NpO Individual Surrender Terms

[kencojenko]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1322790178' post='2858743']
Now I can surrender, thanks paws... OPS! Wrong button, I sent a nuke instead, my bad!
[/quote]

[quote]To: kencojenko From: D34th Date: 12/2/2011 3:03:56 AM

Subject: Nuclear Attack Thwarted

Message: You have thwarted a nuclear attack by D34th with your Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) systems. You lost 0 soldiers, 0 defending tanks, 0 cruise missiles, 0.000 miles of land, 0.000 technology, 0.000 infrastructure, and 0 of your aircraft and navy force. [/quote]

[Alex0827a]

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1322789158' post='2858709']
Any breach of the above terms will be dealt with at the discretion of your Prison guard who will probably light you up like a Christmas tree in true festive spirit.
[/quote]
'Tis the season (just got done Christmas shopping)

Anywho, thanks for making me smile

[D34th]

[quote name='kencojenko' timestamp='1322823817' post='2859294']

[/quote]

Please lend me your SDI

[OrangeBeard]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1322801057' post='2858960']
Please just disband them (Polar).
[/quote]
All in favor...

Seriously, this is far better than individual terms.

[Scorponok]

Good call.

Giving the weak a way out, very nice of you. Also your POW camps are too easy.

[Marneus Calgar]

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1322822146' post='2859282']
It is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it.
[/quote]
Oh Rabby, we all love it when you quote American Presidents.

Needs more Patton though.

[Venizelos]

i dont remember seeing reparation demands on individual surrenders in a while...

[SpacingOutMan]

Congratulations on your first POW (or at least one who posted in the resignations thread). Honestly, should make those who surrender fight out another week just because they turned tail...

[mike1001]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1322836397' post='2859361']
Congratulations on your first POW (or at least one who posted in the resignations thread). Honestly, should make those who surrender fight out another week just because they turned tail...
[/quote]

You are talking about this guy: [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=434250&Extended=0"]Hazmat101[/url]?

He hasn't even been in a war yet.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='mike1001' timestamp='1322839726' post='2859382']
You are talking about this guy: [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=434250&Extended=0"]Hazmat101[/url]?

He hasn't even been in a war yet.
[/quote]

Which is why I said they should have to fight a week for turning tail.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1322789416' post='2858720']
And the precedent is set.

Well done gentlemen and Mia
[/quote]Well done, indeed, Goon Order of Neutral Shoving. Unjust War individual terms: Standard decomm; set AA to GOONS FTBRG; divide your current tech in half, divide that half by the number of GOONS you were at war with, send each goon that ammount.

I know you guys want to think you're edgy and cool, but the idea is 4 years old. GOONS were dickheads who couldn't do jack without their bigger allies then, you are nothing more now.

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1322790124' post='2858737']
You know what that means? TSO will continue attacking nations that surrendered to TOP and IRON! Those monsters!
[/quote]GGA refused to honor Continuum's Vox PoWs, GOONS has raided PoWs, etc etc. Save the sarcasm for situations that do not actually happen.

[quote name='hormones74' timestamp='1322791217' post='2858785']
I think Polars gov and past gov should be forced to surrender all their tech.
[/quote]I agree. Dilber owes TOP bigtime. Not. Don't join the mindless swarm, Hormones.
When Valhalla insisted in the noCB War that all MK gov be ZIed, TOP stood firm and rejected the proposal; I trust that even in the quest for vengeance, TOP will retain its senses and sensibilities which I have respected for many years.

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1322803459' post='2859015']
No no no guys you have it all wrong. Take super harsh reps from Polar, and then FAN them without warning right before terms are up. They sure as hell deserve it a lot more than FAN ever did.
[/quote]That joke would make a lot more sense if TOP hadn't been standing shoulder-to-shoulder with NPO when that happened.

[quote name='Timberland' timestamp='1322792194' post='2858812']
EDIT: you should have offered the same terms Polar offered \m/, you guys are letting them off too easy
[/quote]This suggestion would also benefit from more attention to history. TOP was part of the ~ Coalition which gave \m/ the "eternal techfarm" terms whether they liked the terms/NpO or not. Just as a nation votes with its feet, so does an alliance, and TOP stuck with that crowd for year afterwards.

