New Pacific Order Reps Race

[Kahnite]

I'm sorry, all this talk I find amusing. Here "Karma", the "movement of change" are upping the ante as the war drags on because ... a.) we can't let them off without punishment; b.) they (NPO) did it before; and c.) what we're asking is totally in line with reps from previous wars. Yet by it's own admission, Karma is composed mainly of alliances that had fallen under harsh reps and punishment from previous wars.

Seems to me, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[magicninja]

Karma just fails so hard on this. They do need to reverse it because it just isn't going to work. It's going to make you look like fools no matter the final outcome. This is the point. Even if it couldn't be called hypocritical it is certainly a bonehead ploy.

[Heft]

Sure they have, they did it to GATO, they told GATO that their nations had to come out of PM or they would be PZId that is a term not only to the individual nations but to the alliance as a whole (unless you want to sit here and argue that NPO would have allowed GATO to keep and defend those members with no consequence after the war)

These aren't pre-terms, just a declaration about what the terms will be based on NPO's actions. The only part that are "pre-terms" is telling NPO they won't get peace while they have all those nations in peace mode, which is something NPO has done in the past.

As Vlad and others pointed out, this is not like what they did with GATO, or at any other time. What they did with GATO had a clear and obvious resolution. "If X, then Y." What you are doing is more "If X, then eventually Y+Z" where Y is unknown, and when Y will ever be released is unknown. I'm not trying to be combative here but the simple truth is I don't think these pre-terms, or conditions, or whatever, stand any chance of working. Especially when the base number isn't known, because if that isn't known then the final number can't be ascertained. It really doesn't matter whether or not it's justified, or whether or not the NPO "deserves" it, because it simply won't happen. I don't really know how many times this has to be explained by how many different people before it becomes clear.

[Gen Lee]

Srqt is indeed a voice of reason.

Sigh. I was hoping we could be done with this... I admitted that I was wrong to bring it back up, and dropped the issue. But okay. You want a name? I'll do better and give you two. Coursca and Feanor Noldorin. They both cited that figure in another thread. If you know anything about those guys, if you've ever read their posts, you should know that they would never call you on this in public unless they knew what was going on. They're in TOP, and Gre keeps TOP in the loop. Plus, I recall (DAC)Syzygy (the single person on these forums least likely to talk out of his butt) say that the terms you tried to push were utterly ridiculous and that Gre would have white-peaced IRON and left you to your fate if you hadn't eased up. While I don't agree with hanging your ally out to dry over something like this, the fact that he would say that publicly speaks volumes.

I already apologized for making the wrong conclusion in regards to that log.

-Bama

Coursca and Feanor were not involved and neither was TOP. (DAC)Syzygy was not involved with brainstorming or discussions with terms. You want to be done with this? So do I. The best way for that to happen is for you to stop throwing that ridiculous number around as if it were fact. It is not, it is a complete falsity. I cannot be anymore clear than that. I've invited anyone and everyone to come contradict me here with any semblance of fact, and nobody has confirmed that. It's not because gre, fcc, mha, etc. have some desire to cover for Rok, it is because it never happened.

You're correct. My numbers never made it to the table. They were shot down by Citadel/MHA/etc. But RoK would have pushed them if they'd had their way.

-Bama

No "your" numbers never existed no matter what you say.

[HeinousOne]

Well, I value my first amendment rights to freedom of speech. I wasn't kicked out, but I did have a yelling match with bilrow that ended not so well lol. I then decided to self-zi, give my tech to the order and be gone. Apparently that info I posted violated opsec though, and will lengthen the war for my former brothers somehow. I loved Pacifica too .

I can think of a place that values free speech that lies on the opposite side of the honor spectrum. I do not need to state the alliance's name. You are walking in my footsteps right now just as I walked in the footsteps of others whom have gone through exactly what you just went through.

wtf...every time I hear something like this I wonder just a little bit what the hell we are still doing, what we are, for who we are.

Join TPF jim, at zi you should fit right in.

Do people really need reminders?

