Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[Doitzel]

There you go lumping everyone together again. And here I was only pointing at possible trains of thoughts or reasonings that some might have used or be using...

Everyone lumped themselves together when they started claiming a common cause and using a common name, formalities be damned. You can cry that you're "not a bloc" 'til the cows come home but you're still an entity of at least loosely affiliated alliances with central organisation. This crap where you think you can make the good statements together but absolve your own alliances from responsibility for the distasteful ones by saying you had nothing to do with it is a cop-out.

The train of thought that you were pointing out is nonsense and has been argued in circles ceaselessly for months now.

[Micheal Malone]

Everyone lumped themselves together when they started claiming a common cause and using a common name, formalities be damned. You can cry that you're "not a bloc" 'til the cows come home but you're still an entity of at least loosely affiliated alliances with central organisation. This crap where you think you can make the good statements together but absolve your own alliances from responsibility for the distasteful ones by saying you had nothing to do with it is a cop-out.

The train of thought that you were pointing out is nonsense and has been argued in circles ceaselessly for months now.

So for alliances that were out after the first round of wars, before the war got "bad"... they're to blame as well? Think carefully before you reply.

[mdnss69]

Polaris, my respect for you has just multiplied 100 fold.

[enderland]

Everyone lumped themselves together when they started claiming a common cause and using a common name, formalities be damned. You can cry that you're "not a bloc" 'til the cows come home but you're still an entity of at least loosely affiliated alliances with central organisation. This crap where you think you can make the good statements together but absolve your own alliances from responsibility for the distasteful ones by saying you had nothing to do with it is a cop-out.

The train of thought that you were pointing out is nonsense and has been argued in circles ceaselessly for months now.

When was the last Karma announcement?

[Starcraftmazter]

This argument really isn't valid; you are basically saying "We did the right thing MOST of the time." Why should we be happy that you you let most alliances go while only really trashing two of them. Obviously those of us who find harsh terms, more specifically terms that are impossible to reasonably pay off are going to find it acceptable whenever they are employed regardless of what the track record has been up to this point. Hence why NpO is complaining about this, they don't find the tactic just or acceptable.

The problem with your argument, is that you assume there is a "one size fits all" solution, which isn't really true. We didn't get it right most of the time - we got it right all of the time, and different terms apply to different alliances, based on many different things.

Grub was fairly clear he didn't condone any of that and that he would never try to defend or justify what pacifica did; his point is even after all of what they did do; he still things what is being done now is an insult to what the war originally was suppose to set out to do. He was fairly consistent in the OP, perhaps I missed it but I don't see where you justify labeling him a hypocrite. Unless Polaris is doing exactly what karma is doing now and we don't know about it then he can't really be a hypocrite can he?

To me the hypocrisy stems from having one set of ideas and allying with people who have a contrasting set of ideals. If you really don't like those contrasting ideals - why ally with such people yet rant about other people with similar ideals over here? This may sound a bit too abstract, but it is my impression. The other thing I'd like to make clear, is that the ideals are a perception of the OP, and I do not necessarily agree with Grub's image of those in Karma against whom he is speaking out.

[Glen MoP]

The OP was definitely an unexpected read for me. It also shows an interesting potential future for Pacifica (the new NpO model) assuming this war of annihilation ever comes to an end.

[iamthey]

While I may not hold such prose as you, to write a wall-of-text saying what people have been saying from the beginning, I will say one thing. To lump the entire Karma side into such a stereotypical view is narrow-sighted at best, and cynical at the least. There are many alliances at the beginning, and many now that agree that some terms are quite harsh, and there are many who will say otherwise.

There are more or less two karma's, one wishes to change the community and bring about better and newer standards; do away with policies such as harsh reps, EZI, PZI, viceroys, any anything else in the long line of [occ]unsportsman[/ooc] like tools used by Alliances in the past; and another which is simply a congolomerate of angry people who simply want to get back at NPO to fulfill their own selfish vengeance driven desires. The alliances at war with NPO now have demonstrated that they are among the latter. If you need any further evidence of this you need only ask them about their reparations demands; their response is "NPO deserves it"; to them this war has absolutely nothing to do with changing this place for the better, its just about petty retribution.

