A doctrine of war: what Karma should and shouldn't have done.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296069832' post='2603057']
The die was cast, war was declared. And what happens? Only some of NpO's allies enter. No one in the NPO sphere enter, even direct allies of NpO or NpO's closest allies (The Legion and TPF). We all just stared at each other for about a week. This is the NPO that hasn't fought a war in a year and a half, far to long for this game. An alliance that didn't enter in support of NSO the last time around.
[/quote]
You guys are stupid.

NPO's allies didn't enter because we were shut out of Polar coalition channels. Most of us had been screwed by them in the last major war and, despite that, we were willing to come help if they could persuade us they were trustworthy, but they did not want to.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1296252441' post='2607967']
You guys are stupid.

NPO's allies didn't enter because we were shut out of Polar coalition channels. Most of us had been screwed by them in the last major war and, despite that, we were willing to come help if they could persuade us they were trustworthy, but they did not want to.
[/quote]
I don't know about the latter, but it is good to see publicly confirmed that the NPO and/or it's allies were (and are) hostile to our side of things.
So much for the "we're nice guys and didn't (want to) do anything threatening".

[mhawk]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1296252909' post='2607980']
I don't know about the latter, but it is good to see publicly confirmed that the NPO and/or it's allies were (and are) hostile to our side of things.
So much for the "we're nice guys and didn't (want to) do anything threatening".
[/quote]
I'd hardly say quoting haf saying he wasn't allowed in the polar war channels is any sort of evidence of that. Take TPF for example, our treaty with STA obviously links us to that crap storm. Upon hearing polar would be hit we asked to speak with polar guys regarding the situation - given there seems to be some question regarding the CB ect. We were told commit or stay out. So we stayed out, we had no intention of entering nor did NPO. Haf even says they weren't in polar channels because they wouldn't commit to polar's defense, how does that prove your statement of intending to be hostile?

[mhawk]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296069832' post='2603057']


The die was cast, war was declared. And what happens? Only some of NpO's allies enter. No one in the NPO sphere enter, even direct allies of NpO or NpO's closest allies (The Legion and TPF). We all just stared at each other for about a week. This is the NPO that hasn't fought a war in a year and a half, far to long for this game. An alliance that didn't enter in support of NSO the last time around.

We were ready to enter. We, both in MK, and the community in general, were bored to tears from almost a year of no major fighting. This game was going downhill due to inaction. Moralism and cowardice had collectively smothered the conflict that drove it. Either NPO and co were going to enter and people on each side were waiting for the other side to enter first, in which case this was just a short cut to something that was taking obscenely long to happen. Or they were deliberately staying out. If they had stayed out, that would have been a nail in the coffin of this game. It would have set a precedent of cowardice that would have made major wars even more unlikely and inconceivable.

[/quote]

Surely you've seen non chaining treaties before. They are written like that for a reason. Who are you to decided how we should write our foreign affairs. MK arrogance at it's greatest. NPO had no say or input to our treaty with STA, yet you attack them over us exercising our own foreign policy decisions.

Edited January 28, 2011 by mhawk

[Tromp]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1296254030' post='2608003']
I'd hardly say quoting haf saying he wasn't allowed in the polar war channels is any sort of evidence of that. Take TPF for example, our treaty with STA obviously links us to that crap storm. Upon hearing polar would be hit we asked to speak with polar guys regarding the situation - given there seems to be some question regarding the CB ect. We were told commit or stay out. So we stayed out, we had no intention of entering nor did NPO. Haf even says they weren't in polar channels because they wouldn't commit to polar's defense, how does that prove your statement of intending to be hostile?
[/quote]
Oh, I think you misinterpreted me a bit.

According to Haf his alliance, as one of NPO's allies, this seems to include yours too although he was a bit vague I admit, offered Polar help. But since NpO supposedly refused this offer, they didn't do anything. Your view and Hafs conflict on the point of intent. I'm not sure who to believe here, but I think it is telling that Invicta offered NpO help without being obliged to do so. [sub]Again, according to Haf.[/sub]

[mhawk]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1296255125' post='2608029']
Oh, I think you misinterpreted me a bit.

According to Haf his alliance, as one of NPO's allies, this seems to include yours too although he was a bit vague I admit, offered Polar help. But since NpO supposedly refused this offer, they didn't do anything. Your view and Hafs conflict on the point of intent. I'm not sure who to believe here, but I think it is telling that Invicta offered NpO help without being obliged to do so. [sub]Again, according to Haf.[/sub]
[/quote]
I wasn't in contact with invicta to any degree so I can't say what they were going to do.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296227214' post='2607430']
well that and Polaris was kinda pissed at MCXA jumping ship right before WoTC and backstabbing Polaris/BLEU just to gain a spot in 1V. but this is a whole other topic altogether.



well let's see here, Archon was your leader at that time was he not? From what i have been told, Archon's word is law (at least at that time) in MK. Archon's signature is on said document. Thus, regardless of what you think, your leader (who according to ya'll since the #2 of an alliance=the alliance, then the #$%&@ing1 damn sure is the alliance) and thus MK signed the document.

so, you can spin it whatever way you want it won't work. your own propaganda works against you. please don't try again, i am tired of reading the bs crap ya'lls side has spewed forth as if all of CN is that stupid.
[/quote]
He signed it as the voice of Karma not as the King of MK. If MK has anything to do with the peace terms he would have signed it as the King of MK.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296258644' post='2608130']
He signed it as the voice of Karma not as the King of MK. If MK has anything to do with the peace terms he would have signed it as the King of MK.
[/quote]

so you are saying that Archon was not the king of MK at that time? if that is the case, since Dajobo never stated he was the Regent of Polaris, even if he did try to set up a spy ring, he obviously did not do it as government of Polaris...

you cannot have it both ways mate. stop trying to think you can. either gov members are gov members regardless of what they do, or gov members are only gov members for official things and are otherwise not gov members.

which is it? cuz if Archon could lay down being the king of MK while he was king of MK, then Dajobo, again, since he never stated that he was the Regent of Polaris could was not acting on behalf of Polaris then. which means that VE has no CB against Polaris at all.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296263027' post='2608216']
so you are saying that Archon was not the king of MK at that time? [/quote]
I don't think you understand what a signature is. It is assenting to a document. Archon assented to the document in his ceremonial as the voice of Karma, not as the King of MK. MK had nothing to do with the terms.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Banksy

[eyriq]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1296084023' post='2603491']
I think once you bring the OOC 'we're just trying to have fun' into what becomes an IC political event, and a major one in this case, you're damaging the political part of the game. Attacking with no CB because you want to have fun (or 'for lulz', in Unjust Path terminology) means that you now have an in game action which is not driven by politics. That's dangerous.

Of course there are many IC grudges behind this, otherwise it could have happened to any alliance in any war. Attacking with no (IC) CB is a political event in itself and one which will drive some politics for the next however long. I hope it doesn't catch on and become a habit – we all had enough of people being rolled with no CB back in the old days.
[/quote]

I'll tell you what I think is dangerous, precluding fun from IC politics, fun with the element of 'it's just a game' as its primary identifier. Fun in a game is very clear; competitive and fair with either a zero sum or positive sum outcome. Given that this game doesn't have a finite end game, a positive sum outcome should be the most logical goal of our playing. If our IC politics do not factor this into the 'morality' of our choices, we are making a grave mistake. This is not real life, people can easily 'unplug' when things get boring or totally stacked against them, and the game can 'die'. What you saw in Pax Pacifica was a stifled environment with one alpha male on top and a bunch of alliances content to build in their shadow, while any opposition was beat down, and sometimes they didn't have to be opposition. What you see with MK is [i]assertive attempts at creating a competitive environment[/i]. I really can't praise Archon more for how he's handled his alliance, and the same goes for Roq. GOONS don't get that praise because they are such strong supporters of raiding, which is zero sum at best and negative sum most of the time (nation is raided, quits; nation fights back, no profit and nation is curbstomped). Raiding is driven by the 'might makes right' meme, as are curbstomps, EZi's, etc. Pacifica used IC politics precluding the 'fun factor' to justify curbstomps, EZI's, and so forth; if they had weighed in the fun factor more strongly they would have made different choices, choices that fostered more competition, more multi-polarity, and less hegemonic behavior. They didn't because 'might makes right' is ingrained in their personality, it is the materially logical outcome of observing our environment after all, and they do so love their materialism. In fact, they haven't changed in this aspect at all, they play by a different logic, a different politics, the politics of domination. That kills the game and is levels worse than raiding, though motivated by the same meme, 'might makes right'. This is a game, keep it fun for everyone and thereby keep it fun for yourself.

[mhawk]

[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1296269143' post='2608358'] What you see with MK is [i]assertive attempts at creating a competitive environment[/i]. I really can't praise Archon more for how he's handled his alliance, and the same goes for Roq. GOONS don't get that praise because they are such strong supporters of raiding, which is zero sum at best and negative sum most of the time (nation is raided, quits; nation fights back, no profit and nation is curbstomped).
[/quote]
How is being tied to every major bloc an assertive attempt at creating a competitive environment? MK maintained strong ties to CnG, PB, DH in addition secured a link with TOP and Duckroll via that relation with IRON. What they did is create a myth of competition that you have bought, while in reality they controlled or were linked to an overwhelming amount of firepower from any opposition. What did they do with this power to create a more competitive environment? Yes they are currently attempting to curbstomp an alliance that they feel might be too competitive in the future at some point.

Edited January 29, 2011 by mhawk

[eyriq]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1296270413' post='2608381']
How is being tied to every major bloc an assertive attempt at creating a competitive environment? MK maintained strong ties to CnG, PB, DH in addition secured a link with TOP and Duckroll via that relation with IRON. What they did is create a myth of competition that you have bought, while in reality they controlled or were linked to an overwhelming amount of firepower from any opposition. What did they do with this power to create a more competitive environment? Yes they are currently attempting to curbstomp an alliance that they feel might be too competitive in the future at some point.
[/quote]

None of those behaviors taken in context with their other behaviors can be seen as cementing their hegemony. You may or may not have seen Xiph's interview with Hawk where he discussed his 'side', which included NpO and friends. That 'side' has been consistently undermined by the actions of that alliance which had the most to gain from its coherency, MK. The forming of PB had a lot to do with that too of course. It took the vox movement and several years of creeping in the shadows for an opposition to rise up against NPO's hegemony; MK actively undermined any potential for hegemony by supporting PB and canceling their ties to NpO and friends. This war is not a curb stomp, is doing further damage to MK and PB's longterm political position, and thereby is creating an environment that allows more freedom of movement.

Edited for clarity

Edited January 29, 2011 by eyriq

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296267876' post='2608334']
I don't think you understand what a signature is. It is assenting to a document. Archon assented to the document in his ceremonial as the voice of Karma, not as the King of MK. MK had nothing to do with the terms.
[/quote]

and i don't think you are understanding, your side, including many of your alliance mates- have this belief that a gov member is always a gov member. this includes joking around with a friend on IRC. so since a gov member is always a gov member, that means that Archon was still acting on behalf of MK when he signed that document. it does not matter what signature he used, he signed the treaty and since a gov member is always a gov member regardless of circumstances; it would hold true that Archon, as king of MK, acted on behalf of MK when he signed that treaty.

the only way for this not to be true is for a gov member to cease being a gov member unless (according to you) a gov member states his official gov title. and if that is the case, then since Dajobo never stated he was the Regent of Polaris, how can one blame Polaris for the joking around of Dajobo especially since he was basically not holding any official gov position as he never stated he was.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296271978' post='2608414']
and i don't think you are understanding, your side, including many of your alliance mates- have this belief that a gov member is always a gov member. this includes joking around with a friend on IRC. so since a gov member is always a gov member, that means that Archon was still acting on behalf of MK when he signed that document. it does not matter what signature he used, he signed the treaty and since a gov member is always a gov member regardless of circumstances; it would hold true that Archon, as king of MK, acted on behalf of MK when he signed that treaty.

the only way for this not to be true is for a gov member to cease being a gov member unless (according to you) a gov member states his official gov title. and if that is the case, then since Dajobo never stated he was the Regent of Polaris, how can one blame Polaris for the joking around of Dajobo especially since he was basically not holding any official gov position as he never stated he was.
[/quote]
Yes, and I don't give two !@#$% about "my side" or your contorted example comparing Archon with Dajobo.

MK was not involved in the negotiations, as shown by the fact that no one from our government signed it under the line "For the Mushroom Kingdom."

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296272385' post='2608424']
Yes, and I don't give two !@#$% about "my side" or your contorted example comparing Archon with Dajobo.

MK was not involved in the negotiations, as shown by the fact that no one from our government signed it under the line "For the Mushroom Kingdom."
[/quote]

never stated MK was involved in negotiations at all. in fact, i specifically stated that it does not matter that they weren't. and you may not care what your side is saying but guess what, it is being said. which means, it is completely viable that Archon signed on behalf of MK, again, regardless of whether MK actually partook in the negotiations.

you don't like it, then you had best get your side to stop spouting a gov member is always a gov member. otherwise, you can just deal with it.

