HeinousOne Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 So you're willing to accept eternal war as an alternative? Its not like the war is all that heavy anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 The terms have been rejected, not put aside for revisiting without change at a later date, but totally and irrevocably rejected. If that is your choice then that is your choice. I dont think anyone would deny you the right to make that choice. But you cant choose to refuse peace and then whine and kvetch all day here about how awful your opponents are for continuing to war you. Well, you *can,* obviously, but why would anyone take it seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterana Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Where have I whined about them continuing to war us? I enjoy war. It is the terms that have been on the receiving end of my ire. Well, certain parts of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Where have I whined about them continuing to war us? I enjoy war.It is the terms that have been on the receiving end of my ire. Well, certain parts of them. I do hope you guys are prepared to accept terms though if they are presented. If you are presented with some decent terms and you turn them down, this sudden flood of what "appears" to be NPO empathy will disappear in a flash. I hope you guys havnt mistaken a hatred of a certain term to be NPO love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 I do hope you guys are prepared to accept terms though if they are presented. If you are presented with some decent terms and you turn them down, this sudden flood of what "appears" to be NPO empathy will disappear in a flash. I hope you guys havnt mistaken a hatred of a certain term to be NPO love. I think they'll be given more reasonable terms soon enough, providing certain people stop caring so much about actually wanting to make terms worse, and get on with finishing this war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Kuse Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Where have I whined about them continuing to war us? I enjoy war.It is the terms that have been on the receiving end of my ire. Well, certain parts of them. Actually the proper wording here would be you are wanting to continue this war. The Terms are there, If you do not take them as they are, Then that is on you not us. Love how you guys try flipping it back on us, That PR affect apparently has no use as the world continues to scream No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterana Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Actually the proper wording here would be you are wanting to continue this war. The Terms are there, If you do not take them as they are, Then that is on you not us.Love how you guys try flipping it back on us, That PR affect apparently has no use as the world continues to scream No. Shrug, you seem to think we're continuing the war just to spite you or because we're too stubborn to accept your terms. As has been explained to you, again and again and again. Continuing the war is our only option. The terms will destroy us, as they are designed to do and several of your fellows have admitted. Cripple us and 'keep us down' so we can no longer be a 'threat'. It is the paranoid fear from your side of the fence that is keeping the war going, not us. Long as the terms are so much more devastating for our alliance than continuing to fight, we'd be fools to accept them. I don't know why you can't get that. Is your hate really so deep you are going to continue to push the line that we should, under a peace agreement, kill our alliance just to satisfy your blood lust and inability to hurt/weaken us any other way? Our leaders aren't stupid. Our members aren't stupid. Your peace isn't a peace, it is a underhanded continuation of the war, only this time our nations will be under the thumb and can't fight back. We'd be 24 carat idiots to accept these terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 A bad peace is worse than a good war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 A bad peace is worse than a good war. There is one bit you are over looking. Even a bad peace, as you put it, will eventually end when the surrender terms are up, and become a good peace. If instead you choose to continue a war because you are too short sighted to see that, the folly is yours and yours alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 A bad peace is worse than a good war. Just as long as you guys havnt gotten worked up to the point where you don't recognize good peace. That will be the deathwish for your alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEsus Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Just as long as you guys havnt gotten worked up to the point where you don't recognize good peace. That will be the deathwish for your alliance. I don't think that's the case. I would certainly hope we accept 'good terms' as you put. Certainly even terms that would not lead to a slow crippling death... If they are border line, then i'd hope the govt, woudl bring it to the BR for discussion... even a vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 I don't think that's the case. I would certainly hope we accept 'good terms' as you put. Certainly even terms that would not lead to a slow crippling death... If they are border line, then i'd hope the govt, woudl bring it to the BR for discussion... even a vote? Exactly, if new terms are brought forward that will work for all parties involved and your government still denies them then it will be obvious that they only have their own best interests