Mongrel Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 1. NPO has been the overwhelming power in the CN for many months. They are practicly unreachable, and they will only get stronger. One strong point is their charter which states that when a red nation is attacked, the attacking nation will be attacked back. This is making many alliances, like my own, fearful of attacking and tech raiding a red nation. Since NPO receives loads of new members everyday, many nations are turning to the red side. Ok, like I'm not gonna bother reading past this point #1. NPO being a top power is not a valid reason to oppose them, I know all the "gamers" here keep crying that it's no fun having a single strong power. Get over it, this is a geo-political simulation, NPO is winning. #2. I spent a good amount of time as the GPA's head ghostbuster. I never had any fears or problems approaching the NPO to notify and clarify that we'd be squashing a Red ghost or raider. If you have a fear or apprehension, I suggest you go on down to the NPO and introduce yourself. It may be a liitle hard to believe but they're not the baby-eating monsters you make them out to be. Except for DM of course. but she can barbecue those babies better than anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) all you are saying is that if someone disagrees with NPO decision their anti-NPO. thats not logical. now i can see IRON attacking because they where riped off but why is NPO, because they think jarheads is evil and wants them dead. but instead of telling us why jarheads is evil all your saying is that because we disagree with you we are anti-NPO. Thats not what I'm saying at all. If a group of alliances are at war with one alliance and one of the group is singled out for criticism while the others aren't mentioned its because the person has an issue with the alliance he singled out. If the same person then goes on to complain about a policy of that alliance they dont like its because he has an issue with that alliance. If NPO weren't involved in this at all IRON would still be at war with them and NPO would be able to enter the war by virtue of a MADP, they didnt need this because there was a plot against them. But none of that matters because the complainant wants to raid red and the NPO will attack him if he does. This has left him "frustrated" and angry with NPO resulting in his anti-NPO post, not anti-IRON/ Foreign Division/NpO/TDE or any other alliance taking part...JUST NPO! He doesn't give a toss about Jarheads, he wants to raid red unaligned nations. when you can start telling me why that jarheads should be attacked by NPO maybe it will be worth my time to respond again(back it up with evidence) This is all the evidence I need. You can question his honesty or call him a liar if you like, but I take him at his word on this issue. Imperial Decree from the New Pacific Order Once a Devildog, always a Devildog On August 28, 2008, the New Pacific Order gave amnesty as part of our anniversary celebration to several of our former enemies, including the Devil Dogs, who had attacked our forums. Now, when Jarheads formed, we noted they appeared to be a reroll of Devil Dogs, but that was cool; we had no problem with it. Now some alliances take advantage of second chances and some don't. Turns out Jarheads/Devil Dogs didn't. Besides betraying our friends in IRON, they had planned to take us out. Now normally with an alliance this size we probably wouldn't do anything other than require the expulsion of those who did the planning and ZI them. However, since this is essentially the Devil Dogs reincarnated, they have earned the right to feel our wrath yet a second time. The New Pacific Order hereby declares war on the Jarheads. May Admin have mercy on your souls, for we shall have none. Signed this 28th day of February 2009, Emperor Revenge Divine Bovine Overlord New Pacific Order Moo-cows with guns Justification Edited March 10, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Yea We helped Jarheads, we protected them, we gave them economic deals..and this is how they repay us . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 #1. NPO being a top power is not a valid reason to oppose them, I know all the "gamers" here keep crying that it's no fun having a single strong power. Get over it, this is a geo-political simulation, NPO is winning. Thank you for summing up in two sentences everything that is wrong with the status quo (although I am sure you didn't intend to). There was once a time when people set their goals higher, or more to the point there was a time when people had goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Ok, like I'm not gonna bother reading past this point#1. NPO being a top power is not a valid reason to oppose them, I know all the "gamers" here keep crying that it's no fun having a single strong power. Get over it, this is a geo-political simulation, NPO is winning. You're kind of talking out of your $@! since geopolitics in history has been a constant struggle between those on the top and those who want to unseat that guy on the top for whatever reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) mistake post, sorry. Edited March 10, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newhotness Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 You're kind of talking out of your $@! since geopolitics in history has been a constant struggle between those on the top and those who want to unseat that guy on the top for whatever reason. And there isnt really a struggle since no one who can is fighting them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 " My take on Jarheads v New Pacific Order, Written by Jimmy Chang" Did 'done by silent' pop into anyone else's head? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Maybe I'm thick headed or something but I really can't understand why anyone would have any gripe about the Revenge Doctrine unless one just wanted to go about running amok. It seems to me that the Revenge Doctrine is one of the best things that've come from the NPO. Very few alliances are willing to stick their neck out to assist non-aligned nations, I think it's quite laudable that the NPO is willing to do so. The thing is, if an alliance from every colour did this, there would be no tech raiding in the game. Though I'm almost never for tech raiding as I believe it turns away a lot of newcomers from the game, there would be a lot of complaints if red wasn't the only colour off limits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 The thing is, if an alliance from every colour did this, there would be no tech raiding in the game. Though I'm almost never for tech raiding as I believe it turns away a lot of newcomers from the game, there would be a lot of complaints if red wasn't the only colour off limits. Not to mention other spheres aren't controlled by a single entity the same way red is - and we all remember what happened with Yellow #5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirreille Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Not to mention other spheres aren't controlled by a single entity the same way red is - and we all remember what happened with Yellow #5 No we don't actually. I've been here more then a year, and I have no idea what happened to this Yellow #5 edict, except obviously it didn't take and bad things happened. You old-timers seem to constantly forget or just not realise that not everyone has your experiences or knowledge available to them. I could probably look it up on the wikipedia, but would that tell me everything I need to know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongrel Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 You're kind of talking out of your $@! since geopolitics in history has been a constant struggle between those on the top and those who want to unseat that guy on the top for whatever reason. I won't drop down to your level and start throwing insults. It's not my style. But then I guess that's part of what disgusts me about those who feel this is all somehow being destroyed by having such a strong power-bloc dominating the world at the moment. You can make all the statements you want about history. But opposing a power simply because they are stronger than you is OBVIOUSLY not working. It takes actual drive, organization and a good reason to start a revolution. I don't know in my opinion using the reason that Pacifica is bad and should be destroyed simply because they've been dominating so long stinks. I just see those that oppose them more driven by jealousy than righteousness. Those same people would be quite happy if they were in the position of pushing their bootheels on the throats of the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 I won't drop down to your level and start throwing insults. It's not my style. But then I guess that's part of what disgusts me about those who feel this is all somehow being destroyed by having such a strong power-bloc dominating the world at the moment. You can make all the statements you want about history. But opposing a power simply because they are stronger than you is OBVIOUSLY not working. It takes actual drive, organization and a good reason to start a revolution. I don't know in my opinion using the reason that Pacifica is bad and should be destroyed simply because they've been dominating so long stinks. I just see those that oppose them more driven by jealousy than righteousness. Those same people would be quite happy if they were in the position of pushing their bootheels on the throats of the planet. Well, if wanting to unseat the current power so that you can have power yourself isn't a good reason to start a revolution, then there's never going to be a good reason to start one - anybody wanting to overthrow the status quo will want to do so because they're being denied some sort of power due to the power of somebody else. The powers that be have already pissed all over any ideas of righteousness themselves by claiming goodness is nothing more than (successfully) acting in your alliance's self interest. And while that's fine I guess since it works for them, it makes it hard to argue that they're any better than anybody currently in active opposition to them when they have such an avowedly mercenary modus operandi. I mean, they do some good things from time to time, but they're pretty happy to play jackbooted thugs when the coast is clear. Though, if you're bringing morality ("righteousness") into this I don't think you're really interested in the purity of a politics simulator, which to me implies people SHOULD be jockeying for position and advantage over each other and trying to snatch up #1, so much as just saying "screw off" to the malcontents out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WernerHoffmann Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 No we don't actually. I've been here more then a year, and I have no idea what happened to this Yellow #5 edict, except obviously it didn't take and bad things happened. You old-timers seem to constantly forget or just not realise that not everyone has your experiences or knowledge available to them. I could probably look it up on the wikipedia, but would that tell me everything I need to know? I just checked the Wiki. It covers the Yellow Number 5 deal pretty well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 (edited) No we don't actually. I've been here more then a year, and I have no idea what happened to this Yellow #5 edict, except obviously it didn't take and bad things happened. You old-timers seem to constantly forget or just not realise that not everyone has your experiences or knowledge available to them. I could probably look it up on the wikipedia, but would that tell me everything I need to know? So look it up, or ask about it... its not like YN5 was some big secret. Edited March 11, 2009 by Tungsten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongrel Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Well, if wanting to unseat the current power so that you can have power yourself isn't a good reason to start a revolution, then there's never going to be a good reason to start one. - anybody wanting to overthrow the status quo will want to do so because they're being denied some sort of power due to the power of somebody else. That's kind of a pessimistic ans simplistic view of things. I can think of many valid reasons that would garner support over the "they have power and we want it" argument that is constantly presented. I should point out that you yourself give a much better reason below: The powers that be have already pissed all over any ideas of righteousness themselves by claiming goodness is nothing more than (successfully) acting in your alliance's self interest. Now that's something that I could consider a valid reason, although I think it's still worded poorly. Essentially any alliance will ultimately act in their own best interest. I for one would never want to be a part of an alliance that wasn't acting in their own self interest. ... And while that's fine I guess since it works for them, it makes it hard to argue that they're any better than anybody currently in active opposition to them when they have such an avowedly mercenary modus operandi. I mean, they do some good things from time to time, but they're pretty happy to play jackbooted thugs when the coast is clear. The nice thing about power is you don't have to justify it to anyone below you. Sure it may sound harsh, but might makes right. Though, if you're bringing morality ("righteousness") into this I don't think you're really interested in the purity of a politics simulator, which to me implies people SHOULD be jockeying for position and advantage over each other and trying to snatch up #1, so much as just saying "screw off" to the malcontents out there. I bring morality and righteousness into it, because that is what garners support from the general populace. In fact that's basically my biggest argument. Do you really believe a leader would stand in front of their population and tell them they are going to war simply because that leader wants more power? No, it's always righteousness and morality (albeit usually created through propaganda) that motivates and drives people to fight wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 More and more I ask myself: "What would JimmyChang think?". NPO gets a little stick for defending itself against an anklebiter alliance. I imagine the alternative would have been worse. Sometimes its not the thing that counts, but the look of the thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentor Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) Well about the NPO's policy on Red i personally do not see the problem with that, when you are as large as NPO you can dictate the rules, the rest pretty much have to follow them. About Jarheads i agree with what was mentioned here by some members, if they want to make a long lasting alliance then they will need to get more organized, focus on diplomacy and creating relations, you can't just go around attacking everyone (well you can, but do not expect that those "everyones" will simply sit around and do nothing) Edited March 18, 2009 by Mentor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomcat Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Isn't the Moldavi doctrine just basically the same thing CNARF was trying to do except only with the red sphere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Isn't the Moldavi doctrine just basically the same thing CNARF was trying to do except only with the red sphere? No. First of all, you're thinking of the revenge doctrine, and secondly, CNARF was an active patrol where revenge responds to complaints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Isn't the Moldavi doctrine just basically the same thing CNARF was trying to do except only with the red sphere? The Moldavi Doctrine: No alliances on Red without NPO's permission. The Revenge Doctrine: No tech raiding on Red. The Sponge Doctrine: Doctrines are stupid and paint you into a corner. Also I know some very fat people around here especially Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCRABT Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Is this a joke thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regent of Omerta Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Regardless of what some may think about NPO, they protect their own. Isn't that kind of the whole idea behind an alliance? Banding together for protection and preservation, they simply chose to extend it to a whole sphere. Everybody from NPO I have ever dealt with has been great to work with. As a matter of fact, very few people in this game I have dealt with have turned out to be total idiots regardless of their alliance affiliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Is this a joke thread? We laugh, because otherwise we'd cry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizz Goose Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 If this is not a joke thread, then I am completely disgusted by the responses and support for an alliance such as the Jarheads. This is an alliance that was deceiving IRON (who was sponsoring them as a protectorate) and conspiring to attack NPO. I am not going to rehash what was gone through in two other threads. I will say this response of and sudden love for the Jarheads is despicable at best. We laugh, because otherwise we'd cry. I would much rather see the latter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.