Starcraftmazter Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Additionally, regarding the 1k tech clause, I had understood the terms in the manner that you couldn't send any reps out if your under 1k tech, and furthermore, if you fall below that sending reps, i was under the impression that you couldn't send any more until you rise above 1k again. Obviously we would appreciate further clarifacation on this clause. Ever heard the expression "private channels ftw". Sure, Echelon has done its fair share of wrong-doings and we've made a (large) handful of mistakes, but i'd appreciate it if you could point me to any alliance who's been around for any considerable amount time and hasn't done something less than commendable or made a mistake. So you're equating any and all wrong doings of your alliance to making a simple mistake? I'm going to disagree - it's not that simple. The number of mistakes, their severity, and how they impacted on other alliances must be taken into consideration...among other things. Regardless of Echelon's actions in the past, I will never doubt that entering this war and honoring our treaty with Pacifica was the right thing to do, regardless of how hard Karma tries to say it wasn't. I'm not sure whether I've ever seen anyone say that it's wrong to honour a treaty. Being allied to NPO on the other hand...this is nothing to do with honour - this is a choice you made. Regardless of how "new" you claim your government to be, you clearly haven't changed if you still supported the kinds of things NPO represents and stands for. And if you didn't, then you'd cancel all of your treaties with them - it's pretty simple. What we are opposed to are the numerous provisions in the terms which were unreasonable, devoid of all logic, and generally unfair. We've tried to work with our opponents to resolve at least a few of these issues, however our opponents (with the exception of a small handful of them) have shown a lack of desire to entertain any compromise, and appear to be focused on one thing, overseeing the full destruction of Echelon. If I'm mistaken and Karma would like to acheive peace in this conflict, the leaders of Echelon have been and still are open to working on a mutually agreeable agreement. They are not illogical nor unreasonable. They are what you deserve...that is the point of Karma. And I don't see why the alliances at war with you should be forced to compromise either. They won the war, and they have the right to dictate your terms. And if you have a problem with that - bad luck, you have nobody but yourselves to blame for making decisions (or the lack of correct decisions) which have led you into the situation which you now find yourselves in. And I'm not talking about honouring treaties either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otherworld Posted June 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Once again...people are mostly missing the point of this topic. Karma is going for the eye for an eye philosophy, correct? So where have Echelon given anyone reps so harsh it is borderline unpayable? Yes Echelon have crippled other alliances in the past, but this war itself has crippled Echelon militarily? So why are such harsh reps needed. So that leaves the BLEU situation. Well that might piss people off...understandably. But come on, these reps aren't worth that. IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Oh dear God...within a week we'll have "TPF Reps?", "64Digits Reps", and "Avalon Reps" threads. Get over it! Stop whining! You're not going to change the terms by throwing yourself on the ground and screaming "Echelon and NPO have harsh terms! I wanna give em different terms!" What's done is done. The reps that the governments of each alliance accepts are the reps that the defeated will pay! Unless they decide to leave the game instead, I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Once again...people are mostly missing the point of this topic. Karma is going for the eye for an eye philosophy, correct? Incorrect. If Karma was going eye to eye the terms would be a lot worse. Reps are just one part of the terms - don't forget that. And reps aren't the worst part of the terms if you ask me. So where have Echelon given anyone reps so harsh it is borderline unpayable?Yes Echelon have crippled other alliances in the past, but this war itself has crippled Echelon militarily? So why are such harsh reps needed. So that leaves the BLEU situation. Well that might piss people off...understandably. But come on, these reps aren't worth that. IMO. "High" reps are not necessarily caused by reps which Echelon gave out in the past, but by all of their collective actions which have been underhanded, dishonourable and plain wrong. Whether the reps are worth the "BLEU thing", as you said - that was just your opinion. But keep in mind, the reps are designed to reflect a collection of things and not any one thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Once again...people are mostly missing the point of this topic. Karma is going for the eye for an eye philosophy, correct? Since when did Karma get an official philosophy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3nowned Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Since when did Karma get an official philosophy? Karma has been a philosophical concept for the past 5000 years kthxbai. It's not about "eye for an eye" either. I agree with the OP. While Echelon has made a fair few blunders in its distant past, giving them terms like that will not change the way they will do things. Giving them white peace won't either, but, while they have the capacity to pay off those reps, they will cripple the alliance for so many months. I thought this was one of the things Karma fought against, and if I was bothered, I'd dig up posts of people saying "we can give them white peace cause we're the bigger man" or something along those lines. These terms are a complete 180 of those sentiments 2 months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I thought this was one of the things Karma fought against, and if I was bothered, I'd dig up posts of people saying "we can give them white peace cause we're the bigger man" or something along those lines. These terms are a complete 180 of those sentiments 2 months ago. The large majority of alliances including yours were given white peace or equivalent peace settlement. But not every single front is the same. Letting the key perpetrators of countless past crimes get away with white peace or light terms would not achieve anything useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 But not every single front is the same. Letting the key perpetrators of countless past crimes get away with white peace or light terms would not achieve anything useful. This is the one thing most people calling Karma hypocritical don't understand. Karma isn't a unified bloc, some are out for revenge, yes, but the main goal of a greater number is to stop the Hegemony. White peace and the lightest terms you can imagine an alliance paying off just don't work that way. It's either heavy duty or overload. Luckily for the Hegemony, Karma's going with heavy duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Anyway, it does seems weird that Echelon gets such harsh terms compared to so many others but that's what happens when you hold on as long as they have. You can't say "we're rolling the hard six" and then not take the punishment that comes with it. It is honourable to roll that hard six but it is pathetic to claim you're rolling it and then complain when fighting uphill odds doesn't work out for you. To all those who are saying "but half of Karma was once NPO's allies!@#" ... that's the game. Congratulations, you get it now. This game involves political dynamics that change and playing those dynamics well earns you victory whereas playing them wrong earns you defeat. This war started because many people (including former allies) were sick of playing the game by NPO's rules and honestly sick of the lack of political dynamics that the game had achieved. So people changed things and many of us found that more enjoyable. I applaud Echelon for sticking it out this far but there are consequences to sticking with your allies even against all odds... and that's what makes it remarkable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Anyway, it does seems weird that Echelon gets such harsh terms compared to so many others but that's what happens when you hold on as long as they have. You can't say "we're rolling the hard six" and then not take the punishment that comes with it. It is honourable to roll that hard six but it is pathetic to claim you're rolling it and then complain when fighting uphill odds doesn't work out for you. I think you got some alliances and folks confused my karma angel overlord Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum T. Gundraw Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Note: The longer you are at war, the longer it is going to take to pay reps. The longer you are at war, the more reps you are going to have to pay. Surrender or enjoy the fruits of a bloody war. Have a nice day. 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.