at heart as such coincides with them and their lusts for power. This is a situation for personal desires to be put aside and the best choice for the alliance is made. We will see if these new terms are brought forward whether your leaders turned down the previous terms for the reasons stated or simply to play PR games. I would like to think it was for the forementioned reasons. We shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterana Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) Just as long as you guys havnt gotten worked up to the point where you don't recognize good peace. That will be the deathwish for your alliance. If we get offered a good peace, and I aren't holding my breath, I bet our government will jump at the chance to get us all out of this war. We aren't suicidal either. We want peace. We just want a real one where the fighting and damage stops from the moment they are signed, give us massive reps, restrict our military, suspend our treaties, personally I don't care about any of that. But a big no to handing over any of our nations for more war, and a big no to stripping our big nations of their remaining tech by forbidding small nations to pay tech reps. That isn't peace. Exactly, if new terms are brought forward that will work for all parties involved and your government still denies them then it will be obvious that they only have their own best interests at heart as such coincides with them and their lusts for power. This is a situation for personal desires to be put aside and the best choice for the alliance is made.We will see if these new terms are brought forward whether your leaders turned down the previous terms for the reasons stated or simply to play PR games. I would like to think it was for the forementioned reasons. We shall see. The full terms are posted on our forum. We've all seen them. The BR is fully behind our leaders in saying no to them. Edited July 10, 2009 by Waterana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) If we get offered a good peace, and I aren't holding my breath, I bet our government will jump at the chance to get us all out of this war. We aren't suicidal either. We want peace. We just want a real one where the fighting and damage stops from the moment they are signed, give us massive reps, restrict our military, suspend our treaties, personally I don't care about any of that. But a big no to handing over any of our nations for more war, and a big no to stripping our big nations of their remaining tech by forbidding small nations to pay tech reps. That isn't peace. I think your willingness to compromise is coming a bit short. There is a particular aspect of your statement that is expecting too much. Edit: I dont blame you for denying the previous terms. That does not mean your leaders' intentions are in line with the BR's intentions. That will become atleast a little more clear when the next terms come. If they act properly then that will be one lesson that I think they have learned through this war. That lesson being just how much they should appreciate the BR. Edited July 10, 2009 by HeinousOne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEsus Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Exactly, if new terms are brought forward that will work for all parties involved and your government still denies them then it will be obvious that they only have their own best interests at heart as such coincides with them and their lusts for power. This is a situation for personal desires to be put aside and the best choice for the alliance is made.We will see if these new terms are brought forward whether your leaders turned down the previous terms for the reasons stated or simply to play PR games. I would like to think it was for the forementioned reasons. We shall see. In which case and back on topic, we may see members leave. A 'revolt' is not even possible, membership do not have the means at their disposal to do so. All that could happen was an exodus. And ... well players like me, who have been in the NPO for three years or more, are kind of institutionalised, I wouldn't know what else to do [ooc: in this game]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEsus Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 I think your willingness to compromise is coming a bit short. There is a particular aspect of your statement that is expecting too much. Well then it comes down to definitions of 'good' peace. I think Waterana, has pretty much summed up what most of the membership of the NPO would accept, we are behind are government on this one. There's no logic at this point in criticising them off or trying to stage 'a revolt', because I think we are in agreement. We can be disappointed at getting to this stage, but it won't do much good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) In which case and back on topic, we may see members leave. A 'revolt' is not even possible, membership do not have the means at their disposal to do so. All that could happen was an exodus. And ... well players like me, who have been in the NPO for three years or more, are kind of institutionalised, I wouldn't know what else to do [ooc: in this game]. Yes, that is basically what I was going to insinuate but it is certainly more powerful seeing that a three year member of NPO recognizes and admits to what could befall NPO if they do not go along with fair terms when they are presented. That is why I said such would be the Deathwish for the alliance. If such is what must be done by yourself and those of like mind to you, it will definately not be an easy choice but you will have choices just like any other nation