I have a dream.

[Uhtred]

This is just ludicrous, and I wish you people would stop making stupid accusations.

After claiming the terms offered to the NPO are the harshest in history you have no room to complain about stupid accusations.

From what I have heard, Legion and ODN agreed to white peace with NPO (save Moldavi's little speech) simply because they could not win the war. They had stated that their aim was to destroy NPO and they would have done so if they could, but they simply could not. Therefore, there was no error on their part.

You heard wrong. Legion pulled out of that war because the NPO told them what they wanted to hear and Legion believed it.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Uhtred

[Gn0xious Jr]

To you and the others saying how you have to be in the trenches to see this clearly, that is such a load of !@#$. Those in the trenches are the farthest ones from seeing anything clearly.

I can agree with the above,

I fought hard for 7 days, then there were no more targets... They were either out of my range, in PM, or had full war slots... Those fighting currently are the lower level nations, some very new to CN, Planet Bob, and her politics.

I can say that I don't give a damn about the reps, and I don't want a single dirty Dong or Tech from NPO. (yes I said "dirty Dong").

I don't think that the terms offered, what seems like ages ago, are un-livable. Hell, almost half of my own CN life has been rebuilding after paying reps... The "livable" and "reasonable" terms are different with anyone you talk to. Someone is going to complain until their blue in the face regardless. You can't please everyone all the time. You can please some people some of the time. I also think the longer this debate continues, the longer NPO dwindles on seeking peace, the harder it will be for them to pay any sort of reps.

[HeinousOne]

9 months is 2 months less than GATO's terms. So apparently the maths aren't quite as self evident as I thought.

Yet another using NPO acts as the grading scale for all future acts of similiar nature. Let us all come to the realization that we should thank you guys for removing the handprint of the NPO from the world.

[HeinousOne]

Did you really ... ? To Cataduanes? ...

Yes I did, I called him out on exact words. I did not insult his character as you seem to wish to infer with your unnecessary short defensive statement. My challenge still stands, would you care to take it up for him great protector of Cataduanes?

[Cataduanes]

Oh come on now, provide some logistical support and point out whom these sympathizers are that you said were in this thread. Be a man who stands by his words and doesn't backpedal at the first questioning of such words.

I will directly ask this then, do you consider me an NPO sympathizer simply because I find one single term in the original terms to be horrendous and should not be kept in the terms due to the precedent it shall make for future wars?

Well i think its obvious to everyone who has read the posts here who is on who's side, i am sure you have enough comprehension skills to work that out for yourself or do you need me to hold your hand as well? Your attempt to goad me is good but not good enough

I could not care less about whom you sympathize with but its clear we are are at opposite ends of the spectrum on the subject of the offered terms, that is fact. Now if you take offense at me personally then spit it out and get the venom out of your system...you'll feel alot better for it.

[potato]

Yes I did, I called him out on exact words. I did not insult his character as you seem to wish to infer with your unnecessary short defensive statement. My challenge still stands, would you care to take it up for him great protector of Cataduanes?

If you want to talk to Cata only, use PMs. Otherwise, drop the attitude and be prepared to have people quoting you, even if you don't want to.

[NoFish]

Still waiting for you to explain how these are the "harshest terms in history" Francesca.

[HeinousOne]

Well i think its obvious to everyone who has read the posts here who is on who's side, i am sure you have enough comprehension skills to work that out for yourself or do you need me to hold your hand as well? Your attempt to goad me is good but not good enough

I could not care less about whom you sympathize with but its clear we are are at opposite ends of the spectrum on the subject of the offered terms, that is fact. Now if you take offense at me personally then spit it out and get the venom out of your system...you'll feel alot better for it.

Personally I have no quarrel with you but once again you are wrong about me as many others seem to be. I dont think the reparation amounts are all that heavy at all considering what NPO has done in the past. I thought they were kind of light. There is one SINGLE term I do not like because I think it sets a horrible precedent. Just look how the NPO terms they have handed out have set a precedent that You guys that hate them are still willing to follow.

Your very own desires and terms handed to NPO verify this likely course of future events. Get rid of the two week term of attacks after surrender as that is not really surrender. It is a horrible term and that is all I am against. You can continue to try to paint this as us being on opposite sides but that is simply propaganda.

Perhaps it is I that is giving you the chance to get the venom out of Your system. I am not in the fight and I am not the one pressing for a particular term that is meant to drive nations out of the NPO.

I will pose the same question to you that I have asked others.

Let's say ODN was getting blasted and during the war part of your alliance's strategy was getting people into peacemode so they could then counterattack. What if ODN government (I dont know if you are in it so just say for this question that you are not) came to you and asked you to continue fighting for two weeks after ODN accepts surrender terms. When you ask why they tell you so that ODN can be spared. What would you tell them? Honestly.

If you want to talk to Cata only, use PMs. Otherwise, drop the attitude and be prepared to have people quoting you, even if you don't want to.

I am perfectly fine with you quoting me which should be obvious by me inviting you to continue on with your defense of him. As far as me dropping the attitude, that could be said to an awful lot of people posting these days. Alot of that would be dropped naturally if this war ended.

Edited July 9, 2009 by HeinousOne

[Haflinger]

Still waiting for you to explain how these are the "harshest terms in history" Francesca.

They combine features from a number of different terms settlements, and add in the whole fighting after terms are agreed thing to it.

You say they're not harsher than GATO. Well, what was done to GATO was harsh, don't get me wrong, but they didn't pay any reps - just tech deals.

[Francesca]

Still waiting for you to explain how these are the "harshest terms in history" Francesca.

*Among* the harshest terms in history.

[NoFish]

They combine features from a number of different terms settlements, and add in the whole fighting after terms are agreed thing to it.

You say they're not harsher than GATO. Well, what was done to GATO was harsh, don't get me wrong, but they didn't pay any reps - just tech deals.

So you're saying that getting a Viceroy would be better than the terms NPO is getting now? I just want to make sure this is clear before I start arguing it.

*Among* the harshest terms in history.

Might wanna edit the OP to reflect that, 'cause it ain't what you said.

Edited July 9, 2009 by NoFish

[VIdiot the Great]

Yet another using NPO acts as the grading scale for all future acts of similiar nature. Let us all come to the realization that we should thank you guys for removing the handprint of the NPO from the world.

I am merely trying to ascertain what the 'objective scale' is, since no one seems to be able to provide an answer to that question.

Hint: No one can provide that answer because we live in a world of gray, not black and white.

Oh, if you'd bothered to read my posts, you'd see that I thought the GATO terms sucked. As I thought the TSI and Echelon terms sucked. My point is I'm not couching what I believe are 'good' or 'bad' terms in language such as 'objective' and 'right' or 'wrong.' Such are terms of absolute. There are very few absolutes in this world, or any other for that matter.

In short, don't tell me to do the maths when it comes to subjective reasoning. It's an attempt to couch subjective concepts in terms of certain objectivity in an arena where it doesn't exist.

Regards,

VI

[HeinousOne]

So you're saying that getting a Viceroy would be better than the terms NPO is getting now? I just want to make sure this is clear before I start arguing it.

Might wanna edit the OP to reflect that, 'cause it ain't what you said.

What don't you understand about people thinking that a particular term is horrendous and that no amount of comparing it to worse terms can make it otherwise?

If anyone is to say that overall the terms are the worst ever I would be right there with you saying no they are not but that is not the point. The point of all this was to change the way business is done. This is simply more of the same and it isn't even working. That is the biggest point. If NPO accepted then all this wouldn't matter but they have said they will not accept terms if that particular term is involved.

The question I ask to you is why can't your illustrious leader Xiphosis with all the praise and glory heaped upon him help get the situation resolved with some sort of similiar term that the NPO will not stand against.

There ARE other ways to reach a similiar affect, are they telling you otherwise?

[Francesca]

Might wanna edit the OP to reflect that, 'cause it ain't what you said.

I dont think it's important to argue pedantics here, because the point is that the terms offered to NPO were harsh to the extreme.

[Cataduanes]

Personally I have no quarrel with you but once again you are wrong about me as many others seem to be. I dont think the reparation amounts are all that heavy at all considering what NPO has done in the past. I thought they were kind of light. There is one SINGLE term I do not like because I think it sets a horrible precedent. Just look how the NPO terms they have handed out have set a precedent that You guys that hate them are still willing to follow.

Your very own desires and terms handed to NPO verify this likely course of future events. Get rid of the two week term of attacks after surrender as that is not really surrender. It is a horrible term and that is all I am against. You can continue to try to paint this as us being on opposite sides but that is simply propaganda.

Perhaps it is I that is giving you the chance to get the venom out of Your system. I am not in the fight and I am not the one pressing for a particular term that is meant to drive nations out of the NPO.

I will pose the same question to you that I have asked others.

Let's say ODN was getting blasted and during the war part of your alliance's strategy was getting people into peacemode so they could then counterattack. What if ODN government (I dont know if you are in it so just say for this question that you are not) came to you and asked you to continue fighting for two weeks after ODN accepts surrender terms. When you ask why they tell you so that ODN can be spared. What would you tell them? Honestly.

If such a scenario came to pass and as a footsoldier i am told to fight on beyond an official peace and take two more weeks of licks then i would say (honestly) 'no problem', if that is what is needed for survival of my community then no price is too high....if it means ODN would be spared then so be it, i am for one not afraid of war in this game and i have never flinched from throwing my nation into the fire but thats just me, i can be a dumb $%&@ like that sometimes. But i see your point about setting precedence and i hate to admit it but i do concur to an extent...what would you suggest Karma do to assuage their concerns that led to that 'contentious' clause being included in the terms?

You say they're not harsher than GATO. Well, what was done to GATO was harsh, don't get me wrong, but they didn't pay any reps - just tech deals.

Yeah well there was not much left of GATO's remaining members to pay off any sort of reps, we had as Umbrae Noctae put it 'paid in blood'.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Cataduanes

[HeinousOne]

I am merely trying to ascertain what the 'objective scale' is, since no one seems to be able to provide an answer to that question.

Hint: No one can provide that answer because we live in a world of gray, not black and white.

Oh, if you'd bothered to read my posts, you'd see that I thought the GATO terms sucked. As I thought the TSI and Echelon terms sucked. My point is I'm not couching what I believe are 'good' or 'bad' terms in language such as 'objective' and 'right' or 'wrong.' Such are terms of absolute. There are very few absolutes in this world, or any other for that matter.

In short, don't tell me to do the maths when it comes to subjective reasoning. It's an attempt to couch subjective concepts in terms of certain objectivity in an arena where it doesn't exist.

Regards,

VI

Ok sir, all that blah blah blah gets you the question I have posed to many and yet none are willing to respond to.

Lets say FACE was in a war and you were massively overwhelmed. Due to such your government began ordering nations to seek peacemode when they could get it in order to rebuild for possible counter assaults. Then while you are rebuilding and waiting to do such your government comes to you and says they are accepting surrender terms and due to such you will have to jump out of peace mode and fight for two weeks. Would you ask them why? What if they said it was in order to save FACE. (oh I like that) What would you say to that? How would you react?

Once again, I do not know your position in your AA. You may be a leader but the purpose of this question is to see things from the perspective of the member nation that will be asked to do such by alliance leaders if NPO leaders were to go along with that one particular term.

[mattski133]

Victory happens BEFORE the terms are handed out. Victory has already been achieved. Is your entire argument based upon hype statements? You claim NPO is so horrible yet you use their actions as a measuring stick for yours as if that makes any sense at all.

Our goals have not all been achieved, so Victory is still unattained. Terms are still being worked on, from what I've seen, and the war still rages in the lower ranks.

"Well, NPO did this so its ok if we do just a little bit less".

We only gave out actual terms to a handful of alliances, and potentially "harsh" terms to two of them in Echelon and NPO. The NPO destroyed or downright took over entire alliances in the past. I have to assume that you understand the difference in serving punitive terms for terms they've imposed in the past, and removing their government or forcing them to disband with no alternative?

That's Karma. By its definition that wipes the slate clean. If NPO does come back for revenge, it'll be them starting the aggression and the cycle all over again, not a continuance of this one. And, for the record, we're not afraid of them. We just crushed them at their strongest.

To you and the others saying how you have to be in the trenches to see this clearly, that is such a load of !@#$. Those in the trenches are the farthest ones from seeing anything clearly. All you can see right now is red as your personal bloodlust for vengeance is certainly not conducive to clear thinking.

I find it absolutely helarious that you think it is "backing down" to change a single term. You know you can replace it with something else. Remove NPO ability to sign treaties for a year while under protection. You keep the leaders from doing what they have done to cause all the damage.

We've been pretty flexible with the NPO considering how flexible they were when their boot was on their opponents necks. I don't hate them as much as others, and to be honest, NPO should be somewhat relieved they are not facing a panel of those they've wronged in the past, instead of Sparta, VE, and FOK.

Things could be much, much worse for them right now.

Oh, and please respond to this with your usual "must be an NPO sympathizer" response as that will be most amusing to see you actually say that about me.

I can't get a good read on what Frostbite is doing right now. You're not sympathizing with NPO, but you're certainly not helping Karma out either. I guess time will tell, huh?

[mhawk]

So you're saying that getting a Viceroy would be better than the terms NPO is getting now? I just want to make sure this is clear before I start arguing it.

Might wanna edit the OP to reflect that, 'cause it ain't what you said.

Did you condeem Rok when they did it?

[HeinousOne]

If such a scenario came to pass and as a footsoldier i am told to fight on beyond an official peace and take two more weeks of licks then i would say (honestly) 'no problem', if that is what is needed for survival of my community then no price is too high....if it means ODN would be spared then so be it, i am for one not afraid of war in this game and i have never flinched from throwing my nation into the fire but thats just me, i can be a dumb $%&@ like that sometimes. But i see your point about setting precedence and i hate to admit it but i do concur to an extent...what would you suggest Karma do to assuage their concerns that led to that 'contentious' clause being included in the terms?

I am so glad you ask and before I say such let me commend you for your particular loyalty to your alliance. I will respect that, although if you were a bank nation and were vital to the rebuilding effort of your alliance you might think otherwise. Then again, if you were your alliance might not be so willing to sacrifice you either.

Anyways, on to my suggestion. The real point of that two week term is to make it so the NPO does not rise up in the near future, correct? That can definately be done in other ways that does not cause the unneeded destruction of individual nations. What you do is you target the power of their leaders. What power am I talking about? This is NPO, come on, of course I am talking about Diplomatic Power.

You offer in replacement of the two weeks worth of attacks, them agreeing to sign Zero military treaties for a year. During that year they will be assigned protectors that possibly they agree upon. For an entire year then as our blocs begin to square off due to us all being rather equal in power no one will be able to approach NPO in order to try and gain a numerical advantage in the future. You in essence take them out of the game for an entire year while they rebuild. If it is going to take atleast 9 months to do so then this is no big deal when it comes to the survival of the alliance but it is a Huge deal when it comes to disallowing them to project their power in the near future like they did in the past.

That would be my suggestion, stop focusing on their individual nations and find a way to hamstring their leaders from doing what they have done in the past that brought this War on.

[HeinousOne]

Our goals have not all been achieved, so Victory is still unattained. Terms are still being worked on, from what I've seen, and the war still rages in the lower ranks.

We only gave out actual terms to a handful of alliances, and potentially "harsh" terms to two of them in Echelon and NPO. The NPO destroyed or downright took over entire alliances in the past. I have to assume that you understand the difference in serving punitive terms for terms they've imposed in the past, and removing their government or forcing them to disband with no alternative?

That's Karma. By its definition that wipes the slate clean. If NPO does come back for revenge, it'll be them starting the aggression and the cycle all over again, not a continuance of this one. And, for the record, we're not afraid of them. We just crushed them at their strongest.

We've been pretty flexible with the NPO considering how flexible they were when their boot was on their opponents necks. I don't hate them as much as others, and to be honest, NPO should be somewhat relieved they are not facing a panel of those they've wronged in the past, instead of Sparta, VE, and FOK.

Things could be much, much worse for them right now.

I can't get a good read on what Frostbite is doing right now. You're not sympathizing with NPO, but you're certainly not helping Karma out either. I guess time will tell, huh?

Well, cant say I agree with all of the above but it is all said in a respectable fashion so I will just say that we shall disagree on some of the above.

As to Frostbite I am not a leader so I cannot really say but I dont think we are doing anything right now. Just some of us individuals, yes that includes leaders, voicing our personal beliefs on what is going on. Yes, we are doing this as outsiders and I personally think that would give our arguments credence. We for the most part are certainly not NPO lovers or sympathizers and some of us used to fight for the Karmic ideal. To me that is about as neutral and unbiased of an opinion as you will find in all of this.

