Are We Harsh?

[Prime minister Johns]

Yes, the terms are too harsh. Yes, it is a good thing.

Harsh terms breeds resentment and resentment breeds polarity. A multi-polar game is all I've been hoping for since the fall of the League.

Yes but, harsh terms breed even harsher terms if the current trend is anything to go by.

How harsh will the next lot of terms be I wonder?

[TypoNinja]

Yes but, harsh terms breed even harsher terms if the current trend is anything to go by.

How harsh will the next lot of terms be I wonder?

Not quite, in this case a history of harsh treatment of others bred harsh terms. If you've been following the OWF the last couple of weeks (and maybe even that mega monstrosity that nearly hit 250 pages) The prevailing opinion is that yes they are some hard terms. But the NPO earned every bit of it.

There's that important bit, they deserve harsh treatment, these terms represent not a continuing trend of ever higher terms but rather a balancing. Punishment to fit a long history wrong doing.

[Viluin]

Not quite, in this case a history of harsh treatment of others bred harsh terms. If you've been following the OWF the last couple of weeks (and maybe even that mega monstrosity that nearly hit 250 pages) The prevailing opinion is that yes they are some hard terms. But the NPO earned every bit of it.

There's that important bit, they deserve harsh treatment, these terms represent not a continuing trend of ever higher terms but rather a balancing. Punishment to fit a long history wrong doing.

Universal truth is not measured in mass-appeal. Whether or not we "deserve" harsh terms doesn't matter at all, the only thing that matters if the victor feels like giving harsh or light terms. I don't believe these are the last harsh surrender terms we'll see in CN.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Viluin

[TypoNinja]

Universal truth is not measured in mass-appeal. Whether or not we "deserve" harsh terms doesn't matter at all, the only thing that matters if the victor feels like giving harsh or light terms. I don't believe these are the last harsh surrender terms we'll see in CN.

I don't believe they are the last harsh terms we'll see either, but there is a differnce between inflicting harsh treatment because you can and harsh treatment because it is called for. Identical actions can have drastically different meanings depending on motive. If I lock you in an 8 by 10 room for a few weeks its a crime and I shall be sent to jail for it, but when I get thrown in my own 8 by 10 cell as punishment its acceptable.

So contrary to your statement, whether you deserve it or not is in fact a very important question. More so because of all the psychophants parroting variations on the theme of "you're just as bad as us" and "Hypocrite", these short sighted people refuse to recognize the difference that motive provides for ones actions.

The poll asks the question "Are we being too harsh" the answer is no, because in this case the harsh treatment is called for, an alliance with a history less sordid than the NPO would not be deserving of such terms, but these terms are being given to the NPO so they are in this case appropriate.

Edited June 24, 2009 by TypoNinja

[GOONS]

LOL NO, they've tried to force alliances to disband and put much harsher terms on other alliances, maybe not in total money or tech.

[KinKiac]

I think that the expectation for NPO to take nations out of peace mode was not harsh, if taken into the context of the fact that reps would be re-negotiated after the 14 days war period. Yes if NPO was totally obliterated and billion dollar warchests taken down to a hundred mill per person, then yeah having to pay out 7bill + tech would be harsh. I really dont think that was what Karma had in mind when writing those terms. I think they really want NPO's big nations, or what is left of them, to come out and fight. Reps amounts can be determined later.

I dont think the term of having to bring nations out of peace mode is harsh at all and the strict demands on who is going to pay reps isnt either. Half of NPO is newbs now, why would anyone from Karma want to force a newb to pay reps? The principle behind having only nations above a certain size pay is to ensure that it is not the newbs who end up paying. Forcing the large nations out of peace mode is to ensure that those with 400, 500 and 1000 days seniority in the alliance actually have to fight. It is no different that saying, you all F'd up. Your punishment is single one time ZI, something I have seen absolutely no one speak out against. many alliances and many nations will ZI you if you cross them. Many nations have already been ZI'd in this war. NPO banks will not be ZI'd in 14 days.

