Some Thoughts on the Karma Coalition

[Augustus Autumn]

And while we are talking about it, speaking out and not taking part in actions was obviously a lot more than most people ever did in CN. If my memory serves me well a lot of people need to look at their history of the atrocities they willingly committed before having the gaul of telling people that not taking part and speaking out isn't enough. e.g VE extermination.

This is along the lines of one of the future problems likely to face the alliances of the Karma Coalition - reconciling their message of justice without also extending it to alliances within their own coalition who might very well be seen as being akin to those alliances now in the Hegemony.

[Windsor]

That was an interesting read, Tokugawa. I'm beginning to see a few topics with similar thoughts.

I think that you have too much faith in the resolve of others, however. It's important to consider the very reasons of why NPO has reigned over CN for as long as it did, despite the fact that under any kind of unity, the cyberverse could have removed it anytime it wanted. It wasn't very long ago that most alliances wouldn't dare to even speak out against NPO - the ones that did were condemned anyway.

I do see a few common practices in the cyberverse that reflect many attributes of how the real world is governed; united under the roof of human behavior - most notably, the implementation of fear as a means carrying out a political agenda. It's been pointed out by many that the way the game is designed, there are too many pixels to risk for most to comfortably challenge the way the cyberverse operates. It is by this implementation of fear that the NPO was able to rule and oppress as long as it did.

Exploring further, it is also under the principals of human behavior that we consistently see another trend; anarchy always ends with hegemony. While that in itself would make for a lovely essay, you can clearly see this when analyzing the evolution of CN politics - from the beginning of CN when there were no alliances, to the formation of alliances, treaties, and eventually, blocs and the reign of NPO. One major difference, however, is that in RL, organizations grew through conquest or unity under a common interest. In CN, however, most merges between alliances are not typically made by the larger alliances. It is here where evolution has seemed to stop.

With the beginning of this war, many things have changed. On the surface we can see that the community is now aware that, had it worked together sooner, NPO and its hegemony could have been removed long ago. More importantly, this realization will always linger, despite the war's outcome.

So the golden question is, "At what point will evolution in CN politics resume"? There will always be a difference in opinion between alliances. Organizations such as 1v and the Continuum were not exempt from this. For now, it's the realization that a difference of opinion does not always constitute justification for leaving a union. A strong union is formed by members that understand this. This requires leaders who are less concerned by individual power, and more concerned with group power.

Taking all of this into account, what is Karma anyway? From what you and I can see, it's a unity under a common cause. What is the cause? Is it the removal of NPO and its friends? Perhaps. But was is the real cause? Is it the acquisition of power? Nod your head "yes". To remove NPO and its friends obviously requires the acquisition of power. The "what next?" topics that we see are merely speculation. If the cause is simply to remove hegemonic blocs, then I would assume that while the members of Karma are willing to work together to carry out such a task, they aren't ready to hop into bed with one another, and we would see Karma dissolve upon the success of their mission.

There is always a chance that power can be abused, no matter who has it - even in some of the less important leadership roles found within alliances themselves. Does this mean that there is a chance that Karma will abuse its new-found power? Certainly. Does it mean they will? I doubt it. I surmise that Karma, through the course of bringing CN out of a "medieval" age and into a renaissance, will restore the evolution of CN politics and allow alliances to make their own karma; giving them their own destiny - thus prohibiting the formation of power-mongering blocs that create stagnation, hegemony, and the removal of alliance sovereignty. To do anything otherwise would be self-defeating.

And remember, it is through the building of good karma that merciful terms of surrender were ever offered at all. In the past, such generosity has never been seen on such a large-scale. I would hope that any alliance that is at war with Karma would graciously accept any terms that are offered by Karma - for they benefit strictly from Karma's good graces when doing so. To look back at the last few years and see what usual surrender terms were like back then, and then look at today and see the destruction of alliances that imposed such terms while under the same breath complaining about the terms that have been offered by those that are ending hegemony.... is ridiculous at best.

[D34th]

No just wrong. Care to show me your thread as a 'entity' opposing the legion terms ? I mean it's couldn't be that we did more than you ever did?

Looks like you don't have a clue about you are talking, just for clarification when I say "The Grämlins as entity":

Entity = Alliance.(eg: The Grämlins, NpO).