[Gn0xious Jr]

You offer in replacement of the two weeks worth of attacks, them agreeing to sign Zero military treaties for a year. During that year they will be assigned protectors that possibly they agree upon. For an entire year then as our blocs begin to square off due to us all being rather equal in power no one will be able to approach NPO in order to try and gain a numerical advantage in the future. You in essence take them out of the game for an entire year while they rebuild. If it is going to take atleast 9 months to do so then this is no big deal when it comes to the survival of the alliance but it is a Huge deal when it comes to disallowing them to project their power in the near future like they did in the past.

i like this...

also, instead of requiring 2 weeks of war post surrender, require de-com of military wonders... that'd likely cripple the military force for at least a few months, depending on how many wonders they have.

[HeinousOne]

i like this...

also, instead of requiring 2 weeks of war post surrender, require de-com of military wonders... that'd likely cripple the military force for at least a few months, depending on how many wonders they have.

Yeah, it is definately a suggestion that the Karmic leaders fighting NPO can work on. The pathway of 2 weeks of war post surrender is blocked, it isnt going to happen. Thus a new pathway must be found. My suggestion doesn't have to be used, it is just a suggestion but something else needs to be written in. That isnt backing down to NPO, that is keeping them from making you back down.

[King DrunkWino]

I can't get a good read on what Frostbite is doing right now. You're not sympathizing with NPO, but you're certainly not helping Karma out either. I guess time will tell, huh?

I know this has already been answered, but this is the kind of thing that needs to be said.

He's not Frostbite nor is he STA for that matter. He's a member of each but in no way is he the sum total representative of their thoughts and views. He's an individual giving his individual views. The entire "well, one of your members said X so, of course, your whole alliance/bloc must feel the same way," line of thought is one that needs to die already.

[Gn0xious Jr]

Yeah, it is definately a suggestion that the Karmic leaders fighting NPO can work on. The pathway of 2 weeks of war post surrender is blocked, it isnt going to happen. Thus a new pathway must be found. My suggestion doesn't have to be used, it is just a suggestion but something else needs to be written in. That isnt backing down to NPO, that is keeping them from making you back down.

again i agree... good gawd what is happening to the CN Forums?

[VIdiot the Great]

Ok sir, all that blah blah blah gets you the question I have posed to many and yet none are willing to respond to.

All the 'blah blah blah' is you conceding the point that there's no objective scale. As to your question, it seems to presume that I support the terms given to the NPO. I have not stated one way or the other whether I do or not. Nor will I at this time.

But I'll play along.

Lets say FACE was in a war and you were massively overwhelmed. Due to such your government began ordering nations to seek peacemode when they could get it in order to rebuild for possible counter assaults. Then while you are rebuilding and waiting to do such your government comes to you and says they are accepting surrender terms and due to such you will have to jump out of peace mode and fight for two weeks. Would you ask them why? What if they said it was in order to save FACE. (oh I like that) What would you say to that? How would you react?

Fortunately, the situation is not as hypothetical as you may think. During the NoV war, FS was faced by overwhelming odds. Certain nations were in peace mode in order to rebuild, and of course we took abuse for that. Anyway, it would piss me off no end if those were the terms offered to ME. Note I said 'me' because it's a subjective call. If I was a nation requested to do so? Yeah, I'd ask, but I'd do it.

Once again, I do not know your position in your AA. You may be a leader but the purpose of this question is to see things from the perspective of the member nation that will be asked to do such by alliance leaders if NPO leaders were to go along with that one particular term.

I do happen to be a co-Triumvir of FACE, but I think I can sit in someone else's shoes. If it were my alliance asking me to come out of peace mode, I'd do it, at great risk to my citizens, to be sure, but solid in the knowledge that I was fighting beside my friends [OOC - since they're imaginary citizens, this is not a tough call for me] and hope peace could be worked out. But that's what I'd do, and typically, I don't have the concern about attempting to remain a world power after the war, as I'm certainly not part of an alliance that was a world power before the war. In short, each alliance has to decide for themselves what is 'harsh,' 'too harsh,' or 'reasonable' based upon their goals and desires. As I mentioned, there is no objective scale because no two alliances have exactly the same set of concerns, desires, goals, personnel, etc.

VI