Ambition

[Gh0s7]

I'll give Polaris credit in that they didn't keep but 2 nations(Could be wrong, but I think it was 2) in peacemode when declaring war. However, with that being the case, there were rumors around about this side imposing those terms, which means they more than likely kept them out since their upper-upper tier got wrecked by DBDC and they wanted to avoid the terms themselves. Obviously, I'm not POlaris so I can't say that for certain, but I believe that's the case. For the most part, POlar has taken it's licks and carried on. The obvious exceptions to that rule being Morgaine, Walflord, and Tywin who just can't stop complaining about it.

[Starfox101]

I think you are partially right. However I also don't think anyone actually wanted to go into peace mode. Peace gets boring, ya know.

[Artigo]

Peace gets boring, ya know.

 

And here I was thinking everyone in NpO were only into 20-day back collects and accepting foreign aid.

[Walford]

 The obvious exceptions to that rule being Morgaine, Walflord, and Tywin who just can't stop complaining about it.

 

This is actually complaining on your part about us not keeping our mouths shut. We're "beaten" right? We should be cowering under our beds and hope we don't make the big bad [whatever your alliance is called] mad, so we will get leniency from perpetrators who do things that hurt everybody on Bob. The more my nation is beaten down, the louder I get. Why don't you spend more money on me and declare down on my nation again? Maybe that will shut me up. Bring it, tough guy!

 

And who is complaining? It is more than valid to question the motives of those who declared war on us -- and those who are attacking w/o any declaration -- and to explore what implications that wars of this kind have for the greater community at large.

 

Sociopaths don't like to be held accountable, I understand that.

[WarriorSoul]

 

This is actually complaining on your part about us not keeping our mouths shut. We're "beaten" right? We should be cowering under our beds and hope we don't make the big bad [whatever your alliance is called] mad, so we will get leniency from perpetrators who do things that hurt everybody on Bob. The more my nation is beaten down, the louder I get. Why don't you spend more money on me and declare down on my nation again? Maybe that will shut me up. Bring it, tough guy!

 

And who is complaining? It is more than valid to question the motives of those who declared war on us -- and those who are attacking w/o any declaration -- and to explore what implications that wars of this kind have for the greater community at large.

 

Sociopaths don't like to be held accountable, I understand that.

 

It's a little bit hard to believe you want anything like honest discourse when you keep throwing around personal insults, y'know?

[Walford]

 

It's a little bit hard to believe you want anything like honest discourse when you keep throwing around personal insults, y'know?

 

Oh, that's all I'm doing, right? Do you even know how to read? Oh, wait, let me check your alliance. Oops, nevermind.

[WarriorSoul]

 

Oh, that's all I'm doing, right? Do you even know how to read? Oh, wait, let me check your alliance. Oops, nevermind.

 

Heh, essentially making my point for me. I won't dive any further into this line of conversation, as it will undoubtedly devolve into a series of back and forth posts where you tell me how stupid I am or that I'm a sociopath (I think I'm on the right track here), and then I retort with something along the lines of what I posted earlier.

[Walford]

 

Heh, essentially making my point for me. I won't dive any further into this line of conversation, as it will undoubtedly devolve into a series of back and forth posts where you tell me how stupid I am or that I'm a sociopath (I think I'm on the right track here), and then I retort with something along the lines of what I posted earlier.

 

Certainly not. Bless your heart. We love you guys! :wub:

[Ciroton]

 

 

Yes, except for the poor CB, the dogpiling, the imposition of political will on an alliance who simply entered for her allies and the cry of "Immorality!" of the losers, these are completely different.

 

 True, that can also be said of pretty much every war for the past couple of years now, barring, of course, the odd ravenous flag-waving rabble-rousers. Maybe the comparison is more akin to oranges and orange-frogs than apples, but there is difference enough. Namely in that we actually have justifications for our actions, even if they backfire spectacularly. Unlike some here who would do the same just 'for the lolz'.

 

 

Well, you misread me -- I really don't have a dog in the fight.  Didn't with NPO either.  I just find it hard to listen to all the hand-wringing about the barbarians and the stormtroopers when it was Polar that was wearing the jackboots the last time I heard it.  Which was not all that long ago.

 

If you're going to play hardball, play hardball.

 

Just becasue you don't have a stake in it doesn't mean you wouldn't enjoy the fire, now would it?

 

 

And here I was thinking everyone in NpO were only into 20-day back collects and accepting foreign aid.

 

What do we look like? Neutrals? Polar is a millitary alliance. Quality is debatable, but if there's one thing we do well, it's weather a long winter and get back on our feet fast.

[Starfox101]

 

And here I was thinking everyone in NpO were only into 20-day back collects and accepting foreign aid.

I mean, if you have some foreign aid to send, I'll gladly accept it. :ehm:

 

No, but really, I don't think Polar has ever not been involved in a major war. We just can't mind our own business. More fun this way.

[Walshington]

 

Just becasue you don't have a stake in it doesn't mean you wouldn't enjoy the fire, now would it?

 

Not sure what you mean by this -- I have no desire to see Polar burn, if that's what you mean.  What I meant by "If you're going to play hardball, play hardball" comment is that if you're going to be the alliance that uses weak CB's, looks at PM as a crime to be punished, dogpiles and imposes it's will on others, then you really can't be surprised when those tactics come home to roost.  Polar is a major alliance, a political player -- that is the way the game is played, by and large, at your level: hardball.  I have no idea if DBDC is exacting some karmic debt for your treatment of NPO or not -- they may not even care. It may, at the end of the day, in fact be "just for the lulz".

 

Either way, while unpleasant for you at this particular juncture, this is just another inning of a game you have long played. And played pretty well, judging by your success.  You just ran afoul of a group who's playing it better.  Eventually, you may be back on top again -- if those members of Polar complaining about the morality of the game in defeat exhibit morality when again victorious, then I'll be impressed with the sincerity of some of their diatribes in this thread.  Until then, the talk of civilization vs. barbarians seems to be the same kvetching all alliances do when on the wrong end of a beatdown.

[berbers]

I doubt terms on Polar nations that hid the whole war in peace mode would affect Polar much at all :rolleyes:

It would impact some of your allies though pretty severely though, do you agree?

[Dajobo]

Not sure what you mean by this -- I have no desire to see Polar burn, if that's what you mean.  What I meant by "If you're going to play hardball, play hardball" comment is that if you're going to be the alliance that uses weak CB's, looks at PM as a crime to be punished, dogpiles and imposes it's will on others, then you really can't be surprised when those tactics come home to roost.  Polar is a major alliance, a political player -- that is the way the game is played, by and large, at your level: hardball.  I have no idea if DBDC is exacting some karmic debt for your treatment of NPO or not -- they may not even care. It may, at the end of the day, in fact be "just for the lulz". [/size]
 
Either way, while unpleasant for you at this particular juncture, this is just another inning of a game you have long played. And played pretty well, judging by your success.  You just ran afoul of a group who's playing it better.  Eventually, you may be back on top again -- if those members of Polar complaining about the morality of the game in defeat exhibit morality when again victorious, then I'll be impressed with the sincerity of some of their diatribes in this thread.  Until then, the talk of civilization vs. barbarians seems to be the same kvetching all alliances do when on the wrong end of a beatdown.[/size]

Good post TBH and some fair points raised. Who knows how long before you get the answers but fair questions.
 
 

It would impact some of your allies though pretty severely though, do you agree?

You'd need discuss that with them, not us.

[berbers]

 
 
You'd need discuss that with them, not us.

 

I was asking Tywin's opinion (Admin knows why :S)

[Sir Humphrey]

It is easy for losers to adopt morality as a rallying cry -- much more difficult for winners.

So much this.

Any claim to the moral high ground was vacated in the Equilibrium War for alliances traditionally opposed to Doomhouse. And alliances on Polar's side of the Disorder War had no problems following non-chaining or optional treaty chains to be on the winning side of a conflict when the opportunity presented itself, based an initial CB designed to manage escalation in the interests of the declaring coalition rather than any sincere moral justification.

