Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[Nizzle]

They didn't. NPO and TORN did. Echelon entered on the side of the attacker, thus they were partaking in an offensive military operation.

If you check their DoW you'll even see that they acknowledge NPO's war was offensive.

To satisfy that you would have to change the meaning of "defense".

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Unbelievably well phrased declaration Grub.

Now lets watch the community pick it apart. But I greatly appreciate it for what it is. I have a great respect for you and the moral fibers on which you stand.

[D34th]

They didn't. NPO and TORN did. Echelon entered on the side of the attacker, thus they were partaking in an offensive military operation.

If you check their DoW you'll even see that they acknowledge NPO's war was offensive.

Thanks god!

Now tell me how defend an ally who initiated an offensive military operation is the same of this:

8. Echelon admits that it started the war and that it was defeated soundly, and hereby surrenders to the collective might assembled.

Are you sure that Echelon started the war or this is just a great lie?

[Stumpy Jung Il]

To satisfy that you would have to change the meaning of "defense".

Not really, he has a point. NPO was in fact on the offensive and activated defensive agreements. I was under the impression that protocol was now that treaties dont chain like that and thats what oA's were for. Either way, I wouldn't say Echelon started this war, but their MADP partner did and they were obligated to join them offensively either way.

[Lord Brendan]

I disagree - unless "firing the first shot" is just a phrase as I think a prime example just went around where had the TDO attacked the NSO for violating it's sovereignty, it'd have been the defender, not the aggressor.

I hate using the term 'aggressor' because it suggests that the offensively-engaged party is in the wrong. I do believe that an aggressive war can be justified, like in your example. But I still think TDO would be the 'aggressor' if that war had happened.

[Israfeel]

They didn't. NPO and TORN did. Echelon entered on the side of the attacker, thus they were partaking in an offensive military operation.

If you check their DoW you'll even see that they acknowledge NPO's war was offensive.

Echelon came in when alliances that were not allied to the originally attacked, thus having no connection, decided to attack the NPO. That activates a defensive agreement.

[Lord Brendan]

Thanks god!

Now tell me how defend an ally who initiated an offensive military operation is the same of this:

Are you sure that Echelon started the war or this is just a great lie?

Some exceptionally smart fellow already answered this, I'll just quote him.

I'll agree with you that it was stupid term and poorly written. However I believe the intent was to convey that it was Echelon that sought out GOD (etc) as a target, not the other way around. I don't think anyone was purposely trying to suggest that Echelon somehow started the overall Karma War, although I admit it looks like that - as I said, I think it was poorly written.

[D34th]

Not really, he has a point. NPO was in fact on the offensive and activated defensive agreements. I was under the impression that protocol was now that treaties dont chain like that and thats what oA's were for. Either way, I wouldn't say Echelon started this war, but their MADP partner did and they were obligated to join them offensively either way.

No really, the protocol is: All defense treaties do chain, unless a non-chaining clause is specified.

Some exceptionally smart fellow already answered this, I'll just quote him.

While you call it "poorly written", most of people usually call it lie.

Edited July 7, 2009 by D34th

[Tygaland]

Dear Tyga, /ooc/ your avatar is very cute. /ooc/ Also no one seems to also remember the white peaces during the time of Hegemony, Regards.

Maybe because those very few were buried under tonnes of ridiculously harsh and vindictive terms. Whereas Karma has a pretty solid record so far for white peace and light terms. Even when it is to their greater detriment. Keep spinning.

[Tygaland]

What has Pacifica done to be treated so well, when they won't even accept their punishment?

As someone who felt their wrath for years, I feel your stance on letting Pacifica off so easily is wrong. They haven't changed at all. They need to pay, and maybe then they will change. I've still never received an apology from even the lowest of the low on the Pacifican heirarchy for over 2 years of EZI.

Anyway, I called this when Frostbite formed. I feel smart now.

What does Grub's opinion have to do with Frostbite?

[Gofastleft]

So you admit R&R had to do such yet with Echelon we saw R&R ask for a whopping......1 tech.

Learn to use better examples.

For the 3rd time in the 3rd different thread, R&R did not seek reps from Echelon because even though they declared on us we never had any wars with them. R&R did give UPN and FEAR white peace in this war because they were solely fighting because of a treaty and had not been part of the problem in the past. Echelon has used her allies to bully other people for a few years and deserve the terms they were given.

