youwish959 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) That's exactly what you did say you would do. I don't have a problem with NSO taking in the nations it was the fact that you mentioned mitigating that bothered me. This is different rhetoric than that used earlier in the thread. This is less problematic. I do not believe Lennox was referring to forcefully mitigating their terms. That has never been done before by NSO, and never will be done. I believe he was referring to having them mitigated through diplomatic measure. "ha ha... I'm going to pretend to recruit you cuz remember that one time we did that thing?" I implore those of you who fall into this category to rethink your visits to the OWF. I was joking... Edited July 17, 2009 by youwish959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I was joking... I wasn't only refering to you. You're not the first I've seen do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 When we allowed Gen Lee to join NSO, we let him know that we would not help him get off any ZI list he may be on. He got himself on it and it's up to him to get off it. He is also not eligible to receive aid from us of any kind. We do not interfere in any punishment that an alliance might be dealing to him. Glad to clear that up. The war guide argument is pretty weak. Just about every major alliances war guide is public knowledge and easily found by anyone who is looking for one. You're still upset about the telegrams, aren't you, Rooman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 There is no "interventionism." These concerns don't seem to be rooted in the actual policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Perhaps the attacking alliance lacks nations in range and would prefer raiders expedite the process. You're assuming the alliance has three nations in range to declare. Nonetheless, it is within the accosted alliance's sovereignty to dictate the terms of a nation's punishment - to include whether or not raiding of said nation is beneficial to the process. You are right it is within the accosted alliance's sovereignty to dictate the terms, and if they decide raiders are to be a part of the punishment, then I guess such an accomodation could be arranged, however pointless it may be. You've yet to explain how a forum mask and an AA equates to being more a part of a community than not. I could go into NSO's IRC right now and "be a part of its community." I could post on their public forums and do the same. It allows a member to participate in our private irc discussions, private forum discussions, and possibly even take part in a few basic tasks such as recruiting or hunting ghosts. You overestimate your relevance. I know. Ah... the obligatory insult to my intelligence. What conversation with your alliance would be complete without it? You're right that was wrong and I apologize. What should have been conveyed is that people who can see past the veil the NPO put up. Perhaps you haven't been reading this thread:If it's true that the NSO's stance is to allow these members to "just be part of the community" without directly involving itself in any way with their conflict, then I guess we're pretty much done here. I still wouldn't be happy about the prospect of a rogue nation explicitly and purposefully getting tips and guidance from the NSO on how best to optimize damage to my nations (as this seems like a blatant act of war in my mind), but I suspect I might be in the minority on this smaller point. Heft was not saying that we would forcefully do anything, in fact he explicitly said we would not. However, I think it would be wise to make sure they have not gone past the point of ZI, and continue destroying the nation. And sometimes as proven in our previous use of this practice just the presence of an alliance can mitigate terms on its own. Without the alliance having to do anything. And as I said earlier Lennox was not referring to forcefully mitigating terms. I wasn't only refering to you. You're not the first I've seen do it. You were referring to me, though. And thus I demand an apology accompanied with 250 tech or else the forces of NSO will strike down upon you as we are an over righteous bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 If it's true that the NSO's stance is to allow these members to "just be part of the community" without directly involving itself in any way with their conflict, then I guess we're pretty much done here. I still wouldn't be happy about the prospect of a rogue nation explicitly and purposefully getting tips and guidance from the NSO on how best to optimize damage to my nations (as this seems like a blatant act of war in my mind), but I suspect I might be in the minority on this smaller point. I'm glad that someone could finally show you what the OP already states. We will review each nation on a case by case basis and we will not aid or otherwise assist those nations that are accepted until such time as they have achieved their own settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 You were referring to me, though. And thus I demand an apology accompanied with 250 tech or else the forces of NSO will strike down upon you as we are an over righteous bunch. Welcome to the IPA ZI list. I demand NSO expel you... oh wait... (It's a joke people, IPA doesn't have a ZI list, and I certainly wouldn't put someone on it for demanding an apology from me...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Welcome to the IPA ZI list. I demand NSO expel you... oh wait...(It's a joke people, IPA doesn't have a ZI list, and I certainly wouldn't put someone on it for demanding an apology from me...) Bring it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 When we allowed Gen Lee to join NSO, we let him know that we would not help him get off any ZI list he may be on. He got himself on it and it's up to him to get off it. He is also not eligible to receive aid from us of any kind. We do not interfere in any punishment that an alliance might be dealing to him. Glad to clear that up.The war guide argument is pretty weak. Just about every major alliances war guide is public knowledge and easily found by anyone who is looking for one. It's not "weak" to suggest that your alliance explicitly taking aside a nation my alliance is at war with and telling it how best to do damage to my alliance is problematic. You're still upset about the telegrams, aren't you, Rooman? The what? The poaching messages you guys sent out? As I told your leadership when they apologized to me and promised to not repeat the action - I consider the matter resolved. And as I told someone earlier, I've always disliked interventionist policies. There were several things said in this thread in response to some of my questions (which were ironically and, evidently, inaccurately labeled as self-explanatory) which made it seem as if NSO would interject itself in the "mitigation" of terms to a conflict that didn't involve it. I'm addressing this issue. In fact, the only people who keep bringing up the poaching issue are... NSO members. It seems to be ripe in your minds for some reason, despite the fact that we resolved the matter diplomatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Bring it. I meant to compliment you on your sig earlier. I like it. That said, in order not to become the very thing I was railing against a few posts earlier, I take my leave now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 There is no "interventionism." These concerns don't seem to be rooted in the actual policy. This: we allow them to be part of a community and also help ensure that those exacting the ZI do not abuse their position and take it further. While we won't directly intervene, it is generally the case that having someone who is even jus timplicitly standing behind them to make sure they don't get abused and trampled on helps those nations in negotiations they may be a part of. there also is a chance that their terms will be mitigated as was a common occurrence during the first institution of this policy. And the vague OP did, in fact, imply interventionism. However, as I've said, if it's the case that NSO wants to taper these comments by asserting that it will in no way directly involve itself in the conflicts at question, then we're pretty much done here. I still contend that the NSO taking-in a nation I've sentenced to ZI, and then telling it how to do the most damage to my alliance is also interventionist and problematic - but I realize that I am probably in the minority position here (as I've said) and don't wish to push the point any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Some of the more irrelevant haters in this thread don't understand that we don't particularly care what they think, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I still contend that the NSO taking-in a nation I've sentenced to ZI, and then telling it how to do the most damage to my alliance is also interventionist and problematic - but I realize that I am probably in the minority position here (as I've said) and don't wish to push the point any further. I can already do that without the nation ever entering NSO. That make me "interventionist?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) You are right it is within the accosted alliance's sovereignty to dictate the terms, and if they decide raiders are to be a part of the punishment, then I guess such an accomodation could be arranged, however pointless it may be. Good to hear. It allows a member to participate in our private irc discussions That doesn't require an official AA or forum mask private forum discussions, and possibly even take part in a few basic tasks such as recruiting or hunting ghosts. Fair enough. You're right that was wrong and I apologize. Are you going to mock me later if I accept your apology on good faith? I ask in earnest. What should have been conveyed is that people who can see past the veil the NPO put up. Some are better at seeing through BS than others. Heft was not saying that we would forcefully do anything, in fact he explicitly said we would not. Actually, he explicitly said that the NSO would "help ensure that those exacting the ZI do not abuse their position and take it further." That's interventionist. But you've tapered that statement for him and he doesn't appear to object so either he was just being unclear, or he prefers your tapered response. Either is fine with me. However, I think it would be wise to make sure they have not gone past the point of ZI, and continue destroying the nation. Again, it's not for NSO to decide that. It's up to the accosted alliance And sometimes as proven in our previous use of this practice just the presence of an alliance can mitigate terms on its own. Without the alliance having to do anything. Sure, I can believe that. I don't think anyone's concerned with NSO's "mere presence" as an AA. It's the "mitigation" aspect that was being addressed. And as I said earlier Lennox was not referring to forcefully mitigating terms. The clarification is appreciated - that's why these conversations are necessary. Edited July 17, 2009 by Rooman33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I can already do that without the nation ever entering NSO. That make me "interventionist?" Yes, actually. And I suspect most any alliance who caught you doing such a thing would take issue with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 This:And the vague OP did, in fact, imply interventionism. However, as I've said, if it's the case that NSO wants to taper these comments by asserting that it will in no way directly involve itself in the conflicts at question, then we're pretty much done here. I still contend that the NSO taking-in a nation I've sentenced to ZI, and then telling it how to do the most damage to my alliance is also interventionist and problematic - but I realize that I am probably in the minority position here (as I've said) and don't wish to push the point any further. "While we won't directly intervene" explicitly denies interventionism, and there is nothing else is either of those quotes to contradict that. The presence of an alliance, regardless of that alliance's actions, will tend to have a moderating effect on those carrying out punishments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 It's funny how some critics seem to forget how important Ivan's role has been in securing the safety of their alliances and bringing down the old hegemony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooman33 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 "While we won't directly intervene" explicitly denies interventionism, and there is nothing else is either of those quotes to contradict that. The presence of an alliance, regardless of that alliance's actions, will tend to have a moderating effect on those carrying out punishments. The matter has been clarified. I see no reason to get into opinionated interpretations of semantics. It seemed unclear, to more people than just me, to what extent the NSO was willing to "mitigate" terms. The matter has been clarified. Let's move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Some of the more irrelevant haters in this thread don't understand that we don't particularly care what they think, I guess. Opinions, on my owf? More likely than you think. It's funny how some critics seem to forget how important Ivan's role has been in securing the safety of their alliances and bringing down the old hegemony. Really now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 NSO created white peace. And Al Gore created the interwebz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 NSO created white peace.And Al Gore created the interwebz. And Tetris created bad analogies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Blake Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 You monsters, how could you do such a thing????? Keep up the good work. Enough with the whining about this already, seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 And Tetris created bad analogies. Oh common, that was kinda funny...much like this entire thread. Good luck with this policy. As long as it does not extend to nations who are in an active alliance war or result in aid/training, I don't see it as a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 And Tetris created bad analogies. Finally, someone who understands us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 You monsters, how could you do such a thing?????Keep up the good work. Enough with the whining about this already, seriously. The tears are a tasty drink though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts