Observations.

[NLights]

ummm no it really doesn't.

If an orange cat calls an orange dog orange then even if it's perceived to be ironic as the orange cat calling the orange dog orange is itself orange, the dog is still orange.

I have no problem with people calling irony, but they could at least try to disprove their opponents point as well, instead of just thinking saying 'irony!' automatically nulls whatever point their opponent was making.

I could be wrong but...the points are void when people have been ridiculed, punished, and harassed for doing the same things some people and alliances are now. 'Irony' is a faster way of saying 'Look what it's like when the shoe is on the other foot' type things, you know?

Example:

Before: HA! You must come out of peace mode now or be ZI'd later coward.

Now: Peace mode is quite an effective strategy sir that only the finest alliances partake in.

Easy answer is indeed. 'irony'. Am I on the wrong track, KingSuck?

[KingSuck]

I could be wrong but...the points are void when people have been ridiculed, punished, and harassed for doing the same things some people and alliances are now. 'Irony' is a faster way of saying 'Look what it's like when the shoe is on the other foot' type things, you know?

Example:

Before: HA! You must come out of peace mode now or be ZI'd later coward.

Now: Peace mode is quite an effective strategy sir that only the finest alliances partake in.

Easy answer is indeed. 'irony'. Am I on the wrong track, KingSuck?

You are

My point is that a statement may be ironic but it doesn't make it any less valid.

Edited April 29, 2009 by KingSuck

[EliteGeneral]

As long as their promises and acts don't end up being like Obama's then I am fine with that

[NLights]

You are

My point is that a statement may be ironic but it doesn't make it any less valid.

Hm. I suppose however I would argue that someone who did the opposite before (calling people cowards, etc) has far less credibility and ground to stand on when saying those things now. But I do suppose the point is still valid.

[Rebel Virginia]

You are

My point is that a statement may be ironic but it doesn't make it any less valid.

The only point you have been trying to make is that Karma is as bad, if not worse, than the Hegemony. You keep on saying that yet you haven't at all defended it with proof. Until you do that, you cannot blame people for not acknowledging your non-existent point.

[Gruthenia]

What I find ironic is that people from "The Hegemony" are !@#$%*ing now that its happening to them. They didnt have a problem when they did anything, but now that hey are getting beat, its the worst thing to ever happen and we are all monsters.

Sometimes I fantasize about there being some sort of automatic script that would post "Now you know how we felt!" every time somebody in the hegemony whines about something Karma's doing being unfair or whatever.

[Paradigm]

Everyone has covered my views pretty much.

I was amazed to see the hegemony go in mass with the "Karma is just the same" mantra. Default admission without any fight. Well ok then, glad we got that settled.

And not being able to argue ANY case against Karma just makes it that much sweeter to watch.

I look forward to the day the whole story of the Karma early days are told.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Paradigm

[Tygaland]

I think there is more to their "Karma is just as bad us we were" routine than trying to smear Karma. It is also a useful method of pushing Karma towards giving alliances that started this conflict a ridiculously light peace so as Karma can point out their merciful ways.

Karma never, ever promised white peace for everyone and they'd be stupid if they did. This does not show that Karma is the same as the Hegemony it toppled. There is a lot of space between the horribly cruel terms enforced and supported by those now fighting for the Hegemony in this conflict and white peace. It is my belief that alliances surrendering to the Karma coalition will recieve fair and just terms reflective of their role in this war. Asking any more or demanding any more than that is extremely hypocritical of Hegemony alliances and completely unreasonable.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Tygaland

[Paradigm]

I think there is more to their "Karma is just as bad us we were" routine than trying to smear Karma. It is also a useful method of pushing Karma towards giving alliances that started this conflict a ridiculously light peace so as Karma can point out their merciful ways.

Karma never, ever promised white peace for everyone and they'd be stupid if they did. This does not show that Karma is the same as the Hegemony it toppled. There is a lot of space between the horribly cruel terms enforced and supported by those now fighting for the Hegemony in this conflict and white peace. It is my belief that alliances surrendering to the Karma coalition will recieve fair and just terms reflective of their role in this war. Asking any more or demanding any more than that is extremely hypocritical of Hegemony alliances and completely unreasonable.

Well said Tyga and agreed on the purpose of that mantra.

100% agreed on all the space between the past and white peace.

[Hobgoblin70]

I think there is more to their "Karma is just as bad us we were" routine than trying to smear Karma. It is also a useful method of pushing Karma towards giving alliances that started this conflict a ridiculously light peace so as Karma can point out their merciful ways.

Karma never, ever promised white peace for everyone and they'd be stupid if they did. This does not show that Karma is the same as the Hegemony it toppled. There is a lot of space between the horribly cruel terms enforced and supported by those now fighting for the Hegemony in this conflict and white peace. It is my belief that alliances surrendering to the Karma coalition will recieve fair and just terms reflective of their role in this war. Asking any more or demanding any more than that is extremely hypocritical of Hegemony alliances and completely unreasonable.

I think the Sparta/TOOL/Brig/FnKa/AO/DT peace is the perfect example of ridiculously light peace. Rarely if ever do you see peace terms better than white peace to the defeated side.

[Qaianna]

It does if you're discussing who should be in power.

I'd rather not have people who do ironic and hypocritical things, in power. That might just be me though.

Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with you. Wow, the war really is changing things.

Someone also mentioned earlier something similar to frenzied dogs being unleashed during this war. I'll speak for myself here, but I'm guessing most of the questions arising are a result of the 'Karma' member alliances trying to declare an end to what they consider brutal terms and needless wars and curbstomps ... and 'Karma' member nations who are much, MUCH less tactful. If nothing else, it reinforces the image that there will always be a hegemony, even if it isn't the current 'Hegemony'--especially to, say, random members of One Vision who come on the forums here and find an eloquent speech by, say, Almighty Grub followed by bile spewed forth from RandomMember93 gleefully predicting the power to partition the enemy. (No offense intended if 'RandomMember93' is an actual ruler's name.)

When the latter happens, who wouldn't take that and compare it to the professed ideals, and question whether they are true? And given how often quotations from lower-level members on the 'Hegemony' side seem to show up in signature files as examples of 'Hegemony' attitudes, I'm disinclined to suggest that the focus should be only on the leaders. Note, this does not exempt leaders; I'm referring to the more frenzied posts.

In short, a lot of the outcry seems to be from people trying to apply 'Karma''s own professed standards to itself, and using various 'Karma' member posts and seeing whether they meet their own standards, or if they echo the crimes the 'Hegemony' is accused of. Which brings us back to Mr Aros's quotation earlier. Hope that clears a few things up.