I have no good reason for creating this thread now. It's all ancient history, and I've long since moved on. However, as far as I'm aware, no-one ever asked this question before, and I'm pretty bored and feel like being a dork, so here goes.

On June 13th, Moo claimed that NPO never practiced EZI.



On August 5th, 2008, One Vision declared war on CIS for sheltering a re-roll of a nuclear rogue. Ignoring the fact that the CB was based on flimsy evidence and that CIS didn't exist at the time; if NPO never practiced EZI, why did you declare war on CIS?

(In before "Get over it")

Crap thread, I know. Apologising in advance.

My nation just recently fully recovered from that instance of non-practice of EZI

Here's the short answer.

NPO considers EZI to be the practice of keeping nations at war forever. Not for a very long time: forever.

Their old ZI practice was to keep nations at war until they decided to let them go. Did they keep some nations at war for too long? Yes. But eventually they always relented; I think Lord Swampy has the claim to longest stay on the NPO ZI list.

Pretty much this. The NPO defined it differently so that they could claim that they never did it. Since "eternal" is meaningless in this context they read the phrase literally and claimed they didn't do it.

The commonly accepted definition of EZI (OOC: pursuing players across otherwise unrelated nations) the NPO vigorously defended and proudly practiced up until the PR push made immediately before starting the Karma war.

His exact words were "we never practiced what many call EZI." He's obviously referring to the generally accepted definition, that is, chasing users across nations. Eternal ZI is the idea that an individual is sentenced to be kept at Zero Infrastructure even if he creates a new nation. Since they didn't know that Spearo had re-rolled, obviously they couldn't attack Spetton. Once they found out, their EZI kicked in, hence the war.

There isn't any real difference between Pacifica's definition and the generally accepted one, other than that Pacifica's is impossible to carry out. Still, Moo wasn't referring to Pacifica's definition, so...

Is the question specifically asked to the NPO, to Moo only, or to anybody that wishes to reply?

Haf, what you mentioned is PZI, not EZI. Though I don't think that the NPO ever published any "doctrine" on what they considered to be PZI and what EZI, the question is about "what many call EZI".


Finally, I think that the NPO practiced EZI (as almost every big alliance was doing at one point, anyway).

[ooc] They are also good at revisionism: that may explain the reason of Moo's "recent" denial of having E-ZI'd, despite their DoW on CIS and other cases (see the Woodstock Massacre's CB, for instance.) [/ooc]

There was also the whole, "we know others don't practice EZI but we don't care" attitude. This may not have been carried by NPO, depending on the viewpoints on here, but I know when I came back as The AUT I had to post a humiliating apology to IRON on the OWF while the NPO let me off despite me causing 500 mil in damages to them being a rogue. IRON's response was, "we don't care about the others, we practice and support EZI."

Honestly, I think this is not a case of revisionism but rather isolationism. NPO has always used terms differently than other alliances do, and the term EZI was coined outside them. They never really understood what was meant by it.

And here I'm just speaking as an interpreter, as a guy who in the past has needed to translate between NPO-speak and Bob-speak. Heh.

They didn't keep a permazi list as separate from a ZI list. Their practice was to keep target lists, and keep people at war until they were removed from the target lists. Other alliances keep ZI lists where War staff would automatically remove them when ZI had been achieved, or when the nation had been abandoned, or whatever. This is the fundamental problem; they didn't define a particular end condition for a nation to be removed from a target list. So some nations were kept on for a long time. Others came off very quickly.

This practice was in effect EZI, in some cases, but the basis behind it was different: they didn't sentence nations to ZI/PZI/EZI the way some alliances did (like GGA), but rather ordered attacks on nations, with no defined objective.

The war with CIS also had alot to do with several CIS members raiding red nations, and raiding NPO banks "hidden" off main NPO AA iirc.

I think Seerow has him beat.

Seerow went on the list in 2008, I think.

Given that NPO target lists were cleared by Karma, less than one year after, no he doesn't - Swampy was there from Purplegate until early this year.

You make a good point, but it's a bit late

Yes it did, to an extent... That wasn't the CB used, though. Besides, on the old CIS forum we had a list of alliances who had raided Red / NPO Banks more times than us. There were a hell of a lot of them. CIS raided Red Team maybe 4 times between the announcing of The Revenge Doctrine up until CIS disbanded.

Haflinger, Moo made it quite clear in his post that he was referring to the generally accepted term "EZI" rather than NPO's definition.

He was trying to, ASA. I'm suggesting that he didn't understand the term. This is based on having actually talked to him, BTW.

It isn't a very difficult term to understand.

Pacifica quite obviously practiced EZI, calling it by another name doesn't change that.

...That's one hell of a semantic cop-out.

Just call it what it is.

What are you replying to?

Quotes please.

Yeah, that's EZI if it goes across re-rolls, which the OP rather excellently showed that it did. Calling it anything else is just a cop-out.

Come on, stop using logic. Remember where we are!

Who called it anything else?

It would seem that your pals did. Considering, you know...



If you want to be quite literal, it would seem obvious that it was called something else since they claim to have never EZI'd.

Perhaps you'd like to reread my posts in this thread.

Or, actually, I should say read, given that you haven't done that yet.

It was a lie ... shock, horror. Well, either that or Moo really doesn't understand a simple term that's been explained several times and debated several times by Pacificans trying to claim that it's fine, but I don't believe him to be stupid. The fact is that it was well known that NPO did practice EZI, and used reroll-based CBs for at least two major wars (CIS and GATO). One of the best documented cases is Kingzog, who kept a screenshot of that PM telling him [ooc]he could never play Cyber Nations again, after all[/ooc]. There are several other cases, although not so many as some people would have you believe, and nor was NPO the only offender – pretty much every major alliance's ZI list would get you attacked after a reroll for a long time.

So yeah, it was a lie, something you should always watch out for from politicians.

By your definition, Pacifica never practiced "EZI."

The New Pacific Order never "pursued [rulers] across otherwise unrelated nations."

Never once did we pursue a ruler across unrelated nations. You can't pursue a ruler across an unrelated nation. You know why? The new nation is unrelated to the old one.

Any new nation who we pursued for a transgression committed by that ruler over an old nation, by the very fact that we pursued the wasn't "unrelated." If a nation committed a transgression against my alliance, or against any alliance across the lands and seas of Bob, that alliance would take retribution against that nation. If that ruler fled their nation, and upon taking command of a new nation, committed the same transgressions against my alliance, or any alliance across the lands and seas of Bob, that alliance would take retribution upon that nation.

Now, if a ruler, fleeing their old nation, took command of a new nation and did nothing, through actions or words, to demonstrate that they were in command of the prior nation, how could we, or any alliance, find out that they were the old ruler? We can't, and we didn't.

If we wish to define terms, I believe the terms EZI comes into play when you pursue and attack, for an undefined period of time, a ruler of a nation who has committed no offense with his current nation for the sole fact that he once held another separate and distinct nation under the nearly the same or different name.

What you described above dances around that accepted definition. You rightfully state that any alliance would deliver a certain punishment for a wrong if that same wrong was done to them a second time, its common sense. However, your next point skips the core of the matter entirely. Once again its common sense that you would not know if it was the same person if they never eluded too, said, or demonstrated that they were that person in question. That is not what is at issue, what is at issue is whether or not you attacked someone, not for a new offense, but for the old offense under a physically ( i.e. the differance between the names Bob and John, irrespective of the fact that they may refer to the same person, which is what the post you were responding to clearly implied in that words usage) unrelated name. Reasoning that there is a transference of intent to harm your alliance across nations and rulers if they can be linked to someone who once acted on the intent to harm your alliance in the past then issuing a condemnation of their said new nation based on the perceived intent to cause harm is just another way of saying you practice EZI. Clearly, as the relevant examples previously stated in this thread and elsewhere are a matter of public record and without dispute, your alliance practiced this in the past under the previously stated reasoning. Saying otherwise is false on its face.

:x

Unless the NPO considers the discovery of a ruler's past nations a transgression, your post is a complete falsehood.

Which in no way explains your treatment of Lady Dakota, who was pursued new nation after new nation, allowed to build up for a time and then attacked by NPO. Nor does it explain why you insisted the old Browncoats surrender her "or else".

My humble suggestion, whenever this subject comes up, get a shovel and bury it quickly. You cannot logically explain your actions except the practice of EZI.

OOC: "Unrelated" was meant in an IC sense. It does not include methods of tracking such as IPs or OOC conversations that are not germane to game politics. There are OOC ways to relate nations that are absolutely unrelated IC.

IC: I see that you have not addressed the question posed by the OP. You are reputed to be straightforward and honest, and my own limited observation is congruent with that. Do you agree that the NPO never practiced EZI? Define EZI by whatever terms you feel fair rather than parsing mine for weakness.

It's all very simple.

If a ruler hates Pacifica, and does everything within their power to destroy us, we will destroy them.

If that ruler, having been so destroyed, takes over a new nation, and persists in doing everything within their power to destroy us, we will destroy them.

Which alliance on Bob operates differently?

You're evading. We're discussing nations that are not doing anything aggressive.

I'm not evading. I'm succinctly spelling out our past policies for you. I'd send you the giant marble tablets they're chiseled on, but the insurance on the shipping is atrocious.

The policy you have so generously posted here is entirely unrelated to the question. We aren't discussing nations waging war against your nations or fomenting rebellion among your serf alliances, we're talking about nations who wanted peace and could not find sanctuary even in foreign lands. Nations that did nothing, such as that cited in the OP, Lady Dakota (maybe? I don't know anything about that) or the government members driven from LOUD for no reason other than their rulers' previous nationalities.

Were these nations "doing everything in their power to destroy [you]"?

Also why all the bluster in VE's EZIPP if it wasn't something you did?

Lady Dakota did none of the above. She did get mouthy when NPO placed Starfox101 on EZI. Long after Starfox was released, Lady Dakota was not--despite hours of spending time in your public IRC and in personal IRC chats with Moo to resolve the issue.

Like I said, you cannot logically explain this. It is one of the many reasons your alliance was scourged.

I'm not familiar with her situation and can't speak to it.

Every time this ever came up on the forums, always for some evil we've perpetuated against someone, it goes like this:

Person: "I'm ZI/PZI/EZI/ABCDEFZI/banned from #nsa/channel we have no control over.
Cortath: Have you talked to us about it?
Person: All the time, every day.
Cortath: Funny, I spoke to every single Imperial Officer, including the Emperor and Regent, and they said you never spoke to them. Nevertheless, how about you speak to us now and we resolve this?
Person: Never! Why should I speak to the imperialist hegemonic baby-killers of my nightmares?
OR
Person: Oh, that's dandy. I will speak to you forthwith and clear this matter up.
Cortath: Having spoken with you, I can confirm that this matter is cleared up. Here, have some baby.

I don't even know what an EZIPP is, but I don't think it's something that should be done in public, or in front of small children, so I can't answer that.

Oh hey look, it's another thread in which people whine about the things Pacifica used to do because there's nothing else going on right now.

It was their 'Eternal ZI Peace Pact'--basically, the start of swearing off of eternal zero-infrastructure sentencing. Think this was before the War of the Coalition.

You know an argument is going nowhere when it turns into "I can destroy your point by interpreting a word in a slightly different manner than you intended! Ha!" That's pretty much the signal that the horse is now glue.

Nowhere is the place that things that don't exist are, therefore it is somewhere. THIS ARGUMENT IS GOING SOMEWHERE!

Ah Swampy.. I remember you well. He made some questionable decisions, but he was a good man. I'll miss him.

Yeah I went on at the beginning of 2008, and got out well over a year later.

Course, 'Purplegate' was before that if it's referring to the incident I think it does.

But was Swampy actively continuing to keep his nation and occasionally try to get off ZI during that timeframe? Because I know during my time Id come back every couple months and try again until Roq managed to convince Moo to let me off.

(Moo then went on to tell me that I should have asked to be let off months before as I had been there too long. I proceeded to recount to him my last 3 attempts that I could remember, including one attempt offering to join the Order just to be able to play the game again. Though at the time they were so paranoid about Vox I can't blame them for not trusting me on that one)


Edit: Checking the Wiki for more accurate timelines, and assuming the referenced war that had Swampy in ZI was the Dove War as I had thought, it would seem he had me beat by about 4 months unless he got off earlier than I did.

Why miss him?

Drop him a line instead.


You appear to not know when Purplegate was. It was this: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Legion_Disbandment_Crisis

November 2007.


Yeah he was. Swampy got let off when Kry interceded.

I went on "the list" for some misunderstanding over the Red Senate. (I think.)

I've no idea when I was removed. When I re-rolled in April I just acted like it didn't matter, and lo and behold....it really didn't.

Sure, I had some fun with it, but....hmmm....what was the question again?

Ah it brings back the memories seeing an NPO drone attempting to justify EZI and claiming that they only re-attacked people for being aggressive against them. Nice to see it doesn't fly any more. It's amusing that whenever a particular situation that you can't waffle past in vague generalities is brought up, you claim not to know about that situation ... if you don't know about VE's anti-EZI document then I'm not sure why you're wading into a discussion about EZI.

You can look through the first few pages of the ZIPP announcement thread and see widespread acknowledgement that NPO was practicing EZI at the time, and then-IO Z'ha'dum saying, effectively, that he thought the pact was a bad idea and that NPO wouldn't give in to public opinion and stop doing EZI.

Edit: Here's Moo stating in that thread that the NPO will ZI a new nation (i.e. EZI) if they:

- Confessed their previous identity to us.
- Visited our forums, providing an IP match.
- Confessed their previous identity to one of our allies (who then informed us).
- Bragged about their previous identity to someone (who either informed one of our allies who then informed us or informed us directly).

Interestingly enough, he does so by quoting WalkerNinja (who was ODN at the time) – let's not forget that NPO was by far not the only alliance to EZI (IRON are the other big one). But it's pretty clear that claiming they never used EZI is just a lie from his own post there.

I blame the hegemony for the stagnation.


NSO do something, please,.....pwease,...nobody else will in this stat collecting place.

Oh really? Maybe you ought to read the message you're misinterpreting again.


This statement is exactly consistent with what Cortath's been saying throughout this thread.

No it isn't. Cortath is trying to spin it as the NPO only taking actions against a nation that
whereas Moo is describing nations that had the audacity to expose their IP addresses or confide their history in untrustworthy friends. The former case is legitimate defense against an enemy while the latter is EZI.

Exactly. If a nation is stupid enough to betray to us that their nation is run by an old ruler, then they're pretty darn bad at making a "new persona" and pretty darn stupid. There have been, I suspect, untold numbers of people who were on the ZI lists of alliances, and who re-rolled and we don't know about them, and no alliance prosecuted their ZI claim against them. You know why? They weren't stupid, and they did not betray their identity through repetition of the same actions that got them into the same place, or simple idiocy by betraying their identity themself.

Only on Planet Bob can a ruler whose nation is destroyed can take on a new nation. You have to screw up pretty badly to have your nation get destroyed. You played the "game" of politics pretty darn wrong if you ZIed. It takes political capital to ZI someone, and even our alliance's recent history demonstrates that there is a cost to the perception of doing it too often or without good reason. But Admin is Great, and He has given these poor, stupid, benighted rulers of Bob who have so screwed up as to have their nations destroyed a pure second chance. A ruler can take over an entire new nation without any means of any soul but Admin knowing their old identity. They get a clean slate, free of any of the responsibility for the past actions of that nation. I can't emphasize enough, on no other world can one so simply discharge your past responsibilities, your past actions, your past sins, so glibly and so easily.

The only way for that slate to be destroyed by the sins of the past nation is if that new ruler dirties that clean slate. And if they're stupid enough to tell untrustworthy people their old identity, then that's their own, stupid mistake. They got a clean slate, and if they want to live without the sins of their past nation, they have to keep the slate clean.

You should have just paraphrased that as "Yes, we proudly practiced EZI and Moo was lying/mistaken/didn't understand the term when he asserted otherwise" two pages ago and this whole silly argument would have been averted.