Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Francesca

I have a dream.

Recommended Posts

Surrender terms. They’re on everyone’s minds at the moment. What shall we do about the vanquished Hegemony?

So far, we've seen the harshest terms in history handed out to the former Hegemony alliances. Echelon was the latest example of this, when they were told to pay extensive reps and Caffine was excluded from government, among other restrictions. NPO were offered terms designed to destroy their alliance, and they declined them. However, when Karma started out, they condemned harsh surrender terms. Why the discrepancy?

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

Firstly, I think that people are afraid of Pacifica's vengeance, should they be allowed to rebuild. As I see it, the problem with this is that cowardice is at the core of it, and not the morals which first characterised Karma. Come, my brothers! Is it not important to uphold our morals, even when there is a vague threat of attack many months ahead of us? Have courage, and roll those !@#$%^&* if they attempt to dispatch us in the future! But don't abandon your morals.

Secondly, I think that there are some people who want to totally destroy the Hegemony via terms, because they think that by doing this they will eradicate immoral practices from the face of Planet Bob. They see this as a singular act of immorality, that will not be repeated, that will prevent the Hegemony from exercising these practices ever again. What you fail to understand is that even if Pacifica are destroyed, these practices will not cease. They will simply be taken up by the next tyrannical dictator. The only way to prevent harsh terms and other abominable habits is to establish a precedent on a scale never-before-seen. I'm talking about giving reasonable terms to Pacifica and TPF, and perhaps rethinking Echelon's terms, here and now.

Imagine. The response on the CNF, the shockwaves that would be sent throughout our community. The first moral war on this scale that has been fought since before I started playing this game. The change that would take place in the way that we play, setting new standards to replace those that the Hegemony put in place. Don't let those standards remain. Above all, don't let Karma turn into the new Hegemony. Don't let the cycle continue.

"And you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope one day you'll join us..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is beautifally written and i 100% agree. Their turning again their own causes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you need like 5 announcements to say the same thing?

Please point me to my five announcements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please point me to my five announcements?

Hes talking about the others, But the reason for 5 announcements is Vox Populi, The Voice of the People.

EDIT: Voice not Voices :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The originality of this post astounds and amazes.

Yes, yes, Echelon's terms were harsh. But no matter how many [ooc]Nietzsche[/ooc] quotes you toss out, NPO's reps were not meant to destroy them and would not.

I think that more NPO nations still must be forced to face war (with a consequent significant reduction of reps) but a lesser portion than originally suggested. Basically, NPO and their adversaries need to get together in a little room and start whittling these numbers down a bit towards peace.

But everyone already knows that. Those in Karma who want NPO destroyed are few and far between. I, along with many others I believe, hope to see a reasonable peace reached soon. That will almost certainly involve some nations coming out of peace mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the sense that Karma is going to be the next Hegemony. Also NPO was already given white peace once when they were defeated in war, and came around and ruled it with an iron fist for the next two years, why don't you think they won't abuse it again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't get the sense that Karma is going to be the next Hegemony. Also NPO was already given white peace once when they were defeated in war, and came around and ruled it with an iron fist for the next two years, why don't you think they won't abuse it again?

Who said no terms? I said/meant Lighter Terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A beautiful dream you have Francesca, maybe sometime rather than later, it will be heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The originality of this post astounds and amazes.

My points were not directly addressed in the late Polar announcement, if that is what you were referring to. However, we did come to the same conclusion.

Yes, yes, Echelon's terms were harsh. But no matter how many Nietzsche quotes you toss out, NPO's reps were not meant to destroy them and would not.

What were NPO's reps intended to do then?

But everyone already knows that. Those in Karma who want NPO destroyed are few and far between. I, along with many others I believe, hope to see a reasonable peace reached soon. That will almost certainly involve some nations coming out of peace mode.

I would tend to disagree, because the evidence seems to indicate that. Extended, heavy warfare and harsh terms are about the worst you can do, while still retaining the illusion of decency.

I don't get the sense that Karma is going to be the next Hegemony.

The focus of this thread was not that Karma might become the Hegemony, in fact that was a side point.

Also NPO was already given white peace once when they were defeated in war, and came around and ruled it with an iron fist for the next two years, why don't you think they won't abuse it again?

As I said, we should not be afraid of them, but rather have balls and do what we think is right regardless. Then defend ourselves if they attack us in the future, which is not for certain (they could reform, much as Polar did.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who said no terms? I said/meant Lighter Terms.

Terms currently offered are about on the right level for what NPO has done over the past 2 years. It's NPOs arrogance and double standards that have meant they've rejected them, and going to the OWF now puts the alliances they're at war with in the posistion of not wanting to look 'weak' against the minority but incredibly loud and annoying public opinion that the terms are harsh. All in all, NPO are reaping what they sew, and when they had the chance to get out of it, they blew it. Frankly if NPO never get peace it's THEIR fault, not anybodyelses, negotions aren't 'lets keep going until you're happy with it' in a war. They're 'These are our terms, wanna change something, we'll discuss it, if you dont wanna take them, enjoy your war'

Jesus christ you people annoy me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said, we should not be afraid of them, but rather have balls and do what we think is right regardless. Then defend ourselves if they attack us in the future, which is not for certain (they could reform, much as Polar did.)

Because that whole moral high ground bit worked out so very wonderfully for the League, AEGIS, et cetera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because that whole moral high ground bit worked out so very wonderfully for the League, AEGIS, et cetera.

I've never suggested giving NPO or TPF white peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terms currently offered are about on the right level for what NPO has done over the past 2 years. It's NPOs arrogance and double standards that have meant they've rejected them, and going to the OWF now puts the alliances they're at war with in the posistion of not wanting to look 'weak' against the minority but incredibly loud and annoying public opinion that the terms are harsh. All in all, NPO are reaping what they sew, and when they had the chance to get out of it, they blew it. Frankly if NPO never get peace it's THEIR fault, not anybodyelses, negotions aren't 'lets keep going until you're happy with it' in a war. They're 'These are our terms, wanna change something, we'll discuss it, if you dont wanna take them, enjoy your war'

Jesus christ you people annoy me.

Please, If you find it that annoying. Dont read the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said, we should not be afraid of them, but rather have balls and do what we think is right regardless. Then defend ourselves if they attack us in the future, which is not for certain (they could reform, much as Polar did.)

Just out of curiosity, when did you become the arbiter of 'right' and 'wrong?' I must have missed that meeting.

Maybe the folks that are, in your words, imposing harsh terms believe THEY are right. Now, I think it's clear from my posts in many of these surrender topics what I think of harsh terms in general, however, that doesn't make me any more 'right' than the next person who thinks that certain terms are necessary to protect their alliance from reprisals from the vanquished. I may not agree with a lot of the terms proposed, however, it doesn't make me 'right' and them 'wrong.'

It merely makes us have differing views on the best way to accomplish certain objectives pertaining to our nations and our alliances.

VI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of curiosity, when did you become the arbiter of 'right' and 'wrong?' I must have missed that meeting.

Maybe the folks that are, in your words, imposing harsh terms believe THEY are right. Now, I think it's clear from my posts in many of these surrender topics what I think of harsh terms in general, however, that doesn't make me any more 'right' than the next person who thinks that certain terms are necessary to protect their alliance from reprisals from the vanquished. I may not agree with a lot of the terms proposed, however, it doesn't make me 'right' and them 'wrong.'

It merely makes us have differing views on the best way to accomplish certain objectives pertaining to our nations and our alliances.

VI

She didnt say it was right or wrong, You bolded a very important word in their "What we THINK is right, Regardless."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've never suggested giving NPO or TPF white peace.

I was referring more to the fact that the various anti-NPO groups have always usually sought to play nice in the past, and coincedentally, have always been beaten to a bloody pulp for it.

Edit: Changed one word. Can you guess which one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of curiosity, when did you become the arbiter of 'right' and 'wrong?' I must have missed that meeting.

Well, I didn't. That is why I said it is important for us to do what we "think" is right. And I said we, because I share the values that Karma held at the beginning of this war, the values that defined Karma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was referring more to the fact that the various anti-NPO groups have always sought to play nice in the past, and coincedentally, have always been beaten to a bloody pulp for it.

Well if someone was out to destroy you and then leave you be, Are you going to be happy about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't get the sense that Karma is going to be the next Hegemony. Also NPO was already given white peace once when they were defeated in war, and came around and ruled it with an iron fist for the next two years, why don't you think they won't abuse it again?

If my analysis of the pre-GWII era is wrong, correct me, as I wasn't there. But as I understand it, it wasn't a simple case of "NPO came back for revenge, no one else wanted war or anything." There were two groups (the Orders and the core of the CoaLUEtion) who despised each other and would have loved to take another shot at each other. Both sides gathered new allies around themselves, both seeing another Great War as inevitable and wanted to be prepared. In December 2006, you could have cut the tension with a knife... The two sides had formed, and were waiting for the other to slip up. Finally the !@#$ hit the fan over Fark (though that was the CB, not the cause of the war... See OV, Hyperion, BoTS). I always understood it as both sides wanting to kill each other but dancing around it for a while. But lately that's been changed to "NPO came back for revenge, no one else wanted war or anything."

But it's a moot point... Let's be honest, NPO ain't going to be political gold for a very long time, if ever. I doubt they'll get new allies, nor keep many old ones. They're the lepers of CN at this point... Nobody wants to touch them with a ten foot pole. Also note that post-GWI, the game was still expanding, so NPO was able to ally with several large new alliances. That's not really an option this time. When was the last time we had a good sized invasion alliance?

As to Fran's OP, I think she's on to something. Several things, really. Primarily, that harsh terms will just make people want to come back for revenge. I sure can't fault C&G for coming back for more after WotC. Who could? But you won't see TOOL coming back for revenge against Sparta, nor GGA coming back for revenge against Athens, nor Valhalla coming back for revenge against RIA and co, nor... Well, you get the idea. They've got no reason to, because they were treated with honor in defeat. It's a good strategy. All moral arguments aside, crippling terms are a sure-fire way to get your foe to come back for revenge, not to stop them from doing so. Just ask the Hegemony.

-Bama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was referring more to the fact that the various anti-NPO groups have always usually sought to play nice in the past, and coincedentally, have always been beaten to a bloody pulp for it.

Edit: Changed one word. Can you guess which one?

So don't give them white peace. Give them terms, but don't give them terms like the ones presented by Moo in that thread a while back.

Also, even if we do get rolled, that doesn't make the morality of our actions any less admirable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surrender terms. They’re on everyone’s minds at the moment. What shall we do about the vanquished Hegemony?

So far, we've seen the harshest terms in history handed out to the former Hegemony alliances. Echelon was the latest example of this, when they were told to pay extensive reps and Caffine was excluded from government, among other restrictions. NPO were offered terms designed to destroy their alliance, and they declined them. However, when Karma started out, they condemned harsh surrender terms. Why the discrepancy?

Please can you show me an alliance, other than Echelon, that got terms that were among the harshest in CN history during this war, bear in mind some alliances have had to pay 7/8ths of their total tech out in reps, and some have had viceories for over a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if someone was out to destroy you and then leave you be, Are you going to be happy about it?

First of all, the way you've worded your question makes it a little difficult for me to understand. If you're saying what I think you're saying, however, the answer is...!

Irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×