Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[enderland]

I see Bob already got this, but I do have something to add. Q had an overriding master-treaty clause. Meaning that the Continuum trumps *all* other treaties. Sparta knew that should even a 'defensive' war get sprung, they were obligated by Q to fight on the side of NPO. Regardless, by the Sparta government claims in this thread, Sparta has been planning on siding against NPO for "several months". So how was that supposed to work? (mebbe gathering intel while plotting & gathering allies, then switching sides at the last minute? )

I can't fault the 'do something about it' 'might-makes-right' mentality. Like it or not, that's the way the world works. But I can fault pretending to be a friend and ally while plotting to "defensively" take down your mates. And I can fault staying with a treaty when you are actively working against the spirit of the treaty.

Idk, having bloc meetings while excluding alliances probably didn't go over to well to those excluded.

I guess that is what happens when you level "do something about it" statements to the world at large. People do something about it?

[Matthew Conrad]

I see Bob already got this, but I do have something to add. Q had an overriding master-treaty clause. Meaning that the Continuum trumps *all* other treaties. Sparta knew that should even a 'defensive' war get sprung, they were obligated by Q to fight on the side of NPO. Regardless, by the Sparta government claims in this thread, Sparta has been planning on siding against NPO for "several months". So how was that supposed to work? (mebbe gathering intel while plotting & gathering allies, then switching sides at the last minute? )

I can't fault the 'do something about it' 'might-makes-right' mentality. Like it or not, that's the way the world works. But I can fault pretending to be a friend and ally while plotting to "defensively" take down your mates. And I can fault staying with a treaty when you are actively working against the spirit of the treaty.

It's not working against the spirit if you're defending your other allies. Unless of course the spirit of the treaty was explicitly rolling signatory allies. Being in Q and planning to defending our friends in SF from aggressive attacks is quite different from planning on destroying our own bloc. If we actually planned on an aggressive war to destroy the bloc, you would be correct. However, we only made defensive measures against any aggressive attack on our allies.

[Wilhelm the Demented]

I see Bob already got this, but I do have something to add. Q had an overriding master-treaty clause. Meaning that the Continuum trumps *all* other treaties. Sparta knew that should even a 'defensive' war get sprung, they were obligated by Q to fight on the side of NPO. Regardless, by the Sparta government claims in this thread, Sparta has been planning on siding against NPO for "several months". So how was that supposed to work? (mebbe gathering intel while plotting & gathering allies, then switching sides at the last minute? )

I can't fault the 'do something about it' 'might-makes-right' mentality. Like it or not, that's the way the world works. But I can fault pretending to be a friend and ally while plotting to "defensively" take down your mates. And I can fault staying with a treaty when you are actively working against the spirit of the treaty.

We were having doubts for "several months", but we never actively plotted against them. Please don't make assumptions.

[shahenshah]

Grub, do you remember the night Ivan posted his "apology" that ended the first Great War?

Because I do, but I think you don't.

I do not think that the present situation of NPO can in anyway be compared with GW1. TY

[iamthey]

They are not the ones that get to dictate terms. Saying "well they offered something different" is no justification to say that insisting on certain clauses is wrong.

Diplomacy is not a one way process there is always give and take. Why shouldn't NPO be able to set a bar of reps that they will accept and refuse to accept the terms that are offered? My point with that was that there is no articulated reason for keeping those two clauses in the terms other than the fact that they make it impossible for NPO to really pay them. If the terms are so easy to pay as their pusher's insist then why do we even need the clauses, just accept NPO's request drop those clauses and get even more money and tech from them.

Good question. I think the point you miss is that NPO's leadership has shown no change of policy or indication they intend to change post war. There was a post earlier by some NPOer saying "my pride prevents me from taking these terms" (paraphrased a bit).

That pride is exactly why they will not achieve peace.

If NPO wants peace they are first going to have to accept that the peace terms are not going to be terms that they like.

How can they demonstrate an FA policy change during a war they are losing that always comes after the war? As for their pride; they don't expect to get terms they like, but I believe any alliance would call it, its right to be issued terms that they are capable of paying. They don't think they the terms offered are payable and hence it is preferable to keep their banks and at least some of their alliance's economic infastructure safe in hippie mode until a better prospect arises.

[Azhrarn]

What I am calling for is a change, an active change in the community. End the spite and the vindictiveness and wipe the slate back to zero, and lets start again. The NPO can pay for its sins, in cash, in tech, in destroyed nations and lost membership and then for goodness sake move on. If they learned their lesson they will modify their behavior and the mission is accomplished, if not, c'est la vie, next time I wont be holding a treaty with them that prevents me having a swing too.

What I and others like me are calling for is change too. We just disagree on how to best bring about that change.

The controversial "come out of peace mode for a two-week beating term," let me try to explain it this way. What do many alliances do with nation rulers who insist on being asshats? What is the generally accepted practice? It's a one-time ZI, is it not? You teach the offender a lesson, hope he learns from it, and let him go his merry way.

Well, for years the NPO has been behaving like an asshat to everyone else on Planet Bob, deliberately targeting other alliances for destruction, disbanding some, trying to prevent others from even forming, and handing out PZI and EZI sentences like Chiclets.

So basically Karma has sentenced the entire NPO alliance to a one-time ZI. They can take their punishment, immediately rebuild their infra using their war chests, pay off the reparations, and then they'll be free to go their merry way.

Will they have learned their lesson? Personally I doubt it. As others have stated, so far all we've heard from NPO leadership and membership alike are complaints about their unfair treatment, and refusals to admit to any wrongdoing in the past. But if they do try to become the asshats of the universe again after receiving not one but two second-chances, the next time around I'll be arguing for perma-ZI of the entire alliance.

And besides, after hearing about how incompetent Karma is at warfare, I would think the NPO would enjoy coming out of peace mode to kick our collective butts.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Azhrarn

[iamthey]

Heft has repeatedly brought up GtG's past and such. Why didn't you mention anything when that happened?

Unfortunately i'm not omniscient, but I would have had I seen it. My point was just because heft has a "potential" bias does't mean the argument is necessarily invalid. I mean if that were the case most of us on both sides of the debate couldn't speak.

[Matthew Conrad]

Unfortunately i'm not omniscient, but I would have had I seen it. My point was just because heft has a "potential" bias does't mean the argument is necessarily invalid. I mean if that were the case most of us on both sides of the debate couldn't speak.

I agree, past actions don't invalidate good points. My apologies if I jumped to conclusions. I just didn't find it fair that Heft could use such methods without GtG being entitled to the same.

[Heft]

Unfortunately i'm not omniscient, but I would have had I seen it. My point was just because heft has a "potential" bias does't mean the argument is necessarily invalid. I mean if that were the case most of us on both sides of the debate couldn't speak.

Also when I was discussing his past I was discussing it as a reason for my beliefs about him at present, in which case his past would actually be relevant. The only way my past is relevant to the argument I presented is that it allows me to say those things from personal experience, otherwise the argument itself is distint from my personal history.

[enderland]

Diplomacy is not a one way process there is always give and take. Why shouldn't NPO be able to set a bar of reps that they will accept and refuse to accept the terms that are offered? My point with that was that there is no articulated reason for keeping those two clauses in the terms other than the fact that they make it impossible for NPO to really pay them. If the terms are so easy to pay as their pusher's insist then why do we even need the clauses, just accept NPO's request drop those clauses and get even more money and tech from them.

Surrender terms however are in fact not necessarily give and take. Especially in a "we gave you something you don't want now we get what we want" manner of give and take.

How can they demonstrate an FA policy change during a war they are losing that always comes after the war? As for their pride; they don't expect to get terms they like, but I believe any alliance would call it, its right to be issued terms that they are capable of paying. They don't think they the terms offered are payable and hence it is preferable to keep their banks and at least some of their alliance's economic infastructure safe in hippie mode until a better prospect arises.

For starters, not giving those alliances attacking them the middle finger publically would greatly have helped. Secondly, allowing government to be completely disrespectful towards those negotiating peace on the other side. It also would probably help for NPO to make some effort to inform their membership of the nature of the terms as people still incorrectly interpret them after several statements were made by Karma government officials publically (and probably privately, if NPO ever actually misinterpreted them in the first place).

[iamthey]

So basically Karma has sentenced the entire NPO alliance to a one-time ZI. They can take their punishment, immediately rebuild their infra using their war chests, pay off the reparations, and then they'll be free to go their merry way.

As for this, and what of the many who have no war chest? We all know that despite the warnings, and calls for war chests to be raised many ignore the calls all together. And more over then why do we need the second clause, the one that splits the alliance in half and subjects on half to 300k tech and the other to whatever billions were to be demanded? Why not just collectively subject the entirety of the alliance to the terms? Done, then they got their ZI and they can still pay with the tech they all have left.

[Xiphosis]

Idk, having bloc meetings while excluding alliances probably didn't go over to well to those excluded.

Or being given different masks by certain signatories to check loyalty. Or being accused, threatened and/or ganged up on by other signatories over b/s. Yup. Didn't go over very well at all.

Had someone, lets say SF, started this war in a manner similar to how NPO started it, I guarantee that the sides would have been drastically different. In addition the outcome probably would have been different.

Something we knew very well, in any case. The only time offensive was ever brought up was by me (just to explore the idea), and I got shot down pretty quick.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Xiphosis

[Griff]

A great speech, Emperor Grub. Karma's starting to get drunk on it's own power. Echelon's terms were way overboard.

o-\ NpO

[enderland]

As for this, and what of the many who have no war chest? We all know that despite the warnings, and calls for war chests to be raised many ignore the calls all together. And more over then why do we need the second clause, the one that splits the alliance in half and subjects on half to 300k tech and the other to whatever billions were to be demanded? Why not just collectively subject the entirety of the alliance to the terms? Done, then they got their ZI and they can still pay with the tech they all have left.

There are plenty of ways that clauses could be rewritten to satisfy both parties here. However, I highly doubt either is interested since I am sure that if I wanted to I could probably create 5 completely different sets of terms that effectively prevent NPO from being a significant threat for many months.

Especially since NPO keeps finding remaining diplomatic credibility and burning it all, every time they find any.

Or being given different masks by certain signatories to check loyalty. Or being accused, threatened and/or ganged up on by other signatories over b/s. Yup. Didn't go over very well at all.

Oh, funny, I never even knew about that part, heh.

[Bob Sanders]

But there was no great public hatred amongst both sides in the Karma war. In the UJW everybody knew there was a war coming, and knew roughly the alliances that would participate in it. There were grudges that were had, and every week tensions rose even higher.

In the Karma war, everybody knew war was going to happen, however this was an unneeded war. This war would never have occured if NPO and TORN decided go to war. OV was never a huge threat to the NPO. If NPO and OV would have been able to work it out during negotiations, this war never would have happened. But as it stands, the NPO and TORN attacked in the middle of negotiations, and posted their DOW 30 minutes after their nations had engaged OV targets.

This war was started by NPO and TORN attacking OV. The alliance in Karma did not want to see another NPO beat down war, and were tired of being on the receiving end of threats from NPO and Continuum and One Vision. So they took a line out of the propoganda, and "did something about it".

My point here is that this war started due to NPO's actions. NPO and TORN decided to attack an alliance whose treaty partners were not going to drop them, but instead honored their treaties. The Unjust War occured because of a mutual dislike of both sides, and ended when certain people on the ~ side took advantage of an OOC situation, ended the war, end effectively forced an alliance to disband.

You have absolutely no idea what was going on. This leadup to both wars was virtually identical. The only difference is that you were on Sponge's side this time and you are buying the propaganda hook, line and sinker.

We were having doubts for "several months", but we never actively plotted against them. Please don't make assumptions.

I am making no assumptions, I am stating facts. Sparta was in war planning talks as early as January and February and I didn't need GtG to tell me that. Claiming some noble defensive goal is ridiculous. You wanted NPO dead and made moves to make that goal a reality. If it wasn't OV it would have been something else, the actual cb was no more relevant than the cb in UJW.

[enderland]

I am making no assumptions, I am stating facts. Sparta was in war planning talks as early as January and February and I didn't need GtG to tell me that. Claiming some noble defensive goal is ridiculous. You wanted NPO dead and made moves to make that goal a reality. If it wasn't OV it would have been something else, the actual cb was no more relevant than the cb in UJW.

Do you honestly believe that if, say idk Athens (<3) attacked TOOL in the middle of negotiations for some reason and that war snowballed, that the same alliances would have been on each side?

I guarantee that the main reason the sides were so clear this war was because of NPO's huge diplomatic blunder of attacking during negotiations.

[Xiphosis]

Sparta was in war planning talks as early as January and February and I didn't need GtG to tell me that.

That's pretty funny. As early as January, you say? Even SF didn't have a clear plan of what we wanted to do then, and we certainly weren't talking freely with Q members about fighting Q.

[iamthey]

Surrender terms however are in fact not necessarily give and take. Especially in a "we gave you something you don't want now we get what we want" manner of give and take.

Yes, but the Alliance against NPO have better things to do then squish already ZI'd individuals even further and spend hours monitoring the ranks for people exiting PM. Given I've been in wars where the other side as no chance im sure its no tax on the members but the governments probably. An end to the war and the in flow of its spoils is always preferable to two more months of target listing and corralling new members to FFA the already dead NPOers.

For starters, not giving those alliances attacking them the middle finger publically would greatly have helped. Secondly, allowing government to be completely disrespectful towards those negotiating peace on the other side. It also would probably help for NPO to make some effort to inform their membership of the nature of the terms as people still incorrectly interpret them after several statements were made by Karma government officials publically (and probably privately, if NPO ever actually misinterpreted them in the first place).

As for that, there is precedent for going public with terms that an alliance considers unacceptable. STA has done it, and if others haven't it I know enemies of NPO in the past have made it their mission to publicly complain about their conditions; hence all the resentment now. Why should you expect NPO to act any differently? Of course they are unhappy of course they think its unfair. For the last three years every act the NPO has done has been rationalized at its upper levels to be sound and necessary; I would bet they probably consider themselves victims of an unfair backlash. And I can understand that. So when presented these terms they are going to do everything in their power to attempt to reverse them. They know karma won't have mercy so where do they turn; the OWF, and then to their own membership to increase their own internal morale. While I can see your point, they haven't been friendly; they are simply acting under the rightful assumption that they have no hope earning some mercy from those they are at war with.

Also when I was discussing his past I was discussing it as a reason for my beliefs about him at present, in which case his past would actually be relevant. The only way my past is relevant to the argument I presented is that it allows me to say those things from personal experience, otherwise the argument itself is distint from my personal history.

Indeed, it would depend on the context. But I meant the way it was presented it seemed like GTG was just saying "He was in IRON gov for two years, and in tC the whole time his argument is invalid; he may not even believe what he is saying." And I just thought that was unfair, and really irrelevant to the larger point heft was making. But I would defend anyone who's argument was invalidated on the grounds of their identity unless there was some real reason why that identity or relationship impacted the argument. *shrugs*

Edited July 6, 2009 by iamthey

[Lennox]

Do I even need to explain why Grub and Polaris are so awesome?

[logan1]

wow heft

i got to about page 8 and was shaking my head.

before you attack Sparta, you should make sure your own house is in order.

the punishment NPO has many factors to consider.

what about the punishment of NSO for your recent recruiting methods?

just get your own house in order before condemning Sparta who isnt even considering reps, ect, ect.

i for 1 believe this planet deserves the right to exist without the fear of NPOs tactics becoming a threat in the near future.

my what short memories we have.

[shahenshah]

We never said they were super efficient, but they're at least just as efficient as some of their former enemies.

Our "wake up call" was deciding we didn't like what was going on around here about eight months ago. So we did something about it.

8 months ago were you not actively supporting the Hegemony and were a part of it?

[George the Great]

I see Bob already got this, but I do have something to add. Q had an overriding master-treaty clause. Meaning that the Continuum trumps *all* other treaties. Sparta knew that should even a 'defensive' war get sprung, they were obligated by Q to fight on the side of NPO. Regardless, by the Sparta government claims in this thread, Sparta has been planning on siding against NPO for "several months". So how was that supposed to work? (mebbe gathering intel while plotting & gathering allies, then switching sides at the last minute? )

I can't fault the 'do something about it' 'might-makes-right' mentality. Like it or not, that's the way the world works. But I can fault pretending to be a friend and ally while plotting to "defensively" take down your mates. And I can fault staying with a treaty when you are actively working against the spirit of the treaty.

Yes, and we voiced our concerns to Q over the veiled threats other signatories were making about our allies and we repeatedly asked that they stop. Due to their paranoia, however, they didn't. The crazy talk kept coming how they were going to attack them and that something needed to be done. It's funny how that was when "our side" started making up contingency plans. We warned you repeatedly that your paranoia was going to cause/push the things you were afraid about to happen. It pushed your side all the way to attacking OV. You can't come on here and say we didn't ask that you guys stop, and that we didn't try to help change the bloc. You guys were stuck in your fear that the alliances you once crushed would come back to haunt you, alliances we were also allies and even friends with. Also, Q is a MDoAP. We wouldn't need to come to anyone's aid in the even of an aggressive war. An aggressive war would also need to be announced prior to acting on it, so we'd know ahead of time. If it did come down to that while we were in it, we'd leave. That stance could not have been clearer. I made a pretty big post on the Q boards way before all this explaining how we felt. We also told NPO, after they asked, that we wouldn't cancel our individual treaty just because we were leaving Q. I guess they took that as we'd never cancel on them as they were shocked when we canceled on them after attacking OV during peace negotiations.

I still my Kry pie, but we did try. :\

Also when I was discussing his past I was discussing it as a reason for my beliefs about him at present, in which case his past would actually be relevant. The only way my past is relevant to the argument I presented is that it allows me to say those things from personal experience, otherwise the argument itself is distint from my personal history.

My past allows me to say the same things as yours, Heft. I was in Q as well and I eventually learned how things worked there. Then I learned how things were outside of Q and decided that maybe it's time for some change. You have been defending the alliances on the hegemony quite a bit, whether you want to believe it or not, so I happen to doubt your change. I, however, am at war with them.

And to Bob, you forget one thing. The CB would ALWAYS have been a scenario where you guys attacked our guys, not the other way around. It's more important than you claim.

[enderland]

Yes, but the Alliance against NPO have better things to do then squish already ZI'd individuals even further and spend hours monitoring the ranks for people exiting PM. Given I've been in wars where the other side as no chance im sure its no tax on the members but the governments probably. An end to the war and the in flow of its spoils is always preferable to two more months of target listing and corralling new members to FFA the already dead NPOers.

I think if you checked random nations in the "ZIed" ranks you would be surprised to find how few have wars. Perhaps those with lots of tech remaining but most have no wars at all.

The bolded is not why people are fighting NPO. Perhaps that is a standard for why to fight wars amongst ex-hegemony alliances, but that is not why NPO is being fought.

As for that, there is precedent for going public with terms that an alliance considers unacceptable. STA has done it, and if others haven't it I know enemies of NPO in the past have made it their mission to publicly complain about their conditions; hence all the resentment now. Why should you expect NPO to act any differently? Of course they are unhappy of course they think its unfair. For the last three years every act the NPO has done has been rationalized at its upper levels to be sound and necessary; I would bet they probably consider themselves victims of an unfair backlash. And I can understand that. So when presented these terms they are going to do everything in their power to attempt to reverse them. They know karma won't have mercy so where do they turn; the OWF, and then to their own membership to increase their own internal morale. While I can see your point, they haven't been friendly; they are simply acting under the rightful assumption that they have no hope earning some mercy from those they are at war with.

I would have expected them to act differently for the exact same reasons you later list - it should have been obvious that giving those attacking them a big "no u" would go over poorly.

The reason STA did it was that they were being hit with those sorts of terms for no reason at all, whereas here, NPO has done plenty as an alliance to receive terms of almost any nature. All they did was strengthen the resolve of those fighting them by their statement.

[Caliph]

You have absolutely no idea what was going on. This leadup to both wars was virtually identical. The only difference is that you were on Sponge's side this time and you are buying the propaganda hook, line and sinker.

No, this is where you are wrong.

See, we all knew NPO would find a reason to war against someone. Finally, because we all didn't want to see that happen again, we formed a plan that we would honor our defense treaties.

The lead up to this war was far less public than the UJW. You remember the thread in which Bilrow and 404 error were contradicting each other blatantly when both were in the WUT? You remember when 404 error showed evidence that proved that the nation on the brown team with no Alliance Affiliation was not, in fact, a GGA nation? You remember when they had those threads, going back and forth, with the UJP alliances on one side and the ~ alliances on the other? I don't recall too many of those threads leading up to the Karma war.

Simply put, this war was planned out to be a response to NPO agression. If NPO didn't attack, Karma would not have attacked. The UJW was going to happen, regardless if Genmay DOWed BOTS. GGA would have used their same CB against GOONS, and the rest would have piggy backed into the war anyway.

So you're wrong once again.

I am making no assumptions, I am stating facts. Sparta was in war planning talks as early as January and February and I didn't need GtG to tell me that. Claiming some noble defensive goal is ridiculous. You wanted NPO dead and made moves to make that goal a reality. If it wasn't OV it would have been something else, the actual cb was no more relevant than the cb in UJW.

Again, the Karma war occured simply because NPO declared on an alliance who had allies who decided to honor their treaties. The UJW occured because of a mutual dislike and a gradual rise of tensions, culminating in both sides gaining a CB and it was simply a manner of time before one of them used their CB to start the war.

[Lennox]

I'm not sure how this is a decree of anything other than "Grub has his ever watchful eyes on you, Karma", but I suppose it's nice to know that CSB can safely make ever more irrelevant threads now!

You missed the whole point of the thread.