that finds itself no longer able to contribute to the alliance it has called home. Well then it comes down to definitions of 'good' peace. I think Waterana, has pretty much summed up what most of the membership of the NPO would accept, we are behind are government on this one. There's no logic at this point in criticising them off or trying to stage 'a revolt', because I think we are in agreement. We can be disappointed at getting to this stage, but it won't do much good. At this stage of events I agree with what you guys have done as far as turning down those terms. All that I have said here in this recent conversation is in regards to possible future events which would mean a second set of terms that would be more of a compromise of all parties concerned. If that happens and the response from the NPO is the same then I would expect to see some upheaval within NPO. Not because I say so of course but simply because denying such terms would definately not be in the best interest of the alliance or for the individual members. Now as far as the part of Waterana's post that I didnt agree with, it is the part where you think you will get to fully choose who gets to pay all the tech. Remember, this is a compromise. That means somewhere in the middle of what you want and what some of those fighting you want. Keep that in mind as it is very important. Edited July 10, 2009 by HeinousOne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEsus Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Yes, that is basically what I was going to insinuate but it is certainly more powerful seeing that a three year member of NPO recognizes and admits to what could befall NPO if they do not go along with fair terms when they are presented. That is why I said such would be the Deathwish for the alliance. If such is what must be done by yourself and those of like mind to you, it will definately not be an easy choice but you will have choices just like any other nation that finds itself no longer able to contribute to the alliance it has called home. At this stage of events I agree with what you guys have done as far as turning down those terms. All that I have said here in this recent conversation is in regards to possible future events which would mean a second set of terms that would be more of a compromise of all parties concerned. If that happens and the response from the NPO is the same then I would expect to see some upheaval within NPO. Not because I say so of course but simply because denying such terms would definately not be in the best interest of the alliance or for the individual members. Now as far as the part of Waterana's post that I didnt agree with, it is the part where you think you will get to fully choose who gets to pay all the tech. Remember, this is a compromise. That means somewhere in the middle of what you want and what some of those fighting you want. Keep that in mind as it is very important. Very thought provoking, i suppose we will see. This may be the first time for years i have enjoyed a forum conversation so much. Calm intelligent discussion is a blessed relief, after all the confrontational point scoring. Thanks. There are two interesting points in those terms... yes i know its not a universally accepted opinion but i do believe they are there to kill the alliance. If we ever got back on our feet after them, it would take years. And it punishes the members, directly. The second is that the individual surrender terms are still lenient (although I don't know whether it applies to nations like mine). So the objective must be to separate the membership from the leadership. But the terms don't call for a leadership change, which given how harsh the rest of the terms are surprised me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterana Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) I think your willingness to compromise is coming a bit short. There is a particular aspect of your statement that is expecting too much.Edit: I dont blame you for denying the previous terms. That does not mean your leaders' intentions are in line with the BR's intentions. That will become atleast a little more clear when the next terms come. If they act properly then that will be one lesson that I think they have learned through this war. That lesson being just how much they should appreciate the BR. I don't have anything to do with drafting terms, sheesh, those were just examples and only from me, not the alliance. What is expecting too much? Wanting terms that won't leave my alliance a wrecked crippled shambles in a years time, or even ground down to disbandment? A peace that's a REAL peace, and not simply a one sided continuation of the war under another name? I'm not asking for white peace, nothing close. Edit: Ok, have just read where you explained what the problem with my post was. Would have been easier if you'd just said so in the one I answered I don't know what this second set of terms will contain. In fact, only place I've heard they even exist is on this forum, so aren't holding my breath they are real. I do hope so, but we'll have to see. The tech reps payment restrictions, and the internal aid restrictions (to limit rebuilding aid and tech deals within the alliance) are also a good reason to say no to those terms, but that is coming only from me. Those two clauses plus the extra war are the only part of the terms we have now that I don't like and would love to see gone. If it all happens, great, but if it takes a compromise on the first two to save the banks, then that will still stink and still be un-necessary, but personally, I'd consider it acceptable. Edited July 10, 