Reflections on the Karma War

[Comrade Smith]

I'm waiting for all the "Good Article Archon" posts to end and actual discussion to take place.

Good post Seerow.

Dohohoho.

[Bob Janova]

It is a good article. I can't really find anything to disagree with to start the discussion .

I do fully expect people to start claiming in three to six months (particularly those in the alliances that bailed out as soon as they could) that they actually won the war, conveniently forgetting that if they hadn't surrendered (or hadn't been permitted to surrender so easily thanks to the mercy of Karma) they would have been crushed into the dirt.

[JBone]

I read this twice so far, and had several things to say at various points along the way, alas due to it's length and my desire to respond in total I think it would be best to break it up into separate sections. Forgive me for adding a WOT to a WOT.

Preface

This is long. Very, very long. I know this, and admit it, but all the same I implore you to read it in its entirety before responding. Thank you.

To you all, I am many things. I am King of the Mushroom Kingdom, I am the Voice of Karma, I am friend, foe, ally, enemy. I am and have been many things to many people, but today I set pen to paper (or, rather, finger to keyboard) to speak my mind with the one voice I have always held - that of someone who is simply a citizen of Planet Bob. I am not a man of many illusions. I've spent far too much time in this world to entertain any. I've had far too much vitriol aimed at me. I've been the victim of blind, ignorant hatred. I have been PZIed, I have been both victorious and defeated in global warfare, I have seen my alliance burn to the ground, and I have built from the ashes a mighty force. I am here to speak on the idea of illusions, of party lines, of propaganda, and I profess to you that I am doing little more than speaking my mind. I do not seek to author a rock-solid dissertation, and maintain that there may be factual inaccuracies or logical errors in my thoughts. But they are what make my thoughts my own, and I hold no delusions that they are flawless. I just like to tell it how it is, in my own eyes. So at times I will be blunt. I hope you enjoy it.

OK, you are a guy who has been around the block and as such this is an individual point of view.

As I peruse the various threads that litter these forums, I note that the same basic debates arise. People who presume to know the goals of an ill-defined wartime coalition, who operate with the normal short term memory, and who, most of all, conduct themselves with a narrow, self-centered purpose that is offensive to this individual are a common sight. There are a number of flaws, fallacies, and general hypocricies that I wish to give my views upon, and I will attempt to do so with some semblance of coherent organization.

OWF is a wasteland of eye glazing crap....much of the time. Self preservation seems to be priority one, that and the endless no U. Much of what is posted here is twisted to fit the posters agenda, even if that means bending the truth to a certain extent, either outright, by omission or by yelling the loudest and repeating oneself. You think that sux. Fair enough.

On the Mistaken Belief of a Central Karmic Goal

I should like to begin by discussing the alleged purpose of the Karma Coalition that stands on the brink of victory in this latest global calamity. For those whose memories struggle to reach back more than a few weeks, I seek to remind you all as to the initial status of this war. It began as all others did - a curbstomp. 95 score versus 3.5, or 25,000,000 strength arrayed against 850,000. 1001 nations against 56. Those allies of the 56 in question decided this was the moment to finally stand up and say no to the repeated "curbings" and ruthless beatdowns that have littered the history of this great planet in recent years. As they were attacked and called in their allies to defend, the goal of the coalition never changed. A wartime coalition's goal is victory. It may be driven by a myriad of ideologies, yes, but given the lack of a distinct power structure or overarching governing body, it can stand for nothing more than victory. Never, at any point, did Karma declare that her goal was to define the standards of surrender terms or to usher in an era of peace, happiness, and love. It did not do this because it quite simply cannot.

Now here is where we start to diverge. Perhaps only by virtue of points of view. You cite the attack on OV as the beginning of this war. While it may have been the first shot fired, from where I sat, this war began long ago, around the time Gre left Q. There may not have been any formal, organized structure to the Karma side at that time, but I hazard to say it was when these "hey, we might not be best buds, but we both dislike them" talks started.

I agree that victory was the common goal, but victory means different things to different alliances, even to different nations. Some wanted their pound of flesh, some wanted to stem boredom, some wanted to change the world, but, and this is again from where I sat, almost all wrapped it in the blanket of righteous indignation and a desire to bring about a fair and just cyberverse.

It was also confusing at times, from this side, to see the "We are Karma, a united force, steadfast in our goals" and the "We are Karma, just a loose coalition" lines being used to justify everything being done. From here it looked as though Karma, whatever that is/was wanted to take all the credit for the good being done, yet shirks responsibility for any wrongs along the way.

Karma has no legal power over its constituent alliances - they are bound only by the common fronts they face. And even then such bonds are weak, arbitrary, and quick to fade once the guns are set aside. To maintain that Karma will change the world in any way beyond weakening the member alliances of the Hegemony is to subscribe to a pipe dream. This may yet be done, yes, but by individual alliances setting precedents, and not by a wartime coalition.

I'm not even sure what legal power means, but to say Karma, or more specifically, powers that reside in Karma, did not/does not have the ability to strongly influence most of the results that arise from this conflict, be they reps, white peace, early terms...whatever, in this war, seems to me to be disingenuous at best and a complete cop out at worst.

To lay the onus of change on an indefinite, ephemeral construct is little more than a base propaganda game. It makes tactical sense, of course, as an effort to gather better surrender terms for one's alliance as well as a belated attempt to win a propaganda war. Don't get me wrong - I firmly believe there are those on both sides who believe that Karma can and should/will enact such a change...but I am also quite aware of the "realpolitik" tactic in play. It is in the best interests of those on the receiving end of these terms to suddenly have a change of heart and embrace the idea of light surrender terms, despite having rarely if ever indulged in such a path in their previous acts. So is it also in the best interests of their allies to argue most vehemently for them. The rationale here should be obvious, and thus I will not seek to explain this further.

While some have indeed dropped the onus of change on Karma, probably just as many on the Karma side have used it to bolster their ranks. To involve AAs that would have been on the fence or on the other side. Yes, surely there is a "realpolitik" side to the propaganda, but do not discount the power of mercy....it has been know to actually produce a "change of heart". It would be foolish to dismiss it out of hand. From a personal perspective, TPF has ,in the past, been both ruthless and merciful .....it's easy to see with whom now that the tide has turned.

....wtf, I have to break this into 2 post apparently.

[JBone]

On the Sins of the Past

So too is it equally silly to complain that Karma has offered weak terms to too many alliances, allowing the likes of Valhalla (recalling a recent, titanic-sized topic) to escape without more than a limp slap on the wrist. While at first there was an attempt to make it appear Karma had a say in terms, it is the truth that the alliances involved in fighting on any particular front were responsible for the terms proffered on that front. It was, and will be, their responsibility. To complain that Karma has failed is wrong for Karma had no ability to enforce much of anything. And to be honest, those on the side of the Hegemony know and knew all too well that, despite all claims to the contrary, people do indeed worry about their pixels. Quite a bit, actually. They will whine and and complain to the ends of the earth about a lack of support, or the damage they took. This is, in part, why they exited. But it was also out of concern of looking like the devil they faced. It was a simple failing to recognize a basic propaganda ploy. Instead they fell into the hands of those executing it. They, like many others, dance to the tune of those who know how to affect the trends of human thought.

I think it is fair to say that World Opinion in general has an influence on terms and that influence is weighted on the Karma side. Enforce, no, but influence certainly. While I'm sure you are correct that some held onto pixels, some also did what they felt to be right....on both sides. Not everything is a cloudy, smoke and mirrors conspiracy, sometimes it is just what it appears to be.

This is quite offensive, of course, to those who remain embroiled in this conflict due to the fact that they face loyal allies who refuse to exit whilst their charges remain engaged. These rare few who know what honor is will continue to sap the strength and will of those they engage by limiting their growth, and pairing this with the strong PR war waged against anything other than white peace, will almost surely lead to fairly lenient terms given to the alliances remaining for the Hegemony. This is their hope, and a skeptic can easily see how this can come to pass. So quickly are the crimes of the past forgotten, a past where alliances were ground into dirt, disbanded, and threatened with PZI for entering peace mode. All of this is left in the dark recesses of one's shallow mind, shunted aside in favor of hypocritical arguments that monetary reparations are the root of all evil and must be avoided at all costs. It is deleted so that instead one can be talked into believing that it is not fighting a war but instead hiding away that is somehow honorable and reasonable now, despite it being decried by those same folks not a year prior.

I personally take no offense at those who have exited this conflict. I am happy my allies and former allies have reached peace. Their reasons are their own and of little consequence to me. They did what they felt was best for their members, who can ask anything more of an alliance. The main reason we, TPF, are still here is to fulfill an obligation, some may see it as foolish but it is important to TPF as a whole. In reflection I, personally, am still in the fray to perhaps atone for some sins of the past. Some direct, some by association, a trial by fire if you will. It may not matter to some who were on the receiving end of past transgressions but it matters to me.

We forget these actions, quite often, because it is not proper to remind those who now serve on the side of Karma of their roles in these past atrocities. They who would never speak out against the perpetrators of these deeds, though they speak out now against their allies and comrades in arms. We do not wish to speak out against the allies of those currently engaged, not wanting to remind them of their hypocricy with respect to their support of these actions when on the giving end, lest we remind our allies of their roles in the past. It is a small subset of nations who are truly innocent of such a crime. I would maintain that I am a member of this subset, and thus am qualified to speak in such a way. I will not spend time now defending this assertion, but should it be challenged know that I have a full and well-reasoned defense of this claim. I judge those I speak out against now based on their actions, for, as the tired phrase goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I'm not enough of a historian to decide who is guilty of what on any grand level but I think very few in this world would be justified in casting the first stone. Why individuals and groups of individuals did what they did is best left to history to decide. As many are fond of saying lately, only time will tell.

A Rest Stop in the Midst of Chaos

This piece may seem to have meandered off onto a tangent, but I hope you can see that the tangled path corresponds to the tangled and confused reasoning often displayed in these threads. They are rife with contradictions, hypocricy, and, at times, outright lies. I have written this to show why I make this claim. I have written this to show how this PR war waged against "harsh terms" is built on pillars of sand, and how a brief stroll through the annals of history can show this. It is not the duty nor the goal of Karma to change the world. It is the goal of Karma to win the war. The disparity of terms with respect to the alliances they were offered to is aimed to help win this war, whether it is on the PR front or the conventional battlefield. The terms offered are to keep the proposed enemy down, so that the victory can be lasting, and any terms proposed or strategies followed between now and the end of the Karma War will be to win the Karma War.

That's all well and good but as stated earlier it was not the message we, the other side, were hearing from the get go, and not the message used to garner support for the Karma cause.

On Defeat

And that leads me to my last point. If you are on the side of the Hegemony, or were on the side of the Hegemony, you lost the war. I don't care how your terms of surrender were worded, or how you want to parade around now, but you lost. You sound as dumb and blind as the NPO regularly does when they proclaim they won the First Great War. I don't give a damn what happened after, but with respect to the military conflict you lost. Please do not claim otherwise. You tucked your tail and ran. You know this, because I can point to alliances like TPF and Echelon who continue to fight a bitter battle in loyal defense of their allies. These are men who did not shrink from their duty. They have also lost this war, but they fight. You do not fight. You also lost the war. Please understand this. If you think, for some reason, that you could have won the war, then you would not have left the battle. You would have stayed in, and you would have been ground to dust. If you believe any other reality, then you need help. That's all I am going to say on this matter.

I have no illusions as to not winning this war, but in the same breath believe that we will come out of it better for having fought, acted and behaved as we have. There is a silver lining to this mess. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see all of our allies get peace along with TPF and begin the next phase of our history, even someone who enjoys the battle can grow weary. Until that time comes, we will give it all we have.

I thank you again for your time spent reading this piece, and if nothing else I hope it generates interesting thought and debate. I also hope that it encourages people to stop blindly arguing party lines, and to actually speak what they think. I think it could lead to some interesting results. And of course, if any of you take personal exception to the words I have put forward today, I invite you either to post or inform me through private channels. I would be happy to speak with you at length.

Regards,

Archon

Gawd, that didn't seem that long when I read it the first two times.

Thanks Archon, I enjoyed that.

[Bob Janova]

Now here is where we start to diverge. Perhaps only by virtue of points of view. You cite the attack on OV as the beginning of this war. While it may have been the first shot fired, from where I sat, this war began long ago, around the time Gre left Q. There may not have been any formal, organized structure to the Karma side at that time, but I hazard to say it was when these "hey, we might not be best buds, but we both dislike them" talks started.

You hazard wrongly ... but the paranoia present at all times in Continuum is probably what led you to make the huge strategic blunders that got you into a losing war. The first time most of the alliances in Karma met was in late March when it looked like the Continuum might try to turn the International-VE issue into a world war.

[Heracles the Great]

I don't agree with all of that which was said, but I respect it's intent and the manner in which it was portrayed and thank Archon for a well written article which required much time and effort.

[Mirreille]

This was a very well written article, and you got your POV across very well.

The disparity of terms with respect to the alliances they were offered to is aimed to help win this war, whether it is on the PR front or the conventional battlefield. The terms offered are to keep the proposed enemy down, so that the victory can be lasting, and any terms proposed or strategies followed between now and the end of the Karma War will be to win the Karma War.

Your own member Azaghul has already pointed out several times on these forums that even very punitive, harsh terms will not keep an alliance down. If anything, drawing out the war while having all their remaining large nations sitting in extended peace mode will likely do more damage to them then heavy reps ever could. One only has to look at FAN, and how much economic growth they sacrificed to maintain their principles for an example of that. I'm sure the NPO wants to try and maintain a senate seat, so they have to keep a couple nations in peace mode for that regardless. It seems to me that the AAs on the Karma side as a whole don't want the NPO to accept terms, at least not until NPO is broken sufficiently in their eyes. The question is, when will that be?

[Brotherington]

This was a very well written article, and you got your POV across very well.

Your own member Azaghul has already pointed out several times on these forums that even very punitive, harsh terms will not keep an alliance down. If anything, drawing out the war while having all their remaining large nations sitting in extended peace mode will likely do more damage to them then heavy reps ever could. One only has to look at FAN, and how much economic growth they sacrificed to maintain their principles for an example of that. I'm sure the NPO wants to try and maintain a senate seat, so they have to keep a couple nations in peace mode for that regardless. It seems to me that the AAs on the Karma side as a whole don't want the NPO to accept terms, at least not until NPO is broken sufficiently in their eyes. The question is, when will that be?

Obviouse answer: when the large amount of nations in peacemode have been cut down and defeated. You may point out the similarities between the FAN situation and the NPO situation, and claim it is hypocritical on the part of the alliances at war with the NPO. However, these situations are entirely different. The incentive for allowing your nations to be destroyed is the hope that it will facilitate a quicker agreement of peace terms. FAN had been totally betrayed by the NPO whilst under their protection once already, and were understandably reluctant to consider 'peace terms' ever again. The NPO leadership have no real reason to fear such an underhand move. The decision of the NPO leadership to make their use of peacemode such a sticking point is viewed as especially dickheadish because the nations in question were barely developed and posed no threat whatsoever to the NPO or its allies. As a contrast to this, the nations held in peacemode by the NPO currently are large and numerous, possing a serious credible risk to any of the alliances fighting. None can afford to let such a formidable force escape unscathed.

[Mirreille]

Obviouse answer: when the large amount of nations in peacemode have been cut down and defeated. You may point out the similarities between the FAN situation and the NPO situation, and claim it is hypocritical on the part of the alliances at war with the NPO. However, these situations are entirely different.

I'm not claiming anyone on the Karma side is being hypocritical, BTW. I was just agreeing with Azaghul's statements that harsh reps are not going to seriously impede any AA from rebuilding, and that if NPO chooses to stay in peace mode for an extended period as as result of not wanting to agree to pay these additional peace mode reps it suits Karma's objectives just fine. The longer they fight, the more damage they take, and the longer their rebuilding is put off. All of which are completely legitimate tactics in war, of course. Having to deal with such a large, powerful group of nations in peace mode is somewhat unprecedented, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Medraut]

A good and interesting read.

I couldn't find anything that I disagreed with.

[Roadie]

You hazard wrongly ... but the paranoia present at all times in Continuum is probably what led you to make the huge strategic blunders that got you into a losing war. The first time most of the alliances in Karma met was in late March when it looked like the Continuum might try to turn the International-VE issue into a world war.

I hate to try to speak for JBone as I know I can't get in his head, but I think in this instance he speaking politically, not neccessarily of informal talks about potential military action against hegemony.

Alternately, I could be talking out of school and pulled that directly from my hind end.

[Bob Janova]

He said the 'war' started, that seems military to me . Politically, we at least were moving away from the hegemony, but towards independence, not opposition.

[Roadie]

He said the 'war' started, that seems military to me . Politically, we at least were moving away from the hegemony, but towards independence, not opposition.

Again, you could be right about that. Just from my point of view, all wars start with politics and those politics aren't always done with the specific intent of war. If that makes any sense at all.

[Vilien]

A well written essay. I hope that the past is not forgotten as we go forward.

[JBone]

You hazard wrongly ... but the paranoia present at all times in Continuum is probably what led you to make the huge strategic blunders that got you into a losing war. The first time most of the alliances in Karma met was in late March when it looked like the Continuum might try to turn the International-VE issue into a world war.

Treaties got TPF into a losing war Bob. But yes, there was much strategic blundering that led up to that.

No clue as to when Karma had it's first meeting, I will take your word on that, but I still think there were grumblings long before that. Perhaps not from Gre, but you are not the only Karma cloaked AA. Some already firmly in that camp had to see a potential ally in Gre when they left Q.

He said the 'war' started, that seems military to me . Politically, we at least were moving away from the hegemony, but towards independence, not opposition.

I should have been more precise in my wording. Whispers of war from some who would eventually become Karma. I do think Gre was moving towards independence rather than opposition, but a combination of tC blunders and the lure of Karmas "light" drew them to eventual opposition.

EDIT: Clarity

Edited May 26, 2009 by JBone

[maximinus thrax]

Very good read. Thank you good sir

[Archon]

Excellent post Jbone, thank you. I'll do my best to give you a good response a little later tonight.

[potato]

Honestly, the paranoia on Hegemony's side is quite amusing. Karma is a consequence of many things, not the grand pupeeteering of one man. Your actions, the aligning of the planets, MK/STA and friends making a stand against bullies in the noCB war, Vox engaging in a successful PR war to open the eyes of many ... That's what lead to Karma. Honestly. Not Archon pulling strings here and there to get alliances where he wanted.

You went in with a flimsy CB at best. One that wouldn't go down well as you fully knew after asking OV's direct and indirect allies. It was obvious from the start of this drama that who ever went in first would lose. Going on the offensive with a weak CB was your initial mistake, long before the cancellation of the Coalition of Cowards.

[Bob Janova]

Treaties got TPF into a losing war Bob

Well, I meant 'you' as 'Hegemony'. For many of you, the direct cause was treaties with the NPO who jumped off a bridge and dragged you in with them, but a lot of the reason you are at war is because of actions done by the bloc, not just NPO.

And yes, there are always whispers of war, and the rumour merchants inevitably got hold of people leaving Continuum as a new source. To be honest though, you guys just got paranoid and took that too seriously. We were told we were next to be rolled at regular intervals before, during and after our membership of Continuum, but that didn't mean that you were actually planning to roll us. I think that Continuum's worries and eventual panic were a result of taking that sort of rumour too seriously, and forcing them to come true by stupid responses to them.

[Ryan Greenberg]

I must agree with your point that people who fought for the Hegemony in this war lost the war. I fought for the Hegemony and I admit that I lost. Just because an alliance got easy terms or White Peace doesn't mean it was an undecided victory or too close to call. The Hegemony lost. I know that was a pretty blunt statement, but that is the truth and I have no problem saying that. We lost. People who say the Hegemony won, please just deal with it. It's war. There are two sides. You have a 50% chance of winning if it's even sided and our side did not win.

Very good read Archon.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Ryan Greenberg

[Jipps]

Srry to break from the hails, whcih are rightfully there, but...

This piece may seem to have meandered off onto a tangent, but I hope you can see that the tangled path corresponds to the tangled and confused reasoning often displayed in these threads. They are rife with contradictions, hypocricy, and, at times, outright lies. I have written this to show why I make this claim. I have written this to show how this PR war waged against "harsh terms" is built on pillars of sand, and how a brief stroll through the annals of history can show this. It is not the duty nor the goal of Karma to change the world. It is the goal of Karma to win the war. The disparity of terms with respect to the alliances they were offered to is aimed to help win this war, whether it is on the PR front or the conventional battlefield. The terms offered are to keep the proposed enemy down, so that the victory can be lasting, and any terms proposed or strategies followed between now and the end of the Karma War will be to win the Karma War.

This language of anything for victory, everything aimed at victory, and lasting victory seems all too reminiscent of that of the very leaders your coalition is now fighting. This justification of harsh terms was one of the main complains made by members of the Karma coalition and this philosophy of harsh terms seem to contradict those very complaints. This is not a propaganda effort, but merely my beliefs.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this way of thinking and it would be understandable for a military coalition to hold to such beliefs. However if Karma is just a decenteralized military coalition and all of its actions are based on such, what makes it any different from the military coalitions of the past?

If Karma is able to continue to justify harsh terms, when will they end? What stops every other coalition for the rest of CN history to use this way of thinking as justification for its harsh terms?

I understand that Karma is a loose coalition of independent entities and that it's up to those individual alliances to determine reps. So this isn't a question to Archon: Mastermind of Karma, but to Archon: Nation Ruler.

[Mirreille]

Well, I meant 'you' as 'Hegemony'. For many of you, the direct cause was treaties with the NPO who jumped off a bridge and dragged you in with them, but a lot of the reason you are at war is because of actions done by the bloc, not just NPO.

And yes, there are always whispers of war, and the rumour merchants inevitably got hold of people leaving Continuum as a new source. To be honest though, you guys just got paranoid and took that too seriously. We were told we were next to be rolled at regular intervals before, during and after our membership of Continuum, but that didn't mean that you were actually planning to roll us. I think that Continuum's worries and eventual panic were a result of taking that sort of rumour too seriously, and forcing them to come true by stupid responses to them.

Regarding the part I bolded; after what happened to NpO before their war, where everyone distanced themselves before the war started, the NPO probably didn't want that to happen to them. Better to go to war with whatever they have left now, then get completely isolated. The way that happened to Polar was quite shocking.

[Roadie]

Archon, are we allowed to ask questions that would expand a bit on the OP or would you rather have that in a different thread?

[Azaghul]

Srry to break from the hails, whcih are rightfully there, but...

This language of anything for victory, everything aimed at victory, and lasting victory seems all too reminiscent of that of the very leaders your coalition is now fighting. This justification of harsh terms was one of the main complains made by members of the Karma coalition and this philosophy of harsh terms seem to contradict those very complaints. This is not a propaganda effort, but merely my beliefs.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this way of thinking and it would be understandable for a military coalition to hold to such beliefs. However if Karma is just a decenteralized military coalition and all of its actions are based on such, what makes it any different from the military coalitions of the past?

If Karma is able to continue to justify harsh terms, when will they end? What stops every other coalition for the rest of CN history to use this way of thinking as justification for its harsh terms?

I understand that Karma is a loose coalition of independent entities and that it's up to those individual alliances to determine reps. So this isn't a question to Archon: Mastermind of Karma, but to Archon: Nation Ruler.

You should read the essay I posted about the subject. It's not that relatively hard terms are inherently and universally bad, but that they should be used very selectively on alliances that truly deserve it. NPO in this situation where they started an aggressive war qualifies. Karma in general has shown where it ends by giving nearly all the periphial alliances white peace and NPO's close allies that have surrendered moderate or light terms.

If Hegemony was winning, nearly every alliance on the side of Karma would be given huge reps and harsh terms.

[Seerow]

Archon, are we allowed to ask questions that would expand a bit on the OP or would you rather have that in a different thread?

I would say that asking questions should be encouraged. Why would a new thread be required when you have a perfectly good one here?

I for one am enjoying the discussion finally starting to warm up.