Kindom of Goon Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Needlessly harsh terms, I mean 34k tech from roughly 25 nations? Can't say I agree with banning people from Gov either, this is dissapointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Congratulations on peace. 32.5k Tech is ~73% of 44.7k Tech. It is now ... Echelon had considerably more tech when these terms were first offered. I would consider 73% to be very high reps, but it is only so high because Echelon chose to fight on after being offered the terms. I believe these are basically the same terms as those which caused TOP and TSO to leave the table, and that was a while ago now. Would you say that surrender terms should become lighter (in absolute terms) over time if an alliance refuses to surrender and continues to take and receive damage? People who are in Hegemony alliances that received light or zero terms should really stop complaining about 'evil Karma' ... yes I'm looking at you, TOOL posters. If Karma was so bad, you wouldn't have been able to rebuild that ivory tower you're shouting down from today. Yes, these are terms more in keeping with the 'old' world than the 'new'. It has always been the case that Karma is not a unified bloc with identical policies, that peace was determined by the alliances on each front, and that not all alliances were going to get zero reparations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) At least this time the "criminals" were banned openly, for the entire world to see. Nonetheless, these terms mark the continuation of one of the most unsavory practices of days past. Edited July 6, 2009 by Mussolandia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen MoP Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Harsh, draconian terms, but really about what I'd expect from Karma at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 At least this time the "criminals" were banned openly, for the entire world to see. Nonetheless, these terms mark the continuation of one of the most unsavory practices of days past. That should be no surprise considering who signed them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre27 Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Everyone needs to rest sometime... 2. No nuclear weapons or navy vessels will be held by Echelon nations for a period of three months. Echelon nations must destroy all Satellites, Missile defense, Dry docks, Naval academy, Naval Construction Yard, Shipyards, Barracks and GC's. Nations who have the SDI wonder may keep the required satellites and missile defense for that wonder. 7. Terms 2 must be fulfilled within a window of 72 hours from the posting of this surrender. 7a. During the 72 hours hours, wars along the front with Echelon will be in a state of cease-fire. If nations are not in compliance at the end of the grace period, hostilities with them will be reinstated until compliance. Notices will be sent to the nations in question informing them of their terms and the means to get peace. Unless i am mistaken one can only decommission 1 nuclear weapon per day. How is Echelon supposed to fulfill terms 2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 That should be no surprise considering who signed them. Indeed. Your protectors were one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Unless i am mistaken one can only decommission 1 nuclear weapon per day. How is Echelon supposed to fulfill terms 2? You are mistaken. Harsh, draconian terms, but really about what I'd expect from Karma at this point. Yeah that long string of alliances with draconian surrender terms really gives your statement a lot of empirical evidence towards a pattern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Indeed. Your protectors were one of them. Unfortunately. But they know my thoughts, and at least they're not in on the mindless extortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Congratulations on peace.It is now ... Echelon had considerably more tech when these terms were first offered. I would consider 73% to be very high reps, but it is only so high because Echelon chose to fight on after being offered the terms. I believe these are basically the same terms as those which caused TOP and TSO to leave the table, and that was a while ago now. Would you say that surrender terms should become lighter (in absolute terms) over time if an alliance refuses to surrender and continues to take and receive damage? Of course. Taking damage is a punishment all by itself. There should be a trade off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdnss69 Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Wow, Echelon my hat goes off to you for withstanding and sacrificing all for that length of time. Truly. As for the others... bah. You have the power to take what you want, but Echelon are the real [PR] winners out of this today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Expects Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Disgraceful terms, I thought we'd seen the end of this sort of stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill n ted Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) 1a. No Echelon nation under 1,000 tech will be allowed to pay reparations. Is this needed given theres only 60 odd people in Echelon? 8. Echelon admits that it started the war and that it was defeated soundly, and hereby surrenders to the collective might assembled. I see that point 8 was really needed, its likely people would overlook points 1-7a and thus not realize Echelon has been defeated in a thread titled "Announcement From The Echelon, Terms of Surrender" if it were not for point 8 Unlucky on the reps Echelon Edited July 6, 2009 by bill n ted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Really the reps are a nonissue as far as I care. I agree with Bob Janova, they were offered these terms much earlier, I honestly can't fault the alliances that were surrendered to for refusing to change the terms due to time at war. It's the general lessening of terms over time that has kept the NPO still at war to this day, at least one part of Karma showing that it is willing to stick to its guns and not go soft after a little time has passed is a good thing. It teaches people a lesson-if you think you're losing, take terms when they're offered, don't dick around hoping for better. You might not get it. The other terms.. meh. Term 11 seems to be like way too easy of a way to start FAN 2.0. ("They're not being cute? ATTACK!"). And banning Caffiene from government seems like something that was not needed given appearances that he has gone completely innactive. But I digress. Btw thanks GR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Would you say that surrender terms should become lighter (in absolute terms) over time if an alliance refuses to surrender and continues to take and receive damage? Yes, I would. If an alliance continued to take damage they're obviously less capable of paying. "Reparations" are already "not so much" linked to the damage inflicted(1) thus I don't see the need to use that argument to put forth the "unchanged terms" criterion. As I see them Surrender Terms are a two way discussion: if the winning party is inflexible about an exit from the war (this not limited to the mere amounts of reparations only) they will have to continue to take damage, eventually winning over a weakened party that will be less able to send out cash and tech. If one wants to take more reparations/reduce the losses then that one also should be more flexible about his/her exit strategy. However this goes beyond the current discussion and it may or not be applied to this situation. In fact I was (mainly) asking for an opinion/rationale. (1) Nobody would be able to repay the damage inflicted in a nuclear war, especially at the average size the Echelon nations were just prior the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) The banning of people from government is complete !@#$%^&*, no matter who they are. I doubt us at Nemesis would have allowed anyone to dictate who is in our government, ever. It matters not whether he is inactive, in the alliance or elsewhere, I can never agree with such a blatant infringement on Echelon's sovereignty. Admitting they started the war? They didn't. NPO and TORN started the war. Some minor clarification posted about 15 pages in stating it only referred to wars they were in, not the entire 'Karma War' which A) I don't believe to be the case, B) Who will ever read it like that anyway? This term is always going to be taken at face value as them starting the entire thing, and unless people are going to post the clarification every time it will quickly lead to a distortion of the facts. Just a completely unnecessary term to be perfectly honest. Bleugh. Terms are mostly ok, including the reparation levels, but some stand out as just petty, pointless or vengeful rather than justified and that makes me dislike them quite a lot. Edit: stupid smilies. Also TORN =/= TOOL. Edited July 6, 2009 by Poyplemonkeys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImaNewbie Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) With those terms you are worthy to take the place that used to belong to NPO. As time passes, someone will eventually take your current place to do the same thing you are doing now. Karma The wheel of history has made full turn. Edited July 6, 2009 by ImaNewbie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gofastleft Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 As I read this morning I need to go on record. Echelon IMO screwed up when they declared on everybody who was fighting Pacifica. They declared on everybody but only attacked a few. Of course they picked some that have had the biggest issues with Echelon, another mistake. To those that keep hailing R&R for only taking 1 tech you should realize that we had not a single war with Echelon. Since we were not involved in the fighting we did not sit in on the peace talks. Our side came to us and said we should probably sign off on the terms since they did declare on us so we said our signature would cost 1 tech. That was not meant to me a lulz term, it was meant to be a slap in the face to an alliance that has a long history of using their strong friends to bully others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Would you say that surrender terms should become lighter (in absolute terms) over time if an alliance refuses to surrender and continues to take and receive damage? Yes, particularly if the only reason that alliance was still at war was because it had refused to accept terms until one of its allies received a peace offer. (And no, I don't mean NPO.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 NPO and TOOL started the war. The rest of your post is good, but TOOL didn't start the war. This is probably a typo for TORN. But there's enough confusion running about here that I thought it was best to clarify: NPO and TORN started the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatFALGuy Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Pathetic terms, though there wasn't much expectation that anything would change. Wonder who will be in the next Karma coercion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 The rest of your post is good, but TOOL didn't start the war. This is probably a typo for TORN. But there's enough confusion running about here that I thought it was best to clarify: NPO and TORN started the war. Absolutely. Post edited and my humble apologies to TOOL for the mistake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I thought we'd seen the end of this sort of stuff. Might I ask why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Remember Echelon: you are only defeated if you give up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIdiot the Great Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I've never particularly been a fan of Echelon, as I believe their history speaks for itself. That being said, these terms suck balls. VI 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.