A Message from the Emperor of the New Pacific Order

[Caliph]

 

Yet another person who is wrong.

 

These terms are reparations because they are conditions being imposed by a group of alliances on another alliance for punishment or atonement for how that alliance behaved during the war. Reparations are not necessarily requests for material or financial gain.

 

Calling a shovel a spade does not change a shovel into a spade.

 

Reparations are material/financial in nature.  That is the definition of reparations.

 

These are peace terms.  Terms of surrender if you will, because you have lost the war.

 

I am not sure why this is a hard concept to grasp.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Caliph

[RedSandman]

 

Calling a shovel a spade does not change a shovel into a spade.

 

Reparations are material/financial in nature.  That is the definition of reparations.

 

These are peace terms.  Terms of surrender if you will, because you have lost the war.

 

I am not sure why this is a hard concept to grasp.

 

But just because the word reparation is out of favour these days doesn't mean the terms demanded are not reparations.

Edited January 29, 2014 by RedSandman

[IYIyTh]

No, you're right. The fact that they are not reparations means that.

[Caliph]

 

But just because the word reparation is out of favour these days doesn't mean the terms demanded are not reparations.

 

Right, the fact that reparations are out of favor these days does not mean the terms are not reparations.

 

The fact that the terms are not reparations means that the terms are not reparations.

 

You keep mentioning reparations, but I don't think you know what it means.
 

[RedSandman]

Well I suggest you do you do some reading on the subject....

[Caliph]

Well I suggest you do you do some reading on the subject....

 

I suggest you stop calling a shovel a spade.

[RedSandman]

A common misconception is that reparation is synonymous with compensation. Although compensation is common, other forms of reparation include: restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.

 

Ref: http://www.redress.org/what-is-reparation/what-is-reparation

[Caliph]

A common misconception is that reparation is synonymous with compensation. Although compensation is common, other forms of reparation include: restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.

 

Ref: http://www.redress.org/what-is-reparation/what-is-reparation

 

None of those things are in the terms as presented by all involved parties, so please stop calling things reparations when they are not reparations.

[the rebel]

A common misconception is that reparation is synonymous with compensation. Although compensation is common, other forms of reparation include: restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.

 

Ref: http://www.redress.org/what-is-reparation/what-is-reparation

 

So according to you white peace is a form of reparation..... So don't offer white peace as Red Sandman thinks it is reparations!

[Malkavian]

NoR are irrelevant in every possible way imaginable.  They are not a target, they are not a priority and if they just surrendered and went away no one would notice or care.  However it is not unsurprising to see the Pacifican propaganda machine spinning its crap so fast that it forgets where the line even starts.

 

There are no reps required from anyone.

The only ''penalty'' is to be required to keep on doing what Pacifica has already been doing and by failing to accept the terms will continue to keep on doing voluntarily until they do accept the terms.  The only catch is that apparently no one else will surrender until they do, so Pacifica failing to accept the terms that they have already self-instituted is inconveniencing everyone. 

 

For all the BS in this thread, the matter is really quite simple, Pacifica likes to play loose with the concept of commitment and have a long demonstrated history of this.  Whilst I have no real interest in the terms themselves, perhaps the terms serve as a warning to all alliances, engage in good faith or be penalized if you do not.  It is not anything like requiring nations to exit peace mode to fight arbitrary destruction fests, it is not reps in any way shape or form, it is a penalty of continuance and nothing more.

 

For all the BS in this thread, Farrin is a very arrogant negotiator given his real position and the very real position of his allies.  By all means hate whoever you want to hate, I love being hated, but at some stage you will have to look at who is responsible and eventually if you are at all honest with yourselves, you will answer Farrin, mostly because he is a pompous fool acting on behalf of a collection of pompous fools.

 

Surrender or fight, either way those nations are clearly in peace mode at your own insistence.

 

Please excuse my intrusion in your debate, but there are a few things I'd be happy to get more information around, and I did not want to have to re-read all the pages from 1-29:

 

• What exactly are the present terms and conditions [in the absence of any] that the New Pacific Order or Pacifica must adhere themselves to to secure a written and proclaimed lasting truce?
• What exactly are the present terms and conditions [in the absence of any] that the allies of New Pacific Order or Pacifica must sign to warrant a signal of forthcoming peacetime?
• Nations are resting in "peace-mode" but what coincidence would that spell in the probably continuation of the war-front on Planet Bob?
• Emperor Farrin Xies, leader of the New Pacific Order (Pacifica), has mentioned that he would not accept peace-terms should he deem them crippling toward the heart of his alliance. Is there any plan or therefore any plan like "the plan" he deems inappropriate for his alliance still being driven by the immediate winning coalition? 
• If the allies of the New Pacific Order may resign themselves from the conflict, why do they continue to fight a hopless war-font on the face of Planet Bob?

If anyone will please answer those questions–I'd greatly be thankful to you poster.

[RedSandman]

Well

 

 

So according to you white peace is a form of reparation..... So don't offer white peace as Red Sandman thinks it is reparations!

 

No "white peace" is not reparation because there is no identification of wrong doing and the settlement between the parties is equal

 

Some people really need to get a brain....

[BrJLa]

I don’t get this corny semantic argument. The name “reps” isn’t what makes the concept of reps offensive. These terms are offensive for the same reason reps are offensive (at least, to the extent reps are offensive – they’re equally as non-offensive if you’re not offended by reps). People use “reps” as a shorthand for punitive surrender terms.

The offensive thing isn’t that it takes value away from one alliance and gives it to another. It’s that it makes big wars that everyone participates in less viable. That’s why they’ve fallen out of favor.

[brucemania]

Except for, you know, the 30 or so that haven't been, nor have they fought for the entire war. May be easy for you to forget them, but you better know that we haven't.

 

Then maybe it is something for you to look forward too.  Okay lets really show .... NPO has what 290 nations ... and only 33 have not been to war. When i look at this it seems most of our AA has been fighting and not only fighting but dealing with what 9 or 10 AA on us.  Considering we have only entered this war on a treaty to defend a nation, you in turn want only hamper us for rebuilding them that did fight.  The majority understand what them nations use are for with us and it is up to us what the do. As a matter of fact it is every indviduals choice whether or not they fight. Then if they belong to a AA then it is up to that AA what their function maybe. And dont sit there and say banks are passe as that is crap in itself ... Dont tell me TOP does not have tech banks. Do not tell me that Polar has no banks of any kind.  And with respect to Umbrella and say Goons ... well the whole world knows that Umbrella is GOONS bank when it comes down to it. Point of all this is each AA functions as it sees fit.  No one should deligate the use of nations as they see fight cause then you might as well bring back Viceroys. The only problem is that what some have forgot is the EQ war was to bring Equalibrium to the planet which it had did. But it seems that some forgot that and are now fighting for a Coalition that wants to bring back the unequal status we had before the EQ war. Of course we can lay blame but what for as we can just sum it up to greed and power and whom wants to be the Power.  For years NPO was called the evil ones and now with the terms your trying to force upon us, that evililty is being brought back. Whether or not depending on whose oppinion it is of harshness, that is the point of the thread that NPO is not going to stand for terms which bring it down to insignificance and let them that want a on sided world to be able to rise to domination as the world was before the EQ war.

[the rebel]

Well

 

 

No "white peace" is not reparation because there is no identification of wrong doing and the settlement between the parties is equal

 

Some people really need to get a brain....

 

Read the part I put in bold part in what I quoted, maybe you need a brain for reading what you type before posting.

[salsabeast1]

 

EQ war was to bring Equalibrium to the planet which it had did. 

That is the absolute last thing Equilibrium did... 

[brucemania]

That is the absolute last thing Equilibrium did... 

 

It did to a point .. as things would not be as bad now if certain  Alliances on the current TOP/Polar side did not have a personal grudge or say a ego trip and from the EQ side of the spheres. Them Alliance that moved over to the other side took the balance with them.

[Caliph]

I don’t get this corny semantic argument. The name “reps” isn’t what makes the concept of reps offensive. These terms are offensive for the same reason reps are offensive (at least, to the extent reps are offensive – they’re equally as non-offensive if you’re not offended by reps). People use “reps” as a shorthand for punitive surrender terms.

The offensive thing isn’t that it takes value away from one alliance and gives it to another. It’s that it makes big wars that everyone participates in less viable. That’s why they’ve fallen out of favor.

 

If you find the terms presented as offensive, fine, that is opinion.

 

if you claim these terms are reparations, than that is a lie because we have definitions of what reparations are, and these do not fit any of them.
 

[xoindotnler]

It did to a point ..

I'm starting to think there is something in Francograds water that causes mass hallucinations.

[The Zigur]

The offensive thing isn’t that it takes value away from one alliance and gives it to another. It’s that it makes big wars that everyone participates in less viable.

 

Thus leading to a more stable global environment.

[WarriorSoul]

 

Thus leading to a more stable global environment.

 

As a question of personal interest, you do realize that without instability, we have literally nothing to do, right?

[Caliph]

 

Then maybe it is something for you to look forward too.  Okay lets really show .... NPO has what 290 nations ... and only 33 have not been to war. When i look at this it seems most of our AA has been fighting and not only fighting but dealing with what 9 or 10 AA on us.  Considering we have only entered this war on a treaty to defend a nation, you in turn want only hamper us for rebuilding them that did fight.  The majority understand what them nations use are for with us and it is up to us what the do. As a matter of fact it is every indviduals choice whether or not they fight. Then if they belong to a AA then it is up to that AA what their function maybe. And dont sit there and say banks are passe as that is crap in itself ... Dont tell me TOP does not have tech banks. Do not tell me that Polar has no banks of any kind.  And with respect to Umbrella and say Goons ... well the whole world knows that Umbrella is GOONS bank when it comes down to it. Point of all this is each AA functions as it sees fit.  No one should deligate the use of nations as they see fight cause then you might as well bring back Viceroys. The only problem is that what some have forgot is the EQ war was to bring Equalibrium to the planet which it had did. But it seems that some forgot that and are now fighting for a Coalition that wants to bring back the unequal status we had before the EQ war. Of course we can lay blame but what for as we can just sum it up to greed and power and whom wants to be the Power.  For years NPO was called the evil ones and now with the terms your trying to force upon us, that evililty is being brought back. Whether or not depending on whose oppinion it is of harshness, that is the point of the thread that NPO is not going to stand for terms which bring it down to insignificance and let them that want a on sided world to be able to rise to domination as the world was before the EQ war.

 

Wrong on all accounts.  EQ did not bring equilibrium to the whole planet, what it did was solidify a hold and give certain nations supremacy in the super tier while bringing down others into an upper tier.  EQ did not bring equality here, that might be how its sold and how NPO history teaches it, but that is not how it really went down.

 

These terms are not going to cripple your alliance, stop whining like it will.  Its like a talking to a toddler, trying to convince them that the ant sized hole in the bridge is not big enough for them to fall through, that if they cross it everything will still be fine.

 

Stop being so melodramatic.
 

[Bob Ilyani]

 

Then maybe it is something for you to look forward too.  Okay lets really show .... NPO has what 290 nations ... and only 33 have not been to war. When i look at this it seems most of our AA has been fighting and not only fighting but dealing with what 9 or 10 AA on us.  Considering we have only entered this war on a treaty to defend a nation, you in turn want only hamper us for rebuilding them that did fight.  The majority understand what them nations use are for with us and it is up to us what the do. As a matter of fact it is every indviduals choice whether or not they fight. Then if they belong to a AA then it is up to that AA what their function maybe. And dont sit there and say banks are passe as that is crap in itself ... Dont tell me TOP does not have tech banks. Do not tell me that Polar has no banks of any kind.  And with respect to Umbrella and say Goons ... well the whole world knows that Umbrella is GOONS bank when it comes down to it. Point of all this is each AA functions as it sees fit.  No one should deligate the use of nations as they see fight cause then you might as well bring back Viceroys. The only problem is that what some have forgot is the EQ war was to bring Equalibrium to the planet which it had did. But it seems that some forgot that and are now fighting for a Coalition that wants to bring back the unequal status we had before the EQ war. Of course we can lay blame but what for as we can just sum it up to greed and power and whom wants to be the Power.  For years NPO was called the evil ones and now with the terms your trying to force upon us, that evililty is being brought back. Whether or not depending on whose oppinion it is of harshness, that is the point of the thread that NPO is not going to stand for terms which bring it down to insignificance and let them that want a on sided world to be able to rise to domination as the world was before the EQ war.

I shouldn't even bother replying to this, but hey... no, TOP does not have banks. Polar does not have banks. GOONS is not Umbrella's bank.

 

You seem to be confusing banks with tech sellers, which is somewhat sad because Pacifica is the only alliance daft enough to still use banks. Yes, we have tech sellers. They're currently fighting in this war. If you even attempted to gain an understanding about what these peace negotiations are actually about rather than just drinking Kool-Aid Pacific^TM it'd go a long way in making your arguments less inane and more rational.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

Everyone knows Pacifican banks use their slots to import tech. How cruel of you all to punish the innocent Pacifican bankers!

[TurnipCruncher]

Caliph, you have disproved nothing.
Grub of course has said it how it is. Those selected PM nations of NPO must either leave PM and fight, or NPO will be forced to take a penalty that will approximate that action. However, it's not reps because it's not at all exactly like how UMB PM nations were forced to come out and take their beating.

[Dajobo]

 

Man a person with a real education ... and to add considering the size of NPO and the fact most of our upper tier was actually warring and the damage we have taken ... we have had at least 150 nations fighting, hence the amount of Damage for you stats people. How many of the other Coalitions actually have 150 nations in them that have been fighting.

 

This is correct I believe. You have indeed had many of your upper tier who fought. That is why terms were offered that does nothing to those people. You have indeed had at least 150 fighting, out of a starting number of 270 ish from memory. How many others have had that percentage at least fighting? To answer your question, I suspect all of them.