Jump to content

I have a dream.


Francesca

Recommended Posts

NPO can be used as a tool to end the cycle of harsh terms, but not by dealing them what why are trying to prevent.

The cycle has already been prevented. The vast majority of peripheral alliances were granted fair and extremely reasonable terms. In the past, as I'm sure you remember, all alliances on the losing side were harshly punished. The change has already happened, whether you wish to see it or not. Letting the oldest enemy of just terms and free speech get off easily is neither morally superior nor tactically sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 601
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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..."

The cycle needs to be broken. However, you haven't considered a few things in-depth, for instance, what is Karma and why are some confused by it? I have posted this once or twice, but i'll do it again.

The problem with Karma is the idea of harsh terms to be fully exterminated will never occur so long as they refuse to end the cycle now, however "harsh terms" is subjective which I will later elaborate. They want revenge, they feel NPO has desecrated this game and forced individuals from the game, as well as being key contributors to annihilating their respective former alliances. However, these terms will NOT help exterminate harsh terms because NPO will predominantly want revenge for this war, no enemy will simply forgive its oppressor and this is simply how humans tend to work in most cases, fueled by revenge - a harmful action against a person or group as a response to a real or perceived wrongdoing.

But what is "Harsh terms"? There is a variety of different views pertaining to this subject, some view reparations as justifiable, but rather viceroys, disbandments, and tech farms are their key assertions to 'unethical terms'. Then you have the sub faction of supporters, believing in white peace, believing ultimately this is a game and by causing an alliance to pay such reparations, it stagnates the game further as they need to pay their debt before they can fully concentrate on themselves and begin rebuilding. But, you have all of these views under the same labeled title, though there is more disunity than unity amongst who believes what exactly.

What is unethical terms/reparations and what isn't? Ultimately, it comes down to the culture of the alliance you're within, and as we both know, cultures tend to believe in a variety of different norms and mores. The people who fought under Hitler were considered evil just as much as those fighting for the Jews were considered evil, it matters of perspective, but it also comes down to sociological norms which are established rules of behavior or standards of conduct, sociological folkways which are informal norms or everyday customs that may be violated without serious consequences within a particular culture, sociological mores which are a culture's strongly held norms with moral and ethical connotations that may not be violated without serious consequences, and sociological taboos which are mores so strong their violation is unmentionable and result in serious consequences. Hence, harsh terms are subjective and though Karma has the same principle in attempts to eliminate harsh terms, they do not have the same belief in what is and what isn't harsh all together, because one cultures taboo may be anothers' more, or one cultures more could possibly be a folkway if you understand where I am trying to go with this.

I see Karma's formation as exactly that: Deserving what they believe NPO gave, thus their initial intentions have not been abandoned as you suggest, because Karma is a title with a variety of beliefs unfortunately, thus adding extreme confusion as mentioned above. However, by allowing some of your allies and biggest supporters while not allowing the NPO off easily, I can see where some arguments arise from this, but ultimately every alliance has different experiences and different grudges, I feel they are strategically playing, but that is exactly what the NPO does as [Vladamir] stated a few months back in a previous discussion. I see nearly all alliances wishing to exterminate harsh terms, but I believe those after the NPO will do this after what NPO 'gets what you deserve after years of aggressiveness and oppression", hence the Karma name. I believe after NPO, these alliances will not offer such harsh terms to alliances, this is more so of 'giving you what you gave them' - Karma.

If you read it carefully, you'll understand. Sometimes an alliance needs to feel what it has given in order to learn its lesson. I have been a supporter of lenient terms for NPOs allies, but ultimately many have a stick to burn with the NPO and though I do not hate them, I certainly understand why others do.

Edited by Ejayrazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's the height of hubris to think that any of you are going to bring Pacifica "to justice" or "teach them a lesson". If you impose draconian surrender terms on them, they'll be coming for you. You might be safe for six months, a year, a year and a half. They'll get to you eventually. Show them the mercy they didn't show others and perhaps they'll not feel so compelled to take your alliance and all its friends apart piece by piece.

Maybe they will and maybe they won't, but I'm fairly sure by the stance of those attacking them that the NPO has probably shown very little to make those attackers feel that way Otherwise, I doubt those attackers wouldn't really be found of keeping their alliance in a perpetual war.

Both sides could use some very frank discussions between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you even heard of GWI and II/The Great Patriotic War?

Have you? What ridiculousness it is to compare then to now. Then, when we came out of the war still the second strongest alliance in the world, easily back to strongest within a matter of weeks. Then, when the opposing alliances were about as internally organised as a jar of jelly beans, and as diplomatically organised as a herd of cats. Then, when the great multitude of invading alliances -- GOONS, FAN, and many others -- made redeveloping diplomatic relations relatively simple. Then, when the relatively undeveloped nature of the world's nations -- the strongest earning well under £1 million in taxes -- and the financial incompetence of other alliances made reclaiming the top ranks (which we never fully accomplished) a basic matter of efficient banking.

There is a rather significant difference between losing a couple hundred thousand in strength and losing 18 million in strength, just as there is a rather significant difference between the economic and diplomatic situations of then and now. You are attempting to turn very specific and very unique conditions of development into a law of development, so that suddenly from our estimates of years to rebuild just to become a top-tier alliance again, you would have us taking on and destroying with ease thousands of nations, tens of thousands of nukes, and hundreds of millions of strength in a couple of month's time.

As much as I would like to claim it, we are but men, not magicians. And that's before we even get started on the misconceptions about the run up to the Second Great War.

Edited by Vladimir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cycle needs to be broken. However, you haven't considered a few things in-depth, for instance, what is Karma and why are some confused by it? I have posted this once or twice, but i'll do it again.

The problem with Karma is the idea of harsh terms to be fully exterminated will never occur so long as they refuse to end the cycle now, however "harsh terms" is subjective which I will later elaborate. They want revenge, they feel NPO has desecrated this game and forced individuals from the game, as well as being key contributors to annihilating their respective former alliances. However, these terms will NOT help exterminate harsh terms because NPO will predominantly want revenge for this war, no enemy will simply forgive its oppressor and this is simply how humans tend to work in most cases, fueled by revenge - a harmful action against a person or group as a response to a real or perceived wrongdoing.

But what is "Harsh terms"? There is a variety of different views pertaining to this subject, some view reparations as justifiable, but rather viceroys, disbandments, and tech farms are their key assertions to 'unethical terms'. Then you have the sub faction of supporters, believing in white peace, believing ultimately this is a game and by causing an alliance to pay such reparations, it stagnates the game further as they need to pay their debt before they can fully concentrate on themselves and begin rebuilding. But, you have all of these views under the same labeled title, though there is more disunity than unity amongst who believes what exactly.

What is unethical terms/reparations and what isn't? Ultimately, it comes down to the culture of the alliance you're within, and as we both know, cultures tend to believe in a variety of different norms and mores. The people who fought under Hitler were considered evil just as much as those fighting for the Jews were considered evil, it matters of perspective, but it also comes down to sociological norms which are established rules of behavior or standards of conduct, sociological folkways which are informal norms or everyday customs that may be violated without serious consequences within a particular culture, sociological mores which are a culture's strongly held norms with moral and ethical connotations that may not be violated without serious consequences, and sociological taboos which are mores so strong their violation is unmentionable and result in serious consequences. Hence, harsh terms are subjective and though Karma has the same principle in attempts to eliminate harsh terms, they do not have the same belief in what is and what isn't harsh all together, because one cultures taboo may be anothers' more, or one cultures more could possibly be a folkway if you understand where I am trying to go with this.

I see Karma's formation as exactly that: Deserving what they believe NPO gave, thus their initial intentions have not been abandoned as you suggest, because Karma is a title with a variety of beliefs unfortunately, thus adding extreme confusion as mentioned above. However, by allowing some of your allies and biggest supporters while not allowing the NPO off easily, I can see where some arguments arise from this, but ultimately every alliance has different experiences and different grudges, I feel they are strategically playing, but that is exactly what the NPO does as [Vladamir] stated a few months back in a previous discussion. I see nearly all alliances wishing to exterminate harsh terms, but I believe those after the NPO will do this after what NPO 'gets what you deserve after years of aggressiveness and oppression", hence the Karma name. I believe after NPO, these alliances will not offer such harsh terms to alliances, this is more so of 'giving you what you gave them' - Karma.

If you read it carefully, you'll understand. Sometimes an alliance needs to feel what it has given in order to learn its lesson. I have been a supporter of lenient terms for NPOs allies, but ultimately many have a stick to burn with the NPO and though I do not hate them, I certainly understand why others do.

Thank you for a post with a lot of thought and depth to it.

However, I must respectfully disagree. We all know the propaganda that can be circulated to make an alliance or its actions be perceived in a more positive way. If we establish now that terms that are intended to destroy or vastly inhibit an alliance almost to the point of annihiliation are wrong whatever the circumstances, that will provide no loophole in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I would never wish it so, therefore I did not include that line. Look what happened to WUT, anyway. Planet Bob would be boring without different political perspectives, which is yet another argument for allowing NPO to live, incidentally.

i would imagine that after the end of this conflict, whatever the outcome may be, Planet Bob will be much more interesting. Only 6 months ago, there were 2 political views... NPO's view, and anyone who didn't agree with said view. Taking away NPO's dough-roller (previously used to flatten anyone with an opposing view), will open the political playing field and allow for some very good competition.

@ Electron Sponge

I'm pretty sure everyone involved with this conflict is etched in one of their many databases for "future use," regardless if the powers at be decide to take the higher road.

At this point,

I'd welcome an end to this conflict to simply reduce the amount of discussion around it. Reading the same conversations in different threads is growing tiresome. Can't we find something else to talk about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you? What ridiculousness it is to compare then to now. Then, when we came out of the war still the second strongest alliance in the world, easily back to strongest within a matter of weeks. Then, when the opposing alliances were about as internally organised as a jar of jelly beans, and as diplomatically organised as a herd of cats. Then, when the great multitude of invading alliances -- GOONS, FAN, and many others -- made redeveloping international relations relatively simple. Then, when the relatively undeveloped nature of the world's nations -- the strongest earning well under £1 million in taxes -- and the financial incompetence of other alliances made reclaiming the top ranks (which we never fully accomplished) a basic matter of efficient banking.

This is a pretty accurate picture of what the world was like. We didn't have to struggle to find allies - the allies were flooding in every day. NPO coming out of this war will be nearly entirely friendless and rightfully so. They're not going to be a threat to anyone for a long, long time if ever. Worrying about them giving harsh surrender terms out is like worrying about being attacked by a dinosaur. The window of opportunity is likely closed permanently.

We'll always have their meddling diplomatic/espionage types to deal with and that's how they'll go about destroying you. I foresee a return to the ancient Pacifican way of doing things and I don't believe any of you are adequately prepared to handle it. Continue down this path of vengeance and I won't be prepared to help you when that time comes.

@ Electron Sponge

I'm pretty sure everyone involved with this conflict is etched in one of their many databases for "future use," regardless if the powers at be decide to take the higher road.

Like any decent list there will be a prioritization. Some will get crossed off along the way to simplify.

At this point,

I'd welcome an end to this conflict to simply reduce the amount of discussion around it. Reading the same conversations in different threads is growing tiresome. Can't we find something else to talk about?

[ooc]If you don't like the thread, don't read it. Better yet, start your own thread about what you want to talk about! Barring that, quit your whining. ;)[/ooc]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for a post with a lot of thought and depth to it.

However, I must respectfully disagree. We all know the propaganda that can be circulated to make an alliance or its actions be perceived in a more positive way. If we establish now that terms that are intended to destroy or vastly inhibit an alliance almost to the point of annihiliation are wrong whatever the circumstances, that will provide no loophole in the future.

If I see a serial killer walking in the streets and put a gun to his head and embarrass him in public, making someone who doesn't like to appear being humiliated incredibly powerless ...will he try to find me? Or will he let this moment pass? Though he has killed others for doing the same?

I'd pull the trigger and not take the chance.

This is all covered in what is and what isn't 'harsh'.

Edited by Ejayrazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a rather significant difference between losing a couple hundred thousand in strength and losing 18 million in strength, just as there is a rather significant difference between the economic and diplomatic situations of then and now. You are attempting to turn very specific and very unique conditions of development into a law of development, so that suddenly from our estimates of years to rebuild just to become a top-tier alliance again, you would have us taking on and destroying with ease thousands of nations, tens of thousands of nukes, and hundreds of millions of strength in a couple of month's time.

Oh please, you don't need to do that. You're counting on them destroying each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what is "Harsh terms"? There is a variety of different views pertaining to this subject, some view reparations as justifiable, but rather viceroys, disbandments, and tech farms are their key assertions to 'unethical terms'. Then you have the sub faction of supporters, believing in white peace, believing ultimately this is a game and by causing an alliance to pay such reparations, it stagnates the game further as they need to pay their debt before they can fully concentrate on themselves and begin rebuilding. But, you have all of these views under the same labeled title, though there is more disunity than unity amongst who believes what exactly.

If in doubt, lets get into arguments about the definitions of words. An excellent idea.

This discussion about 'cycles' is relevant. Karma has set a few precedents with the Echelon and NPO terms. Rolling, admittedly, abhorrent terms together in a combination which makes them particularly unpleasant. And the worst thing is, they are mainly doing this on 'behalf' of other people based upon past actions which they claim to take a dim view of.

If this continues, when a karma alliance is defeated in the future, by a non combatant of this war, they could theoretically receive similar terms, on the basis that "you did this to Echelon / NPO".

The point being they started this firmly with the moral high ground and spoke of justice, harsh, but fair terms says, a lot you could of kept this ground the NPO and others would humbly have to apologise, grovel and be shamed and shown up by karma's mercy. But now i, like others in my situation are the victims. How much of these huge 'reps' did i get in the past? I think it totals 100 tech. In total. Over three years. Those in peace are banks, banks rarely get to use slots for incoming aid, it goes out, not in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ooc]If you don't like the thread, don't read it. Better yet, start your own thread about what you want to talk about! Barring that, quit your whining. ;)[/ooc]

you've got a point there... it's not that I don't LIKE the thread, I've just observed that everyone's opinions seem to be set, the same arguments are brought up either for or against the terms. No one seems willing to listen to either side, and there is a lot of "you're wrong" "NO U" discussion taking place. When the thread reaches 30+ pages, a new one is started.

/me concludes his whining ;)

gn0x <-- pwnd by ES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are going to destroy each other, it probably isn't us they should be worrying about.

Well, let's not go crazy here. They still need to worry about you. They'd be fools not to.

I will say that there is a lot of shortsightedness within the factions that make up Karma - one can only hope that the sides are preparing equally well for the obvious. The sooner this war officially ends (it's been over de facto since about day 5), the better prepared those who are fighting it are going to be for the one that is plainly evident to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I see a serial killer walking in the streets and put a gun to his head and embarrass him in public, making someone who doesn't like to appear being humiliated incredibly powerless ...will he try to find me? Or will he let this moment pass? Though he has killed others for doing the same?

I'd pull the trigger and not take the chance.

This is all covered in what is and what isn't 'harsh'.

I think that I've made my points already, so if I cannot persuade you, I shall not attempt to do so further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

NPO's terms won't destroy them, they might suffer economically for a few months at most but that's it. Also I don't think any alliances fighting NPO stated that terms won't be harsh, they said they won't offer 'draconian' terms. The term 'harsh' is relative. ie When you compare these terms to the terms in the tC-GPA war(Which were the highest at the time), GPA's terms weren't lifted until almost a year later. These terms will not destroy NPO's identity or force them into extinction. They are merely paying with their pixels and with their size and economy the reps are payable. If not the clause states that a compromise can be made should they have trouble paying the reps back.

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.

They will no doubtly rebuild and of course people are thinking of vengeance. I think the dedicated members of NPO will rebuild also. Regardless of the terms vengeance could become a real possiblity.

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.

After paying off the terms the NPO will still be here. These terms will not destroy them. I don't believe NPO can be destroyed by terms or war; only a stark raving madman would attempt such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your talents are wasted in your two man alliance, no offence intended. I hope you find some alliance that will allow you to turn your posting ability into policy making.

I could be government in most alliances I consider worth their salt, I've had multiple offers. But I thank you for the compliment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NPO's terms won't destroy them, they might suffer economically for a few months at most but that's it. Also I don't think any alliances fighting NPO stated that terms won't be harsh, they said they won't offer 'draconian' terms. The term 'harsh' is relative. ie When you compare these terms to the terms in the tC-GPA war(Which were the highest at the time), GPA's terms weren't lifted until almost a year later. These terms will not destroy NPO's identity or force them into extinction. They are merely paying with their pixels and with their size and economy the reps are payable. If not the clause states that a compromise can be made should they have trouble paying the reps back.

I think that the reps are designed to destroy NPO, but will fail to do so.

They will no doubtly rebuild and of course people are thinking of vengeance. I think the dedicated members of NPO will rebuild also. Regardless of the terms vengeance could become a real possiblity.

And I have explained that NPO's possible vengeance should not be as important as what is right, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the reps are designed to destroy NPO, but will fail to do so.

In what way are they designed to destroy the NPO? I agree that if they were in fact designed to destroy the NPO they will fail; which makes your argument all the more interesting.

And I have explained that NPO's possible vengeance should not be as important as what is right, in my opinion.

I was actually agreeing with you on that point; I should have made that more clear. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what way are they designed to destroy the NPO? I agree that if they were in fact designed to destroy the NPO they will fail; which makes your argument all the more interesting.

By making them militarily useless.

I was actually agreeing with you on that point; I should have made that more clear. ;)

So in that case, you believe that in some instances, extremely harsh reps are moral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...