A New Day Approaches

[sethb]

EDIT: Also will we be seeing a red MDP bloc in the near future?

Not a chance.

[RenderJack]

Not a chance.

It doesn't have to be NPO included..

EDIT: Grammar an others

Edited August 13, 2009 by RenderJack

[Olaf Eriksson]

It doesn't have to be NPO included..

EDIT: Grammar an others

It would be kind of redundant then without NPO's involvement. Just my two cents worth.

[Schattenmann]

Not a chance.

Uhhhhhh. I don't know why Karma insists on making me opposed to them. If I decide to ally Cult of Justitia with other Red alliances in a military bloc, Ordo Verde is welcome to their opinion, but they'd better bring guns.

[RenderJack]

It would be kind of redundant then without NPO's involvement. Just my two cents worth.

Well yeah if you calculate all the red alliances other than NPO you get over 500k ns. NPO is in terms for over what 6 months? In 3-4 months if this block was successful then the alliances will be larger and unified and they can make an MDP bloc or they could wait till NPO is out of terms and then make an MDP bloc. My general question was if it possible in the near future?

Edited August 13, 2009 by RenderJack

[sethb]

Uhhhhhh. I don't know why Karma insists on making me opposed to them. If I decide to ally Cult of Justitia with other Red alliances in a military bloc, Ordo Verde is welcome to their opinion, but they'd better bring guns.

My apologies, I thought he meant with NPO included.

[Schattenmann]

My apologies, I thought he meant with NPO included.

If in 6 months I decide to ally with NPO in a Red bloc, OV is welcome to their opinions, but they'd better bring guns.

[RenderJack]

If in 6 months I decide to ally with NPO in a Red bloc, OV is welcome to their opinions, but they'd better bring guns.

I love that

[sethb]

If in 6 months I decide to ally with NPO in a Red bloc, OV is welcome to their opinions, but they'd better bring guns.

After terms are up go for it, I could care less. You trying to make my posts appear as threatening are funny though.

Edited August 13, 2009 by sethb

[Schattenmann]

After terms are up go for it, I could care less. You trying to make my posts appear as threatening are funny though.

I see all outside directives as to what I will or will not do as threatening.

[Alan Shore]

No, it does not remain nonsensical, because we did not reject your signing of it due to any clauses in the treaty.

No, you rejected it because you require the NPO to remain the universal bad guy so people don't look at Karma and their behavior. If there exists the perception that the NPO is playing nice with other alliances, that the NPO liberalized Red and is working with the fellow inhabitants of our sphere, that maybe we are fully capable of change, then you no longer have us as the "hated other" to point to.

Then, if the NPO weren't the hated other, they might recognize that for example, a full half of the hated viceroys in history who are still around are on the Karma side. They might recognize that a full half of Karma either was directly supporting the NPO domination of the world through most of our existence or were allied to people who were. They might recognize the alliance of Karma already brutally penalized a barely involved alliance in the Hegemony with massive reps and demands that a certain member leave their government simply because they did not like them. If people stop hating the NPO for a moment, just one moment, they might recognize the Karma and the people therein have a track record of doing everything they now pretend to be against.

Besides that aspect of it, the need to keep attention focused on us to avoid losing your new found and very much tentative grasp on power, the other reason is Karma is busy trying to cause a Red civil war of sorts and so Red Unity would hose them. So far we have seen red alliances pushed out of talks by Karma, they being UED and SWF. UED, under Karma direction was attempting to merge into a mega alliance specifically to fight NPO on red, or even their initial attempt to make Red Dawn a military bloc just so the NPO couldn't sign it. UED, for all intents a Ragnarok puppet state, has been promoting red instability ever since the original Moldavi Doctrine was removed. I hardly think this a coincidence. Ergo, keeping NPO from being part of the color treaty, on paper, plays into their general behavior of turning Red hostile to us.

