ChairmanHal Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 I'm sure he appreciates your vote of confidence. What is there to say differently? While the matter of the insistence on the so-called "bank nations" to come out and fight and take 13 nukes plus other damage (and that's what we're talking about when we say "14 days of war") is a legitimate point of contention, ultimately the OP summed up my current line of thought on all this extremely well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Un4Gvn1 Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) <snip> I do hope that the two sides have resuemd communicating though, this is getting tedious and rather annoying. Tedious. Annoying. Ridiculous. Perfect terms to describe it at this point. Karma ~ Please change something in the offer -- like the peace mode nations vs. time etc. NPO ~ Please take it and get on with the future. Edited to add "Ridiculous". Edited June 18, 2009 by Peggy_Sue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanofall Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 One thing for sure, the longer this goes on, the more tech Karma gets. They're going to get what they want one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 People are debating about reps and numbers? I didn't know that. Good thing I don't click on those topics. I LOVE it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazedinacoffin Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 the irony is, is that the things OP complained about people doing, continued on on the exact same page as his original post. lololol thanks for listening guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 While I do not have the ability (or patience) with numbers that many of these others do, I cannot see why an alliance famed for its ability to rebuild quickly to pre-war totals, can suddenly not be able to pay back a simple amount over an indefinite length of time. The period of time isn't indefinite, and there are "minimum payments" required. There are also limitations in who can make the payments. Roughly 25% of our nations are allowed to pay, and many of 25% which are allowed to pay are already at ZI. If we accept these terms, then essentially Karma beats on our banks as well as the rest of us for an undetermined period of time - it's a two week minimum, but will be longer in practice. Afterwards, we make rep payments for about a month, doing so while already beat down, and with our hands tied to make sure we can't do it efficiently. And then Karma goes back to war with us because we didn't meet the minimum payments. To me, the "only a limited number of nations may make the payments" is a major obstacle, because it's designed to make sure that we *can't* reach the minimum payments. The NPO knows we've been beat. Moo has posted that we've lost the war. We aren't asking to be let off with white peace, and we're willing to pay far more reps than *anyone* has ever paid. The reps, while quite large, can be done, if they'll get rid of the limitations. I don't believe they will - they want us to accept, get beat down further than we are, and then fail when we try to pay reps so they can go back to war. By itself the they admitted they can pay the reps. The real issue is the 2 weeks of war terms; I don't think the NPO is fooling anyone that 2 weeks of war would destroy a reasonably prepared nation. The larger issue seems to be the possibility of eternal war due to the wording of these terms. Which is silly because Karma explained what they intended to do and there's no leeway for eternal wars. I do believe that would help a lot. I'm not sure Karma is really willing to limit how long they can nuke our banks that way, else I think they would already have officially said so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 It's funny because this thread is more or less what it condemns. Delicious ironing. Anyway, the endless NPO threads are more fun if you only read a few quite sentences and then respond with the first thing that pops into your head... EVERYBODY ELSE IS DOING IT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USSR Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 NPO vs Cybernations Cybernations = won? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 the irony is, is that the things OP complained about people doing, continued on on the exact same page as his original post. lololol thanks for listening guys I noticed that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrei Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 The NPO knows we've been beat. Moo has posted that we've lost the war. We aren't asking to be let off with white peace, and we're willing to pay far more reps than *anyone* has ever paid. The reps, while quite large, can be done, if they'll get rid of the limitations. I don't believe they will - they want us to accept, get beat down further than we are, and then fail when we try to pay reps so they can go back to war. Two things. First, the reps are payable, you say? Then why are most of the NPO people on the forums that are posting are saying otherwise? Secondly.... you really believe Karma wants to go to war again with the NPO in the near future? Wow. Just... wow. It's like you all really do believe that Karma had been planning this for months, and have purposely designed the reps to be unpayable so that we have an excuse to destroy you. Well, let me tell you that despite the reasons I have to dislike and outright hate the NPO, I don't want it gone. I don't think anyone but idiots want it gone. Karma is not this big evil entity that aims to control Planet Bob as you guys once did. It's a very loose gathering of alliances that banded together to show the NPO that we will not stand for the tyranny of one large alliance. Pay the reps so this war can finally end, and we can all move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henkie Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 I cannot see why an alliance famed for its ability to rebuild quickly to pre-war totals, can suddenly not be able to pay back a simple amount over an indefinite length of time. An sich an entirely logical assumption, but not entirely applicable to the current situation. I'd like to point out that we've offered to pay a billion more than Karma's asking, if we could get rid of some of the limitations of how it is to be payed. Most importantly is the tech. 300k, to be payed by the larger nations now in peace mode, after they've gone through a serious war, at a minimum of 25k per month. In peace mode right now, are two groups of nations: a small group of bankers and a large group of nations that has allready ignored multiple orders to get out of peace mode and fight, probably because they're inactive for various reasons. The nations that will have to pay the tech are the nations that are known to be inactive and will be ZI-ed before they have to pay. The idea that these nations will achieve an efficiency anywhere close to what our bank on average can get, is absurd, tbh, even if we don't account for nations that may reroll, delete, or disappear, this is a tall order. If at any time we fall below the required amount, we've got another war on our hands, but now with ZI-ed banks with no warchests, no nations with nukes and enemies that have had time to restock. What you seem to think we've gotten is doable and reasonable, what we've actually been offered, however, is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrei Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 I am sure that if you fall behind on payment of the reps, something can be worked out to stop another war starting, one that might actually finish the NPO. With people like Londo working so vigorously for the fairest treatment for all concerned, I am positive that a slip-up in payment can be worked out between the people involved, as long as it isn't too obviously delayed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 It's definitely not that simple, otherwise reps would be getting paid right now. I can only imagine the pain of these negotiations and the mind-numbing dialog that must be going on. ugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpdogg Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 the reps are payable, you say? Then why are most of the NPO people on the forums that are posting are saying otherwise? Pro Logic is pro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Blake Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 If they really need the 2 week war, can't they just lower the percentage of 4k infra nations that must come out before the counter starts? 90% doesn't really take into account people disobeying orders or being inactive, would 75% not be enough? That's 51 out of 67 nations instead of 61 out of 67 possible. Also, for the 90% of the total nations, of the 251 nations in peace mode that would mean 181 would need to leave, 54 of those nations are under 1k NS (likely inactives/ghosts; 39 more are under 2k NS some of these may be ghosts too). That leaves all but 16 nations in peace mode that must exit for the quota to be reached just for the 2 week war to begin. I just don't see how realistic it is to expect them to be able to reach those kinds of numbers should that term stay in place. Clearly, some minor tweaking would still allow you to punish them further without placing them under terms that in all likelihood cannot be satisfied. The reps are fine. Maybe you can bump up their counteroffer to a cool 10 bil to take the war term out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Longworth Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Aw, no poll? Anyways... The Great Moo has spoken: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1608603 We acknowledge that we have been defeated in this war.--The Great MooWe presented Karma with a counter-proposal, that we pay more than the amounts requested, but with the lifting of those two clauses.....That counter-proposal was refused.--The Great MooWe have admitted defeat. We have offered to pay reparations.(Probably the largest in history) Please don't accuse of not doing either. We are not submitting to the side clauses. If you took the time to read our emperor's proclamation, you would see that what we have refused are (1) the limitation put on our ability to repay, (2) the 14+ days of war that would ruin our banks. Accusing us of not admitting defeat and not willing to pay reps is pointless. If anything, it shows you probably haven't bothered read the first page of the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffasamini Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) I'm just going to say, if you read the OWF, you arent unbiased. Several of your points are based on the spin people through around here, not on fact. These terms are nothing near anything we have ever ever ever given out. The NPO has in total accepted 800 million in fiscal reps. We have also on rare occasion installed a couple viceroys, and twice our actions inadvertantly resulted in the disbandment of an alliance. Ivan allowed ONOS to fail, and TDSM8 couldnt pay their reps and disbanded. Perhaps these injustices combined equate to this set of terms? We'd love to "man up" and take terms, they just need to be possible. And I dont mean they have to be small. We also admitted defeat. JDavis, you are correct that having hippies get hurt in a 14 day retribution is actually counter-productive, because since they are the funding that gets us out of bill lock and gives the small nations the money to buy tech, it actually hurts the small members of our alliance, not the big ones. "I cannot see why an alliance famed for its ability to rebuild quickly to pre-war totals, can suddenly not be able to pay back a simple amount over an indefinite length of time." - We CAN pay back a simple amount over an indefinite time. In fact, we'd love to, lets try 8bill and 300k, sound good? Please re-read the hegemony's post without bias, and actually understand why we had to reject the terms. Edited June 18, 2009 by muffasamini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 It always amuses me that with all the "winners dictate the terms" speeches lately, people have forgotten that a peace treaty is an agreement. The winner agrees in order to satisfy what goals they have, and the loser agrees if it is better than the alternative. Your Choice: Surrender to the aforementioned terms which satisfy the goals of Karma. Alternative: Perpetual war until you oblige. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henkie Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 I am sure that if you fall behind on payment of the reps, something can be worked out to stop another war starting, one that might actually finish the NPO. With people like Londo working so vigorously for the fairest treatment for all concerned, I am positive that a slip-up in payment can be worked out between the people involved, as long as it isn't too obviously delayed. The fact that they are in no way willing to renegotiate anything in the terms, and set terms that are extremely close to, if not over the limit of what's reachable, doesn't exactly suggest that they're lenient about the whole matter. Furthermore, you can't honestly expect us to bet our entire alliance on this leniency, with no guarantees what-so-ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrei Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 The fact that they are in no way willing to renegotiate anything in the terms, and set terms that are extremely close to, if not over the limit of what's reachable, doesn't exactly suggest that they're lenient about the whole matter. Furthermore, you can't honestly expect us to bet our entire alliance on this leniency, with no guarantees what-so-ever. It's got to be better than the alternative... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I like the opening post tbqh. I don't really have much to add on to it. 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.