The Great Reset

[Jesse End]

[quote name='Earogema' date='14 February 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1266185132' post='2181317']
Well that's true.

But around 100 or so nations showed up around Karma, all with around the same seniority and NS.
[/quote]

Ever heard of rerolling?

[Krack]

[quote name='angryraccoon' date='12 February 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1266008019' post='2178082']
What do you mean we wanted to see? This war was in no way planned by anyone in C&G. We are the defenders here yet you seem to forget that. It does suit your name though.
[/quote]

You mean you don't remember the start of this war when C&G ran up and headbutted TOP's fist?

[Lonely]

[quote name='Letum' date='14 February 2010 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1266154342' post='2180743']
Doubtless your biased speculation is more accurate than the actual observations of someone who, even if not involved in high-level policy making, at least has a front-row view to the popular opinion and cultural shifts within the order.
[/quote]

*shakes his head*

So because I don't agree with you I'm biased? On what basis do you make those claims? Because I'm an NSO member? To be perfectly honest, NSO are more pro-NPO than the majority of alliances in the Cyberverse as many of us are former Pacificans.

Besides that, your second point is also completely irrelevant. I don't need to be an NPO member to understand the NPO. In fact, I understand it better than many Pacificans, because I'm able to observe it independently from outside the Body Republic, who are fed versions of the truth that the IOs want them to hear.

[quote name='Letum' date='14 February 2010 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1266154342' post='2180743']
An alliance is nothing without its people
[/quote]

I agree.

[quote name='Letum' date='14 February 2010 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1266154342' post='2180743']
and despite what some quarters would like to tell themselves to feel better, we did not stick through a year of war and tech farming just because we're "brainwashed".
[/quote]

It's amazing how people manage to ignore exactly what they've just read. Re-read my post. The reason that your alliance is so strong is the kulturkampf your leaders so carefully cultivated over the years. For example, [OOC] I heard about Pacificans getting battle flags in real life [/OOC] and there's even some pip called a 'standard bearer' on the NPO boards for those who have one. The entire thing is really one gigantic social engineering experiment and it's gone too far. But it's certainly effective.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='15 February 2010 - 08:30 AM' timestamp='1266186615' post='2181373']
[color="#0000FF"]You know, you're absolutely right. But you know who else will destroy an alliance if it is in their interests to do so? Everyone else. That is sort of what alliances do. If it is worth it to them to do something, whether it be a war, a treaty, etc., then they will do it. If it isn't, then they won't. Nothing evil about it. It's just the way of the world.[/color]
[/quote]

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. The Cyberverse would be a boring place if people failed to act upon their conflicting interests and ideologies.

Edited February 15, 2010 by The Lonely Man

[Earogema]

[quote name='Jesse End' date='14 February 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1266194760' post='2181652']
Ever heard of rerolling?
[/quote]
All at the same time while not shedding nations?

[Doitzel]

It's amusing to see how short peoples' memories are, how easily they forget history's lessons, and how extensively they underestimate.

Pacific will be back and they'll be out for blood, one way or another.

[Letum]

[quote name='Earogema' date='14 February 2010 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1266183359' post='2181258']
You're right.

You just recruited en masse during the war.
[/quote]

[quote name='Earogema' date='15 February 2010 - 05:49 AM' timestamp='1266212966' post='2182378']
All at the same time while not shedding nations?
[/quote]

33% of Sparta and 31% of MHA nations have joined in the last 4 months. They weren't shedding nations during that time.

If you try to think a bit into the point you're making, you'll realise it makes no sense. Yes, we gained a lot of nations during the thee months karma war. We also gained two hundred nations during the last three months. Every other alliance has done the same, yet nobody's numbers have exploded. That's because this high turnover is a natural feature of number-based alliances. newbs leave, newbs come in, and only a small percentage end up staying, regardless of war or peace.

In fact, when I looked at the percentage of new membership after the war, Sparta, NPO and GPA all had similar numbers, despite a radically different military experience. Therefore, it can only be concluded that all empirical evidence points to this being a global and independent phenomenon, and thus not usable to draw any conclusion on the Neutral Pacific Order alone.

[quote]
*shakes his head*

So because I don't agree with you I'm biased? On what basis do you make those claims? Because I'm an NSO member? To be perfectly honest, NSO are more pro-NPO than the majority of alliances in the Cyberverse as many of us are former Pacificans.

Besides that, your second point is also completely irrelevant. I don't need to be an NPO member to understand the NPO. In fact, I understand it better than many Pacificans, because I'm able to observe it independently from outside the Body Republic, who are fed versions of the truth that the IOs want them to hear.
[/quote]

You are biased because you support one political "idea". I am also biased because I support another political "idea". Whether we agree with each other has nothing to do with our bias, and pro or anti -nponess has little to do with it either. I apologise if you perceived that comment as some form of dismissal of your person, I merely intended it to point out that you are basing your conclusions on your own personal beliefs, and speculating from those beliefs, rather than a reasoned conclusion based on empirical evidence.

Case in point, you claim you "observe" the NPO independently from outside the BR, yet the NPO is currently incapable of taking any form of meaningful action in that arena. Therefore, you have observed nothing concrete, and your conclusions are based on sheer speculation. Your conviction that you know better than others because said others are being fed false information is a testament to the subjective nature of your conclusions; a mass dismissal is only needed when your speculation has no other factual basis.

[quote]
The reason that your alliance is so strong is the kulturkampf your leaders so carefully cultivated over the years. For example, [OOC] I heard about Pacificans getting battle flags in real life [/OOC] and there's even some pip called a 'standard bearer' on the NPO boards for those who have one. The entire thing is really one gigantic social engineering experiment and it's gone too far. But it's certainly effective.
[/quote]

I can understand the underlying reasoning behind your example. Such an act would theoretically invoke the psychological principle of commitment, whereby the flag would act both as a subconcious sunk cost and a prior behaviour anchor to support consistent behaviour. However, one of the weaknesses of playing amateur psychologist is that, in trying to deliberately find traces of a "social experiment" , you will often ignore a multitude of other factors that would undermine your conclusion. The "commitment" caused by standard bearing is significantly undermined by the specific context of planet bob [ooc](being a game)[/ooc]. Our consumerist world is much used to parting with their money for superfluous objects, and a large part of this transaction reflects that. Coupled with the immediate reciprocation (thus minimising feelings of "sunk" costs), the entire psychological principle is almost totally counter-acted by the flags being partially approached as a consumer item. Of course, you can rightly claim that one psychological theory is just as much "playing amateur psychologist" as any other, so pure empirical evidence should be able to sort this: having flags has not stopped people from leaving the order, often under undesirable circumstances. Quite the opposite in fact; if correlation meant causality (which it doesn't), then having a flag would actually make you more likely to leave the order.

As you can see, no social engineering experiment. If it was, we'd need someone with enough knowledge of social psychology to run it.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Letum

[Lonely]

Truth be told, I can't be bothered responding to your arguments, Letum. If you're genuinely interested in what my rebuttal would have been, send me a PM. In the meantime, I should probably sleep.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Letum' date='15 February 2010 - 01:52 AM' timestamp='1266220359' post='2182594']
33% of Sparta and 31% of MHA nations have joined in the last 4 months. They weren't shedding nations during that time.

If you try to think a bit into the point you're making, you'll realise it makes no sense. Yes, we gained a lot of nations during the thee months karma war. We also gained two hundred nations during the last three months. Every other alliance has done the same, yet nobody's numbers have exploded. That's because this high turnover is a natural feature of number-based alliances. newbs leave, newbs come in, and only a small percentage end up staying, regardless of war or peace.

In fact, when I looked at the percentage of new membership after the war, Sparta, NPO and GPA all had similar numbers, despite a radically different military experience. Therefore, it can only be concluded that all empirical evidence points to this being a global and independent phenomenon, and thus not usable to draw any conclusion on the Neutral Pacific Order alone.
[/quote]
Which is it, rerolling or recruiting? The above explanation does not refute anything about there having been a mass reroll like your colleague suggested. Who am I to believe, you or them?

And indeed, Sparta and GPA had radically different experiences in Karma than NPO. We know this. Thus it makes sense for Sparta/GPA's new member numbers to rise (GPA's always rises after war, Sparta had just come off victory). What does not make sense is ignoring the variable of losing, AND losing sanction (a dramatic draw of newer nations). I figure there is more at work here than meets the eye, but it doesn't bother me too much.

[Jesse End]

[quote name='Earogema' date='15 February 2010 - 04:57 AM' timestamp='1266235072' post='2182781']
Which is it, rerolling or recruiting? The above explanation does not refute anything about there having been a mass reroll like your colleague suggested. Who am I to believe, you or them?[/quote]

Apparently you can't comprehend more than one thing happening at a time.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Jesse End

[Letum]

[quote name='Earogema' date='15 February 2010 - 11:57 AM' timestamp='1266235072' post='2182781']
Which is it, rerolling or recruiting? The above explanation does not refute anything about there having been a mass reroll like your colleague suggested. Who am I to believe, you or them?

And indeed, Sparta and GPA had radically different experiences in Karma than NPO. We know this. Thus it makes sense for Sparta/GPA's new member numbers to rise (GPA's always rises after war, Sparta had just come off victory). What does not make sense is ignoring the variable of losing, AND losing sanction (a dramatic draw of newer nations). I figure there is more at work here than meets the eye, but it doesn't bother me too much.
[/quote]

My point is that you have the same high turnover of new nations regardless of the circumstances. There were four factors I mentioned: 1) Which alliance it was (NPO or not), 2) how hard it was hurt (a lot for NPO or a little for Sparta), 3) if they fought at all (GPA) and if 4)high turnover continued after the war (the new MHA/Sparta/NPO numbers I mentioned). None of them showed [u]any[/u] sign of stopping the high turnover of new nations, therefore the natural conclusion is that this is an independent phenomenon not related to war.

The variable of losing a war or losing sanction is not being ignored - it is simply ineffectual. You are implying that the "expected" consequence of the war would be to eliminate the turnover phenomenon for the side being curb-stomped, and that some form of intervention occured that stopped that elimination from happening by artificially bolstering influx numbers. This idea makes no sense; any unique "intervention" on behalf of Pacifica would automatically be incorporated in factors 1 & 4, and therefore be visible after the war in the form of an explosion in members; that did not materialise, so there is no evidence to support such a conclusion.

The only alternative explanation is that somehow an unusually high amount of new nations were roped in during the war, but whatever skill made that happen was lost or made dormant after it, when those new nations would have been most useful. That explanation has little credibility because it would be a self-harming course of action to pursue.

If of course you have something else to grasp at than straws, you are welcome to share it.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Letum

[bobboman]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='12 February 2010 - 05:35 PM' timestamp='1266014154' post='2178220']
With the associated military buildup you can expect to see NPO shoot up a good bit, IIRC after IRON was released from terms and they bought back navies and planes and 3k or so nukes they jumped from #9 in the sanction rankings to #5 over the course of a week. Will NPO be its former self? No, but they'll certainly still have a decent place to start off, by the time this war is over they may be #2 or #3 in total score and in position to expand rapidly. I wouldn't count them out.
[/quote]

you forget, IRON merged CON into it the day it was removed from terms, which added a major 2.5 M or so boost

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Elyat' date='15 February 2010 - 06:51 AM' timestamp='1266213118' post='2182383']
It's amusing to see how short peoples' memories are, how easily they forget history's lessons, and how extensively they underestimate.

Pacific will be back and they'll be out for blood, one way or another.
[/quote]

And that makes them different from every other alliance, in what, exactly? It's not like the (temporal) emasculation of NPO has prevented Planet Bob from witnessing any more wars, be they regional or global.

[anenu]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='15 February 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1266267637' post='2183424']
And that makes them different from every other alliance, in what, exactly? It's not like the (temporal) emasculation of NPO has prevented Planet Bob from witnessing any more wars, be they regional or global.
[/quote]

In fairness to those saying that NPO will be back for blood they did manage to get out of position where they where widely disliked and not statically dominate to crushing and either destroying or subverting those that defeated them. Of course that was under different leadership in a vastly different political climate so I think the threat is being overplayed a bit here.

[Owned-You]

I expect Pacifica to come back strong, I know there more then capable of mustering a large amount of strength in a short amount of time. Honestly, Pacifica dominated this game for 3 years; that wasn't simply due to "Allies" and anyone who believes so is terribly inept and really down-playing an alliance that's only been reinvigorated by it's fall from grace. I expect nothing less then a hungry, driven Pacifica, because from past experience when you've had something ripped from your hands in the blink of an eye. You work 10x's as hard as it took to gain it too regain it, and you fight tooth and nail for it every moment of the day.

Pacificas fall from grace came about due to complacency at the top from portions of it's leadership. Now, at it's position on the bottom it will only be reinvigorated to regain it's spot on top of the pile. And being the type of guy too make unpredictable leaps of greatness myself, I wouldn't be shocked too see it's rise very quickly then most would assume. Then again, I'm a better player then most others in this game when it comes to building things and even more so making predictions.

[Riddick]

This war landed on the NPO's lap. As they look down and smile, they claim neutral
(brilliant) knowing there to rise again alot earlier than inticipated. I can just imagine the hail storms in their private channel.

Once they are out of surrender terms, alot of people will be biting their tongues.

eg; 650 nations buy 50tech = 32500ns x100tech = 65000ns x every ten days WOW
factor in nukes, military, infra, dontation deals etc.. WOW


The karma war is definately to be continued.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Letum' date='15 February 2010 - 06:36 AM' timestamp='1266237401' post='2182814']
My point is that you have the same high turnover of new nations regardless of the circumstances. There were four factors I mentioned: 1) Which alliance it was (NPO or not), 2) how hard it was hurt (a lot for NPO or a little for Sparta), 3) if they fought at all (GPA) and if 4)high turnover continued after the war (the new MHA/Sparta/NPO numbers I mentioned). None of them showed [u]any[/u] sign of stopping the high turnover of new nations, therefore the natural conclusion is that this is an independent phenomenon not related to war.

The variable of losing a war or losing sanction is not being ignored - it is simply ineffectual. You are implying that the "expected" consequence of the war would be to eliminate the turnover phenomenon for the side being curb-stomped, and that some form of intervention occured that stopped that elimination from happening by artificially bolstering influx numbers. This idea makes no sense; any unique "intervention" on behalf of Pacifica would automatically be incorporated in factors 1 & 4, and therefore be visible after the war in the form of an explosion in members; that did not materialise, so there is no evidence to support such a conclusion.

The only alternative explanation is that somehow an unusually high amount of new nations were roped in during the war, but whatever skill made that happen was lost or made dormant after it, when those new nations would have been most useful. That explanation has little credibility because it would be a self-harming course of action to pursue.

If of course you have something else to grasp at than straws, you are welcome to share it.
[/quote]
Alright, then. I suppose the numbers of NADC should be ignored, or GPA post woodstock?

TPF?
MCXA?
Legion during the disbandment crisis?
GATO?
VE?
FAN?

The fact of the matter is, most large alliances when faced with wars longer than 1 month DO lose members and the turnover rate is NEVER enough to make up for this loss. There are more than enough examples of this factor which prove your conclusion of these rates to be false. Not only this, but nothing you state refutes the seniority dates and NS sizes to have been relatively constant with each other during this massive recruitment drive.

NADC, TPF, GPA, Legion, are all MUCH smaller than before their wars, and have remained as such even after. FAN too, at around 600 members pre-VietFAN 1, with around 200 pre-VietFAN 2- Having finally been able to recover to that level.

Most alliances lose more members than the gain, easily. The results have proven this time and time again. You state that high turnover rate applies to all large alliances, but Pacifica and possibly IRON are the ONLY TWO that have maintained members, possibly gained members during and right after the war. Most other alliances, even for a short time, will lose members, except in rare instances such as people wanting to fight against Polar in this last war, and thus joining PC.

[quote name='Jesse End' date='15 February 2010 - 06:31 AM' timestamp='1266237061' post='2182810']
Apparently you can't comprehend more than one thing happening at a time.
[/quote]
Oh I do. It's just that he ignored your response completely. As a result, I don't know the percentage of those that rerolled, and those that newly joined as a result of the turnover rate.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Earogema

[F15pilotX]

[quote name='Earogema' date='15 February 2010 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1266293148' post='2184371']Most alliances lose more members than the gain, easily. The results have proven this time and time again. You state that high turnover rate applies to all large alliances, but Pacifica and possibly IRON are the ONLY TWO that have maintained members, possibly gained members during and right after the war. Most other alliances, even for a short time, will lose members, except in rare instances such as people wanting to fight against Polar in this last war, and thus joining PC.[/quote]Well don't you just make us feel downright special.

[Letum]

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 04:05 AM' timestamp='1266293148' post='2184371']
Most alliances lose more members than the gain, easily. The results have proven this time and time again. You state that high turnover rate applies to all large alliances, but Pacifica and possibly IRON are the ONLY TWO that [b]have maintained members, possibly gained members[/b] during and right after the war. Most other alliances, even for a short time, will lose members, except in rare instances such as people wanting to fight against Polar in this last war, and thus joining PC.
[/quote]

We went from 850 people to 650. We didn't maintain or gain anything.

What I am arguing against is the notion that the NPO had some kind of recruitment surge during the war that kept our numbers artificially high. There wasn't any surge, just the normal way of going about things - of course we ended up losing members on the whole, nobody is refuting that.

Yes, our losses were probably less than most other scenarios. But that is not due to extra input, but less output.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Letum

[Jesse End]

[quote name='Earogema' date='15 February 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1266293148' post='2184371']Oh I do. It's just that he ignored your response completely. As a result, I don't know the percentage of those that rerolled, and those that newly joined as a result of the turnover rate.
[/quote]

I didn't ask Letum anything in this discussion, so why would he need to respond to me here?

You made an unsubstantiated claim of hundreds of nations joining NPO during the Karma war. Though your claim is extremely exaggerated, I gave one reason why we had new members, and Letum gave another reason. You're grasping at straws of conspiracy theories, when the answer is very simple, and not much different from any other alliance in an extended-length beatdown war, except for that Pacificans are less likely to abandon their home.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Jesse End' date='16 February 2010 - 04:35 AM' timestamp='1266316532' post='2185355']
I didn't ask Letum anything in this discussion, so why would he need to respond to me here?

You made an unsubstantiated claim of hundreds of nations joining NPO during the Karma war. Though your claim is extremely exaggerated, I gave one reason why we had new members, and Letum gave another reason. You're grasping at straws of conspiracy theories, when the answer is very simple, and not much different from any other alliance in an extended-length beatdown war, except for that Pacificans are less likely to abandon their home.
[/quote]
His answer was just quite different to your own, thus different conclusions.

Except is wasn't unsubstantiated. There were literally 100+ nations having joined NPO during Karma's first week of war. I don't have any data on me, but I'm sure somebody does. These nations all had the same seniority too. In fact, if I am to believe Letum, that would mean that my original claim that 100+ nations joined NPO was correct. In fact, this was the case. I know not why this was the case, and Letum says that he may have a reason, and though that reason is a good one, it just does not fit with the majority of large alliances during a beat-down.

Most large alliance have seen much larger loses than Pacifica during a war (in terms of member count I mean) and most did not have an influx of membership during said war. Besides, I don't see why saying your recruitment has done well during a war is a "conspiracy" as I have implied nothing about these numbers meaning anything sinister, just being a large outlier.

Though I may just settle for Cortath's/Letum's responses and agree that the Pacifican recruiting machine is a good one, even during war, and that these numbers are relative constants, with or without wars.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Earogema

[Jesse End]

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 05:37 AM' timestamp='1266323836' post='2185455']
His answer was just quite different to your own, thus different conclusions.

Except is wasn't unsubstantiated. There were literally 100+ nations having joined NPO during Karma's first week of war. I don't have any data on me, but I'm sure somebody does. These nations all had the same seniority too. In fact, if I am to believe Letum, that would mean that my original claim that 100+ nations joined NPO was correct. In fact, this was the case. I know not why this was the case, and Letum says that he may have a reason, and though that reason is a good one, it just does not fit with the majority of large alliances during a beat-down.

Most large alliance have seen much larger loses than Pacifica during a war (in terms of member count I mean) and most did not have an influx of membership during said war. Besides, I don't see why saying your recruitment has done well during a war is a "conspiracy" as I have implied nothing about these numbers meaning anything sinister, just being a large outlier.

Though I may just settle for Cortath's/Letum's responses and agree that the Pacifican recruiting machine is a good one, even during war, and that these numbers are relative constants, with or without wars.
[/quote]

By definition, if you don't have any data, as you say, then the claim is unsubstantiated. I'd say you should settle for Cortath and Letum's responses about our recruitment dept being good at their job, regardless of your attempts to smear us.

[flak attack]

My guess is that NPO's gain had something to do with them and TDO being the only alliances recruiting at the time and I'm sure NPO was involved in a "life or death conflict against evil oppressors"

[Earogema]

[quote name='Jesse End' date='16 February 2010 - 07:07 AM' timestamp='1266325679' post='2185478']
By definition, if you don't have any data, as you say, then the claim is unsubstantiated. I'd say you should settle for Cortath and Letum's responses about our recruitment dept being good at their job, regardless of your attempts to smear us.
[/quote]
I don't have any data [i]myself.[/i] I'm sure that somebody has statistics from that time.

Even if not, one could Order the NPO by seniority and count the number that joined At the start of the Karma war to the end of the Karma war.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1266361088' post='2186378']
I don't have any data [i]myself.[/i] I'm sure that somebody has statistics from that time.

Even if not, one could Order the NPO by seniority and count the number that joined At the start of the Karma war to the end of the Karma war.
[/quote]

I and many others refresh our AA's every once in a while, so no you could'nt

[Jesse End]

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1266361088' post='2186378']
I don't have any data [i]myself.[/i] I'm sure that somebody has statistics from that time.

Even if not, one could Order the NPO by seniority and count the number that joined At the start of the Karma war to the end of the Karma war.
[/quote]

I even did it for you, it only took a couple minutes. There are exactly 30 nations whose AA became NPO between 4/21, 2009 and 7/19, 2009, some of whom were already long time members of the NPO. Others were likely new members because our recruitment dept didn't shut down during the war.

So, now your unsubstantiated claim is further weakened by the fact that you've overstated the number of members we gained by 3 times as much, while you still don't have any data to prove whatever you're trying to prove.

What exactly are you trying to prove again?