[Affluenza]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1296270413' post='2608381']
How is being tied to every major bloc an assertive attempt at creating a competitive environment? MK maintained strong ties to CnG, PB, DH in addition secured a link with TOP and Duckroll via that relation with IRON. What they did is create a myth of competition that you have bought, while in reality they controlled or were linked to an overwhelming amount of firepower from any opposition. What did they do with this power to create a more competitive environment? Yes they are currently attempting to curbstomp an alliance that they feel might be too competitive in the future at some point.
[/quote]

Tbh you may see it as MK being tied to all these power houses intentionally for politicking but every single alliance is and has been a long time friend of MK with the exception being our ties to TOP. That our allies happen to be powerful it is down to only the fact that we and our allies have not been in overly damaging wars...

Anyways...not to get into a "MK this, MK that" debate but MK is now not tied to as many alliances in the web...and for sure atleast in regard to our ties we have effectively placed ourselves soley on one side so there is no confusion when it comes to conflicts as to which side MK will enter.

You can count all of MK's treaties on 1 hand...how many alliances can say the same?

[mhawk]

[quote name='Affluenza' timestamp='1296274343' post='2608504']


You can count all of MK's treaties on 1 hand...how many alliances can say the same?
[/quote]
Add another finger and I think you can get all of NPO's MDP and above treaties.

Edited January 29, 2011 by mhawk

[Affluenza]

Tbh if they could, NPO would have more treaties. The conditions are just not there. Some are wary of them. NPO also not wanting plastic friends...

[Monster]

Everyone blames MK for everything.

[mhawk]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1296278062' post='2608709']
Everyone blames MK for everything.
[/quote]
I'd say you guys blame everything on NPO. This thread is about MK and her actions.

[Monster]

I thought it was about Karma and wars after it.

[Baldr]

[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1296269143' post='2608358']
What you see with MK is [i]assertive attempts at creating a competitive environment[/i].[/quote]

That doesn't appear to be the case, to me. They just declared on NPO to be sure that NPO wasn't competitive. The [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97693"]DoW[/url] itself says "We cannot allow any chance of a return to power by the New Pacific Order." That doesn't sound like they want competition.

[quote]I really can't praise Archon more for how he's handled his alliance, and the same goes for Roq. GOONS don't get that praise because they are such strong supporters of raiding, which is zero sum at best and negative sum most of the time (nation is raided, quits; nation fights back, no profit and nation is curbstomped). Raiding is driven by the 'might makes right' meme, as are curbstomps, EZi's, etc. [/quote]

If it were not for the support from MK and Umbrella and VE, then GOONS wouldn't be able to get away with their nonsense. All of these have joined together in a "might makes right" coalition. That coalition is currently beating down what they perceive as "the competition" to make sure that they do not have to risk that "competitive environment" that you say you like.

[Letum]

It was MK's leader that was a main figure in organizing the Karma coalition, it was MK that we sent reps to and it was MK officials that I talked to about organizing and rationing reps between alliances, so MK obviously has [i]nothing[/i] to do with us getting curbstomped or the aftermath. Nothing at all.

[iamthey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296263027' post='2608216']
so you are saying that Archon was not the king of MK at that time? if that is the case, since Dajobo never stated he was the Regent of Polaris, even if he did try to set up a spy ring, he obviously did not do it as government of Polaris...[/quote]

This would fly if being logically consistent or conducting a rational discourse still had meaning. However discussion here has now devolved into the exchange of talking points along tribal lines. "You disagree with me, you think I am immoral, okay lets have a fight over it then?"

[size="1"]edit: tbh this is probably a talking point by now.[/size]

Edited January 29, 2011 by iamthey

[Monster]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1296292040' post='2609280']
It was MK's leader that was a main figure in organizing the Karma coalition, it was MK that we sent reps to and it was MK officials that I talked to about organizing and rationing reps between alliances, so MK obviously has [i]nothing[/i] to do with us getting curbstomped or the aftermath. Nothing at all.
[/quote]

Archon did speak as the Voice of Karma and everyone knows he's a talented writer, but it wasn't brought together by him. Alliances chose to pass on their reps to MK and that's why you had to coordinate with them. Acting like MK is/was behind everything is a stretch, but it's been implied.