End of Terms: NPO and Beyond

[The Poet]

I've always supported extensively harsh reps tbh.. It fuels grudges and generally funny OWF topics, as well as usually improving an alliance: see NpO.

[Chimaera]

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.

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.

[auto98]

and I suggested that it's not enough since both sides take heavy damage.

This is funny. When you claim that "Giving anything but white peace makes karma as bad as NPO" it doesn't automatically become true. Actually no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't become true. There is nothing to refute because you havn't shown anything that even suggests that this would be true.

I'll humor you though. My refutation: Things are not black and white. Karma does not not inherit the crimes of NPO because they give terms to alliances they (or at least some alliances in karma) think deserve it. To be as bad karma would have to at least commit crimes that's remotely close to what NPO did. Not giving out white peace doesn't cut it.

[under the assumption that NPO has committed "crimes"]

You mean like half of karma who supported NPO in their actions, thus making them possible? Will the rest of karma be asking for reparations from those alliances also, or are you going to allow them to take reps off the side they were on just a few weeks ago, after keeping NPO at the top for so long, who swapped sides purely because they like being on the winning side, not because they suddenly believe in different ideals?

[Tom Litler]

Why should Karma not do the same to them?

Because they lack the unity and resolve to follow through till the end? Because they're rapidly losing any PR advantage they might have once had? Because as opposed to the NPO, who no longer has anything to lose, Karma alliances will eventually tire of perpetual warfare?

[SpiderJerusalem]

But you want an example of surrender terms that don't include reps but would likely be among the harshest CN has yet seen? Here you go:

1) All members must have 5 Guerilla Camps, 5 Barracks, 5 Missle Defenses, 5 Satelites, 5 Drydocks, 5 Shipyards, 3 Naval Construction Yards, and 2 Naval Academies. In the event a nation does not have the population necessary to maintain all of these improvements, they must be maintained in the order listed.

2) All members must have maximum military, including soldiers, tanks, cruise missiles, planes, and navy vessels.

3) By the end of terms every member of the alliance with 4000 infrastructure or more have both Agriculture Development Program and FSS

4) The following wonders must be decommissioned for all nations: Anti-Air Defense Network, Disaster Relief Agency, Foreign Airforce Base, Hidden Nuclear Missle Silo, Pentagon, Strategic Defense Initiative, Weapon Research Complex

5) No member may possess a nuclear weapon for the duration of terms

6) All nations must be set to defcon1 and Threat Level 1

7) No aid slot in the alliance may be used for the duration of terms for internal aid, external aid, tech dealing, or donation deals

8) All nations in peace mode as of the end of terms will remain in peace mode until 30 days after terms expire.

Oh, there are some good ideas here

[JazHayre]

As an external observer, it's becoming obvious that no terms will EVER be agreed. How we are on our zillioneth thread, 55+ pages I don't know - because NO PROGRESS has made. Heck its a PR battle that both sides are now losing.

So lets stop dancing around the obvious point about "terms" and "harshness" - They will never get accepted. It's simply semantics, talk of people in peace mode? Won't make negotiations easier. Talk of paying for past crimes - Won't make negotiations easier.

The whole saga is becoming tedious, if peace is wanted - you know what has to happen.

If you don't want peace, then I would suggest reading up on VietFAN.

(PS, these are not the views of Zenith)

[VIdiot the Great]

It may be long, but it is completely necessary.

The State of the Current Conflict

First off and most importantly, the attackers of the New Pacific Order must recognize that this is no longer a defensive war. The current conflict is only going on for the sole reason of the extortion of large amounts of reparations. 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.

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.

Definitions

The word harsh terms has been thrown around a lot these days to account for any large amount of reparations or other unnecessary conditions in peace pacts. However there is no real clear definition of 'harsh' in reference to terms. My personal definition, and he one in which I will use in this essay, is harsh terms can be applied to any term that inflicts intended damage on an alliance for your own benefit.

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.

Harsh Terms are Inherently Bad

Before I even apply terms to the current conflict, I will explain why harsh terms are inherently bad. When an alliance requires money or tech reparations after a war, they are intentionally continuing the conflict past peace. You inflict damage upon your opponent for your own gain, the essential purpose of conflict in the first place. Some say that alliances should pay reparations for the damages of war, this notion is ridiculous. By issuing a Declaration of War you take full responsibility for the damages taken during the war. Even if you were attacked unprovoked, take your grievances out on the battlefield, not after the fact.

Clauses that infringe on an alliances sovergeinity are absolutely no better. These include: changing team colors, cancellations of treaties, military limits, economic limits, leadership change, and other tricky devices similar to these. No one should enforce acts that limit alliances potential and its sovergeinity, such acts only further cause the loss of communities and loss of game play in general.

Disbandment is obvious I hope.

A scary, popular trend among alliances is to fight wars to get to the terms. Many seem to have lost the idea that war is the punishment for an alliance, not the period of peace afterwards.

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.

Karma Must Set Precedent

As much as people will yell at me for it, even the New Pacific Order does not deserve harsh terms. As I have explained above that harsh terms are inherently bad, there is even more at stake here.

Failure to give NPO peace here would be the gravest mistake arguably in the history of Planet Bob. Especially under the justification I have seen so far, we could be looking at missing the one definite chance we have to end harsh terms once and for all. A precedent needs to be set here that harsh terms will no longer be tolerated. If not, the likelihood of the continuation of the same is too high of a risk to take.

Harsh terms here would only justify their continuation in the wars of Planet Bob. By saying that terms are okay at any point, you are in de fault support of them for anytime. Since we have no guiding moral conscious or UN type authority, there is nothing to stop alliances for stating that harsh terms were necessary under any wartime circumstances. Especially considering we have no real definitions of harsh as well. Unfortunately we would enter an era of brutality we were meant to escape during this war.

Karma must send the message out that harsh terms are no longer welcome on Planet Bob; terms to the New Pacific Order have become the point at which to make the stand. Whether you will admit to it or not, failing this will only make you as bad as the injustices you now fight.

First of all, by your definition, any term imposed would be harsh. Since your definition is meaningless (as shown above) your reference to NPO terms (if there are/will be any) is pointless.

For VictoryRecently I have seen many members of Karma alliances justifying harsh terms using the argument that terms are motivated only by victory. This kind of thinking is horrible and reminds me of too much of the justification of past harsh terms. You can only be victorious in war, not in peace. This mind set is one of the main reasons we find ourselves here today. When you have this mind set, you become so motivated by victory that you lose sight of your morality and enforce harsh terms all the time. There is victory in every war, so this justification will lead to harsh terms being right in any war at any point of time.

It is saddening to see the citizens of Planet Bob so quickly forget the reasons we came to despise the old regimes the way that we did. This fearfulness of competition and revenge motivates you to impose lasting victory terms on your opponents, at the cost of the community as a whole. I call on everyone to firmly reject these ideas, less you wish upon us the horrors of the past once again.

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.

Peace Mode Nations

Lastly, the alliance of Ragnarok has recently stated it will be implying financial burdens on the New Pacific Order for its peace mode nations. Many others have demanded that peace not be given until they come out of peace mode. However can we really blame the New Pacific Order for having nations in peace mode? They are vital to the rebuilding effort and might be part of a military strategy for all we know. What is so bad about having your enemy rebuild after the war? It is this hysteria around safety and victory again that I fear will be the destruction of any moral ideas this war was founded upon.

So I leave you on a note of warning on the ideas you now praise, please see the error of your ways. I plea to you as someone deeply concerned about the future of this game I have come to so deeply enjoy. I know some will personally attack my record, and rightfully so as I have done some errors in the past. I pledge to stand by the principles I outlined in this essay and swear to never engage in harsh terms as defined so here. I expect everyone to hold me to my word here, and encourage others to take a pledge to help finally put an end to a tragic trend of Planet Bob.

Debate is highly encouraged, especially ones contradictory to everything I say.

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.

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.

However, there is an element of mercy inherent in justice. So I do agree imposition of the same terms upon an alliance that had imposed such terms previously may well be 'fair' but it might not be 'just.'

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.

Though I disagree with pretty much your entire post, it was obviously well thought out, genuine, and well written. I hope to see more such pieces from you in the future.

Regards,

VI

[steodonn]

NPO were given very lenient terms before...then they ended up taking over CN pretty much. If you crush them in terms, that can't happen.

This

Anyone who thinks otherwise severely underestimates NPO

[Brotherington]

As an external observer, it's becoming obvious that no terms will EVER be agreed. How we are on our zillioneth thread, 55+ pages I don't know - because NO PROGRESS has made. Heck its a PR battle that both sides are now losing.

So lets stop dancing around the obvious point about "terms" and "harshness" - They will never get accepted. It's simply semantics, talk of people in peace mode? Won't make negotiations easier. Talk of paying for past crimes - Won't make negotiations easier.

The whole saga is becoming tedious, if peace is wanted - you know what has to happen.

If you don't want peace, then I would suggest reading up on VietFAN.

(PS, these are not the views of Zenith)

Just give it time, theres only one way this situation can be resolved in the near future. If the NPO wants to to hold out for some change in circumstances then I guess they are welcome to, but it will only mean more war, more lost members and more stagnation for them. I'm happy to see them defeated either way.

[Bob Janova]

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

In addition, Karma has made a difference, look at all the lenient terms offered to peripheral alliances in this war, and even some of the main actors like Valhalla and GGA. Karma stands for justice, not for free pardons. It does not stand against harsh terms per se, but against unjustified terms; justice is subjective but NPO deserves bad terms far more than many alliances in the past which you and your kind raised not a single objection to.

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.

[mattski133]

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)?

The line behind your entrance into this war against MOON was that you defended your treaties with honor, and that because of this, you should not pay reperations when you surrendered. That appears to be what you are saying above, that entering a war should not be penalized because it is required. I agree. What should be penalized are the months or years of supporting the NPO and their policies that happened during the duration of that treaty.

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.

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.

[neneko]

[under the assumption that NPO has committed "crimes"]

You mean like half of karma who supported NPO in their actions, thus making them possible? Will the rest of karma be asking for reparations from those alliances also, or are you going to allow them to take reps off the side they were on just a few weeks ago, after keeping NPO at the top for so long, who swapped sides purely because they like being on the winning side, not because they suddenly believe in different ideals?

Your argument would have made alot more sense if all pacificas allies on the hegemony side had been forced to pay reps. I don't blame you for thinking this is a sound argument, your side have been chanting it for so long that I'm sure you actually belive it to be sound.

Edited June 2, 2009 by neneko

[Carter]

Ragnarok is free to say whatever they want. Truth is the number of nations NPO has in Peace Mode is disproportionate even for an alliance looking forward to the end of war and rebuilding. Essentially they fought this war with one arm behind their back. Why? To what end? To ensure they survive? Fine. But they had to know that if they did that the alliances arrayed against them would increase their demand for blood afterwards.

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.

I know this war has had an effect on me and many others on the side of the Hegemony without reps of any kind. In fact, it was the rather leinient terms that made me change my views drastically. Whether this hold true for NPO I'm not sure, but I'm hopeful.

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.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Carter

[KinKiac]

It may be long, but it is completely necessary.

<snip>EDIT: removed unnecessarily long quote

Debate is highly encouraged, especially ones contradictory to everything I say.

Extorting Tech? lol. You my friend, I dont think you get it. NPO is not a forgiving bunch. They have completely destroyed alliances for simply honoring treaties. The first thing on their minds after this war is going to be revenge as soon as possible. By asking for high reparations, Karma is simply giving itself a bit longer break before the next one comes. With NPO rebuilding capability they will be back on their feet and gunning for anyone that opposed them in no time.

As for precedents, they have already been set. White peace and very lenient terms for most of the alliances that lost in this war so far. This was unheard of before this war. My alliances personally had the joy of paying reparations after being preemptively attacked just last fall. Although much of those reps were forgiven, the point still stands, precedents have already been set.

NPO is still a threat. Reparations are not a way of extorting tech for personal gain, that is what NPO did to get that tech in the first place. If NPO is forced to pay high levels of tech, Which is their choice at this point I might add, then they are simply being forced to give back what they took from others. You can not call it extortion when much of it wasnt paid for by NPO in the first place. Also, NPO has been given a choice. Either come out and fight like men, or be forced to pay more later. The ball is in their court.

Id also like to mention that you are either ill-informed, or spouting propaganda when you say RoK is now imposing financial burdens on peace mode nations. If you had been following along, you would know that RoK was simply the ones "presenting" those terms, and not necessarily the ones asking for them. Im pretty sure those terms were a group effort.

harsh terms can be applied to any term that inflicts intended damage on an alliance for your own benefit

I think this is a major flaw in your argument. Harsh terms have nothing to do with benefit. Harsh terms are terms that are difficult or if not then next to impossible to pay off or maintain. It has nothing to do with personal benefit. NPO is going to get harsh terms in order to prevent them from rebuilding "too" quickly. However they will rebuild. If they are let off without terms or with very lenient terms, they will rebuild very quickly. They have got their top 50 and more in peace since the beginning of the war. Some of these guys no doubt have billions in their warchests. A single nation could have over 2 bill alone. Dont sit here and try to tell us that they are not still a threat in any way, they still have more members than pretty much any other alliance in the game. Many of those are small nations yes, but with billions in reserve, it wont take much to produce a massive mid-range military. With many of the alliances in this war, on both sides, being ravaged by war, if NPO gets peace without high reps or having to have their top 50 fight, they will probably rebuild quicker than any of us.

Either way, it doesnt matter at this point. The harshness of NPO's terms are dependent upon themselves at this point. Either they come out and fight, or they pay up. Its one or the other. Personally, I would rather fight. You can argue that peace mode is just a tactic and they shouldnt be punished for it all you want, but the fact that it is a "tactic" means that NPO hasnt given up the fight. They have not conceded their loss, something they have never done before, but this war is going to change that, whether they like it or not. Taking their top 50 out of peace mode for a couple of rounds of war, like their smaller nations have already done, would make this far less painful for them.

Edited June 2, 2009 by KinKiac

[Seerow]

Oh, there are some good ideas here

Glad you thought so. Sadly every time I try to push for any one of those terms much less all of them I tend to get ignored. I need to go become an evil overlord so I can show these people how it's done.

[KinKiac]

If NPO is allowed peace with their nations in peace mode, I believe reparations should be assessed. However, if they are ever somehow forced out of peace mode and completely stomped I believe those peace terms should be assessed while taking into account their ability to pay and their ability to continue growing as an alliance.

Although I disagree with you on other points, which has been established elsewhere, I totally agree with you on this point.

[KinKiac]

Forced tech deals and protection aren't wrong because they aren't intended to inflict harm on the defeated for your gain. Those are the kind of terms that should be seen more often.

What is so wrong with one side not coming out ahead? I would hope in an even sided war those alliances would seek peace soon to minimize damage then.

Again what is so bad about things going bac,k to usual? Sure would help reduce so much of the hate and vengence this game has been dealing with for so long.

Why must you competely neutralize an alliance for 2 whole months? Maybe you wouldn't consider them such a threat if you showed curtesy and offered white peace, you will find people to be a lot more gracious then.

You could inclue non aggression period for 2 months if you are so worried.

I thought that mercy is what made you guys so much better than them, if not then what makes you any different?

A whole 2 months, please no. Come on, 2 months is nothing. And, please stop with the whole you're no better than them line. It is getting old, and it is not true. Mercy has already been given to those that deserve it, for the most part.

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.

Nizzle, I'll get to you.

I think that opportunity was already given, it was called GW1 I believe. Reparation being given this time around to the NPO are going to hopefully prevent that same thing from happening. White peace and lenient terms have already been proven to fail in this respect. Why do you think that Karma will do something that has already proven itself to not work? High reps might not work either, but that is yet to be seen. There is no point in trying something that has been proven to fail.

There are 2 things which are kinda new here on PB which are being tried out. 1 is lenient terms for the ones simply honoring treaties. The other is harsh terms for the NPO specifically, since light terms obviously didnt work on them before. That is assuming that the NPO gets harsh terms in the end, which I have no say or input in whatsoever.

[Bralor]

That'd be nice if we could ensure NPO will never be dominate again. They have shown no desire to show mercy. So if we grant them white peace, we will make the same mistake ODN made in GW1.

[KinKiac]

Read my pledge at the bottom of the OP.

Where is the indication that they do not intend to continue with the reforms they started before the war? I honestly haven't seem much of any NPO opinions either way, so there is no way to judge.

lol. Do you know what behavioral interviewing is? It is used in job interviews quite frequently. It works on the basis that ones past experiences are a better indication of what they will do in the future, than what they say they will do. So instead of asking "what will you do in this situation?" you ask what have you dont in a similar situation in the past. This is probably the best way to judge future actions.

This will only force them to want to come back once again with vengence, just like harsh terms did to the victims of the last war.

Not true. My alliance was one of the "vitims" in the last war. We hold no ill will to those whom we fought in the last war. In fact I think Ive defended RoK in one of my last posts. Nice try though.

By continuing those practices I can only assume they agree with those in the past.

I meant to say that Karma would be continuing the practices of the NPO and friends in the past, as i think I made clear int he OP.

The thing is, you are forgetting or neglecting the fact that Karma is NOT continuing those practices. There has been no threats of EZI/PZI, no viceroys, no perpetual warfare, no terms that ensure a redeclaration of hostilities, no demanding certain members be ejected from alliances, no demanding that certain people remain silent on OWF, and no demanding of Gov to step down. You can not accuse Karma of continuing practices of the NPO when when these things stated have not come to pass. I think you may need a history lesson.

[KinKiac]

There is absolutely no shame in a draw, and there is sucha thing as being humble in victory. Why do the losers have compensate fot the victors, why can't losing be enough?

Im not even going to try to argue all that is wrong with that one.

I love war mate, I play the game for it. In fact, I am confident white peace would see a great influx of wars. Without fearing huge vengeful reps at the end of wars people will be a lot more motivated to honor treaties and have more war in general.

Really? I thought honor would be motivation enough to honor treaties regardless of the situation. Silly me, lol.

I hold no grudges against the alliances who gave me terms, alliance are a lot more forgiveful after white peace versus reps. I doubt they'll want to be your best buddy, but they probably won't be waiting to stab you in the back.

That argument holds no water when talking about the NPO. They have already proven that they are unforgiving, even when they win.

[KinKiac]

So you feel that this hghly destructive war isn't enough of a punishment? That the New Pacific Order needs to pay huge reps to alliances like Ragnarok who took part in some of those same crimes?

Why are you trying to give bad PR to Ragnarok? They are not the only ones fighting the NPO. They were not the ones asking for the peace mode terms, just a messenger. What makes you think that they are going to get any of the reps from NPO. Why do you assume such? It is statements like these that make your post look like a PR spin, you are doing it to yourself.

If that is seriously what you think is the best way to change the New Pacific Order, then I guess I can't do much to change your mind. But through this essay and my own personal experiences during this war I would hope you realize the power of peaceful gestures as well. If NPO ever betrayed that white peace that was given in good faith, I myself would jump up in arms with you.

If that is the case then you should already be up in arms. You are forgetting that many have been down this road before. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

I have pledged to follow these principles in the future and I think that is what counts more than any past wrong doings.

Ill say it again. A persons previous actions speak much louder than any pledge for the future. While honorable your pledge is, it still remains that it is not a good indicator of what will be done in the future. However, if you stand by such a pledge after the war is over and into the next war, then said pledge will mean something. Until then it just cant be trusted, and the same goes for any pledge that may be made by the NPO or anyone else for that matter. They must prove themselves through actions, not words.

[Haflinger]

I think what this is really saying is that SSSW18 should have been given harsher terms. They really are a prime example of how quickly people forget mercy and instead only look at what will give their allies a slight PR boost.

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.

One problem with that first line, the last 3 years, NPO controlled almost all alliances in the world in some way, making the issues people had almost non-existent in public areas.

What on earth?

They didn't control me.

The whole world does not consist of the GGA.

And no, the war does not become defensive for NPO because they've had enough.

This is a mischaracterization of the argument.

The argument is that the war is no longer defensive because OV's safety is assured.

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)?

A number of alliances feel that it is improper to cancel treaties with allies during wartime. The NPO are at war.

Really? I thought honor would be motivation enough to honor treaties regardless of the situation. Silly me, lol.

Most of the people who rule nations here are cowards.

[Matthew Conrad]

Because they lack the unity and resolve to follow through till the end? Because they're rapidly losing any PR advantage they might have once had? Because as opposed to the NPO, who no longer has anything to lose, Karma alliances will eventually tire of perpetual warfare?

Next you'll be pulling a Vladimir

As I've pointed out a thousand times, the alliances on the NPO front are quite united. The current forum dispute between TOP and other alliances has no bearing on NPO.

[Roadie]

One thing I'm noticing is a severe overestimate of the the dedication to Hegemony. Those alliance members - generally speaking - don't care about hegemony they way many appear to think. They ally for the same reason as C&G or Superteens does. Because they're friends, yadda, yadda, etc etc. Being a powerful bloc - again, generally speaking - is not the primary reason.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Roadie

[Roadie]

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.

I disagree with this. Hegemony members are free to express opinion here without insult or other retribution so long as they express the opinion that the Karma Chattering Klass has assigned to them.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Roadie