The "I Don't Know Anymore" War

[Orkules]

That time is done, you won't realize that. It'll keep this game interesting for me.

We don't know if that time is done. We can't. We're saying the possibility exists for it to return and that possibility grows with each decision like that concerning Valhalla and Old Guard.

[The AUT]

Well, think about it Tyga, much of your coalition fought for the "Hegemony" last war. Most don't know what harsh reparations are nor do they know the "atrocities" of the Hegemony. For most it's just switching sides, fulfilling treaty obligations (some of which are bandwagoning), and exiting the war.

[Tygaland]

As you say, it is only a success if it lasts and we cannot pass judgement on the methods of Karma so soon. I can understand your concerns about the Hegemony, but you need to get past this fear and paranoia that says that the moment they're free they'll be oppressing us again if you want to live in a changed world. A huge chunk of the world with many diverse opinions and alliances were able to came together (yes, loosely, but it is still an amazing achievement) to knock these clowns off their perch, do you honestly believe that all these alliances would simply sit back after the war is done and get complacent as the NPO, Valhalla, TPF, OG, GGA, NATO etc. all band together for power once more? Nobody is that naive.

Yes, the complacency has already set in.

I take issue with the way you labelled the people in Karma who do not want to use crazy terms on anyone as succumbing to the propagandists of the Hegemony.

I take issue with people continually trotting the "crazy terms" meme to try and make a point. I said people from Karma who accuse others in Karma of being "just like the Hegemony" have fallen for the propaganda and have taken their eye off the ball. If you are someone who says anything like minimal reparations is "crazy terms" and anyone asking for such "crazy terms" is as "turning into the monster they claim to fight" then you have bought into the propaganda.

There is a group of people in the centre of the Karma side who are of sound core principles, and they're setting those principles in stone right here, right now. After three years of crap, I can understand your scepticism, but at least give a chance for the cycle to be broken, because a great many people are tired of living in a world where all opposition is crushed beyond all recognition.

Again with the all or nothing "crushed beyond recognition". Unbelievable.

Lastly, I think you and many others are putting too much stock in 'Karma' - please don't judge a bloc by it's name! If you insist upon pigeon-holing characteristics of groups for ease of identity and reference, at least base those characteristics on what the bloc actually does, and not some dictionary definition that you've been pinning your hopes on.

I judge it by its initial statement of intent. Not its name. I only mentioned the names of the two groups to highlight that this war is about past injustices as much as it is about changing the future. The fact that Karma is now drifting away from that initial intent in a seemingly random manner is what concerns me and confuses me.

[Doitzel]

So you want to do the same to them? Can you not see how that would make you as bad as them? If you care about your credibility you should realise that you cannot get morally outraged at IRON for something at one moment, and then preach that they should have the same things done to them at the next.

How dare you. This is what is pissing Tyga off and with good reason. I did not suggest even for a moment that we should do anything anywhere near the calibre what IRON and NPO have done to FAN and Vox. What I suggest is that they should not be allowed to get away relatively unscathed or, indeed, in a position to carry out the same sort of sentence for some time to come. Considering the number of alliances they have decimated, the number of people they have driven from the game, and the collective damage they have wrought on this community in full knowledge of what they were doing I do not think that is a great deal to ask. And frankly given I've been fighting them a hell of a lot longer than any of the rest of you -- indeed, while many of you were sucking up -- I think I have a great deal more "credibility" when speaking to what these alliances deserve.

I have not once proposed placing a Viceroy, or forcing their members out of government or out of the alliance, or forcing them to change their policies on self-defence. What I propose and indeed what Tyga proposes is that where the war was fought for their actions in the present -- their activations of treaties, their obligations -- the surrender terms should be a means to administer a small amount of retribution for the enormous crimes committed under the domination. Considering the immense losses in physical and intangible mediums that have been suffered by many on the Karma side I do not think that is a great deal to ask. The intent matters even more than the term itself: where IRON or NPO would impose horrid surrender terms worse than anything anyone now is proposing with the intent of keeping political opposition quelled, the intent of any surrender terms given by Karma should be to do justice for those who have been wronged.

If that makes me "as bad as them" then so be it. I've had worse things said about me.

[jer]

I take issue with people continually trotting the "crazy terms" meme to try and make a point. I said people from Karma who accuse others in Karma of being "just like the Hegemony" have fallen for the propaganda and have taken their eye off the ball. If you are someone who says anything like minimal reparations is "crazy terms" and anyone asking for such "crazy terms" is as "turning into the monster they claim to fight" then you have bought into the propaganda.

Again with the all or nothing "crushed beyond recognition". Unbelievable.

How dare you. This is what is pissing Tyga off and with good reason. I did not suggest even for a moment that we should do anything anywhere near the calibre what IRON and NPO have done to FAN and Vox. What I suggest is that they should not be allowed to get away relatively unscathed or, indeed, in a position to carry out the same sort of sentence for some time to come. Considering the number of alliances they have decimated, the number of people they have driven from the game, and the collective damage they have wrought on this community in full knowledge of what they were doing I do not think that is a great deal to ask. And frankly given I've been fighting them a hell of a lot longer than any of the rest of you -- indeed, while many of you were sucking up -- I think I have a great deal more "credibility" when speaking to what these alliances deserve.

I have not once proposed placing a Viceroy, or forcing their members out of government or out of the alliance, or forcing them to change their policies on self-defence. What I propose and indeed what Tyga proposes is that where the war was fought for their actions in the present -- their activations of treaties, their obligations -- the surrender terms should be a means to administer a small amount of retribution for the enormous crimes committed under the domination. Considering the immense losses in physical and intangible mediums that have been suffered by many on the Karma side I do not think that is a great deal to ask. The intent matters even more than the term itself: where IRON or NPO would impose horrid surrender terms worse than anything anyone now is proposing with the intent of keeping political opposition quelled, the intent of any surrender terms given by Karma should be to do justice for those who have been wronged.

If that makes me "as bad as them" then so be it. I've had worse things said about me.

Then suggest something concrete. You cannot just make vague statements about how these alliances should not be allowed to go free without proposing any punishments, because that just allows the people who would like to see NPO, IRON, etc. EZI'd to push their agendas too. I'll admit that when you both say you want to see these alliances punished my first thought is that you want to exact harsh revenge (and I apologise for this if that is not your intent) but if you've something reasonable to propose go ahead and do it, then I will not be able to misinterpret your words again. What would you guys offer?

Edited May 12, 2009 by Aimee Mann

[Orkules]

So you want to do the same to them? Can you not see how that would make you as bad as them? If you care about your credibility you should realise that you cannot get morally outraged at IRON for something at one moment, and then preach that they should have the same things done to them at the next.

You didn't just say that...to Doitzel of all people...Where's the facepalm smiley when you need it?

Listen to me and listen to me well, for I will put this simply. We do not want to sink to their level. We do not want to inflict harsh and crippling terms upon alliances. However, some terms does not mean harsh and crippling. Low level reparations, suspended treaties, maybe even cancelled treaties (they can be resigned afterwards if they really really want them) are NOT becoming the monster.

I have been under the thumb of the monster, I know what it takes to be that monster. Doitzel knows even better than I do. Don't ever insult us by saying we've become as bad as them when we asked for minor terms and not just white peace for everyone. Don't you dare.

[neneko]

and the same arguments keeps going round and round.

What I never got explained was how forcing out some reps from the surrendering alliances prevents them from eventually try to crush the alliances on the karma side. I see it mentioned over and over that nobody is suggesting crippling terms just some terms to underline that the surrendering alliances have sinned in the past. What I can't see is how these light reps would in any way hinder a new hedgemony to return after the surrendering alliances licks their wounds.

By light light reps I assume we're talking around 10k tech maybe 20k at most. This would delay the regrowth of the surrendering alliances no more than a month if even that. If we want to prevent a new hedgemony to come back for revenge there are other ways to do this. Wether you think demanding reps is right or wrong doesn't matter. It won't stop anything just possibly delay it a month.

[Mack Truck]

So you want to do the same to them? Can you not see how that would make you as bad as them? If you care about your credibility you should realise that you cannot get morally outraged at IRON for something at one moment, and then preach that they should have the same things done to them at the next.

I don't recall him saying anything like that. Please quit with the hyperbole and miscontruing, no one is saying to keep them in war for years (like FAN), to charge them 100,000 tech (NpO), give them a viceroy (A bunch of alliances) or make them change teams (LoSS). So yeah, quit with it.

[Caliph]

How dare you. This is what is pissing Tyga off and with good reason. I did not suggest even for a moment that we should do anything anywhere near the calibre what IRON and NPO have done to FAN and Vox. What I suggest is that they should not be allowed to get away relatively unscathed or, indeed, in a position to carry out the same sort of sentence for some time to come. Considering the number of alliances they have decimated, the number of people they have driven from the game, and the collective damage they have wrought on this community in full knowledge of what they were doing I do not think that is a great deal to ask. And frankly given I've been fighting them a hell of a lot longer than any of the rest of you -- indeed, while many of you were sucking up -- I think I have a great deal more "credibility" when speaking to what these alliances deserve.

I have not once proposed placing a Viceroy, or forcing their members out of government or out of the alliance, or forcing them to change their policies on self-defence. What I propose and indeed what Tyga proposes is that where the war was fought for their actions in the present -- their activations of treaties, their obligations -- the surrender terms should be a means to administer a small amount of retribution for the enormous crimes committed under the domination. Considering the immense losses in physical and intangible mediums that have been suffered by many on the Karma side I do not think that is a great deal to ask. The intent matters even more than the term itself: where IRON or NPO would impose horrid surrender terms worse than anything anyone now is proposing with the intent of keeping political opposition quelled, the intent of any surrender terms given by Karma should be to do justice for those who have been wronged.

If that makes me "as bad as them" then so be it. I've had worse things said about me.

This.

NPO and IRON have been the biggest purpetrators of these actions, of horrible surrender terms, or "no cb wars", of all that we dislike about the Hegemonies actions.

Why then should they be granted peace after a beating, when they have very rarely give white peace and only do so now in an attempt to show the world they have changed?

I understand IRON enterred the war knowing it was fighting a losing battle, however let us examine how IRON got to the point where it had to enter a losing war.

IRON actively kept \m/ down, and actively worked against any reformation attempt. IRON actively kept FAN and Vox down, and tried to destroy both alliances. IRON helped NPO with many of their wars resulting in harsh surrender terms. Never once did IRON falter in their support of what the NPO had done. Instead the opposite occured; IRON actively supported these actions, and participated in them.

That is why they are being hit, not because of their treaties, but because of their actions.

[Tygaland]

^Tyga, this is basically how I see this war in history.

Yes, it seems some alliances are getting off lightly, but what is the alternative?

Not letting them off as lightly?

10k tech reps? What does that do? Nothing. Look how strong Polar is already.

Not the point really. Does spanking a child cause it any great harm overall? But it can discourage a child from bad behaviour.

Canceled treaties? Most are suspended already. And NPO, for one, will not be re-aligning to many of these alliances.

Leaders forced out of government? Who can you name specifically that deserves this?

Where did I mention anything about forcing people out of government? I think you are projecting now.

What would you have done, Tyga? Specifically, what terms would you have given Valhalla, and how would they have been better than those actually given? Please list specifics rather than note you would have given them middle-of-the-road terms.

I never mentioned middle of the road anything. I mentioned fair terms based on an alliances actions and relationship to the Continuum.

For example, a sliding scale of terms based on the alliance's links to the Continuum. Terms could be 2 months or the duration of the war, whichever is shorter.

White peace for peripheral alliances dragged into war. Minor terms like Valhalla's for those closer to the Continuum such as TOOL and OPP alliances. Duration of terms would be 2 months or the duration of the war, whichever is shortest.

Then increasingly larger reps for Continuum and One Vision alliances coupled with the other terms that MCXA received in accordance to their status in those blocs. All treaties for the Continuum alliances cancelled for duration rather than suspended. Moldavi and Revenge Doctrines cancelled as far as the NPO is concerned. Terms could be in place for 3-6 months depending on the alliance we are talking about.

This way, the alliances brought in the war genuinely via treaties that had no role in the Hegemony of any not are given light terms and those a the core of the Hegemony get the "middle of the road" treaties if I am to use your terminology.

Note, no viceroys. No, expulsion of members. No endless terms. Just a sliding scale of terms based on the past actions of the alliances involved.

As for Karma as a whole, of course they are not a cohesive group bent on destroying certain powers. They are fighters - for justice, for allies, for themselves, or for retribution. Should they have been a united group, seeking to unseat the powers that be, dismantling them permanently?

What do you mean by dismantling them permanently? The Hegemony or specific alliances? If you mean the Hegemony, they can never be dismantled permanently but they can be weakened for a period of time to give the "new" ways of the Cyberverse a chance to develop.

As uaciaut already said, this is accomplished even without peace terms. The NPO won't be going back to all of these people, especially after believing most to have abandoned them. Valhalla won't go back to its old ways, for it won't have the backing. The Hegemony won't attempt to reform as it was; if it does, alliances will recognize it for what it is and crush it.

I heard this after GWI. What was someone saying earlier about complacency?

There is now not quite a vacuum, but perhaps a level playing field. One group does not dictate anything (thank Admin there isn't a Karma command dictating exactly how peace terms shall go). Alliances will be free to speak. Alliances will be free not to conform to the Bobian norm, keeping voices silent while alliances are forced to disband, watching alliances suffer eternal warfare, unjustly punishing nations beyond the the scope of the game, free to make fun of the GGA without fear of retribution though granted that started before the war, free to speak up, to act up, and even to try to be the one up on top.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Other than post the obvious.

Now, as for the chance that some of these beat-down guys will rise again. Good.

I don;t doubt they will rise again. You said earlier they couldn't so I must say you are getting a bit hard to follow.

[jer]

You didn't just say that...to Doitzel of all people...Where's the facepalm smiley when you need it?

Listen to me and listen to me well, for I will put this simply. We do not want to sink to their level. We do not want to inflict harsh and crippling terms upon alliances. However, some terms does not mean harsh and crippling. Low level reparations, suspended treaties, maybe even cancelled treaties (they can be resigned afterwards if they really really want them) are NOT becoming the monster.

I have been under the thumb of the monster, I know what it takes to be that monster. Doitzel knows even better than I do. Don't ever insult us by saying we've become as bad as them when we asked for minor terms and not just white peace for everyone. Don't you dare.

If you get offended by being called out for being hypocrites then that is not my problem. I know who Doitzel is, do you think that excuses him from hypocrisy? No.

I like your second paragraph and do not disagree with it at all. I am only rallying against those who wish to use the same tactics that the Hegemony did and justify them with NO U and revenge arguments.

I don't recall him saying anything like that. Please quit with the hyperbole and miscontruing, no one is saying to keep them in war for years (like FAN), to charge them 100,000 tech (NpO), give them a viceroy (A bunch of alliances) or make them change teams (LoSS). So yeah, quit with it.

(when referring to why IRON should be denied peace): "Maybe because of all the people and alliances that IRON denied peace over the years?"

Because IRON did it to others, it is okay to do it to them, even when you hated on IRON for doing it? That seems to be what he is saying. Hy-po-cri-sy. If he's using that logic he will end up becoming the same thing he's killing.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Aimee Mann

[Tygaland]

Well, think about it Tyga, much of your coalition fought for the "Hegemony" last war. Most don't know what harsh reparations are nor do they know the "atrocities" of the Hegemony. For most it's just switching sides, fulfilling treaty obligations (some of which are bandwagoning), and exiting the war.

Your point?

[Tygaland]

Then suggest something concrete. You cannot just make vague statements about how these alliances should not be allowed to go free without proposing any punishments, because that just allows the people who would like to see NPO, IRON, etc. EZI'd to push their agendas too. I'll admit that when you both say you want to see these alliances punished my first thought is that you want to exact harsh revenge (and I apologise for this if that is not your intent) but if you've something reasonable to propose go ahead and do it, then I will not be able to misinterpret your words again. What would you guys offer?

I find it amusing you accuse myself and Doitzel of making vague statements yet you continue to misrepresent everything we say with your melodramatic exaggerations to try and make us look more evil than we are. And that is saying somethign because we are quite evil apparently.

I posted this further down but I'll repost it in answer to your challenge:

For example, a sliding scale of terms based on the alliance's links to the Continuum. Terms could be 2 months or the duration of the war, whichever is shorter.

White peace for peripheral alliances dragged into war. Minor terms like Valhalla's for those closer to the Continuum such as TOOL and OPP alliances. Duration of terms would be 2 months or the duration of the war, whichever is shortest.

Then increasingly larger reps for Continuum and One Vision alliances coupled with the other terms that MCXA received in accordance to their status in those blocs. All treaties for the Continuum alliances cancelled for duration rather than suspended. Moldavi and Revenge Doctrines cancelled as far as the NPO is concerned. Terms could be in place for 3-6 months depending on the alliance we are talking about.

This way, the alliances brought in the war genuinely via treaties that had no role in the Hegemony of any not are given light terms and those a the core of the Hegemony get the "middle of the road" treaties if I am to use your terminology.

Note, no viceroys. No, expulsion of members. No endless terms. Just a sliding scale of terms based on the past actions of the alliances involved. And..no ZI, EZI, PZI or ZI-in-biskit.

[Tygaland]

and the same arguments keeps going round and round.

What I never got explained was how forcing out some reps from the surrendering alliances prevents them from eventually try to crush the alliances on the karma side. I see it mentioned over and over that nobody is suggesting crippling terms just some terms to underline that the surrendering alliances have sinned in the past. What I can't see is how these light reps would in any way hinder a new hedgemony to return after the surrendering alliances licks their wounds.

For me, it about punishment equivalent to the crime. By giving the main causes of this war and the main instigators of the toxic culture that has taken over the Cyberverse the same punishment as an alliance twice removed via treaty is ridiculous, in my opinion.

And I'm pretty sure it is hegemony, not hedgemony.

By light light reps I assume we're talking around 10k tech maybe 20k at most. This would delay the regrowth of the surrendering alliances no more than a month if even that. If we want to prevent a new hedgemony to come back for revenge there are other ways to do this. Wether you think demanding reps is right or wrong doesn't matter. It won't stop anything just possibly delay it a month.

An extra month of freedom is nothing to be scoffed at. My reasoning is mentioned above.

[Orkules]

If you get offended by being called out for being hypocrites then that is not my problem. I know who Doitzel is, do you think that excuses him from hypocrisy? No.

I like your second paragraph and do not disagree with it at all. I am only rallying against those who wish to use the same tactics that the Hegemony did and justify them with NO U and revenge arguments.

(when referring to why IRON should be denied peace): "Maybe because of all the people and alliances that IRON denied peace over the years?"

Because IRON did it to others, it is okay to do it to them, even when you hated on IRON for doing it? That seems to be what he is saying. Hy-po-cri-sy. If he's using that logic he will end up becoming the same thing he's killing.

I get offended when somebody keeps calling me that despite my repeated explanations of what I mean. That is why I got so annoyed with you. That you have done it to Doitzel and Tyga only made it worse.

We're not asking to do what IRON and NPO did. We're asking to do less but to still actually do something. That is all. For an excellent example, look at Tyga's post. He put it much better than I ever could.

[jer]

I find it amusing you accuse myself and Doitzel of making vague statements yet you continue to misrepresent everything we say with your melodramatic exaggerations to try and make us look more evil than we are. And that is saying somethign because we are quite evil apparently.

I have apologised once already for this, but I will do so again because I think it is warranted. I am not aiming my comments specifically at you, you have shown with your actions past (and the terms you just proposed, very nice btw, iSupport) that you are not completely evil and if it appears that I am accusing you of this then that is through my own inability to communicate my point and nothing more. Some of your points, without clarification, appear to be remarkably similar to those of the people who wish to see the entire Hegemony in a pile of burning rubble for eternity, which is why I addressed them in the way I did. I know that you are frustrated with people labelling you as a 100% bonafide meanie, which is why a little clarification helps.

[Tygaland]

If you get offended by being called out for being hypocrites then that is not my problem. I know who Doitzel is, do you think that excuses him from hypocrisy? No.

I like your second paragraph and do not disagree with it at all. I am only rallying against those who wish to use the same tactics that the Hegemony did and justify them with NO U and revenge arguments.

(when referring to why IRON should be denied peace): "Maybe because of all the people and alliances that IRON denied peace over the years?"

Because IRON did it to others, it is okay to do it to them, even when you hated on IRON for doing it? That seems to be what he is saying. Hy-po-cri-sy. If he's using that logic he will end up becoming the same thing he's killing.

You are basing your judgement on thing you have said, not what I or Doitzel have said. If we are to be branded hypocrites we'd prefer it was because of our words and not words you have put in our mouths.

Seriously, stop lying and falsely representing what I and saying. I have given you plenty of chances to knock it off and you persist with not only repeating the lie but then abusing us as hypocrites based on your lies.

I really used to enjoy your posts but I truly cannot stand malicious liars and you are acting like one at the moment.

[Thorgrum]

I don’t share Tyga's time in to CN history, I simply haven’t been here long enough. However I have been here long enough to share his confusion and to empathize with his sentiment. I fought against STA in the last war, they were honorable in war and got harsh terms at the end of it. I think it’s fair to say from reading the threads over the last few days that his sentiments are not exclusive to STA or himself.

While I don’t have in depth rebuttals based on historical precedent to recite here I can offer a measure of support for his confusion and discomfort with how things are progressing at this point. I’m no alliance leader, I’m just a grunt who was on the fringe of the war fought my battles and we achieved peace with our foes. However the "I don’t know anymore" mantra seems to be extending from long term alliance leaders like Tyga all the way to 1 year old grunts like me.

The only conclusion I can come up with so far is that there is a perception that behaviors will change in the future. While that’s a noble hope, the old axiom of past behavior is the best indicator of future events seems to be the source of confusion and angst. The war isn’t over there are still battles to be fought but as this is only my second major war its clear to me that the final outcome of this one could really reshape the playing field for a lot of people.

Hopefully there will be a tempered approach between noble optimism and historic behavior when the next set of terms are handed down.

[Tygaland]

I have apologised once already for this, but I will do so again because I think it is warranted. I am not aiming my comments specifically at you, you have shown with your actions past (and the terms you just proposed, very nice btw, iSupport) that you are not completely evil and if it appears that I am accusing you of this then that is through my own inability to communicate my point and nothing more. Some of your points, without clarification, appear to be remarkably similar to those of the people who wish to see the entire Hegemony in a pile of burning rubble for eternity, which is why I addressed them in the way I did. I know that you are frustrated with people labelling you as a 100% bonafide meanie, which is why a little clarification helps.

Apology accepted but the apology is kind of weak when you turn around reuse the falsehood minutes later.

Please do not do it again. I have enough to do arguing with people who disagree with what I'm actually saying without having to put out the fires you are lighting.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Tygaland

[jer]

You are basing your judgement on thing you have said, not what I or Doitzel have said. If we are to be branded hypocrites we'd prefer it was because of our words and not words you have put in our mouths.

Seriously, stop lying and falsely representing what I and saying. I have given you plenty of chances to knock it off and you persist with not only repeating the lie but then abusing us as hypocrites based on your lies.

I really used to enjoy your posts but I truly cannot stand malicious liars and you are acting like one at the moment.

I have quoted Doitzel in that post! :/

[Tygaland]

I have quoted Doitzel in that post! :/

Doitzel never said what you claim either.

[jer]

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

[mhawk]

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

A sign times have changed.

[Orkules]

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

A sign times have changed.

I think it's funny that you of all people are trying to make light terms sound like harsh terms.

[Doitzel]

Then suggest something concrete. You cannot just make vague statements about how these alliances should not be allowed to go free without proposing any punishments, because that just allows the people who would like to see NPO, IRON, etc. EZI'd to push their agendas too. I'll admit that when you both say you want to see these alliances punished my first thought is that you want to exact harsh revenge (and I apologise for this if that is not your intent) but if you've something reasonable to propose go ahead and do it, then I will not be able to misinterpret your words again. What would you guys offer?

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.

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

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