Reflections on the Karma War

[Angrator]

Nope, nukes save lives by shortening wars. Imagine how long it would have taken to defeat the larger hegemony alliances without nukes?

Good point. However, I would argue that the widespread use of nukes is simply making wars more and more destructive causing more and more deaths.

4,422,465,200 Total Military Killed

I think the number speaks for itself.

[potato]

Good point. However, I would argue that the widespread use of nukes is simply making wars more and more destructive causing more and more deaths.

I think the number speaks for itself.

And?

[Angrator]

And?

Death is a bad thing, so things causing death would therefore be..... yep you guessed it. A bad thing

[potato]

Death is a bad thing, so things causing death would therefore be..... yep you guessed it. A bad thing

... You do realise they aren't REAL death, right?

[Master Smiley]

Wait potato... real people arn't dying!?

[Stumpy Jung Il]

Death is a bad thing, so things causing death would therefore be..... yep you guessed it. A bad thing

I, for one, enjoy watching my pixel people die. Dont judge me cause my beliefs are different from yours. :colbert:

[anenu]

While i haven't done the math or have test samples I would say using nukes is more likely to save lives as the infra damage done by a nukes shortens the length of the war while not using them would lead to large numbers of ground conflicts which cause casualties on both sides not just one. Plus the explosions are really cool and energy bills go down due to lack of needing lights at night.

/me is a fan of the creepy green glow.

[Neo Uruk]

... You do realise they aren't REAL death, right?

but that takes away the basis of any arguments that he can make.

Besides, o/ casualties and all.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Rey the Great

[blanding]

... You do realise they aren't REAL death, right?

all the dead cyberpeople would disagree

/sarcasm

[Megabyte]

This is an IC forum, guys. Cyberpeople count as real people here, and this isn't the place to argue a distinction.

[Jipps]

The validity of the CB, the intent behind it, etc.

I am guessing that Azaghul, with his righteous fist, shall be the judge of all cybernations then?

It'll be up to the alliance who are at war the alliance to decide upon the terms. They'll be motivated towards the total and lasting victory Archon describes in this very article, applying the harsh terms for it. Regardless of how the public sees it, people will be scared and essays like this will only further justify the terms. Remind you of any oppressive period we've expierenced?

The mentality that harsh terms are at any point justified is wrong. Until the leaders of the world see this, I'm afraid we are doomed to see more.

If you want to see more even sided wars, less treaties, more treaties being honored, then maybe you should stop supporting ideas that make losing a war unbearable.

[JBone]

I, for one, enjoy watching my pixel people die. Dont judge me cause my beliefs are different from yours. :colbert:

I have placed a shredder atop all wastebaskets in Boneslovia, won't you please come for a visit?

There may be a medal in this for me.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

I have placed a shredder atop all wastebaskets in Boneslovia, won't you please come for a visit?

There may be a medal in this for me.

I see you have joined the ranks of anti-Stumpy Personnel, JBone.

[JBone]

I see you have joined the ranks of anti-Stumpy Personnel, JBone.

Ranks?

Personnel?

......it's just a loosely based coalition.

Edited May 28, 2009 by JBone

[Samuel Houston]

I expect Vladimir to soon be trying to convince us otherwise, and that NPO really won the war .

Hahahah. I was thinking this while reading the OP!

[Archon]

Gah, another night. I swear I am intending on replying to things, honest. I've just been extraordinarily busy (OOC: Life isn't giving me a break, it seems)

[Azaghul]

Good point. However, I would argue that the widespread use of nukes is simply making wars more and more destructive causing more and more deaths.

In a long war, those on the losing side are inevitably gonna be ZI'd. ZI is still ZI, war just makes it quicker but the damage potential is still the same.

I am guessing that Azaghul, with his righteous fist, shall be the judge of all cybernations then?

It'll be up to the alliance who are at war the alliance to decide upon the terms. They'll be motivated towards the total and lasting victory Archon describes in this very article, applying the harsh terms for it. Regardless of how the public sees it, people will be scared and essays like this will only further justify the terms. Remind you of any oppressive period we've expierenced?

The mentality that harsh terms are at any point justified is wrong. Until the leaders of the world see this, I'm afraid we are doomed to see more.

If you want to see more even sided wars, less treaties, more treaties being honored, then maybe you should stop supporting ideas that make losing a war unbearable.

I disagree in general that terms will hold down an alliance.

As far as hard terms being wrong, I think in the case of a very clear aggressor it is justifiable. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

[LOXC5991]

(OOC: Life isn't giving me a break, it seems)

It happens, don't worry about it.

Anyway, a very nice read. Like (someone) said before the Karma war is starting to get me reading the forums for once, and this is probably the most interesting thing i've seen on here to date. Keep it up Archon, you're doing great.

[pericles8th]

Incredible read,

The mushroom kingdom has a poet not a king...

[Brotherington]

Death is a bad thing, so things causing death would therefore be..... yep you guessed it. A bad thing

Have you ever considered joining the ODN in 2006? I think you would fit in well.

[Heracles the Great]

You should read the essay I posted about the subject. It's not that relatively hard terms are inherently and universally bad, but that they should be used very selectively on alliances that truly deserve it. NPO in this situation where they started an aggressive war qualifies. Karma in general has shown where it ends by giving nearly all the periphial alliances white peace and NPO's close allies that have surrendered moderate or light terms.

If Hegemony was winning, nearly every alliance on the side of Karma would be given huge reps and harsh terms.

This is incredibly subjective, though, and very broad to interpretation. For all we know, those alliances who received harsh terms in the past did deserve them in the eye of the issuer. Just because their standard of what "deserves" harsh terms is different than yours doesn't make it necessarily wrong. No different than it doesn't make yours wrong if a more lenient or peaceful faction comes along after Karma that thinks your being to harsh. You can't say that "harsh terms should be used only on alliances that truly deserve it" without having a globably recognized standard for what harsh terms are, and what mertis someone deserving them.

[Archon]

Now here is where we start to diverge. Perhaps only by virtue of points of view. You cite the attack on OV as the beginning of this war. While it may have been the first shot fired, from where I sat, this war began long ago, around the time Gre left Q. There may not have been any formal, organized structure to the Karma side at that time, but I hazard to say it was when these "hey, we might not be best buds, but we both dislike them" talks started.

I see your point, but that is moreso a discussion of how the sides came to be, and less of a discussion of the actual war itself. While there is no doubt in anyone's mind that all wars are preceded by months of political jockying, I didn't want to expand the scope of this piece to include that antebellum period.

I agree that victory was the common goal, but victory means different things to different alliances, even to different nations. Some wanted their pound of flesh, some wanted to stem boredom, some wanted to change the world, but, and this is again from where I sat, almost all wrapped it in the blanket of righteous indignation and a desire to bring about a fair and just cyberverse.

I'm not sure I see what you are trying to communicate here. I would venture to say that you are agreeing with me that there was no central goal, though you might be right in asserting that there was typically a central theme espoused by those who posted on these forums. However, that would be moreso a coincidence of the alliances involved, as opposed to a doctrine by which Karma alliances were compelled to follow.

It was also confusing at times, from this side, to see the "We are Karma, a united force, steadfast in our goals" and the "We are Karma, just a loose coalition" lines being used to justify everything being done. From here it looked as though Karma, whatever that is/was wanted to take all the credit for the good being done, yet shirks responsibility for any wrongs along the way.

Karma was a force of independent alliances united by merit of shared war fronts and a need to cooperate. When it became clear that some could not fathom the existence of such a gathering without a legal document backing it, it was necessary to remind the public that Karma is not a legal entity, and as such has no means to apply pressure on one another or compell any one alliance to adhere to a certain standard of terms or what have you, at least not through a bloc that doesn't actually exist.

I'm not even sure what legal power means, but to say Karma, or more specifically, powers that reside in Karma, did not/does not have the ability to strongly influence most of the results that arise from this conflict, be they reps, white peace, early terms...whatever, in this war, seems to me to be disingenuous at best and a complete cop out at worst.

My point here is that Karma is not a bloc. As such, the alliances within have no way to compell each other to do anything, as each one is an independent and sovereign entity. Sure, they can apply diplomatic pressure, use friendship, and perhaps even persuasive text (though moreoften than not such text fails unless the listener is already predisposed to shift beliefs), but they had no legal means to enforce any such "coalition-wide" anything.

I think it is fair to say that World Opinion in general has an influence on terms and that influence is weighted on the Karma side. Enforce, no, but influence certainly. While I'm sure you are correct that some held onto pixels, some also did what they felt to be right....on both sides. Not everything is a cloudy, smoke and mirrors conspiracy, sometimes it is just what it appears to be.

Fair enough, actually. I'll cede that point, especially given some enlightening conversations I've had since posting this.

No clue as to when Karma had it's first meeting, I will take your word on that, but I still think there were grumblings long before that. Perhaps not from Gre, but you are not the only Karma cloaked AA. Some already firmly in that camp had to see a potential ally in Gre when they left Q.

For the record, me neither. I came into things fairly late, despite what some believe.

If Karma is able to continue to justify harsh terms, when will they end? What stops every other coalition for the rest of CN history to use this way of thinking as justification for its harsh terms?

I understand that Karma is a loose coalition of independent entities and that it's up to those individual alliances to determine reps. So this isn't a question to Archon: Mastermind of Karma, but to Archon: Nation Ruler.

I think that you will have to wait and see what terms are proffered. When I use the wording of 'harsh terms,' I was actually making a tongue in cheek reference to the sudden habit of all Hegemony-loyal posters calling all terms that aren't white peace "harsh terms." I should have been more clear here - I believe what you fear is terms on the scale that the Hegemony used to give. If you adjust for the size of the alliances still in the conflict, and consider past precedents, I think you will find Karma will not go that far. I can only guarantee it on my own front, however, due to opinions expressed earlier in this post.

Archon, are we allowed to ask questions that would expand a bit on the OP or would you rather have that in a different thread?

Please, post them here. It's easier to keep track

Augh! The board forces me to break this into two posts.

[Archon]

Very nice read Archon, I would like to do some questios for you and see them answered if possible:

1. In my opinion OV incident was just the fuse for the war and I think this would happen soon or later, either with an hegemony attack like happened or with a Karma attack. What's you opinion about it?
   
2. What's the main motivation who move/moved Karma Coalition?
   
3. What's your opinion about those alliances who were part of hegemony but changed side after the war?
   

Thank you in advance.

I also believe it would have happened eventually - it was a matter of which side would be at the advantage once the war kicked off. However, I do not believe it would have started with a Karma attack - on their (our) end, it had to be a defensive conflict so as to maximize treaty activation and mount a sufficiently large force to assure victory.

In terms of motivation, I think the Karma Coalition was driven by the indignation of yet another curbstomp, and later was driven by the desire to finally crush the Hegemony that dominated this world for far too long. I am sure revenge factored into many decisions, as did also a simple desire to win, but I belive what I said before was the main driving force. I'm assuming 'who' was a typo, and you don't actually wish to know which personalities drove Karma.

The alliances that moved from the Hegemony are free to do as they please. A simple diplomatic adjustment, however, proves nothing. It will be their conduct in the coming months that will truly define their place in this new world, and everyone knows it.

Outstanding post, truly a new standard in veiled comments.

You're starting to establish quite the reputation as a devout troll, as your custom title suggests. Well done. I look forward to being the victim of more of your barbs as time goes on, so long as their quality increases.

Okay, got some questions. What would you think would be the best terms for an alliance that at the first chance launched nukes? Harsh terms or light terms? What if they were merely following in on a treaty?

I eagerly await your response.

This was asked to Azaghul, and I believe was answered, but all the same I'll give it a simple reply: lol nukes. Who cares, anymore? The nuke stigma, as many noted, is dead.

Regardless of how the public sees it, people will be scared and essays like this will only further justify the terms. Remind you of any oppressive period we've expierenced?

Oh god, am I the new Vladimir? :smithicide: Levity aside, however, as I noted above I believe you fear a set of terms far worse than Karma will actually offer. But then, as I also noted above, I can only speak for the TPF front.

Thank you all for your feedback, for your kind words, and most of all for your insightful commentary. Please, keep it coming. I swear I'll eventually respond

[Azaghul]

This is incredibly subjective, though, and very broad to interpretation. For all we know, those alliances who received harsh terms in the past did deserve them in the eye of the issuer. Just because their standard of what "deserves" harsh terms is different than yours doesn't make it necessarily wrong. No different than it doesn't make yours wrong if a more lenient or peaceful faction comes along after Karma that thinks your being to harsh. You can't say that "harsh terms should be used only on alliances that truly deserve it" without having a globably recognized standard for what harsh terms are, and what mertis someone deserving them.

There is no way to do it with 100% objectivity you are right, but there are many things in this world that can't be done with 100% objectivity, like deciding to fight a war in the first place.

[Heracles the Great]

You're starting to establish quite the reputation as a devout troll, as your custom title suggests. Well done. I look forward to being the victim of more of your barbs as time goes on, so long as their quality increases.

I would actually agree with my comrade - your comments were poorly veiled and hardly disguised - to act like atleast two paragraphs of this post weren't intended as a slap in the face to Umbrella+Co. on the Valhalla front is ridiculous. That being said, you are entitled to your opinion, though by now we're very clear on where you and your friends stand on the actions we took, and at this point it's become quite redundant.