Cortath

I don't think I've put in a lot of effort here. But I have put in effort into speaking with our opposites.

I don't think so. I'm not convinced that everyone on the other side wanted peace. If they were so willing to bring down the terms based on our ability to pay, I would have thought that after hours of debating the economics, one of them would have piped up and said, "Oh, by the way, if you can't pay, we'll lower it, and here's how." That they did not do that makes me suspect that some number of them did not and do not want peace, any peace. We were and are willing to sit down and offer anything reasonable that was within our power to give. Many of them our opposites were not willing to hear any counter-offer or budge an inch on the substantive issues. That they were unwilling to do this is telling.

I'm well aware of those terms. There was no "tribute" "indefinitely." The Viceroy was "indefinite" but did not include "indefinite tribute."

TypoNinja: if Karma wanted to give some hard numbers on how that would be calculated, they would have. At no point during our negotiations, prior to our formal rejection, or subsequently, did anyone in Karma give the slightest inclination that they had given a modicum of thought to the faintest glimmer of an idea that we would not be paying the full terms listed. If that's not the case, I invite those representatives of Karma to approach our government and inform us otherwise, including calculations of how such terms would be lowered and under what conditions.

*chuckles* Really. We put "indefinite" tribute in a peace agreement? I must have missed that one.

Explain how you will calculate such a thing.

Welcome to Planet Bob. I hope you enjoy your time here.

*chuckles heartily* Sure. Give me a query and we can arrange to buy tech from the Jedi Order.

Nice to see my post, which I had hoped was thoughtful, is getting read. *chuckles*

Ah, c'mon, Koona's a cutiepie (ret.).

I thought your post was in response to mine.

He didn't have the "gov access" to the level that this discussion was on.

I take no such thing for granted these days. TPF has been a stalwart ally and they shown us and the world the content of the character of their alliance throughout the duration of this conflict.

I can't say I did, but I'll take your word for it.

You have to be careful when dropping care packages on Pacifica. Babies are difficult to pack, and if the parachutes fail, there's not much left of them.

I'd like to briefly comment: I've read several posts commenting on how TPF is being forced to stay in this war by the NPO, and how the NPO is being "selfish" by not letting TPF choose peace if it wishes it. We have told our ally of TPF, an ally, I do not hesitate to say, for whom me and my comrades in Pacifica have nothing but enduring respect and gratitude that only those who have shed blood together can know, that if they wish to leave this conflict, they can do so with our blessing.

Let me begin with the caveat that though I speak for myself and not for my government, I think my views are reflective of many Pacificans. Truth is the first casualty of war, Penguin. It is unfortunate, indeed, that war pits one side against another, for in both arguments, there are kernels of truth, but the hardened moralities of battles prevent a soldier from admitting such truths. There is truth to some of the arguments I have heard from Karma. Yes, we have done many things, that in retrospect, I wish we would not have done. We also did many things for good reasons, but did them the wrong way. Our animosity against FAN is perhaps a good example of these truths of war. Perhaps few remember these days, but FAN was hated. Our animosity against FAN was with huge support. Did we prosecute that animosity in a way that was right? I think we now recognize we did not. Was this war handled properly? Was a single spy, or an alliance accepting information from that spy worth a great war? I can think of few things worth a great war. No, this war was not handled well. Though we were wronged, we did not approach the matter the right way, simple as that. But many of us knew this. Before the war, we saw a changing world. We saw it move in a direction we had not gone before. It is not easy to see such change, to move in a direction away from a world that we had a large part in creating. I admit, we are an old alliance, and proud, proud of many things which we are worthy of men and women like we to be proud of, and proud also of things unworthy of us. It is easy for the young warrior to see the setting sun and know that the sun will rise on the morrow, bringing light to darkness on the same world he saw yesterday. How much harder though, for the aged graybeard to lay down his sword for the night, and see the sun rise on a world so different from the one he was born in. It is in the humbling of the weak, once strong, that they can bask in the light of wisdom that has shone on their darkness, and be made strong through that light. It is difficult to embrace such a drastic a change of the foundation of foreign policy, when we played such a large part of creating it originally. Though we recognize, and indeed we do and we have, the necessity of that change, it makes the change no less difficult. Attacked by guerilla groups our actions created, and spied on by dissidents, many of whom were from our own ranks, it is difficult to compromise one's hard line principles in the face of such challenges. Perhaps it is fitting that only through the cataclysm of war can we change. For to make such a sweeping change from a position of strength would compromise us in the face of attacks upon our system. Although it seems simple to give in and thereby eliminate those existential threats, pride cometh before the fall. I think many of us continue to speak the way we have, Penguin, speaking in defense of our past, and our history, because we are afraid. We are afraid that in admitting faults, we will give credence to our enemies, who in turn, will not give us the chance to achieve that change we wish. Many of us cry hypocrisy and point at those were with us in the past, because, as sadly (and I regret it), you can understand, it hurts to have your allies turn on you. It hurts to see those who gladly stood by you while times were good on the sidelines watching you bleed, and it hurts a lot more to see some of them plunging the dagger into your belly. Indeed, I too, am afraid. I understand what it is to see what you have built crumble, but far more than fear is my hope. I have great hope for the future. I am, and always will be, proud to be a Pacifican, and I do fervently hope, that we will be given a chance to achieve a possible peace, and implement that change that this war has all too harshly, but justly, hastened.

Thank you for your congratulations. You were not a Manager of the Technology Corps. Your position on the Council gave you no access to the substantive discussions that I (now) have access to regarding this incident. That there are disagreements within the New Pacific Order, on an issue as new (then and relatively speaking) as technology procurement is nothing surprising, or even worth pointing out, unless you are someone with an axe to grind against the NPO. Yes, Koona had a different opinion on the best way to get technology into the NPO. In the end, we all discussed it, and from that discussion, we were made better, and a compromise was struck. In retrospect, it's easy to say that Koona was wrong, and indeed, Koona himself had said as much. But back when we were just beginning to create state-sponsored technology procurement departments, there was a significant group of people who felt that the free market was more effective. Now, in the New Pacific Order, we encourage both.

Well, it's a balancing act. There's something to be said for having expert opinion in a field. For instance, I am the Imperial Officer who oversees the Technology Corps of the NPO. I like to think I know quite a bit about technology distribution and general economics. Not infrequently, a member comes to me with what could charitably be described as a "bad" idea about something to do with the Tech Corps. I never dismiss any idea out of hand, because I know as well as the next person that you don't have to be an expert to have a good idea, but there is something to be said for fully understanding a process and a system before beginning to improve it. In the Tech Corps, for instance, we have dozens of discrete and different processes that are repeated hundreds of times. Making even a small change to one of those processes translates into significant change for a how a process works, due to its repetition. So there's a lot of impetus in a bureaucracy such as that to keep on doing what it does, and carefully evaluate proposed changes and reforms before enacting them on a mass scale. So, I will say, I think an opinion about a bureaucracy or a process tends to be better informed when it comes from within that bureaucracy or by a person with such specialized knowledge. That's not to say that I do not "value" only those members or their suggestions who have that knowledge; I was once such a member and I made suggestions too. I don't think it's particularly radical to say that I value say, a General's opinion on war strategy more than a soldier's, but in saying that, I do not say a soldier's opinion does not have value, but rather that its value is of a different, but no less important, nature. Generally speaking, as I said before, when a member makes a suggestion that I think is unwise, I treat it as a learning experience for both of us. If I can convince them that I'm right, maybe I can help them learn something about economics (or whatever was suggested). If I attempt to justify the status quo them, and they disagree, that gives me pause. If I can't convince someone that this is a good idea, maybe they have a point. It's very important how bureaucracies and processes are perceived by the people, because it is they, after all, whom these bureaucracies and processes are designed to serve. [edit grammar]

It is an ideal we strive for. Not that the outside knows (and probably doesn't care) about our internal bureaucracy, but we recently radically restructured our internal member-services divisions and did pretty much exactly what you're talking about: dismantling an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, and bringing the people closer to their leaders, and giving the Council, elected by the people, a better understanding of how these departments worked through increased advisory abilities.

*shrugs* I don't know that shedding the middle bureaucracy would be helpful. Not really sure if we can have a productive discussion in the abstract. We have a bureaucracy, so does every alliance. We have many ranks in our government structures, because we have a pretty large alliance, and it requires a lot of officials to deal with pretty complex processes and departments with a very many people.

I suppose perhaps we can agree to disagree on the comparisons of the New Pacific Order to rapists and serial killers and perhaps end this train of discussion? Indeed, I think that is a problem with meritocratic systems of government, and it is one we try to combat. We try to make sure that our members don't feel that their contributions are unwanted or unnecessary, because all contributions are valued. All discussion and ideas help make our alliance better. The good contributions are incorporated into the discussions, and contributions that are less worthy made by nonetheless, wise members, can allow everyone to learn more about the system.

I haven't found that to be the case. Discussion is closed for much the same reasons as here: [ooc]trolling, flaming, comparing us to RL felons or other nasty conduct[/ooc] and such.

In one post, you both compare us to rapists, and say that the comparison to serial killers is unwarranted. I appreciate your subtle distinction. I appreciate your comment in regards to our story, and indeed, I think your comment is correct: people can rise up within our meritocratic system.

Thank you for the clarification regarding Bakunin's position. The Technology Corps was shut down at one point, yes. I don't think you remember correctly, but I don't think we're going to gain anything by discussing these facts. Are there disagreements within the New Pacific Order on substantive policy issues? Yes. I would not characterize that "some [...] IO's didn't like it." There were substantive disagreements on policy issues, mainly dealing with different ideas about the role the free market in regarding to our state-run Technology Corps. Was there vigorous debate on the subject? Yes. Did I, personally, agree with all the decisions made? No. Was the final product made better because of that vigorous debate? Yes. Was the New Pacific Order strengthened by that debate? Yes. I think that systems works pretty well. People frequently speak of the New Pacific Order as if there is some overarching autocracy that permits no dissent. Tgat's not true. We have a lot of internal discussion on debate on all variety of topics, large and small.