Announcement From The Echelon

[Drostan]

I know this was written two days ago but I am going to address it now and say there is no "ivory tower". We all are part of the same community here. We're free to speak our opinion the same as everyone else. I don't believe Karma is evil but everyone here, Hegemony or Karma is human. We all make mistakes and just because of specific peace terms doesn't mean we can't speak our mind. We're indebted to Karma for giving us peace terms? Because of that we shouldn't speak our stance on it?

I can respect Sparta, DT, Brigade for giving TOOL white peace but that doesn't mean I or any other TOOLie is not going to speak our mind. We knew going in that we could be potentially destroying ourselves, we knew we weren't on the winning side. We weren't on an "ivory tower". We fought on the losing side of GW4. We've seen both sides and we know it.

Karma isn't evil but TOOL is allowed to speak our mind as are our members. You may have your opinion but that doesn't mean we can't be concerned about our friends or as a community member. We have our right to speak our mind just as you do. There is no ivory tower when our friends are still on the battlefield (TPF) and that we're concerned for them as we are others.

What Karma does have an effect on the future of the community and so we can speak our opinion. Does it mean you're going to listen? Does it mean you're going to dismiss it as Hegemony speak? Yes, we know that but that doesn't mean we cannot speak it. My opinion is not worthless just because of where I come from or because of terms given to me. I am going to speak if I choose to as well as TOOLies.

And yet, for the most part, you continue to speak of Karma as one unified bloc which has never been the case. It's not like anyone is being threatening or trying to impede your right to express yourselves, but rather we are invoking our own to say that it is sad that so many are being so imprecise with criticisms. We did not force all of your side of the war to share the same fate, so we only ask the same kindness. We don't ask not to be judged, but we ask to be judged fairly and that requires the cessation of speaking of Karma as a single entity. You guys are just lucky you never came up with a clever name for your side or you'd understand.

[Diomede]

And yet, for the most part, you continue to speak of Karma as one unified bloc which has never been the case. It's not like anyone is being threatening or trying to impede your right to express yourselves, but rather we are invoking our own to say that it is sad that so many are being so imprecise with criticisms. We did not force all of your side of the war to share the same fate, so we only ask the same kindness. We don't ask not to be judged, but we ask to be judged fairly and that requires the cessation of speaking of Karma as a single entity. You guys are just lucky you never came up with a clever name for your side or you'd understand.

It's pretty clear that she is addressing the "Ivory tower" comment. Whether Karma is a unified entity or a war-time coalition destined for war in a month's time matters not. You know that. I know that. Everybody else knows that. Stop being pretentious.

[Drostan]

It's pretty clear that she is addressing the "Ivory tower" comment. Whether Karma is a unified entity or a war-time coalition destined for war in a month's time matters not. You know that. I know that. Everybody else knows that. Stop being pretentious.

I'm not sure what you've read in my post but certainly it is not what I intended. I felt that I responded earnestly. You may not be aware that yesterday I argued with several TOOL members and they seemed concerned that I attributed to them an unduly harsh position. I am not being pretentious but rather trying to clarify my position as I made a similar comment to Bob's yesterday that I know reverberated negatively among some TOOL members.

I would also disagree that it doesn't matter what definition of Karma we are using as in fact that seems to be of primary concern. Salmia was explaining that evidently many TOOL members have reservations about Karma and it's role in the world to come. Thus, I think it is important to remember that in the world to come there will be no Karma to administrate or manage that world. Once the war is over, we will all go back to being regular old alliances that are subject to all the ridicule that comes along with existence on Planet Bob. Thus, I urge those who wish to express themselves about particular concerns do so as if Karma were even now just an assembly of regular old alliances. I was trying to highlight that many of us feel frustrated because we are trying to do the right thing and yet we all get painted with a thick and non-specific brush.

I don't know why you felt that my post was some sort of attack on Salmia but I assure you it was not. You'll probably just think I am pretentious but I don't know what I can do other than try to respond when people raise concerns/criticisms. And this:

You guys are just lucky you never came up with a clever name for your side or you'd understand.

Was a light-hearted joke. I guess tensions are running high.

