Alekhine Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Good to see these guys get peace. I'll also like to echo Stumpy's statements regarding banning Caffine from government, albeit with more forum-suitable language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Nice terms for Echelon and congrats on an end to hostilities What terms did you think were appropriate for Valhalla, GGA, and IRON then? Just asking. Also, what did Caffine do that warrants him being banned from government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Good to see these guys get peace. I'll also like to echo Stumpy's statements regarding banning Caffine from government, albeit with more forum-suitable language. I fear I may be too blunt for my own good. Seriously though, this is complete nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreddieMercury Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 While you are free to re-sign with Echelon post surrender terms, That is exactly how it's going to be. The paper means little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Wait what the $%&@? I just realized that Caffine was banned from gov. I dont care what alliance you are in but that is wrong. People flipped a !@#$ when they asked that of STA but you have no problem asking it here? This is terrible. Seriously what the $%&@ were you thinking? Not to say that I don not agree with you but I think it's ironic at how upset you are about how harsh this is considering how upset you were at the leniency shown in Valhalla's terms. I notice the distinct absence of reps to RIA and that makes me happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylar Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) It's not scathing so much as ignorant to see "surrender" then just post a quote.Karma as a whole stands for a war. Archon is a single man and can't enforce his ideologies upon others. Our "cause" is not to impose weak terms upon alliances who deserve much more. The fact that Echelon was bleeding members and now has barely enough tech in the entire alliance to pay the terms is their own fault for continuing this uphill slaughter. wow so they honor a treaty to jump in to a war that was a curb stomp and you blame them? i think people tried to get out but then karma made the term coalition of cowards up lol and how the hell did they start this war. Edited July 6, 2009 by Sylar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) Wow guys. Great terms you have here. Did you ask NPO for some tips on writing them or what? Poor show. Very poor show. EDIT 8. Echelon admits that it started the war and that it was defeated soundly, and hereby surrenders to the collective might assembled. Seriously? Glad you wrote this in, or I would have never guessed they lost! 11. 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. Refusal to comply with the above terms on a mass scale will result in continued warfare. "Oh well we put in a lulz term so it doesn't look so mean." Epic, epic fail. Way to keep the damn cycle going. Edited July 6, 2009 by Nizzle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 It's not scathing so much as ignorant to see "surrender" then just post a quote.Karma as a whole stands for a war. Archon is a single man and can't enforce his ideologies upon others. Our "cause" is not to impose weak terms upon alliances who deserve much more. The fact that Echelon was bleeding members and now has barely enough tech in the entire alliance to pay the terms is their own fault for continuing this uphill slaughter. So the more they fought the more the reparation amounts rose and the more the terms became harsher? Is that what you mean to say? Why are you not fighting if you believe so strongly then? I don't have to. If Karma really exists like you guys say it does, all I need do is wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Why are you not fighting if you believe so strongly then? Can I answer that question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 As of now. Ok, well that's not so bad. 26 nations pumping out 300 tech a round, they can have those reparations done in just over a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 The fact that Echelon was bleeding members and now has barely enough tech in the entire alliance to pay the terms is their own fault for continuing this uphill slaughter. But umm...when your fighting the only way to stop is to get surrender terms.... And they can't control those right? Why are you not fighting if you believe so strongly then? He's not going to put his alliance in danger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alekhine Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Not to say that I don not agree with you but I think it's ironic at how upset you are about how harsh this is considering how upset you were at the leniency shown in Valhalla's terms. I notice the distinct absence of reps to RIA and that makes me happy. He's flipping !@#$ about a term banning a player from government, not reparations. I would think that was his issue with Valhalla's terms (the lack of reps, that is). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) Not to say that I don not agree with you but I think it's ironic at how upset you are about how harsh this is considering how upset you were at the leniency shown in Valhalla's terms. I notice the distinct absence of reps to RIA and that makes me happy. Compare what Valhalla has done in its history to what Echelon has done in its and get back to me. I promise their is a distinct difference. Also, Im upset over this government thing. Read my post. I never wanted chefjoe removed from government. Edited July 6, 2009 by Stumpy Jung Il Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) Wait what the $%&@? I just realized that Caffine was banned from gov. I dont care what alliance you are in but that is wrong. People flipped a !@#$ when they asked that of STA but you have no problem asking it here? This is terrible. Seriously what the $%&@ were you thinking? People also complained when it was done to Polar, albeit secretly. You see, it is only wrong when it is done to you. Anyway, Karma, continue to show us your true colors. You abandoned any sort of "principles" this war was fought on a long time ago. It has been obvious for quite some time that you're simply in it for revenge now, and you're just as petty as I said you'd be. Why are you not fighting if you believe so strongly then? You know Chicken, I expected better from you. This is the same line used by the Hegemony time and time again, declaring that you have no right to an opinion unless you are the one getting beat down, because if not, it doesn't affect you. It was a prelude to threatening people for not being shy about their true feelings. This isn't the first time I've seen Karma use this line, and I have seen Karma threaten people, such as myself. I must say I am quite sickened by what I see. Edited July 6, 2009 by Rebel Virginia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King DrunkWino Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I notice the distinct absence of reps to RIA and that makes me happy. I imagine RIA's HQ is a very interesting place tonight. Though, to be honest, I didn't expect the RIA to impose reps. Never did strike me as their cup of tea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Fair terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otherworld Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Wait...can somebody PLEASE explain this one please. 8. Echelon admits that it started the war and that it was defeated soundly, and hereby surrenders to the collective might assembled. In what way did Echelon start the war? They just followed a treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Can I answer that question? Yes please!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alekhine Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Wait...can somebody PLEASE explain this one please.In what way did Echelon start the war? They just followed a treaty. Yeah, this one has me a little confused as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 wow so they honor a treaty to jump in to a war that was a curb stomp and you blame them? Since they had the treaty, yeah. Are we supposed to congratulate them for behaving normally? Pretty much their fault. They thought they were safe under NPO's boot. i think people tried to get out but then karma made the term coalition of cowards up lol The fact that they came back does not impress me. these terms are disgusting and considering your getting 10K tech i bet Archon couldn't of told them i dont want the tech. very bad terms. Yes, because Archon controls GR. Exactly right. MK doesn't give a !@#$ about the tech. That term is because GR wanted to return tech from the WotC and had no influence from the membership of MK, that's for damn sure. way to sound like NPO. Way to find a flaw. I sound like NPO because I want one of the closer wardogs of the Hegemony to be punished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diomede Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) People also complained when it was done to Polar, albeit secretly. You see, it is only wrong when it is done to you.Anyway, Karma, continue to show us your true colors. You abandoned any sort of "principles" this war was fought on a long time ago. It has been obvious for quite some time that you're simply in it for revenge now, and you're just as petty as I said you'd be. Or Legion in GW3, or GATO with CK (even if they are better off without him...) or STA with Rakari and Pezstar and I believe a couple others... That said, I believe your view of who is in Karma and what it stands for differs to quite a few other people. Edited July 6, 2009 by Diomede Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delendum Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I've got absolutely no sympathy, these terms are warranted. Except the Caffine term which I find pointless, I don't see anything that should cause outrage. I don't want to seem lenient just for the sake of a propaganda line so that the same alliances can bounce back up in a few months and gun for revenge. Excessively righteous people on the Karma side tend to forget that you can't let everybody get off easy. There are a lot of big alliances that got bruised in this war, and there is no unified superpower to keep them in check forever. You want them to stop calling the shots once and for all? Then do what you have to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 You know, Echelon stood by their allies and you cannot fault them for that. Wish the terms had reflected that as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) So the more they fought the more the reparation amounts rose and the more the terms became harsher? Is that what you mean to say? The terms stayed the same, actually. But umm...when your fighting the only way to stop is to get surrender terms....And they can't control those right? They can accept terms before they get too harsh, because they're likely not to go down as far as your ability to pay does. Edited July 6, 2009 by Rey the Great 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.