions in the NPO, why are you punishing them for what they are not responsible for. Is this a joke? The standard SET BY NPO has long been alliance members are responsible for their leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 ^this, when a sworn enemy has laid down their sword, do you cut off there hands, aafter you have already taken their sword ? If they are a thief, then yes. yes you do. however, these reps are hardly "cutting off there their hands" These reps will put NPO "behind bars" for a few months to "think about what they've done" and then hopefully rejoin society, hands intact, more than able to rebuild. cutting off hands would imply that they are left crippled, which is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scythegfx Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 While we thank you for being OH-so-nice to the surrendering alliances, why does it surprise you when we ask that you do the same for our friends and allies. Yes. I put Friends first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The question was do Karma want peace or more war, the answer is crystal clear. Considering the terms as laid out were how peace was going to be achieved, the answer is indeed crystal clear. Though, if they want to keep fighting instead of taking that route that's fine by me. So at least one member of Karma is okay with continued war, are we evil yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrono Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 No, we dont. Two weeks of war isn't more war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scythegfx Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Is this a joke? The standard SET BY NPO has long been alliance members are responsible for their leaders. Wasn't this war supposed to be in order to break the standard, not continue it with new hegemons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 No, we dont. We offered them terms they can do, they chose not to. The terms include taking an alliance wide beatdown for another 2 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Why is it impossible then for the New Pacific Order to learn from its mistakes? What makes you "reformed" wrongdoers qualified to dish out justice to the NPO while evading the same by claiming that you've learned your lessons whereas your adversaries can't do the same? Hey look I already answered this one ... "Harsh terms only breed resentment"While this may be true, NPO has already shown in the past that it will harbour resentment anyway. There is no purpose in giving NPO mercy, because they don't accept it anyway. The only course of action with NPO is to ensure that it never grows large enough to be a threat again, and harsh terms are one way to do that. Would Grämlins take these? Well considering we are 1/10 the size of the NPO, the reparation amounts are pretty silly. And most of my points (that you snipped out – did you even read them?) don't apply to us; we have not pushed for harsh terms or disbandments in the past, we have not taken merciful terms and used them against our victors, and we have not started a global war through our blatant aggression. So no, we wouldn't. However, if we had NPO's history, and the terms were 1/10 of what they are ($700m and 30k), to be paid by high tech nations, I would certainly motion to consider them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Wrong.Echelon received very similar offers, minus the 2 week war demand. No other offers have been brought to the table. Offer, singular. Considering I have even less sympathy for Echelon than I do for NPO, I personally hope that we won't adjust them. Edit: Than, not that. Edited June 13, 2009 by Aurion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) What makes you "reformed" wrongdoers qualified to dish out justice to the NPO while evading the same by claiming that you've learned your lessons whereas your adversaries can't do the same? Because they can. (And believe it or not, that's a statement of support for Karma.) ^this, when a sworn enemy has laid down their sword, do you cut off there hands, aafter you have already taken their sword ? After this thread, I'd be happy if Karma just cut out their tongues. Edited June 13, 2009 by kingzog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remaliat Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The war clause is ridiculous, you can't expect an alliance to move that amount of money and tech if you destroy all but 7 of their nations. I support every clause in the surrender terms but that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The terms include taking an alliance wide beatdown for another 2 weeks. ...and then the war is over. I dont see how peace terms that end in the conflict ending are us trying to continue the war forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scythegfx Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 So karma, just how many plays are you going to borrow from the old NPO playbook? punishing alliances more than they can take ...check might makes right...check alliance members are responsible for their leaders...check. I'm sure i missed a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandrivia_2 Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 ^this, when a sworn enemy has laid down their sword, do you cut off there hands, aafter you have already taken their sword ? Remember last time NPO laid down their sword and admitted defeat? They came back and persued every enemy until they were either disbanded, or a weak shell of their former selves under NPO's own domination. NPO wants nothing but domination of CN. If they have to momentarily admit defeat to continue to further their goal, they will, but they will be back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingSuck Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I was expecting harsh terms but those are ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Wasn't this war supposed to be in order to break the standard, not continue it with new hegemons? Karma has already broken the standard with other alliances that have already received peace. It was understood, I think by pretty much EVERYONE that the terms for NPO would be the harshest, as they have the biggest lesson to learn. While I appreciate your comment about Karma being "oh so nice" to alliances that have received peace, as it shows that you have seen the leniency, i am not surprised by NPO's friends speaking up against the terms. Do i agree with your stance? no. but I can understand your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Considering the terms as laid out were how peace was going to be achieved, the answer is indeed crystal clear.Though, if they want to keep fighting instead of taking that route that's fine by me. So at least one member of Karma is okay with continued war, are we evil yet? They have said they are ready to surrender, you are keeping the war going. You are giving them a choice of eternal war or an alliance wide beat down for 2 weeks...and you swear you will stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 And what, pray tell, have they done to deserve them? So far I have heard reasonings this is just that include: 1) Forcing the destruction of \m/ (they never even warred) 2) Assisting in organizing a war against \m/ 3) Charging 14k tech reps against athens 4) Asking TDSM8 to do II. TDSM8 will undertake 100 tech deals with the NPO at the price of 3 million for 100 tech. which is claimed so harsh as to have led to their disbandment. It is not beyond a stretch of imagination that gremlins reps from polar war, organizing this war, or insert random falsely believed crime could be justified as reasoning by those currently issuing these terms. I'm not saying polar or anyone with an ounce of decency would do it, because it is idiotic and vengeful. However I've learned there is no limit to some people's desire for revenge, even if there is nothing to legitimately revenge for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarai Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I believe our counter-offer was fair and reasonable and that our Leader's statements regarding the past were meant. I see some of "KARMA" for what they are, revenge seekers. This is to be expected, the "ounce of flash" will always exist. I hope that cooler heads prevail and realise that to impose terms on us that are far in excess of anything financially imposed before as well as also demand that our alliance is in effect fully ZI'd is unreasonable and immoral. We have lost the war, but we have fought well and so have many of our opponents. However there is no honor in Karma's refusal to accept our counter-offer, or at least to negotiate further. Without honour, there is no respect. As individuals' within the NPO, some of us are close friends with those on the other side. I don't believe they feel that good about this ever changing ideology and demands from "KARMA". A complex problem demands a well-thought out and good solution, "KARMA's" current stance is neither well-thought out for the long term of this world, or a good solution unless revenge is the only goal. That to me, is a attitude worth fighting against and I will be. I will be. I speak this as myself, not in my role of Council member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts