Mandrivia_2 Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 NPO has not shown during the whole period between GW1 and this period that they deserve lenient terms. NPO has deserved this on many levels. This is more or less a call to give NPO lenients terms so they can brood. Which will then naturally lead them to try taking revenge later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I'm not in R&R government and had no pull this time. If I was, I would have suggested that reps were appropriate. Happyly for Echelon and to R&R you aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 The point was, there are some folks who understand that continuing the cycle does not stop it. Seems pretty straight forward and easy enough to comprehend. In fact as I typed it I almost felt it was too simple to be true. Maybe that is where some of you got off track. Perhaps you should go back and pay a visit to your old friends and ask them why they feel differently from you. I'm a bit more of an optimist and assume that the nations who fill the power vacuum after NPO etc will learn from past mistakes and not abuse their power. Maybe I'm too trusting. However, feel free to continue to do as others have, and force your words and ideals upon me as if they weigh more than my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I'm a bit more of an optimist and assume that the nations who fill the power vacuum after NPO etc will learn from past mistakes and not abuse their power. Maybe I'm too trusting. However, feel free to continue to do as others have, and force your words and ideals upon me as if they weigh more than my own. Sorry to delude you but they already are abusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I only hope your words do not lay on deaf ears. I wouldn't say it would lay on deaf ears so much as it would lay on ears covered by walkmans playing various tunes. The cycle will continue just with some new players this time it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 So when an alliance enter a war to honor his treaties they deserve pay reps harsh reps? Very fair. When an alliance enters a war via an optional aggression clause against an alliance they have a lot of bad blood with, yes, it's not unreasonable that they end up paying a sizable amount of reparations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 When an alliance enters a war via an optional aggression clause against an alliance they have a lot of bad blood with, yes, it's not unreasonable that they end up paying a sizable amount of reparations. Echelon went in defending NPO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterana Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I'm a bit more of an optimist and assume that the nations who fill the power vacuum after NPO etc will learn from past mistakes and not abuse their power. Maybe I'm too trusting. However, feel free to continue to do as others have, and force your words and ideals upon me as if they weigh more than my own. They're already abusing it. The Echelon terms are proof of that. Same cart, new driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Sorry to delude you but they already are abusing. This is the real difference in opinion right here. It's my opinion that once, or a few times does not a habit make, especially in regards to the alliances currently getting terms. They deserve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) When an alliance enters a war via an optional aggression clause against an alliance they have a lot of bad blood with, yes, it's not unreasonable that they end up paying a sizable amount of reparations. You like to rewrite the history, do you? As pursuant to Article 4, Section 4.1 of the One Vision Bloc Treaty (below), and waiving Section 4.3 of the same Article, Echelon hereby acknowledges a state of war with all parties currently engaging the New Pacific Order. While we no longer acknowledge the individual treaty held between Echelon and Pacifica, we fully and wholeheartedly commit to defending the New Pacific Order in their time of need.To those who label us as spineless turncoats, please go ahead and eat your collective feet. We are waiting, and those who lie in peace on our end will soon enough meet you. Free Your Hate Karma Signed, Neo Anglia, Director Solidus117, Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, Elder Statesman 4.1 Should any signatory come under attack, it is mandatory all signatories come to the assistance of the attacked. What part of it you lost? This is the real difference in opinion right here. It's my opinion that once, or a few times does not a habit make, especially in regards to the alliances currently getting terms.They deserve it. This isn't an habit yet because it's just starting, give them some time and you will see. Edited July 6, 2009 by D34th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 NPO has not shown during the whole period between GW1 and this period that they deserve lenient terms. NPO has deserved this on many levels.This is more or less a call to give NPO lenients terms so they can brood. Which will then naturally lead them to try taking revenge later. Then why are there even terms? If that is the point of the war..to end NPO..then stop the charade with the ludicrous surrender terms. Either way, you are looking pathetic. @karma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 The tide of PR has turned and I really do not care if folks want to call me an NPO sympathizer as any whom will rationally think about that would realize how absurd it is. For the most part, they hate me and I hate them but what I hate even more is to see those fighting NPO allowing NPO to turn the tables like they are beginning to do. It isn't really even the NPO doing it, it is the lack of action or even a reaction from those pressing NPO. Do something, or end this. I don't