Jump to content
  • entries
    9
  • comments
    10
  • views
    3,992

A letter to the NPO, based on your thread that the reps are too much


Asriel Belacqua

138 views

 Share

Dear NPO,

I come to you today as a concerned member of the CN community.

I have a question for you today.

Since when did any amount of monetary reps, and warring for 2 weeks become worse than forcing whole alliances to disband, or be under a viceroyship for a year? (Which, btw, is against the TOS of CN)

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely,

Asriel Belacqua

 Share

6 Comments


Recommended Comments

We've been at war for closer to two months, and have lost more strength (and power) than any other alliance has ever even had, so I think it's a bit silly to try and downplay it. We have never forced any alliance to disband (Stumpy, the latest self-proclaimed victim, was shown as a liar). Viceroys were used as a constructive alternative that rebuilt alliances after war rather than continuing to destroy them through punitive reparations, the nature of which are well demonstrated by our positive relations with Legion and GATO. And remember that there are those prominent on your side that also used Viceroys (RoK) -- and there are those prominent on your side that actually favour eternal war and attempts to disband our alliance. [The ToS were changed after our last use of a Viceroy.]

The reparations being demanded of us in this single war are nearly 10 times the amount in cash and nearly 3 times the amount in tech that we gathered from dozens of wars over a full three year plus period -- that is to say, these reps take the total reps paid in the history of the world and then multiply them by a significant factor; and then there is the demand that they are paid by our strongest nations explicitly to cripple any chance of rebuilding that we might have. And that isn't taking into consideration the unprecedented demand to ZI our entire alliance (an alliance of ~700 nations), which would cost tens upon tens of billions more. And then we have the demilitarisation of our alliance while the reps are being paid; assuming we could afford them (which we can't, thus leading straight back to war) that would put Karma in control of our military for a full year, as well as significant parts of our economy and foreign policy.

But all of this is to miss the point somewhat. By arguing that something 'isn't as bad as the NPO' you are effectively stating that you have no principled objection to the actions being taken or that were taken, instead substituting that for a mere objection to the entity of the NPO. The NPO, not the principles 'right' and 'wrong' that were so prominent a few months ago, has become the benchmark of what is acceptable. This is an incredibly self-contradictory position.

Link to comment
that would put Karma in control of our military for a full year, as well as significant parts of our economy and foreign policy.

A whole year? Bummer. Talk to FAN, GATO, and other alliances that have been controlled for extended lengths of time by an outside power. I'm sure they'll know exactly how you feel, and offer sympathy. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
We've been at war for closer to two months, and have lost more strength (and power) than any other alliance has ever even had

GPA. Nuff' said.

GPA's score on February 11th, 2008: 51.89 Source

GPA's score on March 13th, 2008: 14.20 Source

Loss: 37.69

A decent amount of that loss came in the form of lost nations, as a number of GPA members surrendered during the war. However if all of that dropped score had been in the form of NS losses, it would have meant a loss of roughly 11,307,000 NS.

NPO lost 14,340,039 NS in the first month of the war alone. Source. They continue to drop NS.

Plus there's the added factor of lost MADPs, etc., all of which does not apply to the GPA.

Link to comment

The being at war for 2 months part, I have no sympathy for. FAN was at war for more months than NPO the first time, and a year (or more, can't really remember) the second time.

Sure, FAN didn't lose as much NS as NPO did overall, but I'm sure the loss of 75% of their members, 90% of their strength, as well as basically all their PR and Foreign Relations, was quite a heavy price to pay.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...