The "I Don't Know Anymore" War

[Deuterium Dawn]

How do you suggest that they prove this to you? The only logical way is for them to get into some kind of war... Perhaps the light terms were a way for a second war to occur quickly so Valhalla and the other cats in Hegemony can prove they learned?

Or maybe they could prove it by not going right back to the way they were before as soon as they are in a position to do so.

[Tygaland]

I'm guessing that you wrote this because of your outrage over the Valhalla peace terms.

No, although that was part of it. This has been something building for a few days now.

Most of the alliances fighting Valhalla are in similar situations such as yourself, Tyga. They do not consider themselves members of the "Karma Coalition," but are fighting to further its goals.

Where did I say I don't consider myself part of that coalition. The fact I'm utterly confused right now is because I do consider myself part of the coalition but I now have no idea what it is doing anymore. These alliances may have been fighting to further Karma's goals but they did not further them by giving out terms that undermine those goals.

The individual alliances appear to have varying degrees of commitment to the Karma cause, with Vanguard and MK apparently at the extreme end and people such as... well I don't know who's in Karma anymore, but most are fairly mild.

But they planned and operated under the Karma banner. If they did not agree with the goals then why would they do that? It is not like the goals were a secret and the names surely gave away that this had quite a bit to do with past aggression and issues.

To me, this war has one aim: to take down the NPO. In the grand scheme of things, NPO is the hegemony, plain and simple. Everyone else in Q was just playing a supporting role, some taking the spotlight every once in a while. The members of the Karma coalition with a lukewarm commitment to the cause do not see it fit to hand down heavy handed reps because they truly fear becoming just like the alliances they have taken down. While most members of the community who browse the forums casually, they would probably feel indifferent towards the handing down of reps.

I disagree with that. NPO was the central figure inthe Hegemony for sure, but without the support of her allies they would not have had the power and scope they did. I think you understate the role the other Continuum and One Vision members played in the Hegemony over the past year and a half. As for the "heavy handed reps" business. I really tire of this exaggeration. There is a hell of a lot of room between white peace and the draconian terms the Hegemony handed out. At least be honest about that because the whole "all or nothing" routine with peace terms and reps is really untrue and just a useful tool for people to push the "you are just becoming the monster you are fighting" meme.

tl;dr- Karma has a wide variety of alliances with varying commitments to the cause. There's no way to establish a uniform template for handing out reps to the "Hegemony" alliances until you formulate an official bloc or governing body that will have the final say on this. Until that happens, you're probably going to be seeing light terms or white peace for the majority of alliances.

I don't agree with this either. You don't need to have a centralised government to handle terms, you need people who are focussed on the stated goals of the coalition to ensure that the terms offered are fair and in accordance with the goals of the coalition. That could be people fighting on the front or an advisor from Karma to give terms a tick if they are in accordance with Karma's goals.

My point is you can't say you are fighting for Karma, plan and coordinate under the Karma banner and then when it comes time to give peace terms say you are not fighting for Karma really and are giving terms reflective of the individual battle with no desire to contribute to the stated goals of Karma. It makes no sense.

[Deadshot]

I believe Karma came together out of necessity believing that this war would be a lot tougher than it was. A lot were initially reluctant to even get involved and when it became apparent that the hegemony was a push over, perhaps this is when interest in maintaining a strong single voice waned. When the rest of the hegemony abandoned the NPO, they sort of took themselves out as being seen as 'enemies' and more like other alliances that got dragged in because of treaty obligations.

NATO is seen really as an unfortunate stooge. MCXA did have to have pay reps and they were hit pretty hard. Everyone knows how OG got out of it. And Valhalla, though probably the worst offenders of the surrendered Q alliances so far, was also the least committal.

Unfortunately some people have ridiculous principles. Like "I wouldn't offer terms I'd never accept myself." Self-aggrandizing concepts of honour that ignore justice.

Nice. But some would argue that for a year, we were a fortunate stooge

/hey, if you can't poke fun at yourself every once and a while, you need to get out more.

//thank you for your honesty.

[Tygaland]

i understand your point, but in my opinion, they're just a bunch of Opportunist

You may well be right, but it does not detract from what Karma sought to achieve.

[KagetheSecond]

Or maybe they could prove it by not going right back to the way they were before as soon as they are in a position to do so.

When would they be in the position to do so? After terms? When they're back to pre war levels? And how long will they be under scrutiny? I believe that all of these Hegemony alliances have learned that they can't have their way whenever they want. They will be very cautious with the actions they take, especially after seeing how quickly the Karma coalition was scraped together. I can say with confidence that most of the Hegemony alliances have changed. I'm sure that there is at least one that will continue to fight and plot revenge, but the others will not. After all, you accuse these alliances of being lapdogs for the NPO and riding on their coat tails. Now that the NPO is out of power, wouldn't it be logical for them to find another's coat tails on which to ride?

[Blacky]

Tygaland, I've always respected you as a historic figure, a great leader and also as a scholar. And I can't understand what's so confusing about the state of affairs at the moment.

What did the Karma war seek to achieve?

Well as many have stated this war was a long time coming, and due to the unipolarity which engulfed the planet, under the NPO style hegemony it took much longer than otherwise expected to come to fruition. It was based on an idea that no singular entity should hold all the power, and therefore have all others vulnerable to their actions at a whim. Basically it came about in phases whereby popular support felt that the unipolarity was a cause of stagnation, and also a dangerous position for those who were not in the center of it.

Initially, it came with the distate for the entangled treaty web as this meant that the unipolarity would exist. Secondly, it came with the calls for alliances honouring treaties, as this mean that the hegemony could not "curbstomp" alliances and more allies could be drawn into wars creating a path for an end to the the hegemony. Finally, it came with the calls for the end of wars without justification and those whereby harsh reps were demanded. As that meant that alliances could be dominated for extended periods of time in different phases of rebuilding ensuring a small hegemony could dominate the entire planet.

Basically, all these minor protests have lead to what we have now. The biggest divide of power since the planet was created by admin-almighty. So yes, there has been success. Everything else was just a way to bring this about.

[o-dog]

Here's a few questions -

Hasn't the old Hegemony been broken for good? Can you really see its power blocs ever recouping their former strength?

How will alliances like TOP,Gramlins, MHA or Sparta ever collude with the likes of NPO, MCXA, GGA, TPF, Valhalla etc ever again?

Who is playing to create the power vacuum?

[Deuterium Dawn]

When would they be in the position to do so? After terms? When they're back to pre war levels? And how long will they be under scrutiny? I believe that all of these Hegemony alliances have learned that they can't have their way whenever they want. They will be very cautious with the actions they take, especially after seeing how quickly the Karma coalition was scraped together. I can say with confidence that most of the Hegemony alliances have changed. I'm sure that there is at least one that will continue to fight and plot revenge, but the others will not. After all, you accuse these alliances of being lapdogs for the NPO and riding on their coat tails. Now that the NPO is out of power, wouldn't it be logical for them to find another's coat tails on which to ride?

When the Karma coalition has splintered post war? I don't know, I'm just saying the only way to prove they've changed isn't another war. And frankly I'm not sure how a second war would prove they aren't the same as they always were anyway.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Deuterium Dawn

[Venizelos]

Karma got together as a way to coordinate the different wars and make sure that nobody is left without support.

as people get out of the war they practically get out of Karma.

some of the people that joined the Karma side because of treaties with Karma alliances joined to take out the specific targets that had attacked their allies; their war had nothing to do with NPO and IRON and whatnot.

the way i see it a sort of entente formed between a few alliances that we ended up calling Karma; these alliances brought their own unrelated-to-Karma allies in.

[boscher]

And so Karma falls apart while the Hegemony will try to rebuild itself.

Edited May 12, 2009 by boscher

[Chalaskan]

Karma is a coalition of circumstance. Not of brotherhood, as NpO and you had the last round. With that said, there will be a ton of varying opinions, and major players will do what they will to grant peace to those deemed honorable. Isn't that the point of Karma though?

I don't understand why some people get so upset at lenient terms in this war especially considering the preachings of those on the Karma side chomping at the bit for this war. Maybe the alliances involved that are looking out for others are simply a counterbalance to another NPO and Co?

Regardless, many were pulled into this war with friends on both sides. Many did what they could to be honorable on all accounts due to those friendships, as was so white and black in the NpO war.

This war is not like that...it is very grey. So things like this will happen...

I don't believe that NPO will be the next overlord, but I believe many alliances, yourself included are looking to make their position the best on BOB, and the terms handed out are the best way to do this.

Some alliances are doing exactly what you did in the last war by backing NpO. Just looking out for their friends.

There something wrong with that?

Edited May 12, 2009 by Chalaskan

[KagetheSecond]

No, although that was part of it. This has been something building for a few days now.

Pardon me, I must have you confused with the NSO or another alliance.

Where did I say I don't consider myself part of that coalition. The fact I'm utterly confused right now is because I do consider myself part of the coalition but I now have no idea what it is doing anymore. These alliances may have been fighting to further Karma's goals but they did not further them by giving out terms that undermine those goals.

The alliances I was speaking about were OBR, Umbrella and TOP, who I don't believe are the ones pushing the hardest for the removal of the Hegemony. They appear to be the driving force behind the "white peace for all" and will continue to do so because they are honoring their treaty obligations, not fighting the crusade.

But they planned and operated under the Karma banner. If they did not agree with the goals then why would they do that? It is not like the goals were a secret and the names surely gave away that this had quite a bit to do with past aggression and issues.

Once again, I failed to point out the alliances I was referring to. That's an error on my end.

I disagree with that. NPO was the central figure inthe Hegemony for sure, but without the support of her allies they would not have had the power and scope they did. I think you understate the role the other Continuum and One Vision members played in the Hegemony over the past year and a half. As for the "heavy handed reps" business. I really tire of this exaggeration. There is a hell of a lot of room between white peace and the draconian terms the Hegemony handed out. At least be honest about that because the whole "all or nothing" routine with peace terms and reps is really untrue and just a useful tool for people to push the "you are just becoming the monster you are fighting" meme.

I haven't been in the game for the past year and a half, so my knowlege of the evils of 1V and Q are a bit limited. I have trouble with the idea that people had just laid down and taken this for so long. I was opposed to the Initiative in my first nation, and to be honest, the NPO has always been the villain in my eyes, everyone else has been on the periphery. This narrow view of the world probably reflects that of the majority of casual players.

As to the reps, I know that there is a lot of room for discussion as to what is fitting and what is not. I know that the all or nothing peace thing is complete BS and I will be the first to say that. However, the overwhelming feeling that I am getting from more vocal and radical memebers of Karma is for the reps to fit the crime. It appears that the Hegemony alliances have many crimes to attone for, and the reps would be have to be large in order to fit both the number and size of the crimes.

I don't agree with this either. You don't need to have a centralised government to handle terms, you need people who are focussed on the stated goals of the coalition to ensure that the terms offered are fair and in accordance with the goals of the coalition. That could be people fighting on the front or an advisor from Karma to give terms a tick if they are in accordance with Karma's goals.

Having one person or a group of people determine the reps struck me as a formalised structure. With Archon being the de facto leader of Karma, I figured it would just be easier to make it official.

My point is you can't say you are fighting for Karma, plan and coordinate under the Karma banner and then when it comes time to give peace terms say you are not fighting for Karma really and are giving terms reflective of the individual battle with no desire to contribute to the stated goals of Karma. It makes no sense.

