Imperial Decree from the New Pacific Order

[Galen Arsenius]

Who's discrediting him? Sponge got a: driven from his Alliance, b: Hunted down like an animal, and c: forced to re-roll, and d: locked into Vox Populi, and e: forced to having to form his own Alliance instead of going back to Polaris, where he probably would have received a welcome the equivalent of Christ's Second Coming (Yes, I know he is still a member as Imperator, but did he have to form The Liquor Cabinet?).

The truth of the matter is that the terms are fitting for the past injustices. Period, end. And, I don't care if the poster is the reigning Mr. Universe or the King of MENSA. If I feel that you are wrong, I will point it out.

Well, normally questioning one's sanity seems like a good way to discredit someone. And I was merely pointing out that maybe he is just a better person than the rest of us. Is it that hard to believe that he may be willing to forgive and forget(In a modified, semi-revengeful way)?

[Galen Arsenius]

Key word is Neutral

You just ruined your argument there

What makes you think a president of a former neutral alliance is going to lead the most renown alliance in Cybernations

Dilber does have power but he can merely suggest and not enforce. If Dilber had any real power then this war wouldn't have happened in the first place

Dilber and Bakunin are much more capable of leading this because they have been in NPO longer and they have the experience

Maybe, because it's just as hard, if not harder, to maintain neutrality than it is to sign a million MDPs and then not acknowledge any of them?

[kingzog]

Dear Zog,

You're not on a ZI/PZI/EZI/LMNOPZI list.

Signed,

LoD, Special Envoy

<Red> I have a letter to deliver to you

<Red> http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/3969/zog.jpg

<kingzog> I'm pretty sure that's not official.

<kingzog> :/

<kingzog> Although....

<Red> IT's meant in humor

<kingzog> It's vry pretty.

<kingzog>

<Red> But I made it just for you

<Red> and it is accurate

<kingzog> And I thank you for it.

<snip>

<kingzog> If I get an official response, I won't be able to keep typing "Where's my damn letter?"

<kingzog>

<kingzog> Right now that's the only thing that has me returning to that trainwreck of a thread.

<snip>

<kingzog> Interesting likeness of me.

<kingzog> It's....uncanny....

* kingzog looks for the secret camera

<Red> It's in the computer

<kingzog> O.O

<Red> By the way, if you want an official response, feel free to query Mary

<kingzog> Oh no.

<kingzog> If I do that, I can't type "Where's my damn letter?"

<Red> You have your letter though

<kingzog> I have *a* letter.

<kingzog> And it's very nice.

<kingzog> I will grant you that.

<kingzog> But it's not entirely accurate, although quite pretty.

<kingzog> With an eerie likeness....

* kingzog gets a suspicious look

[Minilla Island]

And who exactly told you that we have over 200 banks? I can tell you right now that is not the truth.

Well, you currently have 271 nation in Hippy. OK, Maybe 100-150. With an Alliance as large as yours, I would not be surprised if you did have close to the 200 number. Regardless, you helped put crippling terms on Polaris. We handled our terms with far less going for us. If we could, why can't/won't you?

[Roadie]

Your intelligence. It overwhelms me. Honestly, people, every other alliance we have given peace has been given quite reasonable and light terms. Do you know why? They weren't the ones holding the strings. They weren't the ones dishing out death sentences to alliances and nations alike. That is NPO. And frankly, they have the money to pay for it.

The calculations Cortath gave to us last night:

1) Assumed that all of our attacks on them will be 100% effective. I disagree.

2) Assumed that Pacificans will just be flocking for the door at the conclusion of the war. From reading this thread, I find that unlikely.

3) Assumed that the entirety of Pacifica's armies are in some sort of economic distress. We have spied on their nations. They have cash and warchests.

4) Assumed that somehow the massive monetary holdings of their banks will just disappear in these two weeks. I doubt that. Plenty of my comrades still have money to fight this war and give out aid even this, what, six weeks into it?

5) Assumed that we would not follow the terms, which, explicitly state all reparations amounts can be lowered at the end of the two weeks of war, if the victorious parties deem that Pacifica will not be able to pay them. (That's a paraphrase. I'm not looking at them right at this exact moment.)

6) Assumed that their banks and nations with good cash reserves will not be able to get nations close to 1,000 technology above it after the war in order to help pay the reparations

7) Assumed that all of their collective remaining slots will not be able to help out their fallen comrades.

