Polaris Delenda Est

[Derantol]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1322312019' post='2852371']
No, because it was sold in the DoW as attacking C&G pre-emptively was solely done to assist Polar. This is untrue. It was done because TOP and IRON perceived C&G as a threat to their own position. C&G were not in the war and had made no noises about joining the war so there was nothing to assist Polar with. Polar held a treaty with MK at the time so I don't see how MK or C&G would have been an issue for the NpO.

As I said earlier, TOP/IRON wanted to use the assembled alliances to knock their perceived rivals down a rung or two and Grub saw a chance to see TOP get rolled which he took. Both of you were motivated only by your own self-interest.
[/quote]

I won't deny that self-interest likely played a part in the decision, but take a look at this:

"They were our actions and our choice to make, and the consequences our burden to bear."

We acknowledge that. And I don't see anywhere in that post that we say that the only reason we did what we did was to assist Polar. If all you're concerned about is how that event is sold in the DoW, I think you and I are reading it very differently. Obviously we think that we were helping as part of a coalition effort, and you don't, but that is (unfortunately) a simple difference of opinion that we wouldn't be able to resolve unless we took it up in private and talked for a very long time. But even disregarding that, we still thought that doing what we did would help.

[bay102174]

[quote name='stockhunter' timestamp='1322283664' post='2851609']
about time, you guys talk a big talk, hows about u walk the walk?
[/quote]

I don't talk much. The alliance's blood on my boots is enough to tell you where I'v been though.

Or have they made you forget?

[Owney OSullivan]

Yes, yes, YES! Finally!

[SiL3nT]

[quote name='bay102174' timestamp='1322343335' post='2852875']
I don't talk much. The alliance's blood on my boots is enough to tell you where I'v been though.

Or have they made you forget?
[/quote]

Thread won.

[Heft]

Thread title is good but would've been more historically appropriate if it had been used by [s]TOP instead. [/s]edit: actually you should have saved it for a valhalla declaration. My memory is failing me.

Silly reason to go to war, but I suppose it isn't any sillier than the reason that started the war you're now "avenging" or whatever, so have fun! At least you're capable of acting, even if it took you awhile to get around to it.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Heft

[grahamkeatley]

?[quote name='Havamil' timestamp='1322339099' post='2852806']
It's a never ending circle and no justification will come of it unless it fits your "point" I was there also and don't remember seeing you in the planning chans. but it was a while ago. Who were you arguing it with about it being the wrong move ?
[/quote]

Well, I am sorry. I am not trying to get across a "point". I have nothing against TOP or IRON. In fact I am quite fond of a lot of IRON. But this attack for a pretty petty reason has me disappointed. I was asked why, I explained why. I do not have to convince you or anyone, or prove something to express myself - I only need to give my reasons when those are requested of me.

For 3 days straight I argued with anyone that would listen. But most memorably, expressing my thoughts to Crymson? And MCRABT? I think. They would not be swayed from thinking hitting CnG was the best strategy to undertake. And they deemed their word golden because they had placed themselves in Military command. 3-5 people placed in charge of operation for a coalition that had a large number wishing to discuss the tactics being proposed. It has been a long time, and forgive me for being unable to name the people on the forum threads and in evening rants and ravings. But myself and Dodoei (specifically) were quite active in those planning rooms. And clearly felt along with others that honouring treaties was the proper way to do things.

Firstly, because it was actually going to relieve some pressure from NpO et al. Secondly because it would keep fence-sitters and non-chainers out. And thirdly, because it was clearly not an action to help NpO. As it stood NpO and STA were very much not a major part of planning. We needed to properly enter before they cut and run. The coalition took too long to actually come in and help for fear that MK and CnG would come over the top. They !@#$ themselves and decided it was best to strike first. Delayed for a number of days and !@#$ fell out as it did.

I realise this has all been pan handled around over the last two years, and I do not wish to drag through the mud again. But their actions were selfish - and it meant they were deliberately dealing a blow to enemies for no reason and deliberately not aiding an ally who was at war and whom promises had been made to aid. Added to it being said in the coalition that it was not the only and arguably not the best strategy to deploy. TOP led the coalition decisions, and made a bad decision. And then NpO gave them a reason for it not to be their fault. They took it and then made friends with those they had wronged in that decision. It stinks.

And NOW, they attack NpO for their bad decision.

GK

[Joseph Black]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1322309508' post='2852350']
You forgot this:
IRON DOW - http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55200
FARK's DOW on IRON - http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55203
Gra DOW: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55210
FCC DOW: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55337
MHA DOW: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55339
Some more:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55389
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=56127
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=56485

We've lost more pixels in war than your alliances have ever built and rebuilt and will probably ever build.


We will, but will Polaris?


Done.
[/quote]

Those were only made because your head would have ended up on a platter either way, you abandon NPO, and came back to save your own skin. You may have lost more pixels than my alliance will ever, has ever, or could ever have, but at least our allies don't question our loyalty or honor, yours however have simply choose to forget that you are a traitor and a coward. And when the time is right, we will see your true colors again.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Muddog

[Canik]

[quote name='grahamkeatley' timestamp='1322347886' post='2852936']
?

Well, I am sorry. I am not trying to get across a "point". I have nothing against TOP or IRON. In fact I am quite fond of a lot of IRON. But this attack for a pretty petty reason has me disappointed. I was asked why, I explained why. I do not have to convince you or anyone, or prove something to express myself - I only need to give my reasons when those are requested of me.

For 3 days straight I argued with anyone that would listen. But most memorably, expressing my thoughts to Crymson? And MCRABT? I think. They would not be swayed from thinking hitting CnG was the best strategy to undertake. And they deemed their word golden because they had placed themselves in Military command. 3-5 people placed in charge of operation for a coalition that had a large number wishing to discuss the tactics being proposed. It has been a long time, and forgive me for being unable to name the people on the forum threads and in evening rants and ravings. But myself and Dodoei (specifically) were quite active in those planning rooms. And clearly felt along with others that honouring treaties was the proper way to do things.

Firstly, because it was actually going to relieve some pressure from NpO et al. Secondly because it would keep fence-sitters and non-chainers out. And thirdly, because it was clearly not an action to help NpO. As it stood NpO and STA were very much not a major part of planning. We needed to properly enter before they cut and run. The coalition took too long to actually come in and help for fear that MK and CnG would come over the top. They !@#$ themselves and decided it was best to strike first. Delayed for a number of days and !@#$ fell out as it did.

I realise this has all been pan handled around over the last two years, and I do not wish to drag through the mud again. But their actions were selfish - and it meant they were deliberately dealing a blow to enemies for no reason and deliberately not aiding an ally who was at war and whom promises had been made to aid. Added to it being said in the coalition that it was not the only and arguably not the best strategy to deploy. TOP led the coalition decisions, and made a bad decision. And then NpO gave them a reason for it not to be their fault. They took it and then made friends with those they had wronged in that decision. It stinks.

And NOW, they attack NpO for their bad decision.

GK
[/quote]

I still think attacking CnG was our best chance at winning, had Polaris not dropped out. I don't see how any of this excuses NpO's actions. I'm confused as to how people blame TOP for NpO's falling out and attacking us. Who cares if the way they entered was unorthodox? We all already know this.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1322350454' post='2852984']
Those were only made because your head would have ended up on a platter either way, you abandon NPO, and came back to save your own skin. You may have lost more pixels than my alliance will ever, has ever, or could ever have, but at least our allies don't question our loyalty or honor, yours however have simply choose to forget that you are a traitor and a coward. And when the time is right, we will see your true colors again.
[/quote]

You can ask both sides and it'll come down to miscommunication. We've had plenty of time to talk about it and figure out what went wrong and where, no one side is free of mistakes. What we did wrong, we admitted it and settled it privately. None of us forgot it nor did we threw it under the carpet. However you're free to believe whatever about the nature of mistakes.

[Joseph Black]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1322351756' post='2852998']
You can ask both sides and it'll come down to miscommunication. We've had plenty of time to talk about it and figure out what went wrong and where, no one side is free of mistakes. What we did wrong, we admitted it and settled it privately. None of us forgot it nor did we threw it under the carpet. However you're free to believe whatever about the nature of mistakes.
[/quote]

So your forgiven, but Polar has to burn? And don't pretend like they haven't tried to make a mends. The minds of people have a wonderful way of seeing two very similar things in different lights.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Muddog

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Derantol' timestamp='1322342497' post='2852857']
I won't deny that self-interest likely played a part in the decision, but take a look at this:

"They were our actions and our choice to make, and the consequences our burden to bear."

We acknowledge that. And I don't see anywhere in that post that we say that the only reason we did what we did was to assist Polar. If all you're concerned about is how that event is sold in the DoW, I think you and I are reading it very differently. Obviously we think that we were helping as part of a coalition effort, and you don't, but that is (unfortunately) a simple difference of opinion that we wouldn't be able to resolve unless we took it up in private and talked for a very long time. But even disregarding that, we still thought that doing what we did would help.
[/quote]

Yes, that is why I raised the question.

On one hand there is the contrition and acceptance that your own arrogance and self-interest brought what came to you upon you and then in the same DoW you say that you only did it for Polar and the ungrateful !@#$%^&* betrayed you. You did nothing for Polar's cause, what you did was for your own self-interest and to further your own position in the Cyberverse at the time. You attempted to use the "coalition" to further ths goal and it backfired. This allowed Grub so use the situation to indulge his hatred of TOP. He succeeded in what he wanted to achieve at that time and you didn't. Neither of you gave a crap about the other alliances involved, allied or not. Many in the "coalition" warned against it but you'd have none of it so while Polar now pays for Grub's shenanigans you reaped what you sowed that day too.

[Heft]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1322351756' post='2852998']
You can ask both sides and it'll come down to miscommunication. We've had plenty of time to talk about it and figure out what went wrong and where, no one side is free of mistakes. What we did wrong, we admitted it and settled it privately. None of us forgot it nor did we threw it under the carpet. However you're free to believe whatever about the nature of mistakes.
[/quote]
Also, NPO has declared its support for TOP and IRON, so I think we can call that one settled now.

[Caliph]

[quote name='prince buster' timestamp='1322339305' post='2852810']
o/IRON
WAPA approves of this and will never rest until polaris is ordered to leave blue.
Edit to add and their tiger !@#$%*es are offering up their bra sizes for mercy lol
[/quote]
Ha, I like this, payback for when BLEU/NpO forced WAPA off of blue.

Go get em WAPA

[Crymson]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1322302173' post='2852257']
I was in TOP the last time Polaris tried to mend fences (they sent a bunch of diplos and apologized for misunderstandings during the Unjust War) TOP members and gov threw the overtures in NpO's face and laughed their butts off about the whole thing. TOP and IRON's decision to attack C&G was [i]their own[/i] at the end of the day, and the consequences were not due to Polaris, but due to MK.
[/quote]

Did this happen before the WotC? If so, then yes, those efforts were wholly rejected, as they were utterly transparent attempts on the part of Polaris to save their own asses--now that they were in a bad political position--after threatening us, harassing us and working against us behind the scenes for a year. They recognized that, in contrast to their situation only a few months before, they were in a poor political position and a great deal of danger--whereas we were in a very good position and very intent on stepping on them--and so they made a frantic and utterly transparent attempt to mend the rift. Your argument is weak, Schattenman. Stop trying.

[stockhunter]

[quote name='bay102174' timestamp='1322343335' post='2852875']
I don't talk much. The alliance's blood on my boots is enough to tell you where I'v been though.

Or have they made you forget?
[/quote]

How could I forget after I took 3 ZI's when I was a member in IRON? Or maybe what reminds me is the day you gave me the honor of holding a presidium seat.

[Derantol]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1322352075' post='2853003']
Yes, that is why I raised the question.

On one hand there is the contrition and acceptance that your own arrogance and self-interest brought what came to you upon you and then in the same DoW you say that you only did it for Polar and the ungrateful !@#$%^&* betrayed you. You did nothing for Polar's cause, what you did was for your own self-interest and to further your own position in the Cyberverse at the time. You attempted to use the "coalition" to further ths goal and it backfired. This allowed Grub so use the situation to indulge his hatred of TOP. He succeeded in what he wanted to achieve at that time and you didn't. Neither of you gave a crap about the other alliances involved, allied or not. Many in the "coalition" warned against it but you'd have none of it so while Polar now pays for Grub's shenanigans you reaped what you sowed that day too.
[/quote]


Where did we say we only did it for Polar? Please point that out.

And if an alliance doesn't have some sort of self-interest, that alliance can't survive. There are different kinds - whether it be preservation of pixels, reputation, or otherwise - but everything an alliance does should be to help it survive somehow. That's what we thought we were doing, not only for ourselves but for the coalition (as we saw it), which included Polar. And then not only did Polar end their part on our side of the war, but they even came in on the opposite side against us directly. They escaped that war; we were saddled with reps. Sure, maybe we would have lost, and ended up with reps anyway, but as you say, we reaped what we sowed. But Polar left behind animosity in TOP and IRON that has not yet been resolved. Sure, they tried here and there, but the last time I remember Polar coming to our boards, they sent us as a diplomat a former traitor - that doesn't seem to be in good faith to me.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1322352098' post='2853004']
Also, NPO has declared its support for TOP and IRON, so I think we can call that one settled now.
[/quote]
It was settled long ago. Personally, I was surprised to see NPO in DoS. At first, I honestly thought it was a joke like we had lately where NPO flags were being used for some CnG-related? announcements.


[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1322352023' post='2853002']
So your forgiven, but Polar has to burn? And don't pretend like they haven't tried to make a mends. The minds of people have a wonderful way of seeing two very similar things in different lights.
[/quote]
You only speak your mind, not that of people. I'll leave you to your opinions. Also, You're actually in no position to know of any amends that were tried or not, keep up with the guesses tho. I can tell you that the person responsible for the backstab and the recently [i]elected[/i] aMoFA have done well to improve relations between us. Also, sending in someone as an ambassador who was kicked out of IRON for treason is a winning FA strategy. Also, mocking, insulting and then asking for DoW is another pro-tactic one can use.

Edited November 27, 2011 by shahenshah

[Volgan]

Good luck IRON/TOP. Lock, load and roll em!!

[The Warrior]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1322350454' post='2852984']
Those were only made because your head would have ended up on a platter either way, you abandon NPO, and came back to save your own skin. You may have lost more pixels than my alliance will ever, has ever, or could ever have, but at least our allies don't question our loyalty or honor, yours however have simply choose to forget that you are a traitor and a coward. And when the time is right, we will see your true colors again.
[/quote]

You have been terribly misinformed about history I'm afraid. Ask NPO if we abandoned them. Ask NPO if they ignored their allies and attacked OV against their wishes. Ask NPO if we canceled our treaty inappropriately(i.e. not giving the proper notice of cancellation). There have already been posts made by NPO in these very DoW threads stating that we did not wrong them at the beginning of the Karma War. Do yourself a favor and stop warping history to fit your agenda/argument.

Finally, If you're going to call into question IRON's loyalty or honor, I challenge you to ask any of our allies if they agree. I doubt you'll find one who does.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1322362742' post='2853190']
Did this happen before the WotC? If so, then yes, those efforts were wholly rejected, as they were utterly transparent attempts on the part of Polaris to save their own asses--now that they were in a bad political position--after threatening us, harassing us and working against us behind the scenes for a year. They recognized that, in contrast to their situation only a few months before, they were in a poor political position and a great deal of danger--whereas we were in a very good position and very intent on stepping on them--and so they made a frantic and utterly transparent attempt to mend the rift. Your argument is weak, Schattenman. Stop trying.
[/quote]
I see, so for a few days you've all been spouting about how Polaris knew this was coming and has made no attempts to rectify things from BiPolar, but now you also say that when Polaris came around to apologize before the noCB War it was a transparent attempt to save their own asses and that's why you rejected their overtures. So which is it? You wanted Polaris to try and fix things, or when Polaris tries to fix things they're on auto-reject? My argument isn't weak, you're making it for me and it's quite nice.

[Chief Savage Man]

If my own experiences with a supposedly repentant Polaris are anything to go by, then I don't blame TOP for rejecting them. Polaris has looked out for #1 and #1 only since they split from NPO. Certainly TOP does as well but they at least recognize that being isolated and distrusted is a bad thing that should be avoided, something that Polaris hasn't seemed to grasp in these past few years.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Derantol' timestamp='1322364818' post='2853228']
Where did we say we only did it for Polar? Please point that out.

And if an alliance doesn't have some sort of self-interest, that alliance can't survive. There are different kinds - whether it be preservation of pixels, reputation, or otherwise - but everything an alliance does should be to help it survive somehow. That's what we thought we were doing, not only for ourselves but for the coalition (as we saw it), which included Polar. And then not only did Polar end their part on our side of the war, but they even came in on the opposite side against us directly. They escaped that war; we were saddled with reps. Sure, maybe we would have lost, and ended up with reps anyway, but as you say, we reaped what we sowed. But Polar left behind animosity in TOP and IRON that has not yet been resolved. Sure, they tried here and there, but the last time I remember Polar coming to our boards, they sent us as a diplomat a former traitor - that doesn't seem to be in good faith to me.
[/quote]

From your DoW, emphasis mine:

[quote]
Plagued with wonder as to how we came to this state of affair today there is but one answer. We believed in you. We believed in you as an old friend does another- one who has forgiven and been forgiven, shared soaring triumphs and bitter lows, offered an olive branch when the world ostracized you. Indeed it was our foolish naivety to believe in the trustworthiness of your word and the good of your cause.

[b]It is for this reason we performed actions for your cause that many considered deplorable.[/b]
[/quote]

It was for Polar's "cause" that you decided to pre-emptively strike C&G according to your DoW. It was because you implicitly trusted Polar and their "cause" that you carried out acts considered deplorable.

[Derantol]

I will counter with another sentence from the same paragraph:

[quote]All of which could have been prevented with simply a few words.[/quote]

If Polar had made a big deal about it not making sense, I think that plan would have been scrapped and some other plan would have taken its place. I can't get specific, not having been in those conversations, but several have said that Polar remained largely silent on the issue. Shouldn't they have made a bigger deal about it?

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Derantol' timestamp='1322390725' post='2853627']
I will counter with another sentence from the same paragraph:

If Polar had made a big deal about it not making sense, I think that plan would have been scrapped and some other plan would have taken its place. I can't get specific, not having been in those conversations, but several have said that Polar remained largely silent on the issue. Shouldn't they have made a bigger deal about it?
[/quote]

I wasn't talking about what Polar did or didn't do, I was talking about the lame attempt to claim you only hit C&G because it was for your new trusted buddy, Polar's cause. You asked me where that was stated and I showed you.

[Derantol]

It was coalition warfare in our eyes, thus we saw a strategic benefit in taking out CnG for everyone on our side. Sure, there's self-interest, and nobody will deny that, but the amount of political capital it would have taken (and ended up taking) to simply attack them out of the blue. We earnestly thought that what we were doing would make it easier to win that war. We could have attacked where treaty lines put us, and simply let the treaties dictate an eventual loss; we decided to take a chance and hope for something better. Of course, as we knew, the risk was huge, which meant we put trust in Polar. And it's dumb to put that much trust in someone who doesn't stand to benefit from the state of affairs. As you say, Polar didn't stand to benefit, but... well, we made a lot of errors of judgment there, and we paid for it. We saw a situation that looked like the best case scenario for the coalition.

What would it have taken from Polar? A strong statement about how attacking CnG wasn't a good idea. Did that happen? I see a lot of people here saying no.

I guess what I'm saying is that while self-interest played a part, the trust we put in Polar was what allowed it to happen. And that trust is what was betrayed.

EDIT: Forgot the quote I was going to include.

[quote]We do not blame you for those actions we took. They were our actions and our choice to make, and the consequences our burden to bear.[/quote]

We were gunning for CnG then because we were paranoid about being the next big target. There's your self-interest.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Derantol