Crymson

As someone intimately familiar with the government-level affairs in the period to which you're referring, I can confirm to you that this isn't correct. There was all of one month between Grub's appointment as emperor and the declarations of war on his alliance; he wasn't responsible for the grievances upon which the war was based, and---believe me---there was borderline-nothing (at least nothing plausible) that he could have done to avert the war. The one most responsible and most directly responsible for the alienation of Polaris and the issues that led to the war of last August was Electron Sponge; by the time he left the office of emperor for the second time, he had generated such hostility towards Polaris on the behalf of many of the larger alliances in Cybernations that his removal as emperor did not really change any minds so far as war against Polaris was concerned. In other words, I don't recall any of it having been Grub's fault.

I agree with those who have declared Grub highly-underrated (though there appears to be another thread on 'underrated governments' now); in my experiences, Grub has always been thoughtful, cordial and intelligent in his foreign affairs workings, and the miraculous regrowth Polaris has seen in the last year leads me to infer that he's very capable on the internal spectrum of administration as well. I agree with those who have said that Grub was neither responsible for nor had a reasonable chance of averting the war of last August. Certain government figures who preceded him had simply done far too much to anger too many people; the hostility and grievances toward Polar at the time were intense such that I'm not sure there were any standard (i.e., excluding anything extraordinary) foreign affairs measures available to him that could have averted the war on his alliance. Grub had the misfortune to have been essentially, at the start of his term as emperor, thrown in the path of a speeding train by his predecessor; the internal revitalization and recovery and the foreign affairs re-integration and (positive) change in character and image that Polaris has seen under his term in office have been extremely impressive. I'm sure this has certainly been the collective work of a very diverse cast within Polar (just as it would be in any organization), but being a quality leader throughout such a period of trials cannot have been an easy task, and Grub seems to have done a very solid job.

You're not going to get in. Go away.

Our membership discussions on a departure from the Continuum began considerably before the war began, and they certainly began well before the catalyst situation---OV and NPO/TPF---that brought the war about. Also worth note is that 72 hours notice were required before departure; that we exited the Continuum in close proximity to the start of the war is nothing but coincidence. Though it pains me to say it, there is no way that we could have discussed the matter and made the decision to leave the bloc fast enough to do so purely in reaction to the threat of upcoming war; in this event, our note of intent to withdraw from the bloc occurred only 24 hours after said situation arose---in TOP, it takes, at the very least, several days for our membership discussions to reasonably conclude and for our voting body to then vote a decision through. So no---we certainly did not leave the Continuum in response to the threat that our treaty obligations would be triggered. We left because we felt the bloc was no longer our place. I believe many involved in Q at that time would agree that that the bloc had begun to disintegrate well before the war began. I'd also like to note the double standard inherent in the accusations in question---namely (though rightfully), nobody accuses MHA of the same. I'd like to make a couple of other notes: The terms "supremacy" and "power-projection" do not fit with the Citadel. None of the alliances in the bloc have any marked history of power-plays or aggressiveness in any sense, and the character of the alliances involved will not change, period---and it certainly won't be altered by whatever newfound position we may have in the relative alliance ranks in the game. Beyond that, from my own extensive experience in the government circles of that bloc, I find it amusing that others think the Citadel capable of domination in any sense. While we will certainly readily defend each other with all means at our respective disposals, we have rarely all agreed with each other on anything. It is remarkable when we can get even a minor project off the ground, i.e. the Citadel Trading Company; that enterprise, whilst not very significant---and one of the only things the Citadel has ever done as a bloc---only got off the ground after a raging and bitter debate that lasted months. To sum up, many outside ideas of the character, internal makeup and internal functions of the Citadel are completely, hilariously wrong. Anyone who has been involved in the bloc on the government level will attest to the fact that intra-bloc functions most often resemble a barfight, albeit a barfight between friends and with no animosity held. While TOP does have many large nations, we are community-based and we have based our admissions system on such. I know because I designed the admissions system in question. Admissions are done entirely on the basis of applicants` personal character on how well we feel they will fit into the community. Vouches are absolutely required, as there is otherwise little in the way of methods by which we can judge an applicant's person and fittingness for our community (all applicants are also discussed by the community at large before Council votes on the applicants). Also required for admission is a commitment to activity within the alliance. All applicants are dNation strength is absolutely irrelevant in our admissions system. A big nation led by a ruler with a poor attitude will not get in. Such a person would disrupt the community. The stability of our community is our primary priority. It is what makes TOP a fun place to be in. An alliance full of big nations but constantly immersed in turmoil and drama is not fun to be in. Believe what you wish. This is how it is. If anyone has any further questions on TOP's methods, TOP's internal makeup, TOP's goals and aspirations or anything else about TOP in general, please feel free to approach us and ask, and we will be happy to answer. It will serve infinitely better than simply making assumptions. Thanks for reading.

