President James Smit Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 They started this war and they so pay the price for that.The terms are far for the history NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 (There's a theory according to which most of the unknown "rank and file" people spend some time for the daily building of their nation and don't understand CN politics. In this theory these fellow players of ours realize - when their nations get severely destroyed - that so much of their precious time got wasted and they start to ask themselves for what reason they should spend any of it again.Goodbye to the many that will leave the game this time, also.) Though this may be the case, in all honesty it is an issue that has been around for far longer than the Karma war. As well, with individual surrender terms out there already, these poor, unknowing individuals have had a chance to exit stage right and move along their merry path. In the end, should they choose to stay in an alliance being assaulted and take the damage coming to them, it is by their own choice as a path to peace was already provided. If they choose to leave the game then unfortunately they make that choice but the blame shouldn't be place at the feet of the Karma forces alone. If that is the case then anytime there has been a war of this scale the victors hold responsibility for driving others from the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrator Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 The oft-cited aggression vs. defense argument doesn't stand up well to closer analysis. The fact is, it's very rare for alliances to merely strike out at people who are completely innocent bystanders; normally they attack their enemies. As a general rule, it does stand up to scrutiny. A war is not just if someone just decides out of the blue to attack someone. No one, not even the NPO, would reduce CBs to such a simplistic understanding. There has to be some significant reasons behind why you decided to go to war instead of using diplomacy. War isn't just a leisure activity, rather, it is filled with blood and guts and should always be a last resort. Some RPers take this much more seriously than others, but it is my opinion that when RPing people should try to make it as realistic as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kroknia Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I think the money and tech numbers are fine, I am greatly opposed to the 14 days in war mode though as well as the 1k+ tech nations are the only ones allowed to pay it. My personal hope is that a few Karma alliances leave the war with separate peace terms because of these aspects. I can't help but think certain alliances may not agree with those aspects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Dude, they're not Nazis, they didn't knock up your sister and shave her head, get a grip on yourself. Its comments like this and that Ravenche person that are alienating a lot of the rank and file of Karma who still remember that this is just a game. By contrast, if NPO realised this is a game, they would have accepted the terms they more than deserve by now and get it over and done with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Additionally there is no way to get 90% compliance immediately, so if under 100% ideal conditions the ticker starts immediately, add days to that and suddenly even with your numbers you end back up towards the 300k loss in tech. Each nation will only be warred on for 14 days. No more, no less. Peace will be offered after the 14 days. We would also maintain a list of who has warred the requisite 14 days and who hasn't. Once there has reached 90 percent compliance, then the other portions of the terms begins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Each nation will only be warred on for 14 days. No more, no less. Peace will be offered after the 14 days. We would also maintain a list of who has warred the requisite 14 days and who hasn't. Once there has reached 90 percent compliance, then the other portions of the terms begins. Where was that term listed? Or is this being made up on the fly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I doubt anybody from the NPO will be picking up Ivan's debt, Doitzel's debt, or Electron Spunge's debt. I mean, ES himself has admitted on past occasions to be the mastermind behind FAN's fall, but nobody's taking this out on him. Doitzel himself was a loyal member of the NPO untill somebody talked about maybe needing to punish ES for this. Overall, it's astounding to see the selective memories at work, when deciding that nobody but the NPO was to blaim for every alliance that blew itself up in one war or another. It's because people change. The NPO hasn't convinced anyone that it has yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Where was that term listed? Or is this being made up on the fly? That was what we planned to do regarding the 90 percent term. We never intended for NPO nations to have more than 14 days of war and if the language indicated otherwise, it will be clarified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 That was what we planned to do regarding the 90 percent term. We never intended for NPO nations to have more than 14 days of war and if the language indicated otherwise, it will be clarified. I'm curious, did the NPO know about this or were they really just intent on dragging this war out for their pride, with no regards to their few remaining allies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I'm curious, did the NPO know about this or were they really just intent on dragging this war out for their pride, with no regards to their few remaining allies? Considering that Moo quoted an out of date surrender term in his post, I'd say that communication has not been entirely perfect between everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Considering that Moo quoted an out of date surrender term in his post, I'd say that communication has not been entirely perfect between everyone. In that case, going public without attempting to clarify the terms with Karma shows an interesting lack of diplomatic patience on the NPO's part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 In that case, going public without attempting to clarify the terms with Karma shows an interesting lack of diplomatic patience on the NPO's part. NPO went with the pity move. How else do you expect them to retain any control