Letum Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 You know sethB, if you are just going to pass the tech we send your nation off to MK, you might as well ask us to send it to them directly >_> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 You're going at this from the viewpoint that alliances came up with numbers that they wanted, and then we summed a total from those. In fact, it was the opposite. As a front, yes this includes those not taking reps as well, we agreed that 10 bil and 350k tech was a right amount. Actually, myself, I felt that the monetary portion was rather light, taking into consideration that two weeks of war would do well over 3 billion in damages to NPO. However, beyond 10 billion, and especially because the packets of money and tech are separate, a practical limit was reached. Once we decided on the total amount NPO should pay, we then allotted it. How much goes to each alliance is immaterial, as long as the totals don't exceed a practical ability to pay along the time frame of the terms.We decided what we wanted NPO to lose, not what each alliance wanted. No, actually I was going from the assumption that you guys came up with a number but didn't divvy it up until now. Which is backwards from the way it should have been. Thank you for proving my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sethb Posted August 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 You know sethB, if you are just going to pass the tech we send your nation off to MK, you might as well ask us to send it to them directly >_> You know Letum, there is such a thing as finishing tech deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) The difference between colloquial connotation and euphemism is immense. Once again, literally. Are you trying to say that we honored our treaty with the intent of procuring money from this venture? That would be the only way extortion would apply, when accounting for the connotation. In the case of the above, yes, reparations would be a euphemism for money extorted. Being as the motivation for getting involved in this war was not the procurement of money and tech (we do still incur an overall loss), accounting for the connotation, extortion does not apply. So, in our case, reparations is not a euphemism for anything. Also, might I add, that when discussion opened on NPO's terms, we received unconditional support, for anything we came up with, from TOP. Edit: In regards to your add-on, it asserts connotations make usage incorrect. Languages evolve, which you're not accounting for. No, actually I was going from the assumption that you guys came up with a number but didn't divvy it up until now. Which is backwards from the way it should have been. Thank you for proving my point. Then we'll agree to disagree. Edited August 4, 2009 by Rafael Nadal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) It's like winning the lottery, if you assume that if lose the lottery, you are shot. actually, it's like being punched in the face, then kicked while you're on the ground until your friends show up... at which point, the "mugger" hands you a lottery ticket, while waiting for their friends. The stipulation is if your friends stay, and the "mugger's" friends don't show, you win big. If the "mugger's" friends show up, the beatings continue, your wallet's gone, your house has been sold, and your daughter OR girlfriend has been knocked up. edit: changed daughter/girlfriend to daughter OR girlfriend to prevent a the assumption that I meant the daughter was in fact the girlfriend. sorry for the interruption. Edited August 4, 2009 by Gn0xious Jr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 You know Letum, there is such a thing as finishing tech deals. And as I said, we could send it to them directly. Use only half the slots. Are you a communist? Why are you promoting economic inefficiency? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yinner Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 closure + reps always good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Obviously we are taking all of the reparations, those who fought alongside us will just have to deal. Some of the alliances that fought along side of you have been dealing for months. We've been dealing with agreeing to back this war based on a set of ideologies that were adhered to for about 5 minutes. We dealt with it when we fought alliances we were assigned to and did exactly as we were supposed to, participating in discussions and planning, only to be told to shut our mouths and "deal with it" when we attempted to voice our concerns over extremely light terms given to alliances who deserved far worse. It was made abundantly clear very quickly in Karma land that only about 5 opinions mattered. So yes, sethb. You're right. The thousands of people who went to war and suffered trillions in losses in a war that was originally presented as one of ideology only to have that ideology slapped from our hopeful faces by folks who lost track of their egos will, indeed, "just have to deal". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Ahh Pacifica, you'll never stop being bitter will you? You'd think after being one of the oldest alliances in the world, you'd have developed some level of maturity by now. Or having been a world leader and superpower for three years. Or having your $@! handed to you in this war. Or being humiliated with surrender terms. But oh no, the Pacifican spirit marches on. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) Some of the alliances that fought along side of you have been dealing for months. We've been dealing with agreeing to back this war based on a set of ideologies that were adhered to for about 5 minutes. We dealt with it when we fought alliances we were assigned to and did exactly as we were supposed to, participating in discussions and planning, only to be told to shut our mouths and "deal with it" when we attempted to voice our concerns over extremely light terms given to alliances who deserved far worse. It was made abundantly clear very quickly in Karma land that only about 5 opinions mattered. So yes, sethb. You're right. The thousands of people who went to war and suffered trillions in losses in a war that was originally presented as one of ideology only to have that ideology slapped from our hopeful faces by folks who lost track of their egos will, indeed, "just have to deal". I think your getting a little unnessisarily dramatic here... Take a step back and think about the reality behind what you just said; and what, if anything, that has to do with this thread, SethB, or the NPO front in general. Edited August 4, 2009 by Il Impero Romano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Some of the alliances that fought along side of you have been dealing for months. We've been dealing with agreeing to back this war based on a set of ideologies that were adhered to for about 5 minutes. We dealt with it when we fought alliances we were assigned to and did exactly as we were supposed to, participating in discussions and planning, only to be told to shut our mouths and "deal with it" when we attempted to voice our concerns over extremely light terms given to alliances who deserved far worse. It was made abundantly clear very quickly in Karma land that only about 5 opinions mattered. So yes, sethb. You're right. The thousands of people who went to war and suffered trillions in losses in a war that was originally presented as one of ideology only to have that ideology slapped from our hopeful faces by folks who lost track of their egos will, indeed, "just have to deal". It was as many as five? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr hairy Ballz Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Anyhow, I personally got my $@! kicked for quite a while until the other big alliances joined in the fight. Can't speak for anyone but myself: I was ready to be rolled if it came to that. The war was long and took vast sums of money to wage, factoring in the lost money and what each nation would have been able to do if the war had not occurred the reps seem in the area of reasonable. Oh well, this discussion is going to go around in circles forever. Nobody is going to change anyones mind on bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Some of the alliances that fought along side of you have been dealing for months. We've been dealing with agreeing to back this war based on a set of ideologies that were adhered to for about 5 minutes. We dealt with it when we fought alliances we were assigned to and did exactly as we were supposed to, participating in discussions and planning, only to be told to shut our mouths and "deal with it" when we attempted to voice our concerns over extremely light terms given to alliances who deserved far worse. It was made abundantly clear very quickly in Karma land that only about 5 opinions mattered. So yes, sethb. You're right. The thousands of people who went to war and suffered trillions in losses in a war that was originally presented as one of ideology only to have that ideology slapped from our hopeful faces by folks who lost track of their egos will, indeed, "just have to deal". Wow. Would you like to contain your anger about other fronts, to those fronts please? The fact that alliances, such as Valhalla, got off light, was out of our control, right or wrong, so you chastising people like Sethb over it is just plain misdirected. You can continue to carry that grudge if you like, but carry it with those who settled on the Valhalla terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 I think your getting a little unnessisarily dramatic here...Take a step back and think about the reality behind what you just said. I believe she did. And I agree with her assessment. Each front didn't give a crap what other people thought. If they had, the war, PR and all this crap would have gone a little more smoothly and a lot less bickering between people who fought side by side to turn this war into a win for the side formerly known as Karma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcades057 Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Some of the alliances that fought along side of you have been dealing for months. We've been dealing with agreeing to back this war based on a set of ideologies that were adhered to for about 5 minutes. We dealt with it when we fought alliances we were assigned to and did exactly as we were supposed to, participating in discussions and planning, only to be told to shut our mouths and "deal with it" when we attempted to voice our concerns over extremely light terms given to alliances who deserved far worse. It was made abundantly clear very quickly in Karma land that only about 5 opinions mattered. So yes, sethb. You're right. The thousands of people who went to war and suffered trillions in losses in a war that was originally presented as one of ideology only to have that ideology slapped from our hopeful faces by folks who lost track of their egos will, indeed, "just have to deal". Wait a minute, I thought Karma just sort of... coagulated together due to Evil NPO Aggression...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Wait a minute, I thought Karma just sort of... coagulated together due to Evil NPO Aggression...? You realize the war lasted for months right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Wow. Would you like to contain your anger about other fronts, to those fronts please? The fact that alliances, such as Valhalla, got off light, was out of our control, right or wrong, so you chastising people like Sethb over it is just plain misdirected. You can continue to carry that grudge if you like, but carry it with those who settled on the Valhalla terms. Every single front mattered. Every one. If it weren't for every other front, you'd not be in the position to offer terms. You'd be in the position to accept them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 I believe she did. And I agree with her assessment. Each front didn't give a crap what other people thought. If they had, the war, PR and all this crap would have gone a little more smoothly and a lot less bickering between people who fought side by side to turn this war into a win for the side formerly known as Karma. So...how well do you think it would have gone to try to get all 60? + Karma alliances in on a discussion, and then agree on terms? How long would that have taken? 6 months? A year? Would there ever be an agreement reached? There was no way to have overall Karma negotiations. What of the alliances on the Karma boards who didn't consider themselves Karma? Would we just negotiate without them, leave them all alone? If they're not Karma, then they won't be on Karma surrender terms. I'm curious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Wait a minute, I thought Karma just sort of... coagulated together due to Evil NPO Aggression...? I think I'm missing the part of that statement which contradicts that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Ratz Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Some of the alliances that fought along side of you have been dealing for months. We've been dealing with agreeing to back this war based on a set of ideologies that were adhered to for about 5 minutes. We dealt with it when we fought alliances we were assigned to and did exactly as we were supposed to, participating in discussions and planning, only to be told to shut our mouths and "deal with it" when we attempted to voice our concerns over extremely light terms given to alliances who deserved far worse. It was made abundantly clear very quickly in Karma land that only about 5 opinions mattered. So yes, sethb. You're right. The thousands of people who went to war and suffered trillions in losses in a war that was originally presented as one of ideology only to have that ideology slapped from our hopeful faces by folks who lost track of their egos will, indeed, "just have to deal". This is true. Though we werent exactly fighting side by side with you, we were however fighting on a different front against four other alliances while losing over a million NS in the progress. We recieved no reps for our sacrifice, not to say we would not do it again, but our word meant little when it came to the "5 opinions that mattered". Be thankful, have some humility, then move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Wait a minute, I thought Karma just sort of... coagulated together due to Evil NPO Aggression...? It DID... she was saying that the beliefs that brought everyone together against NPO were adhered to for about 5 minutes. Not sure how the bolded part of your quote links to your reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sethb Posted August 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) Some of the alliances that fought along side of you have been dealing for months. We've been dealing with agreeing to back this war based on a set of ideologies that were adhered to for about 5 minutes. We dealt with it when we fought alliances we were assigned to and did exactly as we were supposed to, participating in discussions and planning, only to be told to shut our mouths and "deal with it" when we attempted to voice our concerns over extremely light terms given to alliances who deserved far worse. It was made abundantly clear very quickly in Karma land that only about 5 opinions mattered. So yes, sethb. You're right. The thousands of people who went to war and suffered trillions in losses in a war that was originally presented as one of ideology only to have that ideology slapped from our hopeful faces by folks who lost track of their egos will, indeed, "just have to deal". Pezstar, my post was blatantly sarcastic. Chill the $%&@ out, your faux-moral outrage is just stupid. I am thankful for all of those who fought alongside us and would in no way try and take what reps they deserve away from them. Edited August 4, 2009 by sethb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Every single front mattered. Every one. If it weren't for every other front, you'd not be in the position to offer terms. You'd be in the position to accept them. I understand how things chain, cause and effect. I ask of you the same questions I asked Airme. And still, the Valhalla terms had nothing to do with our front. We didn't disregard your advice, wishes, etc, so please, don't unload that on us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 I complained when the reps breakdown wasn't made public so I will say now that I appreciate this announcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 I understand how things chain, cause and effect. I ask of you the same questions I asked Airme. And still, the Valhalla terms had nothing to do with our front. We didn't disregard your advice, wishes, etc, so please, don't unload that on us. Actually, you did. If you still have access to the Karma boards, I'm sure that thread is still there for you to read in all it's glory. As far as the questions you asked AirMe regarding communication, I'm not sure how it could have been rectified. It was a giant mess from day one, consisting of a main channel that was a mess and multiple exclusionary private channels in which decisions were made and then not discussed with anyone not in the select few. I, personally, truly stopped giving a crap about how anything was run the minute we were told to shut our mouths. Members of your front absolutely participated in that discussion. So you'll have to forgive me for being unwilling to shut my mouth now. 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.