End of Terms: NPO and Beyond

[Jipps]

You say you want this trend to continue in the future, however you only give one for sure viable option for other alliances to use on against opponents who are not NPO, because the Moldavi doctrine and oaths won't necessarily be relevant in future wars.

The others could be applied differently to whatever the alledged crimes are of the defeated alliance. If there are no crimes, you shouldn't be talking about reps in the first place.

Oh my you promise that you mean it unlike all the other hegemony people that suddenly realised that white peace is the only moral option. That changes everything.

Kind of like all those now Karma suddenly realizing it? Look through history my friend, New Polar Order previously took part in huge terms and when it was done to them they changed their moral values. Almost all the people in this thread have probably been a supporter of the Hegemony at some point, we all change at some point.

I've stated this three times now and it just doesn't seem to get through. Things are not that black and white. If karma alliances want to give reps as punishment for crimes it doesn't mean that they automatically is guilty of every crime that NPO commited. You're making a pretty big leap in your reasoning when you assume that.

I have made this arguement here and in a couple of other threads:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58638

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58721

Read up on those and then come back to me when you understand where the leaps in reasoning come from.

I can't belive I need to say this. Karma is not responsible for NPOs future actions. I for one have no doubt they'll stay in their old tracks no matter what happends in this war. Karma is not responsible for changing NPO though. It's hopefully something they'll do themselves otherwise we'll either have this war all over again or they'll be able to retain enough political power again to climb back up to their old throne.

I am saying that Karma will have a direct impact on the furute actions of all the alliances of PB, and that they must make the right decision in this position of power or face the future of the very past they are now fighting.

If they do start the same policies up again after recieving peace, I will be up in arms with you. That is just how confident I am of this plan to work.

The 'lesson' you people crying for white peace supposedly learned when fighting this war will be gone as quickly as it came when you get a chance to gain the upper hand again. Do you honestly think anyone actually belive that the timing for your moral awakening is coincidental? That your realisation that karma alliances was wrong to accept reps and that everyone in the hegemony deserve white peace is not just a desperate PR move to get your alliances lighter terms?

You people speak with a forked tongues. The actions of alliances after this war will speak volumes, your sudden moral outcry in the midst of war, not so much.

Kind of like the coincidential moral awakening of the manyformer Hegemony alliances now in Karma?

If anyone honestly believes that this is a PR move or propaganda piece, then your ignorance is beyond repair. As you can see from the response, there is no PR being gained here people. There is a nice debate about terms and the NPO, the exact purpose of this thread.

After all the negative things I have said about the same people you claim I am making this PR piece for, you think you would learn by now.

What justifications? Did we need to justify to defend our allies? No matter what you want to twist this to now this war started as a defensive one from karmas side. You speak as if you've learned something yet betwen every line you only seek to throw dirt at karma. Your true purpose shines through.

Your allies are defended now, I think everyone can agree. So then why not give peace and call it quits now?

You are continuing this war as punishment now for all the wrong doings of the NPO, that is not defensive.

-snip-

So you think that the doing unto a criminal what that criminal did to you is justified?

[ooc]arguement can very much be compared to the current debate over the death penalty. There is no right or wrong answers, only opinions on both sides[/ooc]

The problem I have is that the OP is implying anything other than White Peace is abhorrent and that terms in general should not exist, which is just silly. I do agree that reparations are just a constantly escalating thing and each war makes them bigger and bigger. However there should be some form of terms in the case of a surrender, and the worse the transgressions of the loser (or perceived transgressions, in CN it's often one and the same), the harder the terms. Harder terms isn't just tossing another billion in reps on.

That is not what the OP is implying, I have already made many suggestions as to terms that would be morally justified in peace time.

You think if we give NPO peace now they will come back and love us all and never rebuild and try to destroy Karma? Good God, learn your history. It's a mistake that's been made before, and if it's made again, there will certainly not be any white peace given to Karma alliances when the tables turn.

Good God, theres a paragraph in the OP and at least a page worth of discussion already answering this question.

Karma must enforce the very literal meaning of "what comes around, goes around". The alliance in question has forcibly disbanded alliances, kept alliances in permanent states of war for over 50% of Planet Bob's existence, and taken sovereign control over alliances. Why should Karma not do the same to them? The end of the global hegemony and constant fear- and war-mongering are well worth the continued existence of reparations in war.

Doing the same would make you the same, common logic will prove it to be so. Reps would only continue that constant fear and war mongering. That is what I am afraid of and the purpose of the OP.

Forums are making me spread this out into three different posts.

