Tojamn Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) never mind. sorry *eyes ZD* Edited June 13, 2009 by Tojamn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Strider Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 My AA is "Cult of Justitia". Cult of Justitia cannot protect every Red nation, but we have offered to protect nations who actively seek protection under the protectorate AA "Justitian" with access to the Cult's spam forums, trade forums, and a forum to report issues, and without any obligation to the Cult proper except not to initiate attacks while claiming protection. Without exploiting an entire team to hide banks and members. You got that right, I'm the boogie man! We offered and still would like to help any red nation, no matter what AA they are. You should look into helping the NPO in still achieving this goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 My understanding is NPO still wanted to negotiate and it would have made sense given how badly we were overwhelmed. So I don't know why Karma didn't come back to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayOvfEnnay Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Oh for christ's sake... To NPO: Jesus, be glad they didn't take ALL of your !@#$@#$ tech. Go ahead and think back to a little alliance called Athens that surrendered during the NoCB war. In sheer size, yes, this is the largest amount of reps ever proposed for war. NPO is also a massive alliance that has commited more wrongs than any alliance ever in the history of CN. (A) However proportionally, worse reps have been offered. How big was GPA after they got beaten down for a terrible CB and then forced to pay massive terms? How big was MK when they joined a war to defend their allies and after surrendering had to pay terribly large tech reps? God people, yeah the terms are !@#$@#$ huge. But guess what? When you destroy alliances (B) and drive many people not just to ZI, not just to reroll, but from the !@#$@#$ game, then you deserve whatever is coming to you and in full force...... A: I don't care whether you argue with the point that NPO has commited worse acts than any alliance in cyberverse, it isn't the thread is about, and I won't respond. B: I don't care whether you argue with the logic of "OMGUKANTDESTOYALLINSEZ!", for obvious reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I have resigned from VE tonight, primarily as a result of these terms. I do not support this sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeta Defender Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 My AA is "Cult of Justitia". Cult of Justitia cannot protect every Red nation, but we have offered to protect nations who actively seek protection under the protectorate AA "Justitian" with access to the Cult's spam forums, trade forums, and a forum to report issues, and without any obligation to the Cult proper except not to initiate attacks while claiming protection. Without exploiting an entire team to hide banks and members. You got that right, I'm the boogie man! Ok, we have all of this and I can tell you this, I do not know of a single bank who has switched off the NPO AA in over a year to "hide" as you call it. Also how is this different from what we do, we offer protection regardless to any red nation who doesn't start an aggressive attack or who is not in an alliance over over 50. All this without requiring any commitment of AA, and we get them reps too if we can. As much as you want to paint us out as the oppressors of the Red Team we weren't. As the Moldavi doctrine is no more as of this post, I have one question, will you help honor the Revenge Doctrine without requiring an AA change if you have 2 other alliances assisting, NPO and FIRE (If they choose to of course) or will you still claim that because it is an NPO creation that is it bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 We offered and still would like to help any red nation, no matter what AA they are. You should look into helping the NPO in still achieving this goal. Read my sig. No comms with Schattenmann. I've got an Emperor and a Coucnillor in this thread saying NPO wants to work with new Red AAs while banning their leaders from their IRC channel. I've got another Councillor and an Emperor saying they still want to protect unaligneds, while a MilCom calls my efforts to do so repugnant. Good luck, NPO. You're welcome in #CoJ, and at the Roseum Venalicium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrovich4 Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 To hell with what Karma want to do to us. I would rather fight it out for a year then have to grovel at the feet of some big headed leaders. I'll see you in 2010. Merry Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Ok, we have all of this and I can tell you this, I do not know of a single bank who has switched off the NPO AA in over a year to "hide" as you call it. Also how is this different from what we do, we offer protection regardless to any red nation who doesn't start an aggressive attack or who is not in an alliance over over 50. All this without requiring any commitment of AA, and we get them reps too if we can. As much as you want to paint us out as the oppressors of the Red Team we weren't. But now you don't and cannot, that is why I created the Justitian program. As the Moldavi doctrine is no more as of this post, I have one question, will you help honor the Revenge Doctrine without requiring an AA change if you have 2 other alliances assisting, NPO and FIRE (If they choose to of course) or will you still claim that because it is an NPO creation that is it bad? If I'm involved will you call it bad? We shall have to see what we can accomplish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Those are some very harsh terms however as the matter does not directly concern us Magna Europa will abstain from any position on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeta Defender Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Read my sig. No comms with Schattenmann.I've got an Emperor and a Coucnillor in this thread saying NPO wants to work with new Red AAs while banning their leaders from their IRC channel. I've got another Councillor and an Emperor saying they still want to protect unaligneds, while a MilCom calls my efforts to do so repugnant. Good luck, NPO. You're welcome in #CoJ, and at the Roseum Venalicium. PM me your IP, it will be removed. As for the other Red AA, Carter and TimLee both have #nsa access. Any others I am forgetting as you two are the only Red Alliances atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeline Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 we were told they were over. sooo where do you get that we were in the middle of them if they were over? Ignorance is bliss, but does not make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 we were told they were over. sooo where do you get that we were in the middle of them if they were over? Telling yourself that the negotiations are over doesn't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Strider Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I'll see you in 2010.Merry Christmas. What are you going to get