Bob Janova Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 I would say those terms are high. But the reasoning (apart from the 'recovery' of 10,000 MK tech) is twofold: - as members of One Vision, Echelon shares responsibility for 1V's aggressive actions and enforcement of monopolarity - having stayed in the war so long, they have done a lot of damage to the alliances fighting them Personally I'd say that they've always been a craven follower of an alliance (as well as a cut-and-run alliance in the past) and assigning responsibility to them is giving them too much credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamlin Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 I would say those terms are high. But the reasoning (apart from the 'recovery' of 10,000 MK tech) is twofold:- as members of One Vision, Echelon shares responsibility for 1V's aggressive actions and enforcement of monopolarity - having stayed in the war so long, they have done a lot of damage to the alliances fighting them Personally I'd say that they've always been a craven follower of an alliance (as well as a cut-and-run alliance in the past) and assigning responsibility to them is giving them too much credit. IRON, NpO, GGA, and MCXA were also 1V members. NpO was kicked out a year ago so we'll ignore them GGA, IRON and MCXA left less than a month ago. So then the reason that Echelon has high reps and these other alliances (GGA, IRON, MCXA) don't must simply be due to staying in the war to support an ally. To then say that they are being punished for also being a "cut-and-run" alliance, while also punishing them for not cutting-and-running and letting 3 alliances off that cut-and-ran is, at best, hypocritical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Some of the differences are simply due to different alliances being on the different fronts. Don't make the mistake of thinking of Karma as a single entity; different fronts will end up with different terms because of different decisions made by the alliances on them, and saying 'X got terms A so Y should also' is to miss that point. Don't forget that several people within Karma made their displeasure at the GGA, IRON and MCXA terms claer, and it may be that those alliances are on the Echelon front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gstills22 Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 IRON, NpO, GGA, and MCXA were also 1V members.NpO was kicked out a year ago so we'll ignore them GGA, IRON and MCXA left less than a month ago. So then the reason that Echelon has high reps and these other alliances (GGA, IRON, MCXA) don't must simply be due to staying in the war to support an ally. To then say that they are being punished for also being a "cut-and-run" alliance, while also punishing them for not cutting-and-running and letting 3 alliances off that cut-and-ran is, at best, hypocritical. the longer you stay in war and damage those your fighting terms rise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willaim Kreiger Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) Lol $%&@ off the lot of you. Polaris paid 75,000 tech in reparations from 26 nations only. You can pay ~35,000 with 20 nations, it isn't that hard. Don't !@#$%* about full slot usage, that's the entire idea. You ship out the tech you have, and then you buy up to 50 from 0 and send that out too. I did it last time around, and while it certainly isn't the most fun thing I could imagine, it still works. Edit: I may have misread the term. Is it required to keep 1000 tech in your whilst paying the reparations? If so, that's stupid. No alliance with half a brain would accept that term. Extort your reps and be done with it. Edited June 19, 2009 by Willaim Kreiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Why are people still surprised? They (Karma bloc) have been acting this way for weeks now. They lied to people before the war and early in the war, once they got the upper hand they started showing their true colours. Whether they are sanctioning people, calling them rogues, imposing draconian terms or just acting like bullyboys they will just say NPO did it so can we or try to somehow blame everyone else. Case in point, they are getting these terms because they didnt surrender, its not Karmas fault we cant decide the reps ourselves. Just accept they are doing what they like at the moment and unless someone inside their bloc stands up to the bully boys it will get worse. When they come for you will there be anyone left to speak out? When they came for me,there was no one left to speak out for me absolute power corrupts absolutely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboooe Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) I would say those terms are high. But the reasoning (apart from the 'recovery' of 10,000 MK tech) is twofold:- as members of One Vision, Echelon shares responsibility for 1V's aggressive actions and enforcement of monopolarity - having stayed in the war so long, they have done a lot of damage to the alliances fighting them Personally I'd say that they've always been a craven follower of an alliance (as well as a cut-and-run alliance in the past) and assigning responsibility to them is giving them too much credit. IRON,MCXA,GGA were all part of 1V untill recently and yet they got quite light reps. I'm sure that if we were offered reps earlier by the disorganised group known to be called Karma, you wouldn't of had to lose anymore of your precious infa Edit: Spellingz Edited June 19, 2009 by aboooe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willaim Kreiger Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Why are people still surprised? They (Karma bloc) have been acting this way for weeks now. They lied to people before the war and early in the war, once they got the upper hand they started showing their true colours. Whether they are sanctioning people, calling them rogues, imposing draconian terms or just acting like bullyboys they will just say NPO did it so can we or try to somehow blame everyone else. Case in point, they are getting these terms because they didnt surrender, its not Karmas fault we cant decide the reps ourselves. Just accept they are doing what they like at the moment and unless someone inside their bloc stands up to the bully boys it will get worse. When they come for you will there be anyone left to speak out? Sorry, the other side already came for me, so I am perfectly content. Enjoy your soap box Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Sorry, the other side already came for me, so I am perfectly content. Enjoy your soap box This side will probably come for you after Citadel, everyone knows that one is coming next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willaim Kreiger Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 This side will probably come for you after Citadel, everyone knows that one is coming next. There really isn't much of a 'side' when it comes to Karma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 So then the reason that Echelon has high reps and these other alliances (GGA, IRON, MCXA) don't must simply be due to staying in the war to support an ally. To then say that they are being punished for also being a "cut-and-run" alliance, while also punishing them for not cutting-and-running and letting 3 alliances off that cut-and-ran is, at best, hypocritical. I would go so far as to say I agree with most of this, however I do not think hypocrisy is being demonstrated here, but rather the arguments