On the Subject of White Peace

[The Thief]

In the past few months, we have seen a significant increase in the preponderance of 'white peace' terms. Is this a new trend in the Cyberverse? If so, why has it appeared now, of all times? These are the questions upon which I aim to shed light, with the help of intelligent discussion.

I present to you my opinion on this subject:
The rise of 'white peace' terms is a relatively new trend in the Cyberverse. I offer this as my attempt at a simple explanation to a no doubt far more complicated issue. We speak today of the Hegemony and post-Hegemony periods. Though some may disagree as to whether there is not, in fact, a currently operating pseudo-Hegemony, most define the pivotal moment of change in the Cyberverse as the Karma War. Again, though some may disagree as whether there was any change at all, for the purposes of this discussion we will assume the Karma War to be a clear discontinuity in history. Before Karma, the New Pacific Order and its allies gripped the reins of power with an iron fist. I say this not to condemn the NPO and its allies, nor to insult it, but merely to address the majority, which is of like mind. Most members of the Cyberverse believe, for better or worse, true or false, that the Hegemony kept its power through intimidation and brute force. It is seen today that the Hegemony used harsh surrender terms to maintain order and assure its continued dominance. The Karma War was the manner in which some, idealistically, tried to unseat the Hegemony and install a new, fair world order. For others, Karma was, as its name implied, revenge. At the end of the day, however, the revenge faction held a stronger position inside Karma, and the Hegemony (the NPO in particular) was offered some of the harshest reparations terms in history. This was condemned by the Hegemony and much of Karma alike. The stigma associated with the surrender terms from the Hegemonic period and this most recent stain on history is strong. I believe that both former Karma alliances and ex-Hegemony fear this stigma. Public opinion assures that when any war between major world players breaks out, the fear of being labelled neo-Hegemony creates a certain cap on harsh terms. I believe that this fear now holds sway in many major alliances, hence the prevalence of 'white peace' terms.

I hope to have shed some light, in my way, on what I see as an important trend in the history of the Cyberverse. I welcome discussion on the subject.

EDIT: Grammar.

Edited February 7, 2010 by The Thief

[Gerald Meanĕ]

I think white peace has come about to deal with alliances not really involved in situations aside from treaties. It doesn't impose anything on them so there are no harsh feelings, and allows for an easy way to end the war. For alliances dealing with deeper issues then just treaties then terms are generally applied.

[bigwoody]

It isn't new, it dates back as far as the WotC, even.

[Vladimir]

Every great war saw the majority of alliances exit with white peace, from the very first, the Great Patriotic War, when the evil NPO gave surrendering alliances white peace. The idea that it is a new phenomenon was an invention of Karma to justify its other actions.

[Sunstar]

[quote name='Gerald Meane' date='06 February 2010 - 07:56 PM' timestamp='1265504193' post='2165574']
I think white peace has come about to deal with alliances not really involved in situations aside from treaties. It doesn't impose anything on them so there are no harsh feelings, and allows for an easy way to end the war. For alliances dealing with deeper issues then just treaties then terms are generally applied.
[/quote]
I pretty much agree with this. Those not responsible for a war should not have to suffer for it. However, an alliance that activated a treaty should be subject to reparations if they've previously been responsible for a war and not changed their ways. For example, IRON was assessed reparations post-Karma. They weren't the ones who started the Karma war, but their previous actions and lengthy support of NPO aggression made them culpable.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Vladimir' date='06 February 2010 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1265505278' post='2165613']
Every great war saw the majority of alliances exit with white peace, from the very first, the Great Patriotic War, when the evil NPO gave surrendering alliances white peace. The idea that it is a new phenomenon was an invention of Karma to justify its other actions.
[/quote]
I don't believe this is correct, if I recall the Unjust War ended almost universally with reps, usually harsh ones, including for periphery alliances.

[PhysicsJunky]

The political long term cost of imposing harsh reps during a period of political unrest generally outweighs the benefit of doing so. Allies and allies of allies are switching around fast. Combine the fact that most of the combatants got drawn into this affair out of commitments to allies rather than an actual conflict and it's not unexpected.

You'll see harsh reps return when 1) People can pull it off with impunity (either via uni-polar power structure or with a CB strong enough the reps are appropriate) or 2) The amount of vengeance was already at the point it can't hurt to add more (e.g. TPF-PC)

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' date='07 February 2010 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1265507549' post='2165681']
The political long term cost of imposing harsh reps during a period of political unrest generally outweighs the benefit of doing so. Allies and allies of allies are switching around fast. Combine the fact that most of the combatants got drawn into this affair out of commitments to allies rather than an actual conflict and it's not unexpected.

You'll see harsh reps return when 1) People can pull it off with impunity (either via uni-polar power structure or with a CB strong enough the reps are appropriate) or 2) The amount of vengeance was already at the point it can't hurt to add more (e.g. TPF-PC)
[/quote]
Imposing harsh reps can turn a minor disagreement into a vendetta that will be pursued remorselessly for years.

[Merrie Melodies]

Very true, there are many alliances and members in general that harbor resentment going back to our planets origins.

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='06 February 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1265512161' post='2165852']
Imposing harsh reps can turn a minor disagreement into a vendetta that will be pursued remorselessly for years.[/quote]
I agree, but for a good while there it was standard policy. Depending on your personal views the cause of the Karma War could be attributed largely to the slow buildup of aggrieved parties. Harsh reps aren't worth the cost in my opinion unless the other party has enough reason to want to tear your heart out for years to come already.

I suppose a case could be made that if an alliance attacks you, then tries to surrender early but is clearly still a threat to you if the political climate shifts, it's best to offer extremely harsh surrender terms so that they keep on fighting until you've beaten them down enough you feel safe. So I suppose the harsh reps usually being counterproductive is caveat-ed by the fact the alliance surrendering has to be genuinely beaten and unable to continue the fight.

Edited February 7, 2010 by PhysicsJunky

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' date='07 February 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1265516803' post='2165987']
I agree, but for a good while there it was standard policy. Depending on your personal views the cause of the Karma War could be attributed largely to the slow buildup of aggrieved parties. Harsh reps aren't worth the cost in my opinion unless the other party has enough reason to want to tear your heart out for years to come already.

I suppose a case could be made that if an alliance attacks you, then tries to surrender early but is clearly still a threat to you if the political climate shifts, it's best to offer extremely harsh surrender terms so that they keep on fighting until you've beaten them down enough you feel safe. So I suppose the harsh reps usually being counterproductive is caveat-ed by the fact the alliance surrendering has to be genuinely beaten and unable to continue the fight.
[/quote]

Those who impose harsh reps solely because they have had harsh reps imposed on them in the past are forgetting two very important things,

1: They are imposing harsh reps because they have had harsh reps placed on them and this can and will be returned.

2: Alliances can rebuild and defeat the enemies that have crippled them. Keeping someone down only works to a point, you can not keep someone down forever.

[Bob]

[quote name='Vladimir' date='06 February 2010 - 08:14 PM' timestamp='1265505278' post='2165613']
Every great war saw the majority of alliances exit with white peace, from the very first, the Great Patriotic War, when the evil NPO gave surrendering alliances white peace. The idea that it is a new phenomenon was an invention of Karma to justify its other actions.
[/quote]
While I don't disagree with white peace being found..what? NPO won the GPW? xfd. x.f.d. Did you also give them apologies out of the kindness of your heart?

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='07 February 2010 - 12:09 AM' timestamp='1265519350' post='2166044']
Those who impose harsh reps solely because they have had harsh reps imposed on them in the past are forgetting two very important things,

1: They are imposing harsh reps because they have had harsh reps placed on them and this can and will be returned.

2: Alliances can rebuild and defeat the enemies that have crippled them. Keeping someone down only works to a point, you can not keep someone down forever.
[/quote]

Classic example of this is The Phoenix Federation, who after surrendering and paying reps after the UJW/GW IV went on to achieve sanction status.

[Feanor Noldorin]

There are numerous examples about how alliances have built themselves back up over a rough war/terms. All you need is an active community focused toward a common goal.

[White Chocolate]

I'm not convinced that anything that has developed in terms of a possible change in CN culture is a trend...yet. Maybe a fad. This isn't a commentary at all. I like some of what's being discussed and I don't like others. I've just found it politically smart to be skeptical.

