Imperial Decree from the New Pacific Order

[AirMe]

Give me a break, read up on GW2 before you make GW1 analogies.

For the record, even though we were defeated (yes I will use the word defeated) in GW1, it was the League that were holding grudges against us and wanted to destroy us in GW2, not the other way around.

Really? Did you just say this? REALLY?

If The League wanted to destroy you in GW2, I would have given the order to launch the damn nukes and it all would have been over for you. And you can take that to the bank. Unfortunately I was too much of a peacenik to finish the job.

NPO members like you really make me regret not giving that damn order. Go back and learn the history leading up to GW2 before you spout this crap again. You are like a heavily retarded version of Vladimir, at least he is intelligent.

Edited June 16, 2009 by AirMe

[The FSM]

While I ususally am not a fan of viewing situations as 'black and white' with two concrete and opposing outcomes I cant help but get the feeling that there can only be two outcomes to this situation.

The first outcome is that Karma imposes such far reaching and punishing reparations that NPO has no hope of paying them or of gaining peace that they elect to disband, thus never threatening Digiterra ever again. The other outcome is that NPO gets reparations, repays them and rebuilds then regains their former position of superiority.

In my opinion NPO has tasted power and will do whatever necessary to gain power again, increasing the reps only delays the time when this occurs. The harsher the reps are and the longer it takes for the NPO to repay them the more Digiterra will be lulled in a false sense of security that the Pacifican Wolf is shackled and chained, never to bother them again.

The only viable options in this situation are to destroy the NPO by forcing them to disband (reducing them past the point where they are a shell of their former selfs would work as well) or to create a peacetime coalition with the sole intent of making sure NPO doesnt rise to power again.

Im opposed to forcing any alliance to disband, but Karma (at least from my perspective) is not set up to survive as a peacetime coalition. So what's going to end up happening is that NPO will get extremely punishing reparations, Karma will for all intents and purposes dissolve, and Digiterra will turn into this multiploar world everyone seems to think is coming. While we are all squabbling amongst ourselves (because thats what multipolarism will bring) NPO will pay off its debts, rebuild both its alliance and its alliances and slowly start to regain its position of preeminence.

[bbrownso]

*facepalm*

That was prior to Great War One. Great War Two started because GOONS waged unceasing war with Farkistan because it existed and when the League/LUE decided that GOONS did not have the right to decide which alliances should exist or not, the NPO and Initative crushed them. Also, TotalFarkistan.

Well, Fark was a puppet alliance of LUE led by theblitz. Trust me on this. I'm pretty sure that played a part. Also, Fark wasn't treatied to LUE in any way so the "help" was somewhat extraordinary. LUE jumped in to protect its puppet and paid the price. (This is not to imply that Fark is not an upstanding alliance nowadays).

And what about TF! ? Just curious about what you're talking about.

[Ogaden]

GATO, FAN, NAAC, etc, etc.

See, this is the problem you're never going to get around. Everything you criticize Karma for, the NPO has already done, and done worse. Just give it a rest already.

The Vindictive Coalition would like to believe this is true, since it absolves them of all responsibility, but the truth is more 'complicated'.

[Harold the Saxon]

GATO, FAN, NAAC, etc, etc.

See, this is the problem you're never going to get around. Everything you criticize Karma for, the NPO has already done, and done worse. Just give it a rest already.

I have already gotten around your problem. Do you have an answer? Explain to me what exactly your form of 'justice' is and how it is ethical. I argue it is not.

Hello. I am going to ask all of you a really big favour. You probably won't like this nor will you agree, but my favour is ask that you read all the way through and decide for yourselves, as objectively as possible, how you feel about my analysis.

Universality. A ethical standard held by rights-based theorists that a moral law should be universal in application: each person must be held to the standards we would choose for ourselves. A quicker reference would be 'do unto others as you would have done unto you.'

I am not one for always carrying every OOC characteristic into a game. As such, I try to create a different character as much as possible. Moreover, I feel some ideals are worth striving for in a separate, virtual world. One of them is basic concept of rights - the right to life, property, and liberty. That is, that each individual and alliance should should be protected in their own existence, to that which they have made, and to their ability to exist without external interference in their acts of freedom.

I am one who always believes in a good trial, or, in this case, a due process of law and objectivity. I am one who believes in innocence always before guilt, and decision always before punishment. I am one who believes not in the justice of the lynching mob, but in the justice of a world we wish to envision; the world we will want to create for ourselves.

You may hate the Pacific Order. You may despise every single attribute, action, and player amongst them, if you will. What I ask is not that you change your mind, only that you give them due process. Treat them as you would wish to be treated in their condition and subject them only to terms which are both reasonable (as in non-contradictory) and just (as in terms properly earned by their actions).

In the terms of what is just, it is easy to see the main Karma argument for a serious punishment of the NPO. Not only do I understand completely, but I also concur. The manner in which Pacifica has played this game, from my ethical standpoint, is very much in contradiction of what I have just told you. In fact, I am a player who has been wiped out before due to such actions. My goal is not to prove to you that the NPO is good and deserves no punishment, rather, that, even if they are evil to a degree, that justice is not served by total, unrequited revenge. Why is this? As much wrong as they may have done and players they have made furious (and boy, I know many of them. There have been conspiracies running against Pacifica for over two years now, in my recollection) Pacifica still has these fundamental rights of freedom, property, and life. Justice, no matter how severe, should not serve as a means to enslave and shackle these people - they are active, regular players like you or I and not savage animals who deserve to be chained. Give them huge reparations demands and give them regular surrender terms: decomission of missiles, destruction of wonders, reduced armies, and other restrictions but none that inhibit their ability to exist as a sovereign entity.

Non-contradictory terms are an essential to the rights-based formation of Pacifica's surrender. When I say non-contradictory, I suggest terms that are sensible in their demands in that they are both possible and reachable. Karma has not properly followed this thought. For while it is fine to demand a large amount of reparations for war indemnities, another demand, if not preventing the reparations, seriously harms this ability. I am speaking about the 2-week free war campaign on Pacifica nations. You may name it as you please. I see it as simply a way to beatdown nations for more before surrender terms can take effect.

It is one thing to demand exorbitant reparations, but another, completely contradictory measure, to demand that an alliance sign itself to annihilation before such a thing can occur. Even a thief, as low as he may be, and perhaps as the NPO has acted, would not attempt to pretend to you what they do is ethically correct. Not only is this term a major case of coercion - the use of force to compel a party to give-in - but economically unsound. Certainly, any leader can ascertain that, if both of these terms come into effect, there will be problems. Regardless of how well the NPO economic position is, and it is probably not stellar at this moment, the last thing you want during your repayment is 6 wars filling your slots, draining your resources. Regardless of how well off your nation is, you're going to bleed money, technology, land, and infrastructure like a serious case of hemophilia.

This term has never been demanded, in my memory, to any alliance. Not in this nature. Its clear intention is to, at the very least, make Pacifica's position untenable and difficult. This is not wrong on its own.

Why it is wrong, as we track back, is universality. Imagine you are a regular soldier in the NPO ranks, fighting a war to desparately save your nation from this apocalypse. Surely, you don't want to fight forever, but you don't want to lose your power to grow and maintain your existence. Then, you are offered terms which may make this impossible. I admit, in the past, other alliances have been offered these kinds of terms (and may they rest in peace, such as NAAC, NoR, NoV, LUE, ONOS, et al). Would you not be inclined to be suspicious and wish to preserve yourself; would you not feel you deserve punishment but not that any nation deserves enslavement or any form of permanent-ZI?

My rights-based approach suggests that the reasonable limits of any form of revenge borders where complete removal of unfair advantage or retribution for wrongs done meets the inability to live, function, or own a nation at all. Surely your goal is not to send every NPO nation to ZI nor to force them to quit the game (or maybe even leave the NPO, if they choose) or prevent the NPO from being an alliance which can conduct its own affairs. Your goal is to punish the NPO severely enough to prevent it from committing to the unjust acts it has perpetrated in the past and will do so in the future.

Let us not be the ones who tar and feather the man or pull the guillotine on the King before we decide if our actions are morally correct. If we do this to the NPO - that is, subject them to these harsh and debilitating terms - with a clearly malicious intent (which, right or wrong, is Karma's goal) what kind of world will we create? What kind of standard do we set? Are we properly considering alternatives or are we merely playing follow the leader until NPO goes to hell with head in a handbasket?

TL; DR: I think, in conclusion, that these terms are severe because of the introduction of the 2-week war period following surrender. I concur that it would be just to demand heavy reparations of the NPO to atone for misdeeds against enemies both past and present. However, I do not agree to terms which clearly handicap any alliance from carrying out not only its regular functions but very existence itself. Though the NPO has a history of doing just that, I believe that a better political state would involve us standing up to a due process of law involving an objective analysis of our actions, and not just a blind, emotional revenge, leaving us politically fragmented and angry. If we treat the NPO, in its wrongful steps, as we would wished to be treated in their position, it is plain to see that punishment is necessary, but total destruction is not morally correct. Cut the forced war term and make them pay the reparations in full. A better world, if we strive to create one for ourselves, will not be made in the ashes of aggression, blood, and antagonism - the seeds which have sown the beast's own destruction. Likewise, Karma, if it knows its true name at all, should appreciate the value of justice with reasonable limits; revenge but not total annihilation; war but only to preserve peace; preservation of life as opposed to temptation of pulling the trigger.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Harold the Saxon

[Krack]

Well, Fark was a puppet alliance of LUE led by theblitz. Trust me on this. I'm pretty sure that played a part. Also, Fark wasn't treatied to LUE in any way so the "help" was somewhat extraordinary. LUE jumped in to protect its puppet and paid the price. (This is not to imply that Fark is not an upstanding alliance nowadays).

And what about TF! ? Just curious about what you're talking about.

Yeah, about this ... you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

[jimbacher]

Really? Did you just say this? REALLY?

If The League wanted to destroy you in GW2, I would have given the order to launch the damn nukes and it all would have been over for you. And you can take that to the bank. Unfortunately I was too much of a peacenik to finish the job.

NPO members like you really make me regret not giving that damn order. Go back and learn the history leading up to GW2 before you spout this crap again. You are like a heavily retarded version of Vladimir, at least he is intelligent.

I really hope the mods come in and start slapping some warnings or bans around, because the personal attacks here are getting rediculous.

[greatmagnus]

I really hope the mods come in and start slapping some warnings or bans around, because the personal attacks here are getting rediculous.

OOC: Too bad this is an in character forum, and warnings would go out to you for having a completely OOC post.

IC: Yeah, Karma members want white peace. Right. Get right to ya on the white peace petition.

[Azhrarn]

The Vindictive Coalition would like to believe this is true, since it absolves them of all responsibility, but the truth is more 'complicated'.

Vindictive Coaltion?

Insulting the people who hold your fate in their hands is really intelligent. But please continue.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Azhrarn

[jimbacher]

OOC: Too bad this is an in character forum, and warnings would go out to you for having a completely OOC post.

IC: Yeah, Karma members want white peace. Right. Get right to ya on the white peace petition.

Yeh last time I checked calling someone retarded is an OOC attack, and since the NPO isn't even talking about white peace, white peace aint gonna happen.

Edited June 16, 2009 by jimbacher

[Azhrarn]

I have already gotten around your problem. Do you have an answer? Explain to me what exactly your form of 'justice' is and how it is ethical. I argue it is not.

These terms are not going to destroy the NPO, just shackle it for awhile, which is both just and ethical. To be honest with you, no one wants ex-Pacificans in their alliances. Why do you think they're being allowed to keep their wonders and improvements? Contrary to the NPO propaganda, with a full set of wonders/improvements and a little cash, rebuilding is not that difficult.

Edit. If it was up to me, the NPO would be forced to get rid of all military wonders and improvements.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Azhrarn

[Mister Roboto]

These terms do seem exceedingly harsh, and in my opinion NPO doesn't deserve this, even though they had demanded similar terms in the past. (IE FAN). Karma prided itself on being, for lack of better words, better than NPO (on a moral level), so why would they stoop to the level of NPO if they're fighting against this sort of thing? But then again, I guess Karma is "What comes around goes around"... hm.

[AirMe]

Yeh last time I checked calling someone retarded in an OOC attack, and since the NPO isn't even talking about white peace, white peace aint gonna happen.

OOC: I was talking about his character. I have nothing against the person behind.

IC: It's called healthy debate, when sides get fired up, names get thrown out, if you can't handle being insulted you shouldn't be participating in the politics of the world.

[AirMe]

These terms are not going to destroy the NPO, just shackle it for awhile, which is both just and ethical. To be honest with you, no one wants ex-Pacificans in their alliances. Why do you think they're being allowed to keep their wonders and improvements? Contrary to the NPO propaganda, with a full set of wonders/improvements and a little cash, rebuilding is not that difficult.

Not to contradict an ally, but, there are many Pacifican's I would like in my alliance. I like and respect most of them.

[raincoat]

Give me a break, read up on GW2 before you make GW1 analogies.

For the record, even though we were defeated (yes I will use the word defeated) in GW1, it was the League that were holding grudges against us and wanted to destroy us in GW2, not the other way around.

Both sides had equal dislike for each other and want for war, but I never saw any evidence that the League wanted to destroy you. While I am certain they wanted to beat the NPO, they never really took any actions to erradicate them. The NPO was the first alliance to actually require reparations and other types of terms with surrender.

GWI is a great example of trying to let the other side play the game. GWIII was the first time alliances started having long term surrender terms put on them. I think its great proof that letting the other side off easy and to "play the game" only really works if the other side is willing to do the same for you. It does not matter how many times you win and let the other side off easy, it only takes one win from them and your out.

[Harold the Saxon]

These terms are not going to destroy the NPO, just shackle it for awhile, which is both just and ethical.

I fail to see how shackling is ethical. I don't consider slavery right, regardless of how many times you scream at me they are evil.

The NPO can rebuild? That is not the topic I presented in my post. I stated that restriction of an alliance's right to sovereignty; restriction of its right to freedom and self-conduct, especially with such a measure as a two-week campaign of self-destructive warfare, is hardly just. They do not deserve to be chained like animals. Is not justice receiving what one has deserved?

Edited June 16, 2009 by Harold the Saxon

[WarriorConcept]

Vindictive Coaltion?

Insulting the people who hold your fate in their hands is really intelligent. But please continue.

Guess they still have more learning to do.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

Sequence of the build up to the war from SF's perspective as presented in a rough amalgamation of faux conversations based on what was said at various points in our discussions:

Yes, tell it like it is brother. Those were some interesting times.

[wickedj]

Some "victorious" alliances have taken considerable damage; not just against the NPO, but fighting on other fronts as well. For example, I think Ragnarok has taken more damage (approx 33% of it's total score) than any other "victorious" alliance in a war ever - maybe I'm wrong (I'm sure if I am, someone will chime in quickly). VE and FARK have also taken severe damage.

That was partially the fault of members of their coalition, but what's done is done, and they still took huge losses. What was the most damage (in percentage lost of score) that NPO ever took in one of it's victories?

I cannot speak for VE or Rok but pre-war we had just tipped over the 10 million mark...and at wars end i believe in the low 7 millions

[Schattenmann]

Not to contradict an ally, but, there are many Pacifican's I would like in my alliance. I like and respect most of them.

There are a fewwwwwwwwww. A very few.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Schattenmann

[Azhrarn]

Not to contradict an ally, but, there are many Pacifican's I would like in my alliance. I like and respect most of them.

What you were saying about getting carried away, yeah. Personally I tend to like ex-Pacificans, but to each his own. In any event, the point I was trying to make is that these terms are not designed to destroy the NPO AA.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Azhrarn

[Coven]

I fail to see how shackling is ethical. I don't consider slavery right, regardless of how many times you scream at me they are evil.

The NPO can rebuild? That is not the topic I presented in my post. I stated that restriction of an alliance's right to sovereignty; restriction of its right to freedom and self-conduct, especially with such a measure as a two-week campaign of self-destructive warfare, is hardly just. They do not deserve to be chained like animals. Is not justice receiving what one has deserved?

I agree with you. But it's hard for some people to clear the blood from their eyes, they actually see revenge as justice.

[Haflinger]

I cannot speak for VE or Rok but pre-war we had just tipped over the 10 million mark...and at wars end i believe in the low 7 millions

That's NS, he was talking score.

[AirMe]

What you were saying about getting carried away, yeah. Personally I tend to like ex-Pacificans, but to each his own. In any event, the point I was trying to make is that these terms are not designed to destroy the NPO AA.

I agree completely. Don't mind me, I am retarded sometimes.

[Mister Roboto]

These terms are not going to destroy the NPO, just shackle it for awhile, which is both just and ethical. To be honest with you, no one wants ex-Pacificans in their alliances. Why do you think they're being allowed to keep their wonders and improvements? Contrary to the NPO propaganda, with a full set of wonders/improvements and a little cash, rebuilding is not that difficult.

Edit. If it was up to me, the NPO would be forced to get rid of all military wonders and improvements.

Why would anyone not want ex-Pacificans in their alliance? I can understand not wanting high-level decision makers or others with bad PR in their alliance, but what's wrong with the other 500+ members?