NPO Surrender Terms

[Starcraftmazter]

As much as I hate to point this out since I'm on your side, wonders and NAAC weren't ever around during the same time to my understanding.

Yes, they most certainly were.

You do realize that by this time the famous "pre-terms" would have exceeded the 7B and 300k tech that was asked by Karma,thus arriving at the logical conclusion that they got waived, right?

I have absolutely no clue what you are saying. Please try and explain better.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Starcraftmazter

[mhawk]

NAAC - destroy wonders, GATO - external war for peace mode nations (or something similar), MK - tech reps, relative to the size of each alliance exceed the original offer to NPO I do believe. LoSS couldn't sign anything for over a year - and even then they still claimed they were under GW3 terms. They were only released relatively recently in modern CN history.

FAN, attacked after peace (as they always intended) and kept them in a state of eternal war for years.

Countless other examples. Let's not forget viceroys, expulsion of gov members, changing colours, tech farms, etc.

NAAC - Were there even wonders back then? How many were there?

GATO - There was no EZI conducted and was stated that the term was revoked. Not that it was okay what they did and they realize as well as apologized.

MK's tech reps are not close either. I believe scaled they were near 400k if they were NPO's size. They were not required to come out of peacemode for a beat down, nor on top of the 300k was there 7 billion, which would significantly increase the size of the reps well beyond those of the scaled MK reps. The MK war lasted 13 days, we are approaching 60 with this war.

Treaty restrictions are not in the same category as forced destruction of nations and likely a year of reps.

[MisterShadow]

Alright,

I have probably given the most (inter NPO) during this war. As it stands I have sent 90mil out and no I was and am not a bank, I just basically retired and did nothing but log in every 15 days to collect taxes. In 14 days I will probably not even have 1000 tech. So guess what I wont be able to help pay reps. More than likely I would use my 6 slots to pay reps at a rate of 18mil/300 tech, but given the 2 weeks of extra war I probably wont be able to. So in 6 months I could send 324mil and 5400 Tech but I wont be able to cause of having both of these restrictions in place. I think this is bogus. Oh yah it is me that is doing the damage, not someone in peace mode.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Mr.AdmiralX

[shahenshah]

Well either they get terms reflecting the sheer number of alliances/players they've inflicted severe hardship on, or I guess they can get relatively lenient terms and get rolled multiple times to properly reflect things. Though with it being 3 years since the last time they got rolled I don't think anybody who's sane or not pushing a pro-NPO agenda can support that.

Remind us what hardships they placed upon Sparta?

[mhawk]

And you also have to take into consideration what all the alliances in question had done before terms. GATO was a really old and pretty thin CB. MK was just defending allies. NPO started the whole war.

I believe it was valhalla and GGA that started the war?

[Newhotness]

Ppl are complaining that NPO cant pay the reps if their "banks" come out of peace mode but i think thats BS. im pretty sure that after only 2 weeks of war ( i think it was 2 weeks) they will still be able to shell out cash. Maybe not like now, but they can still put it out if their warchests are right. If the yhave no chests, thats NPOs fault, not ours.

[Starcraftmazter]

NAAC - Were there even wonders back then? How many were there?

Quite a few. I seem to recall most applicable nations had around half a dozen. During those times especially, when the mount of money people had was much lower, this was an absolutely devastating term.

GATO - There was no EZI conducted and was stated that the term was revoked. Not that it was okay what they did and they realize as well as apologized.

I don't seem to recall that. The fact that they did so is bad enough. Plus declaring on GATO for a stupid made up reason. How about, declaring war on every single alliance they have ever been at war with for a stupid and made up reason?

MK's tech reps are not close either. I believe scaled they were near 400k if they were NPO's size. They were not required to come out of peacemode for a beat down, nor on top of the 300k was there 7 billion, which would significantly increase the size of the reps well beyond those of the scaled MK reps. The MK war lasted 13 days, we are approaching 60 with this war.

I think your numbers are incorrect. Furthermore, I refuse to consider additional reps which are a fault of Moo and not any alliance at war with NPO. As for the length of war - again, this is a fault of NPO. Every day that they don't admit defeat and accept terms, they are extending the war. As for war for peace mode nations, this is pretty much the same as they did to others / demanded of other alliances like GATO and FAN. NPO has more than adequate capability to rebuild after all this. Furthermore, they have a track record at wanting to exert revenge on anyone who "dares" to go to war with them. Due to this, it is unacceptable to let them off with very lenient terms, and thus the alliances at war with NPO have decided to impose proper terms, which reflect the size the financial capability of NPO. These terms, I believe to be are perfectly fair.

