NPO Annoucement: 2nd Triannual Report of the 6th Year of Order

[kerschbs]

[quote name='Branimir' date='04 May 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1272990766' post='2286468']
There was a statement from our Emperor at the time, of our apology for this act and recognition of our error.
You can take it as genuine or not, but it is there.

My point though was, that the self proclaimed "changers of standards" didn't change a thing. Was just a propaganda jingle from their side.

Though I firmly stand that it was not from ours. After our apology and recognition of error there, I do not expect us ever issuing terms that would be put over alliances for such a long period of time.

Time shall set the record on that, I suppose.
[/quote]

We shall indeed. Granted, GATO was never part of KARMA, and most of us didn't believe KARMA was what others thought it was, we even asked NOT to use us for propoganda. That was was you guys getting yours, and with the completion of terms I'm actually willing to call it a clean slate. I'm still one of the largest proponents of our treaty. However you cannot continue to spout this rhetoric that you are now the oppressed and expect people to take you completely seriously.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Letum' date='04 May 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1272954689' post='2286192']
The "setting back a month" rationale doesn't make any sense. A nation is "set back a month" by sending out 900 tech in reps; since it would need a month to recover that amount. It is also arguably set back many months if there are terms forbidding the purchase of wonders over an extended period of time (and if it is maxed out on the non-forbidden wonders). Hell, you can credibly claim that, in terms of opportunity cost, beating a nation that hasn't maxed out on wonders down to ZI "sets it back", since it might not have the economic ability to buy new wonders. In terms of economic rationale, all those are pretty equal. The reason wonder decommissioning is disliked more than alternatives is not because of its economic impact (since the alternatives have a similar impact), but because of its psychological one, because wonders are an otherwise indestructible asset.
[/quote]


You can buy tech in your nation at any point in time, just because it isn't economical to do so doesn't mean you can't do it. Wonders can only be purchased 1 time a month under any circumstance and can cost in excess of 200 million to replace.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 May 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1272991500' post='2286482']"Everybody did it" is no excuse.[/quote]
I believe I was making no excuses, nor do I wish to excuse anybody to you.
I was pointing out that your claim of changing anything, is false.

Your "judgment" of us thus, is out of no moral high ground, but out of hate and revenge.
That is fine, though, just stop japing how you changed things for the "better".
[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 May 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1272991500' post='2286482']Are you [b]actually[/b] suggesting that debates were more lively during the Pacifican Hegemony?[/quote]
Yes, Ill be honest and say how I enjoyed the Vox threads very much. Always contained pages and pages of fun.
Usually there wasn't an AA which wasn't represented there.
[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 May 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1272991500' post='2286482']I'm not sure what GOONS or FAN have to do with anything. [/quote]
Well they are considered a factor in narrowing debate in here. I dont know what is your latest definition of "Pacifican hegemony" (I cant keep up with you people ever changing definitions of what you are saying), so I went to the root times of what is perceived narrowing debate in here and the standard bearers of such. Figured it may be relevant.

[quote name='kerschbs' date='04 May 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1272991553' post='2286484']
However you cannot continue to spout this rhetoric that you are now the oppressed and expect people to take you completely seriously.[/quote]
I am saying what is.

How you take it, is up to you.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Branimir

[Letum]

[quote name='AirMe' date='04 May 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1272991920' post='2286492']
You can buy tech in your nation at any point in time, just because it isn't economical to do so doesn't mean you can't do it.
[/quote]

In that case, it becomes a case of relative value of money and time. Given the lack of widespread manual buying of 4000 levels of technology, I think you can guess which one wins out.

Since my entire comment was about economic impact, I do think whether it is "economical" is quite an important concern. If I may speak for myself, I would much rather have been subjected to the "crime" of having my WRC decommissioned than spend 6 months doing tech deals to bring my level back over 4k (or spending 990m to do it instantly, to use your way).

Edited May 4, 2010 by Letum

[AirMe]

[quote name='Letum' date='04 May 2010 - 01:10 PM' timestamp='1272992991' post='2286502']
In that case, it becomes a case of relative value of money and time. Given the lack of widespread manual buying of 4000 levels of technology, I think you can guess which one wins out.

Given that my entire comment was about economic impact, I do think whether it is "economical" is quite an important concern. If I may speak for myself, I would much rather have been subjected to the "crime" of having my WRC decommissioned than spend 6 months doing tech deals to bring my level back over 4k (or spending 990m to do it instantly, to use your way).
[/quote]

It all depends where you put your priorities. When you are surrendering to an opponent that has a history of attacking alliances they have under surrender terms you want to be able to cause as much damage as possible and to deter the same thing from happening to you. I can say for a fact, that the reason MK agreed to pay so much tech to you in the noCB war was because we wanted to keep our wonders in case you tried to pull the carpet out from under us. We were also willing to pay more tech instead of having a viceroy or our treaties canceled. We paid off our enormous debt in 3 - 4 months, despite the inefficiencies of the Pacifican bank at the time.

EDIT: Actually you guys could have been done with reps a while ago if TOP hadn't attacked C&G.

Edited May 4, 2010 by AirMe

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Branimir' date='04 May 2010 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1272992124' post='2286495']
Well they are considered a factor in narrowing debate in here. I dont know what is your latest definition of "Pacifican hegemony" (I cant keep up with you people ever changing definitions of what you are saying), so I went to the root times of what is perceived narrowing debate in here and the standard bearers of such. Figured it may be relevant.
[/quote]

I suggest you actually read my post then, seeing as I defined the period I was referring to in the very sentence after the one you quoted.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 May 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1272993702' post='2286510']
I suggest you actually read my post then, seeing as I defined the period I was referring to in the very sentence after the one you quoted.[/quote]
Or, you could read mine-- touches what you were saying.

Anyway, another fruitless argument here. I suppose before getting too much off the subject matter here, Ill go and grab a bite leaving this behind.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Branimir' date='04 May 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1272993878' post='2286513']
Or, you could read mine-- touches what you were saying.

Anyway, another fruitless argument here. I suppose before getting too much off the subject matter here, Ill go and grab a bite leaving this behind.
[/quote]

I did read it. Your entire post is you arguing against things I didn't actually say. I do believe there's a word for that.

Enjoy your lunch.

If you want more detail:
[quote name='Branimir' date='04 May 2010 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1272992124' post='2286495']
I believe I was making no excuses, nor do I wish to excuse anybody to you.
I was pointing out that your claim of changing anything, is false.

Your "judgment" of us thus, is out of no moral high ground, but out of hate and revenge.
That is fine, though, just stop japing how you changed things for the "better".[/quote]

In your own words, "things were different 2 years ago". I personally may not have played a large part (although I did contribute to the Karma victory and I have always strived to speak out against injustice when I see it), but things have changed. I've already gone over why the change was for the better.

[quote]Yes, Ill be honest and say how I enjoyed the Vox threads very much. Always contained pages and pages of fun.
Usually there wasn't an AA which wasn't represented there.[/quote]

Vox was the beginning of the end of the Pacifican Hegemony and existed (or perhaps caused) during a decline in your power. I am referring to the period between the foundation of Continuum and the War of the Coalition, when NPO's dominance was absolute. Vox was able to speak out again the Hegemony by forsaking their nations, but if we had all done that there would have been no-one to take up the fight in Karma and we would still be living under the Pacifican jackboot.

[quote]Well they are considered a factor in narrowing debate in here. I dont know what is your latest definition of "Pacifican hegemony" (I cant keep up with you people ever changing definitions of what you are saying), so I went to the root times of what is perceived narrowing debate in here and the standard bearers of such. Figured it may be relevant.
[/quote]

Again, if you had actually read my post instead of constructing a cheap strawman and attacking that, you would know exactly what my definition was.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Penkala]

[quote name='NeCoHo' date='04 May 2010 - 09:35 AM' timestamp='1272980121' post='2286348']
see




It's okay, you don't need reading comprehension in this Brave New World. I guess that change is for the better for people like Penkanla.
[/quote]

But the [b][u][i]fact[/i][/u][/b] remains that NPO talked trash about their ally when they didn't do what they liked. And that's the whole point. But please, keep mentioning how the situations are different (hint: every situation is different from every other situation). Then you'll be right, right?

[quote]Prove it. Until you do, this is a load of !@#$%^&* as far as I'm concerned. [/quote]

I'm not 'proving' !@#$. I'm not log dumping. Too bad for you. I have my word and that's good enough for me.

[quote]Thank you, Sir Paul, for another great Report. No one captures the Order quite like you. And I, too, wish to thank Penkala for all he is doing for the NPO. Keep it up![/quote]

No problem, Moo. Glad you enjoyed it

[quote]There are too many alliances these days anyway. Quite frankly we could do with less. Mainly the ones with no flash or style. Alliances like your own, for example. [/quote]

Still sore that we beat the life out of your old home, RV? I'm sorry. We really didn't want to have to humiliate them. They just had to go and declare on us, though.

Also, I'd just like to say, for all the amazing posts I contributed to this thread, the proof that Pacificans are still kept in the dark and fed lies is the funniest part of it all. Tell your sheep to stay off the OWF, NPO.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Penkala

[Letum]

[quote name='AirMe' date='04 May 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1272993676' post='2286508']
It all depends where you put your priorities. When you are surrendering to an opponent that has a history of attacking alliances they have under surrender terms you want to be able to cause as much damage as possible and to deter the same thing from happening to you. I can say for a fact, that the reason MK agreed to pay so much tech to you in the noCB war was because we wanted to keep our wonders in case you tried to pull the carpet out from under us. We were also willing to pay more tech instead of having a viceroy or our treaties canceled. We paid off our enormous debt in 3 - 4 months, despite the inefficiencies of the Pacifican bank at the time.

EDIT: Actually you guys could have been done with reps a while ago if TOP hadn't attacked C&G.
[/quote]

Priorities certainly do matter - but there is, in the end, a value that can be attached to wonders (though it will differ from person to person). Are 40 WRCs worth more than 100k tech? More than 300k tech? More than 500k tech? To simply state that wonders have more game impact than any alternative is rather hollow.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Letum' date='04 May 2010 - 01:30 PM' timestamp='1272994215' post='2286520']
Priorities certainly do matter - but there is, in the end, a value that can be attached to wonders (though it will differ from person to person). Are 40 WRCs worth more than 100k tech? More than 300k tech? More than 500k tech? To simply state that wonders have more game impact than any alternative is rather hollow.
[/quote]

I will agree to that. But I don't think anyone has ever been offered terms 100k tech or your WRC's. I know in every war I have been on the winning side of, my allies have never even thought of asking an alliance to decom wonders.

[Joe Izuzu]

[quote name='Penkala' date='03 May 2010 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1272930385' post='2285508']
....Frankly, I'd be fine with forced disbandment and PZI of certain leaders. (There's a difference between PZIing for political reasons and PZIing for the safety of everyone. Anyone who authorizes tactics that have gravely injured the world already should be subjected to any and all methods of constraint to prevent its reccurnce.
[/quote]

No. There is no difference, there is only spin.

[Corinan]

[quote name='Penkala' date='04 May 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1272994124' post='2286519']
Still sore that we beat the life out of your old home, RV? I'm sorry. We really didn't want to have to humiliate them.
[/quote]

LOL, you cannot possibly be talking about NSO here. You think [i]way[/i] too highly of yourself, kid. Wow.....

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='NationRuler' date='04 May 2010 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1272986721' post='2286406']
Oh hey, thanks Rebel Virginia.

You know, you're currently residing in an alliance that is one of CSNs greatest allies. RIA has stood by CSN for almost 4 years. RIA, CSN, and TTK were ONOS's greatest allies. I find it pretty disturbing that you would talk about these alliances in such a way if you are truly a RIer now. (and for people who are going to say "why didn't GUARD help ONOS?"...ONOS told them not to help. ONOS told them not to help. ONOS told them not to help. ONOS told them not to help. Did you get that?)

Anyway, to skip a bunch of useless angry typing, I hope you leave soon so we're on opposite sides of the next war. I can't imagine the idea of fighting on your behalf.

And CSN, no flash or style? Classiest alliance 2008 was it? I can't remember. I suppose it's difficult to formulate an opinion of an alliance when you're kickbanned from all of our channels. Edit: View sig for lols
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I am sorry if you misunderstood me. I have no doubt that CSN is a great alliance, and I have no doubt that you are an excellent ally. I still am grateful for what you did for GATO in 2008, but the point is, you are a rather dull alliance. I am not hoping you get rolled. You certainly do not deserve that, but should you merge into another alliance, creating something new and exciting, I certainly would not shed any tears.

I am simply saying that less is better. The fewer the alliances there are the more dynamic the world's politics. And that is something I can only support.[/color]

[quote name='Penkala' date='04 May 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1272994124' post='2286519']
Still sore that we beat the life out of your old home, RV? I'm sorry. We really didn't want to have to humiliate them. They just had to go and declare on us, though.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]You declared war on their friends and allies. Don't act like you didn't deserve it. Anyway, I'd hardly say you beat them. They're still alive, still kicking, and rebuilding quite rabidly. You accomplished nothing. You can't really call that a victory.[/color]

Edited May 4, 2010 by Rebel Virginia

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='04 May 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1272997202' post='2286550']
[color="#0000FF"]Anyway, I'd hardly say you beat them. They're still alive, still kicking, and rebuilding quite rabidly. You accomplished nothing. You can't really call that a victory.[/color]
[/quote]

Think about what you're saying here for a second. You think because we didn't make them disband, we didn't win?

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 May 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1272997935' post='2286555']
Think about what you're saying here for a second. You think because we didn't make them disband, we didn't win?
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Well, you seem to wish to be rid of NSO, yet you failed to that. How can you call that a victory?[/color]

[The AUT]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 May 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1272997935' post='2286555']
Think about what you're saying here for a second. You think because we didn't make them disband, we didn't win?
[/quote]

You guys are honestly under the impression you could have made them disband? Lord Brendan you're smarter than that, quit falling into the Penakala school of thought here.

[Penkala]

[quote name='Corinan' date='04 May 2010 - 01:59 PM' timestamp='1272995937' post='2286537']
LOL, you cannot possibly be talking about NSO here. You think [i]way[/i] too highly of yourself, kid. Wow.....
[/quote]


I remember one NSO member putting up a decent fight. One.

[quote]I am simply saying that less is better. [/quote]

Agreed. Although I quite like CSN and hope they stick around. We have a lot more character than you'd know. After all, we're part of a bloc (of other like-minded alliances) that caused the last two massive changes to the structure of the political system, no? Would you call that dull, Reb?

[quote]You declared war on their friends and allies. Don't act like you didn't deserve it. Anyway, I'd hardly say you beat them. They're still alive, still kicking, and rebuilding quite rabidly. You accomplished nothing. You can't really call that a victory. [/quote]

It was a clear and decisive victory for us in which NSO surrendered. Just because you are fond of an alliance doesn't mean you should twist your definitions to give them a way to have a victory where they were actually defeated. Talking of NSO's defeat, while not the topic of discussion, really does show your weaknesses, Reb. I expected better from you.

[quote]Well, you seem to wish to be rid of NSO, yet you failed to that. How can you call that a victory? [/quote]

Actually that's not true. We [i]don't[/i] wish to be rid of NSO. If we did we would keep trying (although I don't think we would succeed in getting them to disband). We gave them light terms intentionally. Don't tell us what our intentions were, please. We've already said that we did not intend to force them to disband, and our actions back up our words on that issue.

[quote]
You guys are honestly under the impression you could have made them disband? Lord Brendan you're smarter than that, quit falling into the Penakala school of thought here.[/quote]

You do realize that I [i]don't[/i] believe that we could make them disband, that I literally just stated that, and that you're purposely misrep... you know what? Nevermind. Shine on, Aut.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Penkala

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Penkala' date='04 May 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1272998302' post='2286561']
I remember one NSO member putting up a decent fight. One.[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]You were an experienced nation fighting new rulers. I did that to Fark, and I ravaged them. However, despite how much I like to tote this is a fantastic victory over the Fark that cannot fight, I know Fark is actually a decent military. One nuclear armed nation, with years of fighting experience, decimating new and weak nations should not bring a rational mind to the conclusion that an alliance is useless in war. Then again, you're not a rational mind.[/color]

[quote]Agreed. Although I quite like CSN and hope they stick around. We have a lot more character than you'd know. After all, we're part of a bloc (of other like-minded alliances) that caused the last two massive changes to the structure of the political system, no? Would you call that dull, Reb?
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Winning a war does not necessarily mean an alliance has character or personality. Look at NSO. They have personality. NPO. They have personality. I'll even go as far as saying that GOONS and \m/ have personality. They make interesting things happen. CSN really doesn't. It follows treaties and you couldn't ask for a better ally, but you can't honestly say that CSN is an alliance that moves and shakes the world.[/color]

[Letum]

[quote name='Penkala' date='04 May 2010 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1272998302' post='2286561'] After all, we're part of a bloc (of other like-minded alliances) that caused the last two massive changes to the structure of the political system, no? Would you call that dull, Reb?
[/quote]

Look, I don't much care for this silly little argument, but is that seriously the most exciting point you can come up with about the alliance? Seriously?

[AirMe]

[quote name='The AUT' date='04 May 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1272998064' post='2286557']
You guys are honestly under the impression you could have made them disband? Lord Brendan you're smarter than that, quit falling into the Penakala school of thought here.
[/quote]


That is quite a leap from what he actually said. Instead of making false insinuations why don't you actually read the comment and realize that is not what he is saying.

Disbanding an alliance isn't a measure if you won or not. That is what he is saying.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Letum' date='04 May 2010 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1272999455' post='2286581']
Look, I don't much care for this silly little argument, but is that seriously the most exciting point you can come up with about the alliance? Seriously?
[/quote]

We agree on something.

*gasp*

Progress!

(Personally, I think NoR 1.0 set the bar with the whole Norway thing. Whatever a 'Norway' is.)

[The AUT]

[quote name='AirMe' date='04 May 2010 - 08:16 PM' timestamp='1273000576' post='2286597']
That is quite a leap from what he actually said. Instead of making false insinuations why don't you actually read the comment and realize that is not what he is saying.

Disbanding an alliance isn't a measure if you won or not. That is what he is saying.
[/quote]

I understand, but it's being used under the impression that it was an option or an alternative that could have been taken. Pacifica would've still been alive had the forces against them made the decision to keep them under perpetual warfare if they so chose. Disbandment couldn't have happened even if the other side wanted it too, and I've a feeling there were some who did.

[Mathlete]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='04 May 2010 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1272998678' post='2286571']
[color="#0000FF"]Winning a war does not necessarily mean an alliance has character or personality. Look at NSO. They have personality. NPO. They have personality. I'll even go as far as saying that GOONS and \m/ have personality. They make interesting things happen. CSN really doesn't. It follows treaties and you couldn't ask for a better ally, but you can't honestly say that CSN is an alliance that moves and shakes the world.[/color]
[/quote]
So this qualifies us as a "garbage alliance?" What is it to you that many of our members aren't interested in the political sphere as much as maintaining their own nations? Most of the politics in this game are idiotic in nature anyways. And before you say, "Then go join GPA or any other neutral alliance," our members found friendships on our forums, thus they choose to stay here. What does it matter that we're not hellbent on gaining a number one or even a sanction?

[Shan Revan]

[quote name='AirMe' date='05 May 2010 - 03:32 AM' timestamp='1272994313' post='2286525']
I know in every war I have been on the winning side of, my allies have never even thought of asking an alliance to decom wonders.
[/quote]
This, is not true.