Thoughts on Causes and Effects of the Karma War

[Doitzel]

One should therefore never made the mistake of saying, "we [Karma] aren't living up the principles we were trying to uphold when we decided to fight!" That presumes that Karma was some monolithic entity with lockstep agenda--it never, ever was. Much the same can be said of Vox. As others have so eloquently pointed out, it was at best a hodgepodge of individuals who under other circumstances would not have been together in an alliance. It was natural that having accomplished the goal that held it together (revenge on NPO), it dissolved. There was nothing but the memories of fighting for common cause left. Nice for reunions, not enough for much else.

No, no. Just because we were a hodgepodge of individuals from different backgrounds does not mean that we did not have genuine conviction in our ideals. Taking down NPO was a part of it, as they were the central figure and the centre of power for the Hegemony, but there was a lot more to it that simply came before or during the war: shifting PZI to be a socially unacceptable practice, liberating the red team, achieving peace for FAN, etc. We were more successful with some than others, and obviously we couldn't have continued on simply on the basis of the resumption of interfering in alliances' internal politics (i.e. barring Caffine from leadership in Echelon), but it was about a lot more than revenge on NPO. At the onset of the war when it looked like NPO was being abandoned to a fate of curb-stomping I was in a bloody rage and ready to carry on to bring the war to those culpable that were weaseling their way out.

PZI is not rare, it's just done a lot more quietly than it used to be.

Tell you what. Bring me every case that you find and I'll investigate it and print a monthly newsletter. Deal?

We fought them, they folded. You can push, but you can't force.

I agree there, but the excessive application of force disproportionate to the "crime" is something NPO has long been in the habit of. That is what often leads to alliances disbanding, and while it is true that they have the option of fighting a virtually un-ending war that's not something for everyone. Most simply don't have the fortitude and shouldn't be expected to.

No, not that one – NPO was as far in the NpO camp as it could be without completely losing the support of the rest of its allies. I'm not so sure that rolling NpO was a bad act; it was more a 'Karma episode 0', an attack born of Polar's 'evil' acts in the past and a thirst for righteous vengeance.

So could someone please list all the terrible misdeeds perpetrated under Grub? I mean, what was the point of forcing us to overthrow sponge and then exile him, Random, Musso, and myself if you were going to kill the alliance anyway? Tsk. There was nothing righteous about that, though I won't complain too much as Polar has emerged stronger for it.

The noCB war was very different from previous wars in that it disproved the old saying that the victors write history.

There's another side to that adage: the losers write the songs. Which d'you think people prefer, history books or songs?

MK definitely did a bang-up job in winning sympathy for themselves. I think the sheer force of support threw a lot of people for a loop. The most baffling thing is that the NPO thought they would win you over with "generosity" after all that...

I also think Gremlins deserve a lot of credit. They didn't intentionally try to break up the power structure, but they refused to let themselves be silenced and openly spoke their minds before it was cool to do so, and started the trend of leaving Q which eventually became a flood. NPO didn't have the political capital to counter it, due to Gremlins popularity, nuke count, and close ties to TOP, OG, and MHA.

Definitely. They were trailblazers without a doubt. I don't like a lot of what they've done but credit is given where it is due.

A minor concession, designed to mitigate against a much larger defeat in future, can be a good move. That's certainly what I read the giving up of EZI and freeing GATO as, particularly as neither of them actually cost you much.

The problem is the flood gates were already wide open and it was much too small a concession.

[WorldConqueror]

Tell you what. Bring me every case that you find and I'll investigate it and print a monthly newsletter. Deal?

Like I said, its a like quieter now. People aren't making OWF posts about the latest additions to the list anymore, are they? You and your merry men may have changed a lot of things, but I don't think PZI will ever stop.

I agree there, but the excessive application of force disproportionate to the "crime" is something NPO has long been in the habit of. That is what often leads to alliances disbanding, and while it is true that they have the option of fighting a virtually un-ending war that's not something for everyone. Most simply don't have the fortitude and shouldn't be expected to.

How much force is the right amount? When the wrongdoer says sorry? Or when they have learnt why their action is seen as wrong? When they promise not to do it again? Or when they're so terrified and downtrodden that they will never act against the person they wronged again? How do you gauge whether it is proportionate?

And its not about fighting an un-ending war. It's about giving some incentive for the other side to stop beating you, whether thats positive in terms of reps, or negative in the form of damage dealt if the war continues.

