Rose's Surrender

[Mikey]

Kinda weird for NPO to reject war reparations. I mean, it's not worth a lot of warscore- they're not saving a lot there (especially considering war exhaustion is high). At least NPO still has high manpower reserves, though.

 

 

I'm quoting you because it was the last post I read, but this is as much a reply to all general comments about how NPO leadership are hurting their members, how continuing is bad and they should step down, etc.

 

Personally, I don't agree. It could be true, I don't know the internals of NPO. But I can definitely see the possibility that their entire membership supports this proposal. SK was in a similar situation in the VE war. We went to war on a gamble (and given the Rose leaks with a much rose reason for doing so), which failed and ultimately cost us our position of dominance and a huge amount of credibility. But we stood by Tenages because he was been with us for a long time and dammit we all love the guy. I don't know Roqs history in NPO and I don't think taking the gamble of this war was inherently a bad idea, but even if it was I do not think him stepping down would be warranted. All depends on what their members think I guess.

 

As for reps, I can see them supporting the stance. We strongly supported our stance not to pay reps to VE, and we felt the same this war if it had been asked of us. I believe the entire alliance came to our forums to voice a desire to be ZId over paying, and ultimately we didn't. It depends how you see yourself and what you want to be. Sometimes you prioritize your culture and self image more than infra, its a game after all and that community identity can be more important than in-game position. Especially if you feel that position is already compromised. If NPO truly feels the loss will lead to an end-game and stagnation, then they probably don't care about how long this disadvantages them. From that perspective it makes no meaningful difference in they pay reps and take 3 months to rebuild, or keep fighting and take six. As someone who has played since the start of the beta, I disagree that things have reached such a stage or that things won't change. They always find  a way. But if it is a highly held view, or there is a strong identity in NPO around not paying, I can understand their continued desire to fight.

 

That said it has to be understood you will take more damage. We took far more damage in VE than we would have paid in reps by continuing the war. Maybe things are different now with nukes and all, but you need to be prepared for, and accept, that it is going to be very costly, more so than paying. And if you don't have the near unanimous support of your members, you owe it to them to pay and move on.

 

There it is, the memorised one-liner text post lol.

 

Anyways we will not hand over money because we know if we did, then we would be crippled at the next war. No wonder you guys want to get back at us because of losing at (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

 

This has to be the most idiotic reasoning for them continuing the war. If they truly wanted to avenge (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) why wouldn't have they have extracted reps last war in addition to beating you down? They were in as much position to do so then as they are now. In any case these (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) issues seem to revolve around the mi6 connection to ts ( I think. I haven't played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) in years and have no idea what goes on there now). I recognize some names in TKR from my CnG days, but otherwise I haven't seem them brought up as much in this regard, and BK, the ultimate arbiters of the peace terms for that side, has no overt connection to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) that I know of. Even if they did the idea that they want to extract super punitive reps as vengeance is ridiculous. They have already crushed you twice, what more do they need to do? They want money and they feel they are in a position to demand it. I am sympathetic to the NPO policy as it is one that I share. But BK deserves the same respect in not having their own policies misconstrued.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Mikey

[Bezzers]

35 pages? Is that a record? Y'all need to calm the hell down. I cba to read this to find out what you are on about, and that's a first for me

[Aksel]

I mean besides finger pointing and stuff = what exactly is keeping everything at a stalemate. 

 

We all just cant figure out wtf to do?

[Cypher]

When responding to posts where you don't even know who started the war (hint, it was your alliance) and your alliance mate is saying that NPO is the one that will end up getting reps, there's zero point in making a serious rebuttal.

 

Everyone in NPO seems to be delusional.

Hasn't a precedent already been set by tS when they paid Arrgh 100mil to peace out with SK/Mensa/Guardian? Edited October 5, 2016 by Cypher

[Prefonteen]

Hasn't a precedent already been set by tS when they paid Arrgh 100mil to peace out with SK/Mensa/Guardian?

 

sounds like either you or azaghul is misinterpreting the post.

 

Azaghul interprets it as the guy saying that reps will be paid *to* NPO.

 

You interpret it s the guy saying that reps will be paid *on behalf of* NPO.

[Roquentin]

I'm quoting you because it was the last post I read, but this is as much a reply to all general comments about how NPO leadership are hurting their members, how continuing is bad and they should step down, etc.

 

Personally, I don't agree. It could be true, I don't know the internals of NPO. But I can definitely see the possibility that their entire membership supports this proposal. SK was in a similar situation in the VE war. We went to war on a gamble (and given the Rose leaks with a much rose reason for doing so), which failed and ultimately cost us our position of dominance and a huge amount of credibility. But we stood by Tenages because he was been with us for a long time and dammit we all love the guy. I don't know Roqs history in NPO and I don't think taking the gamble of this war was inherently a bad idea, but even if it was I do not think him stepping down would be warranted. All depends on what their members think I guess.

 

As for reps, I can see them supporting the stance. We strongly supported our stance not to pay reps to VE, and we felt the same this war if it had been asked of us. I believe the entire alliance came to our forums to voice a desire to be ZId over paying, and ultimately we didn't. It depends how you see yourself and what you want to be. Sometimes you prioritize your culture and self image more than infra, its a game after all and that community identity can be more important than in-game position. Especially if you feel that position is already compromised. If NPO truly feels the loss will lead to an end-game and stagnation, then they probably don't care about how long this disadvantages them. From that perspective it makes no meaningful difference in they pay reps and take 3 months to rebuild, or keep fighting and take six. As someone who has played since the start of the beta, I disagree that things have reached such a stage or that things won't change. They always find  a way. But if it is a highly held view, or there is a strong identity in NPO around not paying, I can understand their continued desire to fight.

 

That said it has to be understood you will take more damage. We took far more damage in VE than we would have paid in reps by continuing the war. Maybe things are different now with nukes and all, but you need to be prepared for, and accept, that it is going to be very costly, more so than paying. And if you don't have the near unanimous support of your members, you owe it to them to pay and move on.

 

 

This has to be the most idiotic reasoning for them continuing the war. If they truly wanted to avenge (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) why wouldn't have they have extracted reps last war in addition to beating you down? They were in as much position to do so then as they are now. In any case these (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) issues seem to revolve around the mi6 connection to ts ( I think. I haven't played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) in years and have no idea what goes on there now). I recognize some names in TKR from my CnG days, but otherwise I haven't seem them brought up as much in this regard, and BK, the ultimate arbiters of the peace terms for that side, has no overt connection to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) that I know of. Even if they did the idea that they want to extract super punitive reps as vengeance is ridiculous. They have already crushed you twice, what more do they need to do? They want money and they feel they are in a position to demand it. I am sympathetic to the NPO policy as it is one that I share. But BK deserves the same respect in not having their own policies misconstrued.

 

Thanks for the nuance here.

 

Yeah, I mean brought it up when someone said that if a leader happens to have a losing war, they should step down that it didn't happen with you guys despite the scenarios being somewhat similar. I don't even think anyone on the victorious side said Tenages should step down. Maybe some people did, but I don't remember the OWF being quite at the stage where that would be a normal thing. No one really perceives it as a mistake given the available options. We pursued the best outcome we could get even if it was risky. At the start of the war, I wasn't really unclear that it may not be a win, but we wanted to avoid the same thing that happened in the last war.

 

You have exactly figured it out with this paragraph since virtually no one wants to pay. People have said our viewpoint has been disingenuous or delusional even, but ultimately it is the one we hold. I know you disagree, but as we continue to see more and more consolidation, it's hard to see anything else happening and others have noticed this. Mechanically, it's a bit different since SK was a higher tier alliance at the time and considerable damage could be done round after round. We've bottomed out, so the most of the arguing has been over opportunity cost, rather than damage.

 

As for the post you're addressing, I don't think he's really addressing this forum seriously.  However, it would be more pertinent to the general state of relations between us and the other side rather than directly  motivating the reps demand.  To get to the current point where we are at, one has to take into account the last war and the perceived motivations behind targeting NPO specifically(including efforts to avoid involvement of traditional Paracovenant alliances) along with the timing.  We likely wouldn't have felt it necessary to attack first if we didn't feel the opposition had indicated to us they saw it as their right to attack us whenever they felt ready. I don't believe they wanted to demand reps on the offensive.

 

Also, just because a group doesn't have an overt connection, doesn't mean people can't hold feelings stemming from that, but again I'm not saying it's motivating the reps demand. The reps demand is reflective of the fact that they took damage, but ended up winning, didn't like NPO before, and feel aggrieved by NPO even though they hit NPO before. Other alliances have been mentioned in that regard including the one you brought up along with NPO's own reps record(people even hinted NPO would have demanded a lot of reps if we won the last war) and my personal reps record, so it's not totally surprising to see someone bring up "saltiness" over (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

Edited October 5, 2016 by Roquentin

[Beowulf the Second]

If NPO truly feels the loss will lead to an end-game and stagnation, then they probably don't care about how long this disadvantages them. From that perspective it makes no meaningful difference in they pay reps and take 3 months to rebuild, or keep fighting and take six. As someone who has played since the start of the beta, I disagree that things have reached such a stage or that things won't change. They always find  a way. But if it is a highly held view, or there is a strong identity in NPO around not paying, I can understand their continued desire to fight.