[Bob]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='07 February 2010 - 12:20 AM' timestamp='1265520058' post='2166064']
Classic example of this is The Phoenix Federation, who after surrendering and paying reps after the UJW/GW IV went on to achieve sanction status.
[/quote]
TPF surrendered before everyone else in UJW, didn't they?

[Dilber]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='07 February 2010 - 12:19 AM' timestamp='1265519959' post='2166062']
While I don't disagree with white peace being found..what? NPO won the GPW? xfd. x.f.d. Did you also give them apologies out of the kindness of your heart?
[/quote]


There were a couple alliances on the CoaLUEtion side that surrendered and were given White Peace.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='07 February 2010 - 12:28 AM' timestamp='1265520536' post='2166078']
TPF surrendered before everyone else in UJW, didn't they?
[/quote]

They weren't in it for long.

[Bob]

[quote name='Dilber' date='07 February 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1265520666' post='2166082']
There were a couple alliances on the CoaLUEtion side that surrendered and were given White Peace.
[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification, it has been a long time.

[Vladimir]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='07 February 2010 - 05:19 AM' timestamp='1265519959' post='2166062']
While I don't disagree with white peace being found..what? NPO won the GPW? xfd. x.f.d. Did you also give them apologies out of the kindness of your heart?
[/quote]
Comrade Dilber has clarified what I meant, but... if you really wanted to get into it, [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=104&showentry=411]my position[/url] on the matter is quite well known...

[Bob]

[quote name='Vladimir' date='07 February 2010 - 01:36 AM' timestamp='1265524600' post='2166403']
Comrade Dilber has clarified what I meant, but... if you really wanted to get into it, [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=104&showentry=411]my position[/url] on the matter is quite well known...
[/quote]
I know your position, however that is a debatable issue. What Dilber stated is not.

[Qaianna]

I'd agree with the stigma issue, especially for periphery alliances. At this point it's a fad, but hopefully it can take hold.

[Haflinger]

I don't buy the whole "reps lead to resentment" nonsense.

It's drama and personalities. If not taking reps made an alliance popular, Invicta would be viewed much more kindly - we've taken less reps than just about anyone else who's ever won an alliance war. (Specifically, we took 300 tech once, for which we paid 6M.)

And yet, we are often cited as being one of the worst alliances out there. We've had a couple exoduses of government members who left under clouds, and not coincidentally became closely tied to people who now hate us. This is how it spreads.

[Moridin]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='07 February 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1265529816' post='2166540']
I don't buy the whole "reps lead to resentment" nonsense.

It's drama and personalities. If not taking reps made an alliance popular, Invicta would be viewed much more kindly - we've taken less reps than just about anyone else who's ever won an alliance war. (Specifically, we took 300 tech once, for which we paid 6M.)

And yet, we are often cited as being one of the worst alliances out there. We've had a couple exoduses of government members who left under clouds, and not coincidentally became closely tied to people who now hate us. This is how it spreads.
[/quote]

Just because you don't take reps doesn't make you instantly likeable, and it doesn't make people ignore everything they dislike about you. But, not taking reps does make the losing alliance tend to view you more favorably, especially if it is in contrast to other surrenders in the same war where reps are demanded. To take an example, during the War of the Coalition, Grämlins paid for all their tech reparations from Polar (I believe at a rate of 3m/100, correct me if I'm wrong), and as a result they were generally viewed more favorably by Polars from what I could tell. I'm not sure how many more examples there are of something like that in CN history (STA giving white peace in the GATO-1V war comes to mind), but I'd say you'll generally find that members of an alliance will look more favorably on alliances that don't ask for reps when others are demanding payment.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Moridin

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='07 February 2010 - 02:03 AM' timestamp='1265529816' post='2166540']
I don't buy the whole "reps lead to resentment" nonsense.

It's drama and personalities. If not taking reps made an alliance popular, Invicta would be viewed much more kindly - we've taken less reps than just about anyone else who's ever won an alliance war. (Specifically, we took 300 tech once, for which we paid 6M.)

And yet, we are often cited as being one of the worst alliances out there. We've had a couple exoduses of government members who left under clouds, and not coincidentally became closely tied to people who now hate us. This is how it spreads.
[/quote]
Sad but true, especially the personalities bit. Still, in all honesty, who seems to be demanding reps more, as far as shouting here is concerned? I haven't counted, what with wanting to retain my basic faith in humanity and thus avoiding most threads..