Quick Announcement from Ordo Verde

[AirMe]

So...how well do you think it would have gone to try to get all 60? + Karma alliances in on a discussion, and then agree on terms? How long would that have taken? 6 months? A year? Would there ever be an agreement reached?

There was no way to have overall Karma negotiations. What of the alliances on the Karma boards who didn't consider themselves Karma? Would we just negotiate without them, leave them all alone? If they're not Karma, then they won't be on Karma surrender terms. I'm curious?

There could have been overall guidelines to follow, but the discussion ranged from "DON'T VIOLATE MY SOVEREIGNTY" to "THEY NEED TO BE DISBANDED." I know, I participated in that. People couldn't check their egos.

At least when an NPO lead coalition entered a war, they presented a cohesive force. Karma ended up being a collection of Egos where for people to make them feel more important than they really were.

Edited August 4, 2009 by AirMe

[Il Impero Romano]

Every single front mattered. Every one. If it weren't for every other front, you'd not be in the position to offer terms. You'd be in the position to accept them.

...perhaps you misread his post? It said nothing nor even hinted at other fronts not nattering. He was just correctly saying this isent the place to be mad about what you said and we are not the people to be mad at it over.

[Rafael Nadal]

Actually, you did. If you still have access to the Karma boards, I'm sure that thread is still there for you to read in all it's glory.

As far as the questions you asked AirMe regarding communication, I'm not sure how it could have been rectified. It was a giant mess from day one, consisting of a main channel that was a mess and multiple exclusionary private channels in which decisions were made and then not discussed with anyone not in the select few. I, personally, truly stopped giving a crap about how anything was run the minute we were told to shut our mouths. Members of your front absolutely participated in that discussion. So you'll have to forgive me for being unwilling to shut my mouth now.

I don't know who on our front was on the Valhalla front. I'm well aware of how the topic on the boards went, however, we agreed that each front would handle their own surrender, since obviously (you and airme have both conceded this) having all alliances under the Karma banner in on talks wouldn't work very well, if at all. So, if you're mad that people on the Valhalla front told you to shut your mouth, please take that up with those on the Valhalla front. I'm not asking you to shut your mouth, I'm asking you to stop projecting your anger on those who don't deserve it.

[Rafael Nadal]

There could have been overall guidelines to follow, but the discussion ranged from "DON'T VIOLATE MY SOVEREIGNTY" to "THEY NEED TO BE DISBANDED." I know, I participated in that. People couldn't check their egos.

At least when an NPO lead coalition entered a war, they presented a cohesive force. Karma ended up being a collection of Egos where for people to make them feel more important than they really were.

Are you disagreeing with me, because if you are, I don't see it? We're both saying that Karma, overall, was a mess. But did we expect things to go smoothly with 60?, 70?, 80? alliances under one banner. Direct democracy loses effectiveness when the mass gets too large, which is why we couldn't have "Karma" negotiations. Instead, we divided it up into fronts, which was a logical organization. You can argue there are faults in it, which there are, obviously, but no better alternative was brought forward, at least to my knowledge.

Edit: Double post, oh well.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Rafael Nadal

[Elendil old]

There could have been overall guidelines to follow, but the discussion ranged from "DON'T VIOLATE MY SOVEREIGNTY" to "THEY NEED TO BE DISBANDED." I know, I participated in that. People couldn't check their egos.

At least when an NPO lead coalition entered a war, they presented a cohesive force. Karma ended up being a collection of Egos where for people to make them feel more important than they really were.

Meh you guys really could have just cut it down to a few representatives instead of everyone wanting in as well.

[Rafael Nadal]

Meh you guys really could have just cut it down to a few representatives instead of everyone wanting in as well.

That's what happened.

[Thierra]

At least when an NPO lead coalition entered a war, they presented a cohesive force. Karma ended up being a collection of Egos where for people to make them feel more important than they really were.

I agree to some extent. It helps that Hegemony had more going for them than a desire to crack skulls. As far as egos are concerned, it begs to be noted that the NPO-led coalition opted out of having a Voice/Wrath of Hegemony.

Speaking of egos, about this thread's OP...

[Khyber]

Pezstar, my post was blatantly sarcastic. Chill the $%&@ out, your faux-moral outrage is just stupid. I am thankful for all of those who fought alongside us and would in no way try and take what reps they deserve away from them.

May I ask how you know it is faux-moral outrage?

I honestly think many joined this war out of idealism. Archon presented a great vision for the future, that some people bought into. Vox was busy laying the ground work months before it happened. To this day I think Archon believes in the vision he put forth, I've never known him to be a liar.

Now I didn't buy into this for one second, I am a pesemist by nature, and thought that no way were people going to hold back grudges over xyz done to them 1, 2 or 3 years ago, but that doesn't mean others didn't. And just because you didn't enter this war for those ideals, doesn't mean that the person you responded to are liars for showing moral outrage.

Morals and ideals have now become an evil in this world it seems. Your either called a liar for having them, or told to get off your high horse. Funny how when these morals and ideals were siding with you against the NPO, these same people found in Gremlins, Vox and other alliances were being cheered on. Gremlins were hailed for their codex. Vox was hailed for standing up against an alliance that had placed reps that demanded 80% of an alliances tech, and fought an endless war with an alliance that demanded white peace or no peace. BC was spying on NPO for those very reasons, or at least using those reason to justify spying.

It was those morals, and those ideals that cemented much of the support that won you this war, you would think you would be more grateful to it then you have been, rather then calling people that have them liars.

As for the reps, the money OV gets from reps doesn't probably cover what they lost in infra. Loss 2-3k infra up top and you will know that that 1 billion can go to one nation and still not be enough to cover the loss in infra, and this isn't counting the loss in aid slots which is vital. The tech though I assume is punishment, and since we all know the NPO is cunning alliance, smart, dedicated, and able, you need to hold them back some way, or you'll find your self in a war sooner rather then later, so punishment is "nessessary" if you don't want to see war again, and because you think they would do it to you when they win anyways. I hope the future has less of this, simply so that we can see more wars, but I'm not hopeful.

[Ogaden]

Really sucks you couldn't manage to do it huh?

I recall doing a fairly decent job on you

[Rafael Nadal]

May I ask how you know it is faux-moral outrage?

I honestly think many joined this war out of idealism. Archon presented a great vision for the future, that some people bought into. Vox was busy laying the ground work months before it happened. To this day I think Archon believes in the vision he put forth, I've never known him to be a liar.

Now I didn't buy into this for one second, I am a pesemist by nature, and thought that no way were people going to hold back grudges over xyz done to them 1, 2 or 3 years ago, but that doesn't mean others didn't. And just because you didn't enter this war for those ideals, doesn't mean that the person you responded to are liars for showing moral outrage.

Morals and ideals have now become an evil in this world it seems. Your either called a liar for having them, or told to get off your high horse. Funny how when these morals and ideals were siding with you against the NPO, these same people found in Gremlins, Vox and other alliances were being cheered on. Gremlins were hailed for their codex. Vox was hailed for standing up against an alliance that had placed reps that demanded 80% of an alliances tech, and fought an endless war with an alliance that demanded white peace or no peace. BC was spying on NPO for those very reasons, or at least using those reason to justify spying.

It was those morals, and those ideals that cemented much of the support that won you this war, you would think you would be more grateful to it then you have been, rather then calling people that have them liars.

As for the reps, the money OV gets from reps doesn't probably cover what they lost in infra. Loss 2-3k infra up top and you will know that that 1 billion can go to one nation and still not be enough to cover the loss in infra, and this isn't counting the loss in aid slots which is vital. The tech though I assume is punishment, and since we all know the NPO is cunning alliance, smart, dedicated, and able, you need to hold them back some way, or you'll find your self in a war sooner rather then later, so punishment is "nessessary" if you don't want to see war again, and because you think they would do it to you when they win anyways. I hope the future has less of this, simply so that we can see more wars, but I'm not hopeful.

A great post overall, but I'll disagree with you about it being hypocritical for assessing these reps on NPO. No alliance in this game has the history of NPO, and much of the outrage over NPO's reps, at least in my mind, was assessing reps as aggressors, and assessing reps beyond an alliance's ability to pay, not to mention their other terms. I don't want this topic to go off on that tangent though, so that's all I'll say about that.

However, I do agree that some used Karma to further goals without believing in it's ideals as Archon set forth. Others have varying levels of adherence or belief, since the ideals aren't objective.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Rafael Nadal

[Chimaera]

We decided what we wanted NPO to lose, not what each alliance wanted.

You know, that used to be the sort of brutal and cut throat logic that pretty much everyone in Karma fought against.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

[Khyber]

A great post overall, but I'll disagree with you about it being hypocritical for assessing these reps on NPO. No alliance in this game has the history of NPO, and much of the outrage over NPO's reps, at least in my mind, was assessing reps as aggressors, and assessing reps beyond an alliance's ability to pay, not to mention their other terms. I don't want this topic to go off on that tangent though, so that's all I'll say about that.

However, I do agree that some used Karma to further goals without believing in it's ideals as Archon set forth. Others have varying levels of adherence or belief, since the ideals aren't objective.

Rafael, permit me to correct myself if I mispoke, I never said hypocritical anywhere. If you believed and went after the NPO for idealism or morals purely then I don't believe you would agree with reps of this proportion. If you fought this war for pragmatic reasons of power, then sure. If you fought this war for revenge, then sure. If you fought it due to fear of them getting you later on, which may fit more in the pragmatic reasons, then sure. If you fought this war for a mix of those reasons, which I would probably put most people in there, then these reps will fall on a scale. Like you said "varying levels of adherence or belief".

I would not agree to these reps for different reasons [OOC] gameplay reasons [OOC], mostly because I want my enemies to return. I hate a lovey dubby world, and because I don't have it in me to go after people and play the bully, I need others to. NPO brought with them the fun, taking them out of the equation for 6-12 months kills a lot of that fun.

As for no alliance having a history as the NPO, lets not forget that many in the CoaLUEtion wanted to disband the NPO. This was the first ever global war, and more then one alliance wanted it's end. Lets not forget that GOONS was the first alliance to put an alliance in eternal war. Or that FAN abused it's power as well. I would argue that only Legion and the GPA ever sat in such a great positions of power without seeking harsh terms. From GATO to the NpO, most of the alliances on Bob are guilty to have supported harsh terms. You don't change the world by repeating the same thing and justifying it the same way (revenge has been used by the NPO for years, and just punishment is out of their play book). At least I don't think so. But we will see how things go in the coming months ahead. You can tell me "I told you so" when the next big conflict comes.

As for hypocracy, I think it's a tag line used by pro NPO supporters to toss fecial matter at Karma alliances. It's far more complicated then that.

[Captain Flinders]

In my mind, OV is entitled to these kind of reps. Is the amount high? Absolutely. But I believe it is rightly so. I only saw a fraction of the harassment and bullying OV withstood at the hands of the NPO and co. so I can't imagine the hours upon hours of trouble they were put through. For that reason alone I believe they can claim reps in victory.

On top of that though, we have the fact that the NPO willfully and knowingly ran at OV and her allies. That kind of headstrong, ignorant, and downright vindictive behavior has been shut down and NPO is getting a dose of how the world really works now that they're off their pedestal. You can play shotgun diplomacy all you want but eventually it will catch up to you. Good on you OV and enjoy the boost.

[Rafael Nadal]

Rafael, permit me to correct myself if I mispoke, I never said hypocritical anywhere. If you believed and went after the NPO for idealism or morals purely then I don't believe you would agree with reps of this proportion. If you fought this war for pragmatic reasons of power, then sure. If you fought this war for revenge, then sure. If you fought it due to fear of them getting you later on, which may fit more in the pragmatic reasons, then sure. If you fought this war for a mix of those reasons, which I would probably put most people in there, then these reps will fall on a scale. Like you said "varying levels of adherence or belief".

I would not agree to these reps for different reasons [OOC] gameplay reasons [OOC], mostly because I want my enemies to return. I hate a lovey dubby world, and because I don't have it in me to go after people and play the bully, I need others to. NPO brought with them the fun, taking them out of the equation for 6-12 months kills a lot of that fun.

As for no alliance having a history as the NPO, lets not forget that many in the CoaLUEtion wanted to disband the NPO. This was the first ever global war, and more then one alliance wanted it's end. Lets not forget that GOONS was the first alliance to put an alliance in eternal war. Or that FAN abused it's power as well. I would argue that only Legion and the GPA ever sat in such a great positions of power without seeking harsh terms. From GATO to the NpO, most of the alliances on Bob are guilty to have supported harsh terms. You don't change the world by repeating the same thing and justifying it the same way (revenge has been used by the NPO for years, and just punishment is out of their play book). At least I don't think so. But we will see how things go in the coming months ahead. You can tell me "I told you so" when the next big conflict comes.

As for hypocracy, I think it's a tag line used by pro NPO supporters to toss fecial matter at Karma alliances. It's far more complicated then that.

The other alliances, along the way, have been rolled at one point or another, NPO hasn't. NPO had never paid its dues for their crimes.

As you said, most probably fall on a mix between the morals and pragmatism, and I am no different. I can't stand terms that restrict specific membership, restricting government, demanding reps as an aggressor (only made more flagrant by demanding large reps as an aggressor), viceroys (which I know are banned now, but were a regular practice of alliances such as NPO), etc. However, I too like NPO as an adversary, and do not wish for their disbandment, but rather their reformation in how they act. I hate seeing alliances effectively disbanded by terms (which before anybody jumps on this, these terms are nowhere near any crushing, almost-going-to-kill NPO level), people chased across re-rolls, etc. I wish for NPO to [ooc]play the game[ooc] in a manner in which the intent is to kill alliances and nations. Be the bad guy, I don't care, but keep your actions in line with certain standards, standards which allow for [ooc]in-game[/ooc] rivalries, rather than extending them beyond the [ooc]game[/ooc].

I'm well aware that some in coaLUEtion wished for NPO's disbandment, and I'm sad to say I think some people still do wish that NPO was forced to disband from this war. I remain skeptical of NPO's ability to change, but I hope for the best.

Edit: Also, there are plenty of tension spots in the world without NPO. If NPO did not exist, the world would not be all luvvy duvvy. For example, I don't think it's much of a secret that TOP and Vanguard don't exactly share the best relations.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Rafael Nadal

[Zombie Glaucon]

I think it was more the "people gave us !@#$ for not telling everyone how much we got in the surrender thread so now we told everybody"

and of course everyone's reaction is to say "why are you telling us this"

gotta love Planet Bob.

I bet it's the exact same people, too. AMIRITE?

[Some-Guy]

There could have been overall guidelines to follow, but the discussion ranged from "DON'T VIOLATE MY SOVEREIGNTY" to "THEY NEED TO BE DISBANDED." I know, I participated in that. People couldn't check their egos.

At least when an NPO lead coalition entered a war, they presented a cohesive force. Karma ended up being a collection of Egos where for people to make them feel more important than they really were.

At the time, I got sent to Karma's naughty corner for noting this... in my own special window licking kinda way, of course.

[Iosif]

Justice of Solomo itt, fair but harsh. Good show, Ordo.

OOC:

All the discussion we've had in this topic about how hard this would be to organize but how little it'd actually repair just highlights the stagnancy we're suffering from right now. For crying out loud, the aid systems are still what they were in bloody 2006, the ravaging inflation among top nations has been ignored completely.

Something really needs to be done if we don't want all rep threads of future to turn out like this, bigger masses of money need to be movable with actually reasonable effort and time spent.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Iosif Moldov

[sethb]

I think Captain Flinders and KingSrqt win this thread.

[Bob Janova]

Re 'what happened to the brave new world' (various posters): I've said before that on certain fronts at least, this war has been the last chapter of the old world as opposed to the first of the new, because the alliances that made up the Hegemony needed to be beaten and beaten well to allow a new world to flourish. The NPO is probably the prime example of that. The fact that the reparations to OV and others are large – 'old world' terms – doesn't mean that things won't be done differently in the future. Even 2000 tech per member is only 25 nukes eaten, which is quite plausible for many OV members I would think.

[Il Impero Romano]

There could have been overall guidelines to follow, but the discussion ranged from "DON'T VIOLATE MY SOVEREIGNTY" to "THEY NEED TO BE DISBANDED." I know, I participated in that. People couldn't check their egos.

At least when an NPO lead coalition entered a war, they presented a cohesive force. Karma ended up being a collection of Egos where for people to make them feel more important than they really were.

Alright, don't get me wrong, in some respects I agree with this notion espically in regards to certain situations. However, common now, what seems more like letting ones ego get out of line...a 3rd party who has no direct involvement in a front insisting that he knows better then those who are involved and attempting to dictate the outcome of the process...or the combined leaders on a front putting their heads together and coming up with terms as they see fit for their own front. To say the second is egotistical is almost an insult to the intelligence of 99% of the alliances who fought under the karma banner this war, and completely false.

[AirMe]

Alright, don't get me wrong, in some respects I agree with this notion espically in regards to certain situations. However, common now, what seems more like letting ones ego get out of line...a 3rd party who has no direct involvement in a front insisting that he knows better then those who are involved and attempting to dictate the outcome of the process...or the combined leaders on a front putting their heads together and coming up with terms as they see fit for their own front. To say the second is egotistical is almost an insult to the intelligence of 99% of the alliances who fought under the karma banner this war, and completely false.

Rumors of alliances saying "Take these terms or we leave you on the front alone" and other alliances refusing to give terms because of old grudges that had nothing to do with them and secret deals being made so certain alliances wouldn't have to fight other alliances and some alliances not using nukes so other people on their front get all nuked to hell.

If you can tell me with a straight face that those events had nothing to do with people not checking their egos at the door I will send you 50 tech.

[Lord Brendan]

At least when an NPO lead coalition entered a war, they presented a cohesive force. Karma ended up being a collection of Egos where for people to make them feel more important than they really were.

Yup, real cohesive.

A Joint Announcement, IRON, MCXA, OG, NATO, GGA, Valhalla, and TPF

Edited August 4, 2009 by Lord Brendan

[potato]

Yup, real cohesive.

A Joint Announcement, IRON, MCXA, OG, NATO, GGA, Valhalla, and TPF

Because clearly, this was the first NPO led coalition ever.

[AirMe]

Yup, real cohesive.

A Joint Announcement, IRON, MCXA, OG, NATO, GGA, Valhalla, and TPF

Obviously I was referring to previous conflicts and not the current one. They couldn't help the fact that their allies turned into mice and tried to jump off the ship as it was sinking.

Edited August 4, 2009 by AirMe

[Poyplemonkeys]

So I thought you said the reason they were secret is not because alliances should be embarrassed about the amounts they have demanded? Almost $39mil and 2k tech per nation in your alliance. Wow.