A Joint Ordo Paradoxia / Synergy Announcement

[Stelios]

[quote name='ADude' timestamp='1320779789' post='2841773']
You don't have to tell me what being the "pigeon holed into only fighting one of the big alliances" feels like, thats all RE has done this round, and we have done that without worrying about builds.



Last round you did have aspirations for the flag, DM was chasing and you guys were helping him, thats why you signed a NAP with Anon and OP right?

Also I am fairly convinced that you guys are flag running this round because you have quite a few people that specifically play to flag run, example.

http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000196

As far as I know he and the others from their last AA in TE (Rocket or something like that) are runners from NEW in SE, its kind of odd that the entire AA would join to not flag run isn't it?
[/quote]

Wow there is a lot here. Yes they have all the NEW runners that run every round..


Also TPC, we all know this. But Like you said, you had the war planned 3 weeks ago and it fell through. WHy did it take 3 weeks to find a war.

[paul711]

[quote name='Stelios' timestamp='1320815065' post='2842011']
Wow there is a lot here. Yes they have all the NEW runners that run every round..


Also TPC, we all know this. But Like you said, you had the war planned 3 weeks ago and it fell through. WHy did it take 3 weeks to find a war.
[/quote]
To make sure their runners would not be hit and to ensure a proper downdeclare.

[King James XVIII]

[quote name='Stelios' timestamp='1320815065' post='2842011']
Wow there is a lot here. Yes they have all the NEW runners that run every round..


Also TPC, we all know this.[/quote]

Yeah the trend has been for long posts it seems. Other than DM finishing first last round, when did a TPC nation rogue or win?

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1320815818' post='2842018']
To make sure their runners would not be hit and to ensure a proper downdeclare.
[/quote]

How do I even respond to that?

[paul711]

[quote name='King James XVIII' timestamp='1320818176' post='2842036']
Yeah the trend has been for long posts it seems. Other than DM finishing first last round, when did a TPC nation rogue or win?



How do I even respond to that?
[/quote]
That with the truth that it is true. Your blitz on Synergy/GDA proved it.

[dealmaster13]

[quote name='King James XVIII' timestamp='1320818176' post='2842036']
Yeah the trend has been for long posts it seems. Other than DM finishing first last round, when did a TPC nation rogue or win?
[/quote]

Round 6 when we did both

[Einer]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1320818409' post='2842041']
That with the truth that it is true. Your blitz on Synergy/GDA proved it.
[/quote]

Ah, go Sperg up some other thread, Paul.

You keep conveniently ignoring that:

A) We also hit Catharsis, which brought a solid core of high-end nations that you guys didn't bother to include in your declare.

B) You also declared on Synergy and GDA, only without the benefit of including Catharsis's high-end nations.

C) We'd both been out of war the exact same amount of time at that point (and now, for that matter).

[Warhammer]

I know that we have them in just about every war but it still never ceases to amaze me the way that some nations deem to fight.

This guy ([url="http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000759"]Purgatory[/url])
decides to hit only one nation ( [url="http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001092"]Charleston[/url]) and he just happens to be 12 days inactive.

How in the world (in good conscience) does someone do that?
Is that actually what they are playing TE for?

Where is the thrill or the challenge in this?

Says a lot about a persons character doesn't it?

Came across this fella by accident while checking out the war stats.
Just had to say something.

[paul711]

[quote name='Einer' timestamp='1320822290' post='2842085']
Ah, go Sperg up some other thread, Paul.

You keep conveniently ignoring that:

A) We also hit Catharsis, which brought a solid core of high-end nations that you guys didn't bother to include in your declare.

B) You also declared on Synergy and GDA, only without the benefit of including Catharsis's high-end nations.

C) We'd both been out of war the exact same amount of time at that point (and now, for that matter).
[/quote]
Thank you for proving my point in a round about way. In overall total NS TPC makes it look good but in individual fights give me a break. This quote of an IRC convo between Wes, myself and Bccortel the night of our combined blitz sums the situation up:

[size="4"][01:06] <|}Wes{|> i got 2 nations from OP 2-3k under my pre-blitz NS
[01:06] <bcortell> go!
[01:06] <|}Wes{|> and one from TPC 7k above me[/size]

We attacked up while overall many of your guys were attacking down. That shows that while total NS added up you guys clearly went for downdeclares on an individual basis, you tried it with us in our earlier war, you tried against us when you had Citadel with you a couple of rounds ago and there is no doubt that TPC will continue to master the art of down declaring. Don't take my personal opinion for it though just look back through the threads.

Someone remarked that myself and Bccortel are trying to apply our version of ethics onto the TE community and to this I reply that our version of ethics involves fair and fun fights not fights disguised in fairness declared to ensure minimal damage in thinly veiled attempts for the flag. Am I a saint, by no means, but I believe in some semblence of fair play.

I believe many in the TE community see through your shannigans of late. You have some of the most horrible wars I and many others have seen, flag run, and then try and argue that they are fair and that you do not flag run. It's like your slapping the TE community in the face and then saying that you did not do it. Each AA can play its own way of playing and you have proven that time and time again, I only hope that you right the ship in the future.

All that said this has been a great war; soldiers are dying, nations are crumbling, and infra is falling. I do love the sight of nukes exploding in the distance on a crisp fall night. Salute to all and lets continue the killing.

[dealmaster13]

Why didn't you guys just get more NS if you were concerned about the lack of?

Otherwise we're just never going to end up going to war in the future if our bloated NS happens to mess with TE ethics.

[Lehran]

[quote name='dealmaster13' timestamp='1320856552' post='2842211']
Why didn't you guys just get more NS if you were concerned about the lack of?

Otherwise we're just never going to end up going to war in the future if our bloated NS happens to mess with TE ethics.
[/quote]

DM, not everyone can play at the same level of TE (especially considering donations and the such). If everyone was the same, what would be the point of TE?

Edited November 9, 2011 by NeoGandalf

[paul711]

[quote name='dealmaster13' timestamp='1320856552' post='2842211']
Why didn't you guys just get more NS if you were concerned about the lack of?

Otherwise we're just never going to end up going to war in the future if our bloated NS happens to mess with TE ethics.
[/quote]
Some prefer to stay in their AA the entire round, not waiting until the end to join it *cough* like someone did last round; no names or finger pointing. Some prefer good fights to fights that limit damage so they can get such inflated NS. If these apply, please do not speak to me about ethics.

Ethics are generally agreed upon societal norms for behavior. Using this definition it seems yours and your AAs are anything but as many have already up about the tactics employed and we are at war so we will let our nukes speak for our displeasure.

Edited November 9, 2011 by paul711

[Einer]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1320856150' post='2842210']

[size="4"][01:06] and one from TPC 7k above me[/size]
[/quote]

Yeah, no !@#$ dude. We were attacking at an average matchup of 2v3 - individual nations were obviously going to be stronger. What's next, shock and outrage because BrownBear does his business in the woods?

Those 2v3 matchups are easily winnable. Of course, if someone won't coordinate to take those nations down, they just need to let us know so we can apply the appropriate NS penalty when trying to establish the challenge level of the next war.

(This actually doesn't apply to Synergy, based on the current war. Several of them did just fine organizing a coordinated nuke+ground combo earlier today. Much NS lost, many weeping widows in my nation...)

Edited November 9, 2011 by Einer

[paul711]

[quote name='Einer' timestamp='1320871681' post='2842319']
Yeah, no !@#$ dude. We were attacking at an average matchup of 2v3 - individual nations were obviously going to be stronger. What's next, shock and outrage because BrownBear does his business in the woods?

Those 2v3 matchups are easily winnable. Of course, if someone won't coordinate to take those nations down, they just need to let us know so we can apply the appropriate NS penalty when trying to establish the challenge level of the next war.

(This actually doesn't apply to Synergy, based on the current war. Several of them did just fine organizing a coordinated nuke+ground combo earlier today. Much NS lost, many weeping widows in my nation...)
[/quote]
But that quote is to highlight one of many, many instances. The point was you guys tried blitzing AAs that you would take minimal damage from instead of fighting LE. Don't get mad at the messenger, ask others or better yet ask yourself if it isn't true. NAPS, war games, flag running, down declares, or up declares which does not belong in that description of tpc and its actions the last few rounds?

[Confusion]

Honestly, you can't blame TPC for not wanting to fight LE. After all, OP has had a [i]defacto[/i] alliance with PS/LE for quite a while now. I mean, when was the last time you fought either LE or PS?

[SoADarthCyfe6]

[quote name='dealmaster13' timestamp='1320856552' post='2842211']
Why didn't you guys just get more NS if you were concerned about the lack of?

Otherwise we're just never going to end up going to war in the future if our bloated NS happens to mess with TE ethics.
[/quote]

Because we don't turtle the entire round like you do

[Vukland]

Confusion please change your avatar! I can't concentrate on the topic! Now where were we something ethics and such......ah screw it that's one sexy ass !@#$%*.

[StevieG]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1320856150' post='2842210']
Someone remarked that myself and Bccortel are trying to apply our version of ethics onto the TE community and to this I reply that our version of ethics involves fair and fun fights not fights disguised in fairness declared to ensure minimal damage in thinly veiled attempts for the flag. Am I a saint, by no means, but I believe in some semblence of fair play.
[/quote]
Ted Bundy?

[paul711]

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1320873115' post='2842335']
Honestly, you can't blame TPC for not wanting to fight LE. After all, OP has had a [i]defacto[/i] alliance with PS/LE for quite a while now. I mean, when was the last time you fought either LE or PS?
[/quote]
I dont blame them for anything except for trying to act as though their actions are good. I would call OP, LE, and PS friends but not an alliance.

[Overlord Wes]

[quote name='BarefootHillbilly' timestamp='1320806360' post='2841964']
Any word from the front?

All I hear on my radio is the banter of Generals.

I am wondering what the pulse of the fighting man is in respect to the present campaign. Thanks in advance.


[/quote]
I may be a General as well, but I'm definitely satisfied with the warfare.

[quote name='Einer' timestamp='1320871681' post='2842319']
(This actually doesn't apply to Synergy, based on the current war. Several of them did just fine organizing a coordinated nuke+ground combo earlier today. Much NS lost, many weeping widows in my nation...)
[/quote]

I fell asleep early and missed it :c

[dealmaster13]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1320863355' post='2842249']
Some prefer to stay in their AA the entire round, not waiting until the end to join it *cough* like someone did last round; no names or finger pointing. Some prefer good fights to fights that limit damage so they can get such inflated NS. If these apply, please do not speak to me about ethics.

Ethics are generally agreed upon societal norms for behavior. Using this definition it seems yours and your AAs are anything but as many have already up about the tactics employed and we are at war so we will let our nukes speak for our displeasure.
[/quote]

How can you stay in an AA for an entire round and join it at the end, because what I did last round was stay out of the TPC AA for most of the round then join it at the end for a reason I cannot remember.

Every post you make seems to revolve around your perception of the ethics of TE which is why I would enjoy discussing such matters with you. Perhaps I could learn from you how to choose a truly fair war, such that I can aid my fellow gov members.

[Cellardoor]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1320876485' post='2842356']
I dont blame them for anything except for trying to act as though their actions are good. I would call OP, LE, and PS friends but not an alliance.
[/quote]

Well, PS wasn't around last round, the round before I believe was the round you decided we shouldn't actually have any free time, and between everyone's grudge matches prior to that and everyone's view of "sides", it's been tough to fight them without letting the other side "win". I wanted to hit LE this round. And two rounds ago, and so on and so fourth .

Confusion, can you join LE so I can convince other people we should hit them?

[Wired]

Enough with the propaganda and revisionist rhetoric - time for some cold hard facts. Let's review some select wars from this round. Go grab a drink folks, this is going to be a long one.

War started on Day 7 with [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105135"]this announcement[/url]. The [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105206"]next wars[/url] came on Day 11. In this DOW thread King James posted that we planned on hitting WAPA and FARK but with this DOW we lost these two targets. We heard rumblings of [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105348"]this war[/url] on the horizon so we didn't want to interfere - more targets gone.

By day 11 Anon, SUN, LE, OP, FARK & WAPA were at war. RE and PS were on a collision course. That left us with DF, tW and Black as the next best option for war so we hit them. On Day 11 [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105227"]we went to war[/url]. Reading that DOW thread we see some of the usual propaganda being thrown at us by the usual suspects but there is no massive TE outcry of us "avoiding war" or doing a "huge down declare". Nevertheless, this is [b]exactly[/b] how this war will be portrayed later by our detractors, including in this very thread. Fortunately people like King Ernie can be more objective, as he posted in that thread early on - "looks like a good one guys!" What started as a fair war quickly tipped in our favor and on cue our detractors flew into propaganda mode to spin our victory into something wrong. Whatever.

There was no reason to expect that these targets wouldn't be ready to fight - it was [b]day eleven[/b]! We all had the same opportunity to build and be ready for war, war was already happening across TE and more war should have been expected by all at anytime. There was no reason not to be ready. Yes we bought nukes after the DOW, just as OP has in our current war, the difference is we aren't whining about it now like others did then. Why didn't we use these nukes? Because it became apparent after the blitz the targets were not prepared for war and they had no nukes, seemed obvious for us not to nuke them.

Our detractors would have you believe our target's lack of readiness was our fault or that we somehow should have expected such a large gap after 11 days and chosen a "harder" target. Again, look at who was at war and what was available to us - we hit who we could. Where was Synergy at this point Darth? Sitting on their ass, that's where.

We bounced back quickly and chose to war again ASAP, a 5 day turnaround - faster than any other AA has exhibited in this round. We looked for a target and chose OP for a Day 22 DOW. We were out of war 5 days, they were out 10 days. The numbers were solid (as was recognized in the DOW thread) - OP had higher ANS & NS, the nation count was even. Devil Dog from LE posted "Looks like this could be a good war. Stats looking close and OP hasn't even built up yet.", Paul from OP posted "I ain't complaining". It was a good war, we beat on each other then moved on to rebuild. Since the war ended the story has been "revised" to be used for propaganda - [i]"TPC hit OP just as they came out of war with Anon![/i]" The implication is we jumped on a weakened OP when we were at the very top of our development, this is simply not true. We were no where near our peak potential, OP was not weak. And still this propaganda gets thrown in this thread - posting a lie repeatedly doesn't make it a truth.

And once again, where was Synergy at this point? Dragged into war by TFK on Day 20 after sitting on their asses 3 weeks into the round. Darth, you have the audacity to claim TPC was avoiding war when we were looking for our [b]second[/b] war while you did nothing until being forced into your [b]first[/b] war?? Wow, just...wow.

Having rebuilt from the OP war we once again looked for a target. Now since LE shared info with certain folks some of you are aware we asked them about "war games" which would be a no holding back full on war. You can ask them if you want, there were no restrictions implied or requested. What most of you did NOT know was LE approached TPC in week one about doing a joint op at approximately the mid point of the round, exactly when many of you were clamoring for us to hit them. Surprised? It was obvious to both LE and TPC we wouldn't be working together at that point due to our sizes but maybe now you'll understand why we didn't just hit LE without consulting them first or why we would chose to find an alternate target.

With LE off the table we talked to RE, we had a long standing mutual respect and had never aggressively hit them in the past. We didn't feel it was appropriate to alter this mutual understanding without mutual agreeing to change our stances. RE agreed to warring each other moving forward but had obvious intent to hit LE, if they hadn't they would have been hit by TPC, pretty sure they had this figured out.

So, we searched for another target, all that could be found was a group of AAs which we lined up. OP was looking for war too and they picked 2 of the 3 targets we chose. No big surprise, they [b]were[/b] the best targets available - that's why both OP and TPC both picked them, both AAs look for good wars. Because we had rebuilt faster after fighting OP we wanted 3 targets, OP was looking for 2. Yet somehow the propaganda suggests we are wrong for picking these targets and OP is not?? Interesting double standard.

More to the point - Darth suggesting here that we sat on our asses for over 30 days is yet one more lie - we tried to go to war, it got fubared. Don't for one second suggest we didn't try to find a war for over 30 days, that simply isn't true.

It seems to me we have some other double standards being applied here as well. When LE doesn't go to war for over 30 days TPC gets slammed for not hitting them. When TPC sits for over 30 days once again TPC gets slammed for not fighting someone? I see how this works - it's always our fault according to some.

As far as the NAPs with Anon and OP you probably don't realize how funny that was for us. During the round we felt both wanted TPC to fight the other, both of them maybe thinking they had somehow gained the upper hand with their NAP. We just laughed and found our battles elsewhere. On the last day of the round both Paul and Confusion were in our channel slamming us for having NAPs when these two individuals were both involved in creating those very NAPs! Oh they liked their own NAP, they just didn't like we had one with someone else.

One last thing about all you smart people that [b]know[/b] so much. Some suggested privately we were fools for letting OP off the hook on the exposed spy op a few days back. Ok, how's this work for you:

From the logs we've had since Nov. 1st:

(19:50:54) (%paul711) you guys are still set to hit TPC with us right?
(19:51:01) (|}Wes{|) yes

So, as you can see, we were well aware of OP's intentions all along. And yes OP, we were ready...more ready than maybe some realized.

What have we learned here folks? Hopefully these blatant lies will stop - enough already, you just make yourself look more foolish with every post. We should also have learned that most often it is not TPC that initiates back room politics but we certainly seem to attract advances by many AAs. That's cool, we're always happy to talk with any AA and you can count on TPC to stick to their commitments once given, even some of our detractors can acknowledge that fact. Some of you should also realize that what you think you "know" isn't always right and seldom the complete story.

TPC knows far more than we generally let on, this will not change past this post - we open up here once to address this nonsense. Although we're generally laid back on these forums sometimes action is required and it's time now to address this continuous propaganda campaign by some to sway public opinion about our AA. Generally our friends defend us in these smear attempts, as we would defend them. When that doesn't happen we are left to speak up for ourselves so the masses can consider both sides of the story and decide for themselves what is true.

As far as any suggestions we are flag running or that we are protecting members of NEW so they can flag run this is simply not true, you can believe us or not - we really don't care. You can certainly looks at those members of NEW and it should be obvious none of them are on a path to winning a flag, if you think they are you don't really understand what a flag run is all about. Did they try in past rounds? Absolutely. Are they trying this round? Absolutely not, that was a non-negotiable condition on their acceptance into TPC.

Regarding last round. we were in position to compete at the top in the end and we did, we will do so again if we have the opportunity to fight the biggest in the game in the final days. Our intent will be to war for fun, ending up as the top AA overall last round was a nice bonus but was never our main goal. When we are very successful (as we were last round) we may end up in the individual winning positions only because others could not get past us to their prize. Remember, DM's single round quest was due to a bet he made with Confusion and not something he normally does when rolling with TPC - his tactics last round were solely in response to the bet, not his normal play style. I'm sure if he wanted to focus on the flag, or if other TPC did, we could always make a good effort, it's just not something we work towards. Hopefully you can believe us but if not, well, once again - we don't care.

On the topic of us doing individual down declares. First, we are/were bigger than many in the game so naturally some of our individual nations will be bigger than our targets. Second, setting up a troop dump for one of your slots is just smart tactics - this target will get hit with your leftover deploy to clear it for rebuy, it's not like they're getting the bulk of your effort. Third, this is multiple times Paul has quoted the same "instance" and then used it as a broad generalization to suggest this happens all the time with all our wars and every individual declare - this is simply not true and is beyond exaggeration. Fourth, we didn't get off most of our declares during that war and unless we did and you did a proper accounting of all declares it really isn't proper to keep rolling out one example of a partial attack and applying it to all. To do something similar I could use a broad generalization to say the OP turtles when they face a tough fight. How so? Thomas was set up as a troop dump during our last war and despite having more money than some of his alliance members he made zero effort to fight back and help his war partners. I wouldn't do this because this would be wrong - Thomas was also afk doing things with his wife/anniversary and although he initially complained about the NS ranges that hit him he sent apologies to TPC Gov for his outburst. Furthermore, I wouldn't use this one incident to portray OP in a negative light, as I've said before I try to avoid judging other AAs whenever possible, sometimes it seems unavoidable.

One last thing. It's day 66. Synergy was dragged into war on day 20. Since then both OP and TPC tried to engage you on Day 43 but we failed. Finally, on Day 63 OP lead you into your second war. Considering Syn had far fewer days at war in this round than TPC one would assume you've had a better chance at building, saving WCs, adding key wonders and you should have been ready to kick ass on the battle field. So I guess when you point out our superior builds and WCs when compared to Syn you're really saying TPC are better at the game than you are? You can't have your cake and eat it too - we're in a better position because we did a better job than you did, [b]not[/b] because we had less war than [b]you[/b]. It's the same reason why LE, PS, OP, TPC and others are doing better than you, it's really that simple. Hopefully you can accept this fact and stop trying to step on others to raise yourselves up. You have no room to talk about the war efforts or building abilities of others Darth. I suggest you stop blindly believing propaganda and take a long look in the mirror before slamming others again.

Now more than one of you will be inclined to post something assinine like [i]"I don't have time to read all that".[/i] Fair enough, go play your Xbox and simply refrain from posting. If you don't want to get both sides of the story and insist on posting without all the infromation made available to you then don't be surprised when others dismiss at your weak opinion and lack of effort. If you have something meaningful to say then say it, backing it up with something more than "opinion" usually helps too.

[paul711]

Wow, way to throw out you sources of info like that. All I can say is that was a well written post, good job, but I disagree with some of it. Does your gov allow its members (gov members) to leave and come back at will? I ask because in a reply to my post DM talks about helping his fellow gov members make better war decisions. That implies he is gov and would it be safe to assume he has been? Therefore tpc gov knew snd abetted his flag run, I must say I really don't care. I do, however, take offense when one does something and then tries to twist things. As to the turtling I am fighting one from tpc now (rock n rolla) it happens and I predicted it would. I know quote more than you give me credit for but I protect my sources.

Wired, you say I only have one instance of the down declaring phenomon that is the tpc war machine of late, I stress of late because tpc is a great AA but has seen its rep slip some. In our first war we saw alot of down declares and while I said I wasn't complaining during it, it wad clear that you guys tried to eliminate us. You left what you thought were less active members countering( at least that is what we took from it).

All that said, we can agree to disagree but we have a great fight going on. It is a shame to muddy it with words.

[StevieG]

[quote name='Wired' timestamp='1320885204' post='2842425']
Wall of text
[/quote]

You make some valid points concerning your first war, and I guess your attempt at a second war. However, you have been hoarding infra and tech, and in the past few rounds it [b]appears[/b] that you stay out of war, preferring to let the other big AAs fight it out, then that only leaves the option of putting a few smaller AAs together to fight. We all know by now that a few AAs together will have less co ordination. Me and my alliances have done the same in the past on purpose for flag chases etc. We did stomp people, and pretty much down declare(in the top tier anyways), and we did have to take on pretty much everyone by the end of rounds.

I think most peoples problem right now with TPC is that you are not being genuine in your goals.

Regarding DM. He flag chases every round, and does know how to build his nation. He usually uses a new name to hide, and he will generally always try to save his cash for the end. It wasnt just last round because of the bet with confusion.

To be honest, I dont really have a problem with TPC, but Im gonna get revenge on DM

Oh and by the way, I am better than you.

[the wompus]

[quote name='Wired' timestamp='1320885204' post='2842425']
Wall of text (good idea Stevie!)[/quote]

Here's the one part of the 'story' that I find interesting.

Following their first war, after a 5 day turnaround, TPC hit OP. - This is undisputed.

It's painfully obvious to me that the first TPC war could not have been that difficult or there is [i]NO WAY[/i] TPC could have mustered such an impressive sustained offensive against OP.

We (OP) were 10 or 11 days out of war at the time and were still barely back on our feet from the Anon war.

Even though the Anon war went about as well as it possibly could have, our nations came out that war pretty beat up and broke.

5 days after it's first wars, TPC nations were loaded up pretty good (at least from my perspective) with plenty of size and money. A tougher war would certainly have strained these resources to make the 5 day turnaround unfeasable.

One other thing - the NAP. For at least two rounds prior to this agreement, TPC and OP had repeated wars and prior to that round even beginning, it was decided that we would give each other a break for a round in part to let tempers cool due to some serious bad blood brewing, and also just to force us into getting some variety in our wars as an eternal repeated rubber match was getting boring and predictable. Some of the implications about this are a little inacurate and I wanted to clear it up. I suppose by strict definition it was an NAP, but simply stating that doesn't tell the whole tale.