Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[Trinite]

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.

I think Viking has been quite consistent in what he's said. I disagree with him. We're both in Karma. We must be hypocrites.

[youwish959]

A promise like that comes with a tacit rider along the lines of 'as long as you don't do something so unutterably dumb that we wouldn't have thought of it'. Starting an offensive war, without notice, which obliges your other allies to be on the other side, is probably not something that Sparta even imagined to be possible.

So when Emperor Revenge promised, "The Ordinance of the Order will be canceled when hell freezes over" he was crucified for saying it, but when Sparta makes the same similar promise, and breaks it they are in the right? Oh wait I forgot you ignored the whole hell freezing over thing, because you were too busy planning a great downfall of Polaris.

No-one in Karma was 'planning a war' or 'plotting'. Karma planning went as far as defensive contingency planning in case someone was dumb enough to attack, as certain Continuum alliances were showing signs that they might do that.

Oh shove it. A defensive contingency? Yeah, sounds like a war to me. Quit trying to spin it any other way.

I think Viking has been quite consistent in what he's said. I disagree with him. We're both in Karma. We must be hypocrites.

Viking has, the rest of Karma hasn't.

Edited July 7, 2009 by youwish959

[hizzy]

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.

I know they didn't declare war. That's what makes it that much more despicable.

I'm well aware who is on Karma's side. You haven't seen me hooting and hollering with support across the board, do you? I judge alliances on a case by case basis... there's those who I support and who I've gone to ZI for, and there's those who are hypocrites. Nueva Vida's roll in this war was in support of her friends. Nothing more, nothing less.

Waterana;

You need to understand the difference between precedent and reason. Nobody is doing this to you because they want to avenge GATO. They're doing this to you simply because it's been done BY you. Hell, I was there when the peace mode thing first came up.

Dude #1: "NPO is getting too many nations in peace mode, we can't let them sneak away."

Dude #2: "You know what would be hilarious? If we posted that thing Moo gave to GATO, but just changed the names around."

Dude #3: "^^^^"

Dude #4: LOL

Dude #5: hahahahaaha

Dude #6: guys I think I got the clap

Dude #7: $%&@ NPO lol

Dude #8: chlamydia ftl

That's pretty much how it happened.

[hizzy]

So when Emperor Revenge promised, "The Ordinance of the Order will be canceled when hell freezes over" he was crucified for saying it, but when Sparta makes the same similar promise, and breaks it they are in the right? Oh wait I forgot you ignored the whole hell freezing over thing, because you were too busy planning a great downfall of Polaris.

Oh shove it. A defensive contingency? Yeah, sounds like a war to me. Quit trying to spin it any other way.

I dunno dude, seems like you shoot yourself in the foot. First you try to point out Bob as being a hypocrite with the OoO as an example... but then you show that he did in fact support the breaking of the OoO... so... what the hell is the point of that paragraph?

And yes, it was a defensive contingency. Everyone got word that NPO was going to attack. Rather than sit around dicks in hand waiting for it, we got together in a big room and argued... dicks in hand.

[Waterana]

So let me get this straight the rules your trying to be put 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.

For that one offense as it was only ever threatened to one alliance (and never acted on), then yes, I do believe in this case GATO are the only ones who have any right to 'punish' us for it. For the other terms, no I don't feel that way. The tech thing confused me because hizzy said something about us setting the precedent, but I couldn't remember us ever doing that particular term to anyone else, so asked him for examples.

I'm not saying we should get off scot free or get white peace, nor that we've never done anything to deserve the beat down we're getting now. The Karma side fighting us need to understand however that they can try to force any terms on us they wish, and use any excuse they wish, but we also can choose to say no, which we did.

They may feel justified in demanding we hand over our banks so they can dump our AS, but we don't agree to that so they aren't going to get the chance to do it. As I've said in a past post, those nations are member of the NPO and our government has a duty of care to all our members. By rejecting those terms and remaining at war, the better option, they are doing just that.

[Bob Janova]

So when Emperor Revenge promised, "The Ordinance of the Order will be canceled when hell freezes over" he was crucified for saying it, but when Sparta makes the same similar promise, and breaks it they are in the right? Oh wait I forgot you ignored the whole hell freezing over thing, because you were too busy planning a great downfall of Polaris.

I don't think Polaris did anything after Pacific gave that promise that justified it being broken, personally. I was happy that Pacific did give in to the pressure from almost all its other allies to cancel on Polar, as we felt that Polar was using Pacific's weight to throw about the world stage, but that was a pure broken promise in my view. The situation is different to this one because after the promise was given by Sparta, Pacific did something so crazy that it effectively invalidated the treaty (not giving notice for an offensive war that brought in Sparta's allies) and left them in an impossible situation.

In essence, the difference is that NpO's situation didn't change between the promise being offered and broken, whereas NPO's did, through a massive abuse of the trust Sparta had placed in them.

Oh shove it. A defensive contingency? Yeah, sounds like a war to me. Quit trying to spin it any other way.

A defensive contingency plan is not a war plan. There is one big difference – if the other side does not start anything, and you are only planning defensively, there is no war, whereas if you are planning a war, you will start one if the other side does not. No-one in Karma was going to start a war.

Re failed staggers: personally, I would like to see those nations which have been 'let out' into peace mode since the 'pre-terms' were first discussed be excluded from the 90% requirement. Punishing those is really punishing Karma's own mistakes. There are a lot of nations who have not poked their heads above the parapet since May, though.

Edit: As far as I'm aware, the only times reps have been restricted to high tech nations is with Polar in our (Citadel+friends') war with them last summer, and now with Echelon, but I might have forgotten a case where NPO or an NPO led coalition gave such terms.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Bob Janova

[Teriethien]

For that one offense as it was only ever threatened to one alliance (and never acted on), then yes, I do believe in this case GATO are the only ones who have any right to 'punish' us for it. For the other terms, no I don't feel that way. The tech thing confused me because hizzy said something about us setting the precedent, but I couldn't remember us ever doing that particular term to anyone else, so asked him for examples.

To illustrate how hypocritical what your are saying is, consider this. Say if Tim went out on to the streets and randomly decided to murder John. Can Tim now claim that, because John was the only person to ever be killed by Tim, now no one besides John could punish Tim? Clearly this is not so. What is happening here is that the NPO tried to commit something heinous and showed no sincere regret for their actions. And accordingly they are reaping what they sowed.

Now if the NPO had spontaneously issued an apology to GATO without trying to whine about their 'unfair' treatment at the hands of Karma in the same thread then I might be inclined to think differently.

The Karma side fighting us need to understand however that they can try to force any terms on us they wish, and use any excuse they wish, but we also can choose to say no, which we did.

Kudos to you. But then you can't complain about a never-ending war if you aren't going to accept the terms. Again if NPO hadn't been so determined to whine about the terms at every opportunity then I might feel disgusted at the sort of terms offered. But the attitude displayed in that 200 page trainwreck makes it real hard to sympathise.

[Waterana]

To illustrate how hypocritical what your are saying is, consider this. Say if Tim went out on to the streets and randomly decided to murder John. Can Tim now claim that, because John was the only person to ever be killed by Tim, now no one besides John could punish Tim? Clearly this is not so. What is happening here is that the NPO tried to commit something heinous and showed no sincere regret for their actions. And accordingly they are reaping what they sowed.

Now if the NPO had spontaneously issued an apology to GATO without trying to whine about their 'unfair' treatment at the hands of Karma in the same thread then I might be inclined to think differently.

Kudos to you. But then you can't complain about a never-ending war if you aren't going to accept the terms. Again if NPO hadn't been so determined to whine about the terms at every opportunity then I might feel disgusted at the sort of terms offered. But the attitude displayed in that 200 page trainwreck makes it real hard to sympathise.

From the attitude and amount of bile in your posts, I doubt anything I say would be acceptable to you and would just be fobbed of as 'whining', so won't bother. We don't want or need your sympathy.

[Lord Brendan]

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.

Ah, so all Karma has to do is apologize to you a year from now, and it will be all good, right?

Also, you keep saying how the policy was "never enacted". That's a complete and utter lie. You might not have actually PZIed anyone, but that's because they all complied. If you hold a gun to someone's head and tell them to jump off a bridge and they do it, you can't later say "oh well I didn't pull the trigger, so really I didn't do anything". The threat was there, and it was effective.

