Paradigm Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) IM just curious guys.FAN has admitted to doing basically all of the atrocities most of you would go to war about. Like meta-game spying, using senators as a weapon, using peace mode(That became naughty during the GATO war when NPO decreed that any peace-moders get perma-ZI), and general disrespect for their enemies. Regardless of the arguments on whether they are justified in using this tools, I think if they were to be released, they'd be back in the same situation soon when they are found "plotting against the NPO." ok - and the problem here is what again? Edited April 1, 2009 by Paradigm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Regardless of the arguments on whether they are justified in using this tools, I think if they were to be released, they'd be back in the same situation soon when they are found "plotting against the NPO." You're assuming they would start plotting against the NPO if given peace, which doesn't have a solid basis, I think there is a higher chance they would avoid that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 You're assuming they would start plotting against the NPO if given peace, which doesn't have a solid basis, I think there is a higher chance they would avoid that. Upon what basis do you make this claim? Look, these are the guys who used to spy on everyone all the time, especially their allies. Why do you think they've changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 You're assuming they would start plotting against the NPO if given peace, which doesn't have a solid basis, I think there is a higher chance they would avoid that. Yes, I assume this. You caught me. It's very simple. They plotted before First FAN War. They plotted during peace. They plotted during Second FAN War. They plot now. That's where we are right now. Why do you think us so stupid as to think they have changed? It not up to us to "see" this change, but for them to prove it to us. And they know how to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neboe Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) Neboe - it's not the ones you speak of i blame as much as everyone who makes them stay where they are instead of trying to put themselves in better positions. If more people actually tried to play the game this would have actually happened. As it is now it's like a game of chess where neither of the players are playing because that way one may lose (you can go further on this and say one the players has a reputation for winning pretty often and giving his opponents wedgies after). If people wouldn't have been satisfied with some fake sentiments of safety where they have to pretty much permanently show a bright !@#$ eating grin all the time at everyone else and speaking your mind could be seen as REALLY dangerous. Were the CN political situation more dynamical, FAN may have been out of war by now instead of being kept under p-zi for potential permanent bearers of a grudge. You raise a good point but that then pushes the responsibility off onto another world power such as IRON for example. The supposition then becomes, IF IRON were to lead a coalition against the NPO, one that saw relatively evenly matched sides, then the NPO would be forced to drop the FAN police action in favor of the larger more "important" war. I think your theory has merit, but, as you well know, the supposition carries a large and unlikely assumption. I think it also erroneously transfers the responsibility off of the NPO and FAN, when truly this police action is really only between the NPO and FAN. While the desire to be number 1 and "win" digiterra might be enough (or not as the case is clearly for everyone not in the NPO or I suppose Vox) to drive an alliance to make an effort to usurp the current hegemony, I doubt very much the FAN police action will ever be enough of a driving force for such risky action to take place. As has been pointed out in recent posts, FAN, while clearly a victim of the NPO policy, is not entirely without blame. While I have not been anywhere near any "negotiations," and I use the term loosely, regarding this matter, I do not see anyone coming forward to offer evidence or even opinion that FAN shows remorse for their actions that have landed them in this situation. Just as an inmate must show some sign of remorse and/or rehabilitation (meaning they will not likely recidivate) to gain parole, I would very much imagine so should FAN show some measure of assurance to the NPO that the alliance and its members will not recidivate. Edited April 1, 2009 by Neboe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 You're assuming they would start plotting against the NPO if given peace, which doesn't have a solid basis, I think there is a higher chance they would avoid that. I really don't think they would. I can't be for certain, but I do seem to recall a certain former FAN leader who is now banned saying that FANs sole purpose in life was to destroy Pacifica. That being said I think it'd be rather foolish of NPO to ever give FAN peace. All they would be allowing FAN to do was build up for a third war, in which FAN would be able to do a lot more damage than they're currently capable of doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 I really don't think they would.I can't be for certain, but I do seem to recall a certain former FAN leader who is now banned saying that FANs sole purpose in life was to destroy Pacifica. That being said I think it'd be rather foolish of NPO to ever give FAN peace. All they would be allowing FAN to do was build up for a third war, in which FAN would be able to do a lot more damage than they're currently capable of doing. In the end, NPO may not have a choice in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle B Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 In my opinion FAN don't seem to mind the current situation too much, at least this is the first time I have heard about FAN requesting peace rather than arguing that the NPO was wrong to attack them the second time (which I kind of think is a moot point now,it happened if you want peace it might be better to let that go). On a personal note I think it would be more "fun" to let FAN go simply because it might lead to more war ect later on. I would expect some kind of "good behaviour" from them before they got any kind of peace but I wouldn't kick myself if they came back at us later stronger because after all the most fun is had (in my mind) while at war and if FAN can build up and give us a run for our money then good luck to them it will give most people an interesting few months or weeks anyway. *These opinions are strictly my own and in no way reflect the NPO's thinking (thought it was fairly obvious but people do so love to quote these things)* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Was actually waiting for a April Fools thread from NPO giving FAN white peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Was actually waiting for a April Fools thread from NPO giving FAN white peace. I know - I thought I gave a perfect T Ball setup for that one but alas....diaspointment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Was actually waiting for a April Fools thread from NPO giving FAN white peace. Too obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Like meta-game spying, using senators as a weapon, using peace mode(That became naughty during the GATO war when NPO decreed that any peace-moders get perma-ZI), and general disrespect for their enemies. Using peace mode became naughty when NPO decided it did. To most people it's just a legitimate tactic still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 I think you sort of have to look at this in a pro and con sense. What con's are there to remaining at war with FAN? Not many if any at all...what pro's are there? None, if any at all as long as they are all in peace mode. So why change the status quo? There is no driving force to do so. I'm not stating this from an NPOer's point of view, this is the case with anything really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 (edited) I think you sort of have to look at this in a pro and con sense. What con's are there to remaining at war with FAN? Not many if any at all...what pro's are there? None, if any at all as long as they are all in peace mode. So why change the status quo? There is no driving force to do so. I'm not stating this from an NPOer's point of view, this is the case with anything really... Some people would rather not have a group of players permanently imprisoned. You know, people looking at this from the point of view of a decent human being. Edited April 2, 2009 by Vilien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Some people would rather not have a group of players permanently imprisoned. You know, people looking at this from the point of view of a decent human being. So you are implying that I am not a decent human being? Interesting way to completely flame someone that you do not even know, OOC, in an IC forum that has nothing to do with this. It certainly helps me see your point of view and really mull over your opinion in my head. Anyone else that would actually like to discuss my post respectfully, feel free to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 I apologize. What is Pacifica's definition of an honest fight? You admit that you don't believe that they have any spies, or the capability to use them. What are they supposed to do, "fight like men" against an alliance thirty times their size? You've destroyed them enough. They are no longer a meaningful opposition, which you admit occasionally, before taking up the party line again. Your only argument for continuing this ridiculous spectacle is that "they'll come back and oppose us." One day, maybe. But they're nowhere close, and they shouldn't have to ask you for permission to play the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 I apologize. What is Pacifica's definition of an honest fight? You admit that you don't believe that they have any spies, or the capability to use them. What are they supposed to do, "fight like men" against an alliance thirty times their size? You've destroyed them enough. They are no longer a meaningful opposition, which you admit occasionally, before taking up the party line again. Your only argument for continuing this ridiculous spectacle is that "they'll come back and oppose us." One day, maybe. But they're nowhere close, and they shouldn't have to ask you for permission to play the game. I would say that they don't have to ask the NPO's permission to play, but actions have reactions. Things that you do have consequences. And they are playing under those terms. So what is the motivation for an alliance to allow someone that they believe to still be out to hurt them, to have a chance to do so? If they keep the status quo, no harm comes to them, if they change it, the possibility of harm exists...so why change it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Now, let me get this straight, you won't give FAN peace because they seek to harm you. So you keep fighting them until they no longer want to do you harm. You are, I assume, at war with FAN. Do warring alliances not wish to do each other harm? Do you see how incredibly circular your logic is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atrophis Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Yes, I assume this. You caught me.It's very simple. They plotted before First FAN War. They plotted during peace. They plotted during Second FAN War. They plot now. That's where we are right now. Why do you think us so stupid as to think they have changed? It not up to us to "see" this change, but for them to prove it to us. And they know how to do that. Whole lot of assumptions there with little fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Now, let me get this straight, you won't give FAN peace because they seek to harm you. So you keep fighting them until they no longer want to do you harm. You are, I assume, at war with FAN. Do warring alliances not wish to do each other harm? Do you see how incredibly circular your logic is? I do wish people would learn to read. Harm and destroy are not the same thing. Yes, destroying someone is harming them, but the reverse is not necessarily true. The word used was "destroy" not "harm." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Tell me, what is Pacifica's goal with FAN? Welcome to Double-Standards-Nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 I would say that they don't have to ask the NPO's permission to play, but actions have reactions. That's true. But the reactions (consequences) should be appropriate to the actions. Do you honestly believe what FAN has done warrants years of war? I myself can't really think of an action that warrants that kind of response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Whole lot of assumptions there with little fact. Hello atro how are you I am fine. Also no. Tell me, what is Pacifica's goal with FAN? As always, to keep Pacifica motherland safe from harm. Until FAN is deemed other then an enemy, Pacifica will remain keeping her motherland safe. It is really a simple matter. You of course, as our detractor, can twist this as much as you can but honestly I do not believe you made a valid point yet. That's true. But the reactions (consequences) should be appropriate to the actions. Do you honestly believe what FAN has done warrants years of war? I myself can't really think of an action that warrants that kind of response. I always remained puzzled by this argument right there, just makes no sense at all. They remain an enemy and as long as it is such the conflict will be on going. There are no time limitations to that. FAN is not the only alliance with which we remain in status of war, NAAC, LUE, GOLD are as well to name a few. When war starts it must be ended for peace to be made. Also, a rather simple concept. OOC: This is not a prison system. You "do your time" then you are "out". It is suppose to be a playing, simulation in a game, of war. You are mixing apples and kiwis here in an attempt to make your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atrophis Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 FAN is not the only alliance with which we remain in status of war, NAAC, LUE, GOLD are as well to name a few. Are you sure about that? This says otherwise. http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Militar...w_Pacific_Order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Are you sure about that? This says otherwise. http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Militar...w_Pacific_Order Yes, I am very much sure of it. War declared, war fought, peace never made. If somebody wants to test that he can change his AA to NAAC, LUE or GOLD and found out* Now, seeing how those alliances are now defunct, obviously enough the war is still only technically on. But using it as an example that war has no time limitation and is waged as long two sides do not make peace. disclaimer: It is hazardous to one safety. One will be attacked by the N.P.O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts