What Happens Next

[Vilien]

Pacifica should not be forced to cancel its doctrines as a peace term. They will stand or fall by themselves.

[Owned-You]

Pacifica should not be forced to cancel its doctrines as a peace term. They will stand or fall by themselves.

I agree with this statement...I'd expand and place my own points. However I don't have the time to state my opinions on the matter. I'll come back later.

[D34th]

Hi D34th. Long time no see. Let me see if I understand the situation you describe correctly.

1. If Karma does not adequately contain NPO then in the future NPO will definitely crush Karma, as the history of Great Wars 1-3 shows us.

2. If Karma does adequately contain NPO then in the future NPO may crush Karma because what goes around comes around.

3. Karma is doomed no matter what.

Is that about right?

No seriously folks. Does anybody here expect NPO to forgive and forget if they're given lenient terms while they're still strong? Anybody? Let's see those hands.

Hello Cirrus, How are you? I'm fine

I'm not telling that Karma should give white peace for NPO, this is their decision but this is their slogan also: "What goes around, comes around." So if they give harsh terms for NPO because NPO used to give harsh terms for alliances, "Karma" will receive harsh terms in the future, this is like a circle.

May be NPO will seek for vegeance, may be not, but NpO already showed for CN that harsh terms don't prevent alliances of rebuild and in my humble opinion I think that there are more changes of NPO seek for revenge if they receive harsh terms. NPO will rebuild whatever are the terms they receive and the better way of defeat an enemy is turn him in a friend.

I just think is funny see people wanting see NPO receiving the same surrender terms that they were against when they were the ones receiving it. This is why I say that there aren't the good and the bad boys in this war, just the winning and the losing side as always, only naive people believe that KARMA side are the saviors of cyberverse.

[Cirrus]

So if they give harsh terms for NPO because NPO used to give harsh terms for alliances,

"Because they used to give out harsh terms" is not why NPO should get harsh terms. "Because they will come back to bite us otherwise" is why.

Harsh terms for NPO would not be a reflection of desire for vengeance. They'd be a reflection of fear.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Cirrus

[Qaianna]

"Because they used to give out harsh terms" is not why NPO should get harsh terms. "Because they will come back to bite us otherwise" is why.

Harsh terms for NPO would not be a reflection of desire for vengeance. They'd be a reflection of fear.

Hmm. So ... if the Order and ITS allies win the war, and fear Karma rising again, you would agree to the same terms on yourself?

[HeinousOne]

My first statement was more sarcasm, they forced LOSS to move to the pink Sphere and remain in Neutrality for 1 whole year. Its something that can kill an alliance and almost killed us.

Ahh, well then I could surely understand why you said such.

It seems after some recent information made known in TWiP that I have begun to amend my own position. Seeing the NPO leadership bleed their members as they are, they really do not seem to have learned anything. If they continue in such a manner until the end then I would probably feel alright with seeing their peace mode members paying reparations.

[Bernardo]

A Word About Surrender Terms.

It's nothing we should be concerned with.

I very much disagree. A Buddhist or a Hindu teacher would agree with your analysis:

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.

But they would say that your analysis is incomplete.

By bringing about the defeat of NPO and being in a position to give them surrender terms, Karma (as a coalition) has taken on itself a karmic debt for NPO. The Buddhist teachers would then argue that it is the responsibility of those whom decide on the surrender terms (and in a sense your responsibility and my responsibility through these forums) to create just and fair surrender terms. Those who impose surrender terms on NPO are to some degree responsible for the future actions of NPO.

This is why many Buddhist or Hindu teachers do not want to accept new students. Accepting a student means accepting a degree of the responsibility for the actions of the student.

So there is a fourth option: not to impose surrender terms, but to have a peace agreement. A peace agreement in which NPO acknowledges that it disturbed the peace of Planet Bob by it's actions, that it wishes to have cordial relations with all nations and alliances on Planet Bob, and that it makes a set of choices - without surrendering - to do a variety of things. (Such as reducing military forces, providing gifts to other nations, ending wars, and so forth). As this is not an act of surrender, there is no karmic debt placed on the alliances and nations of the coalition known as Karma.

It is my sense that asking for the members of Hegemony to propose a peace agreement or having the Karma Coalition offer a peace agreement rather than demanding them to accept surrender terms would avoid the karmic entanglements which I personally would prefer to avoid.

(At one point in my life I desired to become a Bodhisattva, but then I realized that was just another desire. Now I just cook meals, do grocery shopping, teach and play browser games.)

Edited May 1, 2009 by Bernardo

[Firestorm]

I honestly don't care what Karma does. Either the NPO will fall and Karma will replace it or not. Either way there will always be an underdog around on Planet Bob for me to side with.

[shahenshah]

Hi D34th. Long time no see. Let me see if I understand the situation you describe correctly.

1. If Karma does not adequately contain NPO then in the future NPO will definitely crush Karma, as the history of Great Wars 1-3 shows us.

2. If Karma does adequately contain NPO then in the future NPO may crush Karma because what goes around comes around.

3. Karma is doomed no matter what.

Is that about right?

No seriously folks. Does anybody here expect NPO to forgive and forget if they're given lenient terms while they're still strong? Anybody? Let's see those hands.

Karma will not stay united, with or without NPO. A stronger NPO will actually be a fundamental for Karma to stay united for longer.

There are a number of alliances that did whatever they wanted with NPO approval.

You do realize alot of such alliances are fighting with Karma because they are not used to tough fights.

Edited May 1, 2009 by shahenshah

[Hayate]

How about having NPO return all that it has plundered?

[HolyMoley]

I think (as an independent observer) that:

Firstly the surrender terms should not allow NPO to sign any treaties for the first 6 months of their surrender, and that any further treaties cannot be passed without ratification by the leaders of Karma.

Secondly reparations should be 18 million and 300 tech from every member (932*$18,000,000 = $16.776 billion & 932*300 tech= 279,600 tech).

Thirdly Military:

A nuclear arms cap of 50 arms for 6 months.

All nations to have military at 20% of pop. (The minimum.)

Anything else would be too harsh.

[Delta1212]

I think (as an independent observer) that:

Firstly the surrender terms should not allow NPO to sign any treaties for the first 6 months of their surrender, and that any further treaties cannot be passed without ratification by the leaders of Karma.

Secondly reparations should be 18 million and 300 tech from every member (932*$18,000,000 = $16.776 billion & 932*300 tech= 279,600 tech).

Thirdly Military:

A nuclear arms cap of 50 arms for 6 months.

All nations to have military at 20% of pop. (The minimum.)

Anything else would be too harsh.

*emphasis added*

This post made me crack up.

[R&R-Viking]

Hmm. So ... if the Order and ITS allies win the war, and fear Karma rising again, you would agree to the same terms on yourself?

What kind of question is that? The past 3 years shows enemies of Pacifica didn't really have a choice in the matter.

[Tygaland]

Hello Cirrus, How are you? I'm fine

I'm not telling that Karma should give white peace for NPO, this is their decision but this is their slogan also: "What goes around, comes around." So if they give harsh terms for NPO because NPO used to give harsh terms for alliances, "Karma" will receive harsh terms in the future, this is like a circle.

May be NPO will seek for vegeance, may be not, but NpO already showed for CN that harsh terms don't prevent alliances of rebuild and in my humble opinion I think that there are more changes of NPO seek for revenge if they receive harsh terms. NPO will rebuild whatever are the terms they receive and the better way of defeat an enemy is turn him in a friend.

I just think is funny see people wanting see NPO receiving the same surrender terms that they were against when they were the ones receiving it. This is why I say that there aren't the good and the bad boys in this war, just the winning and the losing side as always, only naive people believe that KARMA side are the saviors of cyberverse.

So, by your logic, if someone is convicted of abducting a person and locking them in a dungeon for 10 years and are subsequently sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for their crime, then the legal system is "just as bad as" the person convicted?

[boscher]

So, by your logic, if someone is convicted of abducting a person and locking them in a dungeon for 10 years and are subsequently sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for their crime, then the legal system is "just as bad as" the person convicted?

this

I think we should keep attacking them until they beg us to stop.

[njndirish]

So, by your logic, if someone is convicted of abducting a person and locking them in a dungeon for 10 years and are subsequently sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for their crime, then the legal system is "just as bad as" the person convicted?

If we follow modern day thinking, its society's fault, not just the courts, for the said kidnapper turned out.

Aside from that, there will be no just conclusion for Karma, because with super harsh terms (ie economically, militarily, or even disbandment) the theory Karma started this war on (theory of karma) will rear its ugly head to the enforcers of these terms.

If NPO gets too light of terms, NPO follows the basic war law of Planet Bob: revenge.

To break from my objectiveness, I believe CN needs NPO just as much as we need MK or FAN. There needs to be a Joker to everyone's Batman, or else the story becomes dry.

Edited May 1, 2009 by njndirish

[Tygaland]

If we follow modern day thinking, its society's fault, not just the courts, for the said kidnapper turned out.

Aside from that, there will be no just conclusion for Karma, because with super harsh terms (ie economically, militarily, or even disbandment) the theory Karma started this war on (theory of karma) will rear its ugly head to the enforcers of these terms.

If NPO gets too light of terms, NPO follows the basic war law of Planet Bob: revenge.

To break from my objectiveness, I believe CN needs NPO just as much as we need MK or FAN. There needs to be a Joker to everyone's Batman, or else the story becomes dry.

So, are you going to answer the question ?

There will be a just conclusion for Karma, just not everyone will see it that way. My point being, the NPO is not an innocent so them being punished by terms considered as harsh would not be the same as some of the terms they have dealt out to innocent alliances in the past or those guilty of minor "crimes".

So, no matter how often certain elements parrot the line that anything more than white peace is new boss, just like the old boss, they are deluding themselves or at best trying to fool others into believing such a ridiculous statement.

If the Karma Coalition remains intact after this war is over (and I doubt it will) and begins to hunt down alliances one by one and apply cruel and unnecessary terms on them and their allies that dare defend them, then I'll concede your point. But until then it is just wishful thinking on your part.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Tygaland

[mykep]

You do realize alot of such alliances are fighting with Karma because they are not used to tough fights.

Like who? I believe everyone is treatied to someone to put them on this side...Honouring thier treaties...

If we follow modern day thinking, its society's fault, not just the courts, for the said kidnapper turned out.

Aside from that, there will be no just conclusion for Karma, because with super harsh terms (ie economically, militarily, or even disbandment) the theory Karma started this war on (theory of karma) will rear its ugly head to the enforcers of these terms.

If NPO gets too light of terms, NPO follows the basic war law of Planet Bob: revenge.

To break from my objectiveness, I believe CN needs NPO just as much as we need MK or FAN. There needs to be a Joker to everyone's Batman, or else the story becomes dry.

There are enough alliances that the role of good guy, bad guy, and ugly guy can be taken elsewhere. This plot line is over done...Needs new bad guy.

[Kindom of Goon]

I just think is funny see people wanting see NPO receiving the same surrender terms that they were against when they were the ones receiving it. This is why I say that there aren't the good and the bad boys in this war, just the winning and the losing side as always, only naive people believe that KARMA side are the saviors of cyberverse.

The difference you have failed to see is that NPO handed out god awful terms for alliances in defensive wars or those that just honoured treaties. If the NPO recieve harsh terms it will be to pay for an endless list of offenses, the last of which would be starting an aggressive war for a pretty weak reason. Tyga summed up what I'm trying to say pretty well.

And even then, NPO are probably more likely to recieve lighter terms than some of the victims of their glorified tech raids.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Kindom of Goon

[gantanX]

Man, All this talk about karma this, Hegemony that, hurt my brain

[Comrade Smith]

I personally don't see the problem in enforcing harsh peace terms as a punishment. The war is a trial, the peace terms the sentence. There's no doubt the NPO is a repeat offender of the worst kind and should be treated as such when it comes to the final peace terms.

edit for consistency

Edited May 1, 2009 by Comrade Smith

[Proxian Empire]

In some scenarios harsh terms will not even be necessary as the alliances will simply collapse on their own. Specifically in this scenario I am referring to clown alliances like MCXA or GGA that cannot exist without an all-powerful master to prop them up. Even if these two alliances somehow manage to stay together and do not disband, I imagine we will see a mass exodus from these alliances and their membership will dwindle to almost nothing. They will never rise to anything significant ever again.

In other circumstances we are looking at NPO. Single handedly NPO has done more harm to the game than any other alliance in existence. They have ruthlessly destroyed and stolen from other alliances, and I do not believe they should simply be 'let off'. However, unlike the Great Satan that is NPO, I am not a hypocrite and I do not support enforcing harsh and ridiculous terms upon a defeated alliance.

Instead, NPO should be required to pay back all the tech and money they have stolen from every alliance. This should go the same for every alliance on the Hegemony side, as these thieves should pay what they owe. I sincerely hope the powers that be consider this alternative.

[WcaesarD]

I seem to recall that just before the war started NPO stated that FAN wouldn't be given peace until they left peace mode and fought.... Sounds odd now, right?

I can't imagine any situation where Karma giving NPO white peace would be a good idea. I fully endorse harsh terms. I mean, this is the alliance that tried to force record terms onto GPA... Really guys?

[njndirish]

So, are you going to answer the question ?

There will be a just conclusion for Karma, just not everyone will see it that way. My point being, the NPO is not an innocent so them being punished by terms considered as harsh would not be the same as some of the terms they have dealt out to innocent alliances in the past or those guilty of minor "crimes".

So, no matter how often certain elements parrot the line that anything more than white peace is new boss, just like the old boss, they are deluding themselves or at best trying to fool others into believing such a ridiculous statement.

If the Karma Coalition remains intact after this war is over (and I doubt it will) and begins to hunt down alliances one by one and apply cruel and unnecessary terms on them and their allies that dare defend them, then I'll concede your point. But until then it is just wishful thinking on your part.

I avoid answering straight up questions, cuz that's how everyone rolls here on Planet Bob

I don't think Karma will become the new Bloc on the block, nor will they follow the war mongering the NPO has done since NAAC stole some oxygen. NPO does need to pay for some items they have committed that have been at best questionable, but the question remains is how much should they pay in which Karma does not enact karma.

Edit: I still blame you and Duffman for starting this whole shindig, but thank you at the same time

There are enough alliances that the role of good guy, bad guy, and ugly guy can be taken elsewhere. This plot line is over done...Needs new bad guy.

This is true, but I'd rather have the Joker than Two-face, Poison Ivy, and Bane.

Edited May 1, 2009 by njndirish

[D34th]

So, by your logic, if someone is convicted of abducting a person and locking them in a dungeon for 10 years and are subsequently sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for their crime, then the legal system is "just as bad as" the person convicted?

So KARMA is now the justice system of CN? If KARMA aren't they will be just commiting the same crime of NPO.

Eg: In real life if someone kill a friend of yours, do you have the right to kill the murderer? No, if you do so then you will be judged by murder doesn't matter if the person that you killed was good or bad.

Is Karma going to use eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth law?

The difference you have failed to see is that NPO handed out god awful terms for alliances in defensive wars or those that just honoured treaties. If the NPO recieve harsh terms it will be to pay for an endless list of offenses, the last of which would be starting an aggressive war for a pretty weak reason. Tyga summed up what I'm trying to say pretty well.

And even then, NPO are probably more likely to recieve lighter terms than some of the victims of their glorified tech raids.

Read above.