What in the world is wrong with Planet Bob?

[Delta1212]

Quoting this to ensure it lives on in its original glorious form. I mean I guess these days it's the cool thing to do to tout your involvement in bringing down Pacifica, but I just never realised that coming out and publicly taking credit for working against a MDP partner behind their back while you are allied was something that the general populace of CN approved of. While not what the OP was talking about, this is surely one of the things that is wrong with Planet Bob.

I wasn't planning on attacking NPO. I was assuming you were going to attack me and/or my allies, and I planned on not dying when that happened. Then you did and I didn't, so

[Ragashingo]

No, Raga, you are intentionally skewing my post. I was not complaining about people working in secret to bring others down, of course that is what makes this game fun, all the political manuevering. My point is that anyone making those kinds of admissions before Armageddon would have been torn apart for working against an ally. Even alliances who simply didn't follow their treaties were lambasted for being useless and 'dishonourable'. Think of all the flack ODN copped because they kept finding ways to not fulfil their treaties, let alone actually actively working against a treaty partner. However, since/during Armageddon, it has become clear that things like that don't matter any more. All that matters is whether you did your part to bring down the evil empire. As long as you did, all is forgiven and forgotten. Even the act of rendering your words unbelievable and your treaties meaningless is ok as long as it was done in the pursuit of defeating Pacifica. As for it being a just cause, well, theres no point arguing about that, as neither of us will the convince the other we are right.

There was plenty of treaty ignoring in the Karma War, much too much if you ask me. Everyone pretending they had a suspend clause and all that when none of those treaties were ever meant to be suspended. You NPO guys certainly got wronged in that regard. Your allies should have kept their treaties current with their actual policies and desires.

That said you guys should have know what was obvious to us. That most of your allies were only allies so you wouldn't try and crush them. I myself have only been warning people of that for 2+ years. As for being forgiven. Yeah, for the most part they are. Because what they did in bringing your reign of terror to an end was far more important that the breaking of a few treaties.

[Ragashingo]

Ugh the depths too wich that one line "just cause" irks me is amazing. Honestly, I don't even know why I'm posting this. Its over, your always going to think that it was some grand moral crusade, and I'm always going to know it was just Judases and vipers e-preaching their way to dominance by any means they could. Nothing about 'just cause' or 'morals' or any of that nonsense I know you believe in less than I do, seeing as yall managed to break or commit each 'moral' you could while ramming them down our throat. But dont even respond, I'm not going to defend it. Its an argument we already lost, buts its true, and everyone not full of themselves knows it.

@OP there will always be someone next. You may have to be patient. Give it a couple months, it will happen. FYI, Once Sparta grows a spine and actually stands for something, I'm voting them into the evil costume.

It was a just cause. If you don't think I and many others believe that then you are more out of touch with the CN populace than I thought. Were some things broken? Yeah, a couple, but you're basically using the "you were as bad as us" argument which firstly doesn't paint you in all that great a light and second isn't even true. Show me the forced disbandments, the years of constant war, the viceroys imposed on you, etc and then you'll have a point, but not before.

And someone may be next, but I don't think anyone is going to be as evil as you guys were. Dose that mean I'll have a bit less to crusade against? Yep. But I'm not sad. There will still be plenty for me to do without you guys and your long list of atrocities.

Have fun not responding.

[WorldConqueror]

I have to head out for a little while, but I'll be back in around half an hour to write full replies to Delta's and Raga's posts. In the meantime I'll say:

@Delta: so you signed and held a treaty with us all the while assuming we were going to declare war on you?

@Raga: Sponge said you can't force anyone to disband, and by that same logic we couldn't force a viceroy on anyone either. They chose it.

[Ragashingo]

I have to head out for a little while, but I'll be back in around half an hour to write full replies to Delta's and Raga's posts. In the meantime I'll say:

@Delta: so you signed and held a treaty with us all the while assuming we were going to declare war on you?

@Raga: Sponge said you can't force anyone to disband, and by that same logic we couldn't force a viceroy on anyone either. They chose it.

