Jump to content

Vox and NPO: Where is the love?


Farrin Xies

Recommended Posts

[OOC] farrin - let's think about this for a moment. If everyone in this game got along with each other flawlessly, there'd be no war..... arguably defeating a major point to playing it.[/OOC]

Quit with the [OOC][/OOC] this is an OOC forum FFS.

Vox and FAN certainly aren't the only ones that hate NPO. There are hoards of people that do. You see, when you defeat all of your enemies, then you have to either create more of them, or say goodbye to wartime forever. The confused masses are the ones that jump out of their chairs to sign treaties, but complain about peacetime.

This is true.

Since NPO has been identified by many as the creator of the old and stale peacetime that lingers over the planet, those that are pro-peace tend to be pro-NPO, while those that want to make the game a bit more exciting tend to be anti-NPO.

True, but *much* more complicated after the war against peace.

It also happens to be a trend that those that are pro-peace also happen to be a product of social-engineering and drift through the game as "mindless pawns". We were given military for a reason. Mindless pawns don't understand that. Free-thinkers do.

Now this is just over the top nonsense.

Some of us view the game as one of nation-building and community-building first. Frankly as a wargame it would never hold my attention this long. I have real wargames. I'm playing HoI right now in fact. It's paused in the background while I check the forums. I'm not brainwashed, or a tool, I enjoy the game just fine during peace time and frankly if you declare war on me you'll annoy me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What the hell is wrong being a mindless pawn? This game was at its best when allainces were huge, and their governments were small. Wars are fun. But the effort to start them is a pain in the $@!. I tried being alliance government once in web bassed text game and @#%((& hated it. Never want to do it again ... ever. I'll just enjoy the ride and curbstomp some helpless alliances into the ground now and then.

I'd say that the problem with this game right now is too many people want to be kings.

To put it another way I DONT CARE! I don’t have a childs over developed sense of fairness.

There's nothing wrong with being a baseline member of an alliance but it should be pretty self-evident why being an idiot who posts mainly mindless hails and really stupid arguments is bad, and people doing those things are generally what is meant by a "mindless drone" or a variation on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This conversation has evolved quite quickly.

To put my two cents in on what the OP was getting at, NPO and Vox complete each other. Neither one is as strong as it is at this point without the other. Vox is what it is due to NPO, period. NPO has had it easy focusing the allies in the recent past due to Vox machinations. Without such perhaps Q members grow bored much more quickly.

It very much seems like it should be a love/hate relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't think we should be lumping Vox and FAN together. Vox is a resistance movement; they are a group of people who have outcasted themselves and dedicated their time and effort to hurting the NPO (and allies) as much as possible. They are all EXI, will forever be EZI, and I have no sympathy for them. After all, their position is fully voluntary.

FAN is a different story. They were a legitimate alliance simply trying to play the game, and they have been told by their enemies that they cannot play CN anymore. They also have a distinct culture, reflecting from their origins on a gun forum, and the idea of being defeated, lied to, betrayed, and kicked while they are down* without fighting back does not fit in with that culture. There are some people that will be punched in the face, calculate their odds of winning a retaliatory fight, then decide against it. People like FAN, however, have pride. If you punch them in the face, they will fight back regardless and will not surrender until they either win or cannot fight any longer. NPO recognizes this, and they are trying to force the latter on FAN. Thus, there is a lot of hostility between the memberships.

Also, there should never be OOC hostilities between players for actions in a game. Many people saw an example of the right behavior at the Royal Pacifica Ball, when Emperor Moo allowed Vox members break the same bread and dance on the same floor, with few people even thinking twice about it. I commend NPO for keeping the event fun-loving, and I hope that nobody would ever actually hate another person because of a game.

*This is how FAN views the NPO-FAN situation and does not reflect on my personal opinion.

