The emergence of "Do not surrender syndrome"

[kitex]

I refuse to surrender as an individual nation because I've fought in all of MHA's wars since the Wolfpack war onward and have never surrendered. Why should I now? I'd shame myself and my alliance. To be totally honest, I'd rather have my nation wiped off the map then to surrender.

PS

Also I have only lost one war ever and I [i]refuse[/i] to lose again.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='11 February 2010 - 02:35 AM' timestamp='1265877347' post='2174341']
After running back to read TOP's DoW on MK I have no idea who you could argue it was due to treaties. On a different note, maybe the real lesson is not to interfer in something thats not your business, HINT: FoA
[/quote]

\m/ certainly had no problem jumping FoA, though FoA wasn't any of their business. You were just being jerks because you were bigger. When people complained you screamed "Do something about it". When people did something about it, you started whining and crying.

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='11 February 2010 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1265913883' post='2175217']
You joined an alliance that did, so you tacitly endorse it.
[/quote]

I hate this argument. "You joined an alliance, so you are responsible for everything that alliance has ever done in the past, no matter how long ago". People are pretty much forced to join an alliance, because the tech raiders gang up on you if you don't. So you join an alliance, and suddenly, you are held responsible for every sin (or perceived sin, or drug-induced-fantasy sin) that can be blamed on that alliance.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Baldr' date='11 February 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1265941861' post='2176138']
I hate this argument. "You joined an alliance, so you are responsible for everything that alliance has ever done in the past, no matter how long ago". People are pretty much forced to join an alliance, because the tech raiders gang up on you if you don't. So you join an alliance, and suddenly, you are held responsible for every sin (or perceived sin, or drug-induced-fantasy sin) that can be blamed on that alliance.
[/quote]
Then do your homework and pick a good one. Mind you, I think you made a good choice in your own selection, but based on your post I don't know how you came to make a good decision.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='11 February 2010 - 08:47 PM' timestamp='1265942875' post='2176169']
Then do your homework and pick a good one. Mind you, I think you made a good choice in your own selection, but based on your post I don't know how you came to make a good decision.
[/quote]

The problem with "do you homework", for a new nation, is that when you first start, you don't even know that it's important to do so much homework. You don't have the background, you don't know the history. And the tech raiders start hitting you pretty fast. You start receiving "join our alliance" messges on day one. For most people, you end up picking your first alliance more or less randomly.

I didn't pick ML randomly. But I didn't pick ML as soon as I started running a nation, either. As far as I can tell, they don't really recruit.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Baldr

[Arcturus Jefferson]

I really don't have a problem holding ignorance or lack of preparation against someone.

[Jinnai]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='11 February 2010 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1265913883' post='2175217']
You joined an alliance that did, so you tacitly endorse it.
[/quote]
So when joining CN I'm suppose to have the omnipotent power to know every alliance's past grievances. I'm glad you think so highly of my knowledge.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Jinnai

[Caesius]

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Jinnai' date='11 February 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1265950770' post='2176652']
So when joining CN I'm suppose to have the omnipotent power to know every alliance's past grievances. I'm glad you think so highly of my knowledge.
[/quote]
It doesn't take omnipotence to skim TOP's wiki page and look at the "wars" bit, then to do a little more reading.

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/TOP

OOC: Or did you just pick the number one alliance from the drop-down?

Edited February 12, 2010 by Arcturus Jefferson

[Canik]

[quote name='Overlord Shinnra' date='09 February 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1265774001' post='2171782']
We are now almost two weeks into the most destructive war known to Bob and we have had a grand total of 1 - 3 surrenders out of a possible almost 100 alliances. This after another war had just transpired or continued into this one. We have several alliances that have lost NS to the clip of 50% of their total starting NS and continue to freefall with more not far behind. We used to see alliances surrender once they got uncomfortable but I have talked to several whom I consider decent opinions on the matter and all agree that this war doesn't even look close to over.

The questions then become;

How does this war end?
When does this war end?
Why does everyone feel the need to push their pixels to the limit all of a sudden?


Discuss.
[/quote]

Considering a big reason for Karma destroying NPO was because of NPO imposing harsh terms, it's a little hard for Karma to turn around and impose harsh terms too without ridicule. Although, since might makes right, I wonder how much they really care at this point.

