Bring the Boys Back Home

[Haflinger]

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.

Bob, utilitarianism is a system of ethics. Check out J.S. Mill for example.

[AirMe]

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.

This is a view that many of us share. It is refreshing to see this view from a member of an alliance that is perceived to be part of the problem. I hope you have ambitions of making it to gov some day.

Edited March 31, 2009 by AirMe

[Paradigm]

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.

Well then, I guess we all see the remaining options on the table for FAN's ultimate release.

[Vladimir]

As Dilber has said in the past: it isn't for us to bring our B game, it's for you to up your A game.

[Paradigm]

As Dilber has said in the past: it isn't for us to bring our B game, it's for you to up your A game.

Then NPO should finally let Planet Bob bring you the challenge you claim to desire.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Paradigm

[Branimir]

OOC: So now when we settled this debate by stating the obvious, lets talk about B.G. ending. Like, dislike?

IC: So say we all.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Branimir

[Arcades057]

One of the unintended side effects of this war are things like these. God, I love these things.

As I have stated before: The majority of you folks lamenting FAN's place on the totem pole of life would be changing your tunes if FAN were free. FAN was not the whining emotional patchouli-burning and pot-smoking hippies that they are now; they have become this way out of a) necessity and b) to get you people to feel sorry for them. It's working; not like there was ever a snowball's chance in hell of it not--you people here are not only fickle, but entirely too myopic.

Many of you from small alliances or from "former" enemies of Pacifica ask why is FAN being kept in a perpetual state of war. You seem unable to understand this. Allow me to forward the following hypothesis:

We're doing it because we want to see you cry. We imbibe your tears, which sustain us.

Please, continue the diatribes and request for peace. I'm quite certain that once the number of requests equals our super-secret-squirrel number that Moo has chosen out of a hat that we will make peace with FAN.

Or maybe not.

[AirMe]

OOC: So now when we settled this debate by stating the obvious, lets talk about B.G. ending. Like, dislike?

IC: So say we all.

OOC: I loved it.

IC: What do you hear? (for sake of the quote insert the name starbuck at the end.)

[Authur]

This is a view that many of us share. It is refreshing to see this view from a member of an alliance that is perceived to be part of the problem. I hope you have ambitions of making it to gov some day.

It is not an uncommon view but when one is responsible for the security of many others one must make decisions that are in the best interest of all involved. To constantly, and knowingly put your membership at risk is a lot to ask of them. I do not know what I would do in that position but I will not condemn those that are and took a different path.

[Ejayrazz]

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.

I don't complain.

So be it, I didn't agree with how the wording was issued.

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.

The reason given isn't the reasons you suggested, his reasonings were because he had no desire in pushing those away from the game over incidents they had nothing to do with, therefore contradicting your 'making enemies' statement, you wouldn't enemies if they leave the game entirely. This is by the information given by Moo. I wouldn't call it a strategical move, more so, NPO allows allies to get away with things they never would let their enemies get away with. Example being, NPO allowed a lot of acts slide during the WUT-era (Though, they'd eventually have enough of their allies' !@#$%^&*) merely from emotions because your friendship allowed forgiveness in many such events, at least, this was stated in your eventual CBs to Goons and whatnot. I consider that acting upon emotions, which isn't entirely redundant.

But I don't suggest that the Order is completely devoid of emotion, just that it isn't the ruling force

As stated, I feel there are several decently important examples showing NPO has ruled with emotions, as mentioned above

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).

I suggest to not judge upon the past because NPO in itself would be scrutinized for its behavior during GWII-era. Let me explain like I did to someone in your alliance which I wont release as I believe private conversations are just that - private.

[10:02] <Ejayrazz> Well.

[10:02] <Ejayrazz> WuT DESTROYED

[10:02] <Ejayrazz> NPOs' image

[10:02] <DudeIwastalkingto> we accomplished our objective

[10:02] <Ejayrazz> Utterly destroyed it

[10:02] <DudeIwastalkingto> you really think so?

[10:03] <DudeIwastalkingto> as far as i know, we were universally hated before WUT

[10:03] <Ejayrazz> Well, more so with WuT

[10:03] <Ejayrazz> Here is why

[10:04] <Ejayrazz> GOONS, [other alliances in Wut], displayed LUCRATIVE behavior on the big boards. They were loved and hated for it, but even allies within WuT sometimes were upset by the trolling and nonsense. NPO supported their behavior because, well...as weird as it sounds, they were honorable and stuck by their allies' sides. This behavior also lead to all or most of these alliances being attacked and destroyed later on

[10:05] <Ejayrazz> Since NPO did what was technically right..sticking up for their allies in public...they suffered great PR losses

[10:05] <Ejayrazz> Which still are felt today

[10:05] <Ejayrazz> No !@#$@#$ way is NPO the same NPO back in the day in my opinion

[10:05] <Ejayrazz> They have more class now in my opinion and aren't as ruthless as some believe.

[10:06] <Ejayrazz> Maybe that's just because they have yet to really do anything to me, so I guess there is a bit of biased remarks in this stance.

That is like me judging NPO for their former selves rather than their current beliefs and actions.

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.

I never stated anything of emotional concern with your alliance as it relates to FAN. I am not really defending FAN here, just some of the reasonings you offer, but now I seem to be more so arguing with other arguments which are semi-related, such as Pacifica's decision making, judging from the past, etc. I wouldn't mind FAN getting peace, let them continue on instead of punishing an alliance for so damn long. But, I couldn't really care either way as of now. I see both perspectives.

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.

The fly may have Malaria.

[AirMe]

We're doing it because we want to see you cry. We imbibe your tears, which sustain us.

Spoken like a true FAN member...oh wai...........

[Branimir]

Spoken like a true FAN member...oh wai...........

lol

Sorry Arcades057, this was a good one. Still wub you Arcades

[Poyplemonkeys]

As Dilber has said in the past: it isn't for us to bring our B game, it's for you to up your A game.

Nobody wants you to bring your B game. They want you to stop mercilessly crushing something under the pretence that it's for Pacifican security. It would be a refreshing change just to hear someone stating the reason FAN don't get peace is because you don't like them. Instead we get the spiel about this 800k NS alliance being a threat to your security and no reasons as to why.

Why do you see them as a threat to the behemoth that is NPO Vladimir?

[njndirish]

Just some clarification,

The first FAN war was fought because FAN plotted behind the NPO's back, correct?

The current war was fought over number of soldier counts and other numeric violations in the treaty, correct?

[Arcades057]

lol

Sorry Arcades057, this was a good one. Still wub you Arcades

Even a busted clock is right twice a day, my friend.

[AirMe]

lol

Sorry Arcades057, this was a good one. Still wub you Arcades

Branimir. See, I can take that talk from you, Vlad, Veng, Zha, Hawk and others who have been there from the beginning, you guys have been down and counted out and came back.

I really have a hard time stomaching it from someone who has forgotten their roots and only has been a member of the strongest alliances in the game (minus a brief stint in Golden Sabers.)

[OverlordOeboema]

Just some clarification,

The first FAN war was fought because FAN plotted behind the NPO's back, correct?

The current war was fought over number of soldier counts and other numeric violations in the treaty, correct?

this is from the wiki (http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Second_NPO-FAN_War):

"NPO claimed that 1/3 of FAN nations were found to be in violation of surrender terms from the FAN-WUT War leading One Vision along with several allies against FAN. Approximately 100 FAN nations stand accused, but in truth only a small handful of FAN nations had breached the terms enforced upon them, and many of these were only just over the soldier limit. "

[erikz]

One of the unintended side effects of this war are things like these. God, I love these things.

As I have stated before: The majority of you folks lamenting FAN's place on the totem pole of life would be changing your tunes if FAN were free. FAN was not the whining emotional patchouli-burning and pot-smoking hippies that they are now; they have become this way out of a) necessity and B) to get you people to feel sorry for them. It's working; not like there was ever a snowball's chance in hell of it not--you people here are not only fickle, but entirely too myopic.

Many of you from small alliances or from "former" enemies of Pacifica ask why is FAN being kept in a perpetual state of war.

Or maybe not.

1) How do you explain GATO's terms still not being lifted? They don't 'whine' as you call it.

2) Why are all the people commenting on NPO coming from 'small alliances' or 'former enemies'? I don't see me fitting in either of those profiles.

[SpiderJerusalem]

Yes, we're shaking because of that peace mode ridden thunderous war machine that is FAN. :lol:

You have yet much to learn young padawan

[Arcades057]

1) How do you explain GATO's terms still not being lifted? They don't 'whine' as you call it.

2) Why are all the people commenting on NPO coming from 'small alliances' or 'former enemies'? I don't see me fitting in either of those profiles.

1) I don't pay enough attention to things to wonder why, or to ask why, GATO's terms have not been lifted. Nor do such things interest me.

2) The more vociferous comments seem to be coming from people from MK ("former" enemies) and from Nemesis (small alliance).

Those who keep their comments respectful, their points of view are always welcome, regardless of their affiliation (at least to me they are).

[King Srqt]

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)

My main argument with FAN is not actually based on ethics or morality. I believe at this point FAN is only continuing hostile actions against NPO because of the endless state of war they have been thrown into. If they were granted peace they would no longer have a motivation to do NPO harm therefore leaving FAN in the state that it is in is both costing NPO the resources to keep up the front along with the covert damages they are doing whether it be by spying or aid scamming. It is my opinion that Pacifica is putting theri security at greater risk by continuing their efforts against FAN at this point.

[Kindom of Goon]

As I have stated before: The majority of you folks lamenting FAN's place on the totem pole of life would be changing your tunes if FAN were free. FAN was not the whining emotional patchouli-burning and pot-smoking hippies that they are now; they have become this way out of a) necessity and B) to get you people to feel sorry for them. It's working; not like there was ever a snowball's chance in hell of it not--you people here are not only fickle, but entirely too myopic.

Please, continue the diatribes and request for peace. I'm quite certain that once the number of requests equals our super-secret-squirrel number that Moo has chosen out of a hat that we will make peace with FAN.

Or maybe not.

This has nothing to do with feeling sorry for FAN or liking them, infact I don't even like FAN. If you have an interesting character, good or bad, in a movie or on TV I wouldn't want them to be killed off or reduced to a cameo role, same applies here.

This is not a plea to give them peace either, just people giving their opinions on it.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Kindom of Goon

[Vladimir]

The reason given isn't the reasons you suggested, his reasonings were because he had no desire in pushing those away from the game over incidents they had nothing to do with, therefore contradicting your 'making enemies' statement, you wouldn't enemies if they leave the game entirely. This is by the information given by Moo. I wouldn't call it a strategical move, more so, NPO allows allies to get away with things they never would let their enemies get away with. Example being, NPO allowed a lot of acts slide during the WUT-era (Though, they'd eventually have enough of their allies' !@#$%^&*) merely from emotions because your friendship allowed forgiveness in many such events, at least, this was stated in your eventual CBs to Goons and whatnot. I consider that acting upon emotions, which isn't entirely redundant.

I gave three reasons for this being a wise strategic move: 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. You pointed out that in a statement made only one of these was mentioned. Well, even if this was in fact the only consideration (and not mentioning the others doesn't imply that they weren't considered -- remember that I am a part of the conversations where these decisions are made), it was still a strategically sound consideration.

I wouldn't call it a strategical move, more so, NPO allows allies to get away with things they never would let their enemies get away with. Example being, NPO allowed a lot of acts slide during the WUT-era (Though, they'd eventually have enough of their allies' !@#$%^&*) merely from emotions because your friendship allowed forgiveness in many such events, at least, this was stated in your eventual CBs to Goons and whatnot. I consider that acting upon emotions, which isn't entirely redundant.

The Order generally doesn't involve itself where its interests aren't endangered -- we're not the world police. So if Alliance A wants to attack alliance B, and neither alliance is linked to the Order, then it is left between Alliances A and B. But if we take the alliances to be linked to us, then it of course depends on the form of the links. if Enemy A attacks Ally A, then the chances are that we will respond. If Ally A attacks Enemy A, then the chances are (barring circumstances that would lead to damage to the Order) that we will 'let it slide'.

The important point here is that friendship is not merely an emotional attachment, but a strategic link between two alliances. When an alliance starts acting against your interests, friendship is unlikely to strengthen as a result.

On the next section: yes, alliances change. This is why I said that we would likely give FAN peace if the evidence suggested that they honestly had.

[Authur]

My main argument with FAN is not actually based on ethics or morality. I believe at this point FAN is only continuing hostile actions against NPO because of the endless state of war they have been thrown into. If they were granted peace they would no longer have a motivation to do NPO harm therefore leaving FAN in the state that it is in is both costing NPO the resources to keep up the front along with the covert damages they are doing whether it be by spying or aid scamming. It is my opinion that Pacifica is putting theri security at greater risk by continuing their efforts against FAN at this point.

What resources are spent on this war I'm confident are offset by the experience gained by the young nations in range. As for security concerns they will exists with or without FAN so I don't see that as a noticeable gain.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Authur

[Corinan]

Then NPO should finally let Planet Bob bring you the challenge you claim to desire.

Then you're asking NPO to let up a bit. Why should they? They don't owe it to anyone, certainly not FAN.

This is what's wrong with the world. Everyone is always looking to others for help in changing what they would like to see changed. If you want to see change, do something about it.