Higlac
-
Posts
57 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Higlac
-
-
Here's my first entry:
Damn that's good.
-
This is the best we have had proposed up till now, so here is something to build from for all would be entries.
-
The MK are a fine alliance to have look over you. Best of luck to you and your endeavours.
-
Since tech raiding seems to be the equivalent to abortion, I'm Pro-Recycling.
-
But at the same time in a deck that has not been torn or damaged a joker is both useless and pointless.
A joker is only of use when the deck it came from is non-functional; even then its used sparingly and begrudgingly
But how will you know what the brand of the cards are after you throw away the box?
-
There's always a joker in every deck of cards.
The most unique card in every deck is the joker.
-
Ndrangheta? Is this some sort of Lovecraftian alliance?
Someone should start a Cthulhu cult around here.
EDIT: Oh I almost forgot, good luck. I'm in a very young alliance myself and know the troubles that can face small alliances. I would suggest finding a bigger alliance to become a protectorate for.
-
This is great new to hear. Congrats to The Legion!
I do have a question, is The Legion still required to pay the NPO?
-
Closer to 30%. And since such massive and systematic violation voided the terms, quoting them at us isn't much use. How many times have we been over these same points?
This is still going against your word to FAN, the refusal of the NPO to admit that they did not break their agreement is what is riling up many people. If you would just say that you felt it was right for you to break the terms for your own interest, I'm sure many would let this whole thing drop and let you continue with your war without disturbance.
-
We don't need to. We already have more political power than any other alliance in the game.
... and ironically you loose it by covering your ears to the arguments presented to you.
In the original war thread, I was seriously playing devil's advocate, but the lack of reasonable arguement to the fact they broke their deal to FAN has shown that the NPO has become arrogant to the point of becoming blind to logic.
As to "If you care so much, why don't you join FAN and fight?", there are other ways than force to do this.
EDIT: I had no negative feelings against the NPO before all this, and respected them for their reputation as political and military masterminds. To all the proud Pacificans reading this, save your alliance that you love so much by pondering and giving thought to what many of us have to say, don't decimate this because of closed mindedness and ignorance.
-
The situation at hand doesn't involve honor in my opinion. Its pretty damn cut and dry. They violated a surrender term, and now they're being punished. Has nothing to do with honor. Their surrender became null and void when they decided to violate terms. Don't like it? Do something about it.
But what you can't get through your thick skull is that you broke your terms as well, and you agreed to attack only violating nations, not the alliance of FAN itself, which is what you did. It is very dishonorable to say one thing and do another, so this is not cut and dry. That is basic politics though. So is the NPO willing to compromise their principles for political power?
-
Why are we still justifying our actions to these simpletons? They broke their surrender terms, we destroy them. Simple. It doesn't matter anyway, we don't need a reason to destroy FAN. We can do whatever we want to their little alliance and there's nothing they can do about it.
Oh but you should care what these "simpletons" think. What kind of message does it send to attack someone who you had pledge protection to? Do you want to sign a treaty with them, or interact with them?
-
Yet you still insist that there is trust and honor? These terms are arbitrary here. The only thing that enforces your abstract idea of "legality" is FORCE. Not some intangible emotion, but a VERY tangible army and numbers.
But when you ask a NPO member what is Pacifica's goal, their response is not power, be it political or militarily, it is always honor. The idea of honor and upholding honor is a core Pacifican principle that you have just admit to not exist. Has Pacifica diverged from their morals and ideas, or have they been using honor as a mask for the public?
-
I'm completely sick and tired of hearing about the "legality" of what we are doing. The only rules that MUST be followed in cybernations are in the ToS that the admin makes you agree to when you sign up. Your artificial, abstract ideas of legality mean absolutely nothing here. If you have no power to enforce such "rules" or "laws" then they mean absolutely nothing. I could tell you I'm the king of CN and that I rule all alliances, but unless I've got the means to enforce such a statement then it means nothing.
And as far as the moral high ground goes, I don't really give a damn. No matter what the Order does it is going to be criticized by many. I'm ok with that. When you're the top alliance in the game you're going to get a lot of unjustified hate. You'll also get the bitter enemies of the order who were zi'd in a war a year ago and still hold onto their anti-order feelings. And of course you get the simplistic people who feel the need to polarize what is good and what is bad in CN. I'm completely ok if people hate the Order, because I more than likely hate you. But unless you've got the force to change something, your bitter endless flaming of the Order means absolutely nothing.
You are right on the legality, the only thing that enforces these things is trust and honor. Both independent FAN nations and the NPO broke the terms, but the NPOs actions were much more destructive and dramatically effected innocent nations. Also, there is a difference between blind hate, facts, and constructive criticism.
-
The Order does its utmost to honour all of its treaties. If there are ever any problems then they are dealt with quickly and honestly. It certainly does not deliberately violate them in the manner that FAN makes a habit out of. Though this is perhaps not surprising, since your analogy does indicate a quite severe misunderstanding of international politics.
No. It implies that FAN are the least diplomatic, least honourable, least trustworthy alliance on Planet Bob, and their preaching about the best way to conduct diplomacy is laughable. The Order did not and does not break treaties. Start hearing what is said rather than what you want to hear.
I'm sorry Vlad, but according to the original surrender terms posted by Moo, on the old forums, FAN violators would be ZI'd on a individual basis. You have broken your legal treaty with FAN, so obviously you have broken your treaty.
Now you could have claimed that it was disrespectful of FAN not to make more of an effort. That the NPO feels that a fully healed FAN would be a massive threat to the NPO, its allies, and the rest of the world, so the NPO felt it was necessary to break their treaty with FAN, and resume the war on FAN. You have to admit the fact that you did break your treaty, or live a contradiction.
-
Could you rephrase that in a way that makes sense?
You are showing FAN's previous diplomatic blunders and treaty breaking, which implies that it was okay for you to do since FAN had done it in the past.
-
Visit our forums if you wish to set up an embassy, use the link previously in this thread.
-
Is FAN, an alliance that back-stabbed its allies with secret deals, attacked its allies' protectorates and just straight attacked its allies, really giving lectures on what 'real friendship' is? The only time FAN ever had an active diplomacy department was when a Pacifican was running it for them! FAN's history is a history of betrayal, from day one right up until this week when they systematically violated their latest (and only) treaty.
Treaties are there to codify and protect friendship; they set the boundaries and makes sure that neither party mistakenly crosses them. This is just common sense, which is why every single alliance on Planet Bob uses them. And this is why taking diplomatic tips from FAN is like asking Walford how to improve your public relations.
So are you implying that it is okay to stoop to the same level?
-
Just to clear the rhetoric from both sides,
FAN did not do a good job of overseeing their members that were violating the terms, which shows general disrespect to the NPO, and gives the NPO the right to step over the surrender terms and declare all out war.
NPO disregarded their original surrender terms, and declared war on FAN because a minority were in violation of the peace terms, although the NPO agreed to deal with violators individually. In addition, the NPO was the protectorate of FAN just before the attack.
So as you can see, there is no truly right side or wrong side. FAN should have kept a better eye on their members and should have informed the NPO of ghosts who just would not listen. The NPO broke their legal treaty with FAN, and failed to protect FAN for a period of two months.
-
You're just a little off here.
You can have that opinion, but voicing it? I don't know about that one.
Ah you did catch me there. I was mearly commenting on the shear lack of maturity in the quoted post, and this general additute of "STFU U DONT MATTER 0/ 0/ 0/".
Besides, I was mearly playing devils advocate, but the NPO did break their treaty, yet there was a just reason to do so.
-
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA you really are a failure at arguing.
So; what FAN leadership says is irrelevant, but because YOU interpret FANs ToS different to the NPO; your immediately right.
NPO believes its right in declaring war; FAN believes NPO had the right to declare war due to ToS violations.... But no; Higlac is not happy at all.
Please Higlac; PM Moo directly and explain your problem to him; obviously your opinion is above everyone elses and is so important you had best go directly to the Emperor; I mean; if you think your right; whilst both FAN and NPO think your wrong; you really had better go straight to the top of the tree to cut out the middle men -DEMAND AN EXPLANATION!!!
Excuse me! I was just stating my opinion, which is in my right to do in this designated place! Just because people don't agree with me, it is within my right to express my opinions and debate others.
OCC: Maybe this place would be better if post were not just "0/" and "LOL U FAILZZ!!" Maybe we need more debate, in a serious manner, than simple rhetoric and insults.
-
As stated earlier, FAN had to adhere to the conditions in order for PEACE to be maintained. Yes, the violators would be ZI'ed. But the article doesn't say that ONLY the violators were to be ZI'ed. If FAN violated the terms, the peace statement is null and void; not to mention, if the other FANnies can't keep track of their own members, that's not our fault.
It's called being part of an alliance. Share victory together, share defeat together. If a member of FAN violated the terms, that violates the clause for FAN (not just one nation of FAN, but FAN, as in ALL of FAN) sticking to the terms. End of story.
To quote directly from the surrender terms
During this three (3) month period, FAN will be a protectorate of the New Pacific Order. As such, any nation or alliance who attacks a member or members of FAN without provocation shall be subject to retaliatory action by the NPO. NPO must respond within 24 hours after being notified of any such attack on FAN. This clause will not apply to any offensive actions by FAN or its members.Any member of FAN who violates these terms will be ZId as long as the NPO deems appropriate.
Notice how it says member, which would mean only violators, nor does it state if enough FAN members violate the treaty or leadership did a poor job of enforcing them, that the treaty becomes void. Just because your own philosophy is that alliances share everything, that does not make it to be so.
The reason I'm using such strict logic is because the core of the NPO are people steeped in logic, and this war does not comply with the rules of logic.
EDIT: The last sentence is a reply to many who feel strongly to my statements.
-
Well FAN leadership seem to think the NPO had reason to declare war; they just didnt think they would.
Probably should have edited your post for ignorance of the immediate situation as well as spelling..
But then your post would just consist of "edit".
What FANs leadership says is irrelevant. As I have stated the NPO did not follow their original surrender terms, FAN did since it would be nations punished for violations, so they had no legal requirement to watch their members. It would have been nice of them if they had kept better tabs, but they were not legally required to, nor was it necessary for survival under the original terms.
-
The fact that 1/3 were in violation rendered the treaty null and void. The fact that FAN doesn't bother keeping its members in line is the reason why they're all suffering now.
The surrender terms have been voided by FAN's actions. There is no more "surrender term", and hence NPO didn't break any rules.
You miss the point, your surrender terms did not say if x number of FAN violates the surrender terms, the treaty is declared void. It says nations who violated will be put to ZI. It's right there, in black and white. You can't go back and change what it said, or interpretation when it's stated so clearly. You, the NPO violated your own treaty, and used a non existent clause as a justification of war.
Who is the executioner?
in Open World Forum
Posted
I can see a civil war in the NPO in about a year or so.