NPO Surrender Terms

[Archon]

Athens hit NPO on an Aggression clause unless I'm mistaken this war? The overall argument that NPO initiated the war is undeniable, however I point to cases such as TORN as showing starting a massive war doesn't automatically link to astronomical reps. One of the issues that does bug me is that there is an assumption that reps are scalable. That 10k tech from athens obviously is the same as 100k tech or 400k tech from someone else.

You're missing what I'm asserting. The reparations that are cited as being "harsh" against Athens were leveled against them in a defensive situation. In this case, the NPO is having reparations leveled against them in an offensive situation - that is, they are in this war due to an aggressive action.

[mhawk]

You're missing what I'm asserting. The reparations that are cited as being "harsh" against Athens were leveled against them in a defensive situation. In this case, the NPO is having reparations leveled against them in an offensive situation - that is, they are in this war due to an aggressive action.

If we were at peace and some nuclear rogues hit mk, you asked they be removed and we refused. You declare war on TPF, who was the aggressor?

[Seerow]

Nukes are the main component of this damage, and they cannot be turtled away.

We have taken account of lesser damage for lower ranked nations; that is why our prediction for losses was not 350,000 tech, but somewhat less, at 150,000. That would still leave our top 181 nations having to pay out 213% of their tech level.

Nukes are 80 damage per day we agreed. Ground attacks are 30 per day (if it's affected by WRC as I believe it is then we have to take into account the 60% increase we gave to nuke damage, so 40 per day). That's as much as 50% as much as a nuke. Yes nukes are the driving force, but ground attacks still get the job done. Your numbers assumed not just maximum damage from 6 ground attacks per day, which inflates the number quite a bit. Turtling instead takes it down about 30 tech lost per day, reducing the overall damage by 400. Takes your number from 1300 tech damage to 900. A significant reduction.

No, you can't start throwing out guestimation and guestimation and then say you'll only lose 1/3 of the possible, when even the possible is based on your guestimation. Lets look at it via the possible you think could happen, given I'd suspect the tech losses to be much higher given personal experience.

450k - 345k = 105k.

533/105 = ~500%

Even worse is when you take the reps only from those 176 nations in range. Which would leave you around 533/60 = ~ 888%

Now start adding in the terms athens never experienced along with the duration of the war and you'll find my figure much more accurate than yours. Remember the "timer period" is MORE than the war Athens actually fought.

Except Letum just admitted that his expected tech loss was 150k, which is a hell of a lot closer to what isaid than you.

The 345k max possible is not feasible in the case of NPO. It would be possible if say TOP and Gre combined were placed in a losing war where their members were all getting ganged and taking maximum damage, but that's an unlikely scenario at this point in time.

In order for that to happen all of their peace mode nations would need to have that much tech to lose in the first place (which they don't). They would in fact need probably 500-1000 more than that to be sure maximum losses occurred each time. There's what, 50 nations in the NPO who will lose tech at the levels indicated? 50*900=45,000 from them if they turtle. The other 200 peace mode nations all have far less and will lose far less as a result. So Letum's numbers of 150,000 tech lost appear to be accurate.

So given that, your numbers will look more like 175%, again, roughly double what Athens paid. Athens was a defensive war, NPO is an aggressive war. NPO has a long history of wrongdoing. The amounts are not that outrageous.

As to the NPO being restricted to certain nations to pay reps with, really they need to consider it a blessing in disguise. That means that their other 500 nations with less tech can be sending money internally to help get the alliance going again. Nations with tons of tech and no infra left can just send off their tech as a part of the reparation effort, and maybe leave a slot or two open to receive aid for help in rebuilding.

[Archon]

If we were at peace and some nuclear rogues hit mk, you asked they be removed and we refused. You declare war on TPF, who was the aggressor?

That's a hypothetical situation that has no bearing on the current matter of discussion.

[kevin32891]

Hey Archon hows your pants?

They seem to be on fire.

[Archon]

Hey Archon hows your pants?

They seem to be on fire.

Gimme a call once you've got forced neutrality until further notice, a viceroy, and things like that, and enforced governmental changes, and then we'll talk

[Keve69]

Voted Yes.... NPO deserves every dollar and clause of those terms! Karma FTW!

[bkphysics]

There should be one more option on the poll.

BAWWWWW

[buttocks]

There should be one more option on the poll.

BAWWWWW

agreed♠

[kevin32891]

Voted Yes.... NPO deserves every dollar and clause of those terms! Karma FTW!

Says a man who was here less then a month before the Karma war.

[jerdge]

Forcing "hard to achieve" requirements ("90%"), wanting to take some satisfaction against every person you can put your hands on ("no PM") and trying to harm possibly even more who was actually prepared to hold his/her ground ("who pays"), while affecting another community's in-game life for several and several months, are all issues the NPO has been openly criticized for in the past - even when they were the most powerful and "everybody" was fearing them - but not by most of the people that find "just" the currently proposed terms. These last people in fact - IIRC - were silent all the time when not happily participating in said actions.

The circle of excessive "violence" at the expenses of months of (CN) fun for hundreds of players should be broken, sooner or later. Sadly, I don't think it will happen "sooner".

(There's a theory according to which most of the unknown "rank and file" people spend some time for the daily building of their nation and don't understand CN politics. In this theory these fellow players of ours realize - when their nations get severely destroyed - that so much of their precious time got wasted and they start to ask themselves for what reason they should spend any of it again.

Goodbye to the many that will leave the game this time, also.)

[Stonewall Jaxon]

Forcing "hard to achieve" requirements ("90%"), wanting to take some satisfaction against every person you can put your hands on ("no PM") and trying to harm possibly even more who was actually prepared to hold his/her ground ("who pays"), while affecting another community's in-game life for several and several months, are all issues the NPO has been openly criticized for in the past - even when they were the most powerful and "everybody" was fearing them - but not by most of the people that find "just" the currently proposed terms. These last people in fact - IIRC - were silent all the time when not happily participating in said actions.

The circle of excessive "violence" at the expenses of months of (CN) fun for hundreds of players should be broken, sooner or later. Sadly, I don't think it will happen "sooner".

(There's a theory according to which most of the unknown "rank and file" people spend some time for the daily building of their nation and don't understand CN politics. In this theory these fellow players of ours realize - when their nations get severely destroyed - that so much of their precious time got wasted and they start to ask themselves for what reason they should spend any of it again.

Goodbye to the many that will leave the game this time, also.)

If nations don't understand how the game is played, why join a political alliance and continue to play the game?

Also, this war, at its very core, is about payback. That, my friend, will help you understand why Karma isn't playing nice and playing "You roll over, now I roll over" with NPO.

[mhawk]

So given that, your numbers will look more like 175%, again, roughly double what Athens paid. Athens was a defensive war, NPO is an aggressive war. NPO has a long history of wrongdoing. The amounts are not that outrageous.

As to the NPO being restricted to certain nations to pay reps with, really they need to consider it a blessing in disguise. That means that their other 500 nations with less tech can be sending money internally to help get the alliance going again. Nations with tons of tech and no infra left can just send off their tech as a part of the reparation effort, and maybe leave a slot or two open to receive aid for help in rebuilding.

I still point to where you need to take only the tech from those capable of paying reps. If the whole alliance was allowed to pay, then fine use the total alliance tech, however a large portion of the tech left is in the lower ranks. So take the nations being forced to pay, calculate that number. Additionally there is no way to get 90% compliance immediately, so if under 100% ideal conditions the ticker starts immediately, add days to that and suddenly even with your numbers you end back up towards the 300k loss in tech.

[Lord Brendan]

Additionally there is no way to get 90% compliance immediately, so if under 100% ideal conditions the ticker starts immediately, add days to that and suddenly even with your numbers you end back up towards the 300k loss in tech.

They might get an extra day or two at max.

It's not that hard. Start mass PMing all members today saying "On June 20th EVERYONE must switch to war mode. If you are currently in war mode, stay there. Members that stay in peace mode will be considered to be directly disobeying orders and WILL be expelled." Of course, they can add explanations too, as they like.

Then on June 20th, all active and loyal members will come out of peace mode. Everyone remaining in peace mode is either ridiculously inactive (if you don't log in once a week during war time...) or a traitor, so the 90% is easily reached.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Lord Brendan

[Haflinger]

arent viceroys banned under the ToS?

No, they're not.

You can't insist another alliance appoint you as admin on their forums.

You can setup your own forums and insist they register on your forums as a part of surrender terms, or you can be a viceroy without being an admin. Both are OK.

[Haflinger]

It's worth observing that the contemporary paradigms for harsh terms, like the oft-cited MK terms or Athens terms, were given to MK and Athens who were both fighting defensive wars honoring defensive pacts. In fact, the 82k tech reps that were given to MK were given to them by the NPO, who declared on MK honoring a treaty that hadn't even been triggered (The chain was MK hits OR, TORN protects OR, NPO has a treaty with TORN. However, TORN had yet to make any sort of a move and NPO cited an MK attack on TORN that did not exist).

In the case of this war, the NPO caused this situation through an aggressive action.

The oft-cited aggression vs. defense argument doesn't stand up well to closer analysis. The fact is, it's very rare for alliances to merely strike out at people who are completely innocent bystanders; normally they attack their enemies.

You can get into discussions about aggression and defense in terms of whether they mean that certain treaties should be activated, and that's fine. But getting into accusations of "You launched an aggressive war, so you should pay a more severe penalty" is exactly what Valhalla tried on STA last summer, and it was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

[Rich333]

If nations don't understand how the game is played, why join a political alliance and continue to play the game?

Inter-alliance politics is only one part of the game, and isn't interesting to most of the people playing it. Those of us who do find it interesting may be the loudest, and may cause the most trouble, but we're far from a majority. Most people find nation building and the internal politics of their own alliances far more interesting.

Also, this war, at its very core, is about payback. That, my friend, will help you understand why Karma isn't playing nice and playing "You roll over, now I roll over" with NPO.

Its more venting than payback. A lot of the people who took part in the NPO's past transgressions aren't in the NPO of today, and a lot of the people in the NPO of today never took part in those past transgressions. Some people stick with just one alliance, but most don't, and not everyone has been playing for over three years. Payback would involve punishing the individuals who actually committed those actions for which all of the present NPO membership is being punished, which would include many, but not all, current NPO members, and many, but not all, former NPO members. As for the severity of the terms, I think it's primarily about making sure the NPO can't recover for a very long time, which is just good sense considering their history.

[uaciaut]

The oft-cited aggression vs. defense argument doesn't stand up well to closer analysis. The fact is, it's very rare for alliances to merely strike out at people who are completely innocent bystanders; normally they attack their enemies.

This is one of your best jewels ever

[mhawk]

They might get an extra day or two at max.

It's not that hard. Start mass PMing all members today saying "On June 20th EVERYONE must switch to war mode. If you are currently in war mode, stay there. Members that stay in peace mode will be considered to be directly disobeying orders and WILL be expelled." Of course, they can add explanations too, as they like.

Then on June 20th, all active and loyal members will come out of peace mode. Everyone remaining in peace mode is either ridiculously inactive (if you don't log in once a week during war time...) or a traitor, so the 90% is easily reached.

Do you feel such a term would be acceptable on any other alliance?

[CptGodzilla]

no, could use more reps*

edit for clarity

Edited June 15, 2009 by CptGodzilla

[Prime minister Johns]

Its more venting than payback. A lot of the people who took part in the NPO's past transgressions aren't in the NPO of today, and a lot of the people in the NPO of today never took part in those past transgressions. Some people stick with just one alliance, but most don't, and not everyone has been playing for over three years. Payback would involve punishing the individuals who actually committed those actions for which all of the present NPO membership is being punished, which would include many, but not all, current NPO members, and many, but not all, former NPO members. As for the severity of the terms, I think it's primarily about making sure the NPO can't recover for a very long time, which is just good sense considering their history.

This is indeed true, Some members of the NPO are new players who have had no part in any past crimes of the NPO.

And conversely Some karma members are former NPO members or allies who took part in many of those crimes.

For true justice to be served then the real perpetrators of the crimes must be punished severely while the innocent many who are guilty of nothing other than loyalty and following orders should receive light punishments.

I would be in favour of each individual nation of the NPO being given separate terms based on the level of their personal "guilt" or "karmic debt" if you prefer. Sure it will involve a lot of paperwork, time and effort but it is the only way to be fair.

And the exact amount of reps would probably equal the amount of damage the NPO has caused, but by making the terms individualised then you get to punish the guilty more than you punish the ones who were not present for most of the crimes.

True Karma is not a one size fits all concept, it is a measure of individual personal moral character. And if karma is what is being served then individual terms that reflect the karma of an individual would be more fitting than a group punishment where the truly guilty will get the same punishment as those who are less guilty or in some exceptional cases blameless.

Assess the individual guilt levels of each member and assign them a portion of the reps with a workable payment scheme to pay individually. For devastated nations the terms might include a period as a tech farm to help them rebuild so that they can pay the rest of the reps back over time. And damage already inflicted on them might also be taken into account as part of their punishment, For instance if they ordered the ZI of nations and they are now ZIed then I would say that karma has already been served, in that they have now received what they inflicted. And those nations that refuse can be pursued individually for not accepting or breaking their terms, since many people complained bitterly when that was inflicted on FAN.

I am not a personal fan of group punishments, and instead I would like to introduce the idea of individual punishments that will encourage a sense of personal responsibility in the recipients for their actions, and they will be far less likely in future to obey "wrongful" orders in the future if they know that they might be punished individually at some later date. And this will in turn improve the conduct of the group since the group will now consist of individuals taking personal responsibility for their own actions. and leaders of the group will be especially mindful of their actions as leaders should since they will be judged on their own actions as well as the orders they give others if they ever have to pay reps.

[Matthew Conrad]

This is indeed true, Some members of the NPO are new players who have had no part in any past crimes of the NPO.

And conversely Some karma members are former NPO members or allies who took part in many of those crimes.

For true justice to be served then the real perpetrators of the crimes must be punished severely while the innocent many who are guilty of nothing other than loyalty and following orders should receive light punishments.

I would be in favour of each individual nation of the NPO being given separate terms based on the level of their personal "guilt" or "karmic debt" if you prefer. Sure it will involve a lot of paperwork, time and effort but it is the only way to be fair.

And the exact amount of reps would probably equal the amount of damage the NPO has caused, but by making the terms individualised then you get to punish the guilty more than you punish the ones who were not present for most of the crimes.

True Karma is not a one size fits all concept, it is a measure of individual personal moral character. And if karma is what is being served then individual terms that reflect the karma of an individual would be more fitting than a group punishment where the truly guilty will get the same punishment as those who are less guilty or in some exceptional cases blameless.

Assess the individual guilt levels of each member and assign them a portion of the reps with a workable payment scheme to pay individually. For devastated nations the terms might include a period as a tech farm to help them rebuild so that they can pay the rest of the reps back over time. And damage already inflicted on them might also be taken into account as part of their punishment, For instance if they ordered the ZI of nations and they are now ZIed then I would say that karma has already been served, in that they have now received what they inflicted. And those nations that refuse can be pursued individually for not accepting or breaking their terms, since many people complained bitterly when that was inflicted on FAN.

I am not a personal fan of group punishments, and instead I would like to introduce the idea of individual punishments that will encourage a sense of personal responsibility in the recipients for their actions, and they will be far less likely in future to obey "wrongful" orders in the future if they know that they might be punished individually at some later date. And this will in turn improve the conduct of the group since the group will now consist of individuals taking personal responsibility for their own actions. and leaders of the group will be especially mindful of their actions as leaders should since they will be judged on their own actions as well as the orders they give others if they ever have to pay reps.

The problem with individual accountability and punishing leaders is that often their followers have been "convinced" that their leader has done little wrong, so they will try and pick up his/her debt and in the end little will have changed from group punishment. Also, it would be a logistical nightmare to go through 700 nations and determine how much of a hand each one had in "crimes". However, I do agree this is the most fair method. Unfortunately, it's nigh impossible in the foreseeable future.

[Henkie]

The problem with individual accountability and punishing leaders is that often their followers have been "convinced" that their leader has done little wrong, so they will try and pick up his/her debt and in the end little will have changed from group punishment. Also, it would be a logistical nightmare to go through 700 nations and determine how much of a hand each one had in "crimes". However, I do agree this is the most fair method. Unfortunately, it's nigh impossible in the foreseeable future.

I doubt anybody from the NPO will be picking up Ivan's debt, Doitzel's debt, or Electron Spunge's debt. I mean, ES himself has admitted on past occasions to be the mastermind behind FAN's fall, but nobody's taking this out on him. Doitzel himself was a loyal member of the NPO untill somebody talked about maybe needing to punish ES for this. Overall, it's astounding to see the selective memories at work, when deciding that nobody but the NPO was to blaim for every alliance that blew itself up in one war or another.

[Prime minister Johns]

(There's a theory according to which most of the unknown "rank and file" people spend some time for the daily building of their nation and don't understand CN politics. In this theory these fellow players of ours realize - when their nations get severely destroyed - that so much of their precious time got wasted and they start to ask themselves for what reason they should spend any of it again.

Goodbye to the many that will leave the game this time, also.)

A select few will reroll, and learn from the experience I hope. We might get some better players out of this.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Prime minister Johns

[jerdge]

If nations don't understand how the game is played, why join a political alliance and continue to play the game?

Rich333 already replied eloquently, I only add that it's quite egotistical of yours to disregard/classify as "worthless" any playing style other than your own.

In a healthy gaming community such an attitude shouldn't be allowed to discourage people from remaining. In fact, quite the opposite: who continuously displays your attitude is among the few that should be discouraged from remaining...

[Edit]

I later reflected about this post of mine and I realized that its last sentence was probably very badly worded.

First, I was talking of the present attitude of SJ about "staying in the game with no political clue" only. I was certainly not talking of the general attitude of SJ in CN.

Second, with "should be discouraged from remaining" I was meaning (for the "worst cases") "should be talked about leaving" - I wasn't thinking of in-game repercussions, underhanded tactics or anything like that.

I finally hope that this (annoying) "clarification" doesn't come out more obscure than the original sentence...

[/Edit]

Edited June 16, 2009 by jerdge