EDIT: I suppose I should point out that this is my attempt to not dismiss Salmia's comments as Hegemony speak.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Drostan

[Salmia]

And yet, for the most part, you continue to speak of Karma as one unified bloc which has never been the case. It's not like anyone is being threatening or trying to impede your right to express yourselves, but rather we are invoking our own to say that it is sad that so many are being so imprecise with criticisms. We did not force all of your side of the war to share the same fate, so we only ask the same kindness. We don't ask not to be judged, but we ask to be judged fairly and that requires the cessation of speaking of Karma as a single entity. You guys are just lucky you never came up with a clever name for your side or you'd understand.

I wasn't speaking as Hegemony but every time I speak or a TOOL member speaks, it is instantly grouped together with Hegemony. Hegemony wasn't formed or planned either. It is simply the other side. I see Karma was separate sides, I am well aware that it is not a solid bloc yet neither is Hegemony. Hegemony is always dismissed for speaking opinion whether they're different. It is assumed that if one person from an alliance that is from Hegemony is speaking, then the opinion is worthless.

It is assumed because we get white peace, we shouldn't be speaking our opinion on something? This isn't even about whether Karma is unified. This is about the fact that people seem to be offended that when someone from TOOL or an alliance that has received reparations is speaking from the sideline, we fought our part of the war. We knew what we were getting into and we have fought our part. We've not uninvolved.

Our friends are still fighting out there. Surrender terms indicate the future to us and what Karma does as a loose coalition or whether different alliance still has an impact. And TOOL has a right to speak up (members or govt) just as every individual here. I just see more and more often because we're "Hegemony" or because we got reps, we owe something? We don't.

It was a good war, honorable and respectable but we have our piece to contribute if we want to.

EDIT: I'm fully aware that Karma won't last after the war. But what I am saying is the reparations and the surrender terms have an impact on the alliances. That is the future I am talking about, not about Karma (the alliances within it I know will go their own way afterwards) but what happens, the surrender terms, those DO have an impact.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Salmia

[MaGneT]

Never forget this moment, Echelon.

You mean the moment when you guys decided to stab BLEU in the back?

Backstabbers or not, these terms are a bit rough. Kudos to R&R.

[Uralica]

And yet, for the most part, you continue to speak of Karma as one unified bloc which has never been the case.

I LOLed at the fact that Bob seemed to assume that all TOOL posters do see Karma as a unified bloc, or that they (the alliances referred to as "Karma") are "evil."

To paint them all with the same brush would give my first alliance, CCC, that exact image. And trust me, if there's anyone further from "evil" in this game, it's them. And there are a fair few alliances labelled Karma that I happen to like. (Insert shameless GR/Sparta/Brig/Vanguard/CD/NV/whoever the hell else shoutout here )

I might not agree with some of the terms being handed out by some Karma alliances, but does that make the alliances demanding them evil? Not entirely. One hardlined stance doesn't make a whole alliance a bunch of fanatical nutjobs. One alliance who wants more blood than everyone else in a bloc doesn't make the whole bloc bad. Et cetera.

It's not like anyone is being threatening or trying to impede your right to express yourselves, but rather we are invoking our own to say that it is sad that so many are being so imprecise with criticisms.

Fair enough. It is your right.

We did not force all of your side of the war to share the same fate, so we only ask the same kindness. We don't ask not to be judged, but we ask to be judged fairly and that requires the cessation of speaking of Karma as a single entity.

Although you sometimes act as one, I have heard about how various the opinions about reps are within the "wartime bloc" of Karma, so I'll say "fair enough" to this as well. Not only that but the obvious fact that you'll all go back to being your separate alliances and blocs after this war is over (if it ever ends ). Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if there were blocs vying for power after/if this war ends. Robertian nature abhors a vacuum.

Now for my opinions:

About TOOL's terms: I for one was rather surprised by them. Was waiting on at least another week of war and then some modest reps. Unfortunately, one TOOL member waged another week of war. ( )): NEO MONES )): ) Then refused to pay a cent of what we owed to Sparta because of his little rampage. As part of TOOL's Inquisition, I don't think I've ever headdesked that much at any TOOL member.

About Echelon's terms: I disagree with the reps, and just because TOOL got off easy doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about them. I do, however, think RnR are epic awesomeness.

About the terms being offered NPO: I'm only against them because of the "two weeks of war" bit. Everything else is fine by me. Granted if you went with Tokugawa Mitsukuni's alternative, I'd be happy with that as well.

