Seerow

Please, keep this sort of commentary to yourself. People may catch on. And really, if everyone figures out RVs game, his game ceases to be amusing by lack of reaction from others. And where's the fun in that?

I stopped reading right around here, but for future reference, next time call their bluff. It's not war slot filling if you're actually warring. They can threaten all they want but you had zero chance of getting in trouble for tech raiding without nuking.

It doesn't get you out of bill lock, but you survive and don't delete. Take it from someone who was at ZI for more than half the time you have been playing cybernations. It's not only possible, people do it all the time. Don't blame others for your cowardice.

Being at war stops you from collecting?

Well for one, to be clear I wasn't in MK at that point in time. I was currently sitting at ZI as a result of the Pacifican ZI list, where I was until about 2 months ago. That said, the terms offered to MK were harsh, but as was stated MK didn't expect to receive terms, when terms were put on the table, MK accepted them almost immediately. So the anology doesn't really work here. Now, if MK, after being given those terms from the NPO to pay the 90k tech or whatever it was decided to keep fighting for another 2-3 months, and as a result were brought to the point where they only had 100k tech total, and were in a state where they would have significant difficulty paying them, then yes, I would say it was wholly MK's fault for refusing to accept terms when they were first given. However that is not how it played out. MK paid off their reparations with ease, ahead of schedule, while rebuilding their own members. MK did exactly what I am advocating that Echelon should have done.

Next time don't wait until you're a fraction of what you used to be before accepting terms. Don't whine to us because your opponents had a stronger will than you did. You signed the terms, you live with them. Edit: Realized the poster isn't from Echelon. Point still stands, but replace "you" with "they"

Really the reps are a nonissue as far as I care. I agree with Bob Janova, they were offered these terms much earlier, I honestly can't fault the alliances that were surrendered to for refusing to change the terms due to time at war. It's the general lessening of terms over time that has kept the NPO still at war to this day, at least one part of Karma showing that it is willing to stick to its guns and not go soft after a little time has passed is a good thing. It teaches people a lesson-if you think you're losing, take terms when they're offered, don't dick around hoping for better. You might not get it. The other terms.. meh. Term 11 seems to be like way too easy of a way to start FAN 2.0. ("They're not being cute? ATTACK!"). And banning Caffiene from government seems like something that was not needed given appearances that he has gone completely innactive. But I digress. Btw thanks GR.

But it was a great way to get on the front page for most transactions. It's amazing how many people did buying tanks wrong. And how many didn't tech raid...

I have #663 by age. 4 weeks away from 3 years. God I need to quit this game while Im ahead >_>

I'm curious, what was your position in GATO prior to the NPO Viceroyship?

Of course it is, but it is important to note the question was referring to grand standers who have no relationship to TDO who are claiming what the NSO did was wrong. Recruiting from NSO is explicitly in of itself not a crime. Flaunting the recruiting NSO does while ignoring it from another alliance is hypocrisy. It seems clear to me that he was aiming to get an opinion on if these who feel what the NSO is doing will also state outrage for this (as they have equal say in NSOs policies as they do in TDOs, which is to say none), or if they will show themselves as hypocrites and ignore it while continuing to harp on the NSO. I for one have no idea what the incident you are referring to from IRC is, as I have been largely innactive recently. I will however say if it was a lulz attempt at recruiting via IRC and led to some sort of conflict, I am as disdainful of that as of any possibility of conflict from this. The NSO explicitly has no policy to prevent anyone from recruiting from them, Ivan has stated that any alliance is free to do so as they wish. So TDO recruiting from NSO would not have caused a war. To my knowledge, TDO also has no standing rule in effect to prevent any recruitment from their alliance. They assume that community standards hold true for them and expect nobody will attempt it, however with no policy to indicate otherwise I see no reason why recruitment would be considered an act of aggression. Moldavi is known to go on frequently about how peace is a lie, and has hopes of bringing roleplaying back to some degree in Cybernations. On Planet Bob Neutrals are a synonym for pacifists (something I do not agree should stand, which I argued in an earlier post), and as such would be directly opposed to the Sith point of view. As such it makes sense that they would try to seduce some of the neutrals to 'the dark side'. That said, if a war does come of it, it's a war over what is basically an RP of very different points of view. While TDO and those who roll with them might not agree, that is what it would be, and as such a win for the community as a whole. I for one expect to see more of this sort of thing happening in the future, and am prepared to enjoy the entertainment provided by it fully.

It's clearly for lulz. I have found the situation entertaining, and I am certain many NSO members and many outsiders do as well. Don't get so serious about it.

I believe Ivan has already explicitly stated in this thread that NSO has no policy against attempting to recruit from its ranks and told everyone who wants to try to have at it.

Alright I read like 1/3 of this thread, so forgive me if any stunning revalations have come to light in that last 20 pages I didn't see. I support NSO on this one, honestly. I think that cross-alliance poaching is frowned upon needlessly, and the arguments have already been made as to why. If anyone is going to up and leave your alliance because they received a PM from a stranger, that person is worthless to your alliance anyway, and you should be happy that they're gone. I doubt that NSO has actually gained a significant number of nations from this recruitment drive, but the neutrals involved in this should be thanking NSO for getting rid of them. Now, a comment on the neutrals. Everyone expects neutral alliances to be what GPA was (still is?). I feel this is a mistake. If the neutrals actually feel their sovereignty has been infringed upon, they have every right to declare war and still maintain the status of neutral. Neutrality is refusing to take part in the polarization of the world, where you have old alliances and relationships that guide the constant wars that take place on Planet Bob. There is nothing to say that a Neutral cannot and should not pick a fight of their own, or raise to the bait when a non-neutral alliance tries to drag them to war. Do I feel that the recruitment warrants a march to war? Not particularly. As I stated above, all alliances involved should be thanking the NSO for the opportunity to test the resolve of their members. But the sentiment that they should all go back and sit pretty simply because they are neutral is misguided and frankly wrong. We as a community should be encouraging strong neutral alliances that aren't afraid to go to war when they feel like it. It is something the game has been missing for far too long due to the nature of the treaty web.

You're right, fully abstract discussions won't get very far, and I'm too far removed from the alliance to give much more helpful input. I'm not saying take out the entire middle bureaucracy, just cut down on it significantly. Either by removing some intermediaries, or giving the intermediaries enough power to act on things without an IOs approval. Obviously not in something like war, but if a member has a suggestion for something that they think would work better than it currently is, they'll probably feel better seeing it come together within the course of a week or two rather than months. If it then proceeds to fall on its face the member will understand that their idea wasn't the best, and if it flourishes, reward them for it and so much the better. I understand this is likely an ideal you already strive for though, so speaking in the abstract we will get nowhere. So I'll go ahead and stop now.

I suppose we could, but I might ruin my good reputation as a traitor if I don't have something negative to say for everything positive/constructive I say in turn. We can't have that can we? I suppose I'll find something new for my next post. To be perfectly honest, I'd question the effectiveness of this unless it has only been recently implemented as the bad perception lingers. Of course I can't comment on the merit of the suggestions being presented, but cutting down some of the bureaucracy in the middle would probably help you a lot. Shed another 200-300 low activity members and you might be able to do that effectively without wearing out your most active government. But that may be a bit too drastic of a change for the NPO to swallow, even with the transformation you're being forced to undergo from this war. Only time can tell.

I'm glad you can appreciate the irony. I feel the dsitinction is important, $%&@ victims live on, most of the time. They can commit suicide, but that doesn't add murder to the rapists' crimes. Now which crime is worse? Some people will debate it until the end of time, but I will hold that murder is a worse crime than $%&@, and that fine distinction can make a difference between capital punishment and life in prison with potential for early parole on good behavior. Such is the definition of meritocracy. The problem with such systems is that many people feel that their own contributions are more merit worthy than they actually are, leading them to feel they're going nowhere fast in the meritocracy and blame the system rather than themselves for not being more innovative.

Well the comparison could be rapists instead and possibly be more accurate. But we all know NPO's feelings about $%&@. That said I will agree that it wasn't a comment that needed to be made in response to your post. You weren't saying the NPO should be let off clean, you were answering a question with your personal story. And I also will attest that anyone who is willing to join as a regular unrecognized member and be active enough can carve out a position for themselves.

You know for about 5 seconds I thought this might be a surprise important topic. I'm not sure if I love or hate being wrong right now.

Ah good to hear. Can we get the next round of punishment published as part of your next PR release? That way when we have another 200+ page thread we'll at least have something interesting to discuss.

So you will not be punishing Hawk11 for impersonating an imperial officer then? Alas, Bilrow you take all the fun out of life.

It's okay, great power means nothing if you don't do anything with it.

Dear NPO: When and how is Hawk going to be punished for posing as an Imperial Officer publicly? Thanks, Seerow.

Just face it Archon nobody likes our flag. Hurry up and pick a new one.

I must say I am loving these surrender terms. Giving me all sorts of new things to go try out.