Tulafaras
-
Posts
281 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Tulafaras
-
-
There is no treaty mandating intervention in this war for almost any alliance which has done so, particularly on the raiding side.
there is no treaty at all mandating war on the agressive side
NO U!
-
Look, I've been a long standing supporter of the idea that alliances should be able to defend whom they want regardless of their treaty status. NpO entered the FoA-\m/ without a defense clause, and most of the opposing side have (or will soon be) taking advantage of some option or non-optional aggression chain to enter as well. The whole talk of who should and should not be able to enter what war, outside of those who technically obligated themselves to enter by signing an MDP that's been triggered, is silly. It's just amusing that by the anti-NpO validating the idea they (i.e. certain alliances within the "coalition") can defend unassociated alliances they feel have been attacked unfairly they're at the same time implicitly supporting the idea NpO had every right to join the \m/-FoA war. That is to say both sides had every right to attack each other and let's just get to the fighting without all the morality business.
As i said, it's ironic WHERE you post this, not what you post
Regardless i am not getting into this discussion now, it's 6:30am here and i haven't slept yet so nope no philosophy for me now.
-
And you are tied to GOD thus you guys have formed up a coalition to plan out how you think this World War that shouldn't have been is to go down because you guys would like to see Polar hamstrung as much as possible due to the impressive growth they have shown the world.
Yes, we all get the tie between GOD and RnR what I was talking about is the particular wording of the OP that betrays more then just a simple defensive treaty activation.
Go ahead and read over the OP again and if it still flies over your head we will get you that coherency check.
That is not what is questioned at all. It is the fact that it has been admitted that a coalition has formed up in order to control who follows their treaties in order to try and control who jumps into the war. Basically it is a tactical coalition you have formed to try and control how this war goes. What that means is there are some alliances that have already decided that they want in on this and they will push forth a World War from this.
The only reason why this could be is because the end result is for a heavily damaged Polar because of their position in the world and their expedient growth rate.
We call that Coalition "The Superfriends" and shock and horror, when we plan to go to war we actually meet and discuss that beforehand (if time allows).
Frankly your rethoric is a joke. We did not start this war, we did not stall peace negotiations over semantics. The only thing we have dared do is back up our ally.
-
Considering the mass amount of crap they've spewed, you'd think these knuckleheads would be more than willing to finally have a chance to do something about it, but now all we see are some half-hearted, half-dozen actual declarations, and of course we're gonna call them out on it.
GOD can't stomp us if theyre in peace mode. So I guess they should quit making themselves look ridiculous.
Are you really quite sure you are the person who wants to throw stones about what kind of "crap" we spew?
-
Whatever your opinion on whether Polar was in the right or not \m/'s official allies are, by and large, not the people currently defending them. A majority of the anti-NpO side of this has used optional aggression pacts to chain in at the present moment, some of them up to twice removed from a direct treaty. And seeing as NpO's right to defend FoA was wrong apparently because they didn't have a treaty, the hypocrisy at this point is flowing pretty heavy in both directions. So, and I say this lovingly, both sides need to get over themselves a bit. NpO choose to step in for FoA because they saw an opportunity, just as their detractors are taking license to engineer a counter-attack.
It's ironic that you are posting this into the DoW of an alliance who followed an MADP.
-
Xipho you disappointed me why is like 75% of your alliance in Peace Mode? I hope that was mistake
34 out of 78 isn't even 50% never mind 75....
-
Well it is now.
true Xiph was a bit slower than the R&R poster
-
how many threads will I have to wish for utter destruction in?
hope you die, GOD, etc. etc.
(good luck to you all)
as long as you don't wish for udder destruction (and yes that's a bad pun based on even worse propaganda from the karma war).
We'll see each other on the battlefield NSO
-
Nice declaration of war, GOD.
actually ours is over here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79201
-
tis funny. a lot of posts against Polaris assumes Polaris never spoke to their allies about this situation prior to declaring war on \m/, yet it seems that many of those anti-Polar people just assume that NEW spoke to their allies about this move. (not saying that NEW did not speak to their allies, just find the hypocrisy of the anti-Polar people amusing.)
The OP includes the fact that they DID talk to their allies, which is why i am curious if everyone who is complaining missed that point.
The allies in question are not currently involved in this conflict (nor are they very close in the treaty chain).
Polar's ally on the other hand was a direct link between the two conflicting alliances, and a fair number of other alliances are also very close to both sides. And yes they did talk to them (as Hoo said a few days ago before the board went down) but the difference should still be rather clear to see.