Opsec in NPO is just an end all for any argument they do not wish having or any explanation they do not wish to give. It literally means nothing and yet everything to them.

[bbrownso]

A few notes.

1) I have been speaking about injustices for the better part of 2 years here, beginning with a different name, and now with this name.

I have spoken up in the past regardless of these "political ramifications" you speak of.

2) Karma is not being hypocratic at all. Hegemony gave them all valid CB's, much more valid than the one NPO and TORN used on OV to kick off this war. Karma never said they would give white peace to all combatants.

3) Karma has consistantly stated NPO's surrender terms would be harsh.

4) NPO began this cycle of increasingly harsh terms and unjust treatment of people staying in peace mode in wars. Many, many NPO members and NPO supporters voiced their incredibly loud praising of the NPO for such a move. Karma, on the other hand, has issued a completely different ultimatum for nations in peace mode. Instead of EZI'ing those in peace mode, or promising eternal war for those nations, Karma has stated that the reperations for the NPO, their entire alliance, will be higher given that if you are in peace mode you cannot take damage, and therefor have an increased ability to pay reparations after the war ends.

5) I do find it incredibly hypocratic that all of these NPO supporters are speaking out against Karma for doing this, yet they were silent or even supporting NPO when they did something far worse than this. Where was your cries of injustice when MK and Polar got harsh terms? Where was your cries of unjustice when GATO was told to get out of peace mode of those nations in peace mode would get EZI'd? Also, point me to where Karma said they would EZI NPO nations in peace mode?

Until such a thing happens, it is you, and everyone supporting NPO and bashing Karma here who are the hypocrits.

@ Bama-Buc

I understand your point of view, but let me explain something.

I do not see myself as a hypocrit. I have been consistant in my views, and consistant in the "theme" of my posts. I have been anti EZI for as long as I can remember. I dislike harsh terms for alliances that don't "deserve it". The actions of NPO have proven to me that they do, in fact, "deserve it". Additionally, they have performed worse acts than Karma has this war. I don't understand how when Karma performs less harsh acts than Hegemony how Karma can be hypocrits.

If you could clear this up for me, that would be appreciated.

Don't the "pre-terms" state that more days of war will be added for each day 5K+ nations are in peace mode? Since NPO has seemingly made it clear that they will not accept the pre-terms offered, then either Karma will have to drop this condition or they will seemingly be ensnared in a perpetual war, whether they want to or not.

As for your other points, the justness or evilness of Pacifica's action lies in the mind of the viewer. I felt that Polar got terms it deserved, but in hind sight I should have objected more to the terms given MK and to a greater extent Athens. However, I was not in a place to disagree on the terms decided.

Finally, I only had concerns over a few CBs and had some issues with reps. I also know that whatever problems I had with those issues, I either took a stand or have accepted that I didn't do what I could have. I'm not now claiming to be righting the wrongs wrought by others while I stood by. Big difference.

[BamaBuc]

@ Bama-Buc

I understand your point of view, but let me explain something.

I do not see myself as a hypocrit. I have been consistant in my views, and consistant in the "theme" of my posts. I have been anti EZI for as long as I can remember. I dislike harsh terms for alliances that don't "deserve it". The actions of NPO have proven to me that they do, in fact, "deserve it". Additionally, they have performed worse acts than Karma has this war. I don't understand how when Karma performs less harsh acts than Hegemony how Karma can be hypocrits.

If you could clear this up for me, that would be appreciated.

We're all human, we've all said something hypocritical in our lives. But I do respect that you've always tried not to be one yourself. It's a noble goal, but I think it's impossile to be 100% non-hypocritical. We humans can only truly see things from our own perspective, through the biased lenses of our own lives. I'm not a cynic, I don't think we're always hypocrites... But I'm a realist, and I know we all can be hypocrites sometimes.

Harsh terms for NPO is not hypocritical... Unless they're just off-the-charts cruel, which I doubt they will be. Now, this pre-terms crap is what I take issue with. The concept of reps being added on for peace mode (seriously people, learn to stagger and quit blaming the enemy for taking advantage of your own screwup) is a whole new precedent. That's what I don't like.

-Bama

Edited May 29, 2009 by BamaBuc

[BamaBuc]

Coursca and Feanor were not involved and neither was TOP. (DAC)Syzygy was not involved with brainstorming or discussions with terms. You want to be done with this? So do I. The best way for that to happen is for you to stop throwing that ridiculous number around as if it were fact. It is not, it is a complete falsity. I cannot be anymore clear than that. I've invited anyone and everyone to come contradict me here with any semblance of fact, and nobody has confirmed that. It's not because gre, fcc, mha, etc. have some desire to cover for Rok, it is because it never happened.

No "your" numbers never existed no matter what you say.

I'm sure Gremlins don't tell their own government and close allies what goes on in those discussions.

-Bama

[Zombie Glaucon]

It's just another example of the hypocrisy that in apparent on Planet Bob. Get used to it.

I"m curious: in your nation, is it considered hypocritical to put a kidnapper in jail?

[Seerow]

I"m curious: in your nation, is it considered hypocritical to put a kidnapper in jail?

The more appropriate analogy is if a kidnapper proceeds to barricade himself in a house, is it considered appropriate for the Police/SWAT/whoever shows up to tell the kidnapper the longer he stays in the house the higher his fine is going to be and the more time he's going to spend in jail?

[Vhalen]

The Mushroom Kingdom was at war for 13 days in that war.

The New Pacific Order has been at war for a month and 7 days, so far.

Do you really think their warchests are holding out just as well as yours did?

They have little to no excuse not to be holding out at least that well. NPO has fought largely wars where they were the aggressor, largely outnumbered their prey, wrapped things up quickly, demanded reps, and thus should not have had to significantly dip into their warchests. They should be rather large by now, wouldn't you think?

More likely, they think you're bluffing about the peace mode terms. They're trying to call the bluff by forcing the penalty up to a ludicrous level.

Personally, I'd just put a hold on this after a week's accumulation...and state that 100% of the "penalty" stuff goes to OV. My personal, unasked opinion is that it'd be fitting for OV's aid slots to be kept full of 3mil/50tech for the entirety of the terms' duration, whatever that might be.

The semantics were already discussed and dismissed as irrelevant earlier in the thread.

Fact: Did you know that anyone can unilaterally dismiss something as irrelevant, just by saying so? Watch. I dismiss your above quoted statement as irrelevant. Now I can say it was brought up and dismissed, which makes the semantics relevant again, and additionally makes what I say more believable. *rolls eyes* This type of behavior is one of my biggest problems with how you present dialogue/essays/etc.

3) You are definitely not reading the thread. I am not saying that they do not exist because we cannot see them (though in all probability they do not), I am saying that they do not exist for the purposes of our decision making because you will not show them to us, and as such could be anything and could be changed to anything at a whim -- which in turn makes the entire idea of these pre-term penalties completely meaningless.

Since you have zero facts, you've been put into a startlingly good position to assign probabilities, huh? Interesting. See above.

[Vhalen]

The more appropriate analogy is if a kidnapper proceeds to barricade himself in a house, is it considered appropriate for the Police/SWAT/whoever shows up to tell the kidnapper the longer he stays in the house the higher his fine is going to be and the more time he's going to spend in jail?

Actually, I think it is to some degree. I imagine a jury would look worse upon a kidnapper who kept his victims for days and days in a desperate unwinnable standoff, than one who, upon realizing he'd made a colossal blunder, surrendered, turned himself in, and threw himself on the mercy of the court.

In other pointless irrelevant analogy news, hotels usually charge by the day.

[519 Nigras]

The more appropriate analogy is if a kidnapper proceeds to barricade himself in a house, is it considered appropriate for the Police/SWAT/whoever shows up to tell the kidnapper the longer he stays in the house the higher his fine is going to be and the more time he's going to spend in jail?

Yes. In my Country we call it Resisting Arrest or a lesser charge called Obstruction of Justice.

Edited May 29, 2009 by 519 Nigras

[Vhalen]

Don't the "pre-terms" state that more days of war will be added for each day 5K+ nations are in peace mode? Since NPO has seemingly made it clear that they will not accept the pre-terms offered, then either Karma will have to drop this condition or they will seemingly be ensnared in a perpetual war, whether they want to or not.

Actually, I believe they say that peace term duration, not war duration, will increase.

[Seerow]

Yes. In my Country we call it Resisting Arrest or a lesser charge called Obstruction of Justice.

Yes, and the police officers are the ones who decide which charges are being pressed while the situation is still ongoing, rather than waiting for it to end and let the lawyers sort out what is deserved based on what took place in hindsight?

Also it's resisting arrest and obstruction of justice whether it lasts for 1 hour or a day, or a week. I don't think there's any law anywhere that makes the penalty increase the longer the criminal keeps it up, new penalties get tacked on for new crimes, not the duration of a crime.

[BamaBuc]

Yes, and the police officers are the ones who decide which charges are being pressed while the situation is still ongoing, rather than waiting for it to end and let the lawyers sort out what is deserved based on what took place in hindsight?

Also it's resisting arrest and obstruction of justice whether it lasts for 1 hour or a day, or a week. I don't think there's any law anywhere that makes the penalty increase the longer the criminal keeps it up, new penalties get tacked on for new crimes, not the duration of a crime.

Seerow, I get what you're trying to say, but all of these RL crimes analogies are pointless. In a domestic crime, there is the government, who has the duty of prosecuting criminals, and then there is the criminal, who broke a law. In CN, we are nation leaders, we all start out on equal footing, and there is no established entity that we all answer to that judges us (except the mods). It's not compatible with the situation of an RL crime.

-Bama

[Seerow]

Seerow, I get what you're trying to say, but all of these RL crimes analogies are pointless. In a domestic crime, there is the government, who has the duty of prosecuting criminals, and then there is the criminal, who broke a law. In CN, we are nation leaders, we all start out on equal footing, and there is no established entity that we all answer to that judges us (except the mods). It's not compatible with the situation of an RL crime.

-Bama

It doesn't invalidate the wisdom of judging after the fact, rather than trying to set terms based on something still ongoing. Especially if you want to base it on something like a length of time.

While I don't feel that however absurdly high the reps get as a result of this it will be impossible for the NPO to pay off, the fact is they won't accept it, and while they refuse to accept the number grows, and so on and so forth. The whole ploy is just waiting to blow up in Karma's face. But it's too late to take it back now, if they try to retract it now the NPO will consider it a small victory in their favor, and lord over everyone how the resolve of karma is weakening.

I just wish I knew exactly what Karma was thinking when setting this. Assuming the NPO continues to dig its heels in the longer it goes on the worse it will appear for Karma.

[BamaBuc]

It doesn't invalidate the wisdom of judging after the fact, rather than trying to set terms based on something still ongoing. Especially if you want to base it on something like a length of time.

While I don't feel that however absurdly high the reps get as a result of this it will be impossible for the NPO to pay off, the fact is they won't accept it, and while they refuse to accept the number grows, and so on and so forth. The whole ploy is just waiting to blow up in Karma's face. But it's too late to take it back now, if they try to retract it now the NPO will consider it a small victory in their favor, and lord over everyone how the resolve of karma is weakening.

I just wish I knew exactly what Karma was thinking when setting this. Assuming the NPO continues to dig its heels in the longer it goes on the worse it will appear for Karma.

You're right that your point is still valid. I agree with you. I'm just tired of all the RL crimes analogies that have been flying around in this war.

-Bama

[TypoNinja]

He'd be trespassing too! And stealing if hes eating their food!

Terrible analogies aside this is how I look at it.

The NPO started a war with an aggressive attack, unlike virtually all other wars in their history this one isn't going in their favour.

KARMA has decided that there should be consequences for attacking someone simply because you think nobody can stop you.

Now over the years NPO has generated a substantial amount of ill will on planet bob, while most of us do also desire peace we're also OK with simply beating on the NPO until they get the point.

They are the aggressor, they are in the wrong, and they are losing. If the NPO wishes an end to the conflict KARMA will be the one dictating terms. Spin, political tricks, towing the party line, attempting to paint their opponents in a bad light, none of these things can change the reality.

The reality is that for once the NPO bit off more than it can chew, it doesn't get to call the shots on this one. If they find sitting on the other side of the table to be an unpleasant experience I find my self unable to conjure up any sympathy.

The reality is victors dictate terms, the reality is nobody trusts the NPO to not simply attempt to go back to business as usual once this is over, so terms will be harsh. If the richest 20% of their nations remain untouched from the war, terms will be that much harsher to offset the lack of damage,

To suggest the NPO hasn't earned harsh terms is to ignore history, and the history is less about who the NPO wronged than establishing a pattern of behaviour. Who they did it to is less important than the fact that they did do terrible things, over and over again. A history of such actions is not to be ignored when crafting terms. The NPO is as the cops would say a Repeat Offender. And when dealing with habitual offenders the solution is to remove their ability to repeat the crime.

To suggest we are hypocrites for enforcing harsh terms upon the NPO is to be wilfully ignorant.

Karma never promised forgiveness, but we did promise retribution.

[KIADO]

While I don't feel that however absurdly high the reps get as a result of this it will be impossible for the NPO to pay off, the fact is they won't accept it, and while they refuse to accept the number grows, and so on and so forth. The whole ploy is just waiting to blow up in Karma's face. But it's too late to take it back now, if they try to retract it now the NPO will consider it a small victory in their favor, and lord over everyone how the resolve of karma is weakening.

I just wish I knew exactly what Karma was thinking when setting this. Assuming the NPO continues to dig its heels in the longer it goes on the worse it will appear for Karma.

Loss aversion is a concept of Social Psychology as much as economics. It is not the reality of loss that matters but the perception. Nations have gone to war until their doom because of loss aversion. It simply means you refuse to admit you made a mistake. Social Psychology Fourth Edition, Aronson et al., p. 175: "Once we have committed a lot of time or energy to a cause, it is nearly impossible to convince us that it is unworthy" The real question is "How bad do your losses have to be before you change course?" In stocks this is called capitulation

[Seerow]

You're right that your point is still valid. I agree with you. I'm just tired of all the RL crimes analogies that have been flying around in this war.

-Bama

To be fair I was just expanding on someone else's analogy. I tend to avoid them.

That said I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time (and will continue to do so until people start adopting it) banning the use of financial aid in any form incoming or outgoing, internal or external, is the best way to deal with this. It eliminates all accusations of greed and revenge, and successfully stunts growth far more successfully than reparations ever could.

I'd also say rather than charging reps for all nations in peace mode, go through a list of all nations in peace on this date. For the duration of all other terms (however long they may be) plus an additional 30 days, these nations must remain in peace mode. Any nation exiting peace mode earlier would be sentenced to a single ZI, at which point they would be free to go. But hey, the NPO likes their biggest nations in peace so much I don't see why this would be an issue.

But I have no say in the surrender terms, so these have almost no chance of ever being seen actually on the table. But hey, if I talk enough maybe someone in power will listen, eh?

[bigwoody]

Well, if not already, within 2 days the "pre-terms" will climb to such high levels that NPO won't ever take them.

So, you either will have to renege on the threat or the war will last forever.

I think mpol has already won this discussion.

EDIT ahead of anticipated complaining: I'm not even diving into the moral v. immoral side of this. Unless you take back the "pre-terms", you won't be gaining any reps from this war period. Unless that was your intention all along, in which case carry on and feel free to ignore me.

Edited May 29, 2009 by bigwoody

[Caliph]

Don't the "pre-terms" state that more days of war will be added for each day 5K+ nations are in peace mode? Since NPO has seemingly made it clear that they will not accept the pre-terms offered, then either Karma will have to drop this condition or they will seemingly be ensnared in a perpetual war, whether they want to or not.

These is a third option, and that is NPO will realize after so many days of wars that the Karma resolve is not weakening and will start complying in order to receive some sort of terms they can accept.

As for your other points, the justness or evilness of Pacifica's action lies in the mind of the viewer. I felt that Polar got terms it deserved, but in hind sight I should have objected more to the terms given MK and to a greater extent Athens. However, I was not in a place to disagree on the terms decided.

Polar did get terms they deserved, but after they payed for those crimes, so in my opinion Polar should not have been hit at that point as the situation had changed in that Sponge was ousted before the war occured, but after the war planning had occured.

However you are correct in that the "justness" or "evilness" of anyones actions is subjective.

Finally, I only had concerns over a few CBs and had some issues with reps. I also know that whatever problems I had with those issues, I either took a stand or have accepted that I didn't do what I could have. I'm not now claiming to be righting the wrongs wrought by others while I stood by. Big difference.

I don't believe Karma is saying they are "righting any wrongs". This war is fought because the treaty web allowed a large coalition to be built to stand up to NPO and TORN in their war of agression against OV. Karma is choosing, purposely, to show more lenient terms than Hegemony has in the past. We can only view someones past actions to make any sort of educated guess as to what their future actions will be, and Hegemonies past actions have been beat down wars and harsher and harsher reps. Karma is acting more leniently here than the Hegemony has in past wars.

We're all human, we've all said something hypocritical in our lives. But I do respect that you've always tried not to be one yourself. It's a noble goal, but I think it's impossile to be 100% non-hypocritical. We humans can only truly see things from our own perspective, through the biased lenses of our own lives. I'm not a cynic, I don't think we're always hypocrites... But I'm a realist, and I know we all can be hypocrites sometimes.

Harsh terms for NPO is not hypocritical... Unless they're just off-the-charts cruel, which I doubt they will be. Now, this pre-terms crap is what I take issue with. The concept of reps being added on for peace mode (seriously people, learn to stagger and quit blaming the enemy for taking advantage of your own screwup) is a whole new precedent. That's what I don't like.

-Bama

Well, I do appreciate that you called yourself a hypocrit in an earlier post, because I don't have to point out to you that when NPO was doing worse actions you were either supporting them or silent about the matter.

If you truly were upset about those actions, then was the time to speak up. Speak up when the possibility of reprecussion is there, so we all know you truly believe what you are saying and are willing to put yourself on the line for it. Now anyone can say they were indeed upset about actions in the past, but action now does not make up for lack of actions then.

Pre terms is not a new concept, NPO did it first. The NPO has treated others in a certain way, and thus we are treating NPO in a certain way. Now, we are not as cruel as the NPO is (or at least those in charge of negotiating peace terms aren't as cruel as those in charge of developing peace terms for NPO's enemies in the past), so we won't do exactly what NPO did unto others. They are hypocrits for criticizing FAN and GPA for using "hippie mode", and yet use it extensively themselves. It is partly this hypocricy, however mostly the desire to make sure NPO is sufficiently beaten down this war to not be an immediate threat to those alliances in Karma, that drives this statement.

I agree with the criticism that the wording, as presented, gives NPO no incentive to leave peace mode.

Vladimir is correct in that without a concrete starting number for peace mode reps to increase from, the "punishment" is not perceived. All NPO will know are the terms presented, and they will just have to take us at our word that the reps were increased by X amount.

However Vladimir knows that this is a smokescreen argument. He, along with others in the NPO, is hoping that the resolve of Karma will falter, and one by one Karma alliances will seek a white peace with NPO until there comes a time when NPO can blitz out of peace mode and devastate those still in war with NPO. Or that Karma will tire of this war and offer white peace, or light terms thus allowing NPO to come back and be a viable military threat quickly.

This is no secret. What Karma is doing here is for viable, sound, military reasoning.

It just wasn't presented to the NPO in such a way as to make staying in peace mode a proper threat.

[Matthew Conrad]

Sparta- Nothing to NPO but claimed some money as NPO's partners

I've been going over past wars in which Sparta took part of with Q allies and all I see is 1000 tech from GR in WoTC. Can anyone from GR confirm this? If so, I think we can agree that's insignificantly small. I'm just trying to clarify this.

[Azaghul]

Blacky, these are pre-terms. They are not a surrender, they do not promise us anything. All they do is demand that our nations leave peace mode so that they can be attacked. They do not end the war. So options become:

1) War with nations strategically placed in peace mode and no promise of peace.

2) War with nations being jumped by Karma alliances leading to a rapid loss of strength and economic capacity and no promise of peace (or any other concrete benefit).

3) Disbandment.

You are right, the choice is easy.

You must be deliberately obtuse.

1) No chance of peace at all

2) Peace after those nations have taken some beating (a few weeks). Just because an exact time frame hasn't been given doesn't mean it ain't gonna happen.

I don't know how much that has to be repeated. Your idea that Karma isn't gonna give you peace if your nations exit peace mode so it isn't any different than if they don't is crap. But hey if you repeat the lie often enough it will become true right?

Slip of the mind at this late hour, but the point stands and is well documented throughout this thread by the words of many Karma leaders (I've yet to see a one deny that the alternative is eternal war, in fact they revel in it). If terms are going to be offered anyway as you seem to be trying to hint then these pre-terms are even more pointless than they already were and you should scrap them right here.

Well terms will be delayed, but I don't believe there's a set formula.

Yet I again I point out that the only part of it that is pre-terms is that peace won't be given until your nations have come out and fought. The rest is just a statement about what the terms will be themselves.

The GATO policy was completely different. We stated that nations not coming out of peace mode would be attacked when they did even if it was after the war; it had nothing to do with peace terms and was not a pre-term. And I'm sure you probably thought it was the most evil thing in the world back then.

The NPO would never have taken on a policy like this because it is a nonsensical, self-defeating policy.

Actually it was, because you're saying they basically had to expel them so they could be attacked by you, and otherwise allow them to be attacked. It was dictating what alliances would be included in the peace terms which would have a whole lot to do with them.

Then it will be even more difficult to pay infinite dollars. You're still missing the point.

The numbers may be high but they aren't infinite. 1 or 2 slots per day in peace mode, roughly tying up slots for twice the length they were in peace mode.

Many of your pals seem to have different ideas on what will happen to the numbers, given that if these numbers are static there is nothing but gain if you release them. Of course, some are more honest than others.

Here's the logic for you: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1566628

Except there's no indication that they intend to keep you at war for more than say, a few weeks, once your nations exit peace. You're basing your assertions on extreme scenarios that are highly unlikely to play out. Yea it's theoretically possible it's just a trap and there are no plans to give you peace, but it's highly unlikely. It's far more likely that the intent is to give you peace once that nations that exit peace mode are beaten down for a little while, that you'd save yourself some extra reps and be able to start rebuilding. Just because there's no 100% guarantee (though reasonably there is, there's just nothing 100% exact) doesn't mean you shouldn't act on it.

Anyway you didn't address my point, which is that the normal reps won't be impacted by the extra peace mode reps and so it's shooting yourself in the foot, regardless of what exactly the base terms are.

What this really is is just you making excuses to not exit peace mode hoping that resolve will weaken and they will let you get peace with those nations untouched. Unfortunately for you you underestimate the resolve of those opposed to you. In the end it's just wasting time that you could have used after the war to rebuild.

No, they're not, Londo.

They're counting on the circumstances around your coalition changing. At some point in the future, when the peace mode penalty is up over a million tech, perhaps, there'll be a war, involving one or more of the coalition partners actively fighting NPO, and it will be in their best interest to grant NPO peace in order to fight a real enemy.

That's how FAN got peace, the first time.

Or possibly that won't happen, but someone will come along and wipe out the people fighting NPO.

That's how FAN got peace, the second time.

This is why mpol is telling you this is not a good idea. He's seen this story before.

Did it end well for FAN in terms of strength? They waited over a year and being stuck in peace mode during that time which was far more damaging than a war followed by a few months worth of reps paying would have been. I'm not saying it wasn't the right choice since it's unlikely they would have gotten peace a second time. But the point is coming out now and then paying reps and being done in a few months will end better for them than waiting months/years for the alliances engaged on them to need to peace out for another war.