Tired of the cult of personality

[General Bragg]

Have a question to General Bragg!

Did you lose your access to their forum before or after you surrendered?

Are you speaking out of anger, when you say that you want to fight your old alliance? Or do you really mean it?

As I have stated to other posters, forum access was denied for about a week prior to surrender, despite multiple requests to either restore access or know why. No response was every made to my inquiries.

The final straw was embarking on a 3rd round of wars when many of the higher ups had yet to fight one.

As for fighting NPO, some of it is anger, in the hindsight of 24 hours--who truly knows. I will spend my time as a POW, then seek my path upon release.

[Augustus Autumn]

No reason we should not become like the ROA.

Best to hope that this Pacifica Osvoboditel'naya Armiya does not share the same career and fate as its Second World War counterpart. Also, rebellion movements, while interesting, do tend to lose momentum and either fade or collapse once the opponent has been bested and the fighting has come to a close. Ideologically and thematically this idea does have a certain appeal to it for certain persons, I must admit. Is this something you intend to try and grow in the coming days?

[tobiash]

As I have stated to other posters, forum access was denied for about a week prior to surrender, despite multiple requests to either restore access or know why. No response was every made to my inquiries.

The final straw was embarking on a 3rd round of wars when many of the higher ups had yet to fight one.

As for fighting NPO, some of it is anger, in the hindsight of 24 hours--who truly knows. I will spend my time as a POW, then seek my path upon release.

Then I can only respect you choice! You was cut of by your alliance (I am not talking about aid) and that releases you from any obligation to them.

Also I am glad that you are not going to fight your old comrades, it is very low class to do so!

[Doitzel]

Also I am glad that you are not going to fight your old comrades, it is very low class to do so!

Pump your breaks, kid. Some of them deserve it.

[tobiash]

Pump your breaks, kid. Some of them deserve it.

Even if all of them deserved it, it would still be low class to surrender and then join opponent to fight your old alliance.

Atleast that is the way I view it.

Edited May 9, 2009 by tobiash

[Blacky]

Also I am glad that you are not going to fight your old comrades, it is very low class to do so!

It may be the case that he has long since considered those with whom he shared an alliance affiliation with to be comrades, and the despair brought on by warfare only augments those feelings of mistrust and disloyalty in such a case. To a point where those previously considered comrades might very well be viewed with hostility. Nobody likes being lied to, threatened, and then later undermined. This ex-NPO member has had to deal with all three, and considering it came from those he considered comrades I wouldn't blame him had he decided otherwise.

[Firestorm]

Personally,

I wish more people would defect from the NPO to take up arms against them. The irony would be so delicious I'd be rolling in my own puddle of tears. Karma, you reap what you sow and a mass uprising within the ranks causing a schism would be well in line with what the uppity ups of the NPO have sown.

Good luck General Bragg.

[tobiash]

It may be the case that he has long since considered those with whom he shared an alliance affiliation with to be comrades, and the despair brought on by warfare only augments those feelings of mistrust and disloyalty in such a case. To a point where those previously considered comrades might very well be viewed with hostility. Nobody likes being lied to, threatened, and then later undermined. This ex-NPO member has had to deal with all three, and considering it came from those he considered comrades I wouldn't blame him had he decided otherwise.

I would not blame him for taking up arms agianst the NPO, I can understand why he might feel the urge to do so. BUT it does not in my opion change the fact that it is low class to do so. He might have been lie to, threatened and hanged out to drye, but if he starts to fight his old comrades whoes only mistake might be that they have not seen through the lies served to them by their leaders, then he would be low class.

[Kzoppistan]

As with almost every situation understanding the context is vital for making a judgment of another's actions.

In my mind, what is right or wrong is clearly defined:

First, deserters are scum.

Now, to qualify that particularly harsh statement, here is the justification. Joining an alliance means entering into a pact, a contract if you will, where both parties agree to uphold the tenants of the charter. If one or the other party does not uphold their end of the bargain, the contract is broken. The offended party then has no obligation to continue upholding their part of the contract.

As a nation leader is the sole decider for what is best for their own nation, they have the right to come and go without impinging upon their reputation if they follow the proper procedure as outlined by the charter. But, in several situations, like war, the nation leader agrees to abide by the decision of the military or alliance commander regardless of the damage done to one's own nation.

Unless otherwise stipulated by the charter, surrendering is not desertion. Surrendering is a viable tactic for preserving your forces from ruin and for fighting another day. As long as one fights with the best of their ability for as long as possible, they have fulfilled their obligation of going to war. A person who surrenders and is still in debt to their alliance should return at the earliest moment possible. Those that are not indebted are free to go their own way. A person who surrenders without fighting to any discernable degree has failed their duty. Even when faced with overwhelming odds, a leader must fight until unable or commanded to stand down unless otherwise stated by the charter.

As stated before, when an alliance fails to uphold their end of the bargain, the member has the right to leave without repercussions. If an alliances fails on their end due to incompetence and the member is harmed because of it, then the member is free to go their own way but not due any reparations. They just have to face the fact they made a poor decision to join that particular alliance and suck it up. If, however, the alliance breaks it's side of the bargain with willful malice intended to harm their member, that member is in their right to seek retribution how ever they are capable.

Those are the legalities, now comes what is a bit more subjective to others but still clear in my mind for proper conduct. If a person has received more than they contributed to an alliance, they are indebted to that alliance; if not in writing, then in spirit. If a nation has given more than received, as long as they follow the proper procedure as outlined by the contract they agreed to, who could fault them for wanting to go their own way to protect their nation?

Whether or not a nation is in their right to turn on their previous alliance depends on the manner of which they exited that contract. If a person quits under reasonable terms and then turns against their previous alliance simply because they disagree with them on moral grounds, then they deserve no support, and attacking without justification is frowned upon. If a person is purposefully harmed by their alliance, the public should support them in seeking reparations, either by diplomacy or might. Whether they have the ability to enforce that right or defend themselves against their own wrong doing is a different matter altogether.

Deserters are those that break their contract, especially when doing so just to save their own skin. If a person is against the direction or actions of their alliance, they are still obligated to fulfill their part of the bargain until such time that they can exit gracefully or until the alliance fails to uphold their end of the contract.

Whether or not General Bragg is in the right in attacking his previous alliance depends upon the criteria listed above.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[TehChron]

methinks he fits said criteria perfectly.

[Firestorm]

As with almost every situation understanding the context is vital for making a judgment of another's actions.

In my mind, what is right or wrong is clearly defined:

First, deserters are scum.

Now, to qualify that particularly harsh statement, here is the justification. Joining an alliance means entering into a pact, a contract if you will, where both parties agree to uphold the tenants of the charter. If one or the other party does not uphold their end of the bargain, the contract is broken. The offended party then has no obligation to continue upholding their part of the contract.

As a nation leader is the sole decider for what is best for their own nation, they have the right to come and go without impinging upon their reputation if they follow the proper procedure as outlined by the charter. But, in several situations, like war, the nation leader agrees to abide by the decision of the military or alliance commander regardless of the damage done to one's own nation.

Unless otherwise stipulated by the charter, surrendering is not desertion. Surrendering is a viable tactic for preserving your forces from ruin and for fighting another day. As long as one fights with the best of their ability for as long as possible, they have fulfilled their obligation of going to war. A person who surrenders without fighting to any discernable degree has failed their duty. Even when faced with overwhelming odds, a leader must fight until unable or commanded to stand down unless otherwise stated by the charter.

As stated before, when an alliance fails to uphold their end of the bargain, the member has the right to leave without repercussions. If an alliances fails on their end due to incompetence and the member is harmed because of it, then the member is free to go their own way but not due any reparations. They just have to face the fact they made a poor decision to join that particular alliance and suck it up. If, however, the alliance breaks it's side of the bargain with willful malice intended to harm their member, that member is in their right to seek retribution how ever they are capable.

Those are the legalities, now comes what is a bit more subjective to others but still clear in my mind for proper conduct. If a person has received more than they contributed to an alliance, they are indebted to that alliance; if not in writing, then in spirit. If a nation has given more than received, as long as they follow the proper procedure as outlined by the contract they agreed to, who could fault them for wanting to go their own way to protect their nation?

Whether or not a nation is in their right to turn on their previous alliance depends on the manner of which they exited that contract. If a person quits under reasonable terms and then turns against their previous alliance simply because they disagree with them on moral grounds, then they deserve no support, and attacking without justification is frowned upon. If a person is purposefully harmed by their alliance, the public should support them in seeking reparations, either by diplomacy or might. Whether they have the ability to enforce that right or defend themselves against their own wrong doing is a different matter altogether.

Deserters are those that break their contract, especially when doing so just to save their own skin. If a person is against the direction or actions of their alliance, they are still obligated to fulfill their part of the bargain until such time that they can exit gracefully.

Whether or not General Bragg is in the right in attacking his previous alliance depends upon the criteria listed above.

An alliance is a contract that works both ways. I support my alliance as long as they support me. The NPO is apparently in breach of that contract on so many levels that it boggles the mind.

They day they stop supporting me and keeping me informed is the day they get my walking papers. It doesn't matter what is going on, and if I feel fit to do so I'll willingly take up arms against them.

Given I don't exist in a nut bin like the NPO I doubt I'll ever have to bother with such a drastic action.

Cutting off General Bragg's line of communications in a time of war is in itself an act of war.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Firestorm

[Kzoppistan]

Since this is a contentious part of the discussions lately, I'll add this bit, too.

How can an alliance simultaneously claim to protect their nations and yet order them into a war? Especially with the foreknowledge that war will not be won?

Simple: sometimes one must sacrifice a little now in return for something greater later. By demonstrating the ability to fight in the cause of a treaty, an alliance exchanges their infrastructure, money, lives, technology, and time, for things even more valuable: respect, honor, and a good reputation. As reputation is the currency of international affairs, the investment is often worth it. By risking their blood now, they ensure greater protection for themselves in the larger sphere of multiple alliances.

[Cortath]

Your intelligence is correct, sir. Early on in this conflict (within the first week) all NPO nations were threatened with PZI should they leave.

This just increased the parallels between Moo's NPO & Stalin's Russia. Either we die by Karma or by NPO firing squad. No different than Soviet troops being marched into Nazi guns under pain of being shot by the political commissars. No reason we should not become like the ROA.

This is false.

I took the liberty of finding your last few posts on our forums. Your last posts include you cursing at the aforementioned comrade who offered you aid but then retracted it, while that comrade posted an apologetic explanation to which you did not respond. You insulted a comrade who was in peace mode for obvious and explained reasons. You aggressively argued against a comrade who did not want to surrender. You also cursed at Bankers in the Aid forum when making an aid request. You insulted a Colonel for being in peace mode, even though he explained to you that he was in peace mode to be reserved for the second strike, and lo and behold, he is now fighting very well in the second strike.

I have little sympathy for you. Prior to April, I had nothing but respect for your service to Pacifica, and as comrades in war for so long, it is difficult for such a short amount of time to erode the comraderie we have developed, but you are making a good effort.

[tobiash]

This is false.

I took the liberty of finding your last few posts on our forums. Your last posts include you cursing at the aforementioned comrade who offered you aid but then retracted it, while that comrade posted an apologetic explanation to which you did not respond. You insulted a comrade who was in peace mode for obvious and explained reasons. You aggressively argued against a comrade who did not want to surrender. You also cursed at Bankers in the Aid forum when making an aid request. You insulted a Colonel for being in peace mode, even though he explained to you that he was in peace mode to be reserved for the second strike, and lo and behold, he is now fighting very well in the second strike.

I have little sympathy for you. Prior to April, I had nothing but respect for your service to Pacifica, and as comrades in war for so long, it is difficult for such a short amount of time to erode the comraderie we have developed, but you are making a good effort.

This is ofcause very bad behavior, but he did fight when all this happend, right?

So if you deny a member access to the NPO-forum, is that not the same as kicking that member out of the alliance.

[ChairmanHal]

It is? What contribution did he make? Maybe to Pacifica it is a loss, but anywhere else? The community in general? I would say his decisions are what got him on the path to deletion in the first place. So my opinion... "meh".

Surely you haven't forgotten already?

I'm just hoping NPO has more class than to do what they did after they got into a squabble with the Admin of CE (by the way, don't waste your time on CE...watching grass grow is faster and more entertaining ) and mass delete. One day NPO was there then, *poof* they disbanded and were gone.

[Drostan]

This is ofcause very bad behavior, but he did fight when all this happend, right?

So if you deny a member access to the NPO-forum, is that not the same as kicking that member out of the alliance.

Especially if you do not explain that you revoked his access simply because he was swearing too much or something. If you just ban him from the forums I am guessing he is going to assume you've cut him loose. It is reasonable to expect all those in your alliance to fight when told to do so. But it is not reasonable to expect them to fight indefinitely even after you have ceased communicating with them. Perhaps what you say is true and General Bragg here has an attitude problem, but even if that is the case you should have explained to him why his forum access was revoked during war-time while he was still fighting for your glorious Pacifica.

At best, both parties have done wrong. But that is assuming that the information being given from the NPO side bears any resemblance to the truth of the matter. OH NOES, AREN'T YOU GIVING PRIVATE NPO FORUMS INFORMATION TO ENEMY ALLIANCES?!?!?! WHAT WILL BECOME OF CORATH? Unless it's all just made up. I honestly don't know. Whatever the case is, you should probably let people know why their access was revoked from now on if you maintain any hope that they will continue to fight for you.

[atrophis]

This is false.

I took the liberty of finding your last few posts on our forums. Your last posts include you cursing at the aforementioned comrade who offered you aid but then retracted it, while that comrade posted an apologetic explanation to which you did not respond. You insulted a comrade who was in peace mode for obvious and explained reasons. You aggressively argued against a comrade who did not want to surrender. You also cursed at Bankers in the Aid forum when making an aid request. You insulted a Colonel for being in peace mode, even though he explained to you that he was in peace mode to be reserved for the second strike, and lo and behold, he is now fighting very well in the second strike.

I have little sympathy for you. Prior to April, I had nothing but respect for your service to Pacifica, and as comrades in war for so long, it is difficult for such a short amount of time to erode the comraderie we have developed, but you are making a good effort.

You know, at least in FAN, if your going to get booted your going to know about it. We don't just shut people out.

[Cortath]

*chuckles*

Firstly, and this is a common mistake, it's "Cortath." It sounds like the word "Core" and "tath" where tath rhymes with bath.

Secondly, beats me why he didn't know why he was banned. If he asked me, I would have told him. He didn't ask me, and I don't know of him asking anyone else.

Thirdly, I think it's clear that we didn't "expect" Bragg to continue fighting after he was banned. He's a traitor. We don't expect traitors to fight for us.

Fourthly, I'd just like to note that General Bragg received aid from the New Pacific Order May 1, and then twice again in May 2. So let's just put things in perspective: he complains all about aid and how he doesn't get any. He gets his aid in a pretty timely manner, and then comes here and complains about not getting aid, among other things.

[tobiash]

How is he a traitor? he was fighting for NPO even after his access to the NPO-forum was removed! First when he did not get any answers to why his question about why his access was removed, did he surrender! Or was he banned from the forum for being a traitor and if so did he do? He might have been a pain in the butt, but so am I but you dont see the NSO kicking me or banning me from the NSO-forum with out a reason

[Doitzel]

Surely you haven't forgotten already?

I'm just hoping NPO has more class than to do what they did after they got into a squabble with the Admin of CE (by the way, don't waste your time on CE...watching grass grow is faster and more entertaining ) and mass delete. One day NPO was there then, *poof* they disbanded and were gone.

I wonder if you'd consider that a classless move if I hadn't been Emperor.

It was a horrid waste of time, nobody was active or wanted to play. That little squabble toward the end was just the final straw. I'm sure even you understand.

[Homura]

I wonder if you'd consider that a classless move if I hadn't been Emperor.

It was a horrid waste of time, nobody was active or wanted to play. That little squabble toward the end was just the final straw. I'm sure even you understand.

That game sucked and the administrator didn't have a clue what he was doing. I got out of that mess long before the disbandment, and was actually quite pleased to hear that Pacifica had abandoned that wreck.

[atrophis]

Secondly, beats me why he didn't know why he was banned. If he asked me, I would have told him. He didn't ask me, and I don't know of him asking anyone else.

Thirdly, I think it's clear that we didn't "expect" Bragg to continue fighting after he was banned. He's a traitor. We don't expect traitors to fight for us.

Fourthly, I'd just like to note that General Bragg received aid from the New Pacific Order May 1, and then twice again in May 2. So let's just put things in perspective: he complains all about aid and how he doesn't get any. He gets his aid in a pretty timely manner, and then comes here and complains about not getting aid, among other things.

OK. Just so we are clear on this. The NPOs definition of traitor is not some one who turns on the NPO, but instead, it is someone who is mad because they are not getting aid for fighting a war while their leaders sit in peace? I mean, a traitor, in my definition at least, is not someone who continues to fight for their alliance even after they have been kicked.

You can't honestly expect us to believe that he is a traitor because he asked for aid and got angry when he didn't get it.

Edited May 9, 2009 by atrophis

[Homura]

OK. Just so we are clear on this. The NPOs definition of traitor is not some one who turns on the NPO, but instead, it is someone who is mad because they are not getting aid for fighting a war while their leaders sit in peace? I mean, a traitor, in my definition at least, is not someone who continues to fight for their alliance even after they have been kicked.

You can't honestly expect us to believe that he is a traitor because he asked for aid and got angry when he didn't get it.

NPO's definition of traitor is leaving to join an alliance the NPO is treatied to during peace time. At least according to Loucifer and Z'ha'dum.

[Haflinger]

OK. Just so we are clear on this. The NPOs definition of traitor is not some one who turns on the NPO, but instead, it is someone who is mad because they are not getting aid for fighting a war while their leaders sit in peace? I mean, a traitor, in my definition at least, is not someone who continues to fight for their alliance even after they have been kicked.

You can't honestly expect us to believe that he is a traitor because he asked for aid and got angry when he didn't get it.

You apparently missed where Cortath said that he got aid.

[zigbigadorlou]

The final straw was to find my forum access has been denied. No warning, no counsel; just dropped like a hot potato. At this point I can only conclude that either Pacifica is dead or that I am persona non grata because no one returns my calls and my letters have a green glow when marked "return to sender, address unkown."

Having been in basically the exact same position as you in the past (except during jarheads and therefore having them be able to ZI me) I can sympathize.

Its a shame it takes loss of forum access to do this. If not, I bet a lot of people would leave NPO.