Timeline Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Two wrongs do *not* make a right. And I hate to think what you had in mind.... TBH it do not matter, what will be will be Edited June 13, 2009 by Timeline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 That means nothing without some context. Oh yes it does. It shows clearly that they intend to drive Zog out of the (OOC) game. (OOC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Alright, I'm sick of hearing your filth. First off I did support Karma. I publicly voiced my satisfaction with how you conducted this war and your idea of a new CN that brought about change and mercy. If you don't believe it then look back at my posts rather than just sitting here yelling at me saying, "you never supported us don't lie!" Fact is I did to the point I wanted to post a congragulatory thread to Karma but never got around to it. Ok? So put your blathering to rest, please. And on another note why are the likes of Sparta and Ragnarok explaining to us how bad EZI is? I don't understand. Were you guys ever EZI'd? You supported the monster that advocated EZI and PZI for the longest time. Ragnarok allied with NPO if not to get back at the NpO but now all is forgiven? I don't quite understand how changing your colors at the last minute makes you exempt from your past actions. As if you're not guilty of the exact same things! Why did Valhalla and Old Guard get off free while NPO is to bare the front of all the reparations that you've hidden from us all placed on Pacifica herself? We know of NPO's past transgressions you don't need to explain it to us over and over again. You've supported their actions for the past three years as well, you're as much to blame as they were if their power relied on your compliance. Your passing of the buck and having it end in blaming it on Pacifica for a sum of 300k in tech and 8 billion in reparations is not even for revenge for the likes of Sparta and Ragnarok, yet fear. Fear of the NPO coming back and haunting them for their betrayal. I know EZI, I've been there and let me say I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Nor would I wish these harsh reps you placed on the NPO on anyone. No, not even if we came back in a Coalition to take you down. Yet you seem to be content with these harsh reps. Payable or not they are harsh and is a halmark move of the NPO herself. Don't bring me up BS about what "Karma means." I know what it means, I took a class on World Cultures. What I do know is what goes around does come around, and it doesn't pick a person or sides with anyone in particular. It just happens. And now that it's happening to the NPO you want to give them harsh reps so they can never walk the same way again. That's fine, nothing we can do about it. But as AlmightyGrub said if you want revenge, admit it as so. If you want to dish out harsh reps know that it is a move made by Pacifica and it's no different than how they did it. Just admit it, don't say you are different when you're not. You're not fooling anyone except for yourselves. And TPF, we'll be back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristospherein Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Not harsh enough imo Were you not once part of the NPO? Isn't it hypocritical to throw stones at what you once were a part of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Doesnt this kind of thing go against your codex, I know its in the (temp) bin at the moment but saying this is acceptable now shows Gramlins deem it to be fair and something they would accept themselves if defeated in a future war. We're not at war with NPO, so everything said by our members in that regard are personal opinions. Care to elaborate why you think our codex is "in the bin"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I just spit some cereal all over the screen. I have, and my alliance has, proven that we will stick to our allies to the end. Really? I can name 2 right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The TPF have shown enough honour and commitment to their allies for the entire Coalition of Cowards. They can bow out any time they want now and no one could call them anything but honourable. Exactly. I am glad someone got my statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 This is a bloody farce. The terms are simply idiotic, since the greed have blinded you all.If this was truly about not letting the NPO rebuild fast enough to come back and haunt you, you would have done this in an entirely different way. Examples on "better" terms than reps: The war will last in three more weeks. The NPO nations that are not out of peace mode by one week have to stay in peace mode for the duration of the terms. No aid slots are to be used at all. All NPO nations must maintain a full military force at all time. This includes all military improvements and a full force of military units. If a nation don't have enough improvement slots to maintain all military improvements, they must be built in this order: Guerilla camps, Shipyard, Drydock, Satellite, Missile Defence, Barracks, Naval academy, Naval construction yard. No NPO nations can own factories. No wonders are to be built for the duration of the terms No NPO nations can have full trade slots at any time No NPO nation can run for senate NPO have to give up the moldavi and the revenge doctrines NPO have to lift all sanctions towards dead or alive alliances. Clean the slate if you may. Any violation of these terms will result in the immediate attack upon the violator. If more than 1/5 of the alliance is in breach of these terms, it will be looked upon as an alliance wide violation and will result in a full scale war on the NPO The duration of these terms is 6 months Maybe some minor reps as well, but nothing even remotely close to what has been offered. I am disappointed over some of the alliances fighting NPO. You're better than this. You're smarter than this. Now bloody show it If someone in KARMA leadership would comment on this, I would be very happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I still think that scalpel could be sharpened more, but .. Oh well. You are part of the NPO. You can't reap the benefits of being in that alliance and and protest peope's treatments of you for being in that alliance at the same time. Oh yes it does. It shows clearly that they intend to drive Zog out of the (OOC) game. (OOC) I think that was meant to be sarcastic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Stalin Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Were you not once part of the NPO? Isn't it hypocritical to throw stones at what you once were a part of? ...no? If he agreed with the NPO's policies he would've stayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrator Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Is it just me or is it getting lonely out here? What happened to all the NPOers? The radio silence has been lifted, so why aren't they saying anything? I was expecting a hundred hails hailing the brilliance of their emperor, but all I hear is one tired soldier. Where are you guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I think that was meant to be sarcastic Ah, snap. My sarcasm-o-meter occasionally has moments of epic fail. Especially at 2 am in the morning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrator Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Were