NPO: Better With or Without?

[KingEsus]

I will have to correct you for a moment.

The Fall of Rome was probably the best thing that could have happened for Europe.

Eight centuries of dark ages?

[SpiderJerusalem]

I want NPO in this game. It's much more fun with differences and tension.

[Tom Litler]

The subsequent Dark Ages and the loss of knowledge some of which remains lost to this day isn't "the best thing" that could have happened to Europe or to our global community as a whole, Tolkien.

[Franz Ferdinand]

Eight centuries of dark ages?

That usually occurs when any great power falls, yet afterwards, the state of Europe thrived constantly, and it has never looked back.

[Gwonam]

Really? Could you elaborate more, I'm interested. (Also, good to see you posting more, these boards had a distinct lack of Tolkien for too long).

Not to say anything about the NPO, but Rome's greatest achievement was its law. The Greeks, Arabs, and Chinese far surpassed them in science and philosophy. Roman law was their legacy, and the world might be better if Rome had fallen after the end of the republic. The Empire was serf-based, and therefore stagnant, had rampant unemployment, was fed by plunder, and was horribly corrupt, not to mention the general public's huge appetite for violence and slaughter. If the Greeks had stayed as they were, that would have been great, but the Romans? Definitely not. The Greeks had rudimentary steam engines, pistons, pulleys, and even animation - Stuff that wasn't seen for years after the Romans took over.

[Geiseric]

Neither, some say they cause too much interference, some say they provide the dramaz,... it all balances out.

[Satori]

What is the "Neither" option for? It is a yes/no question. Either you think the Cyberverse would be better off without NPO or you don't.

[Heyman]

What is the "Neither" option for? It is a yes/no question. Either you think the Cyberverse would be better off without NPO or you don't.

They call that a false dilemma, good sir. People obviously felt that way if they voted for the third option.

[KingEsus]

That usually occurs when any great power falls, yet afterwards, the state of Europe thrived constantly, and it has never looked back.

Well, i dunno there is the 1000 years of constant warfare culminating imperialism, WW1 and finally WW2 in which 55 million people lost there lives, the largest empires the world had ever seen fell and my poor native land became a bankrupt shell shocked state whose main export seems to be rain and bad banking practices.

I was thinking for a moment we were at risk of getting off topic, but actually no... nothing would change. A period of anarchy and chaos followed by the ascendancy of new blocs and hegemons, followed by total warfare actually sounds like a likely outcomes IG as well.

[Gruthenia]

I don't really care if they do or don't exist, but NPOers insistence the game needs them reeks of rationalization for their !@#$%baggery and egocentrism. It's not like without them we'd live in a world of bunnies and huggles, there would still be plenty of alliances with conflicting desires, cultures, personalities, etc.

[Nonvalid]

Think of the children!

[St Heliers]

No,

Pacifica is the alliance everyone loves to hate and the main protagonist in CN. Without the NPO everyone would just need to find some other bad guy to to challenge.

Reality is there just playing the game like the rest of us.

(Btw this is from someone who fought them in every big war since GWI)

Edited April 24, 2009 by St Heliers

[Asriel Belacqua]

I am very conflicted in my opinions. While I know that NPO is the alliance everyone loves to hate, they destroyed several cultures that this game created and that were unique, forcing them to disband and be forgotten forever. If NPO continues doing this, or continues thinking this is acceptable, then I say that NPO must go.

But, if NPO learns that it can no longer force people from the game, and stops, then I wouldn't mind them staying. My problem with the NPO is mostly the fact that they have destroyed very honorable alliances, and very unique cultures, and anytime anyone even thinks to bring them back in any form, trolls them and attacks them until they leave. There are a few exceptions to this, but the grand majority have been forced from the game indefinately. This is wrong, and to those who support it I say SCREW YOU.

[Vladimir]

It's a tough choice, but I'm going to have to go with 'no'.

[Paradigm]

After doing some research about this currant situation NPO is in, I'm just gonna make an open and simple yes or no question. Do you guys think Planet Bob would be better off without NPO? Yes or No? Whatever answer you choose, feel free to give an answer why? (please try not to put any attempts to flame or be biased in your post, no matter how difficult that can be) And try to make an honest opionion without any sort of hatred or biased in your post.

No - I dont think CN would be better off without NPO around.

[Omas Nams]

I would say no. Pacifica has been a huge part of this games history and may possibly play a significant role in it's future as well. I would however say that although I would hate to see NPO gone, I think their loss of near complete hold over the politics of the game is a good thing as it will make the game more interesting imo.

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

Want me to elaborate? Alright. The Romans were not, in any way, shape, or form, innovators. Their empire was horribly inefficient. It was, in essence, built up on slave labor, massive plantations (employing said slave labor), ridiculously high unemployment rates (I believe hitting around 50% wasn't all that uncommon, though it gave them a rather large pool of manpower to recruit armies out of...state and personal), and the borrowed technologies of their conquered peoples. They were great engineers, and worked extremely well within their own technological bounds, but innovation was actively discouraged in Roman culture. Efficiency was not, in any way, improved on. They, for example, had to potential to delve into steam power and industrialization...did they? Of course not: slave labor was much more abundant...horrible inefficiency aside. By tearing down the Roman Empire, Europe, the abundant and resource rich place that it is, was actually able to develop into states that could dominate the globe. Without the Fall and Collapse of the Roman Empire, Europe never have had the potential to dominate the world so completely. Why you ask? Well first, the knowledge was never actually lost. The Byzantine Commonwealth and Sassanid Dynasty (eventually replaced by the Islamic Caliphates and Sultanates) were in actuality the guardians of that knowledge as well: which was eventually passed back to Western European states due to the Crusades, the Islamic Empires most especially (for example, they were the ones who gave us Arabic numerals, instead of those horribly inefficient Roman numerals. Well, technically they're Hindu numerals, as that's who the Caliphates borrowed from, but that's besides the point). Second, the collapse of the Roman Empire created a giant mess of kingdoms, duchies, and fiefdoms. Competition spawns innovation. With population considerably lower then during the Roman Empire (mostly because of diseases that ravaged Europe near the end of the Roman Empire...like smallpox, etc.), there was a need for higher productivity per person. Hence: new agricultural and mechanical inventions and improvements (such as a radically improved plow, heavy harnesses, improved crop rotation, water mills, etc.). With that said and done, Europe in the High Middle Ages developed even further: with universities springing up in new (and old) urban centers and improved industrial innovations. Then we have the Renaissance, where Europe starts to return to the world stage (contrary to contemporary beliefs, the Renaissance was built more upon the Medieval Age, not the rediscovery of classical works such as Aristotle and Socrates from the Byzantines and Turks)...

I will confidently state that there was more innovation and industrialization in the Early Middle Ages (the "Dark Ages", if you will) then during the entire lifespan of the Roman Empire. Rome never developed new technologies, they simply took what they learned from their many conquered peoples and added it to their empire.

I could go on, but I won't.

[gorgon]

Want me to elaborate? Alright. The Romans were not, in any way, shape, or form, innovators. Their empire was horribly inefficient. It was, in essence, built up on slave labor, massive plantations (employing said slave labor), ridiculously high unemployment rates (I believe hitting around 50% wasn't all that uncommon, though it gave them a rather large pool of manpower to recruit armies out of...state and personal), and the borrowed technologies of their conquered peoples. They were great engineers, and worked extremely well within their own technological bounds, but innovation was actively discouraged in Roman culture. Efficiency was not, in any way, improved on. They, for example, had to potential to delve into steam power and industrialization...did they? Of course not: slave labor was much more abundant...horrible inefficiency aside. By tearing down the Roman Empire, Europe, the abundant and resource rich place that it is, was actually able to develop into states that could dominate the globe. Without the Fall and Collapse of the Roman Empire, Europe never have had the potential to dominate the world so completely. Why you ask? Well first, the knowledge was never actually lost. The Byzantine Commonwealth and Sassanid Dynasty (eventually replaced by the Islamic Caliphates and Sultanates) were in actuality the guardians of that knowledge as well: which was eventually passed back to Western European states due to the Crusades, the Islamic Empires most especially (for example, they were the ones who gave us Arabic numerals, instead of those horribly inefficient Roman numerals. Well, technically they're Hindu numerals, as that's who the Caliphates borrowed from, but that's besides the point). Second, the collapse of the Roman Empire created a giant mess of kingdoms, duchies, and fiefdoms. Competition spawns innovation. With population considerably lower then during the Roman Empire (mostly because of diseases that ravaged Europe near the end of the Roman Empire...like smallpox, etc.), there was a need for higher productivity per person. Hence: new agricultural and mechanical inventions and improvements (such as a radically improved plow, heavy harnesses, improved crop rotation, water mills, etc.). With that said and done, Europe in the High Middle Ages developed even further: with universities springing up in new (and old) urban centers and improved industrial innovations. Then we have the Renaissance, where Europe starts to return to the world stage (contrary to contemporary beliefs, the Renaissance was built more upon the Medieval Age, not the rediscovery of classical works such as Aristotle and Socrates from the Byzantines and Turks)...

I will confidently state that there was more innovation and industrialization in the Early Middle Ages (the "Dark Ages", if you will) then during the entire lifespan of the Roman Empire. Rome never developed new technologies, they simply took what they learned from their many conquered peoples and added it to their empire.

I could go on, but I won't.

just asking but does that whole dark ages speech relate to this topic?

[Galen Arsenius]

Well, i dunno there is the 1000 years of constant warfare culminating imperialism, WW1 and finally WW2 in which 55 million people lost there lives, the largest empires the world had ever seen fell and my poor native land became a bankrupt shell shocked state whose main export seems to be rain and bad banking practices.

I was thinking for a moment we were at risk of getting off topic, but actually no... nothing would change. A period of anarchy and chaos followed by the ascendancy of new blocs and hegemons, followed by total warfare actually sounds like a likely outcomes IG as well.

Yea, I agree. Besides those few examples of Europe's declines, the evidence is around us. How many years has it been since the European Nations were Empires? What happened to their colonies? What? Australia? Latin America? North America? Point is that they fell behind to other industrialized nations such as the US, Japan, and eventually China, after their "spheres of influence stage" passed. And where did these nations get their great ideas to move their countries past Europe? From the Europeans. Everything falls eventually, but the real question is who replaces them and emerges as the next great power. History has shown us that the aftermath of collapses is war, and eventually a new dominant power, to start the cycle over again. And yea, the Middle Ages was a great example of the extremes of a fall, but the effects can be not as cataclysmic as well. Like the Ottoman Empire. Their fall didn't topple the entire world stage, it merely created a minor inconvenience, before it became Turkey. And what about every single Islamic Empire ever(In no way do I find anything wrong with Islam, I just feel the religion itself creates problems with succession.) In every single Islamic Empire, the death of a Caliph, Sultan, would only lead to fighting. Sometimes, there is a peaceful transition of power, but most likely there will not.

IC: Now, to relate this to CN, I believe NPO should not, and could not fall. First off, my own feelings for NPO are mixed, I like them, I really do, they are excellent allies, and essentially can win the game, yet I've had experiences in the past which I am not fond of. But overall, from a non-biased point of view, NPO can't fall. If they do, it will only create a bigger war than the one which brought them down. Whether you call NPO's allies meatshields, honorable allies, or none of those, you cannot say that they wouldn't be interested in that new Dominant Position should NPO fall. And what happens when alliances on both sides want that new spot? Well, sometimes it compromises alliances, and treaties break, relations die, and the inevitable war happens. NPO has won the game. They have in the past, and they should continue to do so. Most of us are fairly new to the game, and I say that relative to NPO's time. Most of us weren't around before NPO ruled, or back in !@#$%* with Francos Spain. So we don't know anything else. How well do you think a huge power transition could be when none has ever happened before? It may just be my opinion, but I would predict an absolute chaos.

And then there are those who say, "NPO is teh ebil," and wish them gone. What you are really saying is, "My alliance isn't #1 and there are problems in CN, so it must be NPO because they are #1." And I don't mean that as an insult to the Anti-NPO, but it is all relative. Do you think there won't be people who would hate the new regime should NPO fall? Does anyone really think CN can be completely one-sided? No, that's not possible. CN is way to partisan to become that, and if it did, there would be no fun left. While some say they Hate NPO, they really need NPO, as an opposition to the game, to make it interesting.

But that's my $.02

[Guido]

One thing that I have found over the last few months is that there is an amazing amount of hate towards the NPO and it's members, when in fact most people don't know most of us. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me considering most of these same people whine and complain when an alliance is judged based on the merits of their leaders...but feel it is ok to hate ALL of the NPO based on what they think is wrong behavior.

Everyone I have met in the NPO is really nice and sure there are a few bad apples that eventually end up quitting in a fit of rage and capital letters..but that goes for any alliance really.

Also, you would miss the NPO if it disbanded...not that it will.

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

Someone decided to compare a (hypothetical and currently, unlikely) demise of Pacifica to the Fall of Rome (as if the Fall of Rome was actually bad). I was pointing out how that was a bad comparison and actually hurt his line of argument, as the Fall of Rome was the reason why Europe and European culture were/are the most dominant force in the world.

To bring this back on topic,

I honestly say no, as it's not what Karma fights for.

[Sir Taefir Estavok]

Voted no. NPO is a good alliance, they just get a bad rap because they're on top and doing everything they can to stay there.

[Byron Orpheus]

I will have to correct you for a moment.

The Fall of Rome was probably the best thing that could have happened for Europe.

The fall of Rome that resulted in hundreds of years of ignorance, war, and persecution? That fall of Rome?

[Banned]

No. Pacifica is a huge part of this game, and they do add an important dynamic. I'm not necessarily in favor of their being on top, but they do deserve to exist as a sovereign entity. I respect my enemy, and I value their input.

QFT!

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

The fall of Rome that resulted in hundreds of years of ignorance, war, and persecution? That fall of Rome?

I've already addressed it.

The Fall of Rome paved the way for actual innovation and invention, and eventually industrialization. And yes, the Roman Empire was based on ignorance, persecution, and war.

Galen: we can continue this in PM, if you'd like, or make a topic in the Boiler Room and I'll respond (been awhile since I last posted there, anyway).

And yet the World has been profoundly influenced by European thought, and still is. The Americas are still in essence Western European in nature and culture. There are differences, but North American and Latin American states would not be anywhere near the same without Europe. Industrialization and Globalization are common traits to most all countries. Decolonization does not necessarily mean that Europe has lost all influence. They may no longer directly control them, but they still have profound influence. Europe is still an economic and political giant on the world stage.

Arguing with someone studying for both the World History AND European History AP tests is not a good idea.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Tolkien