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

[potato]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296088788' post='2603715']
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.
[/quote]

Let's be honest here, you also had a wonderful and incredibly handsome Baron to replace you.

[AirMe]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1296088949' post='2603722']
Let's be honest here, you also had a wonderful and incredibly handsome Baron to replace you.
[/quote]

Who knew how to make the worst OWF announcements ever. Seriously, they were so bad they were legendary.

[Alterego]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296088855' post='2603717']
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.
[/quote]
White peace is a tactic to get people you aren’t really after out of the war as quickly as possible. If you tell 25 alliances they will all have draconian reps you get massive amounts of damage back in return and no guarantee of any reps in the end. Like peace mode the PR draws you away from the true motive behind it. As if punitive reps alliances really let people off out of the good of their heart.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Alterego

[potato]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296089003' post='2603725']
Who knew how to make the worst OWF announcements ever. Seriously, they were so bad they were legendary.
[/quote]

My services are up for rental, you know...

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1296089218' post='2603731']
White peace is a tactic to get people you aren’t really after out of the war as quickly as possible. If you tell 25 alliances they will all have draconian reps you get massive amounts of damage back in return and no guarantee of any reps in the end. Like peace mode the PR draws you away from the true motive behind it. As if punitive reps alliances really let people off out of the good of their heart.
[/quote]

So White peace is only for PR, and Terms make you evil...whats your solution to ending wars?

[Weirdgus]

[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]

[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]

What's this all about, though? Vanguard signed our surrender agreement at the end of Karma. Vanguard took their pound of flesh by getting payed a whole lot of tech from the fraction of the 1k+ tech nations that could actually pay them. Vanguard merged into MK. Thus, we payed reps to MK.

Where is my reasoning wrong?

[Quinoa Rex]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296087129' post='2603645']
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.
[/quote]
AirMe, I completely understand that for a parent that is a line you never cross, and I'm sorry it happened. Most people understand this. That said, there was absolutely no damage done other than some pride and dignity -- which have been more than recouped -- and it's past time to let it go.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Quinoa Rex

[AirMe]

[quote name='Weirdgus' timestamp='1296089722' post='2603749']
What's this all about, though? Vanguard signed our surrender agreement at the end of Karma. Vanguard took their pound of flesh by getting payed a whole lot of tech from the fraction of the 1k+ tech nations that could actually pay them. Vanguard merged into MK. Thus, we payed reps to MK.

Where is my reasoning wrong?
[/quote]

That is an interesting take for sure. However, no. You fought Vanguard and you paid reps to Vanguard. Since MK and Vanguard were 2 separate entities you can't claim that.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1296089721' post='2603748']
So White peace is only for PR, and Terms make you evil...whats your solution to ending wars?
[/quote]
You are missing what I said. White peace a tool used to get alliances who didnt start a war or did nothing wrong out of the war quickly its not a PR stunt and not an alliance being genuinely nice, except in race occasions. I didnt say it was good or bad. I said it was a tactic to reduce the number of alliances fighting you in the war. Im not saying thats how to end all wars Im just saying that people dont believe a hand full of white peace that benefits the enemy in a war is done out of the goodness of peoples heart.

Terms arent evil, terms that take a year to pay and keep large alliances out of the game in any meaningful way for up to 2 years is counter productive

Edited January 27, 2011 by Alterego

[neneko]

[quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1296089721' post='2603748']
So White peace is only for PR, and Terms make you evil...whats your solution to ending wars?
[/quote]
The only option left is that it doesn't end until both sides are annihilated. Everything must die. Finally alterego see things my way.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1296088365' post='2603702']
I'd hardly call Chimaera active. TL would have been a good example though.
[/quote]

Right Chimaera is definitely not a person who has time to make any threads about CN events or help out IAA or anything of the sort. You got me there....

[Weirdgus]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296089970' post='2603755']
That is an interesting take for sure. However, no. You fought Vanguard and you paid reps to Vanguard. Since MK and Vanguard were 2 separate entities you can't claim that.
[/quote]

However, Vanguard members do make up the MK of our days who is spearheading the war against us, just because we have the audacity to still exist. Since they aren't 2 separate entities anymore, MK can't really claim they didn't benefit directly from the draconian reps we were forced to pay. Also, as I was somewhat managing the "exports" at the time, if memory serves me right, Vanguard did have an impressive piece of the pie.

So, yea.

Edit: we also payed MK nations directly at the time, btw : RoK donated 20k tech , Athens gave 10k (NPO reps to MK)

Edited January 27, 2011 by Weirdgus

[Mathias]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1296090299' post='2603771']
Right Chimaera is definitely not a person who has time to make any threads about CN events or help out IAA or anything of the sort. You got me there....
[/quote]

You know he's not that active so I don't get why you're arguing that. I didn't say he was gone, but if that's your standard for an active person then IAA is the most active alliance on Bob.

[Dochartaigh]

[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]

please quote me stating that NPO lives by the grace of NPO... i stated that i never said that. but please continue with such dribble. At the time of Karma there were more alliances than just NPO still PZIing FAN, including MHA iirc. it is amusing how ya'll forget so quickly that people on your side has ever done anything wrong. actually it is one of the most amazing leaps of brain dumping i have ever seen.

[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]

Well then if that is the case, NPO is not responsible for half the crap that keeps being dumped on their table especially by alliances like MK.

[Alterego]

[quote name='neneko' timestamp='1296090219' post='2603767']
The only option left is that it doesn't end until both sides are annihilated. Everything must die. Finally alterego see things my way.
[/quote]
You have no idea how close to the truth this is. People like me can never lead, that goes for both worlds. Suffering as a word would need to be redefined

[Tromp]

Azaghul, I have almost nothing to add. Just praise.
This is a shift in mentality that was really needed, and I hope it'll last.

Yes, as long as everybody keeps in mind this is a game, and that it's not about infra but the balance of power, CN should be alive and well for a long time to come.
I've said this a long time ago also, CN needs conflict, needs strife, needs war!
But above all, people have to be ambitious.

Here's to hoping.

[SoADarthCyfe6]

So what gives you the god forsaken right to remove our own rights as being 'moralists' as you so proclaim. Nothing does, this infact proves you are just as corrupt or in reality, evil as NPO was during the 'Hegemony' or 'Old Hegemony.' This 'right' that you proclaim to have is given to you by the power of the twisted treaty web, strong military and political competence and the final piece to it, this war. You used this war to become the 'New Hegemony' and with this power, you can do what you please.

EZI is no different the PZI, if you do PZI, your likely to EZI as well. With this power, you will NOT control how you use it, you can not decide that you will not EZI, but still pillage alliances of their tech for your own bidding or fight off the moralists and rule the game. No, that will not happen, power corrupts, you will soon find yourselves to be NPO, but even worse off. Your lust for power will not end here, no, certainly not. You will seek more, punish the 'infidels' and crush the opposition.

You are imposing your 'beliefs' upon us, and that good sir, will lead to your demise. You are nothing more then extremists with a hand full of power. The day that we start letting others dictate our own beliefs and values... is the day when Planet Bob shall self implode.

[i]However[/i]...

I for one refuse your [i]beliefs[/i], I for one refuse your [i]corruption[/i], I for one refuse your [i]evil[/i], I for one, refuse your [b][i]Hegemony[/i][/b]!!!!

I will not bend to your demands, I will not bend to your beliefs and I most certainly will [b][i]NOT[/i][/b] bend to your power! I will however, refuse you your rights to power and fight it whether it be on the political arena or the battlefield.

For freedom, for honor, for the true Karma. Down with the New Hegemony!!

I will [i]win[/i] and I shall be [i]free[/i].

[Letum]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296089970' post='2603755']
That is an interesting take for sure. However, no. You fought Vanguard and you paid reps to Vanguard. Since MK and Vanguard were 2 separate entities you can't claim that.
[/quote]

We paid reps to MK too. 50,000 of them.

[HeroofTime55]

"This game needed war... As long as it was us versus you, and not a war that split our side in two!"

There were multiple opportunities for war that involved a split on your side. The cowardice that prevented those, that wasn't on us. The NEW situation was only the most recent.

Yeah, we get it. You're desperate to roll us again and again. You want us to be your personal punching bags, so that you, the elites, can shake hands and congratulate each other for making the game interesting for the elites. But what about us? Maybe getting smashed again and again isn't so much fun, eh?

[Tromp]

[quote name='SoADarthCyfe6' timestamp='1296092491' post='2603838']
[...]

For freedom, for honor, for the true Karma. Down with the New Hegemony!!

I will [i]win[/i] and I shall be [i]free[/i].
[/quote]
Contrary to what you seem to believe, with these last two lines in your post, you prove everything Azaghul has said to be true, and that you are agreeing with his theory.
What you are seeking is not just freedom my friend. What you are seeking is power, the power that his alliance now possesses. The only thing you have yet to do, is admit this to yourself. When you do, I'm sure this all will be much easier to bear, and provide you with more enjoyment then you've had ever had before.

Realize that only those in power enjoy the [i]privilige[/i] of freedom, while those who are powerless will have to submit themselves to the will of the powerful so that [i]they may be granted[/i] some freedom in their doings.
The flipside of that is that with great power, comes great responsibility. For the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

You have chosen a side, other then his, and I commend you for it. I hope you will enjoy the war, even when it will be technically concluded...

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1296094220' post='2603910']
Contrary to what you seem to believe, with these last two lines in your post, you prove everything Azaghul has said to be true, and that you are agreeing with his theory.
What you are seeking is not just freedom my friend. What you are seeking is power, the power that his alliance now possesses. The only thing you have yet to do, is admit this to yourself. When you do, I'm sure this all will be much easier to bear, and provide you with more enjoyment then you've had ever had before.

Realize that only those in power enjoy the [i]privilige[/i] of freedom, while those who are powerless will have to submit themselves to the will of the powerful so that [i]they may be granted[/i] some freedom in their doings.
The flipside of that is that with great power, comes great responsibility. For the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

You have chosen a side, other then his, and I commend you for it. I hope you will enjoy the war, even when it will be technically concluded...
[/quote]

i can honestly agree with this post, though i don't personally look for power. if i did that, i would have tried harder to be in gov in the alliances i was in and am currently in. instead i prefer to be able to speak my mind without worry. also, i have seen what power does and i do not wish to corrupt my code of ethics simply because i am in power. i would rather never be in power than do that.

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1296094220' post='2603910']
Contrary to what you seem to believe, with these last two lines in your post, you prove everything Azaghul has said to be true, and that you are agreeing with his theory.
What you are seeking is not just freedom my friend. What you are seeking is power, the power that his alliance now possesses. The only thing you have yet to do, is admit this to yourself. When you do, I'm sure this all will be much easier to bear, and provide you with more enjoyment then you've had ever had before.

Realize that only those in power enjoy the [i]privilige[/i] of freedom, while those who are powerless will have to submit themselves to the will of the powerful so that [i]they may be granted[/i] some freedom in their doings.
The flipside of that is that with great power, comes great responsibility. For the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

You have chosen a side, other then his, and I commend you for it. I hope you will enjoy the war, even when it will be technically concluded...
[/quote]

The only problem with the theory is it assumes everyone, or a clear majority holds war, conflict and political intrique as the core element to enjoying the game. Really it infers that there is nothing else to the game and wihout it, it dies. I havent heard a reconcilliation yet with this notion, and the reality after the karma war and lack of major conflicts until it was essentially forced the last few weeks.

Its nice to be able to justify actions with a populist argument -well everyone really believes this is the fun part of the game anyway- but that dosent make it a universal truth what so ever. I agree with him personally but enough !@#$ has been shoveled the last couple of weeks. After karma and all this, arent we all grown up enough to just say we are playing the game we want, regardless if you like it or not? NPO is getting rolled and literally the hour after it began we had the moaning about how they committed EZI, disbandments etc. If it is truly a game for fun as azghul proclaims and given his criteria he set forth it would seem to me the NPO of old must have had a blast.

It's okay to emulate them, they dominated the game for a long time. Enjoy the view from the top of the mountain, nothing wrong with that.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Thorgrum' timestamp='1296095049' post='2603930']
[b]The only problem with the theory is it assumes everyone, or a clear majority holds war, conflict and political intrique as the core element to enjoying the game. Really it infers that there is nothing else to the game and wihout it, it dies.[/b] I havent heard a reconcilliation yet with this notion, and the reality after the karma war and lack of major conflicts until it was essentially forced the last few weeks.

Its nice to be able to justify actions with a populist argument -well everyone really believes this is the fun part of the game anyway- but that dosent make it a universal truth what so ever. I agree with him personally but enough !@#$ has been shoveled the last couple of weeks. After karma and all this, arent we all grown up enough to just say we are playing the game we want, regardless if you like it or not? NPO is getting rolled and literally the hour after it began we had the moaning about how they committed EZI, disbandments etc. If it is truly a game for fun as azghul proclaims and given his criteria he set forth it would seem to me the NPO of old must have had a blast.

It's okay to emulate them, they dominated the game for a long time. Enjoy the view from the top of the mountain, nothing wrong with that.
[/quote]

Games are, by their very nature, adversarial. For a game to exist, electronically or in reality, there must be some sort of challenge set before the player, based on a conflict between himself and some other force. This force can be any one or combination of the following (non-exhaustive): the forces of nature (time, gravity) , artificial opponents (bots, AI), other players, or the player himself (beating one's own records). In the absence of such conflict there can be, by definition, no game. There might be a space of play in which you attempt to make friends and socialize, as many in this game eagerly do, but that is not a game. Since this is intended to be a nation/political simulation game, the conflict that drives it best tends to be political intrigue and role-playing. You can certainly play the game by racing each other to statistical benchmarks, but that's not particularly entertaining.

This isn't to say that the only thing one can enjoy in this game is the conflict. There are numerous benefits that go hand in hand with participation, some of which I've already mentioned. Socializing is the biggest one. Many players build relationships with one another in this game that endure to other locales on the internet and even result in real-life events. Members of the Kingdom have held multiple meet-ups around the world. Opportunities for creative output is another reason many enjoy the game. Folks like D34TH or my friend Professor Chaos both take enormous pleasure in using CN to inspire "visual arts" (for lack of a better term), creating numerous sigs, flags, posters, and so forth. Many write lengthy treatises, manifestos, and other walls of text to hone their prose and debate skills. But, as enjoyable as these things are, there would be no reason for them to gather here in the absence of the game that exists on the basis of role-playing national conflict (this is, after all, a nation simulator). Without the core the rest disperse and the entire house eventually rots away.

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1296097182' post='2603979']
Games are, by their very nature, adversarial. For a game to exist, electronically or in reality, there must be some sort of challenge set before the player, based on a conflict between himself and some other force. This force can be any one or combination of the following (non-exhaustive): the forces of nature (time, gravity) , artificial opponents (bots, AI), other players, or the player himself (beating one's own records). In the absence of such conflict there can be, by definition, no game. There might be a space of play in which you attempt to make friends and socialize, as many in this game eagerly do, but that is not a game. Since this is intended to be a nation/political simulation game, the conflict that drives it best tends to be political intrigue and role-playing. You can certainly play the game by racing each other to statistical benchmarks, but that's not particularly entertaining.

This isn't to say that the only thing one can enjoy in this game is the conflict. There are numerous benefits that go hand in hand with participation, some of which I've already mentioned. Socializing is the biggest one. Many players build relationships with one another in this game that endure to other locales on the internet and even result in real-life events. Members of the Kingdom have held multiple meet-ups around the world. Opportunities for creative output is another reason many enjoy the game. Folks like D34TH or my friend Professor Chaos both take enormous pleasure in using CN to inspire "visual arts" (for lack of a better term), creating numerous sigs, flags, posters, and so forth. Many write lengthy treatises, manifestos, and other walls of text to hone their prose and debate skills. But, as enjoyable as these things are, there would be no reason for them to gather here in the absence of the game that exists on the basis of role-playing national conflict (this is, after all, a nation simulator). Without the core the rest disperse and the entire house eventually rots away.
[/quote]

Of course thats all true but within this rationalization you afford that others might have a different point of view, the op didnt. My point is rather simple, lets cut out the populist appeals and nonsense rancor of ooc "its a game, this is fun, this isnt fun" play however you want but the endless comparative to the past isnt relevant if everything set forth here is true.

What was fun then, has to be fun now by the logic presented (which you support) that makes everyone on par with the old NPO. Embrace it, admit it, and enjoy it but please stop with the B.S. tugs at the heart strings of how this is better or worse then the past. It cheapens the value of the premptive strike and erods the very core values you espose in your response.

[b]Own the decision.[/b]

Edited January 27, 2011 by Thorgrum

[Ardus]

[quote name='Thorgrum' timestamp='1296097560' post='2603991']
Of course thats all true but within this rationalization you afford that others might have a different point of view, the op didnt. My point is rather simple, lets cut out the populist appeals and nonsense rancor of ooc "its a game, this is fun, this isnt fun" play however you want but the endless comparative to the past isnt relevant if everything set forth here is true.

What was fun then, has to be fun now by the logic presented (which you support) that makes everyone on par with the old NPO. Embrace it, admit it, and enjoy it but please stop with the B.S. tugs at the heart strings of how this is better or worse then the past. It cheapens the value of the premptive strike and erods the very core values you espose in your response.

[b]Own the decision.[/b]
[/quote]
The argument in favor of things being better than before is cemented on a handful of very specific differences between conduct now and conduct in the past. Az argues that the game is better now because of the elimination of various "excesses" by the old power players: EZI, hyper-imbalanced wars (aka curbstomps), the pervasive nature of brutal terms of surrender (vs. arguably limited brutality today), and viceroys (admittedly ended by the administration, not Karma). Az then tries to draw a line between these specific, limited, and as he sees them OOC changes and the broader, more aggressive IC desires of those we tend to deem "moralists." There is a difference between a change to restore the equivalence of player value to the game (ending EZI) and the debate over what is an acceptable CB, for example (IC). This is an extraordinarily difficult line to draw and is blurred at best; I'm not going to blame Az for taking a swing at it without writing a 60 page thesis.

Apologies, but I won't be able to keep debating at the moment. Got a ton of work to do. I'll read whatever you post next but probably not respond.