Do I look like Sponge? No? Then why are you substituting his logic for mine. Besides your argument is besides the point. It doesn't matter if you can or can't force someone, you tried, and beyond that, you still you still did many more bad things than we did. The "you were just as bad as us line" just doesn't fly no matter how you rephrase it.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Ragashingo

[Ryan Greenberg]

I have to head out for a little while, but I'll be back in around half an hour to write full replies to Delta's and Raga's posts. In the meantime I'll say:

@Delta: so you signed and held a treaty with us all the while assuming we were going to declare war on you?

Well, you did do it before. I'm not saying I am anti-NPO, but what I am saying is that, you had teraties with many alliances and eventually declared war on them by using a ridiculus CB. BTW, can we just forget about "then" and shift to "now". I am honestly sick of people talking about how evil the NPO was and how bad their reign was. Can we just get over that and start focusing about the currant situation. I could care less about "then". This is a game and I am looking at the present and the future and not the past.

[Delta1212]

@Delta: so you signed and held a treaty with us all the while assuming we were going to declare war on you?

I actually quite like NPO and have a couple of friends in its government. That said, your allies have an atrocious survival rate that is pretty much only undercut by that of your enemies, so yes, I pretty much always expected that it would wind up being "my turn" at some point or another, a fact that I never actually held against NPO. Realistically, it's difficult to say I was off base considering who would have been on the wrong end of the Karma War had Karma not entered the picture.

You have a terrible track record with allies and it's a fact that isn't lost on people. Half the people allied to you didn't trust you. Probably more considering how the war unfolded, which I consider extremely unfortunate. Unfortunately, it's difficult to argue with that mentality when the apparent message your history delivers, whether intended or not, is "If you ever give me reason to doubt you, I will burn you to the ground, and even if you don't it's a bit of a toss up."

Did I hold onto the treaty too long? Possibly, but then, I'm not the one who launched a war on an alliance their treaty partner would be honor bound to defend and probably get smashed to bits had everything gone according to plan. I'm just the guy that made sure he'd win if his treaty partner attacked him. Is that the best thing an ally can do? Of course not, it implies a fairly substantial lack of trust. But when that attack actually comes, which is the larger breach of trust?

Unlike essentially everyone else, I would have been much more amused by removing the political stranglehold the game was in without a shooting war. Unfortunately, that was not to be and so here we are. Now, I hope and believe NPO leadership will have taken a number of lessons from this experience about how to both select and treat allies. I've known NPO to be very gracious allies at times but this is not strictly always the case, as I pointed out to leadership before the war happened.

I also realize that much of your past has involved allies who you could argue "turned on you first" but even then, how many times do your allies have to turn on you without that happening to literally everyone else on the planet before you start to consider that maybe it isn't some inherent inevitability of allies turning away from each other that is the problem in these situations.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Delta1212

[Ragashingo]

Best post of the night.

I think you just won the coveted Best Post of the Night award. Congrats.

[Shakyr]

Understandable. I'm one of those who doesn't really like the war bit that much. Never got the glee of building something up and then blowing it to bits afterward. Well, OK, there was that time when I was young and had those building toys that I kept..um, let's just say I'm more careful with my stuff now.

Only reason I see war as useful is for cheap land. The problem with that is that you need to destroy infra in order to get said land. Infra is expensive, especially in larger nations, so said war can get very expensive for the nation being attacked.

[Virillus]

I find this entire thread hilarious. For year(s?) the NPO demonized me and chased me around for actively working against them, when in fact that wasn't the truth - I never was.

Now that they have fallen (and let's not beat around the bush, I'm very happy to see it), the NPO finds out that while they were out there chasing ghosts like me, the real enemies were plotting right by their side.

To be honest though, the drama and intrigue since the Unjust War has been a blast, and I'm excited to see "round two." I have no doubt the NPO will be back... Or at least try;)

[WorldConqueror]

Do I look like Sponge? No? Then why are you substituting his logic for mine. Besides your argument is besides the point. It doesn't matter if you can or can't force someone, you tried, and beyond that, you still you still did many more bad things than we did. The "you were just as bad as us line" just doesn't fly no matter how you rephrase it.

OK, good point on the Sponge thing, it was really just the first response that came into my head before I walked out the door. However, I don't see how what I said was saying "you are just as bad as us", in any way, shape or form. You say we did 'bad' things. Well, thats subjective. Out of context, I can see how some of the things we did could be seen as bad. Even in context, I can see how some of those things would look bad to an outsider. However, if you were a Pacifican at the time these things happened, you would see it differently. A lot of people point to viceroys as the most evil thing ever seen in CN. But, to take GATO and The Legion as examples, we had been butting heads with both of them since at least the GPW. The viceroys ended our constant conflicts, stopped the GATO and Legion member nations getting beaten down, and allowed their alliances to grow outside of the anti-NPO box. The viceroys ended a cycle of constant conflict. Is that not a good thing?

Well, you did do it before. I'm not saying I am anti-NPO, but what I am saying is that, you had teraties with many alliances and eventually declared war on them by using a ridiculus CB. BTW, can we just forget about "then" and shift to "now". I am honestly sick of people talking about how evil the NPO was and how bad their reign was. Can we just get over that and start focusing about the currant situation. I could care less about "then". This is a game and I am looking at the present and the future and not the past.

Like who? Care to give examples? The only ones I can think you might be referring to is FAN and the first VE. Well, go read your history. FAN was caught plotting against the NPO, as well as attacking an NPO protectorate, and making a deal with NPO enemies during a global war to ensure other WUT members would take the damage. Sounds pretty justified to me. And VE was a GGA/GOONS deal, it was their CB, but we were treaty bound to support it. So we did. So I see no pattern of attacking allies with "ridiculous CB(s)".

[Haflinger]

Well, you did do it before. I'm not saying I am anti-NPO, but what I am saying is that, you had teraties with many alliances and eventually declared war on them by using a ridiculus CB.

Seriously, this is so old and often-repeated people have come to actually believe it.

Name one.

BTW, can we just forget about "then" and shift to "now". I am honestly sick of people talking about how evil the NPO was and how bad their reign was. Can we just get over that and start focusing about the currant situation. I could care less about "then". This is a game and I am looking at the present and the future and not the past.

Yes, this I would agree with.

One of the biggest problems with this game is the unbelievable resistance to the idea of realignment. There are some people who look for new paths to follow, but so many people - even people who weren't there - seem to want to fight the same old wars over and over again. Boooring. There's gotta be something more interesting than "round two" (actually more like round six) on the horizon.

[WorldConqueror]

I actually quite like NPO and have a couple of friends in its government. That said, your allies have an atrocious survival rate that is pretty much only undercut by that of your enemies, so yes, I pretty much always expected that it would wind up being "my turn" at some point or another, a fact that I never actually held against NPO. Realistically, it's difficult to say I was off base considering who would have been on the wrong end of the Karma War had Karma not entered the picture.

You have a terrible track record with allies and it's a fact that isn't lost on people. Half the people allied to you didn't trust you. Probably more considering how the war unfolded, which I consider extremely unfortunate. Unfortunately, it's difficult to argue with that mentality when the apparent message your history delivers, whether intended or not, is "If you ever give me reason to doubt you, I will burn you to the ground, and even if you don't it's a bit of a toss up."

Did I hold onto the treaty too long? Possibly, but then, I'm not the one who launched a war on an alliance their treaty partner would be honor bound to defend and probably get smashed to bits had everything gone according to plan. I'm just the guy that made sure he'd win if his treaty partner attacked him. Is that the best thing an ally can do? Of course not, it implies a fairly substantial lack of trust. But when that attack actually comes, which is the larger breach of trust?

Unlike essentially everyone else, I would have been much more amused by removing the political stranglehold the game was in without a shooting war. Unfortunately, that was not to be and so here we are. Now, I hope and believe NPO leadership will have taken a number of lessons from this experience about how to both select and treat allies. I've known NPO to be very gracious allies at times but this is not strictly always the case, as I pointed out to leadership before the war happened.

