Cynic2 Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The irony of you calling out other alliances as back stabbing when LoSS mass cancelled about every single treaty that it had in one post days before a war started involving those very same alliances. Then signing a treaty with an alliance that would put you on the other side of the war on the same day, thus flip flopping every aspect of your foreign policy from many months before. You have no right to talk about back stabbing, my friend. While I my be relatively new to LoSS I can say that everything that I have seen or heard from government, fellow members, and private sections of our forums shows me quite clearly that the mass cancellations were in preparation of our alliance changing over to a new form of government and symbolizing our commitment to starting anew. Cancelling all of our treaties was a way to ensure that our new government had a clean slate to work with, and they felt that we had enough comradery with our new ally to sign a treaty with them right off the bat. I am unaware of any plans to join the war that were formulated before our ally requested us to join. The timing may look suspicious to an outsider but internally we were working on changing our focus and direction and were not motivated by opportunism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 You attacked them. And 100 paid tech deals killed you. No, I attacked in the defense of MK whom I had an MADP. That doesnt actually make me the aggressor, I know its crazy. Also, did you ignore me? We had to pay 100 deals with some 5 active nations in the range with NPO not giving us a constant stream of buyers. Do you choose to ignore my posts or what? I see you also ignored the fact that NPO gave us indefinite demilitarization clause after we had already agreed to completely different terms. As a man who keeps himself at such high regard for honoring pacts, I thought youd understand how thats a bit $%&@ed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Karma has not pushed harsh terms on alliances that have been given peace already. Aurora Borealis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 No, I attacked in the defense of MK whom I had an MADP. That doesnt actually make me the aggressor, I know its crazy. Also, did you ignore me? We had to pay 100 deals with some 5 active nations in the range with NPO not giving us a constant stream of buyers. Do you choose to ignore my posts or what? I see you also ignored the fact that NPO gave us indefinite demilitarization clause after we had already agreed to completely different terms. As a man who keeps himself at such high regard for honoring pacts, I thought youd understand how thats a bit $%&@ed up. honestly Stumpy, what did you expect? In his eyes NPO can do no wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Stalin Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 You attacked them. And 100 paid tech deals killed you. They were pretty flakey with the payments tbh, it basically started to amount to half our upper level nations giving them tech for free in the hopes that they'd send us the money later and let out of the indefinite demilitirization Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scythegfx Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Aurora Borealis. This man speaks truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Aurora Borealis. Terra Prime too, it forced their disbandment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 No, I attacked in the defense of MK whom I had an MADP. That doesnt actually make me the aggressor, I know its crazy. Also, did you ignore me? We had to pay 100 deals with some 5 active nations in the range with NPO not giving us a constant stream of buyers. Do you choose to ignore my posts or what? I see you also ignored the fact that NPO gave us indefinite demilitarization clause after we had already agreed to completely different terms. As a man who keeps himself at such high regard for honoring pacts, I thought youd understand how thats a bit $%&@ed up. I looked it up before posting, these were your terms. I. TDSM8 hereby agrees to decommission all soldiers to less than 30% for the duration of this worldwide conflict. TDSM8 will also destroy all tanks, aircraft, and navy for the duration of the conflict. TDSM8 will also decommision all military improvements except for Intel Agencies for the duration of the conflict. Nations with wonders that require military improvements can keep those improvements. TDSM8 will not reenter the conflict in any way whatsoever. II. TDSM8 will undertake 100 tech deals with the NPO at the price of 3 million for 100 tech. III. TDSM8 promises to provide a cold beer to Philosopher in the next 30 minutes. I don't see anything about "nations in range" ect. Are you saying they changed the terms after you signed these? If they did then yes that is messed up. And as you regard honoring pacts so highly can you see how we view these terms and rejection of an even higher money value as a bit messed up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristospherein Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I think everyone has been saying that the "move 90% of peace nations out of peace mode and war for 2 weeks" is the most "unfair" part of the terms. Several of the active members of Karma have already stated that NPO could easily provide a list of TRUE active members (i.e. not ghosts or inactive due to RL) and work on the true percentage. That way, it is not "impossible" to reach the 90%. Karma seems willing to discuss this number with NPO, which I think is a step in the right direction. What NPO appears to want, is to not have any of their nations that have been camping in peace mode see any war, i.e. remove the item from the terms completely. and I don't think that is entirely justified on their part. This post sums the situation up fairly well, except I disagree with you on your final point. But good post nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 We have to expel everyone taking a summer vacation? No way is 10% of your membership genuinely unable to deal with two weeks of war. I know what the rough incidence of people being away is and it is never 10% at one time. But I guess only the Pacific can take the burden for the desires of its allies during the Coalition and Unjust wars. I never once mentioned those wars, since they are not Pacifican injustices. You'll note that Polar's actions in the UjW were a significant part of the justification for attacking them, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) I looked it up before posting, these were your terms. I. TDSM8 hereby agrees to decommission all soldiers to less than 30% for the duration of this worldwide conflict. TDSM8 will also destroy all tanks, aircraft, and navy for the duration of the conflict. TDSM8 will also decommision all military improvements except for Intel Agencies for the duration of the conflict. Nations with wonders that require military improvements can keep those improvements. TDSM8 will not reenter the conflict in any way whatsoever. II. TDSM8 will undertake 100 tech deals with the NPO at the price of 3 million for 100 tech. III. TDSM8 promises to provide a cold beer to Philosopher in the next 30 minutes. I don't see anything about "nations in range" ect. Are you saying they changed the terms after you signed these? If they did then yes that is messed up. And as you regard honoring pacts so highly can you see how we view these terms and rejection of an even higher money value as a bit messed up? Yes, they changed the terms. See term number 1: We were suppose to be able to remilitarize when the conflict ended. When it was announced that your side had won and everyone was out we went to NPO to ask if we could now. They told us that we'd be able to when we finished all our other terms and then when they decided we should be allowed to do so. Thats a bit different from what was signed on the document you posted. What Im saying is we had 5 nations in tech deal range when they assigned us to give them 10k tech. As Stalin said, in the end we were just sending them tech in hopes that we'd be compensated later. In the end, I was sending them tech with my 6k infra nation which had 1,500 tech at the time. Edited June 13, 2009 by Stumpy Jung Il Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingSuck Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 and yet again, NPO is getting what they deserve. Karma has not pushed harsh terms on alliances that have been given peace already. If Karma was truly NPO, EVERY alliance that has been given peace, would have been given 3-6 months of terms, or MORE. Karma is not equal to the NPO, no matter how you try to spin it. Karma is a loose bunch of alliances only connected due to their side (please correct me if it's changed again). I think it's pretty obvious that the alliances within Karma have very different views on peace terms. So using 'Karma' collectively when discussing peace terms is just plain wrong. Just because an alliance on your side gave light terms elsewhere does not make other alliances on your side better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackSkellington Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Aurora Borealis. Don't blow things out of proportion like that. It was 180 mil for attacking Kait. The actual reps were tech deals with GOD, which were entirely fine. I was the one who organized and help pay the reps for AB to Kait. AB has just ONE slot to be accepted by an MA member to finish up the 180 mil of reps. So honestly, don't throw that in there. I know you're a friend of AB's, but that's a huge load of bull &%*$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) honestly Stumpy, what did you expect? In his eyes NPO can do no wrong. NPO can do plenty of wrong, but hold them accountable for reality, not lies. NPO didn't attack TDSM8, it was the other way around. Even higher in the war if you feel that honoring your MADP with MK meant that NPO attacked you, then NPO was attacked by MK hitting their MADP partner's protectorate. The circle goes on and on, but to characterize events how you have is dishonest and an attempt to make things seem worse than they were. Especially when he said "they attacked us for no reason" when infact it was TDSM8 that attacked NPO. How is that truthful? Edited June 13, 2009 by mhawk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scythegfx Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Karma is a loose bunch of alliances only connected due to their side (please correct me if it's changed again). I think it's pretty obvious that the alliances within Karma have very different views on peace terms. So using 'Karma' collectively when discussing peace terms is just plain wrong. Just because an alliance on your side gave light terms elsewhere does not make other alliances on your side better. Awesome point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 No way is 10% of your membership genuinely unable to deal with two weeks of war. I know what the rough incidence of people being away is and it is never 10% at one time.I never once mentioned those wars, since they are not Pacifican injustices. You'll note that Polar's actions in the UjW were a significant part of the justification for attacking them, though. Way to pick 2 sentences out of my entire post. It is not about 10% of the entire alliance so much as it is 10% of 181 people - i.e 18 people. And whilst you may have not mentioned those wars, they are used as a very large chunk of the justification for this one, so they are relevant. Want to address what I actually wrote instead of nitpicking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Yes, they changed the terms. See term number 1: We were suppose to be able to remilitarize when the conflict ended. When it was announced that your side had won and everyone was out we went to NPO to ask if we could now. They told us that we'd be able to when we finished all our other terms and then when they decided we should be allowed to do so. Thats a bit different from what was signed on the document you posted. What Im saying is we had 5 nations in tech deal range when they assigned us to give them 10k tech. As Stalin said, in the end we were just sending them tech in hopes that we'd be compensated later. In the end, I was sending them tech with my 6k infra nation which had 1,500 tech at the time. You have evidence of them changing the terms? Because after your mischaracterization that NPO attacked you with no reason when in reality you attacked them, I'd like alittle more than your word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingSuck Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Yes, they changed the terms. See term number 1: We were suppose to be able to remilitarize when the conflict ended. When it was announced that your side had won and everyone was out we went to NPO to ask if we could now. They told us that we'd be able to when we finished all our other terms and then when they decided we should be allowed to do so. I don't really see how that contributed to your disbanding at all. Right or wrong, the only effect removing your mil for longer (whilst protected) would have had was decreasing your bills, surely that would help with the economic side of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) I looked it up before posting, these were your terms. I. TDSM8 hereby agrees to decommission all soldiers to less than 30% for the duration of this worldwide conflict. TDSM8 will also destroy all tanks, aircraft, and navy for the duration of the conflict. TDSM8 will also decommision all military improvements except for Intel Agencies for the duration of the conflict. Nations with wonders that require military improvements can keep those improvements. TDSM8 will not reenter the conflict in any way whatsoever. II. TDSM8 will undertake 100 tech deals with the NPO at the price of 3 million for 100 tech. III. TDSM8 promises to provide a cold beer to Philosopher in the next 30 minutes. I don't see anything about "nations in range" ect. Are you saying they changed the terms after you signed these? If they did then yes that is messed up. And as you regard honoring pacts so highly can you see how we view these terms and rejection of an even higher money value as a bit messed up? From the looks of things mhawk it's quite confusing. Stumpy claims that it was so difficult to coordinate paying only 100 tech deals that it forced his alliance to disband. At the same time the 'incompetent' NPO should have no trouble at all in paying 100 times this amount without tech deals (in fact the opposite, while also paying 200 times the value of TDSM8T's tech deals), and our claims of logistical issues are just whining. Edited June 13, 2009 by James Dahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 This post sums the situation up fairly well, except I disagree with you on your final point. But good post nonetheless. Hopefully those that are making the decisions will be able to find some middle-ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I don't really see how that contributed to your disbanding at all. Right or wrong, the only effect removing your mil for longer (whilst protected) would have had was decreasing your bills, surely that would help with the economic side of things? You are right. I love playing a game where I am useless to my ally and half of it is removed. Go half a year without any military or ability to do anything and tell me how fun it is, Ill wait. @mhawk - What proof do you need? We were demilitarized when we disbanded because of them telling us we had to. Thats clearly different than what was signed. I also dont appreciate you calling me a liar when you know damn well MK was attacked and honored the treaty. If you want to be even MORE clear, MK was responding to an attack on her allies and thus it was TORN's fault they were attacked which means we were both on the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Yes because CN is exactly the same as it was ~3 years ago So are you implying that NPO's mindset has changed? Interesting. Perhaps even worthy of :insertdismissiveemoticonhere: love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenb Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Does KARMA actually expect to get this. Those are some mighty big numbers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Considering NPO's previous actions and attitudes towards alliances seeking peace I don't think many will have much sympathy watching you guys complain about terms on OWF, either accept the terms or keep fighting and hope for something better later on. Rescinding the Moldavi Doctrine is a move in the right direction though, so good job on that. Edited June 13, 2009 by Methrage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejarue Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 There's not a one-to-one comparison with Polar. Polaris wasn't allowed to receive outside aid. In fact, Polaris was restricted on internal aid. I don't see that term here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts