Pacific News Network International: Issue 13

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1305179867' post='2710542']
I don't believe I've said a single thing whatsoever about what you'd do if you were outnumbered. Indeed, given how often MK flip flops on other issues like "harsh reps" and "pre-emptive attacks", I have no freaking clue what your alliance stands for on anything. That's one of the main reasons why we have a much more negative view of you than GOONS or Umbrella.

The point is that the "we're not the ones outnumbered 10:1" argument doesn't change the strategic considerations for why we're putting nations in PM. If you believe, as you have been arguing, that there is some kind of "moral duty" to provide your enemy with as many war slots as they can fill in order to [s]appease their lust for easy wins[/s] "maintain the health of our community", then congratulations: the only people you've been trying to convince that your strategy isn't wrong is yourselves. You've escaped the trap of cognitive dissonance.

As for us, we are content to believe that, like in every other single situation where you claim than an action you have previously criticized is "different" when MK does it, you are seizing upon the first contextual difference that you can find, making a dubious and unsupported assertion that it is the [i]only[/i] thing that matters, and therefore [i]everything[/i] is completely different.
[/quote]
I've already said elsewhere that if roles were reversed, you'd be justified in insisting that our guys in peace mode come out before you'd give us peace.

You keep trying to present the "contextual" differences as some kind of arbitrary difference, but it's not at all. Because your arguments and false equivocations completely fall apart when you examine [i]why[/i] we object to those nations being in peace mode. We've never categorically objected to the use of peace mode*. I understand that you're trying to deliberately set up that straw man for PR purposes. But it's a really dumb argument. I know that everyone has a pretty low opinion of the cognitive abilities of the average reader here but you are pushing even that. Anyone with half a brain and no agenda should be able to see through it.

As for "appeasing a lust for easy wins", if they had come out originally instead of piecemeal, it wouldn't have been so easy. That it's easy is just due to your flawed strategies.

*In direct contrast to y'all in the GATO war.

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Cager' timestamp='1305183009' post='2710568']
I'm going to guess that's a no on freeing Cager?.
[/quote]


Cager who? Never heard of them. That some kind of rock band you kids listen to now days?

[Daimos]

Thank you for a good read StH!

[Joe Izuzu]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305190889' post='2710606']
I've already said elsewhere that if roles were reversed, you'd be justified in insisting that our guys in peace mode come out before you'd give us peace.[/quote]

Azaghul: Supporting NPO's stance in Viet Fan since May 2011.

[Letum]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305190889' post='2710606']
You keep trying to present the "contextual" differences as some kind of arbitrary difference, but it's not at all. Because your arguments and false equivocations completely fall apart when you examine [i]why[/i] we object to those nations being in peace mode.
[/quote]

As I've already acknowledged, if one ascribes, as you do, to your philosophical and moralist position on the need to provide war slots for the "health" of the "community", then they are welcome to see what you are doing as "fine" and what we are doing as "bad". Since I do not ascribe to that position, and frankly consider it extremely convenient !@#$%^&*, then I do not view actions through "moral" lenses, but rather through very plain strategic ones; we are both following actions to limit the amount of damage we take. I wouldn't consider your actions any more "right" or "wrong" if you were to suddenly face overwhelming odds. You, on the other hand, are not arguing that limiting damage via the long-term use of peace mode is bad (in contrast to previous MK arguments), but rather that having all your war-able nations beaten down, leaving only a smigeon in peace behind is bad because it means no more "war-slots".

[quote]
*In direct contrast to y'all in the GATO war.
[/quote]

Funnily, even *I* thought that was going too far, and given that none of it was ever enforced, it is actually much tamer than what you are doing.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1305220279' post='2710732']
As I've already acknowledged, if one ascribes, as you do, to your philosophical and moralist position on the need to provide war slots for the "health" of the "community", then they are welcome to see what you are doing as "fine" and what we are doing as "bad".[/quote]
It isn't "moralist" as you try to pin it as. (OOC: It's based on OOC objections, not IC ones, no IC morality involved).

[quote] Since I do not ascribe to that position, and frankly consider it extremely convenient !@#$%^&*, then I do not view actions through "moral" lenses, but rather through very plain strategic ones; we are both following actions to limit the amount of damage we take. I wouldn't consider your actions any more "right" or "wrong" if you were to suddenly face overwhelming odds. You, on the other hand, are not arguing that limiting damage via the long-term use of peace mode is bad (in contrast to previous MK arguments), but rather that having all your war-able nations beaten down, leaving only a smigeon in peace behind is bad because it means no more "war-slots".[/quote]
You're avoiding fighting entirely for a whole class of nations, in this case your years outdated concept of banking nations (not unlikely just a convenient cover to preserve part of an upper tier that you had time to hide).

If you blatantly choose to believe the silly idea that context doesn't matter at all, then there's not a lot to discuss. And yes, limiting wars is what it is about.

[quote]Funnily, even *I* thought that was going too far, and given that none of it was ever enforced, it is actually much tamer than what you are doing.[/quote]
Fair enough. But surely you understand the point of it?

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Joe Izuzu' timestamp='1305210941' post='2710680']
Azaghul: Supporting NPO's stance in Viet Fan since May 2011.
[/quote]
If I remember correctly, you wouldn't even [i]discuss[/i] terms with them until they came out.

[mrwuss]

Three threads and one single discussion about the same topic.

[Letum]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305226619' post='2710761']
It isn't "moralist" as you try to pin it as. (OOC: It's based on OOC objections, not IC ones, no IC morality involved).
[/quote]

It is still based on some belief over what is "just", rather than actual strategic reasoning. After all, that reasoning focuses on your opponent having nobody to fight, rather than what your own nations are doing. And it's fine, you can have that belief if you want. But personally, even under normal circumstances, I wouldn't care less about what detrimental effects my strategy might have on my opponent getting their jollies off. And in a circumstance where that opponent is an [i]aggressor[/i]...well, if anything, I'd see it as more of a [b]benefit[/b].

[quote]
You're avoiding fighting entirely for a whole class of nations
[/quote]

If you are going to use the word "whole class" so liberaly, then I can just point out that you are avoiding fighting for the "whole class" of tech farms, the "whole class" of inactives and the "whole class" of vulnurable nations in general.

Unless of course, you wanted "whole class" to mean "entire tier", which we both know would be false, given that 70% of NPO's upper tier fought just fine before the peace agreement.



[quote]
If you blatantly choose to believe the silly idea that context doesn't matter at all, then there's not a lot to discuss. And yes, limiting wars is what it is about.
[/quote]

Saying that context never makes a difference is just as silly as claiming that *any* difference in situation automatically means *completely* different rules (and since no two situations are alike, you can use that argument for anything). There needs to be a balance, and that balance requires some kind of logical argument that links context to the strategy. Since your argument is based on the belief about what is the "right" thing to do from a moral perspective, then there is not much to be said about it. You either agree with the initial premise, or you don't.

I could just as well seize on the "context" of being an alliance that was attacked unprovoked in order to "justify" that peace mode is a good thing for us, and a bad thing for everyone else; using a moral argument for doing so. Or, I could use a variation of your own argument about "limiting wars", and claim that using vastly superior numbers to quickly beat down opponents limits the number of wars available to upper tiers in the future. But these are all arguments based on a single platform of "This is the right thing to do, based on some internal "moral" principle". ([ooc:] whether the arguments backing the "moral" argument are IC or OOC do not really matter. It's much like claims that "tech raiding is killing the game". It's still moralist agenda used to justify a specific political stance [/ooc])