A Sith Decree

[Angrator]

I find certain arguments somewhat ridiculous. If any other alliance was doing this, they would be getting a pat on the back and a bunch of hails and kisses. But when we do it, what does everyone do?

The whole interventionist argument is more than a bit loopy. As someone who was on a ZI list in the ZI on the past, I can say that I dislike being owned by the enemy alliance. By that I don't mean losing, but I mean being considered the property of the ZI lister. You can't join an alliance and you can't grow and you can't talk to anyone. They simply own you and control your entire nation. Why would anyone object to lessening the effects of being on a ZI list?

[Drostan]

Like with most things, the application of this policy will determine its justice/usefulness. If NSO exercises good judgment in this program, I see nothing offensive about it at all.

[Ejayrazz]

I have actively protested against EZI/PZI for well over 3 years now. I see nothing wrong with NSO possessing this policy. Too my knowledge, if a member approached them whilst maintaining punishment status NSO will exert diplomatic methods to assist their potential freedom - something we ALL would do for a friend, yet NSO is making this an official policy which I am seeing myself as envying in many regards. Militarily, they wouldn't protect a nation being desecrated in which wasn't bearing their AA previous to the attacks as they have no responsibility to do so and I am certain leadership comprehends the line in which shouldn't be crossed.

Some are arguing over 'overdoing it', I am decently sure NSO is capable to use rationale given the individuals in their current alliance have experience others will always dwell upon. As to NSO breaching sovereignty, until they do this I do not see the validness in such claims, we're talking about the same alliance which only attacked their last opponent for one round, they're not these moralistically-challenged bullies out to push people around as some perceive. I understand the uneasiness some are feeling, but until a situation arises where they choose to use brute force over another alliance's decision, which I doubt any situation would ever escalate to that point pertaining to the context at hand within this thread itself, some are too pessimistic and aren't considering trouble, but rather expecting it, altering your perception. NSO is no different from any other alliance, if their policy turns out to be bullying others or anything which may be perceived as immoral (I know some of you hate the word, deal with it) they'll be called out on it like all the other alliances, but the NSO I know doesn't jump the gun, they speak and use words for the most part. This all rounds to my first sentence: If someone gives an individual EZI, I don't care what the circumstances are (for the most part), I hope someone steps in and does something. PZI as well, someone should be able to use their name.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Sal Paradise]

I find certain arguments somewhat ridiculous. If any other alliance was doing this, they would be getting a pat on the back and a bunch of hails and kisses. But when we do it, what does everyone do?

Stop playing the victim. Victims are weak. You are not weak. You are Sith.

[RandomInterrupt]

So the NSO is proposing to insert itself in our military affairs? That's equally problematic.

It should be noted, for the sake of accuracy and relevancy, that we don't currently have a ZI list. We have and will, however, sentence nations who accost us to ZI when we deem it necessary.

So you will assign a nation to ZI, but you do not have a ZI list. So... how do you let the nations in your alliance know who is ZI? If you don't put them on a list, do you put them in a spreadsheet? Perhaps a graph? I bet it's a pie chart.

Also many of the arguments against this policy are hilariously ignorant. They rely on the concept that this is a the beginning of a slippery rope. The fact is, this is merely the reinstatement of an old policy. It says that right in the OP. When the NSO operated under this policy the first time, did they encroach on other alliances sovereignty? No, they did not. Did they reject ZI listed nations who were not wanted in the NSO and whose crimes were legitimate and made them unsuited to being in the NSO? Yes. I personally rejected a few as Sith Lord.

So considering the fact that this policy already worked well once and was only canceled due to a few bad nations taking advantage of it, I think most of the concerns issued in this thread have already been disproved. Those who have an agenda against the NSO will surely find a way to attack any policy they announce, even when there is nothing wrong with it.

[Rooman33]

So you will assign a nation to ZI, but you do not have a ZI list. So... how do you let the nations in your alliance know who is ZI? If you don't put them on a list, do you put them in a spreadsheet? Perhaps a graph? I bet it's a pie chart.

We don't have a list because everyone that's ever been on the list has already been sent to ZI. So you can think of it as no list at all or a list with nothing on it, it's the same thing.

Also many of the arguments against this policy are hilariously ignorant.

Ah, another personal attack and insult of intelligence. Clearly anyone who sees foreign policy in a different light from the NSO is unenlightened and unintelligent, right?

They rely on the concept that this is a the beginning of a slippery rope.

