The Gap between Perception and reallity.

[Authur]

But then does that not go back to alliance members being held responsible for the actions of their leaders? If they didn't approve of their leaders' actions, they should have left that alliance.

In a war situation I agree you should be held responsible but not when making a post. I have seen plenty of people make respectful comments and get torn to shreds because their AA just happens to be an unfavorable one. This happened before the shift and continued after. All it does is breed hate. Many of you hate the NPO becuase of the way they have treated you and now some of you have done the same to respectful members who just happen to belong to an allaince you dislike.

[Ragashingo]

Very few alliances "deserve" white peace based on past actions. By giving the NPO white peace though it would send a strong message. It would speak volumes to the type of change you guys have been championing.

Ah the heart of the matter. The NPO and their allies got a bad reputation in part becuase they were proactive in keeping their allaince safe from potential threats by using harsh terms to cripple the opposition for extended periods. If Karma does the same, gives the NPO harsh terms to ensure they can not be a threat for the foreseeable future then they are doing the very same thing they criticize the NPO for.

The terms are going to send a message to the world. Was this war really about change or was revenge a big part of it?

If Karma was some sort of white peace for everyone movement you'd be right. It isn't. Change has already come. Many alliances have outright abolished their use of P/E ZI, alliances on the losing side of a major war are being given the most lenient terms we've seen in a very long time, and those guilty of a very long history of atrocities against the world are finally seeing the consequences of their actions.

The only way Karma fails is if the peace terms given out are unreasonable, or if they don't fit an alliance's crimes. So far that hasn't happened.

[Authur]

Are you really complaining about people being treated differently based on being part of a Hegemony alliance on these forums? I mean, really? Just so I'm sure before I begin a rant about how daft that is ...

I am not complaining, just pointing out the reality of what is occurring. When you adopt the mentality of "it's been done to us so it's fair to do it to you" then your going to be seen as the bad guy to people who didn't do that to you first but merely belong to an allaince who contains members who have. That's just reality.

[Authur]

The fear is that it results in no change, as the NPO would rebound, knock out the opposition, and go back to all the objectionable practices they champion.

If we lose the rematch there wouldn't be a third bout.

Fear is what caused a lot of this mess in the first place. We need to stop letting fear dictate our actions.

[Ragashingo]

In a war situation I agree you should be held responsible but not when making a post. I have seen plenty of people make respectful comments and get torn to shreds because their AA just happens to be an unfavorable one. This happened before the shift and continued after. All it does is breed hate. Many of you hate the NPO becuase of the way they have treated you and now some of you have done the same to respectful members who just happen to belong to an allaince you dislike.

I've seen very little of what you are talking about. Are you sure you aren't just blowing a few random comments out of proportion? Has every member of Karma been a perfect saint? Of course not. Has Karma as a whole acted better than what usually passes for discourse around here? I think so.

[Lord Rune]

In a war situation I agree you should be held responsible but not when making a post. I have seen plenty of people make respectful comments and get torn to shreds because their AA just happens to be an unfavorable one. This happened before the shift and continued after. All it does is breed hate. Many of you hate the NPO becuase of the way they have treated you and now some of you have done the same to respectful members who just happen to belong to an allaince you dislike.

I thought you were referring to such things as EZI, Disbandment, monstrous reps' etc.

And I'm in GATO. We're not fighting anyone. Which is nice.

[Authur]

If Karma was some sort of white peace for everyone movement you'd be right. It isn't. Change has already come. Many alliances have outright abolished their use of P/E ZI, alliances on the losing side of a major war are being given the most lenient terms we've seen in a very long time, and those guilty of a very long history of atrocities against the world are finally seeing the consequences of their actions.

The only way Karma fails is if the peace terms given out are unreasonable, or if they don't fit an alliance's crimes. So far that hasn't happened.

I am not saying that white peace is a necessity. The terms will however be a good indication of where we might be headed. If the terms are harsh then this tells me revenge was a big part of it and I'm sorry but if revenge is that much of the equation I'm not too optimistic. If fair terms are offered then I will be more hopeful about the future of this world.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Authur

[Ragashingo]

Fear is what caused a lot of this mess in the first place. We need to stop letting fear dictate our actions.

Thats a load of baloney. Actions, not fears, are what caused this, specifically the NPO's overly aggressive and harsh actions. While saying that we need to stop letting our fear dictate our actions sounds good it don't mean a darn thing.

[Ragashingo]

I am not saying that white peace is necessarily. The terms will however be a good indication of where we might be headed. If the terms are harsh then this tells me revenge was a big part of it and I'm sorry but if revenge is that much of the equation I'm not too optimistic. If fair terms are offered then I will be more hopeful about the future of this world.

For me, revenge is a part of it, but justice is a lot bigger part. It all comes down to whether people like you are going to be willing to accept fair terms as actually being fair of if you're going to call anything less than an apology and white peace barbaric terms that make Karma exactly the same as the NPO.

I'm curious: What are the harshest potential terms that Karma might impose on the NPO that you would still call fair?

[Authur]

I've seen very little of what you are talking about. Are you sure you aren't just blowing a few random comments out of proportion? Has every member of Karma been a perfect saint? Of course not. Has Karma as a whole acted better than what usually passes for discourse around here? I think so.

Again it's perspective. I was a part of Q at the time so obviously I saw things from a different perspective however it gets annoying to see people speak about being better while treating people differently based on their alliance of choice.

To clarify I'm not speaking about all of Karma or saying that in general Karma members are bad. That element exists though, just as it does in the opposition and it unfairly alters others perceptions.

[Orkules]

Our methods are different than yours. Look at the peace so far. I can almost guarantee you that Hegemony alliances would never give such easy terms to any but the smallest alliances (and given how they treated TDSM8 not even then).

We will NOT force people to reroll or quit, we will not force you to disband. We may devastate your alliance. We may impose reps upon you. That is fair, that is war. We will not force you to cripple your alliance just to pay them, and we won't violate the above terms. If any alliance I am allied to tries I will be disappointed and I hope my government takes action against it. If my government or the government of any CnG alliance pushes or signs such terms I have told them explicitly that I will leave for somebody I see as more honorable or just than they.

[Ragashingo]

Again it's perspective. I was a part of Q at the time so obviously I saw things from a different perspective however it gets annoying to see people speak about being better while treating people differently based on their alliance of choice.

To clarify I'm not speaking about all of Karma or saying that in general Karma members are bad. That element exists though, just as it does in the opposition and it unfairly alters others perceptions.

If most of Karma is acting better than what you're used to and its only a small minority acting bad then you don't have much of a complaint.

[Authur]

Thats a load of baloney. Actions, not fears, are what caused this, specifically the NPO's overly aggressive and harsh actions. While saying that we need to stop letting our fear dictate our actions sounds good it don't mean a darn thing.

Many of the actions the NPO took were out of fear/concern for their safety. They were overly aggressive/harsh to protect themselves. If the NPO is giving terms based on their likely hood of rising back up and challenging for their former spot then that too would be done out of fear.

Personally I'd like to see a world (and I said this before this all occurred or was even a possibility) were everyone is fighting for the top and after a war the enemy is given white peace/light terms so that the cycle can repeat itself.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Authur

[Authur]

If most of Karma is acting better than what you're used to and its only a small minority acting bad then you don't have much of a complaint.

Only a minority of Q members acted badly as well yet complaints abound about them as well.

Again this is NOT a complaint. This thread is about the gap between perception and realty and I'm attempting to give you the alternative perception along with what I see as the reality of the situation.

[bzelger]

Fear is what caused a lot of this mess in the first place. We need to stop letting fear dictate our actions.

"Fear" in the sense of "concern," not in the sense of "terror." It's all well and good to languish in defeat in order to stand for your ideals, but it's far better to ensure them.

[brass]

And I'm in GATO. We're not fighting anyone. Which is nice.

"nice"? It is as Ironic as FAN Not being fully engaged! :lol:

[Authur]

Our methods are different than yours. Look at the peace so far. I can almost guarantee you that Hegemony alliances would never give such easy terms to any but the smallest alliances (and given how they treated TDSM8 not even then).

We will NOT force people to reroll or quit, we will not force you to disband. We may devastate your alliance. We may impose reps upon you. That is fair, that is war. We will not force you to cripple your alliance just to pay them, and we won't violate the above terms. If any alliance I am allied to tries I will be disappointed and I hope my government takes action against it. If my government or the government of any CnG alliance pushes or signs such terms I have told them explicitly that I will leave for somebody I see as more honorable or just than they.

For starters they are not "My Methods". I am no longer a part of that group and even when I was I didn't agree with every single policy or decision my allaince made (I doubt very few people can honestly say they do).

You are correct that Hegemony alliances would not give easy peace terms. I am not here to make a case otherwise.

As for the rest of your comment I too hope fair terms are given. I am not against change we just all have different changes we want to see. I am just stating the one I wish to see.

[Orkules]

May of the actions the NPO took were out of fear/concern for their safety. They were overly aggressive/harsh to protect themselves. If the NPO is giving terms based on their likely hood of rising back up and challenging for their former spot then that too would be done out of fear.

Personally I'd like to see a world (and I said this before this all occurred or was even a possibility) were everyone is fighting for the top and after a war the enemy is given white peace/light terms so that the cycle can repeat itself.

That makes them okay? They unleashed incredibly harsh terms on everyone and their mother just for the sake of making sure they would NEVER be a threat again (which ironicly created more enemies than it removed).

Our moves aren't out of fear. I don't fear NPO's return. I've faced the worse they can do and I'm still standing. They can come and try it again, they'll win or they'll lose but I'll still be here and we'll do this all over again.

I do, however, want to punish them for their actions. I don't want to simply destroy them and cripple them with reps for the sake of removing an enemy, frankly I want them to come back eventually as a threat or maybe (if by some miracle they learn the lesson we're trying to teach now) an ally someday. However, that does not mean they should get white peace. I believe in white peace only to an extent. In a foe that has acted as they have and who has shown the ability to recover as rapidly and completely as they have you have to put some sort of terms on it. The difference, I hope, is that we will know where to draw the line. They never have.

And I want to put them at a point where after the war the world is more or less balanced, divided, whatever. I want competition, I want fighting and chaos. I want the world to be interesting.

[Ragashingo]

May of the actions the NPO took were out of fear/concern for their safety. They were overly aggressive/harsh to protect themselves. If the NPO is giving terms based on their likely hood of rising back up and challenging for their former spot then that too would be done out of fear.

Personally I'd like to see a world (and I said this before this all occurred or was even a possibility) were everyone is fighting for the top and after a war the enemy is given white peace/light terms so that the cycle can repeat itself.

This crushing other alliances to protect themselves thing just won't fly in most cases. Take GATO 1V war for instance. Holding GATO's government captive for nearly a year was about stopping GATO from rising up and challenging them? No. Thats completely false. GATO was working hard to restore and rebuild relations with everyone before its last war started. I think you'll find the same thing was true of many of the alliances the NPO attacked. They were never trying to be a threat, and were only crushed because they might be a potential threat. Far far too often the NPO went on the offensive to put down potential, not actual, threats.

If you want to see your world or something close to it succeed you would be supporting Karma. While I highly doubt we'll ever see white peace so often again, I do think that something much closer to your idea of light reps will be promoted.

Only a minority of Q members acted badly as well yet complaints abound about them as well.

Again this is NOT a complaint. This thread is about the gap between perception and realty and I'm attempting to give you the alternative perception along with what I see as the reality of the situation.

Members of the NPO and its allies were often encouraged to act poorly towards the alliances they were at war with. Members of Karma are encourage to act with respect and dignity towards the alliance they are at war with. Sure only a minority of both sides may have acted up, but the reasons they acted up are just as important if not more so.

[Orkules]

For starters they are not "My Methods". I am no longer a part of that group and even when I was I didn't agree with every single policy or decision my allaince made (I doubt very few people can honestly say they do).

You are correct that Hegemony alliances would not give easy peace terms. I am not here to make a case otherwise.

As for the rest of your comment I too hope fair terms are given. I am not against change we just all have different changes we want to see. I am just stating the one I wish to see.

I was not commenting in response to your posts, I hadn't read them. I commenting based on the OP.

[Authur]

"Fear" in the sense of "concern," not in the sense of "terror." It's all well and good to languish in defeat in order to stand for your ideals, but it's far better to ensure them.

I never said terror nor implied it. I do not believe the NPO was terrified of FAN, GOONS, etc but they were concerned that these alliances could quickly rebuild and attack. Beyond punishment the terms offered were a means to lessening the treat. I'd like to see that mind set abolished.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Authur

[Authur]

I was not commenting in response to your posts, I hadn't read them. I commenting based on the OP.

Sorry, I got caught up in all the replies.

[Orkules]

Sorry, I got caught up in all the replies.

No worries, I figured that was what happened. Done it myself before.

[Authur]

That makes them okay? They unleashed incredibly harsh terms on everyone and their mother just for the sake of making sure they would NEVER be a threat again (which ironicly created more enemies than it removed).

Our moves aren't out of fear. I don't fear NPO's return. I've faced the worse they can do and I'm still standing. They can come and try it again, they'll win or they'll lose but I'll still be here and we'll do this all over again.

I do, however, want to punish them for their actions. I don't want to simply destroy them and cripple them with reps for the sake of removing an enemy, frankly I want them to come back eventually as a threat or maybe (if by some miracle they learn the lesson we're trying to teach now) an ally someday. However, that does not mean they should get white peace. I believe in white peace only to an extent. In a foe that has acted as they have and who has shown the ability to recover as rapidly and completely as they have you have to put some sort of terms on it. The difference, I hope, is that we will know where to draw the line. They never have.

And I want to put them at a point where after the war the world is more or less balanced, divided, whatever. I want competition, I want fighting and chaos. I want the world to be interesting.

I never said they were "ok". I am not here defending the NPO.

My problem with the punishment part is that I think it's ripe for abuse. For starters just what are they being punished for? Their actions in this war alone or everything they have ever done in the past? If it's the latter then the punishment is going to get out of control and it sets a bad precedent in this new environment. Personally I think the punishment for any war should not extend beyond the events that lead to it.

As for the last part I'm with you :jihad:

Edited May 3, 2009 by Authur

[Authur]

This crushing other alliances to protect themselves thing just won't fly in most cases. Take GATO 1V war for instance. Holding GATO's government captive for nearly a year was about stopping GATO from rising up and challenging them? No. Thats completely false. GATO was working hard to restore and rebuild relations with everyone before its last war started. I think you'll find the same thing was true of many of the alliances the NPO attacked. They were never trying to be a threat, and were only crushed because they might be a potential threat. Far far too often the NPO went on the offensive to put down potential, not actual, threats.

If you want to see your world or something close to it succeed you would be supporting Karma. While I highly doubt we'll ever see white peace so often again, I do think that something much closer to your idea of light reps will be promoted.

Members of the NPO and its allies were often encouraged to act poorly towards the alliances they were at war with. Members of Karma are encourage to act with respect and dignity towards the alliance they are at war with. Sure only a minority of both sides may have acted up, but the reasons they acted up are just as important if not more so.

I never said they were true threats, but the terms clearly were designed in part to prevent them from becoming a threat. The same would hold true here though. If the NPO loses and agrees to terms there is no guarantee they will become a threat to the allaince/alliances they surrender to.

You don't support the side trying to crush you, your allaince (at the time), and your friends but I get what your saying. I think many of us on both sides of the argument want to see change we are just too busy passing out blame and fighting over what that change should be to see it.

I do not know what occurs behind closed doors at the NPO but just becuase a member was encouraged doesn't make him better or worse. I am not here defending leadership or even including them.