[R&R-Viking]

For the 3rd time in the 3rd different thread, R&R did not seek reps from Echelon because even though they declared on us we never had any wars with them. R&R did give UPN and FEAR white peace in this war because they were solely fighting because of a treaty and had not been part of the problem in the past. Echelon has used her allies to bully other people for a few years and deserve the terms they were given.

You didn't even need to reply to that GFL, why he connected my anecdotal experiences in this game to present day R&R is beyond me.

[Lord Brendan]

No really the protocol is: All defense treaties do chain, unless a non-chaining clause is specified.

While this is called "poorly written" by you, most of people usually call it lie.

I don't believe it to be a lie. Unnecessary and confusing, yes, but not a lie.

8. Echelon admits that it started the war and that it was defeated soundly, and hereby surrenders to the collective might assembled.

Note that it doesn't say "Echelon started the Karma War", it says "the war", as in "the Echelon vs GOD, MA, RIA, etc War".

[AlmightyGrub]

Maybe because those very few were buried under tonnes of ridiculously harsh and vindictive terms. Whereas Karma has a pretty solid record so far for white peace and light terms. Even when it is to their greater detriment. Keep spinning.

In many cases one could argue that terms were incredibly generous. In some cases they were probably pretty fair, however in other ''random' cases they have not be proportionate to the ''crime''. Some alliances have handled their responsibilities with care and diligence, others have possibly not fully understood their role in the machine. There is little actual equity in the terms presented so far.

In the case of the NPO, the penalties seem fine, fair and in line with the allegations, however the concept of surrendering to continue war is far from conventional and well outside the realms of even common practice and they set a precedent that is dangerous as we move forwards.

[Ivan Moldavi]

Such a great statement. Unfortunately it seems to be going unheeded by many in this thread.

[Delta1212]

Not unlike yourself my friend. Rather than address a single concept you choose to attack me and what I do or don't do, well done.

You called out my friends, associates and myself. I just returned the favor. I figure it didn't deserve its own topic and this one worked well enough for the purpose. At least I didn't have to resort to snappy one-liners against random people to boost myself up. Besides, we've had pages and pages spanning dozens of topics arguing the finer points of everything you complained about in the OP. I find the structure, intent and value of the topic much more interesting than the talking points and humorously transparent rhetoric you managed to cram into it.

As a propaganda piece, it's excellently done if part of what I consider to be a relatively weak strategy. The timing is good. Everyone knew the Echelon terms would cause something of an uproar, just like every other set of terms for the past month. It gives you an excellent springboard to use and ride on top of a fresh wave of public argument mudslinging. You start off with a recap of the all the trials and hardships you've been through in the past year to make sure everyone knows that have the moral high ground and more perspective than the blockheads currently screwing up the world. Express your indignation with the way Karma has behaved. Throw in an Orwell reference as a high-brow version of "as bad as the Hegemony" to keep from appearing trite without going off message. Sprinkle in a health dose of hypocrisy accusations (a real crowd pleaser that one). One of my favorite lines "The irregularity in many of the alliance surrender terms has been the subject of much debate and justification but I will call it simply as the single most corrupt and arbitary arrangements I have ever witnessed on this planet." just because of how absolutely stupid you'd have to be not see recognize that this whole thing is a shoddy piece of propaganda upon reading that. Stir until smooth and then cover with a thick layer of concern for the well-being of the community. Sit back and wait for the people to turn away from Karma and look to you as the new beacon of justice and morality.

I mean, seriously? I'm supposed to address that? I'll pass, thank you.

[Waterana]

Anyone who thinks Frostbite, or even Polar alone for that matter, are defending the NPO here needs a reality check. All 4 alliances in that bloc don't like us. Will go so far to say at least 2 despise us. The fact there are some ex Pacificans within those alliances doesn't automatically mean they are in any way sympathetic to what is happening to NPO now. Again, take off the tin foil hats people.

I read the OP as Grub calling out some Karma alliances and carpeting them for their actions in relation to the stated ideals of what Karma was supposed to stand for. He is free to correct me if I'm wrong on that. The Frostbite alliance members I've seen posting in this thread are, mostly, making the same arguments.

[Xiphosis]

I must say, I am loving t he discord being spread throughout this game right now.

Same, reminds me of better times since past. Needs more Mario avatars though.

