HeinousOne

They were interested in a situation and approached it diplomatically and in turn were treated very disrespectfully. They feel strongly about the situation that was happening so they make a Sovereign Decision to get involved. If being willing to make such decisions is arrogant then this world needs a whole lot more of this arrogance because it is quickly becoming an Imperial world which allows alliances to wave a stack of papers (treaties) in front of anyone while telling them what to do. Careful, you are leaving yourself open with this question. Are you not trying to police NpO by questioning their decision and how it puts your alliance in a tough position? Actually I would say insults worthy of a public apology from the head of an alliance could be construed as an official attack thus \m/ were the aggressors in this and PC is not honorbound to join in because of the whole oA aspect of that treaty. There really should be a world addendum meeting that is to focus on the wording of treaties as a whole. When one has to defer to treaties signed by other alliances rather then an alliance's own decision making then something is wrong.

Well, as you stated \m/ is not the friend of a friend. It is actually a friend of a friend of a friend. Also you are telling your friend when they have a reason to be involved. Isn't that up to them? Actually \m/ is just as responsible for putting you in that awkward situation for the way in which they treat others that come to them diplomatically. You say Polar had no place being there but if a Sovereign Alliance is interested in a situation is it not their place to approach it diplomatically? It was your "friends" in \m/ that were the ones acting in a non-diplomatic way, they even admit to it. The only reason why you would be in an awkward situation is if you have given up all sovereign decision making ability of your alliance and instead react entirely on the wording of your treaties thus allowing other alliances to do things that they know will cause you to have to blindly act on treaties rather then making your own decisions at the time.

You guys really do want nothing to ever happen in this world don't you? You could damn near connect the entire world if you have to consider that many connections before ever acting in your own alliance's interests CSM. As I said to Trace earlier, having such indirect ties enforced is Imperial in nature. It is when an Emperor tells two Kings who dislike each other to get along for the betterment of the Empire as a whole. Polar is allied to MK which then is allied to the CnG alliances which one or more of them has a direct alliance to PC which is then allied to \m/. That is FOUR degrees of seperation that you would have Polar consider before standing up for their own beliefs. One may disagree with their beliefs and even no longer wish to be friends with them over such but which of you would wish upon your alliance that you have to get permission from alliances that are of the fourth degree of connection to your own as illustrated above? That is what is called "Losing your Sovereignty". It is really that simple.

Going to respond to you both at the same time, or atleast try to. If as Bob says is true and RoK was approached by Polar before this then really the main talking point about why Polar was wrong in this is moot now, right? Could someone from RoK please stand up?

As I responded to the others so I will respond to you similiarly. I personally see nothing wrong with you calling out Polar, especially now knowing more of the situation you find yourselves in. It really for me was about the wording that Trace was using and how I was perceiving it. I havn't seen much of a RoK response here since I began paying attention and I really am not going to go back through all these pages to find one but there are times when as a friend you have to let a friend take a couple licks if he really deserved it. There is definately a point when it becomes too much though. I imagine the backroom talks to determine that point are ongoing as we speak or will be later.

I got no problem with friends telling friends when they F up. Perhaps that is the case here but I do kind of see the point that Grub was making about how letting start up alliances get mangled on a regular basis is an issue they feel strongly about and they do not like it. Now I do not know if they go around to all the alliances that do this but it does seem like \m/ acted in a way that I doubt most of the others similiar to them would have acted thus they got this rather unusual response. As I have said a few times already here, I do hope it is a very short bout. If it isn't then it is likely to escalate. I personally see nothing wrong with you personally voicing your opinion on it. I am doing the same thing am I not? I am a staunch supporter of free speech. Pssss....I wear the NpO symbol but I am not actually in NpO. I am in a close ally of theirs. The opinions I bring to this discussion are my own.

Then the circle surrounding the scuffle should be perfectly formed. Friends will be friends and know when to jump in and pull back their friend so no serious permanent damage is done over an insult. An insult deserves a scuffle, not hospital time though.

Did you have a hard time believing that war should have come from the TPF situation? No actual harmful actions were ever taken, just intent. Some might say that intent is enough of an INSULT to be worthy of war and such was acted upon. OOC: Because I would then be acting OOCly right? I would rather not continue in a line of OOC questioning here, feel free to pm me if you are actually interested.

Sounds like a great reason for a short scuffle to me. Then again, my nation is aging quickly and dying out. OOC: The boredom of this world kills me, short wars like this are a good thing in my opinion/ooc Well its true I am not fully up to date on the situation and it will probably have to remain that way as I dont care to invest the time in going around to all parties to get the full story but you are telling a friend to act more friendly to you when you aren't really acting all that friendly to them. I would bet that the mouthy little friend that you are defending verbally is standing back in the shadows laughing at all the chaos they are causing and how they are moving the world so easily. You could be pushing to make sure its just a small short term scuffle between two friends but instead you want to insult one of your friends for standing up for their beliefs. I could be wrong for sure but that is what I am perceiving here. I realize you speak for yourself in this just as I do so I am not trying to put this on MK as I saw someone trying to attribute to my words earlier.

Then it should be easy for both sides allies to sit back and say the best thing we can do as allies and friends to these guys is to let them get bloody. Everyone form up a circle and let them get their licks in but be ready to be friends that know when to say enough is enough. Although I would hope my friend Grub would know when that point is already. I would agree with anyone that says that this isn't really worth a full beat down. So NpO should go running around to others when they are insulted? "Hey guys, they said bad things to us! Tell them to stop!" We are regressing to taddle tales are we? Sometimes an apology is not enough. If you insult me to the point in which I want to kick your $@!, apologizing profusely when I am stalking forward upon you is not going to change my mood nor does it excuse your actions. It may stave off a few blows though and hopefully that will be the case here.

But if that friend of yours feels that something is happening that affects the entire world thus it affects him as well then you would be the one not being so friendly to a friend by telling him he has no business where he thinks he does. Friendship goes both ways. You could have then included your supposed friend and moderated the discussion so your other friend did not treat the initial friend in such an unfriendly manner. Instead you told your friend to get lost and to grin and bear it when your other friend gravely insults him. How very friendly of you.

That one went way over my head, I havn't been around much Krunk.

Friendship goes both ways. If one of your friends feels heavily insulted by another friend of yours, how would you handle the situation?

So you tend to sit back when a friend's friend insults you and respond only with "You are lucky you are a friend of a friend or else I would...."? Seriously? So now when an alliance signs a treaty with another alliance they have to abide by that alliances treaties as well? Sounding a bit Imperial now aren't you?

It is good stuff. I too have begun my own final countdown so to speak. I hope what Gramlins has done catches on although they are in a position most others cannot boast. That being one in which is that they are pretty untouchable themselves in this world. There are a few that could go after them but it really is not feasible for them to do such. Thus the Gramlins are actually in a more secure state without these treaties while many others may not be. I still hope others will look to this and see what it could mean for the world should it catch on.

Come on now, gotta take off the training wheels. What will happen is people will still take the time to comment on what is going on as something will always be going on. Only it will be chatter about who will join in with so and so if they live up to their threats and who will join in defending so and so if those threats are made good on. Without a script (treaties) you will have to actually *GASP* figure it out for yourselves while posting about it. This doesn't mean that it will only be discussed in other channels (OOC: In IRC) but more people will come to places such as this to weigh the tide of public opinion as such will become more necessary to judge when a peace of paper doesn't tell you the script. It will Increase activity, not decrease it. More people will be needed to actually take part in such so an alliance maintains on the cusp of such Intelligence. The leaders won't have a cheat sheet in front of them so they cant ignore everyone else as those who complain about the backdoor discussions seem to think they do. So really they will have to reference the OWF even more and the Wiki will just change what it addresses. Instead of showing the cheat sheets it will show summaries of actions and events and from such everyone will have to try and predict future events.

You are correct with every remark. I really do not think that it is possible for there to be less politics in this world. It thrives on such. It would definately change the politics though. It would change it by not conveniently spelling out for you what will happen should anything happen. When you do that you only have two endings. Either everything happens exactly like you expect it to happen, which is boring, or something goes wrong and some folks dont follow their treaties which gets everyone irritated. Why not do away with the boredom and irritation? Do away with treaties. Let the politics evolve.

More alliances dare to do what Gramlins is doing then myself and perhaps many others may once again become more interested in the politics and maneuverings of this world. They are like training wheels. Edit: Yes, I am talking about treaties.

Havn't bothered to check but I would assume with the steady decrease in nation listings within Gramlins I would say you guys havnt recruited much at all so you are still made up of nations of rather high NS value? So really you don't have all that much to worry about when it comes to aggression upon you and this gives you more say in when you fight and when you don't correct? Good choice for The Gramlins, will be interesting to see what other alliances if any think they can thrive with a similiar FA choice.

Way to lead by example there doc.

It's not even that. Just defining the war as one that didnt last more then a week is fine but the CB was such a hotly contested flashpoint of debate that I thought we would see some firm stances displayed on both sides. Instead we got one side possibly planning a strike to fall over the break so the response would obviously suck, its a possibility. Then we have the delayed response due to holidays. It is understandable, truly. To follow that though we have those that took advantage of the situation and just did a week long raid over an issue that was the cause of some very heated debate. I am no pro NPO guy as you know I am sure but atleast you guys play a good bad guy. You wouldn't have agreed to the peace just because you had been hit for 7 days and now had a chance to get out with peace and only at the cost of revenge being exacted against those that attacked you. You guys at NPO would have laughed at white peace and let your allies come in.

Perhaps the G15 should just let NPO off terms so this world can begin to be interesting again. It shows shades of it in this discussion. Disagree with me about this? How exciting was the last war? What a wonderful war started with overwhelming odds and quickly halted when the odds were more then evened up. Thanks for attempting to help the world out Sir Paul. I enjoyed it.

Alright then, hope the situation goes well for those involved.

There is the diplomatic approach and response generally taken by Tyga then there is the not so diplomatic approach such as the one I will take. The point is Ezekial, you think that by having a protectorate that gives some semblance of recognition to your alliance. You are more worried about your "standing" in the world then you are about actually living up to any treaty that you make. You think you can stick your alliance name in a protectorate treaty because your allies will have to come to your aid should you have to live up to that treaty. What do you consider your allies to be? Your lapdogs? Do you think that they will not cancel their treaty with you if you force them to protect alliances they have not agreed to protect? That is in essence what you are doing here Ezekial and you are going to leave your member nations without any protection because it is YOUR alliance that relies more on protection from larger alliances. If your protectors wanted to protect that alliance you Claim to protect then they would sign the protectorate themselves. It seems this aspect of the chain is lost to you. If you want to be a true protector to that alliance then I would suggest you do the responsible thing and help them find another protector to take over your treaty with them. Sign an optional defense treaty with them or something but being a protector means you are able to do the deed yourself. It is true that such a treaty is often signed with the thought that other allies will help enforce it but that is generally the case when the protecting alliance is themself a vital link within a larger chain of alliances. Your alliance is not that and is just as likely to be cut off for acting out well above its stature then it is to be held up while overextending itself.

Do you guys see this war as an opportunity lost or are you happy with how it ended?