Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[NoFish]

I'm not sure how you could have thought Citadel wasn't on your side... every NS estimate from christmas onwards had Citadel opposite One Vision, and as it was made rather clear, the only situation they would not support was one in which Karma declared war first. Of course I don't speak for Citadel, but coincidences sure are nice and abundant on Planet Bob, aren't they?

You should read Delta's blog for the full recounting of the event, but Chill believed that the NPO's CB was valid and his intent was relayed to veto a Gremlins entrance into the war should it come up, for a period at least. We believed that Gremlins being neutral would lead to Umbrella going neutral, and have TOP and MHA side against us. The numbers from there inclined us to a rather pessimistic outlook. During that period Sparta made it clear that they were still going to stand by us.

(Edited for clarity)

Edited July 7, 2009 by NoFish

[hizzy]

You should read Delta's blog for the full recounting of the event, but Chill believed that the NPO's CB was valid and his intent was relayed to veto a Gremlins entrance into the war should it come up, for a period at least. We believed that Gremlins being neutral would lead to Umbrella going neutral, and have TOP and MHA side against us. The numbers from there inclined us to a rather pessimistic outlook. During that period Sparta made it clear that they were still going to stand by us.

(Edited for clarity)

Oh ya, I know what episode you're referring to... i was there as well... but from what I recall, that episode only lasted a day or 2 at most. I remember it distinctly because I heard about it, went to bed thinking it had fallen apart, and waking up to find NPO launching an attack on OV.

[Mussolandia]

Echoing someone else's feelings, I used to like Sparta much more. Like when they didn't post in the forums and were just a dull, bulky alliance. Is it a coincidence that they started doing this after the massive curbstomp inflicted on their partners in crime?

Edited July 7, 2009 by Mussolandia

[NoFish]

Oh ya, I know what episode you're referring to... i was there as well... but from what I recall, that episode only lasted a day or 2 at most. I remember it distinctly because I heard about it, went to bed thinking it had fallen apart, and waking up to find NPO launching an attack on OV.

Does it matter if it was a year, a day, or an hour? The fact is that when we thought we were going to get rolled, Sparta was ready to get rolled right beside us. Not exactly the action of pixel-hugging opportunists, eh?

[Eretz Yisrael]

Does it matter if it was a year, a day, or an hour? The fact is that when we thought we were going to get rolled, Sparta was ready to get rolled right beside us. Not exactly the action of pixel-hugging opportunists, eh?

There's an enormous difference between thinking it's going to happen and it actually happening.

[hizzy]

Does it matter if it was a year, a day, or an hour? The fact is that when we thought we were going to get rolled, Sparta was ready to get rolled right beside us. Not exactly the action of pixel-hugging opportunists, eh?

I was trying to subtly inform you that I was sitting next to you, was not under similar fears, and quite frankly I think you're being a little over-dramatic.

Then again, subtlety really doesn't work for me, which is why I end up being a little too blunt and piss people off. Oh well.

[Balkan Banania]

I think this

When rumors of NPO and TORN hitting OV emerged, we watched and waited and consulted with our allies that were tied with OV to see what they would do. When it became clear that our new brothers, GOD, would defend OV with every last ounce of strength they had, we knew we had to leave Q. We were closer to GOD than to the arrangement that was Q. We still shared strong relationships with some alliances in Q, but could not consciously stay in Q while it destroyed one of our closest allies.

We canceled treaties with several Q members, but promised NPO that we would not cancel on them. We intended to keep that promise, but when NPO flat out attacked OV without even talking to us first, we had to cancel that treaty, and join GOD in the fight to defend OV. That fight happened to be against NPO, so that is why we attacked them.

contradicts this (also according to this no one was expected to get rolled, it was considered a dead even situation even months before):

Sparta had been on the "karma" side of this war for months before it even happened, back when the war looked like it was going to be dead even (More NS on the Hegemony side, but more nukes on the Karma side).

but meh... it doesn't matter, I would be alright if the cloak of morals was not used to cover the dagger of betrayal (and only because the use of morals in every opportunity is damaging the OWF quality). This is a political game, betrayal and deception are parts of the game and you used them very well (along with other people), so kudos, just state it and enjoy your power. Your motives are transparent so I don't see the reason that you try so hard to cover them; I think PRs are irrelevant at this point of the war so you can stop claiming the moral high ground and as the Siths would say embrace the dark side, openly this time .

[NoFish]

I was trying to subtly inform you that I was sitting next to you, was not under similar fears, and quite frankly I think you're being a little over-dramatic.

Then again, subtlety really doesn't work for me, which is why I end up being a little too blunt and piss people off. Oh well.

Well, I'm horrible at reading subtlety, I guess that's just a losing combination, huh? Regardless, I was certainly of the opinion that we were going to, if not get rolled, have a very uphill fight ahead of us - and that Sparta would be on our side for it. Your opinion of that seems to differ.

In either case I think we've drifted from the subject at hand - if you want to talk about the lead up to the war in PM feel free to send me one, but I think we understand each other at this point

[Denial]

I believe (or at least, the way I interpreted it) what Grub meant was that to play a "defensive war" and then force nations out of peace mode is rather... an odd way of expecting a war to play out. When it started, a lot of NPO nations were in peace mode anyways (along with a lot of nations in the other 1V alliances), so for them to stay in peace mode from start to finish and then to be told by the defensive side to come out and fight is rather... well it's not really defense is it?

That is a very poor argument, hizzy. One can still endeavour towards total victory against an opponent and wage a defensive war. As you yourself mentioned, many of Pacifica's nations began the war in peace mode and have remained there ever since. I do not think there is anything cruel or unusual for a coalition to want to appropriately reprimand the alliance that aggressively attacked their ally and initiated a global war. After all, if we expand your logic, the New Pacific Order could have moved 75% of their nations to peace mode, attacked Ordo Verde, and Karma alliances would be forced to be content with only punishing the 25% of nations, whilst leaving the other three quarters of the alliance unharmed.

[youwish959]

That is a very poor argument, hizzy. One can still endeavour towards total victory against an opponent and wage a defensive war. As you yourself mentioned, many of Pacifica's nations began the war in peace mode and have remained there ever since. I do not think there is anything cruel or unusual for a coalition to want to appropriately reprimand the alliance that aggressively attacked their ally and initiated a global war. After all, if we expand your logic, the New Pacific Order could have moved 75% of their nations to peace mode, attacked Ordo Verde, and Karma alliances would be forced to be content with only punishing the 25% of nations, whilst leaving the other three quarters of the alliance unharmed.

Your not reprimanding, you're crippling.

[Waterana]

Your not reprimanding, you're crippling.

Exactly. Which is why those terms were rejected by our government. Our opposition doesn't seem to get it. Surrender terms are supposed to be a better alternative for the defeated alliance than staying in the war so they want to accept them. Those terms make remaining at war the much better option for our nations and alliance overall, so the Emperor said 'no thanks' and we keep fighting.

When an alliance surrenders it is supposed to mean peace, not a continuation of the war. The restriction on who can pay tech reps is also another method of continuing to damage us (and Echelon for that matter) after terms are signed as only nations with a lot of tech can pay them. As buying tech is very expensive for them, they are forced to give up their own supply and significantly weaken both themselves and our alliance strength doing it. Small nations, such as mine, can buy rep tech cheaply and easily and not have the loss cost our own alliance its overall strength, which is why we'd not be allowed to.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Waterana

[hizzy]

That is a very poor argument, hizzy. One can still endeavour towards total victory against an opponent and wage a defensive war. As you yourself mentioned, many of Pacifica's nations began the war in peace mode and have remained there ever since. I do not think there is anything cruel or unusual for a coalition to want to appropriately reprimand the alliance that aggressively attacked their ally and initiated a global war. After all, if we expand your logic, the New Pacific Order could have moved 75% of their nations to peace mode, attacked Ordo Verde, and Karma alliances would be forced to be content with only punishing the 25% of nations, whilst leaving the other three quarters of the alliance unharmed.

To clarify: I personally would giggle my $@! of to see all of NPO ZI'd. I was simply trying to express to Bob what Grub may have meant. Now, as to the validity of that argument, I think it's a rather subjective issue.

I mean, not only did some NPO nations start in peace mode... but most of them in peace mode now are there due to errors made on Karma's part. Do you punish nations that made it into peace mode due to your own failure in staggering and/or target coverage? I didn't think so when NPO did it to GATO, and I can't bring myself to think so in this case either. I'm looking at it as a situation without names; simply alliance x vs. alliance y.

Now, if you ask me to analyze the same situation subjectively and for NPO: well, like I've said a hundred times, let'em burn. But, even while I say so, I can admit that I want them to burn out of vengeance. I could not possibly do the same while simultaneously trying to usher in a better era. I'm a believer of setting the tone and leading by example. If that makes me naive, and (hypothetically) NPO rises again and tries to enact revenge... well, I think we've already proven that there are enough people who won't stand idly by anymore.

[R&R-Viking]

Your not reprimanding, you're crippling.

That's the idea, yeah.

[hizzy]

Exactly. Which is why those terms were rejected by our government. Our opposition doesn't seem to get it. Surrender terms are supposed to be a better alternative for the defeated alliance than staying in the war so they want to accept them. Those terms make remaining at war the much better option for our nations and alliance overall, so the Emperor said 'no thanks' and we keep fighting.

When an alliance surrenders it is supposed to mean peace, not a continuation of the war. The restriction on who can pay tech reps is also another method of continuing to damage us (and Echelon for that matter) after terms are signed as only nations with a lot of tech can pay them. As buying tech is very expensive for them, they are forced to give up their own supply and significantly weaken both themselves and our alliance strength doing it. Small nations, such as mine, can buy rep tech cheaply and easily and not have the loss cost our own alliance its overall strength, which is why we're not allowed to.

Waterana, we've never met before... we've never exchanged replies on the forums (to my knowledge, unless I missed something), and I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but please believe me when I say;

Every time a member of NPO opens their mouth about what peace terms "should" be, it pisses off at least 1 person (very conservative estimate). The terms you're facing are due to YOUR OWN terms set forth in the past. Forcing nations out of peace mode? Congratulations, Pacifica set the precedent on that one. Restrictions on tech? Once again, congrats. You're to blame. Disagreeing with karma's terms is not supporting you.

[HellAngel]

You should read Delta's blog for the full recounting of the event, but Chill believed that the NPO's CB was valid and his intent was relayed to veto a Gremlins entrance into the war should it come up, for a period at least. We believed that Gremlins being neutral would lead to Umbrella going neutral, and have TOP and MHA side against us. The numbers from there inclined us to a rather pessimistic outlook. During that period Sparta made it clear that they were still going to stand by us.

(Edited for clarity)

I think he wasnt exactly thinking of what happenedto be a valid CB, i think it was just that he didnt see the proposed punishment (was it one or two weeks of attacks?) as THAT bad and perhaps not as a waterproof reason to draw the whole world into a conflict.

That being said, Gremlins made an alliance wide poll to determine if the members wanted to go to war or not. It turned out hugely in favour of it, so Chill wasnt properly representing the alliance (as was his duty). I know this point is kinda moot since we elected him into a position where he was able to do so, but i can assure you that we would have gone to war nevertheless. Heck, had i known what he was saying in backchannels i would probably have called for his impeachment, but the situation moved too rapidly for anyone to try and catch it.

Just as clarification. It wasnt a pretty situation.

Edited July 7, 2009 by HellAngel

[Waterana]

The peace nation thing applies only to GATO, who aren't one of the alliances at war with us. If GATO want to declare on us and make that term their part of the surrender terms, then I'd understand and accept their right to do so, but not a group of fear and vengeance driven alliances acting in their name, especially as GATO themselves have requested they be kept out of this. Besides, wanting to kill our banks has nothing to do with what we did to GATO, that is just the excuse being used. It is to knock down their strength and get us out of sanction. We already know that.

I'm not calling you a liar, but can't think of us using the only high tech nations can pay tech reps in any set of terms we've given other alliances. Do you have any examples of us ever doing that?

Edited July 7, 2009 by Waterana

[Teriethien]

The peace nation thing applies only to GATO, who aren't one of the alliances at war with us. If GATO want to declare on us and make that term their part of the surrender terms, then I'd understand and accept their right to do so, but not a group of fear and vengeance driven alliances acting in their name, especially as GATO themselves have requested they be kept out of this.

That's beside the point. You did it to GATO, how could you complain when someone else do it to you? That's blatant double standards.

You really should just take Hizzy's advice. I could almost feel sorry for the NPO, but reading posts by Pacificans kills it.

[NoFish]

I think he wasnt exactly thinking of what happenedto be a valid CB, i think it was just that he didnt see the proposed punishment (was it one or two weeks of attacks?) as THAT bad and perhaps not as a waterproof reason to draw the whole world into a conflict.

That being said, Gremlins made an alliance wide poll to determine if the members wanted to go to war or not. It turned out hugely in favour of it, so Chill wasnt properly representing the alliance (as was his duty). I know this point is kinda moot since we elected him into a position where he was able to do so, but i can assure you that we would have gone to war nevertheless. Heck, had i known what he was saying in backchannels i would probably have called for his impeachment, but the situation moved too rapidly for anyone to try and catch it.

Just as clarification. It wasnt a pretty situation.

My apologies, your post should have been unnecessary. I had no intention to slander the good name of Gremlins, but I can see how it could have looked to you even if you didn't accuse me of trying to do so and I'm sorry. I was merely hoping to express the sentiments my alliance-mates and I felt at the time, but I should have made the result more clear in my original post. My bad.

