A question

[A Soviet Attack]

I have no good reason for creating this thread now. It's all ancient history, and I've long since moved on. However, as far as I'm aware, no-one ever asked this question before, and I'm pretty bored and feel like being a dork, so here goes.

On June 13th, Moo claimed that NPO never practiced EZI.

Apparently many missed our announcement with our May Report that our ZI list was cleared. We have no PZI lists, or even a ZI list; we never practiced what many call EZI.

On August 5th, 2008, One Vision declared war on CIS for sheltering a re-roll of a nuclear rogue. Ignoring the fact that the CB was based on flimsy evidence and that CIS didn't exist at the time; if NPO never practiced EZI, why did you declare war on CIS?

(In before "Get over it")

Crap thread, I know. Apologising in advance.

Edited September 11, 2009 by A Soviet Attack

[rnegafan]

My nation just recently fully recovered from that instance of non-practice of EZI

[Haflinger]

Here's the short answer.

NPO considers EZI to be the practice of keeping nations at war forever. Not for a very long time: forever.

Their old ZI practice was to keep nations at war until they decided to let them go. Did they keep some nations at war for too long? Yes. But eventually they always relented; I think Lord Swampy has the claim to longest stay on the NPO ZI list.

[bzelger]

Here's the short answer.

NPO considers EZI to be the practice of keeping nations at war forever. Not for a very long time: forever.

Pretty much this. The NPO defined it differently so that they could claim that they never did it. Since "eternal" is meaningless in this context they read the phrase literally and claimed they didn't do it.

The commonly accepted definition of EZI (OOC: pursuing players across otherwise unrelated nations) the NPO vigorously defended and proudly practiced up until the PR push made immediately before starting the Karma war.

[A Soviet Attack]

His exact words were "we never practiced what many call EZI." He's obviously referring to the generally accepted definition, that is, chasing users across nations. Eternal ZI is the idea that an individual is sentenced to be kept at Zero Infrastructure even if he creates a new nation. Since they didn't know that Spearo had re-rolled, obviously they couldn't attack Spetton. Once they found out, their EZI kicked in, hence the war.

There isn't any real difference between Pacifica's definition and the generally accepted one, other than that Pacifica's is impossible to carry out. Still, Moo wasn't referring to Pacifica's definition, so...

[jerdge]

Is the question specifically asked to the NPO, to Moo only, or to anybody that wishes to reply?

Haf, what you mentioned is PZI, not EZI. Though I don't think that the NPO ever published any "doctrine" on what they considered to be PZI and what EZI, the question is about "what many call EZI".

Finally, I think that the NPO practiced EZI (as almost every big alliance was doing at one point, anyway).

[ooc] They are also good at revisionism: that may explain the reason of Moo's "recent" denial of having E-ZI'd, despite their DoW on CIS and other cases (see the Woodstock Massacre's CB, for instance.) [/ooc]

[The AUT]

Is the question specifically asked to the NPO, to Moo only, or to anybody that wishes to reply?

Haf, what you mentioned is PZI, not EZI. Though I don't think that the NPO ever published any "doctrine" on what they considered to be PZI and what EZI, the question is about "what many call EZI".

Finally, I think that the NPO practiced EZI (as almost every big alliance was doing at one point, anyway).

[ooc] They are also good at revisionism: that may explain the reason of Moo's "recent" denial of having E-ZI'd, despite their DoW on CIS and other cases (see the Woodstock Massacre's CB, for instance.) [/ooc]

There was also the whole, "we know others don't practice EZI but we don't care" attitude. This may not have been carried by NPO, depending on the viewpoints on here, but I know when I came back as The AUT I had to post a humiliating apology to IRON on the OWF while the NPO let me off despite me causing 500 mil in damages to them being a rogue. IRON's response was, "we don't care about the others, we practice and support EZI."

[Haflinger]

Finally, I think that the NPO practiced EZI (as almost every big alliance was doing at one point, anyway).

[ooc] They are also good at revisionism: that may explain the reason of Moo's "recent" denial of having E-ZI'd, despite their DoW on CIS and other cases (see the Woodstock Massacre's CB, for instance.) [/ooc]

Honestly, I think this is not a case of revisionism but rather isolationism. NPO has always used terms differently than other alliances do, and the term EZI was coined outside them. They never really understood what was meant by it.

And here I'm just speaking as an interpreter, as a guy who in the past has needed to translate between NPO-speak and Bob-speak. Heh.

They didn't keep a permazi list as separate from a ZI list. Their practice was to keep target lists, and keep people at war until they were removed from the target lists. Other alliances keep ZI lists where War staff would automatically remove them when ZI had been achieved, or when the nation had been abandoned, or whatever. This is the fundamental problem; they didn't define a particular end condition for a nation to be removed from a target list. So some nations were kept on for a long time. Others came off very quickly.

This practice was in effect EZI, in some cases, but the basis behind it was different: they didn't sentence nations to ZI/PZI/EZI the way some alliances did (like GGA), but rather ordered attacks on nations, with no defined objective.

[LJ Scott]

The war with CIS also had alot to do with several CIS members raiding red nations, and raiding NPO banks "hidden" off main NPO AA iirc.

[Monster]

Here's the short answer.

NPO considers EZI to be the practice of keeping nations at war forever. Not for a very long time: forever.

Their old ZI practice was to keep nations at war until they decided to let them go. Did they keep some nations at war for too long? Yes. But eventually they always relented; I think Lord Swampy has the claim to longest stay on the NPO ZI list.

I think Seerow has him beat.

[Haflinger]

I think Seerow has him beat.

Seerow went on the list in 2008, I think.

Given that NPO target lists were cleared by Karma, less than one year after, no he doesn't - Swampy was there from Purplegate until early this year.

[Nintenderek]

You make a good point, but it's a bit late

[A Soviet Attack]

The war with CIS also had alot to do with several CIS members raiding red nations, and raiding NPO banks "hidden" off main NPO AA iirc.

Yes it did, to an extent... That wasn't the CB used, though. Besides, on the old CIS forum we had a list of alliances who had raided Red / NPO Banks more times than us. There were a hell of a lot of them. CIS raided Red Team maybe 4 times between the announcing of The Revenge Doctrine up until CIS disbanded.

Haflinger, Moo made it quite clear in his post that he was referring to the generally accepted term "EZI" rather than NPO's definition.

[Haflinger]

Haflinger, Moo made it quite clear in his post that he was referring to the generally accepted term "EZI" rather than NPO's definition.

He was trying to, ASA. I'm suggesting that he didn't understand the term. This is based on having actually talked to him, BTW.

[A Soviet Attack]

It isn't a very difficult term to understand.

[Vilien]

Pacifica quite obviously practiced EZI, calling it by another name doesn't change that.

[Aurion]

...That's one hell of a semantic cop-out.

Just call it what it is.

[Haflinger]

...That's one hell of a semantic cop-out.

Just call it what it is.

What are you replying to?

Quotes please.

[Aurion]

What are you replying to?

Their old ZI practice was to keep nations at war until they decided to let them go.

Yeah, that's EZI if it goes across re-rolls, which the OP rather excellently showed that it did. Calling it anything else is just a cop-out.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Aurion

[Hell Scream]

Come on, stop using logic. Remember where we are!

[Haflinger]

Yeah, that's EZI if it goes across re-rolls, which the OP rather excellently showed that it did. Calling it anything else is just a cop-out.

Who called it anything else?

[Aurion]

Who called it anything else?

It would seem that your pals did. Considering, you know...

we never practiced what many call EZI.

If you want to be quite literal, it would seem obvious that it was called something else since they claim to have never EZI'd.

[Haflinger]

If you want to be quite literal, it would seem obvious that it was called something else since they claim to have never EZI'd.

Perhaps you'd like to reread my posts in this thread.

Or, actually, I should say read, given that you haven't done that yet.

[Bob Janova]

It was a lie ... shock, horror. Well, either that or Moo really doesn't understand a simple term that's been explained several times and debated several times by Pacificans trying to claim that it's fine, but I don't believe him to be stupid. The fact is that it was well known that NPO did practice EZI, and used reroll-based CBs for at least two major wars (CIS and GATO). One of the best documented cases is Kingzog, who kept a screenshot of that PM telling him [ooc]he could never play Cyber Nations again, after all[/ooc]. There are several other cases, although not so many as some people would have you believe, and nor was NPO the only offender – pretty much every major alliance's ZI list would get you attacked after a reroll for a long time.

So yeah, it was a lie, something you should always watch out for from politicians.

[Cortath]

Pretty much this. The NPO defined it differently so that they could claim that they never did it. Since "eternal" is meaningless in this context they read the phrase literally and claimed they didn't do it.

The commonly accepted definition of EZI (OOC: pursuing players across otherwise unrelated nations) the NPO vigorously defended and proudly practiced up until the PR push made immediately before starting the Karma war.

By your definition, Pacifica never practiced "EZI."

The New Pacific Order never "pursued [rulers] across otherwise unrelated nations."

Never once did we pursue a ruler across unrelated nations. You can't pursue a ruler across an unrelated nation. You know why? The new nation is unrelated to the old one.

Any new nation who we pursued for a transgression committed by that ruler over an old nation, by the very fact that we pursued the wasn't "unrelated." If a nation committed a transgression against my alliance, or against any alliance across the lands and seas of Bob, that alliance would take retribution against that nation. If that ruler fled their nation, and upon taking command of a new nation, committed the same transgressions against my alliance, or any alliance across the lands and seas of Bob, that alliance would take retribution upon that nation.

Now, if a ruler, fleeing their old nation, took command of a new nation and did nothing, through actions or words, to demonstrate that they were in command of the prior nation, how could we, or any alliance, find out that they were the old ruler? We can't, and we didn't.