Heracles the Great Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I have not said that. What I've said is that I'm glad that thanks to that clausule they will not be bound to pay any reparations. About the purpose of the clause, it's there just to make sure that the blunt of the reparations doesn't fall over the weaker nations. That's all. Weaker nations like Link, Link, Link, Link, and Link? You've essentially forced 20 nations to pay off nearly 40k tech in reps while trying to also help rebuild their alliance and keep their bill locked nations from being destroyed and having to re-roll. Bravo good sir, Bravo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Archon does not have the power to waive the 10k heading to Mushroom Kingdom, albeit via GR, if he so wished? Would you refuse someone who returns your stolen wallet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I hope you kept a list of every bit of tech and cash MK have taken so when they lose their next war all the alliances you took it from can get it back even if they weren't involved in the war. If its good for the war of hypocrisy then its good in all future wars. You were actually doing pretty ok until this post. I will give you some tips on how to not make people glance over your point because of the way you present it. First don't use stupid obvious propaganda tag lines like "the war of hypocrisy" as a tool to try and make a point, it only serves to discredit you in the eyes of most. Second use examples, if you are going to say something like "I hope you kept a list of every bit of tech and cash MK have taken" you should at least have one example ready of tech and cash that MK has takes lest you will get overwhelmed with people jumping to tell you how MK does not take unfair reps (especially when dealing with an alliance as popular as MK is right now). Third don't try and spin something that is so easily spun back, "all the alliances you took it from can get it back even if they weren't involved in the war." is sub-par spin at best and is easily countered by the point that GR were the ones who were taking those reps but they decided to forward them to their friends in MK as they felt it was a more just punishment than taking them for themselves. Now that you have that free lesson I hope that you take it and do good things with it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherington Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Would you refuse someone who returns your stolen wallet? of course, otherwise you are just as bad as the theif and therefore a hypocrit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Who needs a viceroy when you can just list the people who are no longer allowed in government. Its one in this case, when the NPO terms come out I expect the list to be far longer. In the end its another alliance who decided the government by banning anyone they want, in essence approving the choice of government NPO's terms are out and there's nothing about banning anyone from government. And I'm pretty sure that saying that a certain person who is not even considered a member of the alliance in question out of government in that alliance is a pretty far cry from a viceroy. What you're doing is like saying that the MCXA reps from this war and the Athens reps from the NoCB war are exactly the same. They may be in the same vein but they are a far cry from being equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Would you refuse someone who returns your stolen wallet? Would you answer the question I asked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I hope you kept a list of every bit of tech and cash MK have taken so when they lose their next war all the alliances you took it from can get it back even if they weren't involved in the war. If its good for the war of hypocrisy then its good in all future wars. WAPA is welcome to take all the 1,000 tech that might've been waived back when they or their ally has defeated us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Would you refuse someone who returns your stolen wallet? Was the theif murdered by a vigilante in order to get your wallet back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre27 Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 That was a long fight, you deserve some peace. Congratulations on the peace Echelon, but i think the terms imposed on you folks are harsh into the extreme. Good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I have not said that. What I've said is that I'm glad that thanks to that clausule they will not be bound to pay any reparations. About the purpose of the clause, it's there just to make sure that the blunt of the reparations doesn't fall over the weaker nations. That's all. I hate to contradict my ally, but you're mistaken. The term is there to make the reparations hurt more, not less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King DrunkWino Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Now that you have that free lesson I hope that you take it and do good things with it! 50 tech says not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Was the theif murdered by a vigilante in order to get your wallet back? Then i would still take my wallet back because it's my wallet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 You were actually doing pretty ok until this post. I will give you some tips on how to not make people glance over your point because of the way you present it.First don't use stupid obvious propaganda tag lines like "the war of hypocrisy" as a tool to try and make a point, it only serves to discredit you in the eyes of most. Second use examples, if you are going to say something like "I hope you kept a list of every bit of tech and cash MK have taken" you should at least have one example ready of tech and cash that MK has takes lest you will get overwhelmed with people jumping to tell you how MK does not take unfair reps (especially when dealing with an alliance as popular as MK is right now). Third don't try and spin something that is so easily spun back, "all the alliances you took it from can get it back even if they weren't involved in the war." is sub-par spin at best and is easily countered by the point that GR were the ones who were taking those reps but they decided to forward them to their friends in MK as they felt it was a more just punishment than taking them for themselves. Now that you have that free lesson I hope that you take it and do good things with it! I dont remember you spanking him for saying the NoCB war I guess you approve of his propaganda but not my comeback. Im sorry Im not as proficient as the ex-Vox people at propaganda and manipulation. I will try to bring it up to the standard of those who were once in Vox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WcaesarD Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Congrats on Peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King DrunkWino Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Now that you have that free lesson I hope that you take it and do good things with it! 50 tech says not. I dont remember you spanking him for saying the NoCB war I guess you approve of his propaganda but not my comeback. Im sorry Im not as proficient as the ex-Vox people at propaganda and manipulation. I will try to bring it up to the standard of those who were once in Vox. Quickest tech I ever made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I respect your position. But there is people out there that do not share your view about being glad to have had to swallow a dozen nukes because NPO decided to curbstomp one more small alliance. And if those people want to get reparations, damn hell they have all the right to ask and receive them. Then perhaps you shouldn't be getting involved in wars. BTW, "prepared for war and keeps fighting like a wolverine"? I've been traking the echelons for most of the war and I could say a few things about how many of them have been subscripted to Peace Mode for most of this conflict. Not to mention that they used to have a lot more members before this conflagration. Yeah, imagine that. When you realize that a war is going to take forever since you're fighting the equivalent of kids left at home alone...you try and make sure you don't blow it all in a short period of time. As apparently MA does thoroughly enjoy planning for this war, yet does not like getting their knee scraped, it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't understand why Echelon fought in the manner they did. As for losing so many nations...it's probably not the best thing to say when many in Karma have lost nations during this war as well. I'm glad for those few echelons who really fought to the end and are now ZIed or near ZI, that we had put that condition about "No Echelon nation under 1,000 tech will be allowed to pay reparations". What in the world does one have to do with the other. They were ZI'd...not ZT'd. As a whole, they have fought Ok, but far from what I'd call "like a wolverine". If they had fought this way then we would be now next to a grave of a hundred of ZIed people (as opposed to... 6-7 out of 64 people), and we would not be asking for reparations because they whould have been unable to pay any. As you all have sufficiently displayed here, any amount of reps are payable. Insofar as, I presume you are talking about Echelon, not many being ZI'd...seems like some good war strategy to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nerolocutus Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) "Echelon must maintain a cute demeanor for the duration of these terms. Any change in demeanor from cute is grounds for the immediate resumption of hostilities. " This and the demand that only nations w/ over 1K tech can repay are disgusting. Edited July 6, 2009 by nerolocutus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Yeah, imagine that. When you realize that a war is going to take forever since you're fighting the equivalent of kids left at home alone...you try and make sure you don't blow it all in a short period of time. As apparently MA does thoroughly enjoy planning for this war, yet does not like getting their knee scraped, it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't understand why Echelon fought in the manner they did. As for losing so many nations...it's probably not the best thing to say when many in Karma have lost nations during this war as well. This insinuates a great strategy on the part of Echelon, regarding some form of counter-offensive that did not happen. Staying in peace for a month after terms were given only made the terms hurt worse. Stop acting like it was military genius. They hid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I dont remember you spanking him for saying the NoCB war I guess you approve of his propaganda but not my comeback. I'm glad you support wars started over aiding a re-roll. Makes your posts and righteous indignation so much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinoa Rex Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 These terms are savage. 63% of Echelon's total tech paid by 26 nations, by my arithmetic. In my opinion, that is overmuch for an alliance that made good on a treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 This insinuates a great strategy on the part of Echelon, regarding some form of counter-offensive that did not happen. Staying in peace for a month after terms were given only made the terms hurt worse.Stop acting like it was military genius. They hid. Yeah, listen, I don't really expect you to understand. It's alright. Maybe one day you'll think about what I said as you sit in peace mode watching those you kicked while they were down pummel your allies in their drive for revenge, you will realize I was right. *fake tear* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I'm glad you support wars started over aiding a re-roll. Makes your posts and righteous indignation so much better. I believe he's simply saying that "NoCB War" and "Hypocrisy Way" are propaganda names. While both are pretty accurate, they're propaganda. I don't think he's saying that he thinks that CB was legit (correct me if I'm wrong Alterego). -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 our stolen tech... nooo.... / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisperson Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 People reading these should keep in mind that these terms were originally offered more than a month ago, when Echelon was much, much stronger. Funny how this got overlooked. Also, I believe that the 1k tech+ term was for the benefit of those who hadn't suffered enough during the war. Clearly the nations with smaller amounts of tech were dealt larger losses during the actual conflict, and it stands to reason that if they currently have more than 1k tech, then they were either huge before the start of war, or they escaped into peace mode while their brethren were slaughtered. See, we're merciful in a weird kind of way. [/Mytwocents] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Clearly the nations with smaller amounts of tech were dealt larger losses during the actual conflict, and it stands to reason that if they currently have more than 1k tech, then they were either huge before the start of war, or they escaped into peace mode while their brethren were slaughtered. Clearly. I mean I only exited the war with 4,500 tech yet lost between 4k and 5k infra during it. If you're going to try and justify the terms at least do it properly. 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.