SpoiL Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 They are ridiculous. I only like these ones. Require demilitarization of all military wonders, improvements, tanks, plans, navies, and 30% military soldier cap for a year. Removal of Emperor and the IO's from the alliance. Limit the Alliance to 10 nuclear weapons. Terms are just right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SithPie Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) Why the distinction? Because they had to have for 2 years straight and they had to the balls to fight for 2 years. Edited June 18, 2009 by SithPie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Because they had to have for 2 years straight and they had to the balls to fight for 2 years. No they didn't. They had a three month break in between two wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCFalkenberg Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Guess which ones I voted for, just because I could. this, while giggling madly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Frankly I don't like most of the options given. I wish I were an evil overlord Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Needs more forced disbandment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SithPie Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Needs more forced disbandment ROFL you're on the winning side and you're still whining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Checkbox poll, voted all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffron X Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Required to repay all reperations ever accepted to the still existing alliances. Only if the alliances attacking us do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffron X Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 I'm guessing the openning rep figure was probably 4-5x the total reps collected in all wars from NPO. This has already been posted in the Imperial Decree, but since that's probably impossible to find I'll post it here again. Theres all sorts of posts on the OWF about how NPO deserves such harsh terms to be in line with all the evil things we've done. So heres a list of all those evil things we've done in those evil wars we viciously started. First Arctic War - Unknown reparations paid or not paid to NPO Citrus War - $500,000 paid to NPO. ICSN Debacle - Unknown reparations paid or not paid to NPO Second Polar War - No reparations Paid to NPO Great War I - No reparations paid. Great War II - No repartions paid to NPO. Holy War of Farkistan - No reparations paid to NPO Great War III - $800,000,000 paid to NPO and pals. The Alaskan Folly - No reparations paid to NPO. Green Civil War - No reparations paid to NPO. NPO-ONOS War - No reparations paid to NPO. FAN-WUT War - No reparations paid to NPO. Great War IV - No reparations paid to NPO. Reeducation of Devildogs - No reparations paid to NPO. FAN-1V War - No reparations paid to NPO. Continuum-GPA War - 10,000 technology or $300,000,000 paid to NPO. Wolfpack War - 3,600 technology paid to NPO. GATO-1V War - No reparations paid to NPO. Golden Sabres War - No reparations paid to NPO. NPO-BDC War - No reparations paid to NPO. CIS-1V War - No reparations paid to NPO. Great War 5 -500 tech 58,000 tech 2,000 tech 8,000 tech Total Great War 5 Reparations = 68,500 Technology. Total Reparations New Pacific Order Recieved: $800,500,000 and 82,100 Technology. Karma Terms: $7,000,000,000,000 and 300,000 technology. Karma demands roughly 8.75x more money than NPO got from her wars, and Roughly 3.65x the Technology NPO recieved from her wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) Every time this argument arises someone just hurls out the term 'inflation' as though that explains everything, despite the fact the CN community is shrinking, not growing. Edited June 18, 2009 by James Dahl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Every time this argument arises someone just hurls out the term 'inflation' as though that explains everything, despite the fact the CN community is shrinking, not growing. That doesn't affect that money doesn't buy you as much tech as it used to. It also doesn't affect the fact that the ANS is also considerably higher than it used to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) That doesn't affect that money doesn't buy you as much tech as it used to. It also doesn't affect the fact that the ANS is also considerably higher than it used to be. Yeah that's a !@#$%^&* excuse as well. Sorry it just doesn't cut it. Proportionality my $@!. Anyway the reps are about what I expected from the likes of Karma. They just need to rework the Peacemode bit. Edited June 18, 2009 by magicninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 That doesn't affect that money doesn't buy you as much tech as it used to. It also doesn't affect the fact that the ANS is also considerably higher than it used to be. The cost of tech, in terms of what a nations buys, has not really changed. What has changed is the price of tech deals; and it is important to make this distinction. For if an alliance pays for it's reps via producing the tech it sends out (i.e, sending money to small nations, who deal it out as reps) it will "cost" in real terms (as in cost of replacement) less than it would for an alliance to send tech out of existing reserves (such as a 2000 tech nation sending out tech). Using a market price (and flunctuations in market price) really depends on the specific circumstances of each reparitions exchange; so everything would have to be calculated separately for each alliance in question. For example, NpO and MK reps figures were pretty similar, but it cost NpO far more in real terms, due to the restrictions involved. And it is complicated further when we are talking about a hybrid system (like the one in the reps offered). Now, if anyone would want to go through all the complex calculations for that, only to come to an adjusted figure that wouldn't be really that far from the original; go ahead. I have a lot of free time, but I'm way too lazy to do it. Even though I suspect it might end up in a slight deflation. And since I've seen it mentioned, I'll also talk about proportionality. That too, depends on what criteria you use to determine proportions; number of nations can be a good one; but you can also use things like difference in days fought, comparing two reparitions cases in terms of relative % of tech sent vs total tech, compare the difference in total infra, or even morality-based indicators such as the aggression I have seen some people invoke. One look at the top two alliances will show that judging by total members alone isn't the best of indicators. Then, you'd also need to take into account any additional rep-related restrictions; such as the number of nations that can or cannot send. This is an even more complex and subjective calculation that the one above, and I would not touch it with a two foot pole. Personally, I don't really care what level of proportion or justification these reps have. It's not like anybody's mind is going to change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenix700 Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 As much as i really hate NPO and want to see it burn to the ground, some of these terms seem a little "!@#$%-ish." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigurd Odinnson Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 As somebody on the outside, who was driven away from CN because of NPO, I personally think they ought to be wiped off the map of Planet Bob entirely. But that's pretty unreasonable, as I think any one here will agree. I'd like to begin by saying while I have found my place in Nordreich, nothing I have to say really reflects their viewpoint of the whole thing, and as Kingzog has said "it's not really my affair"-- I am submitting the following as an individual trying to help give a clear view of things in as few words as possible. Frankly, what was the crime that NPO committed? If you can definitively name the crime, in both IC and OOC terms, then you can establish what they ought to pay. War reparations are nothing more than Wergeld-- it's a way around giving them the punishment they really deserve. I think, though, that we need to see less of these "NPO can pay/NPO can't pay/What terms do they really deserve" threads on here and see one straight-forward crime/punishment thread. Even if one thinks everything I say after this point is nonsense, I think one can agree that the easiest way to determine this is outline a clear, distinct, honest list of NPO crimes in order to determine a fair punishment. To begin walking us in that direction I submit to you all that the main crime committed by NPO is making CN unplayable for people whose RP ideology or RP style was intolerable to the NPO specifically. They established a tyranny and through it disrupted game play. For that reason, they don't deserve to be a sanctioned alliance. I don't see any other real crime that they committed, but the one they did commit was pretty big, and I think that being a sanctioned alliance means being an alliance that represents CN to the new-comer, making them feel welcome and making the game seem playable. NPO did this for some, but not only did they not do it for everyone, they stood in the way of universal participation in the game. Beyond pulling their sanction, I don't really see any other punishment that makes sense. The massive reparations, the toying with how many can be at war and how many have to have this tech or that tech seems rather superfluous to me. They have dishonoured themselves, let the world see their dishonour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Personally, I don't really care what level of proportion or justification these reps have. It's not like anybody's mind is going to change. Even if they wanted to justify it by saying tech costs more these days they are still thinking backward. If tech costs more today then it means it is worth more and people should actually be asking for less tech as reps. Defiantly a great braintrust they got going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 To begin walking us in that direction I submit to you all that the main crime committed by NPO is making CN unplayable for people whose RP ideology or RP style was intolerable to the NPO specifically. I assume you are referring to the NoV war, so I will say this: the "RP ideology" that war was meant to act against (without judging if that ideology was actually expressed as claimed) is not intolerable to the NPO specifically, but the world generally. Also, NPO did not participate in that conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Beyond pulling their sanction, I don't really see any other punishment that makes sense. The massive reparations, the toying with how many can be at war and how many have to have this tech or that tech seems rather superfluous to me. They have dishonoured themselves, let the world see their dishonour. Personally I couldnt see any outcome that leaves the "leaders" of the NPO in place as even approximating justice. The majority of the members, like in any alliance, are probably relatively ignorant and innocent, it is the leaders who have ridden the NPO down from the top of the world to the bottom with their actions. They work in the shadows to hide their dishonour, and clearly control the information the rest of the alliance receives quite effectively. Of course the NPO members are free to leave, and it's easy to say anyone left at this point must be scum like those they follow, but I believe that would be a significant misunderstanding of the situation. From what I can see the rank and file appears to be so thoroughly disoriented and confused by the propaganda they are being fed they actually think this is a defensive war! I believe, and may bodies of law agree, that someone so thoroughly out of touch with reality cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. So I couldnt really view as just any punishment that targets them. But if the leaders are allowed to escape punishment, if indeed terms are eventually agreed to that leave them in place while demanding heavy reps of the rank and file, this will only solidify the place of those leaders, and the effects of their propoganda internally as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) Alright, so people don't get sarcasm at all. The ops proposed terms are ridiculous and I mocked them using sarcasm but apparently people are taking this so seriously that even stating openly that it is sarcasm is not enough. I don't want to get reported. I would like people to get a sense of humour though. I voted for the most severe ones in the hopes it would slant the poll results to make it look like the people were hungry for blood. Edited June 18, 2009 by Drostan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 These terms are waaaaay too soft, guy. I say that NPO membership be forced to convene in specified groups of 3 and forced to play Russian Roulette for Karma's amusement. The last man/woman left alive must post the video of him/her eliminating his/her comrades to be reviewed by Karma and send a cheque in the amount of all proceeds from gambling on said game to my house for... processing. By the end of this process the NPO should have been reduced to a much more manageable entity and will be allowed to return to Planet Bob. Forced suicide? RL taping of such? Classy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) If you regard mentions of suicide and death as sarcasm, you really need to rethink how you deal with people around you Drostan. Edited June 18, 2009 by Letum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epiphanus Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Terms are just right. Although the nuke thing isn't terrible. All the other things are just stupid. The goal of those fighting the NPO isn't (or shouldn't be) to drive them from the game. Those terms would only further that. I am confused as to what promitted means though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Even if they wanted to justify it by saying tech costs more these days they are still thinking backward. If tech costs more today then it means it is worth more and people should actually be asking for less tech as reps. Defiantly a great braintrust they got going. What happened to Matt Conrad? I figured he'd want to address this since it flies in the face of his justification for taxing NPO 6-8 times the reps they've collected from their wars combined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 What happened to Matt Conrad? I figured he'd want to address this since it flies in the face of his justification for taxing NPO 6-8 times the reps they've collected from their wars combined. 1. 6-8 times they've collected? Numerically yes, but you know as well as I do that proportion comes into play when dealing with an alliance with 700-800 members as opposed to one with maybe 200. 2. "Back in '54, popcorn cost a nickel." "Well, grandpa, clearly popcorn would've been a wise commodity in which to invest back then. Its value has skyrocketed!" 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.