Mergerberger II

It is disappointing to see DnD finally die, but it is less disappointing to see that Galv is still in gov. [quote name='Ameroca' timestamp='1330983772' post='2934155'] A boundary isn't a specified limit? Also, you gave a boundary that I most certainly respect; I just mentioned how I have to ask others about indefinite protections to show the misuse of indefinite is epidemic. Here, the ignorance is perfectly displayed in the silly "Our protection is undefined except where it is" Anyway, I guess I should apologize for choosing this as the place of my soapbox, and congratulate your alliances and wish you luck. [/quote] Indefinite refers to an uncertain amount of time, so basically they aren't sure when they will stop protecting DnD, unless all of the members are gone from the AA. What they're saying is they're not making a commitment to protect the AA forever should people remain on it. You can have conditions to an indefinite period of time. You can have conditions with anything. Indefinite is also not the same as undefined.

OcUK has always been nothing short of friggin awesome. o/ 5 years

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1330621061' post='2931338'] The only thing my staff and I are guilty of is not using precise language. [/quote] You should consider it. It is much more incriminating.

Who the hell would vote no in this poll?

Oh how times have changed. Good luck to both of you.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1330491349' post='2930469'] Nein comrade, an alliance war by our definition is only between sovereign alliances. Never individuals, and if one of the alliances involved is sovereign and recognized but the other isn't, that's where the 'mass tech raid' category comes in. Anyhoo, the act of somebody sending aid to an individual can lead to an alliance war, as we've seen here, if the sovereign government of the alliance the aiding nation belongs to does not agree to reparations. This does not mean it has become an alliance war, the refusal to come to terms of the sovereign government of the aiding alliance makes it an alliance war, plenty of times we have come to simple diplomatic agreements with these sorts of incidents. Additionally, in this scenario, the tech raid has not [i]Become[/i] an alliance war so much as sparked one. For all my distaste for unaligned, the unaligned in this case is for all intents and purposes, an innocent bystander in the whole thing, who can leave the situation by merely joining a valid alliance. (unless he launches an aggressive war on GOONS, of course). [/quote] That's a fair stance, and I respect it. You are acknowledging the difference between a tech raid and a war and I'd argue that it's definitely a fair distinction that you make. It's your business the way that you consider the outside interference of aid. It is, however, inconsistent with the views expressed by other members of your government during the issue with MONGOLS, namely that a war and a tech raid are the same thing. [quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1330491682' post='2930476'] It was skewed to begin with, following a faulty premise based on a statement lifted from an unrelated discussion over the distiction between an alliance war versus a co-ordinated tech raid. [/quote] Any post by anyone will be inherently skewed towards one viewpoint or another, because true objectivity in any description is impossible. However, the discussion that was alluded to is not terribly relevant anymore, because all we need to do is look at this discussion and we see the position that a tech raid and a war are two different things being maintained.

Oh bloody hell.

If anyone cares, allow me to share my take on this issue. First, I think that the original message of the OP has been skewed. We are no longer asking if GOONS are hypocrites for the reason of inconsistency with the definition of a war and a tech raid, but instead are asking if GOONS are hypocrites in their raiding policies themselves. As these are two different issues, I will address each separately. As to the possibility of GOONS' raiding policy making them hypocrites, no it does not make them hypocrites. GOONS are a sovereign alliance, no matter how much that upsets some people, and therefore are free to set their policies as they wish. If GOONS wishes to have their alliance backing up any action taken against a raider (aside from military retaliation from the target nation, as has been pointed out as not being given), then that is their decision. While some may not agree with this policy, think it to be unfair or whatever else, it is by no means hypocritical. As Sardonic said, it is consistent. Moving back to the original issue, the reason that GOONS are being called out for hypocrisy in this instance is that their views regarding the relationship of a war and a tech raid appear inconsistent and highly malleable in a short period of time when dealing with two similar scenarios. One involves their allies conducting what is clearly defined by their allies as a large-scale raid. GOONS supported this definition, in that certain members of their government stated clearly that a 'war' and a 'tech raid' are two different things, which is a fair statement and a fair assessment. Where the inconsistency appears, however, is on the issue with MONGOLS. Several members of GOONS' government clearly state that a war and a tech raid are the same thing. This is a very different view than was expressed by different members of the same government a short time earlier. This is where the hypocrisy exists and this is where it was originally argued to exist. Building on that, I have a question for Sardonic or whomever else would like to answer. If a member of GOONS conducts a tech raid, and then the raid victim is sent aid by some third party, does this then change the tech raid into an alliance war?

Excellent post. I too await the goon-ninjas of doomhouse to tell us how terrible Schatt is.

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1330224750' post='2928378'] Well, in that case, how embarrassing for you. I'll do the polite thing and change the subject to direct the focus elsewhere. You're welcome. I really do wish our friends in Polaris luck with their rebuild and reps payment. I've had a melancholy mood for most of the day because it's just so strange and weird feeling to not be allied to you anymore after so, so long of always being there. Let's not be strangers, ok? [/quote] It is impossible for us to be strangers, mate.

Today is not a happy day.

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1329974078' post='2926268'] I don't think he was implying that. [/quote] He was projecting the incident of one Polar who still holds a grudge for whatever reason over the whole alliance, which is clear because he cited the treaty that we signed. My point is that these are minority views - they do not reflect how most of the alliance feels, and I think it is wrong to imply as he has and several others have in this thread to the contrary.

Who the hell keeps leaving? I blame Random for this nonsense.

[quote name='Megamind' timestamp='1329970268' post='2926205'] And if we had demanded that article 8 be added to the document you would have had a point. But we didn't and you don't. Anyways that's not really the point, the point is that it's pretty funny [/quote] I'm sorry, but not all of our members think exactly alike.

[quote name='Vandal' timestamp='1329869054' post='2925301'] Like you not having anything to do with TSO, I really don't have anything to do with NpO. NpO never gave me, let alone TSO, any reasons to think otherwise. Just when I thought NpO would change, the alliance never disappointed in being disappointing. When it came to NpO and MCXA's relationship and how it was going down, I posted what was going to happen internally, which was dismissed of course, but if someone was to look back to what I said it was like I was freaking psychic. NpO's arrogance is what soured that relationship. Given enough time, everyone else pretty much figured it out. I just sat back and laughed. It's more laughable watching NpO now act like the victim. The animosity between TSO and NpO has NOTHING to do with me. It's funny for you and RI to say I'm holding a grudge for something that happened in the distant past. The alliance animosity started when NpO was calling for TSO to be rolled during its formation. Why? NpO has NO business with what happened internally with TSO and MCXA. The Grudge with you guys and SAM has been stewing longer than me giving you guys any thought. I'm just a member. I have no say or sway with what people do or say in TSO. If the two alliances could become close at some point, Great. We all know that's not going to happen however and if it does? Then I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. [/quote] Please stop. What has happened in the past is in the past. You agreed to put it there, as per the peace terms. Let's all move on. Additionally, we have not acted like the victim at all. We took our lickings for what we did and we accept that. We are not victims, despite what you want us to behave like.

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1329592921' post='2923484'] As I noted, I was doing so for informational purposes and in response to pezstar, who had already brought it up. Come off of it. [/quote] [quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1329540875' post='2923116'] It's rather odd how [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=31042"]the seven alliances who attacked Polar in that war[/url] (of whom your buddies in FARK were one), all of whom contributed to and signed off on [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=34051"]the terms[/url] that were presented to Polar, are, in your rhetoric and that of others in Polar and in STA, somehow condensed down to just TOP alone. I'm sure that's convenient for the purposes of your arguments, but it doesn't match up with reality. It's also amusing to see you justify black betrayal. I'm sure you're only OK with it when it's Polar who is doing it. After all, your alliance's entire existence is defined by obedience to Polar in all things. [/quote] [quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1329549620' post='2923240'] Just as members of Polar and STA and other simpleminded folk take the seven alliances that fought Polar in WotC and condense them down to just TOP for the purposes of their arguments, so do the same people, for the same purposes, take the eleven alliances to whom TOP paid reparations and condense them down to just MK. Like I said earlier, it's convenient for people to do these things for the sake of their arguments, but it constitutes a very obvious evasion of reality. [/quote] Neither of those posts are either of those things. I could spend all day clarifying for 'informational purposes', but I won't because all it does is perpetuate what is finished.

Crymson, please, let's leave the past where it is. With the conclusion of the war, there is no reason whatsoever to continue bringing up our mistakes in Bipolar or our past transgressions against you. I don't expect us to suddenly become friends, but I do expect you to start using your posts to talk about something other than how we betrayed you, which to this point you have not yet done.