I also realize that much of your past has involved allies who you could argue "turned on you first" but even then, how many times do your allies have to turn on you without that happening to literally everyone else on the planet before you start to consider that maybe it isn't some inherent inevitability of allies turning away from each other that is the problem in these situations.

I don't see how our allies have an atrocious survival rate. If you could give me some examples, that would be good. You say that if there had been no Karma, RIA would have been beaten up alongside its allies (I assume you mean OV and VE). Thats probably true, but with treaty conflicts and spying on the part of OV, there would have been precedent for RIA to declare neutrality, and if you had joined the war, RIA would have been unfortunate collateral damage, rather than a target in its own right. As for having a terrible track record with allies, well I dont think thats true. There are many cases of Pacifica having long and mutually beneficial relationships with other alliances. However, the anti-NPO forces have done an excellent job painting anyone that doesnt want Pacifica dead and buried as puppets, and even after Armageddon this mindset has been so drilled into people that they cant let it go. I mean, just look at the Red Dawn thread, where 3 of 5 signatories are lead by ex-Vox, and yet they are puppets because they want to sign a trade and senate treaty with us. Anyway, I'm getting off the point. Yes, we have acted forcefully to protect ourselves, our interests and our allies. If you don't do that, what point is there to playing?

Possibly the most interesting thing about your post is that you keep talking about plotting while being allied as if you had to be allied to Pacifica. If you always felt we would attack you at some point, why the hell would you ally with us? That doesn't make sense. Unless, of course, you did it to buy a bit of time, get in with the big bad bullies so they wouldnt beat you up. Isnt that what practically all our allies were ridiculed for apparently doing? You may see nothing wrong with that, and I can see how it would be the smart thing to do, certainly. But, is it the honourable thing to do, to prostitute yourself and your alliance by signing a treaty and giving your word to follow that treaty and stand by the other party, when you have no intention of doing so? I mean, in a text based game like this, the deals you make, the treaties you sign, they are your word of honour. So while Ragashingo and obviously others think its ok to break your word of honour in order to acheive your goals (basically the ends justifying the means), I don't agree.

[Andre27]

Why? Peace is boring. I've never enjoyed it.

Looking at some old Grand Global Reports i found this rather enjoyable comic which makes a great summary.

[Francesca]

Now that they have fallen (and let's not beat around the bush, I'm very happy to see it), the NPO finds out that while they were out there chasing ghosts like me, the real enemies were plotting right by their side.

Forgive me, but are you accusing me of plotting against the NPO secretly while their ally in MCXA? Because I made it abundantly clear what my views were on NPO from the very beginning. (If I misinterpreted your comment, I apologise.)

[Essenia]

Forgive me, but are you accusing me of plotting against the NPO secretly while their ally in MCXA? Because I made it abundantly clear what my views were on NPO from the very beginning. (If I misinterpreted your comment, I apologise.)

He's referring to Delta. And while he's correct that Delta and SF were plotting, he's ignoring the fact that NPO was doing the exact same thing.

[WorldConqueror]

Thats bull, essenia. The OV war was not some big plot to attack a treaty partner of ours. If it was, do you think we would have offered 1 week of war for one member of OV? People seem to forget that that offer was rejected by OV.

[Delta1212]

I don't see how our allies have an atrocious survival rate. If you could give me some examples, that would be good. You say that if there had been no Karma, RIA would have been beaten up alongside its allies (I assume you mean OV and VE). Thats probably true, but with treaty conflicts and spying on the part of OV, there would have been precedent for RIA to declare neutrality, and if you had joined the war, RIA would have been unfortunate collateral damage, rather than a target in its own right. As for having a terrible track record with allies, well I dont think thats true. There are many cases of Pacifica having long and mutually beneficial relationships with other alliances. However, the anti-NPO forces have done an excellent job painting anyone that doesnt want Pacifica dead and buried as puppets, and even after Armageddon this mindset has been so drilled into people that they cant let it go. I mean, just look at the Red Dawn thread, where 3 of 5 signatories are lead by ex-Vox, and yet they are puppets because they want to sign a trade and senate treaty with us. Anyway, I'm getting off the point. Yes, we have acted forcefully to protect ourselves, our interests and our allies. If you don't do that, what point is there to playing?

Possibly the most interesting thing about your post is that you keep talking about plotting while being allied as if you had to be allied to Pacifica. If you always felt we would attack you at some point, why the hell would you ally with us? That doesn't make sense. Unless, of course, you did it to buy a bit of time, get in with the big bad bullies so they wouldnt beat you up. Isnt that what practically all our allies were ridiculed for apparently doing? You may see nothing wrong with that, and I can see how it would be the smart thing to do, certainly. But, is it the honourable thing to do, to prostitute yourself and your alliance by signing a treaty and giving your word to follow that treaty and stand by the other party, when you have no intention of doing so? I mean, in a text based game like this, the deals you make, the treaties you sign, they are your word of honour. So while Ragashingo and obviously others think its ok to break your word of honour in order to acheive your goals (basically the ends justifying the means), I don't agree.

Examples:

OoO - NpO MADP: Cancelled to allow NpO to get curbstomped

Drinking Buddies - NpO/GOONS MADP: Cancelled to allow GOONS to get curbstomped - GOONS disbanded

WUT - GOONS/CIS/FAN/Genmay/GGA/\m//MDC/MCXA/NpO/NoR/TOP/TPF/VE MADP:

• VE - curbstomped and disbanded by your allies and you
  
• CIS - curbstomped
  
• FAN - curbstomped and held at war for two years by you and your allies
  
• Genmay - curbstomped and disbanded by your allies
  
• \m/ - curbstomped and disbanded by your allies
  
• NpO - eventually curbstomped by your allies
  
• NoR - reincarnated and then curbstomped and disbanded by your allies
  

STA MDP: Cancelled, curbstomped by your allies

Atlantis MDP: Disbanded under threat from your allies

Illuminati MDP: Cancelled, cancellation period ignored, curbstomped by allies

NoV Protectorate agreement: Cancelled, curbstomped and disbanded by allies

Golden Sabres MADP: Cancelled, curbstomped and disbanded by you and your allies

Sectumsempra - MK MDP: Cancelled, curbstomped by allies, later by you

Genmay MDP - Cancelled, curbstomped and disbanded by allies

There is some overlap because of multiple treaties and so to be fair I'll give a numerical tally of the number of unique former allies that you or those closely tied to you have destroyed or seriously damaged that I have managed to count and record on that list: 13

Even if you go by the case of NPO resisting pressure from alliances like TOP to take down NpO for a long while before acquiescing, that would still leave all of us wondering when it is that we will go from the favored ally to the ally that the favored ally wants dead. People love focusing on NPO as if everything that happened in the Karma War was entirely centered around them. They forget that the Continuum was an entire bloc with a large number of allies whose own track record for attacking people they don't like was fairly well established. Even if NPO itself didn't want my blood, there were most definitely those among its allies who either did not like me or at the very least did not like my close allies, and NPO has a nasty habit of forgetting its obligations to allies that have fallen into extreme unpopularity with its other and/or "more important" allies and allowing, encouraging or even directly aiding in their downfall.

As far as declaring neutrality, are joking? A member of SF gets into a war and I will break treaty obligations if that's the only way I can possibly defend them. That kind of passive attitude is exactly the kind of thing that will lose you the trust of anyone who has come to depend on you. I would go through hell and high water for my bloc and close allies and I expect the same behavior in return. When was the last time NPO joined in a war it knew it would lose in order to defend an ally that needed them again? Because I see a whole list of them up their that could have really used the help. Lecture me on honor when the only losing wars you've ever fought aren't ones you started because you didn't realize you'd lose while your allies have burnt to the ground around you without you once in three years going in to fight for them when they needed you most. It's very easy to provide back up to allies that win. Talk to me again when you're backing up allies that are losing instead of letting them die or helping to kill them yourself.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Delta1212

[Delta1212]

Thats bull, essenia. The OV war was not some big plot to attack a treaty partner of ours. If it was, do you think we would have offered 1 week of war for one member of OV? People seem to forget that that offer was rejected by OV.

No, we offered one week of war for one member of OV and you rejected it. NPO refused to go lower than a ZI sentence.

[Weirdgus]

No, we offered one week of war for one member of OV and you rejected it. NPO refused to go lower than a ZI sentence.

A quote from the original Imperial Decree that contained the declaration of war on OV:

[23:48] <Impero[VE]> <@sethb[OV-DepMoFO]> I will not see OV come to any harm on my behalf

[23:48] <Impero[VE]> ^and seth will do that

[23:54] <Impero[VE]> nevermind, change of plans

[23:54] <Impero[VE]> im sorry.

[23:55] <Impero[VE]> theres no more to discuss

[23:55] <Impero[VE]> the matter should have never been brought up

Did WE reject the terms or did the "other side" end negotiations ?

[Ragashingo]

OK, good point on the Sponge thing, it was really just the first response that came into my head before I walked out the door. However, I don't see how what I said was saying "you are just as bad as us", in any way, shape or form. You say we did 'bad' things. Well, thats subjective. Out of context, I can see how some of the things we did could be seen as bad. Even in context, I can see how some of those things would look bad to an outsider. However, if you were a Pacifican at the time these things happened, you would see it differently. A lot of people point to viceroys as the most evil thing ever seen in CN. But, to take GATO and The Legion as examples, we had been butting heads with both of them since at least the GPW. The viceroys ended our constant conflicts, stopped the GATO and Legion member nations getting beaten down, and allowed their alliances to grow outside of the anti-NPO box. The viceroys ended a cycle of constant conflict. Is that not a good thing?

It's not subjective.

Like I've said before, only the people committing wrongs have to fall back on the "it's subjective" argument to justify their actions. And the Viceroys were most certainly bad things. You and GATO had a long and interesting history and some of the conflict is their fault. But the last war had nothing to do with some nobel desire to end the fighting. If you had been so gracious you wouldn't have declared war over the secret actions of one member that occurred almost a year earlier! And has the conflict with GATO ended for now? Yes. But only because the war and long enslavement of GATO helped the Karma movement knock you guys down. Also please don't forget that your own Emperor apologized for what you guys did to GATO. You don't have to apologize for something if it wasn't wrong.

[Delta1212]

A quote from the original Imperial Decree that contained the declaration of war on OV:

Did WE reject the terms or did the "other side" end negotiations ?

Those logs are from Sunday, April 19th. Talks resumed the next night on April 20th arbitrated by TOP. Talks continued for a full 24 hours after that statement, so that was hardly the end of the negotiations.

[WorldConqueror]

Examples:

OoO - NpO MADP: Cancelled to allow NpO to get curbstomped

Drinking Buddies - NpO/GOONS MADP: Cancelled to allow GOONS to get curbstomped - GOONS disbanded

WUT - GOONS/CIS/FAN/Genmay/GGA/\m//MDC/MCXA/NpO/NoR/TOP/TPF/VE MADP:

• VE - curbstomped and disbanded by your allies and you
  
• CIS - curbstomped
  
• FAN - curbstomped and held at war for two years by you and your allies
  
• Genmay - curbstomped and disbanded by your allies
  
• \m/ - curbstomped and disbanded by your allies
  
• NpO - eventually curbstomped by your allies
  
• NoR - reincarnated and then curbstomped and disbanded by your allies
  

STA MDP: Cancelled, curbstomped by your allies

Atlantis MDP: Disbanded under threat from your allies

Illuminati MDP: Cancelled, cancellation period ignored, curbstomped by allies

NoV Protectorate agreement: Cancelled, curbstomped and disbanded by allies

Golden Sabres MADP: Cancelled, curbstomped and disbanded by you and your allies

Sectumsempra - MK MDP: Cancelled, curbstomped by allies, later by you

Genmay MDP - Cancelled, curbstomped and disbanded by allies

There is some overlap because of multiple treaties and so to be fair I'll give a numerical tally of the number of unique former allies that you or those closely tied to you have destroyed or seriously damaged that I have managed to count and record on that list: 13

