Prodigal Moon Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Why not just say "The coalition was delaying xx entering to play the treaty web tactical game" instead of "Polar wanted to enter but aftermath woldn't let us." Why not just say "We want to hit a couple of key alliances to try and make the war escalate the way we want" instead of feeding us BS about dbdc tech sellers? Why not just admit the real strategic reason behind polar allies not entering instead of pretending its part of some master plan to acrew ns faster than your enemies. Can your members not handle the truth? Your allies? I think they can. And you certainly arent fooling anyone over here. You really believe someone you're attacking owes you honesty and transparency? Like, Dajobo is supposed to get on OWF and explain his strategy to you, or volunteer things that are private or would make us look bad? Give me a break. We're at war. None of us owe you shit. Red is blue, Os. Deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Well, its official now. JunkaTywin isnt the worst poster in Polaris. Congratulations Tywin Zoskia actually has a good point about your upper tier hiding in peace mode last war. I can only think of two reasons for that occuring: they were ordered to do so, or discipline is poor in your upper tier. Either way, this over-valuation of your upper tier does correlate well with both your neo-Imperialist philosophy and your temporary collaboration with our mutual class enemy. I explained neo-imperialism last war and I really need to bring it back this war because neo-imperialism is not just an aggressive doctrine but also a way of consolidating the interests of your upper and lower tiers. By collaborating with DBDC, you allow your top tier to dodge the serious war while satisfying your lower tiers desire to fight. So you allow yourself to be imperialist running-dogs of the elite, basking in the image of a renewed Moo-Cows style campaign while fundamentally ignoring the founding principle of Order established by the true Emperor Ivan Moldavi. We are meant to be free and independent, sovereign alliances, not slaves of the God King. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Valiant effort there JunkaTywin, but you have been bested. Time to move on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warrior Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) If they want to come here with stats that try to make it look like they fought during the last war... so be it. Everyone knows they didn't. And, wow... 8,663,603 damage taken. Bravo, NPO... LOL, it must have been the damage taken by thee 2 NPO nations that fought the war whilst the other 300 were in peace mode. Why don't you post stats about the percentage of nations in Peace Mode.... the percentage was something like 95% as far as I remember; so stop pretending that you are relevant. That was the Low Tier nations of the NPO facing a long nuclear war in the range where there are no SDIs.... You may post all the Stats you want, those Stats may try to say a lot of things, but they won't re-write history and make anyone believe that the top 150 NPO Nations did anything during that war, except spending the whole war in Peace Mode. So I laugh at the Pacifica Chickens who try to look brave and act as some sort of "war heroes", specially at Branimir. Hyperbole aside, it would be quite nearly impossible for 8.7 million worth of damage to be inflicted by only a few small tier nations and 95% peace mode usage would have meant Pacifica had ~300+ nations in peace mode during Disorder. Neither one of those assertions is anywhere near correct. The "history" that the stats presented suggest is that NPO inflicted the most damage and fought the most wars of any alliance during that particular campaign. To assert otherwise is just ridiculous. That's not to say that a portion of their upper tier wasn't held in peace mode, mind you. But if you are going to argue such things and insult such tactics, you may want to take a look around at the scenery in your immediate vicinity. It'll look remarkably similar. Edited December 1, 2014 by The Warrior Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Zoskia actually has a good point about your upper tier hiding in peace mode last war. 68% of our upper tier nations participated in the conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 EDIT - DBDC has five active wars. To show exactly what I mean by "figurehead", it's their toadies that are suffering and burning for their misbehavior; they are immune to counterattack and the toadies are not. Is that really a group you should ally yourself with? You highlight the issue many have had with Polar.. the fact that you should only have an ally because of what they can do for your alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 68% of our upper tier nations participated in the conflict. Whereas only three top-tier nations are in PM in Polar and the vast majority have three defensive wars. Were the other 32% ordered into peace mode or is Pacifican discipline weaker than it once was? Either way supports my argument ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Have you all really been reduced to arguing about use of peace mode? Are we in 2007 again? Boring!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Whereas only three top-tier nations are in PM in Polar and the vast majority have three defensive wars. Were the other 32% ordered into peace mode or is Pacifican discipline weaker than it once was? Either way supports my argument ;) What exactly is your argument? Because I find nothing at fault with that figure. And while you compose it keep in mind it is the same tactic your own allies used and still use, so you might want to tone down on the wordplay. You don't want another PR disaster like you harping about poor SNX being expendable soft NS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) Zoskia actually has a good point about your upper tier hiding in peace mode last war. I can only think of two reasons for that occuring: they were ordered to do so, or discipline is poor in your upper tier. Either way, this over-valuation of your upper tier does correlate well with both your neo-Imperialist philosophy and your temporary collaboration with our mutual class enemy. I explained neo-imperialism last war and I really need to bring it back this war because neo-imperialism is not just an aggressive doctrine but also a way of consolidating the interests of your upper and lower tiers. By collaborating with DBDC, you allow your top tier to dodge the serious war while satisfying your lower tiers desire to fight. So you allow yourself to be imperialist running-dogs of the elite, basking in the image of a renewed Moo-Cows style campaign while fundamentally ignoring the founding principle of Order established by the true Emperor Ivan Moldavi. We are meant to be free and independent, sovereign alliances, not slaves of the God King. This is the biggest load of crap I have ever read. Pacifica started the war with 79 nations over 100K, ended the war with 23 nations over 100K... Stop flipping posting this lying nonsense about hiding. They were in the neighborhood of 25% of their +100K nations being in PM the whole time... That is mind-numbingly average and every single alliance approaches that very same number. Edited December 1, 2014 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) Whereas only three top-tier nations are in PM in Polar and the vast majority have three defensive wars. Were the other 32% ordered into peace mode or is Pacifican discipline weaker than it once was? Either way supports my argument ;) Getting past all the hubris, Nobody here thinks Polar is going to hide this one out in PM and Polar has been very transparent about this matter since January. They were clear they would'nt advocate any terms that they wont take themselves and since they dont really do PM much historically, those terms were not a deal breaker, mind you that many people here may hate the terms but they're probably alot more milder to satisfy the bloodlust of some of thier key partners, who havent been as forthcoming about how they'd regard the PM terms or would'nt shy away from using PMs to alot larger scale than what NPO used. Hate Dajobo or whoever you want to hate, but he's been open about it and probably made sure the terms were what they were instead of the ones that have been used before that, which are alot more hurtful IMHO. Nonetheless, the terms themselves were a very very stupid idea in first place and Sparta (with all the trademark laughable bravado) and NpO fronting them even more stupid for their respective impressions/FA. Regardless of the scale of the terms, they always create a lingering negative memory and if you're the face of it, you naturally get assigned varying level of blame for it. Anyway, the terms arent for me to avenge or forgive, have fun. Edited December 1, 2014 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) What exactly is your argument? Because I find nothing at fault with that figure. And while you compose it keep in mind it is the same tactic your own allies used and still use, so you might want to tone down on the wordplay. You don't want another PR disaster like you harping about poor SNX being expendable soft NS. I said that while I was SNX government, you can politically manipulate a statement of strategic fact about soft nation strength if you want... after all I did predict you all would be hurr-durring about blowing up soft nation strength. However SNX does have a core of hard NS as well which I was relying on, and they are the ones doing the most damage now (if you dismiss the expendable soft NS loss, SNX has been doing comparable hard NS damage). It's also going to toughen SNX into a stronger, more efficient warrior alliance. And my argument was that NPO is neo-imperialist in doctrine. It acts in such a manner as to safeguard the over-valued top tier while allowing the low tier to engage as a war economy. It is military collaboration with the reactionary upper tier class enemy. Edited December 1, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoskia Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Have you all really been reduced to arguing about use of peace mode? Are we in 2007 again? Boring!!!!! Oh, no... I only remind about this issue to the NPO folks who come here pretending to be brave. Other Alliances have my respect (i.e, Non Grata... I am always on the opposite side of the war with them, but I respect them as an Alliance... their style and the Polar style are not really very different). I don't like DBDC at all either, but they have really earned the "Alliance of 2014" award, what they do is brilliant, even if its hateful. I don't have much more to say about the NPO, other than the well-known old Polar proverb about the NPO: "Don't dress like a punk if you play hair-metal... the key word for you is spandex". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Rebel Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Wow, Kaskus did a lot of damage in the past war! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 I said that while I was SNX government, you can politically manipulate a statement of strategic fact about soft nation strength if you want You also quite gleefully harped on about it during this war as a way to diminish the meaning of the damage SNX is receiving. It's one thing to recognise shortcomings, its quite another to completely dismiss and devalue your allies' struggle. The latter makes you a terrible person and you should have some basic respect before opening your mouth. And my argument was that NPO is neo-imperialist in doctrine. It acts in such a manner as to safeguard the over-valued top tier while allowing the low tier to engage as a war economy. It is military collaboration with the reactionary upper tier class enemy. That is not an argument, it is an assertion. It claims that keeping a minority of vulnerable nations = imperialism without creating any logical state as to *why*, nor addressing the slight issue that it is a common usage of peace mode amongst both your and my coalitions past and present (which would make your own allies imperialists.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) You also quite gleefully harped on about it during this war as a way to diminish the meaning of the damage SNX is receiving. It's one thing to recognise shortcomings, its quite another to completely dismiss and devalue your allies' struggle. The latter makes you a terrible person and you should have some basic respect before opening your mouth. I highly value the struggle SNX is going through, because it will make them a tougher alliance, just as I had planned to happen. The "meaning" of the damage, for the membership, is the same meaning for Polaris: a good chance to further develop a lean mean fighting machine for long term class warfare. That is not an argument, it is an assertion. It claims that keeping a minority of vulnerable nations = imperialism without creating any logical state as to *why*, nor addressing the slight issue that it is a common usage of peace mode amongst both your and my coalitions past and present (which would make your own allies imperialists.) Our allies are acting defensively and thus are not imperialist by definition. They have willingly decided to take a stand against the hubris and sovereignty-ignoring aggression of a "God King," rather than collaborate with them. With Polaris, our upper tier sacrifices in the fight against Doomsphere aggression, rather than pressuring the rest of the Order into collaborating with it. Is Pacifica a True Order today when it places the short term interests of your upper tier above the principles of alliance sovereignty? How can you argue it is not the case when you allowed or mandated such a large portion of your upper tier to use peace mode in the last war? The Orders of Ivan should hold themselves to a higher standard rather than using other alliances as an excuse and crutch. Perhaps now you will see why I say Polaris is the one True Order. Edited December 1, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Our allies are acting defensively and thus are not imperialist by definition. What about your allies in the last war where they were not acting defensively? (e.g TOP, which kept 1/3 of their entire alliance in PM)Is Pacifica a True Order today when it places the short term interests of your upper tier above the principles of alliance sovereignty? How can you argue it is not the case when you allowed or mandated such a large portion of your upper tier to use peace mode in the last war? I am not quite sure how having a small number people in peace mode means your alliance is not sovereign either. (Especially as you were just arguing that it was a sign of imperialism. How can you be a non-sovereign imperialist?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Please stop Letum, you are making me sadder every time you respond to it. Just accept you are evil for something or other and please please stop feeding them. I know Pacifica took and dealt a lot/more than their share of damage last war, it should have been sufficient but someone wanted more and you know who and why. Just make it stop :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxasm Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) You really believe someone you're attacking owes you honesty and transparency? Like, Dajobo is supposed to get on OWF and explain his strategy to you, or volunteer things that are private or would make us look bad? Give me a break. We're at war. None of us owe you !@#$. Red is blue, Os. Deal with it. Purely pragmatically, it is usually good if your rhetoric contains at least a semblance of truth. Your propaganda only works if people could at least entertain the idea of it being true. As it stands, a blind man could see through it. I agree that you don't need to reveal every plan, but perhaps it is better to not say anything if saying something is actively hurting you? Edited December 1, 2014 by saxasm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 I know Pacifica took and dealt a lot/more than their share of damage last war, it should have been sufficient but someone wanted more and you know who and why. Just make it stop :P Oh, I don't mind that it happened. All is fair in love and war. But I do mind when I see ridiculous justifications for it like "NPO deserved it because they didn't fight hard enough" or "It is a price for cowardise" or "blah blah IMPERIALISM blah blah ANARCHIST POLICE STATE blah blah BARBARIANS"I will forever fight an endless war against ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Just pointing out that this has been clarified in the past, Polar and some friends, who are in and not in peace mode, who insisted on terms have no issue with the terms. Not that I encourage the terms one bit, we didnt before and I doubt we'd again, been humbled about it since Karma, but some of the winners (not all) of Karma never really stepped back from imposing them whenever they got the chance. I was referring to Polars allies who are blatantly holding more of their upper tier in PM than NPO ever did, I was wondering if Dajobo had no issue with those terms being applied in the same manner this war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) What about your allies in the last war where they were not acting defensively? (e.g TOP, which kept 1/3 of their entire alliance in PM)I am not quite sure how having a small number people in peace mode means your alliance is not sovereign either. (Especially as you were just arguing that it was a sign of imperialism. How can you be a non-sovereign imperialist?). My comments are my own personal analysis and thus I cannot speak for Polar policy or periods of time I was not in NpO. However, based on my experiences as Hand of the King during Disorder I had no issues with TOP's peace mode reserves in the face of potential IRON and DBDC aggresssion. At the time we were focused on the neo-imperialist threat Farrin posed as commander and it was not yet apparent that DBDC was developing into a class enemy (they were just a nuisance during the war, whereas now they hold command). For those not familiar with the history of Pacifican Imperialism heres an old Vox Populi video I made in 2008: Project for Global Pacifican Era: http://youtu.be/mdNCeXxjzTQ Edited December 1, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted December 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 So no issues if those same terms are enforced this war then i take it? I have stated clearly and consistently Polaris did not support terms which we (Polaris) would not happily accept as well. I don't speak for any other alliance. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/119923-i-would-like-to-offer-peace-talks-for-woto/page-20#entry3213044 Just pointing out that this has been clarified in the past, Polar and some friends, who are in and not in peace mode, who insisted on terms have no issue with the terms. Not that I encourage the terms one bit, we didnt before and I doubt we'd again, been humbled about it since Karma, but some of the winners (not all) of Karma never really stepped back from imposing them whenever they got the chance. Getting past all the hubris, Nobody here thinks Polar is going to hide this one out in PM and Polar has been very transparent about this matter since January. They were clear they would'nt advocate any terms that they wont take themselves and since they dont really do PM much historically, those terms were not a deal breaker, mind you that many people here may hate the terms but they're probably alot more milder to satisfy the bloodlust of some of thier key partners, who havent been as forthcoming about how they'd regard the PM terms or would'nt shy away from using PMs to alot larger scale than what NPO used. Hate Dajobo or whoever you want to hate, but he's been open about it and probably made sure the terms were what they were instead of the ones that have been used before that, which are alot more hurtful IMHO. Nonetheless, the terms themselves were a very very stupid idea in first place and Sparta (with all the trademark laughable bravado) and NpO fronting them even more stupid for their respective impressions/FA. Regardless of the scale of the terms, they always create a lingering negative memory and if you're the face of it, you naturally get assigned varying level of blame for it. Anyway, the terms arent for me to avenge or forgive, have fun. Shah was there. If you dont want to listen to me because it doesn't suite your agenda, listen to your own. I was referring to Polars allies who are blatantly holding more of their upper tier in PM than NPO ever did, I was wondering if Dajobo had no issue with those terms being applied in the same manner this war? Berbers you can do better than this, push yourself to see the clear and simple message, I speak for Polaris only. I would like to point this out to all the hypocrites pretending this war is over NPO having terms last war... Some of the strongest and most vocal advocates of NPO getting terms are now on your side. The message I get from you guys is pretty clear "It's ok to insist on, push for and help enforce terms on anyone. As long as you're on my side next time". Why not drop the bullshit Berbers and admit you don't give a rats arse about terms because you wouldn't be in bed with the people you are if you did. Finally Zos: I love you like a brother Zos but stop. The NPO nations not in that small group that this debate is about fought their hearts out. It was part of why I sought to find a solution acceptable to all because those guys deserved praise, not terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) Peace mode talks are stupid. Some do it. Some don't. Hopefully less in the future do it. That's really all there is to say. NPO fought hard last war. I fought 10+ and would know. Likewise, our allies that may be utilizing it are still fighting hard as well. Edited December 2, 2014 by Starfox101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frawley Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) My comments are my own personal analysis and thus I cannot speak for Polar policy or periods of time I was not in NpO. However, based on my experiences as Hand of the King during Disorder I had no issues with TOP's peace mode reserves in the face of potential IRON and DBDC aggresssion. At the time we were focused on the neo-imperialist threat Farrin posed as commander and it was not yet apparent that DBDC was developing into a class enemy (they were just a nuisance during the war, whereas now they hold command). For those not familiar with the history of Pacifican Imperialism heres an old Vox Populi video I made in 2008: Project for Global Pacifican Era: http://youtu.be/mdNCeXxjzTQTL;DR When we do it, it is a defense against class warfare. When you do it, it is Neo-imperialist Aggression. Edited December 2, 2014 by Stanger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.