New Pacific Order Reps Race

[Vladimir]

NPO deserves the reparations of this magnitude, they didn't flinch while giving these kind of reparations to [...] NpO

With the exception of MCXA, it was exclusively Karma alliances that attacked the NpO and demanded reparations from them.

[1] "On August 14th, a coalition consisting of MCXA, TOP, Grämlins, Umbrella, FOK!, RnR, and FARK declared war on NpO"

[2] NpO surrender terms.

For the record, the Order has already rejected these terms outright, so all this discussion is academic. At this point it is no more than an excuse to continue attacks into eternity (which, in my opinion, given the manner in which these 'pre-terms' are presented, is their purpose).

[Schattenmann]

You were replying to a member of TOOL. TOOL currently holds a PIAT with the NPO, which is the only treaty that they've ever signed with Pacifica. Depending on what you mean by "allied" (some people think of it as MDP+) they have either never been allied to NPO or are still allied to the NPO.

Interesting, never really pondered it, but you're onto the point that not every treaty equates to an alliance. We wouldn't say that signatories of the GPA DoN treaty are "Allied" to GPA. However, when you talk about a PIAT, that involves information-sharing obligations, so that an alliance. Disregarding that fact to disregard a PIAT as an alliance between to bodies is simple a cultural bias in favor of MDP+. TOAs, NAPs, and DoNs don't come with the obligations that PIAT+ do, so they're not alliances. Never thought of it until you said that.

[Nizzle]

The irony in this thread is absolutely delicious.

I mean, we have absurd PM reparations. We have alliance leaders, who are part of this "non-governing, each alliance is independent" Karma, continually posting and using Karma as though it was the name of a power bloc. We have people shouting down other people Hegemony style. We have people completely ignoring the facts of these PM reparations. We have people naively thinking you can force surrender terms on an alliance who has played that game for two years.

Seriously. If Karma WERE a bloc, I would be welcoming my new overlords.

When I think of this war, I think of some bad quotes. From Nietzsche mainly. Something about fighting monsters...staring into the abyss.

Perhaps this is the best over-reactionary one I can think of right now. "I have become death, destroyer of worlds."

EDIT: Oh, and we have people finally admitting all they want out of this war is blood for past sins. The original cause for the war rides side-seat to that. Hilarious.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Nizzle

[bzelger]

With the exception of MCXA, it was exclusively Karma alliances that attacked the NpO and demanded reparations from them.

[1] "On August 14th, a coalition consisting of MCXA, TOP, Grämlins, Umbrella, FOK!, RnR, and FARK declared war on NpO"

[2] NpO surrender terms.

For the record, the Order has already rejected these terms outright, so all this discussion is academic. At this point it is no more than an excuse to continue attacks into eternity (which, in my opinion, given the manner in which these 'pre-terms' are presented, is their purpose).

You're the one electing to stay at war "for eternity" if that's the route you want to go. The purpose of these terms is, in fact, the opposite.

[flak attack]

With the exception of MCXA, it was exclusively Karma alliances that attacked the NpO and demanded reparations from them.

[1] "On August 14th, a coalition consisting of MCXA, TOP, Grämlins, Umbrella, FOK!, RnR, and FARK declared war on NpO"

[2] NpO surrender terms.

For the record, the Order has already rejected these terms outright, so all this discussion is academic. At this point it is no more than an excuse to continue attacks into eternity (which, in my opinion, given the manner in which these 'pre-terms' are presented, is their purpose).

You're also at 8 days longer than the GPA war, yet barely paying 2/3 the reps from that war. With the tech inflation, this is still significantly less than what you asked for in that war.

[jimbacher]

You're the one electing to stay at war "for eternity" if that's the route you want to go. The purpose of these terms is, in fact, the opposite.

Where do I see terms anywhere. These are terms to "possibly" get terms.

[Nizzle]

You're the one electing to stay at war "for eternity" if that's the route you want to go. The purpose of these terms is, in fact, the opposite.

Then someone failed horribly at designing these terms. Keep in mind, we haven't even seen the REAL surrender terms yet either.

[bzelger]

Where do I see terms anywhere. These are terms to "possibly" get terms.

No, these are terms. They just aren't peace terms. Let's not have a semantics argument please.

[Fort Pitt]

The irony in this thread is absolutely delicious.

I mean, we have absurd PM reparations. We have alliance leaders, who are part of this "non-governing, each alliance is independent" Karma, continually posting and using Karma as though it was the name of a power bloc. We have people shouting down other people Hegemony style. We have people completely ignoring the facts of these PM reparations. We have people naively thinking you can force surrender terms on an alliance who has played that game for two years.

Seriously. If Karma WERE a bloc, I would be welcoming my new overlords.

When I think of this war, I think of some bad quotes. From Nietzsche mainly. Something about fighting monsters...staring into the abyss.

Perhaps this is the best over-reactionary one I can think of right now. "I have become death, destroyer of worlds."

EDIT: Oh, and we have people finally admitting all they want out of this war is blood for past sins. The original cause for the war rides side-seat to that. Hilarious.

hmm... i guess your right

on the subject of the topic, NPO deserves reps harder than IRON... AND they should have to pay back every cent and 0.01 tech they got in other outrageous reparations they have forced alliances to do before...

and then reparations should never be used unless its absolute, like if a guy attacks your alliance because of bad communication, it should be an apology, not 18mil reps (/me glares at what was DefCon)

[Gamemaster1]

NPO deserves the reparations of this magnitude, they didn't flinch while giving these kind of reparations to GPA, MK and NpO and boy had they been given the chance they would have given them to FAN as an end to the second war. If any alliance deserves this treatment it's the NPO.

I'm getting the idea that Alzheimer's disease is becoming prevalent across Planet Bob, in particular in alliances previously allied to the NPO.

We only have a PIAT treaty with them. Wasn't aware that we were previously treatied with them at any time, unless a PIAT counts for something more then everyone thinks it does. I wouldn't call us "allied" to them yet. Maybe Alzheimer's disease is prevalent here.

[bzelger]

Then someone failed horribly at designing these terms. Keep in mind, we haven't even seen the REAL surrender terms yet either.

Those on the NPO front are open to suggestions. Champion of airing coalition complaints in private that you are, I'm sure you'll avail yourself of the available venues should you have such an idea.

Edited May 28, 2009 by bzelger

[Vhalen]

Oh, don't be so obtuse. I never said I was a good guy. I said I was an ally of an Ordo Verde, and I am hungry for justice, not technology or revenge. Let no one forget that the New Pacific Order initiated this war, during peace negotiations, with no facts or adequate justification supporting their aggression. Half the people in NPO weren't even around for the events they're being punished for? Interesting, I wasn't aware that the Pacifican membership had doubled between the time they attacked Ordo Verde and now. Some of them may not have been present for previous Pacifican crimes, but that is entirely irrelevant - by joining an alliance you become a staunch advocate of its history, policies and approach towards the game. If they no longer wish to be an advocate of the aforementioned, the option of individual surrender is still open to them. Lastly, if you consider decisively winning a defensive war and appropriately reprimanding an alliance that had the audacity to attack your friends and allies with no justification as one of the "bad guy things", then you have bigger issues to concern yourself with than the future of the New Pacific Order.

Since the war began, the NPO AA has picked up about 150 (nice round number, I think it was higher) nations, mostly small ones from prior applicant status, I believe. When you consider this, the overall drop of 130 in total nation count is even more significant.

Let's not forget that NPO has the ability to start bringing those nations out of peace mode if they don't like the terms. If "fighting" from peace mode is a valid tactic, then this form of negotiations is equally valid.

There are also individual terms available.

Right, but with the choice you gave them, they took the path that numerically is better for them, and psychologically is worse for you. Their morale is very strangely high, and I'll never understand that about the NPO. I see some folks who fought for karma getting all whiny in this topic and calling the war ugly due to these terms--I don't see it that way, but I'm sure you realized many people would.

As for the fact that the merits of those two choices are arguable, I agree, I've been arguing it with you after all. However I was suggesting a synthesis of the two, rather than just this one.

In any case, if your aim in the terms is to damage NPO in comparable measure to if those nations had fought, then these terms will be successful. If your aim is simply to get them to fight, these terms alone will fail. The math doesn't lie, and I'm sure they have calculators.

I'm not sure their overall morale is as high as you think, or they wouldn't have lost about 1/3 of their prewar nation count. I suppose their calculators take into account that a seige isn't a good long term recruiting position, nor does it encourage the less "dedicated" playerbase to stick around.

[MCRABT]

These reps are ridiculous those proposing them should be ashamed.

[jimbacher]

No, these are terms. They just aren't peace terms. Let's not have a semantics argument please.

So if you are trying to end a war you don't give peace terms...seems logical. Where is NPO's incentive to agree to your pre-terms. You can't do much more damage anyways. Most of the non-pm nations will be zied soon enough.(Check my own nation out if you don't believe me.) And we are happy to ride zi too .

[Nizzle]

Those on the NPO front are open to suggestions. Champion of airing coalition complaints in private that you are, I'm sure you'll avail yourself of the available venues should you have such an idea.

Perhaps you, and others, are open to suggestions, but I know some of the others on the front a bit better to think such a thing. Unless I have been horribly misbriefed, to my knowledge Kronos is not a part of some coalition and as such I wouldn't know of such available venues. Nor would I hold myself obligated to seek them out.

In the brave new world I thought was being created, open discussion on the OWF should be allowed. After all, what are we? The Hegemony? lol

Edited May 28, 2009 by Nizzle

[bzelger]

So if you are trying to end a war you don't give peace terms...seems logical. Where is NPO's incentive to agree to your pre-terms. You can't do much more damage anyways. Most of the non-pm nations will be zied soon enough.(Check my own nation out if you don't believe me.) And we are happy to ride zi too .

It is logical and you know it, so I'm not going to waste my breath explaining it. I have a longer post on this subject here that has more detail if you're genuinely confused.

Perhaps you, and others, are open to suggestions, but I know some of the others on the front a bit better to think such a thing. Unless I have been horribly misbriefed, to my knowledge Kronos is not a part of some coalition and as such I wouldn't know of such available venues. Nor would I hold myself obligated to seek them out.

In the brave new world I thought was being created, open discussion on the OWF should be allowed. After all, what are we? The Hegemony? lol

See your pms in a moment.

Edited May 28, 2009 by bzelger

[youwish959]

Dear Pacific,

I like you guys, a lot. However, I think your decision to continue fighting is stupid. Getting your nations out of peace, surrender and rebuilding would be a much much wiser decision. Face your enemies when you can win. The world will go on, and there will be a chance to take them on once more.

Edited May 28, 2009 by youwish959

[HeinousOne]

Perhaps you, and others, are open to suggestions, but I know some of the others on the front a bit better to think such a thing. Unless I have been horribly misbriefed, to my knowledge Kronos is not a part of some coalition and as such I wouldn't know of such available venues. Nor would I hold myself obligated to seek them out.

In the brave new world I thought was being created, open discussion on the OWF should be allowed. After all, what are we? The Hegemony? lol

Well, to be fair I don't think you guys were exactly open to suggestions not long ago when it came to a decision that you were part of.

[Nizzle]

Dear Pacific,

I like you guys, a lot. However, I think your decision to continue fighting is stupid. Getting your nations out of peace, surrender and rebuilding would be a much much wiser decision. Face your enemies when you can win. The world will go on, and there will be a chance to take them on once more.

I do believe, contrary to "Karma's" intentions, that is what NPO is trying to do now. If anything, the actions of "Karma" have done nothing but encourage the NPO to seek revenge in whatever way possible.

Also, if they come out of peace mode....they will just get attacked. That's some pretty fail strategy.

[oinkoink12]

Ok people from valhalla, we need to take a look at this.

If we wanna keep up with our evil image, we need to have something way worse than "terms before the possibility of terms"

I say we give them Terms for every infra WE take of our opponents.

/me takes notes.

[youwish959]

I do believe, contrary to "Karma's" intentions, that is what NPO is trying to do now. If anything, the actions of "Karma" have done nothing but encourage the NPO to seek revenge in whatever way possible.

Also, if they come out of peace mode....they will just get attacked. That's some pretty fail strategy.

I speak of in the future. Long term. They can come back and the web will be different, and they will be in a prime position to get them back.

[Virillus]

I'm curious, Vladimir. Where was the righteous indignation when you sentenced all peace-moded nations in GATO to PZI?

Halflinger? MCRabt?

Instead of sentencing you guys to permanent destruction, we're simply asking you to pay what amounts to a day's collection for any large nation - Oh the horror.

[jimbacher]

Dear Pacific,

I like you guys, a lot. However, I think your decision to continue fighting is stupid. Getting your nations out of peace, surrender and rebuilding would be a much much wiser decision. Face your enemies when you can win. The world will go on, and there will be a chance to take them on once more.

The point of this whole thing argument is we have not been given surrender terms yet. So we pull our nations out of pm and we still get pummeled for another two months. What is the point in that if the whole alliance will be pretty muched zied either way.

[Nizzle]

Well, to be fair I don't think you guys were exactly open to suggestions not long ago when it came to a decision that you were part of.

I've been repeatedly informed there was a long discussion thread on certain secret forums where discussion of said terms took place.

Make up your mind, though. Many of your esteemed colleagues stated that alliances not involved in the war had little to no say in peace terms. Which is it?

Let's be clear: I could not care less if any outside thoughts are taken into consideration or not. Honestly, judging by some egos involved, I doubt any outside suggestions would take place now. These are your decisions as sovereign alliances involved in a war, and others should have no impact on that process. However, we all reserve the right to speak out against what we believe are poor terms and poor methods of "securing peace".

[Virillus]

The point of this whole thing argument is we have not been given surrender terms yet. So we pull our nations out of pm and we still get pummeled for another two months. What is the point in that if the whole alliance will be pretty muched zied either way.

You realize that basing your entire argument on assumptions is NOT a wise argumentative tactic? Right?