A Missive from Karma

[Lord Emares]

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.

Well I'm not. If someone preaches honor, dignity and a lack of draconian terms then they should follow through with their stated intentions.

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 would be payed off in far less time than the 11 months in which GATO suffered a viceroy.

Really. Have you done the calculations? Or is that a guesstimate based on no hard facts.

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.

Read what I said again. 12% of the people in the alliance were in peace mode before the talks started. 88% of the people were not and still are not. Next time learn to read.

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

The formulae for in game income that my alliance has reverse engineered.

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.

Once again:

The stated intentions of KARMA =/= the actions of the NPO in the past. Just because one has done terrible things in the past does not mean that the other is entitled to do terrible things now.

Go find a dictionary and look up "karma".

kar⋅ma

   /ˈkɑrmə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kahr-muh] Show IPA

–noun

1. Hinduism, Buddhism. action, seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or in a reincarnation: in Hinduism one of the means of reaching Brahman. Compare bhakti (def. 1), jnana.

2. Theosophy. the cosmic principle according to which each person is rewarded or punished in one incarnation according to that person's deeds in the previous incarnation.

3. fate; destiny.

4. the good or bad emanations felt to be generated by someone or something.

Did and it agress with what I said.

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.

Actions of those alliances in the logs posted today do not show a group of alliances sticking to their stated ideals.

[Wargarden]

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

Pure speculation. They could as easily let NPO off with white peace and still turn into this monster you're afraid of. Or they could as easily force NPO to disband, or worse, and be a beneficent entity.

Or they could treat NPO however and just be some alliances.

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.

Again assumtion that there is some sort of leader position in this new possible hegemon. It obviously was the NPO conerning the last, but I see no direct evidence to indicate that there will be one in this new possible group. Like I said, I see a future free of hegemony, for awhile at least.

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.

And that similar ideal and goal was to centralize power over spheres of influence. The leadership position was not defacto granted but a planned course of exerting influence over as wide a reach as they could. Obviously these ideas and goals weren't the foundational force linking these alliances as most just bolted as soon as the leader piosition came under undefensible attack. The central power was the linch pin, not the ideals....unless the ideal is "bolt when things get heavy" and the goals are to "protect your interests at all costs." Too me that wreaks of the old hegemon beiong based around a central power firgure whose usefulness ended to them when it made a fatal mistake.

Man I hate reaosning with apologists.

[Lord Emares]

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).

Wartime costs aren't imposed on one alliance by another, war time costs are determined by how well (or not) one side fights against the other. Surrender costs are distinct from this in that they are dictated from one side to another with no regard to the actual cost of the war, as can be seen from the fact it would cost ~40Bill & 140k tech.

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.

Myself and my alliance have reverse engineered the income formula from the game. So much so that I could probably simulate your nation from CN now and get an accurate reprentation of how much you would be collecting (minus event income which I wouldn't be able to see). PM me a nation link and when I get back from giving a grind that I'm about to go out to I'll give it a shot.

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.

You are assuming in your estimation that in 13.75 months the NPO has not been in any major nuclear wars (hello MK war) and that their levels of low level nations has remained constant during that 13.75 months.

Yes I have some assumtions in my calculations but they are based on good practice not necessarily best practice and that only half of the NPO's nations capable of tech dealing actually tech deal.

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.

You have a direct quote from the logs on that, as I didn't see any indication of that when I was reading them. I saw them asking for that, but no acceptance of it.

DOUBLE POST DUE TO: You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text

[Ogaden]

Their ideals have suddenly become inconvenient.

[Darvel]

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

You could say that, or you could judge that overall NPO has been a malign influence on CN over the years. I would contest that disbandment is not a universally negative phenomenon. Disbandment as a result of the powers-that-be getting bored and curbstomping on trumped-up charges has removed any element of daring and, dare I say, fun from the politics of CN. In contrast, the formation of a coalition against NPO for example would always carry inherent risks.

This is a brave move and should it lead to the death of an alliance, a cogent argument could be made that this is an overall positive outcome.

