On the Subject of White Peace

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Krack' date='08 February 2010 - 09:32 AM' timestamp='1265585529' post='2167616']
White peace is now being offered with more regularity because the opportunistic alliances that spent several years acting as internet bullies are now firmly on the losing side. And they are not stupid. So they have spent the better part of the last several months repeating the mantra that anyone who doesn't offer white peace at the conclusion of a war will be "just as bad as we were." This is, of course, laughable - this is a group that manufactured an excuse to attack neutral GPA solely because NPO wanted to be in the #1 spot - but, I'll admit, it worked because they jedi mind tricked a handful of the alliance leaders on the Karma side into offering up white peace and other extremely lenient terms (in relation to extent of the damage caused in the war).

The instant these bully alliances are back on the winning side (if ever), I assure you the trend of white peace will immediately lose its popularity.

People have forgotten that the primary purpose of reparations is to repair the damage caused by the losing side in the war (with secondary purposes of serving as a deterrent to future wars and as a burdern to the losing war so they cannot immediately regroup and re-attack the winning side).
[/quote]

I fail to see a difference except for the rhetoric attached to it.
At least the hegemony provided order and stability to the world which is notably absent at this point in time. The world was going through a slow death from stagnation with the hegemony and now it is dieing a rapid and spectacular death by chaos and global political anarchy.

What I would like to see is a world with no superpowers out to inflate their already overinflated egos by crushing smaller alliances. A world with alliances that settle their differences in small contained wars that do not escalate out of control and engulf the world in a madness that benefits nobody. The world needs something not unlike a pressure release valve found on hot water systems, some way of settling disputes quickly so that they are not allowed to fester for years and grow into a malignancy that is capable of only hate and destruction.

If two alliances have a dispute then they should settle it one on one or by diplomacy, they should fight only when diplomacy fails and confine their "punishment" of the alliance that offended them to the battlefield, and grant white peace at the end when the winners have causes "sufficient" damage to satisfy them or public pressure makes the war unpopular amongst the uninvolved alliances. (basically when the world starts to feel sorry for the losers)

Reparations that cripple an alliance only serve to ensure hidden hostility that will virtually guarantee that another war will be fought for the sake of vengeance at some point in time, they are worse than causing an equivalent amount of damage by military means in a war since the damage is slow and prevents recovery, the damage of a war is like a stab wound, but reps are like a wasting disease that slowly saps the vitality of an alliance and allows time for people to brood over the damage that is being done rather than rebuild and get over it.

Small wars that happen when the upset happens and are resolved with white peace at the end is the only path that the people of planet Bob can take if they want to ensure a future for the world. This is the world that people like you deserve, not the current confused chaotic mess that is around us now, which is the wreckage caused by the previous systems.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Prime minister Johns

[Krack]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='08 February 2010 - 12:57 PM' timestamp='1265655473' post='2168924']
I fail to see a difference except for the rhetoric attached to it.
At least the hegemony provided order and stability to the world which is notably absent at this point in time. The world was going through a slow death from stagnation with the hegemony and now it is dieing a rapid and spectacular death by chaos and global political anarchy.
[/quote]

Some alliances (and their member nations) exist basically with a desire to be left alone. Others, for lack of a better word, exist in an ambitious state. The difference is that these "bully" alliances (to use my own term) had no problem beating on the timid (neutral) alliances solely to satisfy their own ambitions.

You can contrast that with the Karma alliances who were not aggressive, spent months trying to build a coalition large enough to deter an attack from the other side (they were trying to prevent a war, not start one), took more damage than any side in any war ever, and then offered (relatively speaking) light surrender terms.

If you don't recognize a difference, then you are basically saying every alliance who attacks aggressively should be allowed to end the war with white peace (even if they lose) with no ramifications for their aggressive attack. It's ridiculous. If you are aggressive, cause a state of war, and lose ... clearly you should be punished in some way, if for no other reason than to ensure you know what you did was wrong and to prevent you from doing it again in the immediate future.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Krack

[Krack]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='08 February 2010 - 10:05 AM' timestamp='1265645152' post='2168768']
People really should learn their history before they come to talk on the OWF. NPO was already number 1 by a considerable margin when GPA was attacked.
[/quote]

You don't honestly believe this do you? Comments like this make me think the NPO rank and file is still there in its time out not knowing why they are in the corner.

[quote]NPO overtook GPA by a small margin during their buildup the week before the war occurred. With the mere assumption NPO took around a week to plan the war, which fits with the timeline of some events they used for the CB, you could say that the militarization to beat down GPA was the predominant reason they moved ahead at all.

GPA was forced to pay 10,000 tech to each of the seven continuum alliances, which accounting for inflation makes it some of the harshest reps ever given, on a CB that mostly amounted to a petty diplomatic squabble and questioning the supreme authority of certain parties. [/quote]

Exactly.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Krack' date='08 February 2010 - 08:04 PM' timestamp='1265659489' post='2168993']
You don't honestly believe this do you? Comments like this make me think the NPO rank and file is still there in its time out not knowing why they are in the corner.



Exactly.
[/quote]

Now how about you go read The Amazing sanction race thread from page 40 to 12th of feb 200(the day GPA war started) I am sure it will be quite revealing. Go ahead. Almost 2 point lead is not small by any means. Not to mention NPO had been gaining consistently from about a month ago(while GPA was losing score consistently) so I dont know how the 1 week war buildup comes into play :S.

And Thanks for sharing with what you think of about NPO's rank and file member, I am sure it means a lot to us.

Edited February 8, 2010 by silentkiller

[Ecthelion]

I'm perfectly fine with fringe alliances being allowed to get white peace, however the more core alliances (such as NpO, IRON, TOP) Should have to pay a lovely sum of reperations.

[Mergerberger II]

[quote name='Ecthelion' date='08 February 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1265662884' post='2169056']
I'm perfectly fine with fringe alliances being allowed to get white peace, however the more core alliances (such as NpO, IRON, TOP) Should have to pay a lovely sum of reperations.
[/quote]
Maybe it's me, but I do not understand why this is. I understand that 'fringe' alliances and smaller alliances ought to pay smaller reps, but at the same time why should anyone have to pay reps period?

As far as I am concerned, TOP would have to pay reps to CnG only, same with IRON, and we should have to pay reps to GOD only should we lose this war, though I have serious doubts that that would ever happen. But then again, GOD attacked our ally, why should we have to pay reps for honoring our treaties? I understand TOP and IRON paying reps for 'preemptive attack', but Polaris? Maybe to \m/ had we lost that war, but why this one?

[Krack]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='08 February 2010 - 02:58 PM' timestamp='1265662704' post='2169051']
Now how about you go read The Amazing sanction race thread from page 40 to 12th of feb 200(the day GPA war started) I am sure it will be quite revealing. Go ahead. Almost 2 point lead is not small by any means. Not to mention NPO had been gaining consistently from about a month ago(while GPA was losing score consistently) so I dont know how the 1 week war buildup comes into play :S.
[/quote]

Hey, look at this ([url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=11169&view=findpost&p=376906"]Amazing Sanction Race Feb 6, 2006[/url]) - NPO passed GPA one week before they attacked, as a result of military buildup, [i]just as Physics Junky said they did[/i]. A month earlier, Jan 6, GPA was ahead by six points - that's right around when NPO started beating the war drums and everyone knew GPA was going to get removed from the top slot.

[silentkiller]

Your trying to tell me that NPO pass was only because of military buildup? and even if we ignore the 0.72 gain GPA's losses over the coming days would have meant that they would have dropped behind NPO anyway. So no military buildup was not the main reason of NPO's pass.

[Krack]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='08 February 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1265668070' post='2169195']
Your trying to tell me that NPO pass was only because of military buildup?
[/quote]

... coupled with GPA losing membership because they knew they were about to get rolled.

[silentkiller]

So GPA lost their sanction because of their own doing, good to know.

[Krack]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='08 February 2010 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1265668728' post='2169215']
So GPA lost their sanction because of their own doing, good to know.
[/quote]

Sure, GPA had committed the heinous atrocity of occupying the #1 slot that NPO wanted (and had the power to take by force). They lost that slot as a result of NPO letting it be known they were taking that slot by force. They lost several more slots, its sanction, harsh reparations and ton of their membership because the NPO (and allies) actually used that force.

Clearly, it was GPA's fault.

EDIT: Also, to stay on topic, I notice there was no white peace for GPA. I wonder why.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Krack

[silentkiller]

Yeah we caused GPA members to desert their alliance. Are you even making sense anymore?

[Krack]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='08 February 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1265670235' post='2169256']
Yeah we caused GPA members to desert their alliance. Are you even making sense anymore?
[/quote]

You can't possibly be this stupid. GPA lost approximately half it's membership in one month during the course of the war (733 members to 374 members - many to surrenders). Today, they only have 286 members. That war (including its lead-up and post war periods) absolutely crushed them in regards to their membership size.

[b]EDIT:[/b] And again, to get back on topic, I'll point out that this is a perfect example of pre-Karma thinking, and an excellent demonstration of why the trend of offering white peace is only because of who is in control and who is almost completely out of power.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Krack

[Fantastico]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='08 February 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1265670235' post='2169256']
Yeah we caused GPA members to desert their alliance. Are you even making sense anymore?
[/quote]

I imagine you also forget that the plans to attack the GPA were developed over many months.

The irc incident was the last piece needed to go to war on a power that the NPO and some in tC feared since it was an unknown variable.

An increasingly powerful GPA was viewed as a potential threat that had to be engaged and reduced. The outrageous reps placed on the GPA afterwards were without any justification beyond paranoia, similar to in spirit but unlike in the sense of punishment in the case of the outrageous reps placed on your alliance, which I also happen to find extremely unfortunate.

Back to the spirit of the topic, I also find it troubling that many of what we now see being called white peace agreements actually do have terms in them, meaning not white peace at all, but simply lenient terms.

That distinction is not that big of a deal to me, but we do need to be honest with our language. Either such terms are announced as white peace for PR points, or simply out of ignorance.

Other than agreeing to end the conflct, there are no terms at all in a true white peace.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Fantastico

[silentkiller]

So losing members before a war even began is somehow NPO's fault. Perfect logic there.

fakeEdit: more rage please.


[quote]I imagine you also forget that the plans to attack the GPA were developed over many months. [/quote]

And I am sure you have something to back that up. I mean no way you just made that up right?

edit2: yes GPA might have been taken out because they could have been a potential threat, but to claim that they were taken so NPO could get no 1 spot is ridiculous beyond measure, especially if all it took for NPO to get no 1 spot is a threat of war.

Edited February 8, 2010 by silentkiller

[Fantastico]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='08 February 2010 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1265671869' post='2169296']
So losing members before a war even began is somehow NPO's fault. Perfect logic there.

fakeEdit: more rage please.




And I am sure you have something to back that up. I mean no way you just made that up right?
[/quote]

Ask Moo if you don't believe me.


[quote name='silentkiller' date='08 February 2010 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1265671869' post='2169296']

edit2: yes GPA might have been taken out because they could have been a potential threat, but to claim that they were taken so NPO could get no 1 spot is ridiculous beyond measure, especially if all it took for NPO to get no 1 spot is a threat of war.
[/quote]

edit: good to find agreement on something

Edited February 8, 2010 by Fantastico

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Krack' date='08 February 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1265659336' post='2168989']
Some alliances (and their member nations) exist basically with a desire to be left alone. Others, for lack of a better word, exist in an ambitious state. The difference is that these "bully" alliances (to use my own term) had no problem beating on the timid (neutral) alliances solely to satisfy their own ambitions.

You can contrast that with the Karma alliances [b]who were not aggressive[/b], spent months trying to build a coalition large enough to deter an attack from the other side (they were trying to prevent a war, not start one), took more damage than any side in any war ever, and then offered (relatively speaking) light surrender terms.

If you don't recognize a difference, then you are basically saying every alliance who attacks aggressively should be allowed to end the war with white peace (even if they lose) with no ramifications for their aggressive attack. It's ridiculous. If you are aggressive, cause a state of war, and lose ... clearly you should be punished in some way, if for no other reason than to ensure you know what you did was wrong and to prevent you from doing it again in the immediate future.
[/quote]
Emphasis mine.

I think we've found where things get different--NOT all former Karma alliances are non-aggressive.

In any case, someone else mentioned that some terms end up applying anyway. I'd personally interpret taking down military improvements as a symbol of accepting peace (and getting rid of those lousy gorillas who keep reducing my tax income). No re-entry clauses are basically 'get out and stay out of the war', since peace is..well, peace, right? What are the other terms that show up in non-white white peaces?

[Baldr]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='08 February 2010 - 09:26 AM' timestamp='1265642815' post='2168742']
Karma is of course the main precedent for that, with alliances brought in on the fringes of the Hegemony coalition being given repless peaces in most cases, and those in the core of the Hegemonic abuses of power receiving reps, not for their actions in the war but for their wrongdoing beforehand. [/quote]

I think a lot of that is also simply strategy. In the Karma war, for instance, it helped the Karma forces if NPO allies would accept white peace and get out of the war. If they had been told "Nope, no easy way out, you'll have to agree to harsh reps", then those alliances would be more likely to continue to fight. Giving minimal or zero reps in order to convince allies to quit fighting is simply war strategy in many cases.

[quote name='Krack' date='08 February 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1265659336' post='2168989']
You can contrast that with the Karma alliances who were not aggressive, spent months trying to build a coalition large enough to deter an attack from the other side (they were trying to prevent a war, not start one), took more damage than any side in any war ever, and then offered (relatively speaking) light surrender terms.[/quote]

If by "light surrender terms" you mean "the highest reps ever paid, under terms for a minimum of six months, with limitations on which nations make make the rep payments", they I suppose that's true. But honestly, it sounds like nonsense to me.

[quote name='Krack' date='08 February 2010 - 05:21 PM' timestamp='1265671262' post='2169277']
And again, to get back on topic, I'll point out that this is a perfect example of pre-Karma thinking, and an excellent demonstration of why the trend of offering white peace is only because of who is in control and who is almost completely out of power.[/quote]

The forces of Karma required the highest reps ever, and then added other limitations to make it harder to pay those reps.

The forces of Karma pretty much *all* tech raid, and some tech raid alliances.

The forces of Karma have stated that TOP and IRON will have incredibly harsh reps following the current war.

This "We're the good guys" thing is a smoke screen, and not a particularly good one.

[Krack]

[quote name='Baldr' date='08 February 2010 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1265682552' post='2169545']
The forces of Karma required the highest reps ever, and then added other limitations to make it harder to pay those reps. [/quote]

They also took the most damage ever in a war and the war, as a whole, (I believe) involved the most nations fighting at once (until this war passed it). Adjusted for inflation and divided by the sheer number of war participants, the reparations were not so harsh, particularly when you remember that it's one of the few times in Bob's history when the defensive forces won. In other words, the ones that caused the war were paying the reps for once.

[quote]The forces of Karma pretty much *all* tech raid, and some tech raid alliances.[/quote]

What does this have to do with reparations?

[quote]The forces of Karma have stated that TOP and IRON will have incredibly harsh reps following the current war. [/quote]

I certainly hope so. If I have any influence they will. As I pointed out above, reparations are to repair damage caused (which there will be a lot of), to hinder the losers from re-attacking soon (which I am all in favor of, particularly when this same group was let off the hook 6 months ago and took the opportunity to build up and FAIL again) and to serve as a deterrent to future wars.

[quote]This "We're the good guys" thing is a smoke screen, and not a particularly good one.[/quote]

Get back to me when I'm aggressive, beat the hell out of an alliance because I can, and then extract harsh payments from them. You'll probably have to wait awhile.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Krack' date='08 February 2010 - 08:40 PM' timestamp='1265683200' post='2169563']
They also took the most damage ever in a war and the war, as a whole, (I believe) involved the most nations fighting at once (until this war passed it). Adjusted for inflation and divided by the sheer number of war participants, the reparations were not so harsh, particularly when you remember that it's one of the few times in Bob's history when the defensive forces won. In other words, the ones that caused the war were paying the reps for once.[/quote]

All of the talk about "adjusted for inflation" doesn't work for me, as I don't know how you're "adjusting". Earlier in the thread, someone (not sure who) claimed that the reps for the war between NPO and GPA were the worst ever at the time. But those terms were for three months. The terms for the NPO war are for six months minimum, and in practice will probably take longer.

[quote]What does this have to do with reparations?[/quote]

Nothing to do with reparations. But when you are calling people bullies, while at the same time attacking small alliances and individual nations simply because "I'm bigger, they can't stop me", then it's fair to point out who the bully is.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Baldr' date='08 February 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1265686068' post='2169642']
All of the talk about "adjusted for inflation" doesn't work for me, as I don't know how you're "adjusting". Earlier in the thread, someone (not sure who) claimed that the reps for the war between NPO and GPA were the worst ever at the time. But those terms were for three months. The terms for the NPO war are for six months minimum, and in practice will probably take longer.
[/quote]

GPA's terms lasted for something like 11 months. They included indefinite terms that were only repealed a short time before the Karma War.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='08 February 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1265686317' post='2169649']
GPA's terms lasted for something like 11 months. They included indefinite terms that were only repealed a short time before the Karma War.[/quote]

I don't actually have any first hand knowledge here. It was either before I was around, or at least before I started paying attention to politics.

The wiki says 3 months, $2.1 billion. That's far less, both in time, and in actual rep amounts, than NPO was given.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Baldr

[Mathias]

White peace is used if you're being nice and the alliance was only defending allies, or if you just really don't want a particular alliance to be at war with you anymore so you can either focus on rebuilding or beating down your other opponents. The reason it has increased in prevalence is because now you don't know who's going to win at the start of a war. When one side isn't obliterating the other, they can't impose harsh terms, and white peace is the best way to not have to fight someone you're beating anyway so that you're able to focus your efforts elsewhere.

[Krack]

[quote name='Baldr' date='08 February 2010 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1265686068' post='2169642']
All of the talk about "adjusted for inflation" doesn't work for me, as I don't know how you're "adjusting". Earlier in the thread, someone (not sure who) claimed that the reps for the war between NPO and GPA were the worst ever at the time. But those terms were for three months. The terms for the NPO war are for six months minimum, and in practice will probably take longer.
[/quote]

We're adjusting amount of money and tech to be paid in reparations to amount of infrastructure and tech owned and amount of damage caused. The numbers are just taken out of thin air to illustrate the point, but here's examples:

If a 100k nation strength nation is forced to play 6 million and 100 tech, that's two cycles and probably won't interfere with its rebuilding at all. If a 20k NS nation is forced to pay the same 6 million and 100 tech, it's a severe burden.

Similarly, if the 100k NS nation destroyed 7,000 infrastructure and stole 300 tech (and land and money, etc) it has done far more monetary damage to it's opponent than the 20k NS nation that destroyed 700 infra and stole 50 tech.

And again, if an alliance of two hundred 100k NS nations are forced to pay $2 billion reps, it is far less burdensome than an alliance of fifty 20k NS nations being forced to pay the same amount.

[quote]
I don't actually have any first hand knowledge here. It was either before I was around, or at least before I started paying attention to politics.

The wiki says 3 months, $2.1 billion. That's far less, both in time, and in actual rep amounts, than NPO was given.[/quote]

It's wrong.

[Prime minister Johns]

Extracting harsh reps is only going to ensure that worse reps will be inflicted on the extracting party in the future. This was the case with the NPO, they extracted harsh reps and they got given harsher reps.

The NPO learned this lesson and perhaps the alliances that made up karma need to learn from the NPO's mistake, because those that do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.