Jump to content

Nordreich Announcement


Recommended Posts

Today I received the PM below. The question is a good one, so I'm going to reply here.

The question:

Hello,

First of all, congratulations on your new charter.

I am using private channels for this question because I do not want to cause any off topic discussion in your thread. Also, you have shown yourself to be a very reasonable person, and I have grown to respect your opinion on many matters.

That being said, I am slightly confused over the wording on Nordreich's stance on PZI/EZI:

"Nordreich does not engage in the practice of Permanent or Eternal Zero Infrastructure ("PZI" and "EZI") of its adversaries, reserving the right to keep enemy nations in a perpetual state of war only when all reasonable efforts to end a conflict have failed."

If it is worth your time, could you please explain to me what you believe the differences between "perpetual state of war" and PZI/EZI are? I think I understand where you guys are coming from on this, I am interested in hearing your personal thoughts on it though.

I understand if you choose not to answer me, since you do not know me.

Thank You,

Name Removed

This is actually a pretty good question. I'm a bit surprised no one else has thought to ask what the difference is. So allow me to answer by giving you a completely hypothetical scenario:

Imagine that your alliance is at war with another alliance. The battle goes on for a few days or weeks, but ultimately the other guys give up.

One or more members of the surrendering alliance decide they're not going to accept terms. They're going to keep fighting. They continue to cause problems for your lower ranks and, at the same time, refuse to accept all efforts to end the conflict.

You have no choice but to keep fighting them as long as they say they're going to keep attacking.

Or

A member of the alliance is attacked by a rogue raider. When approached, the raider refuses to pay reps and says he's going to attack whomever he pleases, whenever he pleases. He attacks another member of the alliance.

I could probably come up with better examples if I had been awake longer and had downed my morning dose of caffeine.

The point is that in each scenario, responsibility for the continuation of a conflict shifts from the alliance (Nordreich) to the individual(s) at war with the alliance. The individual(s) can accept whatever terms are offered to end the conflict -- which may simply be "let's just walk away from this mess and have nothing further to do with each other" -- or they can continue to fight. But the decision to fight is theirs, not Nordreich's.

I probably haven't explained this very well -- as I said, I haven't had my morning coffee yet -- but I trust I have at least given you a sense of what I meant when I wrote that particular section of the Charter.

Edited by kingzog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urgghhhkk, democracy in Nordreich. Yesterday, I voted for a candidate for the very first time in my CN career. It was revolting. :v:

How do you think I feel?

We have nine candidates. Four seats available. If there's a tie for fourth place -- which is still possible -- I will be casting the deciding vote.

The responsibility is not one that I'm sure I'm prepared for. Casting the deciding vote in case of a tie? That's a large weight to put on anyone's shoulders.

Makes me feel like someone. Can't....quite...place....

dan_quayle.jpg

Oh hell no!

Edited by kingzog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats on the shiny new charter, congrats on NOIR admission, and most of all, thank you for leaving more raid for us! :v:

Enjoy, but please try to remember that tech/land-raiding is terrible practice for a real war.

As I (apparently) said in IRC the other day:

<@kingzog> I've never seen a boxer say that they trained for an upcoming fight by punching out a bunch of fat kids who weren't expecting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enjoy, but please try to remember that tech/land-raiding is terrible practice for a real war.

As I (apparently) said in IRC the other day:

<@kingzog> I've never seen a boxer say that they trained for an upcoming fight by punching out a bunch of fat kids who weren't expecting it.

I agree wholeheartedly and love the idea of war games you put forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...