Jason Salovsky 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... Hmm, evidence? Ah, thought not. That was rather dark. Is there some sexsi hope for the future as well? Or is Karma just gonna come and kill us all, leaving nothing but a empty Planet Bob? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Karma, as far as I'm aware, stands for fair terms proportional to the crime committed, not light terms all round. Although the terms given in this war tend not to reflect that as much as they should. But I've already had my say on that. So, if you are to take Karma for what it stands for and apply it to the future, then people doing horrible things will face tough terms and those committing minor offenses will be given lighter terms. This does not remove responsibility, it just stops ridiculous terms being given to alliances for minor offences. Removing terms like EZI, PZI and viceroys means players are not prevented playing the game and alliances are allowed to maintain their sovereignty. I would hope it would bring in an era where issues are sorted out between alliances in a fair and honest manner rather than in a culture of blackmail, bullying and extortion that has developed over the past 18 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I think the OP has made use of a tactic known as "jumping to conclusions". It's impossible to talk about the future behavior of individuals or alliances with certainty right now. Give it a month, then come back with an analysis - at that point you'll have some solid evidence to make your case with as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Game over man. Its game over! Cry me a river... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo 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. Take GATO out of your list. It hasn't done either of those things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morte Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Everyone ruins the game, it's only a matter of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul 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... NPO and company are facing some pretty tough consequences now, check out their strength graph. If you want to talk about people only acting in a self-interested way, francoism is just a really long winded way of saying NPO act's in its own self interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizardo Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 (edited) From the screwy design concept to the next ruler of the world, everyone ruins the world. Edited May 17, 2009 by Lizardo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerius Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 (edited) There are only two types of climate in this Cyberverse, one is hegemonic, the other multi-polar. With the destruction of the Hegemony the Cyberverse will return to its pre-Pax Pacifica 'anarchic' state, and will be much better for it. Edited May 17, 2009 by President Kent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbysmalPea 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... Well I disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTTezla 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. Damnit, we disbanded and nobody bothered to tell me again. Also, the game isn't ruined. Just sayin'. We're all still here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vhalen 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? Hmm, who got harsh terms recently? Polar? MK? I guess we could go to extremes, but I somehow don't think your point is "the only acceptable terms are 'you can't play anymore,' so it appears to be an exercise in futility. Plus, see my comments immediately below. One could use that to make an argument that the Hegemony is the most recent entity bullied by these chaps. 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. Because massive reps stop people from rebuilding? Let's check with Polar on that one. They've been doing an excellent recovery job, despite massive reps from their top nations. IMO, harsh terms and massive reps just build resentment, and that came to a boil recently. Forced disbandments just spread it around. I imagine we could find quite a few examples of veterans of forced-disbanded alliances scattered throughout Karma. 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. My opinion, drawn from the same givens you're using, is opposite, amusingly enough. I think this war shows that harsh terms DON'T work (especially from the aggressor in an aggressive war). (On a side note, I hope a tendency toward low reps for defenders and higher reps for failed aggressors comes out of this, but that's largely a matter of a sway in public feelings on reps and war. I'd say it's off topic, but glancing back, it seems like it's directly on the topic of responsibility.) Anyway, if you look at all the disbanded alliances, and assume their members spread out here and there, you can bet they take their feelings with them. If they do that, don't you imagine some of that is resentment toward the people who forced their disbandments or crippling terms? Would you be at all surprised that these feelings emerge at a time like this? I'd say strongarm tactics can work in the short term, but you'd better be awfully d***ed convincing with your FA, or in the long run, you'll likely lose the arm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calixo Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 thats a theory... in my opinion not very likely. btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign Dixie Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Cool story bro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I could respond seriously but I'm bored of these threads already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 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. Harsh terms WORK? It can be argued that MK leads this Karma revolution, as they, at least strengthwise lead C&G. Did you not see the terms they were given last war? They were among the harshest I have ever seen. Athens terms as well, for their size, were VERY harsh. Yet, a few months later, here is C&G at the forefront of this revolution. The terms that were intended to "work", only emboldened and bonded C and G. They failed, and as such, there is not a signatory of C and G that would not unquestionably die for the others. I love them like they are family. Bottom line...Harsh terms create a dangerous resolve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 (edited) Karma aren't as bad or as good as everyone claims. There are too many of them to fit under one category. Terms only work to ensure one creates a long-term bitter enemy and make them smarter and efficient. Edited May 17, 2009 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I could respond seriously but I'm bored of these threads already. Right on the money. Joined: Yesterday, 11:48 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anenu 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... Problems with this post 1. Pax Karma. What is this? Does anyone remember talking about karma forcing peace onto the world? No this requires Karma to be a bloc which it is not so it is a void idea. 2. The concept that this entire war has been a "slap on the wrist". Please take a look at several hegemony alliances and tell me it was slap on the wrist. A slap on the wrist is when you engade them for 1 week of warfare and let them off with white peace not take more then half their score and NS. 3. Age in which you no longer face consequences. What are you talking about? You do no the entire purpose of the war was about wrongdoings from NPO and allies right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Tolkien Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 There are only two types of climate in this Cyberverse, one is hegemonic, the other multi-polar. With the destruction of the Hegemony the Cyberverse will return to its pre-Pax Pacifica 'anarchic' state, and will be much better for it. Agree to disagree then. I'd say unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar. There is a distinct difference between a bipolar and multipolar world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 3. Age in which you no longer face consequences. What are you talking about? You do no the entire purpose of the war was about wrongdoings from NPO and allies right? Maybe the OP is talking in terms of individual rulers and not alliances or groups thereof. I mean, Karma does espouse an end to serious E or P 'consequences' for nations/rulers found to be on the !@#$ list of alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windsor Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Oh this is good. About as good as NPO propaganda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrator Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Right on the money.Joined: Yesterday, 11:48 PM Except it's neither right nor money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Except it's neither right nor money Well, your argument that Bob's quote is not currency is somewhat valid, as that particular argument is not used as a method of exchange in any world market. However, the phrase "right on the money" means that the point made was particularly apt or valid within the context of the argument. If you took the saying literally, then your analysis would be correct. But that was not the intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 A world where people fear less the consequences of war is a world where people make more war. I look forward to this. 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.