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1322789360' post='2858719']
Normally I complain when war is used to extort resources from an alliance, but I feel no sympathy for those who accept individual terms.
[/quote][quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1322790786' post='2858775']
It's good to see that NG's practice of taking reps from deserters has carried over. Good stuff TOP, IRON and TSO, I'm hoping this will just make Polar's demise more painful.
[/quote][quote name='Letum' timestamp='1322791259' post='2858787']
I approve of this trend of not letting deserters get off scott-free. You sign-up to be part of an alliance, you ought to live up to your commitments.
[/quote][quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1322803856' post='2859024']
Lenient terms for deserters
[/quote][quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1322836397' post='2859361']
Congratulations on your first POW (or at least one who posted in the resignations thread). Honestly, should make those who surrender fight out another week just because they turned tail...
[/quote]
Oh dear. Once again the fog of war clouds the judgement of otherwise intelligent people. Let's take this step-by-step, using the assumption that TOP has a valid case for war on NpO:
1. Nations leave the state of nature to join an alliance, trading sovereignty for security and prosperity.
2. Alliances provide nations with peace and prosperity in return for service to the alliance and surrender of national sovereignty.
3. Nations are not eternally bound to an alliance once they join it. They are free to find a new alliance for any reason, and it is logical that if an alliance fails to meet its obligations to the nation (peace and prosperity) that the nation leave the alliance. (Likewise, if a nation fails to meet its obligations to the alliance, it should logically be expelled)

Polaris, in this situation, has both (1) failed to meet its obligations to its members by failing to provide security when it put itself in danger by "betraying" TOP and (2) can no longer meet its obligations to its members because it is at war.
Nations who surrender in thissituation are not "deserters" because Polaris has failed in its obligations. Surrendering nations are rational actors.
Additionally, it is beneficial to the Avenger coalition for Polar nations to surrender. It is counter-productive, illogical, and nothing short of assinine for Avengers to attempt to "punish" nations for actions which are beneficial to Avengers.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Schattenmann

[WarriorConcept]

Schatt sometimes people have a difference of opinion. I respect yours on this issue, but I still agree with my own.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1322842895' post='2859411']
Schatt sometimes people have a difference of opinion. I respect yours on this issue, but I still agree with my own.
[/quote]
Agree with yourself all day long, but can you argue or defend your position?

Edited December 2, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1322840752' post='2859391']That joke would make a lot more sense if TOP hadn't been standing shoulder-to-shoulder with NPO when that happened.[/quote]
That is wrong. TOP never actually engaged FAN. Sure, we stayed allied to the NPO. We were in a bloc with them. At the same time, the first war was started by WUT and, before it was over, the UjW happened. The second phase was mostly 1V on FAN. TOP was never a member of that. I think not participating doesn't equal "standing shoulder-to-shoulder". That's like saying RIA is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the NpO at the moment.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1322840752' post='2859391']This suggestion would also benefit from more attention to history. TOP was part of the ~ Coalition which gave \m/ the "eternal techfarm" terms whether they liked the terms/NpO or not. Just as a nation votes with its feet, so does an alliance, and TOP stuck with that crowd for year afterwards.[/quote]
Again, history could serve. We were neutral during the UjW.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1322840752' post='2859391']Oh dear. Once again the fog of war clouds the judgement of otherwise intelligent people. Let's take this step-by-step, using the assumption that TOP has a valid case for war on NpO:
1. Nations leave the state of nature to join an alliance, trading sovereignty for security and prosperity.
2. Alliances provide nations with peace and prosperity in return for service to the alliance and surrender of national sovereignty.
3. Nations are not eternally bound to an alliance once they join it. They are free to find a new alliance for any reason, and it is logical that if an alliance fails to meet its obligations to the nation (peace and prosperity) that the nation leave the alliance. (Likewise, if a nation fails to meet its obligations to the alliance, it should logically be expelled)

Polaris, in this situation, has both (1) failed to meet its obligations to its members by failing to provide security when it put itself in danger by "betraying" TOP and (2) can no longer meet its obligations to its members because it is at war.
Nations who surrender in thissituation are not "deserters" because Polaris has failed in its obligations. Surrendering nations are rational actors.
Additionally, it is beneficial to the Avenger coalition for Polar nations to surrender. It is counter-productive, illogical, and nothing short of assinine for Avengers to attempt to "punish" nations for actions which are beneficial to Avengers.[/quote]
We offered early and generous individual surrender terms. The token reparations are meant to avoid a flux of larger nations finding a way out of this conflict, as some have already informed us [i]that they were seeking approval from their (Polar's) milcom to surrender[/i]. We wouldn't want to see our magnanimity abused by our enemy.

As for PZIs, ZIs and so on, they belong to another era. We will not demand them.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[ChimpMasterFlash]

I don't know why you're not making large POW nations send 3:50's to a TOP nation of choice [u]for the remainder of the war.[/u] POW's resources are yours sir.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1322843339' post='2859419']
Agree with yourself all day long, but can you argue or defend your own illogical position?
[/quote]

What's illogical about it? They joined NpO to be part of a collective where they can defend each other and now that the going gets tough they're trying to bail on their responsibilities to their alliance. If they did not like NpO they would have left before this war, otherwise leaving now is just to hug some infra.

[Stewie]

[quote name='ChimpMasterFlash' timestamp='1322843671' post='2859422']
I don't know why you're not making large POW nations send 3:50's to a TOP nation of choice [u]for the remainder of the war.[/u] POW's resources are yours sir.
[/quote]


Nice idea, I may use them next war...

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1322844195' post='2859425']
What's illogical about it? They joined NpO to be part of a collective where they can defend each other and now that the going gets tough they're trying to bail on their responsibilities to their alliance. If they did not like NpO they would have left before this war, otherwise leaving now is just to hug some infra.
[/quote]
The idea that the only reason a nation leaves an alliance at war is due to cowardice is a base oversimplification that I would think beneath you. What responsibilities does a nation have to an alliance which has failed in its obligations to that nation? None.
If TOP did not have a valid CB, things would be different, but you think TOP does. Polaris has failed its members, thus dissolving their obligations to the organization.
Even if they are deserters, their crime is against Polaris, so it is not TOP's debt to collect.

Let's make this very easy: In the runup to the GATO-One Vision War, GATO's allies in general found that GATO had broken its surrender terms, giving NPO a CB as soon as they found out, making all those treaties with GATO signed under false pretenses and without good faith from GATO. In particular, UPS membes with GATO were being denied their rights under the treaty. On the eve of war, Browncoats' slow and absentee government left the alliance holding GATO's bill. So, while everyone else was on vacation, I went off the reservation and started a fake war to keep us out of the real war due to GATO's transgressions, but when the plot was discovered the Dark Confederate bloc declared war on Browncoats anyway. In the meantime, I had already left.
Would you [i]seriously [/i]suggest that nations who left Browncoats in that situation were "deserters" who deserved to be punished for leaving BCs?

The situation is less complex, but the bottom line is the same: Polaris failed its members, and they have no obligation to defend Polaris now.

[Letum]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1322840752' post='2859391']
Oh dear. Once again the fog of war clouds the judgement of otherwise intelligent people. Let's take this step-by-step, using the assumption that TOP has a valid case for war on NpO:
1. Nations leave the state of nature to join an alliance, trading sovereignty for security and prosperity.
2. Alliances provide nations with peace and prosperity in return for service to the alliance and surrender of national sovereignty.
3. Nations are not eternally bound to an alliance once they join it. They are free to find a new alliance for any reason, and it is logical that if an alliance fails to meet its obligations to the nation (peace and prosperity) that the nation leave the alliance. (Likewise, if a nation fails to meet its obligations to the alliance, it should logically be expelled)

Polaris, in this situation, has both (1) failed to meet its obligations to its members by failing to provide security when it put itself in danger by "betraying" TOP and (2) can no longer meet its obligations to its members because it is at war.
Nations who surrender in thissituation are not "deserters" because Polaris has failed in its obligations. Surrendering nations are rational actors.
Additionally, it is beneficial to the Avenger coalition for Polar nations to surrender. It is counter-productive, illogical, and nothing short of assinine for Avengers to attempt to "punish" nations for actions which are beneficial to Avengers.
[/quote]

Here, we are going to have to disagree. I view anyone becoming part of my alliance as a person undertaking a serious commitment to stand with their brothers no matter what - and I hold other alliances to that same standard. The idea that the relationship between alliance and nation is a contract that can be backed out of as soon either party ceases to be able to provide the benefits they signed up for seems like a massive slippery slope - it can potentially used to justify any mass desertion, under any circumstances.

Certainly, if you take a nation's infra and tech as the main determinant, desertion is a rational course of action. Yet it is still one that violates the bonds of a community - because those bonds are not one of a nature "I am obligated to do A in exchange for B", but rather they are the bonds of what is supposed to be a family. Family is not quantified in terms of obligations or contracts.

As to the last point, yes, offering terms more punitive than white peace will encourage Polar nations to stay rather than flee, and that in turn will have a (fairly small) adverse effect on TOP/IRON's immediate material interests.

Now, in the long-term there can be arguments that this prevents the creation of a "diaspora" that could either contribute to other TOP/IRON rivals, or return to Polar unharmed in the future. However, personally I would view the small material cost as being worth it in order to discourage desertion across the community, even in lieu of any long-term implications.

[potato]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1322840752' post='2859391']
GGA refused to honor Continuum's Vox PoWs, GOONS has raided PoWs, etc etc. Save the sarcasm for situations that do not actually happen.
[/quote]

Yeah but it's GGA...

Also, what sarcasm? I would find it hilarious if TSO did so.

Edited December 2, 2011 by potato

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1322845995' post='2859438']
Here, we are going to have to disagree. I view anyone becoming part of my alliance as a person undertaking a serious commitment to stand with their brothers no matter what - and I hold other alliances to that same standard. The idea that the relationship between alliance and nation is a contract that can be backed out of as soon either party ceases to be able to provide the benefits they signed up for seems like a massive slippery slope - it can potentially used to justify any mass desertion, under any circumstances.

Certainly, if you take a nation's infra and tech as the main determinant, desertion is a rational course of action. Yet it is still one that violates the bonds of a community - because those bonds are not one of a nature "I am obligated to do A in exchange for B", but rather they are the bonds of what is supposed to be a family. Family is not quantified in terms of obligations or contracts.[/quote]
Tut, tut. http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Freedom Back to the Academy.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Schattenmann

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1322845396' post='2859437']
The idea that the only reason a nation leaves an alliance at war is due to cowardice is a base oversimplification that I would think beneath you. What responsibilities does a nation have to an alliance which has failed in its obligations to that nation? None.
If TOP did not have a valid CB, things would be different, but you think TOP does. Polaris has failed its members, thus dissolving their obligations to the organization.
Even if they are deserters, their crime is against Polaris, so it is not TOP's debt to collect.


The situation is less complex, but the bottom line is the same: Polaris failed its members, and they have no obligation to defend Polaris now.
[/quote]

You and I clearly have a differing opinion about what kind of commitment a nation makes when joining an alliance, which is the root of the issue. As to it being TOP carrying out the debt collection, they have the capacity to do so which means they will. I think it follows a good precedent that means nations should think twice before joining an alliance and actually learn about it and what they would be fighting for.