[Heracles the Great]

Not really, he has a point. NPO was in fact on the offensive and activated defensive agreements. I was under the impression that protocol was now that treaties dont chain like that and thats what oA's were for. Either way, I wouldn't say Echelon started this war, but their MADP partner did and they were obligated to join them offensively either way.

Actually they're typically optional defense clauses that are activated as most treaties are worded that they're Mandatory defense unless a signatory is the agressor, at which point they become optional.

For it to be an optional aggression being implemented, they would have to be attacking the original target in a joint effort with the original attackers. In this scenario (iirc) Echelon attacked those who attacked the NPO - therefore they entered on an optional defense clause.

[Goddess jess]

Woah, I'm glad I read that.

Even though I only know fragments about the past and present situation of CN it was truly a great statement.

[Ivan Moldavi]

Anyone who thinks Frostbite, or even Polar alone for that matter, are defending the NPO here needs a reality check. All 4 alliances in that bloc don't like us. Will go so far to say at least 2 despise us. The fact there are some ex Pacificans within those alliances doesn't automatically mean they are in any way sympathetic to what is happening to NPO now. Again, take off the tin foil hats people.

I read the OP as Grub calling out some Karma alliances and them for their actions in relation to the stated ideals of what Karma was supposed to stand for. He is free to correct me if I'm wrong on that. The Frostbite alliance members I've seen posting in this thread are, mostly, making the same arguments.

Just to clarify, I, and by automatic extension the NSO, have never stated a dislike for the NPO.

[D34th]

I don't believe it to be a lie. Unnecessary and confusing, yes, but not a lie.

lie

1  /laɪ/ Pronunciation [lahy] noun, verb, lied, ly⋅ing.

–noun

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

3. an inaccurate or false statement.

4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

Note that it doesn't say "Echelon started the Karma War", it says "the war", as in "the Echelon vs GOD, MA, RIA, etc War".

Even this line of logic is flawed, because it try make people think that is an offensive act when they were just honoring a treaty.

[Heracles the Great]

I hate using the term 'aggressor' because it suggests that the offensively-engaged party is in the wrong. I do believe that an aggressive war can be justified, like in your example. But I still think TDO would be the 'aggressor' if that war had happened.

Well tbh - the NSO was the aggressor by the actions they took - just because they didn't fire a shot militarily, they still were the aggressors

[R&R-Viking]

You called out my friends, associates and myself. I just returned the favor. I figure it didn't deserve its own topic and this one worked well enough for the purpose. At least I didn't have to resort to snappy one-liners against random people to boost myself up. Besides, we've had pages and pages spanning dozens of topics arguing the finer points of everything you complained about in the OP. I find the structure, intent and value of the topic much more interesting than the talking points and humorously transparent rhetoric you managed to cram into it.

As a propaganda piece, it's excellently done if part of what I consider to be a relatively weak strategy. The timing is good. Everyone knew the Echelon terms would cause something of an uproar, just like every other set of terms for the past month. It gives you an excellent springboard to use and ride on top of a fresh wave of public argument mudslinging. You start off with a recap of the all the trials and hardships you've been through in the past year to make sure everyone knows that have the moral high ground and more perspective than the blockheads currently screwing up the world. Express your indignation with the way Karma has behaved. Throw in an Orwell reference as a high-brow version of "as bad as the Hegemony" to keep from appearing trite without going off message. Sprinkle in a health dose of hypocrisy accusations (a real crowd pleaser that one). One of my favorite lines "The irregularity in many of the alliance surrender terms has been the subject of much debate and justification but I will call it simply as the single most corrupt and arbitary arrangements I have ever witnessed on this planet." just because of how absolutely stupid you'd have to be not see recognize that this whole thing is a shoddy piece of propaganda upon reading that. Stir until smooth and then cover with a thick layer of concern for the well-being of the community. Sit back and wait for the people to turn away from Karma and look to you as the new beacon of justice and morality.

I mean, seriously? I'm supposed to address that? I'll pass, thank you.

This is awesome. Honesty will get you nowhere, though, these people aren't interested in it.

V see? lies

Edited July 7, 2009 by Viking

[muffasamini]

Woah, I'm glad I read that.

Even though I only know fragments about the past and present situation of CN it was truly a great statement.

Protip: Whatever you hear is a lie spun out of proportion and over-dramatic, but its the only way to get heard here.

Edit: corrected

Edited July 7, 2009 by muffasamini