Bring the Boys Back Home

[Darth Revan]

This belongs in World Affairs.

[Rebel Virginia]

individual members, and not really from the alliances that are still going after FAN.

Uh, what? Can you say this again please? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

and FAN attempts to spy because they don't like NPO. for them to like NPO it would have to change so much that it wouldn't be NPO anymore. you shouldn't change who you are because others don't like you.

someone has to make the first step, and that is the one who has a motive to do so, and that isn't NPO.

No, as I said, FAN spies on NPO because the NPO is attacking them and FAN has no other methods at their disposal. If NPO stops attacking FAN will have no incentive to spy on the NPO. In fact, most FAN spies in alliances would likely return to FAN.

And yes, of course FAN doesn't like the NPO. The NPO is attacking them, but not liking the NPO is not equivalent to having motive to spy on them. Many people dislike the NPO, but you don't see everybody spying on them now, do you?

It was another bit of sarcasm, is that term completely foreign to you?

Actually, it sounded like a threat to me. Usually when people use sarcasm they parody the responses of their verbal adversary. They do not tell that person that they will become another target. To be honest, I'm not even sure what you intended to use as sarcasm can even be considered sarcasm.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Rebel Virginia

[jer]

First, that we gave them a reason to plot our downfall (as noted, they did so while our allies).

That is the reason for the first war. What is the reason for continued hostilities? You punished them for not liking you already, there was no need to go in for the second bite of the banana (never mind the nibbling on the skin that continues today).

Second, that I care why they plot our downfall (as noted, the important fact is that they do)

Then you cannot want peace, so kindly stop with the 'we'd consider peace if FAN stopped spying on us' garbage. If you truly wanted peace you'd find out why FAN wishes to harm you (as if it isn't obvious) and make attempts to try to resolve the differences which you created in an attempt to reach an end to the conflict. If you wanted peace you'd take the simple steps of an apology for attacking them over a BS reason and an issue of white peace.

Third, that I consider the Order to have done anything wrong.

Of course! You will never admit to being wrong, so we should all just stop debating your claims.

Fourth, that I care enough about FAN for my resources to be spent reversing their irreversible bitterness.

For someone who doesn't care about FAN you make a lot of points justifying your actions against them. Since you ignored the point: YOU have made them bitter with YOUR actions, it is YOUR responsibility to right YOUR wrongs in doing so. Why should FAN magically forget about the way you acted? It is up to you to clean up the mess you created if you have a desire for peace.

Fifth, that something needs to be a threat to my life to constitute a threat worthy of liquidation (I'd still remove a pin on my chair even if it couldn't penetrate my trousers)

Maybe if you didn't attack the pin when it was supposed to be safely under your protection and attempt to push it out of the world completely with repeated attacks it wouldn't feel the desire to sit on your chair at all. The current 'threat' is your own making, and you can very well put things right and eliminate the threat if you wish (by granting white peace to the now dishevelled pin, apologising to to the pin for being such a jerk, and allowing the pin and yourselves to move on).

Sixth, that the Order 'hates' FAN and therefore has something to move past (unlike some here, we base decisions on strategy, not emotion).

Your strategy is simple minded and destructive - destructive to the harmony of the planet, destructive to a community and destructive to your public image. If you do not hate FAN listen to the logic that says that everyone will have a better world if you can move on the tiresome assumption that FAN will have the NPO in ruins within a week if you set them free - it is not reality. You'll be setting a good example to everyone if you dump the excuses for attacking, with less bitterness and grudges all round.

Seventh, that we share your hideous view of what the future should look like.

Admin forbid we have a fun environment to dwell in! I much prefer periods of stagnation and simmering hostile undertones as well as one big war per year engineered by two or three players at the top. Yessir.

Eighth, that we were wrong.

Of course! You will never admit to being wrong, so we should all just stop debating your claims.

Ninth, that FAN have any interest in getting over their hatred and bitterness.

Take some initiative and apologise for the things you did that rankled them so in the first place and they may move on from the way you treated them. You'll never know unless you try. Unfortunately you seem perfectly happy to continue the hostilities rather than 'fessing up and admitting that you were wrong, therefore it is your interests that should be called into question, not FAN's.

And tenth, just to leave us a nice round number, that Bob is 'ruined'

I said FAN's existence is ruined, not Bob.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Aimee Mann

[Ejayrazz]

there is no reason to motivate letting FAN off with a white peace. nobody likes FAN, other than Vox and independent members.

FAN is definitelly a nuicance- during my time in IRON i remember wars against FAN nations that nuked all the way down to the 1k ifra range and stayed there by leaching off our members with their 5 Guerilla Camps.

but it was only 1-2 nations that did that over 6 months or so, so no big deal.

personally i don't like nationalist gun-crazy hill-billies, although i don't think that's a reason to keep them at war :/

maybe if FAN tried some diplomacy, they could get off with a simple apology or something.

Alliances change sometimes. IRON has. NPO has. Grämlins have. Etc. I thought this should be mentioned. Whether FAN will change or not, I will not argue, I will argue however not to base your opinion on the past We all do it, but some alliances do change for the better. Here comes one side saying they will or have, the other saying they wont or cant, and the middle smoking too much weed right now to answer the question. Either way, I just felt this deserved a mentioning.

Oh, so you're speaking for FAN, looks like FAN has a new leader and we have a new target.

Seriously, even if we did give them peace, the attempted spying wouldn't stop. If they were caught they'd claim to be Vox or some other alliance so that FAN doesn't get another eternal war.

Please sir, do not take me for an idiot.

What exactly is your evidence pertaining to evidence? Once again, I am not arguing this, I just wish to be informed. Furthermore, if their is none, assuming so isn't good enough. You know how many alliances 'assumed' NPO was spying on them and didn't attack?

I'm not gonna lie, I quite like FAN. However if they wanted peace signing a treaty with Vox is about the worst move they could have made.

I can agree with this, though friends are friends. They valued their friendship and thus signed as a result, what did they have to lose?

Edited March 31, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Blacky]

Read my above post please. It was another go at sarcasm.

This post looks like a go at back-pedaling.

It was obviously a threat. Also, typical responses in this thread. All it's missing is the "if you support them why don't you join them in the fight against the evil NPO" line.

[Ursarkar E Creed]

What exactly is your evidence pertaining to evidence? Once again, I am not arguing this, I just wish to be informed. Furthermore, if their is none, assuming so isn't good enough. You know how many alliances 'assumed' NPO was spying on them and didn't attack?

Boss Hogg, constant leaks. Yes, the leaks may not be from spies and they may not necessarily be from FAN, but Vox and FAN have definitely encouraged more information leaks and spy rings.

[King Srqt]

I never really cared for FAN even when I was allied to them and I happily fought against them in both the first and second FAN wars, however their ability to stay together as a community is truly impressive and I really believe they have earned their peace. All this talks about how they do not deserve peace because of their spying and guerrilla tactics is asinine, they are at war and are waging war to the best of their abilities, give them peace and stop trying to stomp them out of this world.

Edited March 31, 2009 by KingSrqt

[erikz]

So, you agree that FAN is spying on us. Why would we let them go? So they can get away with free information? To make matters worse, collaborating with Vox. So there ya go, you've already got another reason to keep them in that eternal war state.

Oh, so I'm guessing you wouldnt spy on someone who's making your nation's existence a miserable one for over the last 2 years? Maybe you guys should reconsider your tactics of making the game impossible for others to play (at least to a decent extent) and keeping it fun for everyone, not just for the likes of yourself.

+ On a similar note: shouldn't you guys release GATO anytime soon or at least cancel the 'indefinite viceroyship'?

Edited March 31, 2009 by erikz

[Ursarkar E Creed]

I never really cared for FAN even when I was allied to them and I happily fought against them in both the first and second FAN wars, however their ability to stay together as a community is truly impressive and I really believe they have earned their peace. All this talks about how they do not deserve peace because of their spying and guerrilla tactics are asinine, they ar eat war and are waging war to the best of their abilities, give them peace and stop trying to stomp them out of this world.

Yes, there is no doubt they're very strong willed community wise.

[Branimir]

Our boys stay where they are.

At the same note, you are in all right to make any plea you want it is also our right to totally ignore it.

[Kindom of Goon]

I still struggle to understand the logic in the idea that FAN using their only tool of war during a war means they can't get peace. Particularly since its probably a direct result of keeping them them at war for a long period of time with no hope of peace.

[Vladimir]

That is the reason for the first war. What is the reason for continued hostilities? You punished them for not liking you already, there was no need to go in for the second bite of the banana (never mind the nibbling on the skin that continues today).

Who said we were punishing them? Certainly not I. Take a look back at any post I've made, actually read it, and you will see that we are attacking them to maintain our security.

Then you cannot want peace, so kindly stop with the 'we'd consider peace if FAN stopped spying on us' garbage. If you truly wanted peace you'd find out why FAN wishes to harm you (as if it isn't obvious) and make attempts to try to resolve the differences which you created in an attempt to reach an end to the conflict. If you wanted peace you'd take the simple steps of an apology for attacking them over a BS reason and an issue of white peace.

That doesn't follow. That we don't want peace with those plotting our downfall doesn't imply that we don't want peace more generally. I never said we'd consider peace if FAN stopped spying. I've already stated that we don't care enough about them to use our resources giving them a counselling session . And you assume again that we share your position on the start of the war -- clearly a false assumption, as already noted. If they want peace they know what is required.

Of course! You will never admit to being wrong, so we should all just stop debating your claims.

The point is that you are making assumptions that are incorrect. If you start with the premise that I believe X and thus the conclusion is Y, your conclusion is no longer correct if I inform you that I do not believe X.

For someone who doesn't care about FAN you make a lot of points justifying your actions against them. Since you ignored the point: YOU have made them bitter with YOUR actions, it is YOUR responsibility to right YOUR wrongs in doing so. Why should FAN magically forget about the way you acted? It is up to you to clean up the mess you created if you have a desire for peace.

Again, you continue with incorrect assumptions. They sought our destruction while we were still allies, and we have done nothing wrong. Why should FAN magically forget that we destroyed them? Perhaps they shouldn't (and I expect they won't). Another good reason to continue the war.

Maybe if you didn't attack the pin when it was supposed to be safely under your protection and attempt to push it out of the world completely with repeated attacks it wouldn't feel the desire to sit on your chair at all. The current 'threat' is your own making, and you can very well put things right and eliminate the threat if you wish (by granting white peace to the now dishevelled pin, apologising to to the pin for being such a jerk, and allowing the pin and yourselves to move on).

You can argue this (though I have already shown it to be incorrect), but the point remains that why they are bitter and hateful is irrelevant to the strategic decision of whether to continue the war. I don't release a murderer from prison because society wronged him in his youth (or, more accurately, because some random uninvolved party with incorrect facts assumes that society wronged him).

Your strategy is simple minded and destructive - destructive to the harmony of the planet, destructive to a community and destructive to your public image. If you do not hate FAN listen to the logic that says we will have a better world if you can move on the tiresome assumption that FAN will have the NPO in ruins within a week if you set them free. You'll be setting a good example to everyone with less bitterness and grudges all round.

What are you talking about? Nobody said that FAN would have the NPO in ruins, never mind within a weak. I have already explained time and time again how something doesn't have to be deadly to be a threat worthy of removal -- a pin, a mosquito, etc: pick your example.

Admin forbid we have a fun environment to dwell in! I much prefer periods of stagnation and simmering hostile undertones as well as one big war per year engineered by two or three players at the top. Yessir.

You take an idealistic perspective. If you understood the way of the world you would understand that things are much more complex. But we will have to agree to disagree on this, since I don't have the time or care to explain the materialist perspective to you. But perhaps you would benefit from The Outwards Spiral.

I said FAN's existence is ruined, not Bob.

Brings a tear to my eye.

There are a number of suggestions which you have listed I seemingly fine extremely inadequate. I will not argue your first point, it isn't my area. Second is directly the reasoning for the first in my opinion, thus a different category separating the two shouldn't exist, unless you are trying to make it seem you have more numerical reasonings, quality versus quantity comes into effect.. Your third point, well of course not, you never disagree with your alliance publicly, or at least what I have gathered from all of your posts within the years, especially believing in Francoism and stating going against Pacifica you're inherently wrong. Fourth, it wouldn't require any resources at all. Fifth, elaborate. Sixth, saying NPO merely bases all decisions on their strategical well being opens a pot of arguments, misunderstandings, and mere frustration. Your 'strategical well being' could collide with your allies, sometimes emotion is good. And yes, you DO sometimes rule with emotion, I have seen Moo make decisions off 'emotions' rather than 'strategical well-being', such as allowing new flocking Jarhead members, those not understanding the situation, a chance to disperse. There was nothing strategical about it, he didn't wish to destroy nations and have em' leave the game as a result, GOONS used no emotion with FARK and clearly there is a significant difference. Seventh, the future isn't anymore hideous with FAN being there, which I feel is subjective. Hideous, in my opinion, is displaying terrible and wretched acts, which I have seen none from FAN anytime soon. Eighth, subjective. Ninth, even so, their bitterness and and hatred will exceed by forcing the alliance out of the game. YOU'RE hatred exceeds theirs, or so it seems. Should you be driven from the game? (I do not like your structuring of the above statements, was hard to understand the points you were trying to convey)

Much more intelligent criticisms, but they still miss the point. I will answer those I feel are important and you can complain if I miss one. Second is linked to the first, but is separate: the first goes to their motivation, the second goes to ours. Fifth is simply a restating of the later point that you agreed with on the nature of threats. Sixth, there are good strategic reasons for the Order to leave the innocent Jarheads nations alone -- attacking nations that aren't a threat is a waste of resources, hopefully it keeps us from creating new enemies, and more nations on Bob (all things being equal) is always beneficial. But I don't suggest that the Order is completely devoid of emotion, just that it isn't the ruling force. Seventh, I was referring to his wider claims of what we should do for the world, not just FAN (though having seen their true character in the past, it would seem likely to be more hideous with FAN as an active force). Ninth, FAN can be as bitter and hateful as they want, it isn't my concern; so long as their bitterness and hatefulness isn't detrimental to my alliance. Your claim that my personal hatred exceeds theirs indicates that you have an inaccurate picture of me, but regardless, they are not being attacked because they are emotional, they are being attacked as a security operation.

As to the latter part, relevance is more complex than these discussions usually betray. I may take notice of a fly buzzing around my head, and may even decide to swat it, but that doesn't suggest that the fly is relevant on any wider scale. So I will concede that FAN may be of relevance to the nations attacking them for the period of said attacks, but to the Order as a political, military, social and economic entity, FAN hold no relevance at all.

And it would depend on the character of 'FAM'. We welcomed TotalFark as a spin-off alliance, for example, but we ended up attacking various others for their actions.

[Paradigm]

NPO won't listen to this. But it is interesting how many people in established alliances are agreeing with public calls like this one and the anti-EZI one. People are prepared to make politically controversial public stands once again.

Thank you for understanding what the real point of this thread, and those to come, are really about. The years of an implied shark week are over for Planet Bob.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Paradigm

[Bob Janova]

You made me quote myself!

You will never find common ground with Vladimir because he is arguing from a purely utilitarian point of view, whereas you are arguing from a moral one. In his world view, keeping hostile people down indefinitely is the best way to ensure that they will never be a threat to you – and I don't think you can argue against that. In yours, it is wrong to keep people in perpetual war – and he does not have an answer to that because it is simply not relevant to his view of the world.

Arguing with Vladimir is about as effective as arguing with a wall, and probably about as fun, but particularly in this thread because you are arguing about completely different things. Vladimir does not believe in ethics and the only argument for allowing alliances like FAN or even GATO their freedom is an ethical one. By all means, keep bashing your head against that wall, but I don't think that some of you understand that that is what you are doing.

(edit: typo)

Edited March 31, 2009 by Bob Janova

[Vladimir]

I believe in ethics -- your parents aren't leaving presents under the tree and telling you that ethics did it -- I just don't follow your ethics.

[Branimir]

There are no universal ethics as they are no universal morality.

Just because some do not fallow your sense of morality does not mean they does not have one. That is one of the more arrogant claims one can make.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Branimir

[Authur]

While I respect Vladimir's logic, it is the safe and smart thing to do, I do not share it. I would like to see FAN given peace in the hope they would rebuild and become a threat again. As an individual with confidence in my alliance's and allies ability I do not fear FAN or others who wish us harm. I welcome the opprotunity to prove our skills time and time again and if we fall I'd expect to be given the same chance to rebuild and fight again.

That is my idea world.

[Paradigm]

As an individual with confidence in my alliance's and allies ability I do not fear FAN or others who wish us harm. I welcome the opprotunity to prove our skills time and time again and if we fall I'd expect to be given the same chance to rebuild and fight again.

That is my idea world.

See - that is the EXACT thing I hoped to see from more indiviudals posting with certain AA's. I salute you for having the confidence and viewpoint that allows honor to return to Planet Bob.

[jer]

Arguing with Vladimir is about as effective as arguing with a wall, and probably about as fun, but particularly in this thread because you are arguing about completely different things. Vladimir does not believe in ethics and the only argument for allowing alliances like FAN or even GATO their freedom is an ethical one. By all means, keep bashing your head against that wall, but I don't think that some of you understand that that is what you are doing.

(edit: typo)

Yep, being flatly told that your points are incorrect, stupid and based on false assumption time and again merely because they do not align with someone else's view (with little to no attention paid to the points made) is not fulfilling at all. I do feel it is worthwhile to engage in debate with him from time to time though, if only because it gives an interesting insight into the thought behind the decisions.

[erikz]

Yep, being flatly told that your points are incorrect, stupid and based on false assumption time and again merely because they do not align with someone else's view (with little to no attention paid to the points made) is not fulfilling at all. I do feel it is worthwhile to engage in debate with him from time to time though, if only because it gives an interesting insight into the thought behind the decisions.

Don't worry, he can probably explain how it fits into francoism and then he will even make less sense.

[Electron Sponge]

Please sir, do not take me for an idiot.

If you don't want to be taken as one, don't make yourself look like one.

Boss Hogg, constant leaks. Yes, the leaks may not be from spies and they may not necessarily be from FAN, but Vox and FAN have definitely encouraged more information leaks and spy rings.

It's war, after all.

You made me quote myself!

Arguing with Vladimir is about as effective as arguing with a wall, and probably about as fun, but particularly in this thread because you are arguing about completely different things. Vladimir does not believe in ethics and the only argument for allowing alliances like FAN or even GATO their freedom is an ethical one. By all means, keep bashing your head against that wall, but I don't think that some of you understand that that is what you are doing.

(edit: typo)

...which is why I put him on ignore. No one actually reads those walls of text anyway.

[Triyun]

You made me quote myself!

Arguing with Vladimir is about as effective as arguing with a wall, and probably about as fun, but particularly in this thread because you are arguing about completely different things. Vladimir does not believe in ethics and the only argument for allowing alliances like FAN or even GATO their freedom is an ethical one. By all means, keep bashing your head against that wall, but I don't think that some of you understand that that is what you are doing.

(edit: typo)

Some have said utilitarianism is ethical. Basically the problem is if you view something through a subjective lens, you aren't going to really get anywhere arguing with someone who views it through a completely different subjective lens. You have this issue with anything you deal with. It is hard to arrive at a moral middle ground therefore.

Ultimately the view to keep the war going or end it, is made from the expectation on what is going to yield the safety and security of the NPO members and our allies in the long term. At the moment, evidence points to a continuation of the war with FAN, which is keeping a potentially rather large threat at bay, with a few tech payments being stolen once in a while.

[Vladimir]

Yep, being flatly told that your points are incorrect, stupid and based on false assumption time and again merely because they do not align with someone else's view (with little to no attention paid to the points made) is not fulfilling at all. I do feel it is worthwhile to engage in debate with him from time to time though, if only because it gives an interesting insight into the thought behind the decisions.

Most of it was pointing out factual errors in history, NPO policy or what I said, or reiterating a point already made a dozen times previous. Doesn't require thousands of words to do.

[Authur]

See - that is the EXACT thing I hoped to see from more indiviudals posting with certain AA's. I salute you for having the confidence and viewpoint that allows honor to return to Planet Bob.

While I thank you for the kind words I would like to note that I am not tasked with overseeing the well being of my fellow allaince members or our allies. When making decisions for your membership and allies, comprised of different view points, you can not selfishly choose the path you desire.

[OverlordOeboema]

i hope they get peace one day, but i dont see it happening