Proko

Given up trying to disprove that the FOK DoW is the result of an old grudge, have you? The apology was meaningless. The apology said 'I guess we're sorry, but you should have known better.' It is promising that the members were reprimanded, but the abuse went on for many minutes while \m/ leadership was not only online and active but talking in the channel. Either they understood what their members were doing was wrong at the time, or they stand by what their members did and they are caving to international pressure and trying to garner PR. That is to say, if what the \m/ members were saying at the time was so offensive, why did the leadership not tell them to stop, ban them from the channel, remove their vops, or something along those lines? Instead of just watch, and try and talk over them, \m/ made a double-edged apology and reprimanded its members after someone told them that their members were out of line. Either they thought it was wrong, or they reprimanded them because they are gaining something, either through PR or because their allies told them to. In either case, this discussion is off-topic. I do not know that Grub attacked \m/ to kill PC. I have seen no proof of that whatsoever. I have only seen proof that \m/ attacks sovereign groups without legitimate cause and harasses foreign leaders in its channel while its leaders ignore it and then later try and cover for them.

I do not know that. I do not have proof of that. All I have is proof that \m/ attacks sizable unaligned sovereign groups and that its leadership sits idly by while foreign leaders are harassed in their channel.

Right. Yes. I understand. You are defending PC because PC is at war. That has been made abundantly clear to me. Repeating it over and over again does not make my argument false. I will respond to what I think are the most important parts of your post. I am not sure if you are stating that you are ignorant of the content of your treaties, or if you think the content of your treaties is unimportant. Your leadership verified that this was an optional decision - that because PC is defending \m/ and not themselves. We interpret your move as aggressive, not defensive, because not only did we not attack FOK, we did not attack Poison Clan. No ally of FOK was harmed in the creation of the Polar DoW. But really, all of this is fine. Defend your ally's ally or not, you still have no evidence that we attacked \m/ because of an old grudge. And I have the same evidence that you are attacking Polaris for an old grudge. Maybe you are defending your beloved \m/, or maybe you are trying to settle an old score. Once wasn't enough, you needed to kill us twice. We stated reasons for attacking \m/, more than just one. You stated reasons for attacking Polaris. You believe we are not attacking \m/ for the reasons we listed but instead because we want to kill them again. I believe you are not attacking Polaris for the reasons you listed but instead want to kill us again.

You know, I would have really liked this post if you didn't go out of your way to insult me in the process. Thank you for at least trying to refute my argument, and it upsets me you feel the need to aggressively attack my ability to read and interpret as you have. I read FOK's OP. I like their admission that nothing is as it seems. That's a very mature and responsible position to take. My issue comes in their justification, not the following conditional statements about objectivity. They did not have an obligation to enter this war. They did not state that they are entering because they believe defending \m/ is necessarily the right thing to do. They activated an optional clause, and the reason they activated this clause was based on their belief that we attacked \m/ because we have wanted to kill them since they died (???) in September 2007. That seems to have been the most important factor in their decision making process. Otherwise, why bother to highlight and emphasize it in the Declaration? If it was just an afterthought or idle speculation, maybe just leave it out, rather than giving it paramount importance in the OP? That claim is false. In response, I am asserting that their claim is a lie, and that instead they have a grudge against us that they are looking to settle from SPW. I have as much proof as they do.

I disagree. Treaty or otherwise, you have been planning this strike for months. It is the result of a grudge. Just like you, I have no proof of this accusation. There is no proof we attacked \m/ because of an old grudge. There is no proof FOK attacked us because of an old grudge. I'll try my best with this cluster of stupidity and simplification. I am asserting that FOK declared war on us because they still have a grudge against us from the SPW. I am also fighting a war. I do not understand why writing messages here, and fighting wars in nation, are mutually exclusive? What aren't you doing, that you are spending time here? Surely, if my time could be spent more productively, yours could be as well. I do not care if FOK gives my arguments attention or heed. I have little hope of changing their minds. They claimed that Polaris attacked \m/ because of an old grudge, a claim for which I have seen absolutely no proof. I think that FOK attacked us exclusively because of an old grudge. I asked you to disprove me. You have not, and basically opted to not engage and challenge me, but to simply bluster. That's fine, bluster all you would like. In the mean time, try and find proof that FOK is not attacking us because they hold a grudge against us. Cheers. EDIT: OOC: Made it a bit more IC

FOK: Your declaration of war is false. Your pretext for declaring war is false. There is no concrete evidence to support your claim, unless it has yet to be provided, and I personally have never seen anything justifying your assertion. \m/ asked our permission a half dozen times over the last year to reform, and every single time we gave them permission. Not in an attempt to goad them to reforming so we could attack them, but because the grudge between our alliances was genuinely dead. This attack was a combination of factors, but a feud that has been dead for two years is not among them. On the same grounds that you accuse us of attacking \m/ for an old grudge, I accuse you of attacking us for a similar one. Clearly, you still hate us from the Second Patriotic War. Clearly, you are jealous of our economic success despite your efforts to curb our growth. Clearly, you are settling a score. Despite your overwhelming victory, similar to our overwhelming victory against \m/ approximately a year before you destroyed us, you still hate Polaris and everything it stands for. Treaties or not, causes or not, this declaration is because of a grudge, and the only thing that has changed between now and two weeks ago is convenience. Please. Disprove me.

This is just semantics. Does it matter how much damage was actually done to constitute a curb stomp? Three alliances attacked one alliance smaller than any of the three. It was a guaranteed victory. If you had sustained the war for four grounds attacks would it be a curb stomp? If you had sustained it for 8 ground attacks and air raids, is it a curb stomp? It's a principle of definition - you attacked someone that had no chance whatsoever to defend themselves, because you knew you would win and you knew you would profit. Curbstomp? I'd say so.

Honor to you, Sith. Welcome to the war.

There is no old vendetta. That's completely preposterous. On over a half dozen occasions in the past year, the current leaders or other individuals have sought our permission to reform \m/, and every single time since we have been released from our terms we told them that we had absolutely no issue with them reforming, and that our grudges died in the war. If we were intent on preventing \m/ from existing, we would have discouraged their reformation, rather than reacted with apathy.

Yeah, we know.

So, what you meant was: "Even though I have been posting non-stop since this event began and I have distinguished myself as one of the most vocal opponents to Polar's war and staunch defenders \m/'s god-given right to foster racism in their community, the more this conflict develops, I am somehow finding myself more unable to sit idly by." I guess we'll just be seeing even more of you. Wonderful.

Someone can probably make this into a flow chart, if you need it.

Welcome to your first real war, PC. I respect your decision to enter this war, as I understand you prefer severely weakened targets, or targets with whom you hold binding treaties. Peace has been offered and the terms are extremely lenient. You should take this opportunity before your arrogance and your blustering, coupled with your obvious inferiority, inspire Grub to make these more demanding.

Schattenman claimed that this issue has no affect on our 'Digiterran' experiences, and he's right, to a degree. He instead blamed the victims or in some cases bystanders of moral transgression because they made an issue of [OOC]OOC issues such as race, or in Bilrow's case, disease[/OOC]. However, this particular incident was brought to international attention by \m/, the offending party, rather than Polaris, the offended party, or a bystander. Schattenman claimed that \m/ was brought forward by the maniacs, but if they were brought forward by pressure, does that mean they would otherwise apologize for this? They are either making this apology because they think it is right, or they are making this apology because they think they are forced to. In the first case, Schattenman is wrong. In the second, he is not. I do not think anyone but \m/ can say.

I have seen no evidence of this. I thought this announcement was meant to make me smile, and realize \m/'s awareness for its insensitivities, because this was not on account of international pressure. So I guess it is time to ask \m/ the question, are they doing this because of international pressure, or are they doing it because it's the right thing to do?

This issue was brought to Digiterra by \m/, as far as I can tell. At least, that was the affiliation of the creator of this announcement at the time of its creation. Unless \m/ were the maniacally childish prisses?

[OOC]You are differentiating the purely in-game experience (collecting taxes, trading) from the meta-game experience (signing treaties, organizing governments). Both of these are considered In Character by the moderators. While this thread might perhaps be in the incorrect forum, an issue that any alliance might have with \m/ is not, necessarily, and as you are someone that has decided to create a character for himself, and thus participate in the meta-game, this does affect you, if indirectly. Your posts have indicated not a problem with the apology itself, oddly, which certainly has no affect on you, since it is an apology through a medium not officially recognized by the gaming staff about an issue that has not been rationalized to being In Character, but instead you are taking an issue with the responders, who do not seem to have been as particular at separating the In Character grievances (attacking an alliance without cause, treating an alliance leader on a diplomatic mission with total disrespect) and the Out of Character grievances (racism). You have an agenda here and that's fine but your objections to the strictly in-character rules of this forum are inconsistent.

Schattenman: You're correct. I forgot that I, president of Proko, am standing in the room of international diplomacy where remarks such as those take on an entirely new meaning. Jason8: You're also correct. Polaris will not take any action against \m/ because it is a community that fosters and tolerates racism.

If you are wondering, 'Am I misinformed if I believe that Polaris is going to attack \m/ because it is a community that fosters and tolerates racism,' then I will tell that 'yes, you are misinformed about this attack.' No attack will befall \m/ on account of the racism that it fosters and tolerates. <Czar_Nick|Sleep> its not [censored crime] if theyre [possessing censored physical characteristic] These comments happen all the time? You do not think there is a problem with that? EDIT: Quoted some of the offense logs here, but on second thought, removing them before I am warned for repeating them.

That's pretty horrible.

rah rah rah! I am the angry public and I demand MHA give emily peace! No, I don't really. I just think these announcements are kind of silly.

I'm pretty sure this thread is just going to depress me. ~1100 days already with no end in sight

The Orders have so much gravity Understanding 'rivalry,' as WalkerNinja defines it, I would put forward the NADC-BLEU Senate competitions. Certainly not the greatest rivalry or opposition in the game, but I recall at one point we had all three seats and there was some celebration, at least in Polar leadership channels. A quality antagonism (not a fun one, but a real one) was the Polar-CIN rivalry that existed for a few months in early 2007. While CIN were never our military or political equals, they may have rivaled us in terms of active membership, especially at the time of the secession. While we won the war without contest, it was always on the Polar agenda to see CIN destroyed.

My nation ruler is both human and mammal D:

That was back in the days of the instant anarchy trick, though. So while not all nuances may have been known, someone (I think WC takes credit for it) figured out the most important one.