Reflections on the Karma War

[Heracles the Great]

There is no way to do it with 100% objectivity you are right, but there are many things in this world that can't be done with 100% objectivity, like deciding to fight a war in the first place.

But it would appear we're not even close to 100% - if anything we're likely closer to 60/40 or maybe 70/30 (rough guesses). I'm not backing the actions of anyone in this, just pointing out that what you're saying could easily justify the actions of those in times past. (They felt it was justified and therefore the terms fit the crime. Just because you didn't agree with it doesn't make it necessarily wrong) To me it's just a reinforcement that Might makes Right.

[Roadie]

I think I'm going to make my first (err... I guess this will be my second question - stop being so nitpicky!) question about this Karma Military Leadership that people mention, but don't say much about.

I presume they were in place to manage which treaty chains get activated on which fronts and other various coordination neccessities one would expect need tending to during a conflict like this. Without breaking OPSEC of course, I wonder if you could expand on that a any. How they came together, how other alliances knew where to go for assistance, etc etc?

[Archon]

I would actually agree with my comrade - your comments were poorly veiled and hardly disguised - to act like atleast two paragraphs of this post weren't intended as a slap in the face to Umbrella+Co. on the Valhalla front is ridiculous. That being said, you are entitled to your opinion, though by now we're very clear on where you and your friends stand on the actions we took, and at this point it's become quite redundant.

Your ignorance is showing. You should speak with Roquentin of Umbrella - we had quite the enlightening conversation on the matter. While I am indeed unhappy with Umbrella and Kronos, it is not for the reasons you have in your head. Indeed, I released a public statement on the matter wherein I defended the Valhalla Terms of Surrender as they were issued by an ally and comrade-in-arms, and chided those members of my alliance who spoke out against them so brazenly and publicly. If you wish to know more, I invite you to contact me so that dirty laundry can stay behind closed doors. Though I must say, it is telling that you read into my remarks a slight against your alliance, almost as though you expect such words to come. I would ask you to question your own actions, if this is what you have in mind when you read something such as this. I will admit that there were some personal feelings that seeped into this, and indeed even prompted it, but not in the manner which you believe.

And roadie, yours is kinda loaded, and also might be a question more suited for LiquidMercury to address.

Edit reason: Clarity

Edited May 28, 2009 by TheNeverender

[Roadie]

And roadie, yours is kinda loaded, and also might be a question more suited for LiquidMercury to address.

I knew I was going to get busted with that question. I'll be back later with safer questions.

[Heracles the Great]

Your ignorance is showing. You should speak with Roquentin of Umbrella - we had quite the enlightening conversation on the matter. While I am indeed unhappy with Umbrella and Kronos, it is not for the reasons you have in your head. Indeed, I released a public statement on the matter wherein I defended the Valhalla Terms of Surrender as they were issued by an ally and comrade-in-arms. If you wish to know more, I invite you to contact me so that dirty laundry can stay behind closed doors. Though I must say, it is telling that you read into my remarks a slight against your alliance, almost as though you expect such words to come. I would ask you to question your own actions, if this is what you have in mind when you read something such as this. I will admit that there were some personal feelings that seeped into this, and indeed even prompted it, but not in the manner which you believe.

And roadie, yours is kinda loaded, and also might be a question more suited for LiquidMercury to address.

So now I'm ignorant? Haha okay Archon - Thanks for that "enlightening" comment. I quite enjoyed "reading into" your claim that we "failed" our mission because we were "influenced by propoaganda" and "were worried about our pixels" while we "whined about the lack of support" we got - let me tell you how much I "expected such words" as you tell me how we "danced to the tune of those who know how to affect human thought." Perhaps I should apologize to those we "offended" who are "still embroiled in combat."

I'm glad that you finally responded to Roq's querries and I look forward to hearing you elaborate on the comments you've made in this diatribe. I can't help but laugh as you try to insist that I'm reading too much into your comments. I've been on IRC and will continue to be on IRC - feel free to seek me out if you care to rectify this situation.

[Jipps]

I think that you will have to wait and see what terms are proffered. When I use the wording of 'harsh terms,' I was actually making a tongue in cheek reference to the sudden habit of all Hegemony-loyal posters calling all terms that aren't white peace "harsh terms." I should have been more clear here - I believe what you fear is terms on the scale that the Hegemony used to give. If you adjust for the size of the alliances still in the conflict, and consider past precedents, I think you will find Karma will not go that far. I can only guarantee it on my own front, however, due to opinions expressed earlier in this post.

In your article you used language that described "lasting victory" and that everything Karma does is based on achieving victory. I took this as to mean very harsh terms as that is the same justification we saw from Hegemony leaders in the past. I just hope we won't see the same result in terms as before.

I will be watching out and holding your word Archon.

But it would appear we're not even close to 100% - if anything we're likely closer to 60/40 or maybe 70/30 (rough guesses). I'm not backing the actions of anyone in this, just pointing out that what you're saying could easily justify the actions of those in times past. (They felt it was justified and therefore the terms fit the crime. Just because you didn't agree with it doesn't make it necessarily wrong) To me it's just a reinforcement that Might makes Right.

This is what I was trying to get at for the most point, nice to see I'm not a lone nut.

[AirMe]

This is incredibly subjective, though, and very broad to interpretation. For all we know, those alliances who received harsh terms in the past did deserve them in the eye of the issuer. Just because their standard of what "deserves" harsh terms is different than yours doesn't make it necessarily wrong. No different than it doesn't make yours wrong if a more lenient or peaceful faction comes along after Karma that thinks your being to harsh. You can't say that "harsh terms should be used only on alliances that truly deserve it" without having a globably recognized standard for what harsh terms are, and what mertis someone deserving them.

You know, not everyone who speaks out against harsh terms is speaking out against Kronos. I have taken things personal in the past, but you guys are really taking this to crusade style levels......

[TehChron]

You know, not everyone who speaks out against harsh terms is speaking out against Kronos. I have taken things personal in the past, but you guys are really taking this to crusade style levels......

Frankly, I can't help but feel a little bit responsible for that.

Oh well. I still agree with you lot on this subject (MK).

[Roadie]

Archon: How did you find yourself in your position as The Voice of Karma?

[Heracles the Great]

You know, not everyone who speaks out against harsh terms is speaking out against Kronos. I have taken things personal in the past, but you guys are really taking this to crusade style levels......

I actually was just pointing out how subjective his post was and how it could actually justify the issuance of terms in previous wars - it has nothing to do with anything else.

[JBone]

I see your point, but that is moreso a discussion of how the sides came to be, and less of a discussion of the actual war itself. While there is no doubt in anyone's mind that all wars are preceded by months of political jockying, I didn't want to expand the scope of this piece to include that antebellum period.

That would indeed require a separate topic. Go for it Vlad.

I'm not sure I see what you are trying to communicate here. I would venture to say that you are agreeing with me that there was no central goal, though you might be right in asserting that there was typically a central theme espoused by those who posted on these forums. However, that would be moreso a coincidence of the alliances involved, as opposed to a doctrine by which Karma alliances were compelled to follow.

Agreed, no initial central goal. The theme evolved rather quickly and was almost universally accepted, due in no small part to the name itself, Karma, and the various catchphrases surrounding it. “what comes around, goes around.”, “reap what you sow.”, etc… It was used by those on the anti H side because it worked initially from a PR standpoint, it presented an image of justice and righteousness. Who wouldn’t want to fight the good fight? Eventually as individual agendas began to be pushed; it worked to a lesser extent in favor of H as cries of hypocrisy could be heard with every non white peace. Most of that is starting to fade now, as this breaks down to truly individual fronts.

Karma was a force of independent alliances united by merit of shared war fronts and a need to cooperate. When it became clear that some could not fathom the existence of such a gathering without a legal document backing it, it was necessary to remind the public that Karma is not a legal entity, and as such has no means to apply pressure on one another or compell any one alliance to adhere to a certain standard of terms or what have you, at least not through a bloc that doesn't actually exist.

Do you think some of the Karma alliances went into this with ulterior motives? This lack of legal binding certainly lends itself to “Karma, the idea” being used as a way to get what some, normally, could not, on their own. I think I see this from a few, MK not being one.

My point here is that Karma is not a bloc. As such, the alliances within have no way to compell each other to do anything, as each one is an independent and sovereign entity. Sure, they can apply diplomatic pressure, use friendship, and perhaps even persuasive text (though moreoften than not such text fails unless the listener is already predisposed to shift beliefs), but they had no legal means to enforce any such "coalition-wide" anything.

Agreed. Guess we just have to hope for the best.

Fair enough, actually. I'll cede that point, especially given some enlightening conversations I've had since posting this.

I think, if anything, this has been a huge learning experience for many involved. I know it has for me on an individual level and to TPF as an alliance.

I think that you will have to wait and see what terms are proffered. When I use the wording of 'harsh terms,' I was actually making a tongue in cheek reference to the sudden habit of all Hegemony-loyal posters calling all terms that aren't white peace "harsh terms." I should have been more clear here - I believe what you fear is terms on the scale that the Hegemony used to give. If you adjust for the size of the alliances still in the conflict, and consider past precedents, I think you will find Karma will not go that far. I can only guarantee it on my own front, however, due to opinions expressed earlier in this post.

Some of the things I have heard bandied about by a few, of the dozen or so, alliances still warring on TPF are frightening indeed. Not just the everyday member, but government types. This is good to hear. I am glad MK is one of the forces that will be deciding our fate. Terms may not be easy, but should be fair.

It is encouraging to see this type of discourse without having to wade through all the usual “my side is better that your side” nonsense.

[Roadie]

It is encouraging to see this type of discourse without having to wade through all the usual “my side is better that your side” nonsense.

My side really is better than your side, J.

[Nizzle]

Your ignorance is showing. You should speak with Roquentin of Umbrella - we had quite the enlightening conversation on the matter. While I am indeed unhappy with Umbrella and Kronos, it is not for the reasons you have in your head. Indeed, I released a public statement on the matter wherein I defended the Valhalla Terms of Surrender as they were issued by an ally and comrade-in-arms, and chided those members of my alliance who spoke out against them so brazenly and publicly. If you wish to know more, I invite you to contact me so that dirty laundry can stay behind closed doors. Though I must say, it is telling that you read into my remarks a slight against your alliance, almost as though you expect such words to come. I would ask you to question your own actions, if this is what you have in mind when you read something such as this. I will admit that there were some personal feelings that seeped into this, and indeed even prompted it, but not in the manner which you believe.

And roadie, yours is kinda loaded, and also might be a question more suited for LiquidMercury to address.

Edit reason: Clarity

tl;dr

1. Heracles is ignorant.

2. You're unhappy with us.

3. Not for the reasons we think.

4. You totally didn't mean it the way it sounded.

5. But why would we think you meant it?

6. Perhaps we are guilty...

7. You say we act guilty, right?

8. OK, maybe you let some personal feelings in.

9. ...

10. profit?

Apologies if this came after ya'll resolved your issues via IRC...but I couldn't resist mentioning a post that denies Heracles' accusations while stating they are true.

You know, not everyone who speaks out against harsh terms is speaking out against Kronos. I have taken things personal in the past, but you guys are really taking this to crusade style levels......

I know, and it's totally not even based off of 60+ pages (in one thread alone) giving us that impression. We're so silly.

[AirMe]

tl;dr

1. Heracles is ignorant.

2. You're unhappy with us.

3. Not for the reasons we think.

4. You totally didn't mean it the way it sounded.

5. But why would we think you meant it?

6. Perhaps we are guilty...

7. You say we act guilty, right?

8. OK, maybe you let some personal feelings in.

9. ...

10. profit?

Apologies if this came after ya'll resolved your issues via IRC...but I couldn't resist mentioning a post that denies Heracles' accusations while stating they are true.

I know, and it's totally not even based off of 60+ pages (in one thread alone) giving us that impression. We're so silly.

Given that Archon did not participate in that thread, and then issued apologies for the actions of some of MK's members in that thread. Infact, I am pretty sure he hasn't even read the thread, he only knows what went on because of what he has been told by MANY people. And the fact that thread was 2 weeks ago, and here you are still going on about it.....BOTH OF YOU.......you tell me who is on the crusade and who has let it go?

Edited May 29, 2009 by AirMe

[D34th]

I also believe it would have happened eventually - it was a matter of which side would be at the advantage once the war kicked off. However, I do not believe it would have started with a Karma attack - on their (our) end, it had to be a defensive conflict so as to maximize treaty activation and mount a sufficiently large force to assure victory.

In terms of motivation, I think the Karma Coalition was driven by the indignation of yet another curbstomp, and later was driven by the desire to finally crush the Hegemony that dominated this world for far too long. I am sure revenge factored into many decisions, as did also a simple desire to win, but I belive what I said before was the main driving force. I'm assuming 'who' was a typo, and you don't actually wish to know which personalities drove Karma.

The alliances that moved from the Hegemony are free to do as they please. A simple diplomatic adjustment, however, proves nothing. It will be their conduct in the coming months that will truly define their place in this new world, and everyone knows it.

Thanks for the attention Archon

In my opinion if you were the leader of the Karma Coalition instead of just their voice I would have more faith in "Karma".

[Chickenzilla]

Why is Kronos attacking Archon so much in this thread?

[VIdiot the Great]

Why is Kronos attacking Archon so much in this thread?

From what I can gather it is because planning for war is an easier matter than planning for peace.

Well, that's what I get out of having read 60 pages of a Valhalla peace terms thread. Then again, maybe I'm just grumpy because I didn't get my damn shirt from Stumpy.

VI

[Heracles the Great]

Why is Kronos attacking Archon so much in this thread?

Because we're ebil like that

[enderland]

Your ignorance is showing. You should speak with Roquentin of Umbrella - we had quite the enlightening conversation on the matter. While I am indeed unhappy with Umbrella and Kronos, it is not for the reasons you have in your head. Indeed, I released a public statement on the matter wherein I defended the Valhalla Terms of Surrender as they were issued by an ally and comrade-in-arms, and chided those members of my alliance who spoke out against them so brazenly and publicly. If you wish to know more, I invite you to contact me so that dirty laundry can stay behind closed doors. Though I must say, it is telling that you read into my remarks a slight against your alliance, almost as though you expect such words to come. I would ask you to question your own actions, if this is what you have in mind when you read something such as this. I will admit that there were some personal feelings that seeped into this, and indeed even prompted it, but not in the manner which you believe.

So basically, you guys (referring to MK in the general sense) berate and complain for 30+ pages about how bad the Valhalla surrender terms are, then you wonder why people might be a little defensive or sensitive, or "expect such words to come?"

C'mon, give me a break Archon. I had the "pleasure" to read through the no infamous thread and seeing the sheer level of hostility from many members of your alliance (including gov) in light of events that transpired during that war just makes me sick. What was even more galling was to see dozens of pages of @#%# followed by some Kronos people responding, to which the MK gov basically said "private chans ftw you guys can't discuss this here."

I do want to know more. Please come and find me on IRC sometime.

We have a lot to discuss.

edit: and seriously, I'm not sure who I'm more pissed off with, those who started this kronos/mk forum banter, those that took the bait, or all those that keep baiting/taking each other's bait in so many threads ><

Edited May 29, 2009 by alden peterson

[Azaghul]

But it would appear we're not even close to 100% - if anything we're likely closer to 60/40 or maybe 70/30 (rough guesses). I'm not backing the actions of anyone in this, just pointing out that what you're saying could easily justify the actions of those in times past. (They felt it was justified and therefore the terms fit the crime. Just because you didn't agree with it doesn't make it necessarily wrong) To me it's just a reinforcement that Might makes Right.

Well every individual for everything that exists gets to determine what they think is right is not, and if they have power can put that into execution. Unless you have some sort of [OOC] UN [/OOC] that determines these things, that will always be the case. What you're talking about could apply to literally everything an alliance does.

The actions of the past were justified by a moral code that said that self interest is the only foundation of morality, not proportionality or fairness.

[Jipps]

Well every individual for everything that exists gets to determine what they think is right is not, and if they have power can put that into execution. Unless you have some sort of [OOC] UN [/OOC] that determines these things, that will always be the case. What you're talking about could apply to literally everything an alliance does.

The actions of the past were justified by a moral code that said that self interest is the only foundation of morality, not proportionality or fairness.

This is exactly the point. Everyone has the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong for themselves, which is why it is impossible to make sure harsh terms are used only sometimes. Since we are't capable of deciding when sometimes is appropriate, you therefore are justifying the use of harsh terms at any point. It seems you are catching onto this idea on your own, which is great.

Self interest? Did you read the article?

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.

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.

I just got these from the the first couple paragraphs, but as you can see Archon wisely acknowledges that most alliances in the Karma coalition are acting in self interest.

[Azaghul]

This is exactly the point. Everyone has the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong for themselves, which is why it is impossible to make sure harsh terms are used only sometimes. Since we are't capable of deciding when sometimes is appropriate, you therefore are justifying the use of harsh terms at any point. It seems you are catching onto this idea on your own, which is great.

Just because it could be misapplied doesn't mean it's inherently wrong and can't be applied correctly. I think in most cases a culture of only imposing them in extreme situations and aggressive wars will for the most part limit them unless alliances like NPO rise to power again. PR matters.

Should we never have a war again because letting individuals choose to go to war could lead to bad wars?

Self interest? Did you read the article?

I just got these from the the first couple paragraphs, but as you can see Archon wisely acknowledges that most alliances in the Karma coalition are acting in self interest.

Well sure, defending your allies from annihilation is in your self interest. My point is not that acting in your self interest is bad, but that acting exclusively in it regardless of any other morals.

[Jipps]

Just because it could be misapplied doesn't mean it's inherently wrong and can't be applied correctly. I think in most cases a culture of only imposing them in extreme situations and aggressive wars will for the most part limit them unless alliances like NPO rise to power again. PR matters.

Should we never have a war again because letting individuals choose to go to war could lead to bad wars?

The culture wouldn't be able to regulate terms and articles like this would only justify further harsh terms. Having harsh terms some of the times is support of harsh terms anytime, simply because there is no established way of knowing when those sometimes are.

I'm fairly certain if there were no harsh terms we would have less bad wars, maybe none at all.

Well sure, defending your allies from annihilation is in your self interest. My point is not that acting in your self interest is bad, but that acting exclusively in it regardless of any other morals.

Archon is here to help us answer this one once again.

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.

Karma never said it was taking in any more morale value in its decisions than NPO did in previous wars.

[Azaghul]

The culture wouldn't be able to regulate terms and articles like this would only justify further harsh terms. Having harsh terms some of the times is support of harsh terms anytime, simply because there is no established way of knowing when those sometimes are.

The culture can't exclusively regulate it if someone decides to buck the culture against ever having harsh terms. Also how do you define harsh terms? That can also be a matter of opinion and individual choice.

I'm fairly certain if there were no harsh terms we would have less bad wars, maybe none at all.

How so?

Archon is here to help us answer this one once again.

Karma never said it was taking in any more morale value in its decisions than NPO did in previous wars.

I think Karma as an entity and individual alliances are different things. Just because Karma doesn't have an official stance to change the game doesn't mean that most or even all of the alliances aren't putting certain ideals into practice. You can witness that in the light and moderate terms the other Hegemony alliances have received. I can guarantee you that if Hegemony had won, nearly every alliance on the side of Karma would have received the kind of terms that NPO is likely to receive.

[Archon]

OOC: Again, I'll try to get out a reply tonight or tomorrow...my computer is on the verge of death, and my new one is coming in tomorrow.