[Tygaland]

OK, this may be a wall of text or I may lose interest after a paragraph or two, but a few things have been bugging me the past few days and I just want to get it out there. I honestly don't care if you agree with me, disagree with me or have no interest in what I say. I'm doing this for me.

I have been reading and posting in a number of threads throughout this war I have to say my level of confusion is rising by the day.

This current war has been unofficially known as the Karma War according to the CN Wiki and when it began to take shape the side of the war I'm on labelled itself Karma. I wasn't involved in the naming of the coalition but considering the reason we had come together it seemed appropriate. The opposition was arbitrarily named Hegemony and that was that.

The war had started and Karma HQ was assigning alliances to certain fronts taking into account treaty requirements and organising aid flow as needed. Over the ensuing days more alliances joined the war on both sides. Karma announced itself as a fair and merciful group seeking to overthrow the Hegemony and bring about a new Cyberverse that was free of the extortion, bullying and over-the-top reparations that had become the norm under the Hegemony.

Fantastic, I thought, finally a dedicated group has come together to change things for the better. My only reservation was whether or not this new coalition will learn from the past and do what needed to be done to achieve the goal that was set out to be achieved.

After a few days a few smaller alliances started seeking peace and an exit from the war. It was pretty much agreed within Karma that these alliances would be given white peace and an exit from the war whenever they sought it. It was around this time that Karma alliances began thinking about how to deal with what would be considered the core members of the Hegemony, alliances in the Continuum and One Vision blocs. Discussion was sporadic and informal and ranged from medium level terms to some requiring terms akin to those the Hegemony handed out to others in the past. The only consensus I got from the discussions I saw was that these alliances were not to be given white peace and that they had to suffer some pain albeit nothing like that that these alliances had forced others to suffer in the past.

Since that time four Continuum alliances have been given peace and only one of them required to pay any reparations at all. This struck me as odd considering the reason the Karma coalition came together and the goals we were supposedly trying to achieve.

This is where the past few days have confused me. I see alliances that planned and operated under the Karma banner now claim they were not at war under that banner at all but their only reason to go to war was to honour treaties that existed prior to Karma forming. Fair point, most of the alliances in Karma went to war via existing treaties but the war itself was organised under a larger banner than the individual treaties and blocs that came to form Karma.

This has resulted in some disagreements between those in Karma but I think this is due to the fact that there seems to be some point in this war where Karma stopped existing and the individual alliances that initially formed Karma began to move away from Karma as a group to hand out their own peace terms.

Now, I have no issue with those fighting on certain fronts having the final say in the terms they hand out. STA did it with a Karma rep present to oversee it. But I have to wonder what the point is if the terms given do not support the basic goals of the Karma coalition.

So, here is the main source of my confusion. We now have alliances who planned and fought a war under the Karma banner whose goal was stated as one of removing the Hegemony form power and creating a Cyberverse without extortion, bullying and over-the-top peace terms. These alliances are now saying they are not fighting to punish alliances for past transgressions and that they are fighting a completely different war to the Karma War and giving terms reflective of that.

If this is the Karma War and the coalition is known as Karma with the stated goals of disabling the Hegemony, how can it be that this is not about past transgressions? Hegemony refers to what? And Karma?

What is this war all about anymore and when did it change? How is the Hegemony to be broken down if the treaties that bind them are left intact?

Was I in a different universe when I looked over what the Karma War was all about and what Karma as a coalition set out to achieve?

Confused
Tygaborough

[Dontasemebro]

A point I was thinking of myself. How can we call ourselves Karma when we allow peacemoders to exist, when the hegemony side has forced their enemies (GATO) to leave peace mode under threat of EZI. However, karma is not about becoming the monster, it is about defeating it. Soft power is what will win the day in the end, and that is what Karma is going for.

[Tygaland]

Dontasemebro, on May 12 2009, 07:33 AM, said:

A point I was thinking of myself. How can we call ourselves Karma when we allow peacemoders to exist, when the hegemony side has forced their enemies (GATO) to leave peace mode under threat of EZI. However, karma is not about becoming the monster, it is about defeating it. Soft power is what will win the day in the end, and that is what Karma is going for.

You raise another issue that irritates me about this war. From the beginning members of Hegemony alliances began saying that anything other than white peace was Karma becoming the monster. At what point did Karma say white peace for all? When did asking an alliance to pay a moderate amount of reparations become the same as the crippling terms given to alliances by Hegemony alliances in the past? Did Karma start to believe the propaganda and rhetoric of the Hegemony and take its eye off the ball?

This post has been edited by Tygaland: 12 May 2009 - 01:34 AM

[Chron]

Dontasemebro, on May 12 2009, 08:33 AM, said:

A point I was thinking of myself. How can we call ourselves Karma when we allow peacemoders to exist, when the hegemony side has forced their enemies (GATO) to leave peace mode under threat of EZI. However, karma is not about becoming the monster, it is about defeating it. Soft power is what will win the day in the end, and that is what Karma is going for.

Hahahaha.

I'm so sorry.

But that last sentence made me laugh.

You do know that at the current rate, Karma as a bloc will no longer exist? That it may not even exist now? That's Tyga's point.

[Jack Diorno]

Tygaland, on May 12 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

You raise another issue that irritates me about this war. From the beginning members of Hegemony alliances began saying that anything other than white peace was Karma becoming the monster. At what point did Karma say white peace for all? When did asking an alliance to pay a moderate amount of reparations become the same as the crippling terms given to alliances by Hegemony alliances in the past. Did Karma start to believe the propaganda and rhetoric of the Hegemony and take its eye off the ball?

I can't agree with you more here Tyga, the Hegemony propaganda machine has lost a lot of its steam over the past few months, but it appears to be working very well currently.

To me, Karma is payback, "what comes around, goes around". I don't really see how taking down the Hegemony as suddenly become evil.

[Alicia]

Dontasemebro, on May 12 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

However, karma is not about becoming the monster, it is about defeating it.

Small reps are nowhere near the same as the reps alliances like Polar, STA, MK and TDSM8 received.

Dontasemebro, on May 12 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

Soft power is what will win the day in the end, and that is what Karma is going for.

I must disagree here. "Soft power" will only have us repeating this war in 6 months time.

[Dontasemebro]

Tygaland, on May 12 2009, 03:38 AM, said:

You raise another issue that irritates me about this war. From the beginning members of Hegemony alliances began saying that anything other than white peace was Karma becoming the monster. At what point did Karma say white peace for all? When did asking an alliance to pay a moderate amount of reparations become the same as the crippling terms given to alliances by Hegemony alliances in the past? Did Karma start to believe the propaganda and rhetoric of the Hegemony and take its eye off the ball?

Reps in general are nothing but a smack in the face. Light reps are even worse than heavy reps in my opinion because it's just saying "we need proof to say we won" or something. But there's a line that needs to be drawn and every alliance is drawing their own line. Some ask for light reps, some ask for white peace, but indeed, at least we are not demanding wonder deconstruction. Would you prefer that we harshen our terms? What end would that serve other than "showing them right!"? A stern talking to is not exactly something that gets an adult to listen to what you have to say, but more an assertion of authority and command. Instead, showing that you're the better path suffices here, as I don't think the hegemony in general are actually evil people that want to be bad guys.

[Deuterium Dawn]

Dontasemebro, on May 12 2009, 02:33 AM, said:

A point I was thinking of myself. How can we call ourselves Karma when we allow peacemoders to exist, when the hegemony side has forced their enemies (GATO) to leave peace mode under threat of EZI. However, karma is not about becoming the monster, it is about defeating it. Soft power is what will win the day in the end, and that is what Karma is going for.

lol. This "anything resembling harsh terms makes us as bad as the hegemony" attitude, will get Karma killed in the end.

[Mack Truck]

jack diorno, on May 12 2009, 06:41 PM, said:

I can't agree with you more here Tyga, the Hegemony propaganda machine has lost a lot of its steam over the past few months, but it appears to be working very well currently.

To me, Karma is payback, "what comes around, goes around". I don't really see how taking down the Hegemony as suddenly become evil.

Agreed. There's a difference between extortion and restitution. They extorted first, we should be given what was ours. There's nothing hypocritical about it.

[KingEsus]

So ... the Karma war was never the righteous crusade with the aim of changing the cyberverse for ever afterall. Well i'm shocked.

The early mantra was 'Giving the Continuum / NPO a good talking to'. Well you've done / are doing that. I'm confident the NPO will change after the war. If that was your aim, then what would forcing the sort of terms that karma always claimed to abhor really achieve?

[Deuterium Dawn]

KingEsus, on May 12 2009, 02:46 AM, said:

The early mantra was 'Giving the Continuum / NPO a good talking to'. Well you've done / are doing that. I'm confident the NPO will change after the war. If that was your aim, then what would forcing the sort of terms that karma always claimed to abhor really achieve?

A small measure of justice?

[Tygaland]

Dontasemebro, on May 12 2009, 07:42 AM, said:

Reps in general are nothing but a smack in the face. Light reps are even worse than heavy reps in my opinion because it's just saying "we need proof to say we won" or something. But there's a line that needs to be drawn and every alliance is drawing their own line. Some ask for light reps, some ask for white peace, but indeed, at least we are not demanding wonder deconstruction. Would you prefer that we harshen our terms? What end would that serve other than "showing them right!"? A stern talking to is not exactly something that gets an adult to listen to what you have to say, but more an assertion of authority and command. Instead, showing that you're the better path suffices here, as I don't think the hegemony in general are actually evil people that want to be bad guys.

I ask you to re-read my post because you clearly missed the point. The issue is that Karma as a group is falling to pieces because alliances are not considering the greater goals of the coalition when giving out terms. To the point a lot are now denying their war had anything to do with Karma at all. Alliances that planned and operated under Karma's banner now disown the coalition when it comes to peace terms which then undermines the coalition's efforts to achieve its goals.

Are you saying that the rest of us forced the Hegemony to administer the terms that they did? That they are just good guys pushed to do horrible things by those who will not dance to their tune?

[Orkules]

You can defeat the monster and punish it without becoming a monster. Giving them something above white peace is not becoming the monster, not even close (and no, saying no outside aid and decom is not something different than glorified white peace).

We came here to punish them for their actions, to change the world for the better. We came to end the Hegemony and break its power, hopefully forever. We did not come here to give them a light spanking and then waltz away feeling good about ourselves for being such "nice guys" while they rebuilt in record time and crush us later. That is what you are doing. Valhalla deserved worse than it got, so did OG. MCXA too maybe, but they never wronged me and without their former leadsership I don't see punishing them much.

Just because you give something beyond hey, stay out of this war and sit tight and just rebuild without worrying about any military to slow that process down does not make you a monster or unjust. It makes you somebody who can find a middle ground between his principles and what needs doing in order to get the job done. What needs doing is to devastate these alliances so that we can all be back on our feet and ready by the time they come looking for us to get pay back. If we were to become monsters, we would pursue this goal without remorse and without mercy. We would obliterate them. To find the middle ground is to hurt them badly and then give them moderate terms that will at least slow their rebuild.

I know Valhalla says they've learned, as will the rest of the Hegemony. I will not believe it until it is proven. Given how these alliances have treated me, hurt me, lied to me, and betrayed me, I don't think you can really blame me. I do believe that the odds are good that by the time Vanguard exits this war, she will be in worse shape than Valhalla will be at that time. There is simply nothing to slow its regrowth.

[Jack Diorno]

KingEsus, on May 12 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

So ... the Karma war was never the righteous crusade with the aim of changing the cyberverse for ever afterall. Well i'm shocked.

The early mantra was 'Giving the Continuum / NPO a good talking to'. Well you've done / are doing that. I'm confident the NPO will change after the war. If that was your aim, then what would forcing the sort of terms that karma always claimed to abhor really achieve?

Reps don't fall under the banner of 'giving NPO a good talking to'?

What i read in the initial declaration of Karma, was that the Hegemony was getting what was coming for their past greivences. NPO has forced shocking reps on people in the past, so it falls under the banner of Karma or what comes, around goes around IMO.

[Alicia]

KingEsus, on May 12 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

If that was your aim, then what would forcing the sort of terms that karma always claimed to abhor really achieve?

I have yet to see Karma alliances demand anything as bad as some of the terms the Hegemony have placed on alliances.

[Tygaland]

KingEsus, on May 12 2009, 07:46 AM, said:

So ... the Karma war was never the righteous crusade with the aim of changing the cyberverse for ever afterall. Well i'm shocked.

The early mantra was 'Giving the Continuum / NPO a good talking to'. Well you've done / are doing that. I'm confident the NPO will change after the war. If that was your aim, then what would forcing the sort of terms that karma always claimed to abhor really achieve?

How do you reach that conclusion from my post? Changing the world for the better means removing the people who have made it untenable from power.

And again with the propaganda. The "stern talking to" banners were not an official statement of Karma goals. Karma's goal as I was led to believe was that the Hegemony needed to be removed from their position of power and splintered to hinder it ever reforming.

And yet again, where did anyone from Karma say that NPO was going to get "the same sort of terms we abhor"? The same place Karma said white peace for everyone, peoples' imaginations.

[Orkules]

Dontasemebro, on May 12 2009, 03:42 AM, said:

Reps in general are nothing but a smack in the face. Light reps are even worse than heavy reps in my opinion because it's just saying "we need proof to say we won" or something. But there's a line that needs to be drawn and every alliance is drawing their own line. Some ask for light reps, some ask for white peace, but indeed, at least we are not demanding wonder deconstruction. Would you prefer that we harshen our terms? What end would that serve other than "showing them right!"? A stern talking to is not exactly something that gets an adult to listen to what you have to say, but more an assertion of authority and command. Instead, showing that you're the better path suffices here, as I don't think the hegemony in general are actually evil people that want to be bad guys.

Playing the good guys completely and utterly is all well and good and may help you sleep at night. That is until they walk up shoot you in the back.

You can't change the world in any real fashion with love and puppy dogs. Sorry kid, doesn't roll that way.

[gantanX]

Mack Truck, on May 12 2009, 07:45 AM, said:

Agreed. There's a difference between extortion and restitution. They extorted first, we should be given what was ours. There's nothing hypocritical about it.

Yup, i agree with this..
but the problem is, many alliances who are now in Karma side were in Hegemony Sides. and what they did were no better than what Hegemony did...

thoughts ??

[KagetheSecond]

I'm guessing that you wrote this because of your outrage over the Valhalla peace terms. Most of the alliances fighting Valhalla are in similar situations such as yourself, Tyga. They do not consider themselves members of the "Karma Coalition," but are fighting to further its goals. The individual alliances appear to have varying degrees of commitment to the Karma cause, with Vanguard and MK apparently at the extreme end and people such as... well I don't know who's in Karma anymore, but most are fairly mild. To me, this war has one aim: to take down the NPO. In the grand scheme of things, NPO is the hegemony, plain and simple. Everyone else in Q was just playing a supporting role, some taking the spotlight every once in a while. The members of the Karma coalition with a lukewarm commitment to the cause do not see it fit to hand down heavy handed reps because they truly fear becoming just like the alliances they have taken down. While most members of the community who browse the forums casually, they would probably feel indifferent towards the handing down of reps.

bah... I wanted to look cool by having a bunch of words in my post

tl;dr- Karma has a wide variety of alliances with varying commitments to the cause. There's no way to establish a uniform template for handing out reps to the "Hegemony" alliances until you formulate an official bloc or governing body that will have the final say on this. Until that happens, you're probably going to be seeing light terms or white peace for the majority of alliances.

[Tygaland]

gantanX, on May 12 2009, 07:56 AM, said:

Yup, i agree with this..
but the problem is, many alliances who are now in Karma side were in Hegemony Sides. and what they did were no better than what Hegemony did...

thoughts ??

They are fighting against the Hegemony so, it is unrealistic to expect those on the Karma side to turn on them. Does that mean they are without fault in the past? No. But they are fighting to get rid of what they helped create so we can't really criticise them for doing so.