mushi Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Do we really have to go there, it seems like a fairly poor argument to suggest unless I kill everyone I have an issue with at once that I am not living up to my own expectations.If you really want to understand the differences between the three cases at the very start of this matter, you will actually have to submit yourself to the concept of rational thought, good luck with that. Polaris is not choosing to be the world police, rather we are addressing a situation as we see it. Your mileage of course may well be different, I have no issue with that. If PC feels like we should punish them, perhaps they should engage in the behaviours right at the heart of the matter. If I was actually being completely serious PC still have 2 more days left on their deadline, \m/ chose to cancel their deadline for reasons best known only to themselves. The concept of biting off what you can chew also seems to pass some people by. You know that whole allies of allies thingo you seem so quick to quote, yeah that one. Perhaps if you were actually involved at all you might understand how much discussion went into this over the last few days and how much full and frank disclosure was made at the same time... but that doesn't fit with your current agenda now does it? Dear Grub We at the Poison Clan have recieved no deadline, let me put it in caps for you. NOT A SINGLE POISON CLAN GOVT MEMBER HAS BEEN CONTACTED BY NEW POLAR ORDER MEMBER/GOVT. What deadline do you speak of Mr. Grub? I Expect an answer for NpO govt, preferably from Mr. Grub. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mwanatabu Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I question the reading comprehension of a lot of the posters who have posted in this thread. The reasons are clearly stated, that to allow this conduct to continue would result in anarchy. It would not immediately destroy this community we all share but would be the first step in a long slide into a cesspool. A line had to be drawn. Talking down uh? Then allow me to question your manners and understanding of the do's and don'ts in a discussion. Now there's a line that needs to be drawn. And bring on the anarchy. I find it to be much more palatable than a false claim on moral superiority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Um, no.You see, Polaris's intent is to hold accountable a coalition of alliances declaring war wholesale on another alliance 'because they can' by declaring war in responce to the issued challenge of 'do something about it'. Guess what! \m/ bloody asked for it. Best summary yet. One has the right to declare on whomever, but other cannot even after diplomacy. I think we can see where the hypocrisy falls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWAT128 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Do we really have to go there, it seems like a fairly poor argument to suggest unless I kill everyone I have an issue with at once that I am not living up to my own expectations.If you really want to understand the differences between the three cases at the very start of this matter, you will actually have to submit yourself to the concept of rational thought, good luck with that. Polaris is not choosing to be the world police, rather we are addressing a situation as we see it. Your mileage of course may well be different, I have no issue with that. If PC feels like we should punish them, perhaps they should engage in the behaviours right at the heart of the matter. If I was actually being completely serious PC still have 2 more days left on their deadline, \m/ chose to cancel their deadline for reasons best known only to themselves. The concept of biting off what you can chew also seems to pass some people by. You know that whole allies of allies thingo you seem so quick to quote, yeah that one. Perhaps if you were actually involved at all you might understand how much discussion went into this over the last few days and how much full and frank disclosure was made at the same time... but that doesn't fit with your current agenda now does it? You'd think addressing the situation would require at least contacting all of the involved parties. I made no suggestion of attacking PC, but I do find it rather odd that you never even tried the diplomatic approach with them, but did with GOONS and \m/. Do you plan on ever talking to PC about the raids on FoA, or do you not care about that anymore? And I'd really like to know what you what you mean by this deadline, were you expecting FoA to get reps or is it something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Aww ain't that cute lil' Roti has a grudge and is getting all happy someone is attempting to kill us Why yes, it is pretty cute. Btw, theres a blue CM behind you. Just beautiful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Its the intent though.Polar's intent here is to be offended about tech raiding and as punishment tech raid the offender. That is hypocricy at its finest. Yes, I'm sure that since this is just a tech raid, NpO will be sending peace offers any time now. I'm sure they did two ground attacks just before update, two after update, with no air strikes, no CM's, and that no nukes will be launched. I'm sure that's all they were doing, is a tech raid. Sorry, I'm not really buying that. Look, even if they *had* done a tech raid, crying "OMG, they treated us just the same as we treated FoA" is nonsense. FoA wants the right to attack others for no reason at all, but starts crying and pissing in their pants when it comes back around. Lets try an analogy. I'm opposed to shooting innocent people. However, if you break into someones house, or try to rob the local gas station, and someone shoots you for doing it, I'm fine with that. I don't really care if the guy that shoots you is the homeowner, or the store clerk, or just some random guy who happened to notice a thief. It's a risk you chose to take. FoA did nothing wrong, and \m/ claims it's OK to attack them. At that point, \m/ and supporters are being hypocritical when they start bawling "OMG, you're trampling my rights" at NpO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 You'd think addressing the situation would require at least contacting all of the involved parties. I made no suggestion of attacking PC, but I do find it rather odd that you never even tried the diplomatic approach with them, but did with GOONS and \m/. Do you plan on ever talking to PC about the raids on FoA, or do you not care about that anymore? And I'd really like to know what you what you mean by this deadline, were you expecting FoA to get reps or is it something else? All of the answers to these questions are in the OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 THis is false by the simple truth that GOONS and Poison Clan, and IRON, and Mushroom Kingdom, and all the other alliances who tech raid are not "held accountable" by Polaris.This is also proven false because GOONS and Poison Clan participated in the tech raid in question and have not been "punished" for it. This is an attempt to roll \m/, stop trying to make it seem like you have "legit" reasons to. You pick and chose what reasons are war worthy, and ignore such behavior when your allies do it. Funny, thats what the Hegemony did ... 1. There is an issue of scale in this statement. 2. It's called actions taken to cause the leap to war. \m/ took actions that provoked Polar. 3. Rather funny to see you say that last bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extraduty Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Why yes, it is pretty cute. Btw, theres a blue CM behind you. Just beautiful. Yeah I know I just purchased it today and now I'm like a proud parent watching it travel north to lay waste to some Polar nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Give em hell Polaris! They deserve no better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 THis is false by the simple truth that GOONS and Poison Clan, and IRON, and Mushroom Kingdom, and all the other alliances who tech raid are not "held accountable" by Polaris. Athens was held accountable pretty widely when they did the same thing. Why? Because attacking people in an alliance and then threatening to pile on their alliance-mates if they defend them is called a war not a tech raid. We can sit here and do the semantic tango all day but you're not going to win: one alliance pitted in combat against another (or in this case, three!) is an alliance war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Its the intent though.Polar's intent here is to be offended about tech raiding and as punishment tech raid the offender. That is hypocricy at its finest. I for one do not give a hoot if I collect even so much as 0.01 tech out of this, tech is not what I am after. This is not a tech raid, my intention is to go in and cause as much damage as I can in whatever way I can. \m/ has been pushing for a war so why should they cry when we give them one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 All of the answers to these questions are in the OP. Are you even bothering to read? He claims now PC were given a deadline, not in the OP, and know one in PC knows about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ada069 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I see no reason to complaint, tis obvious from many \m/'s signitures that they are back to ruin the game for us. Thats a Threat against NpO. We must ACT!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Yes, I'm sure that since this is just a tech raid, NpO will be sending peace offers any time now. I'm sure they did two ground attacks just before update, two after update, with no air strikes, no CM's, and that no nukes will be launched. I'm sure that's all they were doing, is a tech raid. Sorry, I'm not really buying that. Look, even if they *had* done a tech raid, crying "OMG, they treated us just the same as we treated FoA" is nonsense. FoA wants the right to attack others for no reason at all, but starts crying and pissing in their pants when it comes back around. Lets try an analogy. I'm opposed to shooting innocent people. However, if you break into someones house, or try to rob the local gas station, and someone shoots you for doing it, I'm fine with that. I don't really care if the guy that shoots you is the homeowner, or the store clerk, or just some random guy who happened to notice a thief. It's a risk you chose to take. FoA did nothing wrong, and \m/ claims it's OK to attack them. At that point, \m/ and supporters are being hypocritical when they start bawling "OMG, you're trampling my rights" at NpO. A swing and a miss! Here is why you are wrong: NpO states it is against tech raiding. To show how against tech raiding Polar is, Polar tech raids another alliance. It is Polar who is wrong in this by violating their own beliefs just to get a cheap shot at \m/. Tech raiding a tech raider is ok, but tech raiding a tech raider while being against tech raiding is hypocritical. Can you see this now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWAT128 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) All of the answers to these questions are in the OP. I see nothing of what Grub asked \m/ to do. This is the first time he's mentioned a deadline at all. I also see no reason why he never contacted PC, either. Edited January 21, 2010 by SWAT128 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Curzon Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I never implied that our hands were tied. I merely wished to emphasize the fact that we are in a !@#$ty position because of all this and the reply I responded to lacked the gravity of the dilemma we now find ourselves in. Point taken and ceded. I dont think anyone disagrees that this is a !@#$ty position for you guys. THis is false by the simple truth that GOONS and Poison Clan, and IRON, and Mushroom Kingdom, and all the other alliances who tech raid are not "held accountable" by Polaris.This is also proven false because GOONS and Poison Clan participated in the tech raid in question and have not been "punished" for it. This is an attempt to roll \m/, stop trying to make it seem like you have "legit" reasons to. You pick and chose what reasons are war worthy, and ignore such behavior when your allies do it. Funny, thats what the Hegemony did ... Apparently there was some sort of agreement reached between GOONS and NpO, though this is a somewhat vague fact as of now. It might be helpful if the terms of negotiation were outlined a bit more concretely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Are you even bothering to read? He claims now PC were given a deadline, not in the OP, and know one in PC knows about. If you read the OP carefully, I think you will understand my reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Point taken and ceded. I dont think anyone disagrees that this is a !@#$ty position for you guys. Apparently there was some sort of agreement reached between GOONS and NpO, though this is a somewhat vague fact as of now. It might be helpful if the terms of negotiation were outlined a bit more concretely. But no such agreement with Poison Clan, and no diplomatic contact with Poison Clan in regards to this. So how is this not hypocritical again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I see no reason to complaint, tis obvious from many \m/'s signitures that they are back to ruin the game for us. Thats a Threat against NpO. We must ACT!!! NpO hailing guide 101? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 A swing and a miss!Here is why you are wrong: NpO states it is against tech raiding. To show how against tech raiding Polar is, Polar tech raids another alliance. It is Polar who is wrong in this by violating their own beliefs just to get a cheap shot at \m/. Tech raiding a tech raider is ok, but tech raiding a tech raider while being against tech raiding is hypocritical. Can you see this now? The only thing you are showing me is that you are too stupid to understand that while all tech raids are wars, not all wars are tech raids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 NpO hailing guide 101? Almost as revolutionary as the tear drops the ex-\m/ sympathiser crowd makes copious use of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 The only thing you are showing me is that you are too stupid to understand that while all tech raids are wars, not all wars are tech raids. Are you saying you can go to war, attack another nation, and not take their tech? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) Ding dong, the witless are dead! * If you could also roll MK, RoK, Big FoK and Little FoK, then I could play in the fields and pick flowers to my heart's desire. Cheers. *(Anything other than a no-u comeback wins a cookie). EDIT: damn you, possessive apostrophe Edited January 21, 2010 by Hymenbreach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 A swing and a miss!Here is why you are wrong: NpO states it is against tech raiding. To show how against tech raiding Polar is, Polar tech raids another alliance. It is Polar who is wrong in this by violating their own beliefs just to get a cheap shot at \m/. Tech raiding a tech raider is ok, but tech raiding a tech raider while being against tech raiding is hypocritical. Can you see this now? Your argument would be valid if this was a tech raid. But this is an alliance war, a completely different scenario. In a tech raid the objective is to make off with as much tech as possible, But in an alliance war the goal is to leave your enemy as a pile of irradiated ashes that won't pose a threat for a long time. Can you see the difference now? 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.