Will NPO's membership revolt?

[Matthew Conrad]

Going all crazy and stupid in the face of adversity is not what i expect of the Pacificans.

Hasn't stopped some of them when the gag order got lifted.

Also, Sir Paul.

There are no more pre-terms. The amount that was accumulated from the ticker was factored into the reps that are currently on the table. Those reps are also not going up barring any extreme or unforeseen events.

[Azhrarn]

Bank nations, while we are in war and not under any terms of surrender, are ordered into peace mode. We have never said:

NPO: All nations in peace mode are either disobeying orders to fight, or are inactive.

The only argument in regards to peace mode had to do with the terms requiring 90% of those in peace mode to come out. Since we are not under terms of surrender as of yet, there have been NO, ZERO, NADA, orders for bank nations to come out of peace mode.

First, the term "bank nation" is pretty much obsolete these days. Not only in terms of function (given the small amount of aid that can be sent at one time), but also in terms of status (the infra requirement is so low that just about "anyone" can be called a bank nation).

Second, I'm pretty sure that until now the party line was that peace mode was not being used as a way of avoiding warfare (in response to observations that a high percentage of NPO nations were in peace mode while allies such as TPF were fighting and dying).

[NoFish]

80% of nations that are currently in peace mode are there to rest from war and then come back out to fight. It's not our fault that Karma can't keep nations staggered. So those have been approved and are following orders of cycling in and out of war. As far as the other 20%, the majority of them are bank nations and following orders to be in peace mode and the others (which are less than the number of 6) are being handled and told to come out and fight.

Of the 80% of nations that are cycling in and out of war the most of them have been in over 20 wars with some being as many as 25 wars (this previously was 43 wars but that nation is back out fighting again since my last report).

And before you ask, No, I will not tell you who the nations that are in peace mode who are being dealt with that equal less than 6 of the total nations in peace mode. That is OpSec and is being addressed internally.

Even with that if you consider that there are less than 6 nations that are hiding from war and being dealt with that is still less than 1% of our total membership. And based on the effectiveness of Karma nations to do war in the ranges those nations are in, they have a great chance of coming out of peace mode and not getting hit but will be striking offensively.

Edit: Bob Janova Clause: No, I am not talking about the reality and effectiveness of when terms are accepted. I am only discussing a "snapshot" of the here and now of the current war front.

So 80% are cycling and the "majority" of 20% are banks, i.e. more than 10% of your peacemoded membership, right? Let's add 80% to more than 10% and we get... more than 90%. Why, exactly is it impossible for you to get 90% of your nations out of peace mode, again?

Edited June 23, 2009 by NoFish

[Grumpdogg]

Holy epic, so now the whole CB of the war is being debated. We've just gone 2 months back in time, which should mean that in roughly 2 months the NPO will again consider accepting terms.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Grumpdogg

[Dune]

So 80% are cycling and the "majority" of 20% are banks, i.e. more than 10% of your peacemoded membership, right? Let's add 80% to more than 10% and we get... more than 90%. Why, exactly is it impossible for you to get 90% of your nations out of peace mode, again?

the 80% cycling ones are the 80% of the peace mode nations, not 80% of NPO.

and the ~20% banks are the 20% of the peace mode nations and not 20% of NPO.

[NoFish]

the 80% cycling ones are the 80% of the peace mode nations, not 80% of NPO.

and the ~20% banks are the 20% of the peace mode nations and not 20% of NPO.

You realize that this makes it easier to accomplish, right?

Or is NPO's new excuse that they won't be able to get 90% of their war mode nations into war mode?

Edited June 23, 2009 by NoFish

[Bob Janova]

So you can get 90% of your nations currently in PM into war mode easily, and only 6 of those in PM are not supposed to be there. Perfect

My posts in regards to those in peace mode had nothing to do with concerns brought up by the surrender negotiators in regards to getting 90% of the peace mode nations out as per the terms.

Nor did mine, although that is the issue behind your people claiming (some of the time) that there are nations in PM who should not be. What I am talking about is the way that NPO posters are contradicting yourselves at every turn and thereby making it obvious that some or all of you are lying.

Karma asked that we expel nations who did not comply with the orders to leave peace mode

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.

There are three sorts of nations currently in peace mode in NPO:

1) Bankers

2) Nations ordered out of combat indefinitely to preserve strategic assets

3) Nations re-arming for war

Bob's note: I.e., there are no nations there who should not be

Is it so hard to grasp that within the group of people who are in peace mode, there are some who are supposed to be there, and some who are not supposed to be there?

the others (which are less than the number of 6) are being handled and told to come out and fight.

Well, I guess you are belatedly getting your stories straight: there are some nations who are in PM against orders, but so few as to be insignificant. Which means that you would have no trouble getting 90% of them out of PM, and that piece of your argument against the terms is invalidated by your own hand.

[Ogaden]

So you can get 90% of your nations currently in PM into war mode easily, and only 6 of those in PM are not supposed to be there. Perfect

Nor did mine, although that is the issue behind your people claiming (some of the time) that there are nations in PM who should not be. What I am talking about is the way that NPO posters are contradicting yourselves at every turn and thereby making it obvious that some or all of you are lying.

Well, I guess you are belatedly getting your stories straight: there are some nations who are in PM against orders, but so few as to be insignificant. Which means that you would have no trouble getting 90% of them out of PM, and that piece of your argument against the terms is invalidated by your own hand.

Bob, you do so love to put words in people's mouths.

Since you're so fond of the "so what you're saying is..." game, and re-defining what NPO says to mean something completely different or contradictory, let me ask you a simple question:

Why should we trust you to keep your end of the bargain? Considering your behavior in this thread, I'm sure you'll segue from "So what you're saying is the terms are easy" to "So what you're doing is violating the terms."

I for one don't trust you at all, this is just phase 3 of "get NPO out where we can attack them, and we can worry about the rest later", since phase 1 failed due to messed up staggers and phase 2 was a complete flop with the pre-terms.

What will phase 4 be Bob? EZI for everyone in peace mode after a certain date? I'd like to think these terms were genuine, but considering all the ways the terms can be violated I very much doubt there was any sincerity behind them.

Edited June 23, 2009 by James Dahl

[Denial]

Bob, you do so love to put words in people's mouths.

Right, providing direct quotes is putting words in others' mouths.

Since you're so fond of the "so what you're saying is..." game, and re-defining what NPO says to mean something completely different or contradictory, let me ask you a simple question:

Why should we trust you to keep your end of the bargain? Considering your behavior in this thread, I'm sure you'll segue from "So what you're saying is the terms are easy" to "So what you're doing is violating the terms."

What end of the bargain does Bob Janova have to keep, anyway?

I for one don't trust you at all, this is just phase 3 of "get NPO out where we can attack them, and we can worry about the rest later", since phase 1 failed due to messed up staggers and phase 2 was a complete flop with the pre-terms.

Yes, those alliances that moved to defend Ordo Verde against the aggression of the New Pacific Order, an alliance many times Ordo Verde's size and power, want to attack Pacifican nations to the point where they are no longer a threat. What a surprise! As for the "worry about the rest later" section of your claim, what exactly hasn't been considered by Karma forces? The surrender terms that will end this conflict were presented to the New Pacific Order weeks ago. As far as Karma is concerned, they are still on the table and we will stand by them once Pacifica ceases its attempts to undermine the peace process, rids themselves of affectations of control over the situation, and signs the agreement. The only reason the world is not at peace is because of Pacifica's actions. The New Pacific Order is capable of paying the reparations, capable of moving a minimum of 90% of their nations to war mode for two weeks, and capable of meeting the remainder of the terms presented to them. Time and time again the arguments against the surrender terms have been shown by Karma and third-party economists and strategists to be nothing other than nonsensical drivel. And, as Bob showed, even Pacificans are now assisting Karma in displaying their arguments against peace are built on sand.

What will phase 4 be Bob? EZI for everyone in peace mode after a certain date? I'd like to think these terms were genuine, but considering all the ways the terms can be violated I very much doubt there was any sincerity behind them.

Have you been speaking with Alterego again?

[Ogaden]

Revanche,

Are you named Bob? Otherwise I don't believe I was addressing you.

Edited June 23, 2009 by James Dahl

[Bob]

Revanche,

Are you named Bob? Otherwise I don't believe I was addressing you.

Clearly we can ignore any posts that make valid points because they were not the person who you wanted to reply to it.

[Denial]

Revanche,

Are you named Bob? Otherwise I don't believe I was addressing you.

My name is entirely irrelevant to the fact that I just tore your post to shreds.

[Ogaden]

My name is entirely irrelevant to the fact that I just tore your post to shreds.

Oh Revanche,

And you wonder why I don't ask you to answer these questions.

[Azhrarn]

Why should we trust you to keep your end of the bargain?

Because if we were in your shoes we sure as hell wouldn't.

I for one don't trust you at all, this is just phase 3 of "get NPO out where we can attack them, and we can worry about the rest later"...

Guilty conscience much? Given that the violation of peace terms is SOP for the NPO, I can see your dilemma.

What will phase 4 be Bob? EZI for everyone in peace mode after a certain date? I'd like to think these terms were genuine, but considering all the ways the terms can be violated I very much doubt there was any sincerity behind them.

More psychological projection, but apparently phase 4 will be NPO continuing to hide in PM while nation deletions or surrenders slowly make the AA irrelevant.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Azhrarn

[Bilrow]

Well, I guess you are belatedly getting your stories straight: there are some nations who are in PM against orders, but so few as to be insignificant. Which means that you would have no trouble getting 90% of them out of PM, and that piece of your argument against the terms is invalidated by your own hand.

Once again, since you either are purposefully being coy or just aren't reading my posts, I said:

That is contradictory with Bilrow, and now with you, where you say that the people in peace mode are there for a reason and not because they're ignoring orders.

False. My posts in regards to those in peace mode had nothing to do with concerns brought up by the surrender negotiators in regards to getting 90% of the peace mode nations out as per the terms.

My post, once again like I posted last, was discussing the here and now. We are not under terms currently, so therefore common sense would say my information has nothing to do with orders going out to those when terms are accepted...since...wait for it...we have not accepted terms yet. Hard concept to understand, I know, but I trust you will eventually grasp it.

Edit: Added bolding to hopefully make it easy.

I am going to guess it's more the latter, because surely you would not be playing silly word games to twist people's words.

[Ogaden]

Guilty conscience much? Given that the violation of peace terms is SOP for the NPO, I can see your dilemma.

Apparently phase 4 will be NPO continuing to hide in PM while nation deletions or surrenders slowly make the AA irrelevant.

You can try and change the subject all you like, but your opinion is rather contradictory to your fellows.

They seem to be of the opinion that we are just being stubborn, yet I see that you have less control over your opinions and it is I who am correct in my assumptions.

So what you're saying is that I am correct in my supposition, and it is simply a trick?

[Azhrarn]

You can try and change the subject all you like, but your opinion is rather contradictory to your fellows.

They seem to be of the opinion that we are just being stubborn, yet I see that you have less control over your opinions and it is I who am correct in my assumptions.

So what you're saying is that I am correct in my supposition, and it is simply a trick?

I certainly don't believe you're simply being stubborn, no.

Nor did I say the peace terms are "simply a trick." All I'm doing is holding a mirror up to your face.

[Ogaden]

I certainly don't believe you're simply being stubborn, no.

Nor did I say the peace terms are "simply a trick." All I'm doing is holding a mirror up to your face.

You must be confused because your 'mirror' is a big sign that just says 'no u'.

Once you find it though, you should take a look in there yourself.

[Sylar]

how do you people have this much time to just make posts about NPO, do you guys just wake up in the morning and say im gonna make a bloc of NPO hate filled posts.

im waiting for the mod to lock.

[Bilrow]

More psychological projection, but apparently phase 4 will be NPO continuing to hide in PM while nation deletions or surrenders slowly make the AA irrelevant.

Hiding in peace mode? Really?

33.19% of New Pacific Order is currently in Peace Mode which means on the flip side 66.81% is out fighting. Of the 33.19%, 80% of those are nations cycling in and out of war due to Karma's failure to properly stagger (or 26.552% of the alliance) and the other 6.5% are there by design because they are banks.

If you have a problem with people cycling in and out of peace mode, maybe you should work on keeping them staggered so they can not slip into peace mode to recharge and come back out fighting, eh.

I know Karma can do better at staggering, I'm holding out all hopes that your staggering methods improve so we can see a reduction of nations being allowed to cycle in and out of war. Please, don't let me down.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Bilrow

[HeinousOne]

how do you people have this much time to just make posts about NPO, do you guys just wake up in the morning and say im gonna make a bloc of NPO hate filled posts.

im waiting for the mod to lock.

You guys have 18 alliances fighting against you or some crazy high number like that. What did you expect?

Just to add a little personal commentary of my own, I find it extremely delicious to see NPO members and Bob Janova going at each other so harshly. Considering me making one single comment towards him when I said he was showing an anti-npo tilt was one of two statements that got me silenced by the NPO.

I hate to say I told you so.....

Now, if only Delta would show up and throw a few barrages at them, it would be complete.

[Bob Janova]

66.81% is out fighting. Of the 33.19%, 80% of those are nations cycling in and out of war due to Karma's failure to properly stagger (or 26.552% of the alliance) and the other 6.5% are there by design because they are banks.

Nations which are in PM because they weren't staggered right clearly can come into war mode, since they did already. So that's 67+26 = 93% who are either at war or who have been at war (and are therefore capable of doing so again if asked by your milcom). Which invalidates the argument that getting over 90% is impossible. Quoting your own posts doesn't suddenly make the truth conform to them, particularly when you're simultaneously arguing the exact opposite in the next post.

Bob, you do so love to put words in people's mouths.

Considering over half my post was direct quotes of NPO posters, you need to explain how that isn't just a poor attempt to smear me.

Why should we trust you to keep your end of the bargain? Considering your behavior in this thread, I'm sure you'll segue from "So what you're saying is the terms are easy" to "So what you're doing is violating the terms."

Well for a start, I am not currently on the NPO front, the terms negotiation team or any other part of any bargain (other than our obligations to IRON), so whether you trust me or not is irrelevant – although I think you'll find it difficult to actually find an instance where I've ever violated anyone's trust.

The proposed terms are quite specific that only the individual violators will be attacked (although I imagine that if you wanted more reassurance there the clause could be reworded), and unlike the NPO, the alliances of Karma are likely to actually follow a peace agreement that they sign. So unless you're planning to violate the terms (and I'm sure that some people within NPO are already looking for loopholes) then no, I won't be claiming you're violating the terms.

What will phase 4 be Bob? EZI for everyone in peace mode after a certain date? I'd like to think these terms were genuine, but considering all the ways the terms can be violated I very much doubt there was any sincerity behind them.

They are not hard terms not to violate. There are no improvement or wonder restrictions, the only possible issue is the minimum reparation payment per month, and with a half-decent economic system that wouldn't even be close to a problem unless you were trying to circumvent the point of the reparations by using all your slots internally.

And no, EZI is one of your tricks. Currently, your own government is effectively keeping every NPO nation on PZI, since they are refusing to agree to peace terms and also (or so I heard) threatening long term retribution on those who might choose to surrender. Even now, your peace mode nations may surrender individually without penalty. The 'pre-terms' were designed to reflect how your peace mode strategy was preventing Karma from completing its objectives, and not to damage the individual nations, and if NPO continue not to sign alliance-wide terms I am sure that future tactical initiatives from Karma will continue to allow individual nations a pain-free way out of the war.

[Bilrow]

Oh, Azhrarn, if you are so concerned with the amount of nations slipping into peace mode, maybe you can convince your alliance to extend itself to more than just seven (7) offensive wars against us. I count at least 56 nations approximately within GR that are in range of some of our nations.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Bilrow

[Ogaden]

You guys have 18 alliances fighting against you or some crazy high number like that. What did you expect?

Just to add a little personal commentary of my own, I find it extremely delicious to see NPO members and Bob Janova going at each other so harshly. Considering me making one single comment towards him when I said he was showing an anti-npo tilt was one of two statements that got me silenced by the NPO.

I hate to say I told you so.....

Now, if only Delta would show up and throw a few barrages at them, it would be complete.

Uh, considering the time-frame involved, wouldn't you have been making said comment towards him whilst he was a Continuum ally?

It's a bit different from criticizing his support of a rather brutal and oxymoronic set of 'peace' terms.

[Ogaden]

Well for a start, I am not currently on the NPO front, the terms negotiation team or any other part of any bargain (other than our obligations to IRON), so whether you trust me or not is irrelevant – although I think you'll find it difficult to actually find an instance where I've ever violated anyone's trust.

There's always a first time for everything.

For someone not at war with us you guys sure have a lot of fingers in the various pies of orchestration/aiding/intel.

And no, EZI is one of your tricks. Currently, your own government is effectively keeping every NPO nation on PZI, since they are refusing to agree to peace terms and also (or so I heard) threatening long term retribution on those who might choose to surrender. Even now, your peace mode nations may surrender individually without penalty. The 'pre-terms' were designed to reflect how your peace mode strategy was preventing Karma from completing its objectives, and not to damage the individual nations, and if NPO continue not to sign alliance-wide terms I am sure that future tactical initiatives from Karma will continue to allow individual nations a pain-free way out of the war.

Well considering I keep starting offensive wars I must be keeping myself at PZI, what a horrible oppressor I am

Edited June 23, 2009 by James Dahl