The "I Don't Know Anymore" War

[Tygaland]

... 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?

Go check out the Valhalla thread. It is there if you wish to seek it.

[Salmacis]

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...

True dat.

I just wanted to check... Well Tygaland said "alliances" in his post. I know at least two capable of saying such a thing. I want to know if there's more.

[Nobody Expects]

Karma =/= Retribution........you probably made a branding error with that one it seems.

[jer]

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:

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?

You have answered that, but I believe yours and Doitzel's justifications for the same action differ. Your reasons are from a military standpoint purely with the intention of thoroughly beating your enemy, which is fine. Doitzel however said that IRON should not be granted peace just because they did not grant it to others, which is what I have an issue with. With your reasoning it should continue, but not with Doitzel's. I hope that clears things up as I can see that my wording wasn't as clear as it should've been.

[Denial]

You have answered that, but I believe yours and Doitzel's justifications for the same action differ. Your reasons are from a military standpoint purely with the intention of thoroughly beating your enemy, which is fine. Doitzel however said that IRON should not be granted peace just because they did not grant it to others, which is what I have an issue with. With your reasoning it should continue, but not with Doitzel's. I hope that clears things up as I can see that my wording wasn't as clear as it should've been.

Thanks, I see what you're driving at now.

[Tygaland]

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

What list?

[Salmacis]

Go check out the Valhalla thread. It is there if you wish to seek it.

I'll pass.

[Tygaland]

I'll pass.

I don't blame you.

[neneko]

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.

Okay so you mean punishment proportional to the crime not equal to. At least I read it as wanting the same punishment as the crime was when you say punishment equal to the crime.

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?

I never called you evil or a monster. You've grouped me up with other people that might have said that but I've understood your standpoint all along I just don't agree with it.

I think TPF should be let off easy too. Where you get SSW18 getting as harsh terms as them in my mind I got no idea I think they deserve white peace.

Your terms are probably more fair than mine I can agree with you there. What I'm looking at isn't for us to punish every alliance that have done something wrong though. We're fighting to take down the hegemony not to serve justice to all alliances on bob. At least that's how I view it.

So while your system might be more fair I'm trying to look at what would create a better world after the war.

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!

No I was a bit sarcastic towards myself. I won't beat around the bush with it. I want to see pacifica crushed to crumbles after this war. I belive that without pacifica to back them up alliances like valhalla and tpf will have no choice but to change their ways in the post-war world.

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

I never called you evil. You're grouping me up with others that have disagreed with you. I never said you were evil and I don't think you are. You want a fair system. I want a system that give us a better world post-war. At least I want as system I think will bring a better world. I could be wrong and maybe a fair punishment system would be what ends up giving the best results.

Edited May 12, 2009 by neneko

[Ravnica]

What list?

There really isn't a list. He's just trying to group Karma as an actual bloc. It's not. It's a web of treaty activations. Everyone is acting of their own interest now, which is the point people are failing to realize.

[Orkules]

You have answered that, but I believe yours and Doitzel's justifications for the same action differ. Your reasons are from a military standpoint purely with the intention of thoroughly beating your enemy, which is fine. Doitzel however said that IRON should not be granted peace just because they did not grant it to others, which is what I have an issue with. With your reasoning it should continue, but not with Doitzel's. I hope that clears things up as I can see that my wording wasn't as clear as it should've been.

Doitzel said they can't ASK to be given peace and get upset when they don't get it given what they've done. He said they should be told no when they ask until they're past that point likely for similar reasons as Revanche.

[Orkules]

True dat.

I just wanted to check... Well Tygaland said "alliances" in his post. I know at least two capable of saying such a thing. I want to know if there's more.

If you're speaking of those that disagree with white peace across the board...Obviously Tyga does, likely most of STA as well. Vanguard does I can tell you. I believe most of CnG does as well, but I can't really speak for all of them. I've seen some posts from NSO members but I doubt it speaks for their whole alliance. Beyond that, I can't say with certainty.

[jer]

Doitzel said they can't ASK to be given peace and get upset when they don't get it given what they've done. He said they should be told no when they ask until they're past that point likely for similar reasons as Revanche.

No, not for similar reasons as Revanche. You said yourself, Doitzel would say no just because IRON has said no in the past, that is very different to saying no for militarily strategic reasons.

[JoshuaR]

My responses in bold, as it's easier than cutting and replying.

Not letting them off as lightly?

The "what else do you propose" question was meant for you to propose something, rather than say what happened wasn't what you would have proposed.

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

You haven't mentioned specific values that you would charge. I'll make up a number, let's say 10,000 tech. It's so slight as to be inconsequential to the alliance. All it does is further the environment in which extracting tech/land/cash from a defeated alliance is the norm. It gives the defeated alliance a target for revenge and resentment. Most importantly, it's not going to change an alliance's behavior (for the better) any more than no tech.

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

I never said you mentioned this. I asked what you would do, and then I proposed and rejected some possibilities.

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.

I agree. Alliances more at fault should receive harsher terms. But adding tech payments of mild value ain't gonna do nothin'. I think you're more on the right track with treaty cancellations and ending of restrictive policies and wars (FAN, Moldavi Doctrine, EZI...).

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.

The Hegemony as a group is weakened by war. Do you think 10k tech will do so much more that it will grant the Cyberverse a chance to develop, whereas lack of those reparations will not?

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

Mild terms will not weaken your enemies any more than soft terms. You either have to be harsh or not.

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

Even if obvious to you, perhaps someone will become enlightened.

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.

I fully hope the individual alliances rise again. I said the blocs of power, the Hegemony as it were, no longer fills the Cyberverse, yes. And because you posted in an OOC forum, I will say that I wouldn't mind seeing even the old Hegemony working together to regain power, but I don't see the old group reforming. New alliances will surely take its place, anyway, perhaps some among those that received light terms, perhaps some among the alliances of "Karma."

[Orkules]

No, not for similar reasons as Revanche. You said yourself, Doitzel would say no just because IRON has said no in the past, that is very different to saying no for militarily strategic reasons.

Read my post. I said I think he believed they shouldn't ask for it or be upset when it gets turned down. Not that they should wait for a set amount of time because of what they did. I also said I think he wants them past sanction for the same reasons.

Stop distorting posts in this thread. I am getting rather tired of it.

[Doitzel]

No, not for similar reasons as Revanche. You said yourself, Doitzel would say no just because IRON has said no in the past, that is very different to saying no for militarily strategic reasons.

Apparently reading is not your strong point.

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.

I am quite capable of putting things in my mouth without outside assistance. Thank you.

[Tygaland]

Okay so you mean punishment proportional to the crime not equal to. At least I read it as wanting the same punishment as the crime was when you say punishment equal to the crime.

Well, I was using equal with regards to comparison of terms between combatant alliances, not as a comparison to terms given by those alliances historically. But, yes, proportional is probably a better word for it.

I never called you evil or a monster. You've grouped me up with other people that might have said that but I've understood your standpoint all along I just don't agree with it.

Fair enough. I lose track of who is calling me what. Apolgies for the misunderstanding.

I think TPF should be let off easy too. Where you get SSW18 getting as harsh terms as them in my mind I got no idea I think they deserve white peace.

I think you'll find I mentioned SSSW18 because they already surrendered and had to pay reps.

Whereas Valhalla, OG and NATO have not. See, the current system you advocate is inherently unfair.

Your terms are probably more fair than mine I can agree with you there. What I'm looking at isn't for us to punish every alliance that have done something wrong though. We're fighting to take down the hegemony not to serve justice to all alliances on bob. At least that's how I view it.

So, you are ok with alliances like SSSW18 paying reps and NPO and others getting a free pass? all in the name of being nice?

So while your system might be more fair I'm trying to look at what would create a better world after the war.

How will asking large Continuum alliances to pay a small amount of reps make things any worse in the future?

No I was a bit sarcastic towards myself. I won't beat around the bush with it. I want to see pacifica crushed to crumbles after this war. I belive that without pacifica to back them up alliances like valhalla and tpf will have no choice but to change their ways in the post-war world.

I tend to agree with you with respect to TPF and Valhalla being less of a problem if Pacifica is crushed. But I am surprised you are stepping out of the niceness routine to ask that Pacifica be annihilated.

I never called you evil. You're grouping me up with others that have disagreed with you. I never said you were evil and I don't think you are. You want a fair system. I want a system that give us a better world post-war. At least I want as system I think will bring a better world. I could be wrong and maybe a fair punishment system would be what ends up giving the best results.

We'll never know, sadly, as fairness is out of fashion, it seems.

[The Eye]

This thread is IC, moving to World Affairs

[jer]

Apparently reading is not your strong point.

I am quite capable of putting things in my mouth without outside assistance. Thank you.

Fine, punishing IRON out of pure revenge isn't 100% of your reasoning, but it is definitely there in my opinion (whether you admit it or not).

As for the rest of that post you quoted, it shows vague rhetoric about how IRON should not be in a position to act in malice again without anything concrete. Tyga posted some terms to clarify what he meant, why don't you do the same? It would probably stop me and others putting words in your mouth.

[Orkules]

Fine, punishing IRON out of pure revenge isn't 100% of your reasoning, but it is definitely there in my opinion (whether you admit it or not).

As for the rest of that post you quoted, it shows vague rhetoric about how IRON should not be in a position to act in malice again without anything concrete. Tyga posted some terms to clarify what he meant, why don't you do the same? It would probably stop me and others putting words in your mouth.

I expect it is. It's there for me too and I've openly admitted it. But then, can you blame me? After what NPO, Valhalla, TPF (though they are somewhat mitigated in my eyes due to things they did for TDSM8 and me personally), and their buddies in IRON did to me are you surprised that I wouldn't mind a tiny bit of revenge? And yet, unlike the above mentioned alliances, I'm not asking to murder them out of that same urge.

[shahenshah]

And one last thing, I was never in this so we could have "even wars" in the future. I was in it to get rid of the culture of intimidation, extortion and thuggery that the Hegemony has brought upon us all over the past 18 months.

Good to see you have used '18 months'...seeing how only IRON has been blamed, I thought you would have chosen like 1 month. But nice to see objectivity here.

If IRON wanted no part in NPO's problems they should have left long before this war began. They had every opportunity in the world. They of all people in the Hegemony (who apparently all wanted out but were all afraid to leave) had the least to fear from reprisal from the NPO. What they did instead smacks of riding the gravy train and abusing power until the moment the practice bites them in the $@! at which point they declare "But I didn't really wanna!" and try to run away.

And don't tell me that OV was a wake up call or some !@#$%^&*. NPO has done much worse things than that and IRON just watched, or even helped, them do it

For you blaming IRON for watching or help do it, would you care to include also those alliances that are fighting in behalf of Karma? They were all along us until the point Hegemony ended the viceroyalties and EZIs. Our only crime is we stayed back and honored our treaties compared to them? We stayed back when viceroyalties and EZIs were ended..we stayed back when behaviors were improving. We wanted to continue that trend, IRON didn't want to start this war.

I understand TOP's feelings towards IRON, however IRON is a part of hegemony. IRON had the political sway to do something to stop the horribly actions of the Hegemony, and instead opted to actively participate.

Why only IRON? Why not many other alliances that were in Hegemony when all these crimes happened. You can clean up system in two ways, by opting to fix it by being part of it or by screwing over alot of nations over alot of places, we chose the first option.

Why are you not including alliances that were in Hegemony for majority of 18 months..like 16/17 months...in last month Hegemony ended EZIs and Viceroyalties. Funny.

Given where I am, I think that I already did. I sided against the Hegemony long ago for reasons of friendship and remained against them for reasons of morality. And I did it when there was no real opposition that could stand against them and I wasn't in the second biggest alliance in the game that possessed massive political clout.

IRON is the last alliance that can claim to have been afraid of what would come if they left. They are also one of the greatest practitioners next to NPO of the very practices we stood against. When the alliances you mentioned chose to make that decision but IRON wouldn't, it says something about their motives and beliefs not whether they had the balls to go.

EDIT: 6 am and no sleep since yesterday is bad for posting. Actually said a TOP member was Hegemony there, sorry.

Already answered.

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.

No CB wars and horrible surrender terms...go look who offered terms to NpO...oh wait, switching sides and fighting for Karma means crimes are all waivered, where is the application form? I need a link pronto! oh noes I'm scared of ZI.

IRON was not the only ones in war with Vox and FAN, news flash for you, those wars are over. Whenever it was entirely in our own capacity, we waivered our reps last time we had a major war. Go ask NV, one of the sides on Karma...and we did it months before Karma was anywhere, Lenient peace is not new, its hard for you to swallow that a core Hegemony alliance did it more than year before Karma did.

Sure, punish us for our crimes, but don't forget to include people that are fighting along side you who stood by us for majority of the last 18 months and enabled Hegemony to have the political assets to carry out whatever you deem unfit. Oh wait, without them your so-called mighty war machine would been rolled few times over.

As for all the ''ph34r" about Q, these terms are enforcing that Q is rendered useless with no treaty participation for several months. Only fear of war is not from whatever that remains of Q, (reallistically speaking, its dead) but from the blood lust within Karma. You can claim to have saved yourself from us, but who will save you from yourselves?

I am not out here taunting those alliances and putting any blame on them, so really they should know I have no quarrel with them, just pointing out an obvious flaw in the arguments of certain disillusioned people. I only have respect for those alliances that are actually proving that they have changed since the NoCB war. Some obviously don't want you to set the new standards and have all that political good will and creation of bonds in post-war scenario. Alot of people joined Karma's side to bring new change, we will be partner to that change, not a hinderence...deliver the change that you promised, not the hidden agendas of others.

Edited May 12, 2009 by shahenshah

[neneko]

I think you'll find I mentioned SSSW18 because they already surrendered and had to pay reps.

Whereas Valhalla, OG and NATO have not. See, the current system you advocate is inherently unfair.

So, you are ok with alliances like SSSW18 paying reps and NPO and others getting a free pass? all in the name of being nice?

I totally forgot SSSW18 surrendered. I don't think they deserved paying reps and not TSI either for that matter (they got pretty harsh ones too) and I've voiced my complaint about it in the surrender threads but karma isn't a bloc we're a loose coalition every alliance have their sovereignty and we can't force them to make surrender terms they don't want to make. I don't argue with you that it's unfair though. If it was up to me SSW18 and TSI should have gotten off with white peace. I'm fairly sure I said NPO shouldn't get a free pass.

How will asking large Continuum alliances to pay a small amount of reps make things any worse in the future?

It most likely wouldn't do much but it'd be a unnecesary addition to grudges for no gain so I'd rather just skip it.

I tend to agree with you with respect to TPF and Valhalla being less of a problem if Pacifica is crushed. But I am surprised you are stepping out of the niceness routine to ask that Pacifica be annihilated.

We'll never know, sadly, as fairness is out of fashion, it seems.

You're still generalizing. I'm not advocating being nice. I'm vouching for a system I belive will be good for the future if it's nice or not doesn't play into the equation for me. I do belive however that if pacifica is given the chance they're going to rise for revenge. Without them however I don't see the remaining parts of Q/1V as a very big threat to anyone.

[Tygaland]

My responses in bold, as it's easier than cutting and replying.

Makes replying to you a pain in the arse though.

The "what else do you propose" question was meant for you to propose something, rather than say what happened wasn't what you would have proposed.

I did answer it when you asked it more specifically. Seemed a waste typing the same thing twice.

I never said you mentioned this. I asked what you would do, and then I proposed and rejected some possibilities.

Seems silly to mention something I've never mentioned and with a few people putting words in my mouth lately I thought I'd clarify.

I agree. Alliances more at fault should receive harsher terms. But adding tech payments of mild value ain't gonna do nothin'. I think you're more on the right track with treaty cancellations and ending of restrictive policies and wars (FAN, Moldavi Doctrine, EZI...).

They aren't going to hurt either. They are going to make the terms fairer rather than what we have now where SSSW18 pays reps and Valhalla and other Continuum alliances don't. And as far as the treaties go, its too late, half the Continuum have only had to suspend their treaties.

The Hegemony as a group is weakened by war. Do you think 10k tech will do so much more that it will grant the Cyberverse a chance to develop, whereas lack of those reparations will not?

The reps are part of the system I mentioned because it makes the punishment proportional to the crime so to speak. To my knowledge Karma was about fair terms not white peace for all. At the moment an alliance like SSS18 is punished more harshly than Valhalla and that is wrong, in my opinion.

Mild terms will not weaken your enemies any more than soft terms. You either have to be harsh or not.

I disagree. Fairness is more important to me than blanket application of reps whether they be light or harsh.

Even if obvious to you, perhaps someone will become enlightened.

Maybe.

I fully hope the individual alliances rise again. I said the blocs of power, the Hegemony as it were, no longer fills the Cyberverse, yes. And because you posted in an OOC forum, I will say that I wouldn't mind seeing even the old Hegemony working together to regain power, but I don't see the old group reforming. New alliances will surely take its place, anyway, perhaps some among those that received light terms, perhaps some among the alliances of "Karma."

The individual alliances will be fine. Alliances have recovered from far worse before and will again. Just remember that the NPO was isolated and friendless (asides from the NpO of course) after GWI and we all saw what happened. Complacency can be quite dangerous.

[Orkules]

For you blaming IRON for watching or help do it, would you care to include also those alliances that are fighting in behalf of Karma? They were all along us until the point Hegemony ended the viceroyalties and EZIs. Our only crime is we stayed back and honored our treaties compared to them? We stayed back when viceroyalties and EZIs were ended..we stayed back when behaviors were improving. We wanted to continue that trend, IRON didn't want to start this war.

For some of them I do. For members like Gramlins and Sparta that left early enough to clearly join our side and who had supported us before, I welcome them though I will always suspect their motives, especially if they've issues terrible terms in the past themselves. I will say that maybe they're doing their time by fighting alongside us to help us change this. I will also say that for much of my career in CN I've been a military man and that I know that to win a war sometimes you have to sacrifice the ideal situation. Even if I don't think they should be here acting all high and mighty next to me, I need them. Sad but true.

IRON did not just stay back. IRON participated openly and knowingly. Not only that, you openly acted like it was perfectly fine that you did it. That's not the act of a trapped man.

[shahenshah]

How will asking large Continuum alliances to pay a small amount of reps make things any worse in the future?

This statement settles this post.

EDITED

--

Ok, now tinfoilhatry time..

.the point here is in my tinfoil opinion about post war political setup. Some alliances within Karma have really moved on from NoCB and involvement in Hegemony and willing to PROVE that they have CHANGED for the good and not reverting to old ways in any degree. These alliances will also gain alot of Good will political and non-political from the former-Hegemony alliances..and why not..we would obviously like to be partners with those who extend an olive branch than those who wish to extend our misery and when you ask them why..just for the heck of it..as it makes no difference in their opinion anyway. With throwing in reps and in that way keeping Former Hegemony politically isolated, it will ensure they have more relative power in the world rather than the one diluted with former Hegemony members mingling with the alliances they have learned to respect like many in Citadel and Superfreinds.

Edited May 12, 2009 by shahenshah