Edited by Stonewall Jaxon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm,

You've betrayed Polaris, backstabbed the majority of your "friends," prohibit anyone you dislike from playing the game, use a "legal" script, rely on spreading rumors like gossip girls to get inactive players to see things from your perspective, and,... TAKE THIS GAME WAY TOO SERIOUSLY.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caliph, I appreciate the information, and know that I didn't just intitate this conversation blind; I have read the "official" histories [OOC:]the Wiki[/OOC] on these subjects. I'm not saying that, from both FAN and Vox's points of view that they don't have legitimate grounds for mistrusting the NPO and even, perhaps, hating it as an alliance. My question at the very beginning was simply why this hatred of the institution must boil down to its individual members. And yes, there are certainly my fellow Pacificans who fan the flames, I don't argue that. I, personally, feel no ill will to any individual member of FAN nor Vox; I found Schattenman's writing in This Week in Pacifica to be excellent and hilarious, even if I disagree with some of the content in it at times (personal attacks, etc.).

When you argue with the same few people time after time its natural to attack the members individual philosophies instead of the alliance of the whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with the game is that we have a "peace at all costs" world view. Any alliance who gets even slightly likely to militarily compete with the current alliances in the next few years is declared on. Its a "if your not with us, your against us" policy. Anyone not in the large hegemony is a threat that needs to be killed as soon as possible.

Essentially, there is no middle ground. If an alliance has a serious international incident and leaves the treaty block, they get declared on almost immediately after. People don't just stop being friends with an alliance if the alliance does something they don't agree with. The alliance instantly becomes an enemy.

I think the NpO proved this well enough. Even after they kicked out Electron Sponge and made moves to reform to NPOs standards, they were declared on. It had already been decided that NpO posed a slight potential threat and needed to be destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me preface this by saying I have not been active on planet Bob for long, and that I love the NPO and the camaraderie that I feel as a member of it. Also, I of course don't speak for the NPO, simply as a curious denizen of planet Bob. With that said, I wanted the community's opinion on why Vox/FAN/ are so hateful towards NPO, and, admittedly, vice-versa. The way I see it, we have our differences in thought, but I certainly don't see why anytime a discussion comes up about either group it quickly devolves into mudslinging and name-calling. Even worse, discussions that have nothing really to do with Vox nor NPO have a way of careening suddenly down a path filled with the same taunts and repartee one would find in an elementary school playground. I suppose my question, then, is why? We have our differences. We will always have our differences. Why do we allow our differences to cloud our emotions and our actions?

Discuss.

[OOC]I ask this mostly in-character, but I'm also curious if anyone finds this to be the case out-of-character as well.[/OOC]

Well because NPOs been at war with FAN for two years, Its time to let go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bunch of fantastic replies, I appreciate everyone not simply taking the chance to troll this thread and actually have a real discussion. I'm not gonna quote and reply to each of the great posts, but Windsor, yours in particular was very informative. Also, thanks to President ShinRa for the very well-written PM I was sent. I posed the question in the OP because I am glad to have found this game and have enjoyed my two months in it so far. However, one of the things that bothers me is the animosity that I have seen and felt amongst many persons of different alliances. Yes, CN has a huge part that is war. CN without war would be... well, it'd be a different game that starts with N and ends with States :P, I suppose. My issue is that in-character animosity seems to cross the IC/OOC line. My example of this is AirMe's CN Radio talk show from about three or four weeks ago, when Litha, an NPOer, was on the panel with people such as Electron Sponge and others of the Vox resistance movement. What was a civil discussion turned increasingly more and more hostile towards Litha, as the sole member of Pacifica present. That, to me, is unacceptable.

From an OOC perspective, I am extremely glad that Vox exists. They provide an endless source of entertainment - I've sung Schatt's praises in an earlier post - and I enjoy the fact that they play the game a different way than I do and yet still seem to enjoy it as much as me. What is mildly upsetting, and led to the writing of the OP (there was no single event, to answer an earlier question, that made me write this - it's something I've been thinking of for a while), was when I realized I, as an NPOer, could be attacked simply for my affiliation in the Order. Vox and NPO certainly have their differences, and will, it seems, always have their differences. I just wish we could keep the conflict that arises from those differences IC and OOC realize that all of us are playing this game no matter what AA we fly for a little entertainment.

As for FAN... man, I'm not sure. I've certainly learned quite a bit more from this thread about a lot of the history I've been foggy on and, to be honest, I do understand the animosity both IC and, to a point, OOC, FAN feels. Not saying that certain Vox members haven't also been the victims of OOC attacks (not all Order members are perfect and civil, which should serve as a newsflash to none), but, from their perspective, FAN certainly has legitimate grievances. I'm just a foot soldier - though not a mindless pawn :P - so I'm certainly not the one to address those, but I do appreciate being schooled on them.

As an aside: I looked at the guidelines for this forum, and, sure enough, it's OOC. I had no idea, but now I do. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, lol

Edited by farrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me preface this by saying I have not been active on planet Bob for long, and that I love the NPO and the camaraderie that I feel as a member of it. Also, I of course don't speak for the NPO, simply as a curious denizen of planet Bob. With that said, I wanted the community's opinion on why Vox/FAN/ are so hateful towards NPO, and, admittedly, vice-versa. The way I see it, we have our differences in thought, but I certainly don't see why anytime a discussion comes up about either group it quickly devolves into mudslinging and name-calling. Even worse, discussions that have nothing really to do with Vox nor NPO have a way of careening suddenly down a path filled with the same taunts and repartee one would find in an elementary school playground. I suppose my question, then, is why? We have our differences. We will always have our differences. Why do we allow our differences to cloud our emotions and our actions?

Discuss.

[OOC]I ask this mostly in-character, but I'm also curious if anyone finds this to be the case out-of-character as well.[/OOC]

Because NPO betrayed FAN twice in a row? And because NPO doesn't let people play the game, at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TAKE THIS GAME WAY TOO SERIOUSLY.

Now not going about your IC (if there is a difference) views on in game politics towards which I could hardly agree and see them as complete nonsense because I do not want to get bothered with that in an OOC area and not even touching the "legit" script thing because there is no need to, while I do find it funny you would even want to go there because you do not have a first clue about what you are talking about and how that about which you talk about actually works but that never stopped people from talking (lol), I will just address this.

While playing this game, I have noticed, as I already pointed out in my first post here, that a lot of people get taken by the in game politics and I never found any in game side, group or association to be actually more deep into it then any other. On that note, I never took that people playing within the NPO took the game more seriously then people playing anywhere else. I never got that feeling and do not know on what that assumption could even be based, and I have been a part of the community for a long time. The game has the same "effect" on people all around, always had.

Edited by Branimir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, farrin.

I think the most over-looked aspect of this scenario is that the more power you have, the more responsibility you hold. I find it to be a common theme where those that want power do not seem to want the responsibility that it comes with - beginning the roots for the "blame game". It's so much harder to point the finger at someone else when all you have to do is say "it was us". Yet, playing the "blame game" seems to be the preferred method in the world of inter-alliance PR.

Those that don't have such an intimate understanding of the inner-workings of the cyberverse don't see just how powerful NPO really is. On the surface, they are the largest alliance in the game, and have enough allies to make them virtually untouchable. Below that surface, they hold the power to choose who plays this game, and who doesn't.... far more power than any alliance should have, in my opinion. FAN is the brightest example of motivated and determined players in the cyberverse. I can't think of one alliance that wouldn't have disbanded by now if they had been in FAN's shoes. This goes much deeper than a simple political statement - they understand that changes should be made and have devoted themselves to bringing that change.

Meanwhile, the halls of Pacifica are filled with echoes of the whaling and groaning of Pacificans who are tired of peace-time. They helped to create it, and their support of NPO helps to perpetuate it - and they simply aren't making that simple connection. For them, it's like they're hitting themselves in the head with a frying pan and crying that it hurts - each time they collect taxes and pay bills under the NPO AA, over and over again.

I think the most despicable crowd of all, however, are those who won't stand up for their own beliefs. Personally, I'd love to see NPO mop the floor with them. But then again, we'll never see that, because those are the people that NPO counts on to give it its power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been here from the beginning. I've been an ally of The Order, and I've been an enemy for even longer. I've seen their true colors time and time again. In the beginning, I was never a fan of their aggressive policies and their chokehold on the game, so I fought them. How funny it is that I miss that Pacifica. A worthy, and fun opponent who never held an enemy down.

When we defeated them, they changed, and a new leader took over. Ever since the time of Dilber's rule, and even more so under the rule of Moo, they have become snakes infecting the game with their venomous playing style. Under their rule the game has lost over 10,000 total players, countless alliances, and a ridiculous amount of players have been placed on PZI, including myself on multiple occassions.

In the Third Great War, I led Guns of Glory into battle, and was denied the chance at peace for inciting war against Pacifica, when I merely honored a MADP my alliance held. I was kept there until the Unjust War, so nearly a year just for that. After that, they never took their hateful eye off me. I was put back on PZI for getting in a verbal spat with Josef Thorne that was highlighted by me saying you can't trust Pacifica. So I was given multiple more months of ZI for merely speaking my mind. I was then let off and told if I got on again I would never get off. I later founded the First Vox Populi, and was hounded by the NPO and friends merely because of who I am. I later finally moved to the IAA, who later fell victim to a war with Pacifica and allies, and was denied peace and forced to disband. I was held in POW for over 90 days and attacked by Pacifica, the one protecting me multiple times, and was told it was a mistake, yet no reps were offered and the attacker went unpunished. Around this time I realized that while I was not PZI at the time, that Pacifica would never let go of past grudges and would never let me play like a normal player, regardless of my actions. So, I decided to found Vox Populi again to combat them, and I have earned my EZI status with pride.

Not to mention, this is a very, very brief history of mine with Pacifica. I have far more grievances than those mentioned. So, I do not love or respect Pacifica because we are enemies, and always will be. I will show them respect when they learn how to let the past be the past. The world cannot thrive with the iron grip of a tyrant around it's throat, and I will hate and fight Pacifica until they find out how it feels to be told "You can't play this game."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention, this is a very, very brief history of mine with Pacifica. I have far more grievances than those mentioned. So, I do not love or respect Pacifica because we are enemies, and always will be. I will show them respect when they learn how to let the past be the past. The world cannot thrive with the iron grip of a tyrant around it's throat, and I will hate and fight Pacifica until they find out how it feels to be told "You can't play this game."

If you do that, you will become the very thing you strive most against. I know you well and you are a good friend, Starfox, and I must say, if you ever are victorious and NPO comes crumbling down, I would pray that you would not push for any EZI sentences. You may hate them, and that hate may be reciprocated, but to do the very thing to them that you most despise would be to undermine all that you have worked for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do that, you will become the very thing you strive most against. I know you well and you are a good friend, Starfox, and I must say, if you ever are victorious and NPO comes crumbling down, I would pray that you would not push for any EZI sentences. You may hate them, and that hate may be reciprocated, but to do the very thing to them that you most despise would be to undermine all that you have worked for.

You know I wouldn't Chimaera. I will say that many deserve it, and I would love for them to see how it feels, but it would never come from my hands. I am far too soft to ever do it, to ever tell anyone they can't do something they enjoy. I would of course, love to see them humbled, groveling at my feet for peace. A defeated Pacifica is all I wish to see, not a dead Pacifica, which is the difference between them and I, because if they had their way I would be dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is mildly upsetting [...] was when I realized I, as an NPOer, could be attacked simply for my affiliation in the Order

What? I mean, you went to war with FAN and with Vox. Any Vox member can be attacked simply for his affiliation. I don't understand why this is a surprise to you or upsetting. At least you can move to another alliance and not have to deal with difficult surrender terms if you find it too much of a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not nor ever will I hold a position in this matter, for it is far outside of my experience and 200+ days of playing. Though I must admit I find the whole thing rather pointless and trivial. Not for lack of knowledge, but rather for a wholehearted disinterest in becoming involved in so passionate and emotional a !@#$%*fest that Vox v. NPO has become, and perhaps always has been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because NPO betrayed FAN twice in a row? And because NPO doesn't let people play the game, at all?

Do you even have a clue about how the FAN-WUT war started or what the cb was? I was in FAN and since then I have been very good friends with the person that provided the primary cb and discussed the war with top government from various alliances involved in the war. FAN's ridiculous government actions earned that war 10x over. The main reason FAN can never get peace is because of their open spying. An alliance who's primary method of war is spying can never be trusted with surrender. The same stands for Vox. There is simply no way to enforce the surrender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you even have a clue about how the FAN-WUT war started or what the cb was? I was in FAN and since then I have been very good friends with the person that provided the primary cb and discussed the war with top government from various alliances involved in the war. FAN's ridiculous government actions earned that war 10x over. The main reason FAN can never get peace is because of their open spying. An alliance who's primary method of war is spying can never be trusted with surrender. The same stands for Vox. There is simply no way to enforce the surrender.

You act as if your allies don't spy on Vox.

But that's totally okay, right?!

Edited by MegaAros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you even have a clue about how the FAN-WUT war started or what the cb was? I was in FAN and since then I have been very good friends with the person that provided the primary cb and discussed the war with top government from various alliances involved in the war. FAN's ridiculous government actions earned that war 10x over. The main reason FAN can never get peace is because of their open spying. An alliance who's primary method of war is spying can never be trusted with surrender. The same stands for Vox. There is simply no way to enforce the surrender.

Kinda like how GGA spies on Vox even though it's against their charter, right? In fact, if I remember right, GGA has had a long history with spies, I wonder who else they could be spying on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you even have a clue about how the FAN-WUT war started or what the cb was? I was in FAN and since then I have been very good friends with the person that provided the primary cb and discussed the war with top government from various alliances involved in the war. FAN's ridiculous government actions earned that war 10x over. The main reason FAN can never get peace is because of their open spying. An alliance who's primary method of war is spying can never be trusted with surrender. The same stands for Vox. There is simply no way to enforce the surrender.

You are correct in that the first FAN-WUT war was necessary due to FAN's actions.

However those peace terms they accepted were a trap because in order to follow them, they would have to violate them in order to stay out of self inflicted anarchy.

How? Let me explain.

At the time you had to select from a predetermined list of how many troops to buy.

You could enter in an exact number of troops to disband, similar to how you can now enter in an exact number of troops to buy.

The terms stated that FAN could keep only the amount of troops necessary to keep their population happy. NPO took that to mean a maximum of 20% troops. The game mechanics at the time made that to be impossible for several reasons.

1) If you did an infra jump, you would have to buy troops at your current level in order to keep yourself out of anarchy. That would require that nation to be at higher than 20% troops for a brief time before they bought their infrastructure, before they could decom their troops to be in compliance.

2) If someone raided FAN, which happened numerous times, when the 3 day anarchy period was over, that nation would want to buy troops to keep them out of anarchy. Lacking the game mechanics to do so, they would have to buy a amount of troops that would put them at greater than the 20% limit, before decomming troops to be in compliance.

Those terms could not be followed if they were to mean 20% max troops. In order to follow those terms, if indeed they were meant to be 20% troops, that would require FAN nations to violate those terms before being able to comply with them.

Simply put, those terms were made to give the NPO and friends a CB to hit FAN. NPO never intended to give FAN a chance, and wanted to blitz FAN again before FAN was able to remiliterize.

The 1st FAN war was justified, the 2nd was not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...