RL Military Vets or Current Service Members...

[Buds The Man]

pfft. just another Dumb @$$ Tanker

Scouts Out!!

Overseas Tours

A 1/1 CAV 1st AD- Germany 1994-1996

A 1/1 CAV 1st AD Bosnia- 1995

B 2/9 Infantry Camp Casey Korea 1997-1998

1st SFOD-D Afghanistan 2001

1st SFOD-D- Operation Anaconda Afghanistan 2002

HHC 1st Cavalry Division- Operation Iraqi Freedom 2004-2005

Don't you cry me no tears,

I don't need your sympathy,

I'm a 19 Delta

That's all I'll ever be

19D huh well if you like it so be it. Me i prefer the cadillac over the pinto so Ill keep my tank

TARGETS UP!!!!

19K20 2000 - 2008

11th ACR , 3ID

OIF I , III, V

Participated in Thunder run with 1 - 64 AR , Was in Sadr City with 3 - 15 , Went back to Mansour in 2007 with 1 - 64 AR

Ahhh an A2 or Sep tanker with the 20 qualifier 1 Cav here served between both wars but I do have the expeditionary medal for 1996 deployments. Did two tours of Kuwait during peace time and was disapointed when Clinton wouldnt let us roll in to Iraq in 96.

Army for two years in order to get my CCNA, A+ and MSCE certs, and college degree. Served 2 years (ie. two tours) in Iraq, once in/near Fallujah, and the other at the interrogation camp at Abu Ghraib

MOS was/still is (as I'm still a reservist): 33 Whiskey.

Recipient of the Purple heart in 2006. IED explosion shot off shrapnel in my right leg during a convoy.

About to head downrange again in a few months, however this time as a contractor in that lovely green zone B).

Didn't know that many people in CN actually have affiliation with the army during my tenure here. Such an eye-opener thread!

Spades should have known there was a reason i liked you

Thinking about doing either Marine Corps Reserves or National Guard right after high school, then moving on to either NROTC or ROTC. I'm not sure. I know that's what I want to do, but am torn between the two branches. On one hand I can go Army, pay less for college, and be in college/ROTC with a friend, whereas, with the Marines, well there isn't much reason for me to go there other than want.

Either branch is great putting all things aside. Marines have a rich tradition and are some of the most diciplined SOBs ive ever met. My father did 30 years in the corps. I do however believe the Army has better offers. I took the college fund + GI bill and was receiving 1200 a month back in early 2000 to go to school. It was great only having to have a part time job and be able to pay all of my bills. Either way service to your country no matter which branch is an admirable thing.

As far as terms go I have a small problem with the current listings.

Either you make them come out of peace and then any and all can pay reps or You let them stay in Peace and only those nations can pay reps to ask for both is just wrong IMO. The rest of the terms are fair IMO with the membership NPO has they should be able to pay it off rather quickly.

[Captain B Bear]

Army- 5 1/2 years (Nov 19th, 2001-May 24th, 2006) 11B. Did 1 tour in Iraq 03-04. Served with the 3rd/502nd A co. of the 101st,

before that I was with the 1st/506th 2ID, at Camp Greaves, Korea. Finished out in Alaska with Co 2/1, 172nd

N.C. Army National Guard- 2 1/2 years(May 14th 1999-2001) 63M. 1st/119th Inf

First let me Thank all of my fellow Vets for their service to their country. without your service our nation would not be what it is today.

The current war is something I have been on the sidelines for, only reading about what’s been going on between the two sides. All I have been able to see is bickering and "mudslinging" from both sides. If there is to be an end to this conflict both sides will need to be able to put aside their personal feelings and frustrations and talk this out in a neutral setting with a group of neutral moderators to help keep a peaceful balance for the discussion. A proper summit should be established by a neutral party, and have the representatives from both sides "sit at the table" with their own list of terms. If things continue in the fashion that they have been, this war will not end until all CN alliances are involved. There needs to be less of "double talk" and more of an open "straight talk".

I know that being an observer of this conflict I don’t have all of the facts or the proper perspective to put together a compelling argument to bring an end to this. But I feel that this conflict will only cause more and more players to leave the game, thus creating an ever smaller playing field. If there is to be peace then both sides need to let go of their pride and come to terms.

This war has been too costly for all of the nations involved, and for some that cost was too great. CN has lost thousands of players, there used to be over 30 thousand players, now we are down to 27,029. If this trend continues we could be down to 15,000 players by next year.

I don’t have much more at this time.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Captain B Bear

[Kilkenny]

Army- 5 1/2 years (Nov 19th, 2001-May 24th, 2006) 11B. Did 1 tour in Iraq 03-04. Served with the 3rd/502nd A co. of the 101st,

before that I was with the 1st/506th 2ID, at Camp Greaves, Korea. Finished out in Alaska with Co 2/1, 172nd

N.C. Army National Guard- 2 1/2 years(May 14th 1999-2001) 63M. 1st/119th Inf

First let me Thank all of my fellow Vets for their service to their country. without your service our nation would not be what it is today.

The current war is something I have been on the sidelines for, only reading about what’s been going on between the two sides. All I have been able to see is bickering and "mudslinging" from both sides. If there is to be an end to this conflict both sides will need to be able to put aside their personal feelings and frustrations and talk this out in a neutral setting with a group of neutral moderators to help keep a peaceful balance for the discussion. A proper summit should be established by a neutral party, and have the representatives from both sides "sit at the table" with their own list of terms. If things continue in the fashion that they have been, this war will not end until all CN alliances are involved. There needs to be less of "double talk" and more of an open "straight talk".

I know that being an observer of this conflict I don’t have all of the facts or the proper perspective to put together a compelling argument to bring an end to this. But I feel that this conflict will only cause more and more players to leave the game, thus creating an ever smaller playing field. If there is to be peace then both sides need to let go of their pride and come to terms.

This war has been too costly for all of the nations involved, and for some that cost was too great. CN has lost thousands of players, there used to be over 30 thousand players, now we are down to 27,029. If this trend continues we could be down to 15,000 players by next year.

I don’t have much more at this time.

The Problem is that those on the "Karma" side see no need to negotiate or talk in other than demanding tones to NPO. They feel they have won, so they get to dictate. While on one hand this resembled the NPO style of negotiation that they despised and complained about and formed Karma to combat it, the other hand evidently looks too inviting to them. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Buds The Man]

The Problem is that those on the "Karma" side see no need to negotiate or talk in other than demanding tones to NPO. They feel they have won, so they get to dictate. While on one hand this resembled the NPO style of negotiation that they despised and complained about and formed Karma to combat it, the other hand evidently looks too inviting to them. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

dammit man i had a nice healthy dislike for you built up but you keep this up ill have to buy you a beer.

Good point, but I also think it goes to both sides there is an arrogance about NPO in their leadership that I THINK were it to dissolve a bit then terms may be open to negotiations. At this point I will agree what is being asked is over the top.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Buds The Man

[Kilkenny]

dammit man i had a nice healthy dislike for you built up but you keep this up ill have to buy you a beer.

Good point, but I also think it goes to both sides there is an arrogance about NPO in their leadership that I THINK were it to dissolve a bit then terms may be open to negotiations. At this point I will agree what is being asked is over the top.

But what is being asked?? there are a few bits and pieces being doled out, but not the whole ball of wax. I would agree on NPO's arrogance, I would not doubt that over the years it built up and while dented, prob still exists. I agree that dissolving it would prob help, but also don't think it will help a lot. There is tooo much hate out there.

I will take the beer. anytime. B)

[Captain B Bear]

Perhaps it would be best if a neutral party was to get involved in the negotiations. Our a collation of players representing neutral parties come together and remind Karma that they themselves are becoming that which they disliked and fought to destroy?

It’s true that power corrupts, hell we can see that in RL. What both sides of this conflict need to understand is that they are doing more harm than good to the "eco-system" of CN, this war has caused players to up and quit the game, alliances have fallen to the way side, and for what? A little bit of revenge? That’s ridicules. NPO in the eyes of many is a "bully" and has been long before I started playing, but what KARMA is doing is just what NPO did in the past, why should we support one group of Tyrants to get rid of another group, that’s ludicrous. Karma needs to get their heads out of their forth point of contact and recognize their own faults and sit down at the negotiation table and agree to some real terms. If NPO should be dissolved then it should be broken down into several different new alliances, with new government officials and such, and any of the NPO members who want to leave NPO should be allowed to without penalty, and as far as reparations go, they should be kept to a minimum. Remember what happened after RL WWI, Germany was forced to pay all the reparations, look what that got the world. If there is to be reparations they should be set to a minimum level similar to or equal to a donation. No need to be greedy or devastating, and NPO should not be the only ones to have to pay, Karma is just as guilty and should also have to pay reparations. I still believe that the best way to settle this issue is for a third party to be present at the negotiations to keep things orderly and going in the right direction.

I agree with you Kilkenny, and I see your point. That’s why I feel it is necessary for a third party to get (force) Karma back to the Table to talk this out. And yes I can see how dissolving NPO might not put out the fires of hate, but it would set them back as embers. The Hate is not gonna go away, that’s all to plain and simple to see, why, well because players on both sides feel they have been wronged by the other, and people have seen the devastation that NPO has wrought in the past, and the on the NPO side they see Karma as a new version of themselves and they don’t want that to happen to them. The only way to get rid of the hate is to set up a neutral coalition of alliances that work to better the CN environment, similar to the United Nations, but with a better set up. (As we all know the UN is a bunch of F@*k ups) Perhaps a military coalition set up to stop massive conflicts from getting out of hand, but always remembering that they are not there to dictate what can and cannot be done. Perhaps something along those lines?

Or perhaps we as former service members can come together establish our own third party, brining with us our alliances to set forth a new precedence, a united coalition of alliances set to keep the past mistakes made by both NPO and Karma out of the picture.

[Ebony Wings]

I really don't see that a neutral party should be brought in to handle the negotiations, simply because there's too much in the way of details that the neutral party would have to be educated on before they could make a solid judgment regarding whether or not given surrender terms are entirely appropriate. Moreover, I'm not opposed to the surrender terms being offered to the NPO having an emotional aspect - the NPO has either directly caused or indirectly enabled a lot of grief over the past few years, and I feel that those who've been on the receiving end of that grief are more than entitled to a little revenge. Bringing in a neutral arbiter removes that emotional factor from the negotiations, and ultimately cheats the people who have a legitimate interest in Pacifica's blood.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I think the terms being offered to the NPO are reasonable, considering past offenses. The surrender terms being offered to Pacifica should - and to an extent, do - send a very clear message to the people of Planet Bob who would follow in the NPO's footsteps as tyrants and enablers. If the sort of behavior they've exhibited over the past years isn't met with a zero-tolerance policy now and moving forward, then we'll be right back to living under hegemony control within six months of the war's official end.

Do I see Karma as being the source of that hegemony? No, I don't - they simply lack the organizational structure to make that sort of global domination happen. Besides, Karma's military forces already have the game more or less by the genitals. If they were going to make a bid for global domination, they'd solidify their power structure now while nobody is in a position to resist them.

[Captain B Bear]

I really don't see that a neutral party should be brought in to handle the negotiations, simply because there's too much in the way of details that the neutral party would have to be educated on before they could make a solid judgment regarding whether or not given surrender terms are entirely appropriate. Moreover, I'm not opposed to the surrender terms being offered to the NPO having an emotional aspect - the NPO has either directly caused or indirectly enabled a lot of grief over the past few years, and I feel that those who've been on the receiving end of that grief are more than entitled to a little revenge. Bringing in a neutral arbiter removes that emotional factor from the negotiations, and ultimately cheats the people who have a legitimate interest in Pacifica's blood.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I think the terms being offered to the NPO are reasonable, considering past offenses. The surrender terms being offered to Pacifica should - and to an extent, do - send a very clear message to the people of Planet Bob who would follow in the NPO's footsteps as tyrants and enablers. If the sort of behavior they've exhibited over the past years isn't met with a zero-tolerance policy now and moving forward, then we'll be right back to living under hegemony control within six months of the war's official end.

But having an emotional response to the situation will Cause the terms to be skewed by. The neutral party does not need to be privy to what happened in the past, all they need to do is remain non-biased to allow for a fair set of terms to be developed. The lessons of WWI should be clear as to what will happen if the terms are set to harshly. If things continue the way that they are, the surviving members of NPO will continue to harbor a grudge against the members of Karma, and thus the cycle will continue.