hate you, I don't think anyone in NPO hates you. You seem to really dislike us, but the feeling isn't mutual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 This isn't an habit yet because it's just starting, give them some time and you will see. If I'm wrong I can accept that, and I'm man enough to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 This is the real difference in opinion right here. It's my opinion that once, or a few times does not a habit make, especially in regards to the alliances currently getting terms.They deserve it. So long as you space the behavior out, I think you're good. Reps aren't the only thing that displays an abuse of power, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandrivia_2 Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Then why are there even terms? If that is the point of the war..to end NPO..then stop the charade with the ludicrous surrender terms. Either way, you are looking pathetic. @karma I am not saying they should be held in permanent war. That isn't karma's goals, as many on the hegemony side got off with white peace, or a peace with very lenient terms. I don't necessarily support or apologize for everything Karma does, but NPO needs to be shown that their reign ends here. The NPO is crafty, even in defeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 I consider all non-MADP treaties to be non-chaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viluin Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) This is more or less a call to give NPO lenients terms so they can brood. Which will then naturally lead them to try taking revenge later. That is just ridiculous. As an individual, I can say that reasonable terms reflecting Karma's original vision would earn you my respect, not my hate. The current terms don't quite have that effect. Edited July 7, 2009 by Viluin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 I'm a bit more of an optimist and assume that the nations who fill the power vacuum after NPO etc will learn from past mistakes and not abuse their power. Maybe I'm too trusting. However, feel free to continue to do as others have, and force your words and ideals upon me as if they weigh more than my own. Boo-!@#$@#$-hoo. Force his ideals on you? I'm pretty sure if Polaris wanted to force ideals on anyone this isn't how they would go about doing so. Nobody is trying to force ideals on anyone, and trying to play the role of victim to compensate for your lack of any justification is laughable. You claim doing this once does not make it a habit? Well, quite frankly, since this is "the" war, then you only really have just 1 shot, and right now you're batting a solid zero. Personally, I couldn't less of a !@#$ about them. NPO can burn, and I won't bat an eyelash. But don't try to push this as you being better than them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted July 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Great propaganda Emperor of the New Polar Order.Your words have some merit, but to many this wall of good intention text is just propaganda. Propaganda? What does Polaris need with propaganda? Where does any of this help me personally or Polaris as a whole? It doesn't. The easy thing to do would have been to say nothing at all, after all it doesn't concern me right? People have become a little too cynical when they see every post as a politically motivated enterprise. There is no upside for Polaris here regardless of what happens, we are doing just fine thanks. As for my popularity, who truly cares, I know I don't. Playing to the fickle peanut gallery for cheers and applause it not an objective here. I am calling it, as I see it, you are free to accept or reject what I say, but the attacks on me are just laughable. I stand for nothing, fantastic stuff and great counter-propaganda, but somewhat irrelevant to my argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) I consider all non-MADP treaties to be non-chaining. Up until recently when alliances made it explicitly clear whether or not a treaty was chained or not, every treaty was, in fact, chaining. Nonetheless, I'll make sure next time I sign a treaty with someone to ask for a random 3rd party to tell us what our treaties dictate. edit: bad habit of leaving out random words. Edited July 7, 2009 by hizzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 As for my popularity, who truly cares, I know I don't. That's good to know. I thought it would be hard to tell you how much we hated having you around but I suppose this makes it easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 But don't try to push this as you being better than them. I'm no better than them, that's the point people in this thread seem to be missing. It's a bit condescending to assume your morality is any better than the next persons. My issue is that they did it to my friends, and I wanted to end that. So let's kick back and watch them burn together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 I consider all non-MADP treaties to be non-chaining. So next time say "In my opinion" not state things as fact when just you have an different opinion about something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 So let's kick back and watch them burn together. That's a terrible thing to say, I thought you were allied to Ragnarok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 The OP made me chuckle - despite being a well written wall of text, it held little meaning as it was constructed from the sidelines and continues to pretend that Karma is a single entity, rather than addressing the individual alliances that make up "Karma" and taking issue with them on an individual level. Pointless posturing and mindless PR grabbing did not go unnoticed however. Good luck NpO Thank you for not reading the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts