Imperial Decree from the New Pacific Order

[Gamemaster1]

Beats me. I'm not part of Karma. I'm only here for the whimpering.

EDIT: But you know, there have been multiple posts from high-ranking NPO members about what an honorable alliance they are and so on. I would think that such an honorable group would jump at the chance to live by the standards they have set.

[12:13] <Moo-Cows> the other nations in peace must feel the pain the rest of the alliance suffered

[12:13] <Moo-Cows> I did not shape these terms but I believe in that strongly

Haha, fair enough. I don't like the terms, but hey. I'm not NPO, and I'm not the 18 alliances that agreed on the terms. How in the world did they manage to get that to work? 18 alliances agreeing on the 14 day war for banks term....sounds difficult at the least. Not one alliance felt bad about being 'as bad' as NPO?

[NoFish]

The actual terms have minimum payments requirement, and no mention of re-working terms if those minimums are not met. Any "rework the numbers" thing would be done on trust. Considering how many Karma members have been going on about how if we are allowed to survive at all, we are getting off light, I'm not inclined to trust in Karma's good will.

As for GATO, I'm saying that there is a major difference between selling tech and being forced to give tech away for free.

I doubt we would accept a viceroy, but it's a moot point for several reasons. I don't make the decisions, Karma hasn't made that offer, and viceroys are no longer allowed.

There's a line in there something about "If these reps cannot be paid we'll work out new ones" I think. Although, hell, we could just half the minimum tech per month and I doubt anyone would object too strongly if that's the only issue.

And thanks for proving my point about GATO. Of course you wouldn't accept a viceroy; don't bring up that GATO was paid for their tech if you're not willing to take what went along with that.

[NoFish]

Haha, fair enough. I don't like the terms, but hey. I'm not NPO, and I'm not the 18 alliances that agreed on the terms. How in the world did they manage to get that to work? 18 alliances agreeing on the 14 day war for banks term....sounds difficult at the least. Not one alliance felt bad about being 'as bad' as NPO?

A bunch of us were pushing for 21 days. When someone tries to roll one of your closest allies you tend not to be inclined toward sympathy.

Edit: I think my point might have been a little murky here, let me rephrase: If 18 alliances agreed on it, then maybe it's a good indicator that we're really not as bad as them.

Edited June 15, 2009 by NoFish

[WarriorConcept]

It's hardly their fault that you can barely say anything without utterly sidesplitting irony.

Actually it is, they decided to join NPO in the first place.

[Gamemaster1]

A bunch of us were pushing for 21 days. When someone tries to roll one of your closest allies you tend not to be inclined toward sympathy.

Edit: I think my point might have been a little murky here, let me rephrase: If 18 alliances agreed on it, then maybe it's a good indicator that we're really not as bad as them.

Wait, what? That line of reasoning doesn't work. 18 alliances can be just as wrong as one alliance. Don't assume that since there are more of you, you are more correct.

And 21 days? Do you want to make NPO pay or disband them? You seem to want the latter, and I would point out that makes you as bad.

[Aurion]

Actually it is, they decided to join NPO in the first place.

You have a point sir.

[Ragashingo]

Wasn't the point to be better then them?

Yes, but not at the expense of, you know, beating them.

[Harold the Saxon]

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 15, 2009 by Harold the Saxon

[James Wilson]

Actually it is, they decided to join NPO in the first place.

Oh, come on...some of these guys joined when they were noobs...they don't know any better.

[Gamemaster1]

Yes, but not at the expense of, you know, beating them.

They lost half their score and 100+ nations. I'd call that beaten. What do you mean by beaten, then?

[naamah]

wow after 3282 posts, I see very little new material. This thread can be summarized in the following manner:

1) NPO: It is impossible for us to accept these unreasonable terms

2) NPO's Allies: Yeah this just 'aint right

3) Karma: You can accept them. Accept or forget it

4) see #1

Just go round and round and round, say the same things over and over again, throw in a "NO U" here and there. I really need to stop clicking on this.

[WarriorConcept]

Oh, come on...some of these guys joined when they were noobs...they don't know any better.

You'd think by now they would.

[Sylar]

wow after 3282 posts, I see very little new material. This thread can be summarized in the following manner:

1) NPO: It is impossible for us to accept these unreasonable terms

2) NPO's Allies: Yeah this just 'aint right

3) Karma: You can accept them. Accept or forget it

4) see #1

Just go round and round and round, say the same things over and over again, throw in a "NO U" here and there. I really need to stop clicking on this.

stfu

we will get over 9000!

[Ragashingo]

Post

You know, I more or less agree with you. Having two peace terms that sorta work against each other is a bit silly. Better to just stick with one or the other.

[Pingu]

They lost half their score and 100+ nations. I'd call that beaten. What do you mean by beaten, then?

I don't know what others mean by beaten, but given the history, I think beaten in this context can only mean 'unable to inflict harm for a significant period.' The question of intention doesn't really enter into it - all the pretty words about changing etc in the OP and elsewhere. The NPO has shown that if it is left with the capacity to do harm, it will do it. So it must be constrained, damaged severely, rendered less dangerous. That must include taking away a sizable portion of the cash reserves it presently has stashed in non-combatant member states.

[naamah]

stfu

we will get over 9000!

hahaha oh I do not doubt it!

[Aurion]

wow after 3282 posts, I see very little new material. This thread can be summarized in the following manner:

1) NPO: It is impossible for us to accept these unreasonable terms

2) NPO's Allies: Yeah this just 'aint right

3) Karma: You can accept them. Accept or forget it

4) see #1

Just go round and round and round, say the same things over and over again, throw in a "NO U" here and there. I really need to stop clicking on this.

Addicting, isn't it?

[pericles8th]

Oh, come on...some of these guys joined when they were noobs...they don't know any better.

Huh? I guess life is hard then. When you join an alliance no matter what level you are you accept all the responsibility and history of that alliance. Ten minutes of research on the Wiki would have given all the information one would need before they took that 3 mil in start up aid. But then again, like you said they were noobs.

[Ragashingo]

They lost half their score and 100+ nations. I'd call that beaten. What do you mean by beaten, then?

They need to lose badly enough that they cannot try and rewrite history to say that the war ended in a stalemate. To me that entails losing sanction and not having the ability to rebuild back into sanction for six months because of a combination of war losses and reparations. That may sound harsh but GATO lost its sanction over a year ago and doesn't have it back yet. I'm wishing less than have the relative amount of destruction on the NPO.

[Nintenderek]

Huh? I guess life is hard then. When you join an alliance no matter what level you are you accept all the responsibility and history of that alliance. Ten minutes of research on the Wiki would have given all the information one would need before they took that 3 mil in start up aid. But then again, like you said they were noobs.

I'd hate to defend NPO, but I don't think most of those people knew there was a wiki. They just received a recruitment message from an alliance saying they've never been beaten in war and would give money, and signed up.

[Velocity111]

If there's room to complain, then the terms weren't harsh enough, clearly.

[Harold the Saxon]

You know, I more or less agree with you. Having two peace terms that sorta work against each other is a bit silly. Better to just stick with one or the other.

For a second, I thought you were going to quote my entire post! Woo. Thank goodness. I think just making them pay the reparations would suffice, but I also realise I have no say in the matter and do not represent any of the members of Karma. As such, all my opinions are merely my own analysis. But yes, I do agree.

[Twizzler]

I'd also like to personally guarantee you that the Order will never disband because of extended warfare. If a member hasn't left by now, I sincerely doubt he/she ever will.

This is from like 10 pages ago, but i'm too lazy to read it all, and I wanted to quote this. It made me laugh, because there is this other thread somewhere on these forums called the Amazing Sanction Race. It tracks score as well as member totals. And I do believe that there is a trend of NPO constantly losing members. But thats not them leaving, is it? I sincerely doubt your claim.

[ChairmanHal]

Wasn't the point to be better then them?

Will Munny: It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.

The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.

Will Munny: We all got it coming, kid.

[James Wilson]

You'd think by now they would.

By now, the NPO has brainwashed them to a point where all they know is the Pacifican way. That or Vladimir's crazy posting has driven them to the point where they use his form of arguing to argue thus causing us all headaches.

Huh? I guess life is hard then. When you join an alliance no matter what level you are you accept all the responsibility and history of that alliance. Ten minutes of research on the Wiki would have given all the information one would need before they took that 3 mil in start up aid. But then again, like you said they were noobs.

Nintenderek summed it up. I didn't know about the wiki until June. By then I had already had one nation destroyed by the NPO and thus had a natural distaste for them. Not only that, the wiki is supposed to express neutral opinions on the wars and all that jazz.