Lord of Destruction Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 You're doing this all wrong. If you don't let them do their spin you'll never become the evil mastermind they believe you to be. I apologize, Darth Seerow. Teach me what I have done wrong and I shall do better next time. Frankly, it saddens me to see you and Serrow among others posting, and I admit I skipped over many of those posts after the first few.I am glad you hare having fun. May you be so blessed that your joy continues throughout these times. Cortath, while you may be saddened that I am acting the way I am, you wouldn't be disappointed (well, as disappointed) with me if only you knew that I don't hate the Order, and that I'm actually trying to help it. Whether you choose to believe me or not is up to you. Umm, what? LoD was a hard working member of this order, but just decided to leave in the very wrong way. He committed his guns to this alliance in times of war, and failed that committment, choosing to be a traitor. Thats all. Anyway, I bore of LoD derailments. Thank you, Sorry, As do I. That's all I have to say to that. Also, come visit the NPO embassy on the MK forums. You are, after all, the SE of Aqua/Purple now, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 We were talking about statistics and statistics are very important in terms of an alliance's relevance and strength. I understand but statistics aren't everything and when talking about why they should accept terms you cannot say that statistics are the only factor involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 What's that, justification for viceroys? I guess then that NPO won't mind me being appointed as the new Pacifican Viceroy, to help you with rebuilding, restructuring, and paying off your reps. I'll have my people talk to your people, we'll get this deal done. The point my comrade is making is that despite the current trend of asserting that 100% of all acts the NPO ever took or did in the past three years are 100% evil, that there were redeeming characteristics of our Viceroyalty in GATO, and that it wasn't the tyrannical, spiteful and destruction institution that many paint it to be. Cortath, while you may be saddened that I am acting the way I am, you wouldn't be disappointed (well, as disappointed) with me if only you knew that I don't hate the Order, and that I'm actually trying to help it. Whether you choose to believe me or not is up to you. I am gratified to learn that you do not hate the Order and seek to help it. As I do not have precise knowledge of what you are referring to, I take your word for it, as one who was once a comrade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 I am gratified to learn that you do not hate the Order and seek to help it. As I do not have precise knowledge of what you are referring to, I take your word for it, as one who was once a comrade. Thank you for taking me on my word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 The point my comrade is making is that despite the current trend of asserting that 100% of all acts the NPO ever took or did in the past three years are 100% evil, that there were redeeming characteristics of our Viceroyalty in GATO, and that it wasn't the tyrannical, spiteful and destruction institution that many paint it to be. Extrapolating the virtues of that system that was put in place is inherently pointless Cortath as the machination of viceroyalty itself is one that can lend itself easily to corruption hence why it should never be used as it sets in place a precedent that can allow for it to be used negatively sometime in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) Thank you, Sorry, As do I. That's all I have to say to that.Also, come visit the NPO embassy on the MK forums. You are, after all, the SE of Aqua/Purple now, right? Do you really want people looking in on what we do to Litha when there's nobody around to supervise her? :x Cortath, while you may be saddened that I am acting the way I am, you wouldn't be disappointed (well, as disappointed) with me if only you knew that I don't hate the Order, and that I'm actually trying to help it. Whether you choose to believe me or not is up to you. I assure you he is every bit as disappointed regardless of your feelings. It is your actions, not your motivations that matter to Pacifica. I am sure you realize this by now. Motivations are an afterthought, an excuse made up by those in power after the fact to justify why something was done. Motivation does not exist except for what the Emperor and IOs say. Your motivations, by this standard were cowardice, pettiness, and hate of the Order. Anything contrary to this is contrary to the Pacifican way, and saying otherwise makes you a traitor. This is how Pacifica dictated morality to CN for 3 years. The point my comrade is making is that despite the current trend of asserting that 100% of all acts the NPO ever took or did in the past three years are 100% evil, that there were redeeming characteristics of our Viceroyalty in GATO, and that it wasn't the tyrannical, spiteful and destruction institution that many paint it to be. I take this to mean you also support my appointment as Viceroy? Edited July 11, 2009 by Seerow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterana Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 I'll leave the calculations to those who have a head for numbers. I don't, but do trust Cortath and other members of our alliance who do. They've assured us the reps are not payable, within the amount required per month demand and after our banks have been attacked. It is simply a recipe for a resumption of the war, and no doubt with us again being painted the villains for breaking terms. If the reps really were that easy to pay off under the rest of the restrictions, then the terms wouldn't have been written as they are. Our opponents want us dead, they've wanted us dead from the beginning of the war. This is no longer a war of payback/karma, it's a war of extinction. The other side can end this war any day they choose. As they keep reminding us, they won the war, they hold the power, they make all the decisions. Only things they can't do is force our banks out of peace (that pre-terms debacle didn't exactly work for them) or force us to accept these terms. People not involved with the war and even some within those alliances that fought on the karma side are beginning to see through the charade now, even though their feeling about the NPO itself haven't changed. The biggest charade is they can't force us to destroy ourselves by handing our own members over to them because they can't hurt them any other way. We've lost almost everything and they still want more. Well, we've said no to that. We won't hand our banks over for execution. They're OUR people and deserve our full protection, not a flock of sacrificial lambs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Extrapolating the virtues of that system that was put in place is inherently pointless Cortath as the machination of viceroyalty itself is one that can lend itself easily to corruption hence why it should never be used as it sets in place a precedent that can allow for it to be used negatively sometime in the future. That the mechanism of a Viceroyalty, can, as you say, be used corruptly does not mean that every action of every Viceroylaty was corrupt. You seem to be falling into the same pattern -- just because you do not like a thing, be it the NPO, Viceroyalties, uneaten babies, does not mean that 100% of the occurrences of that thing are 100% evil. The point I was merely making was that since Azaghul questioned my credentials regarding war building and reparations, something I have experience with through both the NPO and GATO, my credentials in GATO are not be discounted simply because you don't like the mechanism that empowered me to enact a rebuilding plan there. I assure you he is every bit as disappointed regardless of your feelings. It is your actions, not your motivations that matter to Pacifica. I am sure you realize this by now. Motivations are an afterthought, an excuse made up by those in power after the fact to justify why something was done. Motivation does not exist except for what the Emperor and IOs say. Your motivations, by this standard were cowardice, pettiness, and hate of the Order. Anything contrary to this is contrary to the Pacifican way, and saying otherwise makes you a traitor. Please rest assured, Serrow, that when next I require one tell a third party how I feel, I shall contact you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Do you really want people looking in on what we do to Litha when there's nobody around to supervise her? :xI assure you he is every bit as disappointed regardless of your feelings. It is your actions, not your motivations that matter to Pacifica. I am sure you realize this by now. Motivations are an afterthought, an excuse made up by those in power after the fact to justify why something was done. Motivation does not exist except for what the Emperor and IOs say. Your motivations, by this standard were cowardice, pettiness, and hate of the Order. Anything contrary to this is contrary to the Pacifican way, and saying otherwise makes you a traitor. This is how Pacifica dictated morality to CN for 3 years. Well yeah, there has to be someone to stop you crazy people from trying to steal her away from Charles. As for how Pacifica dictates morality, I already knew that. It takes a single sentence to explain it. "The Emperor's word is law." I believe it's in their charter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Please rest assured, Serrow, that when next I require one tell a third party how I feel, I shall contact you. When your opinion is needed I will be more than happy to give it to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) "The Emperor's word is law," is not in our Charter. Just want to clarify the fact. Edited July 11, 2009 by Cortath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 "The Emperor's word is law," is not in our Charter. Just want to clarify the fact. Article 2, 1st and 2nd sentences: "The Emperor is the Sovereign of the alliance. As such, the Emperor has the sole power over the affairs of the alliance, although such powers can be delegated to others." That right there says the Emperor's word is law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Article 2, 1st and 2nd sentences:"The Emperor is the Sovereign of the alliance. As such, the Emperor has the sole power over the affairs of the alliance, although such powers can be delegated to others." That right there says the Emperor's word is law. I was disputing your language, not your meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 I was disputing your language, not your meaning. Ah, okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffasamini Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) the machination of viceroyalty itself is one that can lend itself easily to corruption hence why it should never be used as it sets in place a precedent that can allow for it to be used negatively sometime in the future. I couldnt agree more. Edited July 11, 2009 by muffasamini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyberMaster Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 I couldn't read all the posts........ 31 pgs is a lot. Will someone summarize everything for me? I think it's high time for NPO to surrender, or else they will probably lose their sanctioned alliance spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 I understand but statistics aren't everything and when talking about why they should accept terms you cannot say that statistics are the only factor involved. War is about statistics. Reps are about statistics. When someone says that wars and reps are designed to destroy an alliance, it therefore means statistically destroy it. I'll leave the calculations to those who have a head for numbers. I don't, but do trust Cortath and other members of our alliance who do. They've assured us the reps are not payable, within the amount required per month demand and after our banks have been attacked. It is simply a recipe for a resumption of the war, and no doubt with us again being painted the villains for breaking terms. The problem is your economic leaders seem to be stuck in a 2007 mindset about banks starting with lots of infra being the end all and be all of banking when that hasn't been true in a long time. If the reps really were that easy to pay off under the rest of the restrictions, then the terms wouldn't have been written as they are. Our opponents want us dead, they've wanted us dead from the beginning of the war. This is no longer a war of payback/karma, it's a war of extinction. The other side can end this war any day they choose. As they keep reminding us, they won the war, they hold the power, they make all the decisions. Only things they can't do is force our banks out of peace (that pre-terms debacle didn't exactly work for them) or force us to accept these terms. People not involved with the war and even some within those alliances that fought on the karma side are beginning to see through the charade now, even though their feeling about the NPO itself haven't changed. The biggest charade is they can't force us to destroy ourselves by handing our own members over to them because they can't hurt them any other way. We've lost almost everything and they still want more. Well, we've said no to that. We won't hand our banks over for execution. They're OUR people and deserve our full protection, not a flock of sacrificial lambs. Sitting in peace mode for a year is more harmful than two rounds of war. Your logic is also very circular. Your opponents want you dead and the terms show it, the terms must be written in a way that will kill you because your opponents want you dead. I know most of your opponents, they want to see you hurt, they don't want to see you dead. The terms are hard and and are designed to set you back a notch and keep you from rebuilding full steam for a couple of months, but they won't and aren't designed to kill you. Ultimately you'll be far better off accepting terms and taking that temporary setback in order to be able to start moving forward again afterword, because in your current state you're never going to move forward and will just fall further and further behind everyone else who is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 War is about statistics. Reps are about statistics. When someone says that wars and reps are designed to destroy an alliance, it therefore means statistically destroy it. They might fear that if they go to their long time banks and ask them to get knocked around that those banks might just call it quits or leave. For them they might fear that would destroy the alliance. Whether all that is true or not I do not know but the fear of such alone I suppose would definately be a driving force internally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) I couldn't read all the posts........ 31 pgs is a lot. Will someone summarize everything for me? I think it's high time for NPO to surrender, or else they will probably lose their sanctioned alliance spot. You realize of course that one of the terms of our surrender is the nuclear removal of our sanctioned alliance status? We're damned if we do and we're possibly damned if we don't. Edited July 11, 2009 by James Dahl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 You realize of course that one of the terms of our surrender is the nuclear removal of our sanctioned alliance status?We're damned if we do and we're possibly damned if we don't. So, in your opinion, living in peace mode for the time being and prolonging this far longer then it need be is worth it because you could possibly loose your sanction spot? ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 They might fear that if they go to their long time banks and ask them to get knocked around that those banks might just call it quits or leave. For them they might fear that would destroy the alliance. Whether all that is true or not I do not know but the fear of such alone I suppose would definately be a driving force internally. The terms explicitly allow for the reps to be lowered if they are unpayable. You realize of course that one of the terms of our surrender is the nuclear removal of our sanctioned alliance status?We're damned if we do and we're possibly damned if we don't. That's not in the terms. Even if you did temporarily lose it, you'd regain it. You have too many total members and too many members with full sets of improvements and wonders to be kept down below sanction except by permanent war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) The terms explicitly allow for the reps to be lowered if they are unpayable.That's not in the terms. Even if you did temporarily lose it, you'd regain it. You have too many total members and too many members with full sets of improvements and wonders to be kept down below sanction except by permanent war. That sounds nice, except the rest of the terms basically prevent us from growing and, in fact, would require us to turn over anything we happened to have left by happy coincidence. Also there's the fun fact that the wording of the terms for minimum troop levels are below 20% of total citizens, what with it being 30% of WORKING citizens. Edited July 11, 2009 by James Dahl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 The terms explicitly allow for the reps to be lowered if they are unpayable. At the discretion of whom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) That sounds nice, except the rest of the terms basically prevent us from growing and, in fact, would require us to turn over anything we happened to have left by happy coincidence.Also there's the fun fact that the wording of the terms for minimum troop levels are below 20% of total citizens, what with it being 30% of WORKING citizens. The presented terms would, in no way, shape, or form, kill your alliance nor would they prevent you from rebuilding after the terms are up. Have more faith in yourself. Furthermore, we would not have included the war term in the first place if the mighty Pacifican War Machine did not start jumping into peace mode about 1 hour and 30 minutes before update on the day following your attack on OV and continue to do so every chance you got. But hey, hindsight's 20/20 right? Edited July 11, 2009 by Il Impero Romano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 At the discretion of whom? You ask? It was never a question. When has a defeated alliance ever decided on what their reps are? 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.