Kristospherein Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 He just did and there's nothing to really disagree with. Just read the last 202 pages yourself. I've read the majority of them and I think it is ludicrous to think you can sum up 200 pages of information into a single sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristospherein Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I'm going to my alliance forms right now, and I'm going to argue for upping the terms. Just to compensate for 200+ pages of sheer stupidity from the NPO (mostly yours, you pretty much single handedly prove the wisdom of the initial gag order) and its mouth pieces. I'm gonna push for decomming WRC's for at least the amount of time it takes you to pay off reps, but I'll probably settle for another billion or two. You guys always threaten the increase in the amount of the terms from where they are now. if we didn't accept them in their current form, what on God's green earth would cause us to accept reps that are worse? This reeks of idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Death II Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 wait did someone say 200 pages? I only see 161 D: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I've read the majority of them and I think it is ludicrous to think you can sum up 200 pages of information into a single sentence. It's information spread over 200 pages. It's not really 200 pages worth of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 You guys always threaten the increase in the amount of the terms from where they are now. if we didn't accept them in their current form, what on God's green earth would cause us to accept reps that are worse? This reeks of idiocy. You're in for a long ride then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Houston Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 This is probably an annoying post, but it needs to be made (if not repeated)... Who are the individuals with authority to come to terms on both the NPO and Karma sides? All of our commentary aside, this must come down to some chain of command agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sethb Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) You guys always threaten the increase in the amount of the terms from where they are now. if we didn't accept them in their current form, what on God's green earth would cause us to accept reps that are worse? This reeks of idiocy. What reeks of idiocy is the fact you think whining on the OWF is going to help your cause any. Edited June 16, 2009 by sethb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I've read the majority of them and I think it is ludicrous to think you can sum up 200 pages of information into a single sentence. Now is probably the time to point out exactly how the summary is inaccurate rather than just say it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 This is probably an annoying post, but it needs to be made (if not repeated)...Who are the individuals with authority to come to terms on both the NPO and Karma sides? All of our commentary aside, this must come down to some chain of command agreement. I would guess the high government (councilors, emperors, presidents, regents, etc.) of all alliances involved, plus the FA and Defense staff would be involved as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) You guys always threaten the increase in the amount of the terms from where they are now. if we didn't accept them in their current form, what on God's green earth would cause us to accept reps that are worse? This reeks of idiocy. I have no official say in the terms, there is every possibility I could be shot down by my higher ups, the point you should be taking is this; 1. Taunting the people offering you peace, bad idea. 2. 200 pages of a PR stunt proves only that you have not learned, regret none of your past actions, and are unlikely to change your behaviour in the future. 3. This sends the message to those fighting you that we should expect you to go right back to business as usual as soon as you possibly can, this encourages harsher terms, not easier ones. 4. Stupidity of the calibre displayed in this thread should have some penalty attached to it. Edit: attacked=/=attached, its 1 am what can I say? Edited June 16, 2009 by TypoNinja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Uncle Same? Actually....that's incredibly appropriate for this infinite loop we're in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Actually....that's incredibly appropriate for this infinite loop we're in. Now thats turning a frown upside down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristospherein Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Now is probably the time to point out exactly how the summary is inaccurate rather than just say it is. I already did. i stated the one sentence summary was one-sided. This thread is two-sided, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feuersturm Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Don't forget, in the eyes of KARMA only their opinion matters. If they did otherwise, then they really would not be their KARMA alliance, we would have agreed on terms by now, and everyone would be on their merry way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Dear NPO, I come to you today as a concerned member of the CN community. I have a question for you today. Since when did any amount of monetary reps, and warring for 2 weeks become worse than forcing whole alliances to disband, or be under a viceroyship for a year? (Which, btw, is against the TOS of CN) Thank you for your time, Sincerely, Asriel Belacqua Edit: Forgot the warring for 2 weeks, and the fact that it IS against TOS Edited June 16, 2009 by Asriel Belacqua Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Dear NPO,I come to you today as a concerned member of the CN community. I have a question for you today. Since when did any amount of monetary reps become worse than forcing whole alliances to disband, or be under a viceroyship