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

[DragonsPhyre]

Hitting NPO now does not spice up the game. If you really wanted to spice it up later on, you'd let NPO grow to a strengthened position before picking a fight. That would be a more even war. As it is, it's just another attempted curbstomp.

[Grabem]

I can agree with a lot said in the opening post except the conclusion about alliances purposely not escalating wars. It just seems horribly contradictory for you to say that an alliance has the right to remain neutral and then denounce those alliances who are not interested in creating a global war and remain neutral during them. How is attacking NPO any different than attacking GPA?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296074567' post='2603202']
No, it changed at the TOP DoW. It did not continue through it. From GWII to KARMA it was alliances asking for air to breathe. TOP was the only instance I will recognize as being a moral issue, one that was only immoral by convenience of those attacked - yup, I said it. Retrospectively what TOP did was brilliant and should be applauded. Anyway, things should continue to progress to a state of greater multipolarity/anarchy to really bring some drama back into the game.
[/quote]

i still don't get the whole "multi-polarity" you and others keep stating exists. if you are in an alliance that does not like PB/Doomhouse your pretty much $%&@ed. it is one of the reasons NSO went it alone, in order to keep the world somewhat multi-polar, instead of having their allies completely crushed as well as the fear of stifling reps and many months of terms. This game is nowhere near being multipolar anymore. the bi-polar war helped break a few links and make it more multi-polar, but after this war it will be even more unipolar and be almost as unipolar as it was under Q.

as for the TOP DoW- meh. that was MK howling about how immoral it was and now MK utilizes the same tactic... talk about moral by convenience... not to mention, should it ever occur to MK again, i doubt you or anyone in MK would really be applauding it. instead we would see the same howling as was done when TOP did it.

[Goldie]

[quote name='Tungsten' timestamp='1296074099' post='2603183']
CN is a PVP game, which astoundingly has a player-created option of avoiding the PVP content (GPA/Neutral alliances) - if 4000+ nations made the choice of joining militarily and politically active alliances and then deleted when both political and military action showed up on their doorstep - I don't see a loss.

I would be willing to bet 90% of the nations that left during Karma had never posted on these forums, joined an IRC channel, or held any sort of position in their alliance. On the other hand, wars make the game fun and interesting for those who choose to actively play it - keeping players who have been here for years involved. This has always been a game run by the vocal and involved majority, and it has never taken kindly to apathy and inaction. The most successful alliances have been and always will be those with high levels of member activity and participation. Alliances which are content to allow nations to join and then never hear from them again are setting themselves up for problems.

So this begs the question; who should the game's environment cater itself too? Those who spend the time every day reading and posting on forums, filling positions in their alliances, chatting on IRC channels, organizing tech deals and doing other in-game tasks... or should make sure the guy who collects taxes every 10-20 days is as happy as possible?

I know my answer.
[/quote]

I'll add to this and say the reason so many deleted in Karma is because the economic and political aspect of the game shut down for most people outside of those in the alliances who fought for the duration, and even then, only those small enough to have targets had something to do. Alliances just didn't know to keep nations occupied during extended wars. On top of that, there were tons of people who didn't have the stomach for wars that long. VE lost about 80 members during Karma, and another 50 in the month or so following it because people didn't know what to do during or after a war that long. I can imagine other alliances had the same issues.

People know now to expect long wars, and prepare for them. You'll never see Karma-level attrition again.

[AirMe]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296072857' post='2603142']
Having been in MK leadership during teh time, I believe you will find (upon actually reading the history) that MKs narrative and the narrative of other "losing-side" alliances was plagued by "give us a chance to play the game" as opposed to "thats immoral".
[/quote]

So how is what you are doing to the NPO any different than was done to us back then?

Azaghul's piece is good. He has a way words. I love how people who believe in ethical and honorable behavior are the bad guy. Because quite honestly, there are a very few of us left.

I love how it is ok for Archon to spout off on how moral crusade is and then once someone else tries the same thing you guys all go bawwwwwwwwwwwwww moralist. The fact is, morals for you guys are ok as long as it is you preaching them. The minute someone else pulls them out on you, you crap post the crap out of them.

Edited January 26, 2011 by AirMe

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296075875' post='2603238']


as for the TOP DoW- meh. that was MK howling about how immoral it was and now MK utilizes the same tactic... talk about moral by convenience... not to mention, should it ever occur to MK again, i doubt you or anyone in MK would really be applauding it. instead we would see the same howling as was done when TOP did it.
[/quote]

If you really doubt me then you are not only dense, but purposefully so.

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296076172' post='2603246']
So how is what you are doing to the NPO any different than was done to us back then?

Azaghul's piece is good. He has a way words. I love how people who believe in ethical and honorable behavior are the bad guy. Because quite honestly, there are a very few of us left.
[/quote]

Any different? This won't end in the forced dissolution of the Pacifican community.

Edited January 26, 2011 by tamerlane

[Schad]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296074567' post='2603202']
TOP was the only instance I will recognize as being a moral issue, one that was only immoral by convenience of those attacked - yup, I said it. Retrospectively what TOP did was brilliant and should be applauded.
[/quote]

See, this undermines the entire premise for me. If it was only 'immoral by convenience', it suggests that the next such action against your grouping will also be viewed in the same light for the same reasons...and it makes the current conversion seem all the more hollow.

[AirMe]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296076273' post='2603248']


Any different? This won't end in the forced dissolution of the Pacifican community.
[/quote]

You know and I know that no one could have disbanded MK back then. The 150 or so of us would have sat at ZI for eternity if it meant that. But they still would have effectively taken us out of the game by putting our stats back in the dark ages. How long did it take FAN to rebuild? NPO was no where close to being a threat.

While I do agree with the premise that Legion has earned the WAE tag during this conflict skirting treaty obligations but don't put lipstick on a pig and call it a lady.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1296076418' post='2603251']
See, this undermines the entire premise for me. If it was only 'immoral by convenience', it suggests that the next such action against your grouping will also be viewed in the same light for the same reasons...and it makes the current conversion seem all the more hollow.
[/quote]


Such beautiful hyperbole. You are a credit to your kind, sir.

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296076598' post='2603260']
You know and I know that no one could have disbanded MK back then. The 150 or so of us would have sat at ZI for eternity if it meant that. But they still would have effectively taken us out of the game by putting our stats back in the dark ages. How long did it take FAN to rebuild? NPO was no where close to being a threat.

While I do agree with the premise that Legion has earned the WAE tag during this conflict skirting treaty obligations but don't put lipstick on a pig and call it a lady.
[/quote]

AirMe, you and I both know the reason we surrendered in UjW was to maintain the community and we lost plenty on account of that and stood to lose more had we not. That doesnt take into account LUE, NAAC, ONOS, GOLD, etc who didn't have the staying power that MK has been blessed with. Don't play daft here.

Edited January 26, 2011 by tamerlane

[Banksy]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1296074001' post='2603178']
This is BS. Research will show that a majority of Q including TPF and NPO signed anti EZI/PZI declarations well before karma. Take this off the list of BS you accomplished.
[/quote]
Majority does not mean universally. MCXA, for example, still maintained an EZI list up until the war. There have been no EZI attempts since Karma either, the term has died [as can be seen by everyone forgetting what it means].

[King Charge]

Good read, but I agree with a lot of the people who say it would have been a hell of a lot more interesting if you let NPO grow and decided not to curbstomp them. There is a definitive power in CN right now, and I know in the original post you explained how yout tried to avoid it, but none the less it still exists. After you're done beating NPO and after NpO takes their blow this game is going to be extremely tilted in one direction and extremely boring. The fact that there was already a major war going on, it wouldn't have been hard to just let NPO be.

My theory goes like this. MK was starving and bored for war. I can't blame you since we all were. They wanted to enter the VE-NpO conflict, but realized that NPO was not going to get involved. Instead of MK getting involved and letting NPO sit and grow while they were shrinking from war, they dragged them into it. I don't hold it against you, but if NPO was willing to suffer more boring years of no war it's not your responsibility to force your fun upon them.

[Banksy]

[quote name='RandomInterrupt' timestamp='1296075356' post='2603224']
MK's actions run counter to much of what you are stating here. The VE vs Polar war was (surprisingly) evenly matched, a feat that hasn't happened in a major war in quite a few years. It was fun. Now that MK has entered, it's pretty much your standard beatdown. So basically MK has taken a situation that was incredibly fun and interesting and turned it into your standard boring war. I am sure you have made the game more interesting for the membership of MK, which is fine as your goal should be to benefit your membership. However most of your post addresses the game as a whole, and I don't believe MK has done anything to benefit anyone outside MK and PB here.
[/quote]
Because we're attacking the NpO...?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296076273' post='2603248']
If you really doubt me then you are not only dense, but purposefully so.[/quote]

yes because i don't believe you at all, i am dense... what an awesome refute to my statement. fact is- you and others bawwed your little hearts out over TOP/et al pre-emptively striking you and now you state that "oh, it was actually okay" right after MK pre-emptively attacks NPO... so i am supposed to honestly believe that MK is nothing more than hypocrites? cuz that is all the evidence i am seeing from MK. a bunch of hypocrites who say and do one thing only to switch to the complete opposite tactic when needed. considering you have done that, who is to say ya'll won't revert back to the original "BAWWWWWWWWW" pre-emptive strikes are morally wrong!!!!!!! attitude when it is needed to do that? if MK actually stuck with any convictions (outside of no EZI/freedom of speech) for more than a few months, people may actually believe you have some and won't doubt your word so easily. but considering everything i have seen of MK, ya'll cry out against any and all tactics employed by MK at one point or another, when it is used against MK. and you will use tactics previously decried, when MK needs/wants to.



[quote]Any different? This won't end in the forced dissolution of the Pacifican community.
[/quote]

how is that different? iirc- GWI-GWIII were fought by largely the same opponents. and after GWIII, was the UjW which NPO was not heavily involved in and then the WoTC- which no alliance was disbanded and then Karma. GWIII saw the disbandments of LUE and NAAC of which i know NAAC disbanded of their own recognizance. the only alliance i can see being directly related to NPO forcefully disbanding is IAA.

so, how about you stop making it seem like NPO disbanded alliances every single month cuz that is !@#$%^&* and you know it.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296077169' post='2603280']
yes because i don't believe you at all, i am dense... what an awesome refute to my statement. fact is- you and others bawwed your little hearts out over TOP/et al pre-emptively striking you and now you state that "oh, it was actually okay" right after MK pre-emptively attacks NPO... so i am supposed to honestly believe that MK is nothing more than hypocrites? cuz that is all the evidence i am seeing from MK. a bunch of hypocrites who say and do one thing only to switch to the complete opposite tactic when needed. considering you have done that, who is to say ya'll won't revert back to the original "BAWWWWWWWWW" pre-emptive strikes are morally wrong!!!!!!! attitude when it is needed to do that? if MK actually stuck with any convictions (outside of no EZI/freedom of speech) for more than a few months, people may actually believe you have some and won't doubt your word so easily. but considering everything i have seen of MK, ya'll cry out against any and all tactics employed by MK at one point or another, when it is used against MK. and you will use tactics previously decried, when MK needs/wants to.
[/quote]

Step up and let me know when I am bawwing further down the line. Until then, shut up.


[quote]
how is that different? iirc- GWI-GWIII were fought by largely the same opponents. and after GWIII, was the UjW which NPO was not heavily involved in and then the WoTC- which no alliance was disbanded and then Karma. GWIII saw the disbandments of LUE and NAAC of which i know NAAC disbanded of their own recognizance. the only alliance i can see being directly related to NPO forcefully disbanding is IAA.

so, how about you stop making it seem like NPO disbanded alliances every single month cuz that is !@#$%^&* and you know it.
[/quote]

Actually I decided to change this one and chronicle the alliances forced out or repressed with ridiculous terms/conditions:
IAA
\m/
GOONS
GOLD
LUE
ONOS
FAN
NAAC
LEGION
MK
GATO

They may have all been on the same side but that is irrelevant. People were forced out, communities were disbanded, things were made incredibly unpleasant.

Edited January 26, 2011 by tamerlane

[Omniscient1]

SO you done this all for fun? Is that your excuse or do I read it wrong?

Maybe NPO thought what they were doing was fun too. You really don't get to decide what's fun in this world and what's not. The players do. This is the !@#$ we're talking about. You and MK do not get to decide how we will have fun. Sorry.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Omniscient1

[kamichi]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1296072876' post='2603143']
Casus Belli is a construct that shouldn't be tossed altogether, but like all good rules there are exceptions and vast tracts of uncertainty. What qualifies as an "acceptable" CB? Part of the reason for the growing length between wars are the increasing standards for what meets the unspoken, unwritten qualification; few good wars have been started by an unequivocally valid justification and most of those that have been were the result of large players prodding one another with smaller, peripheral states who, thanks in part to their inexperience, are willing to make the errors necessary for "legitimate" conflict to erupt.

That doesn't however mean CBs are to be disposed of altogether from this point forward. CBs provide vital points of drama, intrigue, haggling, and reasoning to the conflicts that drive the plot of this game. Were all parties to abandon them things would become dull with great haste. The converse is equally true: a game in which the only military conflict pursued is on the basis of "perfect" justification will have no conflict whatsoever. There is a full scale of players and approaches between the two extremes of defense and aggression and a healthy game will enjoy the great variety of that spectrum. In a game such as this it falls to the players to take actions to bring balance to the spectrum.
[/quote]

Please don't let this beautiful post be overlooked.

I've tried to put down my views on CBs in the past and never really managed to explain myself well enough, then you come swanning in and do it perfectly for me. Politics is what seperates CN from the typical, dime-a-dozen browser based games which simply aren't interesting. What makes war interesting is the furore and the spectacle that surrounds it, not impersonal number crunching.

I tried to expand upon my ideas, but there's nothing more I could add to the post I quoted which could explain my position any better. Top notch.

[kevin32891]

Azaghul you can go $%&@ yourself with your !@#$%* reasoning. Half the !@#$ you spouted just now
is counter to what your alliance is currently doing.

P.S. i mad

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296077518' post='2603287']
Actually I decided to change this one and chronicle the alliances forced out or repressed with ridiculous terms/conditions:
IAA
\m/
GOONS
GOLD
LUE
ONOS
FAN
NAAC
LEGION
MK
GATO

They may have all been on the same side but that is irrelevant. People were forced out, communities were disbanded, things were made incredibly unpleasant.
[/quote]

Now read that list and figure out how many of those alliances still stand with you. We know what oppression looks like and we're not going to stand by just because you tell us NPO would be worse. We aren't having to pick between either having or NPO. We can always put someone on top who's willing to not commit any breaches of our freedoms.

[SyndicatedINC]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296070779' post='2603083']
There's no way to of clearly conveying in character that "this is a game and the aim should be to have fun" as a motive for your IC actions.
[/quote]

Therein lies a part of the problem as I see it with what happened. Not everyone plays this game IC as a game. OOC I am quite aware it is a game, however the fun I derive is not from the same source as you, the fun I and some others derive from the game is from roleplaying our IC persona as if this was NOT a game and in fact was real. I drew quite a few old high school and college buddies to this game precisely because it was like model UN back in the day. The fun of that was the challenge of acting out a persona correctly.

Personally I was quite glad for the brief breather, which everyone else called stagnation, in that environment I can devote several hours per day or a few minutes per month. It is far more lax and free on ones schedule, whereas during war it becomes a heavy burden time sink, essentially a chore rather than a game. If it is just a game then stress on one's RL certainly seems contrary to the goal of escapism. During long periods of peace whenever I felt the need to blow up some pixels I would jump over to TE and play that world as just a game.

While I agree with you about EZI and community destroying terms (those being essentially over the top means of maintaining control over the world). I cant agree about some of the other stuff, I mean you can not have fun role playing a villain without someone role playing the moral outrage at your behavior. Likewise you can not roleplay a white knight, without an evil to vanquish.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296077518' post='2603287']
Step up and let me know when I am bawwing further down the line. Until then, shut up.[/quote]

hahahahaha no. you are free to try and make me shut up though. until then, have fun with your moral convenience.



[quote]Actually I decided to change this one and chronicle the alliances forced out or repressed with ridiculous terms/conditions:
IAA
\m/
GOONS
GOLD
LUE
ONOS
FAN
NAAC
LEGION
MK
GATO

They may have all been on the same side but that is irrelevant. People were forced out, communities were disbanded, things were made incredibly unpleasant.
[/quote]

\m/ and NAAC were more Polaris than Pacifica. FAN was many not just NPO, which includes many alliances now on your side. if you include MK, then surely the terms MK laid out for NPO are just as horrific. Legion and GATO were never forced out. GOONS was forced out by other alliances and not NPO. FAN was not forced out as can be seen by their stats today (in fact, most left to reroll and become spies iirc), and GOLD and ONOS i don't recall the specifics so i will not comment on. that leaves LUE which basically left after GWIII and then formed MK soon after while NPO was still around. i already covered NAAC.

so again, you fail to fully support your claim. out of those lists, IAA is still the only one that i know for sure can be considered NPO forcing people out. other than that, possibly GOLD and ONOS.

also, love the fact that you brought up MK's time under reps (most likely from the WoTC war) and yet, fail to realize that NPO was held under terms longer than MK was by none other than MK... so i am taking your advice and stepping up to you bawwwing. and hell, it was in the same exact post that you told me to shut up over calling you out for bawwwing in the first place. that is true irony.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296078148' post='2603297']
Now read that list and figure out how many of those alliances still stand with you. We know what oppression looks like and we're not going to stand by just because you tell us NPO would be worse. We aren't having to pick between either having or NPO. We can always put someone on top who's willing to not commit any breaches of our freedoms.
[/quote]

No one has breached your freedom and that list was an example to Docartaigh that the IAA was not the only alliance that had issues with the NPO in the way back when, something he was being purposefully ridiculous in claiming.

We aren't asking to be on top, we hated the top position which is why we tried to disentangle ourselves from the treaty web albeit unsuccessfully.

[DogeWilliam]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296078148' post='2603297']
Now read that list and figure out how many of those alliances still stand with you. We know what oppression looks like and we're not going to stand by just because you tell us NPO would be worse. We aren't having to pick between either having or NPO. We can always put someone on top who's willing to not commit any breaches of our freedoms.
[/quote]

And how exactly would you do that? This is a game of stats and politics. Right now, there is no clear top as MHA and GPA don't do much. Instead there are groups of alliances like Doomhouse that are accomplishing the goals they have. How is that different then your idea of grouping together to play the game in the 'fun' way you want?

[2burnt2eat]

"We were never a unified group" is not a defense of Archon contradicting himself. Nor does whatever happened in Karma defend straight-out contradictions his alliance has made thereafter. When you say drivel for PR and then completely contradict it, I don't think anyone should whine when that's used as PR against them in turn. If you were never going to uphold what words that were spewed, it's quite simple to focus on the faults of your enemies rather than your own self-righteousness and the "Glorious Tomorrow" that you would make.'

If you truly defended right from wrong, MK would have had plenty wars then and up to now to fight and be entertained with.

While not commenting directly on any of the actions that have been made by MK or other Karma leaders, it was a simple process for your leader to pick his words carefully so MK wouldn't stick its foot in its mouth later. That didn't happen.

If there should be any whining otherwise, you should at least take the effort to change the leader used from someone that declared a global moral revolution, instead of continuously use him for belligerent and petty actions. But the chance of him stepping down have up to now been close to nil.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296078148' post='2603297']
Now read that list and figure out how many of those alliances still stand with you. We know what oppression looks like and we're not going to stand by just because you tell us NPO would be worse. We aren't having to pick between either having or NPO. We can always put someone on top who's willing to not commit any breaches of our freedoms.
[/quote]

unfortunately it looks like GOONS, MK, and FAN will. i would honestly love to see what LUE of old (and yes i know many are now in MK) would say. i doubt it would be o/MK. the old LUE, the one who DoWed GOONS to aid FARK regardless of what it meant to them, would not like what they see i bet. they would see an MK that now utilized tactics of LUE's worst enemy (aka NPO) to do the exact same thing for the exact same reasons. (aka We are hitting NPO because they were a threat. i remember hearing that from NPO over almost all of their wars)

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296078437' post='2603304']
No one has breached your freedom and that list was an example to Docartaigh that the IAA was not the only alliance that had issues with the NPO in the way back when, something he was being purposefully ridiculous in claiming.

We aren't asking to be on top, we hated the top position which is why we tried to disentangle ourselves from the treaty web albeit unsuccessfully.
[/quote]

Which is why you also decided to resign with the people on top and not your ex-allies that were obviously being targeted.

As for the breaching of freedoms; We were fairly big supporters of yours until you decided to make Polar your enemy "just for fun". Then we were thrown to the other side. We didn't really have the freedom to chose our friends. We either grovelled at your feet and dropped Polar or we decided to stand up, grow a pair and take a beating.