Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[HeinousOne]

If PC attempts to worm their way out of their treaty obligations, they destroy any respect I have for them.

I already showed how PC wouldn't be worming their way out of anything. What this appears like to me is you trying to dictate to other alliances how they should act and see things. Penlugue Solaris the Imperialist these days?

I know I know, you do not want to see your right to act like a jackass to anyone at anytime swept away. Is that not what people fear in this situation?

Approach does not leave much alternative once war is declared.

Once again though, on the flip side, \m/ was more or less asking for it to happen.

As you can tell by the absolutely horrifying amount of posts since the response I quoted, there appears to be two separate and distinct issues here, and its possible to agree with a party on one point (\m/ was acting stupid and asking for it) and disagree with them on another (attacking the ally of a treaty partner is ridiculous when there is a lack of a personal CB no matter if you gave them a heads up on it or not).

\m/ did ask for it. The thing is, it is Polar doing the asskicking and alot of people seem to not want to see Polar becoming an aggressive alliance. That is the larger issue that lies in the shadows that no one is willing to say.

Polar approaches in an official and diplomatic manner, they are insulted and treated horribly to the point that the leader of \m/ has to publically apologize in order to try and keep an attack from coming. At that point it is obvious there is a CB should Polar decide to follow through and in this case they did. That is their Sovereign choice, no one elses. Yet look at all the people that are willing to step on their sovereignty? \m/ is the aggressor not Polar. The whole treaty chaining argument is a fallacy made up to try and neuter Polar.

[MCRABT]

This is the 3rd time in your history that you have done this sort of thing to an ally. Even you guys admit that. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a pattern.

I wonder if that was the thinking behind ODN's admission to CnG What do you reckon AirMe? Perhaps your legacy lived on.

I find the idea that Polaris should be limited in it's sovereignty because of MK or anyone else's allies laughable. You to have sovereignty if you disagree with Polars stance and general moral attitude then you really shouldn't be tied to them. "but but we like how Polar does it's business normally", well then stop crying, after the Athens incident this really should not be a surprise.

Edited January 21, 2010 by MCRABT

[AirMe]

You don't get to decide when an issue doesn't involve us. Something that affects the community I enjoy, is something I can take issue with.

You don't get the right to involve yourselves in other peoples resolved disputes either. Sovereignty is a 2 way street my friend.

[HeinousOne]

Your logic is flawed then, and doesn't apply to this situation regardless.

I am sorry but I have yet to see how you were declared the International Judge of Logic. What he stated are his beliefs and you believe differently, that is it. I certainly hope you have not yet made or were going to make any statements about the arrogance of Polaris.

You don't get the right to involve yourselves in other peoples resolved disputes either. Sovereignty is a 2 way street my friend.

I bet if the Polaris diplomats that approached the situation were dealt with diplomatically and diplomatically told they had no say in the matter that there would not be any war right now. There may be some hard feelings that would last for quite some time but there would be no war.

It was the actions of \m/ that they admit to in their own thread that are the cause for this. There is no whitewashing of that fact.

Edited January 21, 2010 by HeinousOne

[BraveNewWorld]

You don't get the right to involve yourselves in other peoples resolved disputes either. Sovereignty is a 2 way street my friend.

If I have issue with another alliances behaviour I certainly do have the right to approach them about it. An issue is not resolved when the behaviour is still there. And when Grub went onto IRC the behaviour was certainly still there.

[AirMe]

I wonder if that was the thinking behind ODN's admission to CnG What do you reckon AirMe? Perhaps your legacy lived on.

I can't speak to the thinking of ODN's admission into C&G. Only thing I know is that C&G leadership thinks ODN is not the same ODN that you guys think they are and I can only hope they prove you and I wrong. But that is getting off topic and a discussion for another time.

[Bob]

I find it ironic the across the board complaints about how boring things are, yet when Polar makes a move people are arguing because of a friend of of a friend of a friend has a treaty with someone else, Polar should not do what it sees is right. If MK or anyone else feels Polar is being unreasonable, don't be allied with them. Otherwise let them conduct their own foreign policy rather than subordinating them to yours. If you are neutral thats understandable, but Athens/PC shouldn't have veto power over Polar's actions.

There have been no complaints from MK government, except about making their lives difficult and hoping that this was the right move.

They are not subordinate to us, we just view this decision as highly unfortunate and easily avoidable as the situation was resolved, and that is the reaction you see from our membership.

I will admit though, NPO saying this is quite great. Hypocrisy <3

[AirMe]

If I have issue with another alliances behaviour I certainly do have the right to approach them about it. An issue is not resolved when the behaviour is still there. And when Grub went onto IRC the behaviour was certainly still there.

So now we are policing other peoples behavior on IRC? So there is no real issue you just think they are acting in a way that isn't suitable to you. So what we really have is a war over cookies? Great. Now wars really do mean nothing in this world.

[Bob]

I am sorry but I have yet to see how you were declared the International Judge of Logic. What he stated are his beliefs and you believe differently, that is it. I certainly hope you have not yet made or were going to make any statements about the arrogance of Polaris.

See my edit. It explains what I meant a bit better.

[Merrie Melodies]

I am just glad to see so many supporting the ideals of the Moldavi Doctrine.

Ivan, your new and improved Moldavi Doctrine gave NSO the best CB one could have found against \m/. Many of your .gov were denouncing us, why didn't you roll us? after all, NSO was on scene long before NpO!

[hertugen]

So it's Polar's fault that MK signs chaining treaties.

sigh...

It is actually all Randoms fault.

[HeinousOne]

See my edit. It explains what I meant a bit better.

Actually...didn't I quote the edit?

[Dochartaigh]

Friendship goes both ways. If one of your friends feels heavily insulted by another friend of yours, how would you handle the situation?

MK was going around with "i support rolling IAA" sigs while IAA was allied to Athens. so obviously, it is ok for MK to go around threatening friends of friends, but not Polaris... double standards it seems.

[BraveNewWorld]

So now we are policing other peoples behavior on IRC? So there is no real issue you just think they are acting in a way that isn't suitable to you. So what we really have is a war over cookies? Great. Now wars really do mean nothing in this world.

We are fighting over an ongoing problem of this alliance showing disrespect and bringing down the community we in Polaris enjoy. If you haven't picked that up in 60 pages, well...I'm sorry, but I'm spent.

[AirMe]

We are fighting over an ongoing problem of this alliance showing disrespect and bringing down the community we in Polaris enjoy. If you haven't picked that up in 60 pages, well...I'm sorry, but I'm spent.

I didn't read the 60 pages. I came in on about page 52 but my argument remains the same. I have no issues standing up for the little guy. I like standing up for the little guy. Hell, I am in a "little guy" alliance. I stood up for Knights of Ni!. This situation isn't the same though. Polaris was involved there before the issue was resolved. Here the issue had been put to bed for 2 days before you guys involved yourself.

On that note, my people demand waffles. I am going to serve apple waffles to my citizens. Tata have fun.

[Bob]

Actually...didn't I quote the edit?

Yeah.

"By my logic we should all be eating popcorn watching the show. NpO has done no wrong in my eyes so I don't see how you would draw that conclusion. For the record my logic is as follows: Those who attack small unconnected alliances for no reason deserved to be attacked themselves."

The small unconnected alliance is now *gasp* protected by Corp, who happens to be treatied to \m/. Polaris's involvement came after the situation was resolved by all involved parties.

This is why his logic is flawed, he ignored an important part of the argument at hand.

[Bob]

MK was going around with "i support rolling IAA" sigs while IAA was allied to Athens. so obviously, it is ok for MK to go around threatening friends of friends, but not Polaris... double standards it seems.

Did we attack IAA?

No.

[Triyun]

There have been no complaints from MK government, except about making their lives difficult and hoping that this was the right move.

They are not subordinate to us, we just view this decision as highly unfortunate and easily avoidable as the situation was resolved, and that is the reaction you see from our membership.

I will admit though, NPO saying this is quite great. Hypocrisy <3

I know that when MK lacks any substantive point its first reaction is to attack the NPO, but come on move on. This situation as I understand it could easily have been avoided if \m/ just cleaned up their act. I do not see why MK is not backing their Polaris alliances and rather backing allies with several degrees of separation and then accusing Polar of putting them in a tight spot.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Triyun

[kriekfreak]

We are fighting over an ongoing problem of this alliance showing disrespect and bringing down the community we in Polaris enjoy. If you haven't picked that up in 60 pages, well...I'm sorry, but I'm spent.

Sorry but I must have missed where \m/ was bringing down the community of Polaris. Can you please point me to it? I have showed disrespect to several alliances on planet Bob, and yet iFOK still remains unattacked. Get some thicker skin, or stop trying to hide behind this bs. You didn't like \m/ and declared them. Nothing more, nothing less.

[HeinousOne]

I didn't read the 60 pages. I came in on about page 52 but my argument remains the same. I have no issues standing up for the little guy. I like standing up for the little guy. Hell, I am in a "little guy" alliance. I stood up for Knights of Ni!. This situation isn't the same though. Polaris was involved there before the issue was resolved. Here the issue had been put to bed for 2 days before you guys involved yourself.

On that note, my people demand waffles. I am going to serve apple waffles to my citizens. Tata have fun.

Ok, so maybe they shouldnt have stepped in but did they not do so diplomatically? Is that not why IRC is used? For alliances to diplomatically approach others about issues they are concerned with? When an alliance approaches another diplomatically and respectfully are they not due that same treatment? You may disagree with their stance but you should do so in the same manner in which they approach you.

\m/ did not do that and they know that. Hence why they made a thread.

They are the aggressors in the situation. They are the disrespectful ones that spit in the faces of everyone who believes in diplomacy first.

[Tulafaras]

So an alliance can declare onanother alliance without provocation and nothing should happen to them, but if a third alliance then declares war on the first alliance they should be chastised for "butting in" and being "heavy handed". where is the logic in that?

War has always been a global concern, wars set precedents in which the political climate is effected by and war changes the face of the political world.

so it is not ok to be "moral police" but it is ok to be "membership and treaty police". Polar's reason for going to war is more valid than \m/'s was in attacking FOA.

Arrogance is assuming that you can attack an entire alliance without any consequence, arrogance is thinking that just because you have friends you are beyond taking responsibility for your actions, arrogance is what \m/ and co did not what Polar is doing here.

This is a group of people being held accountable for their actions, if Polar are the only ones who have the balls to hold them accountable then good on Polar for doing it.

A Techraid is not a fullscale alliance war. If that is the base of your argument we might as well go home, since it's a delusion at best. Also as i stated before, according to Grub and his OP the techraid was not the basis of the CB.

Frankly you are trying to put words into my mouth and i don't appreciate it. "membership and treaty police" ? What in the world are you talking about? \m/ conducted a techraid, as they feel is their right. Polaris decided that no \m/ doesn't have the right to techraid and issued them some kind of ultimatum (since i don't have logs of that, i do not know what exactly they demanded).

\m/ responded with a finger and some childish insults (which i am still not defending).

NpO declared war (with grandstanding and typical Polaris rethoric as seen in the OP).

So who is acting with arrogance here? Frankly every single Polaris post in this thread has been dripping with arrogance so i am not quite sure what you are trying to sell.

If you say techraiding alliances is forbidden, i call that a typical moral police action, something i have never agreed with. As i said, if you want to protect alliances from being techraided, do so by protecting them, instead of trying to force your rules on someone else.

[HeinousOne]

Yeah.

"By my logic we should all be eating popcorn watching the show. NpO has done no wrong in my eyes so I don't see how you would draw that conclusion. For the record my logic is as follows: Those who attack small unconnected alliances for no reason deserved to be attacked themselves."

The small unconnected alliance is now *gasp* protected by Corp, who happens to be treatied to \m/. Polaris's involvement came after the situation was resolved by all involved parties.

This is why his logic is flawed, he ignored an important part of the argument at hand.

Ok, is it not true that Polaris approached an alliance or alliances in a diplomatic manner?

If they did then is it not true that \m/ responded in a very undiplomatic manner not befitting the way in which they were approached?

If that is not true then why did they make a thread apologizing for doing such?

[delendum]

So in order to be good allies with MK one has to be willing to endure insults of the nature that require official apologies afterwards? Those are some serious insults.

Once again, why does NpO have to sit back and let others do things? They approached a situation they feel very strongly about and they did so diplomatically. I don't see anyone claiming otherwise, some are saying they didn't belong but no one is saying they didnt come diplomatically. They in turn were treated in the opposite manner. They took offense to such.

To me it seems \m/ is the aggressor in this and that some limited attacks are the natural response to such aggression. Why are so many people defending the aggressor and trying to put NpO in a much weaker position diplomatically? Its like everyone wants NpO to only approach situations through others and not directly themselves.

A good way to start being good allies to MK (or to anybody else for that matter) would be not to attack or threaten to attack their allies, in matters which you decide to freely involve yourself.

Look, \m/ insulted you and I get that, but I'm sure RoK would have made sure either amends would be made, or they would have cancel their treaty. Are you seriously defending attacking an ally of an ally because of things they said to you?

I'm not defending the aggressor or however else you'd like to call \m/. The last thing I want to do is put Polaris in a weaker position diplomatically. You know, because they are my allies. I would at least hope they wouldn't put me in a terrible situation because their ego was hurt either, but apparently that was too much to ask.

I notice a pattern of behavior in Polar's dealings with its allies, and so long as I am allied to them, it does involve me. I am fully aware that me making these challenging posts in public is poor form, but that again they proved to us twice that they don't really care if they're allied to somebody so long as they feel strongly enough about something. I feel strongly enough about this matter for me to continue posting.

Edited January 21, 2010 by delendum

[Dochartaigh]

If they wanted a diplomatic solution, they would. But NpO doesn't. I'm so sorry \m/ called NpO bad names, hopefully everyone will be extra nice to them so they don't get offended in the future.

wow. people seriously need to stop comparing a racial slur with a bad name. one is highly offensive, the other is poo poo head or !@#$%^&. i am fairly certain if Grub was called an !@#$%^&, he would have laughed.

so how about ya'll stop attempting to make a racial slur into something less than the highly offensive crap that it is.

[Tulafaras]

We are fighting over an ongoing problem of this alliance showing disrespect and bringing down the community we in Polaris enjoy. If you haven't picked that up in 60 pages, well...I'm sorry, but I'm spent.

Showing disrespect? You have got to be kidding me....

Bringing down the community? Now you are being absolutly ridiculous. Stop before i die from laughter....

Seriously, call it what it is, you don't like \m/ they left themselves open, and you are stomping down on them as hard as you can so they don't become more than an irritant.