Azaghul Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 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? The war was started with NPO's allies starting a completely BS war against one of MK's allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenb Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The Moldavi Doctrine was good and bad. NPO shouldnt have expected to control an entire team, but it was nice protecting red unaligned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Does KARMA actually expect to get this. Those are some mighty big numbers... the numbers aren't in question on either side, it's the "continued military action for 2 weeks for 90% of their nations in peace mode" that everyone seems to be concerned with. Again, several posts from Karma members have indicated that the 90% could be negotiated into TRULY active membership, thus weeding out any ghosts/vacationers/etc... At least from what I've read, Karma seems to be willing to discuss this, and hopefully see resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackSkellington Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Terra Prime too, it forced their disbandment You mean the white peace they got from CCC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) The war was started with NPO's allies starting a completely BS war against one of MK's allies. Exactly. We didnt start that war, Im not sure what Mhawk is remembering. Oh no, hes right, GR totally attacked GGA and Valhalla while declaring on the rest of the Continuum. TDSM8 and CnG were NOT preimptively struck before we even entered the conflict. No, I clearly have it all wrong, we are the evil ones in the noCB war. Edited June 13, 2009 by Stumpy Jung Il Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 ]@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. I called you a liar, because you lied. You said, "NPO attacked and killed us with no reason" The reality is that NPO followed a treaty and attacked MK after MK attacked TORN's protectorate. This led to TDSM8 ATTACKING NPO, not the other way around. That is completely opposite of what you stated. If you believe in honoring treaties the moment val/gga attacked it became inevitable that you and them would fight, that is hardly without reason. Also pm me any log of npo telling you things separate from what was in those surrender terms. I'll take that into account if you even care what we do with them anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 the numbers aren't in question on either side,it's the "continued military action for 2 weeks for 90% of their nations in peace mode" that everyone seems to be concerned with. Again, several posts from Karma members have indicated that the 90% could be negotiated into TRULY active membership, thus weeding out any ghosts/vacationers/etc... At least from what I've read, Karma seems to be willing to discuss this, and hopefully see resolution. It seems that Karma is willing to discuss, but not the NPO... Hmm... Interesting... /pr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terminator Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Having now read through the whole of the thread up to this point, I believe my feelings could be best summed up in picture form. you sir are a genius or whoever made that - its the perfect example anyways first off didn't you all complain or insult other alliances when they tried to do this exact same thing in the past to me the reps seem perfectly reasonable along with the terms this is just a PHailed pr attempt in my eyes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Echelon are being denied terms. You seriously think that the one alliance that committed to their still canceled treaties the night they canceled them would be denied terms? I don't believe it for a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenb Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 the numbers aren't in question on either side,it's the "continued military action for 2 weeks for 90% of their nations in peace mode" that everyone seems to be concerned with. Again, several posts from Karma members have indicated that the 90% could be negotiated into TRULY active membership, thus weeding out any ghosts/vacationers/etc... At least from what I've read, Karma seems to be willing to discuss this, and hopefully see resolution. I hope they are willing to discuss it because at the moment it is BEYOND unreasonable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingSuck Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 So are you implying that NPO's mindset has changed?Interesting. Perhaps even worthy of :insertdismissiveemoticonhere: love. I don't know or particularly care if NPO's mindset has changed. However CN has changed and the aftermath of GW1 would be pretty much impossible to replicate as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The war was started with NPO's allies starting a completely BS war against one of MK's allies. That is not at all what he said. Difference: We were innocent when NPO found us guilty and killed our friends for no reason. NPO, on the other hand, was guilty of killing us and our friends for no reason. If you cant see the difference between the guilty paying for their crimes and the innocent paying for the crimes of those attacking them then you are just being dense. That is vastly different from "Allies" starting the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 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? Your allies in NPO are masters at unspoken terms and hidden terms. They pulled a few of those on us after we had agreed to terms as well under the justification that "everyone knows thats how we do things." For example, MK couldn't have people who were not in MK help with reps, which is something that was not stated in our terms. MK also couldn't pay the alliances we owed reps to individually, we had to send ALL the reps to the NPO. Infact, some of our allies actually paid reps for us and then were told that what they paid wouldn't be counted to our total and that they also wouldn't be getting their aid back, though I do believe ML told them that it would count to the reps no matter what the NPO said. I wonder sometimes if ML, VE, Echelon and OV ever got their reps from the NPO. Individual alliances were not allowed to waive our debt as well. So there are some examples of hidden and unspoken terms that have been imposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Maximus Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 You mean the white peace they got from CCC? No he means the terms they were offered from PC and co. You know people who back then were NOT part of Karma but now all of a sudden are in the High Command and always have been? (Hence people lieing out of thier teeth to save Karmas PR) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 It seems that Karma is willing to discuss, but not the NPO... Hmm... Interesting... /pr This post was done only after karma informed NPO there was no more discussions and these terms were final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie 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. So you guys disbanded because 5 of your nations had to do tech deals for two months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger 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. The Viridian Entente currently is below 90% of its alliance membership in war mode. VE is also does not have 90% of its nations over 4K infra in war mode. And yet, they demand the NPO - which is at war with rather a lot more alliances than the VE - move above these lines which they've been unable to cross themselves. Ah, hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Your allies in NPO are masters at unspoken terms and hidden terms. They pulled a few of those on us after we had agreed to terms as well under the justification that "everyone knows thats how we do things."For example, MK couldn't have people who were not in MK help with reps, which is something that was not stated in our terms. MK also couldn't pay the alliances we owed reps to individually, we had to send ALL the reps to the NPO. Infact, some of our allies actually paid reps for us and then were told that what they paid wouldn't be counted to our total and that they also wouldn't be getting their aid back, though I do believe ML told them that it would count to the reps no matter what the NPO said. I wonder sometimes if ML, VE, Echelon and OV ever got their reps from the NPO. Individual alliances were not allowed to waive our debt as well. So there are some examples of hidden and unspoken terms that have been imposed. Now that is a much stronger argument, however still unclear regarding TDSM8 than "they killed us for no reason". You don't have to but if you could compile a list or evidence of these to me privately it would be greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 This post was done only after karma informed NPO there was no more discussions and these terms were final. I have heard several times that they are willing to discuss the part of the 90% membership clause (to get REAL active members, not including ones that are on vacation/ghosting/etc). That is what I am referring to in my post, not the numbers of the reps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Exactly. We didnt start that war, Im not sure what Mhawk is remembering. Oh no, hes right, GR totally attacked GGA and Valhalla while declaring on the rest of the Continuum. TDSM8 and CnG were NOT preimptively struck before we even entered the conflict. No, I clearly have it all wrong, we are the evil ones in the noCB war. As an ex-Hyperionian, I can attest to why the war is referred to as "noCB" Our Protectorate, GR, was ebil, the most ebil alliance in the game, second only to Stumpy :rollseyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Okay then, singular. I guess that puts you in a better light. Your leaders offered one set of terms, refused to negotiate, threw around some nasty comments, and then left and haven't agreed to come back and discuss ending the war again. If I'm getting what you mean by nasty comments right, we stated we have no sympathy for you. Which is true, by the way. If you're referring to Fishy's comment about !@#$%^&*, I fail to see how being straightforward about it was nasty. The terms are still on the table I believe. Of course, I'm not gov. You could try asking if you actually still want out, but I presume that would be too much effort. Aurora Borealis. Oh god, 3/100 tech deals. And we're even making them do 3x3s so it wouldn't clog slots for quite as long. Clearly, this is intolerable conduct. Oh, and acknowledgment that they started and lost the war. Oh, and no aiding the enemy. Canceling the treaty with Ech? Kinda null since they can just re-sign if they want, but it is clearly a evil atrocity. Oh, oh, I know! AB had to demilitarize for a month. Zomg auugh harsh surrender terms? Seriously, try to bring something good. Please? Is that really too much to ask of you? Edited June 13, 2009 by Aurion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) So you guys disbanded because 5 of your nations had to do tech deals for two months? They disbanded because the NPO IO's ignored them when they requested lists of nations to do deals with. We had to hound and hound and hound NPO to get lists for our reps. And yet if people don't pay, they get blamed for the NPO banks incompetence. TDSM8 tried for 3 months. Let me bold that so it sets in 3 MONTHS! And yet they were not given nations to do the deals with. They stayed in limbo waiting to pay these reps and basically the NPO would allow them to. Edited June 13, 2009 by AirMe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I have heard several times that they are willing to discuss the part of the 90% membership clause (to get REAL active members, not including ones that are on vacation/ghosting/etc). That is what I am referring to in my post, not the numbers of the reps. They are unwilling to negotiate the 90% figure. They are open to expelling everyone until that number is reached. That is not negotiation at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The Viridian Entente currently is below 90% of its alliance membership in war mode.VE is also does not have 90% of its nations over 4K infra in war mode. And yet, they demand the NPO - which is at war with rather a lot more alliances than the VE - move above these lines which they've been unable to cross themselves. Ah, hypocrisy. Fun fact: VE has not lost this war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 It seems that Karma is willing to discuss, but not the NPO... Hmm... Interesting... /pr Generally, when one makes a counteroffer with higher reps numbers, you can bet they are more than willing to discuss things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts