muffasamini Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Well thats amusing. I can respect that sometimes a national leader is called away from his country on business, but if the NPO has so many of its nations leaderless how can it ever hope to be an effective alliance? We are an effective allaince because we allow members to play this game at any activity level they choose, whether its logging a couple times a week to run a nation simulation, or getting deeply involved in world politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob5 Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Well thats amusing. I can respect that sometimes a national leader is called away from his country on business, but if the NPO has so many of its nations leaderless how can it ever hope to be an effective alliance? I think most of us can agree that having 90% and up of your alliance active at all times is an utopian expectation. For those who don't, the facts bear this out anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Note that a 15% out of town rate would be too high for these terms. "So many" usually doesn't mean "1 in 6." It is a well known fact that if a leader's out of nation business detains him longer than a certain period of time then his nation implodes in a spectacular show of hot air balloons and colorful fireworks. If those 15% are forced to remain away for too long then the NPO will simply have less nations, and it will be even easier for them to meet the requested percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffasamini Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) B2) Reparations of up to 300,000 tech and $7,000,000,000 will be assessed upon the New Pacific Order. This shall be determined dependent on their ability to pay after the aforementioned period of war, in the judgment of the Karma signatories of this document. This is the bit the whiners keep glossing over, if two weeks of nuclear war does indeed reduce them all to nothing then they will have to pay nothing. Those numbers represent a possible maximum payment. Because yall in the past have shown a real heartfelt sense of mercy to change the terms if they are impossible? Edited June 13, 2009 by muffasamini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejarue Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 This is the bit the whiners keep glossing over, if two weeks of nuclear war does indeed reduce them all to nothing then they will have to pay nothing. Those numbers represent a possible maximum payment.Because yall in the past have shown a real heartfelt sense of mercy to change the terms if they are impossible? Who is "yall"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Arouet Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Note that a 15% out of town rate would be too high for these terms. "So many" usually doesn't mean "1 in 6." I suppose pointing out that NPO nations must check in once every 20 days wouldn't convince you that the idea that the 90% thing is unfulfillable due to seasonal inactivity is ridiculous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cripple Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 This is the bit the whiners keep glossing over, if two weeks of nuclear war does indeed reduce them all to nothing then they will have to pay nothing. Those numbers represent a possible maximum payment. That's a very good point. Pacificans may well be worried that the reperations will be assessed unfairly. How are we, Karma, planning on assessing their ability to pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanofall Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 My perspective on this is from a long-term player who was essentially forced to re-roll by NPO during the NPO-GATO war. Some of my memory is a little rusty (due to the age of events and me being on painkillers for a recent accident), but the below facts are true as best as I can remember. Even though I've been a CN member for almost 3 years and I don't post much, I felt compelled to comment on the current conflict. Bear in mind that this is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect any opinions held by others. I was a member of the IAA who came to GATO's defense during the NPO-Gato war. I was a 40K nation, who, after nearly 60 days of being triple-teamed by NPO and their allies, was reduced to a pile of rubble and in bill-lock. Of course, even though I asked for assistance from NPO's government to get out of bill-lock, their reply to me was there would be no assistance forthcoming and I was not allowed to receive aid while a NPO prisoner. As a result, I had to re-roll and lost my wonders and nearly 18 months worth of work on my nation. Also, as an aside, the IAA ceased existence as an alliance forcing me to become a NPO prisoner for nearly a month. Finally, they let me go when they decided they couldn't protect all their prisoners from tech-raiding. (I was tech-raided while a NPO prisoner and they apparently found it difficult to defend me because I was so small. There's a thread somewhere on these forums from a year ago about the issue if anyone is interested.) All said, I lost almost all my infrastructure, nearly 1500 tech, and my wonders during the course of the war. I received absolutely no assistance in return (not that I expected any, other than to be allowed to recover from billlock--yet I was specifically told that I would be allowed no aid while a prisoner and they were not going to provide it). This was the point in time where I had to decide whether or not I wanted to continue to play in the CN community. As evidenced by my statement here, I chose to stay. Today, I'm a healthy 25K nation who still has not fully recovered from my destruction nearly a year ago to the day. In some respects, I have very little sympathy for the path NPO has chosen. They have been ruthless victors over their foes in all of their wars; using significant financially destructive mandated reps for their own growth programs, viceroys, and a variety of other mechanisms designed to dishearten and intimidate their foes. So much of what they received was not necessarily built on their own; much of their growth was due to their foes misfortunes. In the end, some of what they did was simply playing the game well; some of what they did, to me, bordered on abuse to the game. On the other hand, even in spite of the above, I do not personally feel that anyone should suffer the same fate that I suffered. To ask for the virtual destruction of any nation or alliance, either financially or militarily, does not serve any long-term purpose other than to ensure that revenge will be sought one day. I am not privy to the financial condition of any of NPO's nations, but whatever it was 60 days ago is far different from what it is today. Also, those nations not in peace mode (I am somewhat dismayed that many members stayed in peace mode, yet other alliances were threatened with ZI who had members in peace mode to protect their financial resources while at war--this is a hypocritical stance that has already been discussed, so I will not dwell further on what's good for the goose) have been pounded, so they too are not in good financial shape. So I do see both sides to this coin and I understand why Karma wants access to the top NPO nations for a short period of time. But I also understand why NPO wants to reject this particular term--but it will certainly come at the cost of those not in peace mode. So, for me, I guess it comes down to this; I believe that there should be some fairly significant terms that teaches lessons against expansionism. I would hate to see the fate that I suffered to be suffered by anyone, even against those who caused my nation to be destroyed. Complete destruction of any nation or alliance seems to me, to be against all the principles of fair gamesmanship. Seems as though both sides should get back to the drawing board and find a compromise that satisfies both parties. Nobody should lose the fine art of negotiation due to selfish reasons. Hope I made some sense. If not, please don't flame the messenger... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I think most of us can agree that having 90% and up of your alliance active at all times is an utopian expectation. For those who don't, the facts bear this out anyway. Almost every alliance i have been in has had 90% activity. During a war/Before a war that number has typically increased to 95% activity. These alliances were also seen as "incompetent" by many alliances, including some from NPO. Are you telling me that these alliances are now seen as "utopian" or "exceptional" or "above average" in terms of activity? What a change of policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I like this tl;dr better that was posted earlier here somewhere: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 We are an effective allaince because we allow members to play this game at any activity level they choose, whether its logging a couple times a week to run a nation simulation, or getting deeply involved in world politics. A leader in your alliance will still be able to play at his desired activity level. He will simply need to deactivate his hippy shield when he receives the order when he returns. He doesn't even need to know why, he only needs to follow the order. Is following such an order really so hard? After all GATO managed to get all their nations to refrain from activating their hippy shields when you requested it of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 This is the bit the whiners keep glossing over, if two weeks of nuclear war does indeed reduce them all to nothing then they will have to pay nothing. Those numbers represent a possible maximum payment. I'm avoiding taking a side on this right now, but anyone worth their salt won't trust anything that isn't explicitly codified in the terms. I would recommend if that is truly the intent, to specifically write out how "what they can pay" is scaled to, so there is no doubt. Then come back and make this claim. Not saying the claim isn't made in good faith, but would you trust a bunch of alliances at war with you on their word yourself? Makes everyone's life easier if you put everything about the terms down on paper. Makes the e-lawyers happy, at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 This is the bit the whiners keep glossing over, if two weeks of nuclear war does indeed reduce them all to nothing then they will have to pay nothing. Those numbers represent a possible maximum payment.Because yall in the past have shown a real heartfelt sense of mercy to change the terms if they are impossible? I'm sorry you just buried the needle on my !@#$%^&*-o-meter. Did I just see an NPO member complain about hard peace terms, while complaining about showing enemies mercy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffron X Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I'm sorry you just buried the needle on my !@#$%^&*-o-meter. Did I just see an NPO member complain about hard peace terms, while complaining about showing enemies mercy? I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty sure the reps that are being asked of us are greater than all reps payed in the history of planet bob combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty sure the reps that are being asked of us are greater than all reps payed in the history of planet bob combined. I think you're stretching it there. But it is likely at least 50% of all-time reps added together. Devil's Advocate Edit: But can you put a price on disbandment? Edited June 13, 2009 by bigwoody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dethklok Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 90% is a bit high. I mean I am not siding with NPO but think if it was your alliance. Thats just a bit unnerving to say the least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cripple Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I'm avoiding taking a side on this right now, but anyone worth their salt won't trust anything that isn't explicitly codified in the terms. I would recommend if that is truly the intent, to specifically write out how "what they can pay" is scaled to, so there is no doubt. Then come back and make this claim.Not saying the claim isn't made in good faith, but would you trust a bunch of alliances at war with you on their word yourself? Makes everyone's life easier if you put everything about the terms down on paper. Makes the e-lawyers happy, at least I agree. I'll see what can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 90% is a bit high. I mean I am not siding with NPO but think if it was your alliance. Thats just a bit unnerving to say the least It WAS my alliance once. And back then the NPO required 100% from us, not 90. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejarue Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty sure the reps that are being asked of us are greater than all reps payed in the history of planet bob combined. Oh no, not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nada2486 Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I think you're stretching it there. But it is likely at least 50% of all-time reps added together.Devil's Advocate Edit: But can you put a price on disbandment? And yet NPO still has offered even more in return for removing the 2 week extra war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qazzian Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Not saying the claim isn't made in good faith, but would you trust a bunch of alliances at war with you on their word yourself? Well, good faith and two bucks will get you a nice cup of coffee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 And yet NPO still has offered even more in return for removing the 2 week extra war ...and that was refused Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 And yet NPO still has offered even more in return for removing the 2 week extra war So? Perhaps getting their banks out of peace mode is more valuable to Karma than the offered increase of money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty sure the reps that are being asked of us are greater than all reps payed in the history of planet bob combined. Not even close. And thats just monetary terms, How do you put a price on months of a viceroy? Losing your sovereignty is pretty harsh don't you think? These terms at least give the NPO the option to be done with them quickly, without any outsiders messing with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SynthFG Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Firstly Moldavi recinded is a great day for CN \o/ Secondly, it's good to see a number of NPO members posting on the boards, However I don't see that this topic helps anyone's cause, especially with peace so close, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts