Ivan Moldavi Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Basically, I don't really understand all the complaints here. I personally find it unfortunate that NPO is being forced into aiding combatants but the long and short of it is that no alliance that GOD is attacking is technically aligned to NPO. The NPO is not doing anything wrong insofar as the NSO is concerned except aiding a current enemy, which is justifiable CB in most circumstances. This isn't most circumstances. If NPO fails to follow through then it is conceivable that the other 14 alliances in question will decide to attack NPO. It is my opinion that some of them are simply looking for a reason anyway. The leadership of the NPO has to do what it believes is best for its membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderago Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote]The Order will not be requiring any reparations, decommissions, apologies, oaths, viceroys, permanent terms, secret terms, improvement destruction, wonder destruction, tech farming, peace mode activation, onerous aid restrictions and the like. [/quote] WHAT ?! no insane surrendur terms th...that's not right man wheres the npo we all knew and loved im all seriousness wow...this is a shame GOD jus could not let the reps go... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncos98 Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 (edited) Poor showing GOD. It's funny to think that the second they accept said rep payments, our side will be blowing those reps to smithereens! Does GOD's lack of follow through on peace terms (ie. protection from rogues) not nullify the entire deal? If I were NPO I'd be looking to cancel rep payments to GOD altogether. [quote name='Jack Diorno' date='16 February 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1266342200' post='2185760'] I hope GOD gets herpes. GOD is a bad alliance. [/quote] There, fixed it for you. Edited February 16, 2010 by Broncos98 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deth2munkies Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 It's very sad to see the once so high and mighty NPO reduced to attention whoring tactics like this and the last thread in some sort of attempt to remain politically relevant. Of course this statement requires qualification, so here it is: 1) GOD denied NPO a courtesy, nothing more. It's not GOD's job to suspend reps, merely a nice thing to do, and I don't thing GOD has ever been accused of being a courteous or nice alliance, so I don't see it as anything but par for the course. 2) Aid like this is only a CB if other people want it to be. There's no reason to say "HEY, YOU GUYS CAN WAR US NOW" unless you want to be warred or you want attention. Since the post makes it abundantly clear the former is false, it must be the latter. 3) It seems some members can't count, because the list posted in this thread is of 9 alliances including GOD to which the NPO owes reps, not 15. All this is really nothing more than an attention-whoring smear campaign by the NPO and I would have thought was beneath them, evidently I was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='deth2munkies' date='16 February 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1266344052' post='2185804'] It's very sad to see the once so high and mighty NPO reduced to attention whoring tactics like this and the last thread in some sort of attempt to remain politically relevant. Of course this statement requires qualification, so here it is: 1) GOD denied NPO a courtesy, nothing more. It's not GOD's job to suspend reps, merely a nice thing to do, and I don't thing GOD has ever been accused of being a courteous or nice alliance, so I don't see it as anything but par for the course. 2) Aid like this is only a CB if other people want it to be. There's no reason to say "HEY, YOU GUYS CAN WAR US NOW" unless you want to be warred or you want attention. Since the post makes it abundantly clear the former is false, it must be the latter. 3) It seems some members can't count, because the list posted in this thread is of 9 alliances including GOD to which the NPO owes reps, not 15. All this is really nothing more than an attention-whoring smear campaign by the NPO and I would have thought was beneath them, evidently I was wrong. [/quote] I believe it was necessary if only to alert the general masses that NPO would be sending aid to an alliance currently in combat with Polar and a few other alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentkiller Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='deth2munkies' date='16 February 2010 - 06:14 PM' timestamp='1266344052' post='2185804'] It's very sad to see the once so high and mighty NPO reduced to attention whoring tactics like this and the last thread in some sort of attempt to remain politically relevant. Of course this statement requires qualification, so here it is: 1) GOD denied NPO a courtesy, nothing more. It's not GOD's job to suspend reps, merely a nice thing to do, and I don't thing GOD has ever been accused of being a courteous or nice alliance, so I don't see it as anything but par for the course. 2) Aid like this is only a CB if other people want it to be. There's no reason to say "HEY, YOU GUYS CAN WAR US NOW" unless you want to be warred or you want attention. Since the post makes it abundantly clear the former is false, it must be the latter. 3) It seems some members can't count, because the list posted in this thread is of 9 alliances including GOD to which the NPO owes reps, not 15. All this is really nothing more than an attention-whoring smear campaign by the NPO and I would have thought was beneath them, evidently I was wrong. [/quote] Hi there, thanks for sharing your opinion with us. But you seem to be forgetting that the protection agreement in our surrender terms is not a "if the protector feels like it" term. If GOD wants their reps during a war, they should also be ready to use their nations to protect us during said war. Frankly I believe we should have denied giving reps to GOD until such time that GOD would declare war on all those nations(who are in their range) who are going rogue on us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncos98 Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='16 February 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1266344194' post='2185808'] I believe it was necessary if only to alert the general masses that NPO would be sending aid to an alliance currently in combat with Polar and a few other alliances. [/quote] This^ Can you imagine the flood of anti-NPO posts had they not made this announcement and then commenced with aiding a party at war? Pacifica is damned if they do, damned if they don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deth2munkies Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='16 February 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1266344194' post='2185808'] I believe it was necessary if only to alert the general masses that NPO would be sending aid to an alliance currently in combat with Polar and a few other alliances. [/quote] Not really, if they're tagged as reps, everyone understands what they are and someone pointing it out would be a stupid attention whore that would be called out by me and others as such and stripped of credibility. [quote name='silentkiller' date='16 February 2010 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1266344434' post='2185824'] Hi there, thanks for sharing your opinion with us. But you seem to be forgetting that the protection agreement in our surrender terms is not a "if the protector feels like it" term. If GOD wants their reps during a war, they should also be ready to use their nations to protect us during said war. Frankly I believe we should have denied giving reps to GOD until such time that GOD would declare war on all those nations(who are in their range) who are going rogue on us. [/quote] This would only be a CB for people attacking GOD to attack the NPO, thus GOD would already be engaged ("protecting") those at war with the NPO, stop trying to create violations, you're bad at it. Edited February 16, 2010 by deth2munkies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='silentkiller' date='16 February 2010 - 01:20 PM' timestamp='1266344434' post='2185824'] Hi there, thanks for sharing your opinion with us. But you seem to be forgetting that the protection agreement in our surrender terms is not a "if the protector feels like it" term. If GOD wants their reps during a war, they should also be ready to use their nations to protect us during said war. Frankly I believe we should have denied giving reps to GOD until such time that GOD would declare war on all those nations(who are in their range) who are going rogue on us. [/quote] Well, if the "protectors" are not actually holding up their end of the bargain I am not sure why you would continue to pay them reps anyway. But that is just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeCoHo Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 deth2munkies, in regards to point number three: All 15 alliances are enforcing the terms, and the terms include a clause that 1/12th of reps must be paid per month. 14 out of the 15 agreed to suspend reps [i]and[/i] waive the 1/12th reps per month clause. If we were to not have that particular clause waived, we would be subject to being attacking for breaking terms, ie: not sending out the 1/12th of the reps. I don't get why this is so difficult for so many to understand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Nicely done, GOD. This sends [i]all[/i] the right messages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncos98 Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Agreed, Ivan. Is there a precedence set for situations such as this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='deth2munkies' date='16 February 2010 - 01:22 PM' timestamp='1266344537' post='2185829'] A post to address the body republic on the NPO forum or a PM sent out would not have sufficed? [/quote] No, I don't think so. If a large number of aid slots opened up on the other side of the war and all that had occurred was a PM to me, and I was offline, then there could have been a problem. The easiest way to get a message out to the most people in the quickest fashion is via this venue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentkiller Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 (edited) [quote name='deth2munkies' date='16 February 2010 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1266344537' post='2185829'] Not really, if they're tagged as reps, everyone understands what they are and someone pointing it out would be a stupid attention whore that would be called out by me and others as such and stripped of credibility. This would only be a CB for people attacking GOD to attack the NPO, thus GOD would already be engaged ("protecting") those at war with the NPO, stop trying to create violations, you're bad at it. [/quote] [quote]Aid like this is only a CB if other people want it to be. There's no reason to say "HEY, YOU GUYS CAN WAR US NOW" unless you want to be warred or you want attention. Since the post makes it abundantly clear the former is false, it must be the latter.[/quote] at one place you are claiming this is only a cb if we want it to be, and the other you are saying [b]it is [/b]a cb because we aided GOD. Make up your mind already. You are bad at it. Edited February 16, 2010 by silentkiller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando12 Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 (edited) [quote name='deth2munkies' date='16 February 2010 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1266344052' post='2185804'] 3) It seems some members can't count, because the list posted in this thread is of 9 alliances including GOD to which the NPO owes reps, not 15. All this is really nothing more than an attention-whoring smear campaign by the NPO and I would have thought was beneath them, [u][b]evidently I was wrong.[/b][/u] [/quote] Evidently you are wrong and didn't bother to read the entire thread or learn why it is necessary for the 15 alliances to be informed. NPO owes reps to fewer than 15 alliances. But 15 alliances signed the surrender terms and are responsible for those terms. 14/15 agreed that NPO could suspend payments until the war is over. It is only GOD who chose to not allow NPO to suspend repayments. GOD is taking a hit because it is making them look undiplomatic and desperate to keep aid flowing to their nations. 14/15 of GOD's fellow signatories are basically on the other side of GOD on this issue. Conclusion seems to be that GOD is wrong. Edited February 16, 2010 by Fernando12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormsend Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Wait. What? GOD didn't suspend... Oh, come on now. Why am I not surprised. Also, hello to Emperor "Chuckles" Cortath and my illegitimate grandfather Moo-Cows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='Virillus' date='16 February 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1266344631' post='2185834'] Nicely done, GOD. This sends [i]all[/i] the right messages. [/quote] GOD doesn't really care about sending the right message. On the same token, this didn't need a public announcement such as this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='AirMe' date='16 February 2010 - 01:51 PM' timestamp='1266346289' post='2185884'] GOD doesn't really care about sending the right message. On the same token, this didn't need a public announcement such as this. [/quote] I disagree. See above. Would you have suggested NPO PM every combatant nation in Polar, NSO and whoever else is currently fighting GOD so that they were aware of the situation and didn't think NPO was willingly aiding an alliance at war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilrow Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='AirMe' date='16 February 2010 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1266346289' post='2185884'] GOD doesn't really care about sending the right message. On the same token, this didn't need a public announcement such as this. [/quote] Either way it would have been announced when someone saw the currently 137 slots of 50 tech flowing into GOD (which I got to be the first one to send *dances*) and we would have had to respond then. Much better to be on the front side announcing it publicly than being reactionary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='16 February 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1266346408' post='2185887'] I disagree. See above. Would you have suggested NPO PM every combatant nation in Polar, NSO and whoever else is currently fighting GOD so that they were aware of the situation and didn't think NPO was willingly aiding an alliance at war? [/quote] I'd be more passive and carry about my business until someone came to me and said something and then leave the ball in GOD's court. Any reasonable person would take the beef up with GOD and not blame NPO for complying with terms. But then again, reason seems to be in short supply these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='AirMe' date='16 February 2010 - 01:55 PM' timestamp='1266346554' post='2185893'] I'd be more passive and carry about my business until someone came to me and said something and then leave the ball in GOD's court. Any reasonable person would take the beef up with GOD and not blame NPO for complying with terms. But then again, reason seems to be in short supply these days. [/quote] Well, I know for me, who happened to be online last night for a change, that some of my nations noticed it before they noticed the thread and were very concerned about it. After reading the OP they understood and didn't jump to conclusions on whether NPO was entering the war against us. I appreciated the announcement simply from a crowd control standpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='AirMe' date='16 February 2010 - 06:55 PM' timestamp='1266346554' post='2185893'] I'd be more passive and carry about my business until someone came to me and said something[/quote] I guess that's what makes us the NPO: we dare to plan ahead. It has the happy by-product of helping to organise events in the most efficient and cooperative manner possible, reducing the risks inherent in a sphere of incomplete information and the consequent suspicion, and allowing us to go about our daily business. Not a popular position to take, I grant you, but our humble state-planners feel that it is a good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='Vladimir' date='16 February 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1266346846' post='2185907'] I guess that's what makes us the NPO: we dare to plan ahead. It has the happy by-product of helping to organise events in the most efficient and cooperative manner possible, reducing the risks inherent in a sphere of incomplete information and the consequent suspicion, and allowing us to go about our daily business. Not a popular position to take, I grant you, but our humble state-planners feel that it is a good one. [/quote] Opinions are like...well you know. We all have them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 [quote name='AirMe' date='16 February 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1266346929' post='2185910'] Opinions are like...well you know. We all have them. [/quote] And thanks to this announcement everyone's opinion has in common that it is informed by our position, rather than guesswork and conspiracy theory. Huzzah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taget Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 "What God wants God gets. God help us all." A very difficult spot to have NPO shoved in. Hopefully you guys will be out of those terms altogether soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.