Imperial Decree from the New Pacific Order

[Monty of the Herm]

 

Please say that sentence in one breath without collapsing. You also dont need to use the word "opportunity" as it probably shortens this sentence by half..Still, good luck on the non-collapsing part,

 

I edited it for that reason. :P

[Lamorak]

 

I edited it for that reason. :P

 

Too late, its already recorded for history :P

 

Edit: And Anti-Polaris propaganda was used by NSO right until we signed the treaty with TOP, once NSO felt they couldnt muster the coalition to beat us.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Lamorak

[Terekhov]

Also, you may not grasp this little fact as an member of Pacifica, but there can also be different kinds of motivations for a war between the membership and the leadership of an alliance.

What is this, 2009?

[Lamorak]

What is this, 2009?

 

 You claim to have overcome this but accuse us of the same? Brilliant 

[Monty of the Herm]

 

Too late, its already recorded for history :P

 

Edit: And Anti-Polaris propaganda was used by NSO right until we signed the treaty with TOP, once NSO felt they couldnt muster the coalition to beat us.

 

 

 

 You claim to have overcome this but accuse us of the same? Brilliant 

 

That's my point actions in the distant past have had long term consequences two examples being the grudge between Polar and Pacifica being settled finally, last war, and whatever the Gramlins thing is this war, and there have been plenty of other examples from every corner of the treaty web. My point was there is no moral high ground to call out one side or the other on the issue settling long-held grudges has been a motivating factor in CN wars for a very long time and I doubt will end anytime soon. I'm not trying to claim any greater point on this issue just trying to cut out the bull, and hypocracy on the issue.

[Dajobo]

I have come to the conclusion the old timers were right!

Just to set the record straight I'll point out how you have perversely twisted something that was to help end a long issue to try to justify your actions now. I'll point out the subtle but significant difference and the intelligent people who read this will understand it.

After literally years of embassy talking one issue had been acknowledged many times by multiple people and indeed multiple Emperors from both Pacifica and Polaris including your current Emperor at that time.
The issue was that while we both had many members who regarded the betrayal of Polaris by Pacifica as some old stuff that happened before they even played CN, we also both had some very senior members who'd never got past it or let it die.

I stated to Farrin well before the war, when I was trying to convince him to drop NSO and NG before they dragged Pacifica into a war with their plotting that if we ended up on opposite sides in the next war, we would seek to engage you.
The reason was simple and one understood by all involved. Despite all the wins and losses since, we'd never fought each other and despite literally years of diplomacy there was some significant members of both who hadn't let it go. The hope was it could be the end of it all.

Be crystal clear on this though, attacking Pacifica was never any goal for us, primary, secondary, tertiary and beyond.
Making the most of a situation for mutual benefit should we have found ourselves on opposite side of a conflict was.
Try to understand the difference.



On the 03 November 2013 I posted this in your embassy.

Hello Pacifica



I wish to take the unusual step today if sharing what I have told our own BR.

"Stay respectful, give them hell and at the end of this make sure you get it all out of your system, as after this war I will not let our past be a factor in deciding if we do or don't have a relationship with them."



I think we all know we need to have this war and be done with it. I personally find your Government pleasent and easy to converse with, but our past has been a constant thorn for so many senior members. For me this is the end of it. I have no desire to see you burn and I sure have none to see us burn!



o/ Pacifca

We meet on the battlefeild but with maximum respect.

For Pacificans posting in this thread, here's the link - http://cn.npowned.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=132443&p=5679073
I suggest you go read it and the subsequent responses, it seems you understood it then but not now!

I'll be sticking to my word and letting your action from then to now dictate the future. I'd be a poor loser though if I didn't let the old timers enjoy saying "I told you so"!

[Terekhov]

Also, you may not grasp this little fact as an member of Pacifica, but there can also be different kinds of motivations for a war between the membership and the leadership of an alliance.

What is this, 2009?

You claim to have overcome this but accuse us of the same? Brilliant

I was referring only to the first dependent clause in your post. Unfair reference, you weren't there but I didn't realize it until you posted this.

[Lamorak]

 

 

But at the same time they took it as the opportunity to settle a 6-7 year grudge. So to try to claim moral high ground on the issue when your alliance took the opportunity to roll us with that being one of several of your reasons for rolling us doesn't do away with the fact that you did the exact same thing last war

 

Right now i am number 61 in our alliance rankings in regards to seniority. One year ago I probably was still in the top 100 in regards to seniority wihtinh Polaris. I joined after the BiPolar war, so dont try to claim a majority of Polaris had a grudge against Pacifica after all those years when we rolled you last year. Some may have seen it as such, but most likely a minority. 

[Terekhov]

I have come to the conclusion the old timers were right!

Just to set the record straight I'll point out how you have perversely twisted something that was to help end a long issue to try to justify your actions now. I'll point out the subtle but significant difference and the intelligent people who read this will understand it.

Be crystal clear on this though, attacking Pacifica was never any goal for us, primary, secondary, tertiary and beyond.
Making the most of a situation for mutual benefit should we have found ourselves on opposite side of a conflict was.
Try to understand the difference.

Dajobo, at this point I don't think it's a lack of understanding. From your point of view, I can see why you're upset that what you're stated was meant for mutal benefit is being used for...other purposes. Hell, following your logic, the peace terms were in some ironic way a gift (and I don't mean that with a disparaging connotation.)

On the other hand, that exact action for mutual benefit between the Orders was most certainly used by others for purposes other than the stated goals of Polaris. Both the DoW and the ensuing peace terms were both quite clearly to your sphere's advantage, and some of said sphere ran with it about as far as they could.

So, while we both understand each others' points (even if we disgree), and I'm inclined to grant that a significant portion of what you've said is true in isolation, I think you'll understand if the context makes it impractical to do anything but agree to disagree. Edited December 3, 2014 by Terekhov

[Mogar]

Dajobo, at this point I don't think it's a lack of understanding. From your point of view, I can see why you're upset that what you're stated was meant for mutal benefit is being used for...other purposes. Hell, following your logic, the peace terms were in some ironic way a gift (and I don't mean that with a disparaging connotation.)

On the other hand, that exact action for mutual benefit between the Orders was most certainly used by others for purposes other than the stated goals of Polaris. Both the DoW and the ensuing peace terms were both quite clearly to your sphere's advantage, and some of said sphere ran with it about as far as they could.

And yet your alliance became best friends with who who pushed for those peace terms in the first place, and your allies are citing those terms as the basis for this war while Umbrella sits in your coalition channel, kinda silly.

[Lamorak]

And yet your alliance became best friends with who who pushed for those peace terms in the first place, and your allies are citing those terms as the basis for this war while Umbrella sits in your coalition channel, kinda silly.

 

Convenience is as convenience does,

[Monty of the Herm]

 

Right now i am number 61 in our alliance rankings in regards to seniority. One year ago I probably was still in the top 100 in regards to seniority wihtinh Polaris. I joined after the BiPolar war, so dont try to claim a majority of Polaris had a grudge against Pacifica after all those years when we rolled you last year. Some may have seen it as such, but most likely a minority. 

 

We've never said it was a majority within Polar, or that it was the primary reason for the war, but it was a motivating factor in the war for your comrades which you can't isolate from the rest of your alliance's outlook. As such a long-held grudge, albeit by a minority, was a motivating factor for rolling us last war, and as such the last war was, partially, a long term consequence for actions our forebears took long ago, and as Tywin pointed out a similar thing may be being hashed out again in this war on another front. So that just goes to show that it is a norm for such issues to be hashed out on the battlefield over and over again.

[Terekhov]

And yet your alliance became best friends with who who pushed for those peace terms in the first place, and your allies are citing those terms as the basis for this war while Umbrella sits in your coalition channel, kinda silly.

Heaven forbid we let go of grudges! This is CN, after all.

If you have issues with those alliances' citations, go talk to them.

edit - added quote for context Edited December 3, 2014 by Terekhov

[Mogar]

Heaven forbid we let go of grudges! This is CN, after all.

If you have issues with those alliances' citations, go talk to them.

edit - added quote for context

Generally jumping into bed with your former enemy doesn't work out long term, it's disappointing you don't see it that way.

[Lamorak]

 

We've never said it was a majority within Polar, or that it was the primary reason for the war, but it was a motivating factor in the war for your comrades which you can't isolate from the rest of your alliance's outlook. As such a long-held grudge, albeit by a minority, was a motivating factor for rolling us last war, and as such the last war was, partially, a long term consequence for actions our forebears took long ago, and as Tywin pointed out a similar thing may be being hashed out again in this war on another front. So that just goes to show that it is a norm for such issues to be hashed out on the battlefield over and over again.

 

So what is your point? Basically you claim your point is more righteous because it is not that long into the past?

 

Also puncutation? 

[Terekhov]

Generally jumping into bed with your former enemy doesn't work out long term, it's disappointing you don't see it that way.

If all alliances followed that logic to its conclusion, the treaty web would nigh cease to exist.

[Lamorak]

If all alliances followed that logic to its conclusion, the treaty web would nigh cease to exist.

 

No, actually it would mean the alliance web would be more concisely, 

[Terekhov]

If all alliances followed that logic to its conclusion, the treaty web would nigh cease to exist.

 

No, actually it would mean the alliance web would be more concisely,

You don't have to attempt a disagreement just because I'm Pacifican. :P

I agree with you, the treaty web would certainly be more concise in the case we're talking about.

edit - sp Edited December 3, 2014 by Terekhov

[Monty of the Herm]

 

So what is your point? Basically you claim your point is more righteous because it is not that long into the past?

 

Also puncutation? 

 

No. This entire part of the discussion began because Schattenman asked me to give him an example of how actions from the ancient past have long term consequences to this very day in CN, I simply pointed to the fact that Polar used the last war, partially, to hash out an ancient grudge their older members had with us.

 

From there it turned into a bunch of denials on your side, and us pointing out specifically where it had been explicitly stated at the time by Polar leadership. I didn't start the discussion to hash out what happened last war, I just used it as an example to make a point. And this is the trainwreck a simple example turned into even though Schattenman didn't argue the validity of the example when I responded to him which says a lot.

[Lamorak]

 
You don't have to attempt a disagreement just because I'm Pacifican. :P

I agree with you, the treaty web would certainly be more concise in the case we're talking about.

edit - sp

I dont disagree with you because you are Pafician, I disagre because you are wrong in my opinion.

 

If it wasnt such a disaster, I would also disagree with Tywinn, but that would takes too much effort actually. 

[Lamorak]

 

No. This entire part of the discussion began because Schattenman asked me to give him an example of how actions from the ancient past have long term consequences to this very day in CN, I simply pointed to the fact that Polar used the last war, partially, to hash out an ancient grudge their older members had with us.

 

From there it turned into a bunch of denials on your side, and us pointing out specifically where it had been explicitly stated at the time by Polar leadership. I didn't start the discussion to hash out what happened last war, I just used it as an example to make a point. And this is the trainwreck a simple example turned into even though Schattenman didn't argue the validity of the example when I responded to him which says a lot.

 

 

No. This entire part of the discussion began because Schattenman asked me to give him an example of how actions from the ancient past have long term consequences to this very day in CN, I simply pointed to the fact that Polar used the last war, partially, to hash out an ancient grudge their older members had with us.

 

From there it turned into a bunch of denials on your side, and us pointing out specifically where it had been explicitly stated at the time by Polar leadership. I didn't start the discussion to hash out what happened last war, I just used it as an example to make a point. And this is the trainwreck a simple example turned into even though Schattenman didn't argue the validity of the example when I responded to him which says a lot.

 

So the opinion of a minority is the deciding factor even if the majority went into the war because of different factors? 

[Mogar]

If all alliances followed that logic to its conclusion, the treaty web would nigh cease to exist.

good, people defending friends and friends only instead of being used for their treaty chains, a beautiful world.

[Monty of the Herm]

 

 

So the opinion of a minority is the deciding factor even if the majority went into the war because of different factors? 

 

No. It is simply a factor, and Dajobo said as much at the time. I just used it as an example because, as he said at the time in the post he quoted from our forums, that he wanted to end the grudge that had been festering for years. And as far as I can tell he feels that that was done in the last war.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Monty of the Herm

[Terekhov]

@ Lamorak - In this topic, you are missing the forest for the trees. Stop beating the thrice-dead horse please.
 
 

good, people defending friends and friends only instead of being used for their treaty chains, a beautiful world.

Mogatopian, one might say. Edited December 3, 2014 by Terekhov

[Mogar]

In this topic, you are missing the forest for the trees. Stop beating the thrice-dead horse please.
 
 
Mogatopian, you might say.

My vision for the world is a bit beyond that, and well beyond most people's understanding.

 

OOC: Personally I would advocate for admin abolishing the alliance affiliation all together, like when the game first launched, it would make war planning incredibly difficult for most alliances, and even better, make for more reasons for individual treaties between nations.