Treaty restrictions are not in the same category as forced destruction of nations and likely a year of reps.

I think everything is in the same category of harshness. I am merely demonstrating that NPO has absolutely zero regard for the well being of others, and that they have done much worse in the past. There are zero valid arguments to support them now.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

Remind us what hardships they placed upon Sparta?

How is that at all relevant? They've never rolled Sparta. Wonderful. He didn't say that the NPO has rolled every single alliance and every single player. How in the world does their not rolling Sparta relate to these terms?

[Shodemofi-NPO]

I believe it was valhalla and GGA that started the war?

He means NPO started the Karma War I think.

Edit: Oops, double post

Edited June 14, 2009 by Shodemofi

[Sande]

The poll is not good enough.

There should be at least 5 options.

1) Yes or even harsher terms

(Meaning NPO deserves a lot more for what they have done)

2) Yes, perfect terms for them

(That's what NPO deserves for the last 2 years of terror)

3) Dunno

(No opinion)

4) No, a bit too harsh

(Take something away from the terms, can't pay it, whatever reason)

5) No, no reps at all / minimum reps.

(NPO didn't do anything wrong in the past and deserves white peace or very light reps)

[Chet Ubet]

you do know that out of the 277 nations in pace mode, only 77 of those are above 3k infra, so if NPO sign the terms, only three nations about the 3k infra mark would have to come out of peace mode, and 200 from under 3k infra.

so by saying it your way you make it seem really bad.

I really didn't feel like posting everything but I don't like it where 90% of the nations at or above 4k infra need to come out for two weeks and fight and then pay reps and rebuild after that,I like it where you just take the extra reps and leave it at that.

[Essenia]

Quite a few. I seem to recall most applicable nations had around half a dozen. During those times especially, when the mount of money people had was much lower, this was an absolutely devastating term.

Stop posting. Your memory is simply wrong.

[mhawk]

I think your numbers are incorrect. Furthermore, I refuse to consider additional reps which are a fault of Moo and not any alliance at war with NPO. As for the length of war - again, this is a fault of NPO. Every day that they don't admit defeat and accept terms, they are extending the war. As for war for peace mode nations, this is pretty much the same as they did to others / demanded of other alliances like GATO and FAN. NPO has more than adequate capability to rebuild after all this. Furthermore, they have a track record at wanting to exert revenge on anyone who "dares" to go to war with them. Due to this, it is unacceptable to let them off with very lenient terms, and thus the alliances at war with NPO have decided to impose proper terms, which reflect the size the financial capability of NPO. These terms, I believe to be are perfectly fair.

You refuse to consider reps because they justified it as NPO's fault for not doing what they want? Is that the same as not judging NPO if they did carry out EZI's on gato because they warned gato what would happen if they didnt comply? That is a very weak way to justify any action.

Also, you would consider cancellation of all treaties, doctrines, 300,000 tech and 8,000,000,000$ as lenient?

[Starcraftmazter]

Stop posting. Your memory is simply wrong.

Stop being full of !@#$, I remember the terms given to the NAAC perfectly.

You refuse to consider reps because they justified it as NPO's fault for not doing what they want? Is that the same as not judging NPO if they did carry out EZI's on gato because they warned gato what would happen if they didnt comply? That is a very weak way to justify any action.

NPO could accept lesser terms.

NPO can now only accept worse terms - but this does not come with any additional benefits, absolutely nothing is gained by this.

Therefore yes, it is entirely NPO's fault for being butt-stupid and not accepting them in the first place.

Also, you would consider cancellation of all treaties, doctrines, 300,000 tech and 8,000,000,000$ as lenient?

Considering most of their treaties have already been cancelled, considering their doctrines are pure cancer projected upon the red team, and considering they are still the largest alliance with over 250 banks in peace most with insane amounts of money and tech stashed away, I think these terms are appropriate - not harsh, nor lenient.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Starcraftmazter

[mhawk]

Stop being full of !@#$, I remember the terms given to the NAAC perfectly.

Who gave them?

[Essenia]

Who gave them?

Definitely not Electron_Sponge.

[mhawk]

Considering most of their treaties have already been cancelled, considering their doctrines are pure cancer projected upon the red team, and considering they are still the largest alliance with over 250 banks in peace most with insane amounts of money and tech stashed away, I think these terms are appropriate - not harsh, nor lenient.

For clarity, the 8billion 300k tech was the offer NPO gave to Karma, they rejected it. The terms you considered appropriate.

