A Missive from Karma

[Electron Sponge]

Has any alliance in history ever forced another to endure a loss of over 40 bill and 140k tech as stipulation of peace terms?

Yes because the first terms offered are always a sweetheart deal!

Has anyone here ever heard of something called "negotiation"?

[Lord Emares]

No one is replacing anyone. That's kind of the thing. Everyone is so used to the paradigm of having a unilateral power you can't imagine a multi-polar world. Well, you're gonna get one pretty soon.

I for one look forward to Bob full of anarchy and treaty web simplification. New overlords will arise in time as nature abhors a vaccum. But until then, its blissful chaos.

I can actually. What we have here though is an example of a large group of alliances displacing another large group of alliances from the top spot. The fact that they are acting in exactly the same manner as those who they ridicule and belittle points to them having the desire to be a replacement. Your new overlords as you call them are already here, should they choose to continue along the path they have set themselves down.

[R&R-Viking]

IF they had come out and said "We will treat the NPO as they have treated others" then yes I can accept your point. [/b]?

The name Karma in and of itself makes the goal pretty evident.

[Lord Emares]

Surrender talks already? Far too soon. Make them sweat it out as they have always done to others. Averaging their war lengths including FAN I'd say the war should last roughly 6 months or so. Probably more really.

but then you run into that stickly hypocrisy thing. Keeping an alliance at war for so long could easily be considered draconian terms, no?

Yes because the first terms offered are always a sweetheart deal!

Has anyone here ever heard of something called "negotiation"?

[21:01] <Zhadum> I was under the impression this was a good faith peace negotiation, nor a dictation of terms of surrender. Was I mistaken?

[21:01] <@Roquentin|Umbrella> I believe Archon made it clear what this was prior to the meeting.

[21:01] <@Archon> You would be mistaken, then. I made it clear to Moo-cows that, to end a war, one must surrender.

Yes cause that sounds like a negotiation alright. Yeah, give people a 1 minute window to accept a imposing of terms sure sounds like negotiating!

[Anarcho Jesse]

Has any alliance in history ever forced another to endure a loss of over 40 bill and 140k tech as stipulation of peace terms?

This has inspired some curiosity in me.

Does anyone have the statistics relating to how much fiscal and technological damage the NPO has had a hand in? Does anyone have the concrete figures as to how much money was lost by the alliances that went up against them?

Because I'm almost willing to bet that in the three years of CN's existence, they have inflicted just as much damage total as is being done now.

[Verithmus]

I love all the posts in here of People BAWWing for NPO.

When THEY curb-stomp someone, It's "Sad, but Necessary."

But when their Jack-boots are ripped off and placed at their throats, It suddenly becomes "Disgraceful."

[Micheal Malone]

Yes because the first terms offered are always a sweetheart deal!

Has anyone here ever heard of something called "negotiation"?

I think it would be prudent of Lord Emares to quantify the losses FAN has suffered in their struggles. Perhaps he might need to borrow a few more abacuses for that though. Got any lying around?

[Lord Emares]

The name Karma in and of itself makes the goal pretty evident.

Nope it doesn't as Karma is generally percevied as a passive force in the universe seeking to bring balance. But this, on the other hand, does:

We will not sink into a smear war with them. Their sins are long, and they are known to us all. We will fight this war with no joy, and we will fight it with honor and dignity. We will not impose draconian terms, but we will not tolerate such underhanded tactics being employed against us. Our haste was unbecoming, and it was shameful, but our hand was forced. I hope that the population of Planet Bob will understand this, and forgive us our malfeasance.

[Matthew Conrad]

Thanks for your clarification. Sorry if I came off harshly in my words to you and I appreciate your patient response. I have many friends in the NPO and I don't feel they were dealt very good hands. If I were in charge, I would punish the leadership of the NPO as they seem to have made the harshest mistakes here. Also, I do find it sad that the patience offered TORN was so wildly different than what was not offered to NPO.

Anyways go in peace friend..

Sir, I believe you have spoken some of the truest words of this war. I believe this conflict has its roots very much in NPO's leadership and rather than the general membership. My personal opinion is a possible forced resignation of certain government offices.

[Gn0xious Jr]

we're very pleased to be with you Archon!

o/ Karma

o/ change!

[Wargarden]

I can actually. What we have here though is an example of a large group of alliances displacing another large group of alliances from the top spot. The fact that they are acting in exactly the same manner as those who they ridicule and belittle points to them having the desire to be a replacement. Your new overlords as you call them are already here, should they choose to continue along the path they have set themselves down.

You're simply refering to justice being an eye-for-an-eye. This says nothing of what happens afterword. Your caught up in what's going on right now.

If you're so sure, then of all the Karma alliances, who's the new global despot? Do you see anyone linked into the treaty web like NPO was through 1V and the Q? I sure don't. Thats why I'm saying your judging a post war world on how negotiations are going after only one round of negotiations.

What I'm getting at is there is no "top spot", as you said, to be had. That group of alliances you refer to had a center piece as the NPO. No such globaly dominant alliance is at the center of the other group. Your shifting your points back and forth from a specific defense of NPO getting terms they should, to saying that these terms offered show us vision of the future ruled by some gaggle of power hungry alliances. Its not the same thing and using on to link to the other is non-sequiter. It doesn't follow from harsh terms = new global despot.

[Lord Emares]

This has inspired some curiosity in me.

Does anyone have the statistics relating to how much fiscal and technological damage the NPO has had a hand in? Does anyone have the concrete figures as to how much money was lost by the alliances that went up against them?

Because I'm almost willing to bet that in the three years of CN's existence, they have inflicted just as much damage total as is being done now.

Did they inflict it on any single alliance as part of peace terms? I'm not talking about damage done by warfare here, I'm talking about damage done by peace/surrender terms.

I love all the posts in here of People BAWWing for NPO.

When THEY curb-stomp someone, It's "Sad, but Necessary."

But when their Jack-boots are ripped off and placed at their throats, It suddenly becomes "Disgraceful."

Not BAWWing for anyone, merely pointing out some inconsitancies between what KARMA claims to be and what it actually is. If an alliance or grouping of alliances can't be truthful when claiming the moral high ground as KARMa have done, how can they be expected to be any different than the ones who they are replacing?

I'd also like you to find where I have ever said "Sad, but Necessary" ever. Pretty please.

I think it would be prudent of Lord Emares to quantify the losses FAN has suffered in their struggles. Perhaps he might need to borrow a few more abacuses for that though. Got any lying around?

Find the accurate stats of FAN nations how FAN nations have fared throughout the conflict, all FAN nations mind you, spies and rerolls included and I'm sure I could do the maths once my college exams are over.

[RandomInterrupt]

but then you run into that stickly hypocrisy thing. Keeping an alliance at war for so long could easily be considered draconian terms, no?

Yeah, I'm pretty okay with that. I am not in Vox Populi or a part of this Karma deal. I am just one player. I feel that surrender terms should fit the nature of the alliance and their crimes. In this case we have an alliance that has treated literally every other member of this world as their pawns. They have never cared one ounce about anyone outside the halls of the NPO. So were I in charge of surrender terms, which luckily I am not, I can tell you that I'd pull out my old NPO surrender term text book and start paging through.

No one deserves overly draconian surrender terms save the NPO and I hope I am not alone in that sentiment.

[WilliamDean]

Has any alliance in history ever forced another to endure a loss of over 40 bill and 140k tech as stipulation of peace terms?

In terms of leniency, "40 bil + 140k tech" is far better than the terms FAN have been and continue to be offered from NPO or what GOLD got and they would be free of terms more quickly than GPA's ban on nukes or the 9 months in which GATO suffered a viceroy.

Karma.

Edited April 22, 2009 by WilliamDean

[tolkheleknar]

The 12% of the alliance who were in peace mode were already there before those talks start. I mentioned I was monitoring the NPO AA for a number of days didn't I? Next time get your facts straight.

So what you're saying is that 88% of the people who jumped into peace mode did so after the talks started? Next time, get your words straight.

I'm sorry but forcing an alliance to lose somewhere in the region of 40 Bill and 140k tech is draconian by my standards. Whether or not the NPO has done terrible things in the past. That does not give you the right to do terrible things to them while at the same time saying you are not doing those terrible things. Get off your high horse and stop being a hypocryte.

Where on earth are you pulling these numbers from, son?

From those logs it looks like they were willing to accept quite a bit actually.

Have you ever actually seen logs of NPO giving out terms to other alliances? By their own standards, NPO was given more than a fair shake and were quite obtuse about even that.

IF they had come out and said "We will treat the NPO as they have treated others" then yes I can accept your point. Since they did not and they specifically said they would not be imposing draconian terms then I cannot accept your point. By their actions they are as bad as those they are replacing.

Go find a dictionary and look up "karma".

In some cases a lot of these alliances aren't too much better than NPO and the Coward Coalition. This is unfortunate, but ultimately I would like to think that most of us consider 'Karma' to be the lesser evil to a great extent. I would like to imagine a world where there is no further hegemony, and instead alliances can just exist to grow independently without fear of an aggressive hyperpower to destroy them.

On the other hand, many of the alliances in Karma have shown that they act in good faith and fairness when they are dealing with alliances that can be given the benefit of the doubt. I think it should be fairly obvious that NPO has removed all question from all but the most biased observer's mind as to whether or not this is the case for them.

[Electron Sponge]

No one deserves overly draconian surrender terms save the NPO and I hope I am not alone in that sentiment.

You aren't alone. I have heard the exact same thing from a LOT of people.

[Anarcho Jesse]

Did they inflict it on any single alliance as part of peace terms? I'm not talking about damage done by warfare here, I'm talking about damage done by peace/surrender terms.

I'm talking about ALL fiscal costs. You seem to make some arbitrary distinction between wartime costs and peace costs, but you wouldn't have the latter without the former (and the NPO is great at doing what they do-- making it look like alliances that stand no chance are somehow threatening to them, which isn't really avoidance of war).

[SkonesMickLoud]

I honestly don't see how them asking for clarification of particular terms is stalling. From the reading of those logs they were asking for two things before they agreed to everything:

1. How much would they need to pay, ballpark figure I imagine would do.

2. How would violaters of the terms be dealt with?

Point #2 was moot, as the granting of terms relied on NPO's acceptance of term #1. I don't know how quick you are with a calculator, but I find it hard to believe that a specific, or even close-to-ballpark figure could have been calculated in such a short time. Alternatively, had NPO so desired, they could have calculated the ballpark themselves. As you later state however, NPO has a massive amount of income and can more than afford the reps of damage done to a 50 some-odd member alliance.

So far that means the total loss to the NPO before reps just due to these terms alone is in the region of 40 BILLION and 140000 tech. This completely flies in the face of Delta's statement

You're assuming A LOT with these calculations. Comparing your "estimate" of the tech economy within NPO with their current amount of tech (I'm going by what the alliance info screen shows as of this post, not at the time of the negotiations, as I don't have that info), which by the way is roughly 1,029,678, shows that the NPO as an alliance has only been purchasing tech internally, with no external deals, and no tech recieved as part of reps, for about 13.75 months. So it would seem that your calculations aren't even close to correct, and NPO would stand to "lose" much much less than you have estimated as a result of not being able to deal tech.

I should also point out that, as requested by NPO, the moratorium on tech deals would not last the entire 60 days, but only as long as the reps due to OV were outstanding. As I mentioned before, the reps due would be a paltry sum for an alliance with an economy the size of NPO. Odds are very good that they could knock the reps out with one 10-day aid cycle.

[Lord Emares]

You're simply refering to justice being an eye-for-an-eye. This says nothing of what happens afterword. Your caught up in what's going on right now.

Thats because the actions of those in KARMA are a good indicator of what actions they would be inclined to take in the future.

If you're so sure, then of all the Karma alliances, who's the new global despot? Do you see anyone linked into the treaty web like NPO was through 1V and the Q? I sure don't. Thats why I'm saying your judging a post war world on how negotiations are going after only one round of negotiations.

As you mentioned in your own paragraph. The hegemonic power of the NPO came from the fact that it was treatied to many other powerful alliances. In the case of this conflict OV seem to be well connected enough that they have half the known world with a valid treaty link into the conflict. They and anyone connected directly to them are easy candidates for the role of hegemon leader. The hegemon is the grouping of alliances, not a single alliance who has masses of treaties.

What I'm getting at is there is no "top spot", as you said, to be had. That group of alliances you refer to had a center piece as the NPO. No such globaly dominant alliance is at the center of the other group. Your shifting your points back and forth from a specific defense of NPO getting terms they should, to saying that these terms offered show us vision of the future ruled by some gaggle of power hungry alliances. Its not the same thing and using on to link to the other is non-sequiter. It doesn't follow from harsh terms = new global despot.

No single alliance in the past was "the global despot", merely portrayed to be. The power came from the grouping of alliances with similar purpose ideals and goals.

[Wing Chun Stunna]

Good point Sponge. I think that we are going to learn a lot about the character of the alliances fighting (or not fighting, as the case may be for many ) this time around.

I think another big point here as that NPO should not be allowed to re-emerge after this war as a world super power anymore. It was a job that should have been finished in the GWI and never happened and since than look what they have done to many great alliances and nations around the globe. Their tyranny should last no longer, and if this means crushing them with some of the same tactics they have used in the past, than so be it.

I really just hope the people involved in Karma can stand strong and really bring about the change here that is necessary for the safety of this planet.

[tolkheleknar]

Thats because the actions of those in KARMA are a good indicator of what actions they would be inclined to take in the future.

Absolutely correct. I can't speak for everyone, but the actions of my alliance have always been to give an alliance a fair deal, given the severity what they've done. Take UBD for example. If you want to argue about the severity of NPO's past actions, then by all means, please let's.

[Matthew Conrad]

Nope it doesn't as Karma is generally percevied as a passive force in the universe seeking to bring balance. But this, on the other hand, does:

Karma in itself means balance as you have said. Apparently 1-0=0? No, what you're describing is a more benevolent force than one of justice. Karma claims to be what it is, bring balance to the world. At its very essence, it is an eye for an eye. Either way, I imagine NPO will get off easier than they deserve for how much grief they've brought to Bob.

[Darvel]

This has inspired some curiosity in me.

Does anyone have the statistics relating to how much fiscal and technological damage the NPO has had a hand in? Does anyone have the concrete figures as to how much money was lost by the alliances that went up against them?

Because I'm almost willing to bet that in the three years of CN's existence, they have inflicted just as much damage total as is being done now.

Destroying 1k of infra belonging to a nation of 12k would cost about 300mil to rebuild.

I have little difficulty believing that NPO have done this 1000 times. This is before considering tech, military (with my first nation, I spent my 110mil warchest quite quickly. Of course, some GOONS burned through 450mil warchests, in line with inflation this is well over 1bn these days), nations deleted, income lost through collecting in anarchy and peace mode, the price of guerilla camp swapping, and the payment of reps.

If we were trying to calculate reps in terms of unnecessary damage NPO has inflicted, we would surely be well into the trillions.

[jstep]

Destroying 1k of infra belonging to a nation of 12k would cost about 300mil to rebuild.

I have little difficulty believing that NPO have done this 1000 times. This is before considering tech, military (with my first nation, I spent my 110mil warchest quite quickly. Of course, some GOONS burned through 450mil warchests, in line with inflation this is well over 1bn these days), nations deleted, income lost through collecting in anarchy and peace mode, the price of guerilla camp swapping, and the payment of reps.

If we were trying to calculate reps in terms of unnecessary damage NPO has inflicted, we would surely be well into the trillions.

no price can be put on disbandment

That being said I don't think such a great piece of the history of the game should be forced into disbandment. Fight hard, bring justice, but in the end an eye for an eye only leaves everyone blind

[Kenix700]

Finally!! I have waited so long for this to happen!