So no, i did not assume anything, i read what was posted and formed my opinion on that. In NpO's case i read the outrage by quite a few MK and Rok members something which this thread is completly lacking from NEW's allies.
That's a bit much to expect of people willing to defend you. They should at least have the right reject a war where they don't consider your cause worth defending. A defence treaty should not be a binding contract to dictate all actions of an alliance on each and every matter. Especially on matters as complex as the one we are all involved in currently.
The way I see it, NEW doesn't agree with the attacks first made and thus won't defend those that made them should someone fight back. It's one thing to defend an ally against unprovoked attacks, it's quite another to start a fight and expect to be protected from retribution.
That is a rather heavily contested topic, something which has led to quite a few heated discussions in the past, and likely will continue to do so in the future. If you have an MDP with an alliance and that alliance attacks someone, are you obliged to defend them from counterattacks even if you cannot agree with the initial CB for some reason.
The usual answer is: "you shouldn't have signed the treaty to begin with if you do not want to defend them".
-
I'm torn here. I like that you have the balls to take a stance by yourself for what you think is right. I also think that previous wars have proven that this move isn't to preserve infra because you guys have never seemed very keen on keeping any infra at all.
However I don't like treaties being broken. Wich is why I think MADPs are a really bad idea. Especially chaining ones.
I was looking over your treaty to try and find some way e-lawyer this but instead I found
Wich would mean the TPF treaty is null and void when TPF have been in the war for 72 hours.
1) TPF isn't at war so far.
2) Even if TPF enters the war they are still free to waive this treaty for this specific war. It's between NEW and TPF.
3) Considering the stance NEW has taken on raiding their position seems logical.
Keeping those 3 points in mind, i find little fault with them informing their treaty partners of their stance (in private as they did) before they actually enter the war (or come close to entering. By my count they are still a few treaty chains away from actually being called upon).
-
double post sorry :/
-
We did not issue a declaration of war against the Poison Clan. We did not issue a declaration of war against FOK. We did not issue a declaration of war on Stickmen.
We issued a declaration of war on \m/. Any wars between alliances that are not \m/ and New Poalr Order are out of our hands. We did not attack Poison Clan. Offensive wars were only made against Poison Clan after dozens of offensive wars were made against the New Polar Order by the Poison Clan.
In contrast, no defensive war slot of the Poison Clan was filled by the New Polar Order because we declared war on \m/ until first defensive slots ofthe New Polar Order were filled by members of the Poison Clan.
You are reaching.
And so are you. \m/ alone is not even a mouse compared to your size, which is why your Emperor stated he expects \m/'s allies to enter on their side and that you stand alone expecting them.
Frankly after such a statement you really cannot complain if their allies enter. And neither can you really complain if an ally of their ally decides to make the sides even.
Edit:
A different one that defines "being attacked" in relation to the size of the alliance? Neat-o.
Want me to go and post screenshots of the warscreen? Of course they are being attacked stop being ridiculous. the question we might (and can) argue is if they (as in PC) are being attacked as a defensive action or offensive action.
-
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 am sorry if you feel offended, but since yours was not the only post where people insist on ignoring the key point of the FOK announcement i felt it was necessary to ask "your side" to read a bit more thouroughly.
Considering the kind of announcements your leader has been writing in this war, i believe (and this is strictly my personal opinion, i do not have any facts or inside knowledge to back it up) that FOK felt they needed to make an equally verbose announcement. Their theory might be wrong or right (frankly some kind of grudge against \m/ was definitly present, otherwise why should Grub have singled them out in this way instead of voicing his ire against PC as well) but then on the same topic so is some of the hot air Grub was spewing in his.
Regardless the point is moot, since they have entered on behalf of their ally PC who was engaged with a far stronger opponent at the point of that DoW. Offensive/defensive well that is a slippery slope to discuss in this specific case, because you could e-lawyer argue both sides equally well. I made an argument for defensive in a previous post, and i stand by it, but frankly as FOK said they did not feel the need to e-lawyer in a similar war. As their tl:dr stated pretty clearly the situation for them was clear:
One of our most loyal allies is engaged in a war against a far stronger opponent.
The far stronger opponent has refused peace.
Therefor we enter to prevent our ally from burning alone.
Could they have been clearer?
-
Even by the most spectacular interpretation of treaty chaining, this isn't true. PC declared war on NpO and nobody has declared on them in response. PC can be claimed to have entered a defensive war for m, but they are definitely not 'being attacked'.
considering the size of the NpO on the one hand and PC and \m/ on the other hand i can safely state that yes they are "being attacked". Are they being attacked by a seperate alliance as well? No but the NpO has more than enough warslots to attack two alliances at once.
PC has entered a war on the defensive side in honor of their treaty, and is now being attacked by the agressive side. That the NpO did not need to bring in any allies to fight the war is immaterial.
-
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.
so, reprimanding the members in question and posting a public apology is your definition of "idly", i must admit my dictionary has a different one.
-
If noone can police anything, then what will we have but a cesspool?
No one has ever policed Bob. Any attempt to "police" was usually a rather thin smokescreen for different motives.
Frankly a police can only exist if some kind of rulership exists to create laws, since we lack the later we cannot have the former.
-
Read the OP.
They're entering the war because they have some tinfoil idea about NpO wanting to destroy \m/, the treaty with PC is merely the vehicle by which they're entering.
Read the OP.
They're entering the war because they do not believe their ally PC deserves to burn alone, the opinion piece they posted above that is merely background information and their subjective opinion.
-
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
You seem to lack reading comprehension. I'll try to explain it to you in small words because you seem to have missed a key point or two in the OP:
1) The OP is split up into two parts, one being their subjective opinion of the general situation. There is no proof and they do not even pretend that they have proof, but it is their opinion. You can disagree with that opinion of course that is your right, but frankly neither of you has any kind of proof.
2) The second part of the OP is the treaty activation and their DoW. Basically they are in this to defend PC their ally.
So, now to get back to your post, you do not make the slightest bit of sense. Wether they have a grudge or not is a moot point, since their DoW was based on a treaty activation.
-
Curious point, but people did you maybe miss the fact that they did in fact talk to their allies in private before posting this?
I'll assume that they reached some kind of agreement with their MADP partner, who knows maybe TPF as a whole will sit this thing out (considering the amount of damage they took not even 3 weeks ago i wouldn't blame them). Aside from TPF they have MDPs with WAPA, TOOL and FEAR (if the wiki is up to date), personally i do not even know if those 3 will all end up on NpO's side...
-
Actually the NPO paid reps.
that's BS.
KoN wanted donation deals as reps, those were paid for by athens.
Regarding community standards, i am not going to try to argue with you Bob. You have an opinion, which i obviously do not share, but since both of our opinions are based on feelings it is not worth an argument which won't go anywhere anyway.
Fact remains that the NpO decided this was a crusade worth fighting and as a result it looks like we'll blow up a decent amount of infra and glow green for a month. Well worse things have happened...
-
If you believe FoA decided to take peace without seeking reps through its own 'sovereign choice', instead of effectively being blackmailed by the prospect of taking more of a beating if they didn't, then sure. I don't think that is true, I think FoA would certainly have looked for reps if they had a real choice about it, and so the situation was never handled by FoA and their sovereign choices.
FoA got a new protectorate from the Corporation as their "price" for peace. As such yes, the situation WAS handled. On the other hand they could have said no to peace and the protectorate and hoped someone would back them up, that was their choice and we know which option they choose.
No matter how you turn this around, the situation of FoA was over and done with, full stop.
Grub himself has said he is waging this war because of community standards (and yes that is a very short summary of 2 rather lengthy posts). Frankly as soon as that empty phrase is being thrown around i stop listening to their excuses. No such thing exists, this is a board where by default a true "standard" cannot be developed because we do not have any mechanism to create those. So basically his community standards are a subjective opinion based on his perception of the OWF. Frankly that slope is too slippery to make a good CB which is why so many people disagree with the CB (even if they dislike \m/).
-
Correct me if i am wrong, but aren't racist slurs usually considered OOC insults?
Don't get me wrong, i find them deeply offensive as well, but only in their OOC context. To be honest i don't even know what my IC ethnicity is set to, so an IC slur regarding the ethnicity (sp?) of my nation wouldn't really touch me.
-
Just so we're clear, you would request no help from your alliance or allies, and deny any that is offered? Or does "best of your abilities" include accepting and coercing help from others?
i am not really sure what kind of strange words you are reading, but i am decently sure we are not reading the same posts. Obviously i would defend my nation, and also obviously i would expect my alliance to defend my nation otherwise why would i be in an alliance?
We have also left the topic the thread is devoted to, quite far behind. If you want to continue this sidetrack you can find me on irc or send me a pm....
Vanguard Edict
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
Nice edit, but your post is still reaching.
Leaving aside the entire discussion if Aryan's are a race (the answer is no) since that is an OOC concern, the DOW technically was because they were white supremacists, and it was attacked quite heavily at the time of it's use.
Frankly looking back almost no one tries to defend that CB. It was based on years old "evidence" which was quite suspect to begin with, and enterely based on OOC reasons.