The Dark Side refuses to surrender, because we don't plan on leaving allies behind to suffer a long curbstomping topped by harsh surrender terms. Our side wants peace, we just want peace for all of us.

[Krack]

[quote name='Canik' date='12 February 2010 - 12:48 AM' timestamp='1265957280' post='2177176']
Considering a big reason for Karma destroying NPO was because of NPO imposing harsh terms, it's a little hard for Karma to turn around and impose harsh terms too without ridicule.
[/quote]

Who said that? The alliances I was associated with at the time, which includes about half the Karma group, destroyed NPO because they were all concerned that if they didn't do it the next time the Hegemony became aggressive, the rest of the group would not have enough collective power to do it later, and everyone left would fall like dominoes. They were destroyed because they were untrustworthy. Did people like harsh terms that were handed down in some wars? No, not at all. But the destruction of NPO came because of its aggressiveness and untrustworthyness.

/Frankly, I always blamed the enablers more than the NPO itself.

[Canik]

[quote name='Krack' date='12 February 2010 - 01:03 AM' timestamp='1265958196' post='2177205']
Who said that? The alliances I was associated with at the time, which includes about half the Karma group, destroyed NPO because they were all concerned that if they didn't do it the next time the Hegemony became aggressive, the rest of the group would not have enough collective power to do it later, and everyone left would fall like dominoes. They were destroyed because they were untrustworthy. Did people like harsh terms that were handed down in some wars? No, not at all. But the destruction of NPO came because of its aggressiveness and untrustworthyness.

/Frankly, I always blamed the enablers more than the NPO itself.
[/quote]

Why would they worry about their aggressiveness if they did not impose harsh terms?

Anyway, those are also big reasons too. Maybe the biggest. However, you can imagine how many Karma members/supporters cited NPO placing harsh terms in the past as to why they should be destroyed and given harsh terms. You'd be a fool to not think harsh terms didn't play an important role in NPO's destruction.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='11 February 2010 - 11:45 PM' timestamp='1265953526' post='2176930']
OOC: Or did you just pick the number one alliance from the drop-down?
[/quote]
OOC: He's from the Paradox Interactive forums, fyi.

[Sephiroth]

Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once.

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Krack' date='12 February 2010 - 09:03 AM' timestamp='1265958196' post='2177205']
Who said that? The alliances I was associated with at the time, which includes about half the Karma group, destroyed NPO because they were all concerned that if they didn't do it the next time the Hegemony became aggressive, the rest of the group would not have enough collective power to do it later, and everyone left would fall like dominoes. They were destroyed because they were untrustworthy. Did people like harsh terms that were handed down in some wars? No, not at all. But the destruction of NPO came because of its aggressiveness and untrustworthyness.

/Frankly, I always blamed the enablers more than the NPO itself.
[/quote]

yeah, pretty much. the reps part was just advertisement. and you know what they say about advertisement don't you??

also, krack, what you said there sounds a lot like the untold reason of this war really... with the exception that CnG&friends do math better...

[Krack]

[quote name='Canik' date='12 February 2010 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1265959543' post='2177242']
Why would they worry about their aggressiveness if they did not impose harsh terms?
[/quote]

Is that a real question?

[quote]
Anyway, those are also big reasons too. Maybe the biggest. However, you can imagine how many Karma members/supporters cited NPO placing harsh terms in the past as to why they should be destroyed and given harsh terms. You'd be a fool to not think harsh terms didn't play an important role in NPO's destruction.
[/quote]

Of course they cited harsh terms as a reason. That's what you do when someone asks why you are doing something - you cite all the reasons. But it wasn't [i]the[/i] reason. [i]The[/i] reason was that the large alliances had come to the conclusion that there was no more margin for error; any of the large non-Hegemony nations went down and the rest would be unable to defend themselves against the Hegemony. Many felt that it was probably already too late and that they were already incapable of repelling a full Hegemony attack (I happened to believe this; still do actually).

The "NPO forced harsh surrender terms" was always there as a reason (going back years), yet the Karma coalition did not form until the individual Karma alliances came to the conclusion that Planet Bob had reached a state of "now or never". NPO took the true beating (as opposed to IRON) because they were viewed as the Hegemony leadership (and chief agitator).

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='12 February 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1265926691' post='2175640']
No, it didn't. Saying it doesn't make it true, it just makes you look silly~!
[/quote]

i look silly?? imagine that... i look silly for retelling what Karma Coalition members have blabbed about all throughout that war... congratulations sir!! you're a true ally

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Krack' date='12 February 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1265965503' post='2177329']
NPO took the true beating (as opposed to IRON) because they were viewed as the Hegemony leadership (and chief agitator).
[/quote]
Yup, we didnt loose the 2nd highest NS and paid reps.

Krack, if you're going to blame enablers, why dont you blame them all? Oh wait, they switched side on the eve of war and repented , they're clean, we lost more than some still dont have, paid reps and we're not clean, nopes.

Edited February 12, 2010 by shahenshah

[Canik]

[quote name='Krack' date='12 February 2010 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1265965503' post='2177329']
Is that a real question?[/quote]

No it's rhetorical. The answer is; because they would've not only stomped on you but imposed harsh terms. I was making a point.


[quote]
Of course they cited harsh terms as a reason. That's what you do when someone asks why you are doing something - you cite all the reasons. But it wasn't [i]the[/i] reason. [i]The[/i] reason was that the large alliances had come to the conclusion that there was no more margin for error; any of the large non-Hegemony nations went down and the rest would be unable to defend themselves against the Hegemony. Many felt that it was probably already too late and that they were already incapable of repelling a full Hegemony attack (I happened to believe this; still do actually).

The "NPO forced harsh surrender terms" was always there as a reason (going back years), yet the Karma coalition did not form until the individual Karma alliances came to the conclusion that Planet Bob had reached a state of "now or never". NPO took the true beating (as opposed to IRON) because they were viewed as the Hegemony leadership (and chief agitator).
[/quote]

I'm not here to argue weather or not that was THE reason for the Karma War. It was [i]a[/i] reason, and beyond that, it doesn't matter. If nothing else, I would say general public sentiment is against harsh terms. Let's put it that way.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Krack' date='12 February 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1265958196' post='2177205']
Who said that? The alliances I was associated with at the time, which includes about half the Karma group, destroyed NPO because they were all concerned that if they didn't do it the next time the Hegemony became aggressive, the rest of the group would not have enough collective power to do it later, and everyone left would fall like dominoes. They were destroyed because they were untrustworthy. Did people like harsh terms that were handed down in some wars? No, not at all. But the destruction of NPO came because of its aggressiveness and untrustworthyness.

/Frankly, I always blamed the enablers more than the NPO itself.
[/quote]
And yet the many of the former Initiative, WUT and Q alliances or enablers as you call them got off lightly compared to the NPO or in some cases were even welcomed into karma with open arms.

[Ivan Moldavi]

In regards to the actual topic, I believe the mentality as it currently exists in this conflict stems from the fact that a large majority of the combatants on both sides are only in the war because of treaty obligations or chains. Very few of the alliances are actually engaged because they are on some damned crusade or trying to make a moral point.

Thus, they believe they have entered honorably and justly and indeed find themselves on occasion fighting opposite some alliances that they call "friends". Therefore the general opinion seems to be that since they didn't do anything "wrong" by taking part in this war, which is costing both sides quite a bit overall, neither side believes they should have to surrender or pay reperations (in general).

I know that there are some exceptions to this but by and large I believe this to be the case. To justify that I only need to look at last nights screw up between Legion and Sparta. Sparta was asking Legion to pay $600 million in reps. For what? Legion entered to defend a treated ally and is fighting against some allies that they are close to otherwise. They don't believe they did anything wrong in doing so and are thus felt put out by such a demand. And to Sparta's credit, I believe they have some feeling of the same since they immediately went from $600 million to simple white peace in one step.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='12 February 2010 - 02:29 AM' timestamp='1265959792' post='2177247']
OOC: He's from the Paradox Interactive forums, fyi.
[/quote]
OOC: Then he shouldn't be a stranger to doing his homework before he starts to play a game, unless he's been trying to figure out Vicky on his own for years.

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='12 February 2010 - 08:36 AM' timestamp='1265981786' post='2177507']
And yet the many of the former Initiative, WUT and Q alliances or enablers as you call them got off lightly compared to the NPO or in some cases were even welcomed into karma with open arms.
[/quote]
Neither I nor Krack were in charge of setting up the coalition to bring down the NPO and their heavies - it is a mistake to assume that anything the coalition leadership did was or is endorsed by either of us. That's part of your problem (and with just about everyone whining about this or that in relation to Karma). It was a disparate group of alliances with differing viewpoints and objectives. However, some of those who had served the NPO were seen as redeemed because they were willing to fight against them. It seems pretty open-and-shut: if you help us against the NPO we won't come for you. It was viewed as necessary because (until the NPO cheesed off TOP) Karma was a [i]very[/i] close shave. That's politics; Karma neither intended nor in actuality end politics. That doesn't make the Karma war hypocritical by any stretch - you simply attribute things to the war that aren't there.

[Krack]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='12 February 2010 - 09:57 AM' timestamp='1265990258' post='2177668']
Neither I nor Krack were in charge of setting up the coalition to bring down the NPO and their heavies - it is a mistake to assume that anything the coalition leadership did was or is endorsed by either of us. That's part of your problem (and with just about everyone whining about this or that in relation to Karma). It was a disparate group of alliances with differing viewpoints and objectives. However, some of those who had served the NPO were seen as redeemed because they were willing to fight against them. It seems pretty open-and-shut: if you help us against the NPO we won't come for you. It was viewed as necessary because (until the NPO cheesed off TOP) Karma was a [i]very[/i] close shave. That's politics; Karma neither intended nor in actuality end politics. That doesn't make the Karma war hypocritical by any stretch - you simply attribute things to the war that aren't there.
[/quote]

Well said.

Guess what? There are people on my side of the current war that I don't particularly like. However, we agree that we dislike and distrust people on the opposite side of the war even more.

And, regarding enablers, I will say this ... the former tC alliances that left and joined up with Karma (Sparta, Gramlins, FOK, MHA) came to the conclusion that what was going on with tC tactics and behavior was, for a lack of a better phrase, "not good" and were searching for a way out of the bloc (that wouldn't cause themselves to get rolled) months before the Karma War started. That's how the Karma coalition began putting itself together in the first place - SuperFriends was extremely concerned the Gramlins would get rolled when they dropped out of tC. In other words, those "enablers" were actively looking for a way out of their situation (which we presented them with), while the ones that are losing the current war were content with the status quo.

There's a huge difference there, in my opinion. Some people "got it" a year ago, while others are now on their second beating in 6 months and still don't "get it".

Edited February 12, 2010 by Krack

[Jinnai]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='12 February 2010 - 09:57 AM' timestamp='1265990258' post='2177668']
OOC: Then he shouldn't be a stranger to doing his homework before he starts to play a game, unless he's been trying to figure out Vicky on his own for years.
[/quote]There is a difference between reading up on game mechachics and reading up wikis about everyone's version of history and knowing from the get go which one is the "right" one. If you somehow have this god-like ability to instinctively know such things about every alliance, including large, small and micro alliances, that has ever appeared on the face of planet Bob and also know which one's version of history is the "correct" and "morally just" version, my hat is off to you, the superior being.

Congrats.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Jinnai

[Krack]

[quote name='Jinnai' date='12 February 2010 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1266003256' post='2177952']
There is a difference between reading up on game mechachics and reading up wikis about everyone's version of history and knowing from the get go which one is the "right" one. If you somehow have this god-like ability to instinctively know such things about every alliance, including large, small and micro alliances, that has ever appeared on the face of planet Bob and also know which one's version of history is the "correct" and "morally just" version, my hat is off to you.

Congrats.
[/quote]

This might apply to brand new nations. But your nation is 2 years old; that's plenty of time to determine if you agree or disagree with your alliance's behavior - and if you want to support it with your nation's military strength or if you want to go somewhere else. You act as though nobody is capable of changing their AA.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Krack

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Jinnai' date='12 February 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1266003256' post='2177952']
There is a difference between reading up on game mechachics and reading up wikis about everyone's version of history and knowing from the get go which one is the "right" one. If you somehow have this god-like ability to instinctively know such things about every alliance, including large, small and micro alliances, that has ever appeared on the face of planet Bob and also know which one's version of history is the "correct" and "morally just" version, my hat is off to you, the superior being.

Congrats.
[/quote]
OOC: Because this is a political simulator the history of the different alliances [i]is[/i] the game mechanics.