Figures <3

Official Announcement from The Order of the Paradox Elections Results TOP's June elections cycle has concluded. As always, we'd like to thank all who participated in the election processes. Without further delay, I'd like to present to you the newest Council and Heptagon of The Order of the Paradox: The 19th Paradox Council Grandmaster: Khyber Grand Hospitaller: Longbowe Grand Chancellor: WalkerNinja The 23rd Session of the Heptagon Avernite Unspeakable Evil Bodvar Jarl Timberland Tex Tony the Tiger Monkeydee

I apologize for the behavior of this member; TOP does not condone such a demeanor on the boards from any of our members, regardless of the circumstances, and the member in question will be spoken with.

Official Announcement from The Order of the Paradox Regarding Non-Aggression Pacts Having consulted with the applicable alliances, The Order of the Paradox hereby dissolves all of the non-aggression pacts we currently hold. The treaties in question concern the following alliances (I will reiterate that these are all of our non-aggression pact partners): OPA MHA ODN IRON NPO Note that this is an impersonal action and is not whatsoever intended as a means by which to make any sort of political statement toward any of the above alliances---indeed, we have MDP-level treaties with MHA and IRON in addition to the aforementioned NAPs. Rather, it is merely symbolic of our belief that non-aggression pacts are of extremely limited utility in this day and age in the Cyberverse, and of our desire to proverbially clean the books of unnecessary treaties. Indeed, our foreign affairs policy has long since been against the signing of NAPs.

That's not at all what he said; rather, he said that our decision on what terms we feel are appropriate for any given situation will depend on the circumstances inherent to that situation. Thus, by relation, different circumstances will produce different opinions on our end as to what terms we feel are fitting.

Aye, that sounds to me like a good idea.

To be fair, that war occurred because of major grievances we had against Polar, and the terms that were presented were---from our perspective---never intended to humiliate Polar, but rather to ensure that Polar would not be a threat to us for some time afterward. We had seen Polar as the major threat to us for a long time before the war; indeed, defending ourselves from Polaris comprised much of the focus of our foreign policy for quite awhile. The animosity leading up to that war stretched back quite some time, and it was exacerbated on many occasions by what we felt to be clearly hostile behavior on the part of Polaris. Such had quieted down after the departure of Electron Sponge, but the many months of threats and schemes weren't something that we were going to forget, and by relation we weren't going to ignore the possibility that it could happen again in the near future after the war. Again, though, that is only TOP's story as relates to the matter, and we were but one piece of the whole that was all the alliances that went to war with Polar in that war. We were far from the only alliance with serious grievances toward Polar, and any perception that it was "TOP's war", persay, are completely incorrect. Per the terms: I personally did indeed do much of the organizing and presentation. However, there was little to no argument from the others involved, and so it can be assumed that they, too, felt that the terms were fitting for the situation. As such---once again---any attempt to attach all of the responsibility for the affair to TOP would be somewhat misguided. I'll reiterate again that we are past all of the feelings we had toward Polaris back then; our only concern as relates to your alliance---and this concern is purely born of speculation---is that some in it perhaps might not feel likewise.

TOP was not either the 'main force' behind the war. We pushed hard for it to happen, yes; but we were but one of many alliances who drove to bring it about, and there were a multitude of others who were willing to help once the time for war had come. Sparta was amongst the latter. Again, I think you're running solely on conjecture here.

Congrats and good luck.

The bolded section is untrue, actually. The Citadel as an entity was most certainly not the 'main force' behind that war. The Gramlins, Umbrella and Old Guard indeed did also fight in the war (the FCC was actually against the war), but---and this is not an effort on my part to tout ourselves at all---TOP was far and away the alliance that most drove for the war amongst those from the Citadel who fought in it. And, indeed, we were far from the only alliances desiring war with Polar. Much of the Continuum (amongst others) was absolutely chomping at the bit for a shot at Polar, and theretofore the only thing that had held us back was our respect for the wishes of the New Pacific Order; Polar was under the unofficial protection of the NPO, and the latter had asked that we all abstain from offensive operations against Polaris. But for this, the war against Polar would have begun significantly earlier---and there were a multitude of alliances who were driving to make that war a reality. So no, the Citadel as an entity was absolutely not 'the main force' behind that war, and only one of its signatories (TOP) was amongst those alliances forming the 'main force' that brought it about. And, indeed, at that point Polaris had---through past actions and behavior---generated an immense amount of hostility towards themselves, hence the massive and diverse coalition (as an example, the major joint declaration of war on Polaris here] included alliances from all three of the Continuum, the Citadel and the Superfriends) that arose to combat they and their allies. Given all of these facts, I can only assume that what you've said in your post regarding that war is complete conjecture on your part. If you don't believe me on any of the history I've listed above, feel free to ask Tulak Hord of it; having been a member of Sparta government at the time (and still, of course), he will confirm that what I've said (regarding the 'major forces' behind the war, at the very least) is true. I'd like to note, as an aside, that TOP has been impressed by Polaris's conduct and growth since the war, and that we hold no carryover hostility nor any negative feelings in general toward them at this point.

I agree, and he has been spoken with about it.

I believe RnR, Umbrella, LoSS and Nemesis and some others alongside whom we fought would not classify our involvement as 'half-assed,' given the genuine help we gave them in what had not necessarily been easy respective wars for them at that stage (no insult intended). I do not remember where we treated 'others' poorly in surrender terms negotiations or in general during this conflict. I also do not understand why you say in one place that those organizing the Echelon peace terms 'went through the required motions' with us, and soon afterward claim that we were actually treated poorly in surrender negotiations due to our supposed lack of will to fully commit ourselves in this war.

TSO was in the process of discussing the terms with KaitlinK; we had left it to them to do so, as our objections were fairly identical to theirs. Said discussions were ongoing, and on Saturday night, TSO's MoFA thought he was being invited to a further discussion on the terms (I thought this was the case as well); needless to say, he was being invited to a presentation of the terms instead, a presentation of terms than neither TSO nor TOP had been told was going to occur at that time. And nobody had expended the effort beforehand to take the very short amount of time it would have cost to do the standard thing in such situations (in our experience) and simply ask of TSO and ourselves, "Are you OK with the terms? We'd like to present them soon." It's over, in any event, and we're all best off getting past it.

Since such was not sufficiently clarified: much of our objection to the terms presented to Echelon came from the presence of some terms that we felt were humiliating. While some of these were pruned from the original version of the terms, the following were not: We did indeed feel that the reparations numbers included were too high, as they constituted more than half of Echelon's total amount of technology. While we would have been willing to reach some sort of compromise on this, we would not have in any circumstance agreed to any specific terms that we felt were humiliating.

Official Announcement from The Order of the Paradox Anniversary! Today TOP is three years old! We'd all like to thank all of our members, past and present, who helped contribute to make TOP what it is today. In celebration, we'd like to reveal our new forum PiP: Here's to many more!

I believe you misunderstood my post; I referred only to those alliances with whom we were militarily engaged, not to all alliances on the Hegemony side.

I believe it is worth mentioning---for the sake of proper information being present in this thread---that pre-war relations between TOP and Echelon were at best frosty, and at worst hostile. For that matter, none of the alliances against whom we fought were friends of ours in any regard; with the exception of Echelon---with whom, as noted, our relations were negative---pre-war relations between we and the alliances whom we fought in this war were either effectively or completely nonexistent. Those who are suddenly claiming that some pre-existing friendship between we and any of our opponents in this war is behind any our actions are inventing information for their own devices. Edit: by 'our opponents', I refer to those with whom TOP was directly militarily engaged.

Standard operating procedure in the offering of terms is to confirm the approval of the terms of all alliances involved in a war before offering those terms to the enemy. To confirm that TOP and TSO were in agreement to the terms in question would have taken a very short amount of time, and no effort to do so was done. Indeed, I personally thought that the discussion we were being invited to was a discussion of the terms that were to be offered; I had no idea whatsoever that it was planned to offer the terms to Echelon at that point. The fact that such was done came as a total surprise to me, both given that TOP and TSO had not voiced agreement to the terms and given that neither of us (at the very least, certainly not TOP) were informed of any plan to offer terms to Echelon at any specific time. We and TSO walked out after we watched the terms offered without our agreement. Please check up on your facts.

The timeline was as follows: we were shown the terms; TSO had disputed several of them; we and TSO were waiting to discuss the terms with the others involved; we thought that we were entering the particular IRC channel last night in order to discuss the terms; and we found the terms being presented despite the fact we absolutely hadn't agreed to them. That's when we definitively made the decision to make a separate peace with Echelon. We had no desire at all to be associated with the presentation of terms that we had not agreed to, especially given that they were terms that we had found from the start somewhat excessive and, worse, deliberately humiliating in some regards. It is true that we did want white peace. Our internally agreed-to (via alliance discussion) policy upon entering this war was to attempt to secure white peace for all of our opponents, barring major misconduct in any specific case. As seen in the case of surrender terms for BAPS, this was not a rigid policy; we were willing to compromise when others alongside whom we were fighting wanted terms to be levied. The OP was not intended to insult anyone; it is composed of nothing more than a simple statement of the facts---from our perspective---followed by a statement of our decided-upon course of action.

To clarify from our end---unless I'm misunderstanding you, no, we did not receive notice that terms were to be given to Echelon tonight, and we certainly never agreed to any set of terms. Given this fact, I imagine I am misunderstanding what you mean here. Per the talks between our governments: similarly negative things could be said from our viewpoint about your alliance's stance on matters pertaining to this war, a stance made clear in the conversations you're referring to. I don't think, however, that either of us will accomplish anything positive by getting involved in such a debate. That said, if you've issues you'd like to discuss with TOP, kindly contact us on IRC; I daresay engaging in persisent hostility towards each other on these forums isn't likely to accomplish anything constructive between our two alliances.

Joint TSO/TOP Announcement -- As many of you know, The Sweet Oblivion and The Order of the Paradox were involved in the conflict against Echelon. A short while ago, we and the rest of the combatants agreed to offer terms to Echelon; we were informed by GOD that they'd be seeking out the opinions on preferences for surrender terms of all the alliances involved. As it turned out, the terms were discussed but we were excluded from the initial discussions; terms were formulated and agreed to by the other alliances involved, and only afterward were they shown to TSO and TOP for input. Both of our alliances were unhappy with and adverse towards the terms in question. We felt them to be excessive and degrading. Representatives from TSO made their disagreement clear and were in discussion with members of some of the other alliances involved regarding reducing the terms. Neither TOP nor TSO ever voiced agreement to any set of terms, nor was our explicit approval of them sought out. And yet tonight we were invited into a channel and confronted soon afterward by terms being presented to Echelon. We wish those alongside whom we were fighting the best of luck; however, we will not be party to the presentation of terms to which we did not agree. The Order of the Paradox and The Sweet Oblivion hereby conclude a white peace with Echelon. For The Sweet Oblivion, Celt, Commander Dragonaspect, Commander Sam, Commander For the Order of the Paradox, Crymson, Grandmaster Dr. Dan, Grand Hospitaller Someguy, Grand Chancellor For Echelon, El Hefe, Director Neo Anglia, Director Solidus117, Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs Edit: Removed an extra