Haflinger Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Probably, but I very much enjoyed the war finally starting so I'm not complaining Well, Karma could have been perfectly consistent by refusing TORN's surrender. Of course then the whole CoC incident almost certainly wouldn't have happened... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Well, Karma did offer terms I can only assume they know that NPO would refuse, but didn't care because it was "what they deserved." Here you assume that we did not offer the terms to NPO in good faith. This is not true. The terms are reasonable and we explained every single term so they knew what our intent was. And I think they've showed a great deal of humility, for NPO, they repealed the Moldavi Doctrine. What, that means nothing? And again, they're not really caring if they get better terms. If they do, they do, if they don't, well, they get to be an annoyance to you for a while to come. The larger this gets dragged out, the more they look like FAN. People joke about "Free NPO" and "VietNPO" now, but soon enough people will really just want this whole mess to be done with and move on with their lives. Even if the Karma leaders stay strong, it's hard to keep people interested in a war with no forseeable end. History has shown that to be the case, has it not? Heck, I still see people protesting Bush and the war on my way to work. These points you make have already been debated to death, and I don't think we want to do it over again because it is very likely we will never agree. By the way, I don't think the war on terror is a good analogy. Also, hi Locke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Well, Karma could have been perfectly consistent by refusing TORN's surrender.Of course then the whole CoC incident almost certainly wouldn't have happened... That and taking TORN out of the war was the smart thing to do strategically speaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 That and taking TORN out of the war was the smart thing to do strategically speaking. Of course, but we all know that the Karma people were all about protecting OV from the people who wanted to harm them, right? When I see that argument is when I have to snicker to myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) Here you assume that we did not offer the terms to NPO in good faith. This is not true. The terms are reasonable and we explained every single term so they knew what our intent was. These points you make have already been debated to death, and I don't think we want to do it over again because it is very likely we will never agree. By the way, I don't think the war on terror is a good analogy. Also, hi Locke. Well, I'm not a Karma leader, so I can't say with certainty, but things like the "pre-terms" and war clause have been large sticking points, large enough that I would have expected more than just an isolated voice here and there saying otherwise. For instance, I know what you've been saying about how the terms should be, but other than you I can't say I've heard an authoratative voice from Karma speaking on the issue of the terms. There may be some in the monster topic, but I don't think I have the constitution to go through it. Perhaps (and this would be more to satisfy me more than anyone else ) Karma should make an announcement clearing up the term's wording and set 1 widely known official position. It's just nice to see all the information spread out over so many dead end debates brought into one statement. The war on terror isn't the only example, I mean, there's a reason why it's called VietFAN, right? As for debating things to death, it's a lot easier once you've had practice, eh? And hai Tromp. /me waves. Edited July 1, 2009 by Locke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Of course, but we all know that the Karma people were all about protecting OV from the people who wanted to harm them, right?When I see that argument is when I have to snicker to myself. Well they certainly did that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Well they certainly did that Janova's claimed that they haven't done it yet, that if the NPO was let off now they would forever be a danger to OV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Janova's claimed that they haven't done it yet, that if the NPO was let off now they would forever be a danger to OV. Hence the war still ongoing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Well, I'm not a Karma leader, so I can't say with certainty, but things like the "pre-terms" and war clause have been large sticking points, large enough that I would have expected more than just an isolated voice here and there saying otherwise. For instance, I know what you've been saying about how the terms should be, but other than you I can't say I've heard an authoratative voice from Karma speaking on the issue of the terms. There may be some in the monster topic, but I don't think I have the constitution to go through it. Perhaps (and this would be more to satisfy me more than anyone else ) Karma should make an announcement clearing up the term's wording and set 1 widely known official position. It's just nice to see all the information spread out over so many dead end debates brought into one statement. Would it make that much of a difference? NPO knows what the terms are like. They publicily rejected them, and even smeared us to try and get public support. They failed. I don't feel it is necessary for us to try and gain public support for something that was already made public by NPO, namely our terms. Sure, they did try to spin it, but that doesn't change anything to what the terms Moo quoted in his thread really said. And it was explained by I believe Big Z in that monster thread. All it really came down to is that NPO didn't want to take them. Well, that's their right to do so. The war on terror isn't the only example, I mean, there's a reason why it's called VietFAN, right? As for debating things to death, it's a lot easier once you've had practice, eh? And hai Tromp. /me waves. Heh, well I just wanted to say that I don't think it is appropriate to relate OOC wars to IC wars, or any other events for that matter. But that could be just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Well, Karma did offer terms I can only assume they know that NPO would refuse, but didn't care because it was "what they deserved." And I think they've showed a great deal of humility, for NPO, they repealed the Moldavi Doctrine. Oh yea, cause they are in such a position to enforce it now. The repealed it after people started ignoring it. Thats not generous, thats trying to score a PR win, they knew repealing it would be on any surrender terms anyway. It was nothing more than a transparent attempt to gain sypmathy. What, that means nothing? And again, they're not really caring if they get better terms. If they do, they do, if they don't, well, they get to be an annoyance to you for a while to come. The larger this gets dragged out, the more they look like FAN. People joke about "Free NPO" and "VietNPO" now, but soon enough people will really just want this whole mess to be done with and move on with their lives. Even if the Karma leaders stay strong, it's hard to keep people interested in a war with no forseeable end. History has shown that to be the case, has it not? Heck, I still see people protesting Bush and the war on my way to work. No just no. You insult FAN by comparing this. FAN took terms, surrendered and demilitarized, and then got attacked again anyway and never offered terms for two years after that. FAN actually got wronged in that situation. The NPO is in no such position, they would actually have to surrender first before they could even TRY to pull a FAN, and even then, we are not the same dicks who run the NPO, we'd deal with nations breaking the terms on an individual basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 No just no. You insult FAN by comparing this. FAN took terms, surrendered and demilitarized, and then got attacked again anyway and never offered terms for two years after that. FAN actually got wronged in that situation. The NPO is in no such position, they would actually have to surrender first before they could even TRY to pull a FAN, and even then, we are not the same dicks who run the NPO, we'd deal with nations breaking the terms on an individual basis. I do find it funny that most seem to view FAN while wearing their rose tinted glasses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 I do find it funny that most seem to view FAN while wearing their rose tinted glasses The point was that NPO actually has terms, if they find them selves in a situation of extended war it is entirely their own doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Strider Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 The point was that NPO actually has terms, if they find them selves in a situation of extended war it is entirely their own doing. Not really, we gave terms to FAN. They just wanted White peace so they wouldn't take them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sethb Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Not really, we gave terms to FAN. They just wanted White peace so they wouldn't take them. The irony in that statement is astounding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Not really, we gave terms to FAN. They just wanted White peace so they wouldn't take them. Quoting for posterity. Foot meet mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr hairy Ballz Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 HAHAHA ok, that was an amazing post. Seth and Typo /thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 The irony in that statement is astounding. Another great one liner brought to you by "sethb" But please do explain how that was irony? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Another great one liner brought to you by "sethb"But please do explain how that was irony? You actually need it spelled out? NPO is currently rejecting the terms they have because they don't like them, all the while whining on the OWF about how we want to kill their alliance. Then strider sent us up the bomb. Seriously, I've always said you get your best PR points straight from your opponents. We couldn't possibly come up with stuff that good ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr hairy Ballz Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Did you really need that spelled out? I hope you were kidding sir. And cuddos to Typo for actually laying it out. No, we could never even make up the stuff they give us for PR... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sethb Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Another great one liner brought to you by "sethb"But please do explain how that was irony? Which you responded to with a one liner. Ok, he said you gave terms to FAN, which they denied and were subjected to two years of war, because they want white peace. NPO is not accepting terms and facing eternal war, because they are holding out for white peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Would it make that much of a difference?NPO knows what the terms are like. They publicily rejected them, and even smeared us to try and get public support. They failed. I don't feel it is necessary for us to try and gain public support for something that was already made public by NPO, namely our terms. Sure, they did try to spin it, but that doesn't change anything to what the terms Moo quoted in his thread really said. And it was explained by I believe Big Z in that monster thread. All it really came down to is that NPO didn't want to take them. Well, that's their right to do so. Heh, well I just wanted to say that I don't think it is appropriate to relate OOC wars to IC wars, or any other events for that matter. But that could be just me. Oh, I'm fully aware that it wouldn't mean much, it's why I said "and this would be more to satisfy me more than anyone else." It wouldn't make much of a difference, in the end, but it'd be nice to see Karma talking as Karma, instead of all of these individual and dispersed voices, just for simplicity's sake. Thanks for the name, that will save me a lot of trouble looking for it. Oh yea, cause they are in such a position to enforce it now. The repealed it after people started ignoring it. Thats not generous, thats trying to score a PR win, they knew repealing it would be on any surrender terms anyway. It was nothing more than a transparent attempt to gain sypmathy.No just no. You insult FAN by comparing this. FAN took terms, surrendered and demilitarized, and then got attacked again anyway and never offered terms for two years after that. FAN actually got wronged in that situation. The NPO is in no such position, they would actually have to surrender first before they could even TRY to pull a FAN, and even then, we are not the same dicks who run the NPO, we'd deal with nations breaking the terms on an individual basis. Did I say generous? No, I said it was humility on their part. For a proud alliance like NPO, giving that up must have hurt, at least a little. PR or not, that doesn't change the facts. I'm not trying to match them in the particulars. Only that both Karma and the NPO are engaging in a war with no forseeable end. Again, don't expect NPO to accept the terms any time soon. They won't take the terms on the table, and if the terms won't change, as has been affirmed again and again, then they're content to sit in a neverending war. If you haven't broken NPO yet (hint: you haven't), don't expect to for a long time yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchior Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Another great one liner brought to you by "sethb"But please do explain how that was irony? Oh, please. Oneliners are by far the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lodev Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) Wow you put my nation in a chart. *clap clap*. I don't really care about your math with days since refusal of terms etc... I'm not really playing CN currently. I don't think there's any correlation between things my nation does, and dates you publish whatever terms. There's more correlation between things my nation does, and dates where I felt like "let's click collect tax in CN today" during a bored moment. Edited July 2, 2009 by Lodev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr hairy Ballz Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Oh, please. Oneliners are by far the best. I think so to Melchoir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen MoP Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Which you responded to with a one liner.Ok, he said you gave terms to FAN, which they denied and were subjected to two years of war, because they want white peace. NPO is not accepting terms and facing eternal war, because they are holding out for white peace. I don't think you're talking about the same NPO the rest of us are. Based on the NPO's (rejected) counter-offer, the NPO was "holding out" for EIGHT BILLION and 300k tech. That is not white peace. I fear for this game the day "White Peace" is equivalent to "$8 Billion and 300,000 tech." Apparently that day is today. 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.