Finally, it is my belief that justice and revenge are never spoken in the same sentence. If it were, CCC would not have survived WotC. Nor would Polar. Or many other alliances.

I guess I should be a good Hedgie and go back and sit in my corner now

[Diomede]

Drostan: I don't feel much need to respond as Mia covered it pretty well.

[Neo Uruk]

It is assumed because we get white peace, we shouldn't be speaking our opinion on something?

It's assumed that you shouldn't say that Karma are all oppressive.

[Drostan]

I wasn't speaking as Hegemony but every time I speak or a TOOL member speaks, it is instantly grouped together with Hegemony. Hegemony wasn't formed or planned either. It is simply the other side. I see Karma was separate sides, I am well aware that it is not a solid bloc yet neither is Hegemony. Hegemony is always dismissed for speaking opinion whether they're different. It is assumed that if one person from an alliance that is from Hegemony is speaking, then the opinion is worthless.

It is assumed because we get white peace, we shouldn't be speaking our opinion on something? This isn't even about whether Karma is unified. This is about the fact that people seem to be offended that when someone from TOOL or an alliance that has received reparations is speaking from the sideline, we fought our part of the war. We knew what we were getting into and we have fought our part. We've not uninvolved.

Our friends are still fighting out there. Surrender terms indicate the future to us and what Karma does as a loose coalition or whether different alliance still has an impact. And TOOL has a right to speak up (members or govt) just as every individual here. I just see more and more often because we're "Hegemony" or because we got reps, we owe something? We don't.

It was a good war, honorable and respectable but we have our piece to contribute if we want to.

EDIT: I'm fully aware that Karma won't last after the war. But what I am saying is the reparations and the surrender terms have an impact on the alliances. That is the future I am talking about, not about Karma (the alliances within it I know will go their own way afterwards) but what happens, the surrender terms, those DO have an impact.

I get that. I really do. I do not feel that TOOL owes us anything. But what I am saying is that the surrender terms do have a lasting impact and in order to discuss that productively we need to narrow our focus. For instance, people are concerned about NPO's future surrender terms and TPF's. Thus, it makes sense to speak to those alliances fighting them about the terms that will be offered. Because Karma does not really have any ability to self-impose restrictions on it's various alliances. Only amongst those fighting on a particular front is there any ability to directly determine the terms.

I do not consider TOOL an alliance that was on the sidelines at all. As you said, you fought even though the deck was stacked against you. I like to think that I don't view TOOL as simply The Hegemony. But as I stated before, it is hard to address concerns that people may have when they are directed at an entity like "Karma" or "The Hegemony". And I also don't want to see everything negative that any alliance associated with Karma has done automatically associated with every other alliance in Karma.

EDIT:

Drostan: I don't feel much need to respond as Mia covered it pretty well.

I am distressed that you are unwilling to speak with me as I feel that though it may be taking a bit of time, certainly Uralica and I are beginning to understand one another better and I hope the same is true of Salmia. I await her response. Part of why I doggedly insist on separating Karma alliances is that when it is all said and done, let's try to keep better track of who did what this time than we have in the past.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Drostan

[Leetopia II]

It doesn't get you out of bill lock, but you survive and don't delete.

Take it from someone who was at ZI for more than half the time you have been playing cybernations. It's not only possible, people do it all the time. Don't blame others for your cowardice.

I was already kicked out of Echelon, so how exactly is surrendering at that point being a coward? Don't even try to judge me when you don't know any of the details.

[Neo Uruk]

I was already kicked out of Echelon, so how exactly is surrendering at that point being a coward? Don't even try to judge me when you don't know any of the details.

Real men ghost

[Gamemaster1]

TOOL fought hard, just as many alliances in 'Hegemony' have. What difference does it make if we got white peace? Why would that change how wrong it is that others did not? To use an analogy...

.. a person treats some of his co-workers nicely. He mugged three others in the parking lot. This doesn't make the employee any less evil because he treats some nicely.

In conclusion...WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE THAT WE GOT WHITE PEACE? That does not make Karma any better for it, nor does it make Echelon's terms seem nice just because someone else got white peace.

[Neo Uruk]

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE THAT WE GOT WHITE PEACE

The people who gave you white peace, as part of the Karma coalition, didn't oppress you.

[Gamemaster1]

You completely missed the point. I wasn't arguing for me. I was arguing for Echelon. It makes no difference what my terms where. Ok, they gave me white peace. Your point? Does that somehow make what they did to Echelon or NPO more right?

[Leetopia II]

Real men ghost

Yeah, ghost an alliance I was kicked out of, surely they'd have sent me some aidz then!!!

That would have gone back to the point of having no money to pay bills, bill lock, and inevitable deletion.

Anyways, it wasn't for lack of trying on my part. I was kicked out for going nuclear on TOP, and after they gave Echelon white peace I did seek to come back to fight the superfriends with Echelon (since at the time I was still being attacked by them too, obviously). But they said no, so after another week or so I surrendered.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Leetopia II

[Salmia]

It's assumed that you shouldn't say that Karma are all oppressive.

I have never personally said Karma is oppressive. I have said my piece aimed at specific parts but I don't think of Karma as one group but various. I don't think Karma is oppressive but I do have my specific disagreements that I argue.

I get that. I really do. I do not feel that TOOL owes us anything. But what I am saying is that the surrender terms do have a lasting impact and in order to discuss that productively we need to narrow our focus. For instance, people are concerned about NPO's future surrender terms and TPF's. Thus, it makes sense to speak to those alliances fighting them about the terms that will be offered. Because Karma does not really have any ability to self-impose restrictions on it's various alliances. Only amongst those fighting on a particular front is there any ability to directly determine the terms.

I do not consider TOOL an alliance that was on the sidelines at all. As you said, you fought even though the deck was stacked against you. I like to think that I don't view TOOL as simply The Hegemony. But as I stated before, it is hard to address concerns that people may have when they are directed at an entity like "Karma" or "The Hegemony". And I also don't want to see everything negative that any alliance associated with Karma has done automatically associated with every other alliance in Karma.

My whole point has been is when anyone even remarks on a thread like this and expresses their dislike for Echelon's reps, we (as in TOOL) get told because of white peace, we shouldn't speak our opinion on this? Or even moreso Hegemony's (the alliances within it) perceived crimes get applied to TOOL as well when TOOL was never even in Q. The issue is if Karma (the alliances within it) want to ask others to take them separate groups then do the same favor for the "Hegemony" groups. It may not be you specifically but I've seen it happen a lot to me and others as well. We're (TOOL and others) are not supposed to participate in terms or get dismissed simply for being on the other side even if we ended up there because of treaties and not because we're a bloc either.

Hegemony and Karma will both end when the war is over. Many of us don't even have connections to the other side other than this war. Yet to generalize to apply stereotypes is something I see both sides do. If Karma wants us to take it as an individual bunch of alliances, then the other side should be afforded the same respect. That is my key issue. I can argue reps (Echelon's) and back, but because I see we're (TOOL) is often dismissed simply just for the side we fought on and our opinions aren't even worth arguing for that point?

That is my issue. Give the same respect that is asked from us.

Surrender/reps like Echelon's make us who are out of war concerned for those who still have allies in the war because it gives a direction of harsher terms being applied. If we're supposed to treat Karma like separate alliances, then why isn't Hegemony given the same favor?

[Bob Janova]

We're indebted to Karma for giving us peace terms? Because of that we shouldn't speak our stance on it?

It means that it is deeply ungrateful and short-sighted to claim that Karma is sinking to new depths, or just as bad as the hegemony or whatever, when if that was actually true you would be squealing from ZI now. That's all. You're welcome to speak your stance (despite certain people's attempts to claim the contrary, no-one is going to get attacked for thinking the wrong thing), but please make sure that your stance at least makes sense.

The TOOL posters on this page are much better

[Neo Uruk]

I think that giving terms is perfectly acceptable. But yes, screaming "KARMA BAD" means you aren't thankful for your lack of terms, for you would name specific parts of the Karma coalition.

[Diomede]

I am distressed that you are unwilling to speak with me as I feel that though it may be taking a bit of time, certainly Uralica and I are beginning to understand one another better and I hope the same is true of Salmia. I await her response. Part of why I doggedly insist on separating Karma alliances is that when it is all said and done, let's try to keep better track of who did what this time than we have in the past.

I am not unwilling, hence my initial (and first in the entire thread) post. I simply stated that I felt Mia covered what I may have said well enough.

It is late here and I am intent on getting ready for bed. If you wish to catch me on irc tomorrow to discuss this then you are more than welcome.

Edit: Oh wait. Not first in the thread. Certainly first since page 6 or so though.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Diomede

[Salmia]

It means that it is deeply ungrateful and short-sighted to claim that Karma is sinking to new depths, or just as bad as the hegemony or whatever, when if that was actually true you would be squealing from ZI now. That's all. You're welcome to speak your stance (despite certain people's attempts to claim the contrary, no-one is going to get attacked for thinking the wrong thing), but please make sure that your stance at least makes sense.

The TOOL posters on this page are much better

Here is the thing though, as you and others have stated, Karma is a coalition of different fronts. When I and others speak against the terms, we're speaking against others. Sparta, Brig and DT granted white peace, we're grateful for that. But white peace in one case and something else doesn't excuse it. We're going to speak up because we see our friends still in war and the way it is headed. Things change over time, maybe I'll be proved wrong.

When I and other talk about terms, we're talking about those who actually are involved in the terms, not all alliances are involved in every term and I understand that. But we're still going to speak up. As it has been said, Karma is a loose coalition of alliances, one gratefulness doesn't extend to everyone when it is different fronts under one name.

[Uralica]

I think that giving terms is perfectly acceptable.

Who doesn't? It's not the giving of terms that is ever a problem. Rather, in times of war (not just this war but many past wars as well on Planet Bob), it is what the terms happen to be that sometimes cause trouble, or bring applause.

([OOC]IRL, Versailles is probably the best example of draconian terms. Lausanne is a shining example of someone getting off lightly. Post WWII, best example of "doin' it right."[/OOC])

But yes, screaming "KARMA BAD" means you aren't thankful for your lack of terms, for you would name specific parts of the Karma coalition.

Which is why I don't scream "Karma Bad" in the first place. CCC's in Karma after all, even if they are a peripheral member at best. (Yes, I'm a CCC fanboy even though I'm no longer in the alliance )

[Gamemaster1]

I think that giving terms is perfectly acceptable. But yes, screaming "KARMA BAD" means you aren't thankful for your lack of terms, for you would name specific parts of the Karma coalition.

Oh, I like my lack of terms. Very nice of Sparta, DT, and the Brigade. But since Karma ISN'T the bloc, as you've repeatedly stated, I'm not going to let that thankfulness carry over into the rest of Karma.

EDIT: Mental note, work on grammar.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Gamemaster1

[Neo Uruk]

Who doesn't? It's not the giving of terms that is ever a problem. Rather, in times of war (not just this war but many past wars as well on Planet Bob), it is what the terms happen to be that sometimes cause trouble, or bring applause.

([OOC]IRL, Versailles is probably the best example of draconian terms. Lausanne is a shining example of someone getting off lightly. Post WWII, best example of "doin' it right."[/OOC])

Draconian is really more up to viewpoint as it implies "harsh," and everyone believes something deserves a different degree if punishment. These alliances and I happen to agree that Echelon's actions deserve this punishment. If the terms were originally offered when Echelon was at this point I would disagree, but the terms were not to be downscaled and were offered at a point when Echelon was sustaining members and hadn't bled out half their gov.

Which is why I don't scream "Karma Bad" in the first place. CCC's in Karma after all, even if they are a peripheral member at best. (Yes, I'm a CCC fanboy even though I'm no longer in the alliance )

I'm not sure, but I think Bob was responding to someone in TOOL that was screaming that.

[Uralica]

Draconian is really more up to viewpoint as it implies "harsh," and everyone believes something deserves a different degree if punishment. These alliances and I happen to agree that Echelon's actions deserve this punishment. If the terms were originally offered when Echelon was at this point I would disagree, but the terms were not to be downscaled and were offered at a point when Echelon was sustaining members and hadn't bled out half their gov.

Like I said, it wasn't just this war I was referring too. I'll agree to disagree RE: the terms given Echelon. But I will not deny that terms given by non-Karmic alliances in the past can be referred to as "draconian."

I'm not sure, but I think Bob was responding to someone in TOOL that was screaming that.

Oh probably. Everyone has moments of sloppy thought. Some more than others *cough*Jarkko*cough*

[Bob Janova]

Which is why I don't scream "Karma Bad" in the first place.

Then you're not what I was complaining about