The AUT Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I fully retract my statements about Tygaland and STA concerning the reps given to NPO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I'm pretty sure it has been said on IRC, but at times IRC works counterproductive.Personally i find it hard to imagine that the majority of Karma coalition nations think highly of these peace terms for Pacifica. Sadly enough only the people with axes to grind blabber all over this topic. It's time for the negotiators to actually listen to their members and grant white peace to Pacifica instead of following up with this farce. Honestly, I think posts such as yours only strengthen the resolve of the Karma forces. They have already stated many disagreed with the level of severity of the peace terms (either being too high or too soft) but when a OP such as this is released all it does is further strengthen their comradeship and help them realize the level of arrogance they are up against. Even in clear defeat the NPO wishes to dictate how peace is done and all of a sudden have become a full disclosure alliance bearing forth all the 'private channels FTW' conversations they have partaken in. If the OP goal was to some how prey upon a fissure forming among the different Karma powers they have done the opposite I think and helped them find a common ground once again. Bravo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I don't really see what you're arguing here. "Do something about it." meant the same thing three years ago as it does today. As in, if you disagree with how we run ourselves and this place, make us change the way we play.It's not their fault that they called you on it, eventually. In that case, this thread will be a gold mine for years to come. I will look forward to referencing your opinion in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kill Joy Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Thanks for the great summary delta, amusing read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre27 Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 At the start of the war many may have supported harsh terms, but after reading this? You may wish to think about that. Good night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) It can only be for PR, which in itself is hilarious because the vast majority of people who are reading these threads are bombing the hell out of them at the moment.I know I'm not swayed, are you? LMAO, I remember when the vast majority spouted the same crap about FAN. I can remember when many in this Karma coalition would responded to "ANY" FAN thread with junk like "you're irrelevant" "just die already" "go away" FAN is just trying to smear NPO" "Its only for the PR" Seems it worked out pretty well for them in the end. To all the KARMA people pointing out "FAN, GATO, GPA" as some of NPO's crimes I'd like to point out it wasn't that long ago that KARMA people told FAN "Hey glad you got peace, but you had nothing to do with this" Maybe if I get bored enough I'll go cherry picking gems from the past issued by the most vocal of KARMA members in this thread. Every who has taken loot after wars raise your hands now. Edited June 15, 2009 by Merrie Melodies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Death II Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Protip: STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD! You are beating a dead horse, let it go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre27 Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I'll admit, it is quite an accomplishment to make the funniest post in a 190 page thread - congratulations good sir. You win one cookie. Make it a chocolate one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 White peace was only for the alliances that left early when it was possibly benificial to the Karma war effort. At this point, aint nobody getting white peace because there's zero advantage to it for the victors. I'm afraid anybody pushin' for white peace at this point is part of a tiny minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 At the start of the war many may have supported harsh terms, but after reading this?You may wish to think about that. Good night. Or you know, the same people who've supported them from the beginning are still supporting them. Hence the terms being offered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 That leaves you out of it doesn't it. Hello Mr. GGA... You can't really talk about a spine... I mean, NPO have defended you on numerous occasions, but you took the easy way out when the tables were turned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftbehind Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Well, in reality there are a small group of alliances (well I guess 18 isn't that small) actually fighting us, and a massive horde who seem to think that they are.It's rather strange. Its not strange its called support. When will you simply suck it up and move on? Accept the terms or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold the Saxon Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I am restating this since I feel it is relevant and a different analysis from other points of view. Thank you for your time: Hello. I am going to ask all of you a really big favour. You probably won't like this nor will you agree, but my favour is ask that you read all the way through and decide for yourselves, as objectively as possible, how you feel about my analysis.Universality. A ethical standard held by rights-based theorists that a moral law should be universal in application: each person must be held to the standards we would choose for ourselves. A quicker reference would be 'do unto others as you would have done unto you.' I am not one for always carrying every OOC characteristic into a game. As such, I try to create a different character as much as possible. Moreover, I feel some ideals are worth striving for in a separate, virtual world. One of them is basic concept of rights - the right to life, property, and liberty. That is, that each individual and alliance should should