I don't believe that all alliances that have been placed on the Karma side were involved with the coordination and execution of battle plans. Some were acting under treaty obligation and therefore saw no reason to give terms that gelled with the goals of Karma. Doing so would not make sense, as they were not formally members of the Karma Coalition.

[KagetheSecond]

When the Karma coalition has splintered post war? I don't know, I'm just saying the only way to prove they've changed isn't another war. And frankly I'm not sure how a second war would prove they aren't the same as they always were anyway.

If they were to somehow win the second war, if they gave everyone white peace or light terms, it would show they changed.

[AlmightyGrub]

You may well be right, but it does not detract from what Karma sought to achieve.

You know why you don't know Tyga? It is simple really, there is no answer. Having been involved in 3 separate ''loose coalitions'' I can tell you I will never ever be involved in another one.

From the outset Karma has had some major issues and it was always destined to. When you have a tight group of allies like tC and WUT did, you have an outlet or format to make decisions, along side people you are used to working with, alliances whose leaders talk daily in bloc terms and therefore understand the requirements of such an arrangement. The real power of tC came not from their collective NS, not from the NPO, but from their collective will to work together, for good or bad, in any situation.

Karma on the flip side had a loose goal from the outset, a goal easily misunderstood by even those participating, let alone anyone watching. Despite some great focused military arrangements, it is apparent that no great thought has gone into the clean up phase of the operation. Even now, as an outsider, I wonder what your initial goals were, I wonder whether you got close to achieving them or whether things just evolved and nature took its course.

So perhaps the real question is, what did you hope to achieve? How did you hope to achieve it? How did you intend to ensure that your actions were fairly equitable across the whole scope of the war? Who is in charge, who has the final say and why?

From what I see, Karma assigned some targets and simply released the hounds to do as they wanted, with no obvious oversight. If so then you have reason #1 why I will never be a part of such nonsense, no clear agenda.

I have read the conflicts in the Valhalla thread between various competing agendas within Karma. It is clearly as a result, not of hegemony's propaganda, but rather Karma's own poor agenda setting from the outset. It is unclear to all concerned what everyone is there for, so what hope do you have of achieving consensus after the fact?

Then we come to #2 reason why I will never be a part of such nonsense. No one is in charge. Part of the issue of this side of CN has always been no one wants to give up their sovereign rights as an alliance for the greater good, basically you are all selfish and unwilling to really sacrifice ''control'' to one or two people, but you are all perfectly happy to piss away your infra for no clear goal. Weirdos.

Then we come to #3 reason, whilst there is some limited military direction of this operation (LM did an awesome job in the initial roll out), it is apparent that he does not have full line control of the military side of this war either. Everyone is an expert on war and how it should be done, so consequently you all pull in your own directions.

Given that this war was won before it really even got rolling, it is a pretty average effort really. The fact that you will be ultimately judged as being successful in the wash up seriously overrates what you did given the opportunities you were given on a plate.

I know it is impossible to please everyone, I struggle to please some of the people some of the time even within my own alliance, but you have to set a clear set of guidelines, or get one person/group of people to direct the whole operation. This whole loose coalition of competing interests just happened to coincide in one major area, the NPO was the issue. It simply isn't enough in common if your scope is as far reaching as this war has become.

Also flip in the obvious issues of having a huge chunk of tC in your coalition, allies of convenience without a prior commitment will always fail to work cohesively over a protracted operation. Also add in that you have a whole bunch of alliances that when this ends will be competing for market share and it is a powder keg.

Karma set out to hold a moral high ground, was that really that smart? Who knows right now, you are not to your primary objective (from where I sit) but you have managed, by sheer good luck (and poor management on the NPO's part), to break apart some fairly serious treaty ties. Give it to yourselves as good management and the war is a success, but I doubt good management had much to do with the reality of what has happened.

Next time you want to roll half the world, and you have a spare month or two to put it together, consider what went wrong this time (and every other time) and fix it.

Until you make your goals measurable in real terms and your agenda clear then who knows really if you are achieving what you set out to do?

[Chalaskan]

The alliances I was speaking about were OBR, Umbrella and TOP, who I don't believe are the ones pushing the hardest for the removal of the Hegemony. They appear to be the driving force behind the "white peace for all" and will continue to do so because they are honoring their treaty obligations, not fighting the crusade.

I think you are confused. We are not pushing on many agendas (All)...just the ones we are involved in. Iron excluded...and even then I am not .gov so I don't know if they are. I would just hope so.

I think you would be wise to know that many of us have no desire to have anything to do with peace offers in most of the cases happening...Valhalla included.

[Tygaland]

Tygaland, I've always respected you as a historic figure, a great leader and also as a scholar. And I can't understand what's so confusing about the state of affairs at the moment.

I never claim to be a scholar. I thought I pointed out at some length where my confusion lies.

What did the Karma war seek to achieve?

Well as many have stated this war was a long time coming, and due to the unipolarity which engulfed the planet, under the NPO style hegemony it took much longer than otherwise expected to come to fruition. It was based on an idea that no singular entity should hold all the power, and therefore have all others vulnerable to their actions at a whim. Basically it came about in phases whereby popular support felt that the unipolarity was a cause of stagnation, and also a dangerous position for those who were not in the center of it.

Initially, it came with the distate for the entangled treaty web as this meant that the unipolarity would exist. Secondly, it came with the calls for alliances honouring treaties, as this mean that the hegemony could not "curbstomp" alliances and more allies could be drawn into wars creating a path for an end to the the hegemony. Finally, it came with the calls for the end of wars without justification and those whereby harsh reps were demanded. As that meant that alliances could be dominated for extended periods of time in different phases of rebuilding ensuring a small hegemony could dominate the entire planet.

Basically, all these minor protests have lead to what we have now. The biggest divide of power since the planet was created by admin-almighty. So yes, there has been success. Everything else was just a way to bring this about.

It is only a success if it lasts and leaving the framework of the hegemony in place, in my opinion, is a serious error by the Karma side and one we may well pay for in the not too distant future.

[Blacky]

Some alliances are doing exactly what you did in the last war by backing NpO. Just looking out for their friends.

There something wrong with that?

This is quite true, and I think he conceded that there are those not guilty of anything but defending their friends, and that's not a crime at all.

However, there are alliances in the Continuum which have perpetrated many crimes. Bullying, extortion, fighting wars withough justification, forcing members or leaders out of alliances. The problem is some members of the Karma coalition believed, perhaps foolishly that it was possible to right those wrongs. The problem is it's impossible, so long as it is not in our control to undo the past. No amount of reperations, no set of harsh terms, will right the wrongs of these alliances.

The fact of the matter is regardless of how severe the terms that are offered it would still be unfair to those who were assailed by the various continuum alliances.

[Vhalen]

i understand your point, but in my opinion, they're just a bunch of Opportunist

Sounds like what many had been saying about power-structure hangers-on for quite a while. I can't say I'm surprised if we see some new people seizing opportunity when it passes their way for the first time in several years.

And how long will they be under scrutiny?

If I've learned anything from these forums, the answer to that is "basically forever." The past doesn't go away, especially when it's a painful memory for someone else. And yes, they're watching.

Tyga, it's simple. A lot of alliances who've become embroiled in this massive undertaking don't have the same drive or the same goals as those who got the ball rolling. Fact is, there are going to be people who don't like whatever terms get handed down, for each and every alliance. "Why didn't X get Y term?" "Why would you force X to do Y? They're not really the same alliance they were, anyway." And so forth. The thing is, if Karma wanted to control terms for "core Hegemony alliances," they needed to make that clear to the combatants up front. That's the primary issue you're facng, I think. (As for me, I don't think everyone will get white peace, nor do I think crippling reps and draconian terms are the way to go. I suspect I'm far from alone in this opinion, and probably, in general, in agreement with you.)

I think some of them will learn from it, reform, and be better for it. Some won't, but they'll know they're under scrutiny, and that grudges aren't magically disappearing. Either they'll act like they've changed (which, it could be argued, is the same thing as actually changing), or there'll be conflict, but I think it'll be much less ridiculous conflict than the massive gangbangings of the recent past. Clearly that sort of thing makes people unhappy enough to rise up en masse.

[Orkules]

How do you suggest that they prove this to you? The only logical way is for them to get into some kind of war... Perhaps the light terms were a way for a second war to occur quickly so Valhalla and the other cats in Hegemony can prove they learned?

See, given how they acted before I'd really rather not let them get into position to prove this kind of thing except on my terms. However, because of the surrender terms and the rate at which they can now rebuild and the likely length of time that this war will last it is unlikely that this will be the case for those who don't trust them. The alliances they are most likely to come after later are not those that gave them peace, actually they are alliances, as far as I know, still heavily engaged in this war (namely STA and MK to my knowledge).

[KagetheSecond]

I think you are confused. We are not pushing on many agendas (All)...just the ones we are involved in. Iron excluded...and even then I am not .gov so I don't know if they are. I would just hope so.

I think you would be wise to know that many of us have no desire to have anything to do with peace offers in most of the cases happening...Valhalla included.

Bah.. I am le tired, and I forget to write things down.

What I intended to say was that TOP and Umbrella were pushing for white peace with the alliances that they were engaged with, like OMFG

I should get some sleep before I respond here again.

[Chalaskan]

This is quite true, and I think he conceded that there are those not guilty of anything but defending their friends, and that's not a crime at all.

However, there are alliances in the Continuum which have perpetrated many crimes. Bullying, extortion, fighting wars withough justification, forcing members or leaders out of alliances. The problem is some members of the Karma coalition believed, perhaps foolishly that it was possible to right those wrongs. The problem is it's impossible, so long as it is not in our control to undo the past. No amount of reperations, no set of harsh terms, will right the wrongs of these alliances.

The fact of the matter is regardless of how severe the terms that are offered it would still be unfair to those who were assailed by the various continuum alliances.

The old adage... two wrongs don't make a right comes to mind. But I understand how many feel. Regardless, those trying to be honorable should not be looked at in a negative light due to this.

[Matthew Conrad]

So ... the Karma war was never the righteous crusade with the aim of changing the cyberverse for ever afterall. Well i'm shocked.

The early mantra was 'Giving the Continuum / NPO a good talking to'. Well you've done / are doing that. I'm confident the NPO will change after the war. If that was your aim, then what would forcing the sort of terms that karma always claimed to abhor really achieve?

I honestly have no idea where anyone on hegemony's side has a right to complain about anything. Karma, by definition, is balance. It's by softness of heart that most of the "Hegemonic" powers thus far have been given white peace. And yet, many continue to complain that we are somehow required to give white peace terms for all. Remember, murder can be punished by death; this is justice by the law. An eye for an eye, so to speak. That's not monstrous; that's by definition justice and karma, so I don't really see how the crusade has by tarnished. There are few alliances I wish to see be handed reps and I'm glad most people have gotten white peace(aka those honoring treaties who don't necessarily agree with how this war started), but that's not for me to decide.

I leave you with this: "Spare the rod, spoil the child"

EDIT: edited for clarity, need some sleep

Edited May 12, 2009 by Matthew Conrad

[uaciaut]

The war had started and Karma HQ was assigning alliances to certain fronts taking into account treaty requirements and organising aid flow as needed. Over the ensuing days more alliances joined the war on both sides. Karma announced itself as a fair and merciful group seeking to overthrow the Hegemony and bring about a new Cyberverse that was free of the extortion, bullying and over-the-top reparations that had become the norm under the Hegemony.

Fantastic, I thought, finally a dedicated group has come together to change things for the better. My only reservation was whether or not this new coalition will learn from the past and do what needed to be done to achieve the goal that was set out to be achieved.

Well i think you're overestimating how tight Karma ever was either in principle or in action here, but that's not the point i want to make here.

From my perspective this war is everything i wanted to happen really and i think it achieved it's purpose - it broke the treaty web into pieces and created a power vacuum large enough to give many alliances opportunity for growth, FA wise and not only. Because the main fault of the political world of before this war wasn't that X or Y were giving out harsh terms, it was that everyone pretty much had to agree with them and there wasn't much freedom of choice, only the option of agreeing with a majority that lacked any sort of competition. I think it was counter-productive in all aspects, maybe less so for the people who were throwing others' weight around (though it still affected them indirectly since CN itself was, at least imo negatively influenced by this).

Basically i didn't give a !@#$ about the terms that were to be given out afterwards. I knew for sure i wouldn't encourage !@#$ terms like GATO/MK got or try to force alliances into eternal curbstomp like FAN from the start. The idea of some light reps did come to mind but i didn't put much importance on it since it wouldn't have made much of a difference and the real "goal" i wanted this war to reach was mostly achieved.

I really think people are putting too much weight on the importance on some "light" reps as terms as punishment here. It mostly affects the post-war period negatively since it's likely it will put some grudges between some alliances now leaving others that are now at war enough space to climb the ladder again, and i really don't think an extra ~5k tech asked in reps is worth this much.

But meh, people will hold on to grudges if they feel like it i guess. :shrug:

[Tygaland]

Here's a few questions -

Hasn't the old Hegemony been broken for good? Can you really see its power blocs ever recouping their former strength?

The real core of the Hegemony has remained intact.

How will alliances like TOP,Gramlins, MHA or Sparta ever collude with the likes of NPO, MCXA, GGA, TPF, Valhalla etc ever again?

To be fair, those splits preceded the war although some only intent at the time so using this as the basis for victory, no war was even needed.

Who is playing to create the power vacuum?

What power vacuum? If the Hegemony is splintered then there are a number of other blocs out there that would fill any void, just not one large one.

[Kryievla]

OK, this may be a wall of text or I may lose interest after a paragraph or two, but a few things have been bugging me the past few days and I just want to get it out there. I honestly don't care if you agree with me, disagree with me or have no interest in what I say. I'm doing this for me.

I have been reading and posting in a number of threads throughout this war I have to say my level of confusion is rising by the day.

This current war has been unofficially known as the Karma War according to the CN Wiki and when it began to take shape the side of the war I'm on labelled itself Karma. I wasn't involved in the naming of the coalition but considering the reason we had come together it seemed appropriate. The opposition was arbitrarily named Hegemony and that was that.

The war had started and Karma HQ was assigning alliances to certain fronts taking into account treaty requirements and organising aid flow as needed. Over the ensuing days more alliances joined the war on both sides. Karma announced itself as a fair and merciful group seeking to overthrow the Hegemony and bring about a new Cyberverse that was free of the extortion, bullying and over-the-top reparations that had become the norm under the Hegemony.

Fantastic, I thought, finally a dedicated group has come together to change things for the better. My only reservation was whether or not this new coalition will learn from the past and do what needed to be done to achieve the goal that was set out to be achieved.

After a few days a few smaller alliances started seeking peace and an exit from the war. It was pretty much agreed within Karma that these alliances would be given white peace and an exit from the war whenever they sought it. It was around this time that Karma alliances began thinking about how to deal with what would be considered the core members of the Hegemony, alliances in the Continuum and One Vision blocs. Discussion was sporadic and informal and ranged from medium level terms to some requiring terms akin to those the Hegemony handed out to others in the past. The only consensus I got from the discussions I saw was that these alliances were not to be given white peace and that they had to suffer some pain albeit nothing like that that these alliances had forced others to suffer in the past.

Since that time four Continuum alliances have been given peace and only one of them required to pay any reparations at all. This struck me as odd considering the reason the Karma coalition came together and the goals we were supposedly trying to achieve.

This is where the past few days have confused me. 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. Fair point, most of the alliances in Karma went to war via existing treaties but the war itself was organised under a larger banner than the individual treaties and blocs that came to form Karma.

This has resulted in some disagreements between those in Karma but I think this is due to the fact that there seems to be some point in this war where Karma stopped existing and the individual alliances that initially formed Karma began to move away from Karma as a group to hand out their own peace terms.

Now, I have no issue with those fighting on certain fronts having the final say in the terms they hand out. STA did it with a Karma rep present to oversee it. But I have to wonder what the point is if the terms given do not support the basic goals of the Karma coalition.

So, here is the main source of my confusion. We now have alliances who planned and fought a war under the Karma banner whose goal was stated as one of removing the Hegemony form power and creating a Cyberverse without extortion, bullying and over-the-top peace terms. These alliances are now saying they are not fighting to punish alliances for past transgressions and that they are fighting a completely different war to the Karma War and giving terms reflective of that.

If this is the Karma War and the coalition is known as Karma with the stated goals of disabling the Hegemony, how can it be that this is not about past transgressions? Hegemony refers to what? And Karma?

What is this war all about anymore and when did it change? How is the Hegemony to be broken down if the treaties that bind them are left intact?

Was I in a different universe when I looked over what the Karma War was all about and what Karma as a coalition set out to achieve?

Confused

Tygaborough

These are the kinds of questions I asked myself (from the flip side of course ) when this war began. The goal (change) is not one that is well-defined, and can mean different things to different people, just as Karma can mean different things to different people. Not saying it's bad; quite the contrary. Just that, without a clearly defined objective, it's hard to get people on the same page.

As for dismantling the current power structure, I'd say you've accomplished that objective. Hairline fractures turned into full-scale rifts, and a lot of things were learned. The power structure did some bad things, but we did some good things too. A lot of good things. Doesn't matter so very much I guess, cause it's broken now. All that remains is a shadow of it's former self.

The will to make this movement happen, that alone was enough to bring about some change. There were changes in foreign policy all over the place, and a new awareness of exciting possibilities. Most of those happened before the war, some during, and some still going on. In that, Karma has succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.

We now have alliances who planned and fought a war under the Karma banner whose goal was stated as one of removing the Hegemony form power and creating a Cyberverse without extortion, bullying and over-the-top peace terms. These alliances are now saying they are not fighting to punish alliances for past transgressions and that they are fighting a completely different war to the Karma War and giving terms reflective of that.

Those two sentences can definitely be mutually exclusive. There are members fighting on your side, who claim not to be Karma anyhow. They are still in this war, some of them even fighting for the same things you are fighting. You can create a new environment with or without charging reparations, with or without terms, with or without taking into account past transgressions.

In the case of an alliance like mine, we would not take reps we deem excessive. You can pry our goods out of our cold dead hands, and you will pay for every bit of it. That is how we are. If we had light reps, maybe we would take them instead of fight, I don't really know. I do know that if we did take any rep offers at all, we *would* remember.

Instead, we're kind of left with shock and awe. Kind of hard to respond to that sort of thing with anything but genuine respect, and maybe a bit of desire to live up to what we got. I daresay that with one swoop of a pen, your buddies turned what could have been a very long siege into something else. Something that made many folks, both general members and government, take a good hard look at things. Something that I suspect will be the change you seek. And quite likely the only way you would see it from us, short of forcing a disband.

Tyga, your side, for all the lack of unity in some areas, is still having the desired impact, if a change is what you sought. Perhaps it is not coming about in the way you expected, but I am most certainly seeing and feeling the effects. And I know it's not just me, either.

I'm real tired, it's nearly 3 AM and I have to get up in a few hours (ew) but I really wanted to address this. So with that, good night. Hopefully when I re-read this in the morning, it'll be coherent