NPO Terms

[Brotherington]

Scorched earth surrender terms please.

[Seerow]

This has already been posted in the Imperial Decree, but since that's probably impossible to find I'll post it here again.

This is has been thrown around a few times I'm going to address it.

Yes, it covers all of the reparations you have received. If there's any wars not listed there I don't remember them. However NPO has a history of being creative with harsh terms that aren't necessarily reparations, that you can't really put a monetary value on.

It is important to note that at this time the -only- harsh term we've heard about is the war followed up by reparations. Here's some alternative terms I know offhand the NPO has handed out in the past that Karma won't touch because they go against their beliefs (and are in fact the Draconian terms that Archon initially said Karma would not incorporate. Any argument that large reps are draconian is a silly PR ploy)

-Viceroys

-Destruction of Wonders

-Destruction of factories for the duration of terms (under the argument that they're a military improvement of course)

-No first strike nuking in a war indefinitely

-Reduction to 13 nukes spread among the entire alliance indefinitely.

I'm sure there's more that I haven't thought of. I seem to remember moving another alliance to a different color sphere, but I'm not sure offhand if that was the NPO so I won't list it there. I'm sure others can add to this list. I'm pretty sure also that there was removal and/or perma-ZI of leadership/vocal members of losing alliances, but I can't remember for sure which war so I'm leaving that off the list until citing a source as well.

So basically you don't like the reps and restrictions, consider them compensation for not having the above occuring to your alliance. I am fairly sure Karma would be willing to negotiate to include those terms and lower your reps in turn if you -really- think that the terms you've handed out in the past are better. (In fact I'm pretty sure at least one Karma leader has said he'd support letting you off with the exact terms you gave GPA). I've also made my set of suggestions for alternative punishments, but I've had people tell me they're way worse and seem to think that forced voluntary bill lock is a bad thing.

[MisterShadow]

This is has been thrown around a few times I'm going to address it.

Yes, it covers all of the reparations you have received. If there's any wars not listed there I don't remember them. However NPO has a history of being creative with harsh terms that aren't necessarily reparations, that you can't really put a monetary value on.

It is important to note that at this time the -only- harsh term we've heard about is the war followed up by reparations. Here's some alternative terms I know offhand the NPO has handed out in the past that Karma won't touch because they go against their beliefs (and are in fact the Draconian terms that Archon initially said Karma would not incorporate. Any argument that large reps are draconian is a silly PR ploy)

-Viceroys

-Destruction of Wonders

-Destruction of factories for the duration of terms (under the argument that they're a military improvement of course)

-No first strike nuking in a war indefinitely

-Reduction to 13 nukes spread among the entire alliance indefinitely.

I'm sure there's more that I haven't thought of. I seem to remember moving another alliance to a different color sphere, but I'm not sure offhand if that was the NPO so I won't list it there. I'm sure others can add to this list. I'm pretty sure also that there was removal and/or perma-ZI of leadership/vocal members of losing alliances, but I can't remember for sure which war so I'm leaving that off the list until citing a source as well.

So basically you don't like the reps and restrictions, consider them compensation for not having the above occuring to your alliance. I am fairly sure Karma would be willing to negotiate to include those terms and lower your reps in turn if you -really- think that the terms you've handed out in the past are better. (In fact I'm pretty sure at least one Karma leader has said he'd support letting you off with the exact terms you gave GPA). I've also made my set of suggestions for alternative punishments, but I've had people tell me they're way worse and seem to think that forced voluntary bill lock is a bad thing.

As for color sphere, I dont believe NPO has forced an alliance to change colors. GOONs forced Loss to move, and were going to make Legion move but that term was removed. Also the factory thing I think was only done once.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Mr.AdmiralX

[Ikaru]

For a period of 1 year the NPO is not promitted to be a sactioned alliance. [ 79 ] ** [5.86%]

I laughed at that. Not only spelling errors, but you can't make them not be a sanctioned alliance. That's editing the mechanics of the game. It'd be like DoWing on GRL and then nuking it.

[Comedian]

We never forget.

I find it incredibly rich for anyone to make such a claim, or at least anyone who truly enjoys being in the alliance they are. To tell someone to get over the unjust and complete destruction of a noble and hardworking alliance is ludicrous.

When you are truly a part of a community nothing hurts more than to see it destroyed. Pacificans would do well to remember this when criticizing Karma and their motives. And if Pacifica wants to be a part of the post-war world, they will have to make these concessions and admit where the alliance as a whole has gone wrong.

Personally, I'll accept nothing less.

Wow, that bitter and hatred must really eat away at you.

[NoFish]

Its this kind of post that annoys the hell out of me. That happened when, about two years ago?. Stop whining about the past and get over it!. Some members of the community probably don't even know who the hell ONOS was. Honestly, sometimes am all in favor of admin just resetting this game.

So we can disband you and after a couple years past no one will care? Cool! /me writes a memo to the rest of our government to press for disbandment.

As for color sphere, I dont believe NPO has forced an alliance to change colors. GOONs forced Loss to move, and were going to make Legion move but that term was removed. Also the factory thing I think was only done once.

Only done once? Let's tack that onto these terms then, after all, you'll only be getting them once!

[Letum]

What? When did I say tech isn't worth anything? I was responding to the fact that Letum priced the tech at the price players would pay if they bought tech themselves instead of through tech deals. Add in the proportionality of reps from WoTC alone. While you're right they didn't take all, although most, of the 14k from Athens, they also took a hefty sum from MK and LOST. I can go further with reps from other AA's in previous wars.

Actually, I was saying that if a player bought tech via tech deal, it would be worth as much as the deal was worth (1.5m for 50 tech nowdays, or whatever other market price was used). But if a small nation sent the tech reps directly; it would cost them only as much as the cost to buy the tech, which is quite a bit less than 1.5m.

Also, a few numbers on tech inflation so people can understand it:

If 100,000 tech was worth 2 billion (at a 3m/150 rate) in 2008, inflation makes it worth 3 billion at an inflated 3m/100 rate in 2009

So, 100,000 tech in 2008 would be worth as much as 66,666 tech in 2009.

100,000 tech x (3m/150) = 2bn <-- 2008

2bn/3m x 100 = 66,666 tech <-- 2009

Likewise, 533k tech is about 16 billion (15.999 to be precise) at a current (3m/100) rate.

16 billion in 2008 would have procured (15.999/3m x 150) = 799,500 tech.

Obvious tl;dr: Tech becoming more expensive means it is worth more. Giving 533k tech reps now is like giving 799,500 tech reps in 2008.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Letum

[SpacingOutMan]

Its this kind of post that annoys the hell out of me. That happened when, about two years ago?. Stop whining about the past and get over it!. Some members of the community probably don't even know who the hell ONOS was. Honestly, sometimes am all in favor of admin just resetting this game.

So is that how Pacifica operates these days, or for that matter since its rebound from the First Patriotic War? You trample on whomever you please without a second though or wince? From a Marooner's point of view (and of course a personal view), Pacfica can burn for all I care. You fabricated a case of war, or casus belli, on the sole notion of espionage and other 'monumental' justifications. A war begun with intrepid hypocrisy... ha, you reap what you sow. Now I realize why so many Pacificans don't post on the forums, or rather aren't allowed to. As Mark Twain puts it, "History may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme." You really don't learn from your past mistakes, and you are all wondering why you are being demanded of such immense terms.

To be honest, I'm glad you all didn't accept terms. Stay in peace mode to oblivion for all I care. You will become the same insignificant fate you damned FAN to... but at least FAN made it entertaining. You have no Mpol; all you have are failed attempts at propaganda in a war you have already lost. Suck it up and deal with the consequences in which you have rendered on so many others.

[hamlin]

For a period of 1 year the NPO is not promitted to be a sactioned alliance.

This is my favorite one

Edit: Also

No nation other than those forced to leave, may leave the AA for a period of 90 days, doing so is subject to attack until they return to the AA.

"we hate you so much but if even one of you tries to leave we'll attack"

Edited June 18, 2009 by hamlin

[muffasamini]

So is that how Pacifica operates these days, or for that matter since its rebound from the First Patriotic War? You trample on whomever you please without a second though or wince? From a Marooner's point of view (and of course a personal view), Pacfica can burn for all I care. You fabricated a case of war, or casus belli, on the sole notion of espionage and other 'monumental' justifications. A war begun with intrepid hypocrisy... ha, you reap what you sow. Now I realize why so many Pacificans don't post on the forums, or rather aren't allowed to. As Mark Twain puts it, "History may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme." You really don't learn from your past mistakes, and you are all wondering why you are being demanded of such immense terms.

To be honest, I'm glad you all didn't accept terms. Stay in peace mode to oblivion for all I care. You will become the same insignificant fate you damned FAN to... but at least FAN made it entertaining. You have no Mpol; all you have are failed attempts at propaganda in a war you have already lost. Suck it up and deal with the consequences in which you have rendered on so many others.

Let the hate flow through you.

Anyway, "For a period of 1 year the NPO is not promitted to be a sactioned alliance." Really? I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Look at the NPO growth chart. As you'll see, our drop is stalling. Its going to be almost impossible to de-sanction us. We simply have too many people. The majority of our alliance 400+ nations is already below 2000 NS. If you look at the stats depot, we actually should be ranked like 13th, not 7th like we are.

[Tromp]

Anyway, "For a period of 1 year the NPO is not promitted to be a sactioned alliance." Really? I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Look at the NPO growth chart. As you'll see, our drop is stalling. Its going to be almost impossible to de-sanction us. We simply have too many people. The majority of our alliance 400+ nations is already below 2000 NS. If you look at the stats depot, we actually should be ranked like 13th, not 7th like we are.

Really, we all know that, it's public knowledge.

[Starbuck]

Let the hate flow through you.

Anyway, "For a period of 1 year the NPO is not promitted to be a sactioned alliance." Really? I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Look at the NPO growth chart. As you'll see, our drop is stalling. Its going to be almost impossible to de-sanction us. We simply have too many people. The majority of our alliance 400+ nations is already below 2000 NS. If you look at the stats depot, we actually should be ranked like 13th, not 7th like we are.

Thanks for the math, but the term listed was that you were prohibited from obtaining saction, just as any other term placed against someone it would be your job to find out how to abid by it.

It would see going by the votes, not that it shows much more than intertaining to myself

An apology to each and ever alliance the New Pacific Order has taken part in the destruction of.

Limit the Alliance to 10 nuclear weapons.

Cancelation of all military treaties and forbid the signing or upgrading of any military grade treaties for one year.

Removal of Emperor and the IO's from the alliance.

No nation other than those forced to leave, may leave the AA for a period of 90 days, doing so is subject to attack until they return to the AA.

Require demilitarization of all military wonders, improvements, tanks, plans, navies, and 30% military soldier cap for a year.

Required to repay all reperations ever accepted to the still existing alliances.

These are the most popular, Karma if you can find it in your heart to add just one of these I forever be greatful

Edited June 18, 2009 by Dodger

[hamlin]

Thanks for the math, but the term listed was that you were prohibited from obtaining saction, just as any other term placed against someone it would be your job to find out how to abid by it.

imo that should be combined with the 'no one is allowed to leave' rule. That way we'd have to pay back 7Bln and 300k tech while deleting infra to get under the certain score. Great plan imo.

[Starbuck]

imo that should be combined with the 'no one is allowed to leave' rule. That way we'd have to pay back 7Bln and 300k tech while deleting infra to get under the certain score. Great plan imo.

See your enjoying this, combine that with moving shere to grey and you pretty much damn the alliance to disbandment, that is unless their community is truly as good as they say.

[jftsang]

imo that should be combined with the 'no one is allowed to leave' rule. That way we'd have to pay back 7Bln and 300k tech while deleting infra to get under the certain score. Great plan imo.

7 billion / 3 million per package = ~2400 packages (assuming "American billion")

5 packages per nation x 700 nations = max 3500 packages

Should be manageable

[Matthew Conrad]

Actually, I was saying that if a player bought tech via tech deal, it would be worth as much as the deal was worth (1.5m for 50 tech nowdays, or whatever other market price was used). But if a small nation sent the tech reps directly; it would cost them only as much as the cost to buy the tech, which is quite a bit less than 1.5m.

Also, a few numbers on tech inflation so people can understand it:

If 100,000 tech was worth 2 billion (at a 3m/150 rate) in 2008, inflation makes it worth 3 billion at an inflated 3m/100 rate in 2009

So, 100,000 tech in 2008 would be worth as much as 66,666 tech in 2009.

100,000 tech x (3m/150) = 2bn <-- 2008

2bn/3m x 100 = 66,666 tech <-- 2009

Likewise, 533k tech is about 16 billion (15.999 to be precise) at a current (3m/100) rate.

16 billion in 2008 would have procured (15.999/3m x 150) = 799,500 tech.

Obvious tl;dr: Tech becoming more expensive means it is worth more. Giving 533k tech reps now is like giving 799,500 tech reps in 2008.

You also ignore the fact that people have more money nowadays also. My first post actually pointed out that tech cost more now, but that it's proportional price is significantly lessened by the fact that people make more money (bigger nations).

Also, I don't know why you are using the 533k tech figure considering the actual reps figure is 300k. Assuming all of that is worth the 3mil/150 tech figure, you'd increase the figure by 50%. Thus, 450k in 2008.

Finally, if NPO had been forced to pay reps in 2008, it would be naturally smaller in scale. Assuming the same rate of damage, you guys would have significantly less tech than you do currently. Your analysis isn't accurate because you assume we'd give the same reps proportional to the current ones we've given. The proportionality comes from your total tech.

[Letum]

You also ignore the fact that people have more money nowadays also. My first post actually pointed out that tech cost more now, but that it's proportional price is significantly lessened by the fact that people make more money (bigger nations).

Also, I don't know why you are using the 533k tech figure considering the actual reps figure is 300k. Assuming all of that is worth the 3mil/150 tech figure, you'd increase the figure by 50%. Thus, 450k in 2008.

Finally, if NPO had been forced to pay reps in 2008, it would be naturally smaller in scale. Assuming the same rate of damage, you guys would have significantly less tech than you do currently. Your analysis isn't accurate because you assume we'd give the same reps proportional to the current ones we've given. The proportionality comes from your total tech.

Inflation deals with the price of a good. Claiming that the price should be lowered to adjust for people making more money doesn't really make sense; it just recognizes the fact that it was people making more money that made the price rise in the first place. That is like saying that we need to adjust the price of food going up by the factor of people making more money; it's not an adjustment that leads to any serious conclusion. Furthermore, since the amount of money people can send out (18m) hasn't really changed, the adjustment wouldn't work that well even if it did make sense. I was sending out 18m every 10 days a year ago, and I am still sending out the same amount.

The 533k figure came from the total reps, which also includes 7 billion convertible at a 3m/100 tech rate. 300k tech = 9bn, 9bn +7bn = 16bn, 16 bn = 800k tech at the 3m/150 price.

The point of my analysis is that using "inflation" to claim these reps are proportional to past ones is inaccurate; because to do so would in fact decrease the amount of tech an alliance has to send as time goes on (which is counter-intuitive, for the very reasons you mentioned). I am glad you agree with me on that count. Using total tech as a measure is much, much better than some abstract concept of inflation. And seeing as the war, after 2 weeks of additional damage, would leave us with 250k tech, paying the reps figure of 533k tech (300k + 233k from the money converted into tech), you can see why some of us think it is not exactly "proportional".

[Ogaden]

You also ignore the fact that people have more money nowadays also. My first post actually pointed out that tech cost more now, but that it's proportional price is significantly lessened by the fact that people make more money (bigger nations).

Also, I don't know why you are using the 533k tech figure considering the actual reps figure is 300k. Assuming all of that is worth the 3mil/150 tech figure, you'd increase the figure by 50%. Thus, 450k in 2008.

Finally, if NPO had been forced to pay reps in 2008, it would be naturally smaller in scale. Assuming the same rate of damage, you guys would have significantly less tech than you do currently. Your analysis isn't accurate because you assume we'd give the same reps proportional to the current ones we've given. The proportionality comes from your total tech.

What a spurious argument.

As a CN economic guru will tell you, nations max out their post-bill income at a certain point, where increasing in size actually leads to equal or even *less* total post-bill income.

This was true 2 years ago and is true today. This point is actually quite low relatively speaking, where nations max out their income-generating capabilities at about 14,000 infrastructure. Even before this max-out point the point at which increasing your size leads to increasingly-diminishing return on investment is reached long before this point, closer to 8000 infrastructure.

Nations that were big 2 years ago make the same amount of money after bills now as they did then. In fact probably less, as the Weapons Research Complex had yet to become the must-have military wonder which correspondingly jacks up your bills tremendously and thus reduces large nations' income in this day and age even more.

The whole 'inflation' justification continues to fall flat on its face.

If anything, tech was cheaper back in the day, and should be counted for less today.

Edited June 18, 2009 by James Dahl

[Matthew Conrad]

Inflation deals with the price of a good. Claiming that the price should be lowered to adjust for people making more money doesn't really make sense; it just recognizes the fact that it was people making more money that made the price rise in the first place. That is like saying that we need to adjust the price of food going up by the factor of people making more money; it's not an adjustment that leads to any serious conclusion. Furthermore, since the amount of money people can send out (18m) hasn't really changed, the adjustment wouldn't work that well even if it did make sense. I was sending out 18m every 10 days a year ago, and I am still sending out the same amount.

The 533k figure came from the total reps, which also includes 7 billion convertible at a 3m/100 tech rate. 300k tech = 9bn, 9bn +7bn = 16bn, 16 bn = 800k tech at the 3m/150 price.

The point of my analysis is that using "inflation" to claim these reps are proportional to past ones is inaccurate; because to do so would in fact decrease the amount of tech an alliance has to send as time goes on (which is counter-intuitive, for the very reasons you mentioned). I am glad you agree with me on that count. Using total tech as a measure is much, much better than some abstract concept of inflation. And seeing as the war, after 2 weeks of additional damage, would leave us with 250k tech, paying the reps figure of 533k tech (300k + 233k from the money converted into tech), you can see why some of us think it is not exactly "proportional".

The fact that people make more money leads to the fact that the goods they purchase will be purchased more. I'm talking about "real value" not actual cash amounts. Thus, the real value of tech is decreased by this large increase of income. A unit of tech is also less useful than it used to be because there is much more of it now than there was in 2008.

Your conversion of cash to tech is also inaccurate to say the least because tech is still considered worth more than the actual money payed for it through tech deals. Also, converting money to tech takes a far longer time in terms of aid slot usage than just sending money since 3 mil and 50 tech can be sent simultaneously. Trying to figure in the money in as tech is biased at best.

In conclusion, converting the reps to pure money based on the prices in 2008 ignores the real value of the tech in previous years and also ignores how much more real value tech held in years previous to 2008 also.

[Matthew Conrad]

If anything, tech was cheaper back in the day, and should be counted for less today.

I think you somehow missed the whole argument. The reason the reps figure is larger is because tech per unit doesn't have as much real worth as it used to. Thus, as you have stated, we count tech as less worth and charge more of it to make up the difference.

[magicninja]

I believe that particular chart was addressed quite well in the thread you found it in. Was is Azaghul who showed that that chart is actually missing reps and details? Anyways, someone did. I don't really feel like finding it now since it's pretty late over here, but I might search for it tomorrow if no one else finds it.

Anytime Mr. Conrad.

[Matthew Conrad]

Anytime Mr. Conrad.

Would you mind telling me which page you found the chart on? It will make my search much easier, thanks.

Also, are you on IRC right now?

[magicninja]

I actually found that chart on an earlier page in this thread. I haven't been following the 200+page monstrosity for a few days. So if it was there I couldn't tell you.

I can be on IRC in a second. You can find me In GATO, Athens, NSA, or TPF.

[Nathan Flech]

Yes I want them to make a sincere, polite apology to all the alliances they took part in destroying and/or giving harsh terms they won't accept themselves, including GATO, FAN, Legion, etc.

[Martijn]

Look at the NPO growth chart. As you'll see, our drop is stalling. Its going to be almost impossible to de-sanction us. We simply have too many people.

NPO is only 4 points from being desanctioned. Even though loss of score is indeed declining, Pacifica still loses about a quarter of a point and a handful of members on a daily basis, while all other alliances are gaining score.

Even by the most positive forecast, NPO will be without a sanction within a month and probably a lot sooner than that. That's not propaganda, that's just facts.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Martijn