New Pacific Order Reps Race

[Choader]

i hate to burst your bubble but infra wins wars, not tech. also well im bursting bubbles i should point out that its the middle and lower ranks that win the war, not the top ranks.

At the risk of sharing an opinion with Haf, you're wrong on both counts.

[im317]

At the risk of sharing an opinion with Haf, you're wrong on both counts.

don't get me wrong, you want enough tech for level 9 planes, and once you have a WRC you want as much tech as possible, but until then more tech only brings you into range of people who will beat you on GAs more often. and the high level nations, in this type of war there are enough to knock the losing side way down. the area were damage is harder to do is the lower end GAs, and infra is what gives you more solders and improvements, and that is what wins GAs.

[Choader]

don't get me wrong, you want enough tech for level 9 planes, and once you have a WRC you want as much tech as possible, but until then more tech only brings you into range of people who will beat you on GAs more often. and the high level nations, in this type of war there are enough to knock the losing side way down. the area were damage is harder to do is the lower end GAs, and infra is what gives you more solders and improvements, and that is what wins GAs.

Tech burns slower then infra, and you can make up for part of the losses with GAs. Assuming you were prudent enough to purchase an MP, your tech keeps you in range of larger nations where you can do real damage and not just waste them on low level nations. In a war of attrition it's all about making the war as costly as possible for your enemies.

[Matthew Conrad]

Anyone who isn't very naive knows they'll be coming back for revenge either way.

On a side note, it's hilarious to see those that were perfectly happy and never gave a damn before suddenly being so concerned about 'the world Karma is creating'. I'm sure these are all genuine concerns and there are no alterior motives like trying to get your allies off easy.

Apparently if we're really super nice to NPO they'll change their pattern of behavior of the last 3 years and not ever come looking for revenge.

[neneko]

Apparently if we're really super nice to NPO they'll change their pattern of behavior of the last 3 years and not ever come looking for revenge.

Nobody have tried being nice to NPO a single time during these 3 years either apparently since then they'd already have changed.

[Nizzle]

Point me towards where the Karma Pacific front labelled them as pre-terms.

I have read the thread. Point me to where there is evidence of "miscommunication" between the leadership of alliances on Karma's Pacific front. Point me to where there have been disparities between the policy statements of alliances on Karma's Pacific front.

You haven't read the thread, Revanche, because these comments litter the thread. From MoDs to dozens of members to prominent members back to MoDs. Don't try to insult my intelligence by claiming you have read the thread and found no such statements.

From statements calling these pre-terms, which are prevalent on the first 10 pages, to disagreement over whether or not NPO has to leave peace to get surrender terms. It's all in this thread for your easy review. If you don't wish to admit this, that's fine by me. You certainly aren't under any obligation to do so.

I would like to see some evidence of this hatred and blood-lust. Because actually wishing to effectively and decisively win a war, and check the aggression of a belligerent, is clearly all about blood for the sake of blood, right?

Again, I am not going to pull up every single post in this thread, and others, that proves my statement. Insofar as effectively and decisively winning a war? Well, the two of us apparently disagree on what that means. I don't view it as stomping an enemy into a bloody pulp, but then again I rather enjoy war and competition.

And the fact that you are running a desperate campaign to disparage your former war-time allies is blatantly obvious, from the language you use (referring to "your side", for example), to the content of your posts that do nothing but smear C&G, LEO, Sparta, VE, Ragnarok, and so on, whilst not even possessing the slightest grasp on fact or logic.

My posts lack the slightest grasp on fact or logic? That's laughable, considering the statements you have made within. I guess making the claim "It only exists if you want it to" works for both sides of an argument, eh? Also, as I am not involved in the NPO front nor in any war effort that would indeed make you and your allies "your side". At least, that makes the most sense to me. There is your side, the other side, and me. Pretty clear.

If clear questions, alternate methods, and trying to sort out conflicting statements is "smearing"...then I guess that is what I'm doing. Until I, persistently, get attacked by enraged individuals such as yourself I don't have any issues.

When you're spreading the nonsensical crap so pervasively throughout the forums, it's a little difficult to take a step these days without getting one's shoes dirty. Also, I would love to see some proof of your claim that the aforementioned alliances have a policy of every regular member having the authority to voice the policy of their alliance. Or do you just plan to continue with your usual tactics, of pulling a random criticism out of your $@!?

