Hyperion321 Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 C'mon man we have a rep to uphold. It's not easy being evil incarnate. I'm sorry mate, the world needs to know what softies you guys really are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kung Fu Geeks Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 We've already admitted defeat in the war. And joke flies over head... Karma formed because it seemed quite clear that OV was going to be hit, and alliances would be drawn in, and at that time it was unclear the scope of alliances that would be drawn in on what would become Karma's side would be. If you want to phrase that as "coming together to die" I guess that is one way of saying it, but what I bolded from the above is far more accurate. Then why were you arguing with mike that Karma formed in order to die? You can pick out little specifics of what he said that may be inaccurate, but his basic premise was correct, there was another motive for formation than to get rolled, and he had said as much several times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Aurion you know I love GOD but really call it like it is. It is apparent that they used their posistion in Q to assist in the development of a strategy in order to destroy it. I have heard the reasons for their departure and I understand them. But i also know they should have done it long before instead of waiting to see which way the cookie crumbled before doing it. They basically used there posistion to help strenghthen the opposistion. Becarefull once again i know little of SPARTA but from what i can gather you could be the next one if your not in a favorable possistion. You claim to have understood and yet if you had, you would know that it is easy to say "you should have left earlier" but rarely does one abandon a long-term ally because communication is poor. In the time immediately leading up to the declaration by NPO, the relations between us went from bad to downright offensive (being left out of meetings, ignored, etc). When they finally declared war on OV we felt that we could no longer call ourselves allies. The sides are clear now, but I remember at the time a lot of us worrying about where many alliances were going to end up. It's easy to say "nah, you guys knew all along" but it's simply not true. We had suspicions, but we expected things to be a lot rougher than they ended up being. You say we waited for the cookie to crumble and yet, I repeat, we were among the first out. If anything, we were a big part of the cookie crumbling. You say you know little of Sparta, yet feel completely confident that we'll throw GOD under the bus. Interesting. You and James Dahl should start a detective agency. I know that I personally, and several Spartans I have spoken with, felt that the terms given to Echelon were excessive. However, when we have matters to discuss with allies/friends we try to opt for the respectful private discussion rather than the obnoxious public slander approach. I know it's out of fashion right now, but I think it's classic and has its own charms to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 the issue was where the web intersects... where alliances would be tied to both sides. THAT makes it very unclear as to which side will be chosen, or if neutrality will commence. Either way, it doesn't make it easy to simply follow the web... Maybe on paper, but if you know the alliances in question it's pretty obvious which side they will side with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jphillips412 Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 You have no idea why we canceled on the NPO, I suggest reading the last tattler for a small bit of the reason. We did not cancel on Valhalla, the treaty is suspended as per their terms. Yes, we did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffasamini Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 * Gave up sovereignty of the Red Sphere* Admitted defeat publicly * Lost 1/3 of our membership, 60% of our tech and 75% of our NS ^^ This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 I'm sorry mate, the world needs to know what softies you guys really are It's ok, if Xiph asks I didn't see anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 * Gave up sovereignty of the Red Sphere* Admitted defeat publicly * Lost 1/3 of our membership, 60% of our tech and 75% of our NS You didn't give up anything. You lost your "sovereignty" over the Red Sphere way before it was officially declared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) Aurion you know I love GOD but really call it like it is. It is apparent that they used their posistion in Q to assist in the development of a strategy in order to destroy it. I have heard the reasons for their departure and I understand them. But i also know they should have done it long before instead of waiting to see which way the cookie crumbled before doing it. They basically used there posistion to help strenghthen the opposistion. Becarefull once again i know little of SPARTA but from what i can gather you could be the next one if your not in a favorable possistion. To me personally, it looks like people are trying to find someone to blame for their own failures. One constant theme is the utter incapacity of most of the core Q alliances to acknowledge that they did anything wrong or made any mistakes, insisting instead that they fell into a well-laid trap. I'm sorry mate, the world needs to know what softies you guys really are It's ok, if Xiph asks I didn't see anything. Your treasonous acts do not go unnoticed, Viking. Edited July 7, 2009 by Aurion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 * Gave up sovereignty of the Red Sphere* Admitted defeat publicly * Lost 1/3 of our membership, 60% of our tech and 75% of our NS Admitting defeat publically in a thread that is a big "f you!" to your opponents does not exactly seep humility. When NPO acts humbly I will buy the "we admit we lost" arguments. Then why were you arguing with mike that Karma formed in order to die? You can pick out little specifics of what he said that may be inaccurate, but his basic premise was correct, there was another motive for formation than to get rolled, and he had said as much several times. I do not think I have ever said the motivation for forming Karma was to get rolled. Karma was formed by alliances who were expecting to get rolled. That is a huge difference. I'm sorry you can't see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 You didn't give up anything. You lost your "sovereignty" over the Red Sphere way before it was officially declared. Incorrect, the Moldavi Doctrine did not cancel itself, it was cancelled by Imperial Decree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Maybe on paper, but if you know the alliances in question it's pretty obvious which side they will side with. Well, The mass cancellations of NPO treaties was a surprise to me. I figured your allies would have stuck with you for sure. Those events alone should show how unstable/unpredictable the "treaty" web is. If NPO was fully aware that those that had treaties only to NPO, or for both sides, would fight against NPO, makes you wonder why they were allies to begin with. I'd prefer to sign treaties with those that I know will dig in when times get tough. If I had the foresight that several of my allies would turn the first opportunity they could, I'd work to find out what the hell went wrong with the relationship... or find new allies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 To me personally, it looks like people are trying to find someone to blame for their own failures. One constant theme is the utter incapacity of most of the core Q alliances to acknowledge that they did anything wrong or made any mistakes, insisting instead that they fell into a well-laid trap. I can now understand exactly how there is so much "confusion" about the events of GWI and such. The sheer amount of history revision in the past few months has been incredible, especially with respect to what I italicized. The "repeat it enough and it will be believed" appears to be in full swing :\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Schmidt Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 From an NPO grunt... I've posted these before, elsewhere. Seems like a good time to post them again. Colin Powell’s 10 Rules 1. It ain’t as bad as you think. It will look better in the morning. 2. Get mad, then get over it. 3. Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it. 4. It can be done! 5. Be careful what you choose. You may get it. 6. Don’t let adverse facts stand in the way of a good decision. 7. You can’t make someone else’s choices. You shouldn’t let someone else make yours. 8. Check small things. 9. Share credit. 10. Remain calm. Be kind. Colin Powell (b. 1937), U.S. General. “Colin Powell’s Rules”, with Joseph E. Persico, Random House (1995). Looking at them, quickly... At day 77 of this war it does look better than it did on day 37; who would've thought. It's a shame some of the more vociferous posters never seem to get over what it is they need to get over. Perhaps they have let their egos get too close to their position. For me the initial question is a simple one: when the dust settles do you want NPO to survive? Based on the terms given us, it would seem the answer to that question was and still is no. So you can legitimize until you are blue in the face why the terms offered are the terms that needed to be offered, however, NPO will not buy that reason or accept the current terms. Everyone should at least admit to themselves that that (you do not want NPO to survive) is why NPO will not accept the terms as given. The current question then is just as simple: want NPO to accept the terms? Then give us survivable terms. p.s. and no need to describe how the current terms are doable; doable does not mean survivable... but I bet you knew that already [ smile ]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Incorrect, the Moldavi Doctrine did not cancel itself, it was cancelled by Imperial Decree. Interestingly enough, four red team alliances formed before you "cancelled" the Moldavi Doctrine, one of which had well over fifty members. I cancelled your doctrine to muted whimpering. Yeah, it was only given away by the graces of Emperor Moo. Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Admitting defeat publically in a thread that is a big "f you!" to your opponents does not exactly seep humility.When NPO acts humbly I will buy the "we admit we lost" arguments. I do not think I have ever said the motivation for forming Karma was to get rolled. Karma was formed by alliances who were expecting to get rolled. That is a huge difference. I'm sorry you can't see that. We still have our pride, if that's what you mean, yes. I don't really care that it's not good enough for you, nothing would be. You would accuse a disbandment notice from us as a cynical PR move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) Interestingly enough, four red team alliances formed before you "cancelled" the Moldavi Doctrine, one of which had well over fifty members. I cancelled your doctrine to muted whimpering. Yeah, it was only given away by the graces of Emperor Moo. Right. Actually none of them managed to violate the Moldavi Doctrine, and FIRE still doesn't have enough members on Red to have violated the doctrine (60%). Get on that FIRE As to your decree Oh, and stop whining. Edited July 7, 2009 by James Dahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 You would accuse a disbandment notice from us as a cynical PR move. When all else fails I suppose we can all still hyperbole the hell out of everything, heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 We still have our pride, if that's what you mean, yes.I don't really care that it's not good enough for you, nothing would be. You would accuse a disbandment notice from us as a cynical PR move. Actually, the only way I will see the NPO having "lost" is if their pride is defeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Actually none of them managed to violate the Moldavi Doctrine, and FIRE still doesn't have enough members on Red to have violated the doctrine (60%). Did you even read the doctrine? There's a ninety member red team alliance, and you couldn't do jack !@#$ about it. Yeah, that's a pretty clear violation. Oh, and stop whining. Coming from the member of an alliance whose emperor was most recently bawwing all over the OWF about how unfair our terms are, I'll take that one with a grain of salt. You come from an alliance of pathetic whiners. Get over yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Michaels Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Oh, and stop whining. Oh the irony. It's like bronzey and goldy, except it comes out of James Dahl's mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) Actually, the only way I will see the NPO having "lost" is if their pride is defeated. You are determined for us to have won some sort of moral victory in this war, it's bizarre. Edited July 7, 2009 by James Dahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Well FINE then, we won the war. Happy? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) What? I rephrased in my edit, I noted it was a bit ambiguous. Basically people whined for years about how NPO claimed victory of a sort from GWI, but now that we HAVE admitted defeat, the same people who whined about GWI now won't accept our admission of defeat and insist we won a victory of a sort in the Karma war. It's rather bizarre. Edited July 7, 2009 by James Dahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) Incorrect, the Moldavi Doctrine did not cancel itself, it was cancelled by Imperial Decree. Due to lack of power to enforce it. The New Pacific Order hereby issues the following decree:The Moldavi Doctrine is hereby rescinded. In this new world, we recognize that our alliance alone is no longer able to adequately protect the unaligned on the Red Team. Edited July 7, 2009 by Viking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts