[Announcement from the Clerk of the NPO]

At least GATO's charter was actually democratic. Your charter is oligarchical, elitist and anti-democratic which flies in the face of everything I have read or seen written by you and your members about your organization. I would expect to see in the governing documents of Vox Populi the egalitarian spirit that underlies your rhetoric. I don't. I see a washed out NPO charter, with a thin veil of populism over a hefty dose of skepticism and condescension towards your members.

Give some comparisons and examples, go on it can't be that hard.

Back up your trolling with more than mere words if you intend to troll at all.

[CN Awards: Alliance Categories Debate Thread VI]

MK, MK, IAA

[TUON-SMF War]

I hope you learned from this. Planet Bob can be very lonely and inhospitable for those with no Honor.

Until you join One Vision anyway.

Really? Even if this were true.... it doesn't mean you have the right to do it as well.

No, it just gives them the excuse to mimic those they view as being successful.

[TUON-SMF War]

Wait, this is an 18 nation alliance, attacking a 3 nation alliance during a day such commemoration (and celebration) in which even the two opposing sides during the First World War had a cease fire.

And none of TOUN has a problem with this.

[The Great Patriotic War and You]

I am neither brainless, nor am I pretending to be. Vladimir's OP accurately reflects this period in our history, as I was there to witness it.

B

Brainless, no.

Blind and in willful denial, quite possibly.

[The Great Patriotic War and You]

Careful there tiger, he might take away the sarcasm and highlight it as a point that he won in a future date.

Or possibly even rewrite the entire thing (adding a few paragraphs in the process) to suit his needs.

[The Great Patriotic War and You]

Oh, so what is this phantom number that once you go over you are now making official statements? The official statement was at the beginning comrade, the rest is just conversation. Try not to overuse the word logic next time.

[irony]And you consider me to be deluded.[/irony]

It might be to your advantage if in the future you were to understand that comments are not 'official statements.'

Everything which follows is normally commentary, or in this case criticism and attempts to unearth the truth from the OP’s wall ‘o propaganda.

[The Great Patriotic War and You]

So much pointless bickering over something that happened over 2 years ago. Anybody would think NPO had something to prove the way this topic goes on and on

Or had something they were apparently very desperate to disprove.

[The Great Patriotic War and You]

The reply: Part II

To put how rapid this was in perspective, a thread on the NPO forum started at 11:23am GMT with one alliance pulling out, at 12:19pm it is noted that four alliances had pulled out, and at 4:09pm a post lists five alliances out of the war, one (soon to be) permanent ceasefire and three 24 hour ceasefires.

Another alliance pulled out at 6:18pm, another at 9:06pm. It was a domino effect created by panic. I don't see it as any stretch that these small panicking alliances that had been left completely out of the loop by the larger coaluetion alliances and weren't sure if they would be included in an eventual peace would surrender.

From the NPO forum.

Do you really expect me to simply accept supposed records from your own forums, let alone actual evidence of this thread’s existence or content?

As to why I'm just saying all this now? Well... I'm not. As I've repeated throughout the thread (as usual) I've been saying this for the past two years.

Can anyone support this claim, can you produce any links to posts of this?

I liked this one. 'I know you are, but what am I!' Good point.

But how do we know that a giant dinosaur wasn't about to come out of the bushes and eat King Arthur, but King Arthur had a light-sabre and cut his way out of the dinosaur's stomach, but then he stubbed his toe which was his one weakness and then he died? It's an analogy

I thought that you were above childish insults, flamebaits and verbal abuse towards someone’s intelligence. Or at least that you regarded yourself as being above this.

It seems that I was mistaken.

It's there to simplify the argument.

And as a flamebait.

If you want to argue that the analogy is flawed then I'm afraid you will have to go to the actual effort of demonstrating why the argument is flawed; simply changing what happens in the analogy doesn't work.

I never said that it was flawed. I simply said that you were wrong. And I fail to see why I should put effort into demonstrating my point when you put so little effort into finding actual evidence.

And my argument has been supported by a number of former high level coaluetion officials as well, such as Kamichi and WalkerNinja.

So, if you know who will support you in this (from the opposing side of the war) then bring them into this debate.

