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

[Sulmar]

All this talk about this being a game and wanting it to be fun ignores the fact that this is actually a "political simulator" type of game, thus possibly indicating that a certain seriousness about CBs and such is warranted.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='DogeWilliam' timestamp='1296078575' post='2603305']
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?
[/quote]

Ahhh ok you're saying that MK is impossible to take down. I remember a certain red alliance thinking they would never fall once too. Quite simply, the people who support MK are the ones that have put them on top. That's the only reason they can do stuff like this and get away with it. If they decide to change their mind MK will just become some lonely Aqua alliance that had a good history a long time ago.

[DogeWilliam]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296078678' post='2603309']
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)
[/quote]

I think you aren't realizing that there is only powerpolitics and nothing else in this game. Morality is an easy shield to run to when you are getting beat. I have no doubt that, if LUE was the winner out of those great wars year ago, they would have acted the same as NPO. And NPO would be the ones crying about being trodden on by the ebil LUE. Maybe NPO would have disbanded and we would have a new NPO kind of like MK, and maybe they would have finally defeated LUE and everything would just be reversed. The fact is that this is about power. And anyone in the dominate position would act in the same uncaring way to the ones they feel threaten their power. I remember when Legion and GATO were big players and extremely arrogant. No one was crying about the evil NPO back then.

Edited January 26, 2011 by DogeWilliam

[Dochartaigh]

[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]

wait- i stated that IAA was the only alliance i can recall that NPO forced out of CN to refute your ridiculous implication that NPO forced many alliances out of CN. not that no one had any issues with NPO back in the day. now that is purposefully twisting not only what you said, but what i replied to fit some new criteria that was not part of the original conversation. so how about you stop purposefully stop twisting !@#$ around when i refute your ridiculous claims. stick to what was actually being discussed instead of seeking new things that have nothing to do with the original argument, as a means of trying to refute what i stated.

just to lay it out for you as it appears you are having difficulties with this:

you- implied that NPO forced many alliances/communities out of CN
me- i state that i can only recall IAA
you- state that NPO has laid down draconian terms to many alliances
me- refute that most on those list were done either by others or by more than just NPO with only a few being directly done by NPO. i also state that draconian terms means nothing since the only alliance on that list forced out (by my recollection) is IAA still. and i also state that MK should not talk since MK (by your standard) laid down some draconian terms to NPO that lasted longer than MK's did.
you to Omni- claim i am purposefully making ridiculous claims despite the fact that 1) we weren't discussing if NPO made enemies back in the day but were discussing who NPO actually forced out of CN and 2) you have yet to refute my argument.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='DogeWilliam' timestamp='1296078978' post='2603319']
I think you aren't realizing that there is only powerpolitics and nothing else in this game. Morality is an easy shield to run to when you are getting beat. I have no doubt that, if LUE was the winner out of those great wars year ago, they would have acted the same as NPO. And NPO would be the ones crying about being trodden on by the ebil LUE. Maybe NPO would have disbanded and we would have a new NPO kind of like MK, and maybe they would have finally defeated LUE and everything would just be reversed. The fact is that this is about power. And anyone in the dominate position would act in the same uncaring way to the ones they feel threaten their power.
[/quote]

oh i get that and agree with you. though, since LUE was defeated, i think LUE of old would still decry this new MK. and depending on who you talk to, morality is not just a convenience like it is with MK. for some of us, morality actually has meaning.

[Banksy]

[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]
xfd, you realise most of them no longer exist, right?

Put GPA on top. They are the only alliance who seem to stand for what you all believe in.

[kamichi]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296078678' post='2603309']
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)
[/quote]

are you serious

If LUE were around today and somehow weren't involved in the planning of the attack, they'd have bandwagoned with Doomhouse. As bad as their reputation was, the LUE leaders played the game very strategically (though the same can't be said of the general members ) and would've definitely agreed with the attack.

[Mirreille]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296069832' post='2603057']
It seems like everything is a constant PR war. Moralist trumpeting is everywhere. Few are willing to be seen as the "aggressor". Almost everyone professes to want war, but only a defensive war which they face no risk by fighting. It's gotten to the point where major wars are almost impossible to instigate. Bipolar was generally a fluke in how it went down and expanded.


Another problem, and yes I know my alliance is responsible for this in the last war, is very large reps figures that increase the recover time after a war and keep alliances out of play. When reps take 6-9 months to pay, that is going to keep those alliances from doing anything during that time, and generally keep people from moving on until after that.


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]

I see more complaining about moralism then any moralising. Maybe we are reading differnt threads.

It's not just the reps,it the deliberately punitive and malicious reps, that strip an AA of all of their tech at the top tier. That can set you back a year or more. Hamstringing your opponents, and then complaining about how they are not wanting to fight/putting up a good fight is pretty disingenuous. I bet Polar could have had better results their last couple wars if they had not had their top tier's tech gutted in NoCB.

Only attacking when you have 2-1 or better odds could be considered cowardice too. It's why I never fully bought into the Karma rhetoric; they never moved until it was a sure thing, and meanwhile bad things kept on happening. If they had really been fighting for a cause they would have gone when they saw they had a chance, not waited for the sure thing.

I disagree that NPO staying out would have been the nail in the coffin. That sort of thing has happened plenty of times before; FEAR during the Illuminati war anyone? Frankly, if it had been allowed to happen by MK's side, that would just have meant another war a few months after the current one revolving around Polar/VE finished it's course. That would have been bad how? There was still every chance both sides would get dragged into the current one, which was fun to watch, and in the meantime as Doch already pointed out we had one of the closest wars we've ever seen. This wasn't fun?? I don't think that wars are all that fun, it is the maneuvering around, watching to see who honors their treaties and who doesn't, who signs with Hoo, who backstabs who. It's one big giant soap opera.


[quote name='DogeWilliam' timestamp='1296075018' post='2603217']
I never wanted to see that thread again. Thank you I think it was rather brilliant as well. Considering what happened there are apologies and reasons all around and less awesomeness. But there was a lot of glory. Unfathomable glory for all sides if NpO hadn't shown to be...well...real dumb.
[/quote]

TOP's version of The Big Lie. "We would have won, if only Polar didn't betray us!" I listened to a lot of the people on your side in that one, and they had no such confidence, in fact many of them were downright despondant at the odds facing them. How you have managed to turn that into this rosy view today is beyond me.

[The Catalyst]

[quote name='SyndicatedINC' timestamp='1296078331' post='2603300']
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.
[/quote]

if you play it to be like realistic and whatever....people dont need good cbs in realife.....like i dont know. falklands war..argentina just attacked the falklands
ww2 hitley just randomly went GIMMIE LAND
iraq war (kind of)


In reallife then a load of treatys activate and there is big war.

i was getting bored of this game now its much funner for a bit? anyway you cant play politics if there is no tention between alliances..if there are no wars and there is massive treaty webs then there is no politics,
also if you dont like the war
go into peace mode
or join GPA

[Banksy]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296079181' post='2603327']
oh i get that and agree with you. though, since LUE was defeated, i think LUE of old would still decry this new MK. and depending on who you talk to, morality is not just a convenience like it is with MK. for some of us, morality actually has meaning.
[/quote]
So far Kamichi has supported what Ardus has said. Archon, Denial and Bros all support this. Somehow I suspect the "LUE of old" would support the ~LUE of new~

MK is not a moral alliance and couldn't care less about it. Do you remember those sigs we brought out a few months ago? Morality is ridiculous on a browser game.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Banksy

[Ogaden]

The fact that FAN is still alive is no credit to NPO, they did everything they could to destroy them and the entire alliance was under an EZI sentence.
I should know, I spent most of my time in NPO hunting after FAN.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296079312' post='2603331']
xfd, you realise most of them no longer exist, right?

Put GPA on top. They are the only alliance who seem to stand for what you all believe in.
[/quote]

GATO, IAA, \m/ all do exist though. You do realize that. Right?

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296079474' post='2603341']
MK is not a moral alliance and couldn't care less about it. Do you remember those sigs we brought out a few months ago? Morality is ridiculous on a browser game.
[/quote]

As I've pointed out before; All games have common courtesies which aren't exactly written into the rules of the game, but people get very angry if these common courtesies are broken. CN is no different.