It has to be a policy, then? I thought high ranking members of other alliances stating such was good enough. Silly me. I guess the argument only works when you are shouting down your enemies...then every member represents their alliance?

I have read the Charter of Kronos. It says nothing about the Harbinger of War, a government member, not representing the policy of the alliance. Besides, that is a piss-poor argument. I could write that I am the all-singing, all-dancing King of the Cyberverse in The Document of Vanguard, but that does not make it true. There is clear precedent, with logical backing, that draws back to the earliest days of the Cyberverse, where the statements of government members are clearly reflective of the policies and stances of their alliances. It is ludicrous for you to hide behind your Charter; if using a specific term in your Charter (which I certainly couldn't find) allowing you to separate your opinion from that of Kronos is valid, then it is equally valid for the opinions of regular members of alliances to have their opinions separate from alliance policy unless it is directly stated otherwise in their charters (i.e. "All members' statements are reflective of the policy of the alliance").

I believe in free speech, so I'm unclear as to what you are talking about. It's your folks that paint every member as a representative of their alliance. It was a pretty little rant, though, and one quite supportive of free speech. I do appreciate it.

Oh, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have expected you to actually mean what you say. I guess such disingenuous behaviour should be expected from someone who will stoop to any level to continue his smear campaign against friends and allies, both former and current.

Had you taken a few deep breaths before raging away at your keyboard, the thought might have crossed your mind. "Hmm...neither of those numbers represent NPO's strength accurately. Yet one happens to be one-fourth of the other. How interesting."

A smear campaign? Yet again, the behavior is unacceptable when it's done TO you and not BY you. I gave you the chance to take your disagreement with me into private venues, yet instead here we sit shouting back and forth at each other.

Point me towards them. Enlighten me, oh great moral compass.

You've read the thread, and it's hilarious that you are trying to paint me as a beacon of morality. I don't believe I, or anyone else you 'smear' with this, have attempted to impart some divine moral code onto you. Unfortunately, statements such as this and the fact you responded publicly instead of sorting our personal disagreement out in private, only displays the fact that in your moment of glory you cannot take any sort of criticism.

Oh, but wait, there's more. I'm sure you will shortly post about how you can handle criticism so long as it's based in fact and logic. You may then continue to insist I am neither, and therefor I am 'smearing' (Again, only your side can do that) as opposed to offering criticism. I care not. I will continue to voice my disagreement, ask my questions, and gather information into the way the war is being handled. Speaking of that, how can you claim these terms are not required to be met for final peace...yet still claim they must suffer more? It's obvious they cannot suffer much more unless they leave peace. Quite a pickle.

It's been great, Revanche, and I'm sure you feel better for the exchange. I'm certain you are gloating about making me look "quite the fool". Frankly, I'm disappointed though. I would have thought that you of all people would address my issues in private as opposed to continuing to fan the flames. It's only bad when the other people do it, right?

As always, if you would actually read the thread instead of claiming to have done so, good luck with the war. There has never been a disagreement over the war, only over the execution and demeanor. I, personally, think you are exacting more revenge than anything else. I guess that's just me instilling some of that "morale code", though. Damn it all. I'll try again, though. Feel free to take this up with me. I doubt you will, though. Regardless, I won't respond to you. Not again. I will respond to arguments over why it's not overkill, how fast NPO can regrow, why these terms are absurd, etc. I won't partake in your continuing crusade to attack individuals and blame alliances while expecting no blow back. Enjoy enforcing your double standard.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Nizzle

[1ofkind]

Everyone is trying to make a point by saying this is turning out to be exactly like what happened to fAN so therefore we're repeating a wrong - bad history, but the truth is simple: FAN, didn't deserve what happened to them; therefore if this time the same thing happens to the NPO, like that did to FAN, well then they actually do deserve it so if the war goes on forever even against just a minuscule fraction of what's left then just I don't care, and so be it!

[mhawk]

Everyone is trying to make a point by saying this is turning out to be exactly like what happened to fAN so therefore we're repeating a wrong - bad history, but the truth is simple: FAN, didn't deserve what happened to them; therefore if this time the same thing happens to the NPO, like that did to FAN, well then they actually do deserve it so if the war goes on forever even against just a minuscule fraction of what's left then just I don't care, and so be it!

I might be behind the times, but aren't you allied with them?

[1ofkind]

I might be behind the times, but aren't you allied with them?

no foo

[mhawk]

no foo

Your wiki has an active MDoAP with NPO listed

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Treatie...sanity_Alliance

[Asriel Belacqua]

I would have to say, that many people in this thread, need to start taking walks around the blocks, thinking about what they are typing and what others are typing, because it just seems like angry rant after angry rant.

On to the subject, I don't feel that these types of reps are necessary, and will most certainly NOT do anything to get NPO to come out of Peace Mode. Maybe think of another way.

[Haflinger]

don't get me wrong, you want enough tech for level 9 planes, and once you have a WRC you want as much tech as possible, but until then more tech only brings you into range of people who will beat you on GAs more often. and the high level nations, in this type of war there are enough to knock the losing side way down. the area were damage is harder to do is the lower end GAs, and infra is what gives you more solders and improvements, and that is what wins GAs.

I do pretty well against higher-infra nations on GAs, thank you. Quite frankly, tech affects the odds, and when I'm going in with a 3:2 or better tech advantage, I don't tend to lose too often.

Yes it's nice being higher-infra and higher-tech. However the real downfall IMO is land-heavy nations, who get pushed up into range of higher-infra and higher-tech opponents without having really much of an edge at all from the land.

[Lord Brendan]

I do pretty well against higher-infra nations on GAs, thank you. Quite frankly, tech affects the odds, and when I'm going in with a 3:2 or better tech advantage, I don't tend to lose too often.

Yes it's nice being higher-infra and higher-tech. However the real downfall IMO is land-heavy nations, who get pushed up into range of higher-infra and higher-tech opponents without having really much of an edge at all from the land.

I have to agree here. Both my GDA opponents had thousands of infrastructure more than me, and I didn't lose a single ground battle.

Tech Advantage > Infra advantage.

From the information index:

Technology is the most important bonus in ground battles

Edited June 4, 2009 by Lord Brendan

[519 Nigras]

Hello, couple things.

Nizzle, you have got to be one of the most thick headed, long winded, and sheepish people to ever grace Digiteria, and if I could headbutt you through my monitor it would easily be worth the replacement cost I would have to absorb buying a new one.

Also, I'm looking forward to the coming days/weeks/months when NPO finally puts on their big girl skirts and comes out for a few rounds of war. Until that time my warchest grows.

Carry on.

[shahenshah]

You haven't read the thread, Revanche, because these comments litter the thread. From MoDs to dozens of members to prominent members back to MoDs. Don't try to insult my intelligence by claiming you have read the thread and found no such statements.

From statements calling these pre-terms, which are prevalent on the first 10 pages, to disagreement over whether or not NPO has to leave peace to get surrender terms. It's all in this thread for your easy review. If you don't wish to admit this, that's fine by me. You certainly aren't under any obligation to do so.

Again, I am not going to pull up every single post in this thread, and others, that proves my statement. Insofar as effectively and decisively winning a war? Well, the two of us apparently disagree on what that means. I don't view it as stomping an enemy into a bloody pulp, but then again I rather enjoy war and competition.

My posts lack the slightest grasp on fact or logic? That's laughable, considering the statements you have made within. I guess making the claim "It only exists if you want it to" works for both sides of an argument, eh? Also, as I am not involved in the NPO front nor in any war effort that would indeed make you and your allies "your side". At least, that makes the most sense to me. There is your side, the other side, and me. Pretty clear.

If clear questions, alternate methods, and trying to sort out conflicting statements is "smearing"...then I guess that is what I'm doing. Until I, persistently, get attacked by enraged individuals such as yourself I don't have any issues.

It has to be a policy, then? I thought high ranking members of other alliances stating such was good enough. Silly me. I guess the argument only works when you are shouting down your enemies...then every member represents their alliance?

I believe in free speech, so I'm unclear as to what you are talking about. It's your folks that paint every member as a representative of their alliance. It was a pretty little rant, though, and one quite supportive of free speech. I do appreciate it.

Had you taken a few deep breaths before raging away at your keyboard, the thought might have crossed your mind. "Hmm...neither of those numbers represent NPO's strength accurately. Yet one happens to be one-fourth of the other. How interesting."

A smear campaign? Yet again, the behavior is unacceptable when it's done TO you and not BY you. I gave you the chance to take your disagreement with me into private venues, yet instead here we sit shouting back and forth at each other.

