An Open Letter to the NPO

[Authur]

War is about statistics. Reps are about statistics. When someone says that wars and reps are designed to destroy an alliance, it therefore means statistically destroy it.

The problem is your economic leaders seem to be stuck in a 2007 mindset about banks starting with lots of infra being the end all and be all of banking when that hasn't been true in a long time.

Sitting in peace mode for a year is more harmful than two rounds of war.

Your logic is also very circular. Your opponents want you dead and the terms show it, the terms must be written in a way that will kill you because your opponents want you dead. I know most of your opponents, they want to see you hurt, they don't want to see you dead.

The terms are hard and and are designed to set you back a notch and keep you from rebuilding full steam for a couple of months, but they won't and aren't designed to kill you. Ultimately you'll be far better off accepting terms and taking that temporary setback in order to be able to start moving forward again afterword, because in your current state you're never going to move forward and will just fall further and further behind everyone else who is.

Azaghul your a level headed and good guy. I've liked you since our days in the GPA together. What I can't quite understand here, and perhaps you can be the one to explain it to me, is why the statical force of the NPO has to be diminished in this manner when the numbers of one's forces has won more wars then the strength or skill of it's individual nations.

Even if white peace were given right now to the NPO and they managed to rebuild to pre-war form and attack in a years time they lack the strength in numbers to pose a real threat. They could not win this war at full strength with multiple powerful allies what indications are there that they can accomplish it in the near future? If you take their ability to be a realistic threat in the future out of the equation then this stipulation of attacking their banks makes even less sense to me.

Also, and I think this is an important issue that gets overlooked, bear in mind that this alliance is made of many people who's only guilt was being a member, loving one's alliance, and following orders. Their guilt is no more and in some cases less that then of other alliances and their government members who partisipated in many of the crimes the NPO is now being punished for. While I completely agree with the notion that an alliance is represented by the government, I think we as rational individuals need to keep in mind when dishing out terms that not everyone is equally to blame. Perhaps a compromise is in order where only those that had a government role, who at least had more input into the direction of the alliance, might be subjected to additional punishment instead of all their statically strong nations.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Authur

[HeinousOne]

You ask? It was never a question. When has a defeated alliance ever decided on what their reps are?

He says it as if to assuage any NPO fears that such would actually be done if necessary where as your response shows a different representation all together and you wonder why they turned down the terms?

A defeated alliance does not decide what the reps are but they do decide whether to sign in agreement on them.

[Il Impero Romano]

He says it as if to assuage any NPO fears that such would actually be done if necessary where as your response shows a different representation all together and you wonder why they turned down the terms?

A defeated alliance does not decide what the reps are but they do decide whether to sign in agreement on them.

Aid screens are public, as are nation lists. If they are visibly paying to their fullest extent, yet still not reaching the monthly benchmark, then the reps need to be adjusted...its rather clear, and definitely not a point to stick on.

[HeinousOne]

Also, and I think this is an important issue that gets overlooked, bear in mind that this alliance is made of many people who's only guilt was being a member, loving one's alliance, and following orders. Their guilt is no more and in some cases less that then of other alliances and their government members who partisipated in many of the crimes the NPO is now being punished for. While I completely agree with the notion that an alliance is represented by the government, I think we as rational individuals need to keep in mind when dishing out terms that not everyone is equally to blame. Perhaps a compromise is in order where only those that had a government role, who at least had more input into the direction of the alliance, might be subjected to additional punishment instead of all their statically strong nations.

Which is why I suggested the term I did. It had to do with keeping the NPO from doing what really ended up making the world as it has been. That is the building of their diplomatic power.

You are right that further damage upon the individual nations of members is not necessary. The focus needs to be on NPO not on nations of NPO.

[Il Impero Romano]

He says it as if to assuage any NPO fears that such would actually be done if necessary where as your response shows a different representation all together and you wonder why they turned down the terms?

A defeated alliance does not decide what the reps are but they do decide whether to sign in agreement on them.

Aid screens are public, as are nation lists. If they are visibly paying to their fullest extent, yet still not reaching the monthly benchmark, then the reps need to be adjusted...its rather clear, and definitely not a point to stick on.

[HeinousOne]

Aid screens are public, as are nation lists. If they are visibly paying to their fullest extent, yet still not reaching the monthly benchmark, then the reps need to be adjusted...its rather clear, and definitely not a point to stick on.

Point is, you know what the sticking point is and you can explain it all day long to NPO but its obvious they are not going to surrender if it means their bank nations get hit.

So, you are willing to extend the war even though you guys are doing very minimal damage to them or are you willing to compromise out a new term that will still have some of the similiar affects yet at the same time hamstrings NPO moreso and the NPO nations less?

In the end, constantly pushing for and arguing for a term that they have said they will never agree on is going to get you no where. You can explain how no where is a great place to be till you are blue in the face but it is still no where.

Are you actually incapable of thinking up other ideas or is this just a pride thing that you have to force NPO to your will? It is one single term out of all of them, you act as if they are the most detestable people ever for daring to not agree to it. How many alliances in the past have denied terms offered to them and stated why? Would you do away with those too?

They do have rights over their signature on terms and as long as the surrender terms require such you do have to take into affect their thoughts on the matter. To not do so is to basically tell all of us that you want this war to last forever. Is that true?

[Ogaden]

The presented terms would, in no way, shape, or form, kill your alliance nor would they prevent you from rebuilding after the terms are up. Have more faith in yourself.

Furthermore, we would not have included the war term in the first place if the mighty Pacifican War Machine did not start jumping into peace mode about 1 hour and 30 minutes before update on the day following your attack on OV and continue to do so every chance you got. But hey, hindsight's 20/20 right?

Well since VE says it it must be true. You guys wouldn't have any agenda at all.

[SiCkO]

Are they're any negotiations going on?

Edited July 11, 2009 by SiCkO

[Il Impero Romano]

Point is, you know what the sticking point is and you can explain it all day long to NPO but its obvious they are not going to surrender if it means their bank nations get hit.

So, you are willing to extend the war even though you guys are doing very minimal damage to them or are you willing to compromise out a new term that will still have some of the similiar affects yet at the same time hamstrings NPO moreso and the NPO nations less?

As for your first point, the same can be said conversely (they are willing to extend a war which we are willing to end for the sake of minimal damage to them). Secondly, as the war is still continuing and both parties would like to see it end, I believe you can answer that question yourself.

Are you actually incapable of thinking up other ideas or is this just a pride thing that you have to force NPO to your will? It is one single term out of all of them, you act as if they are the most detestable people ever for daring to not agree to it. How many alliances in the past have denied terms offered to them and stated why? Would you do away with those too?

To this, your criticism would be warranted if you for some reason were present when those of us on the NPO front communicated and definitively knew the answers to your own questions, but your not and you don't. Therefore, you just are assuming the worst in us because its fun to argue about. Its ok, I like arguing too.

They do have rights over their signature on terms and as long as the surrender terms require such you do have to take into affect their thoughts on the matter. To not do so is to basically tell all of us that you want this war to last forever. Is that true?

Both sides have stated that they do not wish this to be an eternal war, and as far as I'm concerned it will not be. However, it is still my opinion that accepting the previous terms (including the section on war) is not unreasonable. The matter would be on its way to getting done, and we have nothing to gain by keeping them in war. However when you think about it, its funny that the longer this drags out by them using their right to place their signature on the terms the more sympathy they get for it...

Well since VE says it it must be true. You guys wouldn't have any agenda at all.

What does an agenda have to do with your alliance running from the fight when they realized it wasn't a curb stomp?

[Ogaden]

What does an agenda have to do with your alliance running from the fight when they realized it wasn't a curb stomp?

I'll take your resorting to childish taunting as your admission of rhetorical defeat.

[HeinousOne]

As for your first point, the same can be said conversely (they are willing to extend a war which we are willing to end for the sake of minimal damage to them). Secondly, as the war is still continuing and both parties would like to see it end, I believe you can answer that question yourself.

Of course both sides want it to end. The sticking point is that there is no compromising going on. Its my way or the highway and you can claim that all day long but only if your way means continued warfare.

To this, your criticism would be warranted if you for some reason were present when those of us on the NPO front communicated and definitively knew the answers to your own questions, but your not and you don't. Therefore, you just are assuming the worst in us because its fun to argue about. Its ok, I like arguing too.

Right, so now anyone whom is not a leader of one of the alliances fighting NPO has not had a chance to read the terms and form their own opinions on it. I do not speak up simply because I like to argue and I actually take a limited amount of offense at such an accusation. I speak up because I think that one particular term is a horrible term to set a precedent for. No amount of pointing fingers at what NPO has done in the past will excuse you your part in setting a new precedent.

Both sides have stated that they do not wish this to be an eternal war, and as far as I'm concerned it will not be. However, it is still my opinion that accepting the previous terms (including the section on war) is not unreasonable. The matter would be on its way to getting done, and we have nothing to gain by keeping them in war. However when you think about it, its funny that the longer this drags out by them using their right to place their signature on the terms the more sympathy they get for it...

It is like we need to send out a newsletter to everyone all at once. This is not about sympathy for NPO. Either you ignorantly reach that conclusion or you purposefully try to spread that idea around in order to slander the opinions of those whom are against that one term simply because of what it is. Yes, labeling someone as an NPO sympathizer is a slanderous statement, especially when it is someone like myself whom has a particular history with the NPO.

[Il Impero Romano]

I'll take your resorting to childish taunting as your admission of rhetorical defeat.

Look above my post you quoted...

My response to you was a clear question, as your original comment made absolutely no sense at all.

Lets review:

1. I asserted that the war term would not have been necessary if your alliance did not run from the fight in the first place.

2. You made a sarcastic comment, and then continued on to say that my take on the matter was brought on by an agenda (followed by a "rollseyes" smiley face).

3. I asked you what could an agenda possibly have to do with the fact that your alliance started jumping into peace mode from day one and continued to do so for over a month. This is a fair question, as your response to my original post made no sense.

4. You accuse me of "taunting" and proclaim yourself the rhetorical victor.

....

Care to rethink your last response?

[Ogaden]

Look above my post you quoted...

My response to you was a clear question, as your original comment made absolutely no sense at all.

Lets review:

1. I asserted that the war term would not have been necessary if your alliance did not run from the fight in the first place.

2. You made a sarcastic comment, and then continued on to say that my take on the matter was brought on by an agenda (followed by a "rollseyes" smiley face).

3. I asked you what could an agenda possibly have to do with the fact that your alliance started jumping into peace mode from day one and continued to do so for over a month. This is a fair question, as your response to my original post made no sense.

4. You accuse me of "taunting" and proclaim yourself the rhetorical victor.

....

Care to rethink your last response?

No I think my response was pretty accurate.

Your 'killer argument' has been debunked so many times, it's not really worth acknowledging.

[Il Impero Romano]

No I think my response was pretty accurate.

Your 'killer argument' has been debunked so many times, it's not really worth acknowledging.

....

What in gods name are you talking about lol

[TypoNinja]

Right, so now anyone whom is not a leader of one of the alliances fighting NPO has not had a chance to read the terms and form their own opinions on it. I do not speak up simply because I like to argue and I actually take a limited amount of offense at such an accusation. I speak up because I think that one particular term is a horrible term to set a precedent for. No amount of pointing fingers at what NPO has done in the past will excuse you your part in setting a new precedent.

Well see then you are just not paying attention, this horrible horrible term you are so worked up about, we didn't set the precedent for it. I gotta say I personally never would have come up with it my self either without seeing it done first, and done worse, by the NPO. This is why the "Oh its so evil" rhetoric falls apart, its been done before by the NPO and they didn't think it was so heinous then, but a watered down version of their own idea being done to them is suddenly the worst term ever. Yea sorry we don't buy the double standard, and the NPO now lacks the military ability to force us to accept their double standards.

We want the NPO to live up to their own standards, but they apparently cannot even do that.

[HeinousOne]

Well see then you are just not paying attention, this horrible horrible term you are so worked up about, we didn't set the precedent for it. I gotta say I personally never would have come up with it my self either without seeing it done first, and done worse, by the NPO. This is why the "Oh its so evil" rhetoric falls apart, its been done before by the NPO and they didn't think it was so heinous then, but a watered down version of their own idea being done to them is suddenly the worst term ever. Yea sorry we don't buy the double standard, and the NPO now lacks the military ability to force us to accept their double standards.

We want the NPO to live up to their own standards, but they apparently cannot even do that.

You are like a broken record player. Continuously putting out continued statements that basically could be cliff noted to "No compromise available, everyone in the world get ready because we want this war to last forever".

Gotcha, so I will mark down VE in the column of alliances that are completely unwilling to compromise and work on a new set of terms. As much as you guys might want to say everyone is in that column, you and I both know that is not the truth.

[TypoNinja]

You are like a broken record player. Continuously putting out continued statements that basically could be cliff noted to "No compromise available, everyone in the world get ready because we want this war to last forever".

Gotcha, so I will mark down VE in the column of alliances that are completely unwilling to compromise and work on a new set of terms. As much as you guys might want to say everyone is in that column, you and I both know that is not the truth.

Now you are just being obtuse, Where does me saying double standards are !@#$%^&* translate into no compromise? Seriously? are you taking lessons from the NPO on how to debate, stop reading what you want to see and understand what I posted.

Compromise is always possible, but such a compromise must be reasonable or it will get rejected, you can't offer solutions that only an idiot would accept and then call someone out for being unwilling to compromise. I think you should lick my toes, you don't want to so lets compromise and you can lick my boots instead. What you refuse? how heartless of you being unwilling to compromise!

Stonewalling the peace process out of pride and then calling us out for it doesn't work, it makes us sick of the !@#$%^&* and less inclined to be generous. Which is what the NPO is looking for, generosity.

If I sound like a broken record its because I keep having to make the same point over and over again because apparently saying it once isnt enough for it to stick in peoples minds. I make a post and an hour later some morons are spouting the same old tired garbage that was discredited ten times this week already, nobody learns, nobody listens. They all view the OWF and every response posted to it through their own little reality filter untill things say what they want them to say. Some people are more obvious about it, like james dahl, you have to wonder if he even shares the same planet as us sometimes, some people are more subtle, and some people change over time. Like you, you are starting to read what you want to see instead of what is spoken.

Surprise, its not about you, its not personal, we don't care if you support the NPO or not (and no its not a crime to do so!) But spout utter crap, and someone will contradict you.

Edited July 11, 2009 by TypoNinja

[Azaghul]

That sounds nice, except the rest of the terms basically prevent us from growing and, in fact, would require us to turn over anything we happened to have left by happy coincidence.

They use up most of your large nations aid slots. That does NOT prevent you from growing. Growing in peace, even without aid, is far better than being in war or peace mode. NpO pulled off massive growth despite their large peace mode nations not being able to send internal aid.

Also there's the fun fact that the wording of the terms for minimum troop levels are below 20% of total citizens, what with it being 30% of WORKING citizens.

Uh, and? The 20% criteria (as well as the 80% limits) is based on working citizens.

At the discretion of whom?

Those administering the terms.

Azaghul your a level headed and good guy. I've liked you since our days in the GPA together. What I can't quite understand here, and perhaps you can be the one to explain it to me, is why the statical force of the NPO has to be diminished in this manner when the numbers of one's forces has won more wars then the strength or skill of it's individual nations.

Even if white peace were given right now to the NPO and they managed to rebuild to pre-war form and attack in a years time they lack the strength in numbers to pose a real threat. They could not win this war at full strength with multiple powerful allies what indications are there that they can accomplish it in the near future? If you take their ability to be a realistic threat in the future out of the equation then this stipulation of attacking their banks makes even less sense to me.

The war for peace mode nations is because NPO since the first day has been having nations go into peace mode whenever they get the opportunity.

I don't see the reparations as removing a threat as much as punishment and some amount of restitution. I agree that they won't be a threat in the near future, though long term there's a possibility of them resurging and having more luck on the political front. Since the terms themselves only set NPO back at most 2-3 months compared to what a white peace would do I don't see it helping much in that respect but it helps some. I think the coeLUEition comparison is off.

Also, and I think this is an important issue that gets overlooked, bear in mind that this alliance is made of many people who's only guilt was being a member, loving one's alliance, and following orders. Their guilt is no more and in some cases less that then of other alliances and their government members who partisipated in many of the crimes the NPO is now being punished for. While I completely agree with the notion that an alliance is represented by the government, I think we as rational individuals need to keep in mind when dishing out terms that not everyone is equally to blame. Perhaps a compromise is in order where only those that had a government role, who at least had more input into the direction of the alliance, might be subjected to additional punishment instead of all their statically strong nations.

Well the thing about most leaders is they care more about the alliance as a whole than their own nation. You can't really punish an alliance as a whole without punishing most or all of its nations.

Point is, you know what the sticking point is and you can explain it all day long to NPO but its obvious they are not going to surrender if it means their bank nations get hit.

So, you are willing to extend the war even though you guys are doing very minimal damage to them or are you willing to compromise out a new term that will still have some of the similiar affects yet at the same time hamstrings NPO moreso and the NPO nations less?

In the end, constantly pushing for and arguing for a term that they have said they will never agree on is going to get you no where. You can explain how no where is a great place to be till you are blue in the face but it is still no where.

Are you actually incapable of thinking up other ideas or is this just a pride thing that you have to force NPO to your will? It is one single term out of all of them, you act as if they are the most detestable people ever for daring to not agree to it. How many alliances in the past have denied terms offered to them and stated why? Would you do away with those too?

They do have rights over their signature on terms and as long as the surrender terms require such you do have to take into affect their thoughts on the matter. To not do so is to basically tell all of us that you want this war to last forever. Is that true?

What NPO says and what they really believe are not necessarily the same thing. They think they can get better terms by holding out and playing the victim. I don't think their bluff is going to work.

They are just lucky that those fighting them aren't doing what they did to GPA and raising the reps because they didn't immediately accept.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Azaghul

[Brotherington]

We aren't MK and the situations are different. You weren't at war for 3 months (and counting) so the damage wasn't as severe to start with. You weren't expected to accept more war as a part of peace. I can't remember MK's terms from that war execpt the 10k tech and nuke thing that others love throwing in our faces, so don't want to make mistakes. Will leave it here.

Our war was a hell of alot shorter because MK actually fought rather than trying to hide most of our large nations in peacemode. Also it was 82,000 technology.

You mentioned earlier the body republic was right behind the leadership in rejecting the terms, well to me that is more evidence your leaders are reckless and stupid. General membership are always objecting to surrender. Both times MK accepted preposterously harsh peace terms (UjW and NoCB) I was dead against them and considered leaving, but both times my level-headed leaders ignored my sentiment negotiated, held out for the best terms they were expecting to get and signed them against my wishes. As a result MK is now stronger both statistically and politically than ever before. Looks like they were right and I was wrong.

[Walt Schmidt]

Pacifica really doesn't have much of a community. The only thing keeping them together is this war, really. Even during this war their at each others throats on their forums.

This NPO Grunt takes exception to what LoD states as facts -- not only are we NOT at each others throats, there are 640-plus of us who would suggest the last 81 days have proven just how much of a community, how close knit our community, the degree to which... well, Planet Earth's Shakespeare said it best:

Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,

And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'

Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,

But he'll remember, with advantages,

What feats he did that day.

This story shall the good man teach his son;

And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remembered-

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother.

And gentlemen in England now-a-bed

Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Shai Dorsai! o/ Pacifica!

[Walt Schmidt]

So as I said before, if karma wants the NPO destroyed, they'll have to do it themselves. We aren't going to do it for them.

o/ Waterana o/ Pacifica

It has been debated ad nausium. Yet, (presuming those that post it believe it) many do not seem to get it. We, NPO, will not die on our knees.

If those on Planet Bob who oppose us want to end this conflict today, this day 81, it is up to you to respond as has been written elsewhere.

Otherwise, let us see what we find on day 181!

[OOC]Presuming many really do not get it, you have caused this game to move to a different 'level,' at which we NPO have been playing for many weeks now. And if you do get it already, then apparently IC you'll continue as you now are doing, but OOC know WE will still be here at day 181 even though YOU could have gotten CN back to some semblance of what it was... today day 81.[/OCC]

[OCC](added for clarity's sake) p.s. in other words, the ball is in your court[/OOC]

Edited July 11, 2009 by Walt Schmidt

[Brotherington]

What the christ.

[Glen MoP]

Pacifica really doesn't have much of a community. The only thing keeping them together is this war, really. Even during this war their at each others throats on their forums. Don't believe me? Well, I don't really care. I know I'm telling the truth.

I was all for a "Whatever. He left. Who cares?" approach and I was kosher with your reasoning, but then you said this. It's a bald-faced lie. No one is at the other's throat in the NPO forums I have access to. Is there some super-secret hate forum you had access to that regular members don't? Why are you echoing the provably false "NPO all hate each other" propoganda line?

[Waterana]

Look above my post you quoted...

My response to you was a clear question, as your original comment made absolutely no sense at all.

Lets review:

1. I asserted that the war term would not have been necessary if your alliance did not run from the fight in the first place.

What the hell are you talking about? 20 million AS, 3/4 of our original total strength gone, plus most of our nations in ruins isn't running from the fight. I can't believe you actually said something so silly.

2. You made a sarcastic comment, and then continued on to say that my take on the matter was brought on by an agenda (followed by a "rollseyes" smiley face).

Not aimed at me so will ignore it.

3. I asked you what could an agenda possibly have to do with the fact that your alliance started jumping into peace mode from day one and continued to do so for over a month. This is a fair question, as your response to my original post made no sense.

At the start of the war our banks and highest battalion fighters were ordered into peace mode. The first group because it is their job to stay out of the fighting, trying to call them cowards falls on deaf ears in Pacifica. We know better. The highest battalion were ordered in as a tactical measure. I'm sure VE remembers the blitz on them a few weeks into the war that knocked them out of sanction? Since that time, nations cycle in and out of peace mode to recover from anarchy, restock, and rearm. There are a very small number who have remained there in spite of being ordered out. That is an internal matter, and we will deal with it ourselves. I went into peace mode within the first month, and was out 5 days later. Have had one other 5 day stint in it since. Does that make me hiding, running, or a coward too?

4. You accuse me of "taunting" and proclaim yourself the rhetorical victor.

....

Care to rethink your last response?

Not aimed at me so will ignore it.

You seem fixated on our peace mode nations. Why? Because you know our opponents can't take us out of sanction without hitting them? Because you know you can't cripple our alliance sufficiently to spur on disbandment without hitting them? Because you're so damm scared we'll rebuild and 'come get you' without hitting them? Because you stuffed up so many staggers allowing our nations to get into peace mode and can't regain that lost pride without hitting them? You're not getting our banks. You've been told over and over again your not getting our banks. We protect our members as best we can, and that doesn't include handing them over to any of you.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Waterana

[Alterego]

Our war was a hell of alot shorter because MK actually fought rather than trying to hide most of our large nations in peacemode..

You are overlooking the loss of 16m NS. 235 nations are in peace mode compared to the 900+ nations they started the war with. You achieved all your initial goals and pursuing a policy of wanting to inflict significantly more damage to NPO before you let them pay the biggest reps ever contemplated in CN history is vindictive and will damage MKs reputation in the long term. For the record NPO have lost about 16% of their NS in the last month, being in peace mode is only protecting the nations that could spend the next couple of months paying out reps. I dont expect anyone to change your mind, after seeing the Echelon reps I dont think you will let the NPO keep more than 2m of their NS while paying back reps that could take them well into next year to pay off in that very poor condition.