Sir Paul Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I'm pretty sure that ODN isn't going to see a cent of reparation money from you as we never were in direct combat with the NPO during the Karma War, unfortunately.[edit] Aw, crap. Sarcasm. [/edit] I was under the impression that the New Pacific Order fought an unjust war against the Orange Defense Network back in the day, and then again when ODN violated terms and attacked the Order. Although I know the money can never make you whole again, I hope that some of our pennance will find its way into your pocket to help correct the historic injustice my former Emperor committed against your people. The terms you find yourself under are not meant to be used for minor or even major wrongs. They were specifically meant to suit the incredibly large amount of crimes that your alliance committed over a very extended time frame. Is everyone else in this world innocent of crimes, minor and major alike? Heck no! But pretending that their crimes are the same as your crimes is intellectually dishonest. I find it's best to start with high terms and the dial it back to something more reasonable. It's how these things work. I mean, I'm not calling for their destruction and then dailing it down to crippling. Anyways, since I'm sure Karma will fight with honor and not issue draconian terms, 110% of their techworth along with some permanent terms to ensure better behavior is probably where we'll end up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Sarcastic posts Your sarcasm impresses only the weak minded and you'd be better off without it. Edited July 25, 2009 by Ragashingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I find it's best to start with high terms and the dial it back to something more reasonable. It's how these things work. I mean, I'm not calling for their destruction and then dailing it down to crippling. Anyways, since I'm sure Karma will fight with honor and not issue draconian terms, 110% of their techworth along with some permanent terms to ensure better behavior is probably where we'll end up. Or we could have opted for an old Pacifican favorite, requiring your disbandment and ZIing those who refuse to leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Or we could have opted for an old Pacifican favorite, requiring your disbandment and ZIing those who refuse to leave. You could but then you actually would be as bad as them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Your sarcasm impresses only the weak minded and you'd be better off without it. You'd be hard-pressed to convince anyone that I am "weak-minded". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 The fact that you think the NPO is going to be thankful no matter what, they wouldnt be thankful even if they got white peace. If the NPO was not crushed it was because you guys fumbled the ball when it came to staggars. Stop trying to pass out the blame to others, that surely is going to not score you and yours any points. Yes, clearly they had nations who were in peace mode for the whole war because of dropped staggers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I would hope that we could move on and get back to actually playing the game and stop with all this false moralizing sophistry crap. Apparently now I'm hearing that everyone is afraid of instigating anything for fear of upsetting our precious fragile little balance of power. Some are afraid of being rolled by some other group, and some are apparently still afraid of the NPO eating all of their babies. All this fear, and all this glorification of "stability" is terrible. It's the exact same thing that led us here in the first place, and it's the one thing that this conflict should have done away with. Instigation is good. Unfortunately the NSO isn't powerful enough yet to pick up the slack in this area, and you've just successfully beaten down most of the people who were principally instigating things for the last year or two. So stop cowering, pick up the ball, and start playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I would hope that we could move on and get back to actually playing the game and stop with all this false moralizing sophistry crap. Apparently now I'm hearing that everyone is afraid of instigating anything for fear of upsetting our precious fragile little balance of power. Some are afraid of being rolled by some other group, and some are apparently still afraid of the NPO eating all of their babies. All this fear, and all this glorification of "stability" is terrible. It's the exact same thing that led us here in the first place, and it's the one thing that this conflict should have done away with. Instigation is good. Unfortunately the NSO isn't powerful enough yet to pick up the slack in this area, and you've just successfully beaten down most of the people who were principally instigating things for the last year or two. So stop cowering, pick up the ball, and start playing. I think drama tends to develop naturally rather than there being any need for certain alliances or groups of alliances to artificially generate drama. The Cyberverse is in a transition phase at the moment so it is probably best to wait and see what happens as alliances settle into the new political environment rather than call for someone to do something stupid to create an incident artificially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I think drama tends to develop naturally rather than there being any need for certain alliances or groups of alliances to artificially generate drama.The Cyberverse is in a transition phase at the moment so it is probably best to wait and see what happens as alliances settle into the new political environment rather than call for someone to do something stupid to create an incident artificially. But Im bored noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow... /pout Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I think drama tends to develop naturally rather than there being any need for certain alliances or groups of alliances to artificially generate drama.The Cyberverse is in a transition phase at the moment so it is probably best to wait and see what happens as alliances settle into the new political environment rather than call for someone to do something stupid to create an incident artificially. That's all fine, except when everyone is trying to be a good guy and so many people are still in the same exact mindset that got us into this mess in the first place. Drama can happen naturally, but how people respond to it and handle is up to them. People have been conditioned and trained to prize stability and security above all else, and that naturally halts conflict. There's no reason for people to be afraid of being destroyed by anyone, whether it be SF, Citadel, or the NPO. So there's no need to limit goals or ambitions because of that fear, and there's certainly no reason to base actual policies and decisions on that fear. People still shouldn't be stupid, but they shouldn't bind themselves into positions they don't like simply to avoid stepping on someone's toes. And that is the sort of mentality that a lot of people still seem to be operating under. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) That's all fine, except when everyone is trying to be a good guy and so many people are still in the same exact mindset that got us into this mess in the first place. Drama can happen naturally, but how people respond to it and handle is up to them. People have been conditioned and trained to prize stability and security above all else, and that naturally halts conflict. There's no reason for people to be afraid of being destroyed by anyone, whether it be SF, Citadel, or the NPO. So there's no need to limit goals or ambitions because of that fear, and there's certainly no reason to base actual policies and decisions on that fear. People still shouldn't be stupid, but they shouldn't bind themselves into positions they don't like simply to avoid stepping on someone's toes. And that is the sort of mentality that a lot of people still seem to be operating under. A large war has only just ended. It is a bit like a child crying on December 26th that there will be no more Christmases ever again because no one is putting up Christmas decorations anymore, to be complaining of a lack of conflict so soon after a major war. Edited July 25, 2009 by Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) I think drama tends to develop naturally rather than there being any need for certain alliances or groups of alliances to artificially generate drama.The Cyberverse is in a transition phase at the moment so it is probably best to wait and see what happens as alliances settle into the new political environment rather than call for someone to do something stupid to create an incident artificially. Indeed. Look at CN history. There are several examples of things changing drastically because some new group or person came on the scene. Alliances have switched sides, blocs meant for one thing have suddenly been subverted for a completely opposite purpose and so on. Things have never remained stable around here for very long regardless if someone is trying to provoke others or not. Edited July 25, 2009 by Ragashingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 A large war has only just ended. It is a bit like a child crying on December 26th that there will be no more Christmases ever again because no one is putting up Christmas decorations anymore, to be complaining of a lack of conflict so soon after a major war. True, though this war hasn't been global for quite a while. That's like saying WotC ended in May because Vox didn't get peace until then. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 The terms you find yourself under are not meant to be used for minor or even major wrongs. They were specifically meant to suit the incredibly large amount of crimes that your alliance committed over a very extended time frame. Is everyone else in this world innocent of crimes, minor and major alike? Heck no! But pretending that their crimes are the same as your crimes is intellectually dishonest. As we have learned, it's very easy to turn small crimes into big crimes. Plus, you can pin the blame for the now-large crime on whoever you want! Huzzah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 A large war has only just ended. It is a bit like a child crying on December 26th that there will be no more Christmases ever again because no one is putting up Christmas decorations anymore, to be complaining of a lack of conflict so soon after a major war. People have been posting in this and other threads about how everyone is locked into this new balance of power and it's going to prevent anyone from stretching out. I was responding to those believes and the attitude that underpins them. Yes, conflict will happen one way or another, but there are still too many people trying to continue the same politics of stability for any lasting dynamism to seem likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 As we have learned, it's very easy to turn small crimes into big crimes. Plus, you can pin the blame for the now-large crime on whoever you want! Huzzah! Well you've lost me. What are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 People have been posting in this and other threads about how everyone is locked into this new balance of power and it's going to prevent anyone from stretching out. I was responding to those believes and the attitude that underpins them. Yes, conflict will happen one way or another, but there are still too many people trying to continue the same politics of stability for any lasting dynamism to seem likely. Of course people strive for stability. We all joined alliances to have a stable source of protection from enemies and rogues after all. Stability in an inherent part of CN under the alliance system. I do think that the system of stability no matter the cost to others has been done away with for the time being however. I highly doubt we'll see Frostbite or Citadel or anyone else crubstomping unaligned alliances or backstabbing their allies for instance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Yes, clearly they had nations who were in peace mode for the whole war because of dropped staggers. Uh, yeah so did quite a few other alliances on both sides of the fight. That doesn't mean there weren't alot of blown staggars and considering you decided to say something for the most part unrelated to my actual statement I can only assume you could not deny my statement so you just rattled off some other factoid in a hopeful attempt that it might somehow refute that which I said. You know, its ok to admit that it was a pretty hefty blown stagger and is something quite a few of the alliances fighting NPO should probably work on for future wars. You guys still won you know so it is not like its going to make you look bad. Why are people so fearful of admitting when something didnt go according to plan? You still adapted and overcame thus you won. It wasn't a perfect war though so there is always something you can work on. You needn't try and fabricate a seriously half $@! response just because someone points out something that didnt quite work right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Well you've lost me. What are you talking about? You took part in the Karma war The Karma War demanded hundreds of thousands of tech and billions of dollars Therefore, you demanded hundreds of thousands of tech and billions of dollars in reps Therefore someone can ask the same from STA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I would hope that we could move on and get back to actually playing the game and stop with all this false moralizing sophistry crap. That. What is so wrong about declaring war on someone you don't like, or just someone who is standing in your way? What's wrong with an age in which everyone strives for the throne, and only one alliance can emerge the victor for a while? Is that so "wrong" and "immoral" to play a game with the actual intent of winning? Honestly, when have you ever seen a kid buy a video game and stop at level 3 because he feels he's slaughtering too many computer character thingamajigs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankees Empire Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 That. What is so wrong about declaring war on someone you don't like, or just someone who is standing in your way? What's wrong with an age in which everyone strives for the throne, and only one alliance can emerge the victor for a while? Is that so "wrong" and "immoral" to play a game with the actual intent of winning? Honestly, when have you ever seen a kid buy a video game and stop at level 3 because he feels he's slaughtering too many computer character thingamajigs? I refuse to play Call of Duty because I am a conscientious objector Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 People have been posting in this and other threads about how everyone is locked into this new balance of power and it's going to prevent anyone from stretching out. I was responding to those believes and the attitude that underpins them. Yes, conflict will happen one way or another, but there are still too many people trying to continue the same politics of stability for any lasting dynamism to seem likely. People have said that after most major wars. Christmas always seems to arrive afterwards. True, though this war hasn't been global for quite a while. That's like saying WotC ended in May because Vox didn't get peace until then. -Bama It still has not ended and even taking what you refer to into account, I still believe a natural progression politically is much more interesting than people trying to create drama for drama's sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 You took part in the Karma warThe Karma War demanded hundreds of thousands of tech and billions of dollars Therefore, you demanded hundreds of thousands of tech and billions of dollars in reps Therefore someone can ask the same from STA. That's idiotic. Your got harsh reps because you did a whole lot of bad things. Logically someone who didn't do a whole lot of bad things would not get harsh reps. You seem to think the NPO's terms are the new standard. They're not. They are the exception and only exist because the of the NPO's consistent long term use of things like curbstomps and viceroys. That. What is so wrong about declaring war on someone you don't like, or just someone who is standing in your way? What's wrong with an age in which everyone strives for the throne, and only one alliance can emerge the victor for a while? Is that so "wrong" and "immoral" to play a game with the actual intent of winning? Honestly, when have you ever seen a kid buy a video game and stop at level 3 because he feels he's slaughtering too many computer character thingamajigs? It gets wrong when it goes to far. I'm all for conflict and blasting the heck out of people who disagree with me. I just don't want to see us get back to viceroys and curbstomps and eternal wars again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 It still has not ended and even taking what you refer to into account, I still believe a natural progression politically is much more interesting than people trying to create drama for drama's sake. Agreed. From a sheer drama-llama standpoint I'm really glad the TOOL-Athens war didn't happen... It would have deprived us of the long intrigue leading up to the next war. Though I disagree that any drama happens naturally. Sure people don't say "gee, let's go make drama" (I don't think much major drama has ever started like that... Few alliance leaders are willing to gamble their alliances for the sake of drama alone), but drama happens because someone does something, and someone else opposes it. It doesn't just happen, someone has to do something and someone has to oppose it. Every global war has been a struggle for power on a global scale (though Karma did not take this power for themselves, they were still fighting to take it from someone else). If no one strives for global power, we won't get many global wars. Never has a global war "just happened" over some minor dispute (though Athens-TOOL could have changed that precedent). -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 That's idiotic. Your got harsh reps because you did a whole lot of bad things. Logically someone who didn't do a whole lot of bad things would not get harsh reps. You seem to think the NPO's terms are the new standard. They're not. They are the exception and only exist because the of the NPO's consistent long term use of things like curbstomps and viceroys. It gets wrong when it goes to far. I'm all for conflict and blasting the heck out of people who disagree with me. I just don't want to see us get back to viceroys and curbstomps and eternal wars again. It is idiotic. Sadly, it is exactly the idiocy used against us, and someday, you. 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.