Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[wandmdave]

Also where was the moral outrage when NSO recruited from neutrals? Could it have something to do with the fact that criticizing a block mate was not politically advisable?

Soap box morality, you'll always be my favorite!!

[HeinousOne]

I don't hate you, I don't think anyone in NPO hates you. You seem to really dislike us, but the feeling isn't mutual.

Go ask DarkMistress what she thinks. You obviously did not poll her when you were figuring this out. I could go on but that was the most recent to admit such. This is not a gripe but a simple truth.

The New Polar Order fought on the side of Karma, albeit on a minor front.

That makes two.

They fought besides their close friends in STA. It really had nothing to do with Karma.

What would you consider "reasonable" terms?

To not set a precedent as for telling a surrendering alliance to tell their members to accept more punishment After surrendering, how about that for one? That really needs to not become a regular accepted practice. Considering how many alliances are fighting NPO and thus would be directly agreeing to such, it would be a very dangerous precedent set down.

Also where was the moral outrage when NSO recruited from neutrals? Could it have something to do with the fact that criticizing a block mate was not politically advisable?

Soap box morality, you'll always be my favorite!!

Oh they got an earful. They were also criticized. Your attempt to portray that such did not happen is the epitome of ignorance. Congratulations on that achievement.

Edited July 7, 2009 by HeinousOne

[AbysmalPea]

Also where was the moral outrage when NSO recruited from neutrals? Could it have something to do with the fact that criticizing a block mate was not politically advisable?

Soap box morality, you'll always be my favorite!!

Where was the moral outrage when Sparta joined the NPO in several wars? Could it have something to with the fact that criticizing a block mate was not politically advisable?

Soap box morality, you'll always be my favorite!!

[AlmightyGrub]

Also where was the moral outrage when NSO recruited from neutrals? Could it have something to do with the fact that criticizing a block mate was not politically advisable?

Soap box morality, you'll always be my favorite!!

Did you actually read my post in that thread? I didn't think so

[Deadshot]

Perhaps a better wording might be "started war on that front", because I'm sure you realize that this war had multiple "fronts", in which different alliances banded together in a wartime coalition to fight certain alliances.

Echelon had a choice, to DOW or not to DOW. If they chose not to DOW, they would not be in this position now. I am sure many alliances would be looking for a chance to roll them, but they would not have been attacked this war.

Instead Echelon chose to DOW many alliances, including some whom they had a history of agression against, and bad history with. Echelon started their war against those alliances by their own actions.

The fact that you refuse to see this makes me think you are too blind in your hatred of Karma to have any useful opinion regarding this war.

Using this logic then, MK had a choice on whether or not to DoW on ML and OR in the Coalition war and since they chose to do so, they in essence started the war. Now, this is why Echelon is receiving harsh terms yes, for starting the war? Then MK had no right complaining about their terms for starting the war on their front. You can't claim one side started the war in such a way without placing the blame on all the others throught the history the same way.

/I dont have any issue with MK.

[Ivan Moldavi]

Also where was the moral outrage when NSO recruited from neutrals? Could it have something to do with the fact that criticizing a block mate was not politically advisable?

Soap box morality, you'll always be my favorite!!

If you have a moment I would like it if you could PM me your own personal views of the "morality" of open and free recruitment. To date no one has been able to effectively make the point that such an act was actually unethical or immoral without pointing out their own hypocrisy.

Feel free to carry on.

[Merrie Melodies]

Thats what happens when you spy on an ally. They realize you werent actually a friend to begin with. Perhaps next time you should treat your allies like friends instead of like pawns and they'll stick by you.

Are you some kind of expert when comes to spying on allies?

[Matthew Conrad]

Are you some kind of expert when comes to spying on allies?

Yes because this is obviously inferred from the quoted post. I applaud your comprehensive skills.

[Caliph]

Using this logic then, MK had a choice on whether or not to DoW on ML and OR in the Coalition war and since they chose to do so, they in essence started the war. Now, this is why Echelon is receiving harsh terms yes, for starting the war? Then MK had no right complaining about their terms for starting the war on their front. You can't claim one side started the war in such a way without placing the blame on all the others throught the history the same way.

/I dont have any issue with MK.

MK never once, to my knowledge, complained about the reps.

I haven't seen Echelon really complain en masse here either.

So far they are manning up to their decision to accept terms.

[Merrie Melodies]

Yes because this is obviously inferred from the quoted post. I applaud your comprehensive skills.

Wow didnt know I was replying to you

[bigwoody]

Yes because this is obviously inferred from the quoted post. I applaud your comprehensive skills.

(Couldn't help myself, carry on as you were, thanks for the good reading material Grub)

[Matthew Conrad]

Wow didnt know I was replying to you

I didn't realize this forum was exclusive to you.

[Caliph]

If you have a moment I would like it if you could PM me your own personal views of the "morality" of open and free recruitment. To date no one has been able to effectively make the point that such an act was actually unethical or immoral without pointing out their own hypocrisy.

Feel free to carry on.

If you would be so kind, I would appreciate a PM as well. I am sure it will be an interesting read.

[Deadshot]

MK never once, to my knowledge, complained about the reps.

I haven't seen Echelon really complain en masse here either.

So far they are manning up to their decision to accept terms.

And I like your style for it. While there are terms given to Echelon that I personally hate, they did in fact agree to them.

[Azhrarn]

Thats because it attempts to remove your guilt for the crimes you and your bloc committed in the karma war. You are the hegemony now and you are crushing all potential future opposition, handing out draconian terms and banning people from serving in the governments of other alliances. I love the way you guys are still trying to blame the name of your bloc for the crimes you are committing like its out of your hands.

This is a shining example of a failed argument. 1) Karma won't even exist after this war. It has 0 chance of becoming a new hegemony. 2) The vast majority of the alliances fighting Karma were given White Peace. So much for destroying all future opposition.

[Trinite]

Where was the moral outrage when Sparta joined the NPO in several wars? Could it have something to with the fact that criticizing a block mate was not politically advisable?

Soap box morality, you'll always be my favorite!!

We realize the part we played, minor though it was, in many things we aren't proud of. Do we make self-righteous Spartan decrees in Alliance Announcements about how others should act? No. I'm not entirely sure why this thread was made. Maybe Grub really does just have the interest of the future in mind. I'm not going to say he's doesn't believe what he's saying. I think a lot of people feel the way he does. I will however say that he had to know this would be seen as a slap in the face to all of those in peace negotiations. This looks a lot more to me about jockeying for post war position than creating any brave new world. It's not an easy time in negotiations with 19 less than level headed parties barely at the table, and having uninvolved alliances trying to make PR stunts out of the situation helps nothing. There were about 15 other threads where Grub could have made his position clear. This was an unnecessary and unhelpful trip up on to a high horse.

Perhaps burying:

For those looking for a position on this matter from Polaris, I will discuss the matter with my Council, we will then move a motion to the Body Republic. If the motion is supported by the Body Republic, we will discuss matters arising and we shall then call for a vote on the matter from the entire alliance. If it passes by a 2/3 majority we shall consider that we have an opinion. Once we have said opinion I will return with great haste to these forums and I shall express the opinion in verbose and obtuse terms and then and only then shall the matter be clear.

Spare me the drama, this is a non-starter people.

NPO takes the piss, Everyone bites hard, Karma bites harder = ZZZZZZ for Grub. Karma is a very naughty alliance who will be confined to the corner without any supper. Happy now? No supper is pretty damn harsh I think.

in one of the million threads about this would have been a better response.

[Tygaland]

This is a shining example of a failed argument. 1) Karma won't even exist after this war. It has 0 chance of becoming a new hegemony. 2) The vast majority of the alliances fighting Karma were given White Peace. So much for destroying all future opposition.

Alterego already knows this, he just keeps posting the same dribble in every thread.

Like walking across the grass at a park that allows dogs, you navigate the forum here with an eye out for turds and step around them. Alterego's posts on this topic are the ones to step around rather than step in.

[KingSuck]

Are you some kind of expert when comes to spying on allies?

pfff, sparta don't spy on their allies. they pay other people to spy on their allies for them

Also I've seen an argument bandied about a lot recently that goes along the lines of "Karma is not bad for giving NPO harsh terms because we gave light terms to other alliances" and it's just !@#$%^&*. Karma is just a loose bunch of alliances only connected by their side (forgive me if that's wrong, the definition seems to change a lot). I think it's pretty obvious that the alliances inside Karma have very different views on peace terms (just read any peace mode topic). Just because someone on your side, who you're probably not even connected to, gave light peace terms, does not make your alliance any better.

[muffasamini]

This is a shining example of a failed argument. 1) Karma won't even exist after this war. It has 0 chance of becoming a new hegemony. 2) The vast majority of the alliances fighting Karma were given White Peace. So much for destroying all future opposition.

Ah, the Karma Web-bot Azhrarn repeats again!

1) It wont stay as a unified bloc, but the ideas and methods it collectively agrees are acceptable now will hold some precedent. 2) Those werent the focus of the war, they were given white peace so you could hone in on the real target. || But really, your technically your right, and I'm aslo right on my side notes, and think everyone knows it. So why keep repeating?

I await your robotic reply stating the same things you stated last time.

Edited July 7, 2009 by muffasamini

[WarriorConcept]

pfff, sparta don't spy on their allies. they pay other people to spy on their allies for them

Also I've seen an argument bandied about a lot recently that goes along the lines of "Karma is not bad for giving NPO harsh terms because we gave light terms to other alliances" and it's just !@#$%^&*. Karma is just a loose bunch of alliances only connected by their side (forgive me if that's wrong, the definition seems to change a lot). I think it's pretty obvious that the alliances inside Karma have very different views on peace terms (just read any peace mode topic). Just because someone on your side, who you're probably not even connected to, gave light peace terms, does not make your alliance any better.

So focus on the alliances you disagree with and not all of Karma then? What do you expect when you label all of Karma hypocrites while most of them have actually given very light terms if not white peace?

[WarriorConcept]

Ah, the Karma Web-bot Azhrarn repeats again!

1) It wont stay as a unified bloc, but the ideas and methods it collectively agrees are acceptable now will hold some precedent. 2) Those werent the focus of the war, they were given white peace so you could hone in on the real target.

I await your robotic reply stating the same things you stated last time.

1. Yes because you've obviously been seeing Citadel, Frostbite, SF, and even CnG agreeing all time recently, right?

2. So MK wasn't the focus of the noCB war? Please, even if what you say is true that they were "honing in on the real target," they could've easily been more harsh they just have better decency than your alliance has ever had.

[Bradicus]

As a very old member of the FCC, and as her current Director of Foreign Affairs, I usually attempt to stay the hell off the OWF, because frankly it's largely nothing but a trollfest and detrimental to true diplomacy between alliances. However, on this matter, I will weigh in.

Any person or persons or spin off group that was either in the NPO or very closely allied to them has absolutely no business crying about any kind of harsh terms. I have had to sit back and watch as many of the allies and friends of the FCC, including NpO and MK and FAN of old, have had to suffer greatly while we could do nothing, all at the hands of NPO manipulation. To squawk and scream that there never was such a thing as a "hegemony" is outright falsehood to anyone with any common sense and eyes to see the brash bullying of the past years. Every major offensive up until this last one, and maybe even then judging by all the ex-NPO in other alliances now attempting to "rally the troops" as it were, has been majorly manipulated by the NPO and her puppets in attempts to keep themselves at the top of the hill. That's not to say that I agree with the terms, but simply stating that those who have been guilty of such behavior in the past really have no place in speaking out against this instance simply because the tables have turned. It stinks of hypocrisy, as well as several other foul stenches I will not go into detail on.

And I want to make one thing clear. I admire their aptitude for being able to claim that position for such a long time. They have been ruthless, bloodthirsty my idols, and I applaud them in their efficiency even as I call them down for being said ruthless, bloodthirsty my idols.

All the FCC has ever wanted for herself and her allies is to live without fear of being randomly beaten down. Neither we, nor to my knowledge any of our allies, have ever really wanted anything but to live without that fear.

The FCC will continue to act in accordance for her safety and that of her allies. To all our friends, both past and present, we hope that you will join us in peace, now that the threat of obliteration for lack of acquiescence is gone. There is no need for a king of this hill called Planet Bob, and the FCC has no interest in bossing people around. We are, at heart, libertarians, and just want to be left alone, much like most anyone else I would assume.

Now, who wants a beer? I'm buying.

[muffasamini]

1. Yes because you've obviously been seeing Citadel, Frostbite, SF, and even CnG agreeing all time recently, right?

2. So MK wasn't the focus of the noCB war? Please, even if what you say is true that they were "honing in on the real target," they could've easily been more harsh they just have better decency than your alliance has ever had.

Well broken tape player...

1. Umm, no, I havent. Your point? All I'm saying is they are setting a precedent for terms here. So you wont be a unified bloc, yall will probably hate each other, but you are at a critical point in which collectively you will state what kind of terms CN should consider appropriate.

2. I have no idea what your talking about. I'm talking about the Karma war, please have your maker record a new tape.

[KingSuck]

So focus on the alliances you disagree with and not all of Karma then? What do you expect when you label all of Karma hypocrites while most of them have actually given very light terms if not white peace?

I don't call all of Karma hypocrites.

[WarriorConcept]

Well broken tape player...

1. Umm, no, I havent. Your point? All I'm saying is they are setting a precedent for terms here. So you wont be a unified bloc, yall will probably hate each other, but you are at a critical point in which collectively you will state what kind of terms CN should consider appropriate.

2. I have no idea what your talking about. I'm talking about the Karma war, please have your maker record a new tape.

1. Just as NPO has set precedents for terrible terms in the past, correct? EZI-ing people, taking over forums, and even installing dictators? Nothing is really decided collectively as a whole by karma now or even from the beginning of the war, it's been done on a front by front basis so your whole argument about karma as a whole being evil is actually moot.

2. Oh right, when you realize a reference to your alliance's own misgivings in the past when in the same situation as the one karma found itself in you just pull the "record a new tape" line. Spare me, if Karma was truly as evil as you all claim to be and "as bad as Hegemony (aka you)" they would've given each and every alliance terrible terms, even those not deemed "the real target."