A Message from the Emperor of the New Pacific Order

[OsRavan]

No I wasn't there because I recognize I am a less important individual than our vice president and person acting as Umbrella's leader while our president was less active. No you weren't there because you were similarly an unimportant individual. 

 

Well, im not under the delusion that anything I do in CN makes me important ((It is just a game after all)) if that's what your implying. I'm here because I enjoy most of the people, not for any sort of ego rush.   Mostly though, what your post strikes me as doing is trying to belittle me so that you dont have to address the actual points.  i.e if you can pretend im some ego maniac you can be dismissive of the words you have no real counter for.

 

::Shrugs:: I assure you I was there.  Im sure your own gov at the time can confirm it.   Ive plenty of logs to prove it that im happy to share if your gov and the others involved give permission to share that show I was there.  That doesnt make me particularly important.  It just makes it that I happened to be the warm body who was doing the negotiations.  And thus am in a particularly good place (awkward for you apparantly) to poke holes in your revisionism.  Hell, I even litteraly have the logs of my negotiating the terms, relaying the terms to YOUR leadership and getting your signatures to relay back.  But I suppose that was just a hallucination or fever dream?  I also have the logs where I talked with a bunch of mk and umbrella people and we plotted that NPO were the ones most likely to give light terms in the other coalition, and we should put pressure on them to do so.  But I suppose thats a hallucination as well.

 

Heh, I suppose this is the slightly awkward reality of what happens when allies drift apart.   I dont even consider umbrella to be a 'bad guy' in this war.  Ive no real issue with most of your conduct.   But its a little hard for you to make up pr political spin (or maybe this new generation of leaders actually buys this bs?) when I litteraly was present (and you were not) for the times in question.   You can dismiss it as 'ego' if you want.  But again, its especialy amusing considering you were the ones COMPLAINING how I took over the negotiations yadda yadda yadda.  And now here you are going on about how I cant know what im talking about because I wasnt even THERE.   Gotta get your stories straight.

Edited January 30, 2014 by OsRavan

[BrJLa]

You have already been told the reason NPO is being singled out for terms.  The answer will not change just because you do not like it.
 
There terms are only for NPO's peace mode top tier.  Terms have been dropped for nations who came out and fought.  These terms are only levied upon the peace mode nations.  Reasons have been gone over so many times in this thread already that I think you will have no trouble figuring it out for yourself.
 
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean its a wrong answer.

Yeah, right.

NPO doesn’t have an obligation to take a certain amount of damage to anyone except the allies it came in to defend, and the allies that came in to defend it. And I don’t hear them complaining . There’s no obligation to the other side to take any damage at all. We could have just sat out. There’s no claim on the other side for an amount of damage NPO owes it.

You can demand claims because you’re in a position to demand claims. But there’s no rationalization for how beaten down NPO needs to be before the war can end that doesn’t have at its foundation a desire on the oA side to see NPO beaten down. There’s no “how beaten down NPO has to be” that proceeds from the premise of what this war is supposed to be about.

But I don’t know why the oA side doesn’t just cop to it. You’re hacked off about Eq, don’t like NPO generally, and NPO has to pay. Then forcing terms on NPO at least makes sense, and the horror of forcing terms on an alliance that came in on an MD goes away. Edited January 30, 2014 by BrJLa

[Sardonic]

We could have just sat out.

You don't seriously believe this do you?  Politics/War/This world does not/do not work that way.

[Geerland]

Considering what is now Valhalla was the contingent of Ai that was pushing for terms in eQ, I don't think Hal is in any place to speak.

[Mogar]

 

That makes sense. Save a few Peace Mode days for NPO's hippie high tier, at the expense of having the low tier (who have been fighting for three months) pay tech reps.

 

Par for the course for Pacifica.

MoG[Leaks] Exclusive!

(Farrin[NPO]): As far as the counter, I'm still shooting in the dark here, but here's my latest offer: the 31 nations in question (the 33 minute the two Senators) will not receive any aid for a period of 1.5x the length of the war. Additionally, to alleviate the stated concerns about frontloading of tech, they will as a group send 10,000 tech to any nations of (insert whatever you call your group of eight against us)'s choosing.
(Farrin[NPO]): 33 minus, not 33 minute

(Yerushalayim): Just to let you know the initial response I've gotten from the first few folks who have seen your offer is that we like the framework we'd already set up for terms.

 

mostly just because I didnt see them posted, from what I can tell, this would be more harmful to those 31 nations than what the Polar coalition is offering, since the high NS nations in question would be sending the tech, not low NS nations.

[ChairmanHal]

 

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

 

I hope so.  Credit where credit is due.

 

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.

 

QFT.  Which is why having to conduct a siege is such a waste, but apparently necessary.

 

 

That's a great question. Why is a non-aggressive alliance being given terms for ending a war declared on another alliance?

 

It's Planet Bob, that's just how things work here when you are on the losing side.

 

Considering what is now Valhalla was the contingent of Ai that was pushing for terms in eQ, I don't think Hal is in any place to speak.

 

At the time, Ai's leadership triumvirate, and the pretty much the only people who mattered when it came to negotiations, consisted of individuals who are now not part of Valhalla, let alone Valhalla leadership (Chefjoe did step up toward the end as a FA minister, but he had no power beyond that the Tri's granted and was never the final word).  Indeed, there was strong opposition to the idea of an extended war against Umbrella from some of the Val contingent at Ai at the time, as it was seen as completely unnecessary and would have resulted in more damage to Ai than to the alliance being "punished".

[Megamind]

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.

Now I've read the "it's all your fault because 8 days!" argument a bunch of times and I just have to ask, how are we more at fault for offering something that was 8 days from Farrin's offer than Farrin is for offering something that was 12/13 (depending on math) days from ours? In case you missed it, when Farrin offered the 1.1 we were at 1.25. Just trying to figure out why a difference of 8 days is an insult while a difference of 12 is perfectly acceptable? Or perhaps you think Yeru should have responded to Farrin's 1.1 by withdrawing our offer and calling the negotiations off?

[hartfw]

 

Well, im not under the delusion that anything I do in CN makes me important ((It is just a game after all)) if that's what your implying. I'm here because I enjoy most of the people, not for any sort of ego rush.   Mostly though, what your post strikes me as doing is trying to belittle me so that you dont have to address the actual points.  i.e if you can pretend im some ego maniac you can be dismissive of the words you have no real counter for.

 

::Shrugs:: I assure you I was there.  Im sure your own gov at the time can confirm it.   Ive plenty of logs to prove it that im happy to share if your gov and the others involved give permission to share that show I was there.  That doesnt make me particularly important.  It just makes it that I happened to be the warm body who was doing the negotiations.  And thus am in a particularly good place (awkward for you apparantly) to poke holes in your revisionism.  Hell, I even litteraly have the logs of my negotiating the terms, relaying the terms to YOUR leadership and getting your signatures to relay back.  But I suppose that was just a hallucination or fever dream?  I also have the logs where I talked with a bunch of mk and umbrella people and we plotted that NPO were the ones most likely to give light terms in the other coalition, and we should put pressure on them to do so.  But I suppose thats a hallucination as well.

 

Heh, I suppose this is the slightly awkward reality of what happens when allies drift apart.   I dont even consider umbrella to be a 'bad guy' in this war.  Ive no real issue with most of your conduct.   But its a little hard for you to make up pr political spin (or maybe this new generation of leaders actually buys this bs?) when I litteraly was present (and you were not) for the times in question.   You can dismiss it as 'ego' if you want.  But again, its especialy amusing considering you were the ones COMPLAINING how I took over the negotiations yadda yadda yadda.  And now here you are going on about how I cant know what im talking about because I wasnt even THERE.   Gotta get your stories straight.

 

Well, it took 3 days to get logs from brehon, but they consisted entirely of brehon and raken, and have matched everyone but your description.  I would be curious to see what deal you think you were a part of, as it wasn;t the one brehon presented to the Eq side.

[the rebel]

 

I don't think anyone on this side particularly cares, really. As long as NG is in the war, NoR will honor our treaty. And since it's pretty !@#$%* for an aggressive coalition to try to impose reps on an alliance that simply entered on MD, I think the resolve on this side will be pretty hard to break in general. You guys are the bad guys in this war, and everyone knows it.

 

You must be new.

[Bob Ilyani]

MoG[Leaks] Exclusive!

mostly just because I didnt see them posted, from what I can tell, this would be more harmful to those 31 nations than what the Polar coalition is offering, since the high NS nations in question would be sending the tech, not low NS nations.

And as you can tell from the same logs you posted, we don't want those terms.

 

We aren't going to let NPO martyr themselves for the next war with stupid reps terms. There's a reason we're going along the path that we are rather than asking for tech reps like Farrin offered.

[TurnipCruncher]

What's the reason?

[D34th]

And as you can tell from the same logs you posted, we don't want those terms.
 
We aren't going to let NPO martyr themselves for the next war with stupid reps terms. There's a reason we're going along the path that we are rather than asking for tech reps like Farrin offered.

How merciful TOP is!

[RedSandman]

 

You must be new.

 

The ultimate 'put you down'!  No use of the brain again.

[the rebel]

 

The ultimate 'put you down'!  No use of the brain again.

 

You're trying too hard, perhaps I should get an injunction out on you through your unwanted obvious flirting.

 

How's stating a fact a "put down" are you new too?

Edited January 30, 2014 by the rebel

[Caliph]

I just want to point out as well that at 8 days which in turn is a cycle when it comes down to it .. 30 nations at six slots x 6 mil for lower nations does come to just over 1 bil in that cycle. given if it is only have slot use then it is around 500 mil which in turn is alot of money for regrowth at lower tier level. So yes the 8 days in itself may seem or look small but with the actually cash flow this is a big penalty for the lower nations for there efforts of not being able to access that money i would think let alone pushing that back for the total time it can even start.

 

Nobody is restricting aid to your lower tier.  Stop lying.  The terms as I understand it would prevent only your peace moded upper tier from sending/receiving aid for a time period.  If your other nations need cash, then you simply get nations other than these specific nations who would be under terms to deliver the cash to your needy nations.

 

 

[The Zigur]

I think it is good that Pacifica is finally becoming more dynamic in negotiations, rather than simply turning their back to and obstructing them.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Caliph]

Yeah, right.

NPO doesn’t have an obligation to take a certain amount of damage to anyone except the allies it came in to defend, and the allies that came in to defend it. And I don’t hear them complaining . There’s no obligation to the other side to take any damage at all. We could have just sat out. There’s no claim on the other side for an amount of damage NPO owes it.

You can demand claims because you’re in a position to demand claims. But there’s no rationalization for how beaten down NPO needs to be before the war can end that doesn’t have at its foundation a desire on the oA side to see NPO beaten down. There’s no “how beaten down NPO has to be” that proceeds from the premise of what this war is supposed to be about.

But I don’t know why the oA side doesn’t just cop to it. You’re hacked off about Eq, don’t like NPO generally, and NPO has to pay. Then forcing terms on NPO at least makes sense, and the horror of forcing terms on an alliance that came in on an MD goes away.

 

Nobody has any stipulation that if they take X damage in a war that they came in on an MD treaty on that they must be granted white peace.  Stop whining about the terms presented, I get that they aren't popular with you lot, and if someone tried to levy similar terms against me I would not like that either, but the way you lot are going about it is coming across like a bunch of whining schoolchildren being told how it is and throwing a complete fit in public because you don't like the reasons.

 

I have absolutely no idea what this drivel your speaking of is about.  There is no "NPO must take X amount of damage" thing anywhere.  The terms are presented by alliances at war with NPO.  Your alliance/coalition apparently thinks fighting this war is preferable to accepting the terms.  So be it, you don't have to accept terms and you have refused the terms offered.  This entire thing is a PR move by Farrin, nothing more, nothing less.  I don't know what you are told within NPO, but what you are told doesn't match up with the reality of this situation. 

 

Yes these are terms.  No they are not white peace.  No they are not designed to cripple the NPO.  Yes you will be able to rebuild and get aid to your lower tier while under these terms.  Yes NPO has the capacity to rebuild just fine after this war under these terms. 

 

Many alliances here on planet Bob have taken much harsher terms and they are still here.  NpO took harsher terms and has rebuilt and is a major player again in this war.  NPO has taken more harsh terms and has made moves, working with the EQ coalition and being able to flip C&G to their sphere and build up a grouping of allies.  There are numerous examples of alliances taking much more harsh terms than these and thriving after they were complete. 

 

Stop whining.  Please, it is getting pathetic.

 

 

[Bob Ilyani]

What's the reason?

Given the amount of times you and other NoR members have gone "we don't care about the NPO element of this, we're just here to defend our allies in NG", I'm going to go ahead and say that these thought processes are above your pay grade, buttercup.

[TurnipCruncher]

But what is the reason for the terms? Why NPO?

*And why do you think using phrases like "buttercup" make you look clever or wise? It doesn't. You just come across as a bit of a knob.

Edited January 31, 2014 by TurnipCruncher

[brucemania]

And as you can tell from the same logs you posted, we don't want those terms.

 

We aren't going to let NPO martyr themselves for the next war with stupid reps terms. There's a reason we're going along the path that we are rather than asking for tech reps like Farrin offered.

 

And the reason of course is you decide what strategy in wartime a AA uses of course?  As well i am sure part of the reason for the long term politic that you want to make sure by the time the next war comes along NPO can not be of any significance. Or maybe that then even if we accept your terms that we are wimpish and gave in too easy in some other slant or twist in the future. Or it is just to teach NPO a lesson. Whatever. It comes down to on a ten day cycle at 50% efficiency slot usage and i am low balling may i add that is 500 mil per cycle that we can contribute to our rebuilding plus i may add we may also use to rebuild someone else i would assume as we do have that history of support for allies as well. But here is the think i am sure TOP and Polar would be just as objectively against these terms if you were in our shoes. As well i am sure you would haggle over the costs as well as well i am sure you may try as Farrin did come back maybe with something else that just peeks interest. It is part of the bargaining process. I am sure in History as well Farrin is not the only person to leave a room in the process either. To me that is now a semantic propaganda point you are trying to use to get some sympathy for the terms you are offering to to make one side look better than the other. Really now instead of using numbers that make something look small use common sense as to what the cost is.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

 

Guess we'll see what happens down the road.

Till someone decides to try and break the cycle rather than one-up the previous.

To be honest, I personally just see it for what it is: a sign that your coalition is not yet defeated to the point where it is ready to seriously discuss peace. Instead, we are witness to the use of cheap theatrics and drama stunts at the negotiating table.

 

I simply wish my own coalition would adjust and stop entertaining this notion that we should discuss peace terms with petulant children.

[Geerland]

 

Nobody is restricting aid to your lower tier.  Stop lying.  The terms as I understand it would prevent only your peace moded upper tier from sending/receiving aid for a time period.  If your other nations need cash, then you simply get nations other than these specific nations who would be under terms to deliver the cash to your needy nations.

 

 

Just to point out, while aid can be sourced from other places, it will have an impact not having 30 odd high level nations with which to send aid, as our nations which have fought in this war have taken one damn severe beating.

[Caliph]

But what is the reason for the terms? Why NPO?

 

The answer has been given numerous times before in this very thread.  You may not like it, but it is the answer.  Repeating the question until you hear an answer you like will take a while, so forgive me if I ignore your subsequent attempts at hearing a different answer when you ask this question again.

 

 

To be honest, I personally just see it for what it is: a sign that your coalition is not yet defeated to the point where it is ready to seriously discuss peace. Instead, we are witness to the use of cheap theatrics and drama stunts at the negotiating table.

 

I simply wish my own coalition would adjust and stop entertaining this notion that we should discuss peace terms with petulant children.

 

This is precisely the correct response.  NSO's coalition is not ready to seriously entertain peace and thinks that if they delay peace that perhaps they can turn the tables and get either a victory or force a white peace.  The track record of fllipping alliances on Polar's side may give some credibility to this line of thinking.

[TurnipCruncher]

 
The answer has been given numerous times before in this very thread.  You may not like it, but it is the answer.  Repeating the question until you hear an answer you like will take a while, so forgive me if I ignore your subsequent attempts at hearing a different answer when you ask this question again.
 

42 pages. Humour me and point the answer out. Think of it as a TL:DR for people joining the thread here.

[Caliph]

Just to point out, while aid can be sourced from other places, it will have an impact not having 30 odd high level nations with which to send aid, as our nations which have fought in this war have taken one damn severe beating.

 

It will affect those nations unable to send aid out.  If you are unable to find alternative people to aid those who you would like aided post war, then yes it will affect them too.  NPO is a big alliance, and I just don't think these terms will leave you crippled beyond any measure of hope and recovery.  NPO has recovered from worse before.  TPF in Karma recovered form worse, being nearly all ZI'ed and no money due to warfare for like 6 months.  To you it may be horrible terms because your only frame of reference is white peace, but for those of us who have been here since 2006 our frame of reference for harsh terms is much different.  I have seen the capabilities of alliances to grow when at ZI.  And NPO has friends this time around, I am confident you guys will bounce back to being the power player you want to be.