Dissent from President ShinRa's opinion will not be tolerated! Though generally such calls work better when the one making them isn't so determined to have the last word.

…

The irony of this statement coming from not only a Pacifican but the ‘great Vladimir’ is quite amusing.

[The Great Patriotic War and You]

The reply: Part I

Poor President ShinRa. Everything must seen so simple to you. 'Is that black?' 'No.' 'Oh, so it must be white then!'

Well as I said, there is very little middle ground in this debate. Either your lost this war or you won it. Nearly winning quite frankly counts for squat.

Were this any other alliance, perhaps even the NpO or IRON I would be much more willing to listen un-insulting statements and unbias messages. Especially ones which do not relate to mass filibuster posts.

I'm afraid the politics and strategy of global war are a tad more complex than that.

Yes, it does seem to involve a lot more back room diplomacy and puppet alliances than it used to.

The Order doesn't have an "apparent policy for domination," and anyone who would say that has clearly not been paying attention.

To what? the attacks upon FAN?

the LEGION?

GATO?

NpO?

All of them were either threats, independent factions or old enemies which you continently found reasons to attack.

The Order has an apparent policy of doing what is in the best interests of the Order.

This apparently includes (if not centers upon) declaring EZI or Perma-Zi upon anyone who could balance out the power within this game and remove you from your blissful illusion of power.

And also using any and all methods to gain an edge in wars, from using your fabled Pafician meat shield to abusing loopholes in the game’s programming. Midnight Blitz anyone?

But regardless, whichever of these you choose to accept, the policy-recommendation at the time would have been the same: end the war and rebuild. Slaughtering LUE and taking more damage while everyone around us rebuilt would not have been in our best interests and certainly wouldn't have advanced any policy of "domination."

Well, at least you do not deny your attempts to create any dominions within this game. I suppose that’s one step towards you admitting any form of truth.

As for everyone around you well, considering the number of allies you made since then I believe delaying your rebuilding would have mattered very little to future progress.

It would have simply given you something to boast about on the forums.

And I like to think that we're a little bit more sophisticated than "NPO SMASH!"

And yet it is the apparent basis of your alliance’s society.

By all means continue to delude yourself. At the end of the say all that the NPO seems to come down to is gaining power, and it doesn’t matter that Cybernations is only one game nor does it matter who they have to curb stomp to get here in the process.

When I say that the coaluetion was in disarray I am referring specifically (and rather obviously, so I'm not sure how you missed it) to their internal relations -- the bickering between alliances was tearing them apart, as they readily admit.

And I asked you for evidence, proof in this matter. Not simply mere lies and opinions.

This was true in many ways: between the small alliances and large alliances, between the moralist alliances and the pragmatic alliances, and more generally between all of the alliances as their objectives differed and diverged increasingly throughout the war. This is a problem that the Orders didn't have, so no, it cannot be applied to them.

And thus you simply ignore and attempt to dodge the question. I ask for a very straightforward and direct answer, not “It does not matter, this does not apply to us.”

Evidence for alliances surrendering. Unfortunately all of the threads have since been deleted from the CN forum.

How very convenient for you.

I'm sure there are plenty who remember it (and perhaps even have threads on their forums about it? I know, for example, that I discussed Federation's proposed surrender on their forum).

Well then, get screenshots or evidence of this. If you admit to it’s existence then you have no reason to no present it.

[The Great Patriotic War and You]

Actually, I didn't ignore it, I responded to it 4 posts down, here.

Again, this is a very opinionated reply which starts with an alleged admission from your perspective then continues in a downwards spiral towards various opinions hidden as facts.

“The coaluetion was in disarray”

I suppose that at this point you’ll say that the Orders and their allies had the war going in exactly the right direction, with nothing going wrong.

“and I say 'surrendering', Bob, because they actually did come to us and say "we surrender"”

Do you have documents or screenshots of this?

“Indeed, if we had really wanted LUE dead, and had been willing to sacrifice our long term recovery in favour of it, then I expect it would have been so, as enough alliances would have pulled out to give us an easy run to cripple them permanently.”

And your saying this long after the war had ended, why now?

And again I ask you to back this up with some solid evidence, not highly bias words or propaganda.

I've also responded to your other point numerous times throughout the thread; look here for example. And my point is not that we achieved a "near military victory," it's that we were winning the war but chose to withdraw for long-term strategic reasons -- this is where the 'Black Knight' analogy comes in in my original post, which you can find here.

“chose to withdraw for long-term strategic reasons”

I can think of a few people who would simply call ‘legging it from a fight’ or simply running away. And due to the Order’s reputation and apparent policy for the dominion and submission of other alliances, I do not believe that you would have retreated had you been sure you could win.

“If we had pushed on we would have won the war, but we may not be in the position that we are today.”

This would be no bad thing but yet again I remain dubious of it, you would have been able to force any surrender terms you wanted down the throats of your enemies if you had beaten them in military terms and had proven that you were more than capable of fighting [irony]outnumbered and outgunned against a much stronger enemy[/irony], so I fail to see how ‘falling back’ actually helped you if you alread had them beat.

And since the ‘Black Knight’ quote is only supported by your words (and the words of your current allies and those who fought along side you in the war) that the LUE and it’s allies were in such a bad condition, how do we know that you were not the ones about to fall to pieces with an arm and leg missing?

Everyone thinks they've cracked the code and come up with some amazing silver-bullet logic, only to be reminded that it has been claimed and refuted a dozen times before. And this is why the thread is 43 pages long, as I outlined here.

“cracked the code”

What code? this is simple propaganda with a few facts thrown in.

Every example or counterargument here to back up your claims has been written by you, so how does anyone know that you are not simply altering the facts to support your own argument? and more to the point I fail to see how you can use something you have written as evidence with such as clearly bias opinion on the war and various factors relating to it.

Now, let this thread die.

[The Great Patriotic War and You]

This point is, like the rest of your points, invalid.

You are assuming that our goal in the "several wars later on" was the complete destruction of our opponents. That is not the case. There is nothing inconsistent about Vladimir's accurate representation of the history of the Great Patriotic War that can not be extrapolated consistently to the rest of our glorious history.

So give a few examples. Back up these points. Show me how yours are correct and mine are invalid.

And frankly I don't give a damn about 'inconsistent elements' of his story, as he has written it. Just as he has written a great many other 'supposedly truthful' pieces on Pacifica. And if any part of it is accurate, than it has most likely been left there because it supports the propaganda of this piece of work.

[The Great Patriotic War and You]

As true now as it was 38 pages ago. I already answered this point: here. So yes, it's still going on, largely because some people refuse to read the thread or consider the arguments and end up walking themselves in circles for pages on end, certain that their conclusion is right but without the facts or logic to back it up, leaving them with the single option of repetition.

It's easier just to accept the truth, President ShinRa. Embrace it and feel the warm glow of my bosom.

I shall accept truth when it hasn't been altered, rewritten or changed to suit a person's arguments.

By this I mean the actual truth, not thinly veiled propaganda consisting of ‘PACIFICA FTW!!!1!!1!!!’ which you have attempted to put into a historical argument or point.

And to counter one of your points about the 'near military victory' I have but one thing to say:

You didn't achieve it.

You didn't actually reach a military victory because peace was reached and the war ended before you managed to reach such a victory. In short, close but no cigar.

And if you were so close to winning exactly why did you accept peace rather than withdrawing from the agreement or simply ignore it and continue attacking the LUE?

In respect to your point about supposedly achieving several individual surrenders of alliances I quote a remark which you so conveniently ignored:

So wait, when CoaLUEtion alliances pull out it's a 'surrender' and they are 'beaten', but when the Orders pull out it is a 'strategic withdrawal' and they were definitely not beaten?

And in conclusion I want to make one point, I’m not saying that the coaluetion won; I’m saying that you lost either this war or several wars later on.

[The Great Patriotic War and You]

Hells Bells, this is still going on?

Look, (as mentioned a few pages into this debate) by Vladimir's words the NPO either lost the GW1 war and won every one after that, or they lost several wars (such as the GATO-1V war) afterwards as the alliances they were fighting had exactly the same objective: Survival.

There is no real middle ground in the matter, this was one single war which took place many years ago, let the damn debate die here and now. I'm sure people have better things to do than argue about something as trivial as this.

[The Great Patriotic War and You]

OOC: Nice insult there. It seems that feelings connected towards the game events have made you too emotional to have a OOC discussion with me without this kind of weak pot shots.

OOC: Don't take it personally, it’s more feeling towards the New Pacific Order than you as an... individual.

If the alliance (or just about every player belonging to it which I have encountered thus far) acts like a group of !@#$%^&*, treats everyone who stands up to them or fights against them like scum (with regular insults on these forums), and decides that it has the right to choose who can and cannot play in Cybernations via EZI or turning their alliance into another FAN… Well, you can hardly blame me for making assumptions or having opinions.

Who is taking this game too seriously between us two, I wonder.

That depends upon what you judge to be serious, I frankly don’t give a damn about my infra or tech and am more focused upon trying to have a good time than curb stomp every person I view to be out of line. In short I treat Cybernations like a game, the game that it once was, and the game that it should be.

I tried to make my point, I believe that there is no actual possibility of drawing parallels between events of virtual and real worlds.

And I dispute that belief due to the fact that so many areas of cybernations are influenced by the real world, such as it’s governments and it doctrines.

I will not discuss it further, its not the subject of this thread.

As you wish.

Ultimately though, I hope everyone realizes that what you call it is irrelevant. The fact is that the NPO and her allies arose from the ashes of the war with a renewed resolve and stronger fighting ability. The Great War was round 1 of a match that Pacifica clearly won.

As they say, history is written by the victors. As the NPO and One Vision is 'in charge' here and now the opinions of everyone else matter not.

[The Great Patriotic War and You]

You may need to see a bit more then (and re-see what you've already seen, since you misunderstood it). I never mentioned 'trial and error' (and I don't believe I ever implied anything of the sort),

'The fact that it is difficult to say would suggest not as much as the Orders would have liked. While their strength plummeted and a wave of defeatism washed over them in the early days, arguably 'teaching them a lesson' about what they did, they nevertheless emerged as a centre-point in the coaluetion and built up a significant influence as a result'

You may view it differently but this seems to come across as you claiming this entire event as being simply a lesson for the order.

My point about 'strategic withdrawal' goes deeper into this by pointing out that there was a trade-off between this rapid recovery and an outright, indisputable victory in the war. Read on to find out how the story ends.

Two different conflicts you seem to be merging into one, The Great Patriotic War and later events. Hell, if your going to look at it that way why don't you call every conflict the NPO has been in The Great Patriotic War ?

Also, I read how the story ends and there is one point I did find interesting:

To use an example, if you are in a fight with and have knocked your opponent to the ground and he is unable to move, then leaving that fight to get to work on time does not mean that you lost, or indeed, even that you drew

So, by not driving you out of the same, driving you into EZI and forcing your alliance to disband they failed. How Pacifican of you.

OOC: This game medium can not be based on vacuum.

?

But, that does not account as a valid argument for direct comparisons of game events and real world historical events, as they happen in fundamentally different mediums and are different in all aspects--- one is a loss of real life in battle, one is the loss of pixels on a screen, one is the complexity of irc game diplomacy, one is the complexity of diplomacy taking place in real world, one is importance of a game, one is importance of real life. Get my drift.

Your argument works fine without this silly comparisons. There are no need for such things.

I'm quite amazed that a long time member of the NPO, an alliance so obsessed with control of a world made of pixels and other virtual elements is even capable of understanding such a concept of real world events and moments, let alone writing about it.

Still, I feel that it would be preferable if the Cybernatons was a RL game, perhaps if One Vision members did run the risk of losing their own lives in combat they would be less inclined to mob and assault every person who considered becoming an independent power or bloc.

And yet I still fail to see how this is an argument against such comparisons, Vladimir is still a man ranting on and on about people having different perspectives about a war. I was simply reinforcing a point, and making it clear how I viewed this text.

Besides, I don’t see you complaining about the short comparison within the ‘wall of text’ itself:

‘To use an example, if you are in a fight with and have knocked your opponent to the ground and he is unable to move, then leaving that fight to get to work on time does not mean that you lost, or indeed, even that you drew.’

Let this topic die. For the love of admin.

I second to this.

[The Great Patriotic War and You]

OOC: I thought that after 1000 days of this game, we come pass the urge to make game-world history comparisons.

Such comparisons can not be made due to the huge difference of the nature of a national simulator game medium, and the real world.

OOC: And yet I seem to recall Cortath mentioning that many elements of Cybernations are based upon the real world such as charters. Besides, if you look at more than a few points in this game’s history you’ll see alliances mirroring real world nations. The New Pacific Order for example mirrors America’s worst (and some best) elements such as it’s ability to throw it’s weight around any time it pleases and is more than happy to find excuses to invade certain nations they dislike, Iraq for example.

[The Great Patriotic War and You]

Vladimir, do something more productive with your time rather than producing walls of texts which most people will not bother will and will insult half of the few who actually read it, namely due to your very bias opinion in all of your works.

From what I've seen thus far you seem to brush over the fact that you were utterly decimated and claim that it was merely a process of trial and error on the part of the Orders.

You also seem to try and avoid the fact that the only reason the Orders had a ‘victory’ over the LUE is because they didn’t have very high aims or objectives in comparison to the Legume.

Seriously, all you've stated in a total of 3739 words is 'OMG ORDERS FTW, WE PWNZ U lolololololol!!1!'

OOC: A RL comparison of this piece would be a rabid, half drunk American in a bar barking on about how Vietnam was a draw at worst, and a victory for the Americans at best and insulting everyone who thinks otherwise.

[2008 CN Award Nominations]

I'd like to nominate Esau of Isaac as best OOC area poster. n_n

Seconded

And if they havn't been made already I have a few nominations to make:

Friendliest Alliance

-Global Alliance and Treaty Organisation

Most Honorable Alliance

-Global Alliance and Treaty Organisation

Most Powerful Player

-Kevlar

Best Declaration of War

- USN declaration of war against STA

EDIT:

Biggest Controversy

- New Pacific Order Peace Doctrine

Otherwise (votes):

Alliance Categories

Friendliest Alliance

-Vox Populi

Most Hostile Alliance

-Vox Populi

Best Diplomatic Team

-Vox Populi

Best Economic System

-Vox Populi

Best Military

-Federation of Armed Nations

Best Recruiting Staff

-Vox Populi

Best Propaganda Staff

-Vox Populi

Scariest Alliance

-Vox Populi

Best Alliance Growth (Jan 1st - Present)

-Vox Populi

Best Rookie Alliance (under 4 months old)

-Vox Populi

Most Honorable Alliance

-Vox Populi

Most Active Alliance

-Vox Populi

Best Flag

-Vox Populi

Best War Flag

-Vox Populi

Best Forums

-Vox Populi

Most entertaining IRC Channel

- #Vox_Populi (Vox Populi Public Channel)

Most powerful Alliance

-Vox Populi

Alliance of the Year

-Vox Populi

Alliance most likely to succeed in 2009

-Vox Populi

Player Categories

Most Powerful Player

-Dilber

Best Alliance Leader

-Doitzel

Most controversial Player

-Rebel Virginia

Funniest Player

-Herooftime55

Most Active Player

-doitzel

Player of the Year

-Starfox101

Player most likely to achieve greatness in 2009

-King Penchuk

Political, Forum, and Game Categories

Most Powerful Alliance Bloc

Best OWF Topic

- An Entertaining History of Cybernations

Best Water Cooler Topic

- Justy’s Bar

Best Declaration of War

- Vox Populi

[/color]

Best Treaty Announcement

- The Pocahontus Accords

Best Game addition/change

- The Addition of Navies

Best Wall of Text

- Vox Populi Announcement of Change

Best player Avatar

- Nintenderek

Best player Sig

- Doitzel

Biggest Controversy

- Joint Grand Global Alliance and Valhalla Casus Belli against Hyperion (alliance)

[A Few Thoughts On GATO's Future]

Those "some" would be pretty stupid.

Or are simply targeting those without allies.