for a year? (Which, btw, is borderline against the TOS of CN) Thank you for your time, Sincerely, Asriel Belacqua There's nothing borderline about it. After the GATO incident, it became against the TOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) There's nothing borderline about it. After the GATO incident, it became against the TOS. I should edit that, I meant it WAS borderline against the TOS, and then, afterwards, they officially stated it was. My point still stands though, and I'd appreciate it if it was addressed. Edited June 16, 2009 by Asriel Belacqua Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 You guys always threaten the increase in the amount of the terms from where they are now. if we didn't accept them in their current form, what on God's green earth would cause us to accept reps that are worse? This reeks of idiocy. Oh God....it's painfully obvious that so many of you guys have racked up most of your post numbers in this thread. Read the OP. Seriously. Read it again. Now, read the above. According to you guys, you didn't accept the terms as offered. You offered more. Lord, you guys are just painfully dumb. Do yourselves a favor and stop arguing with people who have been here since damn-near the beginning. Or don't....I don't know. All I do know is that you're making it worse for yourselves, and it's painful to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Solution, slightly amend the terms to be possible, reissue, work out a way to be able to dynamically edit and approve term proposals until yall find one that works, and doesnt end in NPO disbandment or eternal war. Done. What a brilliant, unbiased solution. How about NPO accept defeat on all fronts and the terms that come with said defeat, rather than getting continually asspumped by the joint forces of Karma? Seems like a good idea to me and one that benefits all parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Oh God....it's painfully obvious that so many of you guys have racked up most of your post numbers in this thread.Read the OP. Seriously. Read it again. Now, read the above. According to you guys, you didn't accept the terms as offered. You offered more. Lord, you guys are just painfully dumb. Do yourselves a favor and stop arguing with people who have been here since damn-near the beginning. Or don't....I don't know. All I do know is that you're making it worse for yourselves, and it's painful to watch. What he said was either kinda stupid, or you missunderstood him, but you're probably right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbrownso Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) I have no official say in the terms, there is every possibility I could be shot down by my higher ups, the point you should be taking is this;1. Taunting the people offering you peace, bad idea. 2. 200 pages of a PR stunt proves only that you have not learned, regret none of your past actions, and are unlikely to change your behaviour in the future. 3. This sends the message to those fighting you that we should expect you to go right back to business as usual as soon as you possibly can, this encourages harsher terms, not easier ones. 4. Stupidity of the calibre displayed in this thread should have some penalty attached to it. Edit: attacked=/=attached, its 1 am what can I say? that you don't know the difference between attacked and attached? 1. This isn't taunting. It's letting the world know what was demanded and 2. Several Pacificans talked about how they would do things differently. They're mainly saying that they felt their actions were the right thing to do at the time. 3. Not really. It says that Pacifica's spirit won't be broken no matter what. That it won't roll over and give you whatever you want. Might not be what you want, but they don't care because they have faith in NPO and each other. 4. I would argue that keeping up with what you consider to "PR stunt" for 200 pages means you should be penalized as well. If you were so against this thread, why bother reading or responding to it? Edited June 16, 2009 by Brandon Simonson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) If you were so against this thread, why bother reading or responding to it? Probably because it's the funniest thread CN has seen since Dephire got fired. Edited June 16, 2009 by Delta1212 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Dear NPO,I come to you today as a concerned member of the CN community. I have a question for you today. Since when did any amount of monetary reps, and warring for 2 weeks become worse than forcing whole alliances to disband, or be under a viceroyship for a year? (Which, btw, is against the TOS of CN) Thank you for your time, Sincerely, Asriel Belacqua Edit: Forgot the warring for 2 weeks, and the fact that it IS against TOS Would any NPO sympathizers like to respond to this letter? I'd really like an answer, and I don't want to PM you all, as that would just be annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Were you around during the noCB wars? NPO and NpO forums were not the best showings of camaraderie, just ask koona and umbrae. It's true: I lol'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raincoat Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 that you don't know the difference between attacked and attached? 1. This isn't taunting. It's letting the world know what was demanded and 2. Several Pacificans talked about how they would do things differently. They're mainly saying that they felt their actions were the right thing to do at the time. 3. Not really. It says that Pacifica's spirit won't be broken no matter what. That it won't roll over and give you whatever you want. Might not be what you want, but they don't care because they have faith in NPO and each other. 4. I would argue that keeping up with what you consider to "PR stunt" for 200 pages means you should be penalized as well. If you were so against this thread, why bother reading or responding to it? 4. Drama and lulz man. Drama and lulz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts