Azaghul Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I believe it was valhalla and GGA that started the war? I was referring to this war and what NPO will be paying reps for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterShadow Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 arent viceroys banned under the ToS?its just that ive seen it around in a couple of these terms threads You cant enforce someone to turn over their intellectual work (ie forums) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 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 There were no nations at the time with "half a dozen" wonders. The most any nation could possibly have at that time was 4, and that was only for a very, very small number of nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 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. More variable than GATO's minimum 5 months of being under a viceroy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 There were no nations at the time with "half a dozen" wonders. The most any nation could possibly have at that time was 4, and that was only for a very, very small number of nations. You have already tried to claim that NAAC was not around during the time of wonders (I saw what you edited there), and then you claimed ES didn't hand down the terms, when that screenshot proves he did. Why don't you just quit while you've not made a complete fool of yourself. 4 wonders or more - during those times, that was absolutely devastating, and the fact is that the terms were given - so what's your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterShadow Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 More variable than GATO's minimum 5 months of being under a viceroy? Legion was under it for 4 months and guess what they still have a treaty with us so could it really be that bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 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. Those bellicose punks, you go get em Revy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 You made a picture just for me? I'm flattered Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 You have already tried to claim that NAAC was not around during the time of wonders (I saw what you edited there), and then you claimed ES didn't hand down the terms, when that screenshot proves he did. Wrong on all accounts. My edit was to change the past conditional "would have" to the simple past "was". A mod can confirm that. Second, do I have to add to every instance of sarcasm a "". I know well that Sponge handed down the terms, I even checked the old to be sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 You made a picture just for me? I'm flattered I dun reckon I did. You're welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) Wrong on all accounts. My edit was to change the past conditional "would have" to the simple past "was". A mod can confirm that.Second, do I have to add to every instance of sarcasm a "". I know well that Sponge handed down the terms, I even checked the old to be sure. I am going to ignore you now - I have never seen such a horrible case of blatantly lying and/or being totally ignorant, and then trying to cover it up in a half-assed fashion. My point stands - terms given to NPO aren't half as bad as the terms they've imposed in the past. Edited June 14, 2009 by Starcraftmazter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 More variable than GATO's minimum 5 months of being under a viceroy? Yes, because that's not variable that's undetermined. The NPO deal is actually both variable and undetermined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o ya baby Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Also, you would consider cancellation of all treaties, doctrines, 300,000 tech and 8,000,000,000$ as lenient? For NPO? Hell yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I am going to ignore you now. When you lie about what I post and then fail to comprehend the most basic sarcasm (why the $%&@ would I say "Not Electron_Sponge") it's better to ignore me than actually respond to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Voted no, for lack of Viceroy, wonder decommissioning, removal of government, eternal CB for first strike nuking and eternal ZI for peace mode nations. What goes around comes around, or at least it should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythos1453 Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I think the terms are more than acceptable. NPO has hundreds of banks with over a billion dollars each, 14 days of combat will do nothing to their ability to fully rebuild and pay whatever reps. NPO could still rebuild themselves in a matter of months.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. The terms presented to NPO are nowhere near as bad as those they presented to countless other alliances. NPO should accept them with a smile. you clearly have no idea of what you're talking about...hundreds of banks? 500/700 nations are under 200 infra. Around 70 nations are above 5k infra. Sorry to say but your math skills aren't exactly awesome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 should have accetpted. now its only gonna get worse The pink guy has a point, by posting the terms rather than just taking them you're not helping your case The terms donot involve any of the following things: Viceroys, Perma-war(1+ years), EZI, PZI, Eternal Tech farm, Forced disbandment..hell last time i checked NPO was even OFFERED terms before a single shot was fired but chose to scurry to peace mode instead. So yes, the terms could stand to become FAR worse than they currently are, take them and pay them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Yvl Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 No, to hell with these terms. They're way too light, first of all, and leaves little impression on the NPO after reps are paid. Plus, I still hate the idea of going to war with them for another two weeks just to kick them around the way they were supposed to be in the beginning - it looks cruel, but accomplishes nothing given how massive these nations really are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buttocks Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 i voted no because id like to see them get pounded on for awhile longer. they should have accepted the terms and ran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Yvl Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 you clearly have no idea of what you're talking about...hundreds of banks? 500/700 nations are under 200 infra. Around 70 nations are above 5k infra. Sorry to say but your math skills aren't exactly awesome Uh, that was clearly hyperbole... or is it really that pressing an issue to you that you can't think twice before commenting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 you clearly have no idea of what you're talking about...hundreds of banks? 500/700 nations are under 200 infra. Around 70 nations are above 5k infra. Sorry to say but your math skills aren't exactly awesome But hang on a second...Moo has claimed that the only nations in peace mode are banks? I'm sorry, but my maths has nothing to do with it - I am simply reciting the claims of your own Emperor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 This poll really needs to have three options "Yes" "No, they're too harsh" and "No, they're too lenient". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 But hang on a second...Moo has claimed that the only nations in peace mode are banks? I'm sorry, but my maths has nothing to do with it - I am simply reciting the claims of your own Emperor. They have claimed that the only nations permanently in peace mode are the banks. Not entirely true, but you are again misrepresenting what was said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Remind us what hardships they placed upon Sparta? Remind me where the list of who was accepting what reps was posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George the Great Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) Voted no. I mean yes, damn it. >_< Edited June 14, 2009 by George the Great 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.