I simply don't understand why this decree is necessary. We are losing badly and will continue to lose even if we had half our nations in peace mode. Don't you get tired in beating up on foes who are outclassed? Just wait until peace mode is off limits to your nations one day.

I love this quote even more than the Bakunin one.

[HeinousOne]

Actually I would prefer that you not disband. Take that how you will, it is the truth.

And speaking for myself, I would not have had a problem with Karma dropping the demand for an additional two weeks of warfare, were it not for the propaganda campaign that you've engaged in in place of negotiations. I was never a fan of that particular term. Thus, if you had shown any signs of contrition I would have said increase the reps and let them go. But the unbelievable amount of lies, slander and distortions that have been hurled against Karma have convinced me that reparations alone will not be enough.

So now they are not allowed to speak up for themselves in a manner they see fit? That too is to be judged by you and used by you when you deem fit in order to defend that particular term that is all of a sudden not so popular?

One of the things that puzzles me is that contrition is demanded from Pacifica. Why must it factor into their peace terms in such a dramatic way? They have lost, clearly and definitively been defeated. While it would be nice to see them change that should not be forced upon them. Forcing someone to change with a sword to their throat rarely works and many of the alliances who engaged the NPO in battle know this better then most. Forcing hollow admissions of guilt. Attempts at altering the ideology of alliances to suit personal agendas. Those are practices the NPO has been condemned for in the past. Don't travel down that same path. Once this war has ended they will go through a personal reflection period and if they decide not to change and be politicaaly isolated that is their choice. Their punishment should not be increased due to it.

It seems it has become impossible to get through to them. They are so far down this road that they do not wish to turn around and admit it might have appeared to be a good idea at the time but now it just comes off as more of the same.

If more Pacificans posted like this, you could very easily win the PR campaign.

This post shows a desire to change. Most posts that I've seen by other Pacificans do not.

Pacificans have been posting like that for awhile now but folks like yourself generally focus in on those who don't. I imagine most alliances could fall prey to such.

I meant until right before the NoCB war started. I guess I'll clarify it.

What have they done since then? Treatied with NPO and Val and then canceled them.

They also fought DOOM and ML for like 2 or 3 weeks, then gave them white peace. That doesn't count, though, since it was solely for PR. Just like when we gave TOOL white peace after fighting them for 2 or 3 weeks.

So yeah, that's about it. They're not even a coach on the field. They're a soccer mom on the sidelines saying that the other team is playing rough on their little boy.

You really have no clue as to why NpO attacked DOOM do you? I know that because you said they attacked ML which is absolutely false. When you resort to blatently lying in order to "win an argument", you lose. That is all there is to it.

Grub,

I gotta say this "decree" really disappointed me.

You compare Polar's position last year with Pacifica's today, and to do so is to disparage your own alliance, unjustly.

You of course should not need to be reminded that your predecessor was deposed before the shooting even started.

Moo and his IOs still run Pacifica, beyond question or doubt. Need I really say more?

Polaris was an alliance that was once perceived as arrogant and hostile, and not without cause. Your reign has seen it change in many ways, for the better.

The stuff the Pacificans are posting on the other had make it abundantly clear they have made no such changes.

And they have even been offered peace. They can flat out buy it any time they want, without any of the humiliating bend-over-and-hold-your-ankles crap they pulled on others. Moo even stays. What is so bad about this deal for them again? Yes, the price is high, but they are a large and very capable organisation we all know is capable of paying it.

It's been on the table a long time. Had they taken it when first offered, they would be well along on their way to being out of terms already. But you cant blame those offering them terms for their refusal, surely?

Who claimed it WAS "passive defense?" Hmmm? Would that have just been something you pulled out of your tailfeathers right as you were posting, eh?

Passive defense is also known as suicide. Any General that ordered it should be immediately relieved of duty.

At this point you are a wolf whining and blaming the sheep for planning a defense. How dare they?

It is not about defending NPO. They are seriously damaged and most of it is permanent. The job is done, dangerous precedents such as the continuance of post war damage to be taken are not going to make the situation any better after this war. It is already dividing the world. Just give some regular reparations at a very very high number and be done with 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.

You have the power to actually do something about all this Revanche. To bring the world back together in this. Take an honest look at all that you have changed in regard to NPO power projection. It is quite amazing how effective you guys have been but sometimes I wonder if you guys bother to take the time to see what you have done.

Come on man.

[Waterana]

Ah, so all Karma has to do is apologize to you a year from now, and it will be all good, right?

Also, you keep saying how the policy was "never enacted". That's a complete and utter lie. You might not have actually PZIed anyone, but that's because they all complied. If you hold a gun to someone's head and tell them to jump off a bridge and they do it, you can't later say "oh well I didn't pull the trigger, so really I didn't do anything". The threat was there, and it was effective.

I love this quote even more than the Bakunin one.

I've never 'kept saying it'. This is the first time I've discussed the GATO subject and have only said it once. You need to get that double/triple/whatever vision checked.

[youwish959]

I dunno dude, seems like you shoot yourself in the foot. First you try to point out Bob as being a hypocrite with the OoO as an example... but then you show that he did in fact support the breaking of the OoO... so... what the hell is the point of that paragraph?

I was speaking about the cyberverse as a whole.

I don't think Polaris did anything after Pacific gave that promise that justified it being broken, personally. I was happy that Pacific did give in to the pressure from almost all its other allies to cancel on Polar, as we felt that Polar was using Pacific's weight to throw about the world stage, but that was a pure broken promise in my view. The situation is different to this one because after the promise was given by Sparta, Pacific did something so crazy that it effectively invalidated the treaty (not giving notice for an offensive war that brought in Sparta's allies) and left them in an impossible situation.

In essence, the difference is that NpO's situation didn't change between the promise being offered and broken, whereas NPO's did, through a massive abuse of the trust Sparta had placed in them.

A lotta stuff went down between the Orders behind closed doors during that time, and Pacifica felt that it was justified in doing so.

Note: Not saying Pacifica was justified

A defensive contingency plan is not a war plan. There is one big difference – if the other side does not start anything, and you are only planning defensively, there is no war, whereas if you are planning a war, you will start one if the other side does not. No-one in Karma was going to start a war.

A defensive war is a war. If alliances such as Sparta had reason to believe that NPO planned on attacking their allies and reason enough to join defensive war plans, then maybe Sparta should have cut their ties to those they were planning against first.

[Brotherington]

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.

No, they arn't claiming revenge for GATO, they just want to destroy what remains of your strength using methods first attempted by your own leaders. GATO's non involvement is irrelevant and apologising does not roll back the precedent you have set. I'm begining to beleive that the ridiculous apologies Moo has posted these last few months have been aimed at convincing his own membership that they don't deserve every ounce of retribution they are currently receiving, because noone else could be expected to take them seriously.

[Teriethien]

From the attitude and amount of bile in your posts, I doubt anything I say would be acceptable to you and would just be fobbed of as 'whining', so won't bother. We don't want or need your sympathy.

I'm not sure why you think I'd say that; I don't think I haven't accused you of whining yet. I sought to point out how hypocritical and indefensible your stance that Karma cannot do the same thing to the NPO that Pacifica did to GATO is, and I would have appreciated a reasonably constructed argument justifying your position. It is unfortunate that you would dismiss my arguments based on perceived amounts of 'bile' rather than by the merits of what I actually wrote.

However while I am an insignificant member of a small alliance, I would say that the NPO is not so high and mighty right now that it could afford to publicly flaunt its disdain for sympathies from alliances it is at war with.

I've never 'kept saying it'. This is the first time I've discussed the GATO subject and have only said it once. You need to get that double/triple/whatever vision checked.

You personally might not have but you the NPO did.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Teriethien

[Bob Janova]

If alliances such as Sparta had reason to believe that NPO planned on attacking their allies and reason enough to join defensive war plans, then maybe Sparta should have cut their ties to those they were planning against first

You have this so backwards ... if you're planning to declare an aggressive war which will bring in the allies of your ally, as NPO were doing, then it is your responsiblity to notify the ally (Sparta) or cancel with them first. Sparta did the right thing by keeping the tie, talking to NPO and trying to persuade them not to support or start an aggressive war, in the 'knowledge' that they would have to be notified in enough time to cancel if such a war was going to happen.

Sparta, and the rest of Karma, were not 'planning against' anyone in particular, just against the threat of a Hegemony alliance attacking someone in the group. A lot of us were actually very surprised that NPO started it, I was expecting a TORN/TPF strike on day one. What you are suggesting is that everyone in Karma cancelled on everyone in the Hegemony – which is clearly impractical.

[Lord Brendan]

I've never 'kept saying it'. This is the first time I've discussed the GATO subject and have only said it once. You need to get that double/triple/whatever vision checked.

You're addressing a single, unimportant word of my post. Pretend I said "are" instead of "keep" if it bothers you that much, but what I meant is that I've seen that argument several times, if not necessarily from you. It's false no matter how many times anyone has said it.

[Waterana]

I'm not sure why you think I'd say that; I don't think I haven't accused you of whining yet. I sought to point out how hypocritical and indefensible your stance that Karma cannot do the same thing to the NPO that Pacifica did to GATO is, and I would have appreciated a reasonably constructed argument justifying your position. It is unfortunate that you would dismiss my arguments based on perceived amounts of 'bile' rather than by the merits of what I actually wrote.

However while I am an insignificant member of a small alliance, I would say that the NPO is not so high and mighty right now that it could afford to publicly flaunt its disdain for sympathies from alliances it is at war with.

You personally might not have but you the NPO did.

I never said they couldn't do it. I said surrender terms have never to my knowledge, by us or anyone else, included extra weeks of war enshrined within the terms themselves that take place after the terms are signed to nations that under other parts of those terms will be not be allowed to defend themselves (no hostility allowed) and be disarmed. They can also not receive any help from the rest of us. Shooting fish in a barrel. Is that what we did to GATO?

My post was aimed at you, not your alliance.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Waterana

[youwish959]

You have this so backwards ... if you're planning to declare an aggressive war which will bring in the allies of your ally, as NPO were doing, then it is your responsiblity to notify the ally (Sparta) or cancel with them first. Sparta did the right thing by keeping the tie, talking to NPO and trying to persuade them not to support or start an aggressive war, in the 'knowledge' that they would have to be notified in enough time to cancel if such a war was going to happen.

Sparta, and the rest of Karma, were not 'planning against' anyone in particular, just against the threat of a Hegemony alliance attacking someone in the group. A lot of us were actually very surprised that NPO started it, I was expecting a TORN/TPF strike on day one. What you are suggesting is that everyone in Karma cancelled on everyone in the Hegemony – which is clearly impractical.

Oh don't get me wrong, I absolutely think a crap load of blame lies on the NPO, however when NPO didn't tell Sparta what was going on, they should have taken that treaty into consideration and freaking canceled it.

[Lord Brendan]

I never said they couldn't do it. I said surrender terms have never to my knowledge, by us or anyone else, included extra weeks of war enshrined within the terms themselves that take place after the terms are signed to nations that under other parts of those terms will be not be allowed to defend themselves (no hostility allowed) and be disarmed. They can also not receive any help from the rest of us. Shooting fish in a barrel. Is that want we did to GATO?

My post was aimed at you, not your alliance.

Three months of forced war mode while being attacked

vs

Two weeks of forced war mode while being attacked

Which is worse?

[Branimir]

Say if Tim went out on to the streets and randomly decided to murder John. Can Tim now claim that, because John was the only person to ever be killed by Tim, now no one besides John could punish Tim? Clearly this is not so. What is happening here is that the NPO tried to commit something heinous and showed no sincere regret for their actions. And accordingly they are reaping what they sowed.

Tim didn't decide randomly and Tim was not alone. Tim is though now being murdered by those that murdered the first time around beside Tim.

But you know, as well as simplifying this can be fun words play, international political arena is not a court of law system of a singular nation.

What is happening here we have a coalition which claimed to usher a new era for the world based on a different set of "morality", which would disconnect from the perceived "wrong doing" of perceived "wrong doers" and gained traction on that managing to "punish" the "wrong doers", turning 360% against its words and doing the exact same thing which they so "righteously" condemn. When they get called out on it, they resort to simple "its fine if we do it, if the other guy did it first". Now, that doesn't really work because turning 360% on your original stand point is just that, its going against your "new morality" and word, its misrepresentation and it makes your "high moral ground" to "pass judgment" very relative as it equals you with your "wrong doers" and makes you out to be a lier. Not even that, they have the guts to even say how the "wrong doers" are not allowed to voice their opinions, at all. Because by voicing, they be making this uncomfortable truth about the coalition obvious. We cant have that,....and if somebody else calls the coalition out on it, we cant have that as well,....

I leave you at it, but it cant be hidden.

[Bob Janova]

Well when NPO started a war, they did. I'm not sure how they were supposed to know that was going to happen before they did, since they weren't notified of it (and nor were other mutual allies like TOP or MHA, who could possibly have forwarded that to Sparta).

Waterana:

Is that want we did to GATO?

No, you threatened the nations in peace mode with PZI. Since you had a long record (thankfully now ended) of following through with PZI, I have little doubt that you would have if GATO hadn't given in to your 'no peace mode' demands. The alliances you are fighting are threatening your peace mode nations with two cycles of war, which is far less than what you did to GATO.

(E: first part @youwish)

Edited July 7, 2009 by Bob Janova

[HeinousOne]

Three months of forced war mode while being attacked

vs

Two weeks of forced war mode while being attacked

Which is worse?

Is it alright if I say both are extremely bad and neither one should ever be approached because it is the individuals that have to pay not the alliance leaders.

The Leaders have already lost all that they held dear, this extra bloodshed is not necessary.

Just make the NPO sign in terms that they will not sign any diplomacy for a year. During that year they will be under the protection of whatever Karma alliances are willing to sign as such, its not like all 18 need to be. This will hinder them even more in the department of rising up in the future and it will not be a direct assault on the players that have decided to not be part of the conflict. You limit the alliance, not the individual players.

The same results can be made without resorting to the same tactics done before. Shortening the time that you do such does not make it any better Sir.

[Teriethien]

I never said they couldn't do it. I said surrender terms have never to my knowledge, by us or anyone else, included extra weeks of war enshrined within the terms themselves that take place after the terms are signed to nations that under other parts of those terms will be not be allowed to defend themselves (no hostility allowed) and be disarmed. They can also not receive any help from the rest of us. Shooting fish in a barrel. Is that want we did to GATO?

Actually, you said

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

which I believe prompted my original response. And of course you were responding to Hizzy telling you to shut it on the topic of being forced out of peace mode.

My post was aimed at you, not your alliance.

My point still stands. Alliances are the sum of its members; there's only so many people's sympathies you could lose before you've turned the alliance against you completely. I didn't mean that or this as threats by the way, just a reminder of how the NPO ended up where it is today.

[Angrator]

Contributions made by you to the community consist of what exactly? Rolling over on your MADP bloc to enable the righteous hordes to storm the Castle while you make good your escape, change hats and ride back into the same castle with all guns blazing, waving a flag saying look at me aren't we so clever.

I haven't commented on this matter for a long time because I wanted to make sure that the focus remained on punishing the NPO. I know the CB against the NPO was their attack on OV but I see that war as a culmination of their many illegitimate and aggressive actions. At some level, we are not just punishing them for that but for all their actions.

On the first day of the war, I couldn't believe the good fortune that everyone, even including their long time allies, had turned against them. For the first month, I was happy seeing the NPO slide down the rankings. For the second month, I was glad to see the NPO continue to hemorrhage members and nation strength. However, as time continues to go by I am worrying less about the NPO. They have been defeated. What are we accomplishing by keeping them down? Furthermore, at what point is it going to be acceptable to start talking about the deeds of those so long affiliated with the NPO? I think that point has just been reached as recent events have readily demonstrated. Certain alliances, which have already been named, have been around with the NPO for so long that they surely must be just as guilty as the NPO in what the NPO did. How much change can really come to the Cyberverse as long as those alliances are the judges of us all?

God have mercy on our souls if what happened to Echelon is to be the pattern.

[Teriethien]

Tim didn't decide randomly and Tim was not alone. Tim is though now being murdered by those that murdered the first time around beside Tim.

But you know, as well as simplifying this can be fun words play, international political arena is not a court of law system of a singular nation.

It was an analogy. I used it to demonstrate why I believe the NPO can't complain about alliances other than GATO doing what the NPO did to the NPO. (this is getting a bit wordy...) Which you didn't actually challenge.

Now if you say that these Karma alliances in particular have no right to do this to you because of their past transgressions, then I agree this is a completely different point. However that won't be what I'm trying to express to Waterana.