Haflinger Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I was not here for that, can I plead the exception that proves the rule? Wouldn't be much of an exception, it's very rarely ever been done. STA was the first alliance I've seen to do it, NPO the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Wouldn't be much of an exception, it's very rarely ever been done. STA was the first alliance I've seen to do it, NPO the second. Don't count your chickens before they hatch, it hasn't worked for the NPO yet. Unless you mean GW1 and not this thread, in which case never mind. Edited June 16, 2009 by TypoNinja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raincoat Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I was not here for that, can I plead the exception that proves the rule? Err no that would be Vox wouldn't it? Ahhh.. snookered. Ok it usually doesn't help. It really did not help Vox grow as an alliance or help the members of Vox. PR campaigns are long and generally don't change the original matter, they just make people think twice in the future. These surrender terms won't change, but if Karma were to get into another war(which they won't), they would think twice about giving these sort of terms. At this point if Karma lessens the terms they would look weak and ineffective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonOfHoward Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 And you are the one to force such a choice... NPO made that decision for themselves when they attacked OV during negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raincoat Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 The game is stats, if the NPO wanted to exist as some online community with no relation to the game they could but they are an alliance in the game. Their existence relies on existing in the game.With these terms, no rebuilding can be done at all for every NPO nation save the 50 or so that have sizable warchests. They go beyond asking the losing alliance to stagnate or remain broken but ask for further damage and reparations that would force servitude for indefinite period. The 14 days of war will simply leave most of the unable to recover, perhaps even risking bill lock. Don't let vengeance blind your judgment. These terms were carefully written to be refused and leave some room as to not invoke too much outrage. Why exactly can't any "rebuilding be done at all"? Nations can still collect taxes and the lower nations can engage in tech deals. They will still be able to grow. And these terms are not indefinent, after their completion NPO can start rebuilding at full force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Seeing how as we have defeated you in a military conflict you and your allies started aggressively, yes I'd say we are. Who else? Where is the line of too much? I presume since you have won a military victory, any answer decided by you is appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Where is the line of too much? I presume since you have won a military victory, any answer decided by you is appropriate. Well, yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 NPO made that decision for themselves when they attacked OV during negotiations. This is really why discussing anything here is pointless. Everyone has a tagline to use at this point. X deserves Y because of Z. Z is presumed to be some universal truth from which all other deductions can flow. Anyways, have fun with the ego trip guys, it's not all the fun you'd imagine it to be down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Where is the line of too much? I presume since you have won a military victory, any answer decided by you is appropriate. That's how it worked when NPO was doing things too, so, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 That's how it worked when NPO was doing things too, so, yes. Did you agree with that system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israfeel Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 That's how it worked when NPO was doing things too, so, yes. I don't think you yourselves take that as a justification for what is being done here. At this point it has become loot and plunder. None of you really fear that the NPO will somehow come back and be able to take all of you apart, it is a mob beating a corpse now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Did you agree with that system? No, I did not, and I do not agree with this one either. Fact is, that's how they will see it and I'm in no position to change it. And after what they did to my countless friends who were forced to leave the game under their boot, I don't much care enough to voice it to the people who could change it. Ahh, apathy, such a wonderful thing. I don't think you yourselves take that as a justification for what is being done here. At this point it has become loot and plunder. None of you really fear that the NPO will somehow come back and be able to take all of you apart, it is a mob beating a corpse now. Again, I don't agree with this system, when either side is doing it. I don't fear the NPO will come back, and I am not actually beating down the NPO, I am not at war with them, nor was I ever, except when they were at war with my alliance, which was far in the past. I am not out to loot and plunder them, again, I have no say in the reps or terms, and I would not actually gain anything from them. Edited June 16, 2009 by Asriel Belacqua Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Where is the line of too much? I presume since you have won a military victory, any answer decided by you is appropriate. Are you finding the precedent you and yours spent so long establishing a little uncomfortable once you're on the receiving end? Edited June 16, 2009 by TypoNinja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krack Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) I don't think you yourselves take that as a justification for what is being done here. At this point it has become loot and plunder. None of you really fear that the NPO will somehow come back and be able to take all of you apart, it is a mob beating a corpse now. I do (and I'm not even in "Karma"). Edited June 16, 2009 by Krack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raincoat Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I don't think you yourselves take that as a justification for what is being done here. At this point it has become loot and plunder. None of you really fear that the NPO will somehow come back and be able to take all of you apart, it is a mob beating a corpse now. If they are giving light terms I think it is a very real possibility. They have massive banks which could quickly rebuild from war. Plus, if they get light terms they have no incentive to change their ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I don't think you yourselves take that as a justification for what is being done here. At this point it has become loot and plunder. None of you really fear that the NPO will somehow come back and be able to take all of you apart, it is a mob beating a corpse now. No matter how many times you tell yourself this, it doesn't make it true. Let's assume you are correct, though, what does that change? Nothing. You have your terms. Accept them, or keep fighting. I don't care what the NPO does at this point, and I'm sure I'm not the only one with this view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I was going to write out a long winded and factual reply as to why Karma is hypocritical to the point of being funny. Then I remembered that there's no point.At least I don't see any more of the white horse, good guy, ending oppression and making CN a better place garbage anymore. That's all gone and been replaced with "Well, you deserve it" Treating cancer is often an unpleasant task, but the life you live after can be quite nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 None of you really fear that the NPO will somehow come back and be able to take all of you apart, it is a mob beating a corpse now. Uhh, are you serious? I think that is a major concern of most people involved in Karma.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 None of you really fear that the NPO will somehow come back and be able to take all of you apart, it is a mob beating a corpse now. Actually, I think most people kinda do fear exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Did you agree with that system? Would you tell an animal lover that they're wrong to put down a rabid dog? This is exactly what you're trying to argue, and there's a good reason no one's buying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Would you tell an animal lover that they're wrong to put down a rabid dog? This is exactly what you're trying to argue, and there's a good reason no one's buying it. Rabid would imply there is no hope, why offer terms at all then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinKiac Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 20 "measly" nations can give out 300 tech each, 6000 total per cycle. Assume something logical like a 70% efficiency (it's the summer folks, one person being a single day late in aiding will cost them 10% efficiency) And you'd get 12,600 moved per month. (Way below the minimum payment btw) 300k/12.6k = 23.8 months. Plus an additional 9.25 months for the 7 billion. Is 33 months what you mean by "20 nations alone could pay off the war debt"? I know Im digging up an old post, but I must have missed this one before. So, what Letum has demonstrated here is that 20 nations could pay these reps in 33 months. That means 40 could do it in 17? 80 in 8.5? So, if the NPO is only getting 70% of 80 nations, assuming that only 80 would be able to pay(could be higher) then 8.5 months. Funny that is not the years people are saying it is and this is coming from one of your own members. With a bit of work you could do it in ...... wait for it.......lol....... 6 months. Isnt that what Karma has been saying all along. This does not equate to eternal reps and any eternal war will be NPO's own choosing. Just take the terms already and end this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Strider Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) You're ignoring the part where Tygaland differentiated the type of Viceroy he was, and the types of Viceroy that NPO subsequently used after him. So no, he's not a hypocrite. No I am not, HE said it was different, that doesn't make it different. Just like him saying recent one have been heads of those governments. It is all a matter of opinion, I just don't happen to agree with all of his. Edited June 16, 2009 by Lord Strider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristospherein Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Uhh, are you serious?I think that is a major concern of most people involved in Karma.. I disagree. The focus of the majority of this thread has been on making us pay for our past transgressions not on a concern about how we'll storm back from the dead and take everyone out. Yes, there have been a few comments here and there about it, but I feel the reps are more about revenge than they are about any concern of us coming back and hunting Karma down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Are you finding the precedent you and yours spent so long establishing a little uncomfortable once you're on the receiving end? "You and yours (VE's alliance with NPO)" did far more to set a precedent than I ever did. In just one of Rok's wars, they collected 30x the total reps I've ever received in over 2 years as an alliance leader from 7-8 victorious wars. Your VE also took more reps from MK than I took from all the alliances combined I've fought as an alliance leader in several years. "You and yours" Yeah. Edited June 16, 2009 by mhawk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts