kevin32891 Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 they will be working harder to get back to where they were and strike you down. That's Karma it never ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 That's Karma it never ends. The way everyone is using it, yeah you are indeed correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Harsh terms only slow them down a little bit and give them more of an incentive to strike back. So, as a result of these absurd terms, they will be working harder to get back to where they were and strike you down. Terms have nothing to do with whether or not an alliance is going to come back at you. Being exceptionally kind to an alliance that you've just destroyed in a war is obviously disingenuous, and does nothing to diminish the animosity that they feel toward you. If they were going to get revenge, their minds were already set on doing so at the start of the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Then again, I guess that was just propaganda needed to enlist people to the Karma side. Pretty much. Not all of us like puppies and rainbows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Nice to see the terms posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regent of Omerta 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. And that is all TTK did was honor a treaty, an MADP an which just happened to coincide with a couple of MDoaP's. My hat's off to echelon, they fought a hell of a fight with those of TTK they did battle with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadshot Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 That is a joke term. Somebody from Echelon gov't, Caffine I think, used it in some discussion involving one of the alliances on it's front, in the past. Thank you for the clarification Rafael. There was a war, and these are the surrender terms. I don't understand the complaining that constantly gets posted in these threads. The winners won, and have imposed terms that they saw fit. Deal with it as every alliance in history has dealt with it. Never in my time in CN have I seen so much !@#$%*ing about the terms imposed, especially by the alliances recieving the terms.Terms wise, being in Polaris has made me immune to what others see as "harsh terms". I simply view these as terms, to which you must now pay. In fact, I don't get out of bed unless the terms are 75,000 tech to be paid by the top 30 members of the alliance, of whom are limited to only sending out reps (no inner alliance aiding), and of whose members several government officials must endure secret terms. Oh wai-... You do realize that one of the reasons for the Karma War was terms dealt out by Hegemony alliances right? Is Airme correct, 26 nations to pay the tech reps? Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Or it could have something to do with Karma Announcements, made by the "voice of karma", stating that things will change and there won't be draconian terms and we won't be mean and evil...Then again, I guess that was just propaganda needed to enlist people to the Karma side. Glad people are getting it now. Echelon what to say,...you are a brave alliance of proud nations. I wish you all the best and know you will always have friends where I come from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Terms have nothing to do with whether or not an alliance is going to come back at you. Being exceptionally kind to an alliance that you've just destroyed in a war is obviously disingenuous, and does nothing to diminish the animosity that they feel toward you. If they were going to get revenge, their minds were already set on doing so at the start of the war. ... Terms can only inflame them. Were you reading a different post and accidentally responded to mine? The basis of my argument is "If we defeat them, they might come back at us. If we issue harsh reps, then they definitely will." So...I'm not sure who you are responding to. Also, no one said anything about being exceptionally kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midkn1ght Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Too harsh. Only 26 nations allowed to pay 34k tech? These terms are some of the harshest I have ever seen..... Also banning Caffine from gov is stupid. I think I will send him a recruitment message right now. Assume 70% eff. of slots of the 26, only using 5 slots. 273 slots a month, just over 2 months to pay off tech reps. GOD that's so hard. If they'd of accepted the terms when presented, instead of sticking it out and leaking members like a sieve, they'd of had a good deal more members to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delendum Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 That premise relies on the incorrect assumption that the victors of the war will not grow at all.Harsh terms only slow them down a little bit and give them more of an incentive to strike back. So, as a result of these absurd terms, they will be working harder to get back to where they were and strike you down. Unfortunately, that premise relies on the assumption that the victors of the war aren't exactly the closest friends amongst themselves. I will say it again, this isn't a unified world, when two battle, the third rises. Who will want to be the one battling the former hegemony if ever they rise dangerously? Harsh terms buy time, and time brings stability. These terms aren't meant to destroy them for good, they are made to keep them down long enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Paul Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 8. Echelon admits that it started the war and that it was defeated soundly, and hereby surrenders to the collective might assembled. And I thought only Vladimir got to re-write history. If you need help drafting the post where you admit to starting this war, feel free to contact me. I'll make sure that it's "cute." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 ...Terms can only inflame them. Were you reading a different post and accidentally responded to mine? The basis of my argument is "If we defeat them, they might come back at us. If we issue harsh reps, then they definitely will." So...I'm not sure who you are responding to. Also, no one said anything about being exceptionally kind. That argument is just going to keep going in circles, the terms aren't changing fwiw. So the arguing is falling on deaf ears outside of the others that feel the same way. Don't be such an E-lawyer. GOD that's so hard. That's what she said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 ...Terms can only inflame them. Were you reading a different post and accidentally responded to mine? The basis of my argument is "If we defeat them, they might come back at us. If we issue harsh reps, then they definitely will." So...I'm not sure who you are responding to. Also, no one said anything about being exceptionally kind. Yes, I was responding to your post. It might have been difficult to understand from the way that I directly quoted the portion of your post that I was replying to, but I think you've got it mostly figured out. As I said, the severity of the reparations we impose has nothing to do with whether or not Echelon will be "out for revenge". If they are the type to harbor grudges, then they were going to whether or not we extracted a few thousand more tech. So your argument is pointless, and asking us to allow our enemies to come back and hit us sooner is not going to get you anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Assume 70% eff. of slots of the 26, only using 5 slots. 273 slots a month, just over 2 months to pay off tech reps. GOD that's so hard. If they'd of accepted the terms when presented, instead of sticking it out and leaking members like a sieve, they'd of had a good deal more members to pay. Yeah man, you tell them! GOD gets their tech, by God! Also, how do you round up? 18.2 > 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solidus117 Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Assume 70% eff. of slots of the 26, only using 5 slots. 273 slots a month, just over 2 months to pay off tech reps. GOD that's so hard. If they'd of accepted the terms when presented, instead of sticking it out and leaking members like a sieve, they'd of had a good deal more members to pay. "Goddamn Echelon, they bring this on themselves! Why do you make us hit you!?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Or it could have something to do with Karma Announcements, made by the "voice of karma", stating that things will change and there won't be draconian terms and we won't be mean and evil...Then again, I guess that was just propaganda needed to enlist people to the Karma side. Maybe the "voice of karma" isn't around to police the world enough for your liking. He's a busy man, and has enough to worry about without encroaching on other alliances' sovereignity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 And I thought only Vladimir got to re-write history. If you need help drafting the post where you admit to starting this war, feel free to contact me. I'll make sure that it's "cute." Heh, I missed that term the first time. I was totally unaware that Echelon fired the first shot. Man........I am agreeing with Sir Paul and Nizzle......someone shoot me between the eyes. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Maximus Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 "Goddamn Echelon, they bring this on themselves! Why do you make us hit you!?" Thats not very cute. Congrats on your peace Echelon. I hope you rebuild quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Unfortunately, that premise relies on the assumption that the victors of the war aren't exactly the closest friends amongst themselves. I will say it again, this isn't a unified world, when two battle, the third rises. Who will want to be the one battling the former hegemony if ever they rise dangerously? OK. I'm not arguing that some of them are going to curbstomp the victors later on...I'm saying all you are doing by issuing harsh terms is guaranteeing the likelihood and speeding the process up. Harsh terms buy time, and time brings stability. These terms aren't meant to destroy them for good, they are made to keep them down long enough. Long enough...for? We've already accepted that they may well come back for revenge...so what are they being held down "long enough" for? That argument is just going to keep going in circles, the terms aren't changing fwiw. So the arguing is falling on deaf ears outside of the others that feel the same way. It's not my intent to change these terms, but to get people to understand that such processes only create a "circle", as you said. Don't be such an E-lawyer. While I don't expect an awful lot from you, I would imagine you could tell the difference between an e-lawyer and an e-philosopher. Yes, I was responding to your post. It might have been difficult to understand from the way that I directly quoted the portion of your post that I was replying to, but I think you've got it mostly figured out. OK As I said, the severity of the reparations we impose has nothing to do with whether or not Echelon will be "out for revenge". If they are the type to harbor grudges, then they were going to whether or not we extracted a few thousand more tech. So your argument is pointless, and asking us to allow our enemies to come back and hit us sooner is not going to get you anywhere. IF they are the type. Perhaps they were not going to, but now you have wounded them deeply. Now they will be back for revenge. Perhaps this added more fuel to their proverbial fire. The argument is only pointless if you are already set on attacking them later on and not letting hostility fade. Apparently that is the case. Guess what caused that attitude in most of Karma? The way they were treated by victorious alliances. I appreciate your time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir justin Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Congrats on peace, Echelon. May you pay off the reps quickly, and thanks for your friendship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Maybe the "voice of karma" isn't around to police the world enough for your liking. He's a busy man, and has enough to worry about without encroaching on other alliances' sovereignity. You should really have something done about your anger. Always a haymaker coming from you. At least someone in GOD admitted the whole "Karma will be more better" was a farse. Lighten up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Paul Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Maybe the "voice of karma" isn't around to police the world enough for your liking. He's a busy man, and has enough to worry about without encroaching on other alliances' sovereignity. If we get blamed for the Polar war, then Archon get's blamed for these reps. Besides, it's good to see RnR being consistent, having been part of the Coalition to invent the 1000+ tech requirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobiashiy Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 It is nice to see you guys finally get peace o/ Echelon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) You should really have something done about your anger. Always a haymaker coming from you. At least someone in GOD admitted the whole "Karma will be more better" was a farse. Lighten up. I'm lightened up, I'm just trying to stop your spin to try and put all of Karma down. You know as well as I that saying Archon actually approves of harsh terms is !@#$. If we get blamed for the Polar war, then Archon get's blamed for these reps. You don't get blamed in entirety. You get blamed for opening the floodgates by cancelling the OoO mainly. Of course there's the "ebil NPO ZOMG" posters who think otherwise. 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.