FANDOM


NPO surrendering Edit

I've heard NPO is surrendering now. When they do, shouldn't the war be declared over? The Hegemony will only have two alliances against Karma When it happens, maybe less if TPF surrenders too.--Allurade Dendra 00:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the war i mostly directed against them, I would be in favor of declaring the war over if they surrender, and the creation of new article(s) for the war(s) still being fought that originated in this war. However, I personally know nothing about a possible surrender, so I'm not getting my hopes up yet. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
Yeah, my alliance broke the news to us. Figures, we didn't do much in it.Preceding unsigned comment added by Allurade Dendra (talk • contribs)
Well, regardless, if that does occur, I'm in favor of saying the war's ended - though we must wait for more feedback first. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

War with NPO over. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=63887 Mayhemrules 04:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Continumm DisbandedEdit

Do we keep it on the list?--Allurade Dendra 23:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be kept, though it's up to the mass opinion. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
It existed when the war started and throughout most of the war, I see no reason to remove it. Lol pie 02:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Come-on People Edit

Please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~ or your sig. If you have a sig make sure to add the current date and time.

Also keep all discussion on the name of this war under "Name" please, we don't need 60 categories on this one issue. Tilton53 22:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Formating ProposalEdit


As the article currently reads it does not lend itself to an event that is Chronologically ordered like a war. I propose that the format of the article be changed from:

  1. 1 Events leading up to the war
  2. 2 The War begins
  3. 3 The War expands
  4. 4 Viewpoints
  5. 5 Links

to something like

- Intro
- View Points
- Dates
 - 1 Prewar - April 20 >
 - 2 April 21
 - 3 April 22
 - 4 Etc

Each date could be formatted with the links needed in the order they happened, colour coding or other methods be could used to help make it easier to read.

EX:

 April 21
   - Alliance 1 and 2 declare war on Alliance 3
   - Alliance 5 declares neutrality
   - Alliance 4 backs out of war due to being misinformed by XXX
   - etc ...
  - End of Day Stats:
    - Hedge
    - Karma
  - Maybe a compiled image of the current declare web here.

This would also allow for easier reading of the events as they happened. Tilton53 02:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


I support this measure. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
I fixed the formating of the proposal to make it look decent. Tilton53 02:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. If we are to set a high standard for this article (the event demands it), we should not just have lists and lists of events, but actually have some prose and discussion with it. What you're suggesting is a timeline - sure, we can make one as a new article and supplementary to this one, and it wouldn't be too hard to make. Btw, there's still a lot left to this article after 'the war expands' - the coalition of cowards, the return of NPO's allies and the globalization of the war (thus far), and then... well, I guess outcomes and consequences as the war progresses.Charles VI 02:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
At the very least the links section should be changed and formated in a cronological order. Tilton53 02:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes, no doubt. That really is a mess. When writing the prose, I found this thread to be very useful.Charles VI 02:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Also I am not suggesting that we have to completely fix this article now, we by all means can wait until the end of the war when everything that will happen has happened and we can change the article to a more appropriate and historical form then. Tilton53 02:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

View Points linked page or sectionEdit

In order to better understand the massive number of nations which have joined on both sides, I proposing that a viewpoints page or section be added. Recently a "Karma" stance prospective was added and then removed, I am voting that this stance be added back into the war somehow but in a way that presents it as a Karma viewpoint and not that of the war. This adds some background on why the war happened but still will allow the "main" article to present itself in a neutral standpoint.

Tilton53 19:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a Viewpoints section, please do not remove this section as there is almost no way to remove all bias from the document this will allow us a way to keep some of the more important views from either side on the war in the document and hopefully avoid any edit wars.

Tilton53 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"While we would like you to express you opinion there is still a level of quality that must be presented in these opinions. "LULZ" is not at this level." Due to the recent edit added I would like to say: Please remember that your opinions while opinions should remain up to the standards that the rest of the article has been set at.

Tilton53 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


MOST excellent idea. Thank you Tilton53. Let us see how many people accept the suggestion. And, I can actually be halfways nice if there is to be no censorship.  ;) Runaway1956 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While I can't say there will be no censorship of opinions, they should be a lot more relaxed then the rest of the article in terms of censoring. There are still some standards to be meet. If Alliances want to added separate opinions we can try and revise the section to include more subsections under their respective side for them but for right now two main points should suffice.

