Why what went around is not coming around

[Mogar]

Surely the fact that these communities took a decision to reject this sort of curbstomp culture in the end must count for something right?

NPO's War Screen

NPO is getting curbstomped, as is the rest of 1V/Q, we didnt put an end to the curbstomp culture, just new people are doing the curbstomping.

[HeinousOne]

NPO's War Screen

NPO is getting curbstomped, as is the rest of 1V/Q, we didnt put an end to the curbstomp culture, just new people are doing the curbstomping.

The change would actually come afterwards as hopefully a more multipolar world forms out of the ashes. In such a world there would be possibly more equal wars but the 3v1 tactic will still be there. In the case of NPO they pissed off quite a few people, the curbstomping could be quite worse right now if everyone that wanted to fight the NPO actually declared.

[Thorgrum]

if karma doesn't give harsh terms to new pacific order how can they be called karma?

Karma is a spirtual term which in Buddhism relates to a persons or entities actions and conduct resulting in thier destiny or fate. So in one sense your correct it wouldnt be appropriate to call this war the "Karma War" if infact the destiny or fate was not decided in the end (assuming of course the NPO is the loser). However with most things that are steeped in Buddhism there is always a grey area.

1. When does one destiny or fate finish? In terms of CN and this war will it be the end of NPO? (assuming they loose) if it isnt then the technical application of Karma cant be applied, thier fate hasnt yet been set.

2. If the end of the war results in a loss for NPO and the forces of Karma infact impose harsh terms and end the NPO and thier fate is decided, that result begins a new karma process for those who made the imposition. If the principles of Karma were to apply universally those who made that imposition have sealed thier own fate somewhere down the line. (in essence all things being equal)

"Karma" was a bad choice for naming this war as it was likely chosen by someone or those who dont understand its literal application, definition and meaning within the context its supposed to be used. Or I could be completely wrong perhaps those who chose this word understood it rather clearly and are attempting to achieve Brahman themselves, in a metaphoric sense within a cybernations context.

However I think it was simply a nice catchy phrase that would go over well you know "There getting whats coming to them". But in answer to your question, its a no win dammed if you do dammed if you dont because in the end harsh terms means a new self created karma for those imposing it. Not imposing them means they were unable to fulfill the symbolic meaning of the term "Karma war" (based on what Karma means literally) and that would be a failure.

[Mogar]

The change would actually come afterwards as hopefully a more multipolar world forms out of the ashes. In such a world there would be possibly more equal wars but the 3v1 tactic will still be there. In the case of NPO they pissed off quite a few people, the curbstomping could be quite worse right now if everyone that wanted to fight the NPO actually declared.

Glad you understood my point that we're not going to see an end to 3v1 curbstomps, and you're correct, but NPO has a limited supply of slots.

[Cataduanes]

NPO's War Screen

NPO is getting curbstomped, as is the rest of 1V/Q, we didnt put an end to the curbstomp culture, just new people are doing the curbstomping.

heh good point

[Gruthenia]

Well duh, then there'd be less slots and less tech and land stolen for the Karma side, we cant have a war without people benefiting from it silly.

Nuclear war is bad for looting and if we cared for that we wouldn't be fighting one you dolt. And yes congratulations for making the earth shattering revelation that people do things for their own benefit. Karma alliances will be achieving political benefits by fighting this war, big whoop, that's the way people work.

Edit: I'd also like to add that the primary reason for outcry over curbstomps tended to be more a result of the faulty premises they were started on as well as the way many alliances would often be brought in to take down one which presented absolutely no threat, not to mention the blatant looting taking place (many of those wars had reps!). There is nothing inherently bad in fighting 3v1 wars unless you have something against military strategy in which case you continue raging for stupidity (quite literally), but I personally will be thankful Karma wasn't stupid enough to listen to some random OWF poster and instead decided to assign NPO the forces requisite to their destruction.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Matthew George

[Amoshu]

lets be honest, a karma supporter views a 'hegemony' supporter with zero credibility and vice versa. lets not play games around that shall we?

You're right. Let's not. You can take your quotation off Hegemony, then.

Also, you're wrong on several points. You're correct on few points. I'll let you try to figure out which you're right and wrong on. Me? Psh, I don't think I'll spend the effort to assist you.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Amoshi

[Detlev]

You knew your enemy well. They bit and they bit hard on the bait.

Are you arguing that sethb's acceptance of the intel from BC was all planned?

if karma doesn't give harsh terms to new pacific order how can they be called karma? i mean they are only giving what is long past due (and even at that it won't make up for the harsh terms pacific order gave out in it's time as "leader" of CN)

Even if harsh terms are given it still isn't "karma" because of the context in which they would be given. Whereas NPO gives harsh terms after totally illegitimate wars, this one is entirely legitimate. As I said in the subtitle, karma is impossible.

Do you noticed that some of major alliances on KARMA side helped NPO to cut FAN and GPA throats right? Just as example for you remind it. You can find others reading CN wiki.

Continuum-GPA War:

FOK, VE and Umbrella supported it.

While this doesn't make NPO look less worse, don't make KARMA side look better either, so better you use examples where NPO acted alone or without some KARMA alliances support

So therefore this war is illegitimate? This doesn't affect my argument. Even if FOK, VE, and Umbrella acted badly in supporting the NPO in its War Against Peace, the CB for this war is still valid, even from them. In any case Umbrella is full of ex-MKers so they're pretty much the 2nd worst alliance on Bob right after NPO.

NPO's War Screen

NPO is getting curbstomped, as is the rest of 1V/Q, we didnt put an end to the curbstomp culture, just new people are doing the curbstomping.

This isn't a curbstomp. A curbstomp is where the ratio of strength between the two sides is 10 to 1 or more (or even 3 to 1). This war may become a curbstomp but it certainly didn't start as one, and curbstomps aren't the issue anyway. The reasons, or lackthereof, for a war or a curbstomp are the issue.

However I think it was simply a nice catchy phrase that would go over well you know "There getting whats coming to them". But in answer to your question, its a no win dammed if you do dammed if you dont because in the end harsh terms means a new self created karma for those imposing it.

No it doesn't. I am not surprised that so many people don't respond to the point made in the OP. It can't be "karma," as its being defined by the community, unless the CB against NPO et al is ridiculously false. And it isn't.

Edit: I'd also like to add that the primary reason for outcry over curbstomps tended to be more a result of the faulty premises they were started on as well as the way many alliances would often be brought in to take down one which presented absolutely no threat, not to mention the blatant looting taking place (many of those wars had reps!).

THANK YOU.

And as for MHA... When you're treatied to virtually every alliance in the game you can always be on the winning side!

Edited May 6, 2009 by Detlev

[Dr. Dan]

highlighted interesting parts

first read section a and section b. mha was not obligated to attack ov, however, when other alliances attacked npo, mha was to consider them as an attack on itself. i see no line in section a which absolves mha of this responsibility.

The entire war is an offensive war. The only plausible argument you have here is against band wagonners.

As for Citadel, GTFO of our house. Old Guard and us have a better understanding of what is supposed to happen more so than you ever will. We take care of our own and don't need your assistance telling us about the best way to do it.

[Mogar]

This isn't a curbstomp. A curbstomp is where the ratio of strength between the two sides is 10 to 1 or more (or even 3 to 1). This war may become a curbstomp but it certainly didn't start as one, and curbstomps aren't the issue anyway. The reasons, or lackthereof, for a war or a curbstomp are the issue.

I'm not sure if you were looking at the same stats as I was, but the hegemony had no chance of winning this war from the second NPO fired the first cruise missile into OV territory.

[Detlev]

I'm not sure if you were looking at the same stats as I was, but the hegemony had no chance of winning this war from the second NPO fired the first cruise missile into OV territory.

Well right before MK entered the war the stats were 150m NS vs 120m NS. Even if our side doubled with MK's entry (and tbh for all intents and purposes it did ), it still isn't a 3 to 1 ratio. What stats are you looking at?

[Billisarius]

A. In the event that one of us comes under attack, the other shall provide all possible assistance. An attack on one shall be considered an attack on the other. Assistance is defined as military, economic, intelligence, diplomatic, and all other forms of aid possible to provide. In the event this clause conflicts with other agreements, each of us agrees that, except for the Mobius Accords, this agreement shall take precedence.

B. Should one of us engage in offensive warfare, the other shall have the option, but not the obligation, to provide military, economic, intelligence, diplomatic, or any other form of aid.

C. Notice of offensive military action by one must be given to the other no less than 24 hours prior to the commencement of hostilities. This time period will be used for the consideration of whether to undertake supportive offensive action.

D. One of us will not engage in, encourage or support offensive military action against any alliance which the other is obligated by treaty to defend. If we learn of potential attack, we will actively enourage our treaty partners not to attack the treaty partner of the other.

E. If one of us is involved in war or a situation which could lead to war, it is the duty of other to offer diplomatic aid toward the peaceful resolution of the situation, should such help be requested.

I'm surprised no one has pointed this out.

first read section a and section b. mha was not obligated to attack ov, however, when other alliances attacked npo, mha was to consider them as an attack on itself. i see no line in section a which absolves mha of this responsibility.

Kevin, This is the line that legally absolves MHA of responsibility for the actions of the NPO. I think it is fairly evident that MHA was not given 24 hours prior notice, considering the fact that NPO did not inform anyone of their intended offensive war (See posts from Doug Falkner with regard to NPO's treatment of MCXA). Therefore, NPO's attack was, by definition, a breach of the treaty agreement. With this in mind, it is completely logical that MHA would not offer military assistance when NPO was attacked back for their actions which breached the treaty. No matter what kind of treaty you have, it is irrational to claim that an alliance is bound by a treaty when the treaty has been blatantly violated.

I will also point out that, although MHA is not defending NPO from the consequences of NPO's decision to violate the treaty, MHA is still upholding the treaty for instances not involving NPO's breach, hence the anti-bandwagoning statement. The fact that MHA has not simply canceled the treaty for violations of terms by NPO, and are instead actively attempting to support NPO outside the realm of NPO's infringement is a testament to the friendship between the two alliances, and is truly an example of honorable intentions in the face of illegal action, as opposed to the cowardice or opportunism you are suggesting.

[Mogar]

I'm surprised no one has pointed this out.

Kevin, This is the line that legally absolves MHA of responsibility for the actions of the NPO. I think it is fairly evident that MHA was not given 24 hours prior notice, considering the fact that NPO did not inform anyone of their intended offensive war (See posts from Doug Falkner with regard to NPO's treatment of MCXA). Therefore, NPO's attack was, by definition, a breach of the treaty agreement. With this in mind, it is completely logical that MHA would not offer military assistance when NPO was attacked back for their actions which breached the treaty. No matter what kind of treaty you have, it is irrational to claim that an alliance is bound by a treaty when the treaty has been blatantly violated.

So why weren't everyone who canceled on NPO allowed to do the same thing you did?

[Billisarius]

So why weren't everyone who canceled on NPO allowed to do the same thing you did?

My post refers to the MHA and the MHA alone. I have not anywhere in my post indicated that my reasoning or conclusions can or should be extended to any other alliances, as I have not read all of the relevant treaties, nor have I claimed to.

[Doug Falkner]

Detlev,

It seems to me that the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a war often is a matter of which side you belong in. In general it seems that people winning side or the aggressor of a war will think it's legitimate and those on the losing or defensive side will think of it as illegitimate. That's even happening in this war.

For example, being a guy on the losing side, I think there's a case to be made that many of the alliances on the Karma side are folks that have in the past benefitted from and were a party to the way the Hegemony has done things and as such have no real claim against the Hegemony (I admit there are a handful of alliances that I think do have some claim, for example Vox, Fan, MK, NV, GLOF, NpO, but many of the alliances in general were not wronged by NPO but instead, as far as I can tell, just saw an opportunity to get more influence).

[Bob Sanders]

I'm surprised no one has pointed this out.

Kevin, This is the line that legally absolves MHA of responsibility for the actions of the NPO. I think it is fairly evident that MHA was not given 24 hours prior notice, considering the fact that NPO did not inform anyone of their intended offensive war (See posts from Doug Falkner with regard to NPO's treatment of MCXA). Therefore, NPO's attack was, by definition, a breach of the treaty agreement. With this in mind, it is completely logical that MHA would not offer military assistance when NPO was attacked back for their actions which breached the treaty. No matter what kind of treaty you have, it is irrational to claim that an alliance is bound by a treaty when the treaty has been blatantly violated.

I will also point out that, although MHA is not defending NPO from the consequences of NPO's decision to violate the treaty, MHA is still upholding the treaty for instances not involving NPO's breach, hence the anti-bandwagoning statement. The fact that MHA has not simply canceled the treaty for violations of terms by NPO, and are instead actively attempting to support NPO outside the realm of NPO's infringement is a testament to the friendship between the two alliances, and is truly an example of honorable intentions in the face of illegal action, as opposed to the cowardice or opportunism you are suggesting.

The reason nobody pointed that out is because notice of an initial intent to war OV was given to Q government before MHA even left Q. So yes, your government most certainly knew that was coming. MHA had already joined Karma long before that so fighting on NPO's side was kinda out of the question. NPO's attack was not a breach of your treaty with them except in your little dream world.

[der_ko]

I'm not sure if you were looking at the same stats as I was, but the hegemony had no chance of winning this war from the second NPO fired the first cruise missile into OV territory.

It's not like we could possible anticipate the Hegemony giving up on day 1. This was the most even war in CN since GW3, but when the Hegemony embraces defeatism before Karma even fired a shot it's going to seem a lot more loopsided then it really is.

[New Reverie]

you are a slow one arent you?

do you know what the word 'coincidence' means? these issues were running long before gpa was a few points above npo in the rankings... this notion you have that npo went on red alert the instant gpa peeked over them in the rankings as if its the only thing in the world they were worried about, well, it makes you look foolish.

you sir are a liar. I don't like you and i am putting your name in my little black book with a frowny face.

I was military high command during the second FAN war and the GPA war. In both cases reasons for war were manufactured. We'd search and search for something we could use and then attack in a gotcha moment.

The case with OV is the exact same senario that has planned out for years under NPO aggression.

GPA was bending over backwards to please the NPO. Then the NPO attacks for weeks and issues extortionary surrender terms.

It was the GPA war and my part in planning it that lead to my leave from the alliance.

The war was unfounded and used only as a way to reclaim the number one spot.

Further more, your tactic of making sly insults, then lying, and then saying people should believe your lie in order to not look foolish is poor form.

[Mogar]

It's not like we could possible anticipate the Hegemony giving up on day 1. This was the most even war in CN since GW3, but when the Hegemony embraces defeatism before Karma even fired a shot it's going to seem a lot more loopsided then it really is.

I'm not embracing defeatism, I just knew the math, I didn't say we were going to lose until after I was forced to surrender.

[Dr. Dan]

The reason nobody pointed that out is because notice of an initial intent to war OV was given to Q government before MHA even left Q. So yes, your government most certainly knew that was coming. MHA had already joined Karma long before that so fighting on NPO's side was kinda out of the question. NPO's attack was not a breach of your treaty with them except in your little dream world.

To be fair, Bob, NPO was not one of the original alliances that had complaint with OV and thus there wasn't this "intent" from Pacifica before MHA left.

I also believe that a 24 hour confirmation would need to come in an official capacity, not rumors or leaked logs. I'm not certain for MHA, but I know we (TOP) were not given proper warning. The possibility was evident, of course, but there was no "we are going to hit XXX in 24 hours" and it certainly caught us off guard.

[brass]

i am reading the letter of the treaties and making my judgment there. the fact is, your treaty is your word, and if you break your word you have broken the treaty. breaking one tiny clause in a treaty also is not grounds for the other party to ignore their obligations, unless it is stated so in the treaty, or the clause broken serves to greatly undermine the position of the other signatory (not informing the parties of war does not fall under that later stipulation, but depending on the treaty may fall under the former)

Open world? - Check.

Earth, RL:

You are great friends with a guy, and will always back him up if he gets into a fight. No questions asked.

One night, you go out, he gets a bit drunk, and slaps some girl he doesn't even know while at a bar.

He's about to get his $@! kicked severely. Would you defend him? If you would, you are effectively slapping the girl as well, or at least defending the action.

Planet Bob:

Same thing, but with alliances.

[Electron Sponge]

To be fair, Bob, NPO was not one of the original alliances that had complaint with OV and thus there wasn't this "intent" from Pacifica before MHA left.

I also believe that a 24 hour confirmation would need to come in an official capacity, not rumors or leaked logs. I'm not certain for MHA, but I know we (TOP) were not given proper warning. The possibility was evident, of course, but there was no "we are going to hit XXX in 24 hours" and it certainly caught us off guard.

I'll never be NPO's biggest fan (or even a fan at all) but in their defense if TOP needed 24 hours notice that this war was going to start then TOP needs to stop storing its head between its butt cheeks. You guys were intimately involved in the whole thing. Your alliance's official capacity was as the mediator in the discussions, in fact. You're just bringing up a technicality as a machinated way to be upset at NPO. Your response will be something like "But that's what the treaty says, we follow our treaties to the letter!" Anyone who has ever dealt with TOP voting whether or not to uphold a treaty every single time they are called to do so (after having already voted to uphold it upon ratifying it) will have some things to say about that.

[Alejandro Villalba]

Can i ask a question...what will happen after this "war" is over? This alliances of Karma have less in common than hen's teeth.

[Dr. Dan]

I'll never be NPO's biggest fan (or even a fan at all) but in their defense if TOP needed 24 hours notice that this war was going to start then TOP needs to stop storing its head between its butt cheeks. You guys were intimately involved in the whole thing. Your alliance's official capacity was as the mediator in the discussions, in fact. You're just bringing up a technicality as a machinated way to be upset at NPO. Your response will be something like "But that's what the treaty says, we follow our treaties to the letter!" Anyone who has ever dealt with TOP voting whether or not to uphold a treaty every single time they are called to do so (after having already voted to uphold it upon ratifying it) will have some things to say about that.

ES, in our defense and perhaps a bit naively, we still believed that there might not be a war.

Edit: Also, for upholding treaties, we have every right to discuss it if the treaty is violated in some way, shape, or form. It isn't just following the letter (though that plays a part), it's following the spirit of the treaty as well.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Dr. Dan

[Mogar]

Can i ask a question...what will happen after this "war" is over? This alliances of Karma have less in common than hen's teeth.

prepare to start shooting at each other, with each of the biggest sides already trying to get alliances from the hegemony on their side.