Will NPO's membership revolt?

[Augustus Autumn]

There is a school of thought that supports the idea that a nation that is voluntarily a part of a military alliance that fails to follow orders in a time of war forfeits that membership.

Most alliances in the Cyberverse tend to work this way on some level.

I'm not disagreeing with that mindest. What I'm pointing out is that it's one thing for an alliance to decide to do this itself and quite another for other alliances to mandate the behavior. I doubt another alliance telling the New Pacific Order to ZI its own membership as part of a peace agreement has the most pure of intentions about honor and duty to one's alliance.

[Ivan Moldavi]

I'm not disagreeing with that mindest. What I'm pointing out is that it's one thing for an alliance to decide to do this itself and quite another for other alliances to mandate the behavior. I doubt another alliance telling the New Pacific Order to ZI its own membership as part of a peace agreement has the most pure of intentions about honor and duty to one's alliance.

I don't support the concept of ZI at any rate. My confusion on the whole issue is that the practice of insubordination is being allowed within the NPO at all and that IOs are actually posting publicly that this is the case without any indication of followup disciplinary action.

To me personally, that is disappointing.

[Augustus Autumn]

I don't support the concept of ZI at any rate. My confusion on the whole issue is that the practice of insubordination is being allowed within the NPO at all and that IOs are actually posting publicly that this is the case without any indication of followup disciplinary action.

To me personally, that is disappointing.

The issue of the perceived insubordination seems partially due to the timing of this conflict and not as some sort of overt move to disobey direct authority. If such insubordination is taking place and is being dealt with in this fashion then I too would feel disappointment as well as a form of mild shock.

[Drostan]

I used to think it was because of superior propaganda but I don't anymore. I think it has more to do with human nature. The choice to join Pacifica was almost as much a choice not to involve oneself in politics and a choice for security. Therefore I think it highly unlikely that Pacifica would muster enough firey members to ever see an internal revolt these days.

[Bob Janova]

They should be expelled, and the names given to Karma so they can be attacked when they come out of peace mode.

edit: and yes, I imagine they would not count against the NPO's statistics, if they were no longer members and had been handed over to Karma milcom. I don't think expecting NPO to ZI them is fair, and it is also much more easily exploitable if NPO are enforcing it.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Bob Janova

[Midkn1ght]

You obviously don't know the NPO at all.

NPO is a Brotherhood that goes well beyond pixels, so this little war will not cause a revolt (sorry to disappoint you).

In fact, I would go as far to say that this little minor conflict you call a war, has if anything, brought us even closer together as an Alliance.

Lol gotta love the NPO disconnect with reality. This minor conflict is close to, if not the, biggest war in the game to date. The only reason it possibly could of brought you folks closer, is the need to fill in the giant spaces left by the fast approaching 400 folks who've deserted on you, and left your masses huddling together, sharing body heat in the nuclear winter. Closer indeed.

No cowards left in Pacifica? This flies in the face of one of the core arguments Cortath and Letum consistently offer against the proposed surrender terms - nations have been apparently ignoring orders to leave peace mode and fight.

This.

Well, to be honest I think a lot of them are not so much refusing orders as not there anymore.

OOC: 7 more nations due to die tomorrow :/ Also I realized my comment was OOC, so now your reply is too.

You guys need to make up your minds. Some of you are claiming you've only lost a few members, that this is a minor conflict, causing no lasting damage, and making the NPO better, and you've barely been beat up, after all you've still got over 900 800 700 600 members! That argument isn't going to keep working, even with the 120 newbies you've managed to get onto the AA, it's clear you've lost at least 200 members. When you take into account the new recruits, the real number of over 360 desertions becomes staggering. You're loosing around 5 members a day, at least the statement you made quoted above comes closer to truth them most other stuff we've heard from your group lately.

Edit: Which you then flip around by saying oh we sent the orders, but they probably didn't get them. WUT?

You all keep saying you've got such loyal members, but then they're ignoring orders to fight, that your banks are the only ones in peace for a prolonged period of time, and they're so loyal they'll delete if asked to fight or pay a dime, despite most of them sitting on enough money to rebuild instantly back to at least 5K infra.

OOC: he's saying that the players have just given up on CN the first time they lose and aren't looking at their nations any more.

Gotta love that we need a NPO > reality translation huh Bob Like I said above to restate a point, not a reply to you Bob, that'd work if most of the nations weren't 50+ days in peace mode. Kinda hard to use the "well they're not checking their nations" cry, when they've been in peace for 3 times longer then needed to be deleted for inactivity. If they weren't checking, they'd of been deleted.

If NPO, dunno, asks if they kick those folks out, will KARMA lessen the terms, or waive them being counted towards the compliance rate, I'm sure they'd be a bit more considering. So long as those nations were really expelled, and not just hiding.

But hey they're so loyal you're losing 5+ folks not in peace a day, adding onto the massive 360 +/- folks who've already bailed on you. NPO is dead if they keep this up. They'll be left with no one but the most loyal, and the folks who ignored supposed orders to fight. Great mix up, the cowardly, and the most loyal. They need to accept the surrender for a great chance to survive, or slowly die due to desertion, and be left with their 240 PM nations. But they'll never have to deal with an open revolt to take over the AA, it's far easier to just leave.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Midkn1ght

[TypoNinja]

My apologies, but a reasonable alternative is to essentially order a sovereign alliance to ZI its own members? That's hardly a decent idea compared to what's already been discussed unless the aim is to 1) turn the Karma War into a war where the New Pacific Order decimates itself and 2) destroy the morale of the alliance. It's one thing to attempt to take the monetary and technological foundation of the alliance - its another to attempt to get it to turn its own swords on itself while painting the enforcers of this as being merciful and benevolent.

Of course, if the aim is to encourage some sort of internal rebellion then the plan is quite good if not a bit transparent.

Not members, I don't know about your alliance, but in mine when somebody disobeys direct orders at war time, they don't stay members long.

[Augustus Autumn]

Not members, I don't know about your alliance, but in mine when somebody disobeys direct orders at war time, they don't stay members long.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with policies concerning the treatment of those who disobey orders from their own alliances. I'm pointing out the questionability of another alliance mandating how those members be treated. It's one thing for the New Pacific Order to make that choice - you suggested that the Karma Coalition adopt an alternative term where the New Pacific Order is mandated to reduce those nations disobeying orders to zero infrastructure as part of a peace settlement. My issue is solely with who is ordering who to execute the action and why they might be interested in doing so.

[TypoNinja]

Again, I'm not disagreeing with policies concerning the treatment of those who disobey orders from their own alliances. I'm pointing out the questionability of another alliance mandating how those members be treated. It's one thing for the New Pacific Order to make that choice - you suggested that the Karma Coalition adopt an alternative term where the New Pacific Order is mandated to reduce those nations disobeying orders to zero infrastructure as part of a peace settlement. My issue is solely with who is ordering who to execute the action and why they might be interested in doing so.

The reason for that, from my point of view, would be to insure that those nations who are 'expelled' are indeed genuinely kicked out, with an out as easy as claiming they arent members something needs to be done to insure that those expelled nations are not just a ploy to get them out of the line of fire.

If a nation is expelled, gets of scott free and then rejoins a month or three down the road when the dust has settled, its nothing more than an attempt to bypass the terms, making NPO responsible for a trip to ZI for these nations removes most if not all incentive for attempting a trick like that.

As a matter of curiosity, what is the NPO policy for nations who refuse orders while at war?

[Augustus Autumn]

The reason for that, from my point of view, would be to insure that those nations who are 'expelled' are indeed genuinely kicked out, with an out as easy as claiming they arent members something needs to be done to insure that those expelled nations are not just a ploy to get them out of the line of fire.

If a nation is expelled, gets of scott free and then rejoins a month or three down the road when the dust has settled, its nothing more than an attempt to bypass the terms, making NPO responsible for a trip to ZI for these nations removes most if not all incentive for attempting a trick like that.

I think you're missing the implications of what you suggested. You're proposing that the New Pacific Order be compelled by external authorities to attack and reduce to zero-infrastructure nations under its own banner. The effects of them doing so would be as follows:

1. The initiation of a series of "Who did not fight?" purges with the lasting effect of destroying the morale and solidarity of the New Pacific Order.

2. The undermining of Emperor Revenge, the Imperial Officers and the rest of the Pacifican government in the event that they accept since such an action would be branded as them attempting to save their own skins at the expense of their own alliance and, indeed, would be just that.

3. The New Pacific Order expending already-depleted resources in a pointless fractricidal war akin to watching gladiators fight each other in the ring for the amusement of the Karma Coalition and the Cyberverse as a whole.

4. The establishment of a precedent of behavior likely to be revisited in the future much as we've already seen done.

5. Political damage to an untold extent to any alliances which attempted to enforce such a policy on the New Pacific Order in the event that they did in fact agree to such terms.

In short, your suggestion is nothing short of unreasonable, politically short-sighted and foolish in the extreme. In this matter it is best to leave the alliance to deal with the problem themselves in their own fashion. If the Pacifican government is content to allow those who are refusing orders to remain as fully fledged Pacifican citizens then they shall surely bear the consequences of this decision. In the end, however, that is their decision to make. It is not for you, for I or for any other individual ruler or alliance to determine the quality of member another alliance should accept into their ranks. Let the Pacificans police their own much as you or I would expect from our own alliances.

As a matter of curiosity, what is the NPO policy for nations who refuse orders while at war?

I honestly have no idea.

[Eretz Yisrael]

If one of us takes a position against Karma you call it brainwashing.

If one of takes a position for Karma you call it truth justice and victory.

[Ragashingo]

If one of us takes a position against Karma you call it brainwashing.

If one of takes a position for Karma you call it truth justice and victory.

And we're right. Your point?

Edited June 21, 2009 by Ragashingo

[Haflinger]

They should be expelled, and the names given to Karma so they can be attacked when they come out of peace mode.

Demanding other alliances expel their members is one of the really controversial moves that has often been associated with the NPO.

[raincoat2]

Again, I'm not disagreeing with policies concerning the treatment of those who disobey orders from their own alliances. I'm pointing out the questionability of another alliance mandating how those members be treated. It's one thing for the New Pacific Order to make that choice - you suggested that the Karma Coalition adopt an alternative term where the New Pacific Order is mandated to reduce those nations disobeying orders to zero infrastructure as part of a peace settlement. My issue is solely with who is ordering who to execute the action and why they might be interested in doing so.

I don't believe anyone is saying this be added to surrender terms. Everyone has just been saying that based on NPOs military alliance style, if members are really ignoring direct orders then they should be ZIed, not because of Karmas policies, but because of NPOs policies.

[raincoat2]

Demanding other alliances expel their members is one of the really controversial moves that has often been associated with the NPO.

NPOs own policies for people disobeying orders is to expel them. All Karma is asking is that if NPO members are truly refusing direct orders, the normal policies be followed up on. Unless you can provide a viable alternative for how to handle soldiers refusing to leave peace mode. I would love to hear it.

[Augustus Autumn]

I don't believe anyone is saying this be added to surrender terms. Everyone has just been saying that based on NPOs military alliance style, if members are really ignoring direct orders then they should be ZIed, not because of Karmas policies, but because of NPOs policies.

I direct your attention to TypoNinja's post here which is clearly worded as a suggested alternative to the complaint being raised by the New Pacific Order about nations failing to leave peace mode.

[Haflinger]

NPOs own policies for people disobeying orders is to expel them. All Karma is asking is that if NPO members are truly refusing direct orders, the normal policies be followed up on. Unless you can provide a viable alternative for how to handle soldiers refusing to leave peace mode. I would love to hear it.

It's hilarious how everyone has suddenly become an expert on NPO's internal policies. From what I know, their primary policy is that the Emperor's word goes.

Look, they've got too many members. I get that. You're dismayed that their recruiters are still doing an amazing job. But really, can't you get over your paranoia and realize that they've been destroyed?

[raincoat2]

I direct your attention to TypoNinja's post here which is clearly worded as a suggested alternative to the complaint being raised by the New Pacific Order about nations failing to leave peace mode.

Yes and note how it is simple an alternative, an option. Typo is not suggesting Karma should force NPO to do this. All he is saying is that if NPO is having problems with nations refusing direct orders to get out of peace mode, they could alternatively work out a deal with Karma to ZI/expel them later(as is the policy for virtually every alliance with nations that refuse direct orders during war). Note how at the end of his post he even suggested another option, to simple expel these members. These are all options for the NPO, while they may not be very good options, nobody is suggesting NPO be forced to take these actions.

[raincoat2]

It's hilarious how everyone has suddenly become an expert on NPO's internal policies. From what I know, their primary policy is that the Emperor's word goes.

Look, they've got too many members. I get that. You're dismayed that their recruiters are still doing an amazing job. But really, can't you get over your paranoia and realize that they've been destroyed?

I was once in the NPO and they were very strong about traitors/deserters being kicked out/ZIed. I have seen no reason to believe this policy has changed. In fact, most alliances do hold this policy. any

Furthermore, if they have been legitamently ordered out of peace mode, then the emperor would have to authorize it and their primary policy of "the Emperor's word goes" would only be upheld if the order was followed.

Note: I don't think many here honestly believe the government has made a serious effort to get nations out of peace mode. I see it mostly as calling their bluff. If they are going to claim they tried to get nations out, but those nations refused direct orders, then we will happily provide alternatives. Most likely, they have not made a serious effort to get nations out of peace mode.

[Augustus Autumn]

Yes and note how it is simple an alternative, an option. Typo is not suggesting Karma should force NPO to do this. All he is saying is that if NPO is having problems with nations refusing direct orders to get out of peace mode, they could alternatively work out a deal with Karma to ZI/expel them later(as is the policy for virtually every alliance with nations that refuse direct orders during war). Note how at the end of his post he even suggested another option, to simple expel these members. These are all options for the NPO, while they may not be very good options, nobody is suggesting NPO be forced to take these actions.

I think we'll have to agree that we're reading what was written differently and leave it at that. Should the New Pacific Order choose to execute such a move on its own and without coercion then that is one thing. Should this option be incorporated as an alternative measure to some of the sections in the peace terms offered to them then that would be quite another. I doubt that the Karma Coalition would be foolish enough to attempt to impose such a thing but I felt my logic was worth explaining in detail.

[raincoat2]

I think we'll have to agree that we're reading what was written differently and leave it at that. Should the New Pacific Order choose to execute such a move on its own and without coercion then that is one thing. Should this option be incorporated as an alternative measure to some of the sections in the peace terms offered to them then that would be quite another. I doubt that the Karma Coalition would be foolish enough to attempt to impose such a thing but I felt my logic was worth explaining in detail.

While I doubt Karma would force NPO to ZI its own members, I think its entirely possible that if NPO were to say people are refusing to leave peace mode despite our direct orders, Karma would be willing to just keep those members on a ZI list.

[Bilrow]

I was once in the NPO and they were very strong about traitors/deserters being kicked out/ZIed. I have seen no reason to believe this policy has changed. In fact, most alliances do hold this policy. any

Furthermore, if they have been legitamently ordered out of peace mode, then the emperor would have to authorize it and their primary policy of "the Emperor's word goes" would only be upheld if the order was followed.

Note: I don't think many here honestly believe the government has made a serious effort to get nations out of peace mode. I see it mostly as calling their bluff. If they are going to claim they tried to get nations out, but those nations refused direct orders, then we will happily provide alternatives. Most likely, they have not made a serious effort to get nations out of peace mode.

Of the 80% of the nations in peace mode, they have on average of 12 wars each since April 20th, 2009. The maximum comes in at 40 for a handful of those nations. It's not our fault that they were not staggered by Karma and they were allowed to cycle in and out of peace mode to rest up and come back out fighting. The other percentage are either banks or people being addressed.

[TypoNinja]

Of the 80% of the nations in peace mode, they have on average of 12 wars each since April 20th, 2009. The maximum comes in at 40 for a handful of those nations. It's not our fault that they were not staggered by Karma and they were allowed to cycle in and out of peace mode to rest up and come back out fighting. The other percentage are either banks or people being addressed.

Well I'd have thought it would be obvious by now, but since you bothered to post this I guess it isn't.

The terms aren't targeting the 80% who are fighting, the terms are targeting that 20% who never fought at all. Staggers, or lack there of, have little to do with it, many of those nations were in peace mode before the war started and have remained there since.

[Bilrow]

Well I'd have thought it would be obvious by now, but since you bothered to post this I guess it isn't.

The terms aren't targeting the 80% who are fighting, the terms are targeting that 20% who never fought at all. Staggers, or lack there of, have little to do with it, many of those nations were in peace mode before the war started and have remained there since.

Well I'd have thought it would be obvious by now the majority of the 20% are bank nations who were ordered into peace mode. So you won't see us kicking them out or ZIing them since they are there by design.

[Teriethien]

Well I'd have thought it would be obvious by now the majority of the 20% are bank nations who were ordered into peace mode. So you won't see us kicking them out or ZIing them since they are there by design.

Even if they disobey orders to leave peacemode? (not that i think ZI for disobeying such orders is warranted)