Pacifica, we are not out to destroy you. We have said this countless times in public and at the negotiating table. Take the damn terms. If after the two weeks you can't pay we'll honestly look into it. If we see that you are struggling to pay it, we'll look into it. However, at this point in time, frankly, we are the ones with the track-record that is able to be trusted. You have pulled the wool over too many people's eyes for us to take the bait. Just take the terms and the war will be over.

Seriously.

And all of you, come on, it has been 120 some pages already. Shut up. We all know who believes what, and we all know we will not be changing anybodies minds. Let's knock it off already.

-Smooth

Is this the official position of all 18 alliances? If so, is it possible to put something in writing about what criteria Karma will use to decide whether or not Pacifica can pay them and how the will recalculate the if Karma decides they need to be changed and perhaps most importantly, is there anything Karma can put in writing about the time limits or reps if Pacifica is not able to get to that 90%?

[Nintenderek]

Key word is Neutral

Which is something NPO is going to need to learn to be for a little while until they complete terms.

[Teriethien]

NPO has covered the difficulties in getting to 90%.

I can't speak to why Karma stated they were not willing to move on those terms.

Yes, but have they tried to workig with Karma to make complying with this clause easier to achieve? Because the OP seemed to say that all they did was counter with an offer to scrap the terms entirely. I genuinely do not know, but if that counter offer is all they did before going public, that doesn't look like a very sincere attempt at making peace to me. If Karma refuses to even talk about trying to implement the terms thuogh then the fault is on them.

[Smooth]

Is this the official position of all 18 alliances? If so, is it possible to put something in writing about what criteria Karma will use to decide whether or not Pacifica can pay them and how the will recalculate the if Karma decides they need to be changed and perhaps most importantly, is there anything Karma can put in writing about the time limits or reps if Pacifica is not able to get to that 90%?

I would assume it is the position of all the alliances as it is in the terms we, collectively, proposed to them.

EDIT: In response to that last part, about the 90%, had Pacifica actually attempted to negotiate that term the figure might look different.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Smooth

[Minilla Island]

Well, normally questioning one's sanity seems like a good way to discredit someone. And I was merely pointing out that maybe he is just a better person than the rest of us. Is it that hard to believe that he may be willing to forgive and forget(In a modified, semi-revengeful way)?

After what they did to him? After what they did to Polar? That is like a 9-11 survivor forgiving al-Qaeda.

[Teriethien]

Key word is Neutral

You just ruined your argument there

Actually that's the argument isn't it? And a pretty good one too.

[bbrownso]

They weren't the ones holding the strings. They weren't the ones dishing out death sentences to alliances and nations alike. That is NPO.

And all of you, come on, it has been 120 some pages already. Shut up. We all know who believes what, and we all know we will not be changing anybodies minds. Let's knock it off already.

-Smooth

First, wasn't it a position of Karma that NPO was nothing without it's supporters and that the supporters were as culpable for the "crimes" committed? I'm pretty sure I've heard those arguments regarding terms other alliances received. Karma's official response would be appreciated. Or is it more hypocrisy?

Secondly, no thank you. I will continue to voice my opinion about the hypocrisy I perceive to be evident in Karma's positions. But perhaps we can work out a deal though. Reduce the reps for NPO and I'll shut up regarding those reps. Of course, I reserve the right to determine if the reduction is enough to justify the quiet my silence will provide.

[HeinousOne]

Key word is Neutral

You just ruined your argument there

What makes you think a president of a former neutral alliance is going to lead the most renown alliance in Cybernations

Dilber does have power but he can merely suggest and not enforce. If Dilber had any real power then this war wouldn't have happened in the first place

Dilber and Bakunin are much more capable of leading this because they have been in NPO longer and they have the experience

No, it did not ruin my argument. You just aren't seeing what lies ahead for the world. In a world of multiple poles, those whom are not aligned with one of those poles will have to maintain friendship with all sides, which obviously NPO will not be able to do, or they will have to present a posture of completely neutrality and as no threat to those poles. Guess which one of those NPO will have to learn to play?

Yes, the neutral, non-imposing role. They will sit back and allow the new powers that be to sort themselves out. In fact I bet someday those powers will come knocking on NPO's door not the other way around.

[Lord of Destruction]

Well, you currently have 271 nation in Hippy. OK, Maybe 100-150. With an Alliance as large as yours, I would not be surprised if you did have close to the 200 number. Regardless, you helped put crippling terms on Polaris. We handled our terms with far less going for us. If we could, why can't/won't you?

Instead of guessing how many banks we have, maybe this should have been something spoken about in peace talks to find out exactly how many we have.

Secondly, we did not help to put crippling terms on Polaris. We have never put terms on Polaris. Do you know why? We've never fought them. As much as you'd like to believe we're the "big bad puppetmasters", we're not.

Lastly, we're willing to pay. More than willing. We even proposed alterations to the terms that would pay more than what had been asked of us. All we ask is for that 90%/14 days thing to be removed. Also, allowing for every nation we have to send reps instead of limiting who can send it would be nice.

[Augustus Autumn]

Honestly, people, every other alliance we have given peace has been given quite reasonable and light terms.

I would contend that there were instances where this was not the case according to popular consensus, but that's simply a minor point.

[Galen Arsenius]

After what they did to him? After what they did to Polar? That is like a 9-11 survivor forgiving al-Qaeda.

What is a 9-11 and al-Qaeda? *OOC:I see where you are heading with this, but be careful to stay in CN Land. But I see it as looking at the whole. How many Muslims do you know who are blowing up bombs? Most likely, none. You can't judge a whole group of people based on a few. You get extremists in every race/religion/etc, and you can't merely base a decision, or your whole mindset on one of them.

IC: I see the NPO in the same light. They had many, many, many mistakes over the past few months, but I can see them rebuilding; figuratively and literally. If Moo handed down power to someone more competent, I can see them doing something smart for once. Although I am personally not willing to give them a "second chance," I am also not harsh, and thus do not want to see them gone forever, or given terms that will cripple them for all of eternity.

[Lord of Destruction]

Yes, but have they tried to workig with Karma to make complying with this clause easier to achieve? Because the OP seemed to say that all they did was counter with an offer to scrap the terms entirely. I genuinely do not know, but if that counter offer is all they did before going public, that doesn't look like a very sincere attempt at making peace to me. If Karma refuses to even talk about trying to implement the terms thuogh then the fault is on them.

Our counter offer was an increase in the amount of reps we'd be paying. I do not know how that is the equivalent of "not wanting peace" to you.

[TypoNinja]

Our counter offer was an increase in the amount of reps we'd be paying. I do not know how that is the equivalent of "not wanting peace" to you.

Your counter offer was an extra aid cycle worth of reps in exchange for preserving the strength of your war machine. Did you seriously expect that to be accepted?

[NoFish]

First, wasn't it a position of Karma that NPO was nothing without it's supporters and that the supporters were as culpable for the "crimes" committed? I'm pretty sure I've heard those arguments regarding terms other alliances received. Karma's official response would be appreciated. Or is it more hypocrisy?

Secondly, no thank you. I will continue to voice my opinion about the hypocrisy I perceive to be evident in Karma's positions. But perhaps we can work out a deal though. Reduce the reps for NPO and I'll shut up regarding those reps. Of course, I reserve the right to determine if the reduction is enough to justify the quiet my silence will provide.

I think I see the problem here.

Karma does not have an official stance on anything. At all. It is not an organization capable of doing that. It is a name given to a loose war-time coalition or parties with vastly differing opinions.

[NoFish]

Our counter offer was an increase in the amount of reps we'd be paying. I do not know how that is the equivalent of "not wanting peace" to you.

Your counter offer was to buy us off with a paltry sum in exchange for keeping your war machine intact. It's frankly rather insulting.

[scythegfx]

Key word is Neutral

You just ruined your argument there

What makes you think a president of a former neutral alliance is going to lead the most renown alliance in Cybernations

Dilber does have power but he can merely suggest and not enforce. If Dilber had any real power then this war wouldn't have happened in the first place

Dilber and Bakunin are much more capable of leading this because they have been in NPO longer and they have the experience

At one point GPA was the biggest alliance in CN.

Mary has the experience. saying otherwise is just dumb.

[Big Z]

Perhaps the New Pacific Order should consider kicking out the members who refuse to obey the order to come out of peace mode. If that happens, those rogue members would not impact the 90 percent requirement that the term requires. No one man is above the welfare of the alliance after all.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Big Z

[Lord of Destruction]

Your counter offer was an extra aid cycle worth of reps in exchange for preserving the strength of your war machine. Did you seriously expect that to be accepted?

Our counter offer was an increase in reps to ensure we'd actually be able to pay. With the 90%/2 weeks of war, along with the restrictions on who would be able to pay... it makes it extremely difficult, and we're not willing to be under terms that long.

