NPO History Discussion

[Valerius]

We never cared about alliances existing "outside our ideological sphere", so long as they didn't start to threaten our security. ODN has been doing it since GW3, and we couldn't care less. On this point I humbly request that you get a grip.

I do not buy the argument that GUARD or GPA posed any more of a threat to Pacifica than ODN.

[Haflinger]

I do not buy the argument that GUARD or GPA posed any more of a threat to Pacifica than ODN.

They've already argued that they were not attacked because they posed a threat. You need to work on the basic argument here, which is that you think that they were attacked for that reason.

[Penkala]

See, you're getting back to the "quest to eliminate opposition" idea again. Which just...

Well, assuming you're correct. Why did NPO not attack Ragnarok when the Hoo logs were released?

Because there were too many people that would have stood up should they have tried.

Edit: discussion seems to be "why" they attacked for the past few pages, and some think it was because alliances committed wrongs (delusional, the wrongs didn't merit curbstomps), some think it was to aleviate boredom (this is true I believe; keeps members trained in war, gives them pride in their alliance, eases boredom etc.), some think it was to eliminate 'threats' (also true). It's a bit of all of them really. FAN was because they thought FAN would roll them, and they were right in attacking, the first time. GPA was an example of someone who was too big for NPO's liking and an easy target. NPO wanted to be #1 and GPA had taken that from them for a little while. They didn't like that. Some wars were to remove threats - ONOS, for example, removed any threat that in a year or two GUARD could ally with some alliances and be big enough to at least seriously harm NPO. Were they at the time? No. But they could be and NPO wanted to eliminate the potential before it became too great.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Penkala

[Haflinger]

Because there were too many people that would have stood up should they have tried.

Really?

Do you think there were more people that would have fought Continuum in Christmastime than when NPO actually attacked OV?

NPO actually had a clear CB against Ragnarok: evidence that the alliance leader was attempting to work directly against them. They could quite easily have declared the Ragnarok treaty null and void and hit RoK directly.

[Penkala]

Really?

Do you think there were more people that would have fought Continuum in Christmastime than when NPO actually attacked OV?

NPO actually had a clear CB against Ragnarok: evidence that the alliance leader was attempting to work directly against them. They could quite easily have declared the Ragnarok treaty null and void and hit RoK directly.

Yes they could have but SF would have rolled with RoK as would some others, and I know HellsAngel stated they were worried about RoK being rolled during that time too, so who knows, they may have become involved somehow. It wasn't worth the risk to do that at the time.

[Haflinger]

Yes they could have but SF would have rolled with RoK as would some others, and I know HellsAngel stated they were worried about RoK being rolled during that time too, so who knows, they may have become involved somehow. It wasn't worth the risk to do that at the time.

It would have been extremely difficult for Citadel and the others to extricate themselves from the treatyweb at that point. Most of them were still in Continuum (only Grämlins had left), and the waves of other cancellations hadn't hit yet.

Is your claim that the risk was lower by the time that OV was hit?

[Delta1212]

It would have been extremely difficult for Citadel and the others to extricate themselves from the treatyweb at that point. Most of them were still in Continuum (only Grämlins had left), and the waves of other cancellations hadn't hit yet.

Is your claim that the risk was lower by the time that OV was hit?

You could make the argument that there was a lot more risk in attacking OV then, but the outcome of not attacking was a lot more obvious. If the main goal is to preserve the status quo insomuch as it is possible (and I think that it's a reasonable assumption to say that would be high on the priority list for people who are benefiting from how things are set up and really only have anything to lose by significant change) then at each of the points in time where a decision has to be made, the situation would look roughly like this:

Attacking Rok-

Pros:

• Removing a group that seems to want to challenge the status quo.
  

Cons:

• Risk upsetting the status quo by fracturing the treaty web (you'll almost certainly win but there is a slight risk of undermining the system currently in place even so)
  

Now, if you believe that Rok and/or SF aren't in a particularly strong position and couldn't do anything to really hurt you at that point, you might very well decide its not worth the effort to take them down. Based on the few logs I saw of Continuum gov channels at the time (honestly, that bloc leaked like a sieve even before Vox started plastering stuff all over the OWF) it seems likely that they didn't think Rok et all were in a particularly strong position. (In fact, I think I remember a quote of someone saying that specifically).

Contrast to the time OV is attacked:

Attacking OV-

Pros:

• Removing a group that seems to want to challenge the status quo.
  

Cons:

• Risk upsetting the status quo by fracturing the treaty web (there's a good chance you'll actually lose, but the current system is collapsing anyway so if you keep doing nothing your position will probably grow increasingly weaker anyway).
  

