WarriorConcept Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 The funny thing is for all of WC's anti NPO ranting, he's still not making himself look any better, even to supporters of KARMA. Also, that comment about you being a need to know person just shows how much of a narcissistic tool you are, that's like me saying that I'm need to know when talking about the NSO. Pipe down WC before you make yourself look even more like an autistic chimp. Aw, how cute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evilhomer101 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Aw, how cute. Again with the witty one liners from the resident narcissist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Again with the witty one liners from the resident narcissist. Anytime newbie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 The funny thing is for all of WC's anti NPO ranting, he's still not making himself look any better, even to supporters of KARMA. Also, that comment about you being a need to know person just shows how much of a narcissistic tool you are, that's like me saying that I'm need to know when talking about the NSO. Pipe down WC before you make yourself look even more like an autistic chimp. No need for that, WC was just about to leak to us one of the terms that is different so we actually believe that he knows anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evilhomer101 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Aww, but it's funny seeing him get worked up and thinking he's important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I'm so worked up I'm responding with one full line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evilhomer101 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 If you responded with a statement any longer your head would most likely implode as you divulged all it's contents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I'm so worked up I'm responding with one full line. Come on WC, jump over that hurdle. You have us right where you want us, time to deliver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I'm so worked up I'm responding with one full line. Please WC stay on topic. Where were you? Oh yeah! "Terms are fair because they lead to NPO's destruction!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) Please WC stay on topic. Where were you? Oh yeah!"Terms are fair because they lead to NPO's destruction!" You're right, this topic isn't about me so I'll let the fanclub talk amongst themselves. But the terms don't actually call for NPO's destruction, despite them actually being pretty harsh. I don't think anyone could argue they're not harsh tbh, but whether they're deserved or can be pulled off is a different argument entirely. edit: missed a word Edited July 9, 2009 by WarriorConcept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 You're right, this topic isn't about me so I'll the fanclub talk amongst themselves. But the terms don't actually call for NPO's destruction, despite them actually being pretty harsh. I don't think anyone could argue they're not harsh tbh, but whether they're deserved or can be pulled off is a different argument entirely. I guess someone else will jump to get credit for knowing the terms before they get released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I guess someone else will jump to get credit for knowing the terms before they get released. Sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 You're right, this topic isn't about me so I'll let the fanclub talk amongst themselves. But the terms don't actually call for NPO's destruction, despite them actually being pretty harsh. I don't think anyone could argue they're not harsh tbh, but whether they're deserved or can be pulled off is a different argument entirely.edit: missed a word Do you really need examples of countless posts saying the terms are too lenient ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Do you really need examples of countless posts saying the terms are too lenient ? I'm sure that's just some crazy radicals not in charge of any alliances fighting NPO, but every side always has some crazies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup4l33t3ki11a Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 awsome OP fran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Surrender terms. They’re on everyone’s minds at the moment. What shall we do about the vanquished Hegemony? So far, we've seen the harshest terms in history handed out to the former Hegemony alliances. Echelon was the latest example of this, when they were told to pay extensive reps and Caffine was excluded from government, among other restrictions. NPO were offered terms designed to destroy their alliance, and they declined them. However, when Karma started out, they condemned harsh surrender terms. Why the discrepancy? "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." Firstly, I think that people are afraid of Pacifica's vengeance, should they be allowed to rebuild. As I see it, the problem with this is that cowardice is at the core of it, and not the morals which first characterised Karma. Come, my brothers! Is it not important to uphold our morals, even when there is a vague threat of attack many months ahead of us? Have courage, and roll those !@#$%^&* if they attempt to dispatch us in the future! But don't abandon your morals. Secondly, I think that there are some people who want to totally destroy the Hegemony via terms, because they think that by doing this they will eradicate immoral practices from the face of Planet Bob. They see this as a singular act of immorality, that will not be repeated, that will prevent the Hegemony from exercising these practices ever again. What you fail to understand is that even if Pacifica are destroyed, these practices will not cease. They will simply be taken up by the next tyrannical dictator. The only way to prevent harsh terms and other abominable habits is to establish a precedent on a scale never-before-seen. I'm talking about giving reasonable terms to Pacifica and TPF, and perhaps rethinking Echelon's terms, here and now. Imagine. The response on the CNF, the shockwaves that would be sent throughout our community. The first moral war on this scale that has been fought since before I started playing this game. The change that would take place in the way that we play, setting new standards to replace those that the Hegemony put in place. Don't let those standards remain. Above all, don't let Karma turn into the new Hegemony. Don't let the cycle continue. "And you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope one day you'll join us..." There is a writer in my nation -- a fellow of Germanic origin. He's an interesting fellow, but I've always wished that people would spend more time reading him and less time quoting him. Never-the-less, let's to it. The harshest terms in history? I'm afraid the facts have you backed into a corner here: While Echelon has to have (approx) 26 nations pay out 39k tech, Polaris had about the same number of nations paying off 75k tech after that unfortunate incident last August. In addition to this, these terms were offered to Echelon well before they were down to only 26 nations that could pay them off. No one has any business blaming the group fighting Echelon for Echelon's own decision to stay in the war after those reps were offered. As for the NPOs terms, that's been done to death, but the Second FAN war and the war on GOLD certainly come to mind as easy pickin's. -- Certainly some people may be worried about the NPO attempting revenge. They have a very long history of that kind of thing, as those of us who know what "The War of Retribution" is. But if it were me leading those alliances, the thing I would be most is just plain-old tired of the NPO. Sick of 'em! Let's try a world without the NPO for a while, and see if anything interesting happens. There's only one way to do that: it's not to give the NPO white peace, it's not to give them easy terms that they'll be back from in a couple months. It's to put them down and make sure they stay down for a enough time that if or when they do come back, the world will have known what it's like to be NPO-less for a while. Maybe the alliances arrayed against the NPO and friends will turn out to be just as bad, but I for one would rather see for myself than assume I know how they're going to act. Everyone else in this world might be able to gaze into the future, but I've been trying really hard and it hasn't worked so far. -- As for all this hooey about the morality of the war against the NPO and friends, I just don't see what the fuss is about. Significant terms for the NPO fit the crime and serve an important purpose. You might as well claim that a man should be charged for murder for shooting the gun-wielding maniac who has just broken into his home. -- I too have a dream. I dream of a world where people let actions take place before they judge them. The alliances fighting NPO&friends should only be called monsters if and when they perform monstrous acts. They have not so far, so I say let's see what they get up to after this very necessary war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted July 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Damaging them is not the same as destroying. If we intended to destroy them, you wouldn't see terms on the table. I see that as Karma's attempt to maintain the illusion of decency. This thread has served its purpose here, really. It's deteriorated in post quality, all the arguments have already been presented. I'm going to cease to post in it. For God's sake, Karma, at the end of the day... do what is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Well, I didn't. That is why I said it is important for us to do what we "think" is right. And I said we, because I share the values that Karma held at the beginning of this war, the values that defined Karma. I would argue that given the radical difference between what you think are good surrender terms and what they think are good surrender terms, you don't hold as nearly much of the same "values" as Karma as you think you do. And just in case: to argue that you did hold the same values but they've lost them is the height of arrogance. Who are you to tell them what they did or didn't believe going into this war? "They've changed and they don't even know it! But I know. I know." More likely is the fact that when you read their words you assumed certain things, and are now upset because your assumptions about what their beliefs ("values") are turning out to be mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Wallace Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 You are going to start to piss off the rest of the world with a continued GRL... With all due respect, the "rest of the world" consists of more than Frostbite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) With all due respect, the "rest of the world" consists of more than Frostbite. With all due respect I have even seen members of your own alliance begin to question such so perhaps it is you that holds on to irrational views that a person's view depends on their bloc or alliance. That is rather ignorant in scope. Edited July 9, 2009 by HeinousOne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I don't understand this. I'm hearing all these people talking about how NPO deserves peace, deserves light terms, and everytime, I just wonder, why?What have they done to be let off easy? Oh, it doesn't matter what they did or didn't do. What matters is what the terms say about those giving them. You see, in this world when you say "I'm not really into beating people up for no reason" what you're *really* saying is "I'm a pacifist and I'm not allowed to throw a punch, even to defend myself." So when a group of people say "we're not going to give draconian terms", what they're *really* saying is "We're not going to give anyone terms that take more than about a week to pay off, no matter what they did!" When everyone realizes the rightness of this, then we'll truly be living in paradise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 This thread has served its purpose here, really. It's deteriorated in post quality, all the arguments have already been presented. I'm going to cease to post in it. Ha, what a surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Wallace Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 With all due respect I have even seen members of your own alliance begin to question such so perhaps it is you that holds on to irrational views that a person's view depends on their bloc or alliance. That is rather ignorant in scope. My statement was in reference to the massive amount of posts by persons who are tied to Frostbite in the last 48 hours in regards to the current terms offered by Karma. I've yet to see any posts by any Viridians who completely disagree with the terms offered. I've only seen posts that hint at a willingness to negotiate further in order to reach an agreement. Believe me, if the "Fickle Masses" as some in certain circles of power like to call them decided to participate in these discussions, we would see a greater cry for NPO blood. Maybe you should try to look at this topic from the point of view of those who've been in the trenches for the last ten or so weeks. Do not even begin to infer that we who have been directly involved in this conflict are ignorant. The view from your ivory tower is not as clear as you think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Mango Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I agree with the OP. Karma championed itself as the voice of change when the war first began. Now they are trying to dole out the harshest peace terms we have ever seen. Violence begets violence. It's like spanking a child for hitting. Are you really teaching them anything else but violence? An old lady drives home slowly in a snow storm. Behind her a young man impatiently tailgates her and flashes his high beams out of frustration. He waits for his moment to pass. He floors the car and whips around her but loses control on the icy road and goes in the ditch. The old lady slowly pulls over to the side of the road. The young man, with his car hopelessly stuck, steps out of his vehicle. The old lady opens her door and tells the young man to get in. The young man sheepishly climbs up out of the ditch and with his head down enters the car. "I'm sorry", the young man says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." At least you realized they're monsters. edit: An old lady drives home slowly in a snow storm. Behind her a young man impatiently tailgates her and flashes his high beams out of frustration. He waits for his moment to pass. He floors the car and whips around her but loses control on the icy road and goes in the ditch. The old lady slowly pulls over to the side of the road. The young man, with his car hopelessly stuck, steps out of his vehicle. The old lady opens her door and tells the young man to get in. The young man sheepishly climbs up out of the ditch and with his head down enters the car. "I'm sorry", the young man says. lol Edited July 9, 2009 by lebubu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts