A Message from the Emperor of the New Pacific Order

[Manis B]

If you look closely at the OP and the comments of Branimir, Letum, allies in NSO, and allies in GATO you will see the real problem was never the 8 days. It was that Farrin wanted to make one dramatic gesture and end the terms on his offer. It is a way to save face with his alliance and allies by demonstrating his willingness to compromise. The nickel and dime counter offer ruined the narrative he could create with the end to negotiations. Normally when one or both cultures have issues with saving face, then important negotiations are conducted by underlings and the big dramatic finish is accomplished by the big shots after the underlings have hammered out the details that are acceptable to all parties.

 

Of course the reason for the Polar counter offer, being that Polar coalition feels the offer on the table is entirely reasonable, makes it hard to make the big dramatic Pacifican offer in the first place.

 

i got your dramatic gesture right here.

 

in my pants. 

[Neo Uruk]

If you look closely at the OP and the comments of Branimir, Letum, allies in NSO, and allies in GATO you will see the real problem was never the 8 days. It was that Farrin wanted to make one dramatic gesture and end the terms on his offer. It is a way to save face with his alliance and allies by demonstrating his willingness to compromise. The nickel and dime counter offer ruined the narrative he could create with the end to negotiations. Normally when one or both cultures have issues with saving face, then important negotiations are conducted by underlings and the big dramatic finish is accomplished by the big shots after the underlings have hammered out the details that are acceptable to all parties.
 
Of course the reason for the Polar counter offer, being that Polar coalition feels the offer on the table is entirely reasonable, makes it hard to make the big dramatic Pacifican offer in the first place.

If you look closely at the OP and the comments within made by Scorn, Scorn, and Scorn alone you will see the real problem was never the thread. It was that... okay, but really. This post is possibly the dumbest one yet itt. And we've had some doozies.

[OsRavan]

The New Pacific Order, among several others, tried to levy terms on Umbrella that would prevent any of them from sending or receiving foreign aid for up to 6 months or more in the last conflict. I know without even breaking out the calculator that those numbers would dwarf that of whatever aid loss the New Pacific Order would lose by having only 33 of their nations unable to send or receive foreign aid for a set period of time. Thanks to a number of voices in NPO's coalition last war, and the resolve of Umbrella and its allies, these terms never saw the light of day except to be discussed among the rest of us instead of being implemented. These terms caused a significant amount of divisions among the New Pacific Order's coalition last time around and led the split which made this war possible. Whether certain alliances were officially for or against those terms at the time, many have found themselves on the opposing side of the New Pacific Order this time and once again we see a dramatically scaled down version of the terms against Umbrella the New Pacific Order so vigorously fought for last time in play. The New Pacific Order claims that these nations are absolutely vital to rebuilding their war-torn alliance because they are still reliant on the concept of Bank Nations - a tactic that was obsolete as early as 2008 - to finance their bankroll for economic growth. 

 

What makes these revised terms different, however, is that an entire alliance isn't being prohibited from sending aid for up to six months after the war. A key difference that defines the reality of the situation the New Pacific Order finds itself in now versus the one the New Pacific Order was fighting for before. These terms are exceptionally lighter terms than the last administration fought for and lost. These same terms were also designed to cripple the post-war growth of an enemy, but fueled by an irrational grudge the former head of that administration held and used his position and influence to act upon. The scale of these terms is noticeably different. The manner in which they're being negotiated in, as well. The Competence Coalition did not come to the Open World Forum to plead for mercy, and it certainly did not attempt to misconstrue the facts of the situation. Instead we see the New Pacific Order doing both of these things, in ill-conceived attempt to improve their hand at the bargaining table by hoping to gain public sympathy which would pressure the governments of the opposition to balk. What the New Pacific Order seems to have forgotten is that negotiations are better served by working behind the scenes, working with the parties they hold differences with and coming to a consensus, and eventually a compromise, together. They gain nothing by standing before the rest of us and crying foul, pointing fingers and using false analogies to the Karma War when in the last conflict they fought for terms that were objectively worse and essentially the same kind of terms that enabled the Karma War to happen in the first place - draconian terms that united the world against a selfish, megalomania fueled oppressor.

 

The New Pacific Order would be better served by abandoning these ridiculous analogies to a war from years ago, that was in every way earned by the then head of state, TrotskysRevenge, the administration and the alliance that enabled him and his predecessors to do so. It is the New Pacific Order's actions in the run up to and during the previous conflict that have once again earned their seat at this table. There is no sympathy to be found for them and there shouldn't be any given. The negotiations will produce terms far more agreeable than whatever current offers are on the table but nobody earns a better deal by publicly decrying and smearing the process while it is still in session. That is not the behavior one expects from an alliance that proclaims to be at the forefront of political and military "innovation".

 

 

This post and many similar ones accusing NPO of trying to give Umbrella crazy terms. YOu, Joshua R.  A bunch of others.  So.... Ummm.. you are wrong.  How do I know you are wrong?  Well, I was actually at the negotiations for equilibrium peace.  In fact, I represented cng and (in some of them) MK.   There wasnt a peace conversation that occurred in that war I wasnt present for.  In fact, I was the lead person negotiating.  I say that not as an ego rush, but simply to lay out the fact that there's few people in bob currently who have a better idea of what happened in the equilibrium negotiations than I do.

 

So lets clear up a couple of things.

 

1) NPO relaying a demand from a coalition doesnt mean that NPO supported terms.  Unless we are now claiming that say XX (who have been disavowing that the drive for the terms this war comes from them) are actually demanding this of NPO?  Unless your coalition is now claiming that everyone fighting NPO is pushing for terms and approves of them, I'm not sure where you get off claiming NPO was pushing for them.

 

2) Even if NPO had pushed for them (hint, they didnt) what does it matter what someone says at day one of posturing in negotiations compared to what they actually do?  Words are cheap, actions show the truth.

 

3) NPO is the reason umbrella and top got light terms and white peace.  How do I know that?  Well... I was the one to negotiate the change from heavy terms for umbrella and top to white peace.  Me. Not umbrella.  Not TOP.  I spent an insane amount of time negotiation with equilibrium then running back to umbrella mk et all to get their OK on things.  Hell, admin knows you all have made enough propaganda about how I did that and had some secret deal with Brehon and NPO's allies should leave NPO as a result. There was no secret backroom promises by the bye, but I *was* the one to negotiate the peace terms.  Who did I negotiate it with? NPO.  Why?  Because NPO made it clear they disproved of the radical wing of their coalition demanding terms of umbrella.  They were my in to negotiate a better peace.

 

4) Who actually wanted to impose harsh terms on umbrella and top? Most of those alliances are fighting with you to roll NPO right now ironically. And you know it.

 

Nothing wrong with that.  Politics make for odd bed fellows.  But the level of hypocrisy needed to claim that you are doing this for NPO's conduct in equilibrium... when in fact NPO let you off *lightly* while you are fighting with those who didnt want that... its insane.  Seriously. 

 

If anything, I would question the honor of umbrella and top in supporting terms at all on NPO after they stuck their neck out for you.  But again, politics I suppose trumps honor.  At least have the decency to not try and rewrite history in front of the people who... hey... were actually there.

 

If it helps, give me permission and im sure I can dig up some logs of the leader of GOONS and Umbrella talking about using NPO to get themselves white peace because they knew NPO was the part of the coalition pushing for that.

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly had forgotten TPF was part of that. I had just joined Umbrella at about the time the agreement was reached and only saw NPO targets. You guys certainly never back down from war or try to avoid it.

 

I think you're mistaken. Umbrella isn't even a part of the current peace talks. I've only elaborated on the comparison because others brought it up, and at this point there's nothing more to say on that unrelated and out-of-topic thread of conversation. The PM term, now aid restriction, for thirty three nations that have been in PM the entirety of this war was a clever idea by one of the combatants facing Pacifica that in order to discourage future use of PM (which unnecessarily lengthens wars such as these), only nations utilizing PM would be punished, and they would be punished not with war or reparations, but instead with a taste of their own medicine. It was a clever, light, but frustrating idea for peace terms, and as much as Pacifica cries about how terrible it is, all the shouting in the world isn't going to convince our coalition that it's anything more than it is.

 

I've already shown the math, and you can argue all you want that it's over-the-top harsh to deny "banks" the opportunity to import tech, but they still come out far ahead of any nation that has actually participated in this war. If NPO wants to argue more that these high tech nations have no military purpose, then I'm sure they could counter offer no outgoing aid restriction and in good faith promise zero tech importation, and I would be surprised if our coalition wouldn't accept that.

 

 

Part of the problem here, is your coalition has refused to tell anyone WHY you are demanding terms.  People say this and that on the OWF.  But when asked blankly, we are told its officially a "secret" why terms are being demanded, and we cant find out until after we agree.

 

For example. You in this post claim your demands are about keeping banks from importing tech.  Yet how do you explain that when NPO offered to let their nations send out aid but not receive it.. i.e not import tech... you declined? 

 

Its difficult to forge a compromise on terms when you wont even tell anyone officially why you are demanding them.  i,e what the motivation is so a compromise can be reached.

 

That's your right.  You dont have to compromise.  But don't act bewildered or lay the blame on anyone else when no progress happens.  YOu wont tell who is demanding terms, and you wont share why you want them.  That makes it difficult for talks to progress.

 

 

 

I come from an era of harsh reps, draconian terms, forced viceroys, and wars that have lasted years with the only terms given to the defeated "disband". 

 

White peace is fine for most alliances, but I also think its fine to impose some sort of terms on the defeated if the situation warrants it. 

 

NPO's behavior this war is, in my opinion, completely self serving (shocking) by hiding such a chunk of its upper tier NS in peace mode for the whole duration.  I've seen warchests and these nations could have come out and fought and if the war ended tommorow would still have had enough cash to send out rebuilding aid.  These nations are not in peace mode because they are "banks", but because NPO wants to produce an upper tier threat with these nations.  NPO will not be crippled if they can't send out aid with those specific nations, and from what I'm hearing that isn't really on the table anymore.

 

NPO is good at propoganda and getting their coalition to think the exact way they do about the terms.  Yet NPO was fine dictating similar terms to my alliance for every one of our members in addition to extended war for all but 8 nations who could be moved to peace mode.  Funny how these terms are suddenly so unacceptable and harsh now, yet it has been proven numerous times how these specific nations won't cripple NPO.  Many alliances have endured harsher terms than this, including NPO, in the past, and these terms have not crippled any of them.

 

As pointed out above, you've been lied to if your gov has told you NPO tried to get you to agree to harsh terms in equilibrium.  In fact, if anything you owe NPO for that war.

 

Another part of the problem Caliph... is that your leaders... yes YOURS... refuse to tell anyone in our coalition what the terms are actually for.  Or why.  You say/imply one thing in here.. but its not what your leaders are saying.  In fact your leaders are saying the reason for the terms are secret and cant be shared.

 

 

 

It appears that bruce didn't know. I think many people on your side of the fence are being misled about just how far apart terms have been, and certainly with the amount of grandstanding being done in negotiations and even here you would think we were much farther apart.

 

I think it has to be asked again -- why would the NPO emperor decide to drag his allies through several days and potentially weeks-months of more fighting over a difference of 8 days?

Given he has subjected his coalition and his own alliance to three more days voluntarily, at the very least -- it wouldn't seem to be worth fighting over from my perspective.

Why would he walk out of negotiations where both sides had merely 8 days between our positions?

 

Further, why the continued act here as if he considers them so unacceptable -- given that isn't true when he offered the same terms sans 8 days?

 

Again, I think some alliances on your side of the fence deserve to know. I am curious.

 

 

You know what would be kind of interesting?  And im actually for this.  Why dont we do negotiations publicly?

 

I know Polar et all will never agree to that. But think for a second.  Why not ask admin to have a thread where only a few reps can post.  And then publicly let people state their position and why, and lay out their logic on the line in front of everyone.

 

1) It would probably breath some life in this community.

 

2) It removes the veil of secrecy.  As ive seen in this very thread... people like to conduct talks in private because they can then hide motivations and fact... from their own alliances, their allies, the general world, etc.  It lets them rewrite history.

 

Well I say... if you are embarrassed to state your demands and your logic in public, that's a sign you shouldnt HAVE Those demands to begin with.

 

Is there any actual logical reason (other than to feed egos) that we couldn't have the negotiations in public, before the eyes of all?  What's there to hide? 

 

I say that as someone who has been in more of these high level negotiations than all but a few people.  There's no REAL need for secrecy, other than that people are worried that their demands or conduct are so outrageous they would take flak if it got out.  Or that they dont match with what they are presenting to others.  Whats so opsec about it otherwise?

Edited January 30, 2014 by OsRavan

[brucemania]

 

Last offer I heard from NPO radically altered the terms in NPO's favor while appearing to offer an extended period under restrictions.

 

If this is what you call negotiating, I suggest contacting FAN about activities you can perform while in extended Peace Mode.  We're going to be here a while.   <_<

 

Another typical dig to show how the past must be brought up and with that in mind there is a perfect example of diplomacy when in fact since then NPO and FAN have worked out their differences over something more severe than what is being discussed here without terms that created hardship for one side and actually did a lot of Diplomacy and work to have at least a civil understanding of each other this day

[ChairmanHal]

Yes, clearly sending reparations is in NPO's favor.

Just like growing a bit more of Valhalla into DBDC's range would be in your favor, right?

 

You sound essentially ignorant of their proposal...and a great many other things.

 

 

Another typical dig to show how the past must be brought up and with that in mind there is a perfect example of diplomacy when in fact since then NPO and FAN have worked out their differences over something more severe than what is being discussed here without terms that created hardship for one side and actually did a lot of Diplomacy and work to have at least a civil understanding of each other this day

 

Look, and for the record, Valhalla hasn't asked for reps or anything of the sort as part of the negotiations, everyone should be at peace already.  Why are we not at peace?  NPO.  You can complain about what the winning side here is asking for and about fairness all you like, but NPO has agreed to the terms in principle...many days ago.  What we're left with is a lot of dickering over duration, a narrowing process that has taken too long because the Emperor of NPO stormed out of negotiating sessions, and just when things should have wrapped up, the whole process was presented a major set back by...NPO.

 

NPO needs to decide if they want peace or not.  If not, regrettably then those fighting NPO will set up a siege (one we've been carrying out for an extended period in the upper tier as is).  Dragging things out with last minute changes does no one any good, most especially those lower tier Pacifican nations who have fought well and deserve better.

[Jesse End]

You sound essentially ignorant of their proposal...and a great many other things.
 
 
Look, and for the record, Valhalla hasn't asked for reps or anything of the sort as part of the negotiations, everyone should be at peace already.  Why are we not at peace?  NPO.  You can complain about what the winning side here is asking for and about fairness all you like, but NPO has agreed to the terms in principle...many days ago.  What we're left with is a lot of dickering over duration, a narrowing process that has taken too long because the Emperor of NPO stormed out of negotiating sessions, and just when things should have wrapped up, the whole process was presented a major set back by...NPO.
 
NPO needs to decide if they want peace or not.  If not, regrettably then those fighting NPO will set up a siege (one we've been carrying out for an extended period in the upper tier as is).  Dragging things out with last minute changes does no one any good, most especially those lower tier Pacifican nations who have fought well and deserve better.

Yet you reject terms that only 'punish' the PM nations, and continue to push for terms that punish our fighting lower tier members by limiting the aid that can be sent to them.

[applesauce59]

 

You sound essentially ignorant of their proposal...and a great many other things.

 

 

Look, and for the record, Valhalla hasn't asked for reps or anything of the sort as part of the negotiations, everyone should be at peace already.  Why are we not at peace?  NPO.  You can complain about what the winning side here is asking for and about fairness all you like, but NPO has agreed to the terms in principle...many days ago.  What we're left with is a lot of dickering over duration, a narrowing process that has taken too long because the Emperor of NPO stormed out of negotiating sessions, and just when things should have wrapped up, the whole process was presented a major set back by...NPO.

 

NPO needs to decide if they want peace or not.  If not, regrettably then those fighting NPO will set up a siege (one we've been carrying out for an extended period in the upper tier as is).  Dragging things out with last minute changes does no one any good, most especially those lower tier Pacifican nations who have fought well and deserve better.

 

Thanks for your concern for us "lower tiers", but I promise we are good to keep fighting :D We enjoy it. 

[OsRavan]

 

You sound essentially ignorant of their proposal...and a great many other things.

 

 

Look, and for the record, Valhalla hasn't asked for reps or anything of the sort as part of the negotiations, everyone should be at peace already.  Why are we not at peace?  NPO.  You can complain about what the winning side here is asking for and about fairness all you like, but NPO has agreed to the terms in principle...many days ago.  What we're left with is a lot of dickering over duration, a narrowing process that has taken too long because the Emperor of NPO stormed out of negotiating sessions, and just when things should have wrapped up, the whole process was presented a major set back by...NPO.

 

NPO needs to decide if they want peace or not.  If not, regrettably then those fighting NPO will set up a siege (one we've been carrying out for an extended period in the upper tier as is).  Dragging things out with last minute changes does no one any good, most especially those lower tier Pacifican nations who have fought well and deserve better.

 

 

I'm afraid you have some things backwards.  After hours of talk your side still refused to compromise even slightly.  So the talks end.  Its not exactly storming out after countles hours.  YOur coalition made it clear you were un willing to compromise  (compromise 'more' if you want to imply youve been compromising) so the talks ended.  Just like you dont have to offer lighter terms, we don't have to accept them.

 

Thats fine.  You talk of laying siege to NPO and her allies.  Well OK.  But by your willingness not to compromise on a war that should have ended months ago with *no* terms, you assure that your forces will be camped outside our walls fruitlessly trying to break in while plenty of your rivals are already rebuilding or not taking damage.

 

Or let me put it another way.  You arent the champion of NPO's lower tier.  You arent the champion of NPO's allies whom your coalition claims are victims of NPO ambitions.  You don't have our best interest at heart.  Frankly I doubt you give a damn about us. And the transparent attempts to try and gult trip or apply pressure are just that... transparent.  I'm confident if you polled the NPO 'victims' you are so concerned about, they would tell you to go mind your own buisness.

 

I also bet if you asked  those 'suffering' small tier, they would in fact tell you they would rather not have ANY terms and keep fighting until june.  The ones who actually want peace tend to be the leaders who are looking at long term politics.

[brucemania]

 

You sound essentially ignorant of their proposal...and a great many other things.

 

 

Look, and for the record, Valhalla hasn't asked for reps or anything of the sort as part of the negotiations, everyone should be at peace already.  Why are we not at peace?  NPO.  You can complain about what the winning side here is asking for and about fairness all you like, but NPO has agreed to the terms in principle...many days ago.  What we're left with is a lot of dickering over duration, a narrowing process that has taken too long because the Emperor of NPO stormed out of negotiating sessions, and just when things should have wrapped up, the whole process was presented a major set back by...NPO.

 

NPO needs to decide if they want peace or not.  If not, regrettably then those fighting NPO will set up a siege (one we've been carrying out for an extended period in the upper tier as is).  Dragging things out with last minute changes does no one any good, most especially those lower tier Pacifican nations who have fought well and deserve better.

and deserving better is not being allowed to use our inner tools is better? Good sir let me just our resiliency is what we are ... if it came to a long drawn out war then that is what it is as well have fared worse in the past many wars ago.  The set back is not just NPO but all parties involved at one level or another. And as for storming out lets get off that. Walking out of anything does not mean one is raging but it is possible it is meant to sit back and maybe absorb and maybe think out a process.  Though one could understand your thinking of what it is as a oppinion is just that a oppinion. Being a member the one thing i can say is our members and the majority do not care to be constantly stepped on and singled out as the only evil person in any process. We have worked hard since DH to change that thinking and have made a lot of strides in doing so. What is insignificant to you may be not to another. What may be the norm to you maybe not to another. We are told our banking system is outdated but yet we are one of the few that can generate a lot of econ development with it. It seems to me your using a example that may apply to others whom don't need the system we use but yet you want to slow our system down which tells us that you are fearful of what we can do.  So even calling our system outdated is just a twist or slant your trying to use to get what some members of your coalition want.

Edited January 30, 2014 by brucemania

[Manis B]

these terms are intended to combat a vengeful pacifica, but will inevitably cause a vengeful response.

 

Youll get no more mercy from me for your mistakes. 

[Dochartaigh]

Farrin walked out during the round where we 1/10th'd our offer (according to his stats of 20-30 billion or so in damages of PM) when we decided to back off of PM and just simulate the effects. Makes an entire thread to complain and kiss asses of allies.

 

Nice.

 

But according to NSO/NPO side, you would have thought we never negotiated.... 

 

Yes, one side wouldn't talk peace until very recently, while the other inquired about it for some time prior.

 

Then, once peace was in the reach, one side decided to just rub in some more insults and just push the envelope some more.

 

It wasn't the NPO, or Farrin.

 

Demanding white peace is not in the slightest bit inquiring about actual peace talks...

 

 

 

I'm afraid you have some things backwards.  After hours of talk your side still refused to compromise even slightly.  So the talks end.  Its not exactly storming out after countles hours.  YOur coalition made it clear you were un willing to compromise  (compromise 'more' if you want to imply youve been compromising) so the talks ended.  Just like you dont have to offer lighter terms, we don't have to accept them.