We expected people who could be reasoned with. If you only see our counter offer as a way of preserving our war machine (which by the way is pretty much broken down and will be for quite a while), then you aren't reasonable. That, and you're looking at this from the point of view of "OMG NPO IZ GUNNA COME GET ME ZOMG!". I'm not exactly sure what those higher up in the Order feel about the current situation, but I'm not at all interested in revenge. It's a waste of time in my eyes.

Edit: Seeing as NoFish is also spitting the party line, this post can be directed towards you as well.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Lord of Destruction

[Letum]

Here's some rough math off the top of my head

175 nations using 3 aid slots can pay off 300,000 tech in 110-120 days (approx 4 months)

700 nations using 1 aid slot can pay off 7,000,000,000 cash in 30-40 days (approx 1 month)

So define "quickly" and maybe we can go from there

Don't you get it?

We. Won't. Have. 175. Nations. Capable. Of. Paying this. Because. Each. Nation. Will. Be. Losing. A. Motherload. In. War.

You want some other rough math? 1 nuke = 80 tech. 14 nukes = 1120. Tech lost from 6 ground attacks = 16. From 6 CM's = 9.6. Total amount of tech lost from two weeks of war: 150,000. (the amount actually adds up to 250,000, but we are allowing some regression in losses as people fall down the ranks)

Total amount of tech leftover: 250,000

Total ratio of nations amongst the 181 with depleted warchest after two months: 55% (about 100 ppl)

Ratio of those with a warchest left amongst the 181 who have not been following orders regarding peace mode, and can thus not be trusted: 35-40% (about 32 ppl)

Number of people with a warchest left, and satisfying conditions to pay reps: about 50

50 people, using 5 slots a cyle, three cycles a month, with a 70% efficiency (face it, that is a logical rate) would be able to barely cover the minimum payment (they would pay out 26k from the minimum 25k).

(50x250x3x0.7 = 26,250)

And do you know how small of a margin of safety 1,250 tech is?

If only two of those people leave the game or quit or something, we'd fall below the minimum rate.

If our efficiency fell down just 5%, we'd fall below the minimum rate.

If the war was a few days longer than 2 weeks, because of delays in meeting the standard requirement, we'd fall below the minimum rate.

All three scenarios are likely. The last is very likely. The probability of us not being able to meet the minimum payment is very high. But we're just supposed to trust that they'll "scale it down" rite?

And even in the ideal case scenario where everything went off without a hitch (and perfect-world scenarios are always unlikely), this would take far more than the "three months" people are yapping on and on about. It would take 12 months. Seriously, MK moved about 100k tech in three months with the same (in fact a bit more) number of nations liable for paying, and you expect us to move three times more in the same period?

(And before you come in with the "You haz warchests" defence, look at the actual numbers, and look at the parts where I point out the people that do not "haz a warchest". Before you come in with the "your ppl can still aid without warchests" defence, look at the part where I point out that we have to send out more tech than we have. Before you come in with the "You have warchests, so you can purchase the difference" defence, look up two sentences.)

And even in this ideal world we would have no rebuilding aid for a year. But yes, I know they aim to keep us down forever. Don't act surprised if we prefer war to being kept down forever. And don't act surprised if we do not trust the people who say that they want us to "never rebuild" and who have stated "the reps aren't changing" to "scale it down" when in maybe 18 days after surrender terms are signed, we've been nuked to the point of no longer being able to pay.

Edit: This does not even take into account the 7bn in money. You will find that when we have 557 nations under 1000 infra that is quite a bit of trouble too.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Letum

[Ogaden]

Your counter offer was to buy us off with a paltry sum in exchange for keeping your war machine intact. It's frankly rather insulting.

You think our war machine is INTACT?

You're crazy.

[Teriethien]

I would contend that there were instances where this was not the case according to popular consensus, but that's simply a minor point.

What happened to the TSI sucked. It illustrates the fact that people can fight on the same side without being truly on the same side.

Our counter offer was an increase in the amount of reps we'd be paying. I do not know how that is the equivalent of "not wanting peace" to you.

You missed my point. I said if you were really commited to peace you would have tried to negotiate ao compromise on the peace mode nations, like getting garauntees on what would consitute the start of the timer, what would happen in the case of a violation, and so on. Instead after your first counter offer gets rejected you come on here with a publicity stunt that's not, overal, gonna really win you any sympathies.