Having spoken to half the people you named as knowing the true reason we didn't join, one didn't know anything about it at all, the other said the reason was because "you didn't want us signing anything right away". How is that an objective reason? How is that any reason at all? Well, simply, because objectively this plays into your political game of the moment of making the Red team a battlefield , the other nations on red that get caught in the middle of this be damned, and it makes people less likely to look at you.

So, the too long, didn't read version, the reason we can't sign is more than just maliciousness, it is a calculated effort to continue the war they signed peace in and make sure people are paying attention to anything but themselves.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Alan Shore

[Rafael Nadal]

So it's just a generalized pettiness, then?

No, that's not it either.

No, you rejected it because you require the NPO to remain the universal bad guy so people don't look at Karma and their behavior. If there exists the perception that the NPO is playing nice with other alliances, that the NPO liberalized Red and is working with the fellow inhabitants of our sphere, that maybe we are fully capable of change, then you no longer have us as the "hated other" to point to.

Then, if the NPO weren't the hated other, they might recognize that for example, a full half of the hated viceroys in history who are still around are on the Karma side. They might recognize that a full half of Karma either was directly supporting the NPO domination of the world through most of our existence or were allied to people who were. They might recognize the alliance of Karma already brutally penalized a barely involved alliance in the Hegemony with massive reps and demands that a certain member leave their government simply because they did not like them. If people stop hating the NPO for a moment, just one moment, they might recognize the Karma and the people therein have a track record of doing everything they now pretend to be against.

Besides that aspect of it, the need to keep attention focused on us to avoid losing your new found and very much tentative grasp on power, the other reason is Karma is busy trying to cause a Red civil war of sorts and so Red Unity would hose them. So far we have seen red alliances pushed out of talks by Karma, they being UED and SWF. UED, under Karma direction was attempting to merge into a mega alliance specifically to fight NPO on red, or even their initial attempt to make Red Dawn a military bloc just so the NPO couldn't sign it. UED, for all intents a Ragnarok puppet state, has been promoting red instability ever since the original Moldavi Doctrine was removed. I hardly think this a coincidence. Ergo, keeping NPO from being part of the color treaty, on paper, plays into their general behavior of turning Red hostile to us.

Having spoken to half the people you named as knowing the true reason we didn't join, one didn't know anything about it at all, the other said the reason was because "you didn't want us signing anything right away". How is that an objective reason? How is that any reason at all? Well, simply, because objectively this plays into your political game of the moment of making the Red team a battlefield , the other nations on red that get caught in the middle of this be damned, and it makes people less likely to look at you.

So, the too long, didn't read version, the reason we can't sign is more than just maliciousness, it is a calculated effort to continue the war they signed peace in and make sure people are paying attention to anything but themselves.

I read your whole post, including the tl;dr. They contradict each other, at least, aspects of them.

Your post doesn't even really merit a true rebuttal, because, quite frankly, there is nothing to do except chuckle at it.

There is no Karma any longer. So first off, Karma isn't doing anything. Secondly, a red civil war? Between who? No offense to those alliances on red, but a civil war between them doesn't really damage the sphere, considering the low percentage of the sphere they make up.

And how does us rejecting your signature on the document, make you the bad guys? What?

Also, please don't tell me you don't believe politics would still be interesting without NPO being THE EVIL, as you seem to intimate with " then you no longer have us as the "hated other" to point to"?

99% of your post is a joke, and the real explanation you touch upon for our rejection of your signature is only half the reason.

[RenderJack]

There is no Karma any longer. So first off, Karma isn't doing anything. Secondly, a red civil war? Between who? No offense to those alliances on red, but a civil war between them doesn't really damage the sphere, considering the low percentage of the sphere they make up.

They may not have the numbers to show for it yet but they will in the future, you have to give these alliances credit for what they have done in such a short period of time

[Alan Shore]

No, that's not it either.

I read your whole post, including the tl;dr. They contradict each other, at least, aspects of them.

Your post doesn't even really merit a true rebuttal, because, quite frankly, there is nothing to do except chuckle at it.

I'm sorry, the too cool for school defense lost effectiveness with me somewhere around the sixth grade. Would you like to play again?

There is no Karma any longer. So first off, Karma isn't doing anything.

If there is no Karma, who told us we couldn't sign the treaty? Owait...

Secondly, a red civil war? Between who? No offense to those alliances on red, but a civil war between them doesn't really damage the sphere, considering the low percentage of the sphere they make up.

Between a UED directed effort and the NPO, as I said.

And how does us rejecting your signature on the document, make you the bad guys? What?

Because we look better if we are demonstrably playing well with others, in particular others on Red given our history with the color. It is for the sake of appearances.

Also, please don't tell me you don't believe politics would still be interesting without NPO being THE EVIL, as you seem to intimate with " then you no longer have us as the "hated other" to point to"?

I never said anything about how interesting it would be, I merely noted that is very much against your political interests for us not to be.

99% of your post is a joke, and the real explanation you touch upon for our rejection of your signature is only half the reason.

Again, too cool for school does not work on me. You are of course welcome to try again instead of this half hearted attempt at ducking.

[Tsar Vserossijskij]

No, that's not it either.

Thanks for your marvellously detailed extrapolations. They really added to my understanding of the situation and have so successfully persuaded me to your position that I am almost at a loss for words.

[Rafael Nadal]

I'm sorry, the too cool for school defense lost effectiveness with me somewhere around the sixth grade. Would you like to play again?

If there is no Karma, who told us we couldn't sign the treaty? Owait...

Between a UED directed effort and the NPO, as I said.

Because we look better if we are demonstrably playing well with others, in particular others on Red given our history with the color. It is for the sake of appearances.

I never said anything about how interesting it would be, I merely noted that is very much against your political interests for us not to be.

Again, too cool for school does not work on me. You are of course welcome to try again instead of this half hearted attempt at ducking.

There was nothing to duck. It's not against, or in our interests, for NPO to be or not to be THE BIG EVIL. If NPO is THE BIG EVIL, so be it. If NPO is not, we'll all survive and find other conflict.

Who told NPO they couldn't sign the treaty? Try the alliances on your front. There is nothing wholistically Karma about our organization. Karma was broken down into fronts, with each front handling their own affairs. As such, beyond the first day or so, there was no such thing as a true Karma decision. And most assuredly, not now, being that most other fronts had already wound down a while earlier.

If UED is being hostile to you guys, which I'm unaware of, and frankly don't care much about, then it has nothing to do with any desire or directive of us, the NPO front.

Working with others on an open sphere makes you look better? It really only makes you look normal, like you get it, but that's not something you've done in the past, so I guess it does make you look relatively better, compared to your history.

The post was a huge story of how we're still out to get you guys, how we need NPO to still be THE BIG EVIL, how we're trying to inspire a red civil war, a red hostile to NPO, etc. All of this, because we said you couldn't sign this treaty right now.

So what do you have to say about us declining your signature on a treaty with Invicta? Are we now trying to make you look like THE BIG EVIL to the whole CN world, that NPO doesn't want to cooperate with anybody at all? Are we trying to inspire the whole world to hate NPO because you don't have any treaties while under terms that require you to ask permission before signing new treaties? I'm sorry, but his post was nothing more than a joke.

You will be allowed to sign this treaty before your terms are up and reps finished, if all continues going as it has gone. What will you say then?

Thanks for your marvellously detailed extrapolations. They really added to my understanding of the situation and have so successfully persuaded me to your position that I am almost at a loss for words.

You're quite welcome.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Rafael Nadal

[Alan Shore]

There was nothing to duck. It's not against, or in our interests, for NPO to be or not to be THE BIG EVIL. If NPO is THE BIG EVIL, so be it. If NPO is not, we'll all survive and find other conflict.

You hope. Someone won't survive the next conflict, don't pretend to be so self-assured as to think there is no way it could be you.

Who told NPO they couldn't sign the treaty? Try the alliances on your front. There is nothing wholistically Karma about our organization. Karma was broken down into fronts, with each front handling their own affairs. As such, beyond the first day or so, there was no such thing as a true Karma decision. And most assuredly, not now, being that most other fronts had already wound down a while earlier.

Yes, the alliances on our front, otherwise known as Karma.

If UED is being hostile to you guys, which I'm unaware of, and frankly don't care much about, then it has nothing to do with any desire or directive of us, the NPO front.

Funny, they seem to have a lot of contact with the alliances on the NPO front, namely Rok, for you to know nothing about them. I can only assume that means you are not paying attention, much like the rest of this post.

Working with others on an open sphere makes you look better? It really only makes you look normal, like you get it, but that's not something you've done in the past, so I guess it does make you look relatively better, compared to your history.

Yes, and if we look relatively normal, we are no longer the great evil, which is an unfortunate political situation for you.

The post was a huge story of how we're still out to get you guys, how we need NPO to still be THE BIG EVIL, how we're trying to inspire a red civil war, a red hostile to NPO, etc. All of this, because we said you couldn't sign this treaty right now.

You are still out to get us and protect yourself. You do need us to be the big evil. Us being the big evil gives your position stability as it keeps people looking at us and not you. The fact of the matter is under the direction of other alliances within Karma, UED has attempted to create strife within Red, this is a simple fact. Though, you do have the cart before the horse, there has been a good deal more demonstrating your intent towards Red than just the treaty, that is merely the latest example of it. Of course, all of this was explained in the post you ducked.

So what do you have to say about us declining your signature on a treaty with Invicta? Are we now trying to make you look like THE BIG EVIL to the whole CN world, that NPO doesn't want to cooperate with anybody at all? Are we trying to inspire the whole world to hate NPO because you don't have any treaties while under terms that require you to ask permission before signing new treaties? I'm sorry, but his post was nothing more than a joke.

I have to say that any news that looks like the NPO is regaining some normality or displaying anything resembling friendliness, cooperation, support is bad news for Karma. As long as everyone is still convinced, that is they do not need to be convinced contrary to your post, that NPO is evil incarnate and everything done to the NPO is because we deserve it, they won't see you for the hypocrites you are. You need us to be bad so you can justify everything you are doing in the public eye as "justice" or similar nonsense, that if true, would have you crashing down the gates of Sparta, TOP, VE, etc. If ever your abuses are unveiled as simple abuse, what you claim to stand against, you might have to answer for it. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to you to continue playing the hero and every hero needs a villain, us.

You will be allowed to sign this treaty before your terms are up and reps finished, if all continues going as it has gone. What will you say then?

I won't have to say anything. You will allow us to sign a treaty that does nothing more than help stabilize and codify a mechanism for structuring the Red team in a non purely chaotic fashion as soon as it is too great a political liability to continue to deny us to do so.

Again I note not once have you established an actual harm that would come of us signing it, or an actual good that comes from denying it to us. Clearly then, any harm or good done in your actions originates from your end, not ours.

[Rafael Nadal]

You hope. Someone won't survive the next conflict, don't pretend to be so self-assured as to think there is no way it could be you.

Yes, the alliances on our front, otherwise known as Karma.

Funny, they seem to have a lot of contact with the alliances on the NPO front, namely Rok, for you to know nothing about them. I can only assume that means you are not paying attention, much like the rest of this post.

Yes, and if we look relatively normal, we are no longer the great evil, which is an unfortunate political situation for you.

You are still out to get us and protect yourself. You do need us to be the big evil. Us being the big evil gives your position stability as it keeps people looking at us and not you. The fact of the matter is under the direction of other alliances within Karma, UED has attempted to create strife within Red, this is a simple fact. Though, you do have the cart before the horse, there has been a good deal more demonstrating your intent towards Red than just the treaty, that is merely the latest example of it. Of course, all of this was explained in the post you ducked.

I have to say that any news that looks like the NPO is regaining some normality or displaying anything resembling friendliness, cooperation, support is bad news for Karma. As long as everyone is still convinced, that is they do not need to be convinced contrary to your post, that NPO is evil incarnate and everything done to the NPO is because we deserve it, they won't see you for the hypocrites you are. You need us to be bad so you can justify everything you are doing in the public eye as "justice" or similar nonsense, that if true, would have you crashing down the gates of Sparta, TOP, VE, etc. If ever your abuses are unveiled as simple abuse, what you claim to stand against, you might have to answer for it. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to you to continue playing the hero and every hero needs a villain, us.

I won't have to say anything. You will allow us to sign a treaty that does nothing more than help stabilize and codify a mechanism for structuring the Red team in a non purely chaotic fashion as soon as it is too great a political liability to continue to deny us to do so.

Again I note not once have you established an actual harm that would come of us signing it, or an actual good that comes from denying it to us. Clearly then, any harm or good done in your actions originates from your end, not ours.

I have not once stated that NPO signing this does us any harm, and that is because I don't believe it does.

And I don't know where you get this notion that we NEED NPO to THE BIG EVIL. Our alliances weren't founded on the principle of having NPO lose a war. To say we need to somehow manufacture ways to keep people thinking NPO is THE BIG EVIL just isn't true. If NPO wasn't around, it's not like the world would be all love, peace, and harmony. None of us need you around to justify our continued existence.

I have nothing to say about Sparta, TOP, and VE. I don't know intimate details about their actions.

As for someone not surviving the next conflict, please don't tell me you're already throwing around the threat of disbandment.

We decided against allowing you guys to sign treaties at the time you asked us about Invicta and the Red Unity Treaty because you had either not sent any reps yet, or had just started; I don't recall if you had started by the time you asked, and it doesn't matter either way. It was talked over, and we decided we'd like to see some time of cooperation and adhering to the terms before granting you permission under the terms to sign treaties. I believe you're still within the first month of terms, which means you haven't even come up to the time which you must be in compliance with military aspect. Have a little patience, comply with the terms for a little bit, and you'll be granted permission to sign these treaties.

But yes, we're doing all in our power to keep NPO looking like THE BIG EVIL, because without NPO in that role, well, none of us have any reason for existence.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Rafael Nadal

[Alan Shore]

I have not once stated that NPO signing this does us any harm, and that is because I don't believe it does.

Then what is the "objective" reason to deny us?

And I don't know where you get this notion that we NEED NPO to THE BIG EVIL. Our alliances weren't founded on the principle of having NPO lose a war. To say we need to somehow manufacture ways to keep people thinking NPO is THE BIG EVIL just isn't true. If NPO wasn't around, it's not like the world would be all love, peace, and harmony. None of us need you around to justify our continued existence.

Your current power in the world is based on the NPO having lost the war and no longer being a major power and being someone you can point to as a universal enemy. Your alliance may not have started that way but that is where you are now. I will note you made my point for me, if the NPO weren't around there would be a good deal more in the way of power struggles, which Karma wants to avoid for as long as possible.

I have nothing to say about Sparta, TOP, and VE. I don't know intimate details about their actions.

Nor Rok I presume. No, I suppose in cases like this it is better to not look too closely at what your allies have done in the past, or at least not admit knowledge of it.

As for someone not surviving the next conflict, please don't tell me you're already throwing around the threat of disbandment.

No... I was merely pointing out that the next great power struggle could destroy you as the last one destroyed us. I make no comment on disbandment.

We decided against allowing you guys to sign treaties at the time you asked us about Invicta and the Red Unity Treaty because you had either not sent any reps yet, or had just started; I don't recall if you had started by the time you asked, and it doesn't matter either way. It was talked over, and we decided we'd like to see some time of cooperation and adhering to the terms before granting you permission under the terms to sign treaties. I believe you're still within the first month of terms, which means you haven't even come up to the time which you must be in compliance with military terms. Have a little patience, comply with the terms for a little bit, and you'll be granted permission to sign these treaties.

How does the length of cooperation change anything? What is at risk? What could be lost from the treaty? How is it a reward for us to be able to sign it? None of that explanation makes any sense. I mean, yes, if there were something that could go wrong and cause damage were we irresponsible or ebil, then I could see needing to see some responsibility before allowing us to sign. However, for something completely harmless such as those, and for something that is of some importance to the future of all the other alliances on Red, being obstructionist in this nature cannot be explained away by just saying "we need to see a little more first".

But yes, we're doing all in our power to keep NPO looking like THE BIG EVIL, because without NPO in that role, well, none of us have any reason for existence.

Another one from Captain Strawman. I never said you wouldn't have a reason for existence, I said it would prove a political liability by increasing the degree of power struggle in the world when you lose the capacity to keep the world united against a common enemy, that presently being us.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Alan Shore

[Rafael Nadal]

Then what is the "objective" reason to deny us?

Your current power in the world is based on the NPO having lost the war and no longer being a major power and being someone you can point to as a universal enemy. Your alliance may not have started that way but that is where you are now. I will note you made my point for me, if the NPO weren't around there would be a good deal more in the way of power struggles, which Karma wants to avoid for as long as possible.

Nor Rok I presume. No, I suppose in cases like this it is better to not look too closely at what your allies have done in the past, or at least not admit knowledge of it.

No... I was merely pointing out that the next great power struggle could destroy you as the last one destroyed us. I make no comment on disbandment.

How does the length of cooperation change anything? What is at risk? What could be lost from the treaty? How is it a reward for us to be able to sign it? None of that explanation makes any sense. I mean, yes, if there were something that could go wrong and cause damage were we irresponsible or ebil, then I could see needing to see some responsibility before allowing us to sign. However, for something completely harmless such as those, and for something that is of some importance to the future of all the other alliances on Red, being obstructionist in this nature cannot be explained away by just saying "we need to see a little more first".

Another one from Captain Strawman. I never said you wouldn't have a reason for existence, I said it would prove a political liability by increasing the degree of power struggle in the world when you lose the capacity to keep the world united against a common enemy, that presently being us.

I'm pretty sure we're actually looking forward to more even politics and struggles. So no, we don't really want to avoid that. We do however, want to see out the completion of your terms.

In principle, we'd like to see you first comply with the military reduction terms and send out a portion of your reps, before allowing you to go on your way signing treaties. There's nothing inherently harmful in a PIAT with Invicta or the Red Unity Treaty. However, we'd just like to see a certain period of cooperation before we start granting permission to sign treaties.

I'm aware that Rok has pissed people off in their history, same as I'm aware Echelon has pissed people off in their history. I'm probably aware of some things, and unaware of others. I'm also aware that others under the Karma umbrella were once a part of Q, and some of those were members for a longer period of time than others; I'm certainly not oblivious to that. What they've all done though, is not really applicable to the topic of the Red Unity Treaty.

[WorkingClassRuler]

Despite the apparent explanation, the decision to not allow NPO to sign only hurts the Red Sphere and especially all those nations who were previously protected from raiding. It just doesn't make sense.

[jerdge]

There was nothing to duck. It's not against, or in our interests, for NPO to be or not to be THE BIG EVIL. If NPO is THE BIG EVIL, so be it. If NPO is not, we'll all survive and find other conflict.

So, Vanguard's top FA guy is openly stating that they're itching for conflict for the sake of it?

[agafaba]

Looking forward to a better red.

[Francesca]

My my........ looks like NPO's propaganda team has gained a few new members.

My, my...... looks like Rok found the perfect person to run their puppet on red. Oh, and I do hope you aren't referring to myself or Schattenmann as NPO propagandists.

[sethb]

I see all outside directives as to what I will or will not do as threatening.

I wasn't telling YOU what you can and can not do. I have bigger issues than if some red micro alliances sign a treaty.