jer

You drink too much coffee.

I hate to reply to such an obviously thought-out piece with such a simple response, but the answer to why the leading alliances haven't forgiven the NPO isn't because it hasn't apologised and changed, it's because it's strategically advantageous for them to paint the NPO as (still) being the evil monster hiding under the bed. There are several alliances in particular who have become very drunk on power very quickly and they aren't ready to sober up yet, so by talking up the threat of the dangerous and menacing NPO they are able to keep the loosely affiliated blocs and relationships that give them such a free reign over the world together. From what little I can see from afar, the NPO has made changes in leadership and foreign policy. These changes are generally ignored or dismissed out of hand however, because they don't sit well with scare tactic that many have apparently bought into - that the NPO is still that same alliance that we all need to fear. I suspect that an apology would be treated in the same way by those pushing the scare tactics - dismissed out of hand with accusations of "insincerity" or "a lack of substance" no doubt - but it's possible that others might accept it, which would present an interesting situation. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens!

[quote name='magicninja' date='23 July 2010 - 08:50 AM' timestamp='1279871426' post='2385661'] Well we can make a forum if it makes you feel better. This accord can count as a charter since it defines how to become a member of this Safe Haven alliance. Leadership can be offered through the protectorate alliances which is the intention. [/quote]When you start adding forum sign-ups, charters and hands-on leadership it begins to turn into a plain old neutral alliance. That would be a shame because from what you've said so far the two most attractive elements to this for a potential joinee are protection from raiders and complete freedom from the hassles of being in an alliance (like reading charters, having a forum which leaders will invariably tell you to sign-in and check, etc) so I reckon you should try to minimise all of that fluff if possible, and keep Safe Haven distinctive from other areas of Planet Bob. A few basic rules like 'if you want protection don't be a dick' and 'if you're attacked these are the people to talk to' are required to keep things smooth, obviously, but if there's much more than that people will be put off. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 July 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1279887855' post='2385776'] There's not really a reason for an alliance to go ahead and do this without some return from it. [...] Something like this will only work if it provides a material benefit for the protector to offset the complaining by the raiders.[/quote]Not everyone is obsessed with material benefits, Bob. The warm feeling of satisfaction that one gets when one does a good deed might not be a good enough reason for you to help people out but for others it clearly is. On the whole I think this is a great idea. At the moment people need to make a choice between running an independent nation and their own safety which is clearly undesirable, Safe Haven would cater for both of those needs.

Have sent the last of my owed tech to Jaymjaym and sethb and it's been accepted, so I'm free from debt

[quote name='Haquertal' date='20 July 2010 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1279647126' post='2380882'] Ummm. ummmmmmmm. I wish reds were in my range [/quote] I'm in your range, maybe if I go unaligned you could attack me?

[quote name='Voytek' date='20 July 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1279646398' post='2380865'] Don't go changing those goalposts with an attempt to make this about all tech raiding ever now. [/quote] I had made all the points I'd wanted to make about the actual topic on hand. But you're right, the thread can stay with the topic of how you're attacking innocent nations over a grudge against the NPO and I'll take the tech raiding thing elsewhere.

[quote name='Voytek' date='20 July 2010 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1279645988' post='2380855'] Except we aren't raiding thousands upon thousands of nations. ~and with that the cards all fall down~ [/quote] I didn't realise you'd kept count. How many nations have you raided since the turn of the year?

[quote name='Voytek' date='20 July 2010 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1279643814' post='2380776'] Individual nations don't have sovereignty. It's in the CN Bible.[/quote] Even when there are thousands upon thousands of them? Why, of course! Because no matter how many independents there are, you can destroy them for sport and use them as pawns in your political games because they have no desire to pack together like wolves and assert their own will on you, as you do to them. Your CN Bible was written by cowards and bullies and rather than revising it, you enjoy nothing more than following it. Oh well.

[quote name='Voytek' date='20 July 2010 - 05:30 PM' timestamp='1279643424' post='2380756'] There are other ways of answering an insult than full scale war, you know. If the nations in question don't want to be raided then all they have to do is join an alliance - GDA or TDO are always options for nations that do prefer to do their own thing and they wouldn't have to worry about being raided ever again. [/quote] For one who screams about violations to his own sovereignty you're rather quick to trample all over other people's. Let me ask you this: why is your sovereignty as an alliance worth more than the sovereignty of thousands of individual nations? Do not attempt to dismiss me as a silly moralist either, like others are doing. I know I have morals, I'm proud of them, and I'm happy to share them with you rampant brutes in the hope of some form of enlightenment.

[quote name='lebubu' date='20 July 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1279643180' post='2380745'] Why are you campaigning for NPO's destruction? [/quote] I don't think they'd be destroyed.

[quote name='Voytek' date='20 July 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1279642929' post='2380734'] I can only assume that it never occurred to us that our sovereignty was being infringed on in this manner before now. There have been other things happening in CN over the last two years you know! [/quote] If the insult to your sovereignty is so grave, why aren't you attacking the NPO? Your current victims are not at fault at all, they're just easy prey for bullies.

[quote name='lebubu' date='20 July 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1279642233' post='2380713'] On a more general note, MK and many more alliances have been raiding "innocent" nations for years, so using the whole "you're slaughtering bystanders" argument is a bit silly. This is what we do - the fact that this Safari is coordinated between multiple alliances, or that there is an actual political reason behind our campaign doesn't make it better or worse. [/quote] Sorry, but it does make it worse. Instead of piecemeal individual nations from your alliance destroying smaller innocent ones for loosely-sanctioned alliance sport, you've stepped it up a notch and organised a co-ordinated hit with your fellow vagrants on those nations, purely because you didn't like the way NPO had worded a new doctrine. So please, save me the lies, because you haven't always been this petty and this pathetic. The small unprotected nations have gone from mere victims to pawns in the silly game you've decided to play in order to insult the NPO, in lieu of the requisite support or bravery to outright attack them man on man.

[quote name='lebubu' date='20 July 2010 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1279640536' post='2380669'] You missed the part where we chose not to recognize it. [/quote] Well, it's seeming at the moment like the new Revenge Doctrine has a fair amount of support, so I look forward to seeing how far you're willing to push this.

[quote name='lebubu' date='20 July 2010 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1279640105' post='2380651'] I think enough justification has been given in this very thread. This is not about us wanting to destroy nations for kicks, it's about showing the NPO that we do not recognize their renamed Revenge Doctrine (yes, the one they weren't allowed to re-enact as part of the surrender terms they signed) and that we won't allow them to dictate who we raid and who we don't. If we have to lay waste to the entire red sphere for them to get it, then so be it. [/quote] If they're breaking surrender terms, why aren't you DoW'ing them? The only reason I can see that you'd attack the entire sphere before the NPO is that you do not have the support for war over this (rightly so) and you don't have the balls to carry out your convictions in your own right. It's far easier and takes less bravery to slaughter some uninvolved and innocent nations, and you can enjoy the 'victory' of sticking two fingers up at the Revenge Doctrine. Which is kinda weak, if you ask me.

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='20 July 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1279639237' post='2380628'] Anyone who thinks this is anything but a reaction to a terribly thought out foreign affairs decision needs to re-examine the world we live in. If Red Dawn had used a different name, say something like “Department of Red Public Defenders” and dropped language like “protection” and maybe stated “will seek to get you peace” I doubt we would even be having this discussion.[/quote] I've re-examined the world we live in in light of your comments and it's apparently more pathetic than ever. MK and it's cronies have a problem with NPO's wording, and their response is petty and cowardly attacks on red nations who are completely uninvolved? Wow. [quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='20 July 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1279639237' post='2380628'] The difficulty here is that so many like to declare them “worse” than the old hegemony. Really, what kind of reaction to that do you expect?[/quote] I've actually seen more of the opposite; people criticising the new hegemony's actions are met with 'at least we're not the NPO' more often than not. It can be seen in this thread with Penkala's 'response' to pezstar.

[quote name='lebubu' date='20 July 2010 - 04:17 PM' timestamp='1279639049' post='2380623'] I'm dying to hear it. [/quote] I'm sure you are. How long are you planning to use the "NPO did worse, so we're okay" line of defence? It feels as though it's dying as we speak but obviously you instead to keep beating this particular dead horse for a while longer. I guess it's easier than actually justifying your own actions and taking responsibility for your behaviour.

[quote name='Penkala' date='20 July 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1279637655' post='2380578'] Raiding unaligned nations is worse than viceroys. Quit being a drama queen Pez. [/quote] Trying to get people to judge your benevolence against previous, and now defunct, NPO standards is pretty silly because those standards were so low that exceeding them in itself is nothing noteworthy. It's getting boring listening to you patting your side on the back for not implementing viceroys, when you're still operating below a line of decency. Viceroys was way way way down below that line, but does that mean that everything above is fine? Obviously not. You can still be dicks without implementing viceroys. It'd just be nicer if you set your own standards, instead of defaulting to the 'at least we're not quite as terrible as the NPO, judge us on those long-dead standards please' stance any time you get called on your crap.

[quote name='Banksy' date='17 July 2010 - 11:49 PM' timestamp='1279406961' post='2376361'] It doesn't look like you've reached out to try and change your image, rather you are preserving the old one by keeping to the same, reduced, circle of friends.[/quote] The NPO is a unique, distinctive and hard-headed alliance, and I get the sense that the more pressure there is from the outside for them to change their culture to fit with how you'd like them to be, they more they will dig in and hold on to their identity for dear life. Okay, so they generally appear to be more cold and detached socially than other alliances, but I like that there is at least one alliance whose members are able to post regularly without the many try-hard attempts to be a part of the cool crowd that come with the posts of members of certain other alliances. And sure, their government doesn't repeatedly court and suck up to your government like others around the world do, but that's hardly surprising given the alliance's recent history. If they're trying to reduce the chance of being played or betrayed again, having a group of dedicated and loyal allies surrounding them (no matter how small in number or strength) and sticking to their corner could be considered a better strategy than wading into false relationships with those who quite possibly still (yes, [i]still[/i]) hate their guts. These characteristics are the things that make them who they are and, whether you are comfortable with them or otherwise, they provide at least some level of diversity on Bob. There's certainly no need to be afraid of their ways to such an extent that you are consumed by paranoia and feel compelled to demand changes in person and policy. Obviously, I'm not a member of the NPO and I'm not anything like close enough to the alliance to speak with any certainty on their actual positions - if you want that, read Branimir. These are just my uninformed and purely speculative opinions on how things seem to me, only offered because the NPO is apparently becoming the focus of discussion once again (god knows why!).

All the ones who do it for themselves and don't feel the need to attention seek about it here.

[quote name='EgoFreaky' date='16 July 2010 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1279294446' post='2374516'] That said, I received a nice apology from Londo in which he explained how this came to be. It always takes some guts to own up to a mistake so as far as i'm concerned this "issue" is over and done with without hard feelings. [/quote] Guts? It should be second nature to the guy by now. He can add this one to the long list of [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=73807"]apologies[/url] he made previously for acting like a bit of a dick. Interesting last sentences in that thread, though. "How easy it is with strength to disregard our high ideals. That ends today." I wonder if he'll reflect upon whether he's lived up to his own words as he takes his hiatus.

Oh boy? Good luck catching this sad act, GOONS.

On a scale of 1-10, how close would you say that the signatories of C&G and SF are with each other (overall)? 10 meaning you're all BFF and hell will have to freeze over before the wartime coalition breaks, 1 meaning that the two blocs only roll together for power and don't really like each other.

Trying to get people to judge the benevolence of SG against NPO standards is pretty silly because those standards were so SO SO low that exceeding them in itself is nothing noteworthy. It'd just be nicer if they set their own (preferably higher) standards, you know? NPO has been out of power a while now and we could do things completely differently, surely that would be better than SG defaulting to the lowest possible 'we're bad but we're not NPO bad' position throughout their reign over the world.

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='14 July 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1279146251' post='2371678'] If you are unhappy with the outcome, unhappy with the fact Valhalla have dealt with it, go take your nation and alliance buddies and DoW on GOD/GOONS/Kronos. Really please do! [/quote] And what would be the point of that? Throwing a few nations into a raging fire achieves nothing. It's far better to get into minds, influence people and attempt to secure a lasting change in attitudes, don't you think? If you truly believe that the best way of expressing feelings of distaste is to immediately declare war (regardless of any existing circumstances) as though you are some sort of primitive imbecile then I have to say that I feel nothing but pity for you.