New Pacific Order Reps Race

[bzelger]

Perhaps 'refused to comply' would be a better wording, but it amounts to the same thing.

As far as this mystical 'magic number' goes, as I said, we have already had no shortage of them, each changing the moment we hit them. If there really was a magic number they would have nothing to lose and everything to gain from announcing it, yet they continue to evade the question and instead throw about various non-binding 'opinions' to try and entice us off the cliff (though the fact that they are various indicates that there is in fact no agreement inside Karma at all).

You have to be careful who you listen to. Somebody giving you a "magic number" does not mean that it really is one. The fact that you have heard some fake ones doesn't mean there aren't real ones. You know this, yet you're throwing it out anyway - it doesn't lend weight to your sincerety. It's not true that there is nothing to lose and everything to gain. What's the advantage of giving hard numbers? The coalition sacrifices flexibility and gains nothing. You have earned no concessions.

[Virillus]

It's different but not by much. The differences are this won;t work and the punishment is a little softer until it accrues beyond sane numbers anyway.

Wait a minute..........

Then how can you call out NPO on their morality here?

Keep digging Vir.

MagicNinja, this is very simple.

A ) I believe PZI is wrong for all situations, period.

B ) I would've supported them using the same tactic on GATO, had I supported the CB against GATO, which I did not.

Seeing as A ) This isn't PZI, and B ) I support our CB, the train of logic makes perfect sense.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Virillus

[magicninja]

Well I'm sorry you feel that way. Sadly, losing the support of two people won't change much.

Hey...treat others as you would like to be treated. NPO treated GATO like this...so now we are going to treat the NPO like they did GATO. I see no problem here.

I see a problem. Are you GATO? Did GATO ask you to fight for them and right wrongs that were done to them? No? Then drop the act. GATO's AC has already posted a thread calling you out for using GATO as an excuse. You just look like opportunistic clowns here.

[bzelger]

Keep telling yourself that.

Also,

Name the alliances at war with Polar.

Thanks for addressing my points.

The alliances at war with Polar are irrelevant to my post. The point is that precedents are being scaled back.

[magicninja]

MagicNinja, this is very simple.

A ) I believe PZI is wrong for all situations, period.

B ) I would've supported them using the same tactic on GATO, had I supported the CB against GATO, which I did not.

Seeing as A ) This isn't PZI, and B ) I support our CB, the train of logic makes perfect sense.

So those are your own moral views then?

"Saying they were wrong just because you have different personal morals doesn't make any sense."

[Rush Sykes]

I was just wondering from NPO PoV...why should I come out? 1. Get !@#$ beaten out of me. 2. Offered harshest terms ever.

Basically, they have nothing to loose if thats your best offer.

One who has nothing to loose has everything to gain..so they might as well take a chance with peace mode.

-

Just providing different opinion for sake of discussion.

After the ultimatum they "decreed" to GATO concerning peace mode....maybe....just maybe....they could salvage some measure of honour?

[magicninja]

Thanks for addressing my points.

The alliances at war with Polar are irrelevant to my post. The point is that precedents are being scaled back.

All you're doing is trying to set up rules to when you can and can't use a tactic. Sorry, man not everyone is gonna play by your rules.

[Vladimir]

Unfortunately, it seems you skimmed the thread and did not read my response.

But I'll simplify it for ease of reading: The truth is that the sooner you drop peace mode, the easier things will be. You can disbelieve that if you wish.

And it seems that you did not read my response, since it debunked this claim quite fully. If you [Karma] wanted to end the war sooner as you occasionally half-heartedly claim in between rants about how it's alright because 'we deserve it' (I must have missed the part in all the previous moralising rants that qualified 'unless I don't like you'), and militant speeches about how the Order must be completely destroyed, you would publish terms and dates.

You have to be careful who you listen to. Somebody giving you a "magic number" does not mean that it really is one. The fact that you have heard some fake ones doesn't mean there aren't real ones. You know this, yet you're throwing it out anyway - it doesn't lend weight to your sincerety. It's not true that there is nothing to lose and everything to gain. What's the advantage of giving hard numbers? The coalition sacrifices flexibility and gains nothing. You have earned no concessions.

Sacrifices flexibility? You mean like the ability to change the number?

[Virillus]

So those are your own moral views then?

"Saying they were wrong just because you have different personal morals doesn't make any sense."

Where have I said "They are wrong?"

All I've ever said, is that in my opinion, they've done the wrong thing, and I am acting in accordance with my own opinion. I've never doubted that the NPO has done what they feel is right, I'm sure they don't see themselves as the "bad guys."

[Virillus]

And it seems that you did not read my response, since it debunked this claim quite fully. If you [Karma] wanted to end the war sooner as you occasionally half-heartedly claim in between rants about how it's alright because 'we deserve it' (I must have missed the part in all the previous moralising rants that qualified 'unless I don't like you'), and militant speeches about how the Order must be completely destroyed, you would publish terms and dates.

Of course I feel you deserve it, if not - Why would I even be here?

So I'm curious, what terms and dates would cause you to accept these "pre-terms," or are you just here wasting our time?

[bzelger]

Sacrifices flexibility? You mean like the ability to change the number?

Yes. Exactly like that. Why would they freely give up that ability to no gain? Just because there are boundaries set and there is no intention to change them now doesn't mean that they are willing to surrender the right to respond to changing conditions. You certainly wouldn't if the situation were reversed.

[Nizzle]

Having a bad day, Nizzle? I've been polite and respectful throughout this entire thread, would it be too difficult for you to do the same?

It wasn't meant to be insulting, as you clearly behaved as though you didn't read his post.

The baseline terms have been posted for a while now, there are a variety of ways we could prove their veracity in a hypothetical future.

That's news to me. Where are they?

Yes, it comes down to a certain degree of trust, and I understand why they would be wary of us. But in their position, trusting us WILL get them lighter terms. I'm not saying their point is invalid, I'm saying that I personally would act differently in their position.

Wait. Are you saying you would trust an aggressor that has been overly vocal about dismembering you? About how you need to pay? I find it hard to believe, sir, that you would "trust" so implicitly someone who has been consistently talking about how you must be made to pay for your actions. I certainly would not.

Beyond that, diplomacy cannot be conducted on "trust". Especially in a situation like this. There must be reassurances made, or you will find yourself persecuting a war until you learn this lesson. For a member of "Karma", a group who so frequently cites history, I am surprised this misstep is continually being made. You cannt expect them to trust you, or anyone, based on recent events and based on who you know them to be.

Again, sir, there has yet to be a solid argument as to how these "terms" are going to work.

Of course I feel you deserve it, if not - Why would I even be here?

So I'm curious, what terms and dates would cause you to accept these "pre-terms," or are you just here wasting our time?

They will not trust you precisely because of this post, among others like it.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Nizzle

[KIADO]

Lets just face it Karma doesn't want peace at all, what they want is to crush NPO to the ground,to avoid a future threat.

And what me disturbs is not that fact, but the hypocrisy not to admit it.

[magicninja]

Where have I said "They are wrong?"

All I've ever said, is that in my opinion, they've done the wrong thing, and I am acting in accordance with my own opinion. I've never doubted that the NPO has done what they feel is right, I'm sure they don't see themselves as the "bad guys."

Hmmmm...

Right here in this post apparently.

Good show.

[bzelger]

That's news to me. Where are they?

He said posted, not posted in public.

Wait. Are you saying you would trust an aggressor that has been overly vocal about dismembering you? About how you need to pay? I find it hard to believe, sir, that you would "trust" so implicitly someone who has been consistently talking about how you must be made to pay for your actions. I certainly would not.

Beyond that, diplomacy cannot be conducted on "trust". Especially in a situation like this. There must be reassurances made, or you will find yourself persecuting a war until you learn this lesson. For a member of "Karma", a group who so frequently cites history, I am surprised this misstep is continually being made. You cannt expect them to trust you, or anyone, based on recent events and based on who you know them to be.

Again, sir, there has yet to be a solid argument as to how these "terms" are going to work.

There's no reason for Karma to make concessions here. The NPO is the aggressor. If they elect not to have faith in their opponents' sportsmanship then they can stay at war.

[Rush Sykes]

This is the fundamental problem, and why NPO isn't surrendering. They are in the position of negotiating based on no information, as nobody is responsible for presenting them with terms, other than the preterms which are non-negotiable (supposedly) and give the NPO no actual benefit if they're complied with.

Now they know the feeling that they have given so many in the past.

[Yawoo]

Hmmmm...

Right here in this post apparently.

Good show.

He said in his opinion... Quit trying to dig, magicninja, you're making a fool out of yourself.

[Virillus]

It wasn't meant to be insulting, as you clearly behaved as though you didn't read his post.

I actually did read it, I was just too busy finishing a game of NHL 09 with my room mate to come up with a good response:P

I tried to look witty and hip instead, maybe it didn't work.

That's news to me. Where are they?

I am one man among the leadership of those fighting the NPO. For me to reveal them on my own would be a disservice to my brothers in arms. They may yet be published, but it's not for me to say - Have some patience.

Wait. Are you saying you would trust an aggressor that has been overly vocal about dismembering you? About how you need to pay? I find it hard to believe, sir, that you would "trust" so implicitly someone who has been consistently talking about how you must be made to pay for your actions. I certainly would not.

I think anyone that knows me can vouch for how overly trusting I am. Perhaps it's a flaw, but it's how I was born.

Beyond that, diplomacy cannot be conducted on "trust". Especially in a situation like this. There must be reassurances made, or you will find yourself persecuting a war until you learn this lesson. For a member of "Karma", a group who so frequently cites history, I am surprised this misstep is continually being made. You cannt expect them to trust you, or anyone, based on recent events and based on who you know them to be.

On the contrary, I believe all diplomacy must be conducted on trust.

Again, sir, there has yet to be a solid argument as to how these "terms" are going to work.

I've never once argued the point that the "pre-terms" would be easier to accept if we showed the final terms first. I don't get where you think I was. Whether or not we *should* though, is another matter altogether.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Virillus

[Comrade Korey]

lololol, irony... Also I'm sure the NPO knows they've been the "bad guys" for quite some time. Many of their actions simply can't be justified by any stretch of logic except that they wished to continue the ritual bootstomping of alliances (such as GATO) that they have historically disliked

NPO's the baby, gotta love 'em!

[Nizzle]

He said posted, not posted in public.

Hopefully it's posted where NPO can see it.

There's no reason for Karma to make concessions here. The NPO is the aggressor. If they elect not to have faith in their opponents' sportsmanship then they can stay at war.

That is a horrible thing to say, and I hope you realize the absurdity of it quickly. It's historically inaccurate and there is no evidence that those currently fighting NPO are completely sportsmanlike considering the inflammatory and threatening posts being made by them. There are, indeed, some who I would admit NPO may trust but certainly not the lot of you.

By forcing NPO to trust you, which is an absurd expectation, you are forcing permanent war.

[magicninja]

He said in his opinion... Quit trying to dig, magicninja, you're making a fool out of yourself.

Soooooo.....His opinion that they did the wrong thing isn't the same as saying they did the wrong thing? Maybe I don't get it. Explain the difference to me.

Edited May 28, 2009 by magicninja

[Jens of the desert]

Can someone please just straight out, tell me, why do the NPO not deserve harsh terms? If memory serves me correctly, the NPO have cheated and lied their way to the top, and now some of you feel pity? Please explain where this sudden well of sympathy is coming from...

And no don't tell me karma isn't keeping to their ideals, because I just don't need to hear it (this isn't about karma, it's about the NPO) >_>.

[Virillus]

Soooooo.....His opinion that they did the wrong thing isn't the same as saying they did the wrong thing? Maybe I don't get it. Explain the difference to me.

The difference is that I'm not judging anybody or tossing insults about because I disagree with them. I'm going "I disagree" and moving on.

[bzelger]

That is a horrible thing to say, and I hope you realize the absurdity of it quickly. It's historically inaccurate and there is no evidence that those currently fighting NPO are completely sportsmanlike considering the inflammatory and threatening posts being made by them. There are, indeed, some who I would admit NPO may trust but certainly not the lot of you.

By forcing NPO to trust you, which is an absurd expectation, you are forcing permanent war.

You're arguing that eternal war is the result of not trusting "the lot of us," whereas giving some trust may (I assert will) lead to peace. Karma is willing to agree to peace under certain conditions, that doesn't mean that they're going to bend over backwards to lure the NPO to the table; why would they?

Can someone please just straight out, tell me, why do the NPO not deserve harsh terms? If memory serves me correctly, the NPO have cheated and lied their way to the top, and now some of you feel pity? Please explain where this sudden well of sympathy is coming from...

And no don't tell me karma isn't keeping to their ideals, because I just don't need to hear it (this isn't about karma, it's about the NPO) >_>.

I don't think any reasonable person is saying that they don't deserve it. Some people are concerned that this implies that the victors aren't so far above the hegemony. Others are concerned that it's aiding a precedent that is bad for the game. I think the former concern is unfounded. The latter concern may have some merit, which is why I've been asking for better solutions to the clear and compelling problem for the whole thread. I have yet to get one.

Edited May 28, 2009 by bzelger

[Nizzle]

I am one man among the leadership of those fighting the NPO. For me to reveal them on my own would be a disservice to my brothers in arms. They may yet be published, but it's not for me to say - Have some patience.

So why would you say they were posted, and for some time?

I've never once argued the point that the "pre-terms" would be easier to accept if we showed the final terms first. I don't get where you think I was. Whether or not we *should* though, is another matter altogether.

The "pre-terms", as you call them, have to be accepted with final terms. So by admitting that they are hard to accept without the terms, and then stating you don't believe you should display the terms, is counter-productive. You basically admit these "pre-terms" are worthless.