Ramblings from the Imperial Rocking Chair

[smurthwaite]

I think this whole thread is very crafty. But I know the truth behind it. NPO and NpO are in talks to join forces.

 

Well, now that the cat's out of the bag, let's continue and get to the real motive:  a supermerge!  

[AlmightyGrub]

Not even you could seriously believe that Polar have been beaten down in every single war ever, so stop pretending that you have. It doesn't make people pity you.

 

I don't want your pity idiot, I hold you in as much contempt as anyone else.  If you want to believe that global wars happen without Polaris being lined-up then believe away.  Unless we are driving the agenda or at least party to it, we are on the target list every single time.  Please don't try to stand there with a straight face and tell me that the bowlsmearers, of which you are now a close associate, don't consider Polaris central to the ''opposition'', and if and when they use their massive treaty bogroll to roll out that Polaris will not be systematically dismantled for the amusement of many.  Please also don't try to tell me that when the next war starts, anyone within the range of DBDC will not be pre-emptively attacked to flatten out any opposition before the war even begins.  If it works, you keep doing it and it certainly works.

 

I know it is difficult for people like you to understand that people have different opinions to the Pacifican Party Line, but I do not dial into your way of thinking, I do not accept your version of events and I will not ever change my mind without actual evidence.  I proudly wear my heart on my sleeve, I hate when it is unfashionable to hate, I despise when the people being so despised have no self-awareness as to why and I will continue to do so until Bob implodes.  Without my hate you simply have a circle jerk of sycophantic and parasitic  morons wondering how they can justify whatever they need to do to amuse themselves. 

 

This modern notion that hate is bad is simply a fashionable self-justification.  You need to move on to get on you say, well I have no desire to get on and I certainly will not be moving on without considerable concessions, concessions that are never going to come and so we continue as we are. 

 

Want to knock Polaris down a peg because we refuse to accept the new standards, bring it on, you wont change us by force.  History proves we can move on if both parties wish to, TOP is certainly evidence of that, but we will never make concessions without something in return.  Call it pride, call it fantasy, call it whatever you like, do something about me if you want to, I am pretty much powerless to stop you but when you are done, I will still be here, Polaris will still be here and still nothing at all will have changed.

 

Pacifica chose its course to stop the cycle of violence against it, well done, but the same course is not suitable, nor available for Polaris.  You don't understand me, that's fine, but your lack of comprehension doesn't have any impact on my willingness to change.  Polaris has made a number of tactical and strategic errors over its history, but the die is cast and we won't be revising history.  It is what it is right now, and until the notion of our worthiness of being the prime target passes, it will remain so.  So, what the hell are you waiting for? You know you want to, it can not be a lack of courage because none is required, it can not be assembly of a massive coalition to ensure the result, because none is required... maybe you lack proper motivation, I can only do so much to help.

Edited August 8, 2015 by AlmightyGrub

[D34th]

Wait, is Polar really giving Tywin a hard time over signing a past enemy when they were so smug about that TOP treaty?  The grief between NpO and TOP was the stuff of legends, and you managed to get around that ffs.

 

I have to agree with you on this, Polaris signing a treaty with TOP was outrageous. 

[rileyaddaff]

The only thing i got for this thread is that there are alliances out there that don't have any balls. "Let's sign a treaty, but you need to get rolled first, i hope you understand". This kind of shit is what stagnates this game and the fact that no one knows how to cancel a fucking treaty.

Edited August 9, 2015 by rileyaddaff

[The Zigur]

I'd like to point out, from my personal experience as a former Polar member, that like Dajobo said Grub doesn't actually represent Polar and that most of the people in Polar are really good people. I think Grub is just trying to piss everyone off because he is bad at FA and therefore no FA at all makes him more powerful internally.

He's basically like a spoiled kid in the grocery aisle screaming that mommy won't buy him candy and its best to juat ignore him.

[Prodigal Moon]

The holier than thou vibe Polar's been giving off since Disorder is perhaps a large reason as to why you find yourself at the wrong end of the sword. You are not inherently better than anyone who plays this game, so leave the high horse and play the game, whether in your own corner or otherwise.

 

Lucky for you, 95% of alliances out there have no guiding values besides survival and maybe defending the people they like talking to on IRC.So you've managed to thrive  in a world that's too apathetic* to recognize evil even when it screams "I'm evil" and waves a little sign around.  But as an alliance that even takes values into consideration in its actions, Polaris is light years beyond you and yes, "better" than you in a sense. It would be way less exasperating if you all just embraced the role you've tried so hard to create rather than continually try to muddy the waters around what you are. The ODN's of the world will still love you as long as you're cool guys to hang out with.

