DaJoW

Joined late July 2006. Saw a lot of stuff go down throughout ~18 months of being a member of the NpO government.

[quote name='Gopherbashi' date='05 March 2010 - 03:25 AM' timestamp='1267756129' post='2214410'] [color="blue"]•[/color] [img]http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/2453/sanctionpolarwv6.jpg[/img] 5 [466] [color="green"](+3)[/color] [color="#0000ff"][b]New Polar Order[/b][/color] : 34.34 --> 34.54 [color="green"](+0.20)[/color] [/quote] Oh yeah.

[quote name='Sunstar' date='05 March 2010 - 04:31 AM' timestamp='1267760119' post='2214484'] Sombre indeed. Another two months of these incompetents. [/quote] I feel your pain. Also, congrats.

We're in the spoiler list twice, but that is sweet. Great job. Edit: So are FAIL.

Or maybe it's that we want to honour it fully but currently can't because we're already kind of busy. So why the timing if we can't honour it fully right away? Because MK and GR requested us to honour it so we are, even though we are incapable of helping in a meaningful way. It does not mean we've abandoned them. Someone asked if 1 war would have been okay for Continuum alliances if one of theirs had been hit, but that's a completely different scenario: The other alliances would not have been at war with a bunch of other people when that happened. More appropriate would be to ask if it would have been okay for a WUT alliance to only declare one war on any given League alliance and it still "counting". Still not perfect but more fitting as the other alliances would also have had stuff to do.

I can understand the anger over all the peripheral stuff, but are people actually angry with us for honouring a treaty, and especially angry for doing so when it puts us in a horrible position? Why didn't we hit TSO? Well, the OP states fairly clearly that MK requested help with TOP, so we DoWed TOP. Being asked for help against one alliance and then honouring that by DoWing another wouldn't have made much sense really.

Anyone outside <the DoWer(s)> and the <DoWee(s) with MDP partner(s)> is chaining and annoying to me. The way recent wars have worked, the best political strategy is to just have as many MDP or above treaties as possible (here assuming that everyone always honours their treaties, which I know is factually incorrect) since any DoW on you or any of your allies would then bring everyone you have a treaty with in on your side, along with all their treaty partners, which is ridiculous. MDP's aren't MDP's in this environment, but defensive blocs where any individual alliance has little say on who is in it.

Swedish, so you too can suffer our "grammar".

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='02 February 2010 - 09:55 PM' timestamp='1265144132' post='2153812'] The issue between \m/ an polaris is sorted out. And that should of been an end to it but the war has somehow managed to take on a life of its own. [/quote] IT'S ALIVE! *Manical laughter* Seeing what's happening on the boards is fun, the war itself not so much. Not that I mind fighting a war mind you, but the sides are really messed up, nothing makes much sense, and thanks to my inactivity I don't even know who a lot of these people are.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='02 February 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1265146197' post='2153869'] As one of those primarily responsible for this treaty, I am quite naturally a bit disappointed that it was terminated, but also understand completely why it was necessary to do so and hope that one day both parties re-discover The Undiscovered Country. [/quote] Considering the beauty of it, it is a shame so few had a chance to see it. Oh well, guess we'll just have to look at the path and remember for now.

[quote name='Zizka' date='31 January 2010 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1264969508' post='2148162'] Alliance affiliation in nation description. [/quote] That was fun. Since we shared ours with NPO we had to try and keep track of our stats manually, not too easy when we had 3-4 different member lists floating around

Oh Genesis, how I thee. We may not be on the same side but at least we'll never be opposed.

Yeah, we went to \m/ and said "Can we have peace please?" and they just happened to suggest the exact deal we put on the table on day 1, which could always be accepted at any time. That make sense. For this whole thing to be a trap, we would have had to make a very ugly deal with \m/ (who'd probably be overjoyed at getting to do what we say) and then trick IRON and TOP into declaring. Does either one really sound feasible? Besides, we have no interest in seeing IRON or TOP, and much less MK and GR (and potentially STA) on the other side, take the vast amount of damage this war looks likely to produce. Since both sides seem angry at us we clearly did not work with any of them. I'm sure Grub will put it better (and certainly with more authority) than this, but basically it was a breakdown in communications, not exactly helped by the sheer number of alliances to contact.

\m/ accepted our peace offer which was standing and could be accepted at any time as was made clear from the beginning. How does us honouring our offer make us the bad guys?

Those numbers are very wrong. Last nuke I took destroyed twice that, and the guy I'm fighting doesn't have all that much tech really.