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

[bzelger]

I oppose threatening peace-mode nations too. Fortunately, that's not the case here. If, after peace is agreed, a nation that sat in peace mode during the war elects to leave the NPO then they do so without any penalty. They can leave the arena right now, in fact.

The difference between what the NPO did and what is going on here is stark: the NPO said that any nation that doesn't play by their rules couldn't play again, what Karma has said is that the NPO needs to pay the piper for starting a war of unjustified aggression, and if they won't do it on the field then they're going to do it with their checkbook. The NPO threatened individuals, Karma is dealing with alliance conduct.

Karma is fighting a war that has to be won soundly. The NPO is very proud of having come back from defeat and eliminating those who dared oppose them. Right now the NPO's traditional allies are largely intact and they have a significant reserve of large nations with huge sums of cash. They still have a sanction and a huge member base. Their potential to rebound quickly and vengefully is still large, and there will not be much to oppose them in the aftermath of this war. Reassembly of the coalition that exists now is not likely.

What would you do in this situation? The NPO has elected to utterly destroy alliances that posed no threat to them, people who just wanted to be left alone. The community sat on their hands and watched or actively hailed them as they did it. Karma is dealing with an alliance that has the will and possibly the means to decimate it, and yet has elected not to follow in their footsteps.

Karma is not threatening peace mode nations, it is informing the NPO that the manner in which they fight the war will influence the nature of the terms they receive in the end. Did you protest when the Mushroom Kingdom was saddled with huge reparations, ostensibly to compensate for nuclear first striking? The nature of the war and the combatants' comportment has always played a role in the terms. Codifying the relationship between conduct and consequence is hardly evil.

If you have a better suggestion for how Karma can win the war while protecting their back, I'm sure they'd love to hear it.

Edited May 27, 2009 by bzelger

[magicninja]

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.

Get away with what exactly? Saving a little bit back to rebuild? Yes, a future full power Pacifica could be a dangerous thing but only if they have large and powerful friends beside them. They won't have that for a long, long time if ever. They will be on their own for the most part after this war and I don't think alliances will be lining up to be friends with them.

Well at the very least you should think of capping the overall penalty. Keep it steep. Maybe 1bil and 25k tech just on the side of whatever else they are paying. If you don't the numbers would get out of hand to the point where you wouldn't really be able to ask for it anyway.

Edited May 27, 2009 by magicninja

[John Michaels]

Get away with what exactly? Saving a little bit back to rebuild? Yes, a future full power Pacifica could be a dangerous thing but only if they have large and powerful friends beside them. They won't have that for a long, long time if ever. They will be on their own for the most part after this war and I don't think alliances will be lining up to be friends with them.

Well at the very least you should think of capping the overall penalty. Keep it steep. Maybe 1bil and 25k tech just on the side of whatever else they are paying. If you don't the numbers would get out of hand to the point where you wouldn't really be able to ask for it anyway.

How long did it take in the post GW1 environment for people to snuggle up with the Orders? They were still plenty hated back then and yet people were more than willing to work with them.

[Jipps]

Karma is fighting a war that has to be won soundly. The NPO is very proud of having come back from defeat and eliminating those who dared oppose them. Right now the NPO's traditional allies are largely intact and they have a significant reserve of large nations with huge sums of cash. They still have a sanction and a huge member base. Their potential to rebound quickly and vengefully is still large, and there will not be much to oppose them in the aftermath of this war. Reassembly of the coalition that exists now is not likely.

What is so bad about NPO rebuilding, really?

I am deeply disappointed on how paranoia has gotten the best of so many fighting on the Karma side. It is sad that so many think they need to beat their enemies to the ground for fear that they might come back and reek vengence. That is the same exact mentality NPO had in their reign. Continuing harsh terms just takes away a lot from the grame, just because one group might deserve harsh terms doesn't make it any more the right thing to do.

[bzelger]

That is the same exact mentality NPO had in their reign.

This is the crux of the issue. The NPO did it to alliances that didn't have this mentality, so it made no real sense.

In any case, I am not opposing letting them rebuild, nor do I favor crippling surrender terms. All I'm asserting is that this war, which they started, should be won soundly.

[Alterego]

Proportionality:When you want to force a large alliance to pay perhaps the highest and harshest reps ever given after spending over a month before the war saying you want to see an end to harsh reps.

[Vilien]

Proportionality:When you want to force a large alliance to pay perhaps the highest and harshest reps ever given after spending over a month before the war saying you want to see an end to harsh reps.

Eternal war, vice-royalties, and secret terms tying their alliance to us for years are just too good for them.

[Jipps]

All I'm asserting is that this war, which they started, should be won soundly.

So let us keep the punishing to during the war, not afterwards. When will enough be enough, they've already lost about 60% of their NS.

Remember that any fool can take out vengence, but it takes much wisdom to set the example.

[Teriethien]

So let us keep the punishing to during the war, not afterwards. When will enough be enough, they've already lost about 60% of their NS.

Remember that any fool can take out vengence, but it takes much wisdom to set the example.

Losing sanction would be a good benchmark. It would be a symbolic, durable sign of decisive victory for Karma compared to NS. We don't really need another essay on the NPO fighting the world to a stalemate.

[kotic]

very interesting post, and i dont mean to say that to be bias as i am from Rok. but it does seem like NPO's terms are inline with what they would give any other alliance for a lesser crime. which is exactly why it is fair because in this case"the crime fits the punishment"

[Jipps]

very interesting post, and i dont mean to say that to be bias as i am from Rok. but it does seem like NPO's terms are inline with what they would give any other alliance for a lesser crime. which is exactly why it is fair because in this case"the crime fits the punishment"

An eye for an eye makes the world blind, my friend.

[Petrovich4]

An eye for an eye makes the world blind, my friend.

BUT I'll still have one eye left

[Bob Janova]

just because one group might deserve harsh terms doesn't make it any more the right thing to do.

Wait, what?

What is so bad about NPO rebuilding, really?

Letting the NPO off again, after it was done once and they used the mercy to come back and destroy the merciful victors, is just plain stupid. Most of the Hegemony alliances have been allowed a second chance, but for the NPO it would be a third ... what's that saying about 'fool me twice' again. They need to be small enough that they are not a threat.

Interesting that you find harsh terms such a terrible thing when you were party to probably the highest proportional terms in history, and signed an MDP with the alliance that made the most use of harsh terms, as well as being in OPP under another that did so. It seems to me that you find extortion acceptable when that money is coming to your side, but have a moral enlightenment as soon as those bullies are asked to pay back.

[Haflinger]

Losing sanction would be a good benchmark. It would be a symbolic, durable sign of decisive victory for Karma compared to NS. We don't really need another essay on the NPO fighting the world to a stalemate.

The problem with that is the score formula.

Currently, the NPO gets about 9.11 score from simple nation count. In order for them to be unsanctioned today, they would need to have about 4.7 million NS or lower.

If Ragnarok continues to lose NS, then this number may drop further. Their drops in recent days have been fairly low, but if the NPO were to take the advice of Karma and bring out their banks to fight, it seems fairly certain to me that Ragnarok's drop would speed up rapidly. Of course IRON's reps may help to blunt that blow.

Even so: dropping them below 4.7 million NS would bring them into the same rough NS range as alliances like The Legion and the Mushroom Kingdom. You don't really expect them to take those kinds of demands seriously do you?

[Teriethien]

The problem with that is the score formula.

Currently, the NPO gets about 9.11 score from simple nation count. In order for them to be unsanctioned today, they would need to have about 4.7 million NS or lower.

Well, if I'm not mistaken the NPO is said to have lost almost 300 of their pre-war member count. Although it appears that they've been able to make up for much of it with new recruits (or members previously disguised as unaligned?), I don't think there's going to be many more applicants at this stage. With both sides are digging in for a long/eternal war and Karma clearly on top, I would say that the regular nation out there would at least put off their desire to apply for the time being. If they continue bleeding members then soon nation count isn't going to be a problem.

Even so: dropping them below 4.7 million NS would bring them into the same rough NS range as alliances like The Legion and the Mushroom Kingdom. You don't really expect them to take those kinds of demands seriously do you?

It's not a demand, just my thoughts on what Karma's war aim should be. The NPO isn't exactly in a position to deny Karma military objectives.

[Alterego]

Well, if I'm not mistaken the NPO is said to have lost almost 300 of their pre-war member count.

They've lost about 200 members (20%) and 15m NS (70%).

After well over a month of fighting their finances will no doubt be strained too. Despite these massive losses most of K aren't satisfied with the damage done or are too scared to call it a day and when they decide to call it a day they (NPO) will be severely restricted for a very long time to come with massive reps and forced internal policy and personnel changes.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Alterego

[Teriethien]

they (NPO) will be severely restricted for a very long time to come with massive reps and forced internal policy and personnel changes.

Sounds more like what the NPO would do if the situation is reversed tbh.

[enderland]

They've lost about 200 members (20%) and 15m NS (70%).

After well over a month of fighting their finances will no doubt be strained too. Despite these massive losses most of K aren't satisfied with the damage done or are too scared to call it a day and when they decide to call it a day they (NPO) will be severely restricted for a very long time to come with massive reps and forced internal policy and personnel changes.

They have lost just under 300 of their pre-war membership (they have since gained about 100 or so people too though, making it roughly a 200 member net drop. Most of the new people however are small nations).

[deerokus]

What is so bad about NPO rebuilding, really?

I am deeply disappointed on how paranoia has gotten the best of so many fighting on the Karma side. It is sad that so many think they need to beat their enemies to the ground for fear that they might come back and reek vengence. That is the same exact mentality NPO had in their reign. Continuing harsh terms just takes away a lot from the grame, just because one group might deserve harsh terms doesn't make it any more the right thing to do.

This man is right. So what if NPO rebuild? I can't see them building up allies like that, or all-conquering power ever again. Thanks to succesive 'curb stomps' and GWs, so many alliances have been destoryed or weakened that there aren't enough really great, entertaining alliances with actual identities who have power in this world (granted, NPO are partly but not exclusively or entirely responsible for that). Some of the sanctioned alliances at the moment are pretty.... generic.

[Jipps]

Wait, what?

[OOC] Do you walk down the street and beat someone up, even if they might have deserved a beatdown?[/OOC]

No you wouldn't because you're better than that, or at least I would hope you were. Like I said, anyone can take vengence, but it takes real strength to set the example.

Letting the NPO off again, after it was done once and they used the mercy to come back and destroy the merciful victors, is just plain stupid. Most of the Hegemony alliances have been allowed a second chance, but for the NPO it would be a third ... what's that saying about 'fool me twice' again. They need to be small enough that they are not a threat.

Because god forbid there be any competition in Cybernations.

Interesting that you find harsh terms such a terrible thing when you were party to probably the highest proportional terms in history, and signed an MDP with the alliance that made the most use of harsh terms, as well as being in OPP under another that did so. It seems to me that you find extortion acceptable when that money is coming to your side, but have a moral enlightenment as soon as those bullies are asked to pay back.

That tech was paid out in tech deals. 2 million for 150 tech was not a fair price however, so upon being elected leader I went to work to repay the money we profitted from in those terms. It was a regretful experience, but Londo can verify I'm sure.

We never as an alliance took part in harsh terms, however there are alliances in Karma that did.

[bzelger]

We never as an alliance took part in harsh terms, however there are alliances in Karma that did.

You took money and tech from us.

Edited May 30, 2009 by bzelger

[Jipps]

You took money and tech from us.

From my recollection almost all those terms were waived, but this isn't an interrogation of SSSW18's history here.

Can we please try to focus on deabte and not questioning personal record.

[bzelger]

You recall incorrectly.

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.

[Krull]

You recall incorrectly.

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.

But can you please not talk about because you've like destroyed his whole argument. And please try not to get off topic by discussing reps in a thread about discussing reps.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Krull

[Bob Janova]

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.

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.