An Open Letter to the NPO

[HeinousOne]

NPO. Please read. Not selectively, but at the whole text. Big Z has it right.

If I was in their shoes I wouldn't exactly trust a side that has been clamoring for their death to have a change of heart and actually lower that number of tech and cash. I would say it is most likely that they will just keep that number and say NPO can pay it. It falls in line with every other statement of "We are the winners so we decide".

Good god, lets just get this damned war over as it has become tedious and drole.

Dear Karma,

The details of the surrender terms you've offered us have been discussed, debated and denied. You can feel free to continue to argue who is at fault for (enter any event of your choosing here) in CN History. You can continue to insist that Pacifica has (enter any event of your choosing here) in the past and that makes us deserving of whatever you see fit to bestow upon us. You can declare from the highest mountain that you are the NPO's judge, jury and executioner. That won't change the fact that the terms have been discussed, debated, and denied. I'm sorry if this ruins your plans for the after party. We remain stuck in the negotiation phase of peace negotiation. And unless someone gets past their holier-than-thou attitude, we'll probably remain there for a long time coming.

Further, as a nation who has dropped nearly all of her NS in this war, I'd be quite disappointed if my leadership surrendered to peace terms that involve more war. Particularly when those terms are being offered up by alliances whose members flood these boards with calls for our heads. My nation will not bow down and put its head on the chopping block, like a guilt-ridden criminal. I'm sorry if my continued pride in the face of annihilation upsets you. All I can offer you for your trouble is a coke and a smile.

Someone has ranted in one of the many threads about how evil Pacifica is that soon, there will be no one left in Pacifica but the diehards. That we would have destroyed the rest of our alliance by continuing this war. This, Karma, I believe to be your biggest miscalculation. You have absolutely no idea how much of Pacifica is made of diehards. You will understand that eventually though. And I'll still be in Pacifica when you do.

Hugs and Kisses,

Red

If anyone was to truly watch your member losses lately they would see that it is not that much outstanding compared to some other alliances. In fact you just recently had a day during the sanction race standings in which you guys were in the green.

I realize we are looking at an NPO that is definately ready for the long haul and they have pretty much bottomed out. Getting them out of sanction is going to take long enough that one could almost consider it Oppression upon the rest of us as it serves no greater purpose except to keep the GRL up and to keep us from moving on to the next phase of Global Political shifting. All because a very small minority of people meeting in a private room are too proud to give an inch and are too Scared that the world might blame them for giving some small victory to NPO.

My feelings for NPO have not changed at all but I do agree that this is beyond rediculous.

[Trinite]

A member of the Imperial Bank of NPO, Cortath, has already posted on the subject of tech losses. You may read his conclusions here. Cortath's estimate was 2115.2 tech for 2 weeks of nuclear warfare.

Bob Janova, a highly respected member of the community and member of The Order of Grämlins (as I understand it), had revised Cortath's estimate here and came up with the value of 1670 tech lost in 2 weeks of nuclear warfare.

Both of these values are within my stated possible range of tech damages and even then it still exceeds the assumed time frame of 6 months for repayment of all reps.

It is difficult to sift through the thousands of posts to find a specific post, so this is what I could find in a short time, which presents both sides.

Edit in response to Trintie's edit: You are missing aircraft damages. In addition, you assume that Karma will not pick its best, its brightest, and its most bloodthirsty nations to fight in this 2 week period of nuclear warfare. Such is unlikely as they will be eager for blood after several weeks of having nothing to do, but send money to nations down below.

I'm not sure where Cortath got his numbers, but I've never taken out 80 tech with a nuke and I have a WRC. Only those with plenty of tech to burn will be anywhere near those totals. I think Bob's number is actually a bit high as well for most nations who will be close to dropping below 1K tech. Those silly Grämlins think everyone has a WRC and a billion tech. Aircraft don't take out tech, unless I'm mistaken, but tech modifiers do add a lot. Let's say a tech level of 3000, then the 954 would turn into 1240.2. So if a nation with 3K tech attacks a nation with 2250 tech, then that nation would still stay over the 1K tech mark.

My calcs get about 48 nations in PM right now staying over 1K tech after 2 weeks of war, and 50 nations in war mode who would get peace immediately and be able to pay. So around 98 nations able to pay. This number would have been quite a bit higher when the terms were first given, and it will continue to fall. Basically, it would have been around 6 months when the terms were given, but now it will be a bit longer as you lose nations that would have been in the range to pay. The longer you wait, the longer it will take to pay off.

Check out the charts on this example. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...&Extended=0

Its a reasonable assessment.

I see him losing about 7K NS in 2 weeks. If that was all from tech then it would be about 1400 tech lost.

Edit: Ugh, BigZ, I just made all those calculations thinking that interpretation was correct. )): /me needs to read everything before doing work.

Edit #2: I'm not sure which it was, but at 100% efficiency if you surrendered now, according to your version of the terms, you could still send out 73.5K tech a month. You could make the 50K a month at 68% efficiency.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Trinite

[Iceknave]

Yet, the terms I quoted are the actual terms and those that were conveyed to NPO leadership as well. Considering I have the Karma forums up as I'm typing this, I would care to say that the terms I posted are more up to date than yours.

If the terms that you posted were edited AFTER the terms were presented to NPO leadership and to the Body Republic of NPO and rejected on June 12, then of course your version of the terms are going to be less severe to NPO and yet, those AREN"T the terms presented to NPO. Although not as well informed to the discussions involved as is true of most members involved in this global conflict, I have heard rumors to this effect already.

I can think of no reason for a coalition to do such a thing aside from one. That is to present the image that NPO was being stupid to reject your terms in the first place, opening up and strengthening another offensive theater of warfare.

However, the terms that were presented to NPO and to the Body Republic of the NPO were as I have stated. These terms I had verified today by an IO in NPO before posting anything today.

[Big Z]

If the terms that you posted were edited AFTER the terms were presented to NPO leadership and to the Body Republic of NPO and rejected on June 12, then of course your version of the terms are going to be less severe to NPO and yet, those AREN"T the terms presented to NPO. Although not as well informed to the discussions involved as is true of most members involved in this global conflict, I have heard rumors to this effect already.

I can think of no reason for a coalition to do such a thing aside from one. That is to present the image that NPO was being stupid to reject your terms in the first place, opening up and strengthening another offensive theater of warfare.

However, the terms that were presented to NPO and to the Body Republic of the NPO were as I have stated. These terms I had verified today by an IO in NPO before posting anything today.

Session Start: Wed Jun 10 19:35:45 2009

Session Ident: #aroom

[19:35] * Now talking in #aroom

[19:35] <GeorgetheFrickin&#33;@#&#036;%> >_>

[19:36] * Big_Z[GOD] has joined #aroom

[19:38] <Londo> don't all talk at once.

[19:39] <Londo> ok the issue being discussed at the moment

[19:39] <Londo> is the source of the reps

[19:39] <Londo> we have demanded that it come from nations with greater than 1k tech at the time of terms signing

Want to try again? The NPO representatives in the room at that time were: Moo-Cows, Mary and Cortath. I suggest you ask them to confirm the veracity of the logs.

[Ogaden]

Want to try again? The NPO representatives in the room at that time were: Moo-Cows, Mary and Cortath. I suggest you ask them to confirm the veracity of the logs.

You realize we actually have a copy of the full terms, right?

Have you SEEN the full terms?

Edited July 3, 2009 by James Dahl

[Sandwich Controversy]

Umm, I'm pretty sure a Karma leader would have a better idea as to what the more ambiguous terms mean than you do. Also note that he appears in the logs.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Sandwich Controversy

[Ogaden]

Umm, I'm pretty sure a Karma leader would have a better idea as to what the more ambiguous terms mean than you do. Also note that he appears in the logs.

You would think so, wouldn't you?

Vague, open-to-interpretation terms in a surrender terms document is pretty bad anyways. Who wrote this thing?

Edited July 3, 2009 by James Dahl

[Big Z]

You realize we actually have a copy of the full terms, right?

The non-updated terms (aka outdated), perhaps. The updated terms reflect the logs posted above, which would be:

II. Reparations of 300,000 tech and $7,000,000,000 will be assessed upon the New Pacific Order. All reparations of the 300,000 technology must be paid by nations with greater than or equal to 1000.00 technology upon the signing of these terms. The $7,000,000,000 is freely convertible to technology at a rate of 100 technology per 3 million. In addition, technology that is converted from money may be sent by any nation.

Edit: Yes, I have seen the full terms. The quote above is c/p'd directly from the full terms, word for word.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Big Z

[Ogaden]

Big deal, so you changed the terms so they don't look so terrible. How noble savvy of you.

[Trinite]

Big deal, so you changed the terms so they don't look so terrible are more lenient. How noble savvy reasonable of you.

Fixed

[Iceknave]

Want to try again? The NPO representatives in the room at that time were: Moo-Cows, Mary and Cortath. I suggest you ask them to confirm the veracity of the logs.

The date of that IRC conversation is on June 10th. That tells me nothing about what might have happened between the time Londo suggested the terms be at the time of signing rather than at the end of the time of 2 weeks of war and the time at which the Emperor of NPO posted the rejection of said terms. In addition, it says nothing about whether all of the other alliances involved agreed with Londo's proposal. This is not just 1 alliance getting surrender from another alliance. This is a large coalition that have different motivations, different goals, different ideologies, and different ideas of what is harsh and reasonable and what is impossible to fulfill.

For all we know, Londo's proposal was considered and rejected by a majority of Karma after deciding that the reps alone would not cripple NPO enough despite Londo's efforts to moderate and present terms that NPO would accept. The terms were then edited to reflect Londo's proposal rather than the more aggressive proposal that I refer to AFTER the more aggressive proposal was presented to NPO in order to gain PR points.

So far, I have seen 3 major representatives of Karma (My apologies if you have represented Karma in talks, but are not recognized here).

TheNeverender (Archon) of MK (The initial speech introducing Karma to the rest of the community)

Londo Mollari of Athens (The moderator/presenter of the terms that we are arguing now)

GenLee of RoK (The presenter of the pre-terms that were later dropped)

Without a clear voice to represent all of Karma, it is difficult to say which voice of Karma is presenting the actual terms that all of Karma has agreed to, however reluctant they may be to do so.

Nothing is fair in war.

[Trinite]

The date of that IRC conversation is on June 10th. That tells me nothing about what might have happened between the time Londo suggested the terms be at the time of signing rather than at the end of the time of 2 weeks of war and the time at which the Emperor of NPO posted the rejection of said terms. In addition, it says nothing about whether all of the other alliances involved agreed with Londo's proposal. This is not just 1 alliance getting surrender from another alliance. This is a large coalition that have different motivations, different goals, different ideologies, and different ideas of what is harsh and reasonable and what is impossible to fulfill.

For all we know, Londo's proposal was considered and rejected by a majority of Karma after deciding that the reps alone would not cripple NPO enough despite Londo's efforts to moderate and present terms that NPO would accept. The terms were then edited to reflect Londo's proposal rather than the more aggressive proposal that I refer to AFTER the more aggressive proposal was presented to NPO in order to gain PR points.

So far, I have seen 3 major representatives of Karma (My apologies if you have represented Karma in talks, but are not recognized here).

TheNeverender (Archon) of MK (The initial speech introducing Karma to the rest of the community)

Londo Mollari of Athens (The moderator/presenter of the terms that we are arguing now)

GenLee of RoK (The presenter of the pre-terms that were later dropped)

Without a clear voice to represent all of Karma, it is difficult to say which voice of Karma is presenting the actual terms that all of Karma has agreed to, however reluctant they may be to do so.

Nothing is fair in war.

I think both sides will agree this is a pain in the $@!. However, if Londo is saying something like that in peace talks, then you can probably take it as true. The question I see is whether NPO is happy or sad that terms are more lenient then they thought.

[Big Z]

Big deal, so you changed the terms so they don't look so terrible. How noble savvy of you.

Making false (and biased) projections based on out-dated terms to bolster PR support? How noble savvy of you.

In addition, it says nothing about whether all of the other alliances involved agreed with Londo's proposal. This is not just 1 alliance getting surrender from another alliance. This is a large coalition that have different motivations, different goals, different ideologies, and different ideas of what is harsh and reasonable and what is impossible to fulfill.

For all we know, Londo's proposal was considered and rejected by a majority of Karma after deciding that the reps alone would not cripple NPO enough despite Londo's efforts to moderate and present terms that NPO would accept. The terms were then edited to reflect Londo's proposal rather than the more aggressive proposal that I refer to AFTER the more aggressive proposal was presented to NPO in order to gain PR points.

All of the Karma alliances fighting against NPO had a representative in the room. Nowhere was Londo's proposal rejected and it in fact was approved by all prior to the actual meeting.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Big Z

[Matthew Conrad]

The date of that IRC conversation is on June 10th. That tells me nothing about what might have happened between the time Londo suggested the terms be at the time of signing rather than at the end of the time of 2 weeks of war and the time at which the Emperor of NPO posted the rejection of said terms. In addition, it says nothing about whether all of the other alliances involved agreed with Londo's proposal. This is not just 1 alliance getting surrender from another alliance. This is a large coalition that have different motivations, different goals, different ideologies, and different ideas of what is harsh and reasonable and what is impossible to fulfill.

For all we know, Londo's proposal was considered and rejected by a majority of Karma after deciding that the reps alone would not cripple NPO enough despite Londo's efforts to moderate and present terms that NPO would accept. The terms were then edited to reflect Londo's proposal rather than the more aggressive proposal that I refer to AFTER the more aggressive proposal was presented to NPO in order to gain PR points.

So far, I have seen 3 major representatives of Karma (My apologies if you have represented Karma in talks, but are not recognized here).

TheNeverender (Archon) of MK (The initial speech introducing Karma to the rest of the community)

Londo Mollari of Athens (The moderator/presenter of the terms that we are arguing now)

GenLee of RoK (The presenter of the pre-terms that were later dropped)

Without a clear voice to represent all of Karma, it is difficult to say which voice of Karma is presenting the actual terms that all of Karma has agreed to, however reluctant they may be to do so.

Nothing is fair in war.

To clarify, the pre-terms were never dropped. They were figured into the currently presented terms, albeit with a factor of leniency put in.

[Haflinger]

That means all 178 nations over 1K tech can pay off the terms, rather than the 30 you suggest. That would mean NPO can pay 133,500 technology at maximum slot efficiency, not including the usage of DRAs, per month.

It's 148 now.

[TypoNinja]

Big deal, so you changed the terms so they don't look so terrible. How noble savvy of you.

I love how if we won't change the terms we are big meanie heads trying to kill their alliance, and when we make the terms easier we're not being nice we are just cynical manipulators going for the PR win.

[Ogaden]

Fixed

The only thing reasonable about the changes are they don't contradict themselves.

[Haflinger]

I'm not sure where Cortath got his numbers, but I've never taken out 80 tech with a nuke and I have a WRC.

Really?

Your nation has been attacked with nuclear weapons by Haflinger. You lost 42194 soldiers, 2614 defending tanks, 11 cruise missiles, 272.721 miles of land, 90.907 technology, 272.721 infrastructure, 75% of your aircraft, and 25% of your nuclear vulnerable navy force. In addition to these losses your nation will experience many days of economic devastation.

80 is kinda low actually.

I do have a WRC though, but only about 4K tech.

[Ogaden]

I love how if we won't change the terms we are big meanie heads trying to kill their alliance, and when we make the terms easier we're not being nice we are just cynical manipulators going for the PR win.

How does the alteration make the terms easier? They are just as ridiculous, but now less obviously so, whereas the previous terms even the duller lightbulbs in the room could shed light on the contradictions, vague requirements, and self-violating restrictions.

[Iceknave]

All of the Karma alliances fighting against NPO had a representative in the room. Nowhere was Londo's proposal rejected and it in fact was approved by all prior to the actual meeting.

With everybody on the "same side", it's very easy to manipulate the truth in whatever direction you want. With at least 18 alliances in the room, I highly doubt consensus would be so easily reached, given that we are talking about terms for NPO. I would think at least several alliances would favor terms that were harsher than already presented.

To clarify, the pre-terms were never dropped. They were figured into the currently presented terms, albeit with a factor of leniency put in.

Thank you for the clarification. However, if the pre-terms were never dropped and incorporated into the present terms, then shouldn't the present terms still be increasing until peace is accepted or was the acceptance of peace by NPO portion of the pre-terms dropped? The pre-terms were not limited by any factor save for the acceptance of peace by NPO.

[Ogaden]

Making false (and biased) projections based on out-dated terms to bolster PR support? How noble savvy of you.

All of the Karma alliances fighting against NPO had a representative in the room. Nowhere was Londo's proposal rejected and it in fact was approved by all prior to the actual meeting.

While I may have bias by being a member of NPO, that's nothing compared to your bias considering you signed off on these terms.

And for the record, the only evidence that you even offered us the edited terms prior to Moo revealing the document to the world is your word that you did. I have issues trusting your word, which is another issue considering so very many articles in the surrender terms require us to 'take your word on it'. Much more reliable sources than you have shown me that the only terms recieved were the 'unedited' (IE the real ones) terms.

If we can't trust you with simple issues as how the terms are even worded, how are we supposed to trust you with anything?

Edited July 3, 2009 by James Dahl

[Matthew Conrad]

The only thing reasonable about the changes are they don't contradict themselves.

How were they contradicting? I can understand when some people said they needed to be clarified, but contradicting?

[Ogaden]

How were they contradicting? I can understand when some people said they needed to be clarified, but contradicting?

A2) The New Pacific Order immediately ceases all hostilities against the above alliances.

B1) The New Pacific Order shall move the bulk of its forces into warmode for 2 weeks prior to the end of combat. When 90% or more of all nations at or above 4,000 infrastructure and additionally 90% or more of the alliance is in warmode, a countdown clock shall begin, starting on the day immediately after the above conditions have been met.

Edited July 3, 2009 by James Dahl

[Big Z]

With everybody on the "same side", it's very easy to manipulate the truth in whatever direction you want. With at least 18 alliances in the room, I highly doubt consensus would be so easily reached, given that we are talking about terms for NPO. I would think at least several alliances would favor terms that were harsher than already presented.

A consensus was reached. The terms presented were the terms all agreed to and if the NPO accepted, would be the final terms.

[Matthew Conrad]

A2) The New Pacific Order immediately ceases all hostilities against the above alliances.

B1) The New Pacific Order shall move the bulk of its forces into warmode for 2 weeks prior to the end of combat. When 90% or more of all nations at or above 4,000 infrastructure and additionally 90% or more of the alliance is in warmode, a countdown clock shall begin, starting on the day immediately after the above conditions have been met.

1. The NPO ceases wars against the above alliances

2. They then start moving their PM nations into war mode.

3. Those nations then get attacked.

Is there something you don't understand about that?