of the surrender terms? They aren't used to being forced to do something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 NPO went with the pity move.How else do you expect them to retain any control of the surrender terms? They aren't used to being forced to do something. Well, I guess that's the rational explanation, but it's hard to understand what they are thinking, I mean really. Who in Karma would buy their act? Almost no one changed sides from what I saw. And now that's just gonna show them in a far worse light though, taking Big Z's word for it of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Their hope is that they can get the OWF flamed up against their attackers for "how wrong" and "how unjust" and "how unfair" and "how impossible" the terms are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 That was what we planned to do regarding the 90 percent term. We never intended for NPO nations to have more than 14 days of war and if the language indicated otherwise, it will be clarified. You say that you never intended that, but that's what you wrote down. Perhaps you should write the terms down as you *intend* them, and maybe they'll be accepted. Maybe not. But at least we'll all be on the same page, instead of "No, what we wrote isn't what we meant". I don't know if that change would be enough, considering that the reps are so high and the limitations on who can pay the reps are "nations with over 1,000 tech, many of which are at ZI". So far, they seem designed to be unreachable. If we can't meet the terms if we try, then why should we agree to anything? But it's not my decision, and it might bring us to an agreement. In that case, going public without attempting to clarify the terms with Karma shows an interesting lack of diplomatic patience on the NPO's part. NPO attempted to negotiate, and was told (both in IRC, and in the forums) that "These terms are not negotiable". Don't go claiming that NPO isn't willing to talk. NPO has lost the war, Moo has posted that we've lost the war, and we are aware that it is to our advantage to reach terms that will end the war. But when the Karma side says "No negotiation", then it ties our hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viluin Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 That was what we planned to do regarding the 90 percent term. We never intended for NPO nations to have more than 14 days of war and if the language indicated otherwise, it will be clarified. The wording of the terms was not fuzzy, it was crystal clear. It indicated the exact opposite, that the ticker wouldn't start until the 90% requirement had been met. I'm having a VERY hard time believing what you just said were Karma's original intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I think the terms are harsh, but NPO should of been expecting harsh terms. I think it would be reasonable to increase what NPO pays and drop the clause that their peace mode nations come out and fight, but I think those engaged with NPO are justified to set the terms to whatever they want considering who the initial aggressor was starting the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Francesca stalks up to the platform and turns to face the crowds. A resounding no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I'm curious, did the NPO know about this or were they really just intent on dragging this war out for their pride, with no regards to their few remaining allies? They knew. I believe it was Londo who told them that very early into the negotiations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 They knew. I believe it was Londo who told them that very early into the negotiations. Okay... If that were true then there goes the last tiny thread of sympathy the NPO might deserve. Seriously, I don't know why the TPF would stay by 'allies' like these. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander III Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Karma is putting 90% of NPO nations into war mode just so they can fight them...that's aggressive, and it somewhat contradicts what the Karma coalition has been spouting. Not cool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 In that case, going public without attempting to clarify the terms with Karma shows an interesting lack of diplomatic patience on the NPO's part. I have had ZERO to do with the peace negotiations and mentioned numerous times now what Big Z is iterating. All it took was a little clarification, a little discussion, and a lot less pride to understand that Karma is more than willing to clarify and remove any vagueness in the terms so that peace can be achieved. I would take Big Z word on it too as I have never known him to be someone who just randomly spouts off such things without getting his P's and Q's straight first. Now, whether or not your pride will keep you from peace, that is another story and unfortunately there is no changing then. That is wholly up to the NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanWilliams Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I'm too new to have witnessed all the unspeakable horrors the Order has committed that everyone keeps on speaking of. Grammatical inconsistancies aside, as I'm reading the histories on the CNWiki, I believe these terms are well deserved, and they have been given quite the appropriate name: Karma. What goes around comes around. What goes up must go down. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. That's all I've got for cliché idioms today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffasamini Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) I have had ZERO to do with the peace negotiations and mentioned numerous times now what Big Z is iterating. All it took was a little clarification, a little discussion, and a lot less pride to understand that Karma is more than willing to clarify and remove any vagueness in the terms so that peace can be achieved. I would take Big Z word on it too as I have never known him to be someone who just randomly spouts off such things without getting his P's and Q's straight first. Now, whether or not your pride will keep you from peace, that is another story and unfortunately there is no changing then. That is wholly up to the NPO. 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 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. Edited June 16, 2009 by muffasamini 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.