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

[bzelger]

Nevermind.

Edited May 30, 2009 by bzelger

[Jipps]

You recall incorrectly.

I wasn't whole heartedly active at the time, but I could have sworn otherwise.

It is germane to the discussion because the discussion is over what is "right" to do, and it was suggested that it appears disingenuous to sign harsh terms and accept blood money when you're winning but to cry foul when your ally is being subjected to far less with much greater cause.

It is completely irrelevent to the terms being offered to the members of Hegemony still at war. I never said it was right to do the things my alliance has done in the past, I am not trying to play innocent here. No matter my personal record, harsh terms will always be wrong.

[Jipps]

Personal record is important if someone who has previously supported unjustified harsh terms suddenly comes out all opposed to it when the roles are reversed [ooc: or suddenly wants open competition in CN having been part of shutting that down for years]. SSSW18, and yourself, might not have directly taken large reps (after all, you are small and insignificant), but you support it by signing peace terms (like Athens') that are harsh, and by maintaining your position as a part of the hegemony while they do it.

Being party to unjustified wars and peace demands, repeatedly, and then claiming you are against it, makes you a hypocrite. And that makes your argument completely vacuous and your posts ignorable.

Gremlins were also apart of said actions and wars in the past, please don't try and take a moral stance against the same coalition you joined.

People change and have regrettable pasts, as can be shown with most of the Karma coalition at one point supported the Hegemony.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Jipps

[Vladimir]

Haven't you heard, Jipps? Gramlins have always been at war with Eastasia.

[Bob Janova]

Maybe so but we have always been against unjustified (in our opinion) peace demands and unnecessary wars, staying out of most of them and making our point known at the time. Perhaps you and SSSW18 did that in private channels, and felt unable to do so in public due to the weight of the hegemony ... is that the case? We also left the hegemony a long time ago, after participating in one arguably hegemonic action (the Polar war), and did not sign bilateral treaties with the alliances most responsible for high terms.

Yes, people can change, and if the move away from harsh terms is genuine then it is excellent. As you point out, our own position has changed in the past. However, considering the timing of many of these sudden realisations of morality, I am rather cynical about it.

[Jipps]

Haven't you heard, Jipps? Gramlins have always been at war with Eastasia.

I was wondering when you would show up.

Maybe so but we have always been against unjustified (in our opinion) peace demands and unnecessary wars, staying out of most of them and making our point known at the time. Perhaps you and SSSW18 did that in private channels, and felt unable to do so in public due to the weight of the hegemony ... is that the case? We also left the hegemony a long time ago, after participating in one arguably hegemonic action (the Polar war), and did not sign bilateral treaties with the alliances most responsible for high terms.

Yes, people can change, and if the move away from harsh terms is genuine then it is excellent. As you point out, our own position has changed in the past. However, considering the timing of many of these sudden realisations of morality, I am rather cynical about it.

You have all the reason to be cynical, but having the tables turned for once is a real eye opener.

[Haflinger]

Haflinger, I believe NpO was reduced to around 5M NS. IRON to 6M. I don't see why it is outrageous for a similar target to be in the air for NPO, who are at least as much of a threat as Polar.

Relatively speaking, 5M was a lot more NS back then. We've had nearly a full year of NS inflation.

The NpO got peace with a 15.15 score, when the bottom sanctioned alliance was 23.08, with far fewer nations than the NPO currently has. (Source) In order to send the NPO down to that score BTW, you'd need to reduce them to 1.8M nation strength. Well, um, lol.

Plus, I don't think 5M is going to be enough to knock the NPO out of a sanction spot. Remember I said 4.7M, as long as the sanction level doesn't drop any more. That's the most. If you guys want to knock them out of sanction even for as long as the Polars were pushed out for, you're going to need to knock them below that - you're going to need to make them look like old TOOL did, back when TOOL was just a monster recruiter.

They just have too many nations.

That, and total NS isn't really what matters. What counts is the number of large nations. To be blunt, in military terms the 10K and under set don't really matter so much. The NPO have 36 nations 50K and up last time I checked. For purposes of comparison, Invicta has 21.

[KinKiac]

So there's a size limit on the nations that have to come out of peace mode before you start discussing terms?

What is it?

Note that of the 260 NPO peace mode nations, over half are below 10K Nation Strength.

lol, yeah and their top what 50 or 60 largest nations are part of that 260.

Indeed.

The only alliances deserving of reparations are:

NPO

The only alliances deserving of receiving payments from reparations are:

Those who were attacked by the Hegemony, directly. Hope I stirred the pot enough with that.

What about those who have been attacked in the past? What about those who have been held under NPO's boot heel?

What about those that have lost half of their strength, pop, infra and tech defending their allies against NPO's baseless aggression?

Why do only those "directly" attacked by NPO deserve reps? What about all the other destruction caused to alliances and nations as a result of NPO's actions? For some reason they dont matter?

So apparently, if i am getting this correct, the terms are based off previous terms that you didn't agree with, but you are now condoning these terms? Yes, giving them equally "bad" terms as they have given to other alliances is Karma, but will a form of Karma not come for you now? You might think it is different, but it is not. You are still giving !@#$ terms and people will still oppose them. The cycle will continue as long as you let it.

Hermes

No not at all. If the alliances fighting the NPO front were to give NPO peace, along with terms that are next to impossible for them to keep, then re declared on them when said terms were inevitably broken, and continued to attack them for 2 freaking years. Then, and only then, would Karma be as bad as NPO. And, even then that does not take into account all the other alliances that NPO has destroyed. What is it that you dont get about that. Some people seem to continually underestimate the extent of the crimes that the NPO are accused of.

Thank you for calling me as blind as a bat. Defending a treaty is all and good with me but obviously NPO thinks differently, perhaps they believe the alliance who is defending a treaty partner is also condoning the "reason for war" that NPO has used for their attack.

Note: Defending NPO is harder then it looks.

If that is the case, and Karma were to use that same philosophy, we would be giving ALL the nations defending NPO the exact same harsh terms, as those treaty partners were "condoning" the acts of the NPO. Do you see where this argument falls apart?

The way you used aggressive was misleading of my original post. As you used it contrast to my intent, I felt the need to explain how I meant it.

I don't believe Athens received reps when they were not attacked, but instead got them after being attacked by the surrendering alliance.

HINT: NPO is a completely different ballgame.

HINT: We are talking about NPO in this thread

Sorry Karma but going after PM nations in any punitive way makes you hypocrites, regardless of how bad it is compared to PZI.

You guys are really starting to show your true colors now. Very disappointing.

No, no it doesnt.

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.

Again you are so wrong. Let me spell it out for you. There is absolutely nothing that has been done by the alliances fighting on the karma side of this war, in this war, that is anywhere near the things that NPO has done to many others in the past. Has NPO ever given white peace to an alliance who fought out of treaty obligations? No. Has any hegemony alliance been given terms that included more tech payments then their entire alliance has? No. Have any of the terms handed out by karma alliances been so harsh that they would almost inevitably lead to re-declaring? No. Has any other alliance in the history of CN, besides NPO, fought another alliance into the ground for over 2 years? No.

Until karma does ALL of these things, you can not accurately say they are as bad as the people they fight, you're only kidding yourself.

So please, stop with the silly "you are as bad as them" arguments, they only hold water for those who are uninformed.

[Nizzle]

What about those who have been attacked in the past? What about those who have been held under NPO's boot heel?

What about those that have lost half of their strength, pop, infra and tech defending their allies against NPO's baseless aggression?

Why do only those "directly" attacked by NPO deserve reps? What about all the other destruction caused to alliances and nations as a result of NPO's actions? For some reason they dont matter?

This war is about defending OV, last I knew. If you want to undo past injustices declare an offensive war citing that as a CB.

HINT: We are talking about NPO in this thread

It's a poor habit to respond to something I said and treat it as it's a stand alone comment.

[KinKiac]

This war is about defending OV, last I knew. If you want to undo past injustices declare an offensive war citing that as a CB.

Not all of what I cited happened in previous wars. One of the things I cited was what about all the alliances and nations that have halved their NS or at least significantly droped in NS because they were forced to defend their allies form NPO's baseless aggression against OV.

It's a poor habit to respond to something I said and treat it as it's a stand alone comment.

I wasnt responding to just that remark, but the whole convo you were having at the time, I just didnt quote the rest of it.

Edited May 31, 2009 by KinKiac

[Nizzle]

Not all of what I cited happened in previous wars. One of the things I cited was what about all the alliances and nations that have halved their NS or at least significantly droped in NS because they were forced to defend their allies form NPO's baseless aggression against OV.

Halved their NS? I'm sure there are a few limited examples of that, I cannot think of any at this moment.

When you sign an MDP type treaty, you knowingly commit yourself to the defense of an ally. In my mind, and rationally, I don't believe you are entitled to reparations from the aggressor alliance. Some may do this, but I see it as war profiteering just the same as an MADP believing they deserve reparations.

I wasnt responding to just that remark, but the whole convo you were having at the time, I just didnt quote the rest of it.

Unfortunately I don't believe you did. We were discussing other peace terms prior to the time I made that comment.

[KinKiac]

Halved their NS? I'm sure there are a few limited examples of that, I cannot think of any at this moment.

When you sign an MDP type treaty, you knowingly commit yourself to the defense of an ally. In my mind, and rationally, I don't believe you are entitled to reparations from the aggressor alliance. Some may do this, but I see it as war profiteering just the same as an MADP believing they deserve reparations.

It would only be war profiteering if the said alliance was bandwagoning and taking reps. It is not profiteering to take back what you lost due being forced to defend your allies against unjust actions. In a perfect world, the defending alliances and/or nations, should all get some of what they lost back. Especially since many of the MADP's out there have clauses that state that an attack on one IS an attack on the other. Technically the NPO(and others) attacked more than just OV. The NPO and those defending them should have known this.

Unfortunately I don't believe you did. We were discussing other peace terms prior to the time I made that comment.

I was, but it is possible I misunderstood what I was reading at the time, so Ill give you that one, and apologize for taking a comment out of context. It really wasnt necessary for me to comment on anyway.

[Nizzle]

It would only be war profiteering if the said alliance was bandwagoning and taking reps. It is not profiteering to take back what you lost due being forced to defend your allies against unjust actions. In a perfect world, the defending alliances and/or nations, should all get some of what they lost back. Especially since many of the MADP's out there have clauses that state that an attack on one IS an attack on the other. Technically the NPO(and others) attacked more than just OV. The NPO and those defending them should have known this.

While you have a valid point, I disagree. We will have to chalk it up to a difference of opinion. I doubt I can argue you away from your opinion, nor would I want to as I can see merit in it. It just doesn't happen to be something I would do.

I was, but it is possible I misunderstood what I was reading at the time, so Ill give you that one, and apologize for taking a comment out of context. It really wasnt necessary for me to comment on anyway.

Not a problem, it happens.

[magicninja]

No, no it doesnt.

Way to elaborate and totally counter the argument. Bravo.

[Lizardo]

This war is about defending OV ...

You're kidding. OV is to this (Karma)war as Cheeze wiz is to a mouse trap.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Lizardo

[Nizzle]

You're kidding. OV is to this (Karma)war as Cheeze wiz is to a mouse trap.

While I full understand what this war has become, I thought it would comical to see responses to what really started this war.

Even before reading any more, I think yours wins.

[KeyStroke]

I read the OP. I read half the responses on the first page. I stopped reading.

I agree with the OP about 98% - very well written (if a bit wordy). It reveals the truth, and discourages the lies.

NPO abused their power and both committed moral atrocities as well as encouraged (or enabled) others to commit moral atrocities. this post provides a great summary of the offensive acts that NPO have done, or have encouraged/enabled.

In short: Let the punishment fit the crime. Let the terms set against NPO be as harsh as any terms they have ever set (or allowed to be set) against others.

Let there be justice.

[Khyber]

I've been leaning more to white peace these days myself, but fully understand and am willing to respect reps. Truth be told reps are a stratigic goal. These talks are posturing back and forth by two sides trying to get the most out of the other. The alliance being attack wants the best peace terms so that after war they grow quickly, the other side wants to stunt that growth and out growth them with the reps they get from the alliance that is forced to give them.

All of this is simply propangada from the NPO in the hopes that it will lower moral on the other side enough that the reps are lightened. Ofcourse it was dishonest, most propaganda is, but I don't blame them for trying. They have little to loss, and may gain a bit. Any good alliance will beat that propaganda drum as much as possible to win what they can. I simply believe that MK is better at it

That said OP makes a very strong case, and I agree with it, the Karma coalition has no unified ideals, trying to play one agains the other on it is harder then you think.

[Lycurgus Rex]

Reps they say...I think NPO owes about 3 years in reps to certain alliances....

[kevin32891]

Reps they say...I think NPO owes about 3 years in reps to certain alliances....

Which is about 8.5x less then these terms.

[NoFish]

Which is about 8.5x less then these terms.

Right. Along with getting a viceroy, re-writing your character, limiting you to 13 nukes indefinitely, kicking out and ZIing your government and getting disbanded.

Edited June 17, 2009 by NoFish

[Style #386]

Which is about 8.5x less then these terms.

So it would take you guys 25.5 years to pay these reps? But...but... I heard that the Order can move billions.

[D34th]

Nevermind, old topic is old.

Edited June 17, 2009 by D34th

[Azhrarn]

Thank you for the interesting OP, Azaghul. With regards to the resulting discussion, I find myself amused by the duplicity of certain posters. When it comes to actions performed by Karma, they refuse to admit the validity of such factors as context, intent, and proportionality - arguing that all actions are equal. And yet, if this truly represents their philosophical position, how is it then that they managed to remain silent while those self same actions were being carried out by the NPO? The only logical conclusion at which one can arrive, is that their arguments are dishonest, driven solely by the desire to equate Karma with the NPO for propaganda purposes.

[Prime minister Johns]

Reps are not about punishment, That is what fighting the war is for, the losses inflicted from actual fighting are the punishment.

Reps are about making the defeated alliance pay back some of the damage and to ensure that they are no longer a threat for a while.

And if the reps gathered from the war are spent wisely then the loser will not be a threat again, even in the long term. This is because of the new difference in strength that will exist between the two parties, And this will result in peace.