Entity =/= Member of an alliance(Eg: you and me).

Also your engaging in a=Strawman debate? show me where myself for that matter any member of my alliance has "Just" blamed NPO. And Again check the threads it was public and private - the threads are on this forum readable to everyone - go find the legion terms thread. As I said you are just wrong because you obviously know nothing and have never been in a positon where you remotely have a idea what your talking about.. Private or public I am guessing nothing would be enough for you. You want a offical alliance decration opposing terms on legion a alliance we have no treaties with? and no contact? Sorry i think public and private is more than any alliance has done that was in or outside of Q.. I'd like to see one single example of people doing even 1% of what we have done for people we have no treaties. If you can't then you start to sound like a sanctamonius wind bag.

I don't know why you keep talking about Legion, is it a thread about them? And Where I said that The Grämlins or their member just blamed NPO? What I said is that I saw so many Karma supporters blaming just NPO for the Hegemony era when so many alliances supported NPO's acts. So read what I said better before reply with your "I hate you posts". o the fact remains if you criticize just in private means that you support in public.

And while we are talking about it, speaking out and not taking part in actions was obviously a lot more than most people ever did in CN. If my memory serves me well a lot of people need to look at their history of the atrocities they willingly committed before having the gaul of telling people that not taking part and speaking out isn't enough. e.g VE extermination.

I agree that speaking out and not taking part in actions was obviously a lot more than most people ever did in CN but don't means this is enough. About the history of atrocities and VE extermination I think you are not talking about me because I never commited any atrocity and I'm in any way, shape or form related to VE extermination.

So breath and think before come with accusations and insults because like you or not The Grämlins was part of Q and consequently part of hegemony and have their part of guilty in what happened in this era like other former Q members(TOP, MHA, Sparta, FOK!) have, talking against or not, supporting or not, agreeing or disagreeing.

[Kzoppistan]

Excellent analysis, Tokugawa Mitsukuni.

I have nothing further to add as most of the previous posters have stated the general sum of assumptions I hold, as well, but I appreciate the effort you put into creating an objective examination of the current events.

[Instr]

Polybius formulated Anacyclosis, where governments cycle from anarchy, to monarchy, to despotism, to aristocracy, to oligarchy, to democracy, to ochlogarchy, and back to anarchy. If we follow this model then we are in the final stages of despotism and the beginning of the emergence of aristocracy, although CN is definitely different from real life; alliance motivations are more will to power than will to life, and thus we complain that concepts as national rights or alliance rights contribute to stagnancy.

[Bob Janova]

the fact remains if you criticize just in private means that you support in public

Terribly sorry for not breaking our treaties to satisfy a forum nobody ...

Seriously, you're being ridiculous. Firstly, silence in public is not the same as support, and in fact the lack of endorsements from a bloc partner is itself almost a statement. Second, several Grämlins members did protest in public at various 'injustices'; I know I did on several occasions. This is the limit of what is permitted under the Continuum treaty. And thirdly we made a strong statement by not participating in the action, in the case of VietFAN II, the GPA war and the GATO war.

Anyone who was in Continuum or Citadel at that time can tell you just how ridiculous it is to suggest we supported those things.

[D34th]

Terribly sorry for not breaking our treaties to satisfy a forum nobody ...

Seriously, you're being ridiculous. Firstly, silence in public is not the same as support, and in fact the lack of endorsements from a bloc partner is itself almost a statement. Second, several Grämlins members did protest in public at various 'injustices'; I know I did on several occasions. This is the limit of what is permitted under the Continuum treaty. And thirdly we made a strong statement by not participating in the action, in the case of VietFAN II, the GPA war and the GATO war.

Anyone who was in Continuum or Citadel at that time can tell you just how ridiculous it is to suggest we supported those things.

The Grämlins was part of Q and consequently part of hegemony and have their part of guilty in what happened in this era like other former Q members(TOP, MHA, Sparta, FOK!) have, talking against or not, supporting or not, agreeing or disagreeing.

Or Grämlins is free of guilty?

Edited May 20, 2009 by D34th

[Vol Navy]

Ironically enough, it seems to be the Polaris war and it's aftermath that really proved the breaking point for much of the Karma side.

The war that the Citadel was behind.

It's going to be interesting times on CN soon although I don't know that anyone will ever have the support to topple Citadel as they have grown so large and will probably get much larger soon. The alliances/blocs who really stood a chance have been beaten down and isolated in the past two wars.

Hat's off to the Citadel and the power players behind it. You are well positioned for the forseeable future and as the Orders have saw, Admin help anyone who gets on your bad side.

[Il Principe]

Well luckily (if you would be right about Citadel's power) they are great, nice and peacefull people so I do not see many people getting on their bad side.

[Archon]

Yeah I agree. Where is Archon? Where is our leader? I don't care if he isn't the most powerful leader, he the reason all the other alliances got involved. He should be telling us what to do and correcting people's misunderstandings.

OOC: I apologize, I was very ill.

IC: I apologize, I was very ill.

[Orkules]

The issue at hand has less to do with a statement of intent and more to do with precedent and inconsistency. Also, what needs to be equally recognized is that, while there is an alluded-to leadership element of the Karma Coalition is does not actually have any direct authority to establish guidelines and enforce them. This admission of fact has been used in this war and speaks directly to the problem of direction for the coalition as a whole - who has the power to make that choice and how will it be enforced?

We gave no precedent. If one alliance gets white peace, it does not mean they all will. You are correct, Karma "Leadership" has little to no control on the terms members can give unless they're on the same front. By and large this war is individual alliances/blocs fighting for the same cause or because friends are involved. The truth is that is as far as it goes. This is what is leading to so much of the disgust and anger you see over some of the terms (notably Valhalla) that have arisen. Some, like me, came looking for them to pay for their wrongs and to be taken out as a threat to dominating the world. Of all alliances, Valhalla deserved white peace almost less than any other.

Nonetheless, the essay was well written, thoughtful, and very enjoyable to read.

I respectfully disagree, Supreme Chancellor. I think there is a driving force present, however small or large, calling for not only the change that the Karma Coalition has brought about but also the assurance that this change will not be thrown to the wind once the guns fall silent on all fronts. The true believers of the war effort, if you will, who see this not as a finite military effort against a set of enemy alliances but as a war against a set of behaviors. While those alliances who have been part of this Karma Coalition may go their separate ways in the future, is it not possible for the core ideals of the war effort (removal of political hegemony, crushing reparations, Eternal Zero-Infrastructure, etc.) to carry forth?

I am a true believer, and a very vocal one at that (though not so much recently, pesky warn level), and I can tell you this is not what we seek. The only way to assure that we have ended the tyranny and foul practices would actually be through tyranny and foul practices. In effect, it's impossible. The only thing we hope is that people will see that the community will not stand for such acts and will openly oppose their implementation and that they will see that a tyrannical group can and will be thrown down if the majority are willing to stand openly against them. This is what I hope for and in truth the only way to see it happen is to step back and let it. This kind of thing CANNOT be forced to take place.

Before you come and say that this war is exactly what that is, I will address it. The majority of the community is obviously and vocally against the practices instituted by the Hegemony alliances and that is part of why so many are willing to stand with us today. Most, no not all, alliances have removed E/PZI completely (I say not all because several Hegemony alliances, I believe TPF and NPO, merely made a doctrine saying if we feel like it's necessary we'll do it so it is in fact still a practice for them) and this war has shown that people are willing to enact little to no terms (though I do think some have gone a bit overboard on the no terms bit). We're merely throwing the boot off of our throats that is preventing this change from taking place, not forcing the change on everyone.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Orkules

[Orkules]

EDIT: Dammit, double post.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Orkules

[Roadie]

OOC: I apologize, I was very ill.

IC: I apologize, I was very ill.

This response must be given an award of some kind. I demand it be so!

[anenu]

Ironically enough, it seems to be the Polaris war and it's aftermath that really proved the breaking point for much of the Karma side.

The war that the Citadel was behind.

It's going to be interesting times on CN soon although I don't know that anyone will ever have the support to topple Citadel as they have grown so large and will probably get much larger soon. The alliances/blocs who really stood a chance have been beaten down and isolated in the past two wars.

Hat's off to the Citadel and the power players behind it. You are well positioned for the forseeable future and as the Orders have saw, Admin help anyone who gets on your bad side.

Actually according to the stats I researched SF is ever so slightly strong than Citadel of course this isn't including allies of either side which might tip the balance one way or another. So i think its safe to say that no one group has the power necessary to force its will on CN like many former hegemony alliances were used to.

[bbrownso]

We gave no precedent. If one alliance gets white peace, it does not mean they all will. You are correct, Karma "Leadership" has little to no control on the terms members can give unless they're on the same front. By and large this war is individual alliances/blocs fighting for the same cause or because friends are involved.

If that is true, then I have a question. But first, here is a little background. SSSW18 was approached by MOON and DT on April 26th regarding peace terms. DT (I assume speaking for BH and LSR too) was willing to grant white peace but, MOON wanted 600 million in reps for 4 days of war. We, of course, declined; especially since our allies had not been approached at that time. We also wanted to last at least on war cycle.

If Karma did not have a say in reps, why were MOON talked to/admonished by other Karma alliances?

4-26

[22:39] <~Jipps[sSSW18]> MOON came to us for peace

[22:39] <&Neforatu[sSSW18]> haha

[22:39] <~Jipps[sSSW18]> and demanded 600 mil in reps from us

[22:39] <~Jipps[sSSW18]> and 500 mil from VA

[22:39] <&Neforatu[sSSW18]> HAHAHA

[22:39] <~Jipps[sSSW18]> 1.1 billion in 5 days xD

4-27

[23:46] <~Jipps[sSSW18]> <&bbrownso[sSSW18]> Jipps, did MOON really get yelled at for their demand for reps? <--- yes

[23:46] <&bbrownso[sSSW18]> got any logs?

[23:46] <~Jipps[sSSW18]> why do you think they went down from 600 mil to an apology? lol

. . . . . . . (Fluff not relevant to this discussion). . . . .

[23:46] <~Jipps[sSSW18]> I don't have actually logs

. . . . . . . (Fluff not relevant to this discussion). . . . .

[23:47] <~Jipps[sSSW18]> but the Umbrella leader came to me and apologized for their behavior and said MOON was being dealt with

Further, I'd like to second the OP's categorization of alliances that comprise Karma. Not all alliances on Karma's side are against ZI.

Edit: clarification

Edited May 21, 2009 by Brandon Simonson

[Orkules]

I assume it was done by either their allies or somebody who felt they had the ability to do so. I confess to not knowing what went on behind the scenes there. However, if say...Citadel tried to have a say in the terms for NPO the alliances engaged could quite easily ignore them just like Umbrella did to others in terms of Valhalla.

Minor alliances like MOON would obviously be far easier to prevent from going overboard on terms than one of the core/major Karma alliances, especially those backed by powerful blocs like CnG, Citadel, or SF. Personally I disagreed with the terms given SSSW18 but was in no position to contest them.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Orkules

[Il Impero Romano]

From the looks of it, the issue is your equating the "Karma ideology" with the concept of white peace, when that's not the case...there is no Karma rule book.

However, your OP would have much more validity if by the end of this someone ends up getting a viceroy, eternal war, or is forced to disband. If any of those things happen though, I'll personally eat my hat.

[bzelger]

If that is true, then I have a question. But first, here is a little background. SSSW18 was approached by MOON and DT on April 26th regarding peace terms. DT (I assume speaking for BH and LSR too) was willing to grant white peace but, MOON wanted 600 million in reps for 4 days of war. We, of course, declined; especially since our allies had not been approached at that time. We also wanted to last at least on war cycle.

If Karma did not have a say in reps, why were MOON talked to/admonished by other Karma alliances?

4-26

4-27

Further, I'd like to second the OP's categorization of alliances that comprise Karma. Not all alliances on Karma's side are against ZI.

Edit: clarification

Just because Karma doesn't have a say in reps doesn't mean they can't say things about the reps. There was resistance to the over-the-top reps when they became known, but if MOON had elected to continue in that vein there is no mechanism in place that could have compelled them to change their minds.

[Vol Navy]

Actually according to the stats I researched SF is ever so slightly strong than Citadel of course this isn't including allies of either side which might tip the balance one way or another. So i think its safe to say that no one group has the power necessary to force its will on CN like many former hegemony alliances were used to.

The Citadel's upper ranks are so powerful that they would absolutely demolish the upper ranks of any other bloc in the game.

Citadel's main problem in any conflict would be finding nations to keep on smaller nations once they've decimated the core strength of any other bloc.

