Why I just surrendered

[Sal Paradise]

Er, no. You implied that readers here have more knowledge of the workings of the NPO than members of NPO there, indicating that NPO members there are somehow incapable of being here and reading it for themselves. While you were busy failing at being superior, you also failed at basic thought.

Damnit... I have to actually spell it out for you, don't I? Here's the thing, your observation isn't that brilliant. I knew that I was at risk of implying that (something I didn't mean) when I wrote it, so I was specific with my words. This is where reading comprehension comes into play.

The average member of any alliance doesn't read the forums. The average OWF reader likely reads TWiP (one of the most popular publications on the forums), and reads the posts of the many Ghosts of Pacifica Past, who often provide fairly revealing information about the nature of the NPO. How many Pacificans do you think will read what Mussolandia wrote in this thread? And yet the average OWF reader probably will, making them all the more informed about the NPO than the average Pacifican.

So as you still probably can't see, I never 'indicated' that NPO members are incapable of being here.

[Hymenbreach]

Go, on keep ignoring the dozens of alliances that NPO is responsible for destroying, they'll be forgotten soon enough.

Killing billons of people =/= destroying alliances. Try getting a better grip on reality.

Also, an alliance can't be destroyed without the permission of its members. I know of what I speak.

[Hymenbreach]

Damnit... I have to actually spell it out for you, don't I? Here's the thing, your observation isn't that brilliant. I knew that I was at risk of implying that (something I didn't mean) when I wrote it, so I was specific with my words. This is where reading comprehension comes into play.

The average member of any alliance doesn't read the forums. The average OWF reader likely reads TWiP (one of the most popular publications on the forums), and reads the posts of the many Ghosts of Pacifica Past, who often provide fairly revealing information about the nature of the NPO. How many Pacificans do you think will read what Mussolandia wrote in this thread? And yet the average OWF reader probably will, making them all the more informed about the NPO than the average Pacifican.

So as you still probably can't see, I never 'indicated' that NPO members are incapable of being here.

No, you're making an assumption. An assumption that needs people to never visit this site, never speak to anyone who has visited this site, that NPO members are so insular and brain dead that they believe everything they are told (although any group tends to engender a certain amount of group think - Karma is not immune here.) It is also a conceit to believe that because you have 'seen the light' anyone who disagrees with you is either blind or is being prevented from illumination.

[Orkules]

Killing billons of people =/= destroying alliances. Try getting a better grip on reality.

Also, an alliance can't be destroyed without the permission of its members. I know of what I speak.

In this game it's as close as it gets. It obliterates communities and drives out players.

Yes an alliance can't be destroyed unless it's members let it (see FAN and Vox, probably the only really good examples I can think of). However, NPO will do everything in it's power to make staying alive so impossibly hellish that only the fanatic would try to stay under those circumstances (You know you are FAN and Vox!). They will do all that they can to destroy the community. Once the alliance is dead, the members drift apart and many quit. That's pretty much the worst thing you can do in this game and it seems to be their favorite tactic.

[Hymenbreach]

In this game it's as close as it gets. It obliterates communities and drives out players.

Yes an alliance can't be destroyed unless it's members let it (see FAN and Vox, probably the only really good examples I can think of). However, NPO will do everything in it's power to make staying alive so impossibly hellish that only the fanatic would try to stay under those circumstances (You know you are FAN and Vox!). They will do all that they can to destroy the community. Once the alliance is dead, the members drift apart and many quit. That's pretty much the worst thing you can do in this game and it seems to be their favorite tactic.

Good points, intelligently made and respectfully put.

[Sal Paradise]

Killing billons of people =/= destroying alliances. Try getting a better grip on reality.

How do you expect people destroy alliances? With puppies? People gotta die in these wars. Yeah, Legion caved in without a fight, but not every alliance does that.

[hiawatha]

Also, an alliance can't be destroyed without the permission of its members. I know of what I speak.

That would take an alliance of sterner stuff than NPO.

...ala FAN. Funny how that works.

[Hymenbreach]

How do you expect people destroy alliances? With puppies? People gotta die in these wars. Yeah, Legion caved in without a fight, but not every alliance does that.

Bad points, stupidly made and disrepectfully put.

[Sal Paradise]

No, you're making an assumption. An assumption that needs people to never visit this site, never speak to anyone who has visited this site, that NPO members are so insular and brain dead that they believe everything they are told (although any group tends to engender a certain amount of group think - Karma is not immune here.)

Assumption? It's a known fact.

It is also a conceit to believe that because you have 'seen the light' anyone who disagrees with you is either blind or is being prevented from illumination.

Are you implying that I believe others are incapable of 'seeing the light'? I don't believe I have said anything remotely related to that. In fact, I mentioned some people people that have seen the light in my earlier response to you. This forum is full of people that have 'seen the light'. Why do you keep reading things that aren't there?

Edited April 29, 2009 by Sal Paradise

[Sal Paradise]

Bad points, stupidly made and disrepectfully put.

I see with logic having failed you, strawmen having failed you, you have to resort to dismissal and hypocrisy. Disrepectfully [sic] put indeed.

Personally, I have no problem with disrespect. So you won't see me complaining about it, let alone being disrespectful while doing it.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Sal Paradise

[Hymenbreach]

I see with logic having failed you, strawmen having failed you, you have to resort to dismissal and hypocrisy. Disrepectfully [sic] put indeed.

Personally, I have no problem with disrespect. So you won't see me complaining about it, let alone being disrespectful while doing it.

I certainly wouldn't resort to top drawer debating tactics like pointing out typing errors as signs of a weak argument.

So, you want a fuller answer?

The Legion surrendered because it was in the wrong. We didn't try to spin the result to make NPO look like liars or plotters. Two of our leaders did a stupid thing to Valhalla and then did another stupid thing in trying to evade responsibility via disbandment. Accepting responsibility, we surrendered to NPO and discovered they are not the monsters of modern myth. The Legion members decided to accept that punishment because it was the honourable thing, the right thing to do. We didn't do it to be popular or just to continue to exist, we did it because it was right.

Just as we believe it is right to fight for your brothers and sisters during war, or serve some other way if you believe the war is wrong. Hate The Legion if you must, but you can't deny our loyalty to each other.

[Orkules]

I do think Legion did the best it could with the situation it had at hand. This is not discussing the reason for the war (I honestly can't remember the details, I believe it was during one of my periods of relative inactivity and not giving a crap) or how I feel about you becoming one of NPO's loyal allies afterwards, they honestly have nothing to do with Legion's surrender.

Legion had turmoil in government and membership, a terrible collapse of PR due to the disbandment thing (if I remember correctly anyway), and was getting the living hell beat out of them. I cannot blame them for jumping on the chance to surrender even if the terms were terrible (again, that is based off of memory, they might not have actually been that bad and I could be thinking of somebody else's terms).

However, a lot of alliances were not given your opportunity. FAN has not been for example. Other's do exist. Just the same there are those that when given such terms would rather disband than force their members to live in chains (from their point of view and honestly I agree with them). My own, beloved TDSM8 died of the surrender terms we had no hope of realisticly completing. They slowly starved us and drove us to inactivity as we lacked the ability to finish the terms and thus the ability to continue truly growing as an alliance.

[Sal Paradise]

I certainly wouldn't resort to top drawer debating tactics like pointing out typing errors as signs of a weak argument.

Part of my argument is your apparent lack of reading skills, as you have consistently misinterpreted what I've written. Your inability to spell is fair game in such an argument. Furthermore, in that post you said my argument was stupidly made, and yet you fail to proofread your work. This goes together with the rest of my post that accused you of hypocrisy for being disrespectful while deriding my disrespect.

[Orkules]

You join an alliance for mutual support. You don't have to agree with everything that alliance wants you to do. If you have strong enough views against a war (for example), don't fight. Go into peace mode and support in other ways. Keep telling your alliance they are wrong until the argument is lost/forgotten or won.

How exactly can you support your alliance from peace mode? Like seriously? You can't send aid. So that leaves moral support. "Shouting go team go!" from peace mode while crying that the war is not right really won't get you far. Honestly, I'd be more pissed off at a member who went into peace mode and started talking about how much he disagrees with the path we're taking.

If he's going to to stay with us and fix us from the inside he needs to be willing to do what we need him to do. If he's not willing to fight, then he needs to go and surrender. Maybe we'll let him back in when the war ends if we believe his view point is justified. He really can't have it both ways. If Legion has the policy that you can go into peace mode when you disagree with the war and there are no negative consequences, I feel for the chaos that could easily ensue.

I don't like surrenders. TDSM8 never had a member surrender during wartime. However, we were also a much smaller alliance that kept it's general members highly informed on what was coming and the details as to why. Those are both things I very much doubt can be said about the NPO. When we knew we were going into the slaughter that was the BAPS War we gave everyone almost a full week to decide if they would march with us or not, and the details to make an informed decision. We did similar things before the NoCB War. Nobody left, but the option was open. Obviously I understand such forwarning is not always possible and that it becomes even harder in an alliance the size of NPO. However, I do think they keep their members far too in the dark to not expect things like this to come and to try and compensate for it by threatening members really only makes the situation worse.

In this case I will support the surrendering member. However, in some cases I will not. There is almost nothing in life that I don't try to approach with an open mind and I always try to see both sides (Yes I know I fail at it a lot but at least I put forth the effort, which is more than I can say for many people here *OOC* or in the real world *OOC*).

[Hymenbreach]

How exactly can you support your alliance from peace mode? Like seriously? You can't send aid. So that leaves moral support. "Shouting go team go!" from peace mode while crying that the war is not right really won't get you far. Honestly, I'd be more pissed off at a member who went into peace mode and started talking about how much he disagrees with the path we're taking.

If he's going to to stay with us and fix us from the inside he needs to be willing to do what we need him to do. If he's not willing to fight, then he needs to go and surrender. Maybe we'll let him back in when the war ends if we believe his view point is justified. He really can't have it both ways. If Legion has the policy that you can go into peace mode when you disagree with the war and there are no negative consequences, I feel for the chaos that could easily ensue.

I answered this earlier. Non fighting members can help rebuild (as you said yourself), he can also help with organization (forum work) or spamming or advising those members who's activity increases with war and may not be aware of the basics of alliance mores and etiquette. There is more to being in an alliance than war fighting, even during times of war.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Hymenbreach

[Hobgoblin70]

I certainly wouldn't resort to top drawer debating tactics like pointing out typing errors as signs of a weak argument.

So, you want a fuller answer?

The Legion surrendered because it was in the wrong. We didn't try to spin the result to make NPO look like liars or plotters. Two of our leaders did a stupid thing to Valhalla and then did another stupid thing in trying to evade responsibility via disbandment. Accepting responsibility, we surrendered to NPO and discovered they are not the monsters of modern myth. The Legion members decided to accept that punishment because it was the honourable thing, the right thing to do. We didn't do it to be popular or just to continue to exist, we did it because it was right.

Just as we believe it is right to fight for your brothers and sisters during war, or serve some other way if you believe the war is wrong. Hate The Legion if you must, but you can't deny our loyalty to each other.

Be consistent here...the OP surrendered because he thought the NPO was in the wrong. Instead of being called honorable you advocate his destruction. But the Legion, you say, did the honorable thing by surrendering and accepting punishment for the stupid thing its leaders did. Why didn't you stay loyal to them and fight to the end?

[Ivan Moldavi]

You know, in a way, I will miss the NPO and that good laugh they provide every now and then as I watch them shoot themselves in the foot.

ETA: Quality members, a quality alliance makes. Its a shame the NPO has none.

The NPO has a vast number of quality members. Leadership can change and errors can be made in judgement and action but the community as a whole in Pacifica is one of the best and strongest in the Cyberverse. It always has been.

[Timoteo]

I do find it interesting that the same people who railed against FAN for being in peace mode and also proclaimed that each one of us who had been in peace mode during our war deserved perma-ZI now has their top 28 players all in peace mode (as of the time of this post). According to the OP all the government is in peace mode too, though I don't really know about that.

So, either it turns out that either...

1) insisting on your opponent being in war mode is unfair and unreasonable

or

2) NPO folks are pretty big hypocrites

Edited April 29, 2009 by Timoteo

[Ivan Moldavi]

In times of war the only hypocrites are those that you make believe themselves to be such.

Usage of terms and indications of double standards rarely actually hold up unless they hit a nerve with the intended target. Take the NSO blasting TPF for declaring only on them instead of STA as well. The leader of NSO called TPF hypocrites because they didn't respond universally but the reality is that they did respond in more capacity than many originally gave them credit for and believe possible.

It was a jab in the hopes of getting a few hits in on their overall membership morale and nothing more. It is completely unrealistic to believe that every action by an alliance will be universally the same in every instance in every conflict.

That being said, I believe it is pretty standard practice to maintain some of your highest level nations in peace mode during the active combat so that they can fund the rebuilding effort later on, correct?

I personally don't know anything about that because I never spent a war in peace mode and was often just sent to ZI, caring very little for my nation specific infrastructure level as such things rarely actually matter in the world of CN "politics".

[flak attack]

That being said, I believe it is pretty standard practice to maintain some of your highest level nations in peace mode during the active combat so that they can fund the rebuilding effort later on, correct?

Not for the past year or so. According to the NPO, it's cowardice, so they decided no one should be able to do it (in other words, they were really pissed that a lot of the GPA top nations got away by hiding in peace mode). See the GATO-1V war and the NoCB war surrender terms if you want to see proof.

[Chigurh]

Like it or not, NPO's future is either hiding in peace mode, or eventual surrender and existing as a substaintially diminished power who need to make "nice-nice" with other alliances.

Either scenario makes tracking down "deserters" who move on to other alliances due to their own leaders bad judgement...problomatic at best...

[Ivan Moldavi]

Like it or not, NPO's future is either hiding in peace mode, or eventual surrender and existing as a substaintially diminished power who need to make "nice-nice" with other alliances.

Either scenario makes tracking down "deserters" who move on to other alliances due to their own leaders bad judgement...problomatic at best...

From my experience, Pacifica has a long long memory. Problematic isn't the same as impossible.

I remember being forced to play nice for a while. It left a bad taste in my mouth. Much of what Pacifica is today I helped to create, and while I accept my share of the blame for some political mistakes I also accept some level of pride in the resolve of the community there.

Further, as a former Emperor, I am still a member there, even though they have seen fit to remove my access for the duration of the ongoing conflict due to my alliance upholding its honor, and as such I have a certain level of kinship with those suffering today.

Among all the Cyberverse I am one of the very special few that has had the privilege of leading such an outstanding group of nations and I have to admit that when I saw the mass cancellations at the onset of this war I was myself almost drawn to their aid, even if I have had disagreement in the past with certain parts of the leadership apparatus.

I am only hoping that I can make the Sith into something comparable (camaraderie-wise) over time and just caution those that speak of the demise of Pacifica too swiftly. It has faced death before.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Ivan Moldavi

[Ludacrism2]

@ Original Poster

Good Post though you should have left.

Good post anyway.

@Ivan

I believe what OP said was true. Some members of NPO talk to others in a degrading tone and make everyone feel inferior. Actually, they TRY to make them feel inferior meaning it doesn't work with everyone. Those people are then isolated and basically destroyed be it physically or mentally.

If this sort of attitude was changed, I would have no problem applying to NPO after these wars were over. I applied once and even then I felt the sense of superiority some pacificans hold over others.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Ludacrism2

[Electron Sponge]

I am only hoping that I can make the Sith into something comparable (camaraderie-wise) over time and just caution those that speak of the demise of Pacifica too swiftly. It has faced death before.

In previous times of trouble it had reserves to call upon, glitches to exploit, and untapped diplomatic avenues to draw new allies from. I am not sure people fully appreciate the dissatisfaction and outright mistrust that the current NPO regime have caused globally. I'd be surprised if anyone wanted much to do with them for quite some time. As you and I have both learned from experience, the bridges burning behind you may light your way but there's no going back.

I wonder what NPO's situation would be had the coup that overthrew you would have failed, Ivan. The world would be a very different place, that's for sure.

[Ludacrism2]

I agree with ES, the current govt of NPO have planted the seed of distrust.