[quote name='Lanore' timestamp='1329549601' post='2923239'] Oh I know. I was just pointing out that most alliances don't move that kind of tech for their own alliance growth. The internal organization of this will be hell xD [/quote] I assure you, the Ministry of Plenty is entirely capable of handling this. [quote name='Janosik' timestamp='1329552297' post='2923256'] As someone who fought for the entirety of both BiPolar and this war, I'm happy to see some resolution. That's well over a year spent fighting Polaris. I wonder if anyone in either alliance has spent more time or casualties beating this dead horse. If you really think MK's defense is comparable to Polar's treachery, you not only need a logic check, but a lobotomy. [/quote] I think that the point was that MK took reparations from you and not us, but I'm not here to debate that. [quote name='Janosik' timestamp='1329552297' post='2923256'] Lanore, welcome to CN. Sometimes we run big programs here. I had the pleasure of paying reps for quite a length of time, I only wish Polaris the same. Unfortunately they will have half the extended joy I had. [/quote] Indeed, and Polaris is perfectly capable of paying the reparations to which we have agreed. [quote name='Janosik' timestamp='1329552297' post='2923256'] Fallen Fool, you seem a reasonable individual speaking some sort of amicability, but your compatriots voices are ringing much louder than yours. We are hearing their disgruntlement and their insults, not your voice.[/quote] I assure you that Polaris feels that this feud is now concluded. We are well prepared to move on, and any dissenting voices to that opinion are in the minority. [quote name='Janosik' timestamp='1329552297' post='2923256'] These reps are embarrassingly low to what was negotiated. I and others were willing to shoot low so we could wrap this up quicker. (Although someone like me in the lower ranks with enough reserves to buy a few nations was in no rush.) Now in this thread I wonder whether we should have run a harsher line as the criticism appears to not be about numbers but ad hominem. [/quote] Everything is ad hominem. [quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1329559459' post='2923286'] They wouldn't have been in a position to take that amount of reps if half the coalition led by Polaris hadn't disappeared overnight after carrying out the plan that was made, discussed and cleared with Polar. I believe even Polar agrees that mistakes were made. For some it costed them alot more than 125k. For instance, it took IRON around 10 months to get out of reps due to Gramlin's extended BS and the fighting went on for a lot more longer then now as well, + 100k+ tech. Anyway, IRONers consider the Bi-Polar issue settled, I hope members of Polaris also view it as such. [/quote] I wouldn't really consider the Ramlins thing to be any sort of an inconvenience, more of a minor annoyance. But then again, I wasn't in IRON at the time. Anyway, I assure you that Polaris does indeed consider all things settled with IRON. [quote name='Meterman' timestamp='1329560572' post='2923290'] Thanks to our allies, y'all are great. NpO: We appreciate the good fight, honorable, proud, and full of perseverance. We sincerely hope for a smooth rebuilding of Polar and a future relationship that is fruitful and fun! [/quote] Thank you for the well-wishes. [quote name='TIEIXIAIS' timestamp='1329562534' post='2923306'] Polar should have thought about the repercussions of blatantly backstabbing it's allies. The matter is considered settled and NpO got a significantly easier set of terms then IRON and TOP them. I'd be happy if I were you. [/quote] Polaris and the people who declared war on C&G on January 28th were not allies. Happy? No. Content, satisfied? Yes.

Glory be. o/

Pretty sweet pip, Deinos. Really.

Well, this is definitely interesting.

[quote name='Indian Bob' timestamp='1328903639' post='2917933'] They were an opportunistic bunch for joining a war that was at best a draw, and at worst a sizable disadvantage? [/quote] So would you say then that it was a stupid decision by TOP to enter the war in the first place, when the best possible outcome was a draw?

[quote name='Ernesto Che Guevara' timestamp='1328853379' post='2917728'] Please direct me to a time when BFF has ever told an ally "no" when they have asked for our direct support. [/quote] Oops, that should not have been directed at you.

[quote name='thedon125' timestamp='1328841998' post='2917603'] o/ all Btw, UPN, and keep in mind this is only a suggestion, and may or may not be good advice. Next time you want to enter a losing battle for an ally, consider sitting out, rather than rushing to peace. Not only will you be in a better position to inundate them with rebuilding aid afterward, but you also prevent that many more treaties from activating and by extension, require that many fewer people to agree to peace terms before your ally can leave. Sure, you'll get heckled by the OWF, but anyone who has been a ruler for longer than a few months knows that unless you're part of the hegemony, that will happen regardless of what you do. [/quote] Had UPN sat this one out, they would have been ridiculed for cowardice. Now that they are in the war, they are being ridiculed for entering a losing war. What, exactly, is it that would satisfy you? What decision could UPN make that could possibly satisfy you? Furthermore, the United Purple Nations are the last ally of Polaris to get peace. We never heard a word of complaint from UPN throughout the course of the war that they needed to get out. They hardly rushed to peace. I could not ask them to do any more than what they did already. They have already more than fulfilled their obligations to us time and again, and frankly I could not ask for a better ally. It is indeed true that you will be heckled regardless of what you do if you're not part of the hegemony. For example, I don't know an alliance more honorable, righteous, or principled than the Siberian Tiger Alliance, yet people still ridicule them for being a terrible alliance despite having no evidence to back it up other than their unwavering loyalty to Polaris, a favor we have not had the opportunity to return to them. And it's pretty simple as to why: it's easy. It's easy to ridicule those who aren't in power, and keep them down, because it means that you don't have to disagree with what people say. You don't have to stand up for what you actually believe in and you don't have to pick out what is wrong in what people say, you can simply accept one side's word as gospel, and dismiss the other side's word as absolute folly. It is disgraceful but it is the world we live in. [quote name='Canik' timestamp='1328852214' post='2917707'] Heh, Chax. You are mistaken on the terms. At least the way it's worded in the OP, Robster doesn't have to apologize to BFF directly. Cora, Robster, etc.. you are mistaken in not realizing how crappy of an ally NpO is, and how crappy your own alliances are. Cora, and others, did have serious issues with giving up any ground, giving up any control, even if it would benefit us all. Admittedly, it did not help that some BFF members (possibly myself included) virtually demanded change and acted arrogant at times. I try my damnedest to look at things objectively though, and I feel that we were very nice for a very long time before we started getting fed up, and became more arrogant and demanding. In return, the 'independents' got even more defensive. It was all downhill from there. If only you had all faithfully and unquestioningly followed me, but so few of you wanted to be part of something bigger than yourself. Despite being a satellite to NpO you wanted to maintain your 'independence'. How'd that work out for you? @ Dexo; You're right, FEAR does normally encourage people to fight for their allies, even if it's on the losing side. We ourselves have done it many times, so we have room to talk. You would think we would be congratulating you on standing up for your allies. Thing is, you already did that in the NG-UPN war not long ago. When FEAR was in NEW-DF, we sat out the next war. The circumstances were very similar. So, while I see how you would find that 'rich', hypocritical, etc.. we really would've understood in this case. We might have given you some crap because we don't like you, but the world would have understood, you wouldn't have suffered any PR damage. Probably would've been best you did stay out. [/quote] I know that Polaris, as I said before, has not had much of a chance to prove itself as a solid ally to the world, but I assure you if our treaty is activated with any of our allies we will immediately go to war without question. Why do you want people to faithfully and unquestioningly follow you? I would be appalled if I was not questioned as a leader. USN and UPN are not Polaris' satellites; I assure you they are very much independent and are not simply meatshields and yes-men. It may not have worked out particularly well militarily, but at least UPN and USN can look at themselves and be satisfied that yes, they are loyal, they are principled, they are independent. Indeed you did, and you were criticized for sitting that war out, were you not? I don't have any overwhelming sense of you being always there for its allies 100% of the time no matter the cost, not the way that I view the STA or alliances that are always there. And again we see this argument crop up. UPN would have been ridiculed for not entering, and instead since they did enter, you ridicule them for entering. I ask again, what, exactly will satisfy you?

[quote name='Gairyuki' timestamp='1328065557' post='2912085'] Kait's RL daughter goes missing. It turns out that she is a runaway. From the evidence, we know that she met with the older guy before this incident, and was later dropped off at her house by said old guy. MK finds out that "Biodad", the biological father of Kait's daughter, is some kind of super soldier, and that neither Kait nor Hoo will give him the information he needs to find his daughter who he believes has been kidnapped. MK then finds out that "Biodad" isn't such a huge fan of Kait or Hoo, for various reasons including what MK perceives to be oppressive parenting (no internet, no cell phone, etc). MK finds out that "Biodad" is basically doing his own search for his daughter, including putting up flyers, something that apparently escaped Kait and Hoo's mind. Kait's daughter is found when a man recognizes her because of the flyers placed around town by Biodad. We are then informed that she ran away. We have reason to believe that the daughter was kicked out of the house, or was otherwise threatened in some way following her meet up with the gentleman from the internet. We also have reason to believe that Kait and Hoo deliberately mislead us into believing she had been kidnapped because of how apparently terrible they are at parenting. Somewhere in there, Bob Ilyani becomes aware of Kait and Hoo's deceit, either from seeing the Biodad thread in MK or by coming to his own conclusion, and clears both for MK to attack. The whole of CN cries "OOC Attack!" because MK uncovers evidence that contradicts the narrative parroted on these, as well as MK's boards. Several notable CN mouth-breathers decide that it's within their moral code to ignore RL evidence in favor of IC principles, and thus proceed to argue that MK should never have attempted to help Kait and Hoo's daughter by uncovering more information about her, and instead should have seen the cry for help as exactly what the rest of CN perceived it to be; an empty plead for sympathy, a hollow cry for action. [/quote] Two questions: First, what reason do you have to believe that Kait and Hoo deliberately misled you or anyone else with regards to their OOC situation? She was clearly reported missing to the police, so it is pretty reasonable to assume that the child is missing. Second, assuming that there was some 'deception' going on, why does that, clearly an OOC action, justify IC action?