Lonely

I’m not deliberately spreading misinformation; to deliberately claim, incorrectly, that VE is in SuperFriends on these forums is beyond stupidity. With regard to proof: aside from providing you with logs of my conversation with my friend, which I’m afraid is quite impossible, I merely advise you to analyse the treaty web and see where everyone would fall. Rarely do alliances do things for no reason, this case is no different.

I clarified this with my contact and apparently you are correct. Nevertheless, my point still stands. VE’s interests largely overlap with those of SuperFriends. [OOC] Forgive me, I have not played Cyber Nations in some time. [OOC]

Viridia are part of SuperFriends. If their interests didn’t overlap with those of SuperFriends, they wouldn’t be part of the bloc.

SuperFriends wants a shot at CDT. They saw an opportunity recently when Sethb tried to coup Ordo Verde, and Zenergy (a former GUN member) counter-couped. Viridia threw their support behind Sethb (surprise, surprise) and that tussle didn't last long. Zenergy went back to GUN. Today, Viridia played Ordo Verde into trying to use his efforts to stop the coup as a casus belli for war with GUN, because GUN were harbouring him. Furthermore, Viridia didn't like the negotiations that took place about this entire affair and tried to prevent Ordo Verde from accepting any proposed agreements.

I do not understand where in my post I stated that I did not believe in democracy in real life, such was certainly not my intent. If you could specify what you mean, I will clarify. Perhaps democracy (in real life) does have its flaws. It’s actually an entirely useless, !@#$ty government system. But it’s also the best government system in the history of the world. The communists may debate that communism is better than representative democracy and capitalism, but the reality is that communism does not work, and hence every communist regime that has arisen thus far has been associated with mass murder, re-education camps for those brave enough to dissent, and so forth. But I digress. This thread is about democracy in a Cyber Nations context.

Democracy can be an effective form of government, if the alliance is elitist. Otherwise, experienced and active members who understand how the game works and know about alliance politics have the same voting rights as a totally new player. This simply means that the alliance will not function as effectively, because it relies on the opinions of those who are not qualified to provide opinions on anything pertaining to this game. When I have debated this with people previously, a common rebuttal is ‘but democracy works fine in real life!’ and indeed, I believe that in real life, democracy is the best form of government. This is not because I believe that democracy is the most efficient government system – indeed, a country governed by a voting body of intellectuals might actually function better than a proper democracy representative of the people of an entire nation – but because what the majority of people want, they get, regardless of whether it is best for them. In Cyber Nations, things simply don’t work like that. An alliance is designed for maximum efficiency, and if the members don’t like the decisions of their rulers, they can go elsewhere. It’s not about what the majority of the members want, but what is best for the alliance, in the eyes of the people who are most qualified to decide on what is best for it.

I must second this. However, it might be more difficult now he's actually stated that Pacifica lost (see my thread for details.) Well, actually, thinking about it..... he could probably prove it anyway. I mean, he's Vladimir.

You stated before the war came to a close that short of a miracle, Pacifica would lose. I did not see you personally state that Pacifica had been defeated, after the war concluded. Of course, you have now, so that is not an issue. [OOC] Your post is screenshotted and added to favourites for future reference. [/OOC] Yes, I am that cynical. I would debate this further, but it is hardly the time or place. Please do not misinterpret my question as indicative of immense desire to see Pacifica fall.

Of course. But the majority of them opposed Pacifica on ethical grounds, especially prior to the war.

I like Sir Paul’s writing. Provides a break from the monotony of the forums at times. Oh, but history’s not about what really happened, it’s about how perception of events can be manipulated to the benefit of various alliances. Whoever cared about reality?

My intention originally was to incite debate in this thread and then withdraw to observe the reactions, but I’ve decided a few comments deserve my attention. Rather than debate my own qualifications for disclose on this subject, I will simply direct you to Bob Janova, who has stated his opinions in this thread. However, what I will say is that after Karma’s ethics started to waver, there were indeed disputes over how Karma’s opponents should have been treated, especially towards the end of the war. The counter-evidence I provided, as you actually stated in your post, were the anti-EZI campaigns. I wouldn’t dream of simply saying: open your eyes. Or perhaps I would, but I didn’t in this instance. Also, I find your request that I provide you with a document which Karma signed regarding ethics to be unnecessary. Ethics don’t need to be official to unify anything. Out of interest, Vladimir, do you personally acknowledge Pacifica’s defeat in this war, according to your own understanding of what defeat is?

I almost choked on my coffee. Hilarious. Boy, if you keep throwing your non-existent weight around, it’ll simply come back to bite you in the end. Karma’s a !@#$%*, you know?

WorldConqueror, I suppose I can respect that viewpoint in that you take pride in the actions of your alliance… but I believe the actions of your alliance are abhorrent. Therefore, you’re either a bad person or you’re merely badly mistaken. The latter is curable. I would be happy to speak with you on IRC.

I suppose you'd have to give it time, Francesca. I'm not claiming it will be easy for Pacifica to gain credibility.

I can’t say I ever expected this. However, before we commence mindless hails for Pacifica’s supposed reform, simply put I would like to state that Pacifica is extremely concerned with their public relations currently because they are not in power anymore and cannot afford to continue to be hated. Instead, they must bow to the wishes of the wider community and act in a way that will garner them support. Hence, the new Emperor , the merciful, the benevolent Comrade Chuckles, and this business with the red senate. This doesn’t indicate a change in heart but merely a difference in modus operandi. That having been said, I’ve always believed in second chances and if evidence arises that Pacifica are really reforming, then my opinions are malleable to change. King Death, your attempts to draw attention to your completely irrelevant and unimportant alliance in a thread that mentions you nowhere are completely pathetic. But then, I don’t think we could expect more of such an incompetent and immature alliance leader.

Well, Doitzel has spoken for himself, I don’t feel I need to comment further. You know little about me and nothing about my history. Therefore, I don’t think you should come to conclusions about how much information I have had available from friends in Karma, or even conclude that I didn’t have access to Karma boards myself. Furthermore, to claim that you are correct about a topic merely because you know more about it is a classic example of argument from authority, which is simply incorrect. I stand by what I said before, which is that ethics were fundamental to Karma and the rise of Karma. For evidence of this, read the Cyber Nations Forums for the few months prior to the Karma War, read WarriorConcept’s or Jerdge’s anti-EZI campaign... just open your eyes.

I’m afraid I’m going out now, and will unfortunately be unable to respond to your posts until my return. Back in a few hours, not to worry.

What you’re missing here is that people weren’t dissatisfied with the cancellations on Polar because Polar were their friends or allies, or even because they agreed with what Electron Sponge had done previously (his log dump had horribly backfired in terms of PR) but out of disappointment that a great war did not occur. Therefore, the political stances of various modern blocs to Polar are rather irrelevant. Creating the idea of a conflict against the hegemony could be considered an ideal in itself, I suppose. However, even if it were not, much of what Vox preached did revolve around ethics. It had to. I’ve cited Caffine of Echelon already as a forced removal from government... Delta has called me out on that one, so I will research the matter and comment further later in this thread. However, your point is noted, many hegemony alliances did receive lenient terms, which I noted in my essay already. Yes, TPF and Echelon may have simply been paying back what they took from the War of the Coalition, but that doesn’t make Karma’s actions consistent with their ethics. Should Karma base what it does on the ethical standards of its enemies? Stuff relating to the casus belli, and who was the aggressor in the conflict, seems to me to be completely irrelevant. The tensions were extremely high prior to the discovery that Sethb had spied and war could have broken out half a dozen different ways (for example, the DE crisis.) Therefore, justification for NPO’s harsh terms on the basis that they were the aggressor seems like complete rubbish to me.

Delta, I never claimed that Karma held one motivation. Rather, I provided a multitude of different reasons for it, which I have explored in reasonable depth, bearing in mind that I must restrict my essay for the sake of brevity. It’s such a frustrating constraint but otherwise nobody would read it. I would dispute your claim that Vox Populi were a widely popular movement, particularly at first. Towards the end, they had succeeded in their objectives and decided to disband while they were still popular. As far as Vox’s work taking time to bear fruit is concerned, that is only to be expected given the odds they were up against. I don’t see how they worked against their own cause, and furthermore I think you forget that many of Vox’s founders participated in Manic Monday and thus would have quit Cyber Nations anyway, had they not decided to embark upon a suicide mission and attack Pacifica. I should also mention that without their famous names Vox might never have got underway or been so successful in terms of recruitment and thus the decision of people like Electron Sponge to join was necessarily (and he was no longer the Emperor of Polaris anyway.) They were a much more well-known movement than Blackstone because they were quite open about their identities and took part in a long-term military conflict with Pacifica, which Blackstone failed to do. The majority of Karma wasn’t fighting for an ethical code? And people say Vladimir is the revisionist here? If this isn’t completely obvious by now I won’t bother to argue it further, but if you want evidence of what Karma stood for, just read the CNF for the last few months. I think your claims that if NPO were left intact the war would not be won are incorrect, for NPO had already taken a beatdown and had lost several hundred members and the vast majority of its nation strength. With regards to Caffine, I was unaware of that Finally, I never stated that there was one, Karma motivation for doing this. Part of the reason I’ve remained open to different viewpoints on Karma is that they probably have different beliefs and viewpoints on Pacifica and its actions. Therefore I fail to see how my viewpoint is simplistic or one-dimensional.

Vladimir, I concur that the world tends to alternate between hegemony and bi-polarity, but I believe this can be avoided. Whether or not such a situation is desirable is another matter, and one which I will not broach here. Typically hegemony arises as the result of a large-scale war, in which the losing side is annihilated. However, if Karma ethics prevail and take hold in this community, I believe this can be avoided as the losing side will not be entirely destroyed and will thus provide some competition for the victor. If I’m completely honest, I think such a situation is unlikely, but one cannot deny it is a possibility. I didn’t quite state that in the absence of ethics other reasons for a war would have been found, rather than in the event that Karma did not believe in their own ethics and propaganda (which I have yet to come to a definite conclusion on) that it seems likely ethics were used as a tool in the creation of the war. I stated that there were several causes for the war, and that ethics rated amongst them, but considered the possibility that there were other motivations originally, and that ethics were a propaganda tool which were to become a cause for the war in themselves. I do not see how this is flawed logic. There is also the possibility that Karma genuinely believed in their ethics and thus ethics were indeed an original cause for the split between Karma and the hegemony. You also stated that many Karma alliances stood by you for months while your ethics (or lack of them) were immoral in their eyes. I think that this is irrelevant, because it took some time for such alliances to get bored as a result of policies like EZI, and for them to perceive the game to have stagnated. Thus, the change in their ethics (provided, of course, that they believed in said ethics. This is a weak point in my argument, because I have not decided on what my position is.) Furthermore, many Karma alliances were never your friends (see Mushroom Kingdom.) I don’t understand your statements involving the War of the Coalition, because it did not turn into a war which involved Pacifica. Obviously you are aware of this, so perhaps I’ve misunderstood your comments. Or do you refer to the Karma War when you speak of the great war against Pacifica? If so, there’s nothing circular about my arguments, because I’m speaking about two entirely different wars. In the next paragraph relating to the War of the Coalition, you talked about how if those people who were dissatisfied with Polar’s cancellations were dissatisfied because of the failure to create a Great War, that they could have attacked beforehand and thus my points are invalid. To this I respond that the people to whom I refer were not alliance leaders or people of importance, and thus did not have the authority to attack whom they pleased. I refer rather to the community at large. I would also counter that many people play Cyber Nations for the wars and to claim that they wouldn’t be disappointed at a large scale war is a tall story. Always a pleasure to debate with you.

If Karma believed in their own ethics, it would seem likely they allowed their decision to give Pacifica harsh terms by their other motivations for the war, namely their hatred of the Order, bitterness over Polar (my comments on which you failed to address, by the way) and other such causes for the war which I stated in my essay. If you adopt the cynical Pacifican position and wonder why ethics would arise if Karma didn’t believe in them – why, I already outlined reasons for such in my essay, albeit merely a few for the sake of brevity. I stated that ‘ethics set Karma apart from Pacifica and motivated people to join their cause’ and ‘ethics were used to attack the New Pacific Order and her allies and thus incite the masses towards them, and to unify their otherwise divided coalition for the purposes of destroying a common enemy.’ Incorrect, if the ethics had not been real there were all sorts of other reasons that the war would have broken out which I outlined in my essay and ethics could be considered a tool of Karma leadership. I would also ask on what basis you deny that ideas have any influence on the progression of the world, for you have not provided evidence of this. Here I would claim that you, not me, are the one constrained by fallacious premises. See what I stated above. I actually agree with you on this, hence, in my final paragraph, I called for people to consider attempting to prevent another hegemony from occurring. Perhaps such is impossible, but when have little barriers like that ever stopped mankind? Correct, the effects of something do not drive it, but they may snowball and influence future events. There is not necessarily a cause and effect relationship between Karma's change in political position and when they wavered in their ethics, but if you can provide convincing evidence of this I'm perfectly willing to adopt your viewpoint. I've read it.

From a purely intellectual perspective, the Karma War was a fascinating time. Just as in real life, in the Cyberverse particular ideas and philosophies become dominant at different periods throughout history. These do not arise randomly, rather, they are interconnected, flowing naturally from dominant idea to dominant idea. Thus, upon reflection, it is possible to determine the causal factors of events like the Karma War. It is more difficult to determine the future, because discrepancies arise due to the actions of particular individuals who tilt the boat, but estimates can be made. So what did lead to the New Pacific Order’s defeat in the Karma War? Can we draw conclusions about the results of Karma’s actions? For a moment, let us recall that moment in history in which the War of the Coalition took place, for it was perhaps at this time that Pacifica’s downfall began. Pacifica was at the height of its power. It was and remains to this day the most hated and feared alliance in the Cyberverse. There was widespread boredom in the community and frustration with the War of the Coalition’s failure to escalate, due to the cancellations of Polar’s allies. This lead to resentment of those alliances who cancelled their treaties with Polar, and the cancellations came to be viewed as cowardice. It must be noted that not only Pacifica, but some of Pacifica’s closest allies, were involved in cancelling on Polaris, further inciting hatred of Pacifica and accusations that Pacifica had orchestrated Polar’s destruction. It was in this context that revolution occurred. Pacifica often called them irrelevant, but Vox Populi were quite the opposite. It is true that their power was not in military force. Following the War of the Coalition however, due to the treaty web and sheer statistics of Pacifica and her allies, there were none capable of the military destruction of the hegemony, in any event. Instead, Vox played an entirely different role in the downfall of Pacifica. Perhaps Londo described this best in the late thread, ‘The August Revolution’, by Schattenmann: “Just as we in Karma fought a physical battle that you could not, so did you fight a battle for the hearts and minds of the Planet that we could not, for to speak out openly and forthrightly was at one time suicidal. We may have seldom spoken, but we were both warriors of karma, which has brought about the current state of things.” – Londo Mollari, from ‘The August Revolution’ by Schattenmann. Vox Populi’s war on Pacifica was in essence a symbolic conflict. Perhaps at a different moment in history such could be dismissed as unimportant. However, in this instance, to come to that conclusion would be a mistake. Prior to Vox’s formation, despair was rampant in the community, to the extent that events like Manic Monday occurred. In this context, symbolism was precisely what was needed to re-enervate the masses and prevent Cyber Nations from dying. The seizure of a red senate seat, which, traditionally, was the heart of Pacifican territory, proved to the world that Pacifica was not invincible. Vox’s successes also included the attainment of over two hundred members, TOP’s sanction in their temporary transferral to their alliance affiliation, and the sheer act of survival despite Pacifica’s best efforts to exterminate them. Thus, they were not merely a rallying point for enemies of Pacifica who would have their nations reduced to piles of rubble, but a symbol of hope for the Polar allies and sympathisers who were to become the forerunners of Karma. Over the time that followed, Karma slowly became more distinct as a coalition. It was composed of alliances who were opposed to Pacifica, at first due to dissatisfaction with Pacifica’s perceived betrayal of Polaris but increasingly due to a variance in ethics with Pacifica. This movement towards a new ethics system arose for several reasons, the most important of which was that ethics set Karma apart from Pacifica and motivated people to join their cause. It could otherwise be perceived merely as the rise of a new bloc who would simply replace the old one. But to state that Karma merely used ethics for their own devices is perhaps an overly-cynical viewpoint on the affair. In my opinion, many in both Vox Populi and Karma honestly believed in Karma ethics and the hope for a new world. Karma’s leadership promoted the rise of the new ethics and it seems unlikely that nobody would believe in their propaganda. It is also important to remember that Pacifica’s policies, like EZI and harsh surrender terms, were perceived to have made Cyber Nations stagnate. This was because they totally eradicated Pacifica’s opposition and opportunities for conflict to arise in the political situation. This would have played a role in peoples’ viewpoint on such policies. However, whether you take the cynical or optimistic viewpoint, the benefits of ethics in the rise of Karma cannot be denied. They had a critical role in its development. Ethics were used to attack the New Pacific Order and her allies and thus incite the masses towards them, and to unify their otherwise divided coalition for the purposes of destroying a common enemy. This last point is perhaps of most importance, for had they been unable to work with one another effectively, it seems likely that Pacifica would have triumphed in the war. But this was not the only reason that Karma’s ethics were important. The problem was that Karma came to be perceived to waver in its ethics. For example, in itself, the expulsion of Caffine from Echelon government is not immoral – indeed, little really is – but this action undermined Karma’s credibility because they had opposed the New Pacific Order on such grounds. It is true that Karma was lenient to its opponents at first – for example, MCXA was required to pay barely a tenth of its tech and the last portion was waived anyway – but alliances like Echelon, TPF and especially Pacifica received very harsh terms. This also contradicted the spirit of Karma and the hopes for the dawn of a new era, which had been a powerful influence on the community prior to the Karma War, were shaken. What influence will this have on the future? Such is difficult to say, for the future is yet unwritten. From what I have observed thus far, however, many people have become cynical and ceased to believe in Karma ethics, or even ethics period. Therefore, I think that in the event that a new hegemony arises and a Vox-esque revolution occurs once more, that support for such a revolution will be more difficult to muster because people cease to hope for a new world. However, ultimately what the future holds is our decision. Will we allow Karma’s failures to dictate our dreams and aspirations? When the time comes, will we be prepared to fight for what we believe, if merely for the sake of it? Will we allow a new hegemony to form, or will we do everything in our power to prevent it? Do not allow yourselves to be conquered by apathy. In the words of a greater man, let us seize the day, this is our time. For if not now, when?