From the Body Republic of the New Pacific Order

[PMoses]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1307597975' post='2727684']
Hey, everyone here is free to make me eat my words by linking me to where Moo admits he betrayed TORN. Wouldn't that be a special moment, too? Making me eat my words? No, seriously. If it's posted somewhere, I want to see it.
[/quote]


Well, me being new and only playing for like 7 months now.. I was a bit nosy. Between the CN Wiki, and oh say about 4 months worth of Archives in the CN forums, shows a lot about NPO betraying not only TORN, but the Continuum at that.. As for direct logs to it, there out there. You just gotta know where to look for them at.


reason for edit: my math was horribly wrong the first time

Edited June 9, 2011 by PMoses

[Letum]

The entire Karma war was an attempted set-up in order to get TORN, whom as we all know was the mastermind of the hegemony, and whom the entire world wanted to kill, and would have definitely killed if only we had managed to exit the war before them. Had we succeeded, they would have surely gone on to be curbstomped for 4 months and pay what is still, to date, the highest amount of reparations ever recorded. Alas, we were far too naive and inexperienced to make such plots against such masters of the political game, and paid the price for it.

[BloodFury]

[quote name='rileyaddaff' timestamp='1307593680' post='2727625']
When their immense gratitude and feelings of brotherhood for their comrades dissipate and all the love is lost. When all of it is gone what is left? Nothing, but deceit, lies, and how they could use you and your alliance to their benefit. This ribbon is for those alliances and nations that valiantly fought and gave their infra to protect Pacifica and instead of being thanked, felt the blade of knife jabbed into their back.


[center][img]http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7583/backstabribbon.png [/img][/center]

*- Although alliances have disbanded and many nations have moved alliances since then, the former members of alliances that felt the knife of Pacifica in their back are more than welcome to wear this ribbon if they wish

**Reason for edit: Didn't want to name names
[/quote]

Well I suppose I will eat my previous words on this one, but I happen to like this ribbon and what it stands for. Bravo.

[Steve Buscemi]

[img]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af104/RedNPO/grrrx2.png[/img]
You should have put "screw you STA" on the ribbon. That would have made more sense.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='PMoses' timestamp='1307597746' post='2727682']
Oh you mean the war that MOO ordered Bigwoody to send TORN in on, and then 11 hours later tried leaving all of The Continuum out to dry and getting secret peace for only NPO? Yeah.. That is the war your referring too, but do you have your facts straight?

I am just wondering. I wasn't around then.. My cn history could be flawed by the stories I have been told, and the lessons I was givin about cn history. But I have heard the story the way I just posted it about 200 times from all different sources. I heard your version 1 time, and that was this one. So I am tending to believe the masses, of course unless you can prove them flawed.
[/quote]

I wouldn't consider the kind of trash you associate with to be valid representations of what did or did not happen, although I've never particularly cared with what happened to know what did or did not happen or who is and who isn't right.

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1307602060' post='2727729']
[img]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af104/RedNPO/grrrx2.png[/img]
You should have put "screw you STA" on the ribbon. That would have made more sense.
[/quote]

No, that wouldn't make much sense at all.

On the other hand, perhaps your idea of "making sense" is not making sense. If you want to mention TPF's relationship with STA (I imagine thats what your alluding to), perhaps you'd like to tell us all about iFOK's relationship with NEW.

They are pretty different situations, particularly since STA seemingly (you can never be sure though) were ok with what TPF did, witnessed by the fact that that treaty is still around, but still, I'm sure you'd like to tell us all about that?

Edited June 9, 2011 by memoryproblems

[Kowalski]

Olympus fought well, NSO fought badly but at least they fought, ML went balls-out and got respect for that. They rest should be content with patting each other on the back for a job well done.

[Hymenbreach]

Don't mention it, NPO

[PMoses]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1307602720' post='2727735']
I wouldn't consider the kind of trash you associate with to be valid representations of what did or did not happen, although I've never particularly cared with what happened to know what did or did not happen or who is and who isn't right.



No, that wouldn't make much sense at all.

On the other hand, perhaps your idea of "making sense" is not making sense. If you want to mention TPF's relationship with STA (I imagine thats what your alluding to), perhaps you'd like to tell us all about iFOK's relationship with NEW.

They are pretty different situations, particularly since STA seemingly (you can never be sure though) were ok with what TPF did, witnessed by the fact that that treaty is still around, but still, I'm sure you'd like to tell us all about that?
[/quote]

The kind of trash I associate myself with? So people that are in NPO, NpO, Sparta, TOP, Iron, MK, VE, STA, IAA, Valhalla, and even some in TPF are all trash?? Wow.. lets get it straight, just cause I have a TORN AA, doesn't mean I don't make friends everywhere.. But all the "Trash Stories" I have been told, and heard all were at different times and were pretty accurate with each other. The Original poster of the story I was arguing against was the first time I heard it different. So I challenged it.

Also if you read my original post it o/ the alliances that stuck by a bigger alliance with a checkered past. As for those trying to discount my fellow alliance member, of course I would stick up for him, weather I agree with his post or not. Isn't that what an alliance is for?

But if anything I have been taught about CN history is wrong, I am very interested in learning truths so I can add a better "2 Cents" in on these Posts. So please if you have proof other wise share it

[Ragashingo]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1307602720' post='2727735']
No, that wouldn't make much sense at all.

On the other hand, perhaps your idea of "making sense" is not making sense. If you want to mention TPF's relationship with STA (I imagine thats what your alluding to), perhaps you'd like to tell us all about iFOK's relationship with NEW.

They are pretty different situations, particularly since STA seemingly (you can never be sure though) were ok with what TPF did, witnessed by the fact that that treaty is still around, but still, I'm sure you'd like to tell us all about that?
[/quote]

Be sure. We've become stronger friends since signing our treaty with TPF, and the war did nothing hurt that friendship. If anything the mutual hardship drew us closer together.

[Heft]

Very few people came out of the first days of Karma not smelling and looking like !@#$, so maybe you should all just agree to get the $%&@ over it and move on already.

[Letum]

[quote name='PMoses' timestamp='1307614711' post='2727810']
But if anything I have been taught about CN history is wrong, I am very interested in learning truths so I can add a better "2 Cents" in on these Posts. So please if you have proof other wise share it
[/quote]

Unfortunately, the nature of the world in which we live, and it's shady backroom politics, means that there is generally a lack of proof for most situations, particularly ones such as the one you have brought into our thread, given that the "truth" is a factor of the private intentions of two alliance leaders.

In that kind of situation, I can understand why a curious member of our world such as yourself might rely on what you hear from others. Alas, however, the amount of times you hear the "version of a story" does not particularly lend it any extra credibility. For the 200 people you have heard "your side" of the story from (and I am amazed at your sociability), I could just as well point at least 400 others that would give you a different one. Unfortunately, neither number has any particular impact, since they both effectively mean that those individuals have "chosen" to believe one of two people at the heart of this, and are not witnesses to "the truth" in themselves. (Nor can they be, given that what is argued about is intentions, and none of us have mind-reading capabilities)

There are, however, some methods you can use to, at the very lest, divine what is unlikely or improbable to be the truth. These can consist of looking at rational behaviours, motives and actual observable actions.

In terms of what would be a "rational" model for the behaviour of the involved parties, you can have a range from our former leader suing for peace with the intent of opening a negotiation that would end the war for all parties (the benign version), to our former leader, under the motive of self-preservation, attempting to get the first possible peace, with other parties being a secondary concern (the bad version). By contrast, an irrational model of behaviour would involve the party nobody was interested in fighting (as evinced by it historically being given white peace straight away) being left to suffer a one-sided curbstomp, whilst the party everyone was committed to bringing down (as evinced by a very wide range of incidents, from the length and ending of the Karma war, to the party's treatment since, to the very inability of making a [i]ribbons[/i] thread without inviting controversy) managing to exit the war with lesser damage. You will note that the irrational version highlighted here tends to be the implied "extreme consequence" of some portrayals of the worst possible rational version.

In terms of what the motives of the two parties in question are, you also encounter a certain lack of clarity. On the one hand, you have the accused party with an inherent motive of denying the negative connotations of an accusation. On the other hand, you have the accuser using his accusation as justification to pursue a self-serving course of action that, in its absence, would be morally reprehensible.

As to actions themselves, you have the contrast of one party getting a white peace within a single day, and the other facing a combined war and reparation period that stretches to well over a year. Unfortunately, that contrast depends on your interpretation and does not offer any actual conclusions in its lonesome.

What you might have gleamed from this brief examination of how to look at leaders motives is that there is a distinctly shady quality to pretty much everything. The more cynical might conclude from this factor that any "truth" tends to lie in between these events and that there are multiple parties which, in their acts of self-interest, might end up screwing each other over. If you permit me to offer my personal insight, I'd claim that every important personality here is covered in what one might call "political excrement", and they tend to address that issue by mostly trying to point out the greater quantity of this fine substance on people other than themselves.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Letum

[PMoses]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1307624094' post='2727857']
Unfortunately, the nature of the world in which we live, and it's shady backroom politics, means that there is generally a lack of proof for most situations, particularly ones such as the one you have brought into our thread, given that the "truth" is a factor of the private intentions of two alliance leaders.

In that kind of situation, I can understand why a curious member of our world such as yourself might rely on what you hear from others. Alas, however, the amount of times you hear the "version of a story" does not particularly lend it any extra credibility. For the 200 people you have heard "your side" of the story from (and I am amazed at your sociability), I could just as well point at least 400 others that would give you a different one. Unfortunately, neither number has any particular impact, since they both effectively mean that those individuals have "chosen" to believe one of two people at the heart of this, and are not witnesses to "the truth" in themselves. (Nor can they be, given that what is argued about is intentions, and none of us have mind-reading capabilities)

There are, however, some methods you can use to, at the very lest, divine what is unlikely or improbable to be the truth. These can consist of looking at rational behaviours, motives and actual observable actions.

In terms of what would be a "rational" model for the behaviour of the involved parties, you can have a range from our former leader suing for peace with the intent of opening a negotiation that would end the war for all parties (the benign version), to our former leader, under the motive of self-preservation, attempting to get the first possible peace, with other parties being a secondary concern (the bad version). By contrast, an irrational model of behaviour would involve the party nobody was interested in fighting (as evinced by it historically being given white peace straight away) being left to suffer a one-sided curbstomp, whilst the party everyone was committed to bringing down (as evinced by a very wide range of incidents, from the length and ending of the Karma war, to the party's treatment since, to the very inability of making a [i]ribbons[/i] thread without inviting controversy) managing to exit the war with lesser damage. You will note that the irrational version highlighted here tends to be the implied "extreme consequence" of some portrayals of the worst possible rational version.

In terms of what the motives of the two parties in question are, you also encounter a certain lack of clarity. On the one hand, you have the accused party with an inherent motive of denying the negative connotations of an accusation. On the other hand, you have the accuser using his accusation as justification to pursue a self-serving course of action that, in its absence, would be morally reprehensible.

As to actions themselves, you have the contrast of one party getting a white peace within a single day, and the other facing a combined war and reparation period that stretches to well over a year. Unfortunately, that contrast depends on your interpretation and does not offer any actual conclusions in its lonesome.

What you might have gleamed from this brief examination of how to look at leaders motives is that there is a distinctly shady quality to pretty much everything. The more cynical might conclude from this factor that any "truth" tends to lie in between these events and that there are multiple parties which, in their acts of self-interest, might end up screwing each other over. If you permit me to offer my personal insight, I'd claim that every important personality here is covered in what one might call "political excrement", and they tend to address that issue by mostly trying to point out the greater quantity of this fine substance on people other than themselves.
[/quote]

Thank you for your most excellent explanation there Letum. I just have one curious question before I go out for the day... Is those 400 people you could have tell me a different story 400 of the 427 in your alliance?

Edited June 9, 2011 by PMoses

[potato]

Who in MK associates with you?

[Letum]

[quote name='PMoses' timestamp='1307624657' post='2727860']
Thank you for your most excellent explanation there Letum. I just have one curious question before I go out for the day... Is those 400 people you could have tell me a different story 400 of the 427 in your alliance?
[/quote]

Yes. Quite obviously, being part of my alliance, they are all likely to follow our version of events. (And yes, I realize you have referenced that you have heard from individuals in many different alliances - the point is not to examine the extent of bias on each side, but simply to highlight that only two people really have first row seats in this, and everybody else is rather irrelevant to the validity of their arguments).

[NeCoHo]

Wow, I'm liking this, having been in both NPO and TORN, it's funny to see all of this. What happened was that TORN peaced out, not NPO. That's what actually happened, and it's nonsense to try and play it any other way. I was blueballed out of a war because someone wanted to save infra over fighting with an ally, and that's nonsense too. Quit it already. I remember the "deal" being offered by MK to TORN to drop out of the war, and TORN took it. That's what happened, and the perception of the backstabbing by NPO on TORN was trumped by the actual backstabbing of NPO by TORN.

[Hecate]

[b]Reminder this thread is not about Karma and TORN. Comparisons need to be related back to the topic or your warn level will be in danger.[/b]

[mhawk]

Hopefully we've reached the end of mindless violence executed by doomhouse. May we never again earn more of these medals.

[nippy]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1307640307' post='2727961']
Hopefully we've reached the end of mindless violence executed by doomhouse.
[/quote]

You kidding? Now that the war's over and we're all back within raiding range, [i]what do you think [b]that[/b] means?[/i]

[BamaBuc]

[quote name='BloodFury' timestamp='1307340444' post='2725183']
Well aren't you an intelligent fella to realize that there has been five years and six months of luxurious history of tradition and culture to go around in this community. While alliances do things in private is fine and dandy and how they want to do things in their own private communities is fine for making their members feel wanted, there is no relevant point anymore to post things like that on the OWF.

Furthermore, you do not need to publicize publicly that you respect and are thankful for your allies. I am sure they appreciate it just the same to get a query on IRC saying, "Hey thanks for sticking with us it really means a lot." Rather instead what you have here is a thread that screams a whole lot of "Hey look at us, we hand off colored pixels to the alliances that fought for us that at the end of the day means absolutely nothing."
[/quote]
Of all the things on Planet Bon that you could have gotten yourself worked up about, you chose [i]ribbons?[/i]

I think I speak for both the membership of TPF and the former membership of TOOL when I say thank you for this recognition. It was an honor.

-Bama

[Varianz]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1307640524' post='2727963']
You kidding? Now that the war's over and we're all back within raiding range, [i]what do you think [b]that[/b] means?[/i]
[/quote]
Fun times for everyone?

[nippy]

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1307742335' post='2728811']
Fun times for everyone?
[/quote]

But of course!

[The Pansy]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1307640524' post='2727963']
You kidding? Now that the war's over and we're all back within raiding range, [i]what do you think [b]that[/b] means?[/i]
[/quote]
You'll whore yourselves out to do low level ghost busting ?

[nippy]

[quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1307784351' post='2729116']
You'll whore yourselves out to do low level ghost busting ?
[/quote]

We've been doing that for a long time now, via the "Hired GOONS Act". We love whoring ourselves out.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1307640524' post='2727963']
You kidding? Now that the war's over and we're all back within raiding range, [i]what do you think [b]that[/b] means?[/i]
[/quote]
Your goal to reduce the global population of nations to 5000 is that much closer.

[AnCapistan]

Hey look, I was remembered!