presented have not been thought through properly. IRON,MCXA,GGA were all part of 1V untill recently and yet they got quite light reps.I'm sure that if we were offered reps earlier by the disorganised group known to be called Karma, you wouldn't of had to lose anymore of your precious infa Edit: Spellingz I wouldn't insult the very coalition you are trying to get terms from in a thread related to Echelon terms, if I were you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Alterego, your post is much more accurately applied to the Hegemony at the start of this war. Unlike Karma, they actually did come for several people ... but fortunately, some of us were still around to speak out for Ordo Verde. Since much of Citadel was in Karma, I await Umbrella declaring on me with great anticipation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamlin Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 I would go so far as to say I agree with most of this, however I do not think hypocrisy is being demonstrated here, but rather the arguments presented have not been thought through properly. Hrm, that's probably more accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Alterego, your post is much more accurately applied to the Hegemony at the start of this war. Unlike Karma, they actually did come for several people ... but fortunately, some of us were still around to speak out for Ordo Verde.Since much of Citadel was in Karma, I await Umbrella declaring on me with great anticipation Citadel members were in Q just before this and one fought on the other side, things can change quickly right before the event. Anyway this is a discussion for the day it happens i guess. If it doesnt you can say I told you so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 I think 1b could probably be better clarified as I imagine (and I may be wrong) the intent was that the reps could only be paid by nations who were currently over 1,000 tech at the time the terms were signed. It didn't mean that they had to stay above 1,000 tech the entire time they were paying the reps off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboooe Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 I wouldn't insult the very coalition you are trying to get terms from in a thread related to Echelon terms, if I were you. I'm not insulting them I'm just stating what could of happened, if they had of been more organised and now they would not be sitting here complaining about how we done more damages being kept in this war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yggdrazil Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) Refrain after refrain in other threads the anti-hegemony focuses on alliances that were just following treaty obligations being given harsh terms by Q. Forgetting all those who were former members of Q and now dealing harsh terms for those who are in this fight following treaty obligations.Does the anti-hegemony have any quiding principles or is all the priciple they follow just hate? Edited June 19, 2009 by Yggdrazil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kremlin Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 The 1 tech is just a waste. Ask for 50 or don't waste Echelon's slot IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 People seem to forget that reparations weren't regulated by any kind of central command on most fronts, usually it was just the alliances involved working things out on their own. Some alliances are nicer than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattski133 Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 As a note, so did half of the alliances now attacking NPO.It really boils down to this. When NPO was on top NPO dictated the terms. When Karma is on top Karma is dictating the terms. Same car, same direction, different driver. As time goes on the only thing that changes is the speed of the car (size of the reps). Eventually (we appear to be at, or at the very least on the brink of, this point) there comes a point when the car is going too fast to control. The result is a crash in which everyone gets hurt. Many many nations/alliances admit that high reps are a reason they hate NPO but then are shocked to think that NPO might actually grow to hate them due to the reps they are attempting to impose. NPO imposing high reps might make it easier to justify overly high reps being imposed on us, however it doesn't make it any more right. I don't think many people in Karma are trying to be fair. This is about evening the score, resetting the table, getting back to equilibrium, righting wrongs, even with more wrongs if necessary. If NPO holds a grudge against those delivering reps to them (or if Echelon does as well) they need to look at their actions in the past and decide if they still think it was worth it. The idea of Karma is very eye for an eye. Reaping what you sow. And so on. My point is, you can point the finger anywhere you want but if there is someone who deserves to be pointed at, it is NPO and their hegemonic allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Well, echelon, I'd imagine some alliances are still pissed about you ditching BLEU for 1V and then participating in BLEU's destruction, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) I think 1b could probably be better clarified as I imagine (and I may be wrong) the intent was that the reps could only be paid by nations who were currently over 1,000 tech at the time the terms were signed. It didn't mean that they had to stay above 1,000 tech the entire time they were paying the reps off. This is the way I was interpreting it as well, but that's a good point that should probably be clarified when Echelon finally decides to accept their terms. To all of those people harping about how hard these are, may I remind you that a very similar core group of people gave GDA terms that only included demilitarization - which has already expired. If I were in your shoes I'd probably be thinking "Hm, you know, Echelon probably did something to deserve this..." They would, of course, be wrong. We actually just use a magic hate ball. Edited June 19, 2009 by NoFish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King DrunkWino Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) They would, of course, be wrong. We actually just use a magic hate ball. He's not kidding. Here, I brought along a picture of the magic hate ball in action: /you too can ask the magic hate ball some questions here, http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/hateball Edited June 19, 2009 by King DrunkWino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 I think 1b could probably be better clarified as I imagine (and I may be wrong) the intent was that the reps could only be paid by nations who were currently over 1,000 tech at the time the terms were signed. It didn't mean that they had to stay above 1,000 tech the entire time they were paying the reps off. That is indeed accurate. Should Echelon decide to accept the terms, term 1b will be revised in wording to reflect the above, as the previous wording may have been ambiguous as to our intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancellor Bismarck Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) Since when did 1,000 technology become a bar for who can pay reps? I make $3,000,000 a day, with labor camps in a cycle, and I only have two hundred or so one hundred twenty technology. Edited June 19, 2009 by Pacifism 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.