End of Terms: NPO and Beyond

[Jipps]

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.

A valid point, Ordo Verde may have the right to enact some reps considering they didn't want or know of war.

I believe the only policies which should be forcefully rescinded are those that effect the peaceful growth and development of other alliances/nations.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.

Yet another valid point, I agree completely. I think that an alliance should also be forced to peace out with any alliances from previous wars.

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.

I would disagree, if you do not like nations in peace mode and wish to seek out punishment on them as well the war should go on until then. It should not included in alliance wide reps that harm those that fought.

[Seerow]

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.

I don't think you realize how the lolitics around here work if you think people will go "Hey guys lets just call it a draw". They'll go on til one person acknowledges defeat. But the victor won't accept it because they're hurting badly too, so they'll make sure the other guy stays down a bit longer to compensate.

And frankly, there's nothing at all wrong with this.

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.

So long as wars are frequent and the hate keeps shifting around, I don't think having hate is a bad thing. The problem we've been dealing with for a long time is ill-stifled hate against a group of alliances, and the war constantly set to 1 or 2 sides, with one side having a clear dominance.

In the aftermath of this war I expect to see many splintered factions each with their own goals and agenda. We've seen this to some degree already even within Karma. Hate isn't bad for the game. The game itself thrives on drama, without that drama there's no point to playing. And it's hard to have drama without hate. At least IC hate, which is all that should come up from harsh terms. (Seriously if getting harsh terms makes you want to hurt someone IRL you have issues).

However this statement does clear a lot up. You have made it clear you want to play cyber hippies. You see this war as a chance for white peace to begin being given in hopes it reduces wars in the future, and thus innevitably nobody will ever war again for any reason and we can all grow infra in peace.

Sorry bub, it's not happening.

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.

But a forced NAP encroaches on the sovereignty of the losing alliance, we can't have that!

And simply put, you're smoking a crack pipe if you think that someone receiving white peace is going to forgive and forget and never lift a finger against the ones who beat them up again. The terms themselves don't cause hate and dissent, the war does.

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

First, let me make it clear I am not a part of Karma. My alliance has publicly stated it is not part of Karma though it was involved in one of the fronts of the war. I hold no leadership position within my alliance. I refuse to allow myself to be associated with the weak-spined hippies that make up karma. The very thought of it repels me.

Second, the thought of Karma being better is already borne out by them giving practically white peace to every alliance they fought. More alliances surrendered and got white peace than in any other war previously. If you want to ignore that and say that Karma is just as bad as their enemy by giving moderate terms to one alliance and potentially harsh terms to one other, you're being intentionally obtuse.

That said, to my knowledge Karma never claimed to be any better. They have stated they hate the Hedgemoney and their practices, and many of them they have made clear they have no intention of using (EZI, Viceroys, etc). However other practices may be used because they are proven effective, and there is -nothing- wrong with this. Trying to impose morals Karma never claimed to embrace onto Karma is a !@#$%* PR move and nothing more. You can try to encourage white peace, but saying that anything but white peace is unnecessary and should not be used in any case ever is petty idealism.

[Tom Litler]

What's with this trend of people writing long-winded theses in the OWF to make a name for themselves?

Sorry to rain on your parade Jipps, but opinions are like brain cells; everybody has them. Some more than others. However, the quality or number of brain cells does not necessarily correlate with the number of opinions one bolsters.

Good day.

[Nizzle]

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

Unless somehow the threads have mysteriously disappeared, feel free to peruse the "Karma" announcements and any DoW threads from the beginning of the war. I'm sure you'll find yourself completely shocked.

[Seerow]

Unless somehow the threads have mysteriously disappeared, feel free to peruse the "Karma" announcements and any DoW threads from the beginning of the war. I'm sure you'll find yourself completely shocked.

So all of the announcements that came at the beginning of war... that doesn't answer the question of what PR moves Karma made -before- the war. Read that as pre NPO attacking OV.

[neneko]

Unless somehow the threads have mysteriously disappeared, feel free to peruse the "Karma" announcements and any DoW threads from the beginning of the war. I'm sure you'll find yourself completely shocked.

DoW thread prior to the war? Now that's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

[SpiderJerusalem]

Unless somehow the threads have mysteriously disappeared, feel free to peruse the "Karma" announcements and any DoW threads from the beginning of the war. I'm sure you'll find yourself completely shocked.

Are you Nizzle really to stupid to read?

(sorry, just had to)

[Jipps]

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.

Read my pledge at the bottom of the OP.

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.

Where is the indication that they do not intend to continue with the reforms they started before the war? I honestly haven't seem much of any NPO opinions either way, so there is no way to judge.

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

This will only force them to want to come back once again with vengence, just like harsh terms did to the victims of the last war.

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

The damage has been fairly one sided in this war.

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.

By continuing those practices I can only assume they agree with those in the past.

I meant to say that Karma would be continuing the practices of the NPO and friends in the past, as i think I made clear int he OP.

[SpiderJerusalem]

This will only force them to want to come back once again with vengence, just like harsh terms did to the victims of the last war.

Or maybe it makes them realize that their own medicine tastes awful?

[Seerow]

By continuing those practices I can only assume they agree with those in the past.

I meant to say that Karma would be continuing the practices of the NPO and friends in the past, as i think I made clear int he OP.

I think what this is really saying is that SSSW18 should have been given harsher terms. They really are a prime example of how quickly people forget mercy and instead only look at what will give their allies a slight PR boost.

Here's a repeat: Karma going hard on a few alliances does not negate the dozens of alliances that got peace with practically no terms attached.

[Matthew Conrad]

Where is the indication that they do not intend to continue with the reforms they started before the war? I honestly haven't seem much of any NPO opinions either way, so there is no way to judge.

The official NPO blogs clearly try and paint Karma as terrible opportunists and that ilk. It's funny because they also use the "they're as bad as us" meme which is actually quite counter intuitive to an effective argument. Anyways, you can read those blogs among other posts before the radio silence took place in order to get a clear picture of their change in behavior, or should I say the lack thereof. Also, the GGA surrender scandal didn't help much either.

[Nizzle]

So all of the announcements that came at the beginning of war... that doesn't answer the question of what PR moves Karma made -before- the war. Read that as pre NPO attacking OV.

Yeah, Karma didn't exist. I view "before the war" as "before everyone declared on NPO". Apologies for the lack of clarity.

DoW thread prior to the war? Now that's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

Yeah, or you could have seen that word "announcement" thread. Craziness.

Are you Nizzle really to stupid to read?

(sorry, just had to)

Fair enough. I can laugh at myself. There was *one* thread prior to the declaration of war by "Karma" on NPO.

[Teriethien]

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.

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

I disagree. As you said terms could and should be seen as continuing a conflict beyond the surrender. However, the idea that "inflict[ing] intended damage" in peace as opposed to in war is immoral is ridiculous. Damages are damages whether sustained at war or during peace. Besides, all but the harshest reparations are far more damaging than actual, full scale wars. An alliance can reasonably be expected to continue to grow through almost any peace term, whereas the losing side of any conflict is invariably declining in NS.

Furthermore, you are basically advocating that wars should be prolonged until there has been sufficient punishment on the defeated (in the eyes of the victor). Yet if the only rule of morality is whether that punishment occurs before or after a surrender, then there is nothing immoral about continuing a war beyond any reasonable point. The logical conclusion from such a stance is eternal war.

Whether a punishment is right or wrong should not depend on an arbitarily selected point in time; harsh terms are bad when they are out of proportions to the alleged crime.

[Jipps]

I don't think you realize how the lolitics around here work if you think people will go "Hey guys lets just call it a draw". They'll go on til one person acknowledges defeat. But the victor won't accept it because they're hurting badly too, so they'll make sure the other guy stays down a bit longer to compensate.

And frankly, there's nothing at all wrong with this.

There is absolutely no shame in a draw, and there is sucha thing as being humble in victory. Why do the losers have compensate fot the victors, why can't losing be enough?

So long as wars are frequent and the hate keeps shifting around, I don't think having hate is a bad thing. The problem we've been dealing with for a long time is ill-stifled hate against a group of alliances, and the war constantly set to 1 or 2 sides, with one side having a clear dominance.

In the aftermath of this war I expect to see many splintered factions each with their own goals and agenda. We've seen this to some degree already even within Karma. Hate isn't bad for the game. The game itself thrives on drama, without that drama there's no point to playing. And it's hard to have drama without hate. At least IC hate, which is all that should come up from harsh terms. (Seriously if getting harsh terms makes you want to hurt someone IRL you have issues).

However this statement does clear a lot up. You have made it clear you want to play cyber hippies. You see this war as a chance for white peace to begin being given in hopes it reduces wars in the future, and thus innevitably nobody will ever war again for any reason and we can all grow infra in peace.

Sorry bub, it's not happening.

I love war mate, I play the game for it. In fact, I am confident white peace would see a great influx of wars. Without fearing huge vengeful reps at the end of wars people will be a lot more motivated to honor treaties and have more war in general.

But a forced NAP encroaches on the sovereignty of the losing alliance, we can't have that!

And simply put, you're smoking a crack pipe if you think that someone receiving white peace is going to forgive and forget and never lift a finger against the ones who beat them up again. The terms themselves don't cause hate and dissent, the war does.

I hold no grudges against the alliances who gave me terms, alliance are a lot more forgiveful after white peace versus reps. I doubt they'll want to be your best buddy, but they probably won't be waiting to stab you in the back.

What's with this trend of people writing long-winded theses in the OWF to make a name for themselves?

Sorry to rain on your parade Jipps, but opinions are like brain cells; everybody has them. Some more than others. However, the quality or number of brain cells does not necessarily correlate with the number of opinions one bolsters.

Good day.

I think you can see by the replies here that I definately don't have anything personal to gain here. I am just genuinely concerned and wish to start a debate to maybe try to sway my or other peoples opinions.

I didn't force you to read this.

[Jonathan Archer]

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.

I don't know if anyone else has adressed it but Gen_Lee was acting as a messenger for the alliances fighting NPO. It isn't just RoK imposing those terms.

[Fort Pitt]

Jipps, your a good guy, and honestly I agree with most of what your saying, but in the end I'm still on the fence leaning towards making NPO pay reps... However it was a good read, but I do think that peace was offered to NPO on numerous occasions but they turned it down; because they still have the mentality that they own the game world.

The least I want to personally see come out of NPO is an apology by their government to all the alliances they attacked without real reason (and I mean without REAL reason, spying isn't a CB, its an apology, and nor are OOC reasons like PZIing someone for breaking the forum rules).

Edited June 2, 2009 by Fort Pitt

[Fort Pitt]

I think what this is really saying is that SSSW18 should have been given harsher terms. They really are a prime example of how quickly people forget mercy and instead only look at what will give their allies a slight PR boost.

So your saying that a small alliance, which was the only alliance to actually honor its treaty with NPO not because they wanted to defend their PR, but because they actually care about treaties, would have to pay reps? Freedom of speech man, let him voice his opinion, I haven't seen such a bad post in a long time.

[Jipps]

Or maybe it makes them realize that their own medicine tastes awful?

I see your point, but I still think the method I prescribed would work better. I think we just disagree on the ways to NPO change.

I think what this is really saying is that SSSW18 should have been given harsher terms. They really are a prime example of how quickly people forget mercy and instead only look at what will give their allies a slight PR boost.

Here's a repeat: Karma going hard on a few alliances does not negate the dozens of alliances that got peace with practically no terms attached.

Right, because I am publically denouncing something my ally has done for years and that is my way of support.

Sure, the white peace given to the majority of alliances is great at the moment. However the impact that terms on the NPO could have on future wars would overshadow any other peace offerings. Think of how well you remember the light terms and white peace from the last war.

I disagree. As you said terms could and should be seen as continuing a conflict beyond the surrender. However, the idea that "inflict[ing] intended damage" in peace as opposed to in war is immoral is ridiculous. Damages are damages whether sustained at war or during peace. Besides, all but the harshest reparations are far more damaging than actual, full scale wars. An alliance can reasonably be expected to continue to grow through almost any peace term, whereas the losing side of any conflict is invariably declining in NS.

It costs the victor to continue the war as well and it is in neithers best interest to keep it prolonged past the appropriate punishment.

Furthermore, you are basically advocating that wars should be prolonged until there has been sufficient punishment on the defeated (in the eyes of the victor). Yet if the only rule of morality is whether that punishment occurs before or after a surrender, then there is nothing immoral about continuing a war beyond any reasonable point. The logical conclusion from such a stance is eternal war.

Whether a punishment is right or wrong should not depend on an arbitarily selected point in time; harsh terms are bad when they are out of proportions to the alleged crime.

The severity of the alleged crime would correspond to the amount of warfare, eternal war would be the equivelent of disbandment.

The severty of the crime would have to be decided by the victors, as it is now. My only hope is that people will think less of punishments because it costs both sides to wage war, but only one side on reps.

[Jipps]

Jipps, your a good guy, and honestly I agree with most of what your saying, but in the end I'm still on the fence leaning towards making NPO pay reps... However it was a good read, but I do think that peace was offered to NPO on numerous occasions but they turned it down; because they still have the mentality that they own the game world.

The least I want to personally see come out of NPO is an apology by their government to all the alliances they attacked without real reason (and I mean without REAL reason, spying isn't a CB, its an apology, and nor are OOC reasons like PZIing someone for breaking the forum rules).

I honestly do not know if NPO was offered peace and if they rejected it then shame on them.

I would love to see an apology for this war and the many past wars too Pitt.

[ModusOperandi]

You still haven't addressed my points, unfortunately; the majority has decided to reverse the manner in which certain practices are carried out on Planet Bob, do you particularly feel as though if the war ended today Pacifica and its allies would completely change their methods?

[Seerow]

So your saying that a small alliance, which was the only alliance to actually honor its treaty with NPO not because they wanted to defend their PR, but because they actually care about treaties, would have to pay reps? Freedom of speech man, let him voice his opinion, I haven't seen such a bad post in a long time.

I was making a point. White peace supposedly makes everyone forgive and forget. Yet here we have an alliance that got white peace less than a month ago already acting like the group that gave them white peace is terrible because ONE alliance might get harsh terms. It's !@#$@#$ ridiculous.

That said I wouldn't have actually given SSSW18 any sort of harsh terms, but it leaves the point of white peace not leaving the vanquished seeing the victors in a great light.

Right, because I am publically denouncing something my ally has done for years and that is my way of support.

Sure, the white peace given to the majority of alliances is great at the moment. However the impact that terms on the NPO could have on future wars would overshadow any other peace offerings. Think of how well you remember the light terms and white peace from the last war.

I wasn't even around last war, but I'm sure if we compared percentages of alliances with hard terms and alliances with white peace, we'd be looking at complete opposites.

[Fort Pitt]

I was making a point. White peace supposedly makes everyone forgive and forget. Yet here we have an alliance that got white peace less than a month ago already acting like the group that gave them white peace is terrible because ONE alliance might get harsh terms. It's !@#$@#$ ridiculous.

That said I wouldn't have actually given SSSW18 any sort of harsh terms, but it leaves the point of white peace not leaving the vanquished seeing the victors in a great light.

There is a line between speaking what they have to say and being my idols, they are still on the side of the former.

And I would like to note that SSSW18 was offered white peace originally, but they rejected the offer because they would have rather fought for their allies than !@#$% out like so many others did.

EDIT: wtf who changed my post? i didnt say "being my idols" lol

Edited June 2, 2009 by Fort Pitt

[ChairmanHal]

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.

It was never a defensive conflict. Oh there *was* a defensive aspect to it in that if OV had become a grease spot they've have been pissed, but everything else that followed was part of a much larger offensive designed to take down what was left of Q and 1V, particularly NPO.

I also don't think that reparations are the primary motivation of those fighting NPO (those fighting Echelon, that's now debatable). They simply haven't tired on beating on Pacifica yet. When they do, they'll give peace.

Harsh Terms are Inherently Bad

*snippage*

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.

Some alliances that are part of Karma not only believe that reparations are justified in this case, they have *always* believed that they were and have benefited from them. So this really isn't anything new at all.

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.

Afraid for your mortal soul if you kill them, eh? You have something of a point there. However, that point is lost on people who are afraid this will turn into the kind of horror movie where the monster appears dead, but really isn't. Problem is that while they are going to so much trouble to defang the beast by smashing its head in, they don't see others rising up behind them.

For Victory

Recently I have seen many members of Karma alliances justifying harsh terms using the argument that terms are motivated only by victory.

I suppose that's better than them climbing they are entitled to "reps" because they were fighting defensively...against an opponent that was only counter attacking because their primary treaty partner twice over was attacked by the very same alliance. But any alliance can *ask* for money/tech to end a war. It's up to the alliance on the losing end to decide if they want to accept or fight on.

But Jipps, Don't Forget GW1

It's those saying those words that are forgetting GW I. Who was the leader of NPO during GW I? Of NpO?

Right, the leaders of current alliances that stand to make significant gains if NPO is dismantled as refugees flood their forums with apps.

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.

Ragnarok is free to say whatever they want. Truth is the number of nations NPO has in Peace Mode is disproportionate even for an alliance looking forward to the end of war and rebuilding. Essentially they fought this war with one arm behind their back. Why? To what end? To ensure they survive? Fine. But they had to know that if they did that the alliances arrayed against them would increase their demand for blood afterwards.

Edited June 2, 2009 by ChairmanHal

[Seerow]

There is a line between speaking what they have to say and being my idols, they are still on the side of the former.

They are also clearly ignoring the mercy they were granted and are instead harping upon their ally's plight and trying to spin PR to make it more likely for their allies to receive lighter terms.

If all of these posts about lighter terms came up over the last 3 years in previous wars, I'd have no issue. If they came up after the war, I'd have no issue. But the timing of NPO and all of its allies suddenly deciding harsh terms are bad is just too convenient. It reeks of opportunistic PR spin, and I refuse to believe any sincerity in any of it at this point in time.

Now if I get proven wrong over the next months and years, I'll be happily pleased to see I'm wrong.

[Teriethien]

It costs the victor to continue the war as well and it is in neithers best interest to keep it prolonged past the appropriate punishment.

Yet it hurts the defeated far more to be kept in war than to pay reps. I guess I just don't really understand how you can denounce reparations on the basis of timeline alone. To me its one thing to say that you find reparations unnecessary and morally apprehensive, and another altogether to say that punishment is fine if its done in a way that costs all sides far more.

The severty of the crime would have to be decided by the victors, as it is now. My only hope is that people will think less of punishments because it costs both sides to wage war, but only one side on reps.

A better position to take, then, might to be adovate for proportionality, as several Karma-aligned individuals have voiced.