End of Terms: NPO and Beyond

[Jipps]

It may be long, but it is completely necessary.

The State of the Current Conflict

First off and most importantly, the attackers of the New Pacific Order must recognize that this is no longer a defensive war. The current conflict is only going on for the sole reason of the extortion of large amounts of reparations. I am pretty sure Ordo Verde is safe at the moment, and we all know that if NPO was offered peace I wouldn't be discussing this. If you fail to admit this simple truth, you will continue to fight in blind ignorance.

Definitions

The word harsh terms has been thrown around a lot these days to account for any large amount of reparations or other unnecessary conditions in peace pacts. However there is no real clear definition of 'harsh' in reference to terms. My personal definition, and he one in which I will use in this essay, is harsh terms can be applied to any term that inflicts intended damage on an alliance for your own benefit.

Harsh Terms are Inherently Bad

Before I even apply terms to the current conflict, I will explain why harsh terms are inherently bad. When an alliance requires money or tech reparations after a war, they are intentionally continuing the conflict past peace. You inflict damage upon your opponent for your own gain, the essential purpose of conflict in the first place. Some say that alliances should pay reparations for the damages of war, this notion is ridiculous. By issuing a Declaration of War you take full responsibility for the damages taken during the war. Even if you were attacked unprovoked, take your grievances out on the battlefield, not after the fact.

Clauses that infringe on an alliances sovergeinity are absolutely no better. These include: changing team colors, cancellations of treaties, military limits, economic limits, leadership change, and other tricky devices similar to these. No one should enforce acts that limit alliances potential and its sovergeinity, such acts only further cause the loss of communities and loss of game play in general.

Disbandment is obvious I hope.

A scary, popular trend among alliances is to fight wars to get to the terms. Many seem to have lost the idea that war is the punishment for an alliance, not the period of peace afterwards.

Karma Must Set Precedent

As much as people will yell at me for it, even the New Pacific Order does not deserve harsh terms. As I have explained above that harsh terms are inherently bad, there is even more at stake here.

Failure to give NPO peace here would be the gravest mistake arguably in the history of Planet Bob. Especially under the justification I have seen so far, we could be looking at missing the one definite chance we have to end harsh terms once and for all. A precedent needs to be set here that harsh terms will no longer be tolerated. If not, the likelihood of the continuation of the same is too high of a risk to take.

Harsh terms here would only justify their continuation in the wars of Planet Bob. By saying that terms are okay at any point, you are in de fault support of them for anytime. Since we have no guiding moral conscious or UN type authority, there is nothing to stop alliances for stating that harsh terms were necessary under any wartime circumstances. Especially considering we have no real definitions of harsh as well. Unfortunately we would enter an era of brutality we were meant to escape during this war.

Karma must send the message out that harsh terms are no longer welcome on Planet Bob; terms to the New Pacific Order have become the point at which to make the stand. Whether you will admit to it or not, failing this will only make you as bad as the injustices you now fight.

For Victory

Recently I have seen many members of Karma alliances justifying harsh terms using the argument that terms are motivated only by victory. This kind of thinking is horrible and reminds me of too much of the justification of past harsh terms. You can only be victorious in war, not in peace. This mind set is one of the main reasons we find ourselves here today. When you have this mind set, you become so motivated by victory that you lose sight of your morality and enforce harsh terms all the time. There is victory in every war, so this justification will lead to harsh terms being right in any war at any point of time.

It is saddening to see the citizens of Planet Bob so quickly forget the reasons we came to despise the old regimes the way that we did. This fearfulness of competition and revenge motivates you to impose lasting victory terms on your opponents, at the cost of the community as a whole. I call on everyone to firmly reject these ideas, less you wish upon us the horrors of the past once again.

But Jipps, Don't Forget GW1

A common excuse to counter these arguments is to show the example of Great War 1 and the supposed failure of the victors to impose harsh terms on the New Pacific Order then. However it is not the absences of harsh terms or the ability of the New Pacific Order to rebuild that led to the rule we dread, but the acceptance of the policies by many other members of the community and failures of others to react. The New Pacific Order went into the next war with its harsh policies being accepted by a vast number of allies they possessed, and so many others failed to realize the threat they posed.