 

Thats fine.  You talk of laying siege to NPO and her allies.  Well OK.  But by your willingness not to compromise on a war that should have ended months ago with *no* terms, you assure that your forces will be camped outside our walls fruitlessly trying to break in while plenty of your rivals are already rebuilding or not taking damage.

 

Or let me put it another way.  You arent the champion of NPO's lower tier.  You arent the champion of NPO's allies whom your coalition claims are victims of NPO ambitions.  You don't have our best interest at heart.  Frankly I doubt you give a damn about us. And the transparent attempts to try and gult trip or apply pressure are just that... transparent.  I'm confident if you polled the NPO 'victims' you are so concerned about, they would tell you to go mind your own buisness.

 

I also bet if you asked  those 'suffering' small tier, they would in fact tell you they would rather not have ANY terms and keep fighting until june.  The ones who actually want peace tend to be the leaders who are looking at long term politics.

 

You are bitching about "hours" when we put up with NPO's bullshit white peace only term for a month. How many "hours" are in a month mate? From what I can tell, have heard, have seen, etc; our side has a dropped a lot in terms to negotiate with NPO. The fact that the OP still pushed the idea that forced PM terms were still the only thing on the table, as well as most people on your side acting as if we have yet to truly negotiate, frankly, I still say we should just say fuck all of you and push for original terms for every alliance on your side and increase the ratio to times 3 or some such shit.

 

Who says any of y'all deserve white peace? God... Talk about superiority complexes. No one out right deserves white peace. No one. If you can't handle getting terms because you went to war, then don't fucking go to war. If you think you deserve white peace simply because you think you deserve white peace, I would offer you terms just to spite you. The winning side determines who gets white peace, not the losing side. 

[maxfiles]

I find it funny that people think this is going to be the end of NPO, that by doing this you will crush them to nothing.. You can quiet the beast, but you can not kill it...

[Goldie]

Just responding to the implication of your claim, how we are not around for peace talks, while we were around and ready for them long before you were.

 

Second to that, you already said you were willing to accept Farrin's offer. Therefore I have no issue with you.

 

By your own admission, we offered an acceptable peace deal, which was soiled by (by implications of your own words) unnecessary 8 days difference. A screwdriver thrown among the spokes of the wheel of peace. Those that do such, usually are the ones less willing to deal in peace.

For the record, I think both offers were acceptable peace deals. I think the 1.3 was, I think the 1.1 counter was, and I think the 1.2 was. I'd imagine that some kind of accords can be reached on those grounds, should the parties invest minimal effort in reaching for it.

[brucemania]

 

But according to NSO/NPO side, you would have thought we never negotiated.... 

 

 

Demanding white peace is not in the slightest bit inquiring about actual peace talks...

 

 

You are !@#$%*ing about "hours" when we put up with NPO's !@#$%^&* white peace only term for a month. How many "hours" are in a month mate? From what I can tell, have heard, have seen, etc; our side has a dropped a lot in terms to negotiate with NPO. The fact that the OP still pushed the idea that forced PM terms were still the only thing on the table, as well as most people on your side acting as if we have yet to truly negotiate, frankly, I still say we should just say $%&@ all of you and push for original terms for every alliance on your side and increase the ratio to times 3 or some such !@#$.

 

Who says any of y'all deserve white peace? God... Talk about superiority complexes. No one out right deserves white peace. No one. If you can't handle getting terms because you went to war, then don't !@#$@#$ go to war. If you think you deserve white peace simply because you think you deserve white peace, I would offer you terms just to spite you. The winning side determines who gets white peace, not the losing side. 

 

Lol forgive me if i see this wrong but it sounds to me like your saying take it or leave it? ..

 

K i get the points of Farrin did this your guys did that. Would it not of been a benfit to maybe say when the 1.1 was given to you and your side counters with 1.2 to maybe sweeten for that differnce a little give by offering some type of thing such as as well we will give on the outgoing aid to nations below a said NS but they will still have a total strict tech restriction for the period agreed upon.  I mean it seems we have conceded more than half on the length of the term (2.0 to 1.1) already which is meeting close to half way there and that maybe in return offer a half way on another issue. Yes you can play with the time and so forth just giving some kind of scenario.  What that not be more a negotiation since it seems that your side is more concerned about the tech issue than anything else ?

[Goldie]

Yet you reject terms that only 'punish' the PM nations, and continue to push for terms that punish our fighting lower tier members by limiting the aid that can be sent to them.

No one, anywhere, has proposed limiting the aid that can be sent to any lower tier nations. Just find different nations to send them the aid, it isn't that hard.

[Goldie]

I find it funny that people think this is going to be the end of NPO, that by doing this you will crush them to nothing.. You can quiet the beast, but you can not kill it...

No one is saying this will be the end of NPO except those posting on behalf of NPO saying how crippling these terms are. Far from it, NPO will be fine, they'll just have to make do without the use of 10% of their alliance for rebuilding purposes for a specified period of time.

[Opportunity]

This war will end with white peace or it will not end at all, if NPO is smart. The TOP/NpO coalition will eventually fall apart.

[OsRavan]

 

You are !@#$%*ing about "hours" when we put up with NPO's !@#$%^&* white peace only term for a month. How many "hours" are in a month mate? From what I can tell, have heard, have seen, etc; our side has a dropped a lot in terms to negotiate with NPO. The fact that the OP still pushed the idea that forced PM terms were still the only thing on the table, as well as most people on your side acting as if we have yet to truly negotiate, frankly, I still say we should just say $%&@ all of you and push for original terms for every alliance on your side and increase the ratio to times 3 or some such !@#$.

 

Who says any of y'all deserve white peace? God... Talk about superiority complexes. No one out right deserves white peace. No one. If you can't handle getting terms because you went to war, then don't !@#$@#$ go to war. If you think you deserve white peace simply because you think you deserve white peace, I would offer you terms just to spite you. The winning side determines who gets white peace, not the losing side. 

 

Are you under the impression that cursing and raging makes your point stronger somehow?

 

::shrugs:: You can disagree with me, but I actually think most alliances deserve white peace.  That this should be the default.  The default in CN is you come in to honor a treaty.  You fight hard and honorably.  And whoever wins offers the other white peace.  You shake hands and part ways with mutual respect.

 

Call me an idealist, but thats the ideal for me, and how ive always conducted my affairs.

 

You ask for terms and reps when an alliance involved *does* something.  When they are doing something above and beyond the standard war practices and thus you are punishing them.

 

Considering no one on your side has been able to give an official articulation as to what NPO should be punished for, that doesnt appear to be the case here.

 

So, yes, personally I would have expected Polar Top et all to have made the honorable move and offer a person who entered via an mdp white peace.  The fact that they feel the need to start spinning stories (NPO planned to roll polar.. despite no proof or evidence of that fact.  NPO extorted terms from umbrella and top last war.. a patent lie) these things demonstrate that they know they dont have a real leg to stand for and are trying to justify actions that, if they told the truth about (we just dislike you and want to hurt you) would embaress them.

 

 

Nothing *requires* you to adhere to the above standard.  Ultimately you get what you are strong enough to take I suppose.  No one can stop Polaris from demanding terms for no reason.  No one can stop NPO from refusing them.  And then you see who carries there way.  But it doesnt change the fact that I at least come away from the procedure with less respect for those who try to exort.  And CN has the odd history of eventually punishing those who try to extort and abuse their positions.

Edited January 30, 2014 by OsRavan

[Neo Uruk]

Are you under the impression that cursing and raging makes your point stronger somehow?

Hey now, the School of Reyvon strongly endorses that concept. Just calmer. Edited January 30, 2014 by Neo Uruk

[Opportunity]

Show of hands, how many alliances on the Polar side vs Pacifica side entered on oA vs MP?

[maxfiles]

Show of hands, how many alliances on the Polar side vs Pacifica side entered on oA vs MP?

 

This is why this war should be dubbed the oA war.

[Groucho Marx]

This post and many similar ones accusing NPO of trying to give Umbrella crazy terms. YOu, Joshua R.  A bunch of others.  So.... Ummm.. you are wrong.  How do I know you are wrong?  Well, I was actually at the negotiations for equilibrium peace.  In fact, I represented cng and (in some of them) MK.   There wasnt a peace conversation that occurred in that war I wasnt present for.  In fact, I was the lead person negotiating.  I say that not as an ego rush, but simply to lay out the fact that there's few people in bob currently who have a better idea of what happened in the equilibrium negotiations than I do.
 
So lets clear up a couple of things.
 
1) NPO relaying a demand from a coalition doesnt mean that NPO supported terms.  Unless we are now claiming that say XX (who have been disavowing that the drive for the terms this war comes from them) are actually demanding this of NPO?  Unless your coalition is now claiming that everyone fighting NPO is pushing for terms and approves of them, I'm not sure where you get off claiming NPO was pushing for them.
 
2) Even if NPO had pushed for them (hint, they didnt) what does it matter what someone says at day one of posturing in negotiations compared to what they actually do?  Words are cheap, actions show the truth.
 
3) NPO is the reason umbrella and top got light terms and white peace.  How do I know that?  Well... I was the one to negotiate the change from heavy terms for umbrella and top to white peace.  Me. Not umbrella.  Not TOP.  I spent an insane amount of time negotiation with equilibrium then running back to umbrella mk et all to get their OK on things.  Hell, admin knows you all have made enough propaganda about how I did that and had some secret deal with Brehon and NPO's allies should leave NPO as a result. There was no secret backroom promises by the bye, but I *was* the one to negotiate the peace terms.  Who did I negotiate it with? NPO.  Why?  Because NPO made it clear they disproved of the radical wing of their coalition demanding terms of umbrella.  They were my in to negotiate a better peace.
 
4) Who actually wanted to impose harsh terms on umbrella and top? Most of those alliances are fighting with you to roll NPO right now ironically. And you know it.
 
Nothing wrong with that.  Politics make for odd bed fellows.  But the level of hypocrisy needed to claim that you are doing this for NPO's conduct in equilibrium... when in fact NPO let you off *lightly* while you are fighting with those who didnt want that... its insane.  Seriously. 
 
If anything, I would question the honor of umbrella and top in supporting terms at all on NPO after they stuck their neck out for you.  But again, politics I suppose trumps honor.  At least have the decency to not try and rewrite history in front of the people who... hey... were actually there.
 
If it helps, give me permission and im sure I can dig up some logs of the leader of GOONS and Umbrella talking about using NPO to get themselves white peace because they knew NPO was the part of the coalition pushing for that.

My claim that the New Pacific Order was pushing for those terms can be easily backed up by the logs of the negotiations as well as logs of your private pleading with Brehon to change his mind, where you said he was breaking promises to you and the rest of CnG that Umbrella would get white peace. Logs I can just as easily produce as you. Negotiations I was also very much involved in on the GOONS side of the fence and offered input on various levels throughout the course of the negotiations.

The entire controversy that made the terms a big deal was the fact that the New Pacific Order started the war saying there wouldn't be any terms like the ones they later proposed. If I recall, that was a major point of contention for CnG at the time when Brehon did one of his 180 degree turns on promises he made you because you were foolish enough to believe a word that came out of his mouth. Look where that got you. Brehon pushed for those terms until other voices in eQ finally broke through that they wouldn't support such terms and reinforced the fact that Umbrella, MK, GOONS and almost everyone else on our side wouldn't accept them. Let's not pretend that the New Pacific Order is the victim here. They made many missteps and this war is the price of their failures.

I'm sure you'll remember that once it became clear that the New Pacific Order wasn't just pushing those terms on behalf of their coalition, but actually because they wanted Umbrella to suffer the most crippling terms they could get away with, we immediately knew how far we could trust them and against all warnings and signs to the contrary, you insisted they had honorable intentions and that in spite of the evidence that Brehon had no designs to actually carry out the terms he himself proposed. The extended warfare clause of the terms came at the behest of Brehon and it took his coalition to tell him that nobody had the capability or the willpower to see it through before they dropped it. Let's not pretend Umbrella got off "easy" because of anything you did. They knew they wouldn't get the terms they fought so vigorously for when we collectively told them where they could stick their heads. The point is that they pushed these terms and there simply is no way to deny that they did without completely altering reality.

[Neo Uruk]

Did you actually just say that Brehon telling you what his coalition decided upon is Brehon pushing for terms?

[Goldie]

 

This is why this war should be dubbed the oA war.

I'd honestly love to see how you can claim this war used more oA's than any other. I mean, its such a stupid argument but you see it all over the place. Didn't we just have a war where people used "an attack on one is an attack on all". Is it not a series of oA's solely because they claimed it wasn't? Every single war has people who selectively hit certain alliances, and in response, every single war has people who chain in to counter the strategy of the opposition. Its been the one constant in war throughout history, and certainly there are far better examples of it happening than in this war.

[Neo Uruk]

I think proportionately there are probably more oAs activated than in a good amount of wars.