Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[Wargarden]

Turd in the Punchbowl War? Anyone? Noone likes it, everyone is pointing at it and talking about, but none wants to go in a scoop it out, and we're sure as hell not gonna drink anymore punch.

[UberSpion]

And apparently he thought that at some level. Seriously, people come up with the most ridiculous ideas mang.

We all know the ebil Electron Sponge was behind all this

[Stumpy Jung Il]

We all know the ebil Electron Sponge was behind all this

Since when did I stop getting credit for destroying Bob's morality

Edited January 21, 2010 by Stumpy Jung Il

[Kindom of Goon]

So basically, don't stop one crime if you can't stop them all?

More, don't stop crime if you'll only stop it when it suits you.

[Kochers]

I support the NpO in their actions.

o/Polaris

[AlmightyGrub]

Do you think you should be the one policing the actions of your ally's ally?

I have let you ramble on without challenge but enough, seriously. Without being extremely rude, if my actions upset your plans, then you have some choices to make. We established during Athens that I am a self-righteous crusader, I am not changing any time soon.

By your definition, the only time I can go to war is with your explicit approval, and only if convenient. Excuse me if I disagree, but last time I checked I don't run MK's personal agendas, I don't have any control over CnG's response to matters, but yet you want me to yield to yours? Seriously, the world whinges and moans and yells we are bored, someone do something, but you say only if it is not inconvenient?

I honestly feel for RoK, I have privately indicated to Hoo that if we end up on opposite sides of this war, it will not change how I think of RoK, but I am also not going to sit idly by while things continue to be like they are. Your allies?, you police them if you don't want them to come to harm. It is not like you were not the first/second people spoken to when I decided to get involved... as in well before I ever spoke to \m/ themselves.

All this kowtowing and crap would be fine if you actually respected our position, but everyone is so concerned with offending the friend of a friend's friend that nothing will happen or change. I have plenty of friends, they all have plenty of friends and their friends also surprising have some friends, eventually the treaty web chains out and everyone is only a few degrees separated from everyone... lets all just hold hands and sing some gospel songs until the server explodes?

Here is a tip, when you ask me to ''do something about it'', I am going to. I will politely inform my allies, I will politely listen to their arguments and happily wait whilst they attempt to resolve the matter diplomatically. But if you can not get the job done, it is time to step aside and let me at it. RoK was given the opportunity to get the job done, they conceded they couldn't. I attempted to resolve it and ended up covered in monkey poo... here we are, doing something about it.

As for all the spurious attack GOONS, attack PC, oh you wont because of their treaties etc, seriously do you want to argue the same allies friends argument from the other way around at the same time? Get a clue the whole lot of you, you are all happy to posture and wave flags but until you can assemble a coalition of 999 alliances nothing ever happens. I do not need 999 other alliances holding my hand to do what I believe I need to do, your mileage may differ.

GL HF.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

More, don't stop crime if you'll only stop it when it suits you.

I disagree. Surely stopping even one crime is better than stopping none, regardless of your motives.

[AlmightyGrub]

Ahem..you were in Frostbite, therefor you were in a bloc. MK doesn't sign chaining treaties either but no one likes leaving their friends out to dry unless you are a !@#$%. All alliances only make treaties they want to so I don't know why you are even mentioning that. No one is asking for immunity for anyone, only that you recognize what kind of spot you put your other allies in. God why can't you guys get that concept.

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.

You know AirMe, FIST is not something I am responsible for. We have readily admitted that we made a very bad mistake right there. However, there is no comparison between these situations, like none at all.

In recent months I have been extremely clear with my allies when I embark on a little crusade, each time I speak to them at great length, giving them all the notice in the world and all the time in the world to resolve it.

I am not treatied to Ronin, nor will I ever be, so you have nothing to fear. If you are now speaking for everyone on your little branch of the web, then feel free, but do not try to be too cute with your analogies.

[scottimus prime]

(scottimus prime @ Jan 21 2010, 08:55 PM) *

So basically, don't stop one crime if you can't stop them all?

More, don't stop crime if you'll only stop it when it suits you.

I'll stop any crime I can, when I can.....I hope you do the same.

[m3g4tr0n]

o/ Polaris

[mdnss69]

Oh this is delicious! Yummy yummy! Go get em Polaris!

[Mathias]

Or I want to see you boneheads destroyed.

Do something about it.

Honestly AUT, it gets old. It's not Karma you want destroyed, we know that thanks to your reaction to the last "war." At least be more specific when you're derailing threads decrying a war coalition that doesn't exist anymore.

To stay on topic, and since I haven't said anything here yet:

Could have been handled better Polaris. It's hard to kiss the ground you walk on when you're up on a pedestal. You could have at least given a reason as to why \m/ is terrible, would have made this more convincing.

[Timeline]

You realise this puts your alliance in a very awkward situation right?

Tied to both sides of this and all, and you possible could end up fighting alongside \m/.

God I love the treaty web

you really think i would fight along side \M/, I personally would never do that i would never fight for someone who fight for an alliance such as \m/ just wont happen

[AirMe]

You know AirMe, FIST is not something I am responsible for. We have readily admitted that we made a very bad mistake right there. However, there is no comparison between these situations, like none at all.

In recent months I have been extremely clear with my allies when I embark on a little crusade, each time I speak to them at great length, giving them all the notice in the world and all the time in the world to resolve it.

I am not treatied to Ronin, nor will I ever be, so you have nothing to fear. If you are now speaking for everyone on your little branch of the web, then feel free, but do not try to be too cute with your analogies.

I never implied that you were at the helm when FIST happened. I have a very tiny branch of the treaty web and speak for no one but myself. You should be able to respect that.

I am sorry that me disagreeing with you in this situation has damaged any possibility of relations between Polar and Ronin because, even despite this incident, I do respect and quite like Polar. But what ever floats your boat.

EDIT:My people now demand chicken so I am going to make sure my citizens have a chicken in every pot. Ta ta for now.

Edited January 21, 2010 by AirMe

[delendum]

I have let you ramble on without challenge but enough, seriously. Without being extremely rude, if my actions upset your plans, then you have some choices to make. We established during Athens that I am a self-righteous crusader, I am not changing any time soon.

By your definition, the only time I can go to war is with your explicit approval, and only if convenient. Excuse me if I disagree, but last time I checked I don't run MK's personal agendas, I don't have any control over CnG's response to matters, but yet you want me to yield to yours? Seriously, the world whinges and moans and yells we are bored, someone do something, but you say only if it is not inconvenient?

I honestly feel for RoK, I have privately indicated to Hoo that if we end up on opposite sides of this war, it will not change how I think of RoK, but I am also not going to sit idly by while things continue to be like they are. Your allies?, you police them if you don't want them to come to harm. It is not like you were not the first/second people spoken to when I decided to get involved... as in well before I ever spoke to \m/ themselves.

All this kowtowing and crap would be fine if you actually respected our position, but everyone is so concerned with offending the friend of a friend's friend that nothing will happen or change. I have plenty of friends, they all have plenty of friends and their friends also surprising have some friends, eventually the treaty web chains out and everyone is only a few degrees separated from everyone... lets all just hold hands and sing some gospel songs until the server explodes?

Here is a tip, when you ask me to ''do something about it'', I am going to. I will politely inform my allies, I will politely listen to their arguments and happily wait whilst they attempt to resolve the matter diplomatically. But if you can not get the job done, it is time to step aside and let me at it. RoK was given the opportunity to get the job done, they conceded they couldn't. I attempted to resolve it and ended up covered in monkey poo... here we are, doing something about it.

As for all the spurious attack GOONS, attack PC, oh you wont because of their treaties etc, seriously do you want to argue the same allies friends argument from the other way around at the same time? Get a clue the whole lot of you, you are all happy to posture and wave flags but until you can assemble a coalition of 999 alliances nothing ever happens. I do not need 999 other alliances holding my hand to do what I believe I need to do, your mileage may differ.

GL HF.

Will you stop with the "MK's level of involvement in this" !@#$%^&* already? I'm not upset on account of an ally of an ally of an ally of ours getting hit, I'm pissed off at the position you've put RoK in, which coincidentally, is the same you've put us in last time (albeit you didn't attack Athens). I do have a problem with this, yes, I don't like it that you're willing to attack any of our allies every time you feel like going on a little crusade, and with this move you've demonstrated again that you really don't give a $%&@ about your allies opinion so long as your ego is on the line.

"By your definition, the only time I can go to war is with your explicit approval, and only if convenient" - No, by my definition you wouldn't go around attacking allies of allies every time you feel like taking on another crusade.

They told you to "do something about it" and you did, I am truly impressed, you are clearly the better man. I'll be sure to strongly advocate attacking NSO the next time they tell the world to "do something about it". Of course, we will politely inform you first.

[General Ozujsko]

Well my "for homeland- ready" friend (OOC: I soooo love diaspora big flag waving,...), while it is a better post then most, which Hoo made, as he substantiated it with more then just "hurrr u attack friend of a friend of our uncle's neighbor", the fact is in the complex and large world we live in where one has many friends such situations happen.

Polar position on tech raiding was fairly well known. If you have a treaty with them, but also decide to sign a treaty with a "notorious" tech raiding alliance you must do so in full knowing that there is a big chance that will lead you in a middle of something not good.

Both NpO and metal alliances are acting within their character. They are strong willed alliances and act upon their set of values, not what people would like. I suppose its the most convenient to act all hurt by them now, as if you didn't know about what they were all about, when you signed with them...

My compliment to Hoo was based on the fact that he has effectively stated the position of RoK with regard to all this nonsense in a manner befitting an alliance leader in a tough position.

Also, my alliance has no treaties with either Polar or \m/...so I'll ignore the rest of your post as it does not pertain to me.

(OOC: Not Croatian. Just wanted a slogan. Studied in Zagreb for a bit...but still, not Yugo.)

[Mergerberger II]

Could have been handled better Polaris. It's hard to kiss the ground you walk on when you're up on a pedestal. You could have at least given a reason as to why \m/ is terrible, would have made this more convincing.

Didn't give a reason? What's this, then?

Yesterday diplomacy failed. Diplomacy can not be conducted when one party offers to expose his genitals repeatedly, diplomacy can not be conducted when one side resorts to the use of racist, offensive and degrading language to describe the other and diplomacy can not be attempted when neither side is prepared to concede anything at all.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Mergerberger II

[King Srqt]

Will you stop with the "MK's level of involvement in this" !@#$%^&* already? I'm not upset on account of an ally of an ally of an ally of ours getting hit, I'm pissed off at the position you've put RoK in, which coincidentally, is the same you've put us in last time (albeit you didn't attack Athens). I do have a problem with this, yes, I don't like it that you're willing to attack any of our allies every time you feel like going on a little crusade, and with this move you've demonstrated again that you really don't give a $%&@ about your allies opinion so long as your ego is on the line.

"By your definition, the only time I can go to war is with your explicit approval, and only if convenient" - No, by my definition you wouldn't go around attacking allies of allies every time you feel like taking on another crusade.

They told you to "do something about it" and you did, I am truly impressed, you are clearly the better man. I'll be sure to strongly advocate attacking NSO the next time they tell the world to "do something about it". Of course, we will politely inform you first.

He has no obligation to allies of his allies. If he notifies his allies and gives a chance for diplomacy as he says he did than he fufilled any obligation he has. he should not be restricted based on your treaties or anyone else's besides his own.

[Jens of the desert]

I'm happy to still be a nation that has it's own freedom and it's own rules.

Even though you all say what is taboo and what is not, I will continue to run my nation how I like and speak how I like, even if my nation must be run into the ground first.

o/Freedom

o/\m/

o/PC

o/Loyalty

[delendum]

He has no obligation to allies of his allies. If he notifies his allies and gives a chance for diplomacy as he says he did than he fufilled any obligation he has. he should not be restricted based on your treaties or anyone else's besides his own.

There is no written obligation, but it's one of the most basic things you could ask from an ally. Out of respect for you as an ally, they could at least try their best to prevent it from happening. This is especially the case when the only reason you want to attack an ally of an ally is because your ego needs reassurance.

[Mergerberger II]

"By your definition, the only time I can go to war is with your explicit approval, and only if convenient" - No, by my definition you wouldn't go around attacking allies of allies every time you feel like taking on another crusade.

Maybe I missed when the philosophy 'A Friend of my Friend is also my friend' became the founding philosophy of cyber nations, but I prefer, and I am sure that most of us do, to make friends on our own account rather than just doing whatever our friends do because they're our pals.

I understand that Ragnarok is frustrated that we are an ally of theirs and so is \m/, however they must also understand that \m/ is not an ally of ours and when an alliance pisses you off, you generally go and do something about that. If \m/ were our allies leading up to this, I could have seen us canceling our treaties with them, what with them acting the way they did to Grub. It so happens that we weren't allies beforehand, and as Ragnarok does not control our sovereignty, we did something about it independent of them. Grub's Polaris has always operated like this, I have seen it from the view of an ally of Grub's and now I am seeing it from within his alliance, and honestly, I like it.

[TheListener]

He has no obligation to allies of his allies. If he notifies his allies and gives a chance for diplomacy as he says he did than he fufilled any obligation he has. he should not be restricted based on your treaties or anyone else's besides his own.

Whether this is the first time this has been said or not, this is the fact. Grub and Polar carried out their half of the Treaty by informing their allies of possible involvement in a war, as well as with whom. The only thing an alliance must do is respect their allies, not their allies ally, to do that would lead to a period of nothingness, a period of peace, which we do not want.

[Mergerberger II]

There is no written obligation, but it's one of the most basic things you could ask from an ally. Out of respect for you as an ally, they could at least try their best to prevent it from happening. This is especially the case when the only reason you want to attack an ally of an ally is because your ego needs reassurance.

Then I think that you ought to be talking to \m/, who showed a deliberate disrespect for Polaris, as Grub has already stated, instead of Polar, who is retaliating for that disrespect shown by \m/ to us.

[delendum]

Maybe I missed when the philosophy 'A Friend of my Friend is also my friend' became the founding philosophy of cyber nations, but I prefer, and I am sure that most of us do, to make friends on our own account rather than just doing whatever our friends do because they're our pals.

I understand that Ragnarok is frustrated that we are an ally of theirs and so is \m/, however they must also understand that \m/ is not an ally of ours and when an alliance pisses you off, you generally go and do something about that. If \m/ were our allies leading up to this, I could have seen us canceling our treaties with them, what with them acting the way they did to Grub. It so happens that we weren't allies beforehand, and as Ragnarok does not control our sovereignty, we did something about it independent of them. Grub's Polaris has always operated like this, I have seen it from the view of an ally of Grub's and now I am seeing it from within his alliance, and honestly, I like it.

Look, if MK attacked NSO tomorrow, you would be a bit more than pissed about it. Especially if we did so on account of some insults and a morality issue. Hell, we already fling !@#$ back and forth between us, we're half way there.

They aren't our friend and we don't like them, why should we think twice about it amirite?

[TehChron]

Look, if MK attacked NSO tomorrow, you would be a bit more than pissed about it. Especially if we did so on account of some insults and a morality issue. Hell, we already fling !@#$ back and forth between us, we're half way there.

They aren't our friend and we don't like them, why should we think twice about it amirite?

Then do it.

I guarantee you wouldnt be hearing anywhere near the amount of !@#$%*ing from us that a lot of folks are putting out right now. Or are you not in a position to do so? In which case, I apologize for asking you to do something you have no business talking about.