But to expand your comment, it is also easy to adopt moralism as a rallying cry when members are convinced of the moral exceptionalism of their own alliance, and conclude that any actions which conflict with their alliance's interests are therefore immoral by definition :| Edited January 29, 2015 by Sir Humphrey

[Walford]

 

Not sure what you mean by this -- I have no desire to see Polar burn, if that's what you mean.  What I meant by "If you're going to play hardball, play hardball" comment is that if you're going to be the alliance that uses weak CB's, looks at PM as a crime to be punished, dogpiles and imposes it's will on others, then you really can't be surprised when those tactics come home to roost. 

 

It is certainly not a Fact of Nature that Polaris "uses weak CB's, looks at PM as a crime to be punished, dogpiles and imposes it's will on others" so there is a moral equivalence as you are implying to us and the main alliance [and their meat-shields] attacking us .

 

The CB for the Disorder War may not be one you might agree with, but we actually felt threatened enough to undertake military action in the manner we did. To imply that the CB was contrived questions our character unjustifiably. Before that war we were not rubbing our hands with glee about how we were going to trump up a reason to start a war and hoped that everybody would be fooled so they'd be cheering us on. Look at Roquentin's quote in my sig. Public opinion is not something we consider very much when acting. We do what we think is necessary and for good reason.

 

War is a sacrifice for Polaris [whether winning or losing] and we do not undertake combat for entertainment, looting or conquest. AFAIK, we got no reparations from that war and certainly did not get any terms regarding destroying military assets or having anything like a Viceroy occupying the enemy post-war. I wish the Wiki about that war said something about the terms, because AFAIK, the Peace Mode aspect of the terms was about making sure that Pacifica would not get out of the war and immediately start making mischief again. You can disapprove of this, but I'm just giving you an idea of the mindset -- which was quite different from that of our current opponents. Also, if I recall correctly, that aspect of the terms did not originate from Polaris. We just wanted to end the war and cut them loose. If somebody has documentation rather than opinion on what the final terms are, I would be glad to see it.

 

And all of this could be moot. Those of you bringing up a previous war might actually know that it is not relevant to the current one, but are flogging it as a Red Herring.

 

 

Polar is a major alliance, a political player -- that is the way the game is played, by and large, at your level: hardball.  I have no idea if DBDC is exacting some karmic debt for your treatment of NPO or not -- they may not even care. It may, at the end of the day, in fact be "just for the lulz".

 

 

I seriously doubt that The Birds are doing this for the sake of being Avenging Angels for Pacifica. The latter can take care of themselves. The terms of the war certainly were not harsh by the standards of the day. As stated earlier, it was not a war of conquest or profit. It was about dealing with a perceived threat. How valid that perception was is a matter of perspective -- which is most likely going to be colored by biases rather than fact.

 

 

Either way, while unpleasant for you at this particular juncture, this is just another inning of a game you have long played. And played pretty well, judging by your success.  You just ran afoul of a group who's playing it better. 

 

Playing it better? When we found ourselves being declared upon by this many alliances, when the Prime Movers behind all of this found it necessary to surround themselves with that many meat-shields, I can tell you we took this as a compliment and a gesture of respect. This was clear evidence that they know that Polaris is no pushover. Our nations may be smaller, but we are still standing tall.

 

It also indicates that there is something more than boredom or lulz behind starting this war. To employ this many resources and to sacrifice so many millions of nation strength, there is something that our opponents want to accomplish with respect to Polaris very badly. But if it entails subjugation or destruction, I guarantee that the objective will fail. If it is to make our nations smaller, that was accomplished in the first few days. If it is to make us "feel" beaten, that will fail also. Our bonds and esprit are stronger than ever.

 

Those who thump their chests about numbers cannot conceive of this, I know.

 

Eventually, you may be back on top again -- if those members of Polar complaining about the morality of the game in defeat exhibit morality when again victorious, then I'll be impressed with the sincerity of some of their diatribes in this thread.  Until then, the talk of civilization vs. barbarians seems to be the same kvetching all alliances do when on the wrong end of a beatdown.

