What Happens Next

[edikroma]

The Horde has really backed themselves into a corner with the entire "Karma" thing.

Karma is as much about inaction as it is about action. How many of you enjoyed the peace and prosperity brought about by NPO's "evil" rule? How many of you were, at one time or another, allied to this "great menace"? How many of you stood by time after time as NPO crushed another alliance beneath its jackboot? Remember, all these actions have affected your karma as well. Thus, I could be justified in saying that your actions now are all simply an effort to make up for the bad karma you yourselves have accumulated during NPO's reign.

So, the question is, how far are you willing to go to absolve yourselves of your bad karma? When do you cross the line from making up for past sins, and committing new ones?

You have chosen to relinquish NPO of it's title as "Judge, Jury and Executioner". Now how will you yield that power?

You guys should have stuck to a name that more appropriately reflects the opinions of apparently many members, like the Horde, or the Mob, or Revenge. See, in that case, you wouldn't have to worry about moral high ground. You can be as ruthless and vengeful as you like, and it would free you from the cyclic nature of karma.

[Kindom of Goon]

Its a name, who cares?

[edikroma]

Its a name, who cares?

It's not a just a name. The Horde keeps claiming that they're agents of karma, keep bringing up "Karma is a..." and "You reap what you sow" and "What goes around, comes around".

Also, from Archon's post when war first broke out...

We are Karma incarnate, and we stand in solidarity here today to decree that this action shall not stand. You will pay for what you have done.

You pick a basic tenet of my religion as a reason for your actions, you better believe I'll call you out on it.

[Smacky]

It's not a just a name. The Horde keeps claiming that they're agents of karma, keep bringing up "Karma is a..." and "You reap what you sow" and "What goes around, comes around".

Also, from Archon's post when war first broke out...

You pick a basic tenet of my religion as a reason for your actions, you better believe I'll call you out on it.

I didn't know Karma was a tenant of Judaism.

[Draztikus]

I didn't know Karma was a tenant of Judaism.

I didn't know OWRP was an IC forum. Oh right, it isn't.

Carry on debating

[Alterego]

I dsagree on the last part. They are just as responsible for their crimes. They were not hoodwinked or tricked. They made conscious choices and threw in their lot with the NPO and the NPO's barbaric practices and they should suffer appropriate consequences.

Judge, jury and executioner. Your plan would condemn almost every alliance on Bob. Lets not forget your part in all this unless they only became "evil" 6 months ago. I hope your power trip is a short and unsupported one.

[Vilien]

Judge, jury and executioner. Your plan would condemn almost every alliance on Bob. Lets not forget your part in all this unless they only became "evil" 6 months ago. I hope your power trip is a short and unsupported one.

No, it wouldn't. You act as if every alliance on Planet Bob has been responsible for the same misery that Pacifica has caused. It's pure !@#$%^&*. No one's going to believe this crap, no matter how many times you repeat it.

[Alterego]

No, it wouldn't. You act as if every alliance on Planet Bob has been responsible for the same misery that Pacifica has caused. It's pure !@#$%^&*. No one's going to believe this crap, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Thats why I called it his plan. I dont agree with what he said. His original propaganda line was to bring down the hegemony. Now he wants big reps and punishment for anyone who didnt do his bidding over the last 6 months.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Alterego

[bobjohnny]

Karma is as much about inaction as it is about action. How many of you enjoyed the peace and prosperity brought about by NPO's "evil" rule?

I just laughed so hard. Thank you. Seriously, prosperity? That's a joke if i've ever heard one. Although there is that saying of "Peace through superior firepower"

Edit: inability to spell

Edited May 2, 2009 by bobjohnny

[Augustus Autumn]

No, it wouldn't. You act as if every alliance on Planet Bob has been responsible for the same misery that Pacifica has caused. It's pure !@#$%^&*. No one's going to believe this crap, no matter how many times you repeat it.

There is some validity, unfortunately, to the argument that silence is a form of tacit support. Again, it's a battle of the moral highground what with the choice of the name for the opposition against the New Pacific Order, complete with all pitfalls and perils that go along with it. The moment you attempt to turn "right" and "wrong" as well as "good" and "evil" into concrete things you begin to risk losing that highground.

[The Eye]

IC = move

[Qaianna]

When has Karma said they wanted all money "stolen" returned? Also, where did I say everything that the NPO did was evil?

Many times in this thread, individual members (as in individual rulers) have said that. I tried to make that distinction, although I can see where it's vague when I say 'members'. I meant people on the level of me (I was about to say 'you and me', but you have a little more authority over your alliance than I do mine).

And I also did not mean to imply that you have said the New Pacific Order is evil. I am referring to, again, individual rulers who seem to be quite happy with declaring any action taken by the Order or its allies as evil, regardless of whether it is or not.

[Tygaland]

Many times in this thread, individual members (as in individual rulers) have said that. I tried to make that distinction, although I can see where it's vague when I say 'members'. I meant people on the level of me (I was about to say 'you and me', but you have a little more authority over your alliance than I do mine).

And I also did not mean to imply that you have said the New Pacific Order is evil. I am referring to, again, individual rulers who seem to be quite happy with declaring any action taken by the Order or its allies as evil, regardless of whether it is or not.

During the last war a "member" of an alliance, nay, a leader of an alliance suggested members of the STA should die in a fire. Another sent messages saying "YOU ARE GOING TO DIE NOW" to certain alliance members. Perhaps I should have run those up the flagpole and claimed it represented all opinion from that side of the war rather than ignore it as the opinion of a few.

[Qaianna]

During the last war a "member" of an alliance, nay, a leader of an alliance suggested members of the STA should die in a fire. Another sent messages saying "YOU ARE GOING TO DIE NOW" to certain alliance members. Perhaps I should have run those up the flagpole and claimed it represented all opinion from that side of the war rather than ignore it as the opinion of a few.

If you have shown restraint in this sort of thing, then I commend your ability to separate the purile screaming from ... er, whatever else that's left. I will admit I'm not QUITE to that point yet, which means that when things get too bad I tend towards self-enforced bans of these forums.

I think threads like this in general bring out the more bloodthirsty members of a faction. Which ... you must admit, tends to paint the entire group as less than what they say they are, what with the loudest voice and all that. Note that I am not saying this behaviour is exclusive to one side of the conflict.

If you meant to quantify your earlier question with 'anyone in power in "Karma"', then I will admit I haven't been able to identify whether those parties have been crying for blood in this manner.

[Tygaland]

If you have shown restraint in this sort of thing, then I commend your ability to separate the purile screaming from ... er, whatever else that's left. I will admit I'm not QUITE to that point yet, which means that when things get too bad I tend towards self-enforced bans of these forums.

I think threads like this in general bring out the more bloodthirsty members of a faction. Which ... you must admit, tends to paint the entire group as less than what they say they are, what with the loudest voice and all that. Note that I am not saying this behaviour is exclusive to one side of the conflict.

If you meant to quantify your earlier question with 'anyone in power in "Karma"', then I will admit I haven't been able to identify whether those parties have been crying for blood in this manner.

No, I meant any official statement from Karma with regards to peace terms. If you see any that are remotely like you are trying to claim then please point it out to me. Otherwise you are just taking some peoples' bluster as official policy which, as I pointed out, is something only the desperate would trot out.

So far peace terms that have been offered have been lenient on anyone's scale. Ridiculously so if you compare them to the peace terms offered throughtout recent history.

So, while I realise it is your job to demonise Karma and cast doubt over their actions, there is really no fodder for you to do that so people resort to fantasy and the hypothetical to try and make a case.

[Qaianna]

No, I meant any official statement from Karma with regards to peace terms. If you see any that are remotely like you are trying to claim then please point it out to me. Otherwise you are just taking some peoples' bluster as official policy which, as I pointed out, is something only the desperate would trot out.

So far peace terms that have been offered have been lenient on anyone's scale. Ridiculously so if you compare them to the peace terms offered throughtout recent history.

So, while I realise it is your job to demonise Karma and cast doubt over their actions, there is really no fodder for you to do that so people resort to fantasy and the hypothetical to try and make a case.

I'm going to object to the 'desperate' aspect there. As I said earlier, not all have the skills you earlier described, of separating bluster from policy. While I seek to refine mine, it does not actually stop said bluster.

I also would like to object to you telling me what my job is. Here I'm on a bit more solid ground, unless you can find where I've received orders. Which would be news to me; I merely provide my own observation. Or bluster, if you so deem it. While I apologise for misinterpreting your earlier question (for those who may not remember, it was him asking to point out Karma demanding horrible terms and disbandments), I would appreciate if you not demonise me in the process as well. There are others who are more than happy to, for certain reasons.

[Tygaland]

I'm going to object to the 'desperate' aspect there. As I said earlier, not all have the skills you earlier described, of separating bluster from policy. While I seek to refine mine, it does not actually stop said bluster.

I also would like to object to you telling me what my job is. Here I'm on a bit more solid ground, unless you can find where I've received orders. Which would be news to me; I merely provide my own observation. Or bluster, if you so deem it. While I apologise for misinterpreting your earlier question (for those who may not remember, it was him asking to point out Karma demanding horrible terms and disbandments), I would appreciate if you not demonise me in the process as well. There are others who are more than happy to, for certain reasons.

Well, you didn't come here with any tangible evidence to support your accusations so I assumed you were here to demonise Karma despite that. You didn't ask what Karma's policy was, you didn't acknowledge the terms that have been offered and accepted so far, you just cited a few angry posts and tried to sell that as Karma policy. It is pretty easy to sort bluster from policy. Policy is in an official statement. Bluster is random posts by members on the forum. If you are uncertain, you can always ask.

As for the desperate, you'll find that many people have tried to state Karma is as bad as the NPO was without any evidence to support their claim. It has been going on for days, so the desperate description wasn't directed at you personally but to all who are crying wolf in the hope someone buys it.

[Qaianna]

Well, you didn't come here with any tangible evidence to support your accusations so I assumed you were here to demonise Karma despite that. You didn't ask what Karma's policy was, you didn't acknowledge the terms that have been offered and accepted so far, you just cited a few angry posts and tried to sell that as Karma policy. It is pretty easy to sort bluster from policy. Policy is in an official statement. Bluster is random posts by members on the forum. If you are uncertain, you can always ask.

As for the desperate, you'll find that many people have tried to state Karma is as bad as the NPO was without any evidence to support their claim. It has been going on for days, so the desperate description wasn't directed at you personally but to all who are crying wolf in the hope someone buys it.

That's because I wasn't accusing you, or 'Karma' leaders. I thought that was clear when I said 'individual', althogh I do admit that could be interpreted in different ways. Thus, while immaterial, I feel like my earlier point (namely, that there's a lot of bluster) is justified.

I was also throwing my second question at the bluster as well. Curiously, you're the only one who's actually responded to it. Still, I will admit that this is an interesting look at ... well, I can't really generalise it as 'rank and file', as it's only a few voices.

I am curious as to official 'Karma' policy. However, I do understand that due to the numbers involved, it's likely not going to be as easy as accessing karma.com/alliancesurrenderterms. If you feel it safe to do so, please mail me a copy; you know my address here. If it is still in discussion, I won't demand immediate answers, although having an exit strategy to war is useful.

[Tygaland]

That's because I wasn't accusing you, or 'Karma' leaders. I thought that was clear when I said 'individual', althogh I do admit that could be interpreted in different ways. Thus, while immaterial, I feel like my earlier point (namely, that there's a lot of bluster) is justified.

I was also throwing my second question at the bluster as well. Curiously, you're the only one who's actually responded to it. Still, I will admit that this is an interesting look at ... well, I can't really generalise it as 'rank and file', as it's only a few voices.

I am curious as to official 'Karma' policy. However, I do understand that due to the numbers involved, it's likely not going to be as easy as accessing karma.com/alliancesurrenderterms. If you feel it safe to do so, please mail me a copy; you know my address here. If it is still in discussion, I won't demand immediate answers, although having an exit strategy to war is useful.

You were using "bluster" from isolated members to paint Karma in a bad light. Even when it was pointed out to you that it was just that, bluster, you just said you are unable to differentiate between official policy and bluster as though that supported your assertions with regards to Karma policy.

When I pointed out to you that official policy comes out via official announcements such as have been made on occasion or via peace terms agreements between combatant alliances you then ask me to present Karma policy or link you to it. The evidence is all around you in those official announcements and peace terms agreements.

Seek and ye shall find.

[Qaianna]

You were using "bluster" from isolated members to paint Karma in a bad light. Even when it was pointed out to you that it was just that, bluster, you just said you are unable to differentiate between official policy and bluster as though that supported your assertions with regards to Karma policy.

When I pointed out to you that official policy comes out via official announcements such as have been made on occasion or via peace terms agreements between combatant alliances you then ask me to present Karma policy or link you to it. The evidence is all around you in those official announcements and peace terms agreements.

Seek and ye shall find.

While I do look forward to a good read, I should clarify--when I mentioned issues with bluster and policy, I meant it as an explanation and admission of my personal error. Who takes admission of ignorance as an attempt at proof, anyhow?

And on that note, I will depart from this thread.

[shahenshah]

There is no need for far and future predictions nor any complex ones for present.

NPO will be subjected to more beating and will be offered terms, no white peace for NPO most likely.

War can probably end in 1 day if Karma seeks to. But right now Karma would likely wish to press on the advantage, NPO has a great and glorious past, right or wrong is not the point, but that past has shown NPO's great resilience, and some would ensure that such resilience be pressed on for as long as possible. After all, they have chosen the risky name 'Karma'

- 2nd line is the srs bsnss part.

Edited May 3, 2009 by shahenshah

[Alejandro Villalba]

Well im watching this war closely, and apparently Sparta just surpassed Iron. I wonder if Sparta ends up as the number one alliance at the end of this war.

[eyriq]

This war has already begun to lose it's luster, but that is probably because I'm not involved.

Seriously though, I wonder what objectives are best sought after in concluding this war. One is to break up the hegemony; this has been done but probably needs the symbolic drop of NPO from the top spot before it will be really tangible.

Second is the secured freedom of FAN and Vox, which to me symbolizes the reestablishment of a competitive, fluid, and rich political environment. This can be secured if Karma wishes it to be so at this point.

I think that if this war turns into an "Eye for an Eye" affair and the NPO is dragged along for a grueling beating that this war looses it's luster and actually begins to work against objectives 1 and 2.

I do not envy those leaders that are having to decide how to conclude this war, as a defeated yet living NPO is a terrifying reality. I think though that the process of the NPO attempting to rise again will be worth the risk just based on entertainment value alone! Also, Karma leaders are savvy enough this go around to go toe to toe against the best that the NPO or others can bring. With that in mind maybe some ammo can be saved from the Karma stockpiles; saved for a rainy day.

[Alejandro Villalba]

Does this makes sense...

Do you think NPO is going to surrender to terms that might prevent them from being on top...karma should keep pushing them down untill they are out of sanctions if they want to survive, NPO should focus on destroying the smaller alliances to break up Karma. Is like the David Goliath battle.