 

That said it has to be understood you will take more damage. We took far more damage in VE than we would have paid in reps by continuing the war. Maybe things are different now with nukes and all, but you need to be prepared for, and accept, that it is going to be very costly, more so than paying. And if you don't have the near unanimous support of your members, you owe it to them to pay and move on.

 

P much this. But it sounds like NPO's down to roll in the mud (and I know that Alpha's down for it haha); as long as you guys know and accept that there'll be a heavier cost, I don't mind let's go bb

 

Also poor UPN, but its all to get pressure on NPO to peace sooo hope they're down too xD

[Azaghul]

I'm quoting you because it was the last post I read, but this is as much a reply to all general comments about how NPO leadership are hurting their members, how continuing is bad and they should step down, etc.

 

Personally, I don't agree. It could be true, I don't know the internals of NPO. But I can definitely see the possibility that their entire membership supports this proposal. SK was in a similar situation in the VE war. We went to war on a gamble (and given the Rose leaks with a much rose reason for doing so), which failed and ultimately cost us our position of dominance and a huge amount of credibility. But we stood by Tenages because he was been with us for a long time and dammit we all love the guy. I don't know Roqs history in NPO and I don't think taking the gamble of this war was inherently a bad idea, but even if it was I do not think him stepping down would be warranted. All depends on what their members think I guess.

 

As for reps, I can see them supporting the stance. We strongly supported our stance not to pay reps to VE, and we felt the same this war if it had been asked of us. I believe the entire alliance came to our forums to voice a desire to be ZId over paying, and ultimately we didn't. It depends how you see yourself and what you want to be. Sometimes you prioritize your culture and self image more than infra, its a game after all and that community identity can be more important than in-game position. Especially if you feel that position is already compromised. If NPO truly feels the loss will lead to an end-game and stagnation, then they probably don't care about how long this disadvantages them. From that perspective it makes no meaningful difference in they pay reps and take 3 months to rebuild, or keep fighting and take six. As someone who has played since the start of the beta, I disagree that things have reached such a stage or that things won't change. They always find a way. But if it is a highly held view, or there is a strong identity in NPO around not paying, I can understand their continued desire to fight.

 

That said it has to be understood you will take more damage. We took far more damage in VE than we would have paid in reps by continuing the war. Maybe things are different now with nukes and all, but you need to be prepared for, and accept, that it is going to be very costly, more so than paying. And if you don't have the near unanimous support of your members, you owe it to them to pay and move on.

 

 

This has to be the most idiotic reasoning for them continuing the war. If they truly wanted to avenge (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) why wouldn't have they have extracted reps last war in addition to beating you down? They were in as much position to do so then as they are now. In any case these (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) issues seem to revolve around the mi6 connection to ts ( I think. I haven't played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) in years and have no idea what goes on there now). I recognize some names in TKR from my CnG days, but otherwise I haven't seem them brought up as much in this regard, and BK, the ultimate arbiters of the peace terms for that side, has no overt connection to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) that I know of. Even if they did the idea that they want to extract super punitive reps as vengeance is ridiculous. They have already crushed you twice, what more do they need to do? They want money and they feel they are in a position to demand it. I am sympathetic to the NPO policy as it is one that I share. But BK deserves the same respect in not having their own policies misconstrued.

Regarding reps, if they really held a principled stance against reps they would have voiced it by now.

 

If things truly were hopeless in the long term for them they wouldn't have come to the table at all for peace. Clearly they see an advantage in peace based on the fact that they came to the table. And the economics argument that they'd go into next war worse off than they are now if they paid reps doesn't hold up to any reasonable scrutiny, I don't believe Auxtor or Roquentin are dumb enough to actually believe it.

 

It's pretty clear that they are blowing hot air as part of a bluff to pay less. Perhaps their egos won't let them back down now. But the fact that they've peddled so much BS makes it clear this isn't based on any idealistic principles, or they would have articulated those principles instead of the BS.

[Auctor]

The principle in this situation has almost nothing to do with whether reps are good or bad. We aren't the arbiters of how other alliances choose to conduct themselves amongst each other. The stated reasons for levying those reps fail to pass muster. And as convenient as it might be to cast aspersions on a vocal few, bringing a rotten deal back to our alliance poses a greater concern than kowtowing to those hostile to us.

 

All this horse pucky swirling around the notion we should call it quits and pay up for our own good is utterly transparent. It really shouldn't take that much circumspection to figure out why we don't think we'd be given an actual chance to rebuild unhindered.

[Guest Frawley]

Regarding reps, if they really held a principled stance against reps they would have voiced it by now.

 

If things truly were hopeless in the long term for them they wouldn't have come to the table at all for peace. Clearly they see an advantage in peace based on the fact that they came to the table. And the economics argument that they'd go into next war worse off than they are now if they paid reps doesn't hold up to any reasonable scrutiny, I don't believe Auxtor or Roquentin are dumb enough to actually believe it.

 

It's pretty clear that they are blowing hot air as part of a bluff to pay less. Perhaps their egos won't let them back down now. But the fact that they've peddled so much BS makes it clear this isn't based on any idealistic principles, or they would have articulated those principles instead of the BS.

It is not a principled stance, it is a practical stance.  We have looked internally at what we believe our position would be if we accepted the level of reparations offered, and decided that its not worth it, so we have not accepted it, and this decision holds the full support of our membership.  People are free to argue their case on this board as to what they believe our position would be, and we take those discussions seriously, but at this time nothing we have seen has indicated that the current offer would be better than war.

 

For the record, we were invited to discuss peace, we did not seek it.  To not come to the table when an alliance has asked for a discussion would be neither diplomatic (half this game is politics after all) nor polite.

[Alveron]

<snip>

Constantly kicking an alliance that is down doesn't do anything except make you mad it won't give up. Charging it money it clearly doesn't have isn't gonna make it pay out of thin air. All this does is make your reasons for enjoying the war aspect of this game non existent. Like seriously take your head, shake it, and give peace.

 

With any kind of luck you guys could enjoy a fresh war in a few months. At this rate you won't have anyone left to fight for a year.

 

Just my personal feelings. Coming from a guy who shakes hands after. Think about it guys. As the winners the power is ultimately in your hand. Be gracious

 

Except they have the money. If you follow their bank transfers you can see that.

 

What they do not have, is a fleet of bulldozers and trucks to get rid of all this salt

 

 

[Aisha Greyjoy]

To get back on topic, congratulations on peace, Rose.  

 

Your attack caught Guardian by surprise, so your opsec was excellent.  

 

Lets hope we find a way to change the dynamics of the game moving forward.  Not looking forward to Rose-VE and friends vs Mensa-t$ and friends again.  Its really.....overdone.

[Buorhann]

fwiw, there were suggestions for Tenages to step down due to the whole shenanigans of The Great VE War planning, but neither side really cared to push it hard.  The only major situation that occurred from an alliance to push a leader to step down was VE on Syndicate, which later trickled down to what you see here.  Syndicate leaving and helping develop the strongest most coordinated sphere so far in this game.

 

Oh, and there was that time with Clarke and DEIC, or was that his sister?  I can't remember, but we got bird brain and he's cool.  I'd say that despite DEIC still being on the opposing sphere, having TheNG be the face/lead of the alliance definitely made them better to establish relations with.

[Cromstar]

What in the world was that forum about?

 

Longest P&W thread is about the greatest fighting force in all of Mensa....Manpile. (Note to self: procure group photoshop)

 

Longest thread on our forums? Literally nothing. No post contains more than 2 characters.

[Pangui]

Regarding reps, if they really held a principled stance against reps they would have voiced it by now.

 

If things truly were hopeless in the long term for them they wouldn't have come to the table at all for peace. Clearly they see an advantage in peace based on the fact that they came to the table. And the economics argument that they'd go into next war worse off than they are now if they paid reps doesn't hold up to any reasonable scrutiny, I don't believe Auxtor or Roquentin are dumb enough to actually believe it.

 

It's pretty clear that they are blowing hot air as part of a bluff to pay less. Perhaps their egos won't let them back down now. But the fact that they've peddled so much BS makes it clear this isn't based on any idealistic principles, or they would have articulated those principles instead of the BS.

It doesn't matter whether it is a principled stance or not. If they say no to reps, you can't force them to peace. UPN has paid reps in the past. We are no longer willing to do so. Not because of a principled stance, but because we simply don't want to given how negotiations went down. NPO is a sovereign AA, and only they can decide how their money will be spent. 

 

Coming to the peace table to find out what it takes to end an obviously losing war is a practice of responsible leadership, not some incite into their view on reparations. Quite frankly, it is not hot air. Our coalition would have accepted peace by now if it was. 

[Pangui]

And now you will become ash.

c'est la vie

 

We know full well what we are in for. 

[Buorhann]

If their members are willing to stick it out, might as well go the distance.

[TheNG]

fwiw, there were suggestions for Tenages to step down due to the whole shenanigans of The Great VE War planning, but neither side really cared to push it hard.  The only major situation that occurred from an alliance to push a leader to step down was VE on Syndicate, which later trickled down to what you see here.  Syndicate leaving and helping develop the strongest most coordinated sphere so far in this game.

 

Oh, and there was that time with Clarke and DEIC, or was that his sister?  I can't remember, but we got bird brain and he's cool.  I'd say that despite DEIC still being on the opposing sphere, having TheNG be the face/lead of the alliance definitely made them better to establish relations with.

 

Aw shucks, you'll make me blush.  

Also to be sure, Clarke didn't step down as a direct result of Oktoberfest. A lot of stuff, before and after the war, contributed to the gov and charter changes we made, and I didn't become Chairman until 3-4 months after Oktoberfest ended.

[Prefonteen]

Aw shucks, you'll make me blush.

Also to be sure, Clarke didn't step down as a direct result of Oktoberfest. A lot of stuff, before and after the war, contributed to the gov and charter changes we made, and I didn't become Chairman until 3-4 months after Oktoberfest ended.

 

Needs less talk and more plays.

 

Get to it boy

[LostWorld]

where are my ***posts?

Edited October 5, 2016 by LostWorld

[Azaghul]

It is not a principled stance, it is a practical stance.  We have looked internally at what we believe our position would be if we accepted the level of reparations offered, and decided that its not worth it, so we have not accepted it, and this decision holds the full support of our membership.  People are free to argue their case on this board as to what they believe our position would be, and we take those discussions seriously, but at this time nothing we have seen has indicated that the current offer would be better than war.

The reps represent roughly a week worth of economic output, it's only marginally different than pure white peace.  So effectively what you're saying is, you're not interested in peace.  Since this is a war you started, what NPO is effectively doing is going rogue on their way out.

 

Which is fine.  I'm not sad to be a part of it, and I'm not protesting it.  Just calling a spade a spade.  You aren't the victim.

 

For the record, we were invited to discuss peace, we did not seek it.  To not come to the table when an alliance has asked for a discussion would be neither diplomatic (half this game is politics after all) nor polite.

What does it matter if your diplomatic position is entirely hopeless as you keep asserting?

[Azaghul]

It doesn't matter whether it is a principled stance or not. If they say no to reps, you can't force them to peace. UPN has paid reps in the past. We are no longer willing to do so. Not because of a principled stance, but because we simply don't want to given how negotiations went down. NPO is a sovereign AA, and only they can decide how their money will be spent. 

 

Coming to the peace table to find out what it takes to end an obviously losing war is a practice of responsible leadership, not some incite into their view on reparations. Quite frankly, it is not hot air. Our coalition would have accepted peace by now if it was. 

I guess we'll just have to see where you stand in a month or two.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Azaghul

[Cypher]

I guess we'll just have to see where you stand in a month or two.

 

As someone who has fought for over two months against tS (hi), it's actually not that bad compared to what people make it out to be.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Cypher

[Prefonteen]

As someone who has fought for over two months against tS (hi), it's actually not that bad compared to what people make it out to be.

 

HI

[Roquentin]

The reps represent roughly a week worth of economic output, it's only marginally different than pure white peace.  So effectively what you're saying is, you're not interested in peace.  Since this is a war you started, what NPO is effectively doing is going rogue on their way out.

 

Which is fine.  I'm not sad to be a part of it, and I'm not protesting it.  Just calling a spade a spade.  You aren't the victim.

 

What does it matter if your diplomatic position is entirely hopeless as you keep asserting?

 

I'm not sure what this is based off of and it's clearly not marginally worse than white peace. It would be the second-highest amount demanded in the war and higher than what was demanded proportionally of other alliances.

 

Except that's not really what Frawley said. The reason we didn't seek peace is because knew if we sought peace shortly after the opposition had landed what could be perceived as a knockout blow, we would be in a weaker position and have to deal with heavy demands. While we didn't oppose anyone seeking peace, we preferred those who felt they could continue to fight to stay in as it would be better than following the usual pattern where everything is in the hands of the winning side even if the war hasn't gone on very long and the losers basically are at their mercy. As we knew the ramifications of a loss going in, there was little to lose by doing this due to the political situation. If we just wanted to rogue out, I wouldn't have bothered engaging at all when approached.