Kijuna Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Karma is about to kill the concept of responsibility in CN. The irony is that they think their revolution will bring about restrain, mercy and compassion. No. The Pax Karma will be one in which all leaders know no matter how horrible their acts they will face no consequence. If all you have to fear is a brief smack to the face which you can rebuild from swiftly, a stern talking to (or slap to the wrist) so to speak, we will see levels of cruelty and abuse of power never before seen. Before all moves have to weigh national/alliance interest against the potential consequences, the ironically named Karma coalition is bringing about an age in which people no longer face consequence thus leaving them to behave in a purely self-interested way. Scary future... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Those are bold assertions to make without any support. The past has seen extremely harsh surrender terms. Did that create an environment of altruism, responsibility, and decency? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 You assume that white peace is going to be the new trend forever, however It is probably being used in this to give Hem alliances a second chance to have a new start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3nowned Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Have you even read through other threads about this? Pretty much, alliances that have been given white peace, or close to white peace feel that they wouldn't need to retaliate. They aren't the NPO, no matter how much they may support them. You are generalising that all Hegemony alliances will come back and stomp on anyone that gave them white peace in this war. I don't think we'll be seeing that at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kijuna Posted May 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Those are bold assertions to make without any support.The past has seen extremely harsh surrender terms. Did that create an environment of altruism, responsibility, and decency? From the alliance who got the terms? Yes. Who was the last person bullied by GOONS, \m/, GENMAY, Legion, etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 The age of "Karma" is not one without consequences. We have seen the greatest destruction of alliances to date. Alliances going from 22,000,000 strength, down to 9,000,000 and only getting smaller. There will be punishments for those who were in charge, but not the membership. Indeed, I believe this to be an era where the leadership have to fear their members more than they have to fear other leaders, like it used to be. I believe it is the beginning of an era where the populations will start to truly control what's going on. Even though leaders will keep the power, the majority of CN now truly knows the power that numbers can bring. If the leaders are wrong enough, memberships have been known to coup the leadership, I don't think this will change. The balance will still be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 From the alliance who got the terms? Yes.Who was the last person bullied by GOONS, \m/, GENMAY, Legion, etc? So decency, responsibility, and altruism are synonymous with disbanded? (With the exception of Legion, whose only treaty of note has been in direct support of those things you're worried about in the OP.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 The only action anyone was ever held accountable for in the past was 'looking sideways at the man-cow'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Ultimately, what was ruining the game was individuals being tossed from the game and being unable to return without being maliciously attacked and stalked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Please Karma don't betray Kijuna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyria Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Karma is about to kill the concept of responsibility in CN. The irony is that they think their revolution will bring about restrain, mercy and compassion. No. The Pax Karma will be one in which all leaders know no matter how horrible their acts they will face no consequence. If all you have to fear is a brief smack to the face which you can rebuild from swiftly, a stern talking to (or slap to the wrist) so to speak, we will see levels of cruelty and abuse of power never before seen. Before all moves have to weigh national/alliance interest against the potential consequences, the ironically named Karma coalition is bringing about an age in which people no longer face consequence thus leaving them to behave in a purely self-interested way. Scary future... If anything, I'd say this is bringing about a degree of culpability for actions. For too long, Pacifica and her allies have been able to do what they please. If their detractors said anything, they were met with responses of 'might makes right' or 'do something about it'. That isn't the case right now, is it? now excuse me, im gonna go back to wondering who you're a reroll of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I think my sig fits appropriately in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEraser Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 to end something, its got to exist first. There has been no responsibility in cybernations for a long time. When this war is done, things will go on much like they did for the past two years, just with different names and faces calling the shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Nobody wants a Pax Karma. Nobody wants a Pax anything. Fun on Bob thrives on conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertFitzy Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I honestly kinda agree with the OP, there is a culture of ease that COULD make alliances/players more willing to "express" how they feel and lead to more conflict, which is what people wanted anyway, more conflict, less boredom I don't think for a second though anyone has the will power for that possible future shown in the OP to see the light of day. People will eventually drive others to the point "exceptions" will start being made on the EZI of people and other groups, believe me people have the tenacity to go on for years (I have seen it go on for a maximum of 10 years in another world) harassing alliances/people; that will cause many to break down into old punishing ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kijuna Posted May 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 If anything, I'd say this is bringing about a degree of culpability for actions. For too long, Pacifica and her allies have been able to do what they please. If their detractors said anything, they were met with responses of 'might makes right' or 'do something about it'. That isn't the case right now, is it?now excuse me, im gonna go back to wondering who you're a reroll of What was done? For most alliances the "degree of culpability" you're bringing for their actions is either allowing them to switch to the "good" side with no penalty or a brief war they can rebuild from. Maybe NPO will really get punished, but I expect everyone else to be back above pre-war NS in the near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I think NPO's dishonest way of starting the Karma War shows that there indeed will be responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master-Debater Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Its funny that you say its the end of responsibility when it is infact the start of an age of it. For years the only responsibility was around in the form of bowing to the NPO or you get rolled. Now its slightly different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Nobody wants a Pax Karma. Nobody wants a Pax anything. Fun on Bob thrives on conflict. This. If anything, the coming times will include more conflict in my opinion. Pax means "peace" and implies this war will bring about complete order and peace which is clearly not it's intent. If anything, it will bring about more multipolar conflicts. Pax Karma also implies that Karma will become a dominant force, whereas Karma is only a war time coalition. To the OP: Do you honestly think if Alliance A, who was given white peace, goes back to it's old ways, that they won't be punished by some other entity? The white peace, in my opinion, offered thus far is a gesture of good will to give defeated alliances a chance at a fresh start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertFitzy Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Its funny that you say its the end of responsibility when it is infact the start of an age of it.For years the only responsibility was around in the form of bowing to the NPO or you get rolled. Now its slightly different. yep know you have to bow to 13 separate power blocs or you get rolled Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Karma is about to kill the concept of responsibility in CN. The irony is that they think their revolution will bring about restrain, mercy and compassion. No. The Pax Karma will be one in which all leaders know no matter how horrible their acts they will face no consequence. If all you have to fear is a brief smack to the face which you can rebuild from swiftly, a stern talking to (or slap to the wrist) so to speak, we will see levels of cruelty and abuse of power never before seen. Before all moves have to weigh national/alliance interest against the potential consequences, the ironically named Karma coalition is bringing about an age in which people no longer face consequence thus leaving them to behave in a purely self-interested way. Scary future... Now I don't agree with many "karma" folks, but I think your claims are unfounded. While some leaders might see it as promoting war due to light terms and consequences, that is over a good thing for the game from a boredom prospective. Further this has also demonstrated that alliances that make such aggressive moves will not be supported by broad coalitions, so while they may fight more often and pay less reps, they will always lose, which I'd imagine would get old after awhile. Especially considering a single round of wars will erase half a year of building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 yep know you have to bow to 13 separate power blocs or you get rolled Only if you're in bloc #14. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agafaba Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 People like playing the game, not being punished for playing. An era of peace would be boring, but an era of oppressing terms isnt any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kijuna Posted May 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Now I don't agree with many "karma" folks, but I think your claims are unfounded. While some leaders might see it as promoting war due to light terms and consequences, that is over a good thing for the game from a boredom prospective. Further this has also demonstrated that alliances that make such aggressive moves will not be supported by broad coalitions, so while they may fight more often and pay less reps, they will always lose, which I'd imagine would get old after awhile. Especially considering a single round of wars will erase half a year of building. You make a lot of assumptions in this that I think are wrong. First of all I don't think the karma phenomenom, in which a massive coalition forms to counter an aggressive move, will be a common thing. A lot of things led to Karma. Second, you should know well that the hegemony will not seek to re-establish itself through open war but with backdoor politics. Third, if anything, this war shows harsh terms WORK, Karma is full of alliances that were spared and given terms they could recover from. The alliances that got harsh terms and I mean harsh terms like Legion, GATO, NADC, \m/, etc are either disbanded or joined their attackers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 The alliances that got harsh terms and I mean harsh terms like Legion, GATO, NADC, \m/, etc are either disbanded or joined their attackers. Yup, NPO didn't loss any allies that they'd oppressed in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.