The Gap between Perception and reallity.

[Orkules]

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 set 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:

That is where we have to separate ourselves from them. We need to know where to draw the line. Should they punished for their past actions? Yes to some degree they should be but only enough to know that they had gone too far. But we have to know where to stop. Most of the terms are simple military terms that one should expect from any brutal and devastating war. Once again, where this is concerned we can't go too far. Reps can't be too high, no rerolls...the rest gets a bit more iffy so I don't know where to draw the line there. When the time to surrender comes I will judge for myself. If I think my leaders did live up to what I hoped, I will depart. They know this, though I seriously doubt my approval and presence will mean too terribly much in terms of their decision.

[Authur]

That is where we have to separate ourselves from them. We need to know where to draw the line. Should they punished for their past actions? Yes to some degree they should be but only enough to know that they had gone too far. But we have to know where to stop. Most of the terms are simple military terms that one should expect from any brutal and devastating war. Once again, where this is concerned we can't go too far. Reps can't be too high, no rerolls...the rest gets a bit more iffy so I don't know where to draw the line there. When the time to surrender comes I will judge for myself. If I think my leaders did live up to what I hoped, I will depart. They know this, though I seriously doubt my approval and presence will mean too terribly much in terms of their decision.

That's all I'm really saying about the terms. They will set the new precedent. They will be used to judge Karma alliances by many. That said it's pretty pointless arguing over terms that have yet to be set so I'm going to refrain from commenting on them further in this thread.

[Vhalen]

You know, I think it might be wise to point out, at this juncture, that Karma is far from a single-voiced entity, and there are ~9,500 nations at war with the Hegemony at the current time, so it's just maybe possible that opinions may vary a tiny bit.

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.

And then the "potential opposition." Let's be honest, it's like if Mike Tyson, at the top of his game (not the court jester Tyson we've grown so used to lately -- incidentally, feel free to enjoy any applicable parallels in that regard too) finished off or hired all his opponents, then, since he still wanted to punch someone, cruised by the local junior high school and started pounding students who were doing a little sparring. I'm not surprised the locals are outraged.

[Authur]

You know, I think it might be wise to point out, at this juncture, that Karma is far from a single-voiced entity, and there are ~9,500 nations at war with the Hegemony at the current time, so it's just maybe possible that opinions may vary a tiny bit.

And then the "potential opposition." Let's be honest, it's like if Mike Tyson, at the top of his game (not the court jester Tyson we've grown so used to lately -- incidentally, feel free to enjoy any applicable parallels in that regard too) finished off or hired all his opponents, then, since he still wanted to punch someone, cruised by the local junior high school and started pounding students who were doing a little sparring. I'm not surprised the locals are outraged.

I have no doubt that they do. It is just easier to refer to the group as Karma and not the individual alliances that make up the movement.

I totally get the hate that has manifested. My point is that if your against harsh terms that are designed to cripple your opposition for the sake of your security then don't do the same simply because it's justified.

In your analogy Mike Tyson (NPO) is going around picking on those weaker then him. If those students rise up to stop him that's fine however if after they defeat him they continue to bully him as he did them then they are advocating what they were opposed to.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Authur

[Tygaland]

Only one person answered my questions. How odd, considering this thread was opened to close the gap between perception and reality and my questions were designed to ram home the reality of Karma's situation.

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.

You didn't answer the question. In your opinion, does the NPO deserve white peace? There is little point sending a message if it results in you being killed. If a man breaks into your house regularly for years and robs you, then one day tries the same except this time you have a group of friends around who overpower him and take his gun. He promises he won't do it again if you let him go so you decide to be the bigger man and hand back his gun and tell him to be onhis way. He walks to the door and leaves. The next day you are at home watching TV and basking in your benevolence and the man returns, shoots you, steals your TV and burns your house to the ground. How does that gesture of good will resonate now?

No.

Precisely.

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.

They used harsh terms to cripple allied of alleged threats who only went to war via treaties. The difference is that Karma is targeting the core alliances that lead to this situation for terms to weaken them politically rather than anyone and everyone who was dragged into the war. That means Karma is different to the NPO, you just choose to ignore the obviousness of it.

Besides what is wrong with a challenge? So what if the NPO springs back up and comes after it's spot?

Nothing wrong with a challenge. There is something wrong with suicide, however. You make the assumption that keeping the NPO in check in the future is not going to be a challenge. I'm sure somewhere down the line the NPO will spring back both politically and militarily. I guess Karma's hope is that this is delayed as much as possible and that in the meantime the citizens of the Cyberverse appreciate life free from the jackboot of the NPO and will rally to subdue them again if that happens.

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?

Change. Sure, some people are enjoying the revenge aspect but the motivation of Karma is change.

[Bob Janova]

While your utopian vision is wonderful, the fact is that the current Hegemony is going to be full of vengeance and if they were to ever win a war in future it is almost certain that they would not allow those that they beat to get off lightly. Thus there is a balance to be struck between pure principle, and actually getting the hegemony out of the way to a sufficient extent that the stage is clear for a new and happier political landscape.

Terms offered to the core Hegemony alliances in this war will in a sense not be the first glimpse of that new world, but instead the last gasp of the old – although even having said all that, it is almost certain that such terms will be kinder than those issued by the Hegemony in the past.

I recognise that Hegemony (or in your case ex-Hegemony) members see it as in their interests to emphasise the NPO case, and the other core alliances still at war, but you can already see the difference between the old and new worlds in the very light or non-existent terms given to peripheral alliances already.

[bill n ted]

Morality is not about giving aggressive alliances a slap on the wrist and white peace; as I said in another thread, it is about fairness.

In the interest of fairness would you personally define fair as declaring neutrality, having your members drop AA to hit a neutral alliance thats getting dogpiled anyway?

No? Im glad, Id hate to have a hypocritical new overlord

[Authur]

Only one person answered my questions. How odd, considering this thread was opened to close the gap between perception and reality and my questions were designed to ram home the reality of Karma's situation.

You didn't answer the question. In your opinion, does the NPO deserve white peace? There is little point sending a message if it results in you being killed. If a man breaks into your house regularly for years and robs you, then one day tries the same except this time you have a group of friends around who overpower him and take his gun. He promises he won't do it again if you let him go so you decide to be the bigger man and hand back his gun and tell him to be onhis way. He walks to the door and leaves. The next day you are at home watching TV and basking in your benevolence and the man returns, shoots you, steals your TV and burns your house to the ground. How does that gesture of good will resonate now?

No, the NPO in my honest opinion does not.

I do not think your analogy works very well. In fact it works better in support of Perma and eternal ZI, which I assume your against?

What we have here are groups of individuals, organizations that are in a constant state of flux. The NPO like any other allaince can and has changed over time. Even if they do not it does not justify handcuffing their ability to be a force in this world. That's what the NPO did, they handcuffed allainces after wars. If you were against that pratice when the NPO did it you should be against it now.

They used harsh terms to cripple allied of alleged threats who only went to war via treaties. The difference is that Karma is targeting the core alliances that lead to this situation for terms to weaken them politically rather than anyone and everyone who was dragged into the war. That means Karma is different to the NPO, you just choose to ignore the obviousness of it.

I never said karma was not different. In fact I'm going to state right now that so far they have been different. I'm just concerned that the change seen so far will fall prey to the mind set of old once the common goal has been completed.

Nothing wrong with a challenge. There is something wrong with suicide, however. You make the assumption that keeping the NPO in check in the future is not going to be a challenge. I'm sure somewhere down the line the NPO will spring back both politically and militarily. I guess Karma's hope is that this is delayed as much as possible and that in the meantime the citizens of the Cyberverse appreciate life free from the jackboot of the NPO and will rally to subdue them again if that happens.

How is keeping the NPO down in fear of reprisal any different then what they did to FAN or some of the other allaince who claim to have been wronged?

While I was in IRON I wanted a war. I wanted a challenge. I did not fear losing. I am pleased that war has come and while I didn't enjoy or expect some of the events that have occured overall I'm glad it happened. I would hope that those in Karma do not fear but rather welcome NPO's retaliation. Why hold the NPO or anyone down for that matter just becuase they may challenge you, may defeat you?

This concern for safety is what resulted in the current situation. The large bloc's, the harsh terms, the intimidation of allies. It will lead there again someday if unchecked.

Change. Sure, some people are enjoying the revenge aspect but the motivation of Karma is change.

I hope you are right.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Authur

[bill n ted]

Change. Sure, some people are enjoying the revenge aspect but the motivation of Karma is change.

Karma is the dog that has finally caught the car. Its got what it wanted but it hasnt got a clue what to do with it. Change is one of those fuzzy words for "we dont know what we want nor a clue on how to implement it".