you not once part of the NPO? Isn't it hypocritical to throw stones at what you once were a part of? No. Actually it is even more fitting that former NPOers disown the movement. They, afterall, should know the most about the NPO's dealings. Edited June 13, 2009 by Angrator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) If someone in KARMA leadership would comment on this, I would be very happy Don't know if I count as that, but ... most of those terms are considerably more vindictive than what have actually been offered and I would be much less inclined to support them. Edit: Oh yes, and about 'greed' – I'm sure the NPO's nukes over a month and a half have done way more damage than a mere $300bn. Suggesting that reps are to do with making money out of the war is just silly. The 90% thing is about the only part of the offered terms which are unlikely to be possible – making it 90% over 4000 infra should remove the problem of inactive nations, which generally do not bother to build themselves up. Those that are refusing war orders should be expelled anyway, and a list of these (and upper tier ghosts, if there are any) can be provided to Karma leadership, removing them from the calculations and allowing Karma to assist NPO with punishing its traitors, cowards and ghosts. And yes, two weeks of nuclear war at the high infrastructure levels is completely impossible to recover from ... oh wait. Edited June 13, 2009 by Bob Janova Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Oh yes it does. It shows clearly that they intend to drive Zog out of the (OOC) game. (OOC) He was kidding. But to further drive the point home: In May we cleared our ZI lists. I do not know who was threatening your member or why, but if you PM me I can look into it. In early March I inquired of Dilber about my EZI status. He said he would look into it. Now....if the NPO does not and never has practiced EZI, what would there be to look into? In April, the Lone Star Republic (LSR government member James IV, to be specific) asked you the same question. You said you would get back to them. Again, if the NPO does not and never has practiced EZI, why would you need to get back to him? I also sent you a PM about this. Again....no response. Finally, you forget that I once belonged to the NPO. I have seen your 'kill on sight' list, which during my tenure included the names of individuals (Reich Zealand, for example) who had deleted their nations some time ago. And yet their names were still on the list. The NPO has never engaged in PZI/EZI? Suuuuuuuuuure. Edited June 13, 2009 by kingzog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Really? I can name 2 right now. Really? I can name 2 that engaged in offensive behavior that would cause them to get rolled by the most lenient of alliances. And those 2 incidents helped MK re-evaluate its philosophy and changed itself for the better. But this isn't the thread for this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 He was kidding. See what I said above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristospherein Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 It's all good. I hear NPO can move BILLIONS. Were you also not once a part of the NPO war machine? Is it not hypocritical now to throw stones at what you once were? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Don't know if I count as that, but ... most of those terms are considerably more vindictive than what have actually been offered and I would be much less inclined to support them. I agree that these might be more vindictive, but they are also much more true to what many believe is the true purpose of this war. Namely making it so that NPO can't come back and haunt them. Why not give the NPO a choice between something like this and the other terms they have been presented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) This is a bloody farce. The terms are simply idiotic, since the greed have blinded you all.If this was truly about not letting the NPO rebuild fast enough to come back and haunt you, you would have done this in an entirely different way. Examples on "better" terms than reps: The war will last in three more weeks. The NPO nations that are not out of peace mode by one week have to stay in peace mode for the duration of the terms. No aid slots are to be used at all. All NPO nations must maintain a full military force at all time. This includes all military improvements and a full force of military units. If a nation don't have enough improvement slots to maintain all military improvements, they must be built in this order: Guerilla camps, Shipyard, Drydock, Satellite, Missile Defence, Barracks, Naval academy, Naval construction yard. No NPO nations can own factories. No wonders are to be built for the duration of the terms No NPO nations can have full trade slots at any time No NPO nation can run for senate NPO have to give up the moldavi and the revenge doctrines NPO have to lift all sanctions towards dead or alive alliances. Clean the slate if you may. Any violation of these terms will result in the immediate attack upon the violator. If more than 1/5 of the alliance is in breach of these terms, it will be looked upon as an alliance wide violation and will result in a full scale war on the NPO The duration of these terms is 6 months Maybe some minor reps as well, but nothing even remotely close to what has been offered. I am disappointed over some of the alliances fighting NPO. You're better than this. You're smarter than this. Now bloody show it These are actually pretty smart terms IMO Mr. Jerusalem. I'm not an official, just saying it, no way you could get all the alliances at war with NPO to agree upon these though. EDIT: yes I suck at grammar, this edit sign is forever a humiliating reminder of that. Edited June 13, 2009 by jack diorno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristospherein Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) No. Actually it is even more fitting that former NPOers disown the movement. They, afterall, should know the most about the NPO's dealings. They should and do but that still doesn't make any sense. It's hypocritical just as these terms. Edited June 13, 2009 by Kristospherein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Were you also not once a part of the NPO war machine? Is it not hypocritical now to throw stones at what you once were? No. Actually it is even more fitting that former NPOers disown the movement. They, afterall, should know the most about the NPO's dealings. Come up with something new please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 They should and do but that still doesn't make any sense. It's hypocritical just as these terms. It's not hypocritical to decide that you no longer want to be part of something wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Were you also not once a part of the NPO war machine? Is it not hypocritical now to throw stones at what you once were? He isn't anymore. I think that should explain it well enough, the fact that he is no longer a member means that he doesn't support their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 It's not hypocritical to decide that you no longer want to be part of something wrong. I agree with this, for obvious reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts