Reflections on the Karma War

[Jipps]

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.

Exactly, since harsh terms are defined by the individual, it makes it that much easier to avoid any cultural backlash from harsh terms.

How so?

Alliances wouldn't feel as threatened or so scared of losing, just an increase of honor overall. Sure there are always going to be jerk alliances, but if the community had set the precedent of no harsh terms here the wars wouldn't be that bad. Occurances like this war will always happen to those alliances eventually.

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.

This is true, much more moderate terms have been given overall. However harsh terms given to NPO would overshadow any other actions during the war and contradict any unofficial moral stance Karma does have.

[Azaghul]

Exactly, since harsh terms are defined by the individual, it makes it that much easier to avoid any cultural backlash from harsh terms.

Well you just end up in a debate on if terms were harsh or not.

Alliances wouldn't feel as threatened or so scared of losing, just an increase of honor overall. Sure there are always going to be jerk alliances, but if the community had set the precedent of no harsh terms here the wars wouldn't be that bad. Occurances like this war will always happen to those alliances eventually.

War does far more damage than even very exorbitant reps.

This is true, much more moderate terms have been given overall. However harsh terms given to NPO would overshadow any other actions during the war and contradict any unofficial moral stance Karma does have.

It doesn't contradict a moral stance of being against disproportionately harsh terms and still will have set a precedent against harsh terms for alliances just entering a war on treaties.

[Teriethien]

This is true, much more moderate terms have been given overall. However harsh terms given to NPO would overshadow any other actions during the war and contradict any unofficial moral stance Karma does have.

I think this is a matter of individual opinion. To those who hold an absolutist moral standard this may indeed be true. Would white peace all round been more satisfying from an idealistic perspective? Yes, probably. Whether it would be a good thing or not is debatable, and thus a more pragmatic or relativistic approach would prefer to see that harsh reps have been reserved for those whose crimes make it fitting.

Most people probably won't change their stances on fundamental issues like this. Not anytime soon anyway.

[Roadie]

This is true, much more moderate terms have been given overall. However harsh terms given to NPO would overshadow any other actions during the war and contradict any unofficial moral stance Karma does have.

As will VietNPO, VieTPF, VietAvalon, VietEchelon and Viet64D

[mhawk]

As will VietNPO, VieTPF, VietAvalon, VietEchelon and Viet64D

TPFistan?

[Jipps]

Well you just end up in a debate on if terms were harsh or not.

Because we all would love to see 40 pages of terms debate agin.

War does far more damage than even very exorbitant reps.

Exactly why any punishment given to an alliance should be limited to during the war, not after it.

It doesn't contradict a moral stance of being against disproportionately harsh terms and still will have set a precedent against harsh terms for alliances just entering a war on treaties.

Honestly it comes down to basis of individual opinions and I just think we aren't going to agree here Azaghul.

[Roadie]

TPFistan?

When this is done I think we're just going to have to call it Trashcanistan.

[SpacingOutMan]

This is true, much more moderate terms have been given overall. However harsh terms given to NPO would overshadow any other actions during the war and contradict any unofficial moral stance Karma does have.

Hardly. From the perspective of an outsider or quasi-narrator one could see heavy terms (harsh has many semantics that can be argued) to be overshadowing, or one receiving their 'just desserts'. Take that perspective and compare it to those who were on the various fronts throughout this war, say (for instance) NADC, GDA, Invicta et al. The fact they received white peace (or peace with minimal military clauses) could hardly be overshadowed by Pacifca receiving the brass verdict.

Moreover, as Archon eloquently explained, these terms are motivated by self-interest. Karma never came out and stated it wanted to give white peace to all of its opponents. On the contrary, the Karma threads only consisted of its intentions to bring forth a boomerang of wroth ('What comes around goes around'), and then offer individual terms some time later. There never was an intended goal in terms of post-war, just as long as The Hegemony fell, which it has. It is a wounded band of soldiers making their final stand atop an entrenched hill. Their allies, who some acted with the utmost honor and others unmistakable cowardice, retreated to salvage whatever life remained in the dust-gladdened battlefields.

Self-interest works for better and for worst, and Pacifica's own self-determination signaled a crippling backfire that leaves it (and its allies) in dismantlement and desperation. To assign any moral stance, official or unofficial, to what has already been explained to be a temporary band of similar interests during war, is fool hardy and makes absolutely no sense.

If people truly believe that Pacifica should receive light terms, they are cruelly disillusioned. The punishment must fit the crime, and heavy/harsh terms has plenty of leeway to fit their innumerable crimes... whether or not alliances on the Pacifican front decide to demand heavy terms is their own choice. To say that heavy terms would undercut the tenacity and distinct message of this war, though, is a bit ignorant. Though Karma consists of a temporary membership of wartime-allied groups, they obviously are sick of NPO, else they wouldn't still be fighting. And if it isn't obvious, or hasn't been obvious say day one of this war, the general goal was to strip Pacifica of its global hegemony. Passing intense judgment on Pacifica would add the golden lining to an already elaborate and momentous event in the world's [OOC: CyberNation's] history.

[OOC: Forgive me if I misinterpreted your post.]

Also, great read Archon. Well thought out and detailed.

[Desert Ratz]

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.

Best paragraph I have read in a very long time. Very well written.

[Jipps]

[OOC: Forgive me if I misinterpreted your post.]

I was more so speaking out in a future tense. I am sure white peace has made a difference to amny alliances and has change the tone of the war. However if harsh terms were given to NPO and their remaining allies using the justification of self interest, we could see that same justification to be used in other wars and ultimately overshadow the other white peace.

Probably should have better phrased it, hope this clears it up.

[anenu]

I for one hope that the NPO receives neither light terms nor excessively harsh terms. I think they should be moderate terms. However as these terms should be proportional to the size of NPO and the amount of tech it has no doubt some people will try to spin the terms as unduly harsh even if they are indeed moderate terms.

[Yankees Empire]

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'd just like to comment a little on this. We in FnKa fought on the side of the Hegemony. However, we did not fight "for" the Hegemony. We did not fight for NPO. Our goal in this war was to take pressure off of TOOL. We accomplished this while inflicting much more damage than we sustained. Also, we did not "tuck our tails and run," we fought until TOOL received peace. Yes, our side lost, but our alliance was victorious in our goals.

I guess it all depends on your point of view.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Yankeesfan924

[SpacingOutMan]

I was more so speaking out in a future tense. I am sure white peace has made a difference to amny alliances and has change the tone of the war. However if harsh terms were given to NPO and their remaining allies using the justification of self interest, we could see that same justification to be used in other wars and ultimately overshadow the other white peace.

Well, self-interest is the cause of all wars. If people really wanted to, diplomacy could easily win every single time. Instead, though, one party will purposely act belligerently just to get a rise out of someone, and thereupon initiate some sort of mindless war. When you think about it, white peace granted in the past is never remembered by the mass majority of CN players (save for those who received said white peace) because all people focus on are the extreme terms such as the extortion of MK and \m/.

Probably should have better phrased it, hope this clears it up.

'Tis all be good.

[lardlad]

That post alone has forced me to agree that, some time in the future, I will join the Mushroom Kingdom. Neverender, you are a true hero of Cybernations.

[The Eye]

)):

gravedig