No, my arguments were taking what was said at face value. That the NSO would involve itself in "mitigation." I then sought out to what degree the NSO would "mitigate," and that question has sense been answered. I find it amusing that even though my questions have been answered and the issue is resolved, people are still scurrying in here to do damage control.

The fact is, this is merely the reinstatement of an old policy. It says that right in the OP.

Just because something was a policy once before doesn't mean it was a good policy. In fact, one might infer just the opposite - given that the policy has been revoked and rebuffed once already.

When the NSO operated under this policy the first time, did they encroach on other alliances sovereignty? No, they did not. Did they reject ZI listed nations who were not wanted in the NSO and whose crimes were legitimate and made them unsuited to being in the NSO? Yes. I personally rejected a few as Sith Lord.

So considering the fact that this policy already worked well once and was only canceled due to a few bad nations taking advantage of it, I think most of the concerns issued in this thread have already been disproved. Those who have an agenda against the NSO will surely find a way to attack any policy they announce, even when there is nothing wrong with it.

This is a fallacious appeal to history. There were perfectly valid concerns (resulting from a vague OP and several misleading/unclear posts) that the NSO might over-extend itself into the resolution of conflicts which don't involve them. Discussion ensued, answers were eventually given. Why people feel the need to scramble in here and engage in ad hominem attacks - attacks which are aimed at nothing more than discrediting those who merely sought clarification - is beyond me. The politics of Bob should be above such exchanges at this point.

[hizzy]

Stop playing the victim. Victims are weak. You are not weak. You are Sith.

The Sith are weak. They allow the dark side to control them. They succumb to fear, hate, jealousy, and greed.

[Rooman33]

I find certain arguments somewhat ridiculous. If any other alliance was doing this, they would be getting a pat on the back and a bunch of hails and kisses. But when we do it, what does everyone do?

Not every other alliance makes a point of pushing the boundaries of other alliances' sovereignty. That said, it's the policy I've addressed here - not NSO as an alliance or the people in it.

The whole interventionist argument is more than a bit loopy. As someone who was on a ZI list in the ZI on the past, I can say that I dislike being owned by the enemy alliance. By that I don't mean losing, but I mean being considered the property of the ZI lister. You can't join an alliance and you can't grow and you can't talk to anyone. They simply own you and control your entire nation. Why would anyone object to lessening the effects of being on a ZI list?

With respect, if you don't like being "owned" by alliances whose ZI list you've made, don't do things to get on their ZI list. That's like a prisoner complaining about his limitations in prison. What's that old saying? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

[Corinan]

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.

Of course. Still, I suspect that I'll be seeing your name pop up in NSO related threads in the future. It's apparent you have a grudge against us. That is good. Judging by your words here today, I can honestly say that I couldn't have wished for better opposition. We'll keep doing as we please and you keep playing your role to such perfection. Thank you, Rooman33.

NSO created white peace.

We didn't create white peace, we just popularized it.

The Sith are weak. They allow the dark side to control them. They succumb to fear, hate, jealousy, and greed.

Anger, hatred, jealousy, fear. These emotions empower us. We destroy that which is weak.

[heggo]

With respect, if you don't like being "owned" by alliances whose ZI list you've made, don't do things to get on their ZI list. That's like a prisoner complaining about his limitations in prison. What's that old saying? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Yeah! Those darned political prisoners! If they don't like being ground under the jackboots of tyrants they shouldn't have offended them.

[Ragashingo]

With respect, if you don't like being "owned" by alliances whose ZI list you've made, don't do things to get on their ZI list. That's like a prisoner complaining about his limitations in prison. What's that old saying? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

In the past the time has been handed out without the crime having been done.

[Logan]

We didn't create white peace, we just popularized it.

So you did something the community was asking for months prior. I dare say, you deserve a gold star!

[heggo]

So you did something the community was asking for months prior. I dare say, you deserve a gold star!

Either we're pioneers or you're all the cowardly fools who were so spineless you couldn't even do the easy thing that everyone wanted. Glorify us or denigrate yourself.

The decision is yours.

[Rooman33]

Of course. Still, I suspect that I'll be seeing your name pop up in NSO related threads in the future. It's apparent you have a grudge against us. That is good. Judging by your words here today, I can honestly say that I couldn't have wished for better opposition. We'll keep doing as we please and you keep playing your role to such perfection. Thank you, Rooman33.

Opposition? Hardly. I'm just here to discuss a policy that was publicly announced, the details of which seemed uncertain but have since been clarified. You'll note, after my OP regarding the resolution of our two governments, I refrained from the troll banter that ensued - despite the fact that we were directly insulted and mocked by others, including NSO membership. We were, as people like to say, giving diplomacy a chance. That NSO has taken my questions and comments here so personally is quite confusing. I suggest that if you're looking for an echo chamber, you might refrain from sharing such statements with all of Bob - or otherwise not be so offended when someone comes along and civilly asks for clarification. Is it necessarily the case that anyone who disagrees with a policy stance of yours has an axe to grind? I'd say no.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Rooman33

[Logan]

Either we're pioneers or you're all the cowardly fools who were so spineless you couldn't even do the easy thing that everyone wanted. Glorify us or denigrate yourself.

The decision is yours.

I'm sorry I should have declared on a micro alliance for the explicit reason of giving them white peace. Hail NSO o/

[heggo]

I'm sorry I should have declared on a micro alliance for the explicit reason of giving them white peace. Hail NSO o/

Oh, I guess I didn't notice that there were absolutely no wars whatsoever since people have been calling for the idea. Who knew we had all been suffering through a long nightmare of peace.

[Logan]

Oh, I guess I didn't notice that there were absolutely no wars whatsoever since people have been calling for the idea. Who knew we had all been suffering through a long nightmare of peace.

So basically yes?

[TruHartBrakN]

As always Ejayrazz you are maybe my favorite poster..

[Sal Paradise]

Harsh terms, or any terms at all when the victor is the aggressor, have long been looked down on, and the NSO can hardly take credit for making this popular. It's recent popularity can be properly traced to the NoCB war, the disgust many alliances and nations felt at being associated with some of the terms and the campaigns of Vox Populi, other groups, and few brave, lone posters to change public opinion on this issue as well as number of other issues. To give credit where credit is due, several alliances on the Polar side were given white peace by the Hegemony during the NoCB war, and not for reasons of political expediency either. Many malign TORN for their unabashed warmongering and the way they pulled out of the war with OV, but if anyone deserves credit for 'doing it first' (as the NSO claims to be) during the ancien regime it is them and a few other Hegemony alliances.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Sal Paradise

[Azhrarn]

But, the idea was sound. The conventions of the past, the unjust and unnecessary placement of nations ad hoc on some fanciful list that states they can no longer actively participate in the community of the Cyberverse, are a sham. They harken back to an age of oppression and malevolent misuse of power and we will see the idea pushed forward. One step back will become two steps forward.

o/ two steps forward...

[Hydro]

Harsh terms, or any terms at all when the victor is the aggressor, have long been looked down on, and the NSO can hardly take credit for making this popular. It's recent popularity can be properly traced to the NoCB war, the disgust many alliances and nations felt at being associated with some of the terms and the campaigns of Vox Populi, other groups, and few brave, lone posters to change public opinion on this issue as well as number of other issues. To give credit where credit is due, several alliances on the Polar side were given white peace by the Hegemony during the NoCB war, and not for reasons of political expediency either. Many malign TORN for their unabashed warmongering and the way they pulled out of the war with OV, but if anyone deserves credit for 'doing it first' (as the NSO claims to be) during the ancien regime it is them and a few other Hegemony alliances.

White peace was given to CDC in NSO's very first war, which ended approximately a month before NPO and TORN attacked OV.

edit: Given the enormous positive response to it, I would say that NSO was indeed the catalsyt everyone needed for the white peace movement.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Hydro

[Flonker]

White peace was given to CDC in NSO's very first war, which ended approximately a month before NPO and TORN attacked OV.

edit: Given the enormous positive response to it, I would say that NSO was indeed the catalsyt everyone needed for the white peace movement.

M*A*S*H has a tradition of white peace in alliance wars going all the way back to the Unjust War.

[Griff]

M*A*S*H has a tradition of white peace in alliance wars going all the way back to the Unjust War.

Well MASH has been around far longer than ourselves, so the comparison between us is unfair.

Stop playing the victim. Victims are weak. You are not weak. You are Sith.

This has noting to do about being a victim. He is stating what is now fact.

So the NSO is proposing to insert itself in our military affairs? That's equally problematic.

For the hundredth time, since you've clearly ignored it, we don't do anything to assist them getting off lists, be it military/financial or diplomatic assistance. No problems here.

[KainIIIC]

Great show rooman, you're certainly a more entertaining opposition than some of the others. Although I still think that this still applies

[Starcraftmazter]

Well MASH has been around far longer than ourselves, so the comparison between us is unfair.

I don't see how that's at all relevant.