Augustus Autumn Posted July 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) Because a ruthless alliance like the NPO needs to be put down. Should there be a viable third option to what has been tried and what I have proposed then perhaps it should be shared. The current stratagem simply does not seem to be producing effective results. Is Lord Brown still in your alliance? Ask him about what he did to Oceana the first time around, and wonder why I'm not particularly fond of you lot. You've had this coming for quite some time, and I'm not going to pretend that you deserve mercy for all the blood on your hands. I believe I made a request at the beginning of my original statement regarding the discussion of these matters. Edited July 2, 2009 by Tokugawa Mitsukuni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 So offer them something new like this that still seems pretty damn hefty but make sure it does not weaken your stance. You wished to get at their bank nations by making them come out of peace mode but they will not do that. So try something like this that allows their bank nations to remain in tact but yet all the money they send out later in aid will be "taxed". They will then have their choice of two terms and if they turn down both then They look like the bad guys. Not you guys.I do not wish to see our allies turned into the bad guys for following the same policies that NPO used to follow. Make a new path. This is a good option. Yes it did and NPO Diplo used that to their full advantage but everyone knows the ability of Dilber and what he was able to build up. By the time he stepped back the machine was built and all NPO diplo had to do was maintain it. To actually rebuild such after all that has transpired would literally have to be an act of God. None of the new Major Powers (blocs) will want to be aligned with NPO for quite some time. They will have to learn how to live on an equal basis with the rest of the world. They turned down the terms because one month wasn't acceptable to them to get 90% of their nations over 4k infra out of peace mode. They argued people were away on vacation and whatnot due to it being summer. So we included a clause that nations being nationsat weren't apart of the nations needing to come out. Considering that nations that don't check in every 20 days are deleted, that means every nation still existing in the extra 10 days past the 20 day mark, up to the one month end, is active enough to switch to war mode. There's a reason we're insisting on two weeks of war, in that it is much more effective at dispersing money, tech, infra, just general strength than reps. To even begin to touch reps without the war clause would be absolutely astronomical. We know the figures of their warchests, and despite being in peace mode all this time, most of their peace mode nations are turning a profit still, thus adding to their warchests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) Should there be a viable third option to what has been tried and what I have proposed then perhaps it should be shared. The current stratagem simply does not seem to be producing effective results. It actually is, NPO will continue bleeding members until it fades away (eventually). Sure, it takes some time but they'll eventually be far less of a nuisance than FAN ever was. Edited July 2, 2009 by lebubu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Because a ruthless alliance like the NPO needs to be put down. Then why are you not attacking them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 There is a lot more to it then just looking at that list, you have to document it and make screen shots of the aid, find out which of the 17 alliances turn it is to get this money or tech. then you have to get the aid targets from that alliance, pass them on to NPO. So on and so forth. It is not that simple.No, I am sure it wouldn't be used for that. Taking screenshots really isn't that difficult. Every day, you see how much cash NPO got total. Then you turn that into individual 3 mil aid packages with simple division. You should have an established order for which Karma alliance gets a package first, like 1) FOK, 2) VE etc. etc. and just run down the list again and again. If a certain alliance deserves more reps, put them multiple times in the list. Hell, if I was in Karma, I'd help keep track. Just have a few people assigned to taking the screenshots, a few people to count the money and put the packages down the list, and then the people who need to organize getting the money out of NPO, who you'd have anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted July 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 It actually is, NPO will continue bleeding members until it fades away (eventually). Sure, it takes some time but they'll eventually be far less of a nuisance than FAN ever was. I don't agree with your assessment of the situation but I can understand your viewpoint. I simply seek to offer an alternative which may contain benefits which have not, to this point, been considered attainable or desirable. If, at the end of the day, the Karma Coalition does not accept what I've proposed here than I'm perfectly content with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Is Lord Brown still in your alliance? Ask him about what he did to Oceana the first time around, and wonder why I'm not particularly fond of you lot. You've had this coming for quite some time, and I'm not going to pretend that you deserve mercy for all the blood on your hands. Everyone ends up in this situation some day. With the chaos in the world today and everyone scrambling for the top, that day may come sooner than you think. I will enjoy reminding you of what you said when you are begging for mercy from someone baying for your blood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebony Wings Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I believe I made a request at the beginning of my original statement regarding the discussion of these matters. Duly noted - and ignored. Unless there's some sort of rule directing otherwise, I'll say what I believe to be pertinent in my arguements, thanks. I don't agree with your assessment of the situation but I can understand your viewpoint. I simply seek to offer an alternative which may contain benefits which have not, to this point, been considered attainable or desirable. If, at the end of the day, the Karma Coalition does not accept what I've proposed here than I'm perfectly content with that. Compare the FAN of today with the FAN of yesteryear, and tell me that wars of attrition don't hobble alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) It actually is, NPO will continue bleeding members until it fades away (eventually). Sure, it takes some time but they'll eventually be far less of a nuisance than FAN ever was. You didn't fight FAN obviously if you think keeping them down was fun or easy. Edited July 2, 2009 by James Dahl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Then why are you not attacking them? Because MK had to sign what pretty much amounts to a NAP in exchange for its sovereignty. Your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Because MK had to sign what pretty much amounts to a NAP in exchange for its sovereignty. Your point? Who is stopping you from dropping it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Who is stopping you from dropping it? I don't like to spoil things. You didn't answer my question though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Who is stopping you from dropping it? I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) It actually is, NPO will continue bleeding members until it fades away (eventually). Sure, it takes some time but they'll eventually be far less of a nuisance than FAN ever was. Because, of course, Karma is seeking to destroy NPO. Tromp, would you mind coming in here and repeating what you've been saying to people like this and Ebony Wings? That aside, that's not really the point of this topic, as Tokugawa has said, this is to discuss the terms and if they would be an acceptable alternative to the current ones, not if the NPO needs to be destroyed. Duly noted - and ignored. Unless there's some sort of rule directing otherwise, I'll say what I believe to be pertinent in my arguements, thanks.Compare the FAN of today with the FAN of yesteryear, and tell me that wars of attrition don't hobble alliances. I believe the rule is called "respect," also known as "etiquette." Edited July 2, 2009 by Locke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Because a ruthless alliance like the NPO needs to be put down. In other words you want to force us to disband. Go on, say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Strider Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I never asserted it would be simple, but I do assert that it is doable. Doable yes, the best way? That is debatable. I would say no, personally. Taking screenshots really isn't that difficult. Every day, you see how much cash NPO got total. Then you turn that into individual 3 mil aid packages with simple division. You should have an established order for which Karma alliance gets a package first, like 1) FOK, 2) VE etc. etc. and just run down the list again and again. If a certain alliance deserves more reps, put them multiple times in the list. Hell, if I was in Karma, I'd help keep track. Just have a few people assigned to taking the screenshots, a few people to count the money and put the packages down the list, and then the people who need to organize getting the money out of NPO, who you'd have anyway. On paper it sounds great, I will give you that. Real life practice, not so much. All sorts of stuff would go wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Because, of course, Karma is seeking to destroy NPO. Excuse me mister, but it's not Karma's duty to give NPO terms they like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I don't like to spoil things. You didn't answer my question though. Oh, I do believe I did. Multiple times as a matter of fact. But please, do not let me affect your cheerleading. I am. Ok, I will bite, why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 *sigh* And emotions once again ruin a topic better served by plain logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanveldez Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I see my request for persons posting in this thread to read my proposal has gone unseen.The amount to be paid during the ten-month period would be, in effect, a sliding scale. Should nations of the New Pacific Order receive zero cash and zero technology during that period of time the total amount of cash and technology paid out by them would be zero. Apply the calculations from there. No I read it, I just dont for see it being accepted, due to the mindset of set amounts being named in the terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Doable yes, the best way? That is debatable. I would say no, personally.On paper it sounds great, I will give you that. Real life practice, not so much. All sorts of stuff would go wrong. Would you mind providing an example, one that wouldn't apply to the standard payment of reps, of course? Excuse me mister, but it's not Karma's duty to give NPO terms they like. I never said it was. But if Karma wants something other than eternal war with NPO, it is their job to look for an acceptable end to the conflict. If terms can be agreed upon by both sides, there's nothing wrong with that. I hope Karma leadership would take note of this topic, and NPO leadership as well. Even if it wouldn't end up working, it's a damn good idea and at least an attempt to reconcile the two sides. That's a good thing, if you couldn't tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 In other words you want to force us to disband.Go on, say it. No. It's been said many times, Karma does NOT want NPO to disband. Sorry to ruin the cheap propaganda you're trying to create. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted July 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) Doable yes, the best way? That is debatable. I would say no, personally. "Best" and "acceptable" do tend to not always be the same thing. I doubt either side could get what it wants in totality. *sigh* And emotions once again ruin a topic better served by plain logic. Thank you for this sentiment. For what it's worth, it is appreciated. No I read it, I just dont for see it being accepted, due to the mindset of set amounts being named in the terms. Which is not what you said at all. As for them being accepted or not, as I noted earlier, that's for the parties involved to decide. I simply hope to illuminate a new option. No. It's been said many times, Karma does NOT want NPO to disband.Sorry to ruin the cheap propaganda you're trying to create. One of your comrades did make a statement to this effect, unfortunately, earlier in the discussion. I do doubt their authority to speak to such aims, however. Edited July 2, 2009 by Tokugawa Mitsukuni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 No. It's been said many times, Karma does NOT want NPO to disband. The problem with every "Karma wants" argument is the same. Karma doesn't have a mind. Karma is a group of a large number of people. Undoubtedly, if you dig far enough, you can find every preposterous opinion in one mind or other somewhere. So - it doesn't really matter what Karma wants. Because the group wants a lot of things, some of which are certainly contradictory. What matters is what actions the group takes. This is of course true for the Hegemony as well. We'd all be a lot better off if we talked a lot less about motivations and more about decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted July 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 We'd all be a lot better off if we talked a lot less about motivations and more about decisions. Agreed, with one addendum - more discussion about solutions as a whole across the Cyberverse. 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.