End of Terms: NPO and Beyond

[Roadie]

I would just take this moment to point out that I haven't commented publicly on whether the original attacks that started this war were based on good decision-making or not.

One could say the same about many, many players on this side of the war.

[Matthew Conrad]

Actually, it's more like a couple hundred NPOers. And that they didn't know what the fighting was about is part of the potential issue. Most members of any alliance don't visit the forums at all. Especially nubes. Given they don't know anything about the politics behind these things, it would only be human nature to carry some anger towards those that attacked them.

Edit: Evidence of that can be seen in Karma.

To be fair, this effect of confusion among the lower ranks is prevalent among both sides.

[enderland]

Actually, it's more like a couple hundred NPOers. And that they didn't know what the fighting was about is part of the potential issue. Most members of any alliance don't visit the forums at all. Especially nubes. Given they don't know anything about the politics behind these things, it would only be human nature to carry some anger towards those that attacked them.

I guess thats what happens when you recruit several hundred people after a war starts....

Edit: Evidence of that can be seen in Karma.

For example?

[Delta1212]

No amount of e-lawyering will change the fact that if you are taking up a defensive slot you are the aggressor.However offensive action is certainly good defense.

Yes, in the same way that returning fire when someone shoots at you is not strictly self-defense. That would be holding up a a shield or wearing body armor. Practically though, defending in such a manner only makes you the aggressor if you are a pedant insisting on an insufferably high level of semantic nitpickery.

[King DrunkWino]

...if you are a pedant insisting on an insufferably high level of semantic nitpickery.

Methinks that description fits more here than it doesn't.

[Yggdrazil]

Semantic nitpicking is my thing.

Aggression =aggressor

Just like it's semantically correct to point out that after the third day of the war, the war became aggressive revenge and no longer defense of OV.

[Bob Janova]

That's not correct, semantically or otherwise. OV are under attack by a larger force which has shown a clear intent to harm them, and still easily has the NS to do so. As a previous poster noted, if you are asking for the war to continue until NPO is no longer a threat to OV, it will be a long one and NPO will be completely destroyed.

[Haflinger]

That's not correct, semantically or otherwise. OV are under attack by a larger force which has shown a clear intent to harm them, and still easily has the NS to do so. As a previous poster noted, if you are asking for the war to continue until NPO is no longer a threat to OV, it will be a long one and NPO will be completely destroyed.

Do you define ability to launch wars as being strictly based on the NS of individual alliances, ignoring entirely the effects of allies?

I await the long line of OV posters about to claim the NPO is a threat to them.

[DogeWilliam]

Excuse me if this has been asked, but I have a thought. As you all know, NPO dominates the red sphere. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there an NPO "mandate" of some kind where they basically disallowed anyone from trying to form another red alliance?

What I'm getting at here is the inevitable peace terms for NPO. Besides the reps in money and tech and other measures, I think it would be interesting to see the red sphere "opened up" so to speak. Just as the NPO created the NpO. Perhaps Karma could create a RSPF(Red Sphere Peace Force) to counter NPO on red. Or perhaps red would just be opened for other alliances to try and make a home there.

Would be cool to see. B)

Edited June 7, 2009 by DogeWilliam

[Hydro]

OOC: This game has a war feature and an economic feature, both of which hinge upon the other. It's unreasonable to expect someone to pretend that a nations ability to conduct war isn't affected by its economic status and in doing so lose any advantage they might've gained by using reps and demanding nations come out of peace mode.

[Roadie]

To be fair, this effect of confusion among the lower ranks is prevalent among both sides.

Certainly, I haven't ever bothered to find out how many players CN has or how many post in the OWF, but I'd venture to guess only a few percent of all players have any idea.

I'm just not sure what the effects of that are. All I have to go off of are all the people on the Karma side of the war that appear to this newcomer as having a completely unreasonable hatred for some alliances. Like these things get taken too personal maybe. I would have to think that this war, especially over the next year or two will have the same effect on those players on the receiving end this time around.

[Matthew Conrad]

Certainly, I haven't ever bothered to find out how many players CN has or how many post in the OWF, but I'd venture to guess only a few percent of all players have any idea.

I'm just not sure what the effects of that are. All I have to go off of are all the people on the Karma side of the war that appear to this newcomer as having a completely unreasonable hatred for some alliances. Like these things get taken too personal maybe. I would have to think that this war, especially over the next year or two will have the same effect on those players on the receiving end this time around.

That's to say this is somehow unique to this war. Many wars has stirred up hatred among a good portion of the combatants. It's just a motivation strategy and I do think you're taking it too personally. Granted, there are people who don't like you or whatnot but to take offense because most of your opponents dislike you is raising your expectations to an unreasonable level. Just take it for what it is unless the person actually gives reasons for their hatred. You do have your occasional war without hard feelings because of treaty obligation conflicts (there are a few examples of this in this war), but they're usually overshadowed.

[Roadie]

That's to say this is somehow unique to this war. Many wars has stirred up hatred among a good portion of the combatants. It's just a motivation strategy and I do think you're taking it too personally. Granted, there are people who don't like you or whatnot but to take offense because most of your opponents dislike you is raising your expectations to an unreasonable level. Just take it for what it is unless the person actually gives reasons for their hatred. You do have your occasional war without hard feelings because of treaty obligation conflicts (there are a few examples of this in this war), but they're usually overshadowed.

I'm not taking anything personal. My post states it's simply my observation that many players have taken past actions personally and I don't see why that wouldn't happen with this war. And seeing the animosity created by previous wars, it appears that animosity will now be coming from different players.

Though I don't know how long people will retain that animosity. I would think most would let it go sometime over the next couple years before NPO is able to rebuild.

[enderland]

I'm not taking anything personal. My post states it's simply my observation that many players have taken past actions personally and I don't see why that wouldn't happen with this war. And seeing the animosity created by previous wars, it appears that animosity will now be coming from different players.

Though I don't know how long people will retain that animosity. I would think most would let it go sometime over the next couple years before NPO is able to rebuild.

The reasons that a lot have taken it personally is that they have had an alliance destroyed, beat down, given oppresive terms, or otherwise abused by NPO in the past.

So yeah, a lot of people probably are taking the war "personally."

[Bob Janova]

Do you define ability to launch wars as being strictly based on the NS of individual alliances, ignoring entirely the effects of allies?

An alliance can be seriously damaged by being the victim of an offensive strike in only a couple of days, even if they have a large group of allies prepared to defend them – as FAN showed with their attack on NoV. NPO have shown that they are rash enough to attack OV despite their treaty ties and therefore yes, NPO is still a threat to OV whether they have allies or not.

And if you are bringing allies in, you are helping to take down the silly 'it's offensive now' argument, so thanks. If allies count, then NPO brought into a defensive war not only on OV but on everyone that obliged to enter: SF and VE, at least.

[Haflinger]

An alliance can be seriously damaged by being the victim of an offensive strike in only a couple of days, even if they have a large group of allies prepared to defend them – as FAN showed with their attack on NoV. NPO have shown that they are rash enough to attack OV despite their treaty ties and therefore yes, NPO is still a threat to OV whether they have allies or not.

And if you are bringing allies in, you are helping to take down the silly 'it's offensive now' argument, so thanks. If allies count, then NPO brought into a defensive war not only on OV but on everyone that obliged to enter: SF and VE, at least.

I suppose Grämlins needs to fear TOP's attack then?

Really, this whole line of reasoning is silly. You don't need to protect yourself against every alliance that has more NS than you do.

[enderland]

I suppose Grämlins needs to fear TOP's attack then?

You'd be surprised.

[Dochartaigh]

I am not reading 10 pages of this thread so mock me if this has already been asked.

Jipps, where was this post when NPO was imposing harsh terms or indefinite warfare against alliances? Frankly, all this whining and crying by NPO allies over the harsh terms NPO may receive is quite funny considering they have taken part in far worse than i suspect NPO will receive.

so until you, Jipps, or any other ally of NPO whining about the harsh terms that may be given to NPO should stop until you can point out where you stood up for the alliances given harsh terms to by NPO.

As for indefinite war, did you ever speak out against vietFAN? if not, shut up cuz seriously the hypocrisy and double standards shown by NPO allies are amusing but worthless.

[Paint Your Target]

And its times like these that you thank admin for Docharteigh.

[Blue Lightning]

I suppose Grämlins needs to fear TOP's attack then?

Yes. Bad example.

[Roadie]

I am not reading 10 pages of this thread so mock me if this has already been asked.

Jipps, where was this post when NPO was imposing harsh terms or indefinite warfare against alliances? Frankly, all this whining and crying by NPO allies over the harsh terms NPO may receive is quite funny considering they have taken part in far worse than i suspect NPO will receive.

so until you, Jipps, or any other ally of NPO whining about the harsh terms that may be given to NPO should stop until you can point out where you stood up for the alliances given harsh terms to by NPO.

As for indefinite war, did you ever speak out against vietFAN? if not, shut up cuz seriously the hypocrisy and double standards shown by NPO allies are amusing but worthless.

Ten pages into a thread about terms it's a lock that all those talking points have been touched on.

[Jipps]

I am not reading 10 pages of this thread so mock me if this has already been asked.

Jipps, where was this post when NPO was imposing harsh terms or indefinite warfare against alliances? Frankly, all this whining and crying by NPO allies over the harsh terms NPO may receive is quite funny considering they have taken part in far worse than i suspect NPO will receive.

Apparently rather than actually argue any of the issues or points at hand, people seem to fall back on the hypocrisy line a lot. I think it just goes to chow the blind assumptions made by too many people these days, without addressing substances of posts. After the third or fourth time, the point gets redundant and makes you look lame frankly.

It is true that I never spoke out publically against harsh terms in the past to the extent that I did now, but I never spoke out for it either. So many people on your own side of the war had never once spoken out against them either and are guilty of crimes far greater than things my alliance ever commited.

However no amount of "lol hypocrisy posts" will change any of the points given here, and it is a shame the arguements dwell into acconts of personal history. The facts still stand, and they would be the same no matter my past. Speaking out against them now is better than never, or are ideals exclusive now? I really do not think any of the opponents of harsh terms are going to make much ground if they continue to reject anyone that hasn't a complete white sheet.

so until you, Jipps, or any other ally of NPO whining about the harsh terms that may be given to NPO should stop until you can point out where you stood up for the alliances given harsh terms to by NPO.

Whining, really? You know a comment is bad when they have to result to low vocabulary, school yard insults like whining to demonize their opponent. You really just lost any sympathy I might have had for your post.

As for indefinite war, did you ever speak out against vietFAN? if not, shut up cuz seriously the hypocrisy and double standards shown by NPO allies are amusing but worthless.

[ooc] I fought in VietFAN for FAN as my previous ruler Sir Fredrich lll: http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...4127&st=140[/ooc]

Yes. Bad example.

Oh snap.

[Bob Janova]

I suppose Grämlins needs to fear TOP's attack then?

TOP are our ally and friend. NPO has already shown that it is prepared to attack OV over very little. The situations are not analogous at all. A better one might be ... Grämlins needed to fear NpO's attack back before the Polar/Hyperion war.

[Haflinger]

Doc, it's safe to say that point has been discussed thoroughly at least four or five times already.

Also, Janova - your paranoia is showing. I think when the truth of what really happened in the days before this war comes out, you'll understand my position a whole lot better. For now let's stick to just saying this - think about who was asking questions from sethb; do you think mhawk and bigwoody are still gunning for him?

[Kataklizm the Great]

Should NPO wish to avoid shelling out for starting this war, they should do as they have done so frequently in the past, WIN. Of course, that would entail fully mobilizing out of hippy mode.

How many from NPO are on this thread crying about the situation? Go back and count, I'll wait...

That is telling...in and unto itself. Maybe NPO doesn't need everyone to be their mouthpiece. Save your complaints for something that has happened, not something that might.

My opinion: Whatever happens to the NPO, will be RICHLY deserved.