 

*OOC: doesn't bother/care about the OOC/IC divide

[Auctor]

The problem with this simplistic view of who is good and who is evil is that it conveniently ignored that the methods "good" and the methods "evil" have historically used to "win" are very nearly the same. It's just not that convincing or compelling after six years of seeing the choices alliances make when they are in positions of power and when they are in positions of weakness. To my mind, this is why you have seen the world order deteriorate into "those I can trust" and "those I can't trust" rather than maintaining a murky "good v. evil" divide.

[Prodigal Moon]

The problem with this simplistic view of who is good and who is evil is that it conveniently ignored that the methods "good" and the methods "evil" have historically used to "win" are very nearly the same. It's just not that convincing or compelling after six years of seeing the choices alliances make when they are in positions of power and when they are in positions of weakness. To my mind, this is why you have seen the world order deteriorate into "those I can trust" and "those I can't trust" rather than maintaining a murky "good v. evil" divide.

 

That's a fair point. Every alliance makes compromises in order to win - including which alliances they align themselves with. There are no saints here, and very few AA's that are actively malicious and not just playing the political game. But I really have to disagree that you can't differentiate based on the choices people when they're in power. Steamrolling neutrals, repeatedly raiding (the same) established alliances, and spitting in the face of those who expect a justification/CB beyond "because it benefits us"  is about as far into the evil zone of this murky continuum as you'll find.

 

We don't act like that, or directly support AA's like that. That basic level of conscientiousness sets us apart from the rest of the heard.

 

Ideally, we would never even ally with allies of AA's like DBDC/DK, but that's where those compromises are sometimes made, to advance a greater good.

[White Chocolate]

 

 But I really have to disagree that you can't differentiate based on the choices people when they're in power. Steamrolling neutrals, repeatedly raiding (the same) established alliances, and spitting in the face of those who expect a justification/CB beyond "because it benefits us"  is about as far into the evil zone of this murky continuum as you'll find.

 

.

The above isn't actually "good" though, in reality it is simply "common practice." 

 

There is nothing inherently good about anything you list.  Likewise, there is nothing inherently evil about doing the opposite. 

 

Even attacking neutrals isn't really attacking a "good" group - at least not how I would define truly good.  A truly good alliance would pick what conflicts to get involved with based on some sort of good code of conduct.  In the case of neutrals, some poor small alliance gets raided  unfairly and is forced to consider disbanding as a result and does any neutral do anything about it?  No.  Recent example - SNX was recently raided.  Did one of the neutrals decide to pick them up as a treaty partner and put a stop to that?  No.  Who did?  Doom Kingdom. 

 

The good vs. evil discussions people have on Planet Bob are not really that.  They are between established "e-law" vs actions outside what the powers that be have established as such.  What is "common practice" is open to both interpretation and change.  NpO can tell itself that the position it and/or it's membership holds on any particular issue is the one on the side of "good" and whatever those other alliances that NpO happens not to like (be it Doom Kingdom, NPO or DBDC) does is "evil" or otherwise done for selfish/bad reasons, but that doesn't make it true.

Edited August 9, 2015 by White Chocolate

[Auctor]

Yeah, I guess the problem I have with this "good" is that it defines itself only in opposition to "evil". What has Polaris actually done that made things "good" other than not doing things they disapprove of?

[Prodigal Moon]

The above isn't actually "good" though, in reality it is simply "common practice." 

 

There is nothing inherently good about anything you list.  Likewise, there is nothing inherently evil about doing the opposite. 

 

Even attacking neutrals isn't really attacking a "good" group - at least not how I would define truly good.  A truly good alliance would pick what conflicts to get involved with based on some sort of good code of conduct.  In the case of neutrals, some poor small alliance gets raided  unfairly and is forced to consider disbanding as a result and does any neutral do anything about it?  No.  Recent example - SNX was recently raided.  Did one of the neutrals decide to pick them up as a treaty partner and put a stop to that?  No.  Who did?  Doom Kingdom. 

 

The good vs. evil discussions people have on Planet Bob are not really that.  They are between established "e-law" vs actions outside what the powers that be have established as such.  What is "common practice" is open to both interpretation and change.  NpO can tell itself that the position it and/or it's membership holds on any particular issue is the one on the side of "good" but that doesn't make it true.

 

Being a neutral alone isn't the same as fighting for good, no, but it gives an AA a lot cleaner record than most of us. We can turn this into the philosophy thread and spend the next 10 pages discussing "What is Good?," but I think the simple fact of beating up on peaceful nations just because it benefits you can speak for itself.

 

You're welcome to frame it as "just doing something outside of common practice" as much as you want. Because that's totally genuine and the real problem I have with DBDC/DK isn't the wanton, sociopathic violence: it's the outside-the-box thinking :psyduck:

 

Auctor: Around here, simply not going with the flow and supporting evil is about the best thing anyone ever does. We ally and defend similarly peaceful AA's. We're home to most of those who actually speak out from a principled perspective.And we have an extremely generous system for developing small nations. Maybe we're not saving the world or aid-bombing strangers (who is?) but altogether it's plenty for me to know which end of the spectrum I'm on.

[Auctor]

I'm just unsure how that's qualitatively different than what yall would decry ODN for doing. I send aid to small nations, I help them grow, and I ally nice alliances and I defend them. I'm unsure how to evaluate this "speaking out from a principled perspective", because talk is cheap and always has been.

[White Chocolate]

 

 

Auctor: Around here, simply not going with the flow and supporting evil is about the best thing anyone ever does. We ally and defend similarly peaceful AA's. We're home to most of those who actually speak out from a principled perspective.And we have an extremely generous system for developing small nations. Maybe we're not saving the world or aid-bombing strangers (who is?) but altogether it's plenty for me to know which end of the spectrum I'm on.

We're NpO, we're not good but we have people in our alliance who play good on the OWF and we don't do anything bad anymore and that makes us superior to everyone else.

 

Is that REALLY the best that is possible? Come on, if you're not willing to discuss these issue in public at least have a good internal discussion and come up with something concrete that is halfway unique (and preferably not spitting up "common practice" from 2007) before acting like NpO has an actual ethical stance as an alliance that is anything better than any other alliance out there just trying to survive.

 

Or better yet, give up acting like NpO is anything more than any other group.  Might hurt some egos, but it's a small price to pay to actually be in a position where you might be able to make a difference for real again.

 

And people wonder why I gave up on worrying about ethics?!

Edited August 9, 2015 by White Chocolate

[the rebel]

Recent example - SNX was recently raided.  Did one of the neutrals decide to pick them up as a treaty partner and put a stop to that?  No.  Who did?  Doom Kingdom. 

 

Whose allies and friends were raiding SNX, the neutrals? No. Whose? Doom Kingdom. :P

[Joshua Issac]

“Pacifica, DBDC, Polaris, MI6 – They are all just spokes on a wheel.

“This one’s on top, then that one’s on top, and on and on it spins, crushing those tech on the ground.

“GPA isn't going to stop the wheel….. We going to break the wheel!”

 

Fear the Neutral Menace.

 

/o GPA, destroyer of wheels.

[spoiler][/spoiler]

[The Zigur]

Speaking for SNX, the end results of the raids have made us stronger and more disciplined as an alliance. I don't think peace is a goal in itself, it simply represents a useful time to prepare for the next war. I also don't think violence is automatically a bad thing if used aggressively. The victory the July Revolution represents raised a whole new generation of officers from the common masses in the new Imperium, some of whom were formerly inactives, and I think alot of peaceful alliances could use such a rejuvenating experience.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Immortan Junka

[White Chocolate]

 

Whose allies and friends were raiding SNX, the neutrals? No. Whose? Doom Kingdom. :P

Absolutely.  In fact, give us credit where it is due.  We had a few Doom Kingdom members take part in the raids too.  I took my time about it when working out the protectorate agreement as well...on purpose...so our allies could, you know, actually have a week for shark week.   No apologies.  Not claiming we did SNX any sort of favor by raiding either.  I don't even consider it a favor in protecting them now, I like the sweet sweet Pakalolo provided by Immortan Junka.  It's a good business deal for both groups. 

Edited August 9, 2015 by White Chocolate

[Prodigal Moon]

I'm just unsure how that's qualitatively different than what yall would decry ODN for doing. I send aid to small nations, I help them grow, and I ally nice alliances and I defend them. I'm unsure how to evaluate this "speaking out from a principled perspective", because talk is cheap and always has been.

 

I don't think ODN is evil per se - just way more willing than us to support those that I would classify as evil. That might not sound like much, but it requires some conviction and courage. Who knows what the world would be like if most AA's were closer to NpO than ODN. Personally, I don't think an AA like DBDC/DK would be able to thrive in a world like that.

 

We're NpO, we're not good but we have people in our alliance who play good on the OWF and we don't do anything bad anymore and that makes us superior to everyone else.

 

Is that REALLY the best that is possible? Come on, if you're not willing to discuss these issue in public at least have a good internal discussion and come up with something concrete that is halfway unique (and preferably not spitting up "common practice" from 2007) before acting like NpO has an actual ethical stance as an alliance that is anything better than any other alliance out there just trying to survive.

 

Or better yet, give up acting like NpO is anything more than any other group.  Might hurt some egos, but it's a small price to pay to actually be in a position where you might be able to make a difference for real again.

 

And people wonder why I gave up on worrying about ethics?!

 

Not aligning yourself with evil just to survive is apparently a much more moral stance than most of the world is capable of, so I'm not sure why you want to just dismiss that.

 

There are two things I think both of you are missing:

1) When I rant about morals, I never come at it from the angle of how Polaris is so great, or the ultimate self-sacrificing saint of an alliance or anything, because of course we're not "the best that is possible." Who is? When I talk about morals, it's because people are actively doing evil or supporting it.

 

That's because 2) we live in a virtual Garden of Plenty here. To bastardize a quote: the one thing necessary to cause nations not to thrive here, is for evil (wo)men to do something. This world doesn't need saving for everyone to prosper, it just needs people not to stomp on those who are weaker than them.

 

I like to think that if we had the power of NPO right now, we'd use it to actively prevent evil. But just by letting others live in peace and not supporting evil, you're naturally setting yourself up to oppose it more so than most AA's.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Prodigal Moon

[HM Solomon I]

Now I'm curious.  What about Polaris makes it "good"?  I'm having a hard time buying this assertion.

[Auctor]

It's because they're not afraid to say bad things are kind of mean and because they don't have treaties with the people that do things they think are mean.

[AlmightyGrub]

Polaris is not inherently good, nor is it inherently moral or inherently anything but ''Polar''.  Whether this suits you or not is of little consequence, we have decided our own personal stance on many issues years ago and we choose to follow this agenda regardless of anyone's opinion of it.  For the record, I have never been a moralist but I have used moralist arguments at times and I have never claimed to be good, in fact I am quite the opposite in many people's eyes.  What we are is fairly consistent.  You may consider yourself to be ''good'' or ''evil'' as you so desire, both sides of every war pray to their respective imaginary friends believing they are right and just and worthy of support. 

 

My personal stance is most of you are chaotic scum or allied to chaotic scum, chaotic scum being defined as someone with whom I have decided somewhat arbitrarily to consider chaotic scum, based on my own evaluation of the conduct demonstrated over a long period of time.  It truly has nothing to do with good versus evil. although I do consider large chunks of your society to be fairly perverted, prone to actions that are not within the greater good and without any kind of restrictions of your behaviors.  You have the right to do as you please and say whatever you please, but the same right you grant yourself must therefore also apply to me and I therefore have the right to say whatever enthuses me.

 

In a world that apparently now has no boundaries, I like to establish some.  You can abide by whatever code you choose, I will make my own decisions.  I like being in opposition to those I despise, for whatever reason or justification I despise, and surely the same freedom that allow you to burn all conventions, allow me to hold onto whatever conventions I desire.  Or does your lack of conventions create exceptions for that?

 

@ Tywin, champion, I say champion, your perceptions of your own myths about me notwithstanding, will you please stop trying to analyze my actions from a position of complete ignorance?  You are simply a thousand miles off base with your whole internal power rubbish.  I am what I am and I will always be that, there is no ''power'' to be derived from my actions, there is no ''power'' to be lost by my actions, you remain as completely clueless about me now as you did within Polaris.  I do appreciate your fanboy posts though, but I don't want you as a fan now or ever.

Edited August 10, 2015 by AlmightyGrub

[Dajobo]

Good people sometimes do bad things.
Bad people sometimes do good things.

People here get pretty hung up on labelling alliances over which ever actions they like to highlight that suits the narrative.
Raiding is evil, Doom Raid so Doom are evil.
Protecting a down trodden alliance is good. Doom protect SNX so Doom are good.

If you think about what I wrote here it all makes sense. TOP was a fabulous treaty for Polaris and I'll always be glad I signed it. From the start it was built on honesty and it stayed that way until the end. It wasn't about anyone ignoring or forgetting the past, or about compromising morals. There was never a day when TOP asked Polaris to do anything I could regard as wrong and so neither Polaris nor TOP ever compromised their ideals or beliefs to work together.

Move forward with the same logic and while not all Polars will agree with me, I could very much see Polaris one day holding a treaty with Doom Squad, NPO or even DBDC for that matter. To me it's not about who you support, but what. If a treaty is based on honesty and mutual goals it will do just fine.

[HM Solomon I]

Polaris is not inherently good, nor is it inherently moral or inherently anything but ''Polar''.  Whether this suits you or not is of little consequence, we have decided our own personal stance on many issues years ago and we choose to follow this agenda regardless of anyone's opinion of it.  For the record, I have never been a moralist but I have used moralist arguments at times and I have never claimed to be good, in fact I am quite the opposite in many people's eyes.  What we are is fairly consistent.  You may consider yourself to be ''good'' or ''evil'' as you so desire, both sides of every war pray to their respective imaginary friends believing they are right and just and worthy of support. 

 

My personal stance is most of you are chaotic scum or allied to chaotic scum, chaotic scum being defined as someone with whom I have decided somewhat arbitrarily to consider chaotic scum, based on my own evaluation of the conduct demonstrated over a long period of time.  It truly has nothing to do with good versus evil. although I do consider large chunks of your society to be fairly perverted, prone to actions that are not within the greater good and without any kind of restrictions of your behaviors.  You have the right to do as you please and say whatever you please, but the same right you grant yourself must therefore also apply to me and I therefore have the right to say whatever enthuses me.

 

In a world that apparently now has no boundaries, I like to establish some.  You can abide by whatever code you choose, I will make my own decisions.  I like being in opposition to those I despise, for whatever reason or justification I despise, and surely the same freedom that allow you to burn all conventions, allow me to hold onto whatever conventions I desire.  Or does your lack of conventions create exceptions for that?

 

@ Tywin, champion, I say champion, your perceptions of your own myths about me notwithstanding, will you please stop trying to analyze my actions from a position of complete ignorance?  You are simply a thousand miles off base with your whole internal power rubbish.  I am what I am and I will always be that, there is no ''power'' to be derived from my actions, there is no ''power'' to be lost by my actions, you remain as completely clueless about me now as you did within Polaris.  I do appreciate your fanboy posts though, but I don't want you as a fan now or ever.

Having standards doesn't make you good or worthy of praise, nor does it make you better than anyone else.  Someone can have standards and be downright evil if the standards are evil (for example, everyone must measure up to my standard of perfection or they die, I will not lift a finger to help someone being viciously slaughtered because those being viciously slaughtered should help themselves).  Moreover, as evidenced by your post, that you can say whatever you want does not mean that you should.

 

 

Good people sometimes do bad things.
Bad people sometimes do good things.

People here get pretty hung up on labelling alliances over which ever actions they like to highlight that suits the narrative.
Raiding is evil, Doom Raid so Doom are evil.
Protecting a down trodden alliance is good. Doom protect SNX so Doom are good.

If you think about what I wrote here it all makes sense. TOP was a fabulous treaty for Polaris and I'll always be glad I signed it. From the start it was built on honesty and it stayed that way until the end. It wasn't about anyone ignoring or forgetting the past, or about compromising morals. There was never a day when TOP asked Polaris to do anything I could regard as wrong and so neither Polaris nor TOP ever compromised their ideals or beliefs to work together.

Move forward with the same logic and while not all Polars will agree with me, I could very much see Polaris one day holding a treaty with Doom Squad, NPO or even DBDC for that matter. To me it's not about who you support, but what. If a treaty is based on honesty and mutual goals it will do just fine.

It has been claimed ITT that supporting those that commit wrong acts is itself wrong, so even if all your treaties are based on honesty and mutual goals it doesn't make you "good".  The mutual goals themselves could be wrong or one could be honest about evil things.  Honesty and shared goals with treaty partners have nothing to do with an alliance conducting "ethical" FA.  I don't really care whether Polaris is good or evil, but several of your compatriots have made the claim that it is good and thus better than all other alliances, a claim which I view as entirely unsupported by either this argument or any of the others made ITT.

Edited August 10, 2015 by HM Solomon I

[Artigo]

DBDC are like the rest of the alliances in the blob who can’t move without NPO’s ok and while individually huge, collectively are far too small to be a danger.

 

 

Sound like you're getting your lines from thespindoctor.

[Dajobo]

Sound like you're getting your lines from thespindoctor.

Far from it. You have fourteen massive nations that will win pretty much any battle you fight. You also can only hit about the same amount in Pacifica and after one round probably only three.
After two rounds you can hit none of them. Look at this logically and after two weeks you're twiddling your thumbs while they have over 380 healthy nations.

I stand by what I said "collectively are far too small to be a danger." It's a pretty mute point anyway because neither of you have a reason to. You live in fundamentally different ranges and share allies.