SoxNation Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Why I am a Pacifican My name is Bartley. My nation is iPodistan. I had been in CN for roughly a year and in the New Pacific Order for nearly as long. When I first began, my nation was small, and I was only dabbling in the game to pass time. I did not have much time, so CN was perfect for someone who did not want to devote tons of time or money to a game (such as World of Warcraft. Good lord, I hate that game). Over time, I was recruited to join an alliance, where I continued in my apathetic and gleeful growth of my tiny little nation. However, the Pacifican way piqued my interest. There was more than just growing and buying things to build your nation: there was diplomacy, international intrigue, histories of history, political debates, military stuff I'm probably not supposed to mention... Whoa. Suddenly the nation building aspect became just a page of statistics and the real game of Cyber Nations opened up. I started talking to other people, who showed me the ropes and taught me all sorts of interesting things. The Karma War broke out while I was still relatively new, so I did not have very far to fall. I do not know why Karma attacked beyond the "truths" and "facts" I read on forums and do not fully comprehend the history or the causes of such animosity against the New Pacific Order. Nearly the entirety of the New Pacific Order has been hit and many have lost much more than myself. Yet they are still here. It became even more evident that it did not matter what "truth" was being pushed around or whatever propaganda was being thrown around. I realized what 'truthiness' is written in the histories will not matter, either. My name is Bartley. My nation is iPodistan. None of that is real, but the personal experience with other people in my alliance is real. The fantastic and diverse group of people who share the same alliance are real. And they are still here. And there is no clearer truth than that. Wait you say you've been in CN and NPO both nearly a year, but the Karma War broke out when you were relatively new? The war started a month, maybe a month and a half ago. So which is it? You admit to not knowing why everyone hates NPO, but you don't care? Maybe its because NPO had dominated the world for 3 years, killing off potential threats and allies alike, for no reason, just because they can. i thought you might come in here and talk of brotherhood, or the Pacifican way, all you said is i don't know whats going on, but I don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 It appears you have some difficulty understanding the argument here.Point 1: There is near certainty of a number of days between the signing of any such terms and the time at which the 90% compliance rate is reached. Point 2: During that number of days, the New Pacific Order and the assorted alliances fighting it will be in a state of war. Point 3: Nations currently in peace mode will be entering war mode during this period Point 4: Nations in war mode will get attacked, because that is what happens when you are in a state of war. See point 2. Point 5: Once the 90% point is reached, a "state of open warfare shall exist between the signatories of this document for a period of exactly 14 days" Point 6: It will be 14 days after point 5, and more than 14 days after point 1, that this state of open warfare shall end. Point 7: See point 4. This is not at all what the term suggested nor what Z and I have said it should mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 This is not at all what the term suggested nor what Z and I have said it should mean. Are you sure? Again, this is not entirely clear, just because you and several other gov have said it doesn't mean it is true. Is that your final answer? For realz? I mean it does ruin a lot of the arguments against the terms, and that seems to be so much fun, so are you sure?! What are we going to endlessly debate if what you say is true! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 This is not at all what the term suggested nor what Z and I have said it should mean. Alright then, which of those points contradicts the terms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Alright then, which of those points contradicts the terms? I am not going to start all over again. Please take a look two pages back, or talk to your gov. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Alright then, which of those points contradicts the terms? the fact that each peace mode nation takes 14 days of war, instead of teh "eternity" that has been thrown around, and uses a possible max of 14 * 5M = 70M of their warchest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 It appears you have some difficulty understanding the argument here.Point 1: There is near certainty of a number of days between the signing of any such terms and the time at which the 90% compliance rate is reached. Point 2: During that number of days, the New Pacific Order and the assorted alliances fighting it will be in a state of war. Point 3: Nations currently in peace mode will be entering war mode during this period Point 4: Nations in war mode will get attacked, because that is what happens when you are in a state of war. See point 2. Point 5: Once the 90% point is reached, a "state of open warfare shall exist between the signatories of this document for a period of exactly 14 days" Point 6: It will be 14 days after point 5, and more than 14 days after point 1, that this state of open warfare shall end. Point 7: See point 4. Oh for Admin's Sake!! Tromp has already alluded to the fact that the terms had some misunderstandings in the whole 14 day section and both him and Big Z have clarified what will happen and made specific mention of no nation enduring more than 14 days of warfare. Seeing as to how individuals simply cannot understand something so simple makes me really feel mercy for those who are trying to negotiate the peace terms with NPO. Hat's off to you folks in Karma and I pray for your souls that your brain is not reduced to a invariable puddle of goo after the whole thing is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffasamini Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Oh for Admin's Sake!!Tromp has already alluded to the fact that the terms had some misunderstandings in the whole 14 day section and both him and Big Z have clarified what will happen and made specific mention of no nation enduring more than 14 days of warfare. Seeing as to how individuals simply cannot understand something so simple makes me really feel mercy for those who are trying to negotiate the peace terms with NPO. Hat's off to you folks in Karma and I pray for your souls that your brain is not reduced to a invariable puddle of goo after the whole thing is over. Actually its a matter of "we dont trust you." Yea, I bet Big Z really did mean those terms that way. So why haven't yall rewritten and proposed them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I am not going to start all over again.Please take a look two pages back, or talk to your gov. Well, I am sure you can point me exactly to which point is wrong. Or you can provide me with an alternative wording of the terms that is closer to what you "intended". Because when I see "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" I assume that from day X and onwards, there are 14 days of war between the signatories. Not that some people will be fighting for 14 days after day X, but others will be fighting for 10 days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Actually its a matter of "we dont trust you." Yea, I bet Big Z really did mean those terms that way. So why haven't yall rewritten and proposed them? Why have you gone public? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Well, I am sure you can point me exactly to which point is wrong.Or you can provide me with an alternative wording of the terms that is closer to what you "intended". Because when I see "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" I assume that from day X and onwards, there are 14 days of war between the signatories. Not that some people will be fighting for 14 days after day X, but others will be fighting for 10 days. Right... How many times do I have to repeat that we intended from the start to war those nations for 14 days, and that NPO gov was told so? And that because of this simple fact, the term as written can't be interpreted differently. (See my responses to Locke I believe.) Edited June 16, 2009 by Tromp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Actually its a matter of "we dont trust you." Yea, I bet Big Z really did mean those terms that way. So why haven't yall rewritten and proposed them? I'm pretty sure that you have no idea what actual terms have been given to your government, or what discussions have occured about to clarify, save those posted on these forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrei Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 To Bartley - That's nice. Welcome to everyone else's experience during their early CN days. Schattenmann and Sal Paradise - Classy as always guys, keep it up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Right...How many times do I have to repeat that we intended from the start to war those nations for 14 days, and that NPO gov was told so? And that because of this simple fact, the term as written can't be interpreted differently. (See my responses to Locke I believe.) When your unwritten intentions and discussions contradict the written terms that we would actually have to put our signature on, there is something seriously wrong. Because it is an outright contradiction, not a "misunderstanding". There is no peace immediately upon signing; that means that the state of war continues until the 90% criteria is met, and then for an extra 14 days after that. During this entire time, there is a state of war. During war, nations get attacked. It seems you are claiming that there will be a deliberate avoiding of targeting such nations - during a state of open warfare. You cannot claim that the terms say anything remotely close to that, and you cannot expect us to go by discussions that say "oh, we'll be at war, but we'll only be attacking some of you." That is not a "state of war", and if the terms were as you "intended" them to be, they would at least make a freaking mention as to the criteria of who gets targeted and who does not. And don't give me !@#$ about "it is not necessary that we deliberately do not target nations". The state of war would last for over 14 days. If we are at war for over 14 days, but nations fight for less than 14 days, then there is either a cease-fire involved, or deliberate non-targeting is occuring. None of these scenarios is even distinctly alluded to in the terms; quite the opposite: it mentions that a state of open warfare will exist, and by default, open war means everyone is a target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) When your unwritten intentions and discussions contradict the written terms that we would actually have to put our signature on, there is something seriously wrong.Because it is an outright contradiction, not a "misunderstanding". There is no peace immediately upon signing; that means that the state of war continues until the 90% criteria is met, and then for an extra 14 days after that. During this entire time, there is a state of war. During war, nations get attacked. It seems you are claiming that there will be a deliberate avoiding of targeting such nations - during a state of open warfare. You cannot claim that the terms say anything remotely close to that, and you cannot expect us to go by discussions that say "oh, we'll be at war, but we'll only be attacking some of you." That is not a "state of war", and if the terms were as you "intended" them to be, they would at least make a freaking mention as to the criteria of who gets targeted and who does not. And don't give me !@#$ about "it is not necessary that we deliberately do not target nations". The state of war would last for over 14 days. If we are at war for over 14 days, but nations fight for less than 14 days, then there is either a cease-fire involved, or deliberate non-targeting is occuring. None of these scenarios is even distinctly alluded to in the terms; quite the opposite: it mentions that a state of open warfare will exist, and by default, open war means everyone is a target. I think, that since you just told the person who helped write the terms "that's not what they were" you deserve a special award. Edited June 16, 2009 by ender land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Actually its a matter of "we dont trust you." Yea, I bet Big Z really did mean those terms that way. So why haven't yall rewritten and proposed them? To be honest, if that is the reason this so stubbornly keeps coming up then I have nothing but full support for continued warfare against you and more pain. Not too long ago a little ol' alliance called the Federation of Armed Nations was told that if they come out of peace mode they will endure war and then be offered peace. No written guarantee other the the word of your esteemed leadership. The same FAN who rightfully so denied trusting you after being attacked again for violating the peace terms. All of these vague pieces of the terms could of been discussed and negotiated to specifics via constructive talks rather than a pity party here on the OWF. Again the NPO leadership has made a mistake in handling a situation, and yet again they act dumbfounded when called on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balkan Banania Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Oh for Admin's Sake!!Tromp has already alluded to the fact that the terms had some misunderstandings in the whole 14 day section and both him and Big Z have clarified what will happen and made specific mention of no nation enduring more than 14 days of warfare. Firstly this was not stated in the gives terms, secondly this argument was not used by Karma people in the thread concerning the rejection of the terms but came up now, and thirdly no other official has made the same statement. Concluding as this argument came up several days after the terms offering and the discussion of the terms in the OWF I have no reason to believe it was Karma's initial intention when the terms were offered and it is just a PR stunt. back in track, I am a Pacifican because I stalk Letum from the GATO era and on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Firstly this was not stated in the gives terms, secondly this argument was not used by Karma people in the thread concerning the rejection of the terms but came up now, and thirdly no other official has made the same statement. Concluding as this argument came up several days after the terms offering and the discussion of the terms in the OWF I have no reason to believe it was Karma's initial intention when the terms were offered and it is just a PR stunt.back in track, I am a Pacifican because I stalk Letum from the GATO era and on Oh Admin I truly feel sorry for the Karma negotiators. Taking your statement then, if these 'specifics' were added to the terms than you would be all roses and puppy dogs and willing to sign the peace agreement, or at the very least stop bawwing about the 14 day item? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 When your unwritten intentions and discussions contradict the written terms that we would actually have to put our signature on, there is something seriously wrong.Because it is an outright contradiction, not a "misunderstanding". There is no peace immediately upon signing; that means that the state of war continues until the 90% criteria is met, and then for an extra 14 days after that. During this entire time, there is a state of war. During war, nations get attacked. It seems you are claiming that there will be a deliberate avoiding of targeting such nations - during a state of open warfare. You cannot claim that the terms say anything remotely close to that, and you cannot expect us to go by discussions that say "oh, we'll be at war, but we'll only be attacking some of you." That is not a "state of war", and if the terms were as you "intended" them to be, they would at least make a freaking mention as to the criteria of who gets targeted and who does not. And don't give me !@#$ about "it is not necessary that we deliberately do not target nations". The state of war would last for over 14 days. If we are at war for over 14 days, but nations fight for less than 14 days, then there is either a cease-fire involved, or deliberate non-targeting is occuring. None of these scenarios is even distinctly alluded to in the terms; quite the opposite: it mentions that a state of open warfare will exist, and by default, open war means everyone is a target. It is written in the terms, but I have already given you the point that it can be interpreted differently. Really, this was page 12 or 13 of this thread, I feel like talking in circles. I won't go public for our reasonings, but that should be clear to most of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 It is written in the terms, So, which of the two is it? Avoiding targeting people, or a temporary cease fire, and where is it written? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 "Are you Pacificans too stupid to read?" Sorry, couldn't resist the stupid joke. I stand by my comments, since they are clear enough and leave no room for a different explanation of the term. I can't help it that others will see something else in that term, and frankly I don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 So, which of the two is it? Avoiding targeting people, or a temporary cease fire, and where is it written? If you don't believe it when those crafting the terms specifically tell you what they mean and how they are interpreted somehow I fail to believe that having it written is going to make any difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eye Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 )): This thread is not about the terms. I could have sworn there was already a thread about that over in AA. We don't want another one here in someone else's thread. Cut it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Rune Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Bartly, everyone (I suspect ) loves their alliance. And it is more about the community than the advice and aid one receives from that alliance. If we did not love our alliance, then we wouldn't stay there. My alliance has had more than its share of kickings, and yet there are many in there who have been there from the day that their nations first learned to...to do whatever nations do. Whilst we appreciate that you are happy and proud of your alliance, as a way of persuading others not to be overly harsh towards yours, posting here means nothing. If it did, everyone would post after they lost a war. (And were would the fun be in that?) Edited June 16, 2009 by Lord Rune Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) )):This thread is not about the terms. I could have sworn there was already a thread about that over in AA. We don't want another one here in someone else's thread. Cut it out. But! BUT! BUT! But.... yes sir... You makes me a sad little penguin. Edit: Everyone loves their alliance, and I do not disagree with loving your alliance. Fact is, alliances lose wars, and crap happens when you lose wars, but that's when you come together more as an alliance. Edited June 16, 2009 by Asriel Belacqua Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.