An Announcement from The Sasori Initiative concerning the War

[Coven]

You fought well TSI.

I am honored to call you allies.

I believe this war has brought many people together, and made new friendships possible. I hope to get to know you guys better in the future. Good luck re-building post war.

o/ Toku

o/ Shuru

o/ TSI

[Captain Flinders]

When the war is said and done and all the terms have been posted, a true accounting can begin and people can really asses the actual accomplishments of this wartime coalition (both good and bad). Until then, nothing can be done except to look at what has already happened.

That's essentially what I'm saying. And from a look at what has happened so far, Karma is doing far better than the precedents the hegemony has set.

[Choader]

Just wondering, if Karma is all about change, but nothing changes.... does that mean Karma=NPO??

You can bleat the same lines over and over all you want, no one is convinced. Karma is not about change, Karma is about karma. Whatever change comes around will be welcome, but you're only fooling yourself if you think your defensive wars are all for the sake of "change".

The name of the coalition should have given it's purposes away.

[James Maximus]

That's essentially what I'm saying. And from a look at what has happened so far, Karma is doing far better than the precedents the hegemony has set.

The lesser of two evils is still evil my friend.

[Ragashingo]

Unfortunately the promised change is just that - promised. With the admission that there is no central authority over the "Karma" movement and that the Voice of Karma (Archon) only has the power to advise while the alliance involved in negotiations retain direct control it's coming down to a lets-wait-and-see sort of mentality. The allusions to the reparations fitting the conduct of the alliances they're being imposed on have certainly not gone over as planned and cynicism seems to be ruling the day now.

No, the peaces have gone very well indeed. Most of those who have surrendered have gotten white peace. The few that did not get white peace all got terms that are far milder than the world has seen in recent years. Frankly you are blind if you don't see the promise being fulfilled with every Karma victory.

When the war is said and done and all the terms have been posted, a true accounting can begin and people can really asses the actual accomplishments of this wartime coalition (both good and bad). Until then, nothing can be done except to look at what has already happened.

Yet you manage to look at what has already happened and flat out ignore it. I'm highly skeptical that you'll be able to provide any kind of post war assessment that isn't horribly flawed.

[Ragashingo]

The lesser of two evils is still evil my friend.

So now that you're on the losing side anything other than white peace is evil? Give me a break!

[James Maximus]

So now that you're on the losing side anything other than white peace is evil? Give me a break!

I never said that. But according what Flinders said as long as its a step in the right direction its fine.

For the record I have always been a proponent of white peace. This may or may not be before your time (I can't be asked to look) but I was the MoFA at DefCon when we gave your alliance, STA white peace not to long ago so your assumption that me being on the losing side and therefore finding terms wrong could not be farther from the truth.

[Augustus Autumn]

No, the peaces have gone very well indeed. Most of those who have surrendered have gotten white peace. The few that did not get white peace all got terms that are far milder than the world has seen in recent years. Frankly you are blind if you don't see the promise being fulfilled with every Karma victory.

Again, the "Karma" Movement is just that - a movement. It's a set of ideas, not a combined front with a set of rules. While the leading figures of this movement can certainly suggest things (as has been admitted) they lack the power to command and that is the problem with attempting to show consistency. I see no promise being fulfilled here since those who made it do not have the power to enforce it. You're pointing to what amounts to a series of coincidental behaviors brought on by peer pressure and attempting to downplay the inconsistent terms by trying to point at the overall picture.

Have the terms across the war been gentler in the past? Certainly. However, until the Cyberverse as a whole sees the conclusion of this war, stamping "Mission Accomplished" or anything even beginning to resemble it on the conduct of this war is nothing short of idealistic to the point of fault. Again, I reserve my judgement (as does much of the Cyberverse I'm sure) as to how effective the "Karma" Movement has been at changing the conduct of warfare until the war is truly concluded and the guns have fallen silent on all fronts. Doing anything less is simply jumping to conclusions without the data to back those conclusions up.

Yet you manage to look at what has already happened and flat out ignore it. I'm highly skeptical that you'll be able to provide any kind of post war assessment that isn't horribly flawed.

Who said I was going to provide one? I certainly did not. As for bias, I think you'll have to admit that every person, yourself included, is subject to it.

[Ragashingo]

I never said that. But according what Flinders said as long as its a step in the right direction its fine.

Except he didn't say that. He said that Karma has done far better than average and thats it. Attempting to tack on the "it's fine" is nothing more than trying to put words in his mouth. I think what he actually meant that Karma has done an excellent job so far, not that any movement towards better terms makes any terms offered by Karma fine.

For the record I have always been a proponent of white peace. This may or may not be before your time (I can't be asked to look) but I was the MoFA at DefCon when we gave your alliance, STA white peace not to long ago so your assumption that me being on the losing side and therefore finding terms wrong could not be farther from the truth.

It's nice to hear what you did for STA back then. When it happened I was a member of a different heavily persecuted alliance and didn't follow that war as closely as I should have. That said, very very little around here happened before my time.

[James Maximus]

He said that Karma has done far better than average and thats it.

And I'll say again, The lesser of two evils is still evil. Some of Karma has done better than average, but thats not saying much.

Attempting to tack on the "it's fine" is nothing more than trying to put words in his mouth. I think what he actually meant that Karma has done an excellent job so far, not that any movement towards better terms makes any terms offered by Karma fine.

He has expressed his content for the terms passed out by Karma. So he is saying "its fine" or atleast thats how I took it.

[Augustus Autumn]

Except he didn't say that. He said that Karma has done far better than average and thats it. Attempting to tack on the "it's fine" is nothing more than trying to put words in his mouth. I think what he actually meant that Karma has done an excellent job so far, not that any movement towards better terms makes any terms offered by Karma fine.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves with putting words in the mouths of others here.

Captain Flinders clearly purports (and does so correctly) that the general trend of the peace terms being offered in this current conflict is better than what has been seen in the past. However, by stating that things are "better" there is also an acceptance of the current terms having been offered and confirmed. I don't see the terms presented to the Initiative having been overturned by the leaders of the "Karma" Movement nor do I see them posting here to express their outrage. Rather, we have simply seen silence. As we've all been reminded too many times during this conflict, silence suggests support and/or complicity.

It comes down to this: either the "Karma" Movement does something concrete to demonstrate that the terms given are not up to the standards of the movement as a whole and things change or the movement does not do anything and accepts the current situation. You can't have it both ways, unfortunately.

[Ragashingo]

Again, the "Karma" Movement is just that - a movement. It's a set of ideas, not a combined front with a set of rules. While the leading figures of this movement can certainly suggest things (as has been admitted) they lack the power to command and that is the problem with attempting to show consistency. I see no promise being fulfilled here since those who made it do not have the power to enforce it. You're pointing to what amounts to a series of coincidental behaviors brought on by peer pressure and attempting to downplay the inconsistent terms by trying to point at the overall picture.

Your reasoning is flawed. The fact that it isn't a typical bloc or alliance does not negate karma's abilities to bring change. And trying to point to the numerous white peaces and lenient terms as nothing more than a series of coincidences is laughably absurd. These things didn't just happen by chance.

As for attempting to downplay the inconsistencies, I disagree, mainly because there are no inconsistencies. White peace for everyone was never a Karma goal. Lenient terms, like every non white peace surrender we have seen so far, fit perfectly well with Karma's mission to restore reasonable terms to this world. If any surrendering alliance had been subject to harsh or excessive terms you would have an inconsistency to point to, but they haven't so you don't.

Have the terms across the war been gentler in the past? Certainly. However, until the Cyberverse as a whole sees the conclusion of this war, stamping "Mission Accomplished" or anything even beginning to resemble it on the conduct of this war is nothing short of idealistic to the point of fault. Again, I reserve my judgement (as does much of the Cyberverse I'm sure) as to how effective the "Karma" Movement has been at changing the conduct of warfare until the war is truly concluded and the guns have fallen silent on all fronts. Doing anything less is simply jumping to conclusions without the data to back those conclusions up.

Please don't make me count how many alliances have gotten white peace and lenient terms so far. Thats the data you can't seem to find. This war is what, more than half over, and you still aren't willing to believe that the way Karma has acted so far is the way it will continue to act? Why is that? What actual data makes you think something vastly different is going to happen?

Who said I was going to provide one? I certainly did not. As for bias, I think you'll have to admit that every person, yourself included, is subject to it.

Of course I'm biased. But at least I'm biased with the facts on my side.

[Ragashingo]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves with putting words in the mouths of others here.

Captain Flinders clearly purports (and does so correctly) that the general trend of the peace terms being offered in this current conflict is better than what has been seen in the past. However, by stating that things are "better" there is also an acceptance of the current terms having been offered and confirmed. I don't see the terms presented to the Initiative having been overturned by the leaders of the "Karma" Movement nor do I see them posting here to express their outrage. Rather, we have simply seen silence. As we've all been reminded too many times during this conflict, silence suggests support and/or complicity.

It comes down to this: either the "Karma" Movement does something concrete to demonstrate that the terms given are not up to the standards of the movement as a whole and things change or the movement does not do anything and accepts the current situation. You can't have it both ways, unfortunately.

What you have missed is that terms like this are an acceptable part of war as Karma sees it. Karma was never for the ending of surrender terms or reparations, it was for the ending of those that were overly harsh and excessive. These are not, therefore no Karma leader has come rushing in to overturn them.

[Druid]

The lesser of two evils is still evil my friend.

Then you should uphold the way of righteousness and honor. Oh wait.

You Surrendered.

Cowards die in shame.

[nutkase]

Then you should uphold the way of righteousness and honor. Oh wait.

You Surrendered.

Cowards die in shame.

Surrendering does not qualify as cowardice

[Augustus Autumn]

Your reasoning is flawed. The fact that it isn't a typical bloc or alliance does not negate karma's abilities to bring change. And trying to point to the numerous white peaces and lenient terms as nothing more than a series of coincidences is laughably absurd. These things didn't just happen by chance.

It's been stated time and again that the leadership of the "Karma" Movement does not have the authority to dictate the behavior of the sovereign alliances under it's banner - simply put, they can't dictate or enforce the ideals of the movement when a member alliance under their banner decides to simply do as they please. Certainly, there is influence but that does not equate to the power to effect change. It's making a promise you can't necessarily keep. Again, I credit vision to the "Karma" Movement and the wonders of peer pressure but I do not recall the "Karma" representative having the authority to dictate behavior during the peace talks I attended despite their desire to have that very power.

As for attempting to downplay the inconsistencies, I disagree, mainly because there are no inconsistencies. White peace for everyone was never a Karma goal. Lenient terms, like every non white peace surrender we have seen so far, fit perfectly well with Karma's mission to restore reasonable terms to this world. If any surrendering alliance had been subject to harsh or excessive terms you would have an inconsistency to point to, but they haven't so you don't.

An aggressor alliance getting minimal terms despite effectively beginning the Karma War while a much smaller one getting punitive terms for the sake of one of the alliances it fought simply wanting to get a reward for fighting is an inconsistency. The reactions demonstrated in this discussion by persons on both sides of this conflict clearly demonstrates that there is a perception of unfairness, correct or otherwise.

Please don't make me count how many alliances have gotten white peace and lenient terms so far. Thats the data you can't seem to find. This war is what, more than half over, and you still aren't willing to believe that the way Karma has acted so far is the way it will continue to act? Why is that? What actual data makes you think something vastly different is going to happen?

The number of alliances having previously received white peace is irrelevant to this line of discussion. I seek to address the problem of authority within the "Karma" Movement. Again, promises are being made that simply cannot be kept. One leader of a Karma alliance declares that the Initiative shall not receive anything less than white peace for its efforts. Another does the same. Then, come negotiations, absurd demands get made and the most that the "Karma" Movement represenative is empowered to do is quietly point out that the leader of one of the victor alliances is out of line. Correct or not, what was said and what was done were not the same thing. If the leaders of the "Karma" Movement are not, in fact, in charge of the movement as a whole then I am inclined to be pesimistic about the coming chances for the alliances who have yet to surrender considering the trend I've seen from the mob.

Of course I'm biased. But at least I'm biased with the facts on my side.

You indicate past performance as a garuntee of future behavior. I'll happily agree to do so - the problem is that the trend I see demonstrated is one of increasingly punitive terms which have little to do with the conduct of the alliances they affect during the course of this war.

[Augustus Autumn]

Then you should uphold the way of righteousness and honor. Oh wait.

You Surrendered.

Cowards die in shame.

I look forward to your coming assault on the Initiative then, brave soldier. Since we are nothing but cowards I'm sure your victory will be swift.

[James Maximus]

Then you should uphold the way of righteousness and honor. Oh wait.

You Surrendered.

Cowards die in shame.

Admitting defeat is hardly being a coward. I feel bad you have such a dim outlook on alliances that surrender. We fought hard and honorably, and we lack this "shame" of which you speak.

[Augustus Autumn]

What you have missed is that terms like this are an acceptable part of war as Karma sees it. Karma was never for the ending of surrender terms or reparations, it was for the ending of those that were overly harsh and excessive. These are not, therefore no Karma leader has come rushing in to overturn them.

I'm glad to have received a verdict on this from a leading voice in the "Karma" Movement.

[Druid]

I look forward to your coming assault on the Initiative then, brave soldier. Since we are nothing but cowards I'm sure your victory will be swift.

I've been fighting this particular war for almost a year now. There's more than one way to skin a snake.

[Roadie]

Then you should uphold the way of righteousness and honor. Oh wait.

You Surrendered.

Cowards die in shame.

I suggest you remember you said those words. You have a very young nation and anyone here can tell you that in the future, you may have to eat them.

[Roadie]

I've been fighting this particular war for almost a year now. There's more than one way to skin a snake.

A year? Your nation is only a couple weeks old?

[Roadie]

What you have missed is that terms like this are an acceptable part of war as Karma sees it. Karma was never for the ending of surrender terms or reparations, it was for the ending of those that were overly harsh and excessive. These are not, therefore no Karma leader has come rushing in to overturn them.

Does that imply that Karma leaders have the power to overturn them?

[Augustus Autumn]

I've been fighting this particular war for almost a year now. There's more than one way to skin a snake.

I'll consider this as a defacto Declaration of War by The Realm on the Initiative. The first move is yours, sir. As for your claim that you've been battling us for a year, I would consult your information concerning our time of existence within the Cyberverse a tad more closely.

[Druid]

A year? Your nation is only a couple weeks old?

I died a lot.

I'll consider this as a defacto Declaration of War by The Realm on the Initiative. The first move is yours, sir. As for your claim that you've been battling us for a year, I would consult your information concerning our time of existence within the Cyberverse a tad more closely.

Of course, sir. It is an excellent turn that your alliance surrendered. Now you get to deal with me.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Druid