Dear BK and NPO

[Auctor]

I am actually concerned that anyone could possibly think a NAP offers any protection at all to be honest. The key concept of an NAP is trust in the other party or parties to the agreement to uphold the specific clauses.If the trust goes then the NAP itself is void.

It's true, an agreement is only as good as the honor of the people making it. The same is true of any form of treaty, and it's been shown already that more than one MDoAP is worthless at the end of any given day. I imagine in the interests of intellectual consistency, it would follow that you are against all forms of treaties?

[greatkitteh]

Does anyone get uppity about VE being from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), for example?

 

 

Your Mi6 was quite upppity at VE/allies

[Sabcat]

Who actually gives a shit what caused you to not like each other and be enemies? You are enemies and don't like each other. Done. 

 

This whole exercise of assigning blame going back years is a peculiar problem with this community and linked series of games. It's strange when the actual object of the game is to go to war and win. 

 

So much this. Who cares what the reasons are for the animosity. If NPO didn't want to trade on their reputation then why the bloody hell are they here with the same name and the same flag? I don't even particularly dislike them from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), they take themselves far too seriously (which is hilarious, <insert another dentist reference here or a plea for rl cash>) but beyond that, I've never had a specific run in with them. They're here though and they're all whiny that they're getting beaten up on for being who they are. Oh dear, what a shame, never mind.

 

Let's keep fighting until they pay up or go away.

[Charles Bolivar]

It's true, an agreement is only as good as the honor of the people making it. The same is true of any form of treaty, and it's been shown already that more than one MDoAP is worthless at the end of any given day. I imagine in the interests of intellectual consistency, it would follow that you are against all forms of treaties?

 

I would say that treaties only formally recognise the level of trust placed between two alliances. If the trust goes then the treaty itself is worthless. The fundamental foundation of a treaty isn't the actual treaty itself but the trust which exists between the alliances signing it.

 

Probably why I don't have an issue signing an NAP with NPO or anyone else, if we uphold our end and NPO upholds their end then there is nothing to worry about. If someone decides to act against the spirit of the treaty itself then the treaty itself is void.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Night King

[greatkitteh]

So much this. Who cares what the reasons are for the animosity. If NPO didn't want to trade on their reputation then why the bloody hell are they here with the same name and the same flag? I don't even particularly dislike them from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), they take themselves far too seriously (which is hilarious, <insert another dentist reference here or a plea for rl cash>) but beyond that, I've never had a specific run in with them. They're here though and they're all whiny that they're getting beaten up on for being who they are. Oh dear, what a shame, never mind.

 

Let's keep fighting until they pay up or go away.

Sure, keep fighting. Try as you might.

[Auctor]

I would say that treaties only formally recognise the level of trust placed between two alliances. If the trust goes then the treaty itself is worthless. 

Trust is only a measure of the perceived propensity an alliance has that they will, in fact, honor their agreements. If your word is worth anything, it should be believable to everyone regardless.

[greatkitteh]

Trust is only a measure of the perceived propensity an alliance has that they will, in fact, honor their agreements. If your word is worth anything, it should be believable to everyone regardless.

>TKR *cough *cough

[Charles Bolivar]

Trust is only a measure of the perceived propensity an alliance has that they will, in fact, honor their agreements. If your word is worth anything, it should be believable to everyone regardless.

 

The believably of my or anyone else's word is really based on the specific people who either believe it or not with reference to past events and so on.

 

Example, If Frawley agreed to a NAP, I would trust him to stick to the spirit of the treaty completely. If say Roq agreed to an NAP, I would trust him to publicly uphold the spirit of the treaty and in private begin plotting for the next war attempting to deliberately take advantage of the delusion of protection offered by an NAP thus making the NAP agreement itself entirely void.

 

End of the day, not everyone is going to agree with everyone else in regards to whether one person should be believed or not. We all have different opinions and competing interests at the end of the day and a person I regard as being honest and forthright may be called a sneaky scheming liar by someone else. That isn't something extraordinary but just reality at the end of the day.

[Auctor]

The believably of my or anyone else's word is really based on the specific people who either believe it or not with reference to past events and so on.

 

Example, If Frawley agreed to a NAP, I would trust him to stick to the spirit of the treaty completely. If say Roq agreed to an NAP, I would trust him to publicly uphold the spirit of the treaty and in private begin plotting for the next war attempting to deliberately take advantage of the delusion of protection offered by an NAP thus making the NAP agreement itself entirely void.

 

End of the day, not everyone is going to agree with everyone else in regards to whether one person should be believed or not. We all have different opinions and competing interests at the end of the day and a person I regard as being honest and forthright may be called a sneaky scheming liar by someone else. That isn't something extraordinary but just reality at the end of the day.

Haha. Remind is all again how this has nothing to do with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways)?

[Sabcat]

Haha. Remind is all again how this has nothing to do with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways)?

 

We're talking about a war you started and lost you mad !@#$. Is it about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), is that why you did it? Oh well, pay up or keep burning.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Sabcat

[Charles Bolivar]

Haha. Remind is all again how this has nothing to do with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways)?

I don't see how assessment of character is related to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways)? Edited October 11, 2016 by Night King

[Roquentin]

There shouldn't be one, but NPO insist on bringing the politics of an archaic nation simulation game into this more modern nation simulation game.

It's !@#$ annoying. 

I mean, the only reason it's come up in the reps context is because other people brought up reps from other games. 

 

Our reasons for holding out on an agreement or any action taken in this war aren't related to anything outside of PW relations.

[Buorhann]

[Pergamon]

^

Imperial fleet is delayed. We have to wait.

[Mikey]

There shouldn't be one, but NPO insist on bringing the politics of an archaic nation simulation game into this more modern nation simulation game.

It's !@#$ annoying. 

 

As much as I share the frustration with the constant references to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) (and I say this as someone who played it and understands where its coming from, can only imagine what a distraction it seems for those with no context), it cant be denied that there are plenty of people on both sides of this war, your alliance included, who refuse to let NPOs (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) past die down, and make it a central theme of their posts here. This gets NPO responding about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) which gets others responding about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) which gets NPO....its basically a feedback loop at this point and I don't know who began it in this thread but its going to be tough to put a lid on it now.

 

I don't know who the first person was to bring up (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) in an official capacity (gov wise). To some extent maybe it was inescapable due to NPOs uniquely polarizing history, but it seems things have massively gone down the drain since the whole ng/mi6 ts/alpha crossover drama some months back. Whoever came up with the likely joking steve reference in the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) DoW should be kicked in the head for the mess they've caused here

 

In any event if it was just gov members bringing it up maybe this could be put to rest (though given supposed (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) links were often brought up as a reason for the last conflict I'm not sure we'll ever completely expunge reference to that world when discussing those events). But now I'm not sure the cat can be put back into the bag until the war is over and we can hopefully move on to an extent.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Mikey

[Auctor]

I don't see how assessment of character is related to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways)?

Because your assessment of that character is inherently bound up with your perception of events that occurred *in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways)*. You're not actually making a distinction between the worlds, you're just pulling from the things you want to carry over with you and then denying that's what you are doing for the purposes of getting some temporary oomph in your argument. It's illogical and inconsistent.

[Foltest]

Because your assessment of that character is inherently bound up with your perception of events that occurred *in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways)*. You're not actually making a distinction between the worlds, you're just pulling from the things you want to carry over with you and then denying that's what you are doing for the purposes of getting some temporary oomph in your argument. It's illogical and inconsistent.

 

Wasn't your defense of NPO treatying their (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) allies in PnW something along the lines of "wow it's crazy how people retain relationships across games"?

 

It's interesting how quickly your tune changes as long as it suits the ever-spinning narrative.

[Jodo]

But, what if I just hate everyone equally?

[Kastor]

Haha. Remind is all again how this has nothing to do with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways)?

 

That literally had nothing to do with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways).

[Roquentin]

That literally had nothing to do with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways).

Are you just trolling here? Because it certainly does. If you don't know the history between the people in question, then can't really help you there, but Auctor explained it pretty well without going into detail

 

 

 

Wasn't your defense of NPO treatying their (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) allies in PnW something along the lines of "wow it's crazy how people retain relationships across games"?

 

It's interesting how quickly your tune changes as long as it suits the ever-spinning narrative.

 

The difference is Auctor never claimed a pure separation. The person in question has claimed it but used "it is a character assessment that would apply in any context, so it being derived from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) doesn't matter," and has even said "If I knew you in the real world, I probably would think the same thing."  If people want to hold (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) stuff against me when they have a particular perspective since it is based off a specific occurrence, it is fine, but then they can no longer claim that they are separating the two and if they base decisions on it, I have every right to call them on it. At the end of the day, people are going to have to make up their mind in general: drop the issue or drop the pretense of separation. 

.

[Who Me]

It isn't about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), it's about Pacifica and your history in all the games you play. People that have played games that you play are well aware of how you operate and what you try to do in games you play. They have seen what happens when you get to the top position in these games. Perhaps they just don't want that to happen here.

 

It's not us, it's you.

[Buorhann]

But, what if I just hate everyone equally?

 

 

But you don't.  You like me.  Question foiled.

[Cypher]

It isn't about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), it's about Pacifica and your history in all the games you play. People that have played games that you play are well aware of how you operate and what you try to do in games you play. They have seen what happens when you get to the top position in these games. Perhaps they just don't want that to happen here.

 

It's not us, it's you.

You literally just contradicted yourself in the first two sentences...

[Shadowthrone]

It isn't about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), it's about Pacifica and your history in all the games you play. People that have played games that you play are well aware of how you operate and what you try to do in games you play. They have seen what happens when you get to the top position in these games. Perhaps they just don't want that to happen here.

 

It's not us, it's you.

None of that made sense? So our history in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) doesn't count but it does and therefore we're judged for it. If we call you out on it, we're whiners who can't handle not being on top because of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), but your dislike has nothing whatsoever to do with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), yet we must be stopped because of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways)? 

 

The OWF here is far too contradictory in nature lol. Either our history in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) doesn't matter or it does. Your actions have made it clear to us it does, we just prefer to call you folks out on it because you folks keep carrying over those grudges and then state it has nothing to do with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) lol. 

 

,

[Who Me]

It's not your actions in other games, it's you attitude here. You come to this game with your usual arrogance thinking you know the best way to play the game and when you fail, instead of thinking about changing the way you play you whine and claim the game is finished because you can't win. Your system doesn't work here as has been proven in the last 2 wars but you are too arrogant to admit that and change because you "know the best way to play". Instead of paying the reasonable reps requested you try to hide your bank and claim you can't afford the reps. Then you come to us with non-negotiable demands for peace. There's that arrogance again. Quite frankly you are that guy that everyone wants to punch in the face because you act like a douche all the time. 

 

It's not us, it's you.