Me? Schattenmann, the back channels are still open, why not stop sending messages to NPO members asking them to leave their alliance and start using a bit of logic when dealing with other alliances on red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorost Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 My first reaction is "wow." The face of Bob is going to be forever changed. My second reaction is to agree with Moo that the terms are too harsh. Karma, I believe you took your name from the idea that karma had come to bite NPO in the $@! for their past behavior. I won't argue that point. But I would ask you to consider that the positions have now been reversed. NPO has been defeated, and have acknowledged as much. They are willing to accept the harshest reparations ever levied. They have nullified the Revenge Doctrine. You have your victory, Karma. You have your pound of flesh. What more do you need? When this war began, many on our side saw it as a curbstomp. I refrained from that kind of language. I preferred to believe that honorable people could legitimately disagree, even vigorously oppose one another, without it descending into spitefulness. But these terms... Karma, these terms look like exactly the kind of bullying you accused NPO of. Is that really what you intended? To become the very thing you so decried? I don't think it is. I ask you, Karma, to live up to your namesake. Your enemy is defeated. There is no reason they have to be humiliated as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terminator Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 well to me these terms dont seem that harsh for what NPO has done in the past or what i had in mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrovich4 Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 What are you going to get Me? Based on your heated, anger fuelled post, I know you are going to need a big huggle. Plus some tech. And maybe a soldier or two. Probably two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 well to me these terms dont seem that harsh for what NPO has done in the past or what i had in mind Two wrongs do *not* make a right. And I hate to think what you had in mind.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Listen folks, I don't know what happened in those discussions. I've heard it from both sides. The way it looked to me both sides were at fault for the negotiations falling apart. You can never trust IRC logs, they're so totally editable. So I'll be straight and say I don't know the truth, but neither does anyone here except those present there and any of their claims if not all of their claims could be doctored to make each side look pretty. So trying to pin the war on the NPO alone will not work with me because there's just no evidence to support either side. It was a mutual war. Let me clear it up for you. 1. NPO is a creature of habit. So much so, as it turned out, that laying a trap for was all too easy even when allies were screaming at them behind the scenes like Admiral Ackbar. 2. NPO ended discussions to settle the matter peacefully with OV and proceeded to set up an overkill attack on them with TORN. For reasons I will set aside for now, one last push was made at a negotiated settlement, though it's pretty clear that NPO already had their mind made up. Their presence at the negotiation table was a courtesy to those who claimed they wanted to resolve it, nothing more. 3. Without question Karma was ready to strike as soon as an opportunity presented itself (lord knows I sat around in IRC talking about it enough... ). The OV incident was that opportunity. 4. That NPO sensed the trap too late and then tried to back out of the war quickly (so quickly they forgot to tell TORN) did them no favors. So that's what got us here. Blaming NPO for the war is a bit like blaming Gen[m]ay for the Unjust War/GW IV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huang Ti Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Long thread is long. In response to the OP though... Those terms are shameful. Either ask for massive reps and let NPO pay them as they will, or ask smaller reps and make them pay them pay through nations you specify. Cant have both. And "90% at war for 2 weeks"... that's actually shameful. Congrats KARMA, you have "punished" NPO for being what you now are. Edited June 13, 2009 by Huang Ti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 What is right and wrong is not something you hold universal rights to decide from your perception. I champion nothing but honoring our treaty and I can not leave a treaty partner to a fate such as this from such revenge blinded egotists as this. I am not reading 61 pages before I respond to this. There is such a thing as honoring a treaty with an ally you don't agree with and bowing out when offers have been made. The level at which you and TPF are taking this attachment to the NPO has now reach ridiculous levels. You yourself have not denied that NPO deserves what they are getting and yet you sit here and feign outrage. Mhawk if you knew what was best for you and your alliance you would accept the rumored hands of goodwill that have been extended to you after almost 2 months of war. If the NPO want's to dig their grave thats fine. There is no reason to make TPF, an alliance that in my eyes has made amends for past transgressions, go to that grave with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Let me clear it up for you.1. NPO is a creature of habit. So much so, as it turned out, that laying a trap for was all too easy even when allies were screaming at them behind the scenes like Admiral Ackbar. 2. NPO ended discussions to settle the matter peacefully with OV and proceeded to set up an overkill attack on them with TORN. For reasons I will set aside for now, one last push was made at a negotiated settlement, though it's pretty clear that NPO already had their mind made up. Their presence at the negotiation table was a courtesy to those who claimed they wanted to resolve it, nothing more. 3. Without question Karma was ready to strike as soon as an opportunity presented itself (lord knows I sat around in IRC talking about it enough... ). The OV incident was that opportunity. 4. That NPO sensed the trap too late and then tried to back out of the war quickly (so quickly they forgot to tell TORN) did them no favors. So that's what got us here. Blaming NPO for the war is a bit like blaming Gen[m]ay for the Unjust War/GW IV. Oh my God. Don't tell me I actually agree with most of your post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Two wrongs do *not* make a right. And I hate to think what you had in mind.... "I do believe that they make a left, a new path to follow." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Soviet Attack Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Are you really saying it is intelligent to let your secrets be spied away and do nothing about it? You know as well as I do that every alliance accepts information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 "I do believe that they make a left, a new path to follow." Two wrongs make two wrongs + potential for more wrongs to occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts