An Open Letter to the NPO

[Waterana]

I've never used the 'tears' statement. Find it stupid personally.

[Azhrarn]

I simply countered your arguments which stated that Karma wanted a fair deal to the NPO and that NPO's supposed "PR stunt" is what turned Karma away from "peace". The fact that NPO handed out harsh terms has nothing to do with my argument.

If karma targeted NPO's stats, then inevetably, they are targetting the community. How many nations do you think would be willing to remain in an alliance if they are subject to slow growth and development?

PS: I'm not in the NPO and never was in the NPO.

Do you really think that playing stupid is an effective argument? If so, you really need to let someone else better qualified try to defend the NPO, because you're not doing them any favors.

The fact that the NPO has handed out much harsher terms in the past to other alliances has everything to do with your argument, because they're rejecting terms that are actually more lenient than the terms which they've expected others to accept. It's called Hypocrisy, and it's so obvious, and it's so offensive, that anyone who isn't an NPO stooge (like yourself) has to be revolted by it. That's why even more people are turning against them.

You actually have the arrogance to demand a fair deal for the NPO, when they were never willing to offer a fair deal to the alliances which they've defeated? I'm so sick of hearing about the precious NPO community, when the NPO never, not for one moment gave any consideration to the communities that it destroyed.

The more I listen to this type of garbage, the more convinced I become that it would be a tragic mistake to show them any leniency whatsoever, because with each passing day it's becoming more and more obvious that you (and they) haven't learned a damn thing. They've made no apologies. They say they have no regrets. And the moment that they're allowed to have peace they're simply going to start planning the destruction of their enemies all over again.

Edited. Because massive stupidity isn't unique to NPO members only.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Azhrarn

[Waterana]

Sorry, that was rather poorly worded, huh? I should have said something like: "Sitting in peace mode or knocked down to 1k NS and/or ZI."

Wait... So are you saying you won't accept any terms offered now, even if they magically got lighter?

I'm not government. Accepting terms isn't up to me. I find it impossible to believe there is any way the terms would get 'lighter' considering the number of times our government has been told the current set are not negotiable.

Azhrarn, he's not NPO. Save that bile for me and other NPO members.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Waterana

[TypoNinja]

No, really, it has nothing to do with our argument. You said Karma wanted "peace" and didn't want to destroy the NPO. I said the peace terms indicate otherwise. The fact that NPO handed harsh terms has nothing to do with our argument. If you feel like dragging it in, fine. Lets talk about them. You say that they were cruel and unfair. Well my question is, how are the terms handed down to NPO any better? 2 weeks of full out nuclear war followed by months of paying reps?

Heres a clue bat, beat your self over the head with it while i spell this out for you.

If the NPO has issued these terms in the past, and they were not then designed to destroy the alliance, then lighter terms than those clearly are not tailored to destroy your alliance, your repetitive parroting of the party line that the terms were crafted to be declined won't make your lie a truth no matter how often you repeat it.

No need to be sorry. It's not like it's a bad thing. Infra > Friends right?

Ahh the facetious reply ever the refuge of one who has run out of anything intelligent to say.

Anyway, back to the main point. It's kind of a common trend for nations to drop out of a stagnating alliance. It's not something that is confined to the NPO you know. All alliances lose members during war. Why? Because no one likes losing pixels. I'm pretty sure the Karma knew that. And I'm pretty sure that's what they wanted.

Umm whats your point? That alliances lose members at war? Thank you captain obvious.

Or are you one of those idiots who spouts on about the downsides of war while forgetting that theres more than just your alliance fighting?

In fact, didn't Archon say that "The terms offered are to keep the proposed enemy down, so that the victory can be lasting"

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1558417

Are you that uninformed? Or just that naive? Hello, we just defeated your alliance, its first real defeat in years. We want to make sure there is not a repeat performance of this war in a couple of months. Did you expect anything else? The thing you and the other drones keep missing is that its entirely possible to damage an enemies ability to make war without damaging their community.

[kulomascovia]

Do you really think that playing stupid is going to help you? If so, you really need to shut up and let someone else better qualified make the arguments for your alliance. And I'm not saying that because I want to help you. I'm saying it because your arguments are so pathetic that it's embarrassing to even have to read them, let alone reply to them.

My alliance? My alliance has nothing to do with this war. I'm sorry if my argument seemed pathetic to you. I appreciate all criticisms and counter arguments.

The fact that the NPO has handed out much harsher terms in the past to other alliances has everything to do with your argument, because you're rejecting terms that are actually more lenient than the terms that you expected others to accept. It's called Hypocrisy, and it's so obvious, and it's so offensive, that anyone who isn't one of your stooges has to be revolted by it. That's why even more people are turning against you.

I am not in the NPO by the way... and no, NPO's previous terms do not have anything to do with my argument with the other guy. He claimed karma was being fair. I simply said the peace terms were not fair and reflected upon Karma's desire to destroy the NPO.

You actually have the arrogance to demand a fair deal from Karma, when you were never willing to offer a fair deal to the alliances which you defeated.? And I'm so sick and tired of hearing about your precious NPO community, when you never, not for one moment gave any consideration to the communities that your alliance has destroyed.

I'm not demanding that the NPO get a fair deal. I am simply arguiing that Karma did not offer NPO neither a fair deal nor "peace", as the guy claimed. Again, I'm not in the NPO. I was never in the NPO. I have nothing to do with the NPO.

The more I listen to your garbage, the more convinced I become that it would be a tragic mistake to show you any leniency whatsoever, because with each passing day it's becoming more and more obvious that you haven't learned a damn thing. You've made no apologies. You have no regrets. And the moment that you're allowed to have peace you're going to start planning the destruction of your enemies all over again.

Again, not in the NPO.

If it is of any trouble to you, I can switch my Sanctioned Alliance Flag.

[TypoNinja]

Again, not in the NPO.

If it is of any trouble to you, I can switch my Sanctioned Alliance Flag.

That might be wise.

[Azhrarn]

My alliance? My alliance has nothing to do with this war. I'm sorry if my argument seemed pathetic to you. I appreciate all criticisms and counter arguments.

I am not in the NPO by the way... and no, NPO's previous terms do not have anything to do with my argument with the other guy. He claimed karma was being fair. I simply said the peace terms were not fair and reflected upon Karma's desire to destroy the NPO.

I'm not demanding that the NPO get a fair deal. I am simply arguiing that Karma did not offer NPO neither a fair deal nor "peace", as the guy claimed. Again, I'm not in the NPO. I was never in the NPO. I have nothing to do with the NPO.

Again, not in the NPO.

If it is of any trouble to you, I can switch my Sanctioned Alliance Flag.

You know, you really don't need to keep repeating the same ignorant opinion over and over again. It's not like it's complicated or anything. "The terms Karma has given to the NPO aren't fair." See? I understood you just fine.

Unfortunately for you, no one in Karma cares about your opinion. You have no facts to back up your opinion. You can't point to any event in history to defend your opinion. You can't even make a logical argument to support your opinion. All you can do is keep repeating over and over again, "The peace terms are unfair. The peace terms are unfair," like some drooling idiot.

No one cares.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Azhrarn

[kulomascovia]

Heres a clue bat, beat your self over the head with it while i spell this out for you.

If the NPO has issued these terms in the past, and they were not then designed to destroy the alliance, then lighter terms than those clearly are not tailored to destroy your alliance, your repetitive parroting of the party line that the terms were crafted to be declined won't make your lie a truth no matter how often you repeat it.

Are you that uninformed? Or just that naive? Hello, we just defeated your alliance, its first real defeat in years. We want to make sure there is not a repeat performance of this war in a couple of months. Did you expect anything else? The thing you and the other drones keep missing is that its entirely possible to damage an enemies ability to make war without damaging their community.

Really now? I could have sworn you said something like...

Our terms target your stats, but not your community. If you have no community without your stats you have bigger problems than your ignorance and pride.

You said Karma wanted "peace" with the NPO and that they handed lenient terms. Then you switch and say Karma wants to stifle NPO's growth so that they don't declare war again. Make up your mind. I'm not saying the terms are "right" or "wrong". I am simply stating that Karma did not intend to have peace with the NPO as you said.

And again, stop saying "you". I am not in the NPO. I don't care where the NPO will be in the future. I just have a qualm with the argument you were making earlier.

Ahh the facetious reply ever the refuge of one who has run out of anything intelligent to say.

It's called a joke.

Umm whats your point? That alliances lose members at war? Thank you captain obvious.

Or are you one of those idiots who spouts on about the downsides of war while forgetting that theres more than just your alliance fighting?

You are right, I could have phrased that differently. What I was trying to say is that not a lot of nations would willingly stay in a stagnating alliance. The terms offered to the NPO were meant to stagnate the alliance and thus destroy it. Is this good or bad? Well, I guess that's for you to decide.

Edited July 5, 2009 by kulomascovia

[kulomascovia]

That might be wise.

Done.

[kulomascovia]

You know, you really don't need to keep repeating the same stupid opinion over and over again. It's not like it's complicated or anything. "The terms Karma has given to the NPO aren't fair." See? I understood you just fine.

Unfortunately for you, no one in Karma cares about your opinion. You have no facts to back up your opinion. You can't point to any event in history to defend your opinion. You can't even make a logical argument to support your opinion. All you can do is keep repeating over and over again, "The peace terms are unfair. The peace terms are unfair," like some drooling idiot.

No one cares.

I don't really care if Karma cares. I'm not in an argument with karma.

I can redirect you to :

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1609360

and

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1609401

for evidence that the terms are harsh and unfair. I am not saying that Karma should change its terms or anything of the sort. TypoNinja claimed that Karma wanted peace and didn't want to target the NPO community. I said the peace terms clearly show that Karma did not want peace with the NPO and did desire to destroy the NPO community. Some may say this is for the good of the world at large. I myself have no opinion. I couldn't care less if the NPO was destroyed.

[TypoNinja]

You said Karma wanted "peace" with the NPO and that they handed lenient terms. Then you switch and say Karma wants to stifle NPO's growth so that they don't declare war again. Make up your mind. I'm not saying the terms are "right" or "wrong".

I realize this might come to a shock for some with such a demonstrably limited mental capacity but, People can have more than one motivation for their actions at a time, in this case the thought process is fairly simply to follow, take notes if you must.

I want peace.

The NPO likes to pick fights.

Fortunately we managed to out fight the NPO this time around.

Now I want to do what I can to insure peace lasts.

I need to make sure the NPO isn't in a position to pick a fight again anytime soon.

See? what that so hard?

I am simply stating that Karma did not intend to have peace with the NPO as you said.

No you are simply repeating idiocy.

And again, stop saying "you". I am not in the NPO. I don't care where the NPO will be in the future. I just have a qualm with the argument you were making earlier.

You.

You.

You.

You.

You people.

It doesn't matter at this point if your NPO or one of their direct allies or not, as long as you sound like a NPO press release you'll get lumped in with them.

It's called a joke.

No, a joke would be funny. What you achieved was Failure.

You are right, I could have phrased that differently. What I was trying to say is that not a lot of nations would willingly stay in a stagnating alliance. The terms offered to the NPO were meant to stagnate the alliance and thus destroy it. Is this good or bad? Well, I guess that's for you to decide.

I love it when the psychophants bring this one up, As if your community somehow meant more to the game than anyone else, as if we should magically give you special consideration because the NPO's community is more important to the game for some reason.

It holds no water, its insulting, its one of the reasons nobody feels any sympathy for the NPO.

[TypoNinja]

I don't really care if Karma cares. I'm not in an argument with karma.

I can redirect you to :

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1609360

and

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1609401

for evidence that the terms are harsh and unfair. I am not saying that Karma should change its terms or anything of the sort. TypoNinja claimed that Karma wanted peace and didn't want to target the NPO community. I said the peace terms clearly show that Karma did not want peace with the NPO and did desire to destroy the NPO community. Some may say this is for the good of the world at large. I myself have no opinion. I couldn't care less if the NPO was destroyed.

Do some of your own research, the links you have provided are in order 1. discredited and 2. outdated.

1. lies damn lies and statistics, making up numbers to say whatever you want is pretty easy.

2. Since the NPO was so concerned about their chronic discipline problem we agreed to help them out with it, the terms were generously modified to work around the NPO's lack of ability to coordinate their movements.

[kulomascovia]

I want peace.

The NPO likes to pick fights.

Fortunately we managed to out fight the NPO this time around.

Now I want to do what I can to insure peace lasts.

I need to make sure the NPO isn't in a position to pick a fight again anytime soon.

See? what that so hard?

I don't think that what you said initially:

People who used to be in favour of peace have been driven away from that position by the sheer amount of crap you are pushing. All you are doing is convincing people you've learned nothing for this entire ordeal.

You claim that there were people in Karma looking for peace but because of NPO's supposed arrogance and pride, they have decided not to pursue peace. I said the peace terms show that Karma was opposed to peace with the NPO in the first place. NPO's rhetoric did not make anyone in Karma any less "peaceful". You also claimed that you did not want to hurt the NPO community. I said that hurting one's nation will inevitably hurt one's community. You did not say that you wanted the NPO destroyed. In fact, you even said:

At the start of this we were looking for peace, the worst sentiment from us was wanting to hurt you but a determination not to be dicks about it like you always were.

and then said:

We have no overriding desire to see you wiped out

You claim that you did not want to be "dicks" about the terms. Yet, the terms do look a bit "dicky" to me. I'm not saying anything about their rightness. You also claim that you did not want to see the NPO wiped out. Yet you said you will do anything to insure that the peace lasts by hurting the NPO community. I think you kind of contradicted yourself but then again, I could be wrong.

You.

You.

You.

You.

You people.

It doesn't matter at this point if your NPO or one of their direct allies or not, as long as you sound like a NPO press release you'll get lumped in with them.

I think there is a little misunderstanding between us. I am not saying that NPO was wronged. The terms may not be fair by conventional standards but people could argue that the NPO deserves it. I am not arguing about that. I am arguing about the fact that Karma did not intend to have peace with the NPO in the first place, just like you claimed in the beginning.

I love it when the psychophants bring this one up, As if your community somehow meant more to the game than anyone else, as if we should magically give you special consideration because the NPO's community is more important to the game for some reason.

It holds no water, its insulting, its one of the reasons nobody feels any sympathy for the NPO.

I don't believe you understood what I said. I don't care what happens to the NPO. That means I don't see the NPO community as being above anyone. And again, I'm not in the NPO and was never in the NPO. It is not my community that is in danger.

[Azhrarn]

I myself have no opinion. I couldn't care less if the NPO was destroyed.

Of course you don't. That's why you chose the NPO as your sanctioned alliance; and that's why you're spouting the same propaganda that NPO members use. Because you don't care.

See? This is why I stated at the outset that you really ought to leave this to someone better qualified.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Azhrarn

[kulomascovia]

Do some of your own research, the links you have provided are in order 1. discredited and 2. outdated.

1. lies damn lies and statistics, making up numbers to say whatever you want is pretty easy.

2. Since the NPO was so concerned about their chronic discipline problem we agreed to help them out with it, the terms were generously modified to work around the NPO's lack of ability to coordinate their movements.

1. You say the numbers are made up. However, I really have not seen any proof of that. If I am wrong, please feel free to show me a link.

2. How were they modified?

[kulomascovia]

Of course you don't. That's why you chose the NPO as your sanctioned alliance; and that's why you're spouting the same propaganda that NPO members use. Because you don't care.

Initially, when I was a noob, the flag appealed to me. Heck, I didn't even fully know about the NPO drama until about a month ago. I am not spouting the same propoganda that you claim NPO members use. My argument, again, is that Karma clearly did not intend to have any mercy upon the NPO. Is this good? Is this bad? I don't really care. I am not saying that the terms were good or bad. I am arguing about the original intentions of Karma.

[Azhrarn]

Initially, when I was a noob, the flag appealed to me. Heck, I didn't even fully know about the NPO drama until about a month ago.

I see. So you're defending the NPO because you like their flag? Is that kind of like voting for a candidate because you like his last name?

I am not spouting the same propoganda that you claim NPO members use.

Yes, you are. I could substitute Waterana for your name and no one would know the difference.

My argument, again, is that Karma clearly did not intend to have any mercy upon the NPO. Is this good? Is this bad? I don't really care. I am not saying that the terms were good or bad. I am arguing about the original intentions of Karma.

Unfortunately for you, the one thing you've demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that you lack the intellectual capacity to make any meaningful statements about Karma's "original intentions."

[TypoNinja]

You claim that you did not want to be "dicks" about the terms. Yet, the terms do look a bit "dicky" to me. I'm not saying anything about their rightness. You also claim that you did not want to see the NPO wiped out. Yet you said you will do anything to insure that the peace lasts by hurting the NPO community. I think you kind of contradicted yourself but then again, I could be wrong.

No you are just deliberately misunderstanding everything I say in an attempt to look clever, or you are just that ignorant, either is possible I suppose.

In any case since you lack the ability to read for context let me point out simply the most glaring issue you have blinded your self too. After you read that, go back reread some posts and think about them (don't mind the burning smell, just don't put anything flammable near your ears) and perhaps you might come to under stand other earth shattering points like how a community is not based on its infra.

In this context Karma people interested in peace are interested in the peace terms, and perhaps, if people like you haven't managed to kill any scrap of good will the NPO might have left, working the terms to make them a bit easier for the NPO to deal with.

The opposing position would be the people who are tired of the endless !@#$%^&* and have adopted the attitude "$%&@ em, they want to be idiots, they have the terms they can take em or stew"

Both of these positions still infact want peace, the thing dividing them is if we should do the NPO any more favours over the peace process to get it, or simply tell them to take their lumps and accept what they have been given, like they have done to so many others.

[kulomascovia]

I see. So you're defending the NPO because you like their flag? Is that kind of like voting for a candidate because you like his last name?

I am not defending the NPO.

Unfortunately for you, the one thing you've demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that you lack the intellectual capacity to make any meaningful statements about Karma's "original intentions."

So you disagree with me? You disagree that Karma did in fact want to have peace with the NPO and that they did impose terms that would enable the NPO to recover from the war, despite the fact the Archon, the guy who leads Karma, said that the intention of the terms was to keep the NPO down forever?

[Azhrarn]

I am not defending the NPO.

Apparently you've already forgotten what I said earlier about repeating the same stupid statement over and over again. Of course you're defending the NPO; and denying it ten times, or a hundred times, isn't going to make it any more believable than it was the first time you said it. All it does it make you sound like a drooling idiot.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Azhrarn

[Waterana]

No you are just deliberately misunderstanding everything I say in an attempt to look clever, or you are just that ignorant, either is possible I suppose.

In any case since you lack the ability to read for context let me point out simply the most glaring issue you have blinded your self too. After you read that, go back reread some posts and think about them (don't mind the burning smell, just don't put anything flammable near your ears) and perhaps you might come to under stand other earth shattering points like how a community is not based on its infra.

In this context Karma people interested in peace are interested in the peace terms, and perhaps, if people like you haven't managed to kill any scrap of good will the NPO might have left, working the terms to make them a bit easier for the NPO to deal with.

The opposing position would be the people who are tired of the endless !@#$%^&* and have adopted the attitude "$%&@ em, they want to be idiots, they have the terms they can take em or stew"

Both of these positions still infact want peace, the thing dividing them is if we should do the NPO any more favours over the peace process to get it, or simply tell them to take their lumps and accept what they have been given, like they have done to so many others.

We've already taken our lumps. It's called losing 20 million alliance strength, most of our allies, and all our political capital. We are defeated, beaten, have lost the war.

As I've said 100 times, fear is the sole motivating factor in these fake terms and the refusal of the alliances fighting us to show any sign they are truly interested in peace. Nothing we can say or do, outside disbandment which won't happen, will satisfy Karma and leave them feeling 'safe'.

[Walt Schmidt]

...my belief that as long as current leadership is in charge, the NPO will always be a threat to my alliance and my allies.

On Planet Bob ALL alliances are a threat to ALL OTHER alliances by the very nature of Planet Bob!

That said, it is all in how an alliance takes care of their own.

[Walt Schmidt]

Also, I don't remember "pledging fealty". If you could go back and find me ever saying "I pledge fealty", that'd be cool. You won't be able to, by the way.

Huh?

fe·al·ty [f əltee] - (plural fe·al·ties) - noun

1. allegiance to feudal lord: the loyalty sworn to a feudal lord by a vassal or tenant

2. faithfulness: loyalty or allegiance shown to anyone (archaic or literary)

[13th century. Via Old French feau(l)te < Latin fidelitas (see fidelity)]

Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

While the exact words might never have been spoken, what do you call the relationship any of us have on Planet Bob with the alliance we have joined?

Me, I call it fealty... obviously from your statement your mileage varies.

So, what DO you call it?

[Walt Schmidt]

...sitting in peace mode is such a great place for you. Have fun with that.

Sarcasm aside, if one's nation's primary functions in an alliance is monetary support and NOT MilCom, at the beginning of war what else is one to do but go into peace mode in order to maintain your primary function capabilities for after the war is over?

[ShinRa]

On Planet Bob ALL alliances are a threat to ALL OTHER alliances by the very nature of Planet Bob!

That said, it is all in how an alliance takes care of their own.

The obvious difference here being that not all other alliances are run by/consist of obsessive hypocrites who are determined to 'win' [ooc]this game and call abuse of the game's programming 'battle tactics'[/ooc], carve out their own empire via MDPs and MAPs to use other alliances as meat shields so they can repeatedly curb stop every alliance who speaks out against them then repeatedly backstab everyone who disagrees with them.

No offence. But I think I lost any sympathy or respect I may have ever had for the NPO when you started crying for mercy when you realized people you’d wronged outgunned and outnumbered you in this war.

Or perhaps when you chose to conquer GATO and turn it into your personal tech farm due to something which could have easily just been resolved by speaking to our government.

Yeah, probably that second one.

Edited July 5, 2009 by ShinRa