Why what went around is not coming around

[Azaghul]

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.

They thought they did or they wouldn't have started the war.

[Mogar]

They thought they did or they wouldn't have started the war.

They obviously thought people wouldnt be pissed at them declaring a war during negotiations, I never said NPO wasn't stupid.

[bzelger]

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.

Personally, I plan on crawling back under a rock and staying there after it's over.

More generally, I think the world will be an interesting place with no definitive top dog. There will be jostling and power plays. "Karma" won't hold together, nor was it ever expected that it would.

[HellAngel]

Its gonna be interesting. We will have the SF, Citadel, C&G+polar side and the former hegemony as power players.

[Doug Falkner]

At the risk of derailing this discussion, who do you folks think will take the diplomatic top position after this war's over? I must admit I have no idea, I'm inclined to say The Grämlins because they seem to be good at everything but I don't really know enough about the relationships between the Karma nations to really say that with any sort of confidence.

[bzelger]

At the risk of derailing this discussion, who do you folks think will take the diplomatic top position after this war's over? I must admit I have no idea, I'm inclined to say The Grämlins because they seem to be good at everything but I don't really know enough about the relationships between the Karma nations to really say that with any sort of confidence.

I think that Citadel would be in a good position to do that, but I don't think their style of play is directed towards game domination in the sense that we've been seeing. I think it will be a good long while before anyone really sits on the throne that the NPO until recently occupied.

[SoxNation]

see raji's post below yours:

"NPO wasnt on the losing side if people honored their treaties... MHA/Sparta/co all have MADPs with NPO "

to add to his point, citadel failed to defend og when og was attacked, instead following gremlins when gremlins decided that an odp with fark was worth more than the codex.

further points of interest are the absurd notion that npo ever gave a damn about being the number one alliance in terms of score (they were far more concerned with maintaining their role as the core of the treaty web), the omission of many of gpas screw ups in the days leading up to that war, and claiming that npo broke their agreement with fan (although it was a dick move on npos part, fan did technically break the word of the agreement long before npo decided to act on it)

you can, of course, choose to ignore the facts if it suits your ends, but note that it makes you look rather silly

excuse me, why don't you stop talking about stuff you don't know about.

OG talked to us before they even went in, they didn't ask for us to defend them and intentionally stayed away from our treaty partners so we wouldn't have to fight.

So please learn what you are talking about.

[Joe Kremlin]

So does this mean you are going to give harsh terms?

[Vilien]

So does this mean you are going to give harsh terms?

I think you'll find that, more often than not, those asking for harsh terms are not the ones who are going to be giving them.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Vilien

[Khyber]

see raji's post below yours:

"NPO wasnt on the losing side if people honored their treaties... MHA/Sparta/co all have MADPs with NPO "

to add to his point, citadel failed to defend og when og was attacked, instead following gremlins when gremlins decided that an odp with fark was worth more than the codex.

OG went to fight for the NPO due to the treaty Q. Citadel is a none chaining clause, to come to the defense of OG was optional, just like joining Gremlins or Umbrella in battle was also optional. All MDPs in the eyes of TOP are non chaining, we have always read them as such. We see no difference between an MDP and an MADP if you can attack someone and if their allies attack you you can call the DP part of your agreement. TOP does not sign MADPs as we believe it stips too much of our soveriegnty away.

When I gave my opinion in TOP, I gave it based on many factors including how best we could help their allies in OG and IRON out. Helping the NPO out was really a little beyond our capabilities from my view point, since we would not join the first batch of alliances against the NPO and had little to no sway with them what so ever, and they were large enough that we could not sway them with anything meaningful. Lastly they were truely an aggrieved party, while the NPO were the aggressors, so standing on a moral ground we had little to aid them.

Now your probably going to ask why didn't you join OG and IRON and help out Umbrella and Gremlins with peace terms. Well, we felt that the war was avoidable really. Our leadership had worked hard to try to find a solution, and the declaration by the NPO was indeed an insult to our efforts. Wiether it was a justified CB or not (I felt it was) was swept away by the fact that the NPO attacked while we were in mid negotiations. So to turn around and support their side of the war was like being an abused wife, taking a slap to the face, then coming back to defend her husband and state how great and nice he is. Out of a mix of pride, my view or right and wrong, and perhaps a little bit of anger when the membership of TOP were debating which way to go I strongly sided with either neutrality or Gremlins and Umbrella.

So in the end, with no treaties binding us to act either way, we entered in a way were we would break no treaties and help ourselves out and our allies. You'll be hard pressed to find member of TOP saying that we are in this for any moral crusade against NPO, because TOP are not crusaders, we live by our own moral code, but don't feel the need to place it on others. And yes sometimes we don't always do good, but everyone is swept up by anger at times, and trying to always do good is important even when you fail at times.

further points of interest are the absurd notion that npo ever gave a damn about being the number one alliance in terms of score (they were far more concerned with maintaining their role as the core of the treaty web), the omission of many of gpas screw ups in the days leading up to that war, and claiming that npo broke their agreement with fan (although it was a dick move on npos part, fan did technically break the word of the agreement long before npo decided to act on it)

you can, of course, choose to ignore the facts if it suits your ends, but note that it makes you look rather silly

This is correct. NPO are smart players (everyone makes mistakes and this was theirs) and they must have known that numbers meant little. Treaties, friendships, granting access to people so they can rub elbows with the powerful leaders of the other alliances, this was what NPO sought to control. Blacklisting MK was a demonstration of it. Back then even MK wanted into their circle from rumors I heard, or at least a treaty with the NPO. A simple number of total NS or score meant little unless it gave them power to maintain all I've listed above. GPA being number 1 was not doing anything of the sort. I still disagree with the GPA war, but NPO is far more aggressive then I am, and I would have been far more leanent. But many alliances are more aggressive then I am.

That said, I've seen no others that have lead the world. I joined shortly after GWI, and even then they were the leaders with WUT, with the League trying to play catch up. So maybe there are better leaders for the world, but I've yet to see one.

In my mind TOP can never serve as a leader of Planet Bob, being too small numerically, and too isolationist in it's core, holding few treaties, often seen as aloof and a bit stuck up. This leaves only a few other alliances to take their place.

Sparta I know little about. Silent on the OWF. Militarily ok but not too strong in FA.

Harmlins are perhaps the best bet, and it would truely be a combined affair, for MHA to me seems much like Sparta, a bit stronger in FA but weaker militarily, and more outspoken in the OWF. Gremlins would boost their FA and military, and use the MHA numbers. They too seem a bit isolationists.

NpO has taken a hit diplomatically since their last war, and while this war has strengthened their position somewhat, I'm not sure they want the job.

IRON if it can bounce back will be strong miltiarily but politically they have few allies that are outside the Hegamony.

C&G would act like a large alliance themselves and are tied heavily to all sides, and a good military.

A coalition I believe will only last so long before a leader pops up, and disagreements fracture some of it.

With the exception of probably Harmlins, I think all would probably act much like the NPO to a large degree. The notion that the NPO are evil will quickly disappear after we see what kind of leadership replaces it I believe. So punishing the NPO heavily for something you may commit soon enough is not something most of the alliances in position to lead may wish to do. They will punish them, but I don't believe it will be as harsh of a punishment the NPO has leveled on others in the past.

I for one simply hope they will be made to cancel their treaties to clear up the web a bit, but this may only help them as they become harder to track politically as they will still be a player post war.

[Isaac Wolfe]

Solution:

Give the NPO peace, let their nations come out of Peace Mode to rebuild the alliance, and hit them hard with a dosage of Midnight Blitz.

Rinse and repeat. Karma wins.

[President Obama]

So does this mean you are going to give harsh terms?

I would very much doubt that the views of Detlev reflect the views of alliance leadership in MK or quite a few other Karma alliances.

[Leonid Tolstoy]

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.

some will argue that npo violated section c; this, now that i have the text in front of me, is obviously false; it is obvious that the npo was not extending a hand out for assistance with ov, and thus it was unnecessary, perhaps unintelligent but nonetheless unnecessary for them to grant 24 hours notification for the purposes of mha considering whether or not to opt in on the aggression portion of the treaty.

most importantly, note the first bolded section of the treaty, which stats that this agreement supersedes all other agreements other than the continuum.

other parts of the treaty not quoted here make mention that npo and mha shared an 'eternal friendship,' yet, mha did not afford npo the trust they deserved and instead chose to assume the worst in their so-called friend.

mha violated this treaty on multiple angles; there is no imaginary clause that lets thm skirt around their duties, and it is clear that an 'attack on [npo] is considered an attack on [mha]' and as such when, for example, god attacked npo, they also attacked mha, or at least this treaty would have provided for such.

thank you whoever it was that posted the link; i myself learned something new about how deep the levels of treachery within karma actually go.

Bill Clinton parsed words to the point that he didn't know whether sex was sex, or not.

MDoAP spells out that the partner has no need to help you in an OFFENSIVE war. The war we are all fighting today is an NPO OFFENSIVE. Stop parsing words, and look at the DOW's. NPO shot the first shot, plain and simple. Few of NPO's allies were truly obligated to assist them in this war. Some of those who have assisted NPO have only done so because they were bullied - as is common in this game..

Oh yeah. Check out my sig. NPO needs to obey Moo's words. It's obvious who the real cowards are.

[Azaghul]

They obviously thought people wouldnt be pissed at them declaring a war during negotiations, I never said NPO wasn't stupid.

Neither side went into this expecting to lose and both sides went into it expecting a relatively even war. It might have become a curbstomp due to NPO's incompetence, but it didn't start that way.

[Azaghul]

A new hegemony is quite unlikely at least in the foreseeable future. The world will have several different groupings, Citadel, C&G, Superfriends, Q/1Vision, none of them large enough to be a dominant power and none but the last even desiring to be a dominant power. C&G, Superfriends, and especially Citadel are not very aggressive or power hungry.

[Gruthenia]

Back then even MK wanted into their circle from rumors I heard, or at least a treaty with the NPO.

I don't know if it would be correct to say we wanted a treaty with the NPO, but we did want safety like any sane alliance and did try to cultivate relations with Continuum signatories in pursuit of that.

[Mogar]

Sparta I know little about. Silent on the OWF. Militarily ok but not too strong in FA.

I think you over estimate their military abilities, their nations don't seem to be declaring offensive wars.

[Romeo Valenti]

Bill Clinton parsed words to the point that he didn't know whether sex was sex, or not.

MDoAP spells out that the partner has no need to help you in an OFFENSIVE war. The war we are all fighting today is an NPO OFFENSIVE. Stop parsing words, and look at the DOW's. NPO shot the first shot, plain and simple. Few of NPO's allies were truly obligated to assist them in this war. Some of those who have assisted NPO have only done so because they were bullied - as is common in this game..

Oh yeah. Check out my sig. NPO needs to obey Moo's words. It's obvious who the real cowards are.

I you Leonid!!!

[Khyber]

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.

We need 24hrs to get involved in an aggressive war which is optional.

We were also counting on the fact that if this war started we would have time to think things through, look at all the facts presented and then make up our minds on wiether we agree with one side or the other.

My view changed several times for the oA clause. Initial proposal seemed harsh as one of the people being punished had infact done nothing wrong by listening to a BC member tell him about treatying with BC. Nowhere did it show him agreeing with the treaty and seemed more like listening to a Johova witness that knocked on your door. Your polite to him, but your not taking anything in. But the final offer seemed reasonable, at least from my perspective. If you had asked me to go to war due to the initial proposal being rejected I would have said no, on the last I would have said yes, and on war while talks were still going I said no, partly becuase they gave us no notice, but more for the fact that they were being silly.

Since this is all optional we need the 24 hours to decide, if not longer. Now if NPO was attacked we would not need the 24hrs to uphold our commitment as it is manditory. That is what we signed and agreed to. If you decide to assume that our treaty is more then that then you are at fault.

Also no notice can be given of intent to go to war before you finally make it clear that peace talks are over, unless it is part of your stratigy to use that time to mobilize support and so forth, something that the NPO did not do. Peace talks are infact trying to achieve peace and no war is immenent, simply a hightened alert, which we can understand, but should not be confused with a 24hr notice to war.

At one point Crymson is telling us that war will break out, and then Someguy telling us that peace talks have resumed and that odds are on peace, then war started. We were on hightened alert, that changes nothing in the end as far as treaty obligations go.

In short, ES, I strongly disagree with you.

[Timeline]

NPO wasnt on the losing side if people honored their treaties... MHA/Sparta/co all have MADPs with NPO

Please why do you not check facts, before you make pointless remarks, Sparta has never had a MDAP with NPO, We had a MDP, and in Q we had a MDoAP how ever we left Q well before this war, that we had already made clear that NPO was not friends of Sparta.

fact: moo screwed up royally by assuming talks were over, and assumed that this had been communicated to ov on account that ov had not made further attempts at communication with the npo when moo's internet connection crapped out. was it stupid on his part? very. does it mean he is some evil !@#$%^& who lies about peace to attack people when their guard is down? absolutely not. it was an honest, albeit extraordinarily stupid, mistake.

LOL you really believe that carp about bad internet, Moo was not even conducting the investigation, was why did he not wait for the word from the person who was conducting the investigation ?

Also why should OV had gotten back to NPO, NPO had taken it upon its self to use TORN and TPF as pawns in this issue.

As to all the E-Lawyers out there, why is it that NPO never sent information to its allies on the actions they was planing to take, even Q members did not know what was going, main reason for them cancelling treaties on NPO, so before you come here talking about honouring treaties, why should TOP, Sparta and who ever else honour a treaty with NPO, when NPO them self do not honour said treaty ?

Edited May 6, 2009 by Timeline

[Khyber]

I think you over estimate their military abilities, their nations don't seem to be declaring offensive wars.

I only checked their first 2 pages myself, and they had a good percentage declared in war, so your obviously mistaken. They may have a low percentage declared overall, but they are ingaged in offensive wars.

I don't know if it would be correct to say we wanted a treaty with the NPO, but we did want safety like any sane alliance and did try to cultivate relations with Continuum signatories in pursuit of that.

Actually I heard you guys tried to treaty the NPO on two seperate occasions. I was in Echelon and many of us were pushing to get closer to you guys but the FA team, Tela and Caffine at the time, were strongly against it except for Ross Garner who was trying to get MK out of the policial isolation it was in. I don't think this was bad, the leaders of every alliance have to protect it's members, and MK leaders were doing just that. Treatying with the NPO does not mean you sell your soul. A PIAT or an MDP could have been reasonable, as none would have forced you to get involved in any offensive wars, and only forced you to defend them if they were attacked for unjust reasons.

So my rumors said you were, but I could be totally wrong on this.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Khyber

[SpacingOutMan]

They'll get what they get. Honestly, let the damn war just play out and stop speculating what might happen because I guarantee you this war will end up like all the rest: the winners will effectively strip the losers of any meaningful ability of regrowing in the short-term. Might makes right... except this time NPO isn't that might.

[kpcurley]

NPO wasnt on the losing side if people honored their treaties... MHA/Sparta/co all have MADPs with NPO

But when IRON canceled for this reason they became cowards?

[Electron Sponge]

We need 24hrs to get involved in an aggressive war which is optional.

It appears NPO wasn't looking for your optional help. /shrug

We were also counting on the fact that if this war started we would have time to think things through, look at all the facts presented and then make up our minds on wiether we agree with one side or the other.

You were waiting to see which side was looking the strongest? lol

My view changed several times for the oA clause. Initial proposal seemed harsh as one of the people being punished had infact done nothing wrong by listening to a BC member tell him about treatying with BC. Nowhere did it show him agreeing with the treaty and seemed more like listening to a Johova witness that knocked on your door. Your polite to him, but your not taking anything in. But the final offer seemed reasonable, at least from my perspective. If you had asked me to go to war due to the initial proposal being rejected I would have said no, on the last I would have said yes, and on war while talks were still going I said no, partly becuase they gave us no notice, but more for the fact that they were being silly.

Now that we've got what your train of thought was explained, let's move on to something actually germane to the discussion...

Since this is all optional we need the 24 hours to decide, if not longer. Now if NPO was attacked we would not need the 24hrs to uphold our commitment as it is manditory. That is what we signed and agreed to. If you decide to assume that our treaty is more then that then you are at fault.

Far be it for me to suggest that TOP should have honored their treaty with NPO when they had far greater treaties to uphold with the Umbrella MDoAP and the optional defense clause from OUT. (-not sarcasm-)

Also no notice can be given of intent to go to war before you finally make it clear that peace talks are over, unless it is part of your stratigy to use that time to mobilize support and so forth, something that the NPO did not do. Peace talks are infact trying to achieve peace and no war is immenent, simply a hightened alert, which we can understand, but should not be confused with a 24hr notice to war.

What are you smoking? Peace talks mean a war isn't imminent? Your logic fails.

At one point Crymson is telling us that war will break out, and then Someguy telling us that peace talks have resumed and that odds are on peace, then war started. We were on hightened alert, that changes nothing in the end as far as treaty obligations go.

I can't believe I'm typing this but you should have listened to Crymson, he seems to know what he's talking about most of the time lately. At the very least anyone thinking that those peace talks were anything but a complete disaster wasn't reading The Tattler.

In short, ES, I strongly disagree with you.

About what?

Actually I heard you guys tried to treaty the NPO on two seperate occasions. I was in Echelon and many of us were pushing to get closer to you guys but the FA team, Tela and Caffine at the time, were strongly against it except for Ross Garner who was trying to get MK out of the policial isolation it was in. I don't think this was bad, the leaders of every alliance have to protect it's members, and MK leaders were doing just that. Treatying with the NPO does not mean you sell your soul. A PIAT or an MDP could have been reasonable, as none would have forced you to get involved in any offensive wars, and only forced you to defend them if they were attacked for unjust reasons.

So my rumors said you were, but I could be totally wrong on this.

MK and NPO signed a PIAT a few weeks ago.

NPO was trying to get MK to sign a mutual defense pact.

Khyber, I'm not trying to be a jerk but in the future could you please proofread what you post? It took me a lot longer to understand what you are saying than it should have. Your grammar and spelling are atrocious.

[Khyber]

You were waiting to see which side was looking the strongest? lol

Cause that is exactly what I wrote. Proof reading doesn't do anything to stop outragous speculation to things writen. Analysing the situation means analysing to see if there is a just claim to war, one that we support, and the effects it will have on our allies, as their consideration is important to us.

Far be it for me to suggest that TOP should have honored their treaty with NPO when they had far greater treaties to uphold with the Umbrella MDoAP and the optional defense clause from OUT. (-not sarcasm-)

All involvements were optional. No MDP is more important then an MDP, if you aggressively attack. We have the option to defend the treaty partner in an agressive war, just as we have the option to defend an ODP partner in an aggressive war, or the option to attack with an MDoAP in an aggressive war or defend him when involved in an aggressive war. To us this war was optional on all sides once NPO an MDP partner went aggressive on OV who was not treatied to us at all.

I don't know how you can say "far greater treaties" when the option is the same level. Did you list your treaty from greatest to weakest when you lead NPO?

What are you smoking? Peace talks mean a war isn't imminent? Your logic fails.

I should have said , peace negotiations, negotiations to maintain peace maybe. Either way, talks that are taking place to avoid war, which would likely not be taking place if war was certain unless for stratigic reasons. Hence baring stratigic reasons, such talks would mean that war is avoidable and not a for gone conclusion.

My use to the word imminent was wrong. I spend my days talking spanish and I use some words incorrectly like imminent in this case which should have been inevitable.

I can't believe I'm typing this but you should have listened to Crymson, he seems to know what he's talking about most of the time lately. At the very least anyone thinking that those peace talks were anything but a complete disaster wasn't reading The Tattler.

Crymson thought so after the first talks, but when second talks were taking place things seemed hopeful which SG commented on. Crymsons belief were after the first talks that things were going to war, but then when he went in there we got reports that things were more likely going to be resolved peacefully.

About what?

About "You're just bringing up a technicality as a machinated way to be upset at NPO." I think if TOP was informed and we decided to back the NPO we could have helped NPO should we have decided to back them up. OV was ready for an attack so 24hrs would have changed little. Or better yet we may have talked the NPO out of war since the slight was not so great and TOP on occassion has forgiven it.

MK and NPO signed a PIAT a few weeks ago.

NPO was trying to get MK to sign a mutual defense pact.

I was talking pre NPO-MK war. Post NPO-MK war MK was far from isolated and many saw the TORN - MK treaty as a sign of that. Gremlins and Umbrella also allied with MK. Before the war it was my understanding that MK did try to treaty NPO but NPO said no.

As for grammer and spelling, I often am at work when I type this stuff out, so my train of thought is often cut several times when replying. I apologize for it.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Khyber