WOE GLOOM AND WOE

[Nizzle]

As Tyga has said (and bob janova, although he's arguing in a different sense), the schema is right, but it has not been applied. GGA took a severe beating, and got the kind of terms that should hold them in check, possibly cause a change there. Valhalla got off relatively easily. We can hope, of course, for abject gratitude and a complete cultural revolution over there, but we can't trust in it. If the group 3 all had white peace and group 2 all had restrictive but not crushing terms, we'd be getting somewhere in remaking politics on Bob.

What terms did GGA get that hold them "more in check" and provide for the "possibility of a change" that Valhalla didn't get?

[HeinousOne]

I don't think so. I think the alliances that have granted generous terms are honorable people who really hope (perhaps naively) to improve the way the game is played and I don't have a bad thing to say about them outside of the occasional heat of the moment when I'm worked up over other things.

I do not claim they are dishonorable. Is it dishonorable to try and make new friends? To offer enemies that you respect a chance to rebuild? Is it so bad to hope that you can help them then rebuild and thus bring about a relationship between your alliances? The future is not so clear and alliances must do what is best for themselves to maneuver into that future. That too is honorable.

[bzelger]

I do not claim they are dishonorable. Is it dishonorable to try and make new friends? To offer enemies that you respect a chance to rebuild? Is it so bad to hope that you can help them then rebuild and thus bring about a relationship between your alliances? The future is not so clear and alliances must do what is best for themselves to maneuver into that future. That too is honorable.

It's dishonorable when it's Valhalla.

Seriously though, yes, I think it would be dishonorable to fight a coalition war and offer terms on your front that you expect to be to your benefit down the road to the detriment of other factions you're fighting alongside. I don't think that's what has happened here.

[Pingu]

What terms did GGA get that hold them "more in check" and provide for the "possibility of a change" that Valhalla didn't get?

Valhalla, too, has the possibility of change. But I already see Valhallans speaking of how quick and easy it will be for them to rebuild. And few signs of culture change so far, with the exception of a couple of comments that hint, at least, at contrition. GGA is in a weaker state, and must delay rebuilding in order to prioritise paying its debt to Athens. It will, therefore, find itself under more pressure to consider carefully its international relations stance. It is also more likely, in my judgment, that GGA will change its culture of its own volition, given its long history and correspondibly complex culture. I am longing for Valhalla to prove me wrong, to eschew bullying and pursue a more reasonable course. But I cannot trust that this will occur.

[Nizzle]

Valhalla, too, has the possibility of change. But I already see Valhallans speaking of how quick and easy it will be for them to rebuild. And few signs of culture change so far, with the exception of a couple of comments that hint, at least, at contrition. GGA is in a weaker state, and must delay rebuilding in order to prioritise paying its debt to Athens. It will, therefore, find itself under more pressure to consider carefully its international relations stance. It is also more likely, in my judgment, that GGA will change its culture of its own volition, given its long history and correspondibly complex culture. I am longing for Valhalla to prove me wrong, to eschew bullying and pursue a more reasonable course. But I cannot trust that this will occur.

I guess the question is: Who will support Valhalla's bullying?

[Pingu]

I guess the question is: Who will support Valhalla's bullying?

I think the more pertinent question is: "who will stand against them, if they go that route?" In a post-hegemonic age, all alliances will have more freedom to manoeuvre, for good or ill, since the checks are gone. Support from big brother will not be a prerequisite for freedom of action. Alliances will also have to take more responsibility for their actions, without the security of a hegemon backing them up. It could be a great age of global civilization. It could also be a golden age of asshattery. After the Karma war is over, Valhalla will have a lot of freedom to chart its own course, given where it starts from today.

[Nizzle]

I think the more pertinent question is: "who will stand against them, if they go that route?" In a post-hegemonic age, all alliances will have more freedom to manoeuvre, for good or ill, since the checks are gone. Support from big brother will not be a prerequisite for freedom of action. Alliances will also have to take more responsibility for their actions, without the security of a hegemon backing them up. It could be a great age of global civilization. It could also be a golden age of asshattery. After the Karma war is over, Valhalla will have a lot of freedom to chart its own course, given where it starts from today.

Well, sure, but that's like saying Umbrella can strike out and do whatever they please. Or MK. They would need support, willing allies. I guess that's the point I'm making.

Only the future will tell what direction they go in, because now they need to find a new one.

[Pingu]

It is exactly the same as saying Umbrella, MK, Kronos, or ODN have more freedom of action and, therefore, more responsibility. The difference is that those fine alliances do not have the same history of oppressing others. So it takes no change of culture or radical foreign policy shift for those alliances to not push others around. For the ex-Hegemony alliances, a change of course is required. We can hope for it. We have to be prepared for it not coming about.

[Chief Savage Man]

Alright, some of you are saying that Group 3 alliances are getting harsher terms than Group 2. I haven't read every single peace thread so I don't know, but my point is very specific here: The white peace trend, regardless of its implications, consequences, or effectiveness, does not mean that the NPO will get soft terms because the people handing out the terms are making the distinction between the real enemy and the treaty-bound guys; the former get harsher terms than the latter (except in a couple cases). Some of you are rebutting an argument I haven't made.

[HalfEmpty]

Karma needs and deserves total victory, I'm certain they're willing to fight for it.

They dang sure willing to jaw about it.

LOL fighting over a 2 lb. sack of grits.

Don't worry, I mean, what could go wrong?

[TehChron]

Alright, some of you are saying that Group 3 alliances are getting harsher terms than Group 2. I haven't read every single peace thread so I don't know, but my point is very specific here: The white peace trend, regardless of its implications, consequences, or effectiveness, does not mean that the NPO will get soft terms because the people handing out the terms are making the distinction between the real enemy and the treaty-bound guys; the former get harsher terms than the latter (except in a couple cases). Some of you are rebutting an argument I haven't made.

The more accurate description is that your viewpoint may be rendered invalid by these occurences which directly contradict your categorizations.

[KinKiac]

TSI probably got the roughest terms of the war so far. I suppose they're obviously a close NPO ally.

No, but unfortunately they got hit by an alliance (TFO) that is made up of former leaders of MCXA, one of NPO's core allies. To my understanding they may actually be more responsible for the past transgressions of MCXA then the current MCXA gov, and it therefore doesnt surprise me that they would ask for terms many consider too harsh for an alliance like TSI. As for the terms given to MCXA, I think they were very reasonable considering the damage they took during the war. If it wasnt for that then, yeah Id say they got off easy, but so far I think that there isnt an alliance yet to take as much damage as MCXA did.

[keltoi]

No, but unfortunately they got hit by an alliance (TFO) that is made up of former leaders of MCXA, one of NPO's core allies. To my understanding they may actually be more responsible for the past transgressions of MCXA then the current MCXA gov, and it therefore doesnt surprise me that they would ask for terms many consider too harsh for an alliance like TSI. As for the terms given to MCXA, I think they were very reasonable considering the damage they took during the war. If it wasnt for that then, yeah Id say they got off easy, but so far I think that there isnt an alliance yet to take as much damage as MCXA did.

at least get the facts straight

[Taget]

If the war had started with an attack on Monos Archein rather than Ordo Verde Sssw18 would've been on the other side of the war (via our MDAP with Veritas Aequitas). Let us say it was GGA attacking them. Would we have been "morally" "required" to take reps from them so as to avoid being labeled "traitors" to the Karma "cause"?

I ask this just to illustrate the point that whether or not to take reps is in some ways less about the offender and more about the victorious alliance. Many have suffered such reps themselves. Many regret taking them in the past no matter how big or small they are. And it seems almost ludicrous to condemn alliances for being reluctant to have the stain of having demanded them thrust upon them.

In the grand scheme of things organizing terms based on the model at the top of the thread would make some sense. But in practice the war is just separate battles with their end dictated by the history and character of the alliances involved.

[KingSuck]

Valhalla, too, has the possibility of change. But I already see Valhallans speaking of how quick and easy it will be for them to rebuild.

And that means we won't change because...? Generally speaking our alliance holds pretty huge warchests, so rebuilding for us will probably be a lot easier than it would be for most other alliances. However it definitely will not be easy, I don't think people realize just how damaging this war has been. This is the first war where WRCs/MPs etc have been in abundance and they have really made their mark.

It's dishonorable when it's Valhalla.

well at least somebody gets it

also from a personal perspective; I feel the NPO and especially alliances like IRON should get light terms. As much hatred as there is around for the NPO; they have lost ~18 million NS. Whichever way you look at it that's a ridiculous amount of damage to take. Harsh terms will barely be felt economically after a loss of NS like that and all they would do is strengthen the NPO's resolve and stir resentment amongst the NPO and their friends.

[nc1701]

I agree in general that the reparations don't make a huge difference, if you are worried about an alliance rebounding too quickly the best solution is too keep beating on them until they are too destroyed to be a threat. To me this makes far more sense than trying to extract large reparations which only result in long term anger between the two parties.

As an example take a look at MCXA, even after over a week of peace they still at approximately 36% of their pre-war NS, 37% of pre-war score and half their pre-war members. Reparations or not they will not be rebuilding to pre-war levels for many months if ever. NPO has still not taken that kind of damage, but I have no doubt they will before they get terms. NPO has lost around 450,000 technology in war already, far more than even the hardest rep payments would require I expect them to lose another hundred thousand before this is over at the very least. As long as we are sure not too offer terms until after the nations hiding in peace mode are attacked and beaten down as well NPO will takes ages to build back up regardless of reparations payments which be puny compared to war damage they have already taken.

White peace or lack of reps do not worry me, what does worry me is the fact so many alliances were allowed to go free in the early stages of the war allowing them to avoid a huge percentage of the damage taken by the alliances which are staying in longer. In fact some hegemony alliances (TOOL, etc.) have taken less damage in this than many Karma alliances, this is something that's worrisome, reparations are comparatively minor.

[Jens of the desert]

Group 3 is the one getting most of the white peace. There is little to no point giving them harsh terms as all it does is cause bitterness where there was really no animosity before. Group 3 doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. They honored their treaties and they should be let go. Anybody who advocates harsh terms for these guys is a fool. In fact, Group 3 can become a place to find new friends as fighting a war against somebody is a good way to get to know them.

What's the point of having no animosity in the cyberverse? We need rivalries and hatred, otherwise the game wouldn't be as fun as it can be. If the whole of bob was just peaceful, with any tech raiders being swiftly punished etc things would just not be fun and end in a form of stalemate.

After the major hegemony alliances being knocked down to size, there will now be no force to stand up to the "karma" (and I use the word loosely) blocs, so I'll be interested to see how things will turn out afterwards, and how long it will take till our next war.

[Haflinger]

No, but unfortunately they got hit by an alliance (TFO) that is made up of former leaders of MCXA, one of NPO's core allies. To my understanding they may actually be more responsible for the past transgressions of MCXA then the current MCXA gov, and it therefore doesnt surprise me that they would ask for terms many consider too harsh for an alliance like TSI. As for the terms given to MCXA, I think they were very reasonable considering the damage they took during the war. If it wasnt for that then, yeah Id say they got off easy, but so far I think that there isnt an alliance yet to take as much damage as MCXA did.

Er, I think you have confused TFO with TSO. So far TSO (the alliance you're thinking of) has not received any reparations in its peace agreements with BAPS, Nebula-X and us.

[KenoDurkster]

Not giving NPO white peace serves no purpose other then to create more instability and problems you think if you do this you would weaken them to the point where they are no longer dangrous well your kinda wrong.. NPO still has 800+ nations more then any other allianceso there capacity to re-grow quickly is kinda obvious and expected. Now if you offer white peace you might be able to show NPO we may hate your guts but we still respect you as an alliance. Why should you stoop to there level? are you guys that pathetic?

NPO unless it decides otherwise will most likely always remain a top alliance and you guys just need to realize this. Unless of course your willing to treat NPO like GOONS got treated which could work but with NPO would be quite a bit harder.

Edited May 23, 2009 by KenoDurkster

[Chief Savage Man]

A little bit of vengeance will help morale.

[KinKiac]

Er, I think you have confused TFO with TSO. So far TSO (the alliance you're thinking of) has not received any reparations in its peace agreements with BAPS, Nebula-X and us.

whoops, my bad, lol. nvm. I guess I need to rethink few things. Thanks for correcting me, and sorry to any TFO members for the confusion, I mean no ill will towards you guys as I barely know who you are and due to my ignorance was speaking out of line.

[der_ko]

Not giving NPO white peace serves no purpose other then to create more instability and problems you think if you do this you would weaken them to the point where they are no longer dangrous well your kinda wrong.. NPO still has 800+ nations more then any other allianceso there capacity to re-grow quickly is kinda obvious and expected. Now if you offer white peace you might be able to show NPO we may hate your guts but we still respect you as an alliance. Why should you stoop to there level? are you guys that pathetic?

NPO unless it decides otherwise will most likely always remain a top alliance and you guys just need to realize this. Unless of course your willing to treat NPO like GOONS got treated which could work but with NPO would be quite a bit harder.

You must be new here, lol.

[Haflinger]

whoops, my bad, lol. nvm. I guess I need to rethink few things. Thanks for correcting me, and sorry to any TFO members for the confusion, I mean no ill will towards you guys as I barely know who you are and due to my ignorance was speaking out of line.

Oh, feel free to criticize TFO for their part in the TSI reps.

[KenoDurkster]

As long as we are sure not too offer terms until after the nations hiding in peace mode are attacked and beaten down as well NPO will takes ages to build back up regardless of reparations payments which be puny compared to war damage they have already taken

No I aint that new unless you count roughly around 1vision war newish =\. Also NPO i am willing to bet even if you knocked it down to 100k ns if it holds 800+ members still it could easily get back into the Sanction race by years end. NPO might be overwhelmed by Sheer force but unless your willing to keep pushing it down until literally the moment someone puts there AA to NPO's they get warred then this war will only really give you a small amount of time. Add in the fact they are still highly organized and still well known it wouldnt be hard for them to regain some of there lost members and im sure alot will come back and rejoin the AA once this war is over. So really karma has 2 options. basicly ban(By warring anyone on it) the NPO AA (Which i am sure is against the rules) or giving them white peace say hey you did good and were fun to fight against and try and re-build relations & MAYBE have NPO's gov reform so it's not pre-war NPO.

Edited May 24, 2009 by KenoDurkster

[Uncle Stalin]

GGA just peaced out with some substantial terms, as did Valhalla and MCXA.

Valhalla didn't get substantial terms, got white peace and a slap on the wrist.