Observations.

[Francesca]

Anyone else find it a little ironic that people who have supported the hegemony for the last year and a half are now complaining about Karma's dominance of the game, and how they are going to dish out terrible surrender terms etc?

The question is not whether Karma will become the new dominant power on Planet Bob. The question is whether they will act responsibly when they defeat NPO etc. So far, they have given us every reason to believe they will. For months, they have taken up strong stances against the practices of PZI and ZI, they have stood up against the absolute destruction of alliances and they have given out lenient individual surrender terms. They have also given us assurances that terms for their enemies will not be too harsh. So why not believe them?

I'm not going to made a gigantic post on this. I think I've said what I need to quite succinctly.

[nate165]

We've seen some very generous surrender terms offered by Karma. Those that choose to dig in may only make it harder on themselves - that's not Karma's decision - that is their. As it is, the longer people hold out the more they are obligating themselves to rebuild those they're attacking.

[Roofus]

Karma will defeat the Hegemony. NPO will be decimated and IRON will surrender after it accumulates significant total loss.

From this point on (and without a superpower) you will probably see a power vacuum where independent alliances fight a lot of small wars. In this time a major war between Sparta and IRON will brew and one of those powers will be knocked out much like GGA and NPO will be disbanded in this conflict.

The power that wins will be crowned the new "NPO" of CN... However it's NS will be a fraction of what we have now.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Roofus

[Nelchael]

Anyone else find it a little ironic that people who have supported the hegemony for the last year and a half are now complaining about Karma's dominance of the game, and how they are going to dish out terrible surrender terms etc?

I would say that people tend to think others think like them. They say "Hey, I'd be a brutal dictator if I had all the power, so these guys are going to be brutal dictators when they get power". Thankfully, we're removing those kind of people from power right now. Time will tell what those who make up Karma will do post-war, but I think it'll turn out like any other large group of alliance leaders. Some of them are going to be jerks, some are going to continue to do the right thing, and Karma will just be a distant, warm memory of the time when we changed the world (and admin got no sleep).

The question is not whether Karma will become the new dominant power on Planet Bob. The question is whether they will act responsibly when they defeat NPO etc. So far, they have given us every reason to believe they will. For months, they have taken up strong stances against the practices of PZI and ZI, they have stood up against the absolute destruction of alliances and they have given out lenient individual surrender terms. They have also given us assurances that terms for their enemies will not be too harsh. So why not believe them?

I have to say we're spending too much time thinking of Karma in the hegemonistic mindset. Karma isn't a formal organization, its member alliances change daily, and it has no binding treaty or ideology. It's just a group of alliances old and new, large and small, working together for a better Bob (by eliminating the hegemony that has dominated us for far too long). I don't expect Karma to exist as an organization once this is accomplished.

And yes, I think it's quite obvious that Karma will not become the evil new hegemony.

[A Soviet Attack]

As has already been demonstrated in the surrender terms for IRAN (I think it was them), Karma will not be enforcing unfair surrender terms.

[Draztikus]

Anyone else find it a little ironic that people who have supported the hegemony for the last year and a half are now complaining about Karma's dominance of the game, and how they are going to dish out terrible surrender terms etc?

I find it more ironic that people who have supported and thrived in the hegemony for years have recently changed sides and are now acting all high and mighty and self righteous about teh ebil NPO (and I'm not talking about you or VE, for the record )

[nc1701]

Karma is a banner nothing more, when NPO dies so will Karma.

Many on the Hegemony side have complained they don't know exactly who's in Karma... Well I don't think anyone in Karma was really sure of that either.

New powers will attempt to take control, and they will consist of former members of Karma, but Karma as a united entity will fall apart as soon as NPO does. [OOC]It's like the Crusades, Europe united again Muslims, but as soon as the crusade was over they went back to killing each other[/OOC]. And that's how I want it to be, I really have only minor complaints against most of the Hegemony alliances myself, but I hate the concept of a hegemony and will end up fighting against one wherever I end up. New hegemonies will form no doubt, but Karma will not be one of them.

A better description of Karma would "Coalition of the Willing".

[Xiphosis]

and they have given out lenient individual surrender terms.

*will note that, though it went largely overlooked, GOD gave out more or less white peace in the BLEU War to CCC*

[uaciaut]

Heh, i quite agree actually. People that have found shelter under the protection of a majority from which some freely used their powers while others tried to change things for the better are now crying for it to be back, even though even most of them were asking for some change a while back.

Now do i truely believe Karma is perfect and a bastion of light, etc etc. No, not really. There have been some mistakes and compromises made because people can make mistakes and compromises and sacrifices are required to get something done sometimes, especially in a war when at the end all that matters is who won.

My reasoning for being on this is quite simple actually - i just want a more dynamical political and military CN, where E-zi, aggressive threats and such just can't be thrown around because they may easily bring an alliance's downfall. Whenever people struggle to achieve a certain goal, they'll give out their best to do so. And often their worst.

I'm also quite surprised how easily demonized Karma is because people are being more aggressive (i.e. "trolling") on the forums - it's always been there and it always is more prominent during wars when people have the full freedom to through out their "ic" frustrations at the people they dont like without the fear of being ZI'd. I don't get how some can do that while they indirectly supported alliances to be kept in p-zi, manufcatured CB's etc.

[mattski133]

Karma is a banner nothing more, when NPO dies so will Karma.

Many on the Hegemony side have complained they don't know exactly who's in Karma... Well I don't think anyone in Karma was really sure of that either.

New powers will attempt to take control, and they will consist of former members of Karma, but Karma as a united entity will fall apart as soon as NPO does. [OOC]It's like the Crusades, Europe united again Muslims, but as soon as the crusade was over they went back to killing each other[/OOC]. And that's how I want it to be, I really have only minor complaints against most of the Hegemony alliances myself, but I hate the concept of a hegemony and will end up fighting against one wherever I end up. New hegemonies will form no doubt, but Karma will not be one of them.

A better description of Karma would "Coalition of the Willing".

And that is why you are losing. We've known each other for months chief. NPO logs clearly demonstrate this Hegemony had no idea what it was up against, while we knew all along and planned accordingly.

There were a few question marks but those are gone now. I can say right now terms appear to be very light, if you can even call them terms.

[adhambek]

Speaking generally rather than this particular war, I like the idea of giving white peace to people who deserve it e.g. defending alliances via treaties. Giving it to people who will just use any peace you give them to turn around and attack you down the line is foolish. Until you believe that they accept the peace in the spirit it is given and will reciprocate then it's foolish to be lenient.

It's a tough balancing act as you don't want to sow the seeds for a future conflict via the terms imposed.

Lets face it people will just complain regardless.

Edited April 28, 2009 by adhambek

[Venizelos]

[OOC]It's like the Crusades, Europe united again Muslims, but as soon as the crusade was over they went back to killing each other[/OOC].

i lol'd... the crusades were a show of support to the pope and protected the merchant interests of the venetians and the lust for riches of the catholic kings.

anyways...

karma isn't a block, its more of an idea, a set of standards to abide by. standards that are better than the way things used to be done under the hegemony.

the way i see it, the hegemony alliances sacrificed principles and honor, thinking that they were getting safety. instead they are getting rolled anyways. i understand why you're annoyed but its only your fault (not personally, in general)

[Tygaland]

I think it is far simpler than that. Those who we call the Hegemony have a vested interest in painting the Karma coalition as "no better" than they were. So, anything Karma does that resembles something meted out during their reign will be seized upon as an example of new boss, just like the old boss.

From my perspective, white peace across the board is folly. Alliances that were dragged into the conflict via treaties would obviously be prime candidates for a white peace. The main protagonist(s) on the other hand should be punished for what they did to precipitate this war. I don't believe in disbandment or regime change (if regime change happens it is far better it be an internal event than one forced from outside). I do believe that terms should be designed to weaken such alliances politically to prevent them stepping back to where they were in a few months.

[ChairmanHal]

A better description of Karma would "Coalition of the Willing".

It's not that simple.

Karma wasn't put together in a couple of months, it took several months, and the OPSEC it required to take down NPO meant that those involved developed much stronger bonds than the coalition that formed to take down Polaris/BLEU or the coalition that was responsible for breaking up the UJP.

While it is true that the motivations of many of the members are similar--perceived injustice, slights accumulated over an extended period of time, etc. and no doubt some members are...a bit flighty and unuse to taking decisive action and will likely spin away at some point, the essential core of Karma will stay in place for an extended period of time.

The question is what new bloc(s) will form to oppose it and what fights small and large will happen in the meantime.

[nc1701]

And that is why you are losing. We've known each other for months chief. NPO logs clearly demonstrate this Hegemony had no idea what it was up against, while we knew all along and planned accordingly.

There were a few question marks but those are gone now. I can say right now terms appear to be very light, if you can even call them terms.

I'm losing? I'm losing infra perhaps, but I'm doing quite well in this war...

We really need to get those alliance tags back. I'm a Mushroom Kingdom member and proud warrior for Karma. My views on what Karma is stand though, and that's specifically why I chose to fight under it's banner. I have no interest in supporting a new hegemony, even if it's better than the old one. Perhaps I'm completely out of the loop, but more than 3 weeks ago none of you new exactly what Karma would look like. Sure everybody knew it would have Superfriends, Complaints and Grievances, and parts of Citadel, but the Karma power is far, far larger than that, and anyone who claims to have known 100% that ODN, TOP, TSO, etc. would back us is an idiot.

[Anu Drake]

I don't see much complaining about what Karma will do after the war (although I'm not reading all that much of the flame threads beyond making sure our guys aren't being jerks). I think most people understand that they will be fair to anyone that is following treaty obligations but that they will also take into account past actions. That's the way the world works. The real question is what grudges will form from this war. Are those alliances that are standing up against huge odds like UPN, Invicta, NATO, everyone that is fighting 5 or more alliances, but keep fighting, going to be punished for that or respected for that?

All I really know is that this has been a very active and fun war, and being on the side with inferior numbers and fighting multiple fronts has been an enjoyable way to end my career. I just hope NATO gets through this and we can get back into the fold of Aqua. That's been the worst part of all of it, seeing that we are the only aqua nation not fighting on Karma's side (I think).

[ChairmanHal]

From my perspective, white peace across the board is folly. Alliances that were dragged into the conflict via treaties would obviously be prime candidates for a white peace. The main protagonist(s) on the other hand should be punished for what they did to precipitate this war. I don't believe in disbandment or regime change (if regime change happens it is far better it be an internal event than one forced from outside). I do believe that terms should be designed to weaken such alliances politically to prevent them stepping back to where they were in a few months.

Ahh yes...the "X million in reps, Y million in tech" solution that is so tried and true on Planet Bob, right?

One man's "fair reps" is another's "crushing reps designed to permanently cripple them". It has been overused to the point that it creates bitterness amongst the members of the losing alliance, who feel as though they fought honorably but were rewarded for their honor with a spit in the eye.

White peace has become a rare gift handed out to people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and didn't cower even while being curbstomped. What white peace used to mean was "good fight, we beat each other up pretty well, good luck to you in the future." White peace should be handed out a lot more often than is (I remember after the Coalition War last year NV being told, "you what? those reps we talked about? never mind..."), and perhaps this time that should be the case again. No one will be walking away from this war (at least those doing the hard fight fighting anyway) and stepping back to anything like they were before the war in a few months.

[Venizelos]

i'd also like to add that since the game begun the NPO side has been claiming that they are better than everyone else.

the fact that they are now struggling to show that karma is not superior to them shows how far they've fallen

[shahenshah]

I find it more ironic that people who have supported and thrived in the hegemony for years have recently changed sides and are now acting all high and mighty and self righteous about teh ebil NPO (and I'm not talking about you or VE, for the record )

True indeed. For some it was about power, for some it was about not being defeated by Hegemony for the 4th year straight, for some it was about saving the pixels and optionally join the fight from other side, for some it was about honoring treaties, but it wasn't about morals. Like Tyga indicated, the differences are smaller than people thought they were. Karma had a vested interest in speaking louder about 'morals' before the war, almost everyone shouted morals, suddenly with war, thats gone and people are into " 'We'd do the same old' but you cant call us 'same old' ok." You'll find examples in this very thread.

shows how far they've fallen

Fits well with someone from ODN.

Edited April 28, 2009 by shahenshah

[Venizelos]

True indeed. For some it was about power, for some it was about not being defeated by Hegemony for the 4th year straight, for some it was about saving the pixels and optionally join the fight from other side, for some it was about honoring treaties, but it wasn't about morals.

Speaks someone from ODN.

... speaks someone from RON.

it took the entire cyberverse's massive disgust to make you fight for your own closest allies.

don't you come here talking about honour.

[Tygaland]

Ahh yes...the "X million in reps, Y million in tech" solution that is so tried and true on Planet Bob, right?

Wow, quite a leap of logic their ChairmanHal. If you can point me to where I mentioned millions of anything I'd be most grateful.

One man's "fair reps" is another's "crushing reps designed to permanently cripple them". It has been overused to the point that it creates bitterness amongst the members of the losing alliance, who feel as though they fought honorably but were rewarded for their honor with a spit in the eye.

Yes, because demanding 40 NpO members pay 100K tech last war as reparations because they were in peace mode is someone's fair reps, right? No, it was meted out because those that were the victors had the power to do so. You do prove my point though. The only hook you have to hang anything on is trying to portray the Karma as just as bad as you were even if you have to make things up and exaggerate. Even if Karma's terms are extremely lenient you will try to portray them as otherwise. It is all you have.

White peace has become a rare gift handed out to people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and didn't cower even while being curbstomped. What white peace used to mean was "good fight, we beat each other up pretty well, good luck to you in the future." White peace should be handed out a lot more often than is (I remember after the Coalition War last year NV being told, "you what? those reps we talked about? never mind..."), and perhaps this time that should be the case again. No one will be walking away from this war (at least those doing the hard fight fighting anyway) and stepping back to anything like they were before the war in a few months.

Yes, I remember a lot of alliances deserving of white peace in the past that got screwed over by those that defeated them. I'm confident that white peace will become more common once the current regime is removed from their position of power.

But you keep making things up and attributing them to people who did not say them if that gets you through the day. Even as a member of an alliance that was forced to pay ridiculous reparations, kept stagnant for almost 5 months under draconian military restrictions and denied the right to ally with an alliance for that time, I do not wish to see alliances or members of alliances unduly punished no matter how much you try and twist my words into what you wish them to be.

[hizzy]

Ahh yes...the "X million in reps, Y million in tech" solution that is so tried and true on Planet Bob, right?

One man's "fair reps" is another's "crushing reps designed to permanently cripple them". It has been overused to the point that it creates bitterness amongst the members of the losing alliance, who feel as though they fought honorably but were rewarded for their honor with a spit in the eye.

White peace has become a rare gift handed out to people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and didn't cower even while being curbstomped. What white peace used to mean was "good fight, we beat each other up pretty well, good luck to you in the future." White peace should be handed out a lot more often than is (I remember after the Coalition War last year NV being told, "you what? those reps we talked about? never mind..."), and perhaps this time that should be the case again. No one will be walking away from this war (at least those doing the hard fight fighting anyway) and stepping back to anything like they were before the war in a few months.

My my, how you changed your tune eh? For starters, you really can't compare Nueva Vida during the noCB war with, as Tyga mentioned, an instigator of this war. Nueva Vida was pre-emptively hit "because [they] don't like [us] and want [us] dead." I was really hoping we'd be fighting the IRON front. Copy/pasting their old CB would have been fun.

Cutting someone some slack after being a !@#$% doesn't make anyone "honourable", it just makes them a mediocre !@#$% as opposed to a complete !@#$%.

I'm sure some people will argue that Karma is a bunch of pricks too... I suppose you really can't please everyone... but I would be mighty disappointed in any partner who forces reps out of all the alliances who were dragged into a fight they didn't agree with. I know a couple alliances off the top of my head who are on the Hegemony side but have no interest in it, including one which was actually dragged in because a larger alliances refused to make their treaty non-chaining (although if you ask them, they'll tell you they were still "discussing it" when war magically broke out )

[shahenshah]

... speaks someone from RON.

it took the entire cyberverse's massive disgust to make you fight for your own closest allies.

don't you come here talking about honour.

Talk when you don't jump ships in great wars. You didnt even have a stomach to feel disgust because you're so used to it come every great war. It was our first experience and IRON body ensured a right path was chosen even when everything around it was not so right. We'll be sure to take your council on how to do it the right way . Anyway, I'm happy you're in ODN, you'll serve them as well as you served your former alliance .

Edited April 28, 2009 by shahenshah

[Hobgoblin70]

Alliances that were dragged into the conflict via treaties would obviously be prime candidates for a white peace.

At what point do these candidates lose the chance for a white peace? I mean, some alliances are claiming they will "fight to ZI and beyond" just because they were defending at treaty partner...a treaty partner that started an aggressive war. At some point, when there is no doubt about the outcome of this war (and that seems to be drawing near) doesn't the honor they are claiming become something more like stubbornness or pride, and the damage they are causing to the opposition and the world in general (via GRL) have to be accounted for?

[Tygaland]

At what point do these candidates lose the chance for a white peace? I mean, some alliances are claiming they will "fight to ZI and beyond" just because they were defending at treaty partner...a treaty partner that started an aggressive war. At some point, when there is no doubt about the outcome of this war (and that seems to be drawing near) doesn't the honor they are claiming become something more like stubbornness or pride, and the damage they are causing to the opposition and the world in general (via GRL) have to be accounted for?

I don't see it makes any difference. I don't think honouring a treaty is a crime and I don't think fighting for your ally as long as you can is a crime either. Personally speaking, I don't go to war via a treaty to make a profit. I go to defend my allies to the best of my ability, win or lose. Seeing as that is the case, I can hardly fault others for doing likewise. I know that by going to war I'm going to lose money and infrastructure and technology but it doesn't matter because when I sign a treaty to defend an ally I accept that as a consequence and would not sign the treaty if I felt that price was too much to pay.