 

Again, I am just a foot-soldier with no rank, but I can say that there are no discussions amongst us about "getting on top" or anything of the like. Get on top of what, a pile of rubble? That is not a Polar aspiration. We are military and not political. During peace time, we build our nations, mentor each other and mind our own business. We're always watching out of practical necessity, but not plotting some grand scheme to establish a Polar hegemony; we cannot be bothered. It would entail too much attention being paid to outsiders that would be better spent on each other.

 

And this characterization about because we are "losing" I and others are "kvetching about civilization vs. barbarians" is completely false. By all means review what we have actually said. Post #289 of this thread gives a clear picture of what I think the problem is, how it affects us all -- including the "winnerz" -- and solutions that I offer that are for everyone's benefit -- and again, including for those on the opposing side.

 

As I said before, if things keep going the way they are, we ALL lose. Perhaps some of you just think that the demise of Bob is inevitable, so we should not bother trying to save it and just keep eating our own until there is nothing left. No, we absolutely can stop the decline and get things thriving again, resulting in a more vibrant and interesting environment. This is another Orwellian twist: Those who have given up and just want to ride Bob down to oblivion are the cool, fun guys. Those who see a problem and want to fix it are just sore losers who are complaining.

-------------------------------

Is that so hard to understand or are too many of us locked into the mindset of the world being divided between the sheep and the wolves that the notion that someone would actually be motivated by a concern for all of us is beyond comprehension?

[Sigrun Vapneir]

But to expand your comment, it is also easy to adopt moralism as a rallying cry when members are convinced of the moral exceptionalism of their own alliance, and conclude that any actions which conflict with their alliance's interests are therefore immoral by definition :|

 

Aside from a few MK era bits that I always read more as satire and ridicule than serious policy, that sort of exceptionalism has been fairly scarce since karma.

 

At least in public.

[The Zigur]

I was asking Tywin's opinion (Admin knows why :S)

I don't have a very high opinion of the upper tier in the first place, and I think often times when the upper tier does go into PM for the whole war it is hardly part of some strategy, but if it makes people like Rush cry when they don't get terms its worth it.

[Luckao]

 

Oh, that's all I'm doing, right? Do you even know how to read? Oh, wait, let me check your alliance. Oops, nevermind.

 

WarriorSoul's grandchildren will be born with third degree burns after that one.

[kingzog]

 

It's a little bit hard to believe you want anything like honest discourse when you keep throwing around personal insults, y'know?

 

 

Oh, that's all I'm doing, right? Do you even know how to read? Oh, wait, let me check your alliance. Oops, nevermind.

 

"How dare you accuse me of 'throwing around personal insults'? You're illiterate and your alliance is stupid."

 

Priceless.

 

Wally, you're on a roll here. Please don't stop. Is there anything else you'd like to lecture people regarding? Consistency, maybe?

[Walford]

 

...All of these are unsupported statements or use logical fallacies like Argumentum Ad Populum. If anything, the quality of the opposing argument goes to show that intelligence or enlightenment has little to do with how big ones nation is.

 

 

 

This why Walford and others were driven away from speaking here or just left the Planet altogether. If they troubled themselves to put together a cogent argument, the "lawl" squad would come out and smother dissent. 

 

If I may, Tywin, they are trying to make you into a meme, so no matter how well-reasoned and how well supported your point is, they can just dismiss it by saying that this is something that Tywin would say. That is a fallacy also...

 

Tywin, I have been noticing your name being thrown around with the proviso that it is generally understood that everything you have to say is not worth considering because...well, they never say. They only offer characterizations rather than cite quotes that prove that nobody should listen to you.

 

 

It's like Tywin has rubbed off on the lot of them.  Congrats polarites for proving his points immediately after he stated them.

 

That is very familiar. I did not even suspect it at the time, but I was told later that years ago [before I had given up on the possibility of honest debate here on the OWF] that there were people who were either assigned or were waiting for any of my posts so they could pile on and flood the discussion with Straw Man, ad Hominem and Red Herring -- anything to disrupt the discussion and make it so the points being made are buried under "you are an idiot"   "LOL" "what you are really saying is..." etc. so he actual point can be ignored.

 

That is what people do when they know that they are wrong. The bitter irony is, this hurts people like authors they attempt to undermine the worst. The ones who are harmed the most are those who might otherwise consider your arguments and benefit from them, but are deprived because of the mountains of troll.

 

Then as Morgaine pointed out, anyone else who expresses an opinion with which they disagree, they can dismiss it with "that's what Tywin [or walford] would say, and the entire line of dissent is quashed.

 

When I kept seeing these comments about what you have to say, I have been reviewing your posts carefully and the characterizations thereof do not follow. They give no indication that they had actually read what you had to say in the first place.

 

These are people who do not want any point of view but theirs to be available for others to see. If your PoV is so weak, it should be easy enough to discredit it using logic, reason and evidence. In that regard, your critics are bankrupt -- morally and intellectually.

 

Those of you reading this and see someone being dismissed so arbitrarily and the attempt to make them into a meme, i ask that you use your own mind and consider what has been said on its own merits. Do not let others determine what you can consider by allowing them to succeed in making it so when you see somebody's name on a post, you will not even consider it.

----------------------------

What is being discussed here is vital to the future of our entire civilization -- friend and foe alike. We have to consider all points of view honestly as we move forward. However, those who are expressing the sentiment that the world is doomed anyway, so we might as well keep taking bites out of each other until there is nothing left, well, those are the thoughts of a quitter who has given up on the future.

 

"Success" these days is measured by the ability to destroy. "Failure" is characterized by a determination to stop the destruction and get our population growing again and the potential for a wide variety of options as to how we can exist together to be expanded.

 

Let those of us who want a future and are willing to work together to build one keep moving forward and let the harpies of what constitutes TRUE failure sink into the abyss w/o the rest of us.

 

So I implore you to open your minds and listen to what people like Tywin have to say; they have a perspective that is worth considering and something valuable to contribute.

[Walford]

 

"How dare you accuse me of 'throwing around personal insults'? You're illiterate and your alliance is stupid."

 

Straw Man constructed from my reaction to another Straw Man.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Walford

[Artigo]

What's your argument again?

 

Your alliance has lost, is going to surrender soon, some of your allies are going to drop you after this war's conclusion, and all you've managed to do is say 'sycophant' way too many times.

[Walford]

Bless your heart.

[Walshington]

 

 

It is certainly not a Fact of Nature that Polaris "uses weak CB's, looks at PM as a crime to be punished, dogpiles and imposes it's will on others" so there is a moral equivalence as you are implying to us and the main alliance [and their meat-shields] attacking us .

 

The CB for the Disorder War may not be one you might agree with, but we actually felt threatened enough to undertake military action in the manner we did. To imply that the CB was contrived questions our character unjustifiably. Before that war we were not rubbing our hands with glee about how we were going to trump up a reason to start a war and hoped that everybody would be fooled so they'd be cheering us on. Look at Roquentin's quote in my sig. Public opinion is not something we consider very much when acting. We do what we think is necessary and for good reason.

 

 

Well, judgement of a CB is always opinion, so you're correct there. I do believe the CB was weak, but no more so than many wars of late. But you did lead the coalition that dogpiled on NPO, that is a fact. An alliance, mind you, that only entered in defense of their allies, much like Polar this war. You did, in fact, levy a punishment on those members of NPO who spent the war in PM through terms your coalition imposed through its will as the victor.

 

 

 

We do what we think is necessary and for good reason.

 

AFAIK, we got no reparations from that war and certainly did not get any terms regarding destroying military assets or having anything like a Viceroy occupying the enemy post-war. I wish the Wiki about that war said something about the terms, because AFAIK, the Peace Mode aspect of the terms was about making sure that Pacifica would not get out of the war and immediately start making mischief again. 

 

EVERYBODY goes to war for what they think is necessary and a good reason.  It's odd that you set terms on Pacifica so they wouldn't get out of the war and start making mischief again, when the stated CB had NOTHING to do with NPO making mischief in the first place.  I have zero insight on the Doombird's motivation, but I think their war against you probably has something to do with ensuring you can't make mischief for them later. A backhanded compliment to your alliance, no doubt.  Not a moral equivalency, just saying that the disorder war was probably perceived as mischief making by the other side of the web.

 

 

 

Also, if I recall correctly, that aspect of the terms did not originate from Polaris. We just wanted to end the war and cut them loose. 

 

 

Paging Schattenmann!   It was YOUR coalition.  You signed the document. It wasn't even tacit approval -- it had the seal of Polar. You could have ended the war and cut them loose, like CCC did.  But you didn't.  To try to backpedal now is intellectually dishonest.

 

 

 

I seriously doubt that The Birds are doing this for the sake of being Avenging Angels for Pacifica. The latter can take care of themselves. The terms of the war certainly were not harsh by the standards of the day. As stated earlier, it was not a war of conquest or profit. It was about dealing with a perceived threat. How valid that perception was is a matter of perspective -- which is most likely going to be colored by biases rather than fact.

 

The terms were harsh by the standards of the day -- I hadn't seen terms like that in a while. Point me wrong in the wiki and I'll concede.  In your opinion they weren't harsh, but then again you were on the delivering side.  Offered the same terms this war, you would likely sing a different tune. Public opinion in that thread certainly had several people saying it was harsh.

 

As far as dealing with a perceived threat -- rightly or wrongly, I think DBDC feels the same about you.  You are right -- it is completely a matter of perspective.  You feel jobbed, and rightly so.  I think Pacifica felt similarly.  Like everyone else, you can understand your perspective better than theirs. I'm not trying to justify DBDC's actions or condemn yours -- I'm just saying you two are using the same justifications for your actions.

 

 

 

Playing it better? When we found ourselves being declared upon by this many alliances, when the Prime Movers behind all of this found it necessary to surround themselves with that many meat-shields, I can tell you we took this as a compliment and a gesture of respect. This was clear evidence that they know that Polaris is no pushover. Our nations may be smaller, but we are still standing tall.

 

 

Hell yes they are playing it better.  Better than anyone ever has -- I'm not talking qualitatively, but quantitatively.  Using the same constraints as the rest of us, they have built their nations better than anyone else, have amassed more power than any previous hegemony, and have built a system in which a farm of nations send them free tech to perpetuate the system.  No one else has pulled off anything remotely like this.  You may not like the moral compass, but the craft is inarguably better. Bob has been playing checkers while they have been playing 3D chess.This is why you are losing now.

 

 

 

And this characterization about because we are "losing" I and others are "kvetching about civilization vs. barbarians" is completely false. 

 

 

That remains to be seen.  The cycle on Bob, as demonstrated by NPO, DoomHouse, etc. is that the given hegemony will eventually fall.  The acid test will be when you again have the chance to put the boots to someone, you don't.  So far, everyone seems to, because keeping the other sphere down is only way to keep them from making mischief in the future.

 

 

 

Is that so hard to understand or are too many of us locked into the mindset of the world being divided between the sheep and the wolves that the notion that someone would actually be motivated by a concern for all of us is beyond comprehension?

 

Which is what it will take to ever defeat DBDC, just like the previous hegemonies.  People complain about the villain when they are around, and complain that Bob stagnates without a villain.  Well, you've got your villain.  I even think this villain is giving you every opportunity to "do something about it" The knock on DBDC was always that they attacked alliances they could easily beat -- why don't they take on WTF, and then we'll see their mettle!

 

Asked and answered, counselor!  

 

I think they are here to create interest on Bob again.  Walls of text are not very interesting, and won't stop them. If you're waiting for the easy way, I think you'll be waiting a long time.  You never win at chicken if you keep swerving out of the way -- which Polar and everyone else have done up until now.  Polar fights now only because DBDC forced the issue.  Fact is, no one has kept DBDC at war for longer than they wanted to be, and that is what it will take to win.  You keep calling them barbarians, but they are not some mindless horde sweeping through Bob -- this is the most mindful horde you've ever come across, and you keep ignoring that fact at your own peril. Better break out those sticks and stones, because the names don't seem to be hurting them.