Karma did their best to write up terms that made sure that A - Large nations with high seniority(as in they were there for the crimes NPO is accused of) are the ones paying reps, B That all those same nations are made to pay and fight and lose infra along with the rest of the alliance, and C that the terms are not so light that NPO can rebuild in a few short months and begin waging war again. Is that really harsh?

[White Chocolate]

If you want people to give you an opinion who are not "in the know" (which I'm guessing means in Karma or somehow associated with Karma) then give us a run down (or a link) to what those terms are.

[KinKiac]

If you want people to give you an opinion who are not "in the know" (which I'm guessing means in Karma or somehow associated with Karma) then give us a run down (or a link) to what those terms are.

If you care for some light reading you may look here - http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...imperial+decree

The actual terms being discussed are as follows

B1) The New Pacific Order shall move the bulk of its forces into warmode for 2 weeks prior to the end of combat. When 90% or more of all nations at or above 4,000 infrastructure and additionally 90% or more of the alliance is in warmode, a countdown clock shall begin, starting on the day immediately after the above conditions have been met. A state of open warfare shall exist between the signatories of this document for a period of exactly 14 days. After the period of 14 days has elapsed no further attacks are to occur, peace is to be offered in all quarters, and the period of protection specified in part C of this agreement will begin.

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. All reparations of technology must be paid by nations with greater than or equal to 1000.00 technology at the end of the above-mentioned 14 day period.

However, if you were not aware of this info before, Im not sure if your opinion is what is asked for. I dont mean to be rude in any way but most of the people who read these forums already know what was offered, and had a hand in the 200+ page thread I linked to. I believe the op was looking for a general opinion of the community as a whole, but if you are/were unaware of the terms offered to NPO, then Im guessing that you also are unaware of what this war is about, and what the NPO is accused of doing in the past. Without such knowledge it is hard to judge if these terms are harsh or not, you kinda have to know the history behind everything. Without the proper context your opinion is moot. Again I mean no disrespect, but without knowledge of what terms NPO has offered to others they had defeated/curbstomped, then you do not have the proper context to judge the terms.

[Viluin]

I don't believe they are the last harsh terms we'll see either, but there is a differnce between inflicting harsh treatment because you can and harsh treatment because it is called for. Identical actions can have drastically different meanings depending on motive. If I lock you in an 8 by 10 room for a few weeks its a crime and I shall be sent to jail for it, but when I get thrown in my own 8 by 10 cell as punishment its acceptable.

So contrary to your statement, whether you deserve it or not is in fact a very important question. More so because of all the psychophants parroting variations on the theme of "you're just as bad as us" and "Hypocrite", these short sighted people refuse to recognize the difference that motive provides for ones actions.

The poll asks the question "Are we being too harsh" the answer is no, because in this case the harsh treatment is called for, an alliance with a history less sordid than the NPO would not be deserving of such terms, but these terms are being given to the NPO so they are in this case appropriate.

And who decides if harsh treatment is "called for"? The winner. It all boils down to giving harsh terms because you want to.

NPO banks will not be ZI'd in 14 days.

Pretty much any nation will be left with only ~1000 infra (practically ZI'd compared to their former infra level) after 2 weeks if it's fighting nuclear wars 1vs3. Even if you have 15k infra and a bunch of tech, because at that level you're gonna lose well over 1000 infra a day. I've heard stories about how some of the top gramlins were doing 900 infra damage a day.. individually (with nukes).

Edited June 24, 2009 by Viluin

[TypoNinja]

And who decides if harsh treatment is "called for"? The winner. It all boils down to giving harsh terms because you want to.

No you are projecting, I realize you look at your own community as a lens on how to view current events but we are not you.

You can attempt to disparage those arrayed against you as well as their attitudes, but the fact of the matter is the sheer number of people opposing you now demonstrates the lie in any attempt to do so.

The winners do not get to decide whats called for or not, you should know that. If simple decree could establish acceptable behaviour then this war never would have started. NPO's past actions are what have caused this, your victories did not let you establish public opinion on it.

The fact that those you have wronged in the past are on the victorious side this time is coincidence, not an indicator of truth. This is not a case of might makes right, there is far too wide a range of people supporting this for it to be any one groups agendas.

[Viluin]

You can attempt to disparage those arrayed against you as well as their attitudes, but the fact of the matter is the sheer number of people opposing you now demonstrates the lie in any attempt to do so.

Mass appeal is a fallacy.

The winners do not get to decide whats called for or not, you should know that. If simple decree could establish acceptable behaviour then this war never would have started. NPO's past actions are what have caused this, your victories did not let you establish public opinion on it.

Of course the winner decides what's called for. Whatever is "called for" is an opinion, an opinion that is formed by the winner, anyone else has no say in it unless the winner is acting out the will of someone else. You gave harsh terms because YOU wanted to.

The fact that those you have wronged in the past are on the victorious side this time is coincidence, not an indicator of truth. This is not a case of might makes right, there is far too wide a range of people supporting this for it to be any one groups agendas.

What's your point?

[Starcraftmazter]

Viluin, you have completely and utterly misunderstood his point.

[TypoNinja]

Mass appeal is a fallacy.

No, you are over simplifying, If I ask only one group then it would be, but as I mentioned before in this case, you have (and had) MANY differnt groups arrayed against you, As noted by others karma as a whole has little in common mostly just a dislike of the NPO, and we have little cohesion aside from individual fronts. The varied population and world views of the groups opposing you lend them authority. In short, you have to do something really bad to piss of that many different people.

Of course the winner decides what's called for. Whatever is "called for" is an opinion, an opinion that is formed by the winner, anyone else has no say in it unless the winner is acting out the will of someone else. You gave harsh terms because YOU wanted to.

You didn't read what you quoted at all did you? Or did the explanation of motive go right over your head?

What's your point?

Far too sophisticated for you to grasp apparently.

[Näktergal]

Then the CoaLUEtion was an omnipotent God and the NPO has been an amoeba in alcohol.

To be fair, the CoaLUEtion didn't necessarily show mercy. In the end, the light terms the Orders got in GWI were prompted by multiple stronger alliances growing tired of the war and making individual peace, which meant the alliances still left in the war were facing the prospect that they'd eventually wind up outnumbered against two alliances who were very badly beaten, but not yet broken. If the war hawks had insisted on continuing, it may have actually resulted in a reversal of fortunes - so tactically, it was far better to withdraw than to keep fighting.

Had LUE (or any of the other really bloodthirsty alliances involved) been able to fight the war entirely on their own with no risk of losing, I don't think they would have ever lifted the boot from the Orders' necks until they were well and truly dead. But with Legion out and GATO hinting that they would be pulling out as well, there wasn't much choice.

Mercy means you have the power to inflict far more harm, but choose not to. In that particular case, it was more a tactical decision than a merciful one.

That being said, I wouldn't say that's an argument for treating the NPO with mercy. After all, they themselves are a prime example that giving more lenient terms does not always result in future harmony and peace.

[Yggdrazil]

I think that the expectation for NPO to take nations out of peace mode was not harsh, if taken into the context of the fact that reps would be re-negotiated after the 14 days war period. Yes if NPO was totally obliterated and billion dollar warchests taken down to a hundred mill per person, then yeah having to pay out 7bill + tech would be harsh. I really dont think that was what Karma had in mind when writing those terms. I think they really want NPO's big nations, or what is left of them, to come out and fight. Reps amounts can be determined later.

I dont think the term of having to bring nations out of peace mode is harsh at all and the strict demands on who is going to pay reps isnt either. Half of NPO is newbs now, why would anyone from Karma want to force a newb to pay reps? The principle behind having only nations above a certain size pay is to ensure that it is not the newbs who end up paying. Forcing the large nations out of peace mode is to ensure that those with 400, 500 and 1000 days seniority in the alliance actually have to fight. It is no different that saying, you all F'd up. Your punishment is single one time ZI, something I have seen absolutely no one speak out against. many alliances and many nations will ZI you if you cross them. Many nations have already been ZI'd in this war. NPO banks will not be ZI'd in 14 days.

Karma did their best to write up terms that made sure that A - Large nations with high seniority(as in they were there for the crimes NPO is accused of) are the ones paying reps, B That all those same nations are made to pay and fight and lose infra along with the rest of the alliance, and C that the terms are not so light that NPO can rebuild in a few short months and begin waging war again. Is that really harsh?

No where in the terms does it say that after this 14 day war period will the terms be adjusted, if NPO can no longer meet the reps.How about putting this codicil in writing.I firmly believe even with this we will have Karma participants saying that NPO can meet the terms still, whether they can are not.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Yggdrazil

[TypoNinja]

No where in the terms does it say that after this 14 day war period will the terms be adjusted, if NPO can no longer meet the reps.How about putting this codicil in writing.I firmly believe even with this we will have Karma participants saying that NPO can meet the terms still, whether they can are not.

I knew saving this to a text file would come in handy.

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. All reparations of technology must be paid by nations with greater than or equal to 1000.00 technology at the end of the above-mentioned 14 day period.

Look at the bolded parts and think long and hard.

[Cortath]

I knew saving this to a text file would come in handy.

Look at the bolded parts and think long and hard.

Explain how you will calculate such a thing.

[TypoNinja]

Explain how you will calculate such a thing.

I will be calculating nothing, its not my job. But seeing how as the income calculations for a nation are pretty straight forward (or rather weather a nation makes enough to push 15-18 mil (DRA permitting) a cycle is pretty straight forward, I imagine id be something along the lines of;

Nations X aidslots X 3 mil (with a little fudge factor) would be what the the NPO is capable of paying. Adjusted to what ever factor is appropriate to give you leeway in operations, !@#$ happens after all. If I wanted to get really fancy, and had the data handy I might even go with the number of NPO nations capable of paying multiply for total aid slots, then take that result and multiply by the percentage of nations times aid slots capable of paying after the two weeks to keep the amount perfectly in proportion.

Of course, and I've said this quite a few times now, If the NPO had misgivings over the terms, getting clarifications included would be something you should have done before running to the OWF with a whine fest. Of course you are still able to address these issues at the negotiating table, you'll just have a lot less sympathy for your plight than you might have previously.

NPO spends a lot of time nitpicking the terms, and whining on the OWF, when they should be spending that time solving any perceived issues by discussing those points with the people who are actually in a position to change the wording of the terms.

I'm happy enough to sit here making you look foolish all month, its how I get my enjoyment, but for your own sakes you might want to take these points up with the correct people before you start whining to the OWF about it. You are not gaining any sympathy for your plight by complaining about possible issues with the terms publicly before anyones even made an attempt to fix them.

Edit: math in words is bad; let N1 be nations capable of paying before two weeks and N2 nations capable after two weeks and we get.

(N1 X aidslots) % (N2 X aidslots) = % of max reps to be paid.

Edited June 26, 2009 by TypoNinja

[Yggdrazil]

This doesn't say they will be adjusted: it says, if in the judgment of the Karma signatories feel they need adjustment.That is completely different than saying they will be adjusted.Like someone said in a thread any reps can be paid if you wait long enough.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Yggdrazil

[Yggdrazil]

Far too sophisticated for you to grasp apparently.

To see the emperor's clothes one must be sophisticated.But in actuality the emperor is naked and you are trying to pull a con game with this ad hominem.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Yggdrazil

[Melchior]

I think that is not taking into account the part of the terms having their "bank" nations in a war for more than 2 weeks.

I doubt that you have any idea of what you are taking about.

[TypoNinja]

To see the emperor's clothes one must be sophisticated.But in actuality the emperor is naked and you are trying to pull a con game with this ad hominem.

No ad hominem, I didn't attack him instead of an argument, he made no argument. He utterly missed the point to the point of not noticing it all let alone misunderstanding it. He asked what the point was, I already had spelled it out in a previous post, if he missed it then repeating my self accomplishes nothing, so the point I had made is clearly beyond his grasp. I said as much.

The irony here is obvious however, you accusing me of a logical fallacy and use the exact same logical fallacy in attempting to lend credence to your accusation.

Or are you just bitter because you missed the point too?

[Yggdrazil]

Your correct it does not fall under the proper structure of an ad hominem.It falls under what I like to call the "emperor's new clothes ad hominem,i.e. "Surely in this progressive era your not going to hold on to that fossilized concept","That's a quaint notion for a noob, but wrong.""All of planet Bob agrees..." Only modern concepts can deal with modern problems"etc.In these instances the speaker has attacked the other with no proof that they aren't progressive, that noob ideals are not always wrong and that they have a minority opinion or have out molded ideals.

Surely implying he is unsophisticated is an attack on character for you have no proof other than a singular instance where he missed you point.Your con game was not the post. But using a ad hominem that doesn't follow the definition strictly but is still an attack on character.

[TypoNinja]

Your correct it does not fall under the proper structure of an ad hominem.It falls under what I like to call the "emperor's new clothes ad hominem,i.e. "Surely in this progressive era your not going to hold on to that fossilized concept","That's a quaint notion for a noob, but wrong.""All of planet Bob agrees..." Only modern concepts can deal with modern problems"etc.In these instances the speaker has attacked the other with no proof that they aren't progressive, that noob ideals are not always wrong and that they have a minority opinion or have out molded ideals.

Surely implying he is unsophisticated is an attack on character for you have no proof other than a singular instance where he missed you point.Your con game was not the post. But using a ad hominem that doesn't follow the definition strictly but is still an attack on character.

Ahh you might want to double check who you are addressing before you start tossing terms like noob around.

Also, you are almost completely lacking any coherency what so ever at this point. So I have a few questions you need to clarify.

First off, the emperor's new clothes fable refers to people not speaking the painfully obvious out of fear of offending somebody, I fail to see how that applies at all.

Progressive era? fossilized concept? what are you on about?

[KinKiac]

And who decides if harsh treatment is "called for"? The winner. It all boils down to giving harsh terms because you want to.

Pretty much any nation will be left with only ~1000 infra (practically ZI'd compared to their former infra level) after 2 weeks if it's fighting nuclear wars 1vs3. Even if you have 15k infra and a bunch of tech, because at that level you're gonna lose well over 1000 infra a day. I've heard stories about how some of the top gramlins were doing 900 infra damage a day.. individually (with nukes).

Umm, we're talking about nations that still have 1bill or more in warchests. Even if they were ZI'd, 5000 infra from 0 costs $155,485,960.57. If those guys have less than that left after 14 days of war then as someone else has stated they are the worst banks ever.

No where in the terms does it say that after this 14 day war period will the terms be adjusted, if NPO can no longer meet the reps.How about putting this codicil in writing.I firmly believe even with this we will have Karma participants saying that NPO can meet the terms still, whether they can are not.

LMAO. You obviously dont read do you? Ill quote myself in a previous post in this thread, which was copy and pasted form the post made by Moo himself when he made the terms public, for which I provided a link as well, and bolded the relevant parts to make it easier for you.

If you care for some light reading you may look here - http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...imperial+decree

The actual terms being discussed are as follows

B1) The New Pacific Order shall move the bulk of its forces into warmode for 2 weeks prior to the end of combat. When 90% or more of all nations at or above 4,000 infrastructure and additionally 90% or more of the alliance is in warmode, a countdown clock shall begin, starting on the day immediately after the above conditions have been met. A state of open warfare shall exist between the signatories of this document for a period of exactly 14 days. After the period of 14 days has elapsed no further attacks are to occur, peace is to be offered in all quarters, and the period of protection specified in part C of this agreement will begin.

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. All reparations of technology must be paid by nations with greater than or equal to 1000.00 technology at the end of the above-mentioned 14 day period.

Edited June 27, 2009 by KinKiac