Thoughts on Causes and Effects of the Karma War

[King Chill I]

QUOTE (Poyplemonkeys @ Oct 13 2009, 10:59 PM)

Yes indefinite is a common word in both of the definitions, however it's not the words that are the same, but the words that differ that show you the difference between the two. You weren't trying to imply that they are the same are you?

I am looking at similarities.

I am looking at similarities.

Same difference.

[Shan Revan]

That's not really true, at least not in the incredibly broad and general terms you use. There was a legitimate shift in attitudes and perception in the period before the Karma War among a number of the "hegemony." The softening of policies is partially because of the lack of political dominance (which also predated the Karma War, even though most didn't catch on until the war kicked off), but also partially because of the genuine softening of attitudes. Also, while there were certainly leaders who resisted any attempts at change, memberships in alliances all around were much more susceptible to those "bad" influences, which in turned forced their leaders to change whether they wanted to or not.

The Karma War may have cemented some things (though even that remains to be see, and I don't honestly believe for a second that the basic attitudes that led to all of those excesses in the first place are actually gone, moreso just that no one has the necessary power to engage in them). But the Karma War did not create any of these changes, and I suspect that a truly detailed analysis could easily show it sweeping away some of the changes that were beginning to occur. The hegemony was slow and very conservative, but change was happening, and a considerable portion of it was legitimate, or at least as legitimate as the change we see today.

Karma felt that the Hegemony alliances weren't really changing, they were trying to score PR points to fend off a big political defeat.

This is a topic that honestly deserves a thread of its own.

It's rather unfortunate (and honestly pretty ignorant) that the public took such a stance. Whenever we conceded something, yes it probably was an attempt to alleviate pressure, be it internally or otherwise, but that doesn't necessarily make it false change. Many of us had attempted softening policies and whatever and simply trolled for it more. No one recognised that some "good" was coming from it. Merely we were collectively demonised more for attempting to "gain cheap PR points". The foolish thing is it quickly became more damaging to make a positve action than to continue on with an unpopular policy. Anything short of being a born again alliance, doing a complete 180º turn on all policy, ditch current allies in favour of pursuing "the in crowd" and essentially beg the world for forgiveness for our multitude of sins (many of which we aren't even guilty of) was scorned as a cheap pr stunt.

If people actually want change, then they must not only exert the requisite pressure, they must make it desirable. It doesn't even have to be a hailfest, but instead of mocking and berating them for making a change, acknowledge that it happened, even if you express it wasn't quite as much as you would desire.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Shan Revan