Harold the Saxon

This thread has, as many stated, gone on for too long (and is definitely the longest thread I've ever seen develop in such a small time on this forum or the old one). I will make one last post before trying to stop clogging it with more messages. When it comes down to it, my posts earlier questioning the sanction of justice of these actions reflected a completely different perception of what is right than what most Karma members - or correct me if I am wrong - believe. Such a disagreement isn't going to change nor would I ask it to. The point of the comments was to suggest that the universality of a choice should be applicable to all similar situations and parties who would commit to such acts. The issue I see is that if this is justice to all of the Karma Coalition, that is, a heavy, heavy punishment. I asked, earlier, from a member of Karma what his argument/conception of justice was. I was put on his ignore list and handed verbal dribble about how I am just a fool. That is fine - people have the right to decide who they will and will not listen to. Moreover, such a response really makes me wonder. I will state one more time, for the record, that the justification of an action cannot simply lay on this situational revenge if (and I stress the if) the hope is to removal the stain of what has been done by them. The NPO is not good nor would I support this. The NPO is not morally justified and deserves to be punished - this I have never denied. While such a punishment, for most of its terms, is appropriate, if this strong version of justice is taken as what is right, then I am worried in the future that the standard we set (or as the NPO has set) will only be continued and become worse. I understand it is not Karma's job or plan to be morally correct or worry about what others may think. I don't pretend I am changing anything about the situation by stating my thoughts as such. But the amount of trolling in this thread, in fact, the amount of instant hatred at any opposing opinion is both very discouraging and simply unkind. If there is one thing I have disliked about this entire 210 page affair, it is only the ad hominem attacks that one can find littered everywhere. These attacks have had little to do with substances of arguments and more with simply denouncing people as retarded (though, to be fair, both sides are probably equally guilty). These attacks, combined with the nature of how the terms are being dealt really makes me worry that nothing is really changing in cybernations. Again, I understand Karma never promised nor has an obligation to do so. I am only asking that we consider the kind of world we create by continuing these actions. I guess, in the myopic vision we seem to possess, the thought of the NPO gone (or very weak) seems too good to simply ignore. I know, when we just focus on this thought alone, that we hunger and want to do it right away with no delay. I, like all of you, have been angry before at this and have wanted revenge. Moreover, please think about what all of this means, in the long-run, and to what extent and purposes you wish the outcome to serve.

1. One does not ask a prisoner, after being incarcerated, to allow himself to take routine beatings for two weeks. 2. When one offers terms such as a 2-week war campaign to debilitate their financial and member stability whilst paying substantial reparations, I see a problem.

It is not meant to spell out a complete process to a resolution. It was meant to address the current problem with offering contradictory terms in terms of a rights-based argument. Also, your post reflects that you, or so I think, agree with what my post has said, only that it lacks the formerly mentioned process. I concur that process would be difficult to conduct. At the very least, I feel that the first thing that would need to be down is agree to a certain set of rules, by both sides, involving how terms will be laid out. Firstly, the terms would not have to be in breech of the ability of any alliance to remain a sovereign entity. It must only ask an alliance to pay indemnities which force it to bear sufficient burden to pay for the costs of this war, and some additional force past transgressions, but never in a way which would be so extreme as to prevent repayment or seriously hinder the alliance's ability to survive or maintain its sovereignty during the repayment. Finally, such terms must never demand an alliance continue allowing its regular nations, who have committed no war crimes but being regular members, to forcefully allow themselves to be attacked and looted.

Are you ignorant or just stuffing words down my throat? I told you that whilst it is fine to decry the NPO for its past mistakes it is WRONG to do the same things we have condemned to them based on a principle that justice is best served by shacklement. When I say 'no one deserves to be murdered for the sake of killing', I am telling you this: Will doing to the NPO as we have found it evil for doing to others bring back those whom it destroyed? Will it make the wrongs they did right? Will we be any better them for committing to such actions? The answer: no. You called this just and ethical. I call it cold-blooded revenge for the sake of revenge. I call it killing for the sake of killing, and it will bring you no pleasure and peace to conduct such a campaign in this manner. Don't you see that you are solving murder by instigating murder? What is just about this proposition? I don't see it. If you wish to ignore me, then go ahead. You can put your fingers in your ears and pretend my arguments do not exist. I at least listen to what others have to say, especially when it is reasonable.

No one deserves to be murdered for the sake of killing.

I fail to see how shackling is ethical. I don't consider slavery right, regardless of how many times you scream at me they are evil. The NPO can rebuild? That is not the topic I presented in my post. I stated that restriction of an alliance's right to sovereignty; restriction of its right to freedom and self-conduct, especially with such a measure as a two-week campaign of self-destructive warfare, is hardly just. They do not deserve to be chained like animals. Is not justice receiving what one has deserved?

I have already gotten around your problem. Do you have an answer? Explain to me what exactly your form of 'justice' is and how it is ethical. I argue it is not.

This post exactly reflects my thoughts, only using a different argument (which is definitely more than valid). I concur entirely. Good post. The problem with these terms lays not in the demanding of reparations nor the laying of guilt. I simply feel that the conflict between reparations and this unprecedented 14-day war period is simply not only completely uneconomical but also unethical. Ask an alliance for money, tech, land, infrastructure, hell, ask them for videos of them singing 'Never Gonna Give You Up'. But don't ask an alliance to commit suicide to earn peace.

This is truly an example of a completely faulty argument. Not only are your premises false (1) that all this was said on IRC, 2) that IRC can be counterproductive (in this fashion), and 3) that most Karma nations want a better list of terms for the NPO) but so is your conclusion (that negotiators should 'listen' to their nations and grant white peace). In fact, even if all of your premises were correct, your conclusion wouldn't even follow (if anything, it would only suggest that some nations want leaner terms on Pacifica, which amounts to nothing). Can you please rephrase this so it doesn't fail? Thank you.

I am restating this since I feel it is relevant and a different analysis from other points of view. Thank you for your time:

Yes, and since I don't want it to die, I am restating it. Hopefully people won't hate on me too much for double-posting. The Mods may do as they see fit (hallowed by thy name, Mod).

For a second, I thought you were going to quote my entire post! Woo. Thank goodness. I think just making them pay the reparations would suffice, but I also realise I have no say in the matter and do not represent any of the members of Karma. As such, all my opinions are merely my own analysis. But yes, I do agree.

Hello. I am going to ask all of you a really big favour. You probably won't like this nor will you agree, but my favour is ask that you read all the way through and decide for yourselves, as objectively as possible, how you feel about my analysis. Universality. A ethical standard held by rights-based theorists that a moral law should be universal in application: each person must be held to the standards we would choose for ourselves. A quicker reference would be 'do unto others as you would have done unto you.' I am not one for always carrying every OOC characteristic into a game. As such, I try to create a different character as much as possible. Moreover, I feel some ideals are worth striving for in a separate, virtual world. One of them is basic concept of rights - the right to life, property, and liberty. That is, that each individual and alliance should should be protected in their own existence, to that which they have made, and to their ability to exist without external interference in their acts of freedom. I am one who always believes in a good trial, or, in this case, a due process of law and objectivity. I am one who believes in innocence always before guilt, and decision always before punishment. I am one who believes not in the justice of the lynching mob, but in the justice of a world we wish to envision; the world we will want to create for ourselves. You may hate the Pacific Order. You may despise every single attribute, action, and player amongst them, if you will. What I ask is not that you change your mind, only that you give them due process. Treat them as you would wish to be treated in their condition and subject them only to terms which are both reasonable (as in non-contradictory) and just (as in terms properly earned by their actions). In the terms of what is just, it is easy to see the main Karma argument for a serious punishment of the NPO. Not only do I understand completely, but I also concur. The manner in which Pacifica has played this game, from my ethical standpoint, is very much in contradiction of what I have just told you. In fact, I am a player who has been wiped out before due to such actions. My goal is not to prove to you that the NPO is good and deserves no punishment, rather, that, even if they are evil to a degree, that justice is not served by total, unrequited revenge. Why is this? As much wrong as they may have done and players they have made furious (and boy, I know many of them. There have been conspiracies running against Pacifica for over two years now, in my recollection) Pacifica still has these fundamental rights of freedom, property, and life. Justice, no matter how severe, should not serve as a means to enslave and shackle these people - they are active, regular players like you or I and not savage animals who deserve to be chained. Give them huge reparations demands and give them regular surrender terms: decomission of missiles, destruction of wonders, reduced armies, and other restrictions but none that inhibit their ability to exist as a sovereign entity. Non-contradictory terms are an essential to the rights-based formation of Pacifica's surrender. When I say non-contradictory, I suggest terms that are sensible in their demands in that they are both possible and reachable. Karma has not properly followed this thought. For while it is fine to demand a large amount of reparations for war indemnities, another demand, if not preventing the reparations, seriously harms this ability. I am speaking about the 2-week free war campaign on Pacifica nations. You may name it as you please. I see it as simply a way to beatdown nations for more before surrender terms can take effect. It is one thing to demand exorbitant reparations, but another, completely contradictory measure, to demand that an alliance sign itself to annihilation before such a thing can occur. Even a thief, as low as he may be, and perhaps as the NPO has acted, would not attempt to pretend to you what they do is ethically correct. Not only is this term a major case of coercion - the use of force to compel a party to give-in - but economically unsound. Certainly, any leader can ascertain that, if both of these terms come into effect, there will be problems. Regardless of how well the NPO economic position is, and it is probably not stellar at this moment, the last thing you want during your repayment is 6 wars filling your slots, draining your resources. Regardless of how well off your nation is, you're going to bleed money, technology, land, and infrastructure like a serious case of hemophilia. This term has never been demanded, in my memory, to any alliance. Not in this nature. Its clear intention is to, at the very least, make Pacifica's position untenable and difficult. This is not wrong on its own. Why it is wrong, as we track back, is universality. Imagine you are a regular soldier in the NPO ranks, fighting a war to desparately save your nation from this apocalypse. Surely, you don't want to fight forever, but you don't want to lose your power to grow and maintain your existence. Then, you are offered terms which may make this impossible. I admit, in the past, other alliances have been offered these kinds of terms (and may they rest in peace, such as NAAC, NoR, NoV, LUE, ONOS, et al). Would you not be inclined to be suspicious and wish to preserve yourself; would you not feel you deserve punishment but not that any nation deserves enslavement or any form of permanent-ZI? My rights-based approach suggests that the reasonable limits of any form of revenge borders where complete removal of unfair advantage or retribution for wrongs done meets the inability to live, function, or own a nation at all. Surely your goal is not to send every NPO nation to ZI nor to force them to quit the game (or maybe even leave the NPO, if they choose) or prevent the NPO from being an alliance which can conduct its own affairs. Your goal is to punish the NPO severely enough to prevent it from committing to the unjust acts it has perpetrated in the past and will do so in the future. Let us not be the ones who tar and feather the man or pull the guillotine on the King before we decide if our actions are morally correct. If we do this to the NPO - that is, subject them to these harsh and debilitating terms - with a clearly malicious intent (which, right or wrong, is Karma's goal) what kind of world will we create? What kind of standard do we set? Are we properly considering alternatives or are we merely playing follow the leader until NPO goes to hell with head in a handbasket? TL; DR: I think, in conclusion, that these terms are severe because of the introduction of the 2-week war period following surrender. I concur that it would be just to demand heavy reparations of the NPO to atone for misdeeds against enemies both past and present. However, I do not agree to terms which clearly handicap any alliance from carrying out not only its regular functions but very existence itself. Though the NPO has a history of doing just that, I believe that a better political state would involve us standing up to a due process of law involving an objective analysis of our actions, and not just a blind, emotional revenge, leaving us politically fragmented and angry. If we treat the NPO, in its wrongful steps, as we would wished to be treated in their position, it is plain to see that punishment is necessary, but total destruction is not morally correct. Cut the forced war term and make them pay the reparations in full. A better world, if we strive to create one for ourselves, will not be made in the ashes of aggression, blood, and antagonism - the seeds which have sown the beast's own destruction. Likewise, Karma, if it knows its true name at all, should appreciate the value of justice with reasonable limits; revenge but not total annihilation; war but only to preserve peace; preservation of life as opposed to temptation of pulling the trigger.

I'll just toe the 'death to the NPO!' line right here for the sake of not sticking my nose out against the lynching mob. Death to the NPO! Am I doing it right?

I know a lot of people weren't from the time of Mpol's excellent posting, but I assure you he is one funny wolf. Definitely don't want to end up on the bad side of his cleverness. I laugh because my first thought is of the name of his anti-NPO blog during the VietFAN called 'Hookers and Blow Repress'.