Jump to content

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


Azaghul

Recommended Posts

[quote name='infinite citadel' timestamp='1296080462' post='2603369']
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
[/quote]

Yeah, but MK is an evil mastermind that has a hand in everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 365
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One thing I have to give you some credit for here is correctly noting the OOC nature of this discussion. Very often I see these arguments touched upon, poorly, in IC areas where I simply cannot in good conscience respond, or view the OOC content as anything but gibberish. So I commend you for starting this conversation in the proper area, allowing me to get a few things off my chest.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296069832' post='2603057']
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58638"]As I said during Karma[/url], Karma was not a unified entity. There were many different people fighting for many different goals. Defense of allies, revenge, opposition to EZI, opposition to "curbstomps" and "bad wars", a desire for multipolarity, etc.[/quote]

The coalition was a big tent coalition, and had to be, yes. But Karma is a different thing, it was and is absurd to confuse yourself by not distinguishing between them. I worked for karma for roughly a year before that coalition ever started to take shape. In terms everyone here has probably heard many times, karma is the principle that actions must have consequences, nothing more.

Most but not all who joined the so-called karma coalition at least professed some loyalty to the idea and some agreement that the war was necessary to serve it, while a few explicitly rejected the term and embraced nihilist/barbaric justifications instead, but the coalition enforced no litmus test or ideology, accepting help from any who were willing, regardless of motivation, as any big-tent coalition must.

Archon, of course, embraced it very publically, which makes it all the more ironic when MK, in particular, makes such a point of throwing those principles to the wind in favour of nihilism and barbarism today.

[quote]Some also fought for a sort of pacifism that opposed any "bad wars". [/quote]

Pacifism opposes all war, and usually also implies an unwillingness to fight under any circumstances. I am not and have never been a pacifist, and quite frankly the last time I saw a real pacifist was when I saw people in the GPA sell off their infra and delete when we were assaulted.

I do, and have always, oppose "bad wars" however, not in the way of wanting admin or any other higher power to prohibit them by fiat, but rather in the way of holding it a point of honour to never engage in them or support them, and a belief that it is only right and proper that those who do so be served a heaping dish of their own medicine (aka Karma.) That has nothing to do with any sort of pacificism nor does it even vaguely resemble pacifism!

Nor would I even hint that it is illegitimite to take another view, to play as a "bad guy" to oversimplify quite a bit in the interest of brevity. I have had a lot of fun in other games as a "bad guy," although I would have to say that even my most notorious, viscious and evil characters always had a certain depth of character that few seem to bother with here. In one of the longest running games I was engaged in, over a period of years, I started with a "good" character but along the way determined that they were over-represented and deliberately switched, giving up a strongly fortified position and a large web of alliances for a very weak and precarious start on the other side. Within a year, the 'dark side' had grown to equal the light, and the game was more fun for everyone as a result.

Which I guess points to one of the things that I do see as being really wrong in this game. You talk elsewhere about a need for conflict, and that would be served by having at least a significant faction of genuine "good guys" - strong and large enough at least to defend itself. But it doesnt exist. Alliances seem to be led by the full range of villains, ranging from the subtle schemers to the brute nihilists and barbarians, but anyone who attempts to play with genuine decency is at best marginalised, when they are in evidence at all.

[quote]The causes which I did and still do agree with were the creation of a more multi-polar world and an end to things like EZI and terms designed to destroy communities. [/quote]

I was never bothered by the uni-polar world per se. To be quite frank, for the first part of my career here, I reckoned that Pacifica had the dominant position because they deserved it, and as long as they didnt abuse that position too flagrantly it was really never an issue for me.

From the beginning, though, I did see dangers inherit in the situation. Power does tend to corrupt in general, and it was also always obvious that Pacifican power was mostly soft power - that their power relied, ultimately, on their ability to manipulate and control the barbarian mercenaries they recruited, in some cases even imported from offworld, to do the bulk of their fighting. I worried that the barbarians would turn on them and destroy them, and certainly viewed that possibility as a danger not just to their alliance, but to all civilised nations. In short, you might say back in those early days, though I purposefully avoided actually joining Pacifica (what kind of fun, what kind of honour, is there in joining those on the top and enjoying that position without doing anything to earn it? none I say) I was some sort of Francoist in my heart. Perhaps more sincerely so than the Pacificans themselves were, it seems in retrospect.

I digress, but only to explain the point, which is I never objected to a uni-polar world per se. As long as those at the top did not abuse their position too horribly, I saw (and still see) no reason to begrudge them their seat.

And EZI? Again, I see and saw nothing so wrong with that in principle. Again, with power comes always the danger of corruption of course. But it's not hard to think of circumstances that would justify an EZI sentence. Nor is it possible to effectively enforce one if it comes down to that, and the combination of the two makes it silly, in my mind, to object to it [i]on principle[/i]. Which is not to say that like any great power it can be, and has often been, abused of course. But they are separate issues.

So of the three things you mentioned, I only really objected to the last. And it is the least specific, the most open to interpretation. Further, I have no objection to it IC, in many cases it would seem justified and proper IC, only OOC can I object to it on principle. A bit of a prickly pear, because in general the two realms should be kept separate, but here, perhaps not. Perhaps it is in everyone's interest if we fudge that line ever so slightly, and seek to avoid destroying communities and driving players from the game a bit more than there is any real IC justification to do, for the health of the game.

[quote]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]

I dont believe this is true for the [i]majority[/i] of players, at all. I really dont. At least not quite in the same way I read you here.

The *possibility* of war adds to the game, for sure. Without it there would be no motive for diplomacy. But the *actuality* of war is something quite different indeed, and is best applied sparingly. I wouldnt advocate "peaceful stagnation" but senseless wars, unecessary wars, war for the sake of war is something that only a small minority of players really enjoy. Even if those who profess this position are loudest here on this forum, you must realise that only a tiny minority of players voices are heard here, overwhelmingly those with the most time, those who are most easily bored. I have seen in many other games what happens when that demographic is catered to at the expense of the quieter players. A viscious circle leading to death of the game as a whole.

[quote]For me the saddest part about the GPA war was that it forced war on an alliance that existed to avoid war and stay out of the political and war game that the rest of us play with each other. [/quote]

For me the saddest part was to learn that the relatively benevolent Pacifican hegemony which I had admired was nothing but a web of illusions. That the values I thought we shared were, to them, nothing more than facile deceptions, convenient lies, formulæ to be mouthed when convenient, but given no real regard at all. That the civilisation I had so long gazed at approvingly was nothing but a corrupt façade, the structure it represented long since rotted and worm-eaten, if it had ever existed to begin with.

Naturally, with the scales lifted from my eyes, I could look back and see that some of the things I had written off as "unfortunate but necessary" in the past probably werent. The day that many allegations I had heard in the past, and written off as obvious lies, started to become credible in retrospect as well. But mostly, that was the day that I devoted my nation and myself to serve an invisible force called Karma, come what may and no matter the price. And yes, for me, personally, and completely OOC, this was probably a positive thing. It gave me a great purpose to pursue when I didnt really have one. But the cost to others was far too high for that to be any sort of justification, and I was perfectly capable of going out and finding my own purpose, no one needed to force one on me at gunpoint.

[quote]A third was starting wars based on flimsy CBs against much, much smaller opponents. This on occasion is fine, but we need major wars between substantial coalitions as well. [/quote]

I would substitute "false" for "flimsy" in most cases, and I disagree that this is "fine." I think. I guess it really depends on what you mean by fine. I wouldnt support any sort of "act of G_d" to make it impossible, of course, that's silly. But it certainly *should* have some pretty nasty consequences IC, enough to make it truly a dumb move. False, manufactured, and nonsensical CBs should reliably have one or more of the following effects: to galvanise opposition, to convince parties who would otherwise be uninvolved to interpose themselves, to convince parties that would otherwise support the aggressor to distance themselves, and to damage or destroy their credibility going forward.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Actually a lot of people seem perfectly happy with aggressive wars without risk, as long as they are on the risk-free side.

One might think that risk makes it interesting. I know I find games with no risk incredibly boring. But that does indeed seem to be what many people crave. One group wants war, with their own side guaranteed victory from the start, and the "freedom" to exert themselves with maximum sadism on helpless opponents without consequences. The less sadistic group seems to crave, not war at all, but some kind of football game. Limited engagements "for fun" where everyone shakes hands afterwards. I cannot agree with either myself.

As to bipolar - I think it's a real shame it worked out so poorly in the end for Polaris that no one else is likely to try something like that again, dont you? I ask because, unless I badly misunderstand you somewhere, it seems clear that you should feel this way, even if your reasons are different from my own.

[quote]In the last couple of attempts to instigate one, the side at a disadvantage has intentionally contained it. NSO "asked" its allies not to enter in the 6 million dollar war. Legion [i]still[/i] hasn't entered this war despite two of it's MDoAP partners being attacked. Few are willing to start or enter a war at a disadvantage. [/quote]

And why would they be?

I realise you are posting this as an individual player and not necessarily speaking for your alliance, but it does seem for the most part consistent with the majority opinion in your alliance as far as I can see. Yet you did NOT pick an even fight with your declaration, and ask your allies to stay out. If you wont do that when you have the upper hand and the power to make the fight even, how could you possibly blame people on the weaker side for trying to limit their exposure and damage? It really seems a double standard to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='infinite citadel' timestamp='1296080462' post='2603369']
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
[/quote]

my bad. i have to admit that sometimes i have difficulty remembering who is fighting who. but then i can easily apply that to what MK did with TOP/IRON in terms of reps and length. still equals out.

[quote name='DogeWilliam' timestamp='1296080466' post='2603370']
Yes but NPO was essentially calling the shots for a long time. FAN, GOONS, VE.
[/quote]

iirc FAN was also partially Polaris. GOONS was Polaris. VE was GGA. but nice try.

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1296080605' post='2603374']
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.
[/quote]

Polaris had an equal zealous from what i remember, maybe not the second go around, but most assuredly the first. i do believe somewhere i stated that FAN is the only alliance out of those who hit NPO that has any justification. the rest do not in the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1296080733' post='2603378']
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.
[/quote]

Darth Andrew and Chimey were both old school IAAers. PHD was a long time ally to the old IAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with a lot of your points. As to the nature of your conversion, well that is further complicated by the roguish meme of Everything.Must.Die., plus the edgy themes of Mushreich and Mushqaeda. Those paint you as either game grievers or game breakers, neither very appealing qualities.

Regardless though, this move does create a much more competitive environment and if it took a pseudo roguish meme to stiffen your backbone to make the plunge, than so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how Doc said FAN lives by the "grace of NPO". Look at when FAN finally stopped being attacked. Yep, it took Karma rolling NPO to get them to back off of things like the Moldavi/Revenge doctrines, continued EZI of FAN, so on, and suchforth. I may be mistaking my dates, but did the GATO viceroy not end during the war as well, or was it just before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1296083990' post='2603489']
I love how Doc said FAN lives by the "grace of NPO". Look at when FAN finally stopped being attacked. Yep, it took Karma rolling NPO to get them to back off of things like the Moldavi/Revenge doctrines, continued EZI of FAN, so on, and suchforth. I may be mistaking my dates, but did the GATO viceroy not end during the war as well, or was it just before?
[/quote]

The Viceroy ended before Karma began. I am pretty sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296076645' post='2603261']
Such beautiful hyperbole. You are a credit to your kind, sir.



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.
[/quote]
/
After the UJW you remember that we spent 18 months on a diplomatic blacklist right? And then got dragged into the noCB war by GGA and Valhalla. So by you justifying MK's actions today, it was ok for GGA, Valhalla and NPO to trump up charges to get us into that war. People are right, you have turned into the monster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296085705' post='2603575']
/
After the UJW you remember that we spent 18 months on a diplomatic blacklist right? And then got dragged into the noCB war by GGA and Valhalla. So by you justifying MK's actions today, it was ok for GGA, Valhalla and NPO to trump up charges to get us into that war. People are right, you have turned into the monster.
[/quote]

I don't see the point of comparison, was NPO on a diplomatic blacklist where others threatened to roll/abandon anyone who treatied them or was this something the community imposed on them? Have ardus and Magicaltrevor been going to alliances telling them not to treaty NPO? If they did, I didn't know but strangely find myself not caring at this point seeing as youve been able to convince yourself there is some means of comparing us and Pacifica of old.

Edited by tamerlane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296086383' post='2603608']
I don't see the point of comparison, was NPO on a diplomatic blacklist where others threatened to roll/abandon anyone who treatied them or was this something the community imposed on them? Have ardus and Magicaltrevor been going to alliances telling them not to treaty NPO? If they did, I didn't know but strangely find myself not caring at this point seeing as youve been able to convince yourself there is some means of comparing us and Pacifica of old.
[/quote]

But by preemptively declaring war on an alliance that wasn't involved in the war already based upon the fact they might be a future threat is the same thing. It's just using a jack hammer instead of a scalpel.

But hey it's the end of times right? Just throw caution into the wind and run the car right into a wall.

Being honest my opinion of MK really changed with the GKC incident. There is no way that should have ever happened. And at that point I could actually say you were worse than the NPO ever was. I've had a total of 4 MK members apologize to me about that and none of them were people who I went to to attempt to rectify the situation. Infact, more often then not, it gets thrown back in my face like it was me who did something wrong.

Edited by AirMe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1296076821' post='2603267']
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].
[/quote]
Ironically I think the majority of those that didnt renounce that policy would be guys like top/sparta ect. Specifying that it was corrected as a result of karma is out of context when citing MCXA, an alliance that experienced neither the terms nor destruction as NPO. He is basically saying Karma ended NPO's EZI policy, as some sort of talking point to why they have a right to attack NPO again. I'm stating the karma war had no effect on NPO EZI/PZI policy as it was already eradicated before the war started or any sequence of events that lead to it.

Further Xiphosis can verify to say NPO or TPF was any part of GOD's "daddy" is simply insane. GOD was never under any stretch of the imagination in our corner, aside from their links to Sparta. To assert Sparta was a team player with us is completely incorrect.

Let's take it a step farther and you do assert Sparta and GOD's actions are linked to the perma zi/disbandment movement... TPF and NPO already went through 3 months of war, reps terms ect, Sparta and GOD only receive your praise.

Edited by mhawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296087129' post='2603645']
But by preemptively declaring war on an alliance that wasn't involved in the war already based upon the fact they might be a future threat is the same thing. It's just using a jack hammer instead of a scalpel.

But hey it's the end of times right? Just throw caution into the wind and run the car right into a wall.

Being honest my opinion of MK really changed with the GKC incident. There is no way that should have ever happened. And at that point I could actually say you were worse than the NPO ever was.
[/quote]

If thats all ya got, AirMe, I am ok with that.

Everything. Must. Die.

Edited by tamerlane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1296087448' post='2603665']
If thats all ya got, AirMe, I am ok with that.

Everything. Must. Die.
[/quote]

No one could change your attitude anyways. I hate seeing something that I worked hard to help build being flushed away with the pull of a lever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This attack on NPO was only about keeping yourself on top and making sure no one could properly challenge you for another year thus making things genuinely interesting. This is why you handed year long reps out 2 years ago and 8 month reps last year. Dont try to pretend this is about keeping things interesting, its about snuffing out any fighting chance of a credible opposition to make the game interesting.

People are bored because for 3 years you have used overkill to keep your position on top. It takes time to organise and rebuild when you smash alliances and keep them paying out tech for a year. No opposition is coming out of the ruling group because they dont want to spent 2 years paying reps and rebuilding either. In short this is just another PR attempt you are full of crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1296088059' post='2603689']
This attack on NPO was only about keeping yourself on top and making sure no one could properly challenge you for another year thus making things genuinely interesting. This is why you handed year long reps out 2 years ago and 8 month reps last year. Dont try to pretend this is about keeping things interesting, its about snuffing out any fighting chance of a credible opposition to make the game interesting.

People are bored because for 3 years you have used overkill to keep your position on top. It takes time to organise and rebuild when you smash alliances and keep them paying out tech for a year. No opposition is coming out of the ruling group because they dont want to spent 2 years paying reps and rebuilding either. In short this is just another PR attempt you are full of crap.
[/quote]

MK had no hand in the reps for the NPO. So please stop spreading that myth. The terms for the NPO were handled by the alliances who were fighting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296088107' post='2603691']
MK had no hand in the reps for the NPO. So please stop spreading that myth. The terms for the NPO were handled by the alliances who were fighting them.
[/quote]
MK was a key alliance in Karma. You dont get to cherry pick what you get blamed for/take credit for any more than hegemony alliances did.

Edited by Alterego
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296081189' post='2603387']
Darth Andrew and Chimey were both old school IAAers. PHD was a long time ally to the old IAA.
[/quote]

I'd hardly call Chimaera active. TL would have been a good example though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1296088228' post='2603696']
MK was a key alliance in Karma. You dont get to cherry pick what you get blamed for/take credit for any more than hegemony alliances did.
[/quote]

Each front in Karma set their own terms. You don't get to re-write history after a certain amount of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296088386' post='2603704']
Each front in Karma set their own terms. You don't get to re-write history after a certain amount of time.
[/quote]
When it is/was something good you were all Karma together one oppositon group with interchangable fronts if desired. When it is/was something bad Karma wasnt one group but all different fronts. Ive lost count of the amount of flip flopping that relates to this.

Edited by Alterego
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296087662' post='2603674']
No one could change your attitude anyways. I hate seeing something that I worked hard to help build being flushed away with the pull of a lever.
[/quote]

Sorry AirMe, you lost any right to have a say in our affairs when you left to start your !@#$%* weeaboo alliance. If you don't like the direction we've headed over the years, just remember you gave up your ability to influence that direction on your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1296088552' post='2603709']
Sorry AirMe, you lost any right to have a say in our affairs when you left to start your !@#$%* weeaboo alliance. If you don't like the direction we've headed over the years, just remember you gave up your ability to influence that direction on your own.
[/quote]

I don't deny that I gave up the right to have a say in the affairs. Weeaboo alliances Seerow? Really? Just shows your ignorance I suppose.

Anyways, it was time for me to let new blood into leadership at the time anyways. Besides, I eventually would have been forced out like others that were there with me anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1296088509' post='2603708']
When it is/was something good you were all Karma together one oppositon group with interchangable fronts if desired. When it is/was something bad Karma wasnt one group but all different fronts. Ive lost count of the amount of flip flopping that relates to this.
[/quote]

So since you place the bad on MK. Will you give them credit for all the white peace that went around in the Karma war too? It is only fair by your logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...