Will your opinion of Pacifica or Polaris change after this war?

[Locke]

[quote name='Zero-One' timestamp='1297516799' post='2630266']
TOP has 8 treaties, Invicta has 10

But really, continue [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/gag.gif[/img]
[/quote]
If you're counting total treaties it's 12 for TOP and 12 (as of yesterday) for Invicta (one of which is an [i]ancient[/i] NAP). And TOP has 6 MDP+ whereas Invicta has 5. We can also look at the fact that TOP's seem to, even inside MDP+ only, straddle a line that Invicta's don't.

Funnily enough, if TOP dropped or downgraded the two alliances mentioned, they'd suddenly have a very straightforward list.

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1297520088' post='2630294']
Oh, as pointed out, you have more than us, treaty whore.
[/quote]
The person who pointed it out was using two different standards for what constitutes a treaty for each alliance to benefit his point; he counted purely military treaties for TOP, and every treaty he could find for Invicta. And...well, everything I said above. Mutual commitments are the ones that bear closer scrutiny, and therein lies the problem. I wouldn't really call you treaty whores myself, but you're grossly misrepresenting his argument. Then again, I guess politically-motivated misrepresentations are par for the course of OWF ettiquette.

[Zero-One]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1297524912' post='2630339']
If you're counting total treaties it's 12 for TOP and 12 (as of yesterday) for Invicta (one of which is an [i]ancient[/i] NAP). And TOP has 6 MDP+ whereas Invicta has 5. We can also look at the fact that TOP's seem to, even inside MDP+ only, straddle a line that Invicta's don't.

Funnily enough, if TOP dropped or downgraded the two alliances mentioned, they'd suddenly have a very straightforward list.


The person who pointed it out was using two different standards for what constitutes a treaty for each alliance to benefit his point; he counted purely military treaties for TOP, and every treaty he could find for Invicta. And...well, everything I said above. Mutual commitments are the ones that bear closer scrutiny, and therein lies the problem. I wouldn't really call you treaty whores myself, but you're grossly misrepresenting his argument. Then again, I guess politically-motivated misrepresentations are par for the course of OWF ettiquette.
[/quote]

I used Wikipedia to come up with that fact. Non-military treaty does not count. It serves no purpose. If you want to play by that game, TOP has 8 and Invicta has 9 (MDP, ODP, MDoAP). Then again, you're grasping at straws. TOP has less treaties than most alliances. Calling them treaty whore, especially when you yourself has just as much or more, is rather hypocritical. I'm simply pointing out the fact. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/smug.gif[/img]

[Locke]

[quote name='Zero-One' timestamp='1297525740' post='2630354']
I used Wikipedia to come up with that fact. Non-military treaty does not count. It serves no purpose. If you want to play by that game, TOP has 8 and Invicta has 9 (MDP, ODP, MDoAP). Then again, you're grasping at straws. TOP has less treaties than most alliances. Calling them treaty whore, especially when you yourself has just as much or more, is rather hypocritical. I'm simply pointing out the fact. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/smug.gif[/img]
[/quote]
Then why did you include non-military treaties [i]only[/i] for Invicta the first go around? And I'm not sure if you noticed, but:[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1297524912' post='2630339']I wouldn't really call you treaty whores myself, but you're grossly misrepresenting his argument. Then again, I guess politically-motivated misrepresentations are par for the course of OWF ettiquette.
[/quote]
You only cleaned up after I called you on it. Not to mention not still addressing the direction issue. Just pointing that out to you.

[pd73bassman]

NpO- My opinion on them won't change

NPO- Always have hated them and always will

[Chickenzilla]

[quote name='Hydro' timestamp='1297508853' post='2630223']
Trying to drive some of the people playing this game out was probably one of NPO's better moments imo. Some of you are just worthless.
[/quote]
I'm glad you agree with me.

[Believland]

Really hoping I won't have an opinion on NPO or NpO

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[i]Personally:[/i]

Polaris: -200. You have a claim on one or more of their core provinces.
Pacifica: -180.

Infamy status: you are hated throughout the entire world. Still rising.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[Ryan Greenberg]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1297543888' post='2630557']
[i]Personally:[/i]

Polaris: -200. You have a claim on one or more of their core provinces.
Pacifica: -180.

Infamy status: you are hated throughout the entire world. Still rising.
[/quote]
Hey! We are more hated than Pacifica. Half of our side hates us because of Bipolar. Can't forget that

[Mogar]

[quote name='Zero-One' timestamp='1297516799' post='2630266']
NPO must had never been part of Continuum then [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]

P.S. As a footnote, NoV deserved their beat down and subsequent disbandment more than any alliance that existed on Bob, second only to /b/
[/quote]
While i wont disagree with the beatdown aspect, supporting the disbandment of NoV was something I regret, there was little reason to take away their community simple because of a few bad members, though if NoV was more willing to oust said members the war probably wouldn't have happened in the first place, but this topic isn't really about that war so this will be my only post on the subject.

[Letum]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1297520088' post='2630294']
disbandment
[/quote]

See, the thing about disbandment is that it ultimately boils down to an alliance's own decision to do so. Of course, that decision is akin to the one you face when you have a gun in your face, but the critical thing to remember is, that as FAN has quite well proved, that bullet [i]cannot actually kill you[/i].

Not that said fact means that we can completely disregard disbandments: after all, they mostly arise when an alliance feels "opressed" to the point where it is "too much" for them, either due to the direct level of damage, or due to the belief of no future. Much of that will depend on the alliance's own internal willpower and cohesions (after all, many alliances disband without any war at all). The key factor to watch then is not the result, but rather the level of harshness one is exposed to.

So, is the level of harshness people have been exposed to since the start of Karma comparable to ones which have driven alliances to disbandment in the past? Yes. Repeated beatings and bullying of TPF and NSO, alliances being turned into literal tech slaveries - with over 1m in tech reps imposed - and year long reparations agreements. Of course, you can argue that even if that is a comparable "burden", it is still a deal that allows a future: a war such as this, over absolutely nothing, should eliminate any possible hope of that "future". A peace serves as no more than a breather until the other party feels you have grown too much.

Let's not pretend that many other alliances would not have buckled under this. Let's not pretend many in Doomhouse wouldn't have loved it if it had happened to us.

[quote]viceroys[/quote]

It is quite convenient that this has become a rallying banner when it is something so hard to replicate. Why is this the root of all evil? Because it hands over sovereignty and cripples an alliance politically as opposed to crippling every single one of its nations materially? Certainly, few alliances would choose that path when it is such a massive leap of faith, but don't expect me to buy it as the most "evil" means when the goal (neutering) is the same as what Doomhouse seeks, and the process often quite a bit less painful.

There are of course other alternatives of achieving such "political change". One of them might involve using the excuse of a lack of such change as justification for repeated unprovoked attacks. In the end of course, you're going after the same exact goal, only instead of your choices being "Viceroy or War", your choice is "War and more War later".

Not using a tool that is despised doesn't say much about your character if you substitute it with another despised tool that does the same job.

[quote]veitFAN[/quote]

So, instead of keeping an alliance under your boot for 2 years, you keep it under for an overly long curbstomp, let it out long enough to pay the highest reps in history, and then promptly put it back under for fun.

I'd personally view the "growth quote + tech farm" strategy as worse than the perma-war one. And I get the feeling that many members of Doomhouse are feeling pretty lenient and might offer the latter this time. Those guys are great.


[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1297520088' post='2630294']
or the GATO "this is what happens if you don't come out of peace mode" thing then its fair as well.
[/quote]

[quote]Gen_Lee: -6th Day and on:.For every NPO nation above 5k NS in peace mode, 3 mil and 100 tech in reparations will be added to any peace terms, per day. The duration of all peace terms will also be increased by 2 days for any day any NPO nation above 5k is in peace after the 5th day.


Gen_Lee: oh for record sake, clock starts now 5/21 11:38 server time[/quote]

Now, if you permit me to pre-empt the "It wasn't a doomhouse alliance" and "That was eventually abandoned" counterarguments, I must point out that the GATO "thing" was also abandoned, that said tactic was supported by the entire front (which includes DH's allies) and Doomhouse leaders specifically seem perfectly supportive of that tactic:

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin']The biggest mistake made in Karma was the giving up of the peace mode exit pre-term. [/quote]

Not that I would blame him. If your opponent uses peace mode as a weapon, a rational leader would desire to remove that weapon. In this context, the only available ways of removal are rather Machiavellian in nature.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Letum

[The MVP]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1297506374' post='2630217']
Pacifica - Meh. 2 straight years of either them or their allies getting beat down is getting boring. I don't like CN when Pacifica has all the power, but I don't like CN when Pacifica doesn't have [i]any[/i] power either. I'm hoping that this war does enough damage to both sides that a happy medium is struck that provides us all with a nice little cold war/arms race following this conflict. That would be quite entertaining.
[/quote]

Thanks to weak minded alliances like Sparta for making this boring place possible!

[mhawk]

[quote name='Bordiga' timestamp='1297522819' post='2630319']
The Global Order of Darkness forced 200 nations from the game during the LoFN conflict in a war supported by the NPO, who would have also assisted except they were busy installing a viceroy over GATO.

So yeah I'm not seeing how either side is any better.
[/quote]
You're grasping at straws here. Wouldn't it be a bit more logical to place the blame for that directly on GOD and Xiphosis, rather than qualifying the remark with "NPO supported".

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1297554631' post='2630683']
Thanks to weak minded alliances like Sparta for making this boring place possible!
[/quote]
And thanks to belligerent bridge dwellers like yourself who contribute to the never ending political isolation of your side because you don't seem to understand that [i]nobody will fight for you if they hate you[/i]. You want power? Stop alienating every ounce of NS that could help you get it.

[The MVP]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1297555423' post='2630688']
And thanks to belligerent bridge dwellers like yourself who contribute to the never ending political isolation of your side because you don't seem to understand that [i]nobody will fight for you if they hate you[/i]. [b]You want power? Stop alienating every ounce of NS that could help you get it.[/b]
[/quote]

Shouldn't you be saving this statement for Umbrella?

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1297554932' post='2630686']
You're grasping at straws here. Wouldn't it be a bit more logical to place the blame for that directly on GOD and Xiphosis, rather than qualifying the remark with "NPO supported".
[/quote]

Not really, lots of people took advantage of the power structure to pursue goals they wouldn't have been able to contemplate, that's why any power structure forms in the first place. So lay the blame for any individuals actions solely at their feet when they couldn't do such without the backing of others is over simplification at best.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1297555772' post='2630695']
Shouldn't you be saving this statement for Umbrella?
[/quote]
It applies to everyone.

[Ryan Greenberg]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1297506374' post='2630217']
Polar - Nope.

Pacifica - Meh. 2 straight years of either them or their allies getting beat down is getting boring. [b][i]I don't like CN when Pacifica has all the power[/i][/b], but I don't like CN when Pacifica doesn't have [i]any[/i] power either. I'm hoping that this war does enough damage to both sides that a happy medium is struck that provides us all with a nice little cold war/arms race following this conflict. That would be quite entertaining.
[/quote]
Sparta seemed to enjoy it during their time in the Hegemony

[bzelger]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1297555816' post='2630698']
Not really, lots of people took advantage of the power structure to pursue goals they wouldn't have been able to contemplate, that's why any power structure forms in the first place. So lay the blame for any individuals actions solely at their feet when they couldn't do such without the backing of others is over simplification at best.
[/quote]

NPO vocally supported that war. It was more than just being the center of a power structure that "permitted it." Zhadum in particular was slavering over something affiliated with Walford being torched.

Even so, the bulk of any credit or blame should rest with the primary antagonists.

Edited February 13, 2011 by bzelger

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1297556140' post='2630705']
Sparta seemed to enjoy it during their time in the Hegemony
[/quote]
Sparta =/= me.

[mhawk]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1297555816' post='2630698']
Not really, lots of people took advantage of the power structure to pursue goals they wouldn't have been able to contemplate, that's why any power structure forms in the first place. So lay the blame for any individuals actions solely at their feet when they couldn't do such without the backing of others is over simplification at best.
[/quote]
To completely disregard the individuals and alliances that did such crimes and blame/punish those that merely existed and in some way formed a "power structure" is completely incorrect. You don't get to white wash every action on account of a large alliances and their desire to preserve power. To do so would mean equal attention on other large alliances that formed the security net, such as Sparta, TOP, MHA, FOK... alliances that seem to garner none of the same arguments I see here.

That said do I feel those guys should catch heat now? Probably not, because the indirect nature of the treaty web makes it hard to control how others will abuse the system. But blaming something Xiphosis did on NPO is ridiculous. The problem with your assertion that a power structure allows such crimes to occur is you must also hold all the other parties that connected to it partially to blame as well. Have you seen what that actually would look like?

[img]http://images.wikia.com/cybernations/images/0/0d/Continuumdraft18.jpg[/img] Start there now add all the MDP's MADP MDoAP's of all the members. If someone takes your argument about the powerstructure being to blame, but then pins nearly all the related actions on NPO's shoulder how does that make sense?

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1297558820' post='2630740']
Start there now add all the MDP's MADP MDoAP's of all the members. If someone takes your argument about the powerstructure being to blame, but then pins nearly all the related actions on NPO's shoulder how does that make sense?
[/quote]

You make a decent point when you say that the others had responsibility too. A point I have made in the past and will make in the future, when appropriate.

But you know full well that Pacifica was always the dominant party, and as such she had more responsibility than the others. After Pacifica, would come the more aggressive members of Q, your own alliance prominent among them. You wouldnt have dared pull many of your stunts without Pacifican support, but they probably wouldnt have come up with them on their own either.

[Sephiroth]

NPO already managed to improve my opinion of them before this war started, although depending on how long they fight my opinion on Polaris might improve after this war as it was pretty bad from what happened in the BiPolar War.

[Bordiga]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1297554932' post='2630686']
You're grasping at straws here. Wouldn't it be a bit more logical to place the blame for that directly on GOD and Xiphosis, rather than qualifying the remark with "NPO supported".
[/quote]

I'm not grasping at straws, the primary point of that post is to lambast those responsible- which is GOD, VE's pet Ephriam and Andromeda and Argo, which merged into VE. I'm just pointing out that in this case those supposed guardians of virtue were happy to work hand in hand with NPO. I didn't really think I actually had to make the case for NPO being an alliance which has imposed viceroys, kept alliances in eternal war, driven people from the game and disbanded alliances.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Bordiga' timestamp='1297522819' post='2630319']
The Global Order of Darkness forced 200 nations from the game during the LoFN conflict in a war supported by the NPO, who would have also assisted except they were busy installing a viceroy over GATO.
[/quote]
Uh, no NPO would not have assisted GOD directly in that war; they had no interest in it. The only way in which they supported the war was that they gave permission to GOD's coalition to attack The Red Rose, which I still feel to have been the first mistake that led to the eventual destruction of Revenge.

If you think the GATO war occupied their armed forces, then you weren't paying attention to what was going on at the time.

And yes, Z'ha'dum (may he rest in pieces) vocally supported the war. However, people really do tend to give his statements too much weight; it was a long time ago that he was even vaguely high up on the totem pole. Probably his greatest achievement was being Legion viceroy, which is something of a strange legacy to say the least.

[quote name='Zero-One' timestamp='1297516799' post='2630266']
NPO must had never been part of Continuum then [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]

P.S. As a footnote, NoV deserved their beat down and subsequent disbandment more than any alliance that existed on Bob, second only to /b/
[/quote]
The Continuum-NoV curbstomp has been widely decried as one of Continuum's greatest excesses: forcibly disbanding an alliance for strictly OOC reasons.

So Umbrella now supports OOC reasons to start war? Or was that just good old Karma propaganda that we weren't expected to actually believe anyway?

[quote name='Zero-One' timestamp='1297516799' post='2630266']
TOP has 8 treaties, Invicta has 10
[/quote]
Actually, we have 5 MDP+ treaties, and TOP has six.

Also you need to learn to read. That was an obvious joke

[Sup4l33t3ki11a]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1297215083' post='2626333']
Lawl. I wanted to keep my identity a secret, seriously. I just sucked at rerolling. TSO and MCXA started harassing me, chasing me around and trying to expose my identity. Of course, I denied everything, but eventually my ex-boyfriend told Athens because of issues in our relationship and I decided to make a private thread on the ODN boards to explain everything.


[/quote]

Oh I love how you manage to bring me into this Fran, grow up, I've got nothing to do with people hating you. THIS thread is a nice little bit of attention seeking, just like every single other thread you make on these forums.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Sup4l33t3ki11a