That and Karma is such a checkered band full of alliances that dont get on it wont last.

I look forward to Karma (does Karma even know who the "Karma" alliances are?) realizing its going to crumble

Edited May 4, 2009 by bill n ted

[Vilien]

Karma is the dog that has finally caught the car. Its got what it wanted but it hasnt got a clue what to do with it. Change is one of those fuzzy words for "we dont know what we want nor a clue on how to implement it".

That and Karma is such a checkered band full of alliances that dont get on it wont last.

I look forward to Karma (does Karma even know who the "Karma" alliances are?) realizing this

You worry about our nukes, and we'll worry about what to do about you when we're done with you.

[Authur]

While your utopian vision is wonderful, the fact is that the current Hegemony is going to be full of vengeance and if they were to ever win a war in future it is almost certain that they would not allow those that they beat to get off lightly. Thus there is a balance to be struck between pure principle, and actually getting the hegemony out of the way to a sufficient extent that the stage is clear for a new and happier political landscape.

Terms offered to the core Hegemony alliances in this war will in a sense not be the first glimpse of that new world, but instead the last gasp of the old – although even having said all that, it is almost certain that such terms will be kinder than those issued by the Hegemony in the past.

I recognise that Hegemony (or in your case ex-Hegemony) members see it as in their interests to emphasise the NPO case, and the other core alliances still at war, but you can already see the difference between the old and new worlds in the very light or non-existent terms given to peripheral alliances already.

Again I am seeing the old mind set that I personally feel lead to our current situation. This concern for safety.

I do understanding what you are saying. The NPO is likely to pass out harsh terms if they are victorious in the future but is it worth implementing something you were against to avoid that potential fate? Is the new world going to be like the old where only alliances that share the same policies are allowed to flourish? A dictator who treats his people well is still a dictator. I thought the goal was to eliminate a ruling class that forced their philosophy on others?

Edited May 4, 2009 by Authur

[bzelger]

Change is one of those fuzzy words for "we dont know what we want nor a clue on how to implement it".

No it isn't.

That and Karma is such a checkered band full of alliances that dont get on it wont last.

Good; we don't want it to coalesce into a new ruling bloc. We're overthrowing the lords of our domain, not usurping them.

[bill n ted]

You worry about our nukes, and we'll worry about what to do about you when we're done with you.

I will? Please dont nuke me, Ive never had a nuke before

And yes; you will worry about what to do with me. If you think Im going to roll over and have my tummy tickled your mistaken

[Drai]

Karma is the dog that has finally caught the car. Its got what it wanted but it hasnt got a clue what to do with it. Change is one of those fuzzy words for "we dont know what we want nor a clue on how to implement it".

That and Karma is such a checkered band full of alliances that dont get on it wont last.

I look forward to Karma (does Karma even know who the "Karma" alliances are?) realizing its going to crumble

So far I've gotten along with everybody in Karma and I haven't seen an argument (sniping at each other, there's been plenty of logical arguments) break out yet. Edit: Apparently there has been some arguing, I haven't been present during any of it though.

And I don't think we ever planned to be a lasting bloc. Numerous Karma leadership have said that we will probably drift apart after this war.

It seems like you're trying to build up huge expectations for this grouping so that when we don't turn out to be a superpower down the road you can say "I told you so". However that was never the plan in the first place.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Drai

[Authur]

No it isn't.

Actually he is not wrong. Just looking at this thread alone you can see different interpretation of what change really means. As has been pointed out Karma is a loose group of alliances, it's doubtful they all agree on what "change" means to them. There are some policies that are now globally accepted but there are many more issues that have yet to be truly discussed and others that will manifest themselves over time.

Out of curiosity what does change mean to you?

[Orkules]

I look forward to Karma (does Karma even know who the "Karma" alliances are?) realizing its going to crumble

Have you not read any of what I or most of the other Karma/allies of Karma have said? We know we're not going to stick together. Hell, in the middle of the war we've had alliances getting extremely angry at one another over the war itself. We are simply so loosely connected and so widely different that we can't maintain our current cohesion (if it can even be called that) beyond the war, hell it's barely staying together as is.

The amazing thing is that NPO and co have been so terrible in their actions that people with such radically different views can agree that they need to be brought down and are willing to cooperate (kinda sorta) in order to bring that about.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Orkules

[D34th]

You didn't answer the question. In your opinion, does the NPO deserve white peace? There is little point sending a message if it results in you being killed. If a man breaks into your house regularly for years and robs you, then one day tries the same except this time you have a group of friends around who overpower him and take his gun. He promises he won't do it again if you let him go so you decide to be the bigger man and hand back his gun and tell him to be onhis way. He walks to the door and leaves. The next day you are at home watching TV and basking in your benevolence and the man returns, shoots you, steals your TV and burns your house to the ground. How does that gesture of good will resonate now?

NPO didn't deserve white peace Tyga I totaly agree with you, but using your example, let's imagine that this man who breaks your house(Let's call him The Big Thief) had friends who until last month used to steal things with him, including your house's things, imagine that they come for you and say "Hey I used to steal you but I changed and I will help you to catch The Big Thief because I don't like him anymore.". If you can't be benevolent with The Big Thief why you can with their friends? Just because they are in your side? Because you believe that they changed? Because they won't steal you anymore?

May be that these guys who help you to catch The Big Thief just did what they did to have more liberty to steal you without worrying with The Big Thief...

Obs: When I say you, I'm not talking about you Tyga just about the guy of example

So my question to you:

What do you think that the ex-Continuum members who used to be part of hegemony and helped NPO with their heinous crimes deserve?

Edited May 4, 2009 by D34th

[Tygaland]

No, the NPO in my honest opinion does not.

Thanks for answering.

I do not think your analogy works very well. In fact it works better in support of Perma and eternal ZI, which I assume your against?

No, it supports using measures to keep a threat in check. PZI and EZI does not really do that, it just drains your resources fighting useless wars against weakened opposition. My analogy was designed to show that white peace with the NPO would be signing Karma's death warrant. What needs to happen is once the NPO is militarily weakened that it then needs to be politically weakened and there are means to do that that do not require viceroys or PZI. You seem to interpret peace terms as quantum leaps, white peace or EZI with nothing in between.

What we have here are groups of individuals, organizations that are in a constant state of flux. The NPO like any other allaince can and has changed over time. Even if they do not it does not justify handcuffing their ability to be a force in this world. That's what the NPO did, they handcuffed allainces after wars. If you were against that pratice when the NPO did it you should be against it now.

The NPO hasn't changed at all, the just became more determined to stamp out opposition after GWI. Coincidentally, their light peace terms back then did nothing other than give them a solid launching pad for the future endeavours. The other difference is that the NPO is an aggressor, not a victim. You seem to be apply moral equivalence to a defensive group and the aggressor.

I never said karma was not different. In fact I'm going to state right now that so far they have been different. I'm just concerned that the change seen so far will fall prey to the mind set of old once the common goal has been completed.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. You just have no evidence to support that opinion.

How is keeping the NPO down in fear of reprisal any different then what they did to FAN or some of the other allaince who claim to have been wronged?

Fear of reprisal? Where did you get that from? Karma will not exist after this war is over, it is up to the citizens of the Cyberverse whether they wish to protect the new freedoms this war will give them or not.

While I was in IRON I wanted a war. I wanted a challenge. I did not fear losing. I am pleased that war has come and while I didn't enjoy or expect some of the events that have occured overall I'm glad it happened. I would hope that those in Karma do not fear but rather welcome NPO's retaliation. Why hold the NPO or anyone down for that matter just becuase they may challenge you, may defeat you?

Because not doing so would make the changes we have fought to make meaningless. Refer to my earlier analogy.

This concern for safety is what resulted in the current situation. The large bloc's, the harsh terms, the intimidation of allies. It will lead there again someday if unchecked.

No, the continued aggression towards and oppression of alliances by the NPO and their cohorts is what created the groundswell of resentment and the demand for change. It has taken years for enough people to step up and take a stand to change that. And here you are asking them all to hand the NPO back their gun when it is done so they can come back quickly and undo all the changes made. I realise it is in your best interests to get the world back to what it was where you could lord over other alliances but it is not Karma's job to facilitate that for you.

[Tygaland]

Karma is the dog that has finally caught the car. Its got what it wanted but it hasnt got a clue what to do with it. Change is one of those fuzzy words for "we dont know what we want nor a clue on how to implement it".

I think Karma knows exactly what to do with the car now it has been caught. Unless you have evidenc eto the contrary?

That and Karma is such a checkered band full of alliances that dont get on it wont last.

You can always rely on a Valhallan mouthpiece to state the bleeding obvious. If you had read anything about Karma, you's know even Karma alliances acknowledge that the alliances that make up Karma will go their separate ways once the war is over.

I look forward to Karma (does Karma even know who the "Karma" alliances are?) realizing its going to crumble

See above. We knew before you did.

[Tygaland]

What do you think that the ex-Continuum members who used to be part of hegemony and helped NPO with their heinous crimes deserve?

I think most of the ex-Continuum alliances now working with Karma have been disillusioned with the Continuum for a while but were not willing to step away from it for fear of reprisal. If they are willing to work for a better Cyberverse then all power to them. As a leader of a mid-sized alliance I'd have to say that the ex-Continuum alliances in Karma have never caused me any issue directly. Those remaining to fight with the NPO, on the other hand, have trampled across my alliance a number of times. A numer of alliances that fought against me back in August in support of the Hegemony are now fighting by my side to end the Hegemony. Times change, I guess.

What do they deserve? It is not for me to decide. If they have taken this cause to right their wrongs of the past then that change in attitude is more than any war could achieve.

[SirDog]

What do you think that the ex-Continuum members who used to be part of hegemony and helped NPO with their heinous crimes deserve?

D34th, applying this question using the analogy of a burglary offence, I will answer.

The other parties assisting under Criminal Law become whats known as "parties to the offence" (it may be a different term where your from) and are therefore treated as the same as the main perpetrator. I am not saying that should occur in this case but you formulated the example using an offence and then applied it to those ex-Continuum members.

Also mitigating arguement can be utilised to determine the reasons as to why they followed the leader, under what circumstances ie willfully, negligently, blindly etc. So it is a very very difficult question to answer in the criminal context you have framed things. Are you thinking of holding a Planet Bob War Crimes Tribunal ?

edit: typo

Edited May 4, 2009 by SirDog

[Vhalen]

I have no doubt that they do. It is just easier to refer to the group as Karma and not the individual alliances that make up the movement.

I totally get the hate that has manifested. My point is that if your against harsh terms that are designed to cripple your opposition for the sake of your security then don't do the same simply because it's justified.

In your analogy Mike Tyson (NPO) is going around picking on those weaker then him. If those students rise up to stop him that's fine however if after they defeat him they continue to bully him as he did them then they are advocating what they were opposed to.

Easier, yes, but it leads to all kinds of awkward, untrue assumptions. Heck, referring is fine, but once you begin to stop thinking of the fact that it's really just individual alliances, that's when things get screwy.

And no, I don't think continuing to bully him would be right, but neither do I think it'd be anything remotely resembling sane for them to simply push him down, wag a finger, and say, "Now cut that out!" At this point, I think I'm going to avoid anything further on the analogy, however, as I've noticed they tend to get twisted around for some minor, irrelevant thing that doesn't really apply to the actual situation.

[Authur]

No, it supports using measures to keep a threat in check. PZI and EZI does not really do that, it just drains your resources fighting useless wars against weakened opposition. My analogy was designed to show that white peace with the NPO would be signing Karma's death warrant. What needs to happen is once the NPO is militarily weakened that it then needs to be politically weakened and there are means to do that that do not require viceroys or PZI. You seem to interpret peace terms as quantum leaps, white peace or EZI with nothing in between.

So what happens if the NPO rejects the terms? Violates them? Would you be in favor of eternal war ala FAN to ensure the NPO does not get their "gun back"? If your not prepared to back up the terms with war they are meaningless. This really isn't that different then the NPO keeping a member from growing, getting nukes and becoming a threat. Deal with the threat when it comes.

Right now the NPO is weakened militarily and politically. Most of their allies canceled on them, they have been and will continue to be beaten down the rankings, and they have and will continue to lose members. Even if white peace were granted tomorrow it would be months before they could gather enough support to fight a world that is pretty against them right now. Terms designed to extend this period, eternally perhaps, go against what I thought you guys were trying to do.

I do fully understand the various terms that can be given. I am not saying they have to get white peace I am just against terms that are designed to declaw the opposition becuase someday they might strike again. Punish them for their crimes in this war, perhaps a bit for their past behavior and move on. If they come back be prepared to fight again.

The NPO hasn't changed at all, the just became more determined to stamp out opposition after GWI. Coincidentally, their light peace terms back then did nothing other than give them a solid launching pad for the future endeavors. The other difference is that the NPO is an aggressor, not a victim. You seem to be apply moral equivalence to a defensive group and the aggressor.

So? They did the work needed, came back and won. I don't see a problem with that or why we should handcuff any allaince who might defeat ours in war. It doesn't really work well anyway as this war has shown. Once you start oppressing people out of concern for your own safety you just breed contempt.

Yes the NPO was and generally is the aggressor, not disputing that. That still doesn't make handcuffing them for the sake of security right.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. You just have no evidence to support that opinion.

I need evidence to support my concern?

It's just a feeling I get from some of the people on the Karma side (though not all are in it). I think they are motivated mainly by revenge and once this war is done they will work to implement themselves as the new ruling class. I guess we will see if I'm right soon enough. (There are also plenty who genuinely seem to want change)

Fear of reprisal? Where did you get that from? Karma will not exist after this war is over, it is up to the citizens of the Cyberverse whether they wish to protect the new freedoms this war will give them or not.

You alluded that it would be "suicide" to not handcuff the NPO and that they needed to be kept in "check". That to me suggests a fear that the NPO will come back for revenge, not necessarily against the exact alliances who defeated them but against this new movement.

I agree that it should be up to the citizens of the Cyberverse. If the NPO comes back to dominate in a similar fashion let the world at that time take action if they so choose.

Because not doing so would make the changes we have fought to make meaningless. Refer to my earlier analogy.

I argue that abandoning your beliefs out of concern for safety makes the changes you have fought for meaningless.

Your analogy wasn't about change (unless your referring to one I missed) it was about safety.

No, the continued aggression towards and oppression of alliances by the NPO and their cohorts is what created the groundswell of resentment and the demand for change. It has taken years for enough people to step up and take a stand to change that. And here you are asking them all to hand the NPO back their gun when it is done so they can come back quickly and undo all the changes made. I realize it is in your best interests to get the world back to what it was where you could lord over other alliances but it is not Karma's job to facilitate that for you.

Ask yourself why they were aggressive and oppressive? It was for safety concerns. They beat down potential threats. They intimidated potential enemies. Large bloc's are all about safety and friendship.

I'm not asking you to hand back the NPO's gun. I'm asking you to not take anyone's gun away from them. We all have them, every nation and allaince. No one should have to right to take them away from us. Fight back when you must but do not oppress.

How is it in my best interest? I am not in the NPO or IRON. In fact my AA say's NSO right now. I am against the "lording", I was against it while I was in the GPA, I was against it in IRON, and I'm against it in the NSO. I participated in it, willingly, but it's not how I would have chosen to run things if given a chance. So no I am not taking this stance for any personal benefit but rather because it's one I feel is correct.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Authur

[Grand Emperor Brian]

The alliances of Karma should do exactly as the name suggests and deal with the NPO the way the NPO dealt with others alliances and leave it at that.

[Ragashingo]

Authur, two things:

1. You seem to have a double standard going.

You want Karma to:

...deal with the threat when it comes.

Yet you seem to be excusing the NPO's actions saying:

Ask yourself why they were aggressive and oppressive? It was for safety concerns. They beat down potential threats. They intimidated potential enemies.

You criticize Karma saying:

I argue that abandoning your beliefs out of concern for safety makes the changes you have fought for meaningless.

But you say of the NPO and its allies:

Large bloc's are all about safety and friendship.

Choose one side or the other. Either it is ok for an alliance or group of alliances to oppress others in order to ensure their own safety, or it isn't. I hate double standards and I feel you are better than having to resort to them.

2. Karma is doing exactly what you are asking.

You want Karma to:

Fight back when you must but do not oppress.

Well what do you think is going on right now? This is the "fight back where you must" part.

You keep saying that you're afraid that Karma will hold the NPO down. To that I simply ask you to look around at all the NPO's allies who have gotten white peace in this war. All but one of them have!

To me you aren't experiencing a justified fear, you're experiencing unjustified paranoia. The facts so far point to Karma being a much gentler force when it comes to surrender terms. What makes you think that is going to suddenly change when it comes time for the NPO to surrender? The only thing that Karma is trying to do is:

Punish them for their crimes in this war, perhaps a bit for their past behavior and move on.

So to sum up. Drop the double standards, and rely on the facts of this war, not what you're afraid Karma might do once the war is finished.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Ragashingo