[Jipps]

The portion in bold, above, couldn't be any more wrong. Just because NPO may have thought they were poking a bear cub only to find out ma and pa bear were home and pissed doesn't magically transfer an offensive war to a defensive one. As I've said before, it only changes an offensive war to an ill-advised offensive war. Results don't dictate causation.

Papa bear and Mama bear have brutally beaten the NPO and protected their cub. Now they continue to beat him and are forcing him to give up all the money he has as well. That isn't defensive behavior no matter how you put it.

Your definition would basically include going to war at all, as it would be to your alliance's benefit to protect its members. I don't see this as harsh at all. Further, exacting a promise from the defeated that they will not rearm for a couple of months to attack you would also be in your benefit, but again, I would not couch this as a 'harsh' term. Your definition is overly broad and thus rendered meaningless.

No the definition wouldn't, that a much to overly broad statement. I have stated that non aggression clauses should be included in peace terms, if you weren't paying attention.

And you seem to have lost the idea that some wars are fought to defend a treaty partner/friend, much like this one. Thus, in the defensive war scenario, the war itself isn't the 'punishment' as it is an action to repel an unwanted advance. Terms are the punishment to attempt to prevent such an unwanted action (from the viewpoint of the defenders) from being subject to an aggressive attack.

This is one way to look at it, although there is no reason that the war shouldn't be looked at as the punishment. However the benefits of such a view have been proven to be numerous.

Where was your outrage when other alliances were getting rolled for non-existent reasons? Oh, ok, I get it, you only have come to this epiphany once you were on the bad end of terms. While a laud your change of heart, the fact is a little empathy goes a long way. You shouldn't need to get stomped to figure out that it might not be nice to kick someone when they're down. It's called 'empathy' and in terms of war and peace it shouldn't require first hand experience to see that peace terms that are vindictive may not endear anyone to you.

First off, the terms my alliance recieved were not bad and it is this mercy that has enlightened me a lot. I do regret not standing up earlier, but standing up now is better than never doing so. I am just surprised that plenty of alliances found it so easy to be morally righteous whent hey were losing, but now that they are in the position of power they lose those morals to vengence.

Our experiences are much the same, only in reverse.

As I recall, your alliance had no issues with consequences for peace mode in the USN war. I also don't recall a hue and a cry from you folks during the WoTC. Yes, I'm aware you weren't around for some it, however, my point still stands.

So you are going to blame all the wrongdoing of my AA upon me, even actiosn that went down when I was not member? That is not fair judging by a mile.

Now, I can appreciate your desire to see a more open and forgiving world. I'll leave you with this: 'Turnabout is fair play.' This means that if someone does something, it is entirely fair for the other party to turn around and visit the same action upon the person who originally perpetrated it. 'An eye for an eye' comes to mind. So there would be nothing inherently unfair about any term placed upon an alliance that had promulgated such a term previously in victory.

Turnabout maybe be fairplay, but please do not act like you are any better then those you are turning about.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

I hope you can stick to your ideals. It's very easy to have ideals when you lose, not so easy when you're winning.

I think Karma is having a great struggle with those ideals they had whent hey were losing as evident in this thread. Excellently put.

I remain deeply cynical about these oh-so-coincidental epiphanies about harsh terms.

Kind of like the Gramlins oh-so-coincidential epiphanies?

You have ever right to be skeptical though, and I do hope I can proove myself soon enough.

And no, the war does not become defensive for NPO because they've had enough. They started the war and now they are losing, but they still started it.

Read my responses earlier to statements almost exactly the same.

[Jipps]

At the OP-

SSSW18 still has a treaty with and chooses to support and defend an alliance that created virtually all of these policies. Don't you still have your treaty with NPO (suspended or not)?

It is a suspended, useless treaty as proven by the fact that we aren't proividing the mutual defense required by the pact.

To me, having a treaty with the NPO means you agree with the policies and the actions of the NPO, and are willing to defend them. I don't believe any alliance that supported the actions of the NPO should have gotten white peace for that reason; like a bartender or friend that doesn't call a cab for the drunk driver, you should be accountable.

Should we be held accoutnable for actions that we condemned, even publically as we did with PZIing? History has held that alliances do not share the full burdened of everything their allies do, that is why they are different alliances in the first place.

And I don't understand how you can come here and speak against the policies of your treaty partner, and at the same time, be willing to go to war for them. Hypocricy is not a term I use lightly, but in this case I feel it fits.

I'd take you more seriously if you acted on your own words and cut off your support the alliance that started, enacted, and continues to hold on to, these policies, instead of trying to get the best possible deal for them. You just basically condemned every action they've ever done in war as "wrong" and yet still support them getting light terms so they can rebuild.

I don't get it.

It has been over a month since we fought for them, in Planet Bob views can change very dramatically in that period of time. I am trying to get the best possbiel deal on terms for everyone now on, the New Pacific Order and the other alliances still fighitng just happen to be the current example.

Geeze people, it wasn't Ragnarok that was enforcing these terms, Gen. Lee a RoK triumvir was simply being a messenger for just about every Karma alliance in the NPO front.

That was my misunderstanding, I apologize. This has been clairified in the OP, although now the blame just stretches to every alliance and has little impact on the overall points being made.

I wonder why? Maybe cause you the Hegemony got rocked. 'Cause no other war, forum post, or movement or anything else has made NPO change their views at all. NPO has the resources and capabilities to pay billions of reps off in no more than 2 months or 6~ cycles. After that, they'll be climbing back to the top. Oh and lets not forget, I expect some hegemony alliances to merge together, or re-work together to get back on top. I really believe the Hegemony will come back with a vengeance. The king of the hill doesn't get knocked off for a few weeks, and then change all his tactics that got him on top.

From my experience and from talking with other Hegemony leaders I think I can safely say that no vengeance is being plotted. No other war, movement, or anything else has had such a direct impact on the New Pacific Order. As I have said before, if they continue the policies of old I will be one of the first to act. However, I would wait to be judgmental.

I am taking a bit of a break, as this took a long time as you can imagine. KinKiac, I will get to your amny comments by the end of tonight.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

Im pretty sure I remember your alliances signature on the terms that killed mine. You supported the terms given to us then, whats changed? Oh thats right, you are losing now. Thats right.

[Demonic]

my opinion (and not my alliance's opinions)

NPO should receive harsh terms so they can finally feel what they've been doing to others in the past.

after that is done then only then should they get true white peace.

[OneBallMan]

I dare say, that though I like Jipps and SSSW18 a lot, that I beleive that you have gotten brain lock on the only possible outcome of the current conflict. I say this with as objective a view as possible, which I hope you will give me. This treatise assumes only that a Pacifica surrender and reps ends this conflict. Have FAN and VOX not proven that there is a third option? Has the unending price of a prolonged, dragged out war not been calculated as to it's impact on this conflict?

Look at the alliances beating on Pacifica, TPF et al. They grow weaker by the day, surely not at the rate that those on my side do, but still, nukes do damage, and a lot of it. I will be nuking all four of my opponents every day as long as they war me. Look over the horizon, ahead of this conflict and see what Pacifica and those of us that have committed to seeing the end with her, can inflict on RoK, Fark, NV, MK et al.

Look, we all know it is going to be a multi-polar free-for-all coming out of this war. Heck, if the comments on the OWF are any indication, sides are aligning already. I speak for no one but myself, cause just about nobody on our side even likes me, but it doesn't take a PhD in Adminology to recognize that every day this conflict goes longer, both sides get weaker. Maybe not at the same rate, surely, but still like I said, a nuke in the whatchizzle still takes the shine off a nation. Every day glowing? Well, it is extra special.

So, in closing, don't assume that this is a zero-sum game, where the only outcome is surrender to the forces aligned against Pacifica et al. Like I said, I don't care if you are 10x the size, a prolonged conflict weakens you for preparing for the next set of conflicts. Personally, and again, it is only my personal opin, but I am very happy on my ride to zero, as I nuke the living bejeebers out of my opponents on the way down and weaken them every day. The longer they stay on me, riding me out, the closer their ride to zero is a-coming. If we've learned anything else, it is that being an $@! in this new world will resolve in a bill in very short order.

OBM

[Jipps]

Im pretty sure I remember your alliances signature on the terms that killed mine. You supported the terms given to us then, whats changed? Oh thats right, you are losing now. Thats right.

Former made us do it, I am sorry for taking it out on all of TDSM8.

We were a protectorate back then and to be honest, almost all of the gov of then are gone. I am sorry what ahppened to your alliance, I really am.

The only way I hope to be able to repay those mistakes is to prevent them from happening again. I hope you can undertand that.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Jipps

[Seerow]

Umm, you are aware that SSSW18 was one of the alliances that didn't get a white peace, right?

Even if they weren't: I think most of the people here would agree that "Suppressing opinions that are considered unpopular by the winning side" is not a desirable surrender term. People should have the right to express honest opinions here.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=56269. Wow they have to do TECH DEALS. Something that any alliance of their size is doing anyway. The horror. The horror!

Seriously, that peace is as white as if there were no terms. The only other restriction is no offensive wars.

People have every right to express an opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that his opinion contradicts his own actions. His opinion states that light to no terms creates a favorable atmosphere and nobody has ill will. He then turns around and trashes Karma for being as bad as the NPO while they themselves got off far lighter than NPO ever would have let them off had they been in a war against them rather than Karma. The hypocrisy of it all merits comment.

That is not what the OP is implying, I have already made many suggestions as to terms that would be morally justified in peace time.

You have stated that any term that impacts the political, economical, or military sovereignty of the alliance is unacceptable. This includes any possible terms besides "We surrender"

[Jipps]

People have every right to express an opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that his opinion contradicts his own actions. His opinion states that light to no terms creates a favorable atmosphere and nobody has ill will. He then turns around and trashes Karma for being as bad as the NPO while they themselves got off far lighter than NPO ever would have let them off had they been in a war against them rather than Karma. The hypocrisy of it all merits comment.

Trashing? I can only speak for myself, but I am having an interesting debate on the morality of terms in war. I think you are being a bit too oversensitive here, if I came across that way then I apologize.

You have stated that any term that impacts the political, economical, or military sovereignty of the alliance is unacceptable. This includes any possible terms besides "We surrender"

The choicing of words in that part of the OP was bad, that is not the message I was trying to send out and not the message I have been defending in this debate. Maybe the definition is a bit too broad, I will ponder this and get back to you.

[neneko]

Kind of like all those now Karma suddenly realizing it? Look through history my friend, New Polar Order previously took part in huge terms and when it was done to them they changed their moral values. Almost all the people in this thread have probably been a supporter of the Hegemony at some point, we all change at some point.

Yes a few karma alliances have a rather dubious new moral all of a sudden. I fail to see how this affect my point. Are you saying that it's okay for you to lie about this because you suspect that karma alliances do it too?

I have made this arguement here and in a couple of other threads:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58638

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58721

Read up on those and then come back to me when you understand where the leaps in reasoning come from.

I've seen you posts before. Never bothered to reply to them until now. I fail to see how that fixes your broken reasoning though. I'll say it for a fourth time then. On what grounds do you base that demanding reps will make karma exactly the same as NPO? Because that's a huge leap in your reasoning. This time please explain your reasoning there and don't just tell me that I don't get it.

I am saying that Karma will have a direct impact on the furute actions of all the alliances of PB, and that they must make the right decision in this position of power or face the future of the very past they are now fighting.

If they do start the same policies up again after recieving peace, I will be up in arms with you. That is just how confident I am of this plan to work.

Karma doesn't have any way to force a change in NPO. Being really really nice wouldn't force a change. As for you standing up and fighting NPO when they go back to their old ways, I'll belive that when I see it.

Kind of like the coincidential moral awakening of the manyformer Hegemony alliances now in Karma?

As I said earlier in this post. Pointing at someone else and saying "he's also bad" is a pretty lousy defense.

If anyone honestly believes that this is a PR move or propaganda piece, then your ignorance is beyond repair. As you can see from the response, there is no PR being gained here people. There is a nice debate about terms and the NPO, the exact purpose of this thread.

After all the negative things I have said about the same people you claim I am making this PR piece for, you think you would learn by now.

I missed the negative things you said about the hegemony in this thread. Unless you count the part where you said that NPOs future actions is all in karmas hands. That's a bit insulting to their free will I guess.

Your allies are defended now, I think everyone can agree. So then why not give peace and call it quits now?

You are continuing this war as punishment now for all the wrong doings of the NPO, that is not defensive.

Just because the defending side is winning and want to fight the war until it's won doesn't make them the attackers mid-war. Not giving NPO white peace after being attacked doesn't make karma the agressors either.

So you think that the doing unto a criminal what that criminal did to you is justified?

I didn't see him calling for NPO to have a viceroy for a year and then be forced to disband. Paying reps would be quite a few steps below what they've done to others.

Kind of like the Gramlins oh-so-coincidential epiphanies?

Oh please tell me you're joking. Read up a bit on the grämlins history.

[SpacingOutMan]

lol.

Get over yourself, really. I respect you and your opinions and you seem like a really cool person, but you are way off track. Your alliance did nothing to speak out against harsh terms until it became convenient--until you became the ones in the economic cross hairs. You sat idle as you watched your allies extort alliance after alliance through heavy and unreasonable terms. You even participated in aforementioned sportive acts such as the 1V-GATO War.

The one flaw in your argument is that you don't get to use convenience now. You and your allies are no longer the ones who carry out a directed brass verdict. No, convenience left the day Karma declared war upon Pacifica. Convenience left the day when not even the supposed infallibility of The Hegemony could tend to its own vanguard.

They will reap what they sow and nothing you can do will change that. As Mark Twain famously wrote, "History may not repeat itself, but it sure rhymes." What Karma does here is different. They aren't putting them down through euthanasia, forcing them into the obscure realms of the abyss. No, this extends much farther than that. This time Pacifica's defeat cannot be argued in semantics like the First Patriotic War. Their defeat is clear. Absolute. Justified. They had their chance to use their power to mold things into their favor, but even with that they had failed. Belligerent and forced friendships do not last forever and Q shall forever be the prime example of that.

Edited June 3, 2009 by SpacingOutMan

[Jipps]

Yes a few karma alliances have a rather dubious new moral all of a sudden. I fail to see how this affect my point. Are you saying that it's okay for you to lie about this because you suspect that karma alliances do it too?

People in this thread seem to be quick to believe one moral epiphanies over another. I was saying that it is just as probable, if not even more so, that Hegemony alliances become morally conscieous now. I thought that is what most people wanted, for everyone to be more morally conscieous. Apparently you can pick and choose when to be though.

This is no lie, and I don't suspect that Karma alliances are either. It is scary to see how many people are hostile to Hegemony alliances becoming more morally responsibile.

I've seen you posts before. Never bothered to reply to them until now. I fail to see how that fixes your broken reasoning though. I'll say it for a fourth time then. On what grounds do you base that demanding reps will make karma exactly the same as NPO? Because that's a huge leap in your reasoning. This time please explain your reasoning there and don't just tell me that I don't get it.

Normally I would've gone out and repeated myself to much resentment, but this thread is taking a lot of energy from me. If I have time later, I will expand on the subject to the degree I normally would.

For now, I hope direction to these posts will satisfy you. Feel free to respond to them directly.

Must

Get

Sleep

Sorry again for not giving this the thought it requires at the moment, and I hope you don't think I am dodging the question in any way. In fact, I promise to get back to by the end of tommorow.

Karma doesn't have any way to force a change in NPO. Being really really nice wouldn't force a change. As for you standing up and fighting NPO when they go back to their old ways, I'll belive that when I see it.

By being nice I say that alliances will be more nice generally, believe it or not you don't have to force this. Call me gullable, but if I am wrong I will be one of the first ones to the battlefield. You don't have to believe me till you see it, but I wouldn't doubt until you have reason to.

I missed the negative things you said about the hegemony in this thread. Unless you count the part where you said that NPOs future actions is all in karmas hands. That's a bit insulting to their free will I guess.

Right, because making a pledge to fight against everything the NPO has done for the past two years and saying I would take up arms against them if they did not change really sounds like the kind of PR spin and propaganda to help the NPO.

Just because the defending side is winning and want to fight the war until it's won doesn't make them the attackers mid-war. Not giving NPO white peace after being attacked doesn't make karma the agressors either.

It is more of a counter-offensive, still not defensive unless you are Ordo Verde.

I didn't see him calling for NPO to have a viceroy for a year and then be forced to disband. Paying reps would be quite a few steps below what they've done to others.

The OOC analogy about the death penalty works great here. While the murder that the criminal commited was probably leaps and bounds more brutal than the dealth penalty the criminal would face, at the end of the day it is still murder.

Oh please tell me you're joking. Read up a bit on the grämlins history.

The part of their history where they were a member of one of the most oppressive blocs we have seen for years. Being allies of the NPO and thereby supporting every action of the NPO, so they should be punished the same. These are the same arguements being used against me in this thread.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Jipps

[neneko]

People in this thread seem to be quick to believe one moral epiphanies over another. I was saying that it is just as probable, if not even more so, that Hegemony alliances become morally conscieous now. I thought that is what most people wanted, for everyone to be more morally conscieous. Apparently you can pick and choose when to be though.

This is no lie, and I don't suspect that Karma alliances are either. It is scary to see how many people are hostile to Hegemony alliances becoming more morally responsibile.

There's a slight difference betwen being morally responsible and claiming that you are. We won't know anything until some time after this war settles. The sudden overnight moral awakenings we see people claiming to have now are just empty words.

Normally I would've gone out and repeated myself to much resentment, but this thread is taking a lot of energy from me. If I have time later, I will expand on the subject to the degree I normally would.

For now, I hope direction to these posts will satisfy you. Feel free to respond to them directly.

Must

Get

Sleep

Sorry again for not giving this the thought it requires at the moment, and I hope you don't think I am dodging the question in any way. In fact, I promise to get back to by the end of tommorow.

In all three posts there you lump all kind of terms in under one banner and call them 'harsh term'. Just because you choose to define them as such doesn't mean that everyone has to agree. Reps and disbandment will never be the same thing, neither will viceroys and reps. Karma demanding reps does not automatically make the other 'harsh terms' follow. It's not all or nothing.

By being nice I say that alliances will be more nice generally, believe it or not you don't have to force this. Call me gullable, but if I am wrong I will be one of the first ones to the battlefield. You don't have to believe me till you see it, but I wouldn't doubt until you have reason to.

Do you think that bob in general have been mean to NPO the last 3 years? Because I think they've been treated very nice and that didn't seem to make them want to become nicer. Granted this niceness towards them was mainly because they'd crush anyone not being nice but it was there none the less. If niceness was all it took to convert NPO to the path of flowers and happiness they'd already be there.

Right, because making a pledge to fight against everything the NPO has done for the past two years and saying I would take up arms against them if they did not change really sounds like the kind of PR spin and propaganda to help the NPO.

That would be your decision and doesn't affect NPOs image. The PR part here is where you claim that white peace for NPO is the only right thing. Your pledge to fight for what's right in the future is just filling.

It is more of a counter-offensive, still not defensive unless you are Ordo Verde.

Allies stepping in to help allies convert the war from defensive to offensive? By that logic both sides are fighting a offensive war and then we're just down to semantics. I know you like to say that karma is fighting a offensive war because it sound better and fit better into the rest of what you claim but since the karma side was the one that got attacked this is by definition a defensive war for karma. You could argue that some fronts on the karma side is fighting offensively when they activated the A and oAs but none of the alliances fighting NPO did that so that doesn't work when looking at the NPO front either.

The OOC analogy about the death penalty works great here. While the murder that the criminal commited was probably leaps and bounds more brutal than the dealth penalty the criminal would face, at the end of the day it is still murder.

As I just said in my last post. It's a very bad analogy in this case because NPO are not getting what they dished out. Nobody is going to force NPO to disband or install a viceroy. As I said before, just because you choose to lump all harsh terms together as one thing doesn't make that true.

The part of their history where they were a member of one of the most oppressive blocs we have seen for years. Being allies of the NPO and thereby supporting every action of the NPO, so they should be punished the same. These are the same arguements being used against me in this thread.

The grämlins is a horrible example though. They've always been against overly harsh terms and despite being allied to NPO they stood by that during that time unlike most of NPOs other allies that now claim they were 'forced' by NPO to take reps.

Edited June 3, 2009 by neneko

[fupresti]

Pacifica is paying for the crimes they committed against Polaris. Just as Polaris fell while NPO cast aside the strongest bond in the game, NPO will fall as well.

[Gobb]

I will be nuking all four of my opponents every day as long as they war me.

And I will put on my magic slippers and soar through the skies like a unicorn with rainbow sprinkles coming out of its buttocks!

Edited June 3, 2009 by Lord Gobb

[Haflinger]

And I will put on my magic slippers and soar through the skies like a unicorn with rainbow sprinkles coming out of its buttocks!

Screenshots or it didn't happen.

[Nizzle]

Pacifica is paying for the crimes they committed against Polaris. Just as Polaris fell while NPO cast aside the strongest bond in the game, NPO will fall as well.

I'm going to go ahead and say NPO has fallen. I'll also add that I believe they had a larger NS drop (in percent) than Polaris. Right? It's been bothering me as I attempt to determine which alliance in this war has suffered the largest percentile drop.

[Haflinger]

I'm going to go ahead and say NPO has fallen. I'll also add that I believe they had a larger NS drop (in percent) than Polaris. Right? It's been bothering me as I attempt to determine which alliance in this war has suffered the largest percentile drop.

I think it's Echelon.

[Timoteo]

Jipps! I appreciate your post -- especially your efforts to organize and format (i.e. headings) that can aid with comprehension. However, I do disagree with your conclusions. The NPO should probably not be given easy peace.

I believe that the NPO would disagree with you too, were they allowed to talk more. Since the NPO has been somewhat quiet on these forums (alas), perhaps our only gauge as to their wishes can come from recent memory. Anything else would be unfair speculation, no? Therefore let us remember the following...

1) The NPO believes in the application of harsh terms and would advocate and defend their appropriateness throughout all possible scenarios.

2) The NPO believes in punishing alliances-at-war for having some of their members in peace mode.

3) The NPO believes that it is reasonable to sentence individual nations or even whole alliances to indefinite permawar.

4) The NPO believes that the installation of a viceroy and demanding root admin access to an opposing alliance's forums are reasonable. Further, it is reasonable that these sorts of conditions be allowed to continue indefinitely.

5) The NPO do not fear war. Rather, they are honored to lay down their lives for their ideals and to uphold the honor of their infallible emperor.

Weird, huh? Honestly, I am as surprised as you may be. I would have -guessed- that the NPO might like to receive easy peace. However, until they both admit that their past actions were wrong and apologize for them, it would seem that they continue now to believe in this sort of thing. Apparently NPO supports this current war, including the harsh terms being demanded and their own marginalization. As honorable proponents of justice, I hope that Karma will uphold these wishes of their opponent. Anything else would be unfair.

[Leonid Tolstoy]

I am pretty sure Ordo Verde is safe at the moment, and we all know that if NPO was offered peace I wouldn't be discussing this. If you fail to admit this simple truth, you will continue to fight in blind ignorance..

SOMEONE

IS

LYING

TO

SOMEONE

By your own admission within your post, NPO was offered peace terms. What you fail to make clear is, NPO found those terms to be unacceptable, and instead of offering any sort of counter terms, they threw a hissy fit, and broke off negotiations.

As pointed out elsewhere, NPO is falling rapidly in ranks. Members are leaving, warmode members are being reduced to living in caves inside the craters in their ground, and everyone is quite miserable. Non-NPO nations are growing, while NPO huddles in fear. NPO is being torn down, at the same time that Karma alliances are growing in strength.

The war is not pointless, nor do we battle in ignorance.

The political landscape is changing on Planet Bob, and that is what the war is all about.

The longer NPO avoids serious peace talks, the more NPO will be outclassed at the conclusion of the war.

Look at the "All Alliances" stats pages. Click the various headings, to reorder the alliances according to strength, members, score, etc. NPO still ranks number one under two headings. Most nations, and most nations in anarchy.

Sweet.

NPO has prosecuted ugly wars in the past, and no one gains any real sympathy by pointing out that THIS is going to be a long, ugly war. NPO knew that when they started ducking into peace mode. Instead of holding the sharp stick to other people's noses, they are at the sharp end of the stick for a change. And, they insist on dragging this out, for their own reasons. Which pleases me, actually.

If NPO were interested in peace terms, they would sue for peace, and offer meaningful terms. There will be no white peace, if I can influence the outcome of this war. There are plenty of people who are as determined, or more, than I am.

The days of Pax Pacifica are over. And, there will be no Pax Karma. Don't even go there, because THAT would be pure ignorance.

[KinKiac]

I see you did not respond to any of my posts. I was hoping for some argument but oh well.

It is more of a counter-offensive, still not defensive unless you are Ordo Verde.

Actually they didnt just attack OV. They attacked OV and OV's allies. In many cases an attack on one is an attack on the other. OV was never the only alliance involved in this. In attacking OV NPO knew damn well that OV allies would join in. They just assumed they had enough allies themselves to win.

Kind of like all those now Karma suddenly realizing it? Look through history my friend, New Polar Order previously took part in huge terms and when it was done to them they changed their moral values. Almost all the people in this thread have probably been a supporter of the Hegemony at some point, we all change at some point.

This one statement goes against everything you are trying to argue here. What you are pointing out is that it took huge terms for NpO to change its moral values.

[Leonid Tolstoy]

I have faith that maybe this war will be an eye opener for the New Pacific Order, as I know it has done a great deal for me.

If not, I highly doubt they will be surrounded by friends they had this war and the community could easily take action. There is nothing wrong with giving opportunities before judging.

Actually, judgement has been slow in coming. I judged NPO when they spread the lies about my alliance spying on them, and crushed my alliance. You don't really suppose that my story is unique? Nations are tossed around in the behemoths mad rampages, to fall where they may. Entire alliances are destroyed and disbanded. We have seen the same thing, over and over. I've lost count of how many alliances have disappeared since I formed my own nation. NO ONE can count the individual nations that have disappeared, as a result of NPO's despotism. (one could total all the nations that have ceased to exist, but NPO doesn't get credit for all of them, of course)

NPO and opportunity means something like, $%&@, pillage, and plunder, rinse and repeat.

NPO has been judged by the majority of nations, and found wanting.

[Wu Tang Clan]

Actually, judgement has been slow in coming. I judged NPO when they spread the lies about my alliance spying on them, and crushed my alliance. You don't really suppose that my story is unique? Nations are tossed around in the behemoths mad rampages, to fall where they may. Entire alliances are destroyed and disbanded. We have seen the same thing, over and over. I've lost count of how many alliances have disappeared since I formed my own nation. NO ONE can count the individual nations that have disappeared, as a result of NPO's despotism. (one could total all the nations that have ceased to exist, but NPO doesn't get credit for all of them, of course)

NPO and opportunity means something like, $%&@, pillage, and plunder, rinse and repeat.

NPO has been judged by the majority of nations, and found wanting.

This. And more. How many alliances have been bullied into giving up govt members by NPO and their squad of thugs? How many have been intimidated, and forced to change opinions, and actions? It's not just about being destroyed. It's about being forced into becoming something you're not, for fear of getting destroyed if you don't. The reign of terror has ended. And the piper must be paid. If the price of the mistakes of the past is blood, then so be it. Do on to them as they did on to others.

This isn't a new trend, this isn't what is to be expected for now on. This is retribution, revenge, and karma on ONE GROUP OF ALLIANCES. One group that killed off entire mindsets in CN. That killed off the act of being civil. Now we bring it back by offering white peace to alliances not directly involved and you want to criticize us for not doing the same to the ring leaders? Well whine somewhere else.

An eye for an eye makes the world go blind. This is true. But sometimes you never truly see until the day you can not. This was a long time coming. Oppression, deceit, and lies that need to be paid for. Is it extreme? Absolutely. But we need an extreme measure to protect ourselves from this again. These are people that ruined the game for so many, now it's our turn for vengeance. THIS IS JUSTICE.

[Haflinger]

By your own admission within your post, NPO was offered peace terms. What you fail to make clear is, NPO found those terms to be unacceptable, and instead of offering any sort of counter terms, they threw a hissy fit, and broke off negotiations.

The logs I've seen suggest that NPO was negotiating when they were given the one-minute ultimatum.

The counterargument to that is that the one-minute ultimatum was issued to prevent NPO from moving its nations into peace mode.

If such was its goal, it evidently failed, as Karma has now issued another ultimatum designed to induce NPO to move its nations from peace mode.

[Jipps]

Well I must admit the response I have seen to this thread is much more than I expected, not just here but on irc and personal messages. I have been literally flooded in debate the past few days and I have seen a lot of results from both sides. I definately thank those who were able to continue the discussion so respectfully, it is a great testament to the new era of civility I hope we are achieving.

After at length discussions on irc, much much faster medium than forums, combined with the many fined points on the forums I am starting to think that my definition of harsh terms were a little too broad. I will admit I was being a bit too naive and idealistic in my assesments. I think it was put greatly earlier in that harsh terms are fair, but might not be just. The reasoning behind Azaghul's topic on the idea of proportional reps to the alleged crimes of an alliance seems to make more and more sense, especially in the case of the NPO. As for the historic views of my alliance and convienance of this thread, you have your reasons to doubt but I hope to prove you wrong and for you to remain optimistic.

Sure many of you will blow me off as an 'idea' hopper, making philosophy 360 turn arounds. But I took the ideas that I have gained and took it too far to the extreme here, and hopefully others will learn from this. Ultimately this thread has served it's purpose in triggering a debate. Debate is futile however, if you do not walk into it with an open mind and hear the opinions of others. I have already talked with others that have had their own opinions changed from this discussion and so have mine, which is great.

However there are still many debatable things in this thread. While my definition of terms may be off, I will still argue the injustice of the threats on NPO based on their peace mode nations and this no longer being a defensive war. I will continue to comment on these points and if we are lucky, hopefully you can change my opinions or I change yours.

Actually they didnt just attack OV. They attacked OV and OV's allies. In many cases an attack on one is an attack on the other. OV was never the only alliance involved in this. In attacking OV NPO knew damn well that OV allies would join in. They just assumed they had enough allies themselves to win.

History and even this war would say otherwise, several allies were just out-right ignored.

"Counteroffensive is a large-scale military offensive used by some or all of a defending force against their attackers. The purpose is to seize the initiative from the attackers."

I would definately say that Karma is a large scale offensive (most of the DoW's are from Karma's side) used vy some or all of a defending force to seize the intiative from the NPO. I fail to see how an alliance with not one defensive slot in use is in a defensive war.