Baldr Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 You know what? Break off talks and make a precondition of further peace talks that all NPO nations above 20K NS be in war mode. Karma has already tried this, except the limit was 5kNS. It's essentially saying "NPO has to give us unconditional surrender, let us beat their banks down to ZI, and then we'll tell them what terms we want after that". And NPO has made it clear that we won't agree to unconditional surrender. If Karma wants us to send out billions in $ and hundreds of thousands in tech, then they have to make us an offer that we will actually accept. Personally, I think Karma just wants eternal war, and is scared to say so. That's why the terms are terms with so many limitations that we can't meet them. Get rid of the "Let us beat your banks black and blue, then limit which nations can make the payments on these incredibly high reps" stuff, and you would get a deal. You obviously don't want a deal. I'm fine with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) Karma has already tried this, except the limit was 5kNS.It's essentially saying "NPO has to give us unconditional surrender, let us beat their banks down to ZI, and then we'll tell them what terms we want after that". And NPO has made it clear that we won't agree to unconditional surrender. If Karma wants us to send out billions in $ and hundreds of thousands in tech, then they have to make us an offer that we will actually accept. Personally, I think Karma just wants eternal war, and is scared to say so. That's why the terms are terms with so many limitations that we can't meet them. Get rid of the "Let us beat your banks black and blue, then limit which nations can make the payments on these incredibly high reps" stuff, and you would get a deal. You obviously don't want a deal. I'm fine with that. Oh yes, because 14 days of warfare will totally ZI a 54k NS nation . Not to mention the fact that some of your nations have nearly 1 billion dollar warchests....... Edited June 14, 2009 by James Wilson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Why apologize for clarifying my alliances foreign policy?uh-durr. You're the one who has been telling me that I'm wrong about my own alliances viewpoints. No I have been telling you that you are wrong in insulting my own and others' intelligence and reading comprehension by defending somebody who said something to make your own alliance look bad, then trying to spin it to make it look like something else, all the while fooling nobody. What your actual policies are don't matter here. We don't care. Invicta and their policies are about as important to me as whether there's a wart on your aunt's nose. The point is that you are trying to deface me in the defense of a poorly thought out post rather than just saying the post is wrong and then clarifying. Rather than trying to make a post say what it didn't, all you had to do was just say what your policy actually is and be done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilkenny Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I don't think anybody denied that staggering has been a failure for the most part, hence why the two week term is even there. You can either remain in peace mode, or come out for two weeks of fun. Had they been successful at keeping you in war mode, you wouldn't have received that term. It's pretty much the same thing, albeit the this two week version is a bit more in your advantage.The point is the bulk of those nations in peace mode aren't cycling. They just sit there. What do you call that? I LOL'd at that. Are you really saying that your failures at staggering is why this term is there, and had yall actually been better at this NPO could have peace?!?!?!? toooooo funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scythegfx Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Apologize to someone who tries to defame us by making cracks about how we're the new GGA? And why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delendum Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Karma has already tried this, except the limit was 5kNS.It's essentially saying "NPO has to give us unconditional surrender, let us beat their banks down to ZI, and then we'll tell them what terms we want after that". And NPO has made it clear that we won't agree to unconditional surrender. If Karma wants us to send out billions in $ and hundreds of thousands in tech, then they have to make us an offer that we will actually accept. Personally, I think Karma just wants eternal war, and is scared to say so. That's why the terms are terms with so many limitations that we can't meet them. Get rid of the "Let us beat your banks black and blue, then limit which nations can make the payments on these incredibly high reps" stuff, and you would get a deal. You obviously don't want a deal. I'm fine with that. If Karma wanted eternal war, there would have been no terms. What you're trying to do is get out of this whole thing strong enough to bounce back to a position of power relatively fast. I can't blame you for it, but it won't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I LOL'd at that. Are you really saying that your failures at staggering is why this term is there, and had yall actually been better at this NPO could have peace?!?!?!? toooooo funny How? I'm pretty sure if the staggers were consistent and successful, they could have kept the number of nations able to slip into peace mode down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delendum Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I LOL'd at that. Are you really saying that your failures at staggering is why this term is there, and had yall actually been better at this NPO could have peace?!?!?!? toooooo funny I'm not afraid to admit my side's flaws. That term is there because the NPO has too many untouched nations, and one reason for that is failed staggering. One way or the other, those nations will have to be brought down a notch. Either it is remaining in peace mode indefinitely or coming out for two weeks, the goal remains the same. Also the NPO could have peace right this very moment, all they have to do is accept the terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I wonder why this isn't in NPO's terms considering intelligence from the outset was that they'd been threatening every one of their members with PZI if they left.Or maybe I'm misinformed (happens a lot lately ) and it is? I don't think it is, actually. This probably needs to be looked into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Apologize to someone who tries to defame us by making cracks about how we're the new GGA? And why? It's either that or just fade out of the thread and let everyone get back to how terrible/great the reps are. Either way the sooner you stop the line of conversation the sooner everyone forgets it ever happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshb Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) The way I see it, either NPO give into the terms and they are screwed economically for a good 6 months, in which time numerous people will sneak off to other alliances or leave the game leaving NPO a shell of what they were or they don't surrender and get beaten down to said shell. No-one would miss NPO so it doesn't matter either way Karma literally the greatest thing to happen since sliced bread. p-p-p-page topper Edited June 14, 2009 by joshb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilkenny Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) How? I'm pretty sure if the staggers were consistent and successful, they could have kept the number of nations able to slip into peace mode down. Well, that is obvious, but blaming NPO for Karma's failures?? If you don't think that is funny......well, I mean, just actually word the term to say "We are a failure and due to that you must suffer more" Edited June 14, 2009 by Kilkenny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Well, that is obvious, but blaming NPO for Karma's failures?? If you don't think that is funny......well, I don't really view it as blaming more of trying to turn an F into a C+... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I'm not afraid to admit my side's flaws. That term is there because the NPO has too many untouched nations, and one reason for that is failed staggering. One way or the other, those nations will have to be brought down a notch. Either it is remaining in peace mode indefinitely or coming out for two weeks, the goal remains the same. Also the NPO could have peace right this very moment, all they have to do is accept the terms. Actually no they couldn't have peace this very moment if they accept the terms. They would have peace 2 weeks after the they got to the 90% war mode. In application 'right this very moment' translates to 3-5 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I don't really view it as blaming more of trying to turn an F into a C+... Oh no. It's blaming NPO for Karmas failures. Or maybe punishing NPO for Karmas failures. Karmailures! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Oh no. It's blaming NPO for Karmas failures. Or maybe punishing NPO for Karmas failures.Karmailures! NPO is getting punished any way. This is just a way to hurt them more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage3 Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Karma has already tried this, except the limit was 5kNS.It's essentially saying "NPO has to give us unconditional surrender, let us beat their banks down to ZI, and then we'll tell them what terms we want after that". And NPO has made it clear that we won't agree to unconditional surrender. If Karma wants us to send out billions in $ and hundreds of thousands in tech, then they have to make us an offer that we will actually accept. Personally, I think Karma just wants eternal war, and is scared to say so. That's why the terms are terms with so many limitations that we can't meet them. Get rid of the "Let us beat your banks black and blue, then limit which nations can make the payments on these incredibly high reps" stuff, and you would get a deal. You obviously don't want a deal. I'm fine with that. One problem, this is not a "deal". This is you getting our foots out of your collective keisters. If you still want it there, keep doing what you are doing and let your banks waste money you could use to rebuild and pay reps languishing in PM. If you want the war over, you take terms. To spin terms as unpayable given your number of nations and legendary willingness to do other things you set your collective minds to is counterproductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilkenny Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Oh no. It's blaming NPO for Karmas failures. Or maybe punishing NPO for Karmas failures.Karmailures! OSNAP.... now I have to go clean off my keyboard after my drink shot out of my nose from laughing. Roadie.....you win the game!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 NPO is getting punished any way. This is just a way to hurt them more. Because Karma spent so much time duingitrong. I mean seriously, Sir Paul was bouncing in and out of peace mode. Any competent enemy would have ridden him like Seattle Slew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Because Karma spent so much time duingitrong.I mean seriously, Sir Paul was bouncing in and out of peace mode. Any competent enemy would have ridden him like Seattle Slew. That sounds SOOOOOOO wrong...... And I have already addressed this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viluin Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) Oh yes, because 14 days of warfare will totally ZI a 54k NS nation . Oh yes it will. I lost 8000 infra in two weeks of war and I was doing pretty good, my attackers didn't win even close to all of their attacks. Nuclear warfare is insanely damaging. Not that you would know anything about that, judging by your nation. Edited June 15, 2009 by Viluin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I don't see an adequate counter offer from NPO, nor a simple admission that they might be defeated in this case. I can understand not reading every post in the 150+ page thread. But Moo, in the first post in the thread, says "We acknowledge that we have been defeated in this war. We have been humbled and we have been forced to look at ourselves in a different light." So much for "NPO won't even admit they might be defeated". Oh yes, because 14 days of warfare will totally ZI a 54k NS nation .Not to mention the fact that some of your nations have nearly 1 billion dollar warchests....... It isn't 14 days of warfare. It's "Start bringing everyone out of peace mode, and then when certain conditions are met, we start a 14 day counter". It will be more than 14 days of war, and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Oh no. It's blaming NPO for Karmas failures. Or maybe punishing NPO for Karmas failures.Karmailures! Wrap it up, karmailures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delendum Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Well, that is obvious, but blaming NPO for Karma's failures?? If you don't think that is funny......well, I mean, just actually word the term to say "We are a failure and due to that you must suffer more" Look at my previous reply. Actually no they couldn't have peace this very moment if they accept the terms. They would have peace 2 weeks after the they got to the 90% war mode. In application 'right this very moment' translates to 3-5 weeks. As long as it is included as a term, it means peace is assured as long as they abide by it - pretty much like paying reps. Look at it as just another way of paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I can understand not reading every post in the 150+ page thread.But Moo, in the first post in the thread, says "We acknowledge that we have been defeated in this war. We have been humbled and we have been forced to look at ourselves in a different light." So much for "NPO won't even admit they might be defeated". Humbled eh? That is a GOOD one. I highly doubt this war will make the NPO change her ways... It isn't 14 days of warfare. It's "Start bringing everyone out of peace mode, and then when certain conditions are met, we start a 14 day counter". It will be more than 14 days of war, and you know it. Well, seeing as you seem to have such an active and loyal member base, time to see how active they really are . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts