Vhalen
-
Posts
626 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Vhalen
-
-
Let us glance at the peace terms thus far.
*takes a moment*
Hmm. Perhaps someone respects "fighting for your friends" and "honoring treaties," and is letting those groups off the hook easily? Perhaps giving them a chance, now that the gang mentality is weakened, to change their stances in the future.
-
If you had a war every month, though, the quality of my posts would probably start to drop off. Partly because I'd probably develop an ulcer by month 3, and because I'd be ranting about how much you all suck by month 5.
You think it'd take 5 months?
-
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.
Easier, yes, but it leads to all kinds of awkward, untrue assumptions. Heck, referring is fine, but once you begin to stop thinking of the fact that it's really just individual alliances, that's when things get screwy.
And no, I don't think continuing to bully him would be right, but neither do I think it'd be anything remotely resembling sane for them to simply push him down, wag a finger, and say, "Now cut that out!" At this point, I think I'm going to avoid anything further on the analogy, however, as I've noticed they tend to get twisted around for some minor, irrelevant thing that doesn't really apply to the actual situation.
-
No spin, no beans, just curious. It might seem clear to people in Karma who you are, outside Karma we see people in alliances saying there are in Karma and others in the same alliance saying they not in Karma. Just look at how vague some answers have been. Now I know, MK and Gramlins run Karma. Thanks for the help spud.
Look at it this way. We have a "players union" in a pro sport. Which team runs it? Certain players and ex-players step up to handle things logistically or diplomatically, but that doesn't mean the teams they're associated with necessarily control the union. When people tell you to talk to Archon or LiquidMercury (especially when LM says it, which he did, somewhere -- not that I'm going to go back and find the quote), they mean what they say. Those guys are among the active, driving individuals, and if they can't answer your question or resolve your issue, they'll be able to direct you to the right person. Simple, really, once you wade through all the crumbled up papers on the ground contradicting each other.
-
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.
Ah the heart of the matter. The NPO and their allies got a bad reputation in part becuase they were proactive in keeping their allaince safe from potential threats by using harsh terms to cripple the opposition for extended periods. If Karma does the same, gives the NPO harsh terms to ensure they can not be a threat for the foreseeable future then they are doing the very same thing they criticize the NPO for.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.
-
Now that I had a moment longer to think about it, I should reserve the right to have people forward these shipments. I might be able to singlehandedly rebuild some alliances. Maybe I'll get statues and stuff. That might be cool, except for all the posing. Well, maybe it can be a statue of me having a cool refreshing drink and watching some TV. I think I could probably pose for that without too much trouble.
-
OOC: Authors rights don't exist anymore.
(OOC) Yeah, sorry, I didn't realize that had changed.(/OOC)
Ugh...I demand 3 mil in reps from everyone who's posted in this thread since my last post. For aspirin. My aid slots are open.
-
I'd say the Karma "High Command" is almost certainly much like the leadership of the CoaLUEtion was back in GWI - namely, the leaders of a number of closely allied alliances standing side-by-side against a common foe, but still retaining a great deal (possibly TOO much) of autonomy. They're "unified" now, but as the war goes on, I absolutely expect the cracks to start showing between alliances that just want this war to end and those willing to push on for months, between those who simply want to weaken the NPO versus those who want to cripple or kill it, and between those who feel it's appropriate to use the methods of the enemy against it as opposed to those who seek to lead by example.
If Karma IS enough like the CoaLUEtion for events to repeat themselves, we can expect that those differences will eventually lead one alliance or another to eventually pull out, "abandoning" their allies. Then another will follow. Once enough alliances have dropped out, the remaining ones will be forced to either seek peace with the NPO or risk a grinding war. That's absolutely what happened in GWI - the people who wanted the NPO broken were left swinging in the wind by allies who were content with what had already been done - and were forced to end hostilities long before they otherwise would have.
Given how fast the Hegemony side has been slipping away, the question might better be whether some of the Karma alliances' leaving will even matter to the end of hostilities. I mean, right now half of Karma could leave and they'd still have numerical advantage, if my references are right.
In fact, I suspect that's absolutely what the NPO is currently waiting for. They're waiting for enemy morale to drop, and trying to work on those cracks as much as possible, to accelerate the process. Then, when Karma falls apart, they can potentially angle for peace, then use the resources they conserved in peace mode to quickly rebuild. I also suspect that, much like GWI, they'd absolutely keep a list of which alliances sided with them in this war and which ones didn't, and use those notes to draw up future hit-lists. If they can hold out long enough for the relative factionalization of the enemy to end the war, they'll have more in reserve to use to rebuild. If they can guilt Karma with enough talk of "IF YOU GIVE HARSH REPS AND TERMS, YOU'RE JUST LIKE US!", they can get better terms, and rebuild faster.They've done a fine job of building up morale on the other side, over the past few years. I wonder how many weeks it'll take for it to fall. I do hope we see more posts like this, though. Well reasoned, well written, and bringing up exactly what people need to see. Hit-lists, you say? Just the sort of thing needed to hold things together another week...another two weeks...another month?
In short, the NPO is being just as strategic as they always are, and they've ALWAYS been better at learning from the past than anyone else in CN.It certainly took them a while to notice all their best PR guys were jumping ship, no matter how extravagantly they left. Strange, you'd think that would've been a red flag of some sort.
Edit:
I've always found it interesting how Mary seemed to enjoy near-universal respect and acclaim when she was a mod and a GPA member, but she's lost nearly all of that reputation with everyone outside of the NPO and their close allies. Which leads one to wonder, what changed? Was it how she presented herself? How others saw her? Or did she come to represent something which others hated, her own rep not being enough to overcome that?You know, I don't know anything about Mary. Never spoken to her, never met her. I guess congrats. Who knows, maybe she'll be in charge soon. The current Emperor seems to have screwed the pooch pretty phenominally. Certainly can't do much worse.
-
This whole thing sounds like kind of a mixup/cluster****. Tell you what. Once you're clear of repercussions (I expect it won't be long), if you need help rebuilding, feel free to contact me.
-
I suppose it is kind of crazy to think that people here could actually accommodate even then simplest of standards. I'm sorry to say that I have to agree with Ivan.
Color me confused, because I could've sworn his comments were more on the "(OOC)RL doesn't really matter, clearly different rules are applied here" side of things, which, from what I've been able to see here, was kind of opposite you.
Though, to be honest, I never saw much of a big deal in this whole topic, so I don't know why I keep posting. Maybe I should just go to sleep.
-
Wow. An alliance dedicated to peace? lol. Doublespeak at its finest.
I believe this is a statement were both sides are currently in agreement, actually.
-
For the hundredth time. We're fine with the final outcome. If we thought otherwise we wouldn't have signed and would've gladly taken ourselves to oblivion if proper terms weren't reached. We're stupidly stubborn that way.
However the general rule does apply that any thread that goes beyond say 3 pages has degenerated into something generally not worth viewing by anyone besides those goulishly interested in viewing carwrecks. There is a lot of goading and mistatement of peripheral issues (and no side is immune from it) that invites comment but no worthwhile good can come of it. Dead worn out thread needs to die.
It's probably be a blessing for everyone if MyWorld asked for a lock.
-
The moment anything less than white peace was given to an alliance that highground began to crumble a little bit. Every subsequent instance that the highground is not maintained will lead to a further slide. Good or bad, right or wrong, it doesn't matter so much the judgement as the simple fact that ammunition is being provided to demonstrate inconsistency and unfairness which will color the memory of this war. The NPO was willing to accept the mantle of being The Imperialistic Society to Keep the Little Man Down - the "Karma" alliances might just have to be willing to shoulder the same to acheive their ends.
Anyone who thought such a massive war with so many participants was going to end in white peace for everyone is living in a fantasy world, so I'm forced to take whatever such a person says with a grain of salt. As to the moral high ground and "Keeping the little man down," that's more of a long-term issue. I doubt Karma will be ongoing for too long after this war, so I don't think it's an issue, but for those of you who do (or pretend to), keep in mind what this war has proven: If you keep the little man down long enough, he'll pull the rug out from under your feet.
-
The political ramifications of such an attempted action notwithstanding, "Karma" can *want* NPO to disband all they want, much in the same way people *wanted* GOONS, FAN, \m/ or whatever to disband but that isn't going to make it happen.
Making it happen wasn't the issue. Your argument seems to extend naturally to where it supports the attempt/demands. I kind of doubt you do, so I was pointing out the awkwardness in presenting such a face in the discussion.
-
I'm not denigrating, ok I'm but I support what Karma is doing and what they want I just don't agree with the reason/excuse or the "banner" they are using.
I think people just need to get over the name "Karma" and realize it's not a factual representation, based on dictionary definitions. I suspect NPO has nations not geographically located on the Pacific, too. Heck, I think we could spend quite a while pointing out dictionary definition inaccuracies in alliances and blocs, and it'd accomplish about as much as this last page or so. It might be a fun game, actually, but I don't think it's quite on topic for this thread.
-
Every nation has the unfettered ability to be on whichever trading sphere they choose or under whichever alliance affiliation they choose. The New Pacific Order's Moldavi Doctrine does not change that. However, preventing another red-based alliance from existing is not a violation of any right that exists and under no rational analysis could it be considered "wrong".
So, as an extension of this, preventing any alliance from existing is not a violation of any right, and therefore not wrong. Thus, should Karma want NPO to disband, it's perfectly acceptable behavior? (Not advocating this, by the way, just find it amusing that this argument naturally seems to flow that way.)
-
Well looks like the OP was deleted of all real content, so what happened here? Something about everyone who is against the NPO failing?
Let's just say you've seen everything worth reading.
-
Oh come now, son. Don't make generalizations... The Emperor fights at the front, as always.
Well, he sort of has to. It'd be far more embarrassing if he were on this list too, wouldn't it?
-
Oh noez! We're evil. Tech deals in place of reparations? Oh man, that's so much worse than wonder decoms and insane tech reparations. Man, Karma really is worse than the Hegemony.
I distinctly remember Gramlins being hailed for this instead of the more standard "just give us tech" reps most other alliances had, in the War of the Coalition. Interesting, hmm?
-
When you turn it down the first time you don't get the same offer a second time.
Well, if they turned down a pure offer (I won't claim knowledge), then I can't say it's too surprising the next one, with the war growing more unbalanced, wouldn't be quite as good.
2500 isn't really anything, honestly. The lower-NS nations (just the ones with under 100 tech) ought to be able to churn through that in just about one aid cycle. So that's what, 4 aid cycles for 4 alliances?
On the other hand, I notice no military decom requirements at all. I'm not going to bother checking what kind of nukes/navies/etc SSSW18 has, but that's something.
-
Precisely. This is the case with all of the peace declarations so far. Some of them may have erroneously used the term "white peace". That is all. They came to a formal agreement that a state of war no longer existed between their alliances- call the agreement whatever you want, that's peace.
Frankly, I'm opposed to the use of words at all, in formal context. We should just draw pictures. Grub probably still has some crayons left over from the last war.
-
Well, white peace is really just the shorthand term people are using to describe the recent peace agreements. I don't think that the official wordings of these actually used the term. So, people mistakenly using the term are wrong, but your argument doesn't really affect the official status of the alliances involved.
edit: Strike that, I just read some of them- the term is indeed used in the announcements. Well don't I feel silly.
In any case, it's really just a matter of people misusing the term- I don't think it affects their status, as all parties have recognized a cessation of hostilities. In most cases, the surrendering party is specified, and in all of them they defeated alliance is required to remain neutral for the remainder of the war. So, victors have been defined, and terms handed out. I don't see any problem beyond the misuse of a term.
One could argue that since the term is generally understood to mean what they're talking about, then in this sphere (OOC: CyberNations) it has an additional definition. It happens all the times with words, after all. Do you think "ball" meant "pitch outside the strike zone" before baseball? This is all a silly semantic issue that has no real bearing on anything.
-
You really do sound almost NPO like in these statements. You people are becoming like that which you detest. You give up your moral positions so quickly.
You are attempting to use the ideal of Karma to cover up true intentions of vengeance. There is no assured next war if the forces of Karma do not impose insanely high reparations upon NPO. Everyone now knows how NPO tries to move diplomatically. It will not happen again as it has before. They will now have to take a more equalized position within the world.
As far as a cap on TNS? You do realize how similiar that is to the NPO policy of viceroyalty or even their perpetual wars? You are wishing to maintain control over NPO indefinately. You have just attempted to repackage it in a manner that you think people will find acceptable. You do that and you become the Hegemony.
First off, I disagree with this proposal. However, I feel that this moral outrage to basically every term suggested is ridiculous. Is it immoral to defend yourself? Look, people, some kind of terms will be enforced at the end of this. I doubt they'll be draconian, but I'd be shocked if it's "disband military and get white peace" either. Planet Bob cried out, "Enough" and there needs to be an exclamation point.
Edit: HeinousOne, I'm not specifically targeting you with the "moral outrage" comment. It's just a common theme, and I decided to address it here.
-
What happens next? Utopian dreams of a multi-polar world where alliances act against their own self-interests for the entertainment of passing OWF-dwellers proves unfounded. Vladimir is hailed as a great prophet for his ability to state the obvious in the face of overwhelming odds.
As opposed to a uni-polar world where one alliance acts against basically everyone else's self-interest? Sounds like an improvement, chaos or not. And if I know your doubletalk, you'll be hailing yourself as a prophet (though that's not at all the proper word for what you described) regardless of what happens, because actual facts have always seemed largely irrelevant to your arguments.
You have some bad misconceptions about the way blocs develop -- alliances create them for their own interests, and contrary to popular belief don't sit in the corner doing what one mega-evil alliance in the middle tells them to.You also see self-interest in a very sectarian way -- self-interest doesn't mean doing exactly what you want all the time, it means taking the important aspects of it and uniting with as large a force as possible to advance it (rather than sitting in aforesaid corner alone pining that if only people would listen!). You also assume, in spite of history, that multiple antagonistic blocs can exist long term, stemming from the assumptions that: all will be of the same size and remain that way indefinitely; all will act strictly independently regardless of their best strategic option (ie. uniting to take out a mutual enemy); after wars each will magically return to the default, rather than the shift in power and a tendency towards unipolarity (if 3 friendly blocs take our a 4th and then cooperate peacefully, is this not unipolarity? Is this not what we had for the past years?). And so forth.
You can see more in depth thoughts about multi-polarity in my responses in this thread.
I think blocs develop for multiple reasons. You want to group everything together and say "their own interests," but that's kind of obvious. I doubt there are many who join a bloc specifically to screw themselves over, after all. Friendship/good relations, common interests/goals, and so forth are good reasons, and while they bind the signatories more tightly, they don't necessarily do so with a hegemonic goal. "Because if we don't get in line, the bully will eventually target us" is not. "Because if we don't join this one too, it'll work against us," is paranoia. Obviously, people are more than willing to opt out once they want to work against you, so "bloc as security" is a fiction. A bloc has to have something more to it than cold, calculating self-interest, because the participants are people with emotions, and eventually pure logic isn't enough to hold them together. (Also, what Sponge said about the alliance and the bloc is quite valid. It's similar to the nation to alliance relationship, to a point. What you're getting has to be worth what you're giving up. How much security is worth being a foot soldier for someone whose policies you don't agree with?)
See, Vlad, you go around saying "we're in all these blocs for self-interest," but you don't actually look around you while you're writing. At some point, being decent people and recognizing that you're part of a larger community was more in NPO's self-interest than bullying others. In that regard, Pacifican leadership collectively failed even by their own standards. By pursuing a neverending chain of offensive wars, often for minor or trumped up issues, just because you could, you actively worked against your own interests. I feel bad for you that you can't seem to grasp this, but you brought it on yourselves. Consider it a lesson in Francoism, from Bob at large. NPO would do better with new leadership who are capable of learning this lesson.
As to the second paragraph, you automatically assume that multiple groups have to either be at each other's throats or in bed with each other. There ARE different levels between those, though I expect NPO political thinking says otherwise.
And thanks for the link, but I have better things to do than go back and reread your redefinings and doubletalk.
Heck, I have better things to do than post this, but I've already written it.
This Week in Pacifica
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
It also means nobody can get so big that they can't be attacked. (OOC) I grant you, this is more liable to be an issue in TE than here, but still holds true.(/OOC)
Seems to me plenty of people are already having bad days, then.