[AtheistRepublican]

[quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1296073722' post='2603164']
The distinction only matters to people that are incredibly petty. "Oh we'll let you play again, but ONLY under a new name! It's your NAME that wronged us!" If you're going to let someone play again anyway, why wouldn't you just sentence them to ZI? Why make them go through the hassle of rerolling for resources?
[/quote]

The "advantage" of PZI over ZI is that people lose their wonders if they reroll. Considering the time it takes to build up wonders, that can be a deal breaker for people wondering if they should stick with the game or not. It's a mean thing to do, but not as mean as EZI, I guess.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296079547' post='2603344']
GATO, IAA, \m/ all do exist though. You do realize that. Right?
[/quote]
Bel Air will disband soon enough, they also attacked the NPO so i'm not too sure where you're going with that one. IAA died, it's a different alliance with the same name. GATO is one alliance. tl;dr your point is ineffective.

You missed off the rest of my post, was there some reason for that? EDIT: Nope, you got on to it, give me a sec.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Banksy

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296079789' post='2603350']
Bel Air will disband soon enough, they also attacked the NPO so i'm not too sure where you're going with that one. IAA died, it's a different alliance with the same name. GATO is one alliance. tl;dr your point is ineffective.

You missed off the rest of my post, was there some reason for that?
[/quote]

No, most old school IAAers are still with us. Nice try though "hurr durr they're different now". I appreciate the effort.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Omniscient1

[memoryproblems]

[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]

So how many of those were subjected to a full year of terms?

You know, its been said before, but before anything else, the ones that disbanded did so on their own, no member of NPO or their held them at gunpoint until they disbanded, it was nothing more then that they took a stand, and didn't have the dedication to persevere and to see it through.

[The Catalyst]

"War is the continuation of politics." In this sense, war is politics and war itself is a political action; since ancient times there has never been a war that did not have a political character.... However, war has its own particular characteristics and in this sense, it cannot be equated with politics in general. "War is the continuation of politics by other . . . means." When politics develops to a certain stage beyond which it cannot proceed by the usual means, war breaks out to sweep the obstacles from the way.... When the obstacle is removed and our political aim attained the war will stop. Nevertheless, if the obstacle is not completely swept away, the war will have to continue until the aim is fully accomplished.... It can therefore be said that politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.

"On Protracted War" (May 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 152-53 *


War is the highest form of struggle for resolving contradictions, when they have developed to a certain stage, between classes, nations, states, or political groups, and it has existed ever since the emergence of private property and of classes.

"Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War" (December 1936), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 180.

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296069832' post='2603057']
This is another thing that varies quite a bit, but I believe that for a [i]majority[/i] of players, competition, war, and intrigue are what make this game fun. Conflict, both in war and the political intrigue leading up to war, drives this game. Peaceful stagnation, where no one can act against anyone else for fear of being labeled "immoral" and everyone just grows their nations in perpetuity, is boring.[/quote]

It was a nice read but the major points contradict in a way that its hard to take it as anything more then propoganda Azaghul. If the majority believe what you say, then the reality would have been war would have come much quicker and without MK or anyone else positioning to make it so. I mean, we are all here for fun, per your definition that is contradictory to what the reality was after Karma.

[quote]We chose to make the game interesting again. In the past months, MK chose to reshape our treaties in a way that helped make a major war possible. And when our enemies did everything they could to avoid a war, we, Doomhouse collectively, and one could also say VE, refused to let them. We helped put an end to the stagnation. We refused to comply with the moralistic and pacifistic gridlock that was smothering this game. We started to perfect Karma. We made war.[/quote]

If you had just tied it back to the original point of what you believed the majority wanted as fun, and understood reality was evidence of that not being true it would have made the ending even better then it was, because then it would have far more honesty. In essence you chose to impose what you believe makes the game fun, that isnt an absolute condition, not even a majority one, given the time frame referenced in the piece.

Nice read though.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Thorgrum

[DogeWilliam]

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1296079440' post='2603337']
TOP's version of The Big Lie. "We would have won, if only Polar didn't betray us!" I listened to a lot of the people on your side in that one, and they had no such confidence, in fact many of them were downright despondant at the odds facing them. How you have managed to turn that into this rosy view today is beyond me.
[/quote]

You didn't understand what I meant then. But there's no point getting into it.

And GATO survived due to the type of alliance they were. They might have survived but let's not forget the humiliation they suffered and whatnot.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='kamichi' timestamp='1296079422' post='2603336']
are you serious

If LUE were around today and somehow weren't involved in the planning of the attack, they'd have bandwagoned with Doomhouse. As bad as their reputation was, the LUE leaders played the game very strategically (though the same can't be said of the general members ) and would've definitely agreed with the attack.
[/quote]

i was in Polaris at that time (from just before GWI to after WoTC essentially) so all i saw from LUE was them crying over how ebil NPO/NpO were. the only thing i could recall of them wanting to do anything similar to NPO was LUE trying to disband Polaris/move Polaris off of blue (though that could have been more than just LUE and for the moving of Polaris, could possibly have been NAAC, my memory is fuzzy about who exactly wanted what at that time) during peace talks for GW1.

and if what the LUE leaders did was play the game strategically during that time. what exactly was their strategy for GWII/GWIII other than to lose? seriously. MK i could see that claim being made and even LUE when the CoaLUEtion was first formed but AEGIS/League were utter and complete failures and if that is strategic, then damn NPO must have been godly back in the day.

@Banksy- i have not seen where Bros, Denial, nor Archon supported that LUE of old would support MK. i will admit to being wrong though. i am coming from having been a long-time opponent of LUE and even then, having more respect for LUE due to the honor and conviction of LUE of old, than i have for MK. the "LUE" of new has nowhere near the honor, conviction, or respectability that LUE of old has. i honestly think that LUE was better as the underdog as they had convictions they stuck to (for example, LUE did not try to ally with NPO after GW1 in order to survive and would rather fight and die than give up their convictions). now it appears that MK would rather drop their convictions at the drop of a hat in order to survive and stay as one of the top dogs.

but again, i have an outsiders view of both LUE and MK as well as an enemy of LUEs and MKs. i would actually be quite disheartened if LUE were to drop their convictions and support MK in this travesty since LUE fought their hardest against CBs like this one.

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1296079516' post='2603343']
The fact that FAN is still alive is no credit to NPO, they did everything they could to destroy them and the entire alliance was under an EZI sentence.
I should know, I spent most of my time in NPO hunting after FAN.
[/quote]

if this is towards me- where did i ever state that FAN lives by the grace of NPO? i simply stated that NPO was not the only ones hunting them. MHA also hunted them as did many many others.

[infinite citadel]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296078416' post='2603302']

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.
[/quote]


We haven't fought NPO since NoCB. We received reps via the alliances fighting them in Karma, however we weren't on the surrender terms at all and had no say in the reps process. Nice try though

Edited January 26, 2011 by infinite citadel

[DogeWilliam]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296080192' post='2603365']
if this is towards me- where did i ever state that FAN lives by the grace of NPO? i simply stated that NPO was not the only ones hunting them. MHA also hunted them as did many many others.
[/quote]

Yes but NPO was essentially calling the shots for a long time. FAN, GOONS, VE.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1296080192' post='2603365']
if this is towards me- where did i ever state that FAN lives by the grace of NPO? i simply stated that NPO was not the only ones hunting them. MHA also hunted them as did many many others.
[/quote]

Perhaps, but not to the same extent and not with the same zealous attitude. NPO hated FAN with a passion that is difficult to describe.
Regardless of how anyone feels about the Doom House attack, I don't think anyone can argue that FAN at least is unjustified in getting their own back.

[Mathias]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296079864' post='2603353']
No, most old school IAAers are still with us. Nice try though "hurr durr they're different now". I appreciate the effort.
[/quote]

The people in charge aren't the old school IAAers. Hell, the people that are active aren't even the old school IAAers.

Which sucks cause I miss talking to a lot of them.

edit: I don't actually care about proving whether or not this is a new IAA or not, just lamenting an unfortunate fact.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Mathias