The "I Don't Know Anymore" War

[neneko]

Tyga, I've been calling it hedgemony since the start of this war and nobody have corrected me before. As you can probably tell from my posts english isn't my strong point.

Anyway back to the topic.

If you want punishment equal to the crime then we are looking at seriously crippling reps since that is what they've been giving out. As for one month doing much difference I can't see that. If they want to get back together and get revenge they're going to do that one way or another.

Since I don't think light reps would do anything good my idea here is all or nothing. Something I'm probably going to be told is evil. I think we should skip reps for the alliances we think can change since reps won't accomplish anything anyway. I'm not saying that the fact that we don't give them any reps by itself makes them instantly good people. I'm not that naive. I belive that they're going to need to change to survive after the war since the political landscape will change alot.

As I said I belive it's all or nothing so not nothing to everyone. I can't see pacifica changing its ways. It got a chance to do that before and it didn't bite. Although I belive in fairly light terms for pacifica too. I just think they should pay a sum equal to the reps they've recived through the years. They should still have that tech laying around (or after this war at least some of it) so sending it out shouldn't be a problem.

By posting this I realise that I'm going to stand betwen the two 'camps' in this question so please skip telling me I'm evil. I already know that.

[Thorgrum]

I find it amusing folks are trying to start a rally cry for harsher reps

A sign times have changed.

You know I found it amusing too, I just assumed that we would have started off with the standard routine of decom's, tech, cancellations. Those are easy, time tested results where the outcomes are highly predictable.

What will be very amusing is to see if alliances with baggage/history can move forward after this war and discharge some of it. Do you find that premise amusing too?

[jer]

I'd love to suggest something concrete, but what's the bloody point? I don't even bother following the statistics anymore. My alliance just isn't good enough to be included as part of the victorious coalition. As I've said, we're not worth the PR risk, apparently.

I believe I've already done just that: IRON should be denied peace until they are, at least, beaten from sanctioned status.

If your viewpoints aren't being included at the top levels I think that's a shame because you are one of the great thinkers of the game (and no, that is not just me sucking up to make up for suggesting that you were a hypocrite, I do actually think this ), and Karma is missing a trick if you're being left out.

What is your reason for denying them peace until that point? I don't have a problem with any terms if you can justify them, I just don't think 'because IRON did it' counts as a justification.

[AlmightyGrub]

Your point?

I can see a rather large point, but everyone is conveniently bypassing it. Hegemony included a significant chunk of Karma's strength. These are people that didn't cancel treaties any earlier than anyone else, alliances that rolled just as hard as anyone else, but because they joined your side they are all okay. How pathetic is this "punish those that honoured their agreements'' and sort of stayed with Pacifica versus salute those who abandoned them joined your team? You can not punish one extensively and ignore the fact that half of the power base of the NPO is riding along side you. They were all there when the triggers were pulled everytime were they not?

Karma's arguments that it was the collusive and co-operative efforts of the Hegemonic alliances that caused the issues, so who was in tC in the month that this war started? Right, so ignore that because it is simply too inconceivable and move to who actually did what in this war?

What is good for the goose is truly good for the gander, so rather than start off with a straight up series of double standards, why not confine it to what you can actually justify. If the assessment is the NPO's attack on OV warrants harsh terms, who could possibly argue, given prior context, however to reach too far backwards implicates some of the people pointing the fingers right now. People who have never been smacked around for their past, people who benefited directly from their tight association with Pacifica for a protracted period of time are now sitting on the side of righteousness? That's fine if you are prepared to accept it, but to do so negates most if not all of your concept of justice for the entire past of CN?

Personally, live and let live works for me. Forgive and forget was the only option for Polaris, we paid a hefty price for our perceived sins, as did all of our allies, but faced with the options of revenge or moving on, I will chose moving on every time. Extract your revenge, but deal with the hypocrisy of this whole concept of Karma.

[Denial]

What is your reason for denying them peace until that point? I don't have a problem with any terms if you can justify them, I just don't think 'because IRON did it' counts as a justification.

I would imagine Doitzel's justification for denying IRON peace until they are removed from the sanctioned alliance list has something to do with the fact that removing strength from your opponent is a prerequisite of actually winning a war.

[Orkules]

Tyga, I've been calling it hedgemony since the start of this war and nobody have corrected me before. As you can probably tell from my posts english isn't my strong point.

Anyway back to the topic.

If you want punishment equal to the crime then we are looking at seriously crippling reps since that is what they've been giving out. As for one month doing much difference I can't see that. If they want to get back together and get revenge they're going to do that one way or another.

Since I don't think light reps would do anything good my idea here is all or nothing. Something I'm probably going to be told is evil. I think we should skip reps for the alliances we think can change since reps won't accomplish anything anyway. I'm not saying that the fact that we don't give them any reps by itself makes them instantly good people. I'm not that naive. I belive that they're going to need to change to survive after the war since the political landscape will change alot.

As I said I belive it's all or nothing so not nothing to everyone. I can't see pacifica changing its ways. It got a chance to do that before and it didn't bite. Although I belive in fairly light terms for pacifica too. I just think they should pay a sum equal to the reps they've recived through the years. They should still have that tech laying around (or after this war at least some of it) so sending it out shouldn't be a problem.

By posting this I realise that I'm going to stand betwen the two 'camps' in this question so please skip telling me I'm evil. I already know that.

This was well put and I don't think you are evil for it. I disagree, for reasons I and Tyga and Doitzel have all stated, but I don't think you are evil. You may even be wrong and I'm too bloody bitter to see it.

[Orkules]

I would imagine Doitzel's justification for denying IRON peace until they are removed from the sanctioned alliance list has something to do with the fact that removing strength from your opponent is a prerequisite of actually winning a war.

Hurt people in war? You sir are a monster.

[Tygaland]

Then tell me, what do you think he meant by it?

That comment doesn't support your allegation at all.

Doitzel was asked why IRON souldn't be given a free pass when they ask for it and he said because they denied others that option in the past so they can hardly demand it of others. I didn't see any mention of FAN, crazy reps, ZI, Viceroys or any of the garbage you are attributing to him at all.

[Tygaland]

I find it amusing folks are trying to start a rally cry for harsher reps

A sign times have changed.

To be fair, they can't get any lighter.

[Mack Truck]

I can see a rather large point, but everyone is conveniently bypassing it. Hegemony included a significant chunk of Karma's strength. These are people that didn't cancel treaties any earlier than anyone else, alliances that rolled just as hard as anyone else, but because they joined your side they are all okay. How pathetic is this "punish those that honoured their agreements'' and sort of stayed with Pacifica versus salute those who abandoned them joined your team? You can not punish one extensively and ignore the fact that half of the power base of the NPO is riding along side you. They were all there when the triggers were pulled everytime were they not?

Karma's arguments that it was the collusive and co-operative efforts of the Hegemonic alliances that caused the issues, so who was in tC in the month that this war started? Right, so ignore that because it is simply too inconceivable and move to who actually did what in this war?

What is good for the goose is truly good for the gander, so rather than start off with a straight up series of double standards, why not confine it to what you can actually justify. If the assessment is the NPO's attack on OV warrants harsh terms, who could possibly argue, given prior context, however to reach too far backwards implicates some of the people pointing the fingers right now. People who have never been smacked around for their past, people who benefited directly from their tight association with Pacifica for a protracted period of time are now sitting on the side of righteousness? That's fine if you are prepared to accept it, but to do so negates most if not all of your concept of justice for the entire past of CN?

Personally, live and let live works for me. Forgive and forget was the only option for Polaris, we paid a hefty price for our perceived sins, as did all of our allies, but faced with the options of revenge or moving on, I will chose moving on every time. Extract your revenge, but deal with the hypocrisy of this whole concept of Karma.

If only people who haven't backed up a silly war were fighting then Karma wouldn't have stood a chance.

I believe most will get what's theirs one day, including those on my side who escaped what they deserved, but their day isn't this one.

[jer]

I would imagine Doitzel's justification for denying IRON peace until they are removed from the sanctioned alliance list has something to do with the fact that removing strength from your opponent is a prerequisite of actually winning a war.

IRON has already lost a lot of strength, and they are in no position to deal with Karma forces right now, so that should be the end right? Wrong. This is why we have now moved on to discussing surrender terms (and at what point should they be issued) and are not still discussing how to win the war, how much NS you need to remove to win the war, etc.

[Denial]

IRON has already lost a lot of strength, and they are in no position to deal with Karma forces right now, so that should be the end right? Wrong. This is why we have now moved on to discussing surrender terms (and at what point should they be issued) and are not still discussing how to win the war, how much NS you need to remove to win the war, etc.

What?

[jer]

That comment doesn't support your allegation at all.

Doitzel was asked why IRON souldn't be given a free pass when they ask for it and he said because they denied others that option in the past so they can hardly demand it of others. I didn't see any mention of FAN, crazy reps, ZI, Viceroys or any of the garbage you are attributing to him at all.

By using the logic of denying others the options that they have themselves denied, you're going to end up denying NPO peace for eternity just because they denied it to their opponents, denying TPF surrender without large reps just because they denied it to their opponents, and so on and so forth. It's going back down a road that we should be turning away from (imo).

[HeinousOne]

In the end I think we are finding there was only ever one true target. The rest were considered secondary. The secondary alliances are viewed as having a future, well most of them that is. With an absolute power vacuum forming that some of the other existing blocs will be looking to fill to some measure, the secondary alliances of the hegemony are no longer being seen as enemies but instead as free agents. That is how it appears to me. Thus threse free agents are being played to. It is all very natural and pretty predictable.

Honest friendships are made on the battlefield as foes earn a healthy respect for each other that mere words cannot compete with. The hegemony's secondary alliances will find new friends and such will only leave NPO even more isolated. That too seems to be the goal of many Karma alliances. For those wishing to do such, I suppose giving easy peace terms makes more sense then harsh terms. Harsh terms can actually bring an alliance closer to its current allies and certainly does cause that alliance to respect its former enemies. The strategy is clear to me, perhaps because I was never in the Karma planning sessions. It was always a fly by the seat of our pants organization anyways, shouldn't be a surprise that alliance plans have changed.

Secondly it would appear that planning for this war is pretty much already over. Planning for what happens after the war is now the agenda. In that aspect Karma is already done for.

Edited May 12, 2009 by HeinousOne

[jer]

What?

Never mind.

[Mack Truck]

What?

They said:

IRON has already lost a lot of strength, and they are in no position to deal with Karma forces right now, so that should be the end right? Wrong. This is why we have now moved on to discussing surrender terms (and at what point should they be issued) and are not still discussing how to win the war, how much NS you need to remove to win the war, etc.

[Tygaland]

Tyga, I've been calling it hedgemony since the start of this war and nobody have corrected me before. As you can probably tell from my posts english isn't my strong point.

I never noticed any issues with your English before, hence I pointed out the error.

Anyway back to the topic.

If you want punishment equal to the crime then we are looking at seriously crippling reps since that is what they've been giving out. As for one month doing much difference I can't see that. If they want to get back together and get revenge they're going to do that one way or another.

No, this is where you do not understand what I'm saying. I never once said that their reps should be the same as they gave to others (other people are putting those words in my mouth for whatever reason). As per my example earlier, alliances in the Continuum would receive harsher reps than their allies outside of the Continuum, alliances twice removed and beyond would receive the lightest terms (white peace). Just because the main players get worse terms than the peripheral alliances does not mean any reps have to be anything liek the ones meted out by the Hegemony. And this system means the main core alliances in the Hegemony suffer harsher punishment than those they dragged in to defend them. To me, it is a fair system.

Since I don't think light reps would do anything good my idea here is all or nothing. Something I'm probably going to be told is evil. I think we should skip reps for the alliances we think can change since reps won't accomplish anything anyway. I'm not saying that the fact that we don't give them any reps by itself makes them instantly good people. I'm not that naive. I belive that they're going to need to change to survive after the war since the political landscape will change alot.

Oh, and how do you endeavour to determine who can and cannot change? The reps are not about "doing" anything other making sure punishment matches the crime. By your reasoning an alliance like SSSW18 should be equally punished as TPF or Valhalla. While you my think my system maked me a monster, it is certainly fairer than yours. SSSW18 having to pay reps and Valhalla not, are you serious?

As I said I belive it's all or nothing so not nothing to everyone. I can't see pacifica changing its ways. It got a chance to do that before and it didn't bite. Although I belive in fairly light terms for pacifica too. I just think they should pay a sum equal to the reps they've recived through the years. They should still have that tech laying around (or after this war at least some of it) so sending it out shouldn't be a problem.

You think them repaying reps for the past 2 or 3 years are light terms? o.O I wonder how that would have gone down if I'd said it!

By posting this I realise that I'm going to stand betwen the two 'camps' in this question so please skip telling me I'm evil. I already know that.

No, you are telling me I'm evil. But then again that seems to be the new black now.

[Salmacis]

I see alliances that planned and operated under the Karma banner now claim they were not at war under that banner at all but their only reason to go to war was to honour treaties that existed prior to Karma forming.

... Probably because they have no choice left to keep their PR intact. *cough*

Can you tell us how common this problem is, in the Karma ranks?

[Doitzel]

By using the logic of denying others the options that they have themselves denied, you're going to end up denying NPO peace for eternity just because they denied it to their opponents, denying TPF surrender without large reps just because they denied it to their opponents, and so on and so forth. It's going back down a road that we should be turning away from (imo).

Oh damn, he got us. I forgot that the world is split entirely into black and white and that all our decisions reflect such, with no middle ground ever possible -- especially in peace terms.

[Orkules]

... Probably because they have no choice left to keep their PR intact. *cough*

Can you tell us how common this problem is, in the Karma ranks?

That you think you have to distance yourself from those who don't want white peace for everybody just to avoid bad PR kind of proves the point about the Hegemony propaganda machine...

[Tygaland]

I can see a rather large point, but everyone is conveniently bypassing it. Hegemony included a significant chunk of Karma's strength. These are people that didn't cancel treaties any earlier than anyone else, alliances that rolled just as hard as anyone else, but because they joined your side they are all okay.

Where did I say that, Grub? Am I at war with any of them at the minute? You want me to give them terms too?

How pathetic is this "punish those that honoured their agreements'' and sort of stayed with Pacifica versus salute those who abandoned them joined your team? You can not punish one extensively and ignore the fact that half of the power base of the NPO is riding along side you. They were all there when the triggers were pulled everytime were they not?

How am I to punish alliances I'm not at war with?

Karma's arguments that it was the collusive and co-operative efforts of the Hegemonic alliances that caused the issues, so who was in tC in the month that this war started? Right, so ignore that because it is simply too inconceivable and move to who actually did what in this war?

Who is ignoring it? If you can link me to my blind praise of any of those alliances I'll be happy to concede.

What is good for the goose is truly good for the gander, so rather than start off with a straight up series of double standards, why not confine it to what you can actually justify. If the assessment is the NPO's attack on OV warrants harsh terms, who could possibly argue, given prior context, however to reach too far backwards implicates some of the people pointing the fingers right now. People who have never been smacked around for their past, people who benefited directly from their tight association with Pacifica for a protracted period of time are now sitting on the side of righteousness? That's fine if you are prepared to accept it, but to do so negates most if not all of your concept of justice for the entire past of CN?

I'll let those pointing the finger who were as much to blame as those they point the finger at deal with their own issues. I've not praised them at all.

Personally, live and let live works for me. Forgive and forget was the only option for Polaris, we paid a hefty price for our perceived sins, as did all of our allies, but faced with the options of revenge or moving on, I will chose moving on every time. Extract your revenge, but deal with the hypocrisy of this whole concept of Karma.

Really...

[Denial]

By using the logic of denying others the options that they have themselves denied, you're going to end up denying NPO peace for eternity just because they denied it to their opponents, denying TPF surrender without large reps just because they denied it to their opponents, and so on and so forth. It's going back down a road that we should be turning away from (imo).

I am guessing you missed the parts where this argument has been refuted over and over and over and over again.

Never mind.

No, I am honestly curious as to where you are attempting to go with this. Firstly, you appeared to disagree with Doitzel's claim that IRON should be kept in a state of war until they have lost their sanction status, and then proceeded to ask what his justification was for suggesting such a thing. I countered with the fact that, to actually claim any form of meaningful victory in a war, you must remove a significant portion of your opponent's strength. My definition - and apparently Doitzel's, too - of 'significant' in IRON's case would be, at minimum, enough strength and member loss to remove them from the Top Twelve alliances in the game. Ideally, however, I would hope that war continues until they are under 5 million total strength.

You countered the above with:

IRON has already lost a lot of strength, and they are in no position to deal with Karma forces right now, so that should be the end right? Wrong. This is why we have now moved on to discussing surrender terms (and at what point should they be issued) and are not still discussing how to win the war, how much NS you need to remove to win the war, etc.

And this is where you have lost me. Not only do you go off in an entirely different direction to your previous argument - your answer to your own question in the first two sentences appears to me as if you believe the war on IRON should actually continue - but you then also claim we have 'moved on' to discussing at what point surrender terms should be issued. Isn't that exactly what Doitzel and I have already answered?

[Ravnica]

I'm not going to quote people here. I'm going to link you to their comments, to make my life easier. I don't want to post between walls of text. This is also to make sure you can see it in it's entirety, and so no one accuses me of editing. (Some of this is old news, but this is a HUGE WALL OF TEXT! It took me a fricking long time to think and type it all out so I do apologize.)

Tyga: Post here

You're perfectly right about the propaganda about crazy terms and about complacency. I bunch these two up because people were given white peace from those they are fighting. Hindsight is 20/20, and the quote "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" because if you vaunt the Karma flag, and you've seen how the past "attrocities" have occured, terms were given out as a whole. All you're doing by declaring white peace with someone is making everyone's life harder.

As for your other comments, I'm honestly sure things are going to go back to the way they were after terms are up. Mr. Grub's stated that Karma was a loose-knit coalition of alliances, and that's it's inherent flaw. It is. All I have to do is point to the people who accepted white peace terms in this conflict. It's not my position to say if they should be proud or ashamed, it's in my position to point them out.

Doitzel: Post here

Things are indeed going to be hard to forget. People are still going to carry grudges because of this. I'm not going to forget that the NPO was going to attack someone during peace talks, with or without their allies knowledge. They're not going to forget the war that was caused by people's actions, their own or others. There is no "unjust terms" or "becoming that which they sought to destroy" when individual alliances are surrendering to other individual alliances. All it boils down to is that people are going to think that things are fair on the losing side. "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" applies here. If the roles were reversed, the "evil and oppressive" group/bloc/whathaveyou that won would have made you wear dunce hats and made you pay money to them and be able to say almost whatever they want because you couldn't fight back because you lost a war in a game made out of information on a web browser.

Aimee Mann: Post here

I hate to say it, but you have it horribly wrong. Karma isn't going to hand out terms as a whole, seeing as how alliances are surrendering on a personal level. You know who you are. My money is on Karma not being the evil it set out to destroy, but people with their own interests taking precedence of people talking to their "allies" and coordinating terms. Blocs like One Vision and the Continuum will continue after this war because of it. Nothing's to stop the NPO from calling up their allies after terms are up other than the actions they themselves have caused: attacking an alliance during peace talks and using said peace talks to stall for more time.

Mhawk: Post here

Funny that you're making light of something that almost directly concerns you. You're still a part of TPF and are you going to make light of things when you're given surrender terms? I detect a bit of misguided egotism here...

Orkrules: Post here

Terms handed out by singular alliances to another, or from another group are never going to be harsh because they are just like streetlights: they go on, they go off... never really illuminate more than part of the street.

Mack Truck: Post here

...What are you talking about? Personally can't understand all that. I can only divine with my thoughts on the matter your intention of what you posted. Before I say anything else, you have a MK AA in game. But I honestly still can't make out a word you said, other than "if people didn't back up other people" and "Karma would've lost". The sides were divided by treaties. Remember that.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Pimpmobile

[Tygaland]

By using the logic of denying others the options that they have themselves denied, you're going to end up denying NPO peace for eternity just because they denied it to their opponents, denying TPF surrender without large reps just because they denied it to their opponents, and so on and so forth. It's going back down a road that we should be turning away from (imo).

There you go with the exaggerations again. I'm done with you.

[shahenshah]

That comment doesn't support your allegation at all.

Doitzel was asked why IRON souldn't be given a free pass when they ask for it and he said because they denied others that option in the past so they can hardly demand it of others. I didn't see any mention of FAN, crazy reps, ZI, Viceroys or any of the garbage you are attributing to him at all.

ALL significant and effective military power that is commanded by Karma can as well be included in that list.