Why I am a Pacifican

[WcaesarD]

@OP, Great thoughts. 99% of what you said applies to any and all alliances. I love finding a group I fit in with and I'm glad you have. However, your criticism of the "truths" and "facts"? Well, sure, you weren't there, you don't remember. The rest of us do. Ignoring it won't make it like it didn't happen or isn't so. Learn a little CN history, from both sides of the line, for your own good. I'm not telling you to leave your alliance, but get to know where it came from, and where it's going.

I also must agree, however, that this is propaganda, intentional or not, what else is there to call it?

[Letum]

Im a tad late on this, forgive me.

Superfriends act as one, if GOD goes to war then Fark, R&R, Rok, MA go to war..

You may correct me if i am mistaken but the orange sphere is rather united under a MDoaP, which would explain FOK (is iFOK in on this?), MOON and the rest of orange

Complaints and Grievances, while a very good George Carlin album, is also a bloc which brings Athens, Vanguard and some other fine people

If i've missed a few names, well you can fill them in later..check the wikia or that 3d treaty web, its complicated but thats why its called the treaty web

I never said that they don't. or that they shouldn't. Going to war together with your friends is the mark of a good ally.

But being a good ally does not impact aggression. What constitutes "aggression" is highly subjective; and can depend on the casus belli for war, on the nature of the treaty protocols activated (defensive or aggressive), on the reason behind that activation, etc, etc etc. Basically, you can make a case for RoK being aggressors, and for RoK not being so. I was making the case that, in the lack of any direct military involvement, and with their involvement occurring via an aggression pact, it is not a defensive action (or at the very least, not one defensive enough to merit the legal activation of an MDP)

Perhaps the reason for your post is that you interpreted the wording "aggression" to be to have some negative connotation; and whilst I do admit that in the common perception of the English language, it can conjure up bad images, there is nothing inherently wrong with the act in itself, when examined in separation from its circumstances.

Really, aggression depends on the point of view. Take the following:

If alliance A tries to coup alliance B, and B declares war, who is the aggressor?

If alliance A spies on B, and B declares war, who is the aggressor?

If alliance A declares war on B, and alliance C declares war on A via an MDP, is C an aggressor?

If alliance A declares war on B, alliance C on A (via MDP) and alliance D on C (via MDP), is D an aggressor?

If alliance A declares war on B, alliance C on A (via MDP) and alliance D on C (via MDP) and alliance E also declares on C (via MDAP), is E an aggressor?

And 3000 other scenarios.

Some would posit that it is the alliance taking the first action, the initial declaration of war, and everybody on their "side" who can be considered aggressors. That argument does have some merit, but it also has two major weaknesses: It disregards the initial Casus Belli, and most importantly, it can lead to some fairly counter-intuitive results. For example, using this criterion as it stands, Genmay was the aggressor in the UJW, and by extension, GOONS. Now, some might agree with this due to GOONS' somewhat not nice reputation, but would the same principle hold if you applied it to every other ally? Would FARK, MK and FOK be considered the "aggressors" of the UJW? Or would it depend on their individual circumstances? Or would only the initial alliance taking military action be considered the aggressors, and everyone else drawn in, on both sides, be defenders? Or does it go back to the initial casus belli?

In the end, it just boils down to opinion.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Letum

[enderland]

There however, is no opinion as to whether or not NPO declared in the middle of negotiations.

[Archon]

There however, is no opinion as to whether or not NPO declared in the middle of negotiations.

Nor is there any opinion as to the clearly traceable route where all conflicts in this war stem back to the NPO's aggressive declaration of war on Ordo Verde.

Just sayin'

[Klonopin]

I know NPO is going to have to pay huge Reps. I have come to terms with that.

There is a difference between "Huge Reps" and "Fantasy Land Reps"

I believe that it Karma sees the $$$ flashing before their eyes and has gotten carried away.

[muffasamini]

Nor is there any opinion as to the clearly traceable route where all conflicts in this war stem back to the NPO's aggressive declaration of war on Ordo Verde.

Just sayin'

Well, we may have aggresively started this war, but when Karma's intent is to drag people out of peace mode and war with them for weeks before they can be at peace, fully throws the "were being defensive, your the aggressors" line out the window.

[SpoiL]

My very own personal opinion, I would rather fight for two years then take those terms.

That is my very own little opinion. Ultimately I will faithfully do as Moo directs.

You can have my nation. It means nothing to me.

I will fight with whatever resources I can find to protect the community of NPO.

Easy to say at this point wouldn't you say?

Well, we may have aggresively started this war, but when Karma's intent is to drag people out of peace mode and war with them for weeks before they can be at peace, fully throws the "were being defensive, your the aggressors" line out the window.

The best defense is a good offense am I right?

Edited June 16, 2009 by SpoiL

[King Death II]

See the reason I think Karma wants your nations out of peace mode is because you guys said that FAN had to get its nations of out peace mode so that they can fight and then after they fought they would get peace. So basically, you are tasting your own medicine and boy is it sour.

[Klonopin]

Nor is there any opinion as to the clearly traceable route where all conflicts in this war stem back to the NPO's aggressive declaration of war on Ordo Verde.

Just sayin'

That is true. But why did NPO declare on OV?

OV had a confirmed spy. With screen shots.

What would your AA of done with a confirmed spy?

There however, is no opinion as to whether or not NPO declared in the middle of negotiations.

When negotiations hit a stall, what is the next course of action?

[bkphysics]

Well, we may have aggresively started this war, but when Karma's intent is to drag people out of peace mode and war with them for weeks before they can be at peace, fully throws the "were being defensive, your the aggressors" line out the window.

Have you heard the phrases:

Bit off more than you can chew

Don't write checks your butt can't cash

They describe perfectly what has occurred.

To the OP, I apologize for my further transgressions from your topic.

[King DrunkWino]

When negotiations hit a stall, what is the next course of action?

Protip: Don't blow up the peace delegation.

[Klonopin]

Easy to say at this point wouldn't you say?

The best defense is a good offense am I right?

Of course. Karma played a good game.

[Tromp]

White peace would be tactically silly, as would smaller reps (even though I can dream cant I ). Removing the conditions, would yes be a great idea. NPO isnt recovering from 8 billion in reps any time soon. And, I think these harsh terms are a signal for fundamental change, albeit one that I think has already occured, even before the KARMA war (no viceroys, no forced disbandment, etc.). Ultimately, if you think about it long term, the end difference between paying reps with the conditions and without is the same, but the short term difference is the chance that the NPO will end up unable to complete its obligations. Remove the conditions, and we wont be afraid of going back on our word and facing the consequences, and you'll get what you want.

I do not believe this is be our "pride getting in the way," this a communications failure.

THREAD DERAILMENT ALERT!

INITIATE CONTERMEASURES:

I love you Bartley!

This looks kind of silly when you see the term your Emperor quoted in his pity thread in the AP section of the OWF:

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.

I have bolded the important sections of that term for you.

[Klonopin]

Protip: Don't blow up the peace delegation.

That is one path. Our great leaders made a different decision.

As Moo stated, we have been beat.

It all comes down to "Reps".

You have to admit that hatred and greed are driving the Reps for Karma.

Hatred for things that happened three years ago.

[Locke]

So you are going to judge an entire coalition just because there's a couple of fanatical haters in some of the associated AAs? I mean... come on. It doesn't matter if their alliance is part of Karma, you admitted yourself that Karma wouldn't even consider trying to disband the NPO. If you think that Karma won't change anything at least base it on real action, or at the very least majority opinion.

It's not "a couple." By these numbers, almost 300: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=56317 Yeah, and this was hardly it. Earlier in the war I know I saw lots of posts from the general membership crying for NPO to disband. To my knowledge, no one with actual decision making power has supported such measures, but you can hardly call it "a couple of fanatical haters" either, don't kid yourself.

I think this has gone a bit off topic, should probly head to reparations debate thread.

If anyone here was concerned about the topic, this topic would be much, much shorter.

I would also like to reiterate that Karma has already stated numerous times that should the 14 days of bottom spanking deem to do more damage than originally foreseen, the rep demands can be adjusted accordingly.

Wish I had the quote but I am sure someone in Karma can be asked to verify such.

Funny, I heard that...once, besides this? And not from anyone important. I'm sure it's been said, but it's not exactly being pushed very hard (unless it's in that beastly topic Moo started a bit ago, I couldn't read that past ten or so pages. >.>). If this is the case, then I ask, who's making the calculations? I know people have said that Karma has economists working on it, but if they indeed grossly overesimated the ability of NPO nations to pay up after the minimum two weeks of war (you know that NPO won't get 90% out of peace mode in a single day), why should we trust their calculations? And I'll bet that Karma won't trust NPO to make an estimation of their ability because, well, for them the less they have to pay, the better off they are. So, if recalculation is needed, what's the say it's going to be fair then? Will NPO have to list off the monetary holdings of each and every member eligable to pay?

EDIT: Just read Tromp's post, and it seems there's at least one credible source for this re-calculation, I must have missed that myself. Thank you. Still doesn't change my point on "who's gonna do it right this time?" though.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Locke

[Oppe]

There however, is no opinion as to whether or not NPO declared in the middle of negotiations.

actually I could argue that the NPO declared war at the end of negotiations. Just saying.

[Jebbie]

actually I could argue that the NPO declared war at the end of negotiations. Just saying.

except that would be a lie

[King DrunkWino]

That is one path. Our great leaders made a different decision.

As Moo stated, we have been beat.

It all comes down to "Reps".

You have to admit that hatred and greed are driving the Reps for Karma.

Hatred for things that happened three years ago.

Well hate is a two way street. One party must be the ones that hate and the other must provide the reason to be hated.

No offense, but judging from posts here in the past few days, your great leaders have done one thing well, and that is to cultivate that hate. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that most people that aren't you or your immediate allies dislike you.

Why? Your alliance has given them reason to, repeatedly.

Which is also why you're here now. Your great leaders have managed to step on enough toes and piss enough people off that there isn't many people losing sleep over your defeat and what will be your terms. In fact, many might actually be losing sleep thinking those terms aren't bad enough.

Seriously, is that what you want your alliance to be? If anything at all, I'm as close to a true neutral as your gonna find and to be frank, I'd say that your alliance does need a rather large whack across the knuckles.

Edited June 16, 2009 by King DrunkWino

[Klonopin]

except that would be a lie

Well if negotiations have hit a stall and nothing is moving forward. Both sides are dead locked with no hope of finding common ground. Would you call that "negotiations over"?

[enderland]

Of course. Karma played a good game.

Just because Karma got lucky your gov screwed up doesn't mean they played a good game to get it there.

[bkphysics]

Funny, I heard that...once, besides this? And not from anyone important. I'm sure it's been said, but it's not exactly being pushed very hard (unless it's in that beastly topic Moo started a bit ago, I couldn't read that past ten or so pages. >.>). If this is the case, then I ask, who's making the calculations? I know people have said that Karma has economists working on it, but if they indeed grossly overesimated the ability of NPO nations to pay up after the minimum two weeks of war (you know that NPO won't get 90% out of peace mode in a single day), why should we trust their calculations? And I'll bet that Karma won't trust NPO to make an estimation of their ability because, well, for them the less they have to pay, the better off they are. So, if recalculation is needed, what's the say it's going to be fair then? Will NPO have to list off the monetary holdings of each and every member eligable to pay?

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.

Along with the above, my constant reminding that if you feel there are vague areas of the terms you negotiate to make them certain and proceed. Maybe a third party can handle the calculations? I don't know, but these are mundane items that can be talked out rather than complete show stoppers.

Also, the whole 90% thing is not to be expected in one day and the Karma officials have already stated they will be implementing a system which will track the warfare of the PM nations as they come out to assure things do not go over 14 days. With this, determinations will be made regarding members that fail to exit PM via other issues (inactivity, ghosting, wanting to defy the terms, etc).

[Qazzian]

Just because Karma got lucky your gov screwed up doesn't mean they played a good game to get it there.

Well, in a political simulator, being in a position politically to take advantage of a rivals mis-step is just that, playing a good game.

[Tromp]

Funny, I heard that...once, besides this? And not from anyone important. I'm sure it's been said, but it's not exactly being pushed very hard (unless it's in that beastly topic Moo started a bit ago, I couldn't read that past ten or so pages. >.>). If this is the case, then I ask, who's making the calculations? I know people have said that Karma has economists working on it, but if they indeed grossly overesimated the ability of NPO nations to pay up after the minimum two weeks of war (you know that NPO won't get 90% out of peace mode in a single day), why should we trust their calculations? And I'll bet that Karma won't trust NPO to make an estimation of their ability because, well, for them the less they have to pay, the better off they are. So, if recalculation is needed, what's the say it's going to be fair then? Will NPO have to list off the monetary holdings of each and every member eligable to pay?

EDIT: Just read Tromp's post, and it seems there's at least one credible source for this re-calculation, I must have missed that myself. Thank you. Still doesn't change my point on "who's gonna do it right this time?" though.

It is all in the terms Moo quoted for you all. As such I don't quite understand the outrage of some people regarding these terms.

But that's something entirely different.

We never asked NPO to force all (or 90%, w/e) of its nations out of PM in one day. The term you are talking about doesn't even state that.

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.

Maybe it is badly worded, but it has been clear from the beginning what this term was all about. The amount of spin I have seen in that Monster thread is therefore pretty silly.

[Klonopin]

Well hate is a two way street. One party must be the ones that hate and the other must provide the reason to be hated.

No offense, but judging from posts here in the past few days, your great leaders have done one thing well, and that is to cultivate that hate. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that most people that aren't you or your immediate allies dislike you.

Why? Your alliance has given them reason to, repeatedly.

Which is also why you're here now. Your great leaders have managed to step on enough toes and piss enough people off that there isn't may people losing sleep over your defeat and what will be your terms. In fact, many might actually be losing sleep thinking those terms aren't bad enough.

Seriously, is that what you want your alliance to be? If anything at all, I'm as close to a true neutral as your gonna find and to be frank, I'd say that your alliance does need a rather large whack across the knuckles.

I personally have no hatred towards any AA in Karma. Nor do I have hatred for the 18 or so nations that I have fought since it all started. Or am I upset about the 16 nukes I took.

Karma played a great game. I lost that game. But it all boils down to a game. I believe that 3 years ago, some Karma nations forgot that important point and it became very personal.

I have been with NPO for 316 days. I wasn't a member during the start of the GATO, Mushroom Kingdom, or FAN war. I can't speak for NPO environment during those times.

I can speak of current events. I feel that Karma is much more interested in what happened three years ago.

Only serious playing this game for 316 days. Answer this question for me. Aren't Reps to pay for current damages cause during the current war?

Karma is crossing that line and having NPO pay for things that happened three years ago. Is that really the road we want to walk in CN?

[Delta1212]

That is true. But why did NPO declare on OV?

OV had a confirmed spy. With screen shots.

What would your AA of done with a confirmed spy?

Blackstone had a spy in NPO. Blackstone gave screenshots to OV. That is not the same thing as OV having a spy in NPO.

Although, actually, I can answer your question pretty authoritatively. A little over a year ago, MK accepted screenshots of a members-only RIA board. Negotiations stalled for two months. Remember that time I declared war on MK? That's because I didn't. Two months later, the issue was resolved peacefully.

So that's what I'd do in NPO's situation, having already been in it once myself.