When he describes what is happening he is referring to the latter and implying that through his references to their motives.

[Tygaland]

When was the last Karma announcement?

Some people would say when the last nation claiming membership of a Karma-affiliated alliance posted.

People are going to believe and say whatever they like and in reality it is the stage of the conflict where people are trying to raise themselves to sainthood by clamberring over the bodies of people they call friends and allies. Much like seagulls fighting over a single chip, I find it most amusing to sit back and watch the show.

[Griff]

I would go farther than this. I don't think it's a coincidence that NPO members have been referring to the possibility of a Karma civil war for the past week. And then, just a few days ago, we have NSO members sending out recruitment letters to neutral alliances. Do we perhaps have a few NPO sympathizers within the NSO, who were trying to drum up a convenient civil war on the NPO's behalf? And no sooner does it become clear that a civil war is not going to happen, then we have AlmightyGrub no less, entering the PR battle on the NPO's behalf. Is he truly acting on his own initiative, or could it be that even within the NpO there are still NPO sympathizers?

LOL

Yeah, I guess our puppet strings are a little obvious...

[Micheal Malone]

There are more or less two karma's, one wishes to change the community and bring about better and newer standards; do away with policies such as harsh reps, EZI, PZI, viceroys, any anything else in the long line of [occ]unsportsman[/ooc] like tools used by Alliances in the past; and another which is simply a congolomerate of angry people who simply want to get back at NPO to fulfill their own selfish vengeance driven desires. The alliances at war with NPO now have demonstrated that they are among the latter. If you need any further evidence of this you need only ask them about their reparations demands; their response is "NPO deserves it"; to them this war has absolutely nothing to do with changing this place for the better, its just about petty retribution.

When he describes what is happening he is referring to the latter and implying that through his references to their motives.

I will note refute the above facts. I merely refuted the fact that he lumped Karma together under the same banner, and after being called upon it continued to do so. I will agree with you there was more than one camp in Karma.. there were more than two honestly. Those who wanted to change the above, those who wanted revenge, and then those who just wanted something other than collect, pay bills, read OWF, look another DoE! Oh wait two weeks later a "sorry, DoE invalid this didn't work".

It's obvious people wanted change, multiple types of change. Unfortunately the good is getting lumped into the bad, and some rather good alliances are now being smeared upon.

[delendum]

As well written as this was, I find it distasteful. Not because it brings criticism, but because it's based on idealized perceptions with hardly any basis in reality. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and tell the world how you would want things to happen, it's another thing to have your alliance on the line.

The Karma rhetoric so often criticized is looking towards the future. This war is not meant to be an example of standards, it's meant to depose of a power structure so that the future will not resemble the past. Complain all you want, call people hypocrites until your eyes bleed, in order to bring change, you must make sure the old power structure can not and will not rise again to their former glory.

This wasn't NpO's fight, and I agree that it shouldn't have been. But do not presume to have a moral high ground from your little uninvolved corner of the world. It's not you who are still fighting, and it's not you who they will come after if they ever will be in a position to do so.

You want fair terms? You want the bullying to end once and for all? Then stop complaining when we're making sure the bullies are gone.

edit: some spelling

Edited July 6, 2009 by delendum

[iamthey]

I would go farther than this. I don't think it's a coincidence that NPO members have been referring to the possibility of a Karma civil war for the past week. And then, just a few days ago, we have NSO members sending out recruitment letters to neutral alliances. Do we perhaps have a few NPO sympathizers within the NSO, who were trying to drum up a convenient civil war on the NPO's behalf? And no sooner does it become clear that a civil war is not going to happen, then we have AlmightyGrub no less, entering the PR battle on the NPO's behalf. Is he truly acting on his own initiative, or could it be that even within the NpO there are still NPO sympathizers?

Sorry to disappoint but in the real cybernations political world thats not how it works. There is no plot or conspiracy this "civil war" theory has been on many people's minds since the beginning of the war. Site the very divergent views of the different camps as michael pointed out, or the very different war practices as demonstrated, site citadel's handling of the post war vs Ragnarok and SF. The NPO doesn't have to be running a propaganda campaign for people to be talking about it.