[NoMercy]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1322840752' post='2859391']
Polaris, in this situation, has both (1) failed to meet its obligations to its members by failing to provide security when it put itself in danger by "betraying" TOP and (2) can no longer meet its obligations to its members because it is at war.
Nations who surrender in thissituation are not "deserters" because Polaris has failed in its obligations. Surrendering nations are rational actors.[/quote]

I disagree. Being in an alliance means that you get things (protection, organization) but also that you need to give things. (dependent on the alliance).
I agree to (1) and (2). I however disagree with your conclusion. It's in the nature of alliances that they attack and get attacked, and it's typical for government members to make mistakes. You join an alliance knowing all that, whether you disagree or not. Fighting in a global war is your quid pro quo for receiving peace and the benefits of organization in war time.

This is actually supported by the Charter of most alliances, who prohibit surrendering, and expect their Members to fight in global wars.

So when you surrender, you fail to return your depts to the alliance and you are in breach of the treaty you as an individual agreed to upon joining the alliance. (mostly the Charter)

[quote]
Additionally, it is beneficial to the Avenger coalition for Polar nations to surrender. It is counter-productive, illogical, and nothing short of assinine for Avengers to attempt to "punish" nations for actions which are beneficial to Avengers.
[/quote]

I'd agree. But you can also argue, that surrendering nations are a plague to all (non-neutral) alliances on Planet Bob. Thus it is also in the interest of all others, to get them punished. I think that would be valid.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1322840752' post='2859391']
Well done, indeed, Goon Order of Neutral Shoving. Unjust War individual terms: Standard decomm; set AA to GOONS FTBRG; divide your current tech in half, divide that half by the number of GOONS you were at war with, send each goon that ammount.

I know you guys want to think you're edgy and cool, but the idea is 4 years old. GOONS were dickheads who couldn't do jack without their bigger allies then, you are nothing more now.

GGA refused to honor Continuum's Vox PoWs, GOONS has raided PoWs, etc etc. Save the sarcasm for situations that do not actually happen.

I agree. Dilber owes TOP bigtime. Not. Don't join the mindless swarm, Hormones.
When Valhalla insisted in the noCB War that all MK gov be ZIed, TOP stood firm and rejected the proposal; I trust that even in the quest for vengeance, TOP will retain its senses and sensibilities which I have respected for many years.

That joke would make a lot more sense if TOP hadn't been standing shoulder-to-shoulder with NPO when that happened.

This suggestion would also benefit from more attention to history. TOP was part of the ~ Coalition which gave \m/ the "eternal techfarm" terms whether they liked the terms/NpO or not. Just as a nation votes with its feet, so does an alliance, and TOP stuck with that crowd for year afterwards.


Oh dear. Once again the fog of war clouds the judgement of otherwise intelligent people. Let's take this step-by-step, using the assumption that TOP has a valid case for war on NpO:
1. Nations leave the state of nature to join an alliance, trading sovereignty for security and prosperity.
2. Alliances provide nations with peace and prosperity in return for service to the alliance and surrender of national sovereignty.
3. Nations are not eternally bound to an alliance once they join it. They are free to find a new alliance for any reason, and it is logical that if an alliance fails to meet its obligations to the nation (peace and prosperity) that the nation leave the alliance. (Likewise, if a nation fails to meet its obligations to the alliance, it should logically be expelled)

Polaris, in this situation, has both (1) failed to meet its obligations to its members by failing to provide security when it put itself in danger by "betraying" TOP and (2) can no longer meet its obligations to its members because it is at war.
Nations who surrender in thissituation are not "deserters" because Polaris has failed in its obligations. Surrendering nations are rational actors.
Additionally, it is beneficial to the Avenger coalition for Polar nations to surrender. It is counter-productive, illogical, and nothing short of assinine for Avengers to attempt to "punish" nations for actions which are beneficial to Avengers.
[/quote]

They have had the best part of 2 years to leave polar or to read up on the history and assess their position, yet they would choose to leave when their alliance requires them. Joining an alliance is a two way street, its a social contract if you believe it to be breached then you leave at the time of the offence not 2 years after when the consequences land on your doorstep. It's cowardice lets call a spade a spade and not defend those undeserving of our efforts.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Venizelos' timestamp='1322836299' post='2859358']
i dont remember seeing reparation demands on individual surrenders in a while...
[/quote]
You should read more often.