If you go after NPO for all of their past offenses then you have to go after all Of Karma and any other alliance that has committed an Offense. By your line of thinking there should be a “Karma” to come around and declare war on every alliance that has committed an offense of some sort and be dealt with. That type of thinking will only cause more problems fro the rest of the players. No one will really be able to develop their nation because they will be continuously fighting to keep what they have.

Do I see Karma as being the source of that hegemony? No, I don't - they simply lack the organizational structure to make that sort of global domination happen. Besides, Karma's military forces already have the game more or less by the genitals. If they were going to make a bid for global domination, they'd solidify their power structure now while nobody is in a position to resist them.

They don’t have to do much to solidify their position, and if a third party does not get involved they could very well become the next "NPO". IF rational and non-emotional thinking can not be applied to the terms than the whole thing will eventually happen again and again, this is what happens when the lessons of History are forgotten.

[Ebony Wings]

But having an emotional response to the situation will Cause the terms to be skewed by. The neutral party does not need to be privy to what happened in the past, all they need to do is remain non-biased to allow for a fair set of terms to be developed. The lessons of WWI should be clear as to what will happen if the terms are set to harshly. If things continue the way that they are, the surviving members of NPO will continue to harbor a grudge against the members of Karma, and thus the cycle will continue.

If you go after NPO for all of their past offenses then you have to go after all Of Karma and any other alliance that has committed an Offense. By your line of thinking there should be a “Karma” to come around and declare war on every alliance that has committed an offense of some sort and be dealt with. That type of thinking will only cause more problems fro the rest of the players. No one will really be able to develop their nation because they will be continuously fighting to keep what they have.

They don’t have to do much to solidify their position, and if a third party does not get involved they could very well become the next "NPO". IF rational and non-emotional thinking can not be applied to the terms than the whole thing will eventually happen again and again, this is what happens when the lessons of History are forgotten.

Could you explain to me how the terms are skewed if NPO gets what they deserve? The terms are more likely to be skewed if they allow for the alliance to rebuild to a position of prominence and resume all the old tactics that they enjoyed using historically. Some might say that this war will change Pacifica's outlook on how they play the game, but I wouldn't buy that line for a dollar. The only way that the grudge match is going to end is for one side to be physically incapable of bringing harm upon the other. Given the histories of the alliances involved, I think it's safer to hedge your bets with Karma than with the Hegemony.

[Kilkenny]

Could you explain to me how the terms are skewed if NPO gets what they deserve? The terms are more likely to be skewed if they allow for the alliance to rebuild to a position of prominence and resume all the old tactics that they enjoyed using historically. Some might say that this war will change Pacifica's outlook on how they play the game, but I wouldn't buy that line for a dollar. The only way that the grudge match is going to end is for one side to be physically incapable of bringing harm upon the other. Given the histories of the alliances involved, I think it's safer to hedge your bets with Karma than with the Hegemony.

Here we go again. That will never happen, unless you place them in a state of perpetual war like FAN was (and we see how well that worked out for crushing them). All the alliances on the "Karma" side do not like/agree/get along with each other. They will never be able to maintain peace between themselves for the length of time that NPO managed to rule.

That said, all you are ensuring by placing them under your heel after you beat them down, is making it a sure thing they will rebuild and look for revenge. GOD trying to oppress Echelon does nothing but slow down the growth and push off the time that until they strike back. that is all that does.

Captain B Bear-- you can see why the Karma side will never agree to a neutral third party, they might not get their 25lbs of flesh they feel they deserve. But you are right, there are quite a few alliances on the side of Karma that were enjoying their position next to NPO up to a few weeks before the war. In fact, given the nature of the emotions running with this war, maybe a third party isn't a bad idea after all. Put Karma in one channel with the thrid party, and NPO in another with a third party. Let him play go between, no talking about who actually proposed what, just bring the proposals from one side to the other. Maybe without them all in the same channel emotions could be kept in check.

[BarbulaM1]

The Problem is that those on the "Karma" side see no need to negotiate or talk in other than demanding tones to NPO. They feel they have won, so they get to dictate. While on one hand this resembled the NPO style of negotiation that they despised and complained about and formed Karma to combat it, the other hand evidently looks too inviting to them. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Being one who has delt directly with the hand of NPO's "diplomacy" team in the past regarding peace and negotiations I would have to say really that they are getting the eye for an eye treatment. I have sympathy for some in NPO, however their leadership does have to be held accountable in some way. With their culture it would be near impossible to control government and/or "influential" membes. With changes in the ToS GATO was the last alliance a viceroy was legal and that was done so in reaction to NPO. The only option open to hold their leaders accountable is war till the fundamental foundations (government and influence) alliance is changed. That and you cannot expect altruism to prevail in this game to the extent that would allow resonable terms to be agreed on and NPO to remain in good favor with Karma. So long as NPO is NPO resonable terms I do not believe will be given.

Edited July 11, 2009 by BarbulaM1

[Shep309]

Former Navy Intel guy here (7.5 years)

I'm inclined to agree with BarbulaM1 here. Though I do feel sympathy for the "lower" echelon of NPO and basically being ZI'd I can't say I'm in the crowd of those crying "lighter terms". The last time NPO got "light" terms they came back and buried all who opposed them. Looking at this from strictly a strategic view, one can't fault the entity known as Karma for doing what it's doing.

People like to compare/bring up things about WW2 into this mix of CN politics, but many seem to leave out, or simply forget, that the Allies where marching on Berlin before the war ended. The flipside in CN would be the leadership of NPO being completely deposed, and then sent into hiding, if not killed outright (ie driven from the game). Don't get me wrong, I do see NPO's plight in all this, as difficult as that may seem, they having they're bank nations in peacemode and not wanting to bring them out for 2 weeks in order for Karma to nuke them over and over is understandable, but the only other alternative I see is sort of a stalemate, not even a stalemate really. Stalemate implies that both sides are of equal strength and fight each other to a stand still, whereas in this case, those NPO and allies who have fought have been soundly defeated.

This is one of the few game mechanics I dislike, yet I see the necessity for, peacemode allows for perputal war, but in a game that survives by donations, you want to limit the number of people who are "forced out" for lack of a better term. I see no end in sight for this war. I'm fighting for Karma, yet I understand NPO's reluctance to agree to the terms offered, I don't agree with some of them, but without terms no wars will ever end, especially with a game like CN. Eventually, everyone will be able to escape to peacemode... and then what?

Negotiators for both sides need to negotiate, and get this over with. A multipolar world with the NPO would be a lot more exciting than a multipolar world without the NPO I think. In fact, in a sort of sick and twisted way, I think NPO even brought about this "new world" in their iron fisted dominance of CN for 2 years.

This is in no way an endorsement of NPO, I hates them like Orcs and Uruk'hai hate Men of the West!

/nerd

Edited July 11, 2009 by Shep309

[Captain B Bear]

People like to compare/bring up things about WW2 into this mix of CN politics, but many seem to leave out, or simply forget, that the Allies where marching on Berlin before the war ended. The flipside in CN would be the leadership of NPO being completely deposed, and then sent into hiding, if not killed outright (ie driven from the game). Don't get me wrong, I do see NPO's plight in all this, as difficult as that may seem, they having they're bank nations in peacemode and not wanting to bring them out for 2 weeks in order for Karma to nuke them over and over is understandable, but the only other alternative I see is sort of a stalemate, not even a stalemate really. Stalemate implies that both sides are of equal strength and fight each other to a stand still, whereas in this case, those NPO and allies who have fought have been soundly defeated.

I brught up WWI as a refrence to what Great Britan and France did to Germany with the Treaty of Versi. I know that in CN we won't have a global depression hit, but with extream penalties being applied to NPO their nations will hold a grudge and seek vengance, just as Hitler and the rest of Germany. I would love to see this conflict end without the loss of players(but its too late for that). Yes the Russians were in Berlin before the end of WWII, but that was a political move made by Eisenhower to relieve tensions between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.

This is one of the few game mechanics I dislike, yet I see the necessity for, peacemode allows for perputal war, but in a game that survives by donations, you want to limit the number of people who are "forced out" for lack of a better term. I see no end in sight for this war. I'm fighting for Karma, yet I understand NPO's reluctance to agree to the terms offered, I don't agree with some of them, but without terms no wars will ever end, especially with a game like CN. Eventually, everyone will be able to escape to peacemode... and then what?

This is in no way an endorsement of NPO, I hates them like Orcs and Uruk'hai hate Men of the West!

/nerd

Well I have to agree that being able to sit in Peacemode until your money runs out is defiantly a problem for anyone who wants to nuke you. I dont support NPO and what they have done in the past, but I dont see a good reason to completely destroy all of their nations or to punish every single member of their alliance. I just think that they should be given a set of fair terms for surrender, not ones that will cause many of them to quit the game.

[Kilkenny]

Former Navy Intel guy here (7.5 years)

I'm inclined to agree with BarbulaM1 here. Though I do feel sympathy for the "lower" echelon of NPO and basically being ZI'd I can't say I'm in the crowd of those crying "lighter terms". The last time NPO got "light" terms they came back and buried all who opposed them. Looking at this from strictly a strategic view, one can't fault the entity known as Karma for doing what it's doing.

Negotiators for both sides need to negotiate, and get this over with. A multipolar world with the NPO would be a lot more exciting than a multipolar world without the NPO I think. In fact, in a sort of sick and twisted way, I think NPO even brought about this "new world" in their iron fisted dominance of CN for 2 years.

Re: the bolded part-- that part is true, and it is mainly fear that drives the terms both for NPO and Echelon. But wasn't it the very fact of harsh terms that drove this collection of alliances to form Karma?? There were finally enough people who hated NPO to infiltrate other allainces and work their way up to leadership postions and mold a hate for NPO and this has finally led to what we have now--NPO getting beat down. Hasrh terms will do nothing but push off the time until that happens, and ensure that this collection of alliances will not come together again. There are too many that don't like what others have done with the surrender terms for them to come together to form that "loose coalition of alliances" that they like to talk about. Because like it or not, loose coalition or not, all are getting painted by the same bad PR paintbrush. It is just the nature of humans and the way they see things. something bad comes along and it is viewed in the generalist of terms. One Soldier from a unit on Kelley hill here in Fort Benning gets in trouble, and he is identified as a 3rd Brigade Soldier, not a 1/15 or 2/69 Soldier, but a 3rd Brigade Soldier. If he does something really heinous (murder, $%&@, etc) he becomes a Fort Benning Soldier. And if it happens while at war, he becomes a U.S. Army Soldier. Doesn't matter that he may belong to 3rd gun section of Alpha Battery 1/10 FA, we all get lumped in with him. Same thing with the Karma war, those that formed it were truely (so it seems) for the ideals behind what Archon wrote. Now that the others are having there way, it stings a little with them. I cannot see this group coming together again. In fact I could imagine that those who do have those ideals related to Karma are feeling a bit betrayed and angry at those they see as stepping over the line.

With that wall of text being said, it comes around again to this, all harsh reps are going to do is ensure that a grudge will be held, and maybe put off for a couple of extra months the cycle of revenge. And I would imagine that you will see a few major players on the Karma side sitting out, or even on the other side of the beat down.

No one has ever said that taking a stand is easy to do. There is a reason we are constantly being told to do the Hard right vs the easy wrong.

[Captain B Bear]

Could you explain to me how the terms are skewed if NPO gets what they deserve? The terms are more likely to be skewed if they allow for the alliance to rebuild to a position of prominence and resume all the old tactics that they enjoyed using historically. Some might say that this war will change Pacifica's outlook on how they play the game, but I wouldn't buy that line for a dollar. The only way that the grudge match is going to end is for one side to be physically incapable of bringing harm upon the other. Given the histories of the alliances involved, I think it's safer to hedge your bets with Karma than with the Hegemony.

In the world of diplomatic solutions you can not involve personal feelings or sentiment, when you do that you create more problems than its worth. "getting what they deserve" is not an appropriate position or platform on which to demand surrender or make terms. What you need to look at is the "other side of the coin", This "grudge match" will never end if your method of diplomatic measures is used. Sure it might settle down for a while, but it will return as soon as the "beat down" members of NPO recover, wether they stay as one alliance or brake off into several differnt alliances. What is happening in CN is similar to what has been going on in RL for the past 50 years or so within the global scene, things have not gotten better in some of the "hotspots" because the politicans have been allowing their emotions and the "get what they deserve" mantality to rule their thought process. I don't think that the terms applied to NPO should be easy on them but I dont think that they should be crippling or totaly devistating to them either. NPO and their allies have already been hit hard and wont fully recover from this for a long time, but then again they won't be able to recover if they are hit with extream penalties and such. Remember that this is a game and we want people to have fun playing it. The war can still be considered a benifit to CN as a whole if the final judgement does not alienate the players who are on the loosing side. Perhaps if you could step back and look at the whole picture while setting aside your personal feelings and be objective or even consider the long term ramifications of what extream terms could do to the players all throughout CN, not just to NPO or the members of Karma. This war will affect every [player in this game, not just the ones directly involved in the combat.

[Captain B Bear]

Re: the bolded part-- that part is true, and it is mainly fear that drives the terms both for NPO and Echelon. But wasn't it the very fact of harsh terms that drove this collection of alliances to form Karma?? There were finally enough people who hated NPO to infiltrate other allainces and work their way up to leadership postions and mold a hate for NPO and this has finally led to what we have now--NPO getting beat down. Hasrh terms will do nothing but push off the time until that happens, and ensure that this collection of alliances will not come together again. There are too many that don't like what others have done with the surrender terms for them to come together to form that "loose coalition of alliances" that they like to talk about. Because like it or not, loose coalition or not, all are getting painted by the same bad PR paintbrush. It is just the nature of humans and the way they see things. something bad comes along and it is viewed in the generalist of terms. One Soldier from a unit on Kelley hill here in Fort Benning gets in trouble, and he is identified as a 3rd Brigade Soldier, not a 1/15 or 2/69 Soldier, but a 3rd Brigade Soldier. If he does something really heinous (murder, $%&@, etc) he becomes a Fort Benning Soldier. And if it happens while at war, he becomes a U.S. Army Soldier. Doesn't matter that he may belong to 3rd gun section of Alpha Battery 1/10 FA, we all get lumped in with him. Same thing with the Karma war, those that formed it were truely (so it seems) for the ideals behind what Archon wrote. Now that the others are having there way, it stings a little with them. I cannot see this group coming together again. In fact I could imagine that those who do have those ideals related to Karma are feeling a bit betrayed and angry at those they see as stepping over the line.

With that wall of text being said, it comes around again to this, all harsh reps are going to do is ensure that a grudge will be held, and maybe put off for a couple of extra months the cycle of revenge. And I would imagine that you will see a few major players on the Karma side sitting out, or even on the other side of the beat down.

No one has ever said that taking a stand is easy to do. There is a reason we are constantly being told to do the Hard right vs the easy wrong.

I completely agree with you. You paint a much clearer picture than I.

There are alot of examples that can be used to express this point, but yours works as if it was a Rembrandt or a Michaelangelo.

[Darknight6]

Ok we have been looking to WWI for examples of what will happen to NPO if the terms are to harsh, but I think a more modern example will have more impact. In the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, US troops have to play by the laws of war in the battlefield and when it comes to the detention of captured terrorist we cover them under the Geneva Convention(at least we do in GTMO). Even though our enemies commit horrendous acts of violence, we still do our best to continue the most humane treatment possible for these people because we put morals and our position as a World Leader above the anger we feel for what they do to people. This in my opinion is the perfect example of how KARMA should handle this, put your anger and hatred for what has happened to you in the past aside and set the example for how alliances handle these kinds of situations in the future. They may have done terrible things in the past and they may deserve every little punishment you have lined up for them, however I can guarantee that in the end all of those punishments won't do anything, but create a new even bigger powder keg ready to explode and spiral all of Planet Bob into a more massive war.

A neutral party would solve a lot of issues, however they also bring up a lot of risks as well. These types of third party groups brought into solves problems by offering an alternate and unbiased view on a situation are sometimes helpful for only immediate/temporary solutions because the fear by the community that giving this third party too much power will cause it to become corrupt and use the power for evil, and because of this the party is to weak to actually make any real changes.

[Captain B Bear]

Ok we have been looking to WWI for examples of what will happen to NPO if the terms are to harsh, but I think a more modern example will have more impact. In the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, US troops have to play by the laws of war in the battlefield and when it comes to the detention of captured terrorist we cover them under the Geneva Convention(at least we do in GTMO). Even though our enemies commit horrendous acts of violence, we still do our best to continue the most humane treatment possible for these people because we put morals and our position as a World Leader above the anger we feel for what they do to people. This in my opinion is the perfect example of how KARMA should handle this, put your anger and hatred for what has happened to you in the past aside and set the example for how alliances handle these kinds of situations in the future. They may have done terrible things in the past and they may deserve every little punishment you have lined up for them, however I can guarantee that in the end all of those punishments won't do anything, but create a new even bigger powder keg ready to explode and spiral all of Planet Bob into a more massive war.

Good point. can't agree more with you.

A neutral party would solve a lot of issues, however they also bring up a lot of risks as well. These types of third party groups brought into solves problems by offering an alternate and unbiased view on a situation are sometimes helpful for only immediate/temporary solutions because the fear by the community that giving this third party too much power will cause it to become corrupt and use the power for evil, and because of this the party is to weak to actually make any real changes.

If a third party is used, then they should hold no true power over the proceedings. A group of advisers is all they should be. But then again, we can make our suggestions til we are blue in the face, but it does not mean that Karma or NPO will ever actualy use them.

Its like my Golf coach used to say: "If if's and but's were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry fn christmas"

[Walt Schmidt]

If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry f'n christmas"

Must be a fellow Navy enlisted.

[atomsk strife]

Army goon here. Did 15 month in Afghanistan, 4 months Anti Drug in the Bahamas. Currently a crewchief/gunner for the UH-60 in Korea, about to drop my pilot packet.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Atomsk Strife

[Captain B Bear]

good luck with your pilot package. U goin for Warent or Officer

[TBRaiders]

Retired 1SG, US Army. Retired after 22 years active duty in March 2007. I just wanted to post to say thanks to everyone else who also served.

[Walt Schmidt]

Seeing how I mentioned these a few messages back, and seeing how some of us might be curious, here's what RL Combat gets one.

-- Army Combat Action Badge - CAB 

-- Army Combat Infantry Badge - CIB 

-- Air force Combat Action Medal - CAM 

-- Navy & Marine Corps Combat Action Ribbon - CAR 

I have my CAR

[Walt Schmidt]

If I got it wrong, or missed entirely, let me know...

Alfred von Tirpitz Served

Atomsk Strife Army

BarbulaM1 Navy

BayEagle Unk

Binuru Navy

bobjhonny Civilian

Buds The Man Served

Captain B Bob Army

ChairmanHal Army

Commander John Army

Corinan Army

Darknight6 Navy

der_ko Served

Dr hairy Ballz Army

Ebony Wings Navy

ender land Unk

FinsterBaby Army

Fort Pitt Civilian

General Vengeance Army

gstills22Fuhrer Army

hawk_11 Civilian

Heyman Civilian

In Spades Army

juanveldez Army

Kilkenny Army

Kryievla Navy

Lance Navy

Lord Strider Marine

Lycurgus Rex Navy

Margrave Marine

Merrie Melodies Army

nc1701 Civilian

Peggy_Sue Civilian

phillip110 Army

Poobar Air Force

President Kuse Army

Ryan Greenberg Civilian

Sandwich Controversy Army

Shep309 Navy

Sileath Navy

Solace19k Army

TBRaiders Army

Terminator Army

The AUT Army

The Mongol-Swedes Army

Thorgrum Army

USMC123 Marine

Virillus Army

Voxamerica Army

Walt Schmidt Navy

Walking Dead Marine

wolfprince Army

Yggdrazil Army

youiwish959 Civilian

Yubyubsan Unk

Zombie Glaucon Civilian

Air Force 1

Army 26

Civilian 9

Marine 4

Navy 10

Served 3

Unk 3

Total 56

[Walt Schmidt]

But what is being asked?? there are a few bits and pieces being doled out, but not the whole ball of wax.

While I could post the full terms, I don't think it's my place to do so. Iin several other threads I've asked Karma to post them without any response.

I would agree on NPO's arrogance, I would not doubt that over the years it built up and while dented, prob still exists. I agree that dissolving it would prob help, but also don't think it will help a lot. There is tooo much hate out there.

For us NPO grunts it is not arrogance. Rather, it is a very strong "Esprit de corps."

If you've 'been there' in RL... you understand. In Viet Nam nobody, .n.o.b.o.d.y., f----d with my RivRon mates PERIOD!!!

In CN, many of us Pacificans feel the same way about NPO.

Yes, to others it will appear as arrogance. To us it is the intangible belief in ourselves regardless of the 'stress' or controversy of the moment.

Shai Dorsai!