The New Pacific Order should be given peace and be allowed to rebuild, to do otherwise would be too cruel and stump to their previous levels. The New Pacific Order is not inherently evil; we were actually seeing progress in the weeks before the war. However if they choose to continue the same policies of old, I am confident the community will see it and act on it. Just as I attempting to do so now with the current philosophies of Karma.

Peace Mode Nations

Lastly, the alliance of Ragnarok has recently stated it will be implying financial burdens on the New Pacific Order for its peace mode nations. Many others have demanded that peace not be given until they come out of peace mode. However can we really blame the New Pacific Order for having nations in peace mode? They are vital to the rebuilding effort and might be part of a military strategy for all we know. What is so bad about having your enemy rebuild after the war? It is this hysteria around safety and victory again that I fear will be the destruction of any moral ideas this war was founded upon.

So I leave you on a note of warning on the ideas you now praise, please see the error of your ways. I plea to you as someone deeply concerned about the future of this game I have come to so deeply enjoy. I know some will personally attack my record, and rightfully so as I have done some errors in the past. I pledge to stand by the principles I outlined in this essay and swear to never engage in harsh terms as defined so here. I expect everyone to hold me to my word here, and encourage others to take a pledge to help finally put an end to a tragic trend of Planet Bob.

Debate is highly encouraged, especially ones contradictory to everything I say.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Jipps

[Seerow]

So you're saying the only peace ever should be white peace?

I loled.

[Nizzle]

I have to say I agree with 99% of what you said. I shall review your post in more detail to extract the portions I do not agree with.

[Otherworld]

NPO were given very lenient terms before...then they ended up taking over CN pretty much. If you crush them in terms, that can't happen.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Otherworld

[Jipps]

So you're saying the only peace ever should be white peace?

I loled.

Is there a reason you lol'd or are you just going to remain laughing on no basis?

[neneko]

You're making several great points. Too bad you're arguing a figment of your imagination. These promises of a new era brought on by karma is something the hegemony have claimed karma stated, karma on the other hand has never stated any such thing.

If an alliance attack another unprovoked they're most likely not going to get white peace when they feel like it even after this war is over. This is a policy karma have never claimed to stand for.

The fact that you're arguing for karma to fullfill promises they never made is the first crack in the foundation of your argument.

The second one is that your definition of harsh terms are inheritly bad. They're not. The way wars work on bob today make both sides have alot of losses. Harsh terms as punishment is not inheritly evil. Just as robbing someone of their freedom might seem evil but it's not inheritly evil, if it was we wouldn't have prisons. In a perfect world where nobody commited any crimes against another we wouldn't need any punishments but as long as we don't live in that world punishments are not inheritly evil.

With the foundation gone the rest of your argument is moot.

Edited June 2, 2009 by neneko

[SpiderJerusalem]

The New Pacific Order is not inherently evil, we were actually seeing progress in the weeks before the war.

Tell me you're not this simple...

The reason we saw progress was because the war was coming. It's all about the PR baby

[Otherworld]

Let me get this straight.

You think we should let them stay in peace mode, and give them white peace.

Meaning they took relatively little damage and would shoot back to number one in no time?

[Qaianna]

I wouldn't say all reparations are inherently evil. There are times it can be seen as a concilatory gesture as well, a sort of 'OK, we were wrong'. And folks don't seem to have problems with reparations being forced tech deals. At least, I don't think they do; let me know if I've missed something there.

I think the terms regarding decommissioning military items were originally thought of as ways to make sure that someone who lost won't turn around and attack before the electrons dried on the surrender instrument. As far as foreign relations, it's a bit awkward after getting bombed flat. I think in general surrendering alliances are protected by those they surrender to; I've often seen it in the wars I've watched, anyway.

Of course, I've seen it go the other way. I've quite often seen folks say 'an apology at gunpoint isn't real, and the ones holding the guns are wrong to extort it'. Hm.

It'll be interesting to see what comes out of things. Some scenarios, as I've said in another thread, may lead down a road that's already been travelled. You'll know we're on that road when you see the Vox Populi-New Pacific Order MDAP signed.

[Nizzle]

Definitions

The word harsh terms has been thrown around a lot these days to account for any large amount of reprerations or other unneccisary conditions in peace pacts. However there is no real clear definition of 'harsh' in reference to terms. My personal definition, and he one in which I will use in this essay, is harsh terms can be applied to any term that inflicts intended damage on an alliance for your own benefit.

I would have to say that harsh terms are those which inflict unnecessary damage on an alliance. For example, if you stomp an alliance down to 1/2 to 1/4 of their normal strength and then impose terms...that is unnecessary. I also believe that reparations should only be paid to those who were attacked by the defeated alliance, and not those who joined in the victim's defense as they were obligated to do so by treaty.

Clauses that infring on an alliances sovergeinity, are absolutely no better. These include: changing team colors, cancellations of treaties, military limits, economic limits, leadership change, and other ticky devices similiar to these. No one should enforce acts that limit an alliances potential and its sovergeinity, such acts only further cause the loss of communities and losss of gameplay in general.

I believe the only policies which should be forcefully rescinded are those that effect the peaceful growth and development of other alliances/nations. If we were talking about NPO, it would be the Moldavi Doctrine.

Karma must send the message out that harsh terms are no longer welcome on Planet Bob, terms to the New Pacific Order have become the point at which to make the stand. Wether you will admit to it or not, failing this will only make you as bad as the injustices you now fight.

If NPO is allowed peace with their nations in peace mode, I believe reparations should be assessed. However, if they are ever somehow forced out of peace mode and completely stomped I believe those peace terms should be assessed while taking into account their ability to pay and their ability to continue growing as an alliance.

It is saddening to see the citizens of Planet Bob so quickly forget the reasons we came to despise the old regimes the way that we did. This fearfulness of competition and revenge motivates you to impose lasting victory terms on your opponents, at the cost of the community as a whole. I call on everyone to firmly reject these ideas, less you wish upon us the horrors of the past once again.

I think you're forgetting that Karma had different ideas when they were unsure of victory, and now that victory is assured they are like kids in a candy store. They are now ready to unleash hell and exact revenge on those who harmed them in the past, all the while forgetting some of their current allies stood by and let it happen.

[Seerow]

Is there a reason you lol'd or are you just going to remain laughing on no basis?

Because if you have only white peace there's no clear side coming out ahead. You are right that the point of war is to weaken the enemy, however in an evenly matched war, both sides will come out hurting the same. I understand that an even war is a rare thing in this day and age, but I hold a hope that with the recent political changes towards non-stacking treaties that more wars will be one alliance with its small group of friends vs the other alliance with its small groups of friends, without going to Friends' Friends' and so on. It may be a vain wish that will never come true, but

A white peace ends with both sides starting fairly equal ends with no differentiation between the victor and the vanquished except one side saying "lol we lost", and things go right back to business as usual a week later.

I'll agree with no reps, simply because there are more interesting ways you can punish an alliance without seeming opportunistic or greedy. However, economic and military restrictions have their place, and extremely harsh ones even have a place.

I see nothing wrong with telling any alliance surrendering that they need to get rid of all of their nukes and need to keep them away for at least 30 days. That makes it at least 2 months before that alliance will be a valid threat again.

Saying that anything other than white peace is laughable, and implying that Karma needs to give NPO or anyone else mercy that they never showed to anyone else in the past is moreso.

[Jipps]

You're making several great points. Too bad you're arguing a figment of your imagination. These promises of a new era brought on by karma is something the hegemony have claimed karma stated, karma on the other hand has never stated any such thing.

If an alliance attack another unprovoked they're most likely not going to get white peace when they feel like it even after this war is over. This is a policy karma have never claimed to stand for.

The fact that you're arguing for karma to fullfill promises they never made is the first crack in the foundation of your argument.

The second one is that your definition of harsh terms are inheritly bad. They're not. The way wars work on bob today make both sides have alot of losses. Harsh terms as punishment is not inheritly evil. Just as robbing someone of their freedom might seem evil but it's not inheritly evil, if it was we wouldn't have prisons. In a perfect world where nobody commited any crimes against another we wouldn't need any punishments but as long as we don't live in that world punishments are not inheritly evil.

With the foundation gone the rest of your argument is moot.

I am not expecting Karma to fulfill any promises, they never made any. Karma just seems to think that they can claim they do not have to take a moral stance, but act they have. If you don't want to take any moral stance, that is fine but don't act like you are any better than the previously moraless alliances you are fighting.

inherent, adj: belonging by nature or habit

By nature all harsh terms are bad. I bolded that part to show that you have a mentality of sticking to the way things are now, just because they are in existance doesn't mean they are automatically right. Why must punishments carry over into peace time though?

Tell me you're not this simple...

The reason we saw progress was because the war was coming. It's all about the PR baby

That is great, that means the public was forcing the biggest alliance to start to change its policies. The more powerless the NPO is, the more motivated to change they will be. Changed caused by public pressure is as good as any other change.

Let me get this straight.

You think we should let them stay in peace mode, and give them white peace.

Meaning they took relatively little damage and would shoot back to number one in no time?

I do not think losing about 65% of your NS is relatively little damage, number one means little when every other number is hostile to you.

[Chief Savage Man]

The sole purpose of this war continuing is to continue destroying the NPO. The reparations are just icing on the cake. The heavy damage the NPO has taken is what counts.

[SpiderJerusalem]

That is great, that means the public was forcing the biggest alliance to start to change its policies. The more powerless the NPO is, the more motivated to change they will be. Changed caused by public pressure is as good as any other change.

Let me try one more time...

NPO have made PR moves like this before every major war, just because it's a last attempt to sway more people over to their side.

They were not changing at all, it was just a PR move.

[Jipps]

I wouldn't say all reparations are inherently evil. There are times it can be seen as a concilatory gesture as well, a sort of 'OK, we were wrong'. And folks don't seem to have problems with reparations being forced tech deals. At least, I don't think they do; let me know if I've missed something there.

I think in general surrendering alliances are protected by those they surrender to; I've often seen it in the wars I've watched, anyway.

Forced tech deals and protection aren't wrong because they aren't intended to inflict harm on the defeated for your gain. Those are the kind of terms that should be seen more often.

Because if you have only white peace there's no clear side coming out ahead. You are right that the point of war is to weaken the enemy, however in an evenly matched war, both sides will come out hurting the same.

What is so wrong with one side not coming out ahead? I would hope in an even sided war those alliances would seek peace soon to minimize damage then.

A white peace ends with both sides starting fairly equal ends with no differentiation between the victor and the vanquished except one side saying "lol we lost", and things go right back to business as usual a week later.

Again what is so bad about things going bac,k to usual? Sure would help reduce so much of the hate and vengence this game has been dealing with for so long.

I see nothing wrong with telling any alliance surrendering that they need to get rid of all of their nukes and need to keep them away for at least 30 days. That makes it at least 2 months before that alliance will be a valid threat again.

Why must you competely neutralize an alliance for 2 whole months? Maybe you wouldn't consider them such a threat if you showed curtesy and offered white peace, you will find people to be a lot more gracious then.

You could inclue non aggression period for 2 months if you are so worried.

Saying that anything other than white peace is laughable, and implying that Karma needs to give NPO or anyone else mercy that they never showed to anyone else in the past is moreso.

I thought that mercy is what made you guys so much better than them, if not then what makes you any different?

[neneko]

I am not expecting Karma to fulfill any promises, they never made any. Karma just seems to think that they can claim they do not have to take a moral stance, but act they have. If you don't want to take any moral stance, that is fine but don't act like you are any better than the previously moraless alliances you are fighting.

inherent, adj: belonging by nature or habit

By nature all harsh terms are bad. I bolded that part to show that you have a mentality of sticking to the way things are now, just because they are in existance doesn't mean they are automatically right. Why must punishments carry over into peace time though?

First of all I don't get why you bolded part of the sentence I wrote but I think you misunderstood what I meant with "how wars work on bob today". To be totally clear on that I need to go

[OOC] I was refering to the war system in the game wich make both sides have heavy losses during a war [/OOC]

I'm not sure how me stating that proves anything about my mentality really.

I'd love to see a change for the better but a world without any kind of punishments for crimes is not possible. What I had a problem with NPO doing was that their punishments was completely on another level than the supposed crimes of the alliances they attacked (in those cases there were a crime to speak of). A world without punishments for crimes wouldn't last long anyway since it'd let people with much more sinister agendas to get the upper hand fast.

Second of all things are not black or white as you try to make it seem. Just because karma doesn't fullfill everything that you feel is right they are just as bad as the ones before them.

Your argument boils down to "If you don't give everyone white peace you're as bad as them". Wich simply is not true.

[Nizzle]

They were not changing at all, it was just a PR move.

Comparable to the PR moves conducted by Karma prior to, and in the infancy, of the war?

[Jipps]

Let me try one more time...

NPO have made PR moves like this before every major war, just because it's a last attempt to sway more people over to their side.

They were not changing at all, it was just a PR move.

I have faith that maybe this war will be an eye opener for the New Pacific Order, as I know it has done a great deal for me.

If not, I highly doubt they will be surrounded by friends they had this war and the community could easily take action. There is nothing wrong with giving opportunities before judging.

Nizzle, I'll get to you.

[Nizzle]

Nizzle, I'll get to you.

No rush I'll be here.

[Jipps]

First of all I don't get why you bolded part of the sentence I wrote but I think you misunderstood what I meant with "how wars work on bob today". To be totally clear on that I need to go

[OOC] I was refering to the war system in the game wich make both sides have heavy losses during a war [/OOC]

I'm not sure how me stating that proves anything about my mentality really.

Sorry, misunderstood your meaning there.

I'd love to see a change for the better but a world without any kind of punishments for crimes is not possible. What I had a problem with NPO doing was that their punishments was completely on another level than the supposed crimes of the alliances they attacked (in those cases there were a crime to speak of). A world without punishments for crimes wouldn't last long anyway since it'd let people with much more sinister agendas to get the upper hand fast.

I am suggesting that the war itself be the punishment, not a world without punishment.

Second of all things are not black or white as you try to make it seem. Just because karma doesn't fullfill everything that you feel is right they are just as bad as the ones before them.

Your argument boils down to "If you don't give everyone white peace you're as bad as them". Wich simply is not true.

I have yet to see a valid arguement to contradict otherwise, by all means expand.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Jipps

[neneko]

I have faith that maybe this war will be an eye opener for the New Pacific Order, as I know it has done a great deal for me.

Must have been an eye opener for alot of people because I havn't seen so many people on the hegemony side claim that anything other than white peace is immoral. Actually.. I can't say I've seen a single one of you guys claim that before.

Now the question is are you guys actually against harsh terms or are you against you and your allies reciving them?

Because this sudden new moral in the hegemony smell a little funny.

[Matthew Conrad]

I have faith that maybe this war will be an eye opener for the New Pacific Order, as I know it has done a great deal for me.

If not, I highly doubt they will be surrounded by friends they had this war and the community could easily take action. There is nothing wrong with giving opportunities before judging.

Nizzle, I'll get to you.

Their recent conduct has shown little change in their behavior besides the occasional person here and there proclaiming so. If anything, they showed that their "progress" just before the war was no indication of internal change and that they will return to their old ways if given the power. We don't want to just "force" NPO to change policies because that just means they haven't really changed. Perhaps, in time, they will show some real internal progress, maybe around the time their IO's pull the veil from over the average member's eyes.

[ModusOperandi]

Punishments should fit the crime; if the glove fits..

PZI/EZI, forbidding the existence of friends/competition on the Red Team, dismantling entire communities, fabricating casus belli to provide justification propaganda, betraying legitimate foreign agreements (see OoO) and who knows what else.. for an entire year man..

The reason why nobody stepped up before was because the CyberVerse had struck rock-bottom and collectively realized that together they had the strength to finally do something about it; which was what the opponent had requested all along.

I know the NPO isn't evil; in fact, no one inherently is. However, if harsh reps get thrown around at the end of this war than so be it; they may even find that they will come out stronger for it, albeit with less members.

[SpiderJerusalem]

Comparable to the PR moves conducted by Karma prior to, and in the infancy, of the war?

Not quite. Just because I am curious... Care to point out PR moves by KARMA prior to this war?

I have faith that maybe this war will be an eye opener for the New Pacific Order, as I know it has done a great deal for me.

It will only be an eye opener if we force their eyes open. Ergo, harsh terms

[neneko]

I am suggesting that the war itself be the punishment, not a world without punishment.

and I suggested that it's not enough since both sides take heavy damage.

I have yet to see a valid arguement to contradict otherwise, by all means expand.

This is funny. When you claim that "Giving anything but white peace makes karma as bad as NPO" it doesn't automatically become true. Actually no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't become true. There is nothing to refute because you havn't shown anything that even suggests that this would be true.

I'll humor you though. My refutation: Things are not black and white. Karma does not not inherit the crimes of NPO because they give terms to alliances they (or at least some alliances in karma) think deserve it. To be as bad karma would have to at least commit crimes that's remotely close to what NPO did. Not giving out white peace doesn't cut it.