[Heracles the Great]

Tell you what. Bring me every case that you find and I'll investigate it and print a monthly newsletter. Deal?

I believe GOD has issued a PZI/EZI on Terry Howard...

[Doitzel]

I believe GOD has issued a PZI/EZI on Terry Howard...

I'm on it.

[lordliam]

I've been saying the same thing since the Karma war ended. "The animals outside looked from pig to man, from man to pig and back again. But already it was impossible to say which was which."

[Bob Janova]

I believe GOD has issued a PZI/EZI on Terry Howard...

It's PZI, not EZI ... but yeah, that was recently publicised. That's one ...

So could someone please list all the terrible misdeeds perpetrated under Grub?

I don't want to derail this thread, and it's history at this point, so I'll be brief. Replacing a leader doesn't wipe the slate clean – do you think NPO would have been forgiven if Moo had stepped down? As for Random, Musso and yourself, the alliances that attacked Polar didn't have anything to do with that; as far as I know, NPO pressured you into that as a condition for continuing to hold back the hordes, which they could only do for another week or so anyway as it turned out.

The motivation was perhaps not as pure for us as it was in Karma, but removing the world of a 'bad' alliance was a major motivation for a lot of people in both wars. (As it was in the Unjust War for much of ~.)

[Heracles the Great]

It's PZI, not EZI ... but yeah, that was recently publicised. That's one ...

So a if a leader dies and a new leader takes over and has the same name (related or not), he is still under ZI in a PZI? Is EZI only when the leader dies and a new leader with a new name takes over and they are kept at ZI?

Edited October 13, 2009 by Heracles the Great

[Doitzel]

I don't want to derail this thread, and it's history at this point, so I'll be brief. Replacing a leader doesn't wipe the slate clean – do you think NPO would have been forgiven if Moo had stepped down?

If Moo had been the only problem anyone ever cited for Pacific that might be an apt comparison. Most of the Pacific government was rotten and I think if they'd left and NPO had begun to heal old wounds they might've had a shot. Almost the entire government in Polar had changed, yet before they were even given the chance to exhale the world was on top of them.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

GOD isn't exactly a shining beacon of what Karma stood for either and it is common knowledge that many of us were against their decisions. I even made a public statement putting down their terms given to Echelon.

[HalfEmpty]

. TPF, at least (not sure about Echelon), were offered peace much earlier in the war and chose to fight on, doing large amounts of unnecessary damage to the alliances they were fighting; m effects are.

There was nothing unnecessary about it.

[Tomcat]

Causes: NPO played a ruthless game of war and diplomacy where they harassed, isolated, and destroyed their enemies and eventually turned on many of their former friends. This all lead up to the NPO attack on OV in which the NPO poised to attack an alliance that was allied with many alliances that the NPO had transgressed in the past.

Effects: Said alliances that the NPO had run afoul with in the past came to the aid of OV while many of NPO's "allies" were reluctant to join in.

[Earogema]

a heightened degree of paranoia among Pacifican leadership that undercut some of their relationships. Those last two did not really appear before March. Prior to that, Vox was only marginally more of a presence than Blackstone.

Now I'm just insulted.

However, it was probably around December that Pacifica and Q really became paranoid with us (or at least started). The Q high command spy actually got a couple people accused of hacking, or of leaking information that they shouldn't have. I still have the files on the Q forums that Vox Senators had access to, and reading them right now, and around December/January at least is when splits begin to show. Now, if that paranoia had always been there, or if we had generated it, I suppose I don't know, however they were paranoid before March.

I'm not even sure what made them paranoid toward certain alliances. Gramlins makes sense, if not for the fact that we'd usually say something good about them when they posted, but MHA and Sparta really didn't make sense. We didn't really cooperate with them at all. The paranoia there that would eventually strain relations to the point of them (and TOP) leaving Q really didn't make sense. The only way I could see it is if they assumed TOP and MHA were siding with Gramlins, who they had already decided to leave Q. Course, Gramlins in itself didn't have any plans to fight against NPO and friends, they just voted to leave Q and the popular vote was enough to convince the Gramlins leadership to pull out. At the end of the Q thread, if I recall, both parties (Q and Gramlins) had made up after Reyne's outburst had caused a small, but controlled argument. (Of course, it was in our best interests to make it seem like there was a heated argument, when in fact, it wasn't that bad). The same can really be said of FOK, who also simply voted to leave, while (according to the thread) the leadership wanted to stay, but couldn't for democratic reasons.