[muffasamini]

Ppl are complaining that NPO cant pay the reps if their "banks" come out of peace mode but i think thats BS. im pretty sure that after only 2 weeks of war ( i think it was 2 weeks) they will still be able to shell out cash. Maybe not like now, but they can still put it out if their warchests are right. If the yhave no chests, thats NPOs fault, not ours.

No we arent. If we had banks leave peace and have 2 weeks war, then we paid terms, it would be doable. A hard pill to swallow, but doable. If you actually read the terms of peace, due to the 90% clause it would have actually ended up bieng more like 21+ alot days of war. Then, added with their other stipulations, the ability to pay the reparations would become impossible. Those peace terms were ceartain eternal war. Everyone know's the "we would have re-evaluated the amount to pay" is BS.

If we had just been told to have our banks come out of peace, and had two weeks of war from the moment they left peace, after wich we would then pay 300k and 7billion in tech, we would have accepted it.

Edited June 14, 2009 by muffasamini

[MisterShadow]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55250

Tell me how many of those peoples nations have had their infra or tech stay the same or go up? If that was the case you can label them as banks otherwise dont call them banks. You kept track yourself

Also please someone address my previous post

Edited June 14, 2009 by Mr.AdmiralX

[harris2004]

No. Because this will become a precedent for all the other conflicts; it’s not like all these alliances against NPO are going to swear and not fight each other ever. Conflicts will arise and everybody would demand the same.

[Denial]

I don't know how people can not roll their eyes every time revanche claims these are merciful and lenient. Reminds me of a little kid trying to play world police using weapons he doesn't understand.

Point me towards where I ever said the terms were merciful or lenient. I am not interested in displaying mercy nor leniency towards the alliance that pushed the world into conflict by attacking an ally of Vanguard, without justification or provocation, in an effort to maintain their despicable stranglehold on Cyberverse affairs. The terms are fair, just and reasonable for an alliance that has displayed nothing but contempt for those outside of its own borders. For an alliance that has consistently committed the worst crimes the Cyberverse has witnessed, reliant upon the most underhanded tactics ever employed by any group. For an alliance that, for two years, sat at the very core of a bellicose hegemony, which went on to build blocs, blocs of blocs, and developed a myriad of redundant and game-stagnating treaties. For an alliance that gleefully crafted a political climate where periods of peace were systematically interrupted by wars where one side grossly outnumbered the other, with the target only selected as a result of a repeat case of obvious enemy deprivation syndrome. For an alliance that thrives on regular conflict; conflict and continued abhorrence of an ‘opponent’, no matter who that opponent may be, united Pacifica. It maintained its activity, vitality and efficiency through selecting and scrutinising a group or single alliance and methodically eroding its political position, and sowing the seeds of detestation both internally and externally. It is a process that was perfected throughout the preceding two years, to the detriment of countless communities.

These terms are fitting, and there is no alliance more deserving of them than the New Pacific Order.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Revanche

[kriegsdrachen]

It is Moo's fault that he allowed the extra reps to be piled up. It was a really stupid and stubborn decision, designed to do nothing but undermine those alliances at war with NPO. This decision had no logic nor sense behind it.

He asked the body republic if we thought the pre-terms should be accepted. Our answer was resoundingly unified. Moo didn't do anything but what Pacificans wanted.

[magicninja]

Reps aren't so bad, hell NPO offered more but the PM terms are too variable(Which in turn makes the rep payment limts too variable) for any smart alliance to accept.

[Systemfailure]

arent viceroys banned under the ToS?

its just that ive seen it around in a couple of these terms threads

[Starcraftmazter]

Who gave them?

The terms were from NpO+Initiative.

For all the silly people who clearly don't remember when wonders were around and when they weren't,

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/8072/naacgw3terms.png

For clarity, the 8billion 300k tech was the offer NPO gave to Karma, they rejected it. The terms you considered appropriate.

There is a range of reps which I would consider appropriate - not a single amount.

He asked the body republic if we thought the pre-terms should be accepted. Our answer was resoundingly unified. Moo didn't do anything but what Pacificans wanted.

Then it is all of your alliance's fault - either way, you cannot blame the alliances who are at war with NPO for the additional terms. Also, it is funny that NPO has a dictatorship style government, which is obviously useful when quick decisions must be made to ensure safety and prosperity of the alliance, and yet when such a crucial decision was to be made, which could have saved the NPO from paying more additional reps and thus would see them come out stronger in the end, Moo was too big of a coward to make the decision, and passed the buck to the membership, in order to make the mistake of not accepting them.

Leaders exist for a reason - because they generally know better than regular members. And I wonder, did Moo ask the members of NPO whether or not to declare war on OV?