bkphysics Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 What we have here is a failure to communicate. And I can assure that this is not "wholly up to the NPO" this is a two way hate-free conversation that needs to take place. Somehow I dont think that that is really an option.EDIT and SIDENOTE: @ChairmanWilliams: Whatever you think we've done, while in essence there is truth, it has not only been exaggerated, but whatever activity it is that we've done, was probably in vouge with many of the powerful alliances at the time. Later we have all come to realize their improperness and all have renounced it. Bieng the world superpower, only we, inevitably are bieng judged for world's transgressions that we all participated in. Viceroy's, forced disbandment, all these things were thought to be "good" or at least appropriate and were committed by a large number of alliances, including many of the Karma alliances. They have in retrospect shown to be horrible decisions. Communication is indeed a two way street and bringing forth a ploy to garner public ire on your side via the Monster thread in AP definitely doesn't do well to enhance the communication between the two parties. That whole exercise in futility in AP is a strong standing point as to why the peace negotiations are so difficult. That thread is like a smack in the face and is a disrespectful transparent piece of propaganda to gain public scrutiny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffasamini Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Communication is indeed a two way street and bringing forth a ploy to garner public ire on your side via the Monster thread in AP definitely doesn't do well to enhance the communication between the two parties. That whole exercise in futility in AP is a strong standing point as to why the peace negotiations are so difficult. That thread is like a smack in the face and is a disrespectful transparent piece of propaganda to gain public scrutiny. Communication is a two way street. I see Karma's immediate refusal of working on making the terms logistically possible, in exchange for raising them a smack in the face as well. As is wording the terms in a way that its easy to see how it would end up in eternal war, only to go "but we didnt mean it that way," even though I do honestly believe yall mean it when you say it. Communication ultimately requires concession, else why are you communicating? Edited June 16, 2009 by muffasamini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Communication is a two way street. I see Karma's immediate refusal of working on making the terms logistically possible, in exchange for raising them a smack in the face as well. As is wording the terms in a way that its easy to see how it would end up in eternal war, only to go "but we didnt mean it that way," even though I do honestly believe yall mean it when you say it. Communication ultimately requires concession, else why are you communicating? To be fair, I'm sure OV took that unwarranted, curbstomping initial attack on them by your own alliance and TORN (Roughly 100 score versus 4) to be just a bit of a smack in the face, but you didn't mind it terribly much then now did you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffasamini Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 To be fair, I'm sure OV took that unwarranted, curbstomping initial attack on them by your own alliance and TORN (Roughly 100 score versus 4) to be just a bit of a smack in the face, but you didn't mind it terribly much then now did you? 1. Irrelevant. We all know why this war started, I'm discussing how its going to end, and what is blocing its conclusion. I mean, really, the war is over, we lost. 2. Well, yall went to war with us to teach us why that was wrong. When will you be done? I've sometime's thought about whether we'll still get yelled at for past transgressions after this war, even though the current mantra is that this is all "payback." Judging from your post I think the answer is yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 1. Irrelevant. We all know why this war started, I'm discussing how its going to end, and what is blocing its conclusion. I mean, really, the war is over, we lost.2. Well, yall went to war with us to teach us why that was wrong. When will you be done? I've sometime's thought about whether we'll still get yelled at for past transgressions after this war, even though the current mantra is that this is all "payback." Judging from your post I think the answer is yes. Honestly, saying the peace talk attacks on OV is irrelevant is just .... wow ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanWilliams Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) @ChairmanWilliams: Whatever you think we've done, while in essence there is truth, it has not only been exaggerated, but whatever it is was probably in vouge with many of the powerful alliances at the time. Later we have all come to realize their improperness and all have renounced it. Bieng the world superpower, only we, inevitably are bieng judged for world's transgressions that we all participated in. Viceroy's, forced disbandment, all these things were thought to be "good" or at least appropriate and were committed by a large number of alliances, including many of the Karma alliances. They have in retrospect shown to be horrible decisions. Indeed, my understanding of all this is largely the sum of all the bitter rantings by Karma-alligned nations screaming for blood. I keep on reading this such as the demilitarization of TDSM8, asking Athens to pay 6/7 of their total tech, holding GATO in a viceroy for a year, Perma-warring FAN. I don't know what is exaggerated and what is not. The terms of surrender are either a long-delayed triumph of justice, or a hypocritical smackdown of revenge, depending on who you ask. As I think about it more, keeping in mind what you said about how the Order regrets what it has done, I find myself divided; are these terms justified? Compliance with them would be catastrophic to the NPO, possibly destroy them. I don't like the idea of the Order completely going under. It would be better IMO if the terms merely put the NPO in a position where they are unable to commit future grievances. Maybe if these events truly have been a wake-up call for the NPO to stop being a bully on the world stage, they can reform themselves. (yup, I can change my mind quickly, lol) Edited June 16, 2009 by ChairmanWilliams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Honestly, saying the peace talk attacks on OV is irrelevant is just .... wow ... Hey, I got linked to a post in the 200+ page monstrosity where NPOers were claiming they shouldn't be disbanded because they were more important than other, smaller alliances whose deaths they triggered. I'm not all that surprised, having that post fresh in my mind, to see the one you just quoted. It is worth observing that MK went to war because Vanguard was pulled into the war and we share an MADP. Treaties are a wonderful thing, ya know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fingolfin Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 The terms are certainly harsh, and I must object to the removal of nations from peace mode. However, given the circumstances NPO should have accepted them, their situation is only going to deteriorate further Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 It is worth observing that MK went to war because Vanguard was pulled into the war and we share an MADP. Treaties are a wonderful thing, ya know? Dork, we didn't hit vanguard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Dork, we didn't hit vanguard. An attack on one signatory will be interpreted as an attack on both. Yes you did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorum Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 might as well. in the words of NPO to FAN "you cant get peace till you fight the war" This man speaks the truth. Voted yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbysmalPea Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 People still don't seem to realize that, in the long run, people forget about the "why" and only remember the "what." FAN was pretty much the butt of almost all jokes for a good couple of months after NPO resumed hostilities, yet they were hailed as they returned into the political arena. There was a huge amount of animosity toward ES's not-forced forced disbandment, and yet ElectronSponge has a huge cult of personality surrounding him. Now let's predict what will happen if NPO is kept in eternal war: NPO will most likely be the butt of almost all jokes for a good couple of months, and a huge animosity toward Moo's not-forced forced disbandment of several alliances. See where this goes? The great victory over the horrible NPO will only be remembered as such until someone with a political goal and a mind for propaganda comes along and spins you as the horrible monster. "But AbysmalPea!" you exclaim. "The NPO deserves eternal war or disbandment for all its horrible deeds!" Yes, but so did FAN. So did LUE. So did GOONS. So did \m/. The NPO wouldn't have survived for years if other alliances find this as acceptable behavior. And yet, all of these alliances are seen through only rose-tinted glasses. I still don't see how those presenting these terms can be so stupid as to not see the long-term ramifications. The NPO will be the least of their worries six months down the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I think I've gone through something like what you're going through, NPO, and either nostalgia or an identification with your predicament has compelled me to offer you some advice, which you can feel free to ignore if it conflicts with your own sentiments. Most of the people attacking you don't want you dead. They want you to show some humility and admit that many of the things you did with your power were not always right (and let's be honest; they weren't). They want some amount of revenge and some amount of reassurance that you won't go back to hunting them down after the war. I thought you started that other thread off well with an apology to GATO, who whether they want to make an issue out of it or not, did not deserve the treatment they got after the war. After that, the thread became a near-endless stream of finger-pointing and name-calling. I do not think 200+ pages of arguing about the terms have given the members of Karma what they were looking for. That's all well and good, it's your war to fight and you will always have the choice to seek to end it on your own terms if it is possible. Unfortunately, what Karma now has is a glaring 200+ page reminder that suggests you have not learned the lesson that they have convinced themselves (whether you agree or disagree) that you needed to learn. Yes, some of them have made the same mistakes that you have and are certainly not a moral authority in a position to offer you lessons on proper conduct. Still, the fastest way back to the good graces of the rest of the planet is to own up to your faults regardless of the apparent hypocrisy of those attacking you and then move on as best you can. You don't have to be defeated by saints to admit what you've done wrong or commit your alliance to honest reforms that will assure the rest of the world that such abuses of power will not happen again. These reps leave the most important parts of your alliance intact: your government, your community, and your sovereignty. Losing tech and infra will not do irreparable damage to any of those things. Crying hypocrisy won't change the fact that you made mistakes and it won't win support back with a sizable but quieter portion of the planet which feels that while you might not deserve reps this large, you certainly ought to own up to the fact that you deserve something. Good luck, Pacifica. In my experience, the war and these reparations payments are just about the easiest obstacle you will face in the coming year. My advice is to seal the deal as soon as possible and get started on the much harder tasks you have ahead of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrototyoeRuler Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Yes you did. MHawk has a way of forgetting important information vital to the subject at hand. But sshhh we like to see him look like a fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Yes you did. We didn't attack MK either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Dork, we didn't hit vanguard. Never said that. That's just what cemented our side. If you want to follow the legalese, you'd have to go to the GR part of the C&G membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Never said that. That's just what cemented our side. If you want to follow the legalese, you'd have to go to the GR part of the C&G membership. We didn't attack GR either However its all semantics. I don't even really know why I'm poking at it. God it's boring in bill lock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasiliy Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I hated them. The NPO should never even be given terms. EZI for the entire lot. But the way this poll is intended i'll vote that i liked them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 We didn't attack GR either However its all semantics. I don't even really know why I'm poking at it. God it's boring in bill lock. According to the GR-Avalanche MDoAP, you did :v: Any direct attack on either signatory should be seen as an attack on both, and thus initiating the mobilization of both signatories' armed forces (this includes espionage and rogue attacks). Both signatories are obliged to provide military and financial aid to the other if requested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) According to the GR-Avalanche MDoAP, you did :v: Then you guys technically attacked NPO and TORN ziiiiiiinnnngggggg Edited June 17, 2009 by mhawk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 With the way the treaty web was filled with MD pre-war they probably attacked themselves if you traced it long enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Then you guys technically attacked NPO and TORN ziiiiiiinnnngggggg Touché. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yggdrazil Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Voted no, I cannot suspend logic to call these terms fair and lenient.The only way these terms can be justified is Karma gives all reps to Gato,NpO, Fan and individuals that use to fly the Vox AA, since these are always used for the justification for the reps to be so large. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Unfortunately, what Karma now has is a glaring 200+ page reminder that suggests you have not learned the lesson that they have convinced themselves (whether you agree or disagree) that you needed to learn. Isn't that the truth. This is precisely why I would have no problem with them getting no terms for considerably longer at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I agree, there is no point in karma offering terms that will not be accepted and not compromising. Karma offered terms and the NPO offered a compromise and it did not bring peace so now it is pointless to continue to argue terms when anything that one side is prepared to offer will be refused by the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.