[hizzy]

The peace nation thing applies only to GATO, who aren't one of the alliances at war with us. If GATO want to declare on us and make that term their part of the surrender terms, then I'd understand and accept their right to do so, but not a group of fear and vengeance driven alliances acting in their name, especially as GATO themselves have requested they be kept out of this. Besides, wanting to kill our banks has nothing to do with what we did to GATO, that is just the excuse being used. It is to knock down their strength and get us out of sanction. We already know that.

I'm not calling you a liar, but can't think of us using the only high tech nations can pay tech reps in any set of terms we've given other alliances. Do you have any examples of us ever doing that?

Whether or not GATO is in this, it doesn't change it being a precedent that was set by you. Incidentally, you did it to GATO for the same reason they're doing it to you. Karma, after all.

There was one example of you doing the tech thing to another alliance is someone's sig... I forget off-hand, but the one that comes to my mind was what happened to Polaris... surrender terms that NPO not only allowed, but had a hand in.

[Waterana]

That's beside the point. You did it to GATO, how could you complain when someone else do it to you? That's blatant double standards.

You really should just take Hizzy's advice. I could almost feel sorry for the NPO, but reading posts by Pacificans kills it.

The peace nation thing applies only to GATO, who aren't one of the alliances at war with us. If GATO want to declare on us and make that term their part of the surrender terms, then I'd understand and accept their right to do so, but not a group of fear and vengeance driven alliances acting in their name, especially as GATO themselves have requested they be kept out of this. Besides, wanting to kill our banks has nothing to do with what we did to GATO, that is just the excuse being used. It is to knock down their strength and get us out of sanction. We already know that.

Yes, we did it to GATO, and our Emperor apologised to them for it. Not that most of the ardent haters care. As I said in the quote above, our Karma opponents don't want to kill our banks because of GATO. That is only the catch cry they keep throwing out to justify it. Doesn't matter much anyway, as the terms have been rejected and our banks will remain safe in peacemode until they are free to emerge without the threat of war hanging over their heads. Personally, I consider myself to be fighting to ensure their protection now.

[youwish959]

That's the idea, yeah.

Then don't play it the other way, man up and say what you are doing. Quit trying to play the role of white knight, perfect in all aspects. Man up and be up front about what you're doing.

So, as Wateranna pointed out why would the NPO surrender to you lot if remaining in war was simply a better option? What is the incentive to come out of war to get completley annhilated and then pay billions in money and hundreds of thousands of tech to your lot?

[Gopherbashi]

There was one example of you doing the tech thing to another alliance is someone's sig... I forget off-hand, but the one that comes to my mind was what happened to Polaris... surrender terms that NPO not only allowed, but had a hand in.

The New Pacific Order did not declare war on the New Polar Order, and I should remind you that six of the eight alliances who issued "the tech thing" as part of surrender terms sided with Karma during this war.

[Teriethien]

Yes, we did it to GATO, and our Emperor apologised to them for it. Not that most of the ardent haters care. As I said in the quote above, our Karma opponents don't want to kill our banks because of GATO. That is only the catch cry they keep throwing out to justify it. Doesn't matter much anyway, as the terms have been rejected and our banks will remain safe in peacemode until they are free to emerge without the threat of war hanging over their heads. Personally, I consider myself to be fighting to ensure their protection now.

...Sure, you apologised about what you did to GATO in the same thread that goes on to whine about being offered treated in the same way. Very, very genuine. This has been done to death in the 200+ page trainwreck you know.

[HellAngel]

My apologies, your post should have been unnecessary. I had no intention to slander the good name of Gremlins, but I can see how it could have looked to you even if you didn't accuse me of trying to do so and I'm sorry. I was merely hoping to express the sentiments my alliance-mates and I felt at the time, but I should have made the result more clear in my original post. My bad.

Oh no please, your feelings are completely justified, but of course i appreciate it.

[Mozaffar]

The peace nation thing applies only to GATO, who aren't one of the alliances at war with us. If GATO want to declare on us and make that term their part of the surrender terms, then I'd understand and accept their right to do so, but not a group of fear and vengeance driven alliances acting in their name, especially as GATO themselves have requested they be kept out of this. Besides, wanting to kill our banks has nothing to do with what we did to GATO, that is just the excuse being used. It is to knock down their strength and get us out of sanction. We already know that.

So let me get this straight the rules your trying to propose for just and morally justifiable surrender terms are, according to you, that the alliance needs to have personally underwent the very same surrender terms they are proposing to another alliance. Strange that NPO & friends only thought up this doctrine when they could very well be on the receiving end of these terms.

edit: For the reason of keeping the game interesting and I think some lingering nostalgia I support not too harsh peace terms for the NPO. But certainly not because of the NPO membership coming to this forum talking about how harsh peace terms are unfair.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Mozaffar