Q was also somewhat paranoid of Xiphosis, and by extension, SF, although around January it wasn't really too big, just a sort of "lol Xiphosis," with a bit of anger thrown in.

A post by Moo actually actually asks for everybody to take off the tin foil and trust each other, but lol that backfired. That was around the whole Sparta/Valhalla mess. Sparta would come back and say that they were going to stay (lol).

Triyun I know for sure attempted to get everyone to affirm that under no circumstance was ANYBODY going to leave Q. That also would fail. It's actually pretty funny reading WCR and Floyd both pretty much saying MHA wouldn't leave, and Saber saying "Oh, we probably won't leave, but we kinda wanted to leave WUT so lol i dunno."

Around the creation of that one bloc (the bloc that never happened, I can't even remember the name), when Sparta was to join, and was informing Q of joining, a few of them raised concerns. It actually wasn't that bad, but mhawk seemed to hate the whole thing the most.

Also, interestingly according to what I'm reading, it was we (Vox) who caused the rumors which caused the whole Valhalla/Sparta conflict. I don't know how true that part is, but regardless they did try to blame us.

EDIT: added an and. alliteration is awesome.

EDIT2: This

Including the fact that when Electron Sponge tried to join during the NoCB war he had to be ejected because of the adverse reaction by many Vox members and supporters to the idea of working with him. If you don't believe that Vox occasionally wound up getting underfoot and tripping up its own efforts, I can go drag Doitzel in here to comment. They certainly wound up being helpful in various ways, but that doesn't mean their weren't many times previous when people opposed to Continuum hegemony wished Vox didn't exist.

Is totally wrong, at least from what I recall. Nobody had the power to eject anybody in Vox until we formed the first Vox government, which was after E_S had joined with this new "llamatopia" nation. As I recall, E_S was restricted from Polar's forums an attempt to appeal to the world, and then he joined us. Shortly afterward he didn't take care of his nation, and it was deleted. (In fact, on the old \m/ forums, Chairman Hal makes a thread commenting on how E_S didn't check his nation and eventually inactived to death). Then he rerolled as E_S with the new nation of llamatopia and asked what alliance he would join. He ended up in Vox again.

I'd like to stress this again: There is no possible way that anybody could have been ejected from the anarchic Vox unless they committed an OOC attack. I recall no such instance, and even if there was one, E_S was not the culprit.

However, yes sometimes we made stuff hard on you guys .

Edited October 13, 2009 by Earogema

[WorldConqueror]

Causes: NPO played a ruthless game of war and diplomacy where they harassed, isolated, and destroyed their enemies and eventually turned on many of their former friends. This all lead up to the NPO attack on OV in which the NPO poised to attack an alliance that was allied with many alliances that the NPO had transgressed in the past.

Effects: Said alliances that the NPO had run afoul with in the past came to the aid of OV while many of NPO's "allies" were reluctant to join in.

This thread is about causes and effects of the Karma war, not the effects of the attack on OV. I think we all saw how that turned out.

[Delta1212]

Also, interestingly according to what I'm reading, it was we (Vox) who caused the rumors which caused the whole Valhalla/Sparta conflict. I don't know how true that part is, but regardless they did try to blame us.

Oh yeah, I remember a bunch of stuff, especially revolving around that particular incident, that people, especially NPO, tried to sweep under the rug as "just Vox trying to cause division." I think Sponge even got mentioned by name. I'm 90% sure that was complete bull though. That's what I remember thinking at the time anyway.

[Earogema]

Oh yeah, I remember a bunch of stuff, especially revolving around that particular incident, that people, especially NPO, tried to sweep under the rug as "just Vox trying to cause division." I think Sponge even got mentioned by name. I'm 90% sure that was complete bull though. That's what I remember thinking at the time anyway.

Yeah, they did refer to sponge very specifically. I'm pretty sure it was bull too, but I never asked sponge about it, so I dunno.

[Eamon Valda]

The Karma war, undoubtedly, was the sum of many factors. Some of these factors were built-up; some were spur of the moment; some of the factors were, as you considered, ethically-motivated; some of them were merely for any motivation ranging from full revenege and political ambition to 'simply stirring things up.'

Firstly, it was, as you stated, important to note the position of Pacifica at the time of its downfall. The status of the alliance, arguably, hinged on many influences. However, it was obvious that at least a significant portion of this status relied on the use of a global hegemony which, depending on how you would define such an apparatus, spanned anywhere from a small portion of the planet to a huge percentage of it. It is often quoted by others that 'with great power comes great responsibility'; as the symbolic leader and founder of this system - at least in principle, I would argue - they came to bear the publicity and accountings of these actions. Moreover, such a fanfare was not merely based on the fact that they had actively formed this system but was congruent with the fact that they used it openly - and questionably - to their own ends.

My goal isn't to state what an alliance should or should not do but to analyse the 'why' of that situation. The reputation of an alliance such as the NPO, innately, carries a sense of divison: Pacifica, intentionally or not, fostered an image of itself as either the opressor of a large mass of nations through various military and diplomatic operations or as the victorious and right power in the world. The two are mutually exclusive, at least in terms of moral considerations of subjective viewers. Normally, one could determine that these subjective views are pretty insignificant on their own. I believe the reason many expected the Karma Coalition to 'change the moral status quo' was due to the fact of the heavy amount of moral objection to the NPO and its allies (because it would be illogical and implausible to simply blame everything on the Order itself). The objections were frequent, though different to different people, and so, the identification of the 'enemy' was fairly firm. Additionally, such an identification, in my opinion, caused many to pin the problems of the planet on their rule (OOC: i.e.) 'boredom/stagnation').

When you consider the consequences of this villification and desire for change, it is much like the approach of a rising river flooding everything around you and preventing any means of escape; though the water levels - the danger - was known and consistent, the NPO had difficulty solving all of these problems and holding off such a danger - it eventually swallowed them whole. The problems were not merely with the formation of open enemy groups nor underground resistance, but also within a sense of mistrust, fear, and paranoia amongst the core member of the NPO treaty-tree itself. As witnessed by the mass cancellations of the opening days of the war, it must be seen as fairly safe to conclude that these partners simply were no longer sympathetic nor helpful to Pacifica. Why this was, again, had many reasons, but I would like to focus on how a negative image and the attacks on past allies more than likely hindered the NPO in the time before the war. Cancellations themselves were nothing new, but their level, certainly, was much higher than usual. Most cancellations were due to realistic reasons (i.e.) avoid military defeat); treaties, as had been the way of the NPO & co., were instruments of preservation and enhancement of the political position of the holder, not merely instruments of defense or inherent trust within an ally. When a partner considers their own livelihood more important than the terms of the treaty (not merely physically, but also ethically), it is not hard to imagine why dropping a treaty is a considerable option. The NPO looked evil, had a dangerous history, and was surrounded by enemies who blamed it for their problems. Solution: destroy Pacifica.

As for the conditions, my best estimate would be that such a war was, on the surface, inevitable. The bad blood and hatred of the alliance seemed like it would not subside and, in retrospect, how could they have managed to solve such problems? It is unlikely that even a reversal of its prior methodologies and full apologies could even have convinced most of their enemies. On top of this, taking them down would be a necessity, to many, to restore 'good times' to the planet. The powder key was ready to explode; what we needed was a spark. The spark came from the Ordo Verde spying situation.

The Karma Coalition was, by no means, unified by any overriding ideology but the basic desire to get to revenge - but they all wanted revenge for different reasons. Though a lot of the coalition was hastily formed together in the opening moments of the OV crisis, there were many past links between some groups - groups which had similar reasons for a fight against a common enemy. Moreover, when many such groups desired a similar basic outcome - and their combined strength was necessary for victory - then compromises, at least temporary, were achievable. However, such a loose coalition would have likely (though I do not know if this is true first-hand) had internal problems and communication issues. It seemed that, by the end of the conflict, the group was falling further at odds with one another and many simply wished the conflict to pass so we could hit the political reset button. In the end, it was the sheer strength and popularity of Karma which made it win without much difficulty - though that is not to say they didn't take any damages nor fight.

This is just a brief overview of a few major reasons I believe the Karma War occurred and how it was fought. I suspect a more complete analysis would require a lot more work than this (no offense, of course).

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Firstly, it was, as you stated, important to note the position of Pacifica at the time of its downfall. The status of the alliance, arguably, hinged on many influences. However, it was obvious that at least a significant portion of this status relied on the use of a global hegemony which, depending on how you would define such an apparatus, spanned anywhere from a small portion of the planet to a huge percentage of it. It is often quoted by others that 'with great power comes great responsibility'; as the symbolic leader and founder of this system - at least in principle, I would argue - they came to bear the publicity and accountings of these actions. Moreover, such a fanfare was not merely based on the fact that they had actively formed this system but was congruent with the fact that they used it openly - and questionably - to their own ends.

I dont believe the ethical or moral factors ever were held important by many of the key players. I have only argued that those not motivated by such factors would never have succeeded without the help Pacifica gave by ultimately and completely ceding the moral high ground.

They did this not just at the time by attacking during "negotiations" which looked very much like a shakedown. They did it also over a long period before, in a dozen actions or more. Each action did not generate enough resistance in the short term for them to even notice, further reïnforcing their delusions of total control, but simultaneously eroding it in the long term. Allies who are uncomfortable with your actions but not ready to do anything more than mutter ineffective protests will not stay in that state forever.

Pacificas supremacy was built on something very like the ancient concept of 'mandate of heaven.' They provided order. As long as they did so without too much corruption, without going too far in their arrogance, they had friends everywhere that people care about order. But when they crossed that line, that support evaporated. Some even condensed as opposition.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Prime minister Johns]

The cause of the karma war is that there is a #1 spot and everyone wants it, its simple as that.

[Bob Janova]

That is the most ridiculous 'explanation' I've heard yet. Why would so many alliances band together to give the no. 1 spot to TOP or Sparta? That just makes no sense whatsoever.

[Poyplemonkeys]

So a re-roll with the same leader name is still under ZI in a PZI? Is EZI only when they re-roll with a new leader name and are kept at ZI?

[OOC: In a word, yes. Re-rolling with the same leader name is making no attempt to change the character that has been sentanced to the punishment. PZI as I've always understood it is indefinitely holding a character at ZI. EZI is indefinitely holding a player at ZI, regardless of the character they're role playing.]

[Blacky]

[OOC: In a word, yes. Re-rolling with the same leader name is making no attempt to change the character that has been sentanced to the punishment. PZI as I've always understood it is indefinitely holding a character at ZI. EZI is indefinitely holding a player at ZI, regardless of the character they're role playing.]

OOC: And what if it's a new player who just happens to like that ruler name? How could one (using purely IC means) prove one way or another that it isn't an entirely new person? You can't ban a ruler name. Your understanding of PZI makes it just as bad as EZI if not worse.

[Poyplemonkeys]

OOC: And what if it's a new player who just happens to like that ruler name? How could one (using purely IC means) prove one way or another that it isn't an entirely new person? You can't ban a ruler name. Your understanding of PZI makes it just as bad as EZI if not worse.

The chances of that occuring are absolutely minimal, and if it did it would be easily solved amongst the involved parties. I cannot think of a single instance of that happening in the entirety of the history of the Cyberverse so to use it as a reason why PZI is worse than EZI isn't particularly sound reasoning if you ask me.

[Prime minister Johns]

That is the most ridiculous 'explanation' I've heard yet. Why would so many alliances band together to give the no. 1 spot to TOP or Sparta? That just makes no sense whatsoever.

Greed & spite are powerful motivators, some will want the power and be able to grab it and will offer inducements to others to come along for the ride. Offer someone a share of the record breaking reps that will be extracted and you will be able to buy a lot of support. Offer others the chance for revenge and you have yourself a coalition.

Morality is a convenient fiction that can be used a smokescreen to hide this ugly truth. Most people will behave atrociously when given a chance for power, it is basic human nature.

But this is just my take on it. Politics is a dog eat dog world and everyone wants to be top dog.

[Azaghul]

Greed & spite are powerful motivators, some will want the power and be able to grab it and will offer inducements to others to come along for the ride. Offer someone a share of the record breaking reps that will be extracted and you will be able to buy a lot of support. Offer others the chance for revenge and you have yourself a coalition.

Morality is a convenient fiction that can be used a smokescreen to hide this ugly truth. Most people will behave atrociously when given a chance for power, it is basic human nature.

But this is just my take on it. Politics is a dog eat dog world and everyone wants to be top dog.

Most of the main Karma fighters suffered 20-30% losses. Reps are only gonna make up a fraction of that.

It's not like we started the war.

[Vladimir]

Strength can only be judged relatively. It is better to have 5 million strength compared to your competitors at 1 million, than to have 10 million strength compared to your competitors at 20 million. By the same logic loses are also relative. Thus in war it doesn't matter how much you lose in absolute terms, but rather it matters how the strength loses of all alliances affected the global structure of power. In this there are clear winners and losers, not only losers.