Joint Announcement from The Sweet Oblivion and The Order of the Paradox

[AlmightyGrub]

humiliate polaris?

i'm pretty sure all the top ranking members have said they actually like Polaris now after the NoCB war

I am sure they do, we have given them no reason not to... Our actions over a protracted period of time show we are constantly working on improving our alliance and our outlook.

""humiliate'' refers to an earlier post (I actually read the threads before typing) where "terms were given to humiliate Polaris''. Whatever the intention of the terms, we completed them in style, they are yesterday's news. This is about now and the future. The next time TOP gives terms will set the bar for these terms, just as these terms set the bar for the last ones.

Change does not occur in a vacuum, every alliance, if it is wise, adapts as the political climate of the world changes. What was acceptable before or even today, may not be so acceptable in the future.

TOP and Polaris is old news, there is nothing new to see here (why are you always looking )

[Crymson]

Far too much is made of all this change nonsense. Actions over a protracted period will show what all the current alliances in the ""power slot'' believe and practice.

Essentially, everyone deserves the chance, at least once, to prove they are what they say they are. It is easy to be cynical all the time but if we want to promote this concept of fair play then the rules have to apply equally.

If TOP is doing what they believe they need to do now, and if they believe that they needed to humiliate Polaris, then so be it. My mileage will of course differ as may yours.

To be fair, that war occurred because of major grievances we had against Polar, and the terms that were presented were---from our perspective---never intended to humiliate Polar, but rather to ensure that Polar would not be a threat to us for some time afterward. We had seen Polar as the major threat to us for a long time before the war; indeed, defending ourselves from Polaris comprised much of the focus of our foreign policy for quite awhile. The animosity leading up to that war stretched back quite some time, and it was exacerbated on many occasions by what we felt to be clearly hostile behavior on the part of Polaris. Such had quieted down after the departure of Electron Sponge, but the many months of threats and schemes weren't something that we were going to forget, and by relation we weren't going to ignore the possibility that it could happen again in the near future after the war.

Again, though, that is only TOP's story as relates to the matter, and we were but one piece of the whole that was all the alliances that went to war with Polar in that war. We were far from the only alliance with serious grievances toward Polar, and any perception that it was "TOP's war", persay, are completely incorrect.

Per the terms: I personally did indeed do much of the organizing and presentation. However, there was little to no argument from the others involved, and so it can be assumed that they, too, felt that the terms were fitting for the situation. As such---once again---any attempt to attach all of the responsibility for the affair to TOP would be somewhat misguided.

I'll reiterate again that we are past all of the feelings we had toward Polaris back then; our only concern as relates to your alliance---and this concern is purely born of speculation---is that some in it perhaps might not feel likewise.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Crymson

[SoxNation]

I am sure they do, we have given them no reason not to... Our actions over a protracted period of time show we are constantly working on improving our alliance and our outlook.

""humiliate'' refers to an earlier post (I actually read the threads before typing) where "terms were given to humiliate Polaris''. Whatever the intention of the terms, we completed them in style, they are yesterday's news. This is about now and the future. The next time TOP gives terms will set the bar for these terms, just as these terms set the bar for the last ones.

Change does not occur in a vacuum, every alliance, if it is wise, adapts as the political climate of the world changes. What was acceptable before or even today, may not be so acceptable in the future.

TOP and Polaris is old news, there is nothing new to see here (why are you always looking )

Grub mon Emperor, i've tried to read this thread as much as i can and can probably say i've ready 70% of it or so, but 32 pages, give me a chance homie!

[AlmightyGrub]

To be fair, that war occurred because of major grievances we had against Polar, and the terms that were presented were---from our perspective---never intended to humiliate Polar, but rather to ensure that Polar would not be a threat to us for some time afterward. We had seen Polar as the major threat to us for a long time before the war; indeed, defending ourselves from Polaris comprised much of the focus of our foreign policy for quite awhile. The animosity leading up to that war stretched back quite some time, and it was exacerbated on many occasions by what we felt to be clearly hostile behavior on the part of Polaris. Such had quieted down after the departure of Electron Sponge, but the many months of threats and schemes weren't something that we were going to forget, and by relation we weren't going to ignore the possibility that it could happen again in the near future after the war.

Again, though, that is only TOP's story as relates to the matter, and we were but one piece of the whole that was all the alliances that went to war with Polar in that war. We were far from the only alliance with serious grievances toward Polar, and any perception that it was "TOP's war", persay, are completely incorrect.

Per the terms: I personally did indeed do much of the organizing and presentation. However, there was little to no argument from the others involved, and so it can be assumed that they, too, felt that the terms were fitting for the situation. As such---once again---any attempt to attach all of the responsibility for the affair to TOP would be somewhat misguided.

I'll reiterate again that we are past all of the feelings we had toward Polaris back then; our only concern as relates to your alliance---and this concern is purely born of speculation---is that some in it perhaps might not feel likewise.

I have never apportioned responsibility for the terms to TOP solely. I recognize you as the lead negotiator and some of the terms were definitely not motivated by TOP.

As for how we feel about TOP, both alliances need to be careful that their respective levels of paranoia don't build to unmanageable levels. Publicly, privately or even secretly, I don't wish any ill-will to TOP and I don't plan to add it to my agenda or that of the alliance I lead. I will never suggest that I am not disappointed with actions of every alliance from time to time, as I am sure others are with me, but that does not need to develop into a blood feud.

[Crymson]

As for how we feel about TOP, both alliances need to be careful that their respective levels of paranoia don't build to unmanageable levels.

Aye, that sounds to me like a good idea.

[FreddieMercury]

Despite the pages of this being said, I'll say it any way, because it might make me feel important. The issue is not TOP's decision to give white peace. TOP have as much right to give white peace as we have to ask for reparations. The issue is the manner in which TOP conducted themselves in making the stand for white peace, and even that has been blown well out of proportion. The simple solution to this is TOP give Echelon white peace, and we demand reps, and both sides respect the others stance. Simple, yes?

Ha. Boils down to "Don't baw when we act all dickery and stuff okay?" It's almost funny you attack TOP for standing up for their principles. Hey, from what I've been hearing you may have to criticize some of your other brothers in arms for having some kind of a moral backbone.

[Xiphosis]

I'm sorry, but your last line tells the tale on why you were part of the Hegemony. Just like all of SF were. You had a high level treaty with each other and with members of Q

SF doesn't chain, by the by. If, say, my VE treaty was activated and I was never hit, I'd have to bring it to a vote in SF to formally bring in the bloc. It'd have to be majority. It's considered an offensive war under the terms of our treaty. That said, typically, we've just used the clause that allows for optional assistance without a vote and skipped the formalities. I think the blocs only been activated for two wars - Illuminati and UJW.

But yes. You're correct. We were a part of the Hegemony, no rewriting history here. The difference is in the methods. The things done by Echelon, IRON, Valhalla, TPF and folks like that pushed us, and the others we're fighting with, away from Q. The threats we received directly both to ourselves and our allies, the attempts to coerce us into expelling people, canceling on people, and false allegations backed up with muscle instead of fact all pushed SF to the side we're on.

MCXA forcing CSN to vote in one of it's members into the Maroon senate, specifically, started a ton of resentment in our sphere for Q where there was previous indifference - even though when they figured out how badly they'd erred they fixed it fairly quickly. You can only put so much tension on wire before it snaps.

[Mixoux]

Ha. Boils down to "Don't baw when we act all dickery and stuff okay?" It's almost funny you attack TOP for standing up for their principles. Hey, from what I've been hearing you may have to criticize some of your other brothers in arms for having some kind of a moral backbone.

Not sure if you read his post, as it basically said the opposite of what you just accused him of?

[NoFish]

Ha. Boils down to "Don't baw when we act all dickery and stuff okay?" It's almost funny you attack TOP for standing up for their principles. Hey, from what I've been hearing you may have to criticize some of your other brothers in arms for having some kind of a moral backbone.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. We have no qualms with TOP for acting on their principles and, in fact, would probably have thought poorly of them if they had decided to ask for reps for themselves given their manner of entrance and limited scope of engagement. We understand that mistakes were made due to poor communication between the parties involved that led to TOP feeling slighted - though unintentionally. It's unfortunate that they decided to walk out on discussions, sue for peace separately, and call us out on the forums while doing so, as I think a more elegant solution could probably have been reached if they had talked over their problems with us in private. Alas, this is not what happened and the solution that was reached may well be the best for all involved: TOP got their white peace and we got to press for the terms we felt Echelon deserved.

To say that we have objections with TOP - or anyone else - for "having some kind of moral backbone" is simply absurd.

[Vol Navy]

SF doesn't chain, by the by. If, say, my VE treaty was activated and I was never hit, I'd have to bring it to a vote in SF to formally bring in the bloc. It'd have to be majority. It's considered an offensive war under the terms of our treaty. That said, typically, we've just used the clause that allows for optional assistance without a vote and skipped the formalities. I think the blocs only been activated for two wars - Illuminati and UJW.

But yes. You're correct. We were a part of the Hegemony, no rewriting history here. The difference is in the methods. The things done by Echelon, IRON, Valhalla, TPF and folks like that pushed us, and the others we're fighting with, away from Q. The threats we received directly both to ourselves and our allies, the attempts to coerce us into expelling people, canceling on people, and false allegations backed up with muscle instead of fact all pushed SF to the side we're on.

MCXA forcing CSN to vote in one of it's members into the Maroon senate, specifically, started a ton of resentment in our sphere for Q where there was previous indifference - even though when they figured out how badly they'd erred they fixed it fairly quickly. You can only put so much tension on wire before it snaps.

Thanks for admitting you are/were Hegemony. I do disagree with the implication that SF somehow shares less guilt than the alliances you specifically mentioned. SF rolled to war in the GPA conflict in Hegemony support and did the same vs Polaris. SF by it's ties and treaties lent it's diplomatic and military power to the Hegemony and it's actions for a long time.

You did choose to leave some of the alliances a few weeks before the war broke out. I will personally always suspect that many who dropped those ties were simply getting out of town ahead of the mob.

Just from reading this thread, SF appears to still follow the Hegemony path in regards to terms/reps. That is your right. Just like it's Cit's right to go in a different direction. Yet they are the ones called out in multiple threads. I don't really understand that as harsh reps were one of the biggest complaints about the Hegemony.

As to chaining, I read that SF was a MADP bloc. Which from all I understand about Bob and treaties means if one signatory goes to war, be it agressive or defensive, all go to war. If that isn't the case and a vote is required to enter an agressive war the Wiki should be edited as it's not a MADP, it's a MDoAP.

[Big Z]

SF rolled to war in the GPA conflict in Hegemony support

No, we didn't. Check up on your history. We never gave any declaration of support nor did any SF signatory declare war on GPA.

[CptGodzilla]

I feel it's worth noting that TOP does not have a set policy regarding reparations or surrender terms in general. The terms that we feel are appropriate are largely dependant on the specific situation at hand. In this case, we didn't feel that imposing terms were merited given Echelon's past behaviour and the current state of their nations. Hence the white peace.

The Polar war was a very different scenario with different motives involved. The fact that the terms presented then are different to those presented today reflects the change in scenario rather than policy. I'd also like to note that while we were perhaps the most active in organising the peace-terms, the end product was a collaboration of all the alliances involved in the talks and therefore not necessarily representative of any single alliance's desires.

So you're basically saying that outside environment effects what you dictate as terms. ex. most alliances are getting white peace, so you feel the need to give white peace

[Crymson]

So you're basically saying that outside environment effects what you dictate as terms. ex. most alliances are getting white peace, so you feel the need to give white peace

That's not at all what he said; rather, he said that our decision on what terms we feel are appropriate for any given situation will depend on the circumstances inherent to that situation. Thus, by relation, different circumstances will produce different opinions on our end as to what terms we feel are fitting.

[Xiphosis]

SF by it's ties and treaties lent it's diplomatic and military power to the Hegemony and it's actions for a long time.

The entire world did; it's the definition of a Hegemony.

[R&R-Viking]

I don't really understand that as harsh reps were one of the biggest complaints about the Hegemony.

I think reps pale in comparison to things such as spying when you say spying is bad, forced ejection, eternal ZI, closing of a color sphere etc etc.

[HeinousOne]

That's not at all what he said; rather, he said that our decision on what terms we feel are appropriate for any given situation will depend on the circumstances inherent to that situation. Thus, by relation, different circumstances will produce different opinions on our end as to what terms we feel are fitting.

And of course you would feel those of BLEU that you fought against deserved much greater reps to pay then those you had stood beside for years just prior to the war. It makes sense.

[enderland]

And of course you would feel those of BLEU that you fought against deserved much greater reps to pay then those you had stood beside for years just prior to the war. It makes sense.

TOP and NpO were not exactly best of buds before that war.

[HeinousOne]

TOP and NpO were not exactly best of buds before that war.

Yes I realize that. Just like how some of those desiring higher reps in this war are not the best of buds with those they are fighting. That isnt the case this time with TOP though is it?

[Darth Sexy]

No, we didn't. Check up on your history. We never gave any declaration of support nor did any SF signatory declare war on GPA.

Yeah, I don't remember fighting GPA. I do remember thinking it was absurd, however. I'm also having a good laugh at the idea of us being key Hegemony members, given I've been on the receiving end of a few NPO beat downs over the years.

[x Tela x]

Yes I realize that. Just like how some of those desiring higher reps in this war are not the best of buds with those they are fighting. That isnt the case this time with TOP though is it?

That is precisely the case. The animosity between Echelon and TOP goes back to Echelon's time in BLEU, I believe. About the only thing that may soften that on both sides is the fact that a handful of former Echelonians left in (mostly) good standing, and are now TOP members. I really doubt that had anything to do with TOP's decision as far as the lack of reps go, but it may help pave the way for improved relations down the road.

[Dr. Dan]

That is precisely the case. The animosity between Echelon and TOP goes back to Echelon's time in BLEU, I believe. About the only thing that may soften that on both sides is the fact that a handful of former Echelonians left in (mostly) good standing, and are now TOP members. I really doubt that had anything to do with TOP's decision as far as the lack of reps go, but it may help pave the way for improved relations down the road.

Those leaving members only served to hurt the relationship more, actually. There were a few interesting moments prior to this war that I can recall (right, DeathAngel? ).

The lack of reparations has been the result of a gradual change in our mindset, I believe, even if others in my alliance won't admit it.

[Neo Anglia]

That is precisely the case. The animosity between Echelon and TOP goes back to Echelon's time in BLEU, I believe. About the only thing that may soften that on both sides is the fact that a handful of former Echelonians left in (mostly) good standing, and are now TOP members. I really doubt that had anything to do with TOP's decision as far as the lack of reps go, but it may help pave the way for improved relations down the road.

STOOOP!!! U R revealing the top sekrit takeover planz! Edited June 3, 2009 by Neo Anglia

[Death666Angel]

Those leaving members only served to hurt the relationship more, actually. There were a few interesting moments prior to this war that I can recall (right, DeathAngel? ).

I do love drunken diplomacy occasionally . Still wonder how that didn't get me fired from Echelon and ZI'd by you guys ! Good times were had :lol:.

[CptGodzilla]

The lack of reparations has been the result of a gradual change in our mindset, I believe, even if others in my alliance won't admit it.

So you're basically saying that outside environment effects what you dictate as terms. ex. most alliances are getting white peace, so you feel the need to give white peace

This gets more and more relevant. Was it the external environment that dictated these "changes in mindset." There is no way that you would feel that reparations were even before this whole Karma war thing.

[x Tela x]

I do love drunken diplomacy occasionally . Still wonder how that didn't get me fired from Echelon and ZI'd by you guys ! Good times were had :lol:.

NEVER trust a drunk German. I swear, they drink some crazy stuff over there. I've never met a "tipsy" German. They're either sober or fit shaced.

Wait, does that make me a bigot? All Germans are drunks?