Tabloid Tribune #149 | Clerk Report Y5.T3.4

[Letum]

Well Penkala can argue his own corner, but I leave you with his initial words:

Pretty clear there that there isn't anything about NPO being evil or Karma being blameless. It just annoys me seeing someone getting railroaded by a debate squad who think they can see a chink to try to blast their propaganda swords through.

What is a "propaganda sword" here is the ooc: accusation that the New Pacific Order is killing the game /ooc. It is a propaganda sword for many reasons. First: it is unproven, and mostly parroted because there are less nations around now than there were 2 years ago. I'm going to trust you enough to know why correlation and causation are not the same.

Do you also want me to list miriads of other reasons why the "correlation" accusation is stupid in the first place? First off, correlation does not account for other things that have changed; for example, you might want to consider the fact that the impressive tightening of anti-multi rules and the stricter forum rules have also been a factor in less people being around (though for different reasons). The percentage of people active enough to actually be influenced by the New Pacific Order (because contrary to popular belief, people who sit around doing nothing do not really end up being rolled) is but a fraction of the people who are actually around - rather than looking at the total number of nations, perhaps you would be better off looking at the actual level of activity - which strangely enough, has not changed that much. ooc: If you are that interested in looking at activity, try looking at the actual pageview rankings over here. Strangely enough, the activity of pageviews seems to remain stable, save for one downwards trend during three months of summer 08 (A drop which, interestingly enough, also occured in many similar games, such as tribal wars, astroempires and the game which spawned NPO), as well as a more recent drop. In fact, there is 16% drop over the last 3 months - how's that for correlation eh? ohnoes, Karma is killing the game [/sarcasm]!

Do the cold, hard facts make your little propaganda uncomfortable? Don't worry, I am sure you can go ahead and ignore them.

/ooc

Which brings me to the second reason why this argument is illogical, and what this "debate squad" has been trying to tell people in this thread. What makes people leave is their decision, and most of them will decide to leave when they have lost. Trying to say that "NPO has won, the people who lost left, the game is dying!" is illogical, for the very simple reason that no matter who wins, someone loses, and people will leave.

In fact, since major wars affect the majority of nations (i.e, the swarms of inactives) much, much more than any concept of "global hegemony" or "pzi" (which only really impacts people active enough on this forum to feel stifled by the world hierarchy), it could be argued that regular military conflict has a much larger effect on "nations leaving" than anything else. Therefore, everyone who fights a war, no matter what the cause, would be [ooc]"killing the game"[/ooc] under this argument, because the nations they would be attacking might simply not like the idea of having lost and decide to leave.

It is illogical in itself to blame one party for the decisions of another (because, lets face it "not having fun" does not quite rank as "making it impossible") - but to actually do so when everyone is taking a course of action that results in similar decisions is both illogical and short-sighted.

The only way to stop people leaving due to losing is to stop any loss from occuring in the first place - i.e, stop all wars. And I think you would find that stopping all losses would also stop all winning, and with nothing to win, a similar "exodus" would occur.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Letum

[Fort Pitt]

In a blow to free people everywhere, the coalition of nations known as Karma have violated the terms of the New Pacific Order instrument of surrender, sending shock waves through the Cyberverse. Testing public reaction to terms violations in preparation for something more sinister in the future, Karma has done what amounts to an illegal sponsorship embargo of Pacifican Media, infringing on the rights of foreign sponsors as well as the suppression of freedom of speech.

So you are saying they are violating terms by saying you cant say something, when you ban people from your IRC channel because you dont like them? Grow up Pacifica, you may have started the finger pointing game, but that does not mean that it still works.

[Ellis]

So you are saying they are violating terms by saying you cant say something, when you ban people from your IRC channel because you dont like them? Grow up Pacifica, you may have started the finger pointing game, but that does not mean that it still works.

WHAT PART OF TABLOID DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND!?!?!?!?!?!

...Seriously

Also, banning someone from our irc channel =/= restricting freedom of speech.

They can say it, but just not on our channel.

[Sir Paul]

So you are saying they are violating terms by saying you cant say something, when you ban people from your IRC channel because you dont like them? Grow up Pacifica, you may have started the finger pointing game, but that does not mean that it still works.

That's not what I'm saying at all. You've completely missed the major concepts of this post which have been found and discussed in the above 9 pages. I'm sorry, you didn't win the thread, so no grand prize for you, but we do have a consolation prize:

A Snotty Attidute!

Better luck next time Fort Pitt. Thanks for playing!

[BamaBuc]

Quit making my break my own rules about conversing in this topic to address what you say

That was pretty much exactly my point, and as usual Bob expressed it much more understandably than I can. Listen, we've seen our population go from some 40,000 nations to some 27,000 since the end of GWIII. Certainly not all of this is NPO's fault, but I suspect a large enough percentage of it is that it's unacceptable. If NPO goes back to its past methods of 'domination' of others to keep the #1 alliance position, it may be necessary to take them out, less we watch the number of nations dwindle more, and more, and more. (ooc: CN can't stand to lose too many more players.)

Because it IS clear what they meant. I can't remember ANY time in the past where a surrendering alliance could simply allow others to pay their reps for them. Plus, you didn't mention this at all until the terms were signed, because you knew what the term meant and didn't want to show Karma you were planning on trying to point out a technicality to get out of reps, because you know damn well Karma would have clarified it for you.

We've been flirting with 30k since before UJW, with fluctuations but no major gains or losses.

-Bama

[Penkala]

Oh, so we didn't covered harsh measures already? Good to know some are already threatening with more harsher terms and "running out nations" if they so deemed that necessary upon their "superior" judgment which they carry (just to tell you all, you arent scaring anybody if that is your goal to end up tough and rough).

I dont know, from my perspective current measures put on NPO nations are pretty damn harsh, for example I fought 90 days losing 7/8 of my strength to be left with giving all my tech levels and then some (I will actually have to buy more tech because we have to pay more tech then we have) for the next 6 month. That is the brave, new, different world, which doesn't promote "chasing out nations" for which we deem NPO as evil. But I am not the caliber of nation leader to just crumble like a cookie and then blame everything upon "evil oppressors" because its the easiest thing in the world to do.

"NPOz didz it so we can do it too"--- sums up to nothing more then a childish propaganda punch line for weak minded used when we deem our enemy (NPO) as evil, but when we are measured by the same criteria under which we deemed our enemy evil and come out to be the exact same, we use this line to not be considered the same. Doesn't work that way, children, only in your heads.

I personally have no problem fighting a war, losing and then facing what can come from that. War is hell, hey thats part of the charm of it . But please, save us all from your self righteous yadda yadda and threats of your "superior" judgment. At this point, who is really interested in such or buying it? Thank you in advance.

OOC: The argumentation how NPO is to be blamed for drop of around 20k players in this game is ludicrous to the extent that I cant really believe its being used. It just might be a clear case of somebody believing their IC propaganda just a little too much, lol.

No, it's not tough terms. I've already covered this. You're not paying weekly fines to your victors. You're not being told all your nations in peace mode will be PZIed if they don't come out. You're not being given an indefinite viceroy. You're not having a viceroy kick out membership. You're not having your leadership forced out of the alliance, never to return. You're paying reps. High reps, yes, but it's only reps.

(ooc) "you might want to consider the fact that the impressive tightening of anti-multi rules and the stricter forum rules have also been a factor in less people being around (though for different reasons)."

Ahahaha. Just like when FAN started nuking you and your numbers began going down from people quitting you claimed it was an anti-ghost sweep causing it.

And yes, this was caused a loss of some nations. Many of them were those who only stuck around in an alliance they thought they knew would never lose and always be on top. However, the amount of nations lost in this war is very likely much, much smaller than the amount lost through crippling and controlling terms.

[King Thor]

Sounds like Pacifica is perfectly within the surrender terms, not their fault Karma screwed the wording.

[Letum]

No, it's not tough terms. I've already covered this. You're not paying weekly fines to your victors. You're not being told all your nations in peace mode will be PZIed if they don't come out. You're not being given an indefinite viceroy. You're not having a viceroy kick out membership. You're not having your leadership forced out of the alliance, never to return. You're paying reps. High reps, yes, but it's only reps.

And yes, this was caused a loss of some nations. Many of them were those who only stuck around in an alliance they thought they knew would never lose and always be on top. However, the amount of nations lost in this war is very likely much, much smaller than the amount lost through crippling and controlling terms.

What reasoning is this "very likely" statement based on?

Because you know, in terms of the material effect on an alliance (material meaning how it affects the actual nations), these terms (harsh reps) do more "damage" to nations than Viceroys or Leadership restrictions. The latter harm the sovereignty of the alliance for sure; but they actually have a pretty small effect on people's nations. Who you have as a leader doesn't make any NS difference. Nor does a bluff we never delivered on cause any actual harm to nations (Peace nations zi). And "weekly fines" is the same as "weekly payments".

And it is the material effect on people's nations that will make the majority of nations move. I do not know if you comprehend this, but a very, very big majority of nations in this realm do not participate in international politics much. The most effective way for them to do anything is for their nation to be directly affected. Which means that wars themselves will affect nations much, much more than any sort of terms, no matter how "harsh or controlling" they are.

Of course, you are always welcome to bring along some form of empirical evidence or coherent logical deduction to debunk what I am saying. So far, all you have done is quote 1 sentence out of 6 paragraphs and throw out a red herring, pretending that somehow addresses the point; a very effective blind-siding strategy to be sure, but a very poor one in constructive debate.

[Daikos]

So let me get something straight, if you write a piece of propaganda nobody is allowed to make counter points as long as you claim that said propaganda was written for the lulz?

[Starcraftmazter]

Why are people even entertaining the idea that Sir Paul has a valid point? I really don't know, seems like a clear case of twiddle twattle to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this entire publication is specifically meant to not be taken seriously. Why is there any discussion being held on the stupidity which it brings forth?

[Hell Scream]

This is very amusing.

[Branimir]

No, it's not tough terms.

I will remember that you said this.

Also read very carefully what Letum wrote so I don't need to repeat.

That is all, just to say I had much fun. Cant wait for another edition.

[mike717]

Oh, you judged that based on just one of my posts. Kind of wish you wouldn't have paraphrased some of it out of that third statement of mine but folks can go back and read the entire statement if they wish so not a big deal.

Wonder what the other major and minor concepts were.

I only made one post in this thread...and it was pretty clear

[Bob Janova]

The OP might be lulz tabloid propaganda (okay, it is ), but there can still be meaningful discussion in the thread.

Because you know, in terms of the material effect on an alliance (material meaning how it affects the actual nations), these terms (harsh reps) do more "damage" to nations than Viceroys or Leadership restrictions.

I don't think this is true, at least in most alliances – the feeling of helplessness and uselessness from having no control over your own alliance's government and direction will drive many of the more active members away, and the loss of their nations will be a larger material loss than the reps. Even 200,000 tech is only 1m NS, and losing ten or twenty members near the top of the order (which is where the politically active will be) will cause as large a material loss as well as an additional community loss.

Perhaps the NPO has a much lower proportion of people that care, but I doubt it – your whole system of Emperor, Regent and IOs would become redundant under a viceroy or puppet government and that alone is around 20 people that might well decide to leave and join an alliance where they had some say.

Also, you call your PZI threat to GATO a bluff. I don't believe that it was, but even if that is the case, they believed in it and it allowed you to do a lot more material damage to the nations you frightened out of peace mode.

[Haflinger]

So let me get something straight, if you write a piece of propaganda nobody is allowed to make counter points as long as you claim that said propaganda was written for the lulz?

This is pretty funny, coming from a member of FIST.

Making silly jokes, well, that's what the OP is. If you take it too seriously, well...

[Starcraftmazter]

This is pretty funny, coming from a member of FIST.

Making silly jokes, well, that's what the OP is. If you take it too seriously, well...

First of all, Daikos isn't and never was a member of FIST.

Second of all, your point makes no sense, as it does not fit into the context you are trying to make it fit into.

Try harder next time.

[Letum]

I don't think this is true, at least in most alliances – the feeling of helplessness and uselessness from having no control over your own alliance's government and direction will drive many of the more active members away, and the loss of their nations will be a larger material loss than the reps. Even 200,000 tech is only 1m NS, and losing ten or twenty members near the top of the order (which is where the politically active will be) will cause as large a material loss as well as an additional community loss.

