HeinousOne Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Now you are just being obtuse, Where does me saying double standards are !@#$%^&* translate into no compromise? Seriously? are you taking lessons from the NPO on how to debate, stop reading what you want to see and understand what I posted.Compromise is always possible, but such a compromise must be reasonable or it will get rejected, you can't offer solutions that only an idiot would accept and then call someone out for being unwilling to compromise. I think you should lick my toes, you don't want to so lets compromise and you can lick my boots instead. What you refuse? how heartless of you being unwilling to compromise! Stonewalling the peace process out of pride and then calling us out for it doesn't work, it makes us sick of the !@#$%^&* and less inclined to be generous. Which is what the NPO is looking for, generosity. If I sound like a broken record its because I keep having to make the same point over and over again because apparently saying it once isnt enough for it to stick in peoples minds. I make a post and an hour later some morons are spouting the same old tired garbage that was discredited ten times this week already, nobody learns, nobody listens. They all view the OWF and every response posted to it through their own little reality filter untill things say what they want them to say. Some people are more obvious about it, like james dahl, you have to wonder if he even shares the same planet as us sometimes, some people are more subtle, and some people change over time. Like you, you are starting to read what you want to see instead of what is spoken. Surprise, its not about you, its not personal, we don't care if you support the NPO or not (and no its not a crime to do so!) But spout utter crap, and someone will contradict you. You know its funny the depths that folks like yourself are willing to sink to in order to try and attack me. All I have ever said is that forcing someone to fight more after a surrender is not a term I think should be given to anyone ever. You cannot teach anyone that things it is wrong that it is correct so blame yourself for thinking you can teach such as its not everyone else's fault for not learning from you. They are listening but some of us dont like what you have to offer on this so you can hardly say they are not listening. You have some pretty nice observations of the OWF but you also need to look at the man in the mirror. I am not reading what I want, I have read that you want to force them to fight for two weeks after they surrender and I do not like that term. That is the entirety of my argument, its the fact that some folks want to try and label my stand as much more then that that is the cause of the expansion of the argument. Understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherington Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 You are overlooking the loss of 16m NS. 235 nations are in peace mode compared to the 900+ nations they started the war with. You achieved all your initial goals and pursuing a policy of wanting to inflict significantly more damage to NPO before you let them pay the biggest reps ever contemplated in CN history is vindictive and will damage MKs reputation in the long term. For the record NPO have lost about 16% of their NS in the last month, being in peace mode is only protecting the nations that could spend the next couple of months paying out reps. I dont expect anyone to change your mind, after seeing the Echelon reps I dont think you will let the NPO keep more than 2m of their NS while paying back reps that could take them well into next year to pay off in that very poor condition. I'm sure if you thought before posting you would realise, MK is dealing with TPFs surrender terms, not NPOs and certainly not Echelons (this isnt to say I disagree with the terms they have been presented with, its just not our call). I don't know how much influence Archon has over surrender terms on other fronts but his signature isn't going to be on them. Only 16%? Not enough if you ask me. It perplexes me that you people think I would care about the well being of an organisation that has been a source of misery for so many for so long. Personally I will be happy if the New Pacific Order is nothing but a bad memory. I love reading all the !@#$ you guys spew about hypocracy, I'ts not not our (the alliance still fighting for Karma) fualt that the entire anti-NPO movement got hijacked by idealistic pansies who thought they could make a better world without breaking a few eggs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 I'm sure if you thought before posting you would realise, MK is dealing with TPFs surrender terms, not NPOs and certainly not Echelons (this isnt to say I disagree with the terms they have been presented with, its just not our call). I don't know how much influence Archon has over surrender terms on other fronts but his signature isn't going to be on them.Only 16%? Not enough if you ask me. It perplexes me that you people think I would care about the well being of an organisation that has been a source of misery for so many for so long. Personally I will be happy if the New Pacific Order is nothing but a bad memory. I love reading all the !@#$ you guys spew about hypocracy, I'ts not not our (the alliance still fighting for Karma) fualt that the entire anti-NPO movement got hijacked by idealistic pansies who thought they could make a better world without breaking a few eggs. Ahh, the moment where those that dare to disagree are to face the insults in order to make them back down. I am sorry but your own idealistic view isnt exactly a proven success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherington Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Ahh, the moment where those that dare to disagree are to face the insults in order to make them back down. I am sorry but your own idealistic view isnt exactly a proven success. Actualy I would describe myself as a realist. We can't make them die and we can't expect them not to bide their time and come after us. I support making their recovery as difficult as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Actualy I would describe myself as a realist. We can't make them die and we can't expect them not to bide their time and come after us. I support making their recovery as difficult as possible. No fault in that reasoning at all. Once again, it is just that single term and just because I happen to be agreeing with NPO on this one thing that does not make me an overall NPO sympathizer. Just in case you were going to go there. In my opinion I am the biggest realist here because to me if the end of the war is what folks really want then they will work towards that goal, which is my intention. Good luck proving me wrong though that you can force the NPO to accept that term with the continuation of the war that is no longer having much affect on them and is certainly driving wedges between other groups of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authur Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) The war for peace mode nations is because NPO since the first day has been having nations go into peace mode whenever they get the opportunity.I don't see the reparations as removing a threat as much as punishment and some amount of restitution. I agree that they won't be a threat in the near future, though long term there's a possibility of them resurging and having more luck on the political front. Since the terms themselves only set NPO back at most 2-3 months compared to what a white peace would do I don't see it helping much in that respect but it helps some. I think the coeLUEition comparison is off. If it is simply about punishment, restitution for past behavior, then I don't see why the stipulation is needed. Destroying them for two weeks helps no one and I can understand the concern some have expressed that it might be a ruse (I don't think you guys would do that but I'm not in their situation). Wouldn't a better solution be raising the reps accordingly and putting the aid to good use? Since these terms seem to be punishment for all of the NPO's sins why not include aid packages to past victims. GATO, GPA, FAN, etc who are not directly fighting the NPO have suffered as much or more at their hands so why not offer them restitution instead of simply nuking away the NPO's resources? If done in a manner that allows the NPO to rebuild and not turn them into an eternal tech farm I think this would not only force the NPO to make amends for their perceived crimes but it could also lead to a change in direction for the NPO which is really what is needed. Well the thing about most leaders is they care more about the alliance as a whole than their own nation. You can't really punish an alliance as a whole without punishing most or all of its nations. I understand your point. Your correct it is a more effective punishment for the leaders but excessively punishing one person to harm another seems a bit wrong. The average NPO member had less involvement in the decision making process then the leaders of some of their past and present allies, some of whom have received far more lenient terms if any. Many people, myself included, have blood on our hands. They are just lucky that those fighting them aren't doing what they did to GPA and raising the reps because they didn't immediately accept. What happened to the GPA, GATO, Legion, etc are practices that no respectable alliance should impose on another. Even the alliance that set the precedent, deserving though they me be. Edited July 11, 2009 by Authur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Aid screens are public, as are nation lists. If they are visibly paying to their fullest extent, yet still not reaching the monthly benchmark, then the reps need to be adjusted...its rather clear, and definitely not a point to stick on. If it is not a point to stick on it, isn't it peculiar to put it in writing? Instruments of surrender are legal documents. Traditionally, legal documents are not subject to a sort of "cherry picking" of which clauses you will choose to enforce. It strikes me as rather peculiar that you point you a clause of a legal document that you say you will not enforce. Why have it if you will not enforce it? Are they're any negotiations going on? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 This NPO Grunt takes exception to what LoD states as facts -- not only are we NOT at each others throats, there are 640-plus of us who would suggest the last 81 days have proven just how much of a community, how close knit our community, the degree to which... well, Planet Earth's Shakespeare said it best: If you don't see people at each others throats, there are two things you're missing. You're not paying enough attention to IRC, and you're not actually looking past what people say. Most people on Bob do not say exactly what they mean, unfortunately, and leave it up to you to figure out everything. I was all for a "Whatever. He left. Who cares?" approach and I was kosher with your reasoning, but then you said this. It's a bald-faced lie. No one is at the other's throat in the NPO forums I have access to. Is there some super-secret hate forum you had access to that regular members don't? Why are you echoing the provably false "NPO all hate each other" propoganda line? Bald-faced lie? No, it's not. I encourage you to pay more attention to IRC, and to actually immerse yourself in the BRs culture. You'll find that it's not Order, but Chaos. There are people who're constantly arguing with each other, who bicker until the day is over and then still continue. Really, all you have to do is pay more attention, and you'll learn it's not propaganda, but truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Now you are just being obtuse, Where does me saying double standards are !@#$%^&* translate into no compromise? Seriously? are you taking lessons from the NPO on how to debate, stop reading what you want to see and understand what I posted.Compromise is always possible, but such a compromise must be reasonable or it will get rejected, you can't offer solutions that only an idiot would accept and then call someone out for being unwilling to compromise. I think you should lick my toes, you don't want to so lets compromise and you can lick my boots instead. What you refuse? how heartless of you being unwilling to compromise! Stonewalling the peace process out of pride and then calling us out for it doesn't work, it makes us sick of the !@#$%^&* and less inclined to be generous. Which is what the NPO is looking for, generosity. I'll make three points here. 1) It's hard as hell to compromise with the NPO front. 2) There have been terms suggested to the NPO front that are nearly as harsh as the 2 weeks of war, but that do not include war. These suggestions have gotten turned down once and again due to paranoia and those who've suggested them have been wildly accused as NPO supporters, completely ignoring their history. 3) The NPO front is the one stonewalling the peace process out of pride. They say that they see removing the 2 weeks of war, or even lowering it, as losing, seeing as they think NPO will once again try to push it's luck to get it entirely removed. They want to keep the 2 weeks of war, or put something even more harsh into it. It's absolutely ridiculous. This war just needs to be over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) I'm sure if you thought before posting you would realise, MK is dealing with TPFs surrender terms, not NPOs and certainly not Echelons (this isnt to say I disagree with the terms they have been presented with, its just not our call). I don't know how much influence Archon has over surrender terms on other fronts but his signature isn't going to be on them. Im sure he wields the kind of influence that could net you 10k tech without needing to put a signature on anything. Will you be getting reps from the war against NPO? If you are then MK have more influence than you are suggesting. Only 16%? Not enough if you ask me. It perplexes me that you people think I would care about the well being of an organisation that has been a source of misery for so many for so long. Personally I will be happy if the New Pacific Order is nothing but a bad memory. I love reading all the !@#$ you guys spew about hypocracy, I'ts not not our (the alliance still fighting for Karma) fualt that the entire anti-NPO movement got hijacked by idealistic pansies who thought they could make a better world without breaking a few eggs. My point was that they are still losing NS (16% in one month is quite a bit after losing 75% in the previous two months) but only the nations in peace mode now seem to be getting your attention. Your view of a better world might not be that of others, that wont stop you breaking some more eggs to get what you want. Edited July 11, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherington Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) Im sure he wields the kind of influence that could net you 10k tech without putting a signature on anything or being in that war. Will you be getting reps from the war against NPO? If you are then MK have more influence than you are inferring.My point was that they are still losing NS (16% in one month is quite a bit after losing 75% in the previous two months) but only the nations in peace mode now seem to be getting your attention. Your view of a better world might not be that of others, that wont stop you breaking some more eggs to get what you want though, will it! The tech reps are being offered to us by our allies, we aren't pushing for them at all and I don't see why we would be morally obligated to refuse them? The NPO had its time at the top and hegemony it created and you supported was a monster. As for the ex-karma whinners (hi kronos!), I don't take them seriously at all, those putting the NPO down (and I'll remind you again that I'm not part of that group) are doing everyone who wants a fairer game a huge favour. Edited July 11, 2009 by Brotherington Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) The tech reps are being offered to us by our allies, we aren't pushing for them at all and I don't see why we would be morally obligated to refuse them?You guys had your time at the top and what you created and supported was a monster. As for the ex-karma whinners (hi kronos!), I don't take them seriously at all, those putting the NPO down (and I'll remind you again that I'm not part of that group) are doing everyone who wants a fairer game a huge favour. Thats fairly funny what monster did we create and support? Was it our help in creating NPO all those years ago before we existed or was it all the support we gave them as a 1.5m NS alliance that had no treaties with them? MK has been closer over its history and done more to support NPO than we have or probably ever will. As for us being at the top, thats even funnier. Edited July 11, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherington Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 This post has been edited by Brotherington: Today, 07:01 PM Alright, now what have you got? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) MK has been closer over its history and done more to support NPO than we have or probably ever will. what...is the meaning of this? Edited July 11, 2009 by lebubu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) MK has been closer over its history and done more to support NPO than we have or probably ever will. Seriously, what are you talking about? Edited July 11, 2009 by MagicalTrevor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcalkin Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 MK has been closer over its history and done more to support NPO than we have or probably ever will. I keep reading it but it doesn't get any less dumb D: 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 are like a broken record player. Continuously putting out continued statements that basically could be cliff noted to "No compromise available, everyone in the world get ready because we want this war to last forever".Gotcha, so I will mark down VE in the column of alliances that are completely unwilling to compromise and work on a new set of terms. As much as you guys might want to say everyone is in that column, you and I both know that is not the truth. You know Typo is not government and has not had any part in the decision making process, hes simply stating his opinion...so why would you categorize like that? Listen, I know you want this process to be public so you may mark it with your stamp of approval. Hell, I'm all for getting out of the backrooms and having the world be a little more transparent on these forums...in certain cases. Yet, this instance is not one of those cases, this process must be private. The discussions that those of us on the NPO front have on terms and the various avenues we may or may not contemplate will not be stated here on the forums, plain and simple. For that, I'm sorry, but its just a fact of life at this point in time. Now I ask you kindly to stop with the unwarranted criticism and hateful talk. Instead of taking what people who have no hand in the process say as fact and then stereotyping all 18 alliances on the NPO front on the post of a non government member, reserve your judgment till you see a final outcome. Before you "mark VE down", or any other alliance for that matter, down in your assorted columns, think what it is that your basing your judgment upon. Fact? Certainly not, as your not in the room with us. Speculation? More or less. Clearly your extremely concerned about this issue, and I sympathize with that, but there comes a point where concern crosses the line into insults. What the hell are you talking about? 20 million AS, 3/4 of our original total strength gone, plus most of our nations in ruins isn't running from the fight. I can't believe you actually said something so silly. 90% of the effort in this war was focused upon keeping nations from hitting peace mode. I mean sure, you were planning ahead for a loss in a way, but your nations, on the whole, jumping every chance they got is not a matter that can be disputed. At the start of the war our banks and highest battalion fighters were ordered into peace mode. The first group because it is their job to stay out of the fighting, trying to call them cowards falls on deaf ears in Pacifica. We know better. The highest battalion were ordered in as a tactical measure. I'm sure VE remembers the blitz on them a few weeks into the war that knocked them out of sanction? Since that time, nations cycle in and out of peace mode to recover from anarchy, restock, and rearm. There are a very small number who have remained there in spite of being ordered out. That is an internal matter, and we will deal with it ourselves. I went into peace mode within the first month, and was out 5 days later. Have had one other 5 day stint in it since. Does that make me hiding, running, or a coward too? lol First of all, no nations cycle in and out of peace mode in any range that matters, sorry. Your talking one of the people who have been literally keeping tract of peace mode nations and coordinating attacks on those in war mode sense the first night, so believe you me that I know exactly what the facts are here. And no, I don't remember a blitz, I remember a few handful's of nations causing us to loose .2ish score then getting systematically stomped the following days and we lost our sanction a week later to TDO's growth... You seem fixated on our peace mode nations. Why? Because you know our opponents can't take us out of sanction without hitting them? Because you know you can't cripple our alliance sufficiently to spur on disbandment without hitting them? Because you're so damm scared we'll rebuild and 'come get you' without hitting them? Because you stuffed up so many staggers allowing our nations to get into peace mode and can't regain that lost pride without hitting them? You're not getting our banks. You've been told over and over again your not getting our banks. We protect our members as best we can, and that doesn't include handing them over to any of you. The term was included because we wanted to actully fight this war and finish it. It is as simple as that and with nothing else behind it. Also, it was more the multitude at which you all droped into peace more then stagger f'ups, we actully thoguht you were going to fight this war untill we realized that you all were not conducting any offensive whatsoever and dropping into peace mode insted. Furthermore, please stop implying that our aim is to get you to disband because we are scared of you attacking us in the future. It may come as a shock, but I cant really say anyone has an overwhelming fear of Pacifica at this point in time, and we have stated time and time again that disbandment is not a goal nor is eternal war. Get off it. As for your bankers, are you implying you have 235 of them? Come on now. For the record though, I'm not fixated on peace mode nations...this thread is. It's safe to say that our pride is fine and not a factor here, can you say the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 MK has been closer over its history and done more to support NPO than we have or probably ever will. wait..what? MK might have forked over more tech and money to the hegemony than any other alliance (not sure if they have) but I'm pretty sure that was not out of good will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credonia Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 MK has been closer over its history and done more to support NPO than we have or probably ever will. It's a shame about that 47th chromosome you have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 MK has been closer over its history and done more to support NPO than we have or probably ever will. What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 MK has been closer over its history and done more to support NPO than we have or probably ever will. Come again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) ffffff what Edited July 11, 2009 by Lord Gobb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Hi guys, just though I'd come in and comment on how ridiculous that quote is. Well, cya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 what BAPS never signed an MDP with NPO, or do I need to remind you of The Sectumsempra Treaty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 BAPS never signed an MDP with NPO, or do I need to remind you of The Sectumsempra Treaty? you srs? 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.