NationStates

Yokiria wrote:If you believe what the NPO is saying about the termination of the treaty with St. Abbaddon, that it truly was a change in policy direction and not a withdrawal from combat, then perhaps it was not a victory for the opponents of the NPO.

If you dismiss what the NPO is saying, then you can quite clearly see that the NPO terminated the treaty with St. Abbaddon so that they could successfully transition the delegacy of The Pacific within the timeframe that their Consul required. If the military force that is in St. Abbaddon stays there under those treaty obligations, then East Durthang is not the delegate of the Pacific today.

There is the NPO's narrative, and then there is the logistical reality of the situation. The NPO was strong-armed into choosing between its protectorate and its delegacy, chose its delegacy, but would have us all believe it could have had both if it wanted.

Except that my views on the holding of UCR protectorates can be validated by your own sides leak of the Red Phone logs from as early as 2017. So...

Also, the transition was reliant on the level of Influence, not endorsements. The Pacific would be safe with 100 endorsements on the Delegate nation and active ROs.

Yokiria wrote:If you believe what the NPO is saying about the termination of the treaty with St. Abbaddon, that it truly was a change in policy direction and not a withdrawal from combat, then perhaps it was not a victory for the opponents of the NPO.

If you dismiss what the NPO is saying, then you can quite clearly see that the NPO terminated the treaty with St. Abbaddon so that they could successfully transition the delegacy of The Pacific within the timeframe that their Consul required. If the military force that is in St. Abbaddon stays there under those treaty obligations, then East Durthang is not the delegate of the Pacific today.

There is the NPO's narrative, and then there is the logistical reality of the situation. The NPO was strong-armed into choosing between its protectorate and its delegacy, chose its delegacy, but would have us all believe it could have had both if it wanted.

Funny, cuz as part of the new management, as soon as I was brought over for FA I advised ED to get rid of the St Ab treaty which was:

1) Terribly written
2) Totally unbalanced
3) Undesirable

I'm not friend of creating/engaging in protectorates / annexations of any form...

So, what we have is either:
A) What really happened internally in the NPO, new management with different best defined goals and principles ending what an influential part of their internal management considered unnecessary weight
or
B) What you WISH to IMAGINE in order to push a view that hides your alliance/coalition shortcomings, incapacity of achieving any actual goals and lack of victories in this "war".

We can continue coming up with imagination based views of anything, Yok, but isn't that a waste of both our times?

Is it not possible that, with new figures coming to prominence in the NPO upper ranks and desiring to expunge themselves from an ill-thought out and undesirable treaty, they also saw and recognised the potential to hasten the transition from Ale to ED?

It seems like that is the sort of thing both Ivan and Elegarth (and others) would recognise, even if they wouldn't tell us such. The NPO withdrawal from St Abbaddon might not be a military victory for the APC, but it is a recognition that the foreign policy it previously pursued was an outright failure, and has only contributed to the mess it is trying to recover from.

Klaus Devestatorie wrote:Seriously. The only reason why Unibot hasn't already jumped down your throat is because he probably screamed and threw his monitor through a window when he read it.

More likely his head exploded from the force of the facepalm.

Blight-Bane wrote:

Klaus Devestatorie wrote:Seriously. The only reason why Unibot hasn't already jumped down your throat is because he probably screamed and threw his monitor through a window when he read it.

More likely his head exploded from the force of the facepalm.

Kinda like this?

Alternatively:

The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:Is it not possible that, with new figures coming to prominence in the NPO upper ranks and desiring to expunge themselves from an ill-thought out and undesirable treaty, they also saw and recognised the potential to hasten the transition from Ale to ED?

As many have said already, the transition was based on influence and not endorsements. The raiders weren't called to increase Ale's endorsements, as time was the key factor. ED took power quickly after reaching 50k influence, as the Pacific government had stated would happen.

The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:It seems like that is the sort of thing both Ivan and Elegarth (and others) would recognise, even if they wouldn't tell us such.

See above.

The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:The NPO withdrawal from St Abbaddon might not be a military victory for the APC, but it is a recognition that the foreign policy it previously pursued was an outright failure, and has only contributed to the mess it is trying to recover from.

You are correct that withdrawal is not an APC victory. And if you agree that the treaty was unbalanced, as stated by both the government of the Pacific AND by an outside representative, then yes. But, the fact that the decision to withdraw was linked to neither the timing of democratic issues nor the transition of delegacy lends itself not as an acknowledgement of failures. If that was the case, you'd think they'd have left sooner.

The important result is Topid is back in St. Abbaddon, it's no longer under NPO control, and the NPO itself has one less place it exerts influence outside of its home region. I consider this a positive outcome for those opposed to the NPO, regardless of how or why it happened.

Unless someone can come up with a plan to seize The Pacific from the NPO, I'd consider isolating the NPO within its own borders to be the best realistic result of the war right now.

The Gilded Star wrote:Unless someone can come up with a plan to seize The Pacific from the NPO, I'd consider isolating the NPO within its own borders to be the best realistic result of the war right now.

And you'd be following in a long and honorable tradition of failure -- see the ADN for an example. Actually, wait, they succeeded. See Ivan.

Kurnugia wrote:

King HEM wrote:
I mean, clearly, you are a very competent politician in The New Pacific Order. I've said from the start that The Pacific would've been in a much better position had you been in leadership and not dramatic, subversive ideologues like Pergamon.

If you're angry that Europeia and other regions at war with The New Pacific Order are going to highlight your losses and our victories, fair enough but we are at war. If you're trying to argue that we are being dishonest about this being a political and military victory for the coalition against the Pacific, however, I'm not sure how you can make that point? St. Abbaddon was literally the symbolic spark that started the war, and now the rightful government there has been restored—a primary objective of those at war with The Pacific—has been achieved, it's clearly a "w" for our column.

ummmm it's not really a defeat tbh. They held St. Abby for as long as they wanted. I mean how bizarre would it be if the defenders would claim victory each time Europeia withdrew from an occupation? Keep in mind, the new government has other priorities as opposed to the old one.

I'm glad that the new government has different priorities. That new government wouldn't be in place without the efforts of the APC and the complete failure of the previous government. If not for the military and diplomatic pressure from the war effort, the NPO would still be in St Abbaddon. I don't see how that isn't a victory for the APC. The NPO can call it a victory for themselves too, I don't care, but we got the end result we wanted because of actions we took to counter Francoism and the wildly irresponsible NPO regime.

That said, I welcome the changed attitude of the new NPO leadership--it would be remiss of me not to note the positive steps they've taken to distance themselves from their predecessors. Only time will tell if the change is truly transformative.

Do defenders claim victory every time invaders withdraw from a hold? The argument that St Ab was a victory for Euro and the APC is silly and flies in the face of longstanding gameplay logic.

Consular wrote:Do defenders claim victory every time invaders withdraw from a hold? The argument that St Ab was a victory for Euro and the APC is silly and flies in the face of longstanding gameplay logic.

Yes.

No, really, I can't count the number of times over the years that the circle of "this was the planned withdrawal date from day one" vs "you couldn't refound so you ran off" went 'round.

This has always been more applicable to orgs that...make it more applicable. Examples are easiest. TBH is known for many of our ops only being a week or three long. On the other hand, every single operation The Invaders had, they bragged about how they were going to "destroy" the region and went for a refound - so when they would sometimes later retreat, occasionally after an SC liberation, they were resoundingly mocked for it, and defenders claimed victory.

So, if this is your metric of choice, then yes - in a situation where an org that, until a sudden reversal of course, had consistently stated they were going to be in a region long term, suddenly withdraws, and where that reversal of course was even remotely conceivably inspired in some measure by the actions of their opponents on or more importantly off the field, defenders historically have claimed victories.

Is it a good metric? idk, but the situation it uses is not a novel one.

Drop Your Pants wrote:

Consular wrote:Do defenders claim victory every time invaders withdraw from a hold? The argument that St Ab was a victory for Euro and the APC is silly and flies in the face of longstanding gameplay logic.

And when a founder comes back.

Hey, that's a native victory, only a defender victory in the sense 'raiders lost'

Edit: Sneaky, deleting the post. Too bad I was already quoting

Consular wrote:Do defenders claim victory every time invaders withdraw from a hold?

Yes.

Consular wrote:The argument that St Ab was a victory for Euro and the APC is silly and flies in the face of longstanding gameplay logic.

It is entirely consistent with longstanding gameplay logic. Longstanding gameplay logic has been that withdrawing from combat under any conditions gives the other side a reason to declare victory, and that any reasons the occupying force give for withdrawing are simply 'excuses'.

It is interesting to see the departure from that logic when the NPO is the occupying force, rather than a raiding or imperialist organization. I would love for any one involved in defending in the past seven years to tell me that they would honestly see this as a "withdrawal based on a rescinded treaty and policy change" if Onder and NES were saying it on behalf of an Imperialist operation.

I do not understand why the NPO is seen as any more credible.

But when defenders claim a victory on those grounds, they tend to be ridiculed by invaders, yes? The same invaders currently claiming a victory on those grounds... It's just kinda funny to see the sides swapped around. Nobody here is standing on solid ground.

Yokiria wrote:I would love for any one involved in defending in the past seven years to tell me that they would honestly see this as a "withdrawal based on a rescinded treaty and policy change" if Onder and NES were saying it on behalf of an Imperialist operation.

Yeah ok, I see your point.

Yokiria wrote:I do not understand why the NPO is seen as any more credible.

I don't believe I've known Ivan to be dishonest about anything.

To clarify, since it has gotten a bit off-topic, I do not care that the opposition claims this as a victory of sorts. That was expected. I took issue with the claim from Europeia that it is a victory resulting from military action on their part, which it provably was not. The revisionism is what I have been speaking to. The reasons for the Pacific’s withdrawal are simply as I have stated them: because holding a UCR ‘protectorate’ is stupid in my opinion and I wanted it gone. We worked within the confines of the treaty to try and make St Abbaddon independent on their own. When that failed and it became apparent the Delegate was not honouring the treaty, we took another avenue. If the opposition groups wish to claim this withdrawal was because they were sitting around and effectively doing nothing to progress their so-called ‘war’, so be it. Good for them.

Incidentally, the activity levels in St Abbaddon are as expected. Good job all around I guess.

Lord Dominator wrote:Hey, that's a native victory, only a defender victory in the sense 'raiders lost'

Edit: Sneaky, deleting the post. Too bad I was already quoting

I deleted the post because it was turning into a thread jack, which my post was going to further continue.

Drop Your Pants wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:Hey, that's a native victory, only a defender victory in the sense 'raiders lost'

Edit: Sneaky, deleting the post. Too bad I was already quoting

I deleted the post because it was turning into a thread jack, which my post was going to further continue.

I was more amused in general because I happened to catch it, regardless of deletion reason.

Lord Dominator wrote:

Drop Your Pants wrote:I deleted the post because it was turning into a thread jack, which my post was going to further continue.

I was more amused in general because I happened to catch it, regardless of deletion reason.

En fin...

Back on topic, yeah?

Regardless of how it ended in St Abbaddon, I think it's pretty naive to whine about the easily approriate propaganda tactics used by the NPO's enemies here. Like, it's war, no shit the APC wil work to spin it in a favorable light for them.

To be clear, I don't think many people give too many actual shits about St Abbaddon the region, on either side. It's got great propaganda value, and helps their anti-NPO conflict. that's why the APC cares. A bunch of raider and independents didn't suddenly start giving a fuck about regional sovereignty and native rights.

Blueflarst want to know about this order

Tim-Opolis wrote:Regardless of how it ended in St Abbaddon, I think it's pretty naive to whine about the easily approriate propaganda tactics used by the NPO's enemies here. Like, it's war, no shit the APC wil work to spin it in a favorable light for them.

To be clear, I don't think many people give too many actual shits about St Abbaddon the region, on either side. It's got great propaganda value, and helps their anti-NPO conflict. that's why the APC cares. A bunch of raider and independents didn't suddenly start giving a fuck about regional sovereignty and native rights.

Is it ‘war’? I hadn’t noticed. People keep calling it that but the Pacific went off a war footing very quickly once we realised the opposition had no teeth.

Also, I’ve never cared about St Abbaddon, or made any claim to.

War has been declared in some fashion by a number of regions, yes.

Lord Dominator wrote:War has been declared in some fashion by a number of regions, yes.

Declarations do not a war make. I can declare myself king of the universe, that doesn’t make it so.

One assumes that such a declaration would be accompanied by action. Unless of course you consider the odd RMB spam and an ineffective TG campaign a successful war effort? How far along on the ‘NPO must be destroyed’ campaign trail do you think the opposition has gotten?

Pierconium wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:War has been declared in some fashion by a number of regions, yes.

Declarations do not a war make. I can declare myself king of the universe, that doesn’t make it so.

One assumes that such a declaration would be accompanied by action. Unless of course you consider the odd RMB spam and an ineffective TG campaign a successful war effort? How far along on the ‘NPO must be destroyed’ campaign trail do you think the opposition has gotten?

What concrete actions have you taken against The Black Hawks since NPO thought it was a good idea to do that?

NPO seemed to know how NS wars worked right up until pretty recently. Wonder what made that word change meanings on NS...