Proportionality: reps and the new NPO myth that we are "as bad as them."

[Azaghul]

That has what to do with Peace Mode nations and the differences between what NPO did and what Karma is doing?

Absolutely nothing. I believe there is a thread somewhere from the GATO Assembly Chairman imploring Karma not to use GATO and it's dealings with Pacifica as an excuse to do more wrong on CN. Of course it would only be good form for Karma to respect that but I've come to expect different from you.

There are several pretty significant differences:

- For GATO it was made in the begging of the war when it wasn't clear whether the nations were there for war strategy or to ride it out till the end of the war. In this case we know it's not a war tactic because many of those nations didn't fight at all or only for a cycle or two and have now been in peace mode for weeks. We know that NPO is just having their nations sit there to be protected till the end of the war. NPO didn't know that with GATO.

- I don't have the numbers but someone did, the proportion of GATO nations in peace mode was much smaller.

- We've threatened reps, NPO threatened perma-ZI. That's a very big distinction.

- As Brotherington in another thread pointed out, the difference between FAN and this is that in FAN's case we were talking about small nations and an alliance that already been hit during peace terms and had no reason to expect peace again. NPO were are talking about huge nations and an alliance that can expect peace (even if they are pretending otherwise so they can act the victim.)

As I said in the OP, the important point (except in the case of perma-ZI) has usually not been absolute statements and sentiments against threatening nations in peace mode or reps but NPO going to the extreme with it.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Azaghul

[Bob Janova]

Magicninja, you need to step back and see the big picture again. Karma have given lenient peace terms to almost every alliance that has asked for them, and I'm sure TPF could have them too if it wasn't determined to stay in. Claiming that Karma has sacrificed its morality is simply untrue.

The fact is that Pacifica is the centre of the hegemony that has been causing us all grief for over two years, and getting rid of that hegemony is important. If we have to be slightly dirty on one front to get our objectives completed, that does not make us hypocrites or 'as bad as them', it just means that we aren't so blinded by morality that we completely ignore the strategic reality.

Considering NPO's PM nations can get out at any time they like by surrendering, there really is no parallel to the PZI that you are trying to draw a link with.

[magicninja]

There are several pretty significant differences:

- For GATO it was made in the begging of the war when it wasn't clear whether the nations were there for war strategy or to ride it out till the end of the war. In this case we know it's not a war tactic because many of those nations didn't fight at all or only for a cycle or two and have now been in peace mode for weeks. We know that NPO is just having their nations sit there to be protected till the end of the war. NPO didn't know that with GATO.

- I don't have the numbers but someone did, the proportion of GATO nations in peace mode was much smaller.

- We've threatened reps, NPO threatened perma-ZI. That's a very big distinction.

- As Brotherington in another thread pointed out, the difference between FAN and this is that in FAN's case we were talking about small nations and an alliance that already been hit during peace terms and had no reason to expect peace again. NPO were are talking about huge nations and an alliance that can expect peace (even if they are pretending otherwise so they can act the victim.)

As I said in the OP, the important point (except in the case of perma-ZI) has usually not been absolute statements and sentiments against threatening nations in peace mode or reps but NPO going to the extreme with it.

I don't care how you try to justify it to yourself. Threatening PM nations in anyway should be frowned upon. I didn't like it when it happened to GATO and I don't like it now. Yes the GATO situation was worse. That doesn't mean you can lower the penalty a little and have it be ok. Is that seriously how you are playing it. If we don't do it quite as bad it'll be ok? Give me a break. This isn't much change at all. Don't be full of !@#$. Do what you said you were gonna do. Change the landscape for the better in a substantial way. Don't just make the evil a little less imposing to make it just acceptable enough to fool everyone. That's cheap and dirty and that is not what you guys are about. Right?

[Azaghul]

I don't care how you try to justify it to yourself. Threatening PM nations in anyway should be frowned upon. I didn't like it when it happened to GATO and I don't like it now. Yes the GATO situation was worse. That doesn't mean you can lower the penalty a little and have it be ok. Is that seriously how you are playing it. If we don't do it quite as bad it'll be ok? Give me a break. This isn't much change at all. Don't be full of !@#$. Do what you said you were gonna do. Change the landscape for the better in a substantial way. Don't just make the evil a little less imposing to make it just acceptable enough to fool everyone. That's cheap and dirty and that is not what you guys are about. Right?

You're taking your absolute position on and projecting it on to us. As far as I can tell not very many people have taken an absolute position against it.

You ignore my first point about the timing and describing the difference between perma-ZI and extra reps as "lower[ing] the penalty a little" is belittling the extremity of perma-ZI.

[magicninja]

Magicninja, you need to step back and see the big picture again. Karma have given lenient peace terms to almost every alliance that has asked for them, and I'm sure TPF could have them too if it wasn't determined to stay in. Claiming that Karma has sacrificed its morality is simply untrue.

The fact is that Pacifica is the centre of the hegemony that has been causing us all grief for over two years, and getting rid of that hegemony is important. If we have to be slightly dirty on one front to get our objectives completed, that does not make us hypocrites or 'as bad as them', it just means that we aren't so blinded by morality that we completely ignore the strategic reality.

Considering NPO's PM nations can get out at any time they like by surrendering, there really is no parallel to the PZI that you are trying to draw a link with.

You just aren't getting it or else feigning ignorance on purpose to skew what you know is truth in my posts. You have at least hinted at it in your post.

I'm not saying you are as bad as NPO. However, you guys aren't the dogooders you made yourselves out to be either. You claim that these tactics are strategic just as NPO did. Sure NPO took it to the extreme but it was a scare tactic that worked. No GATO nation was ever PZ'd by their decree. You want them to be blinded by morality and ignore the strategic reality but then refuse to hold yourself to the same standard. Even if you are doing it at a smaller extreme than Pacifica did you are still only working on a lesser of two evils path. Where does it end? How long before we see the same might makes right mentality from all of you? Hell, you're flirting with it now. Don't make the same mistake they did. I'm not telling you guys all of this so you'll be soft on Pacifica. I'm trying to get you to see reason before you do go over. I'm pissed because I was actually looking forward to the new CN you guys were promising a few months ago. It's a shame to see all of that thrown aside for a chance to beat up on Pacifica a little more.

[Vilien]

I don't care how you try to justify it to yourself. Threatening PM nations in anyway should be frowned upon. I didn't like it when it happened to GATO and I don't like it now. Yes the GATO situation was worse. That doesn't mean you can lower the penalty a little and have it be ok. Is that seriously how you are playing it. If we don't do it quite as bad it'll be ok? Give me a break. This isn't much change at all. Don't be full of !@#$. Do what you said you were gonna do. Change the landscape for the better in a substantial way. Don't just make the evil a little less imposing to make it just acceptable enough to fool everyone. That's cheap and dirty and that is not what you guys are about. Right?

You've seemed perfectly able to justify your own silence when it was Pacifica thrashing peace moders and saddling alliances with massive reparations. As far as I can tell, you've been part of the problem that you're asking us to fix.

[magicninja]

You're taking your absolute position on and projecting it on to us. As far as I can tell not very many people have taken an absolute position against it.

You ignore my first point about the timing and describing the difference between perma-ZI and extra reps as "lower[ing] the penalty a little" is belittling the extremity of perma-ZI.

You don't seem to get that it doesn't matter. There should either be any means to get nations out of PM or PM nations should just be left alone. You can't ratchet the rules to make yourself look good. You're saying if you have the upper habd you can still threaten PM nations as long as you aren't too extreme. That's ridiculous. You've already knocked off almost 3/4 of their strength. You've defeated them. Soundly. The only way NPO will ever gain real power again is if alliances on your side start joining up with them. You don't need to do this. So what is the point? All you've done ius say "Hey at least we aren't as bad as they were." That's pretty miserable man.

[magicninja]

You've seemed perfectly able to justify your own silence when it was Pacifica thrashing peace moders and saddling alliances with massive reparations. As far as I can tell, you've been part of the problem that you're asking us to fix.

A lot of people were silent. Hell a lot of Karma's more powerful alliance were there helping NPO along. You don't seem to get that I really didn't agree with everything NPO did. I welcomed Karma and it's vision of change. Karma is failing to bring true change. They are merely just doing the same things but taking a little of the edge off. It's not as bad as NPO true. It's really not much better though and falls quite a bit short of everything they said they wanted for CN post-NPO.

[Vilien]

A lot of people were silent. Hell a lot of Karma's more powerful alliance were there helping NPO along. You don't seem to get that I really didn't agree with everything NPO did. I welcomed Karma and it's vision of change. Karma is failing to bring true change. They are merely just doing the same things but taking a little of the edge off. It's not as bad as NPO true. It's really not much better though and falls quite a bit short of everything they said they wanted for CN post-NPO.

Wait to see the actual terms before you pass judgement.

[magicninja]

Wait to see the actual terms before you pass judgement.

So this peace-mode nonsense has been withdrawn? Do that and I'll gladly shut up. As long as this atrocity is in effect don't expect me to have any other opinion.

[Vhalen]

Your understanding of my metaphor has failed.

Personally, I think it's your understanding of your metaphor that failed, but I'll leave the whole thing alone, due to sheer disinterest on my part.

[crushtania]

Extremely thorough and accurate. When it comes to reps, too many people have their hearts bleeding either way.

Numbers do not lie, but the men counting them routinely do.

[Daedalus27]

I think you have to wait until there is an official position to condemn Karma. Having a large number of peace mode nations has to be a serious concern for Karma and the world at large. We have seen what a marginally defeated NPO can accomplish and if I were in Karma's shoes I wouldn't want to have to try and reform a grand alliance in 3-4 months. With the NPO in bunker mode and most allies seperated, there may not be a better time to accomplish creating a lasting peace.

Therefore there has to be some form of method to try and make sure NPO is cut down to size for a long time to come or what is being done is largely symbolic and useless in the larger scheme. There are few methods to do this and unfortunately all may be distasteful but if the objective is to truly remove the NPO as a source of oppression then it may be required. If you can come up with a method that will ensure NPO's ability to make war is curtailed without some form of peace mode penalty or other draconian measures that were used by NPO and now cited as justification for this conflict I am sure Karma would be willing to listen. Ultimately though it is Karma's call on what they want to do as they are the victorious party.

[Azaghul]

You don't seem to get that it doesn't matter. There should either be any means to get nations out of PM or PM nations should just be left alone.

Why does it have to be a choice between extremes?

You can't ratchet the rules to make yourself look good. You're saying if you have the upper habd you can still threaten PM nations as long as you aren't too extreme. That's ridiculous. You've already knocked off almost 3/4 of their strength. You've defeated them. Soundly. The only way NPO will ever gain real power again is if alliances on your side start joining up with them. You don't need to do this. So what is the point? All you've done ius say "Hey at least we aren't as bad as they were." That's pretty miserable man.

They've been mostly defeated, but not enough. In wars like this, a lot of the lost strength is regained relatively quickly; current NS is not an accurate representation of true strength.

[Angrator]

A lot of people were silent.

And they are also being silent now. Take a hint.

[Tulafaras]

You just aren't getting it or else feigning ignorance on purpose to skew what you know is truth in my posts. You have at least hinted at it in your post.

Your posts do not present a truth. Your posts reflect an opinion, which you are entitled to (even if i disagree with it).

You THINK our actions make us as bad as them, or comparably bad even if the situation is completly different.

As i said before no matter how often you repeat your opinion (which is all you are doing, since you are completly ignoring every single argument made by the other side) it does not become truth simply because you think so.

If you truly cannot see the difference between P-ZI and increased reparations than i have nothing but pity for you.

You don't seem to get that it doesn't matter. There should either be any means to get nations out of PM or PM nations should just be left alone.

why? honestly this sentence is simply confusing.... The NPO defenders are arguing that peace mode is a valid tactic (a point i agree with, since it's obviously included ingame for a reason), but if you follow that argument than a reaction to that tactic by the opposing side is also a valid tactic.

You can't ratchet the rules to make yourself look good. You're saying if you have the upper habd you can still threaten PM nations as long as you aren't too extreme. That's ridiculous. You've already knocked off almost 3/4 of their strength. You've defeated them. Soundly. The only way NPO will ever gain real power again is if alliances on your side start joining up with them. You don't need to do this. So what is the point? All you've done ius say "Hey at least we aren't as bad as they were." That's pretty miserable man.

Your understanding of damage mechanics is lacking. Which surprises me since you've played this game for a while. You think the NPO is done for because we have hit them hard and now we should give them white peace and celebrate? Well that sounds very similar to what was done after GW1 and we all know how that ended don't we?

Frankly either find some decent arguments (very unlikely) or please get the hell out of this thread.

[Bob Janova]

Even if you are doing it at a smaller extreme than Pacifica did you are still only working on a lesser of two evils path. Where does it end? How long before we see the same might makes right mentality from all of you? Hell, you're flirting with it now.

I am sure you have heard of the 'slippery slope fallacy'?

[Haflinger]

Before the ultimatum (demands?) was given to Moo, the NPO had no incentive to bring their large amount of peacemode nations out to fight. The war cannot end untill those nations have been defeated, so in an attempt to shorten the war an incentive was created by the alliances fighting the NPO for the PM nations to be ordered into warmode.

Yes, it can end earlier. What you're saying is that you do not wish it end until that time.

Actually the NPO stagger have have worked out pretty good from what I've seen wich is more than can be said about the TPF stagger wich I'm a bit disappointed in. NPO have alot of nations they threw into peacemode before the war even started though and a few more during the peacetalks.

Well over 100 NPO nations went into peace mode after the peace talks. They had about 150-160 back then, of which some have surrendered I believe.

They've been mostly defeated, but not enough. In wars like this, a lot of the lost strength is regained relatively quickly; current NS is not an accurate representation of true strength.

They have lost around half of their total tech. Somehow I don't see that coming back overnight.

[magicninja]

Your posts do not present a truth. Your posts reflect an opinion, which you are entitled to (even if i disagree with it).

You THINK our actions make us as bad as them, or comparably bad even if the situation is completly different.

As i said before no matter how often you repeat your opinion (which is all you are doing, since you are completly ignoring every single argument made by the other side) it does not become truth simply because you think so.

If you truly cannot see the difference between P-ZI and increased reparations than i have nothing but pity for you.

why? honestly this sentence is simply confusing.... The NPO defenders are arguing that peace mode is a valid tactic (a point i agree with, since it's obviously included ingame for a reason), but if you follow that argument than a reaction to that tactic by the opposing side is also a valid tactic.

Your understanding of damage mechanics is lacking. Which surprises me since you've played this game for a while. You think the NPO is done for because we have hit them hard and now we should give them white peace and celebrate? Well that sounds very similar to what was done after GW1 and we all know how that ended don't we?

Frankly either find some decent arguments (very unlikely) or please get the hell out of this thread.

How many times do I have to say that I know there is a difference?

Then why are you using NPO's use of the same tactic against GATO as an excuse?

WHite Peace? No, of course not. I fully expect heavy reps for NPO and I won't even argue that. There's no need to try to force their nations out of peace mode. Just make sure that those nations are the ones paying the reps. Tie up their slots for awhile. NPO isn't a danger without friends and I don;t think they have many of those left.

[King Srqt]

Oh really? What myth? It's blatantly obvious.

Karma leaders and alliance members loved to say that NPO was evil and bad and shouldn't have done all of those things but they can do it in return? They should've just said we got the upper hand now and are gonna do everything you did to us to you. That would be fine. I wouldn't even argue the point. However, they made what NPO did out to be sooooo bad that those practices should never be allowed to happen on CN ever again yet here they are making a mockery of themselves.

Are countries that practice the death penalty as punishment for murder making a mockery of themselves?

[magicninja]

Are countries that practice the death penalty as punishment for murder making a mockery of themselves?

Actually, yes they are.

Edited May 27, 2009 by magicninja

[King Srqt]

Actually, yes they are.

Damn, you had to be a liberal

[magicninja]

Damn, you had to be a liberal

Look, I just don't think you guys need to act anything like them. I now what you propose is not as bad as what they did but it is still in the same vein and I would like to see you guys able to soundly and thoroughly beat them without having to to do anything that remotely resembles what they did. To me when you do do it, it almost shows that Pacifca's way of getting to the top was the only way to do it. I think you guys are good enough to take a better route.

[King Srqt]

Look, I just don't think you guys need to act anything like them. I now what you propose is not as bad as what they did but it is still in the same vein and I would like to see you guys able to soundly and thoroughly beat them without having to to do anything that remotely resembles what they did. To me when you do do it, it almost shows that Pacifca's way of getting to the top was the only way to do it. I think you guys are good enough to take a better route.

Well first the only war that I had any real say in how it ended ended with no reps and pretty light terms and I am now in an alliance that has 0 to do with this war so don't be lumping me in with anyone. In my opinion it just doesn't seem like justice to me to watch the rank and file Pacifican get pounded to dust while their IO masters sit out the entire war in peace mode.

[Azaghul]

Look, I just don't think you guys need to act anything like them. I now what you propose is not as bad as what they did but it is still in the same vein and I would like to see you guys able to soundly and thoroughly beat them without having to to do anything that remotely resembles what they did. To me when you do do it, it almost shows that Pacifca's way of getting to the top was the only way to do it. I think you guys are good enough to take a better route.

There's really no way to do things otherwise when they have a third of their nations and a very large proportion of their pre-war upper ranks in peace mode except to let them get away with it.