Merrie Melodies Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Wasn't \m/ setting a "terrifying precedent" by engaging in an alliance-wide tech-raid on a much weaker alliance? Why are you exempt from your own terrifyingly bold rules? We aren't, we just don't like Polaris trying to claim they are different than us. They want to war us, great! They want to tech raid us, Great! We are them and they are us.............and I am very happy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Vox Populi, Vox Dei.To think we changed the world in defense of this usurper who would change it back. I vaguely recall beating CSM in one of the Senate races. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Wasn't \m/ setting a "terrifying precedent" by engaging in an alliance-wide tech-raid on a much weaker alliance? That precedent is hardly a new one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 While I'm flattered that AlmightyGrub considers us so evil, don't be suckered in by his lofty talk of morals and "community standards". These goals would be noble if they were genuine, but they are not. AlmightyGrub simply doesn't like us. If he were truly committed to these farcical goals, then he would have declared war on Poison Clan or any of the other techraiding alliances out there. But he did not because he knows there is actual risk involved there. Don't be deceived. AlmightyGrub attacked us because he finds us to be disgusting and immoral. That's great. I find him to be pompous and moralist. We're even. I'm not imploring the CN community to come to our defense. It is not your obligation. All I ask is that you use your heads and see through these "community standards". The only rules alliances are obligated to follow are the CN Terms of Service, not these purposely vague "community standards" that the most powerful alliances can redefine at will. We will not subject ourselves to these false standards, as it will set a terrifying precedent that the most powerful alliances can destroy any alliance that they find to be inconsistent with their values. If you can't see that, then you don't deserve the freedom to define your own morals anyway. Surprised there are still people in m/ who can post decently, ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 That precedent is hardly a new one Grub's response to it isn't new either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 What did I make up? I'll leave you this empty space here to actually see if you manage to answer that. Reasons for why Grub declared, outside of the reasons given. \m/ picked a fight with Grub, and Grub followed through with his threats.Anything else is just trying to spin it. The tech raid in question was already handled diplomatically by The Corp. That falls in line with what my alliance practices.So how come Polaris isn't allowed to negotiate a settlement, then?What makes the Corporation more qualified to conduct diplomacy than the New Polar Order? There is nothing, WC. Get off your high horse, if Polar doesn't have the right to try and conduct mediation, then you have no business prancing about and acting like you do either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 AlmightyGrub can't deny that he said to me something along these lines:You have 5 days to rectify the situation or we will declare war on all three of you (\m/, PC and GOONS). This convo took place a few days before the incident in #\m/. Sounds like a couple alliances rectified the situation. Hehe, well other than that, the only other comment I will likely have on this conflict was already stated earlier in the thread, just as a general summing-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I'm not inventing new ones at all, I'm just stating the facts as they've been presented and that's the conclusions I'm drawing. How do we know Grub doesn't cavort with money-laundering, child-murdering, endangered-tiger-eating terrorists? He's never denied it! I'm just stating facts and asking questions here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 We aren't, we just don't like Polaris trying to claim they are different than us. They want to war us, great! They want to tech raid us, Great! We are them and they are us.............and I am very happy Not quite. People actually respect Polaris, even if they disagree with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 From the looks of it, just the one that is obsessed with raiding, posing about raiding and exposing that to everyone, and is fairly !@#$ty in terms of diplomacy to fix their short ends. So they're against people bring up raiding in public? So it's fine if they raid and it just doesn't reach the OWF? And from what I can recall the FoA matter was handled diplomatically and fairly quickly. Anything else? Wasn't \m/ setting a "terrifying precedent" by engaging in an alliance-wide tech-raid on a much weaker alliance? Why are you exempt from your own terrifyingly bold rules? So when is polar rolling MK? I think you need to understand what context is... it is a fairly subtle thing, sneaks up on you and bites you in the $@! I can fairly well understand the context of this situation. Just because I disagree with it still does not mean I am not grasping the full situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keve69 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 No way am I hiding your marvels away in IRC, let's chat here! I actually LOL'd, well played.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I'm sorry, but you must have the wrong person. I was never in NSO. I was referring to RIA, actually. But hey, I don't blame you for blocking out the memories of that humiliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philp110 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 2 of your members declaring on them started that war. Period. Fact. Actually, that is not a fact. One of GOONS members raided a nation from RLMMO. One nation from Kronos (me) raided as well. The third nation was ghosting "Kronos Applicant" and was not part of either GOONS or Kronos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epiphanus Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Grub's response to it isn't new either. His actions are. I guess he thought MK more likely to "do something about it" back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 So when is polar rolling MK? Because clearly MK didnt go out of their way to pick a fight with Polaris.I can fairly well understand the context of this situation. Just because I disagree with it still does not mean I am not grasping the full situation. Well then, clearly you are trying to misrepresent events in attempt to discredit Polaris for no other reason than your own petty bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 So what? By NpO's definition they were. So GOONS have mass raided 2 alliances. Makes those who defend them pay reps. NpO does nothing (actually they declared to support them when they started getting hit by someone wanting justics). \m/ raids one. NpO DoWs only them and nobody else involved. Your tears over GOONS being successful with their diplomatic efforts over the last incident are delicious. "OHHHH boo hoo, someone (not me) should have attacked GOONS because I want to spectate". Get over it, Penkala. Also, it seems as if you weren't fully informed on the RLMMO incident...either that, or you're intentionally turning a blind eye to the facts. ONE GOONS nation (who is now in Umbrella) attacked an RLMMO member. RLMMO completely threw diplomacy out the window and decided to post that they 'accept our war' as an alliance announcement. They then proceded to attack Kronos and were planning on attacking us next (as was clearly posted in their own forums). How you consider this an 'alliance-wide tech raid' is beyond me....but, of course, you've never been opposed to inventing history, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEraser Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 There is no way we can use up all our nukes and war chest in one week for your sale. I hope wc's are waaaay higher than the fool I'm hitting. For his size it should be 10 times larger than what it is. Get your boys in shape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I see. So all of \m/ would be fine if NpO curbstomps you, gives you peace, curbstomps you, gives you peace, etc. for years? Since you don't want to tell them what to do? Give me a break.NV stands by you, NpO. I seem to have missed your presense on our forums and in our chans, where is it your getting your information on what we will or will not do? Hmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 That precedent is hardly a new one Indeed...many alliances have been doing something very similar and calling it a "military exercise" for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) I was referring to RIA, actually. But hey, I don't blame you for blocking out the memories of that humiliation. Oh yes. When RIA's membership (who didn't make the threat) decided not to duel you. See that's a little different from your own government, those with the power to actually declare war (without the others' support) both threatening then running from that threat. Because if Delta could have dueled, he would have. It wasn't a matter of him being scared. But for NSO, for NSO it's different. Not to mention you guys have backed down many times, and RIA "backed down" once. But OK! Actually, that is not a fact. One of GOONS members raided a nation from RLMMO. One nation from Kronos (me) raided as well. The third nation was ghosting "Kronos Applicant" and was not part of either GOONS or Kronos. I'm fairly sure it was one GOONS member and one GOONS applicant. But if you have any proof you can link me to (people discussing it then etc.) I'll retract my statement. Edited January 21, 2010 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Not quite. People actually respect Polaris, even if they disagree with them. The same way you respect a guy holding a gun in the middle of the city talking loudly to himself, yes. Any other way, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I'm not NpO and I certainly wasn't in on their decision making process, so I can't give you the exact reason. Perhaps the OP could help you with that. But I'm extremely sure that it wasn't solely because \m/ is a tech raiding alliance like you claimed. \m/'s diplomatic conduct and general attitude surely had something to do with all this. Trying to deny that is just plain dumb. I have read the OP. I also read about how the FoA incident was handled diplomatically and went off without a hitch. Reasons for why Grub declared, outside of the reasons given. \m/ picked a fight with Grub, and Grub followed through with his threats.Anything else is just trying to spin it. Really? I haven't argued against him just following through with just "bringing it." From how I saw the situation Grub was the one that started acting tough first after the whole FoA incident was handled. So how come Polaris isn't allowed to negotiate a settlement, then?What makes the Corporation more qualified to conduct diplomacy than the New Polar Order? There is nothing, WC. Get off your high horse, if Polar doesn't have the right to try and conduct mediation, then you have no business prancing about and acting like you do either. I love your attempt at changing the circumstances. The Corporation actually had an ongoing tech raid that they went and conducted their diplomacy on with good results. Polar barged in after the matter was closed so there was no need for any "diplomacy." How do we know Grub doesn't cavort with money-laundering, child-murdering, endangered-tiger-eating terrorists? He's never denied it! I'm just stating facts and asking questions here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 This is a DoW I can agree with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Curzon Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Perhaps they like to bully small defenseless alliances. Attacking GOONS or PC would have been more detrimental to their infrastructure. Honestly this logic is so ridiculous, I can suffer it no longer. Tech raids against unaligned nations are acceptable because you are attacking someone isolated from the treaty web. Which means logically that treaties cause negative reaction AKA war, meaning the treaty response makes it a war, not a tech raid. PC is treatied to \m/, which means attacking \m/ should result in a response. If it doesn't result in a response... well then for all intents are purposes \m/ doesn't have any treaties and this attack should be considered a valid raid target analogous to FAO. If no one comes to \m/'s defense doesn't that mean \m/ is.... isolated from the treaty web AKA a valid raid target. Unless you guys want to assert that it is the piece of e-paper, not the reaction to an attack, that distinguishes a valid raid from an illegal raid target. Guys stop posturing. Debate the merits of the attack and lets drop the "stat hugging" nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I vaguely recall beating CSM in one of the Senate races. I made a rather off-color remark before that election. Otherwise I would have beaten you. Damned accountability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.