You've read the thread, and it's hilarious that you are trying to paint me as a beacon of morality. I don't believe I, or anyone else you 'smear' with this, have attempted to impart some divine moral code onto you. Unfortunately, statements such as this and the fact you responded publicly instead of sorting our personal disagreement out in private, only displays the fact that in your moment of glory you cannot take any sort of criticism.

Oh, but wait, there's more. I'm sure you will shortly post about how you can handle criticism so long as it's based in fact and logic. You may then continue to insist I am neither, and therefor I am 'smearing' (Again, only your side can do that) as opposed to offering criticism. I care not. I will continue to voice my disagreement, ask my questions, and gather information into the way the war is being handled. Speaking of that, how can you claim these terms are not required to be met for final peace...yet still claim they must suffer more? It's obvious they cannot suffer much more unless they leave peace. Quite a pickle.

It's been great, Revanche, and I'm sure you feel better for the exchange. I'm certain you are gloating about making me look "quite the fool". Frankly, I'm disappointed though. I would have thought that you of all people would address my issues in private as opposed to continuing to fan the flames. It's only bad when the other people do it, right?

As always, if you would actually read the thread instead of claiming to have done so, good luck with the war. There has never been a disagreement over the war, only over the execution and demeanor. I, personally, think you are exacting more revenge than anything else. I guess that's just me instilling some of that "morale code", though. Damn it all. I'll try again, though. Feel free to take this up with me. I doubt you will, though. Regardless, I won't respond to you. Not again. I will respond to arguments over why it's not overkill, how fast NPO can regrow, why these terms are absurd, etc. I won't partake in your continuing crusade to attack individuals and blame alliances while expecting no blow back. Enjoy enforcing your double standard.

Some very valid points in their Nizzle, keep up the good work.

[Lord Brendan]

Nizzle, you have got to be one of the most thick headed, long winded, and sheepish people to ever grace Digiteria, and if I could headbutt you through my monitor it would easily be worth the replacement cost I would have to absorb buying a new one.

Some very valid points in their Nizzle, keep up the good work.

One man's trash...

Sorry but the placement was too ironic to pass up.

[Scarlet Ellen Red]

New Pacific Order Reps Race

Day 10

Old Total

1306 Nation Violations

3.918 Billion

130,600 Tech

+18 days of terms

Today's Add-on's

132 Nations Violated

396 Million

13,200 Tech

+ 2 days of terms

Total so Far

1438 Nation Violations

4.314 Billion

143,800 Tech

+20 days of terms

Comments:

Passed over 4 billion today. Anyway, thanks for makeing this thread popular, but i guess its dieing now. Makes me so sad, TT-TT, but oh well. Keep posting to keep this thread alive if you want. I have no clue how long it will be until this is over, but i guess i will keep posting till it is.

[Disclaimer: Now this topic isn't a debate about those terms, as the title says, I made this to inform everyone what those terms would be, if added up. I am simply informing you what they are, so please don't write mis-informing reports. I am not here to debate how good/bad/ok/not-ok the terms are. I am just simply writing what they would be. So please don't throw tons of flames out there. Pwease ]

[Matthew Conrad]

I forgot, did this thread beat the Valhalla surrender thread?

[Angrator]

I say we start a side pot on what the final total will actually reach. I'll throw 3 million at it reaching 30 billion. Anyone game?

[Roadie]

I forgot, did this thread beat the Valhalla surrender thread?

Lol! That thread was epic. And your post is making me think ahead to what an NPO surrender thread might become.

[Matthew Conrad]

Lol! That thread was epic. And your post is making me think ahead to what an NPO surrender thread might become.

I have a nice beer and snacks just waiting for it. It's going to no doubt provide hours of drama-infested fun.

[Roadie]

I have a nice beer and snacks just waiting for it. It's going to no doubt provide hours of drama-infested fun.

Beer could get skunky by then. I'd drink it soon and get a fresh twelver when the time comes.

But that's just me. And I admit I like a cold beer during summer for no reason at all.

[Grand Emperor Burka]

Beer could get skunky by then. I'd drink it soon and get a fresh twelver when the time comes.

But that's just me. And I admit I like a cold beer during summer for no reason at all.

it really depends on the beer roadie, some actually become better and can actually mature try keeping chimay blue for a long time you'll see it gets stronger and better

[Matthew Conrad]

Beer could get skunky by then. I'd drink it soon and get a fresh twelver when the time comes.

But that's just me. And I admit I like a cold beer during summer for no reason at all.

That's true, I'll be sure to grab some fresh ones when the thread gets posted and sit back and watch the magic happen.

[Random]

You haven't read the thread, Revanche, because these comments litter the thread. From MoDs to dozens of members to prominent members back to MoDs. Don't try to insult my intelligence by claiming you have read the thread and found no such statements.

From statements calling these pre-terms, which are prevalent on the first 10 pages, to disagreement over whether or not NPO has to leave peace to get surrender terms. It's all in this thread for your easy review. If you don't wish to admit this, that's fine by me. You certainly aren't under any obligation to do so.

Again, I am not going to pull up every single post in this thread, and others, that proves my statement. Insofar as effectively and decisively winning a war? Well, the two of us apparently disagree on what that means. I don't view it as stomping an enemy into a bloody pulp, but then again I rather enjoy war and competition.

My posts lack the slightest grasp on fact or logic? That's laughable, considering the statements you have made within. I guess making the claim "It only exists if you want it to" works for both sides of an argument, eh? Also, as I am not involved in the NPO front nor in any war effort that would indeed make you and your allies "your side". At least, that makes the most sense to me. There is your side, the other side, and me. Pretty clear.

If clear questions, alternate methods, and trying to sort out conflicting statements is "smearing"...then I guess that is what I'm doing. Until I, persistently, get attacked by enraged individuals such as yourself I don't have any issues.

It has to be a policy, then? I thought high ranking members of other alliances stating such was good enough. Silly me. I guess the argument only works when you are shouting down your enemies...then every member represents their alliance?

I believe in free speech, so I'm unclear as to what you are talking about. It's your folks that paint every member as a representative of their alliance. It was a pretty little rant, though, and one quite supportive of free speech. I do appreciate it.

Had you taken a few deep breaths before raging away at your keyboard, the thought might have crossed your mind. "Hmm...neither of those numbers represent NPO's strength accurately. Yet one happens to be one-fourth of the other. How interesting."

A smear campaign? Yet again, the behavior is unacceptable when it's done TO you and not BY you. I gave you the chance to take your disagreement with me into private venues, yet instead here we sit shouting back and forth at each other.

You've read the thread, and it's hilarious that you are trying to paint me as a beacon of morality. I don't believe I, or anyone else you 'smear' with this, have attempted to impart some divine moral code onto you. Unfortunately, statements such as this and the fact you responded publicly instead of sorting our personal disagreement out in private, only displays the fact that in your moment of glory you cannot take any sort of criticism.

Oh, but wait, there's more. I'm sure you will shortly post about how you can handle criticism so long as it's based in fact and logic. You may then continue to insist I am neither, and therefor I am 'smearing' (Again, only your side can do that) as opposed to offering criticism. I care not. I will continue to voice my disagreement, ask my questions, and gather information into the way the war is being handled. Speaking of that, how can you claim these terms are not required to be met for final peace...yet still claim they must suffer more? It's obvious they cannot suffer much more unless they leave peace. Quite a pickle.

It's been great, Revanche, and I'm sure you feel better for the exchange. I'm certain you are gloating about making me look "quite the fool". Frankly, I'm disappointed though. I would have thought that you of all people would address my issues in private as opposed to continuing to fan the flames. It's only bad when the other people do it, right?

As always, if you would actually read the thread instead of claiming to have done so, good luck with the war. There has never been a disagreement over the war, only over the execution and demeanor. I, personally, think you are exacting more revenge than anything else. I guess that's just me instilling some of that "morale code", though. Damn it all. I'll try again, though. Feel free to take this up with me. I doubt you will, though. Regardless, I won't respond to you. Not again. I will respond to arguments over why it's not overkill, how fast NPO can regrow, why these terms are absurd, etc. I won't partake in your continuing crusade to attack individuals and blame alliances while expecting no blow back. Enjoy enforcing your double standard.

Alright I was going to make a long post stating reasons why your nonsensical crap is just that but your not worth the effort so I'll just leave you with a very famous 1 liner.

It's quite obvious that you support the NPO and as your a member of government you would be well within your rights to, oh I don't know, assist them militarily? If your going to talk the talk then walk the walk as well.