be protected in their own existence, to that which they have made, and to their ability to exist without external interference in their acts of freedom. I am one who always believes in a good trial, or, in this case, a due process of law and objectivity. I am one who believes in innocence always before guilt, and decision always before punishment. I am one who believes not in the justice of the lynching mob, but in the justice of a world we wish to envision; the world we will want to create for ourselves. You may hate the Pacific Order. You may despise every single attribute, action, and player amongst them, if you will. What I ask is not that you change your mind, only that you give them due process. Treat them as you would wish to be treated in their condition and subject them only to terms which are both reasonable (as in non-contradictory) and just (as in terms properly earned by their actions). In the terms of what is just, it is easy to see the main Karma argument for a serious punishment of the NPO. Not only do I understand completely, but I also concur. The manner in which Pacifica has played this game, from my ethical standpoint, is very much in contradiction of what I have just told you. In fact, I am a player who has been wiped out before due to such actions. My goal is not to prove to you that the NPO is good and deserves no punishment, rather, that, even if they are evil to a degree, that justice is not served by total, unrequited revenge. Why is this? As much wrong as they may have done and players they have made furious (and boy, I know many of them. There have been conspiracies running against Pacifica for over two years now, in my recollection) Pacifica still has these fundamental rights of freedom, property, and life. Justice, no matter how severe, should not serve as a means to enslave and shackle these people - they are active, regular players like you or I and not savage animals who deserve to be chained. Give them huge reparations demands and give them regular surrender terms: decomission of missiles, destruction of wonders, reduced armies, and other restrictions but none that inhibit their ability to exist as a sovereign entity. Non-contradictory terms are an essential to the rights-based formation of Pacifica's surrender. When I say non-contradictory, I suggest terms that are sensible in their demands in that they are both possible and reachable. Karma has not properly followed this thought. For while it is fine to demand a large amount of reparations for war indemnities, another demand, if not preventing the reparations, seriously harms this ability. I am speaking about the 2-week free war campaign on Pacifica nations. You may name it as you please. I see it as simply a way to beatdown nations for more before surrender terms can take effect. It is one thing to demand exorbitant reparations, but another, completely contradictory measure, to demand that an alliance sign itself to annihilation before such a thing can occur. Even a thief, as low as he may be, and perhaps as the NPO has acted, would not attempt to pretend to you what they do is ethically correct. Not only is this term a major case of coercion - the use of force to compel a party to give-in - but economically unsound. Certainly, any leader can ascertain that, if both of these terms come into effect, there will be problems. Regardless of how well the NPO economic position is, and it is probably not stellar at this moment, the last thing you want during your repayment is 6 wars filling your slots, draining your resources. Regardless of how well off your nation is, you're going to bleed money, technology, land, and infrastructure like a serious case of hemophilia. This term has never been demanded, in my memory, to any alliance. Not in this nature. Its clear intention is to, at the very least, make Pacifica's position untenable and difficult. This is not wrong on its own. Why it is wrong, as we track back, is universality. Imagine you are a regular soldier in the NPO ranks, fighting a war to desparately save your nation from this apocalypse. Surely, you don't want to fight forever, but you don't want to lose your power to grow and maintain your existence. Then, you are offered terms which may make this impossible. I admit, in the past, other alliances have been offered these kinds of terms (and may they rest in peace, such as NAAC, NoR, NoV, LUE, ONOS, et al). Would you not be inclined to be suspicious and wish to preserve yourself; would you not feel you deserve punishment but not that any nation deserves enslavement or any form of permanent-ZI? My rights-based approach suggests that the reasonable limits of any form of revenge borders where complete removal of unfair advantage or retribution for wrongs done meets the inability to live, function, or own a nation at all. Surely your goal is not to send every NPO nation to ZI nor to force them to quit the game (or maybe even leave the NPO, if they choose) or prevent the NPO from being an alliance which can conduct its own affairs. Your goal is to punish the NPO severely enough to prevent it from committing to the unjust acts it has perpetrated in the past and will do so in the future. Let us not be the ones who tar and feather the man or pull the guillotine on the King before we decide if our actions are morally correct. If we do this to the NPO - that is, subject them to these harsh and debilitating terms - with a clearly malicious intent (which, right or wrong, is Karma's goal) what kind of world will we create? What kind of standard do we set? Are we properly considering alternatives or are we merely playing follow the leader until NPO goes to hell with head in a handbasket? TL; DR: I think, in conclusion, that these terms are severe because of the introduction of the 2-week war period following surrender. I concur that it would be just to demand heavy reparations of the NPO to atone for misdeeds against enemies both past and present. However, I do not agree to terms which clearly handicap any alliance from carrying out not only its regular functions but very existence itself. Though the NPO has a history of doing just that, I