"Tech raiding" is making war on a nation to take technology through conquest.

I can think of very few more accurate (or appropriate) terms to apply to the GATO-1V war.

Without resorting to direct insults that is.

"Tech farming" is buying tech on a large volume.

One is a non-consensual military action, while the other is a consensual business agreement.

A business agreement which seems to take place at gunpoint shortly after a war's end.

Or under the guise of 'rebuilding' to gain more power for your own benefit.

It is entirely possible to work together with our brown friends to establish a mutual coilation to controll all of the sphere's activities.

Some could view such a thing as the formation of an individual and indipendent power bloc. But at least it wouldn't be simply one person (or people) in control of one entire trade sphere.

[A Few Thoughts On GATO's Future]

Which methods are you talking about here? For my part I completely separate the NPO's defense of red from their "we own red" policies. The first could clearly exist without the second. It just doesn't at the moment.

And it never will is the past is anything they are to judge them by. There is also the other perspective upon 'defence' being a very effective offence.

After all, something or someone truly under your dominion cannot harm you so by that logic it is best to simply conquer and ally with others.

The NPO seems to have been doing both a lot or allying and conquering during it’s lifetime, and on one or two occasions those who have disagreed with the NPO's views or goals have promptly been ejected from whatever bloc they are part of and curb stomped. The NpO for example.

SDRD is not the Viceroy's Military advisor.

I never said I was talking about him. But I do recall the one person in command of the military being a member of Pacifica.

[A Few Thoughts On GATO's Future]

Is the NPO wrong for defending red?

No but the methods it seems to use in doing so are rather questionable.

The end does not always justify the means.

it does not techraid

Not officially, but look back far enough an I’m sure you find more than a few tech raids.

And then there’s the tech FARMING, some would regard that as being no different, only more organized and on a larger scale.

The nation 'giving' the tech is the one still getting the short end of the stick.

[A Few Thoughts On GATO's Future]

Except I specifically said: "A while back we were having a GATO brainstorm about what role we should seek once we are a free alliance again." That means once we are not under the NPO.

and yet you still have Sir Donald R. Deamon skulking about within your government.

Perhaps in the future GATO shall once again become an individual government and alliance, but due to the fact that the NPO stated the viceroyship would last 'at least five months' with no exact end (along with the fact that this is Pacifica we’re talking about here)

I get the feeling that the worst case scenarios such as GATO never being released or simply being forced slowly into becoming a puppet are most likely more realistic than the best case ones.

EDIT:

That's amusing. Considering there is no position called "Supreme Commander" within our governmental hierarchy.

The leader of GATO's millitary forces. I simply gave a more fitting version of a millitary leader considering the loyalties of who currently holds the position (or held it before the ability to view such this became unavalible to me.)

GATO doesn't have the allies(or brains for that matter) to pull it off.

Allies, no.

Brains, perhaps.

[A Few Thoughts On GATO's Future]

3. We should follow the NPO's lead and commit ourselves to the protection of the brown sphere.

All hail the Imperial Brown Colony.

Forgive me for saying this, but you seem to be under ‘indefinite’ NPO viceroyship, with (the last time I looked) NPO members taking official positions within the governmental hierarchy such as the alliance’s ‘Supreme Commander’ and now you want to follow their leave by carving out your own empire within a certain colour.

While under their control.

Much like another alliance which is in control of Green.

I still hold a great amount of respect for GATO and all that it stands for,

and as (again to my knowledge) there are still several long time members within the alliance I can assume that it has not become another puppet obeying the NPO's every whim.

But I must take a very skeptical view of that last point.

EDIT:

In the end defending a color is possible, the NPO proves such every day.

By being a highly militaristic alliance with a few dozen very strong allies willing to die for them and taking a zero tolerance ‘perspective’ on just about everyone and thing, from who is within their colour to who uses their flag.

Can GATO really match that on it's own while remaining true to it's ideals? (this is an actual question)

[Alliance NS stats]

Wow that really does show how far we have come

A note of a post above:

Necroing a dead thread is bad especially when the op said he stopped updating the stats.

But I do agree that this is a very good example of alliance development.