Perhaps the NPO has a much lower proportion of people that care, but I doubt it – your whole system of Emperor, Regent and IOs would become redundant under a viceroy or puppet government and that alone is around 20 people that might well decide to leave and join an alliance where they had some say.

Also, you call your PZI threat to GATO a bluff. I don't believe that it was, but even if that is the case, they believed in it and it allowed you to do a lot more material damage to the nations you frightened out of peace mode.

I think you misunderstood my point - it is not the material effect on the alliance total strength, but the material effect on the nations themselves that I am talking about. A nation leaving for another alliance is a material loss for the alliance, but not for the nation itself.

In fact, I do not know why people going to another alliance has to be brought up at all, since that happens pretty much all the time and I do not believe anyone has portrayed immigration as some sort of great tragedy. It is people leaving the realm altogether that is the "sticking point". And these forms of terms affect a fewer number of nations directly, therefore they cause less material disturbance. 20 people is quite far from 300 (that left here) or 20,000.

I do not particularly care what you call that threat; it had the effects of a bluff: intimidation that was not delivered on. You can call it a rose or any politically acceptable name you want, it is the effects that are important, and those do not change. And yes, it did cause additional damage by bringing people to war; that goes back to my original point; war is the world's most damaging aspect for nations. And that won't stop unless you stop all military conflict (which you know would not happen, and would actually make stuff boring if it did). And since, materially, all military conflict is alike regardless of the political circumstances surrounding it (the 100 NS nation getting pounded on that checks the forum once a week does not care about CB's or past terms), it does not matter who is fighting in it. War is War. Whoever wins, someone will lose.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Letum

[Haflinger]

First of all, Daikos isn't and never was a member of FIST.

Second of all, your point makes no sense, as it does not fit into the context you are trying to make it fit into.

Try harder next time.

Heh.

My bad, I meant to say Dark Fist, given that's your current alliance. I was just referencing the fact that you haven't exactly been known to never make jokes, and frequently have used the "It was for the lulz" defence.

[Starcraftmazter]

Heh.

My bad, I meant to say Dark Fist, given that's your current alliance. I was just referencing the fact that you haven't exactly been known to never make jokes, and frequently have used the "It was for the lulz" defence.

I don't think Daikos was criticising Sir Paul for making a joke, I believe he was criticising the fact that certain individuals are trying to portray it as both a serious point and a joke - whenever either one is more convenient.

[Daikos]

Heh.

My bad, I meant to say Dark Fist, given that's your current alliance. I was just referencing the fact that you haven't exactly been known to never make jokes, and frequently have used the "It was for the lulz" defence.

Please show me where I said anything about people not being allowed to make points for the lulz.

My point, which I thought was crystal clear, is that one can't write propaganda and then respond to any criticism of it with a variation of "y so serious?".

[Haflinger]

Please show me where I said anything about people not being allowed to make points for the lulz.

My point, which I thought was crystal clear, is that one can't write propaganda and then respond to any criticism of it with a variation of "y so serious?".

If you think the OP was serious propaganda, I have a bridge you might be interested in.

[Daikos]

If you think the OP was serious propaganda, I have a bridge you might be interested in.

So when people got all defensive in response to TWiP it was okay, but when the same happens with Sir Paul's writing it's in poor fashion?

[Haflinger]

So when people got all defensive in response to TWiP it was okay, but when the same happens with Sir Paul's writing it's in poor fashion?

lol, I used to make fun of those people in TWiP threads too.

[ashernation]

You're not being told all your nations in peace mode will be PZIed if they don't come out.

Just a quick note, had you had your way, this would have been a term. Remember when you were trying to get all of the banks out of peace mode so you could stomp on them for 2 weeks?

Sounds to me like you screwed up your terms. Don't worry though, if breeding hate is what you wanted to accomplish, you're doing a fantastic job.

[Bob Janova]

I think you misunderstood my point - it is not the material effect on the alliance total strength, but the material effect on the nations themselves that I am talking about.

But any nation could have avoided any material harm (from war or from peace terms) by moving alliance, correct? (Once individual surrender terms are presented, which has been the case for almost the entirety of the Karma war, or as long as peace terms don't forbid it, which I don't believe yours do.) As long as there is a way out (as there wasn't for FAN or Vox nations) then there is no reason for any nation to be disbanded for purely material reasons.