[twodivine]

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

How about doing the calculations on FAN or Vox on how long some of their nations have been in peace mode to the loss of income. So don't go crying about NPO's losses when other alliances have or are facing the same losses if not more.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Myworld

[jstep]

You could say that, or you could judge that overall NPO has been a malign influence on CN over the years. I would contest that disbandment is not a universally negative phenomenon. Disbandment as a result of the powers-that-be getting bored and curbstomping on trumped-up charges has removed any element of daring and, dare I say, fun from the politics of CN. In contrast, the formation of a coalition against NPO for example would always carry inherent risks.

This is a brave move and should it lead to the death of an alliance, a cogent argument could be made that this is an overall positive outcome.

Trust me as a former ONOS member I know what it is like to go through the death of an alliance simply because we (GUARD) was beginning to be seen as the counter bloc (with VE leaving init and applying and all) but in all truth GUARD was scared out their minds that they would be seen as a threat knowing they would be powerless to stop it

This being said I don't think there has ever been a point in history where a transition occurred from the oppressed to being in power where they didn't abuse their power and come to regret it in some way. The power that has been instilled in Karma is quite a large responsibility and while it may be important for some to achieve retribution this does not portray the image of changed world. If you hate the NPO for what they did to certain alliances do not become the group you hated so much. Bring justice to the world but make sure you fall short of the dangerous slope of persecution.

[Lord Emares]

Pure speculation. They could as easily let NPO off with white peace and still turn into this monster you're afraid of. Or they could as easily force NPO to disband, or worse, and be a beneficent entity.

Or they could treat NPO however and just be some alliances.

Beneficent entities do not force other alliances to disband, and people generally continue to act how they have acted in the past as a rule. So If this new hegemon acts by doling out draconian terms then I can only expect them to continue to do so.

Again assumtion that there is some sort of leader position in this new possible hegemon. It obviously was the NPO conerning the last, but I see no direct evidence to indicate that there will be one in this new possible group. Like I said, I see a future free of hegemony, for awhile at least.

A hegemon does not need to have a single alliance as its leader. All it needs is a group of alliances acting with a single purpose with the ability to impose their will on others. Thats the core of a hegemon and hegemonic power.

And that similar ideal and goal was to centralize power over spheres of influence. The leadership position was not defacto granted but a planned course of exerting influence over as wide a reach as they could. Obviously these ideas and goals weren't the foundational force linking these alliances as most just bolted as soon as the leader piosition came under undefensible attack. The central power was the linch pin, not the ideals....unless the ideal is "bolt when things get heavy" and the goals are to "protect your interests at all costs." Too me that wreaks of the old hegemon beiong based around a central power firgure whose usefulness ended to them when it made a fatal mistake.

This conflict came about as part of a grand plan. Insert OV with another alliance similarly treatied and a similar occurance would have happened. This was merely the first opportunity to enact the plan. If you believe that this conflict was not engineered by both sides in one form or another then I don't know what I can say.

There is a clear goal of removing the current hegemon shared between a large number of alliances. Hence an emerging hegemon.

Man I hate reaosning with apologists.

Where am I apologising for or defending anything the NPO has ever done? Answer I'm not.

[Lord Emares]

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.

Of course, and I'm sure other alliances in KARMA have not inflicted massive damage to upper tier nations before either. Of course they have. I would however have some difficulty in believing that there are 1000 12k + nations that have been destroyed in war. You do realise how long it takes to become a 12k nation don't you?

In any case once again I'm not here to talk about the damage done by the NPO. Merely the inconsitancies between the current stance of KARMA and their actions.

I'm not involved in the war. Hell I personally think many of the actions the NPO has taken in the past are wrong. However if KARMA is going to give them draconian terms for past wrongs then at least state as much in an official missive, don't state the opposite.

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

Of course no price can be put on disbandment, and I don't assume to try to put a price on disbandment.

You could say that, or you could judge that overall NPO has been a malign influence on CN over the years. I would contest that disbandment is not a universally negative phenomenon. Disbandment as a result of the powers-that-be getting bored and curbstomping on trumped-up charges has removed any element of daring and, dare I say, fun from the politics of CN. In contrast, the formation of a coalition against NPO for example would always carry inherent risks.

Aye and I see nothing wrong with forming a coalition to oppose the NPO or the current hegemon. I do have a problem when people are hypocritical about their aims and motivations and what actions they shall take.

This is a brave move and should it lead to the death of an alliance, a cogent argument could be made that this is an overall positive outcome.

It most certainly is

How about doing the calculations on FAN or Vox on how long some of their nations have been in peace mode to the loss of income. So don't go crying about NPO's losses when other alliances have or are facing the same losses if not more.

Give me accurate stats and I'm sure I can after my exams.

Trust me as a former ONOS member I know what it is like to go through the death of an alliance simply because we (GUARD) was beginning to be seen as the counter bloc (with VE leaving init and applying and all) but in all truth GUARD was scared out their minds that they would be seen as a threat knowing they would be powerless to stop it

Thats part of the fun of the game though is it not?

This being said I don't think there has ever been a point in history where a transition occurred from the oppressed to being in power where they didn't abuse their power and come to regret it in some way. The power that has been instilled in Karma is quite a large responsibility and while it may be important for some to achieve retribution this does not portray the image of changed world. If you hate the NPO for what they did to certain alliances do not become the group you hated so much. Bring justice to the world but make sure you fall short of the dangerous slope of persecution.

This is pretty much exactly what I've been trying to say.

[WilliamDean]

Really. Have you done the calculations? Or is that a guesstimate based on no hard facts.

Deciding the reps are less harsh than forced disbandment is not a "guesstimate", it is a hard fact.

If you want calculations, 500 batches of $3m every 10 days would mean that the $40bn would be payed off in about 6 months - considerably less time than the length of GPA's or GATO's terms. As they had not been significantly damaged, they would have far greater means to send out aid than an alliance that had been on the receiving end of a curbstomping for several weeks. If we are to believe that the NPO nations in peace mode right now are indeed banks and not cowards, they would already be able to send that amount if they were to dedicate 4 slots leaving the other large nations to deal with the tech payments.

Unless of course, the glorious Pacifican Bank is not so glorious after all.

Edited April 22, 2009 by WilliamDean

[Wargarden]

Beneficent entities do not force other alliances to disband, and people generally continue to act how they have acted in the past as a rule. So If this new hegemon acts by doling out draconian terms then I can only expect them to continue to do so.

Speculation. Again.

A hegemon does not need to have a single alliance as its leader. All it needs is a group of alliances acting with a single purpose with the ability to impose their will on others. Thats the core of a hegemon and hegemonic power.

Well the last one obviously did.

This conflict came about as part of a grand plan. Insert OV with another alliance similarly treatied and a similar occurance would have happened. This was merely the first opportunity to enact the plan. If you believe that this conflict was not engineered by both sides in one form or another then I don't know what I can say.

The idea that this was planned way in advance and was just waiting for an opportunity is silly. There has been a pattern emerging for sometime now of resistance to evident despotism. There wasn't a concerted effort to throw someone to the wolves, just to get at another group. (Hyperion/MK anyone?) The cards fell where they fell and opportunity for effective resistance knocked.

Conflicts are generally engineered, but this was not some longterm scheme. One side tried to trump up charges...again....and this time it backfired on them. Groups loyal to their allies came to their defense and due to the egregiousness of the violations, many more haver joined the cause. Thats not much of a plan. It may be opportunism, but its not a plan.

There is a clear goal of removing the current hegemon shared between a large number of alliances. Hence an emerging hegemon.

Like I said, you've been seeing Bob for so long under the lense of a top down power structure with one power on top, that you can't imagine a world where no single hegemony rules things. Look, after all this is over, there will still be blocs and lots of them. And not a single one of them will have a good enough hand left to fill the vaccum singley. The power will spread out amongst the strongest of those. That makes it a multi-polar world. Like I said. One group or alliance isn't going to be capable to just roll in and say "we're in charge now." And i for one would like to see a less hegemonic world for awhile.

Where am I apologising for or defending anything the NPO has ever done? Answer I'm not.

An apologist doesn't apologize. Dictionary ftw.

[empirica]

Last I heard, the only terms that were offered weren't draconian at all. Just because the opposing side found them to be objectionable, doesn't mean that the terms were draconian. It simply means they weren't acceptable to the opposing party at the time of the talks.

[magicninja]

I love the "NPO did it so we can do it!" mentality going on in that camp. After all they said about how wrong it was that NPO did it, they go and do it themselves, because NPO did it.

hahahahahahahahah]

What a !@#$@#$ joke.

Edited April 22, 2009 by magicninja

[TruHartBrakN]

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

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

Funny you mention that term.. The NPO was pounding away at a negotiation in that room and were giving many, many acceptances to terms I frankly didn't expect to see.

[tolkheleknar]

Last I heard, the only terms that were offered weren't draconian at all. Just because the opposing side found them to be objectionable, doesn't mean that the terms were draconian. It simply means they weren't acceptable to the opposing party at the time of the talks.

I love it when you make sense

[KingSuck]

oh karma

[Lord Emares]

Deciding the reps are less harsh than forced disbandment is not a "guesstimate", it is a hard fact.

If you want calculations, 500 batches of $3m every 10 days would mean that the $40bn would be payed off in about 6 months - considerably less time than the length of GPA's or GATO's terms. As they had not been significantly damaged, they would have far greater means to send out aid than an alliance that had been on the receiving end of a curbstomping for several weeks. If we are to believe that the NPO nations in peace mode right now are indeed banks and not cowards, they would already be able to send that amount if they were to dedicate 4 slots leaving the other large nations to deal with the tech payments.

Unless of course, the glorious Pacifican Bank is not so glorious after all.

As far as I know GATO weren't sending out reams of aid every 10 days for the length of their terms, nor were GPA. Nor were either alliance forced to stay in peace mode.

Also as per the terms tech deals were banned for the duration of the terms as a stipulation of the terms.

As to the efficiency (or lack thereof) of the Pacific Bank I wouldn't know as I'm not in the NPO.

Speculation. Again.

Of course it is. As is what you are saying. I'm basing my speculation off of the actions shown in the logs as posted.

Well the last one obviously did.

Again I don't think you'll find me denying that.

The idea that this was planned way in advance and was just waiting for an opportunity is silly. There has been a pattern emerging for sometime now of resistance to evident despotism. There wasn't a concerted effort to throw someone to the wolves, just to get at another group. (Hyperion/MK anyone?) The cards fell where they fell and opportunity for effective resistance knocked.

Conflicts are generally engineered, but this was not some longterm scheme. One side tried to trump up charges...again....and this time it backfired on them. Groups loyal to their allies came to their defense and due to the egregiousness of the violations, many more haver joined the cause. Thats not much of a plan. It may be opportunism, but its not a plan.

Ask the leaders of KARMA if they have been planning something like this for the past couple of months. Saying that the response to this conflict was not engineered in some way shape or form is nieve at best.

Like I said, you've been seeing Bob for so long under the lense of a top down power structure with one power on top, that you can't imagine a world where no single hegemony rules things. Look, after all this is over, there will still be blocs and lots of them. And not a single one of them will have a good enough hand left to fill the vaccum singley. The power will spread out amongst the strongest of those. That makes it a multi-polar world. Like I said. One group or alliance isn't going to be capable to just roll in and say "we're in charge now." And i for one would like to see a less hegemonic world for awhile.

Its only multi polar if the different blocs don't act with a common purpose. Otherwise its just a dispersed hegemon.

An apologist doesn't apologize. Dictionary ftw.

a·pol·o·gist (-pl-jst)

n.

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

apologist

Noun

a person who offers a formal defence of a cause

Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

apologist

a person who defends, in speech or writing, a faith, doctrine, idea, or action.

Point still stands. How am I an apologist? I'm not defending anything, on the contrary I'm attacking a particular hypocritical stance.

Last I heard, the only terms that were offered weren't draconian at all. Just because the opposing side found them to be objectionable, doesn't mean that the terms were draconian. It simply means they weren't acceptable to the opposing party at the time of the talks.

Forcing an alliance to lose 40bill in income is draconian in my book. Forcing an alliance to remain at 20% soldiers is draconian in my book.

Just to preempt the "NPO did it" yes I know they did, I'm not defending what they did. IT still does not make it right for you to do it to them.

I love it when you make sense

So you don't think forcing an alliance to lose 40 bill in income is draconian? You don't think 20% soldiers is draconian?

[RandomInterrupt]

Forcing an alliance to lose 40bill in income is draconian in my book. Forcing an alliance to remain at 20% soldiers is draconian in my book.

So you don't think forcing an alliance to lose 40 bill in income is draconian? You don't think 20% soldiers is draconian?

You haven't really been paying attention for the last year, have you? Those are quite light these days due to the precedent set by those you defend.

[Doitzel]

Forcing an alliance to lose 40bill in income is draconian in my book. Forcing an alliance to remain at 20% soldiers is draconian in my book.

Spare the rod, spoil the child.

[Darvel]

Trust me as a former ONOS member I know what it is like to go through the death of an alliance simply because we (GUARD) was beginning to be seen as the counter bloc (with VE leaving init and applying and all) but in all truth GUARD was scared out their minds that they would be seen as a threat knowing they would be powerless to stop it

This being said I don't think there has ever been a point in history where a transition occurred from the oppressed to being in power where they didn't abuse their power and come to regret it in some way. The power that has been instilled in Karma is quite a large responsibility and while it may be important for some to achieve retribution this does not portray the image of changed world. If you hate the NPO for what they did to certain alliances do not become the group you hated so much. Bring justice to the world but make sure you fall short of the dangerous slope of persecution.

I agree, but there's no use telling me. This is why I think moderate alliances, like TOP, need to step in to make sure that such injustice can't continue after this war. It happens to be my view that the best way to do this is to eradicate the root of the last 2 years' prevailing zeitgeist and work with those who opposed it, but far be it from me to dictate to you guys.

Of course, and I'm sure other alliances in KARMA have not inflicted massive damage to upper tier nations before either. Of course they have. I would however have some difficulty in believing that there are 1000 12k + nations that have been destroyed in war. You do realise how long it takes to become a 12k nation don't you?

Yes. I didn't say they would have to be destroyed in war. 1000 infra is not a destruction. This was an underestimate, based on an Umbrella member I talk to, whose infra, at 11k, costs >300k per level. The point is, maybe it's not exactly distributed at that level, but NPO has taken a lot of infra from a lot of nations, including some very high level ones, and I would wager they've done £1billion total worth of damage to one nation more than a few times.

To the victor, the spoils; ever it has been and it ever will, whatever Karma want to do for/with the world.

In any case once again I'm not here to talk about the damage done by the NPO. Merely the inconsitancies between the current stance of KARMA and their actions.

Which makes me wonder why you replied to my hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question which wasn't directed at you, but OK.

Aye and I see nothing wrong with forming a coalition to oppose the NPO or the current hegemon. I do have a problem when people are hypocritical about their aims and motivations and what actions they shall take.

I think you're confusing the means with the end, here.

hahahahahahahahah]

What a !@#$@#$ joke.

The idea of a miserable kid pretending to laugh on the Internet, because all lines of discussion not involving ridicule have been exhausted, is somehow depressing...

[Ronon Dex]

o7 Karma!

As much as I enjoyed getting to know and becoming friends with certain NPOers during the BDC debacle ( Dilber and VektorZero), it is time that those who openly oppressed the masses meet their proverbial maker.

[TBRaiders]

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

Exactly. How often is an attacking alliance even allowed at the peace talk table the day after attacking? Not even counting the horrible conduct NPO displayed the night before rolling out the war machine during peace talks, proving the stalling tactic is certainly a tool in their toolbox, why exactly should they get any but the harshest of terms after less than 24 hours of war? If they want better terms, fight for them.

I don't condone draconian terms such as P/EZI, booting members, or viceroys, which are also tools in the NPO toolbox and pulled out regularly for alliances they've stomped, and I didn't see any draconian terms presented. Apologize, admit wrong, pay reps, demilitarize...these are all standard terms.

[Lord Emares]

You haven't really been paying attention for the last year, have you? Those are quite light these days due to the precedent set by those you defend.

I really don't see how I have to repeat myself so many times to so many people in the same topic. I'm not defending anyone. I dislike people being hypocritical about their aims and methods. I disliked it when the NPO did it and I dislike it when KARMA does it. I will point it out when someone who is claiming the moral high ground does something completely the opposite of what they have said they will do.

Additionally the fact that they are light in comparison to what has been perpetrated by the hegemon led by the NPO does not make them any less draconian. Just because I think one set of reps are draconian does not mean I haven't been paying attention for the last year, or that reps that have gone before are not draconian.

Spare the rod, spoil the child.

Ah yes, I'd imagine thats what the NPO were thinking when they handed down all those heavy terms you have berated them for. Two wrongs does not a right make. Hold yourself to the ideals and standards you set yourself.

Vox set themself the standard that they would use any IC means possible to change the way people do things and you have held yourselves to that ideal. I applaud you for that, that is "doing it rite" in my book.

KARMA on the other hand has said that they will conduct themselves with honour and dignity and not impose draconian terms. The first thing they do is exactly the opposite of that which they have stated they will do. If they had said "hurr, we are next global despots" and then gone and done what they did they would not be hypocrites. It would still be wrong, but at least they wouldn't be hypocrites.

Yes. I didn't say they would have to be destroyed in war. 1000 infra is not a destruction. This was an underestimate, based on an Umbrella member I talk to, whose infra, at 11k, costs >300k per level. The point is, maybe it's not exactly distributed at that level, but NPO has taken a lot of infra from a lot of nations, including some very high level ones, and I would wager they've done £1billion total worth of damage to one nation more than a few times.

Maybe maybe not. But to my knowledge no alliance has been forced to endure the equivalent of 40 bill in reps from any alliance as a stipulation of surrender terms, regardless of what happened during the war.

In any case I'd be willing to wager that they have had similar levels of damage done to them over the years (particularly during the last nuclear war).

To the victor, the spoils; ever it has been and it ever will, whatever Karma want to do for/with the world.

That still doesn't make the means they use to get the spoils right.

Which makes me wonder why you replied to my hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question which wasn't directed at you, but OK.

Because it quoted a response which was directed at me, supporting the stance quoted, thus by extension was directed at me. If it wasn't intended to be...then whelp I guess I just got caught up in the moment but thats why I replied to it.

I think you're confusing the means with the end, here.

No. The means is war and negotiations of peace, the end is removal of the NPO as a henegomic power. Using draconian terms, or being hypocrites during the execution of the means does not justify them as being right because it achieved the goal you wished for.

Exactly. How often is an attacking alliance even allowed at the peace talk table the day after attacking? Not even counting the horrible conduct NPO displayed the night before rolling out the war machine during peace talks, proving the stalling tactic is certainly a tool in their toolbox, why exactly should they get any but the harshest of terms after less than 24 hours of war? If they want better terms, fight for them.

This would be an exception I imagine due to the fact that the war, had it played out the way many hoped it would had the potential to be one of the most destructive wars in the history of the game. If it can be ended then the victorious side can take the glory without have much relative damage done to them. Its called self preservation.

I don't condone draconian terms such as P/EZI, booting members, or viceroys, which are also tools in the NPO toolbox and pulled out regularly for alliances they've stomped, and I didn't see any draconian terms presented. Apologize, admit wrong, pay reps, demilitarize...these are all standard terms.

Yes they are standard terms for the most part, however forcing those in peace mode to stay in peace mode is not, nor is making the defeated party stay at 20% soldiers for any prolonged amount of time.

[HeroicDisaster]

No peace terms for a month

2 years, like FAN. Or let FAN dictate their terms.

[Sebastian]

Termination of the Moldavi doctrine.

Change policy to disallow any current and future EZI/PZI sentences.

Cease fire with FAN and Vox.

Now, those are terms worth getting. Reps, 20% soldiers, etc. are just a minor hindrance.

Edit: There's an r in future? I say! Who knew?

Edited April 22, 2009 by Sebastian