Edited July 6, 2009 by iamthey

[magicninja]

Meh, if you've read any of my posts in the last 6 months you know I'm obviously against everything in the op.

[Griff]

You want fair terms? You want the bullying to end once and for all? Then stop complaining when we're making sure the bullies are gone.

edit: some spelling

Did Echelon get fair terms?

[Tygaland]

Did Echelon get fair terms?

I think you misunderstood what he was referring to.

I believe he was talking along the lines of this war being one to removed the "bullies" from power and ensure they do not return to power in order to facilitate the development of a new era in the Cyberverse. Whereas you are intepreting it as this war being the beginning of that new era.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Tygaland

[Melchior]

It really wouldn't be Karma if we didn't treat the NPO as they have treated others, now would it?

[iamthey]

As well written as this was, I find it distasteful. Not because it brings criticism, but because it's based on idealized perceptions with hardly any basis in reality. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and tell the world how you would want things to happen, it's another thing to have your alliance on the line.

The Karma rhetoric so often criticized is looking towards the future. This war is not meant to be an example of standards, it's meant to depose of a power structure so that the future will not resemble the past. Complain all you want, call people hypocrites until your eyes bleed, in order to bring change, you must make sure the old power structure can not and will not rise again to their former glory.

This wasn't NpO's fight, and I agree that it shouldn't have been. But do not presume to have a moral high ground from your little uninvolved corner of the world. It's not you who are still fighting, and it's not you who they will come after if they ever will be in a position to do so.

You want fair terms? You want the bullying to end once and for all? Then stop complaining when we're making sure the bullies are gone.

edit: some spelling

If its just about the powerstructure why not just remove the crippling clauses (dividing clause)/(peace mode clause) crank up the reps a little more and put a ban on FA for an X period of time. Then its payable, and the old powerstructure is fractured as NPO's old allies find new allies and new webs to join without just going back to the same old structure. Obviously it isn't just about the pragmatic considerations that you pointed out or that would be the chosen path as its easy to enforce and acceptable. Its about revenge and humiliating pacificia by forcing them accept what you are offering them. Nothing more.

[hizzy]

The gem in my sig is even better. I'm sure it was an accident that you offered the protection of Citadel, Superfriends and CnG to Tempest in exchange for them giving you a ridiculous cb on Valhalla.

The irony. It's kicking me in the nuts and bringing me to tears.

Seriously, if this doesn't scream "karma" and completely reinforces the name, then I just might be Polar really too stupid to read.

[avernite]

You want fair terms? You want the bullying to end once and for all? Then stop complaining when we're making sure the bullies are gone.

Very few people really are bullies, and most of those who could be classified as such managed to piss off the powerstructure (see NoWedge).

NPO is not an alliance of bullies. NPO is an alliance with a culture and a level of power that lent themselves to bullying (or threat removal). The level of power is already gone, the only question is if the culture changed. Maybe, maybe not. The bigger question is what changes will be caused to the culture of their opponents by obliterating them. And, frankly, I think those changes will indeed be for the worse.

Plus, if NPO's opponents all scream about 'remove the threat!' then what will NPO scream when they hold the upper hand? The same mantra they used for the last 2 years, 'remove the threat!'. I doubt this war will have changed anything, but if ever there was a chance, it is gone up in the smoke of 'removing the NPO threat'. Besides, it hardly works anyway, as seen by the rise of MK after the WotC.

[iamthey]

It really wouldn't be Karma if we didn't treat the NPO as they have treated others, now would it?

*sigh*; that argument is totally without substance. Who cares what the word "karma" means; its a label. Obviously the world "hegemony" isn't appropriate yet it still serves its purpose. Dodging arguments about having standards... or lack there of; by alluding to a definition doesn't remove the argument, or invalidate it.

[delendum]

Did Echelon get fair terms?

Please re-read my post in its entirety. Yes, Echelon got very harsh terms, but they were absolutely necessary. I will say it again, if you want harsh terms to be a thing of the past, you must make sure those who used to impose them aren't able to rise back to their position of power. You can't expect change without getting your hands dirty, at least a little bit.

[Alterego]

You want fair terms? You want the bullying to end once and for all? Then stop complaining when we're making sure the bullies are gone.

You (karma bloc) are the bullies today. Getting reps when not even in the war is pathetic and sets a great precedent that will return to haunt your alliance.

Please re-read my post in its entirety. Yes, Echelon got very harsh terms, but they were absolutely necessary. I will say it again, if you want harsh terms to be a thing of the past, you must make sure those who used to impose them aren't able to rise back to their position of power. You can't expect change without getting your hands dirty, at least a little bit.

These terms guaranteed their continuation.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Alterego

[iamthey]

Plus, if NPO's opponents all scream about 'remove the threat!' then what will NPO scream when they hold the upper hand? The same mantra they used for the last 2 years, 'remove the threat!'. I doubt this war will have changed anything, but if ever there was a chance, it is gone up in the smoke of 'removing the NPO threat'. Besides, it hardly works anyway, as seen by the rise of MK after the WotC.

Good point. Its not like NPO is going to be the last threat that ever exists. If its ok to remove this threat by any means necessary then why not the next threat; obviously by removing this "pacifican threat" the forces acting will have demonstrated their capacity to inflict harm and once either pacifica recovers or another force moves against them, or them against it the only logical decision is to eliminate the threat by doing exactly as it did. Not ending these practices here just perpetuates them.

[delendum]

If its just about the powerstructure why not just remove the crippling clauses (dividing clause)/(peace mode clause) crank up the reps a little more and put a ban on FA for an X period of time. Then its payable, and the old powerstructure is fractured as NPO's old allies find new allies and new webs to join without just going back to the same old structure. Obviously it isn't just about the pragmatic considerations that you pointed out or that would be the chosen path as its easy to enforce and acceptable. Its about revenge and humiliating pacificia by forcing them accept what you are offering them. Nothing more.

No, it's not for revenge or humiliation, that's the most over used piece of counter-propaganda out there. That you see different ways to keep somebody from rising again is another story, but contrary to popular belief these terms are not meant to "return the favor". They are what is needed so that the power structure is unable to rise again. I don't care if we don't look like immaculate angels because of them, what I do care is making sure this war wasn't fought in vain.

I do expect the NPO to come out of this in a humble way. If that's what you consider humiliating, then I'm guilty, but I will not stand to see the former tyrants walk out of this with a grin on their face, thinking they have fooled us.

Very few people really are bullies, and most of those who could be classified as such managed to piss off the powerstructure (see NoWedge).

NPO is not an alliance of bullies. NPO is an alliance with a culture and a level of power that lent themselves to bullying (or threat removal). The level of power is already gone, the only question is if the culture changed. Maybe, maybe not. The bigger question is what changes will be caused to the culture of their opponents by obliterating them. And, frankly, I think those changes will indeed be for the worse.

Plus, if NPO's opponents all scream about 'remove the threat!' then what will NPO scream when they hold the upper hand? The same mantra they used for the last 2 years, 'remove the threat!'. I doubt this war will have changed anything, but if ever there was a chance, it is gone up in the smoke of 'removing the NPO threat'. Besides, it hardly works anyway, as seen by the rise of MK after the WotC.

The point is for the NPO never to hold the upper hand again. Either we will succeed or fail that will remain to be seen, but damn right we'll try our best to make it happen.

The NPO had made an enemy out of MK for absolutely no valid reason. We were stomped, we weren't the opposition. We were singled out and crushed. Our rise was only possible due to the sheer number of alliances wronged by the NPO. Was our resolve underestimated? Probably. But we were not revenge seekers, we simply became part of a global tide.

[delendum]

You (karma bloc) are the bullies today. Getting reps when not even in the war is pathetic and sets a great precedent that will return to haunt your alliance.

These terms guaranteed their continuation.

Who exactly are we bullying? Do you even know how this war started? It was because of the hegemony's bullying.

A precedent to what? Harsh terms? History is clearly not a friend of yours.

However, I will state that as far as my alliance is concerned, we have nothing to be haunted by. I am proud of MK's actions, both of the past and present. I have no regrets. If our time to fall will come again, then fall we will. But do not think for a second that we will do so in regret.