Tilton53 20:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Stub removal for Hedge viewpoint should be allowed by IP 141.156.230.127, there now exists enough content in that section to no longer warrant a stub template. Tilton53 03:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


I'll be damned. I mean, really, guys. The Hegemony's POV is nicely laid out, while my own survives. Both probably need editing and pruning, but Planet Bob has changed if a word contrary to NPO's views survives in these pages. Runaway1956 08:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This only goes to show that careful editing, and allowing both sides to present their idea can foster an environment more productive to the study of politics in CN ~ Tilton53 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NameEdit

What the f*ck is with the random names being inserted here? I'm not seeing any of these anywhre on IRC or the forums. Quit it, it's still the NPO-OV War. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

No, it's not that name. --Jonathan Brookbank 06:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I will ensure anyone vandalizing this page is so reported. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

Michael, this is the decided name, it is being discussed right now all over IRC. It is not our fault you are in the wrong channels to see it. This is the actual war name and coalition name, so stop changing it, or I will report you for vandalism.--Jonathan Brookbank 06:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes you the authority on the decided name? We've already decided this name internally. Maybe you should be a part of the Stern Coalition to know these things instead of editing your own personal preferences?

First, I defy you to produce undocotred logs. Second, there are barely enough alliances yet to warrant having a non-generic name. I f*cking give up. But I think "Stern talking to war" is dumber than the NOCB War and the WoTC put together. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

@ Person who didn't sign their message. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54747 Also, who are you to decide internally the name of a war that isn't just one alliance? Arrnea 06:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya, Karma's pretty much winning. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
And the propaganda supports it, even: [1]
It supports ours too: Image:sterntalkingto.jpg
So, you and JB vs everyone. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
More like everyone vs. you. It is not only DJ and myself. Jonathan Brookbank 06:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am taking off the names of the sides, for two reasons:
One, there is so far only three alliances at war.
Two, the debate over the side names is still unclear on the CN Boards
I will be reporting anyone who changes it until the debates are settled on the CN boards
Arrnea 06:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we wait for thing to go global before we start naming the wars. For now, it should be the NPO-OV War since they and TORN are the only ones fighting. We have to make it as un-biased as possible to make everyone happy. We'll change the name later, just wait and see what happens first. - Ryan Greenberg

I agree. Which is why I also changed it back to NPO-OV war (as the main war name), at least until some more alliances get involved. - Arrnea 15:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Considering TORN was the first to declare war, it should be TORN-OV if you want it to be unbiased. Jonathan Brookbank 18:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Considering that the CB relates to stolen screenshots of the NPO forums, and NPO is the largest alliance thus far to declare war (also, they declared around the same time as TORN), i'd say it's safe to call it NPO-OV War. - Arrnea 21:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Does it really matter? In the end it will be called Great War IV or some other name. For now I say it's the NPO-OV War, but the name is obviously going to change. - Ryan Greenberg
I doubt it will be called GW4, for several reasons. First, many people are adverse to calling anything a Great War that doesn't have LUE in it. Second, tose that aren't adverse to calling non-LUE conflicts Great Wars accept that there is at least a GW4, and some say GW5. Personally, due to all this confusion, I move to prevent this war from being labelled a Great War. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
I agree. There is too much argument over the definition of a 'Great War', therefore it should not be used. - Arrnea 02:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

People are calling this the Karma war on the fourms, i tend to agree. 70.190.32.185 05:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Second. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
I agree also. - Arrnea 07:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)]]
Same Smooth 15:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Lets wait for a poll first. I honestly hate the name Karma War though. --Ryan Greenberg 05:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Any particular reason why? ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
The Karma War sounds lame in my opinion. --Ryan Greenberg 05:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Not like the NoCB War? :P Just kidding. Well, we'll wait for a poll or the like, though I think most people are using the Karma War already. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

This pages name has been changed 2 times in the last hour (NPO-OV war/The Apocalypse/Karma war). I think that changing names that much is a bit silly, why not just call it great war 7 or whatever until there is a clear agreement on the CN forums about its name (presumably in a few weeks)?. 58.170.13.25 12:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I only moved it to Karma War because moving it back to NPO-OV War was impossible after the uncalled-for move to the Apocalypse. Now, if you rerad the rest of this page, the fact that LUE is not in the war, and the fact that no one can agree on whether UJW or WotC constitute Great Wars, leads to confusion. So, for the third time, I want to move to stop the proposals for Great War. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

People keep moving this page to Great War VI. Not only is this presumptive, but they don't know how to move a page. Please keep the page where it is until a poll on OWF or something can be done. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

We can pretty much safely say it's a great war, it should be titled Great War VI, [Name of War] for now.

No, we can't. Many people are calling it GW6, true, but many also are calling it Great War IV and Great War V, b/c they don't recognize one or both of the other wars called that as Great Wars. Besides, many believe that no war w/o LUE can be a GW. I move (again) to prevent the use of the term "Great War" at all. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
I agree with MvP. As I stated before, there is too much disagreement in CN about what is and what is not a Great War to use the term 'Great War'. Also, leave the naming until the war is over, or a conclusive poll has been done. - Arrnea 07:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Then the GWIV, Unjust War should be renamed to simply Unjust War if that's the case then. The more popular opinion on the name of this war is Karma War and it should be moved to the Global Wars cagetory. User:James85
While I disagree with the first part, I agree with Karma War. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
In the sense that this is a massive global war, one could classify it as a "great war." However, the series of wars known as Great Wars (note the capitalization) were the three "great wars" that involved CoaLUEtion vs NPO (and their later counterparts League vs Initiative and Aegis vs Initiative.) This is pretty much a majority consensus from old timer players like myself who were around during these three wars. Most of the opposition to this distinction is from newer players who don't really understand the difference in the atmosphere of the game then and then now. The Unjust War and the War of the Coalition were both "great wars" however, neither is a Great War. I think part of the arguing on the subject is because people think that those of us who refuse to call them Great Wars are stating they are less significant, which is completely untrue. Both hold massive sinificance in Planet Bob and will from now on, however the fact that the sides were not the classical anti-NPO and the classical pro-NPO are the major basis for this view. That's all. Either way, this war is in fact a "great war" and maybe as a compromise should be called the Great Karma War or something. This note is entirely too long now. Later. Smooth 15:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Still maintaining that the term "Great War" should not be used here, I find your argument is sort of like saying that, IRL, a war can't be a "World War" unless it involves Germany. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

I moved this to Karma War because there is a general consensus here it should be called that, and I couldn't return it to NPO-OV War after someone moved it to The Apocalypse, a name which not only only applies to one side, but also was not discussed with anyone. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

There has been no poll to generate consensus on the name of the war. This war should be referred to as the NPO-OV war, as that is the only unbiased name that can be currently found. Furthermore, name changes should be held off until the end of the war. --Vilien 20:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but moving the page back to that is impossible w/o an admin. Whoever moved it to the Apocalypse should be banned imho. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
Then can someone please fix this so it's accurate? --Vilien 19:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Started a poll over the name on CN Forums: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55840 Tilton53 01:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would personally submit 'The War of Reckoning', if it can be added to a poll somewhere. Seems like it could click. . .


Karma War. I can't even remember who named it first, or where I heard it, but that is the only thing that I've heard the war referred to as. The poll reflects that fact. This is not NPO's war, after all, despite the fact that NPO's actions ignited the current conflagration. This is Karma's rebellion against the tyranny of NPO. Runaway1956 10:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOEdit

Hey,

We need to edit something in this page about the fact that NPO started peace negotiations after they realized that they fucked up on the PR side of things, without even consulting with TORN.

Until someone suggests this with a registered nickname and signs. I vote that we close this issue. Tilton53 22:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't my suggestion, but I think it is warranted. The unsigned suggestion echoes the talk on IRC from various government officials. (almost verbatim from one of my IRC logs, in fact, so I can guess who made the suggestion, lol)Runaway1956 10:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"After they realized that they fucked up on the PR side of things" - that's probably speculation. Under 'The War begins', NPO's intentions to seek a ceasefire without TORN's consent have been mentioned.Charles VI 20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Below FirstEdit

I believe the recent change I made to the Karma side should remain. NPO-OV started this, and Below (the popular name for the VE-GOD-OV MADP) started the chain, thus I put it before the other blocs on that side of the web. Smooth 15:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - Arrnea 06:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Evolution Edit

Stop removing the DE from Karma's Side. We are CLEARLY at war right now and our DoW has been linked in the article for over 12 hours now. --Corey faith 16:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Small Note Edit

Just thought I'd mention that IPA should be listed under Power Rangers, not Teen Titans, as their DoW specifically stated defense of The International for Power Rangers. --NaslundisGod19 18:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hegemony Edit

"The Karma War ... is a global nuclear military conflict involving the New Pacific Order and its allies, collectively known as the Hegemony, against a coalition of alliances known as Karma."

I question the appropriateness of using the work "allies" to describe those who have declared war on members of Karma. The way this sentence is phrased makes it seem like all alliances fighting members of Karma came out in support of the NPO, which isn't entirely true. Some of those who are supposedly in the Hegemony are just honoring their treaties with other alliances and may even despise the New Pacific Order. Perhaps the sentence could be reworded this way:

"The Karma War ... is a global nuclear military conflict involving the New Pacific Order against a coalition of alliances known as Karma. The conflict soon came to involve many more alliances as the NPO and its allies invoked upon their defense treaties."


This way, those who answered their treaty calls will not be classified as "allies" of the NPO.

--Kulomascovia 05:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that, whether or not they are directly allied with NPO, they are still aligned with NPO in this conflict. The way you propose rephrasing it seems to place NPO too much at the center of the conflict to maintain a neutral viewpoint. I think it should remain as-is. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
I understand, however, the sentense is misleading. It implies that all alliances in the Hegemony agree with the principles and ideology of the NPO (which is certainly not true). It does not matter if they seem to be aligned with the NPO. The Hegemony and Karma are not codified alliances or organizations, so this notion of a whole coalition of alliances fighting against another coalition is false. I am sure there are some alliances who do not consider themselves part of the Hegemony or Karma. So it would be misleading to state that alliances that honored their treaties are supporters of the NPO and that they are in the Hegemony. Furthermore, the sentences (and parts of the article) do not express the actual sentiments correctly. I was surprised to see my alliance classified as an ally of the NPO, especially since most of the members have said mad every unpleasant remarks about the NPO. Thus, the sentence, and parts of the article, can potential mislead future viewers. Also, the "Hegemony View" section does not truly express the views of the alliances in the Hegemony since some are just honoring their treaties. It should be reworded as the "NPO view". --Kulomascovia 05:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reworded the introduction in a manner which I believe you will find suitable. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

I don't really follow this discussion, to be honest. Those who signed MDP's and other defensive treaties with NPO are in fact "allies" by definition, just as Russia and the United States were "allies" during World War 2. Not overly freindly allies, perhaps, but allies just the same. I don't believe that anyone believes that all of the hegemony shares identical ideals, or goals. But, they ARE on the same side, willingly, or not. This war has been brewing for a long time, and it only took the right spark, in the right place, to set the powder keg off. Each of us has found ourselves on one side, or the other, but there are only two real "sides" in the conflict. Were I an unwilling participant on either side, I would perform as much as duty and honor requires, then surrender. Those who continue fighting must support the NPO, IMHO. Runaway1956 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Runaway here, there are only two sides to this war. Everybody who made treaties with 'allies' of the NPO knew what they were doing when they made these treaties (or should have known what they were doing). Just because you got dragged into the war through some chain event, does not change which side you're on. Either surrender because you don't like what the side you're on represents or continue and allow yourself to be considered in that group. This goes for both sides of the war. ~ Tilton53 14:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I must say, that I am somewhat amused at the "not to be paranoid" phrase in NPO's perspective. For the sake of accuracy, there really should be a 5th column section - but that 5th column will never post to it, LMAO


Oh my - look at the whining in the NPO's viewpoint. Karma is hypocritical? Uh, what did they think "Karma" meant? The sins of the NPO are coming home, at last. I have seen nothing posted anywhere that calls for harsher terms on NPO than they have imposed on smaller nations and alliances. I am strongly tempted to do some editing in those final paragraphs - but I'll refrain and just point out the NPO's own hypocrisy. They have DESTROYED alliances. Even if Karma were to manage to remove NPO from the game, it would only be - KARMA!! Runaway1956 22:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Karma & Karma Edit

There're a number of alliances who are fighting on the same side as Karma but don't identify themselves as part of Karma; e.g. NSO and TOP. There should be some indication in the main article about these alliances; maybe a list of such alliances would be useful.--Haflinger 07:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no point. Any alliance which signed treaties with any alliance, and entered the war because of those treaties, had plenty of time before this hit to get out of those treaties. This goes for both sides, we've been seeing this war - and the sides in it - coming since I joined CN back in December. If they signed the treaties, and honored the treaties, their members of Karma or the Hegemony respectively. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
Yes, there is a point. I don't propose editing the lists of the sides, as those are military and reflect which alliances engaged. However there's a huge amount of discussion on the forums over what alliances constitute Karma. If we're going to try and give a proper history of the war, we should document this discussion.--Haflinger 13:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe alliances like, the New Polar Order or the New Sith Order are exactly "Karma" like, but they both honored their treaties and they both are fighting alliances on the Hegemony side. Because of this, they are a part of the Karma Coalition. They are a part of the Karma War. --Ryan Greenberg 15:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think Ryan just made my point.--Haflinger 01:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This I think is somewhat solved with a subconflict option now added, in the main war they are consider karma but they may also consider their conflict their own too, the Quickie War is one example. --71.233.43.183 08:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the New Polar Order's topic about Karma's peace terms prove my point. The New Polar Order did fight on the Karma side, but they are certainly not "Karma" like. --Ryan Greenberg 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Assuming that in any given war there are only two sides is... naive at best. As haflinger mentioned many alliances never accepted to be part of Karma. I believe the Karma side can be defined as the alliances that were coordinated by LiquidMercury and others to coordinate their attacks. Mayhemrules 22:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying there are always only two sides, but in this war, there are. There are not sub-wars in this one like there were in WotC, all alliances are either fighting against NPO or its allies or are fighting against members of the "side" known as Karma (including those that say they aren't part of Karma). Notes such as the one regarding TOP are good enough for those who say they are not Karma members, but that doesn't negate the fact they are alligned with the Karma "side" in the war. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
Good enough. :) Mayhemrules 23:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Timeline Edit

Has anybody thought about writing a timeline for this war, as it goes along? I know there's one for the War of the Coalition, so I thought it would be cool to have one for the Karma War. This war is a lot more fun than the War of the Coalition in my opinion, so I think it deserves one. I tried to do a timeline for this war, but because I'm not a fast typer, and because it takes forever for me to get the links, I stoped an hour into it. --Ryan Greenberg 23:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


Its always best too to move these into their own article with a link if they become lengthy, they can be tacky when they are large and in the main artical. --71.233.43.183 02:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Un-struck PPF Edit

The PPF has not withdrawn. Did not need to be struck. --Opethian 23:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

GRL and War Count Edit

Right, I'm hereby removing day-by-day reports of the GRL, and proposing that we not include them in future. It's high, we know it's high, and we know it doesn't really matter because it's capped at 5.00 anyways. Making a note of it on dates where there is something else to be noted should be fine, but it's just irritating to have individual paragraphs telling us something which really doesn't matter.

Also, try to keep war counts out, as they are inaccurate and include wars expired for months. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

update quad attacks Edit

perhaps it should be mentioned its the first war in awhile that has seen for the first time since the practice was first done, quad attack declarations not used by the majority who have fought, with some instead attacking an hour or hours before update in mass and some after update.

updates Edit

I really liked the update on how the sanctioned alliances fared during the war.

But someone who keeps up with what's going on should post another update soon. it's been 2 weeks or so.

--Cerdwyn 05:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Cerridwyn

Coward Coalition Edit

Michael von Preußen, I'm confused on how you claim that TPF was the first to declare in support of NPO? I've looked at the respective posts declaring war several times, Echelons DoW was April 22nd at 1:19 A.M., while TPF's DoW on Avalanche was on April 22nd at 4:00 P.M. Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.166.184.114 (talk • contribs)

I didn't claim that they didn't, it was just my belief that they were - as an anonymous user editing, it is up to you to use the edit summary to ensure your edits are explained, lest they be considered as untrue. This page has been the site of much vandalism by anonymous users, so if you could ot prove your point in the edit summary (especially when it was my belief that TPF was first), the Wiki community is bound to assume it is incorrect. Now that you have explained your point, it is verifiable and can stay. That is all. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

Trivia Edit

Should we add information about how this war was the biggest and longest war in the history of CN? — Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 03:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not the longest, by far, though it may have been the biggest. Up to you, but make sure all information is verifiable, as this clearly shows that this isn't the longest war. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

War overEdit

TPF has now surrendered, ending the Karma war.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=65273&st=0 69.243.130.147 06:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. That ends the Phoenix Federation Resistance Movement. The Karma War ended last month. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)