Jump to content

What Happens Next


Ghostlin
 Share

Recommended Posts

(To read the first philosophical installment, go here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...38615&st=0)

Where Do We Go From Here?

Presuming for a minute that we've, as alliance leaders, haven't made a huge mistake (and in CN, the referendum of everyone is the one that usually determines what is correct) and certain things don't occur for the coalition Karma to lose, what happens now?

Omitting the fact that whether or not folks are happy with the outcome against the hegemonic alliances or not, and while the discussion over surrender terms is tricky from a karmic standpoint, (What do you do to alliances that forced others to disband? Unjust, painful terms? Can you be an ethical prelate? Is enough really enough? Can you offer white peace to someone who may not learn their lesson from the thing they need to earn peace from?) allow me to make one point. A moral line has been drawn in the sand. There is a ethical amount an alliance can do before the world, as a whole will turn against them. Crossing the ethical line, as vague as that sounds (because it's a chain of behavior, not one circumstance, it seems) brings the referendum of the other alliances to act as the karmic prelate. Even if you are said to serve Karma now. ;)

When I wrote the first paper, the world was a very different place. NPO's rule looked like it would never end, and certain alliances that enjoyed that rule looked like they would continue to do so for time to come. Those alliances are now posting the biggest losses in the Great Sanction Race. They find that there is no end to the number of alliances that their dealings had wronged in one way or another, directly, or a friend of a friend. The inference here is somewhat obvious: things must balance in the new world after if you want a peaceful one. Odds are, however, someone will seize power, take the advantage that NPO had...

...And answer to a coalition of Karma, part 2.

What happens next is what always must happen. The wheel spins, and the person who stands on and ignores it's spinning inevitably falls off. Or, Karma creates a balance between all alliances, where they all must be accountable for their actions, lest they overbalance themselves.

If NPO exists after the war, one could only hope this is the lesson that gets taught. On the other side of the coin, if FAN and Vox are free, may they remember what it was like to be at the bottom, and maybe what in their pasts that might of earned them there. Whether or not they wanted to be.

A Word About Surrender Terms.

It's nothing we should be concerned with.

"Ghostlin? Have you cracked your head? It's horrifically relevant! If we don't give NPO good terms, they'll do what they did in GW 1, but if we give NPO harsh terms or force disbandment, we'll be called and labeled hypocrites!"

Let's explore these scenarios: if we (meaning Karma as a coalition) give NPO lenient terms and they decide they will rise up and be masters of their own fate and everyone else's, I think they'll find that everyone else has had enough of that, thank you, and take arms much sooner than they had previous. They may even try a sneaky plan to isolate and destroy the alliances that put them there one by one. It will eventually get figured out, and the longer it takes, the more it'll snowball. (Even if this becomes a problem in 2011.)

If we disband NPO or offer horrible terms (and I know, no one can 'force' an alliance to disband) then the alliances that are responsible will have to face the mob that didn't really want that to happen. They will answer to it sooner or later. It will balance itself, as the law always does. (There is, btw, a third option, which involves giving exactly the right terms. Which, if that happens, then it'll all be fine anyhow.)

For Karma is like physics: For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction.

Either way, I am pleased to be here at this point in time in Planet Bob, and I hope you liked the essay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I say Karma should keep pounding NPO/others the ground until they are unsanctioned.

Thus they cannot bounce back and take teh revenge!

That was a semi-serious idea.

But on a more serious note, I have no idea what's gonna happen next, or what should happen. Which is why it's an exciting time to be living on planet bob.

Edited by Commander Benji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at this in two ways.

1) Look how NPO has treated others, just a recap, GOONs, \M/, GOLD, GPA, FAN and Vox, then look how they deal with who they called brothers NpO. (Before anyone ask, i know NPO was not at war with all these but if you truly think that NPO did not cause these to happen, you really need to wake up, no one at the time would have attacked said above alliances with out NPO backing.)

2) If Karma give NPO good terms, will this bite us in the back side.

I think if we give NPO soft terms it will not change anything, in a few months times NPO will still be lying, will still be dealing behind their allies back, NPO started this war, they should have to pay for the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karma has to avoid becoming the Hegemony 2.0 and the people of the cyberverse need to work hard to make sure it doesn't happen. If the game reaches the point that people are afraid or unwilling to speak their mind, then we'll know that the powers that be have failed and this whole thing will start again.

To quote Thomas Jefferson (I think):

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants.

Edited by threefingeredguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at this in two ways.

1) Look how NPO has treated others, just a recap, GOONs, \M/, GOLD, GPA, FAN and Vox, then look how they deal with who they called brothers NpO. (Before anyone ask, i know NPO was not at war with all these but if you truly think that NPO did not cause these to happen, you really need to wake up, no one at the time would have attacked said above alliances with out NPO backing.)

2) If Karma give NPO good terms, will this bite us in the back side.

I think if we give NPO soft terms it will not change anything, in a few months times NPO will still be lying, will still be dealing behind their allies back, NPO started this war, they should have to pay for the war.

I agree, history both recent and distant has taught us they can't be trusted. After all...only fools make mistakes twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh;

1. Surrender ? I don't see any near future plans for them to surrender, which is good.

2. Even if they surrender (and admit defeat, no more "we the Great Patriotic War the second" or whatever and practically smear their "unblemished" "undefeatable military record), let's say, they were let off with just a slap on the wrist, rebuild their forces and goes around and try for political dominance again. Great,... seeds for future lulz, drama and great wars.

edit: minor fixes

Edited by Geiseric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Karma is like physics: For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction.

Oh I love it. Sigged.

On the topic of the OP, there needs to be some middle road where NPO doesn't get off scot-free for their misdeeds of the past three years, but where Karma isn't labelled a hypocritical peanut gallery (which is a scenario that would effectively be the end of the current coalition of convenience that is Karma). I believe that if that middle road can be found the Cyberverse will be better off for it.

NPO is probably a neccessary element of any post-War environment, but whether or not they make a return to being a major power will be the most interesting thing to observe over the months following the war.

Personally, I hope they don't, and perhaps the alliances that currently constitute Karma will exert a force to prevent such an occurence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at this in two ways.

1) Look how NPO has treated others, just a recap, GOONs, \M/, GOLD, GPA, FAN and Vox, then look how they deal with who they called brothers NpO. (Before anyone ask, i know NPO was not at war with all these but if you truly think that NPO did not cause these to happen, you really need to wake up, no one at the time would have attacked said above alliances with out NPO backing.)

2) If Karma give NPO good terms, will this bite us in the back side.

I think if we give NPO soft terms it will not change anything, in a few months times NPO will still be lying, will still be dealing behind their allies back, NPO started this war, they should have to pay for the war.

There is still that fear, hence still NPO has not been offered any terms. They'll probably get beaten alot and get 'white' peace for the PR+++ stunt works. Its rational tho from Karma's POV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at this in two ways.

1) Look how NPO has treated others, just a recap, GOONs, \M/, GOLD, GPA, FAN and Vox, then look how they deal with who they called brothers NpO. (Before anyone ask, i know NPO was not at war with all these but if you truly think that NPO did not cause these to happen, you really need to wake up, no one at the time would have attacked said above alliances with out NPO backing.)

2) If Karma give NPO good terms, will this bite us in the back side.

I think if we give NPO soft terms it will not change anything, in a few months times NPO will still be lying, will still be dealing behind their allies back, NPO started this war, they should have to pay for the war.

There is still that fear, hence still NPO has not been offered any terms. They'll probably get beaten alot and get 'white' peace for the PR+++ stunt works or the war may end in couple weeks with NPO getting the terms, remember they accepted all the ridiculous terms before the war had even started. Its rational tho from Karma's POV to act in such way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a horribly short essay :huh:

Point is, getting the surrender terms with NPO right is extremely difficult (assuming they surrender). They need to be tough enough to send a message, but lenient enough so that Karma isn't seen as hypocrites...

Too much for my head at this late hour...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares if we let NPO die? I feel that destroying them utterly in no way makes KARMA as bad as NPO. This is justice, which is completely different than the half dozen or so times that NPO destroyed an alliance with little to no reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't agree with you there, Jamacus. Total destruction of an alliance, unless it has committed gross crimes against the community as whole (such as those crossing the borders of common decency into egregious and systematic OOC attacks, for example) is a petty, small-minded act, not one we should wish to replicate. NPO has made strategic errors, has bullied, has abused its power, and so it is reaping the consequences. But it has not done anything that deserves utter annihilation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Hegemony alliances other than NPO should be given relatively light terms, but NPO itself is a special case. They cannot be allowed to rebuild, or planet bob risks a replay of the WUT/League days.

I see two options for NPO (assuming Karma is capable of them, but for the purposes here let's assume so):

1) Karma occupies NPO and maintains a never-ending war, a la FAN and the Holy War of Farkistan.

or

2) NPO is eventually freed from the war, but [OOC] like Japan and Germany after World War II [/OOC] is contained with terms of peace that permanently limit its ability to make war on the rest of the world. For example, upper limits on the alliance's total nation strength and number of treaty partners. Such upper limits would need to be set high enough that NPO could maintain itself as a legitimate alliance, but low enough so that if they ever crossed the threshold and latter-day Karma had to take them out, they wouldn't be capable of mustering a defense capable of overthrowing the Karma power structure.

In other words, I am suggesting no reps and no military disbandments, but instead permanent limits on strength and treaty ties. These terms might even be coupled with rebuilding aid to further distance from the old school rep-based peace terms. Such terms would not punish individual nations (in fact they might even rebuild faster), but would specifically target the alliance's ability to come back and repeat history.

Edited by Cirrus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say Karma should keep pounding NPO/others the ground until they are unsanctioned.

Thus they cannot bounce back and take teh revenge!

That was a semi-serious idea.

But on a more serious note, I have no idea what's gonna happen next, or what should happen. Which is why it's an exciting time to be living on planet bob.

This. Pound 'em into the ground, use up all their slots, and get those cowardly you-know-what's out of peace mode!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't agree with you there, Jamacus. Total destruction of an alliance, unless it has committed gross crimes against the community as whole (such as those crossing the borders of common decency into egregious and systematic OOC attacks, for example) is a petty, small-minded act, not one we should wish to replicate. NPO has made strategic errors, has bullied, has abused its power, and so it is reaping the consequences. But it has not done anything that deserves utter annihilation.

You are quite right that forced destruction is rather harsh. I was operating on the OP's black and white responses of, forced disbandment or white peace.

That said, I don't like the point of view where, "We can't give them harsh terms because then we're as bad as they are." I say let the punishment fit the crime. It is in every KARMA alliance's best interest to make sure NPO is a non-issue by the time this war is concluded. We can do this by harsh reps, we can do this by beating them down until they are significantly hindered in their growth. Either way, I really feel no charity toward them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am certain NPO's total destruction would not be on card, too many words have been said to garner support to undo it with such an act. But Karma would rationally seek to minimize the power of NPO as much as it can through the continuation of this war or through terms. Also, as much as people may claim, Karma is not politically strong enough to 'Kill' NPO. It is too wide and disperse a group to hold on to such an extremist view and to act on it. Alot of alliances maybe unhappy with NPO, but not to the point to 'kill' it but just to weaken it enough to not be a threat to the new found hegemonic powers at least for short-medium terms. I must also say that majority within Karma do not hold any views to force disbandment of any small or big alliances. Many have entered the war to honor their treaties, while some entered doing the opposite, however besides the point, They continue the war while it can be ended anytime they seek, however the continuation is a rational move on their behalf. It is only logical that Karma tries to extend its political sphere as wide as it can before the war ends. Karma cannot survive long term as a single strong political entity, while it can last in short-medium term. It may also not be an intention of Karma to be viewed as such power, as it would be in its interest to wield power without being identified as a single bloc, like how it successfully did up until the eve of war.

Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...