I will also be surprised if Citadel is unchanged as far as membership after all this is over.

I was also refering to Citadel's political power, which is unmatched in the game at this point.

[Augustus Autumn]

However, your OP would have much more validity if by the end of this someone ends up getting a viceroy, eternal war, or is forced to disband. If any of those things happen though, I'll personally eat my hat.

I make no dire predictions - I'm simply asking some questions which I think deserve to be pondered.

[Haflinger]

From the looks of it, the issue is your equating the "Karma ideology" with the concept of white peace, when that's not the case...there is no Karma rule book.

However, your OP would have much more validity if by the end of this someone ends up getting a viceroy, eternal war, or is forced to disband. If any of those things happen though, I'll personally eat my hat.

Your hat may be in trouble, given recent developments.

[Taishaku]

@Tokugawa Mitsukuni

I like this post. Karma is not about justice so much as it is about a shared enemy. Some alliances fight for ideals, some for revenge, some for gain, and some for the sheer fun of it. That is what a coalition is all about; although Karma's members have different goals, all of them have a common impetus, the realization that they want to see the powers-that-were destroyed.

I would not be so naive as to think everything will necessarily be better after the war, but it will definitely be different. The Continuum will no longer be the dominant political force, which is in and of itself a significant change. Indeed, the lack of such a power structure and the infamy attributed to the deeds of that power structure will make Bob a more cautious place (that or just a place that is not-Continuum, which is a pretty good deal, as ideas universally despised by Karma alliances, such as EZI, might be less common).

[Kiss Goodbye]

Some interesting thoughts in this topic. Good read. Except for the attempt to downplay Grämlins contribution to Karma.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Kiss Goodbye

[pericles8th]

Basically,

The NPO along with the rest of the Hegemony has pissed off the entire world, got its $@! beat, and is now complaining? Am I reading this right? The Karma is not necessarily and ideological alignment of nations. Sure, the mushroom kingdom along with a few others... but in all reality this is like the great Roman empire collapsing from within and without. Collapsing from the abandonment of its allies, collapsing from attacks from outside nations, and when something that big collapses you will have everything from raiders to peasants aligning to watch. My advice, be more careful next time...

[Augustus Autumn]

@Tokugawa Mitsukuni

I like this post. Karma is not about justice so much as it is about a shared enemy. Some alliances fight for ideals, some for revenge, some for gain, and some for the sheer fun of it. That is what a coalition is all about; although Karma's members have different goals, all of them have a common impetus, the realization that they want to see the powers-that-were destroyed.

I would not be so naive as to think everything will necessarily be better after the war, but it will definitely be different. The Continuum will no longer be the dominant political force, which is in and of itself a significant change. Indeed, the lack of such a power structure and the infamy attributed to the deeds of that power structure will make Bob a more cautious place (that or just a place that is not-Continuum, which is a pretty good deal, as ideas universally despised by Karma alliances, such as EZI, might be less common).

Certainly, there seems to be the urge to avoid recreating The Continuum in the post-war world, though I would be surprised to see the avoidance of superblocs persist. What concerns me and prompted the authoring of this essay is the clear indication that within the Karma Coalition at the time there seemed to be a rift in the unity that bound them. Since I wrote my original post it seems that this rift has indeed been confirmed which is a shame.

The question here is not about right or wrong or even the past - it's more about the future. When six months have passed, will we see the alliances of the Karma Coalition at each others throats despite having fought shoulder-to-shoulder against the common enemy, the evil Hegemony, and brought those alliances low? If so, what will propel this conflict? I would guess that the disagreements we're seeing here today between Karma Coalition alliances will be the seeds of the coming conflicts as moral outrage meets pragmatism in some awful dance. But we shall see.

Basically,

The NPO along with the rest of the Hegemony has pissed off the entire world, got its $@! beat, and is now complaining? Am I reading this right? The Karma is not necessarily and ideological alignment of nations. Sure, the mushroom kingdom along with a few others... but in all reality this is like the great Roman empire collapsing from within and without. Collapsing from the abandonment of its allies, collapsing from attacks from outside nations, and when something that big collapses you will have everything from raiders to peasants aligning to watch. My advice, be more careful next time...

This is so far off-base I'm not sure how to address it properly within the context of this discussion and the original essay.