2009 by Waterana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 There are two interesting points in those terms... yes i know its not a universally accepted opinion but i do believe they are there to kill the alliance. If we ever got back on our feet after them, it would take years. And it punishes the members, directly. The second is that the individual surrender terms are still lenient (although I don't know whether it applies to nations like mine). So the objective must be to separate the membership from the leadership. But the terms don't call for a leadership change, which given how harsh the rest of the terms are surprised me. Any reparations affect the members. To believe that the terms were designed to kill the NPO only makes sense to me if you credit "Karma" leadership with excellent foresight and posit they were certain they would be rejected. If Moo had been smart, he would have accepted them on the spot. That part of this argument just isnt credible. As to why the terms dont call for leadership change, this is where they painted themselves into a corner. They swore not to impose 'draconian' terms. They swore not to do the things that were considered the very worst level of what the NPO has introduced and practiced in the past. And so they cannot impose regime change as terms. At the same time, without it, it's completely assured that the NPO will focus all available resources on destroying them. Simple as that. So they are reduced to trying to impose terms which while not 'draconian' are instead 'harsh' - designed to keep you poor for as long as possible, to delay your ability to seek revenge at least, as the only available substitute. (Just my opinion, I'm nobody.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEsus Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Any reparations affect the members. To believe that the terms were designed to kill the NPO only makes sense to me if you credit "Karma" leadership with excellent foresight and posit they were certain they would be rejected. If Moo had been smart, he would have accepted them on the spot. That part of this argument just isnt credible. As to why the terms dont call for leadership change, this is where they painted themselves into a corner. They swore not to impose 'draconian' terms. They swore not to do the things that were considered the very worst level of what the NPO has introduced and practiced in the past. And so they cannot impose regime change as terms. At the same time, without it, it's completely assured that the NPO will focus all available resources on destroying them. Simple as that. So they are reduced to trying to impose terms which while not 'draconian' are instead 'harsh' - designed to keep you poor for as long as possible, to delay your ability to seek revenge at least, as the only available substitute. (Just my opinion, I'm nobody.) So back to the petty point scoring huh? Take a leaf out of HeinousOne, it is possible to have interesting discussion without a combative style. I'm not even going to respond until you rephrase. I might do it for you later, just to show you how easy it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 So back to the petty point scoring huh? Take a leaf out of HeinousOne, it is possible to have interesting discussion without a combative style. I'm not even going to respond until you rephrase. I might do it for you later, just to show you how easy it is. What specifically did you think was phrased combatively? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 So back to the petty point scoring huh? Take a leaf out of HeinousOne, it is possible to have interesting discussion without a combative style. I'm not even going to respond until you rephrase. I might do it for you later, just to show you how easy it is. There was nothing combative about Sigrun's statement. Perhaps you should put more effort into addressing the post rather than feigning indignance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrarn Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Any reparations affect the members. To believe that the terms were designed to kill the NPO only makes sense to me if you credit "Karma" leadership with excellent foresight and posit they were certain they would be rejected. If Moo had been smart, he would have accepted them on the spot. That part of this argument just isnt credible. As to why the terms dont call for leadership change, this is where they painted themselves into a corner. They swore not to impose 'draconian' terms. They swore not to do the things that were considered the very worst level of what the NPO has introduced and practiced in the past. And so they cannot impose regime change as terms. At the same time, without it, it's completely assured that the NPO will focus all available resources on destroying them. Simple as that. So they are reduced to trying to impose terms which while not 'draconian' are instead 'harsh' - designed to keep you poor for as long as possible, to delay your ability to seek revenge at least, as the only available substitute. (Just my opinion, I'm nobody.) Someone should sticky this. Most straightforward explanation I've read yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 So back to the petty point scoring huh? Take a leaf out of HeinousOne, it is possible to have interesting discussion without a combative style. I'm not even going to respond until you rephrase. I might do it for you later, just to show you how easy it is. Translation: "I'm not actually able to address these points properly so instead I'll attack the person making the points" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts