Letum

Why would I rue them? Given TPF's multi-year slide into inactivity they have been feeling for a while the need to shake things up a bit. The OP considers this to be their last chance for a good battle - and I agree, unless this trend is reversed, it probably is. So given where we are it's the least I can do to provide a nice good battle that will help cement their legacy by their best characteristics before they fade away. Both alliances broke with each other in many steps really. Mi6 was a big one, Umb was a big one - but it goes back further than that - there was the public NSO-TPF flaming war before that, and certain things within the Disorder war even further back - really it's because of the strength of the history that the treaty lasted in the face of a lot of accumulating splits.

Have fun! Also please consider this a formal recognition of hostilities on behalf of the entire bloc. Good luck & see you in the trenches.

If it's a last good fight you want, then we'll give you one that will let you be remembered as heroes. For heroes always need those of us who live forever to immortalise their tale. You might not have had what you deserved from us in the halls of public oratory, but you will have it in the battlefield. Best of luck TPF.

What was the other hand doing at said time?

I should point out that NG and Umbrella have both ended up in trouble as a result of "attitude", and both got out of it with serious diplomatic effort. But you seem to equate such serious effort as being akin to some form of self-debasement...which would explain a lot.

Nations need a certain amount of time to recover post war to a level similar as before it (recover infra and warchest). This can be something like 6-8 months depending on the nation. Add to that that wars are 2-4 months long themselves , and you have a yearly schedule. Having it more often than that would mean nations perpetually getting smaller. The only real alternative is having smaller wars more often where it's not the same people fighting.

I don't even understand how anything you just said even remotely relates to my comments. I have neither talked about what I'd do in a war nor about any spy ops. Do you have this list of imaginary statements that you try and squeeze in responses to whenever you post? Because if so you don't have to wait for me to say anything, you might as well just talk to the walls.

No? I am not sure where you are getting all these wild statements from? That's me claiming that MI6 has been jackasses to almost everyone, and that's why diplomatic moves get a frosty reception. I've been in a position where NPO has been isolated multiple times, and we know a thing or two about getting a frosty reception. Basic Diplomacy 101 here: if you try to improve relations with one alliance whilst being hostile to all their allies, those allies will raise hell. You need a basic relationship with them too, which might mean a long process of groundwork. It's not a complicated lesson, and one we even told MI6 directly. I am not sure why there's such a lack of diplomatic competence there. MI6 has certainly proved capable of putting in long and hard work in other endeavors, they should have been able to do it in this one. I am, of course, always happy to provide my diplomatic consulting services to them at any time they so desire. Free of charge. (Seriously)

Interesting thing about the Great Wars, it was the only time when the 40% side is the one who won.

So we began with you accusing me of making some "well-documented" attempts to start a war, but when pressed on it suddenly you declare the documentation to not be important, and then it's not even me? Regardless, still interested. I know you might find this hard to fit in your worldview, but I don't flip a coin to find a random alliance to isolate for fun or something. MI6 has managed to isolate itself by being annoying and aggravating to the extreme in every opportunity. I haven't made any comments about Sengoku whatsover in this thread. I think you're making stuff up again. I was referring more to the gov-to-gov kind, but your efforts are appreciated! But as admirable as they are, at the end of the day any progress in the NPO-MI6 relationship will require me being able to have a conversation with your government without getting a headache from frustration.

The point of documentation is to prevent people from using the label "well-documented" to lend their accusations a veneer of authority if said documentation does not exist. As for being met with "condescension and insults", the last diplomatic attempt I saw between NPO and MI6 involved us inviting them back to our joint IRC channel (whose existence I'll assume they forgot), which was immediately met by a screaming match about how we were back in our pre-Karma ways and pulling them into a smoky backroom to intimidate them by weight of numbers (given that most of our gov lurks on IRC/uses bouncers, we also tend to have lots of gov in most joint channels). That is the point I gave up on MI6.

I should point out your sentence structure implies that if I *did* want a war I'd have to try at, then MI6 wouldn't be able to provide that level of challenge. Given your other comments in this thread, I think you have made a poor choice of words here. If MI6 feels they have some documentation of myself trying to start a war with them, I would be interested in seeing it. They are always welcome to approach me on IRC too. My comment was aimed more at the idea that MI6 pursuing a highly abrasive and combative behavioral stance being due to the prospect of an imminent attack is a bit nonsensical because they have had this same behavior for a very long time. It has in fact been this same abrasive behavior that has led to their current political situation, so the causal chain is somewhat reversed. It's a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Isn't goading people to get swords to fall what Mi6 has done pretty much for the past year? It's pretty much been an endless circle-jerk of "we're so awesome at war, nobody can touch us - oh, but they all want to roll us because we're awesome - oh, but they won't do it because they are scared of how awesome we are".

You've planned wars Dajobo, and specifically wars that have put your allies in a position of conflicting treaties. So by your logic, either your allies are "traitors" for signing off on it beforehand, or you are a horrible ally for starting it over their protests and making them stuck with impossible commitments. As I said; everyone is interconnected, and an alliance only avoids treaty conflicts by them happening somewhere earlier in the chain.

Please don't treat your readers as idiots Dajobo, you know exactly what you are doing. Every war has people caught with conflicting treaties, which they navigate with varying degrees of success and competence. With the way the world is interconnected, that is inevitable, and if one's alliance personally isn't feeling it it's because its been pushed further up the treaty chain. They don't usually get threads like this over actual wars, much less a hypothetical one. Being three treaty chains away from a conflict isn't special either. Unless I've missed some treaty cancellations (and I admit I don't pay attention) both NPO and NpO are three treaties away from Mi6...but no callouts for either. And yet here you are literally calling an alliance traitors over a long treaty chain in a non-existant war. That's a bit more than speculation.

Tech Uber Alles.

A bloc is more than "A collection of someone`s allies". It involves alliances brought together through their collective, multilateral tie rather than just their relationship with any central figure. While it is true that some blocs in history have been dominated by a central player surrounded by rather more minor ones, I think that even a cursory look at some of the forces of personality involved here should make it clear that they would never tolerate some kind of Pacifican (or other) -controlled empire where membership is bloc parceled out like some feudal reward of patronage. A treaty of this kind is built upon a lot of compromises, because bringing a lot of people into the same room is much harder than any bilateral relationship. You essentially have to find unanimous common ground on everything.

Oculus Novus Ordo Seclorum These signatories hold much in common, but primarily the will to establish their place in the Halls of Greatness. As Watchers, and arbitrators, of their own destiny. Beholding the world of Bob, and creating Order out of Chaos. This is why they have chosen this path. Section 1 The signatories are sovereign alliances bound together for the purpose of mutually beneficial action. This may include more than what is enumerated in this document. Each signatory shall remain cordial and refrain from aggressive action toward one another. Section 2 An attack on one signatory is an attack on all signatories. All signatories shall provide military, economic and diplomatic assistance. This clause supersedes all other treaties held by signatories. Section 3 Signatories may assist with wars of aggression initiated by other signatories. This assistance is only obligatory in the event that the Bloc previously decided to support the unilateral action. Section 4 Signatories shall share all important information to one another in a discreet and timely manner. This includes all information that allows the signatory to make a wiser decision for its economic, diplomatic, military or internal well-being. All discussions within the Bloc shall remain confidential. Section 5 [Redacted] Section 6 - [Redacted] Section 7 I. Affiliates of this Bloc may be created with senatorial approval for the purpose of world domination. Affiliates may partake in joint planning and military action but shall not partake in votes and leadership-level discussion. Affiliates and signatories reserve the right to take any military action alongside one another. Affiliates may be present for and give input on discussions of military actions they may partake in, but they shall not learn the details of the final vote. To remain an affiliate, alliances must be on a similar political trajectory to the signatories. In the event that affiliates are no longer on a similar political trajectory, efforts will be made to inform them of this in a timely manner and allow them to adjust as needed. II. In order to be elevated to membership, an alliance must already be an affiliate. Unanimous consent of the signatories is required. Section 8 Signatories shall provide 96 hours notice prior to leaving the Bloc. All other signatories must be informed of this decision before the 96 hour waiting period shall begin. All provisions of this document shall remain in effect on all parties until the 96 hours has passed. Senate and People of Oculus

It'd be kinda hard for us not to be going up in flames if all our allies are. Our plan would generally be preventing the flames rather than seeking an exit route. And I don't think it's fair to claim that the NPO doesn't burn NS in war. We lost 6.6m NS in the last one - highest after IRON for our side. And the wars before that were not kind for us either. Our advantage always lies in our ability to grow and bounce back, not in having fronts where we don't burn. We have after all more than doubled our NS in the last 6 months.

I don't really ascribe to the philosophy of "let's keep a grudge going because we lost a war". Especially not when these wars are half a decade ago, but even something slightly more recent such as disorder. People paying their dues? Given the amount and spread of people that have been in an NPO rolling, if we sat around in angst waiting for dues to be paid we'd end up becoming a peripheral alliance allied to the small handful of people we haven't been rolled by in an eternal quest for revenge. But sitting and stewing in a rage and thirst for revenge is mentally taxing, so I gave it up after the first couple of years.

This is a bit of an exaggeration. Whilst we certainly have the influence to try and stop a very large number of scenarios and wars, and have done so, each use of that influence degrades it. Our "power" as it were would slip away rather fast if we blocked everything and everyone. And in the first place NPO isn't really interested in being a world police that stops anything we dislike from someone connected to us. So inevitably that means there will be stuff where we don't care enough or don't see it as worth it to spend a finite amount of time and influence on. But that is no more "signing off" on it than you not calling the police on your neighbours late night loud partying. Too many leaders, past and present, have not paid heed to this question. Including yourself, at a time.

RoadRash A little over a week of war should not "ruin" your entire enjoyment of a world where everything resets to zero every few months. Yes, I get it that you had little resources to fight this particular war, and yes, I get it that it is unfair. We might have different ideological viewpoints on what extent unfairness should exist, but ultimately I believe you need to take a step back and think about things again. In a week from now, in a month from now, in 6 months from now, how much will the past 8 days matter to your enjoyment? You will still be able to do pretty much what you have always done and enjoyed. Is having argued with us what makes you want to leave? Again I implore you to take a step back, let the emotion drain away, and consider words on a forum to be just that - words. Or is it our mere continued presence that disgusts you? In that case I would also implore you to have patience. We are not as much of an anathema to what you stand for as you might think; for one we did attempt at several times before this armistice to disengage with NDO, and for another I think you'll find that quite a lot of what we have done so far this round relates a lot to circumstances unique to this round (from the different starting conditions to our own unique goals in what is for us, an "sampling" round, as well as a few secret goals I can't divulge). I think you will find that co-existing in a world with us can be quite fun. At the end of the day we aren't some kind of psychopath monsters; we are just regular people just as yourself.

CN hasn't made me laugh this hard since 2006, even though mr Dajobo is kicking my ass. This thread is amazing.

Our in-house PR team is debating between "Administrative Solutions Team" and "Cloud-Based Outsourced Governance Functionality"

If they had 370 nations that were the same as their current nations then yes, sure. But don't forget that NPO is mainly a mass recruitment alliance. Something like 35% of our nations have been around less than a year. There's a reason why other alliances with comparable efficiency don't have it on the same scale, and that's because "high-activity" and "mass-member" alliance styles are generally thought to be at odds with each other.