Continuum had been shedding people for some time and Sparta, MHA and TOP all left shortly before the commencement of hostilities. People had been leaving that camp in general for the past month or two and the opposition on the forums had become incredibly vocal to a degree that hadn't been seen really since the Great War era. You can reasonably predict at this point that the only place that Continuum was going in the political ladder at this point was down whether they got into a losing war or not, and in their position I probably would have been more than a little paranoid about getting my butt kicked by some of the angrier groups shouting on the forum at that point if I lost too much strength. In that sense, the attack could be seen as a last ditch effort to keep the world from slipping out of Continuum's hands.

Now, when faced with a decision where there is not apparent risk to yourself for doing nothing and minimal apparent risk to yourself if you attack, then it's perfectly reasonable not to attack. If you find yourself in situation where doing nothing will apparently get you killed and attacking has a high probability of getting you killed, then it would be reasonable to attack. It's not so much about it being less risky later as it is about how much of a risk compared to how much of a risk the alternative seems to be. In those cases, the reasonable, albeit wrong, choices were made, but that's only really obvious with hindsight.

I think a lot of people forget that, for both sides, things that are patently obvious to everyone after the fact aren't things that were patently obvious to the ones making the decisions back when they were initially made.

[Haflinger]

Now, when faced with a decision where there is not apparent risk to yourself for doing nothing and minimal apparent risk to yourself if you attack, then it's perfectly reasonable not to attack. If you find yourself in situation where doing nothing will apparently get you killed and attacking has a high probability of getting you killed, then it would be reasonable to attack. It's not so much about it being less risky later as it is about how much of a risk compared to how much of a risk the alternative seems to be. In those cases, the reasonable, albeit wrong, choices were made, but that's only really obvious with hindsight.

This is a reasonable argument.

It is not, however, consistent with the claim made earlier that the NPO constantly sought to remove opposition. Which is what I was arguing against.

[Delta1212]

This is a reasonable argument.

It is not, however, consistent with the claim made earlier that the NPO constantly sought to remove opposition. Which is what I was arguing against.

Well, you could always modify it to "They sought to set up situations in such a manner as to make eliminating their opposition skew highly to the reward end of a risk/reward scale" rather than assuming it means they rabidly attack anyone who raises a finger in defiance.

I also happen to think that the Karma War was significantly contributed to by NPO dropping the ball, which make some events leading up to it rather anomalous in terms of discussing Pacifcan behavior anyway since they are usually very competent.

[New Frontier]

These threads are always the same.

Edited August 30, 2009 by New Frontier

[Khyber]

I *hope* this is not aimed at me. I do not hate and am not trying to demonise. I do think it's important that people know what happened, and I think in a nutshell it is that they ruled the world and fell primarily because of their own arrogance and duplicity. Even their own allies expected to be rolled for no reason eventually. That wasnt all paranoia and anti-pacifican propoganda.

Pacifica was much better once, and like it or not they dont appear to be going anywhere, so it's only rational to want to see them learn something at least. If Worldconquerer is any indication they are just sticking their fingers in their ears and humming while plotting their revenge. Somehow I dont think that is going to work out so well for them.

Not at you Sigrun, but I guess at the whole.

I understand the whole "your evil" thing that every alliance that is going to war must sell to it's allies and members to get them on side to go to war against the other. I saw it against The Unjust Path, the evil LUE, the evil NpO and ES, the evil FAN. Take out evil and just put other things in there like bad, mean, warmongering, bad OOC actions. This makes sense, but I've yet to see a good winner, one that doesn't humiliate their opponent after winning.

I guess I was hoping this time it would be different.

Honestly I don't wish NPO changes. I think they brought a great degree of fun to the game. It was fun being on both sides of theirs. For the same reason I would hate to loss a player like ES or see him change, is the same reason I would hate the NPO change. I do think they played a bad hand this last round and hope they fix thier problems, but I want to see a dangerous and cunning NPO, one bent on trying to rule the world, taking revenge for slights commited and imaginary and a subtle propaganda machine that took months and slowly built their well constructed view on who is bad and who is good.

I enjoyed Vox this time around, they were an awesome force to watch, cunning and provocative. What little I have heard of their behinds the scene work was impressive too. I think they beat the NPO at their own game. NPO always sold its case to the world, people fought on their side against the bad guys. LUE was demonized and called lulz, out of control and many things. FAN was too aggressive, gun nuts gone crazy. GOONS and UJP was well played by the NpO and ES who again used part of the LEU propaganda and part of the FAN propaganda. Problem was that NPO stopped trying to work so hard, they got lazy on top is how I figure it.

Anyways I'm babbling. So I don't think what the NPO did was bad even when attacking GPA, I would not have myself attacked, but for whatever reason they did it it was to maintain their control on their power, wiether it was to satisfy allies, entertain their masses, or a threat to their hold on power. And it is that drive for power and control that made them fun, until in the end they got too much and it started to stagnate the game, that is the only reason to me the Karma war was needed.