Authur

I am not talking about allaince who went to war receiving favorable peace terms. I'm all for terms that allow alliances to rebuild and re-enter the race toward the top. I'm speaking about alliance's who were allied to the NPO, participated in the beat downs, and with in the last month or so switched sides. I don't doubt the sincerity of their change of heart but the fact remains that they participated in it and have not faced the consequences like their former allies are right now.

No, war isn't fair. I don't expect it to be. I just hate seeing certain allaince condemned for "going along with it" while many other alliance's who did the very same, recently at that, are praised/forgiven.

I will let IRON members speak for IRON. I am no longer a part of that allaince and don't wish to misrepresent them. I personally left IRON to fight in defense of the NPO (before I knew IRON was going to enter) becuase it's what I felt was right at the time considering the treaty they and IRON shared at the start of the war. I am not saying that others "won't fight" just that many people and alliances in this world have at one time willingly gone along with the act's the NPO is now condemned for committing. Some very recently. While many are paying for their actions, others (myself included) have gotten off lightly or have received no punishment at all. Should everyone be rounded up? No, however this fact should not be forgotten. IRON for example is paying for their "crimes" as some of you see it. They are serving their time. To condemn them while praising others who even a month or so ago walked the same path is unfair.

I agree with the statements of HellAngel and Grub. I thought this new movement was about change not revenge. That's why so many, including myself, could get behind the basic concept. If we as a community start adopting the tactic's of those we condemn then how are we any better? The goal should be to change the mind set. To discourage the practices that lead us here. Those on the losing side will pay a heavy price from the war itself. "Justice" as some of you see it is being served right now. There is no need to kick them once they are down. Reps for starting the war are one thing but any attempts to cripple alliances should be condemned.

^^^ There are alliances on the Karma side that has stood side by side with the NPO as they committed the acts your all against now. Some of them didn't have a change of heart until after it was clear a war was coming yet they have been given a free pass while others have been unfairly called "cowards". Any allaince and anyone who has stood by the NPO's side as they did these things bears some of the blame. It's unfair to point a finger at someone without admitting your own guilt. Just keep that in mind when vilifying people.

That certainly was one of the better things the NPO did regardless of their motivation. I like your suggestion of having alliances protect unaligned nations on their color sphere. The bigger the sphere the better it is for all alliances who reside there. One possibility is to include this into color based bloc's. OUT for example has done a fine job of insuring Orange stability. With some work it could be altered to allow unaligned nations on Orange to seek protection.

I apologize for the thread derailment. There were a lot of things I have wanted to say about the events transpiring and they all kind of poured out in this thread. I am not sure if you are including me in your comments but assuming you are I just want to clarify that I have no hatred for either side. Having been on both sides of the fence for the better part of a year each I have come to realize that there are great passionate individuals in this world who simply view things differently. It's fine to disagree, to debate, but the hate really needs to dissipate. We need to give up labeling either side as the "bad guys" and labeling ours as the "good" becuase that's not going to get us any where. There are unsavory characters on both sides who cause trouble but we shouldn't allow them to color our view of the "other side", which sadly occurs frequently. That said, out of respect to the OP I'm out.

It's not a lie, your simply misinterpreting my response. Yes dominance and power are a part of it and you maintain that by stomping any potential threats and holding them down via terms. If they were not concerned for their own safety there would have been little reason to disarm their fallen victims. I am NOT saying the NPO was innocent or doing all of this for good reasons. They may not deserve it but in this new environment I'd like to see every allaince given that chance. We are just leaving a period where any allaince who fell out of favor or was precieved as a threat was held down. I would just like to see that changed and I think we should start with the biggest threat to that line of thinking.

That comment was in response to his claim that he was against perma ZI becuase eternal war was pointless. My point was in order to enforce harsh terms you have to be willing to wage eternal war. (I wish you guys would start reading the quotes I'm responding too better so I could stop having to explain them over and over again.) The war itself has injured them pretty badly. It will take months before they can mount a real threat. I just don't see the need to hold them down longer via terms. You guys complained when they did that to the NpO and MK recently, and for good reason. I just don't personally think that how we should treat alliances in this world.

You are really misunderstanding me. I am not excusing the NPO's actions at all. I was pointing out what the NPO did, why they gave harsh terms and formed large bloc's. They did it for security purposes which is against my idea world. No double standards, your just reading something that isn't there. I am not paranoid about what Karma might do. I am a little concerned about what select individuals may do after the war and terms are handed out but that's separate from the terms debate going on. As it relates to terms I'm merely arguing my point with an individual who disagrees. I have no idea what Karma will do. So far their terms have been outstanding, I hope that continues. So to sum up. Not fear, debate. No double standards, pointing out a correlation.

So what happens if the NPO rejects the terms? Violates them? Would you be in favor of eternal war ala FAN to ensure the NPO does not get their "gun back"? If your not prepared to back up the terms with war they are meaningless. This really isn't that different then the NPO keeping a member from growing, getting nukes and becoming a threat. Deal with the threat when it comes. Right now the NPO is weakened militarily and politically. Most of their allies canceled on them, they have been and will continue to be beaten down the rankings, and they have and will continue to lose members. Even if white peace were granted tomorrow it would be months before they could gather enough support to fight a world that is pretty against them right now. Terms designed to extend this period, eternally perhaps, go against what I thought you guys were trying to do. I do fully understand the various terms that can be given. I am not saying they have to get white peace I am just against terms that are designed to declaw the opposition becuase someday they might strike again. Punish them for their crimes in this war, perhaps a bit for their past behavior and move on. If they come back be prepared to fight again. So? They did the work needed, came back and won. I don't see a problem with that or why we should handcuff any allaince who might defeat ours in war. It doesn't really work well anyway as this war has shown. Once you start oppressing people out of concern for your own safety you just breed contempt. Yes the NPO was and generally is the aggressor, not disputing that. That still doesn't make handcuffing them for the sake of security right. I need evidence to support my concern? It's just a feeling I get from some of the people on the Karma side (though not all are in it). I think they are motivated mainly by revenge and once this war is done they will work to implement themselves as the new ruling class. I guess we will see if I'm right soon enough. (There are also plenty who genuinely seem to want change) You alluded that it would be "suicide" to not handcuff the NPO and that they needed to be kept in "check". That to me suggests a fear that the NPO will come back for revenge, not necessarily against the exact alliances who defeated them but against this new movement. I agree that it should be up to the citizens of the Cyberverse. If the NPO comes back to dominate in a similar fashion let the world at that time take action if they so choose. I argue that abandoning your beliefs out of concern for safety makes the changes you have fought for meaningless. Your analogy wasn't about change (unless your referring to one I missed) it was about safety. Ask yourself why they were aggressive and oppressive? It was for safety concerns. They beat down potential threats. They intimidated potential enemies. Large bloc's are all about safety and friendship. I'm not asking you to hand back the NPO's gun. I'm asking you to not take anyone's gun away from them. We all have them, every nation and allaince. No one should have to right to take them away from us. Fight back when you must but do not oppress. How is it in my best interest? I am not in the NPO or IRON. In fact my AA say's NSO right now. I am against the "lording", I was against it while I was in the GPA, I was against it in IRON, and I'm against it in the NSO. I participated in it, willingly, but it's not how I would have chosen to run things if given a chance. So no I am not taking this stance for any personal benefit but rather because it's one I feel is correct.

Actually he is not wrong. Just looking at this thread alone you can see different interpretation of what change really means. As has been pointed out Karma is a loose group of alliances, it's doubtful they all agree on what "change" means to them. There are some policies that are now globally accepted but there are many more issues that have yet to be truly discussed and others that will manifest themselves over time. Out of curiosity what does change mean to you?

Again I am seeing the old mind set that I personally feel lead to our current situation. This concern for safety. I do understanding what you are saying. The NPO is likely to pass out harsh terms if they are victorious in the future but is it worth implementing something you were against to avoid that potential fate? Is the new world going to be like the old where only alliances that share the same policies are allowed to flourish? A dictator who treats his people well is still a dictator. I thought the goal was to eliminate a ruling class that forced their philosophy on others?

No, the NPO in my honest opinion does not. I do not think your analogy works very well. In fact it works better in support of Perma and eternal ZI, which I assume your against? What we have here are groups of individuals, organizations that are in a constant state of flux. The NPO like any other allaince can and has changed over time. Even if they do not it does not justify handcuffing their ability to be a force in this world. That's what the NPO did, they handcuffed allainces after wars. If you were against that pratice when the NPO did it you should be against it now. I never said karma was not different. In fact I'm going to state right now that so far they have been different. I'm just concerned that the change seen so far will fall prey to the mind set of old once the common goal has been completed. How is keeping the NPO down in fear of reprisal any different then what they did to FAN or some of the other allaince who claim to have been wronged? While I was in IRON I wanted a war. I wanted a challenge. I did not fear losing. I am pleased that war has come and while I didn't enjoy or expect some of the events that have occured overall I'm glad it happened. I would hope that those in Karma do not fear but rather welcome NPO's retaliation. Why hold the NPO or anyone down for that matter just becuase they may challenge you, may defeat you? This concern for safety is what resulted in the current situation. The large bloc's, the harsh terms, the intimidation of allies. It will lead there again someday if unchecked. I hope you are right.

I have no doubt that they do. It is just easier to refer to the group as Karma and not the individual alliances that make up the movement. I totally get the hate that has manifested. My point is that if your against harsh terms that are designed to cripple your opposition for the sake of your security then don't do the same simply because it's justified. In your analogy Mike Tyson (NPO) is going around picking on those weaker then him. If those students rise up to stop him that's fine however if after they defeat him they continue to bully him as he did them then they are advocating what they were opposed to.

That's all I'm really saying about the terms. They will set the new precedent. They will be used to judge Karma alliances by many. That said it's pretty pointless arguing over terms that have yet to be set so I'm going to refrain from commenting on them further in this thread.

I never said they were true threats, but the terms clearly were designed in part to prevent them from becoming a threat. The same would hold true here though. If the NPO loses and agrees to terms there is no guarantee they will become a threat to the allaince/alliances they surrender to. You don't support the side trying to crush you, your allaince (at the time), and your friends but I get what your saying. I think many of us on both sides of the argument want to see change we are just too busy passing out blame and fighting over what that change should be to see it. I do not know what occurs behind closed doors at the NPO but just becuase a member was encouraged doesn't make him better or worse. I am not here defending leadership or even including them.

I never said they were "ok". I am not here defending the NPO. My problem with the punishment part is that I think it's ripe for abuse. For starters just what are they being punished for? Their actions in this war alone or everything they have ever done in the past? If it's the latter then the punishment is going to get out of control and it sets a bad precedent in this new environment. Personally I think the punishment for any war should not extend beyond the events that lead to it. As for the last part I'm with you :jihad:

Sorry, I got caught up in all the replies.

I never said terror nor implied it. I do not believe the NPO was terrified of FAN, GOONS, etc but they were concerned that these alliances could quickly rebuild and attack. Beyond punishment the terms offered were a means to lessening the treat. I'd like to see that mind set abolished.

For starters they are not "My Methods". I am no longer a part of that group and even when I was I didn't agree with every single policy or decision my allaince made (I doubt very few people can honestly say they do). You are correct that Hegemony alliances would not give easy peace terms. I am not here to make a case otherwise. As for the rest of your comment I too hope fair terms are given. I am not against change we just all have different changes we want to see. I am just stating the one I wish to see.

Only a minority of Q members acted badly as well yet complaints abound about them as well. Again this is NOT a complaint. This thread is about the gap between perception and realty and I'm attempting to give you the alternative perception along with what I see as the reality of the situation.

Many of the actions the NPO took were out of fear/concern for their safety. They were overly aggressive/harsh to protect themselves. If the NPO is giving terms based on their likely hood of rising back up and challenging for their former spot then that too would be done out of fear. Personally I'd like to see a world (and I said this before this all occurred or was even a possibility) were everyone is fighting for the top and after a war the enemy is given white peace/light terms so that the cycle can repeat itself.

Again it's perspective. I was a part of Q at the time so obviously I saw things from a different perspective however it gets annoying to see people speak about being better while treating people differently based on their alliance of choice. To clarify I'm not speaking about all of Karma or saying that in general Karma members are bad. That element exists though, just as it does in the opposition and it unfairly alters others perceptions.

I am not saying that white peace is a necessity. The terms will however be a good indication of where we might be headed. If the terms are harsh then this tells me revenge was a big part of it and I'm sorry but if revenge is that much of the equation I'm not too optimistic. If fair terms are offered then I will be more hopeful about the future of this world.