Cortath

Hail the New Pacific Order!

There wasn't an option for "baby meat." That disappoints me.

Too bad I got in on this once my round was over at MK.

Haters gunna hate.

Grenval is a good guy.

[quote name='Topside the Hun' timestamp='1327161498' post='2904191'] Wars are won when you have lesened your opponents will to fight and they accept your will. The battlefield means nothing, you have to conquer your oppoents mind. Good luck with that! lol [/quote] In order to win, I have to make my opponents "accept my will?" What kind of Kantian claptrap is that? I need only crush them, drive them from me, and hear the lamentations of their women to know that I have won.

[quote name='Topside the Hun' timestamp='1327159287' post='2904184'] War is a negotiating tatic one uses to force the other party to accept your terms. You have won when they accept. They have lost when they accept. To say that FAN/FARK have lost this war at this point in time shows ones ignorance. The fact that FAN/FARK show no interest in accepting generous and easy terms shows that they rather enjoy war over peace. Collect taxes once every 20 days or do battle with multiple opponents each and every day. It would appear that FAN/FARK enjoy war and dispise peace. So what does NPO offer them, "PEACE". That's not what they want, they want war. It is clear that the only way to get F/F to accept your peace terms is to deny them what they want. Move all your nations into P/M and stop attacking them. Force peace upon them if that's what you want, for it is clear they don't. I look forward to seeing how this ends as one cannot declare winners and losers until it's over and the fat lady sings. [/quote] Your understanding of war is terribly flawed. Just because what I call losing (i.e. mine enemies' destruction), FAN/FARK calls "winning," does not mean that I have not won or that mine enemies have not lost. War is a fundamentally reality-based enterprise. Though propaganda plays a role, and post-war perceptions of foreign policy should always be on one's mind, ultimately, wars are won or lost on the field of battle.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1327122440' post='2904064'] Yes actually Cortath, that is exactly when I learned how the NPO operated. [/quote] Well, given my recollection that you were so entirely unable to follow any of the rules and principles of Pacifica that you were forced to leave the alliance, I confess being unsure how much credence to give your claim that you are intimately familiar with the leadership practices of Pacfica at her highest levels.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1327113799' post='2903990']To be honest, it was a dumb move of Francesca to join NPO anyway.[/quote] To be honest, yes.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1327098655' post='2903869'] Cut the !@#$%^&*, Brehon, there's a world of difference between changing the way you behave because you don't have the manpower to be a dick anymore and changing because you don't agree with NPO's modus operandi of times past. Don't try and feed us the line that Mary just towed the line out of fear or some crap. Roq is highly intelligent and doesn't bear patronising to. Everyone knows how governments work and NPO leadership collectively played the bad guy because it was fun. That's the way NPO works, it's a highly collectivist alliance with a paranoid ruling elite that think the same way. I mean, Mary was Moo's #2 for God's sake. [/quote] I suppose you learned precisely how the NPO leadership works back when you were in Pacifica? And you were so well able to follow all those rules and principles you understood so as to have a productive career in Pacifica? Hmmm?

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1327016548' post='2903112'] Then pleasae pardon the confusion, and when you quote me via the "reply" (to me) button, I encourage the use of the hard return tag to separate your response to me from your other points to avoid such confusion in the future. [hr] [code][hr][/code] [/quote] My apologies.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1327015973' post='2903100'] And [size="6"]ONE MORE TIME[/size] for everyone that keeps replying to me as if I disagree: I have already stated in my [i]very first[/i] post in this thread that Fark and FAN should just take the terms. For the very same reason, however, it is just as expedient for NPO to drop a term which their own official position undermines if NPO wants to shake this off their heel today. [/quote] It ain't all about you, Schatt. As I said in my post, I direct my words far more at some of our less-realpolitik adversaries than I do a mind as sharply honed by reality such as yourself.

What is this "Earth" you speak of?

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1327010325' post='2903039'] I don't know if people are being willfully ignorant, or oversimplifying, or what, but here we go. The terms are not simply an admission of defeat and no re-entry, they are: [20:25] <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> I feel, and my Regent and other officers agree, that Fark has lost enough as it is, and as such we will not be seeking reparations from you. <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> We do want an official statement from Fark acknowledging defeat and that your entry into this war was a mistake. <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> That will be the only "term." <&Brehon[NPO]> No reentry <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> That as well. Two terms, but three requirements: (1) An admission of defeat, (2) an acknowledgement that Fark/FAN were wrong to declare war, and (3) no re-entry. However, even NPO's Regent Brehon [i]in this very thread[/i] on multiple occasions has said that NPO's DoS justified FAN/Fark's attack. So, NPO is asking FAN/Fark to make a statement that is contrary to their own correct position, and which is contrary to NPO's own position. FAN/Fark are not "childishly" refusing to accept terms "because [they] don't want to say that [they] lost a war" they are refusing to accept terms which require a statement contrary to the truth. If anything is childish, it's trying to make FAN/Fark say something which NPO itself says is not true. [/quote] Who cares? Seriously. A cycle of war takes many more cycles of rebuilding. Every additional cycle of war for the sake of pride simply prolongs the rebuilding. Were even the dithering and the delays some sort of acceptable negotiation tactic (and it is not), not accepting such a peace is foolish. Our opponents have lost this war; that is the reality on the ground. Nothing is gained for our opponents by prolonging this conflict: Pacifica looses no reputation for maintaining war when such an easy peace is offered; Pacifica is not militarily threatened; Pacifica is permitted to maintain a worthy enemy in FAN and an unworthy one in FARK to have our lower tier practice against, maintaining military readiness. This is good. This argument over whether or not a Declaration of Support justifies an otherwise-preemptive attack is pure foolishness. Foreign policy is a game for Rulers who see with their eyes open, who negotiatie with open hands, and who prepare to clench their fist to strike again. It is not for idealists; it is not for people who care more for pride than pixels. Let the propagandists write and the poets sing of whether or not the attack was just from the protection of peace, strength, and prosperity, not under the withering siege of an endless war that could be avoided. If they hate us so, and if they have such a pride, let them at least have the chance to rise again such that pride brings them down anew. I spell out these things because I suspect some of our opponents (though not all) would be well due for such a lesson in foreign policy. Let them heed it; for we are merciful. The next time they strike an opponent with might such as ours, they may not be so lucky as to be offered such a peace.

[quote name='Princess Doomee' timestamp='1326249887' post='2897159'] Would you translate that thought into something simple that I might understand? [/quote] I am eating your babies. You think I care about human rights?

[quote name='Princess Doomee' timestamp='1326210992' post='2896895'] OK, let's get serious for a moment. While you might get passing grades on creativity, there can be no doubt that by forcing your membership to listen to that doodoodoodoodoodoo must violate some manner of human rights doctrine. Whoever did that background should have an immediate laryngectomy. Now, as to the purpose of your new theme song, do any of you really believe we were not aware of this outcome before the first shot was fired? If yes, you should write an autobiography and name it "Gullible's Travels". In closing, I beg you Sir Paul, if there is even one strain of humanity left in your body, please please please provide us with some better doodoo in your next effort. The ears of Planet Bob thank you. [/quote] I find it interesting to be spoken to about human rights from someone whose babies we are eating presently.

Hail the Imperial Clerk! Hail the New Pacific Order! It has been far too long since a sing along report!

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1325694812' post='2892342'] FAN doesn't really need PR, so it makes sense for them. [/quote] Every alliance needs PR. Whether or not they choose to seek it is another matter.

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1325606011' post='2891510'] I think having lots of inactives is a burden rather than a benefit. Most of the mass member alliances actually comprise of an active core of competent members (akin to that of an elite alliance), they just waste their resources babysitting nations who contribute next to nothing for the cause. So it is natural that the elite alliances (who don't have such burdens) prove more capable. If someone allows themselves to be so inactive that they become a burden to their alliance, they don't deserve to be a member of it. When I lost most of my interest in actively playing this game, I started sending aid and tech to my alliance-mates. Over the past year and a half or so I've spent virtually no time on my nation but have still contributed several hundred million dongs and thousands of tech to my alliance. I also have a funny picture thread which I think is the only reason why TOP keeps me around these days. [/quote] If you're in a mass alliance and you're "babysitting" "inactives," then you're doing it wrong. The key to success in a mass alliance is to create systems whereby your core players can get the most out of your less active players. What you lack in efficiency, you more than make up in volume. And the breadth of efficiency among different mass alliances I've observed is astounding. There's a lot of wrong out there.

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1325137904' post='2888374'] Glad to see you're still around. [/quote] Likewise to you. I'm glad to be around around again.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325133251' post='2888341'] Wow, that is spot on. [/quote] Thank you. It's why I got paid the big bucks once.

Part of the problem with these online games, as perhaps Chron hints at, is a sort of character fatigue. Few players are able to continue playing their characters for years and years, and many, like real leaders, are loathe to give up the power to do so. It is a difficult job for a new leader to spend political capital wiping clean the slate of upper management who may have been excellent in 2006 or 2007, but less able and less active to perform in 2011. What someone like the leaders Chron mentions, and I'll simply name Moldavi for simplicity sakes, comes into a new planet, a new world, with ready-made cadres of talented people, he doesn't have to waste political capital or time forming coalition or solidifying power. He can simply go out and do whatever foreign policy he wishes to do. Such is a tabula rosa. But in an established world like ours, no leader can come to power in such a way. There is clawing uphill, and compromises, and shifting alliances, and once there, debts to be paid. You can't simply go out and do whatever you want, because you're part of a large alliance power structure that is difficult to change, refocus, and shape. You must work within the structure that brought you to power, and it is not easy to purge or cleanse an alliance leadership to put in place your own people. Such is not possible is a more developed political environment, only in one such as that in which we were all born to in 2006.

I'm not dead yet!

[quote name='atrophis' timestamp='1296321997' post='2609604'] Clearly actions speak louder than words. As you may have said you wish to repair relations, your response has clearly proved to be otherwise. [/quote] I don't believe this is the appropriate place to engage in this debate. I merely wanted to note that I believe a factual matter was incorrectly stated on the podcast.