Even if you go by the case of NPO resisting pressure from alliances like TOP to take down NpO for a long while before acquiescing, that would still leave all of us wondering when it is that we will go from the favored ally to the ally that the favored ally wants dead. People love focusing on NPO as if everything that happened in the Karma War was entirely centered around them. They forget that the Continuum was an entire bloc with a large number of allies whose own track record for attacking people they don't like was fairly well established. Even if NPO itself didn't want my blood, there were most definitely those among its allies who either did not like me or at the very least did not like my close allies, and NPO has a nasty habit of forgetting its obligations to allies that have fallen into extreme unpopularity with its other and/or "more important" allies and allowing, encouraging or even directly aiding in their downfall.

As far as declaring neutrality, are joking? A member of SF gets into a war and I will break treaty obligations if that's the only way I can possibly defend them. That kind of passive attitude is exactly the kind of thing that will lose you the trust of anyone who has come to depend on you. I would go through hell and high water for my bloc and close allies and I expect the same behavior in return. When was the last time NPO joined in a war it knew it would lose in order to defend an ally that needed them again? Because I see a whole list of them up their that could have really used the help. Lecture me on honor when the only losing wars you've ever fought aren't ones you started because you didn't realize you'd lose while your allies have burnt to the ground around you without you once in three years going in to fight for them when they needed you most. It's very easy to provide back up to allies that win. Talk to me again when you're backing up allies that are losing instead of letting them die or helping to kill them yourself.

Ok thankyou, makes it easier to address your points if I know what you're referring too. I notice you still can't get out of the habit of speaking like you had to be allied to Pacifica. Why? If we are such bad allies, why did you ally with us at all? Can you answer that?

When you said our allies have an atrocious survival rate, I assumed you were talking about ones we killed. Now, out of that list you provided, we directly attacked the first VE, CIS, FAN, GS and MK. Out of those 5, 3 disbanded. Now, the first VE is easy. They cancelled all their military treaties, save for a couple, and then proceeded to piss off GGA and GOONS. We supported our allies. Our fault VE disbanded? Hardly.

Now, CIS. CIS was attacked because the camels back can only handle so many straws. There was a pattern of CIS nations raiding red unaligned, and CIS nations going rogue on Pacifican banks. The final straw happened to be knowingly accepting a reroll of a nation that had repeatedly nuke rogued Pacifica. Is it our fault that CIS was either unable or unwilling to stop these attacks? Is it wrong of us to seek to protect our members? I think not.

Now FAN. Not that it needs any explaining, but: Operation Overlord. The FAN-NAAC deal. Plotting against Pacifica while allied. Our fault they did these things? I don't think so.

GS: GS were declared on because they were voting for a FAN senator, which was considered an act of war since FAN was using the senate to sanction any nations on yellow that were aligned with 1V or TORN. Did they have to support FANs senator? Nope.

MK: Ironically, we declared on MK through our MDP with TORN, which was activated when MK attacked Ordo Recolitus, later to become Ordo Verde.

So there you go, perfectly acceptable reasons for declaring war, on people who were previously allies. Just because they were our allies at one point does not mean they get a free pass when they screw up and stumble into the crosshairs.

Its funny you bring up TOP vs Polaris. People used to berate us for treating our allies like puppets. But now we are monsters when we can't control them and make them do what we want. You think that position was easy for us? On one side we had basically the Continuum/One Vision, champing at the bit to get at Polaris, and on the other we had our blue brothers and sisters, the relationship obviously strained, but still strong, with our shared history, shared members, basically shared forums and IRC. If you could have seen the threads on our forums, the conversations in our IRC chans leading up to the culmination of that incredibly #%@$ty situation, about why it had happened, what could be done to fix it, all the soul searching and sadness that occured, maybe that would help your understanding of the Pacifica-Polaris rift. Noone was happy about what was happening, noone wanted NpO to be attacked. But whatever we did in that situation, with ally vs ally, the outcome was always going to be bad, for us, and everyone else involved. And we will always ask ourselves; did we make the right decisions? Was there even a 'right' decision to be made? It can be argued either way.

I especially like the bit where you say that NPO has "a nasty habit of forgetting its obligations to allies that have fallen into extreme unpopularity with its other and/or "more important" allies". Funny, coz isn't that what RIA did to Pacifica during Armageddon?

On the home stretch now . I don't remember OV being in SF. Am I wrong about that? As for your rant about sticking up for your allies in losing wars, how did you manage to nail yourself to that cross so well? I always thought it would be impossible to get that last nail in. Anyway, from the wiki it seems that RIA has been involved in a total of 1 losing war. And besides, if I have to, I will go through any past allies of ours you care to name that got attacked, and I will explain to you why they got attacked, and why Pacifica did not support them. And besides, things could have been very different. You think we wouldn't have gone down fighting with WUT if we had lost GWII? Or GWIII? Or any war you care to name? Just because we won the wars does not somehow mean that we would have run away if we had begun to lose. I think Pacifica's performances in the GPW and Armageddon disproves that theory.

[Francesca]

Its funny you bring up TOP vs Polaris. People used to berate us for treating our allies like puppets. But now we are monsters when we can't control them and make them do what we want. You think that position was easy for us? On one side we had basically the Continuum/One Vision, champing at the bit to get at Polaris, and on the other we had our blue brothers and sisters, the relationship obviously strained, but still strong, with our shared history, shared members, basically shared forums and IRC. If you could have seen the threads on our forums, the conversations in our IRC chans leading up to the culmination of that incredibly #%@$ty situation, about why it had happened, what could be done to fix it, all the soul searching and sadness that occured, maybe that would help your understanding of the Pacifica-Polaris rift. Noone was happy about what was happening, noone wanted NpO to be attacked. But whatever we did in that situation, with ally vs ally, the outcome was always going to be bad, for us, and everyone else involved. And we will always ask ourselves; did we make the right decisions? Was there even a 'right' decision to be made? It can be argued either way.

There was so much more to the cancellation of the OoO than simply "Polar are going to get hit, let's roll them." The events that took place on the third of July, for example. Pacifica supported Polar in so many ways before the cancellation- it was their vote that kept them in One Vision, for example. I don't think it was a move made out of sheer cowardice (and yes, this is a different position to one I held before) but rather a considered decision, made under a great deal of pressure. Perhaps we should learn to forgive such errors, if they are indeed errors.

[WorldConqueror]

It's not subjective.

Like I've said before, only the people committing wrongs have to fall back on the "it's subjective" argument to justify their actions. And the Viceroys were most certainly bad things. You and GATO had a long and interesting history and some of the conflict is their fault. But the last war had nothing to do with some nobel desire to end the fighting. If you had been so gracious you wouldn't have declared war over the secret actions of one member that occurred almost a year earlier! And has the conflict with GATO ended for now? Yes. But only because the war and long enslavement of GATO helped the Karma movement knock you guys down. Also please don't forget that your own Emperor apologized for what you guys did to GATO. You don't have to apologize for something if it wasn't wrong.

Its not subjective? Why? Because you think what we did was wrong? When you're talking about right and wrong, pretty much everything is subjective. You can get a general consensus and enforce your version of right and wrong, but that doesn't somehow make it a universal truth. No, of course the most recent war with GATO was not undertaken for humanitarian purposes. But, does that mean that the viceroyship was not? An instrument that was installed after surrender to oversee both rebuilding of nations, and rebuilding of GATO's internal structures. You can argue that there were negative consequences too, or that we overstayed our welcome, but that does not mean that the whole operation was undertaken to somehow damage GATO. If we wanted to do that, we could have saved ourselves a lot of effort and kept them at war. And didn't GATO say that they didn't want to be held up as Karma's poster-child?