Justice For Traitors

[bzelger]

I disagree. What's the fun in sitting by yourself and not being able to interact with the game? If they wanted to do that they all would have joined the GPA.

[Cirrus]

Except it isn't, for two reasons.

1. I only trust a few treaties in the game and none of them were forced. A forced treaty is just as good as no treaty.

2. A NAP with everyone might as well be a NAP with no one. We've seen good examples of people getting stuck with treaties on both sides in this war. Either they went neutral or they dropped one side. A global NAP would be like that times ten.

Not to speak for Sponge, but...

1) The idea isn't to force a treaty on NPO, it's to keep them from signing any treaties (and thus regaining a position of strength). NPO's hegemony has been based not on its own power, but on its ability to control the flow of politics on Bob via the combined strength of its treaty partners. Keeping NPO from building a new web of treaty partners will keep them from regaining power over the rest of the world but at the same time would not punish NPO in any way that would harm its individual nations. They would be completely free of reparations or foreign rule, but would be contained from global power.

2) There would be little danger of NPO breaking the NAP and attacking anyone, because anyone else would be connected to the MDP web and have allies, and on top of that any attack by NPO would constitute a breaking of the terms of peace. There would be some danger that someone else would break the NAP and attack NPO, but then it would be that individual alliance that "broke karma" rather than the whole group negotiating the terms of the current war. Also, such an attack would be costly, because presumably NPO would remain strong as an individual alliance.

Sponge's solution very elegantly both contains NPO and gets the onus off of karma to make sure everybody is nice to each other all the time. It completely solves the two main post-war problems facing the current leadership.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Cirrus

[Ragashingo]

1. Who cares what you trust? Really. It doesn't matter who trusts what as long as it is enforced as policy by all signatories. You can sit off by yourself and mutter into your tinfoil breath mask/balaclava combo about how that blanket NAP is really a sham. The rest of us will enjoy our time free of NPO shenanigans.

2. That's only if there are other treaties conflicting. Since NPO wouldn't be allowed to have any other treaties but nonaggression pacts there would be no conflict of interest. There would also be no attacking them because people already said they wouldn't. We're declawing them and pulling out their fangs. They've been beating people over the heads with a gigantic collection of treaties for two and a half years and a lot of people are getting tired of the same old "NPO and friends 'catch' someone doing something wrong through mysterious, not thouroughly explained means, and curbstomp them" cycle that we've been stuck in.

All it takes for this to work would be for the leaders of the different alliances to actually support it, and not be a nattering nabob of negativism like Ragashingo here. The theory behind it is sound. If you don't let NPO swing around 80-100 million in other alliances' nation strength they aren't going to be quite so brave. They'll learn to behave or if they don't then we'll revisit this discussion and start to consider the more extreme options.

Bah. I surrender!

I guess my final problem is I don't want to look like I have double standards. I'd be one of the first to cry out if the NPO imposed a treaty on someone so I don't really want to impose one on them. It would probably work if we could pull it off, but it could also work exactly as well as that GW1 apology. They'd sign a MDP in a few months and some people would whine about it while doing exactly nothing.

Negativity FT(W/L)

[Electron Sponge]

I disagree. What's the fun in sitting by yourself and not being able to interact with the game? If they wanted to do that they all would have joined the GPA.

What's the fun in having your alliance shot out from underneath you because some socially maladjusted pathological liar gets a bee in his bonnet and decides that he doesn't like you? Because that's what you get with NPO and their allies currently, and in the future unless they are diplomatically isolated in perpetuity. They have played divide and conquer with the rest of us for three and a half years. It's time for us to stop dancing to the tune they call, and that means putting them in a box.

And they can interact with other alliances just fine, they just can't use them as weapons against the rest of us anymore!

Edited May 5, 2009 by Electron Sponge

[Franz Ferdinand]

What goes around comes around. Please, let this war last longer, less peace terms, more fighting. I want to see people baying for blood, nations nuked into the ground.

This is the only way in which we can develop. With the death of the old ways, and the formation of the new ones.

[bzelger]

I'm not defending the way the NPO has been playing the game, and I'm not going to stoop to playing it their way. Neutering an alliance forever is as bad as trying to force their disbandment.

I agree that they present us with a hard problem to solve and that measures need to be taken to keep them from returning to their crap methodologies, but I find your solution unconscionable.

[Cirrus]

OK. Well, we need a solution that both contains NPO and satisfies the karma requirement. If you don't like that one, what's your suggestion?

What about the alternate suggestion I made in another thread to limit NPO's total alliance NS, perhaps as a ranking ("NPO's TNS may not exceed that of the XXth largest alliance)? Frankly that's not as good as Sponge's suggestion because NPO would still be able to find meatshield treaty partners, but it could be something to work with.

Or what about letting NPO sign MDPs, but limiting the number.

Or coupling the global NAP idea with a protectorate status.

If none of these ideas work, we need something that will. Anybody have a fresh idea?

Edited May 5, 2009 by Cirrus

[Haflinger]

Pretty much what Sponge said, except that trying to turn the NPO into the GPA is probably not going to work. bzelger's criticisms are correct.

I would also note that Sponge's blanket-NAP proposal pretty much destroys the Revenge Doctrine, as all alliances currently at war with them would be immune to it.

[Electron Sponge]

I'm not defending the way the NPO has been playing the game, and I'm not going to stoop to playing it their way. Neutering an alliance forever is as bad as trying to force their disbandment.

I agree that they present us with a hard problem to solve and that measures need to be taken to keep them from returning to their crap methodologies, but I find your solution unconscionable.

Then what would you do? If something as mild as ensuring that they don't reestablish their powerbase in order to continue with their abusive tactics is "unconscionable" (lol, btw, waaaaay too dramatic) I am interested to see what sort of terms you'd offer them. Perhaps a complimentary hot towel and shoulder massage?

I really believe that a simple diplomatic isolation enforced by the threat of overwhelming firepower descending upon them in the event of this isolation being broken is a satisfactory solution.

Pretty much what Sponge said, except that trying to turn the NPO into the GPA is probably not going to work. bzelger's criticisms are correct.

I would also note that Sponge's blanket-NAP proposal pretty much destroys the Revenge Doctrine, as all alliances currently at war with them would be immune to it.

What criticisms? All he's said is that it won't work and that it's like perma-ZI, which really doesn't speak to why it won't work. Also how can you agree with what I said and say that bzelger is correct, since he doesn't agree with me? Why won't it work? Also any NPO claim to exclusivity in the red sphere needs to go as a result of this war anyway.

I know what I'm talking about here. This is the best way to go if you're squeamish about harsh reps and you don't feel like having NPO knocking on your door 3 months from now.

[RandomInterrupt]

OK. Well, we need a solution that both contains NPO and satisfies the karma requirement. If you don't like that one, what's your suggestion?

What about the alternate suggestion I made in another thread to limit NPO's total alliance NS, perhaps as a ranking ("NPO's TNS may not exceed that of the XXth largest alliance)? Frankly that's not as good as Sponge's suggestion because NPO would still be able to find meatshield treaty partners, but it could be something to work with.

Or what about letting NPO sign MDPs, but limiting the number.

Or coupling the global NAP idea with a protectorate status.

If none of these ideas work, we need something that will.

I like these ideas. The concept of allowing the NPO to survive as a community is great. By limiting their ability to manipulate others to do their dirty work they can continue to be an alliance and also learn what it's like to fight your own battles. When they need to make decisions with the knowledge that said decisions are not backed by half the alliances in the game... I think we'd see some real improvement.

Pretty much what Sponge said, except that trying to turn the NPO into the GPA is probably not going to work. bzelger's criticisms are correct.

I would also note that Sponge's blanket-NAP proposal pretty much destroys the Revenge Doctrine, as all alliances currently at war with them would be immune to it.

The Revenge Doctrine is a status of the NPOs strength. As such, I don't have a problem with it failing.

[D34th]

1. Who cares what you trust? Really. It doesn't matter who trusts what as long as it is enforced as policy by all signatories. You can sit off by yourself and mutter into your tinfoil breath mask/balaclava combo about how that blanket NAP is really a sham. The rest of us will enjoy our time free of NPO shenanigans.

2. That's only if there are other treaties conflicting. Since NPO wouldn't be allowed to have any other treaties but nonaggression pacts there would be no conflict of interest. There would also be no attacking them because people already said they wouldn't. We're declawing them and pulling out their fangs. They've been beating people over the heads with a gigantic collection of treaties for two and a half years and a lot of people are getting tired of the same old "NPO and friends 'catch' someone doing something wrong through mysterious, not thouroughly explained means, and curbstomp them" cycle that we've been stuck in.

All it takes for this to work would be for the leaders of the different alliances to actually support it, and not be a nattering nabob of negativism like Ragashingo here. The theory behind it is sound. If you don't let NPO swing around 80-100 million in other alliances' nation strength they aren't going to be quite so brave. They'll learn to behave or if they don't then we'll revisit this discussion and start to consider the more extreme options.

This blanket NAP thing reminds me GPA DoN, I'm sure you remember what happened with them. No treaty will stop an alliance or a group of attack another one if they really want to. But I'm sure that you know it, you are ES

[Electron Sponge]

This blanket NAP thing reminds me GPA DoN, I'm sure you remember what happened with them. No treaty will stop an alliance or a group of attack another one if they really want to. But I'm sure that you know it, you are ES

Yeah I remember what happened to GPA, they got rolled by NPO for no good reason.

Tell me again why isolating NPO is bad?

[Haflinger]

What criticisms? All he's said is that it won't work and that it's like perma-ZI, which really doesn't speak to why it won't work. Also how can you agree with what I said and say that bzelger is correct, since he doesn't agree with me? Why won't it work? Also any NPO claim to exclusivity in the red sphere needs to go as a result of this war anyway.

It won't work because you're trying to take away a part of the game that is what is interesting to the NPO. Any self-respecting Pacifican isn't going to give in to a regime imposed from without that effectively removes them from the game political structure. I know this is what you want to do, but be realistic. Their reaction to such an attempt would be the same as your reaction was.

[Doug Falkner]

Sponge,

I wouldn't argue that isolating NPO is bad, merely pointless. I think the days of NPO being able to call upon a web of allies are over. I think focussing on the NPO is merely focussing on the past. While, I grant I might be wrong, I'm no expert on foreign affairs but the fact that this many people stood up against the NPO suggests to me that their diplomatic power has been on the wane for sometime. The next tyrant isn't going to be the NPO no matter what terms are given to them. As for who the new tyrant will be, that I have no answer for.

[D34th]

Tell me again why isolating NPO is bad?

I didn't say that, what I said was that a blanket NAP won't guarantee that NPO won't be attacked as you said and proposed.

[Electron Sponge]

It won't work because you're trying to take away a part of the game that is what is interesting to the NPO. Any self-respecting Pacifican isn't going to give in to a regime imposed from without that effectively removes them from the game political structure. I know this is what you want to do, but be realistic. Their reaction to such an attempt would be the same as your reaction was.

Any self respecting Pacifican moved on a long time ago. These current members are nothing but barbarians in comparison. But I digress from the current topic.

I realize that the ruling class in NPO are very interested in alliance politics. They are also very interested in playing power games and using other alliances to destroy their enemies while keeping their own hands quite clean. I don't care if the Imperial Officers lose their playtoys and neither should anyone else. The rank and file in NPO doesn't care much for alliance politics because they aren't allowed to take part in them except as an ambassador (and how much gets done by ambassadors except spamming anyway?).

So, really, is that the best argument against this? Because only a few people in NPO actually are involved in FA. That's tightly controlled from the top.

[Cirrus]

Any self-respecting Pacifican isn't going to give in to a regime imposed from without that effectively removes them from the game political structure.

Wait wait wait. You're saying NPO will never accept terms that limit their ability to control the rest of us?

If that's the case, we may as well forget the whole discussion of terms and just accept that NPO is going to get the FAN treatment of neverending war, because that's the only alternative that doesn't require the rest of the cyberverse to be NPO puppets.

[bzelger]

Then what would you do? If something as mild as ensuring that they don't reestablish their powerbase in order to continue with their abusive tactics is "unconscionable" (lol, btw, waaaaay too dramatic) I am interested to see what sort of terms you'd offer them. Perhaps a complimentary hot towel and shoulder massage?

I really believe that a simple diplomatic isolation enforced by the threat of overwhelming firepower descending upon them in the event of this isolation being broken is a satisfactory solution.

I can't say that I have a definitive solution. I would probably give them the SOLID treatment (or was it GR?), where they can get terms once they fall below a million total nation strength. I don't see why any alliance would give them the time of day once they've lost the golden circle of protection that they offered to get allies in the first place.

If you had remained Emperor of Polaris when they got rolled you were given a surrender term that prevented you from signing a treaty or declaring war ever again, would you have signed it?

[King Srqt]

Since this is an OOC forum I have no issue addressing this in an OOC manner.

Are people getting lenient terms? Yes.

Will this possibly lead to them being able to rebuild and make an attempt to regain their power or get revenge? yes.

is that good for the game? yes.

This kind of mercy is exactly what everyone should always be doing, it allows you to get a real victory from your opponents without removing conflicting opinions from the game. It allows for real political maneuvering and excitement and fights the stagnation that has plagued this game by those who have teh attitude of "remove all threats at any cost"

This is what gives CN the ability to reach its potential as an entertaining game and I am glad to be a part of it.

[Cirrus]

I didn't say that, what I said was that a blanket NAP won't guarantee that NPO won't be attacked as you said and proposed.

So what if NPO is attacked in 6 months?

1. "Karma" the group will have satisfied its collective moral imperative not to go against karma the concept. The onus for attacking NPO will be on whatever individual alliance attacks it, not on Karma as a whole.

2. Presumably NPO will be large enough to put up such a fight than nobody would want to attack them 1 on 1.

3. Even then, the terms could be coupled with a protectorate status.

[Electron Sponge]

I can't say that I have a definitive solution. I would probably give them the SOLID treatment (or was it GR?), where they can get terms once they fall below a million total nation strength. I don't see why any alliance would give them the time of day once they've lost the golden circle of protection that they offered to get allies in the first place.

...and you think diplomatic isolation is 'unconscionable'?

If you had remained Emperor of Polaris when they got rolled you were given a surrender term that prevented you from signing a treaty or declaring war ever again, would you have signed it?

You and I both know the first term of surrender would have been my removal from office, making any further terms moot.

I would have signed whatever was necessary to get my people out of an unwinnable war, after proper negotiations.

[RandomInterrupt]

I didn't say that, what I said was that a blanket NAP won't guarantee that NPO won't be attacked as you said and proposed.

So basically you are saying that a blanket NAP for the NPO wouldn't work because the NPO might ignore it and attack itself? Are you sure about that?

[bzelger]

...and you think diplomatic isolation is 'unconscionable'?

Yes. I have no problem fighting a war that they started to its conclusion. I do have a problem with everlasting terms that essentially prevent them from playing the game or that are designed to force them to disband.

[Gork]

In removing a community from this game, an alliance would be committing one of the worst crimes I can think of in CN. Of course, many of us are aware of this fact, and disbanding the NPO or CoC alliances is pretty much out of question. Tygaland, I believe, argued that "politically crippling" terms should be issued to NPO to prevent their return to power and a scenario similar to post-GW1. However, such terms are hard to come by, as forced treaties (or foreign policy dictated by another entity) haven't been very effective in the past - in this sense, the NPO might have damaged itself more than we could in the last few weeks (or months) as ties were severed or proven extremely weak - and enormous reps are strategically weak solutions against a determined enemy that will come back and bite you in the $@!, sooner or later. The current situation can be seen as the result of a steady change in this game's political scene, as the Cyberverse at large, or at least its more active components, is immunized against the Hegemony's !@#$%^&*. After two or three years of it, I hope people have grown weary of an alliance destroying communities, installing Viceroys and exacting several months of hard work in reparations.

Despite any argument, this war's surrender terms are a problem for Karma leadership, as many players who fight under their banner will probably not be satisfied by them, and the objectives they set off to accomplish at the start of the war may be in conflict with apparently 'sound' solutions. Nevertheless, this war will drag on for a couple of weeks at least, and I still have nukes in my stockpile.

[Haflinger]

Wait wait wait. You're saying NPO will never accept terms that limit their ability to control the rest of us?

Signing treaties does not equal controlling the rest of us.

I think the days of NPO being able to call upon a web of allies are over. I think focussing on the NPO is merely focussing on the past. While, I grant I might be wrong, I'm no expert on foreign affairs but the fact that this many people stood up against the NPO suggests to me that their diplomatic power has been on the wane for sometime.

Yes, I tend to agree with this line of thinking.