Reflections on the Karma War

[Monster]

Great post. Oh wai-

[D34th]

Very nice read Archon, I would like to do some questios for you and see them answered if possible:

1. In my opinion OV incident was just the fuse for the war and I think this would happen soon or later, either with an hegemony attack like happened or with a Karma attack. What's you opinion about it?
   
2. What's the main motivation who move/moved Karma Coalition?
   
3. What's your opinion about those alliances who were part of hegemony but changed side after the war?
   

Thank you in advance.

[Jipps]

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.

I would have, but that thread has gotten long enough where it's on an entirely new topic.

You say we should use harsh terms selectively and that it's justified here by the fact that NPO started the war. Obviously though, not all aggressive wars are inherently bad. I'm assuming you are making that decision based on the past atrocities of NPO, give them a little taste of Karma right?

However, this mentality is flawed. According to this logic if the alliances that made up the harsh terms for NPO lost the next big war, reps on them would be justified purely on the bases of the harsh times here. Then the pattern moves on once more.

How do you determine when harsh terms are morally right to force upon an alliance? I can see this way of thinking being abused easily and harsh terms becoming the norm once again.

Harsh terms are never justified and the only way to stop them, even limit them, is to establish the precedent here.

[Nizzle]

Outstanding post, truly a new standard in veiled comments.

[Gen Lee]

On the Mistaken Belief of a Central Karmic Goal

Ding, ding, ding...read it and weap hippies.

[Nizzle]

Ding, ding, ding...read it and weap hippies.

Those damned Karma topics, with all those government leaders talking about Karma and what it is going to do. Totally confused me. Good strategy, though!

[Gen Lee]

Those damned Karma topics, with all those government leaders talking about Karma and what it is going to do. Totally confused me. Good strategy, though!

wtf are you talking about?

edit* ?

Edited May 27, 2009 by Gen Lee

[Nizzle]

wtf are you talking about?

edit* ?

Wow, really? Check for the topics labeled "Karma"...they were posted about a month ago.

Then check every topic, or so, after that. Mostly the DoW topics. Then check the treaty cancellation topics. Then check the surrender topics. It's pretty awesome, honestly, to see how the rhetoric and banter has changed.

[Gen Lee]

Wow, really? Check for the topics labeled "Karma"...they were posted about a month ago.

Then check every topic, or so, after that. Mostly the DoW topics. Then check the treaty cancellation topics. Then check the surrender topics. It's pretty awesome, honestly, to see how the rhetoric and banter has changed.

You seem to be confusing propaganda of a loosely formed war time coalition with concrete policy of a military bloc with an actual organizational structure.

[bbrownso]

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.

Okay, got some questions. What would you think would be the best terms for an alliance that at the first chance launched nukes? Harsh terms or light terms? What if they were merely following in on a treaty?

I eagerly await your response.

[Londo Mollari]

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.

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.

Mmm. We'll see about that one Archon.

[Bob Janova]

What would you think would be the best terms for an alliance that at the first chance launched nukes? Harsh terms or light terms? What if they were merely following in on a treaty?

Alliances which have done either or both of these have received white peace in this war.

[enderland]

No one cares about the use of nukes anymore.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Okay, got some questions. What would you think would be the best terms for an alliance that at the first chance launched nukes? Harsh terms or light terms? What if they were merely following in on a treaty?

I eagerly await your response.

I aint him, but I would pretty much expect any alliance at war to use nukes at the earliest opportunity, so I wouldnt expect it to affect terms at all from that perspective - it's just what you do. However if you do manage to pull off a non-nuclear war, then the damages are obviously less, so from that perspective reps should be less.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Sigrun Vapneir

[President Obama]

No one cares about the use of nukes anymore.

Thank god that stigma is gone.

[Brotherington]

Thank god that stigma is gone.

But my environment!

[Azaghul]

I would have, but that thread has gotten long enough where it's on an entirely new topic.

You say we should use harsh terms selectively and that it's justified here by the fact that NPO started the war. Obviously though, not all aggressive wars are inherently bad. I'm assuming you are making that decision based on the past atrocities of NPO, give them a little taste of Karma right?

However, this mentality is flawed. According to this logic if the alliances that made up the harsh terms for NPO lost the next big war, reps on them would be justified purely on the bases of the harsh times here. Then the pattern moves on once more.

How do you determine when harsh terms are morally right to force upon an alliance? I can see this way of thinking being abused easily and harsh terms becoming the norm once again.

Harsh terms are never justified and the only way to stop them, even limit them, is to establish the precedent here.

The validity of the CB, the intent behind it, etc.

Okay, got some questions. What would you think would be the best terms for an alliance that at the first chance launched nukes? Harsh terms or light terms? What if they were merely following in on a treaty?

I eagerly await your response.

I don't have any problems with first strike nukes. That stigma was stupid to begin with and I'm glad it's gone and proud of my alliance for playing a big part in helping bury it.

[Angrator]

I don't have any problems with first strike nukes. That stigma was stupid to begin with and I'm glad it's gone and proud of my alliance for playing a big part in helping bury it.

Why is that? Don't they kill a lot of people?

[Brotherington]

Why is that? Don't they kill a lot of people?

Nope, nukes save lives by shortening wars. Imagine how long it would have taken to defeat the larger hegemony alliances without nukes?

[Nizzle]

You seem to be confusing propaganda of a loosely formed war time coalition with concrete policy of a military bloc with an actual organizational structure.

No, I was addressing the line of discussion. Thanks, though. I appreciate the help.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Nizzle

[JBone]

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.

Paranoia played a part for sure, but so did many other things.

It appears to have been a "perfect storm"of events on not only Karmas side, but H as well.

Arrogance, bad judgement, complacency, overconfidence, lack of communication.....all had their role.

Perhaps after being on top for so long and treating those who were not, in the manner H did, simply pushed the math past the breaking point. This enabled all of those on the oppressed side to see their chance....props to them for taking advantage of it.

....and potato, that Coalition of Cowards crap is offensive, your better than that dude.....as are we.

[potato]

Paranoia played a part for sure, but so did many other things.

It appears to have been a "perfect storm" of events on not only Karmas side, but H as well.

Arrogance, bad judgement, complacency, overconfidence, lack of communication.....all had their role.

Perhaps after being on top for so long and treating those who were not, in the manner H did, simply pushed the math past the breaking point. This enabled all of those on the oppressed side to see their chance....props to them for taking advantage of it.

....and potato, that Coalition of Cowards crap is offensive, your better than that dude.....as are we.

I apologize for the CoC remark, it was more of a short-cut (so I didn't have to mention all the alliances that dropped NPO shortly before the war) than a taunting.

I do think the events that lead to this war all fit perfectly by sheer luck, not due to some grand scheme organised by Archon or anyone. Granted, sometimes you have to push luck but, having been on top for so long, it seems Pacifica and its allies thought they could pull it off once too often. So, yeah, we pretty much agree on this, it seems.

[Azaghul]

Why is that? Don't they kill a lot of people?

So does war in general. It just does it somewhat faster. ZI is still ZI whether it's done with nukes or by conventional conflict.

[potato]

Why is that? Don't they kill a lot of people?

In a war, you're kinda meant to break things, you know.

[mattski133]

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.

It should have been called "White Defeat".