Sir Keshav IV's Random Thoughts

if you wish to discuss that imposing your moral standards on another is wrong, then MK should not have attempted to force their moral standards on Polaris. yet they did just that. any discussion of what is right or wrong is inevitably a discussion on morals. thus, the fact that you felt Polaris was wrong in attacking \m/ is because to you, it is some moral foundation upon which you built your perception of right and wrong.

thus, you and CnG/PC/GOONS/\m/ are all pushing your own moral standard on the entire rest of us. to state you are not is false because if PC or GOONS or \m/ or Athens or FoB or any of your other allies were to raid an alliance and another third party (i.e. not allied to the victim) alliance would step in just as Polaris did, we would see ya'll do pretty much the same thing. we could even possibly see CnG be directly involved militarily in that conflict if the third party alliance is not allied to CnG as Polaris was.

now you may state that not all of CnG holds those views, but that is besides the point since CnG would be supporting those views held by a minority using military force.

thus, this whole discussion of moral standards is in and of itself, contradicting, hypocritical, and amusing. any attempt to state that no single alliance, bloc, or group of allies ever attempts to impose their moral standards on the rest of us is logically false, since every war boils down to moral standards. the fact that CnG see nothing wrong with keeping TOP at war, even for this long, shows that morally you feel justified in doing so. you feel justified in forcing your own moral standards on TOP/Co in the process. while it is true that ya'll are in fact, justified in this, it only shows that you are forcing your own moral standards on not only TOP/Co but the rest of us, who while on your side or against you, may oppose this action for one reason or another.

yet another moral standard that CnG is attempting to impose on the rest of CN is that of "preemptive attacks are wrong". while the move by TOP/co was idiotic beyond measure, this propaganda piece is one in which you (CnG) wish all to view using moralistic eyes. you wish for everyone to state that "yes it is wrong to preemptive attack and not only the aggression showed by TOP/co should be punished but more importantly it is the act of preemptive attacking CnG that makes this action even more reprehensible" style post.

so how can you claim that CnG dislikes those who force moral standards on others, when ya'll are frequently doing it and have done it since Karma. Archon, as the "Voice of Karma", used his eloquent speech to force moral standards on others. not only Archon but many in CnG did just that. in fact, the primary reasoning for the Old Heg using Karma as some sort of beacon of community standards reflects the amount of talking from the Karma side on exactly that. Community Standards and how the "Hegemony" had broken those conventions.

so if CnG, as you state, or MK at the very least, dislikes those who force their moral standards on others- do ya'll dislike yourselves?

again, you impose your own moral standard on whether the CB was justified or not, while supporting \m/'s/PC's/GOONS' right to aggressively attack whomever they feel like without a CB at all. this is the entire reasoning MK and Polaris ended up at odds, was MK felt that PC/GOONS/\m/ did nothing wrong (a moral standard) and that Polaris had done something wrong (yet another moral standard) and thus, wished to impose your (MK's) moral standard on Polaris by way of getting them to give peace to \m/ instead of remaining neutral in the war.

I should have been more clear in my original post so please forgive me, No one has the right to use "brutal force."* What we did see in the \m/ situation was that Polaris was in the wrong by using "brutal force" to achieve changing \m/ very standard of playing. That is terribly wrong because each and every alliance has a unique community and play differently and when someone uses "brutal force" to change that it is wrong. No I am not supporting what PC/\m/ did. They were in the wrong as well. If you ask me they have been in the wrong many times but the way it was handled is wrong.

MK didn't use "brutal force" on Polar and tried changing their community. We worked for peace. That in no means is forcing something onto Polar.

If Athens/FoB/PC/\m/ do something like that, the only reason CnG supports it is because they are allies. We are willing to work on a middle path instead of war. We might not agree with what our allies did but that doesn't mean we are just going to drop them and make new friends. These are friends who have stood with us through thick and thin. Dropping them over a mistake is idiotic. We aren't at any point supporting "brutal force" on any alliance to change their moral standards. What we are doing is making sure they know we have their backs while the issue is sorted out with the aggrieved alliances. I don't see how in anyway that is wrong Doch.

*Brutal Force: In this context it is an act of war.

I will reply to your other points in a bit. Just have some RL work to do first Doch.

PS: That other guy trying to do precis my post don't and thank you.

So you're drilling him on not specifying what is likely an implication in his post...

This is why I hate the technicalities of debate on here; it all boils down to viewpoints where nobody is going to convince the other of anything. I'm not necessarily saying I'm right either, but it's so subjective and pointless unless you truly enjoy this type of banter.

well until he gets on and clarifies it for himself, i tend not to take anyone elses words on it. just like i don't like people stating they know what i mean, if i am not clear, i only listen to the original person and let them clarify for themselves instead of others who wander in and offer their two cents.

I should have been more clear in my original post so please forgive me, No one has the right to use "brutal force."* What we did see in the \m/ situation was that Polaris was in the wrong by using "brutal force" to achieve changing \m/ very standard of playing. That is terribly wrong because each and every alliance has a unique community and play differently and when someone uses "brutal force" to change that it is wrong. No I am not supporting what PC/\m/ did. They were in the wrong as well. If you ask me they have been in the wrong many times but the way it was handled is wrong.

MK didn't use "brutal force" on Polar and tried changing their community. We worked for peace. That in no means is forcing something onto Polar.

i can get behind this and see what you mean.

If Athens/FoB/PC/\m/ do something like that, the only reason CnG supports it is because they are allies. We are willing to work on a middle path instead of war. We might not agree with what our allies did but that doesn't mean we are just going to drop them and make new friends. These are friends who have stood with us through thick and thin. Dropping them over a mistake is idiotic. We aren't at any point supporting "brutal force" on any alliance to change their moral standards. What we are doing is making sure they know we have their backs while the issue is sorted out with the aggrieved alliances. I don't see how in anyway that is wrong Doch.

aren't you forgetting that Polaris was also your ally and yet you did not support them? so, ya'll need another reason behind why you allow one set of allies to aggressively attack anyone, but won't allow other allies to do the same. \m/ is by no means an ally to CnG. they are indirect allies at best.

*Brutal Force: In this context it is an act of war.

I will reply to your other points in a bit. Just have some RL work to do first Doch.

PS: That other guy trying to do precis my post don't and thank you.

so you don't like alliances who use brutal force (using your definition in the quote above) to force their moral standards on other alliances? yet you stated before that if they are your allies, you are okay with them doing just that... sorry, but that seems hypocritical and double standardish to me. especially given you applied this concept to Polaris who was MK's ally but not to PC, Athens, or FoB. if you cannot apply this concept to all allies as well as alliances, then you may as well not have it as it is useless. if you can apply it to any non-ally and certain allies, then i hope those certain allies soon tell you to $%&@ off.

There's a lot of back and forth in here which I'm not going to get into, but as one of the people who I suspect this post was aimed at I am going to respond to the main entry.

1) If we let the NpO-\m/ war run its course then we would have ended up like this anyways

This is broadly true, unless you're saying you would have given IRON white peace after they engaged SF (where they 'should' have engaged by the conventions of war). As discussed in several other threads, anybody on either side could have stopped the whole thing if they 'truly wanted peace', at any point from PC/GOONS/m raiding an alliance onward.

2) CB Is justified, Moral Standards are a CB

At some point community standards do become a valid reason. For example, very few people complain when a Stormfront alliance is rolled. The ~ coalition in the Unjust War was largely cemented together by moral standards, as were parts of Karma. All alliances have to play together in the same community and if someone is violating those standards badly enough then it is absolutely a justified reason to attack them.

Yes, Karma 'stood for' (although C&G members routinely tell me that they didn't stand for anything really beyond political considerations) many things, including being able to run your alliance the way you would like without outside interference. I would say that it was Polar who had the mantle of Karma in this war, taking on those people who attack other alliances for no reason simply because those alliances are running themselves in the 'wrong' way (no tie to the treaty web).

However, this point isn't really relevant to TOP. TOP/IRON's 'CB' was simply to support the Polar coalition. Whether you agree that m's abuse of power (and subsequent 'do something about it') was bad enough to justify an attack is something to take up with Polar, not TOP.

3) CnG= Old Hegemony

I think you are being simplistic here. Certainly I have said things more like 'you are becoming the new Hegemony' or 'some of your actions are Hegemonic' – and they are. The period that it reminds me of is just post GW3, with Supergrievances as the Initiative. You are flush with power, and the abuses are probably about to start. You've already attacked an alliance for no reason (Athens on Ni), attacked another with an old CB and with no diplomacy (Athens/RoK/GOD on TPF), and now are keeping several alliances down for almost two months now with the intent of extorting huge reps from them.

Are you 'as bad as the Hegemony' yet? No ... but the early signs are there, and I don't think most people want to let you get as bad as the last one for three years before criticising you for the abuses that are already occuring.

They were called such only because they hit others aggressively and then extorted massive amounts of reps

There are two seperate injustices. So far, SG has not done them both to the same people, though it has done both (attacking both Ni and TPF aggressively, nd extorting massive reps from TOP/IRON, or at least attempting to do so – they have not caved in to your demands).

We haven't aggressively hit alliances because we don't like them.

TPF