believe that a better political state would involve us standing up to a due process of law involving an objective analysis of our actions, and not just a blind, emotional revenge, leaving us politically fragmented and angry. If we treat the NPO, in its wrongful steps, as we would wished to be treated in their position, it is plain to see that punishment is necessary, but total destruction is not morally correct. Cut the forced war term and make them pay the reparations in full. A better world, if we strive to create one for ourselves, will not be made in the ashes of aggression, blood, and antagonism - the seeds which have sown the beast's own destruction. Likewise, Karma, if it knows its true name at all, should appreciate the value of justice with reasonable limits; revenge but not total annihilation; war but only to preserve peace; preservation of life as opposed to temptation of pulling the trigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Michaels Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 That leaves you out of it doesn't it. Do you really want to go down this path? I can guarantee it will end badly for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damon Sriv Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 And what do you expect, that we accept this rubbish of terms? That we let every single Order nation to get hit hard in this war and then pay gazillions of dollars. Well, sorry we don't play ball like that. Our stance is natural to take for anybody in our position. Sorry to anybody for feeling greatly insulted by the fact we dont want to get utterly annihilated. Actually no, not sorry. We are evil for trying to avoid that. Ah that ebil NPO, is to blame for everything. However, it was good enough for some of the alliances you fought. FAN anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 It's time for the negotiators to actually listen to their members and grant white peace to Pacifica instead of following up with this farce. What. No really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 The meme seems to have far outlived the opinion it was referencing. Haha well yeah, *now*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 It's time for the negotiators to actually listen to their members and grant white peace to Pacifica instead of following up with this farce. Oh no, you don't want this. Trust me. Our general membership would be a lot nastier about this than our leaders were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I'm pretty sure it has been said on IRC, but at times IRC works counterproductive.Personally i find it hard to imagine that the majority of Karma coalition nations think highly of these peace terms for Pacifica. Sadly enough only the people with axes to grind blabber all over this topic. It's time for the negotiators to actually listen to their members and grant white peace to Pacifica instead of following up with this farce. This man wins best post of the thread. Sheer hilarity ensues after a line like that, when you don't realize that the general membership of most alliances involved in Karma actually wants to disband and destroy Pacifica even more completely than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 It's time for the negotiators to actually listen to their members and grant white peace to Pacifica instead of following up with this farce. When I was in Athens, people kept dogging me for wanting to go with moderate terms instead of disbandment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg23 Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I fully retract my statements about Tygaland and STA concerning the reps given to NPO. Good thing we'll be able to find it in this here thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruler with Plan X Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 You know what would suck? If people dug through your history and brought up every single thing you did, ignoring any justification and simply saying "You are evil". How would that feel? I don't mind it that much, but I'm also not 100% sane, so my feelings might not be trustworthy.Well I assume Superfriends wouldn't care at all because we're evil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold the Saxon Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) I'm pretty sure it has been said on IRC, but at times IRC works counterproductive.Personally i find it hard to imagine that the majority of Karma coalition nations think highly of these peace terms for Pacifica. Sadly enough only the people with axes to grind blabber all over this topic. It's time for the negotiators to actually listen to their members and grant white peace to Pacifica instead of following up with this farce. This is truly an example of a completely faulty argument. Not only are your premises false (1) that all this was said on IRC, 2) that IRC can be counterproductive (in this fashion), and 3) that most Karma nations want a better list of terms for the NPO) but so is your conclusion (that negotiators should 'listen' to their nations and grant white peace). In fact, even if all of your premises were correct, your conclusion wouldn't even follow (if anything, it would only suggest that some nations want leaner terms on Pacifica, which amounts to nothing). Can you please rephrase this so it doesn't fail? Thank you. Edited June 15, 2009 by Harold the Saxon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) Well I assume Superfriends wouldn't care at all because we're evil This is an astute statement and I commend you for making it. Note that SF isn't inherently violent, we just tend to sever your head and put it on a wooden pike outside our front door if you touch us or ours. Edited June 15, 2009 by Viking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 This is an astute statement and I commend you for making it.Note that SF isn't inherently violent, we just tend to sever your head and put it on a wooden pike outside our front door if you touch us or ours. Yes your so evil, I mean with a name like Super Friends what else would you be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts