[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

I support NSO's stance (surprised?) that we went to war to help our friends, and after peace was acquired, did not seek to punish those who we went to war against, because their motives were the same.

Anyone who wants to impose harsh terms and/or demonize the opposition aside from the obligatory propaganda [ooc]needs to study the Treaty of Versailles and its effects[/ooc]

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

Is it? Maybe one could say those that left the path did so to pay off their debts? But yeah, war isn't always fair.

Sorry.

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

According to that little announcement that IRON was part of, IRON is not backing NPO in this war but instead they are backing Q. That would be the legal definition of what you are doing as you dropped your individual treaty with NPO too. You are fighting in defense of Q not NPO, right? Or was all that merely propaganda which is now conveniently tossed aside as you wish to gain some leverage in this discussion by saying you are fighting for NPO while others wont?

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.

[Justice For Traitors]

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

And we took the 2nd most damage for that tacit approval and we honored our treaties. There are many who fight in your side as "KARMA MEMBERS" who gave as much tacit approval as us, didnt get a scratch, chose to run out of treaties when odds were tough or simply ignore them. Please, this line has been used several times. We have paid the price for the tacit approval or perhaps not approval, but silence and also honored the treaties of our blocs. We have nothing to prove to anyone. Last time under our direct capacity, we waived off the reparations, after that it has been mostly Bloc politics. And we enter this fight on Bloc treaties.

^^^

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.

[War's Aftermath: Color Team Protection]

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

I started this thread not as anti or pro Propaganda as some people have accused me of, they just entered the thread, missed the point, blindly accused of this and that and thats it. I am saddened that the discussion took another turn and went back to the same NPO vs Rest of the world. It is a foregone conclusion IMO that NPO will be getting the terms. How can this be propaganda if I ask people on Hegemony side to judge Karma based on what its leaders are saying and not what every Tom, Dick, Harry and their Grand mothers post, which in many cases even contradicts the stance of their own leaders. Infact if anything, this is something that Karma should have attempted to clarify on its own behalf instead of wondering why the hell is everyone talking about white peace or this or that all of a sudden.

What can I say, the thread has completely gone off-topic. I ask people to not have their visions blurred of each other purely based on blind hatred. Some people it seems simply cant accept objective opinion coming from other side, it may not be completely objective due to perhaps inherent biases but my attempt was to truly find out and judge Karma objectively. They are some how convinced there is hidden agenda, or that I somehow represent a secret Hegemony PR organisation regardless of anything else. It just re-enforces my point that people are judging each other on whatever they can find on *OWF*.

Thread has gone completely off the track, I give this effort up, what can I say, so continue whatever you guys were doing.

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

That is a bald-faced lie. I fought many wars for NPO, helped orchestrate them, helped build these blocs and I can tell you it never was and never is about "safety" or any of that bull they spew in public. It is about dominance. They want to be #1 and they want to stay there and everyone and everything else can burn for all they care. That needs to stop. They need to be taught that they are not invincible or all-powerful and how to play nice with others. They need to experience just a fraction of the suffering that they have put other communities through. They need to feel the burn again because the last time they did they forgot the lesson all too quickly -- they got right back up and started the same pattern of behaviour right over again.

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.

For practicality's sake I don't think they deserve to ever be given a chance. But I am not a purely practical person, I act on more than just pure self-interest: that is for the NPO to do. So yes, let them get back up. I just hope we're all prepared for that inevitability because they will again start dividing us and conquering us with many little pawns spewing their same old rhetoric of "safety" and "security".

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

No. If they break terms, we punish them with a war, teach them a lesson, and then let them go. There is absolutely no justification for what NPO has done to FAN. Well there is, but it's a very !@#$%* one. Eternal war is not our way. In fact, it's one of the big things that's led to this day.

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.)

Think of it this way. We're taking away their bullets for a bit. They're free to keep the gun and even get a few more. Then we'll give them back their ammo assuming they don't try to break the terms of our agreement (aka surrender terms). We're not neutering them. We may make it so they can't just resign every treaty and have their allies rebuild them and kill us all right after we fracture.

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

Authur, two things:

1. You seem to have a double standard going.

You want Karma to:

Yet you seem to be excusing the NPO's actions saying:

You criticize Karma saying:

But you say of the NPO and its allies:

Choose one side or the other. Either it is ok for an alliance or group of alliances to oppress others in order to ensure their own safety, or it isn't. I hate double standards and I feel you are better than having to resort to them.

2. Karma is doing exactly what you are asking.

You want Karma to:

Well what do you think is going on right now? This is the "fight back where you must" part.

You keep saying that you're afraid that Karma will hold the NPO down. To that I simply ask you to look around at all the NPO's allies who have gotten white peace in this war. All but one of them have!

To me you aren't experiencing a justified fear, you're experiencing unjustified paranoia. The facts so far point to Karma being a much gentler force when it comes to surrender terms. What makes you think that is going to suddenly change when it comes time for the NPO to surrender? The only thing that Karma is trying to do is:

So to sum up. Drop the double standards, and rely on the facts of this war, not what you're afraid Karma might do once the war is finished.

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

No, it supports using measures to keep a threat in check. PZI and EZI does not really do that, it just drains your resources fighting useless wars against weakened opposition. My analogy was designed to show that white peace with the NPO would be signing Karma's death warrant. What needs to happen is once the NPO is militarily weakened that it then needs to be politically weakened and there are means to do that that do not require viceroys or PZI. You seem to interpret peace terms as quantum leaps, white peace or EZI with nothing in between.

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.

The NPO hasn't changed at all, the just became more determined to stamp out opposition after GWI. Coincidentally, their light peace terms back then did nothing other than give them a solid launching pad for the future endeavors. The other difference is that the NPO is an aggressor, not a victim. You seem to be apply moral equivalence to a defensive group and the aggressor.

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.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. You just have no evidence to support that opinion.

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)

Fear of reprisal? Where did you get that from? Karma will not exist after this war is over, it is up to the citizens of the Cyberverse whether they wish to protect the new freedoms this war will give them or not.

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.

Because not doing so would make the changes we have fought to make meaningless. Refer to my earlier analogy.

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.

No, the continued aggression towards and oppression of alliances by the NPO and their cohorts is what created the groundswell of resentment and the demand for change. It has taken years for enough people to step up and take a stand to change that. And here you are asking them all to hand the NPO back their gun when it is done so they can come back quickly and undo all the changes made. I realize it is in your best interests to get the world back to what it was where you could lord over other alliances but it is not Karma's job to facilitate that for you.

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

No it isn't.

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?

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

While your utopian vision is wonderful, the fact is that the current Hegemony is going to be full of vengeance and if they were to ever win a war in future it is almost certain that they would not allow those that they beat to get off lightly. Thus there is a balance to be struck between pure principle, and actually getting the hegemony out of the way to a sufficient extent that the stage is clear for a new and happier political landscape.

Terms offered to the core Hegemony alliances in this war will in a sense not be the first glimpse of that new world, but instead the last gasp of the old – although even having said all that, it is almost certain that such terms will be kinder than those issued by the Hegemony in the past.

I recognise that Hegemony (or in your case ex-Hegemony) members see it as in their interests to emphasise the NPO case, and the other core alliances still at war, but you can already see the difference between the old and new worlds in the very light or non-existent terms given to peripheral alliances already.

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?

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

Only one person answered my questions. How odd, considering this thread was opened to close the gap between perception and reality and my questions were designed to ram home the reality of Karma's situation.

You didn't answer the question. In your opinion, does the NPO deserve white peace? There is little point sending a message if it results in you being killed. If a man breaks into your house regularly for years and robs you, then one day tries the same except this time you have a group of friends around who overpower him and take his gun. He promises he won't do it again if you let him go so you decide to be the bigger man and hand back his gun and tell him to be onhis way. He walks to the door and leaves. The next day you are at home watching TV and basking in your benevolence and the man returns, shoots you, steals your TV and burns your house to the ground. How does that gesture of good will resonate now?

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.

They used harsh terms to cripple allied of alleged threats who only went to war via treaties. The difference is that Karma is targeting the core alliances that lead to this situation for terms to weaken them politically rather than anyone and everyone who was dragged into the war. That means Karma is different to the NPO, you just choose to ignore the obviousness of it.

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.

Nothing wrong with a challenge. There is something wrong with suicide, however. You make the assumption that keeping the NPO in check in the future is not going to be a challenge. I'm sure somewhere down the line the NPO will spring back both politically and militarily. I guess Karma's hope is that this is delayed as much as possible and that in the meantime the citizens of the Cyberverse appreciate life free from the jackboot of the NPO and will rally to subdue them again if that happens.

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.

Change. Sure, some people are enjoying the revenge aspect but the motivation of Karma is change.

I hope you are right.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

You know, I think it might be wise to point out, at this juncture, that Karma is far from a single-voiced entity, and there are ~9,500 nations at war with the Hegemony at the current time, so it's just maybe possible that opinions may vary a tiny bit.

And then the "potential opposition." Let's be honest, it's like if Mike Tyson, at the top of his game (not the court jester Tyson we've grown so used to lately -- incidentally, feel free to enjoy any applicable parallels in that regard too) finished off or hired all his opponents, then, since he still wanted to punch someone, cruised by the local junior high school and started pounding students who were doing a little sparring. I'm not surprised the locals are outraged.

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

That is where we have to separate ourselves from them. We need to know where to draw the line. Should they punished for their past actions? Yes to some degree they should be but only enough to know that they had gone too far. But we have to know where to stop. Most of the terms are simple military terms that one should expect from any brutal and devastating war. Once again, where this is concerned we can't go too far. Reps can't be too high, no rerolls...the rest gets a bit more iffy so I don't know where to draw the line there. When the time to surrender comes I will judge for myself. If I think my leaders did live up to what I hoped, I will depart. They know this, though I seriously doubt my approval and presence will mean too terribly much in terms of their decision.

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

This crushing other alliances to protect themselves thing just won't fly in most cases. Take GATO 1V war for instance. Holding GATO's government captive for nearly a year was about stopping GATO from rising up and challenging them? No. Thats completely false. GATO was working hard to restore and rebuild relations with everyone before its last war started. I think you'll find the same thing was true of many of the alliances the NPO attacked. They were never trying to be a threat, and were only crushed because they might be a potential threat. Far far too often the NPO went on the offensive to put down potential, not actual, threats.

If you want to see your world or something close to it succeed you would be supporting Karma. While I highly doubt we'll ever see white peace so often again, I do think that something much closer to your idea of light reps will be promoted.

Members of the NPO and its allies were often encouraged to act poorly towards the alliances they were at war with. Members of Karma are encourage to act with respect and dignity towards the alliance they are at war with. Sure only a minority of both sides may have acted up, but the reasons they acted up are just as important if not more so.

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

That makes them okay? They unleashed incredibly harsh terms on everyone and their mother just for the sake of making sure they would NEVER be a threat again (which ironicly created more enemies than it removed).

Our moves aren't out of fear. I don't fear NPO's return. I've faced the worse they can do and I'm still standing. They can come and try it again, they'll win or they'll lose but I'll still be here and we'll do this all over again.

I do, however, want to punish them for their actions. I don't want to simply destroy them and cripple them with reps for the sake of removing an enemy, frankly I want them to come back eventually as a threat or maybe (if by some miracle they learn the lesson we're trying to teach now) an ally someday. However, that does not mean they should get white peace. I believe in white peace only to an extent. In a foe that has acted as they have and who has shown the ability to recover as rapidly and completely as they have you have to put some sort of terms on it. The difference, I hope, is that we will know where to draw the line. They never have.

And I want to put them at a point where after the war the world is more or less balanced, divided, whatever. I want competition, I want fighting and chaos. I want the world to be interesting.

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:

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

I was not commenting in response to your posts, I hadn't read them. I commenting based on the OP.

Sorry, I got caught up in all the replies.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

"Fear" in the sense of "concern," not in the sense of "terror." It's all well and good to languish in defeat in order to stand for your ideals, but it's far better to ensure them.

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

Our methods are different than yours. Look at the peace so far. I can almost guarantee you that Hegemony alliances would never give such easy terms to any but the smallest alliances (and given how they treated TDSM8 not even then).

We will NOT force people to reroll or quit, we will not force you to disband. We may devastate your alliance. We may impose reps upon you. That is fair, that is war. We will not force you to cripple your alliance just to pay them, and we won't violate the above terms. If any alliance I am allied to tries I will be disappointed and I hope my government takes action against it. If my government or the government of any CnG alliance pushes or signs such terms I have told them explicitly that I will leave for somebody I see as more honorable or just than they.

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

If most of Karma is acting better than what you're used to and its only a small minority acting bad then you don't have much of a complaint.

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

Thats a load of baloney. Actions, not fears, are what caused this, specifically the NPO's overly aggressive and harsh actions. While saying that we need to stop letting our fear dictate our actions sounds good it don't mean a darn thing.

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

I've seen very little of what you are talking about. Are you sure you aren't just blowing a few random comments out of proportion? Has every member of Karma been a perfect saint? Of course not. Has Karma as a whole acted better than what usually passes for discourse around here? I think so.

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.

[The Gap between Perception and reallity.]

If Karma was some sort of white peace for everyone movement you'd be right. It isn't. Change has already come. Many alliances have outright abolished their use of P/E ZI, alliances on the losing side of a major war are being given the most lenient terms we've seen in a very long time, and those guilty of a very long history of atrocities against the world are finally seeing the consequences of their actions.

The only way Karma fails is if the peace terms given out are unreasonable, or if they don't fit an alliance's crimes. So far that hasn't happened.

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.