Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[BraveNewWorld]

Did TSO just support Polaris?

Oh dear.

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

[AirMe]

I suppose I should clarify. I speak of the current Polaris, not of pre SPW actions. Frostbite was defensive only and certainly not a traditional bloc. If the alliance leaders hadn't all been emperors of Polaris is would never have been founded.

I believe that Frostbite was publicly described as an MDoAP bloc, so again your statement is not accurate.

[Baden-Württemberg]

Did TSO just support Polaris?

Oh dear.

Yeah, I am not the kind of person who supports only his "side", when I think that the other side has points and a good reasoning. I have no problem supporting Polar, I think they'll have, though

[HeinousOne]

PC are not involved.

Edit: Srqt, I mostly agree, but I would say that Polar are being rather arrogant as well. They believe that they can determine and mete out justice to the world, at least in certain cases. Now, I think they're right and I'm glad they've conducted this operation, but it is pretty arrogant nonetheless.

They were interested in a situation and approached it diplomatically and in turn were treated very disrespectfully. They feel strongly about the situation that was happening so they make a Sovereign Decision to get involved. If being willing to make such decisions is arrogant then this world needs a whole lot more of this arrogance because it is quickly becoming an Imperial world which allows alliances to wave a stack of papers (treaties) in front of anyone while telling them what to do.

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

Careful, you are leaving yourself open with this question. Are you not trying to police NpO by questioning their decision and how it puts your alliance in a tough position?

Polaris hit their MDoAP partner. PC is honorbound to join in, and Polaris knows it.

Actually I would say insults worthy of a public apology from the head of an alliance could be construed as an official attack thus \m/ were the aggressors in this and PC is not honorbound to join in because of the whole oA aspect of that treaty.

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

There really should be a world addendum meeting that is to focus on the wording of treaties as a whole. When one has to defer to treaties signed by other alliances rather then an alliance's own decision making then something is wrong.

[Alterego]

We don't like it when our treaty partners put us in an awkward situation.

You have treaties with Athens and \m/ who generally do as they please without any consideration for their allies. If you have a treaty with an alliance that acts like that its your decision not their fault.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Alterego

[delendum]

We took this route "anyway" because a resolution could not be made, and indeed \m/, knowing we were an ally of their ally, treated our emperor with such crudeness and disrespect that caused the entire thing to escalate. I'm not saying your government is thrilled. I'm saying they were given the notice and opportunity that they deserved as a treaty partner. As I stated earlier, being an ally does not give you the right to ask for immunity for your other allies.

Nice way to ignore the question.

When we have issue with their actions, we will take those issues to them, and when they treat us the way \m/ treated us, we will respond.

I agree 100% that \m/ were total !@#$%bags about the way they handled themselves. I seriously don't care what happens to them. I do care that you are willing to attack an ally of an ally over your egos being insulted by words, especially when you got involved into that situation of your own accord. As Trace mentioned earlier, had you not went in and demanded things from \m/, they wouldn't have ended up insulting you.

I'm not trying to excuse \m/'s actions, but you basically decided to ignore your ally completely, and at best question their competence to handle the issue as a directly involved party. I'm sure RoK would have tried to at least smack some sense into \m/, and had they failed, canceled their treaty with them. But only your brand of justice apparently matters, regardless of how your ally feels about it.

[Bob]

Actually I would say insults worthy of a public apology from the head of an alliance could be construed as an official attack thus \m/ were the aggressors in this and PC is not honorbound to join in because of the whole oA aspect of that treaty.

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

[Bob]

You have treaties with Athens and \m/ who generally do as they please without any consideration for their allies. If you have a treaty with an alliance that acts like that its your decision not their fault.

We are treatied to \m/? News to me. I thought we hated them.

Oh wait, we do.

[BraveNewWorld]

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.

As I addressed above, Frostbite was not a traditional bloc the way the ones today operate, as is obvious by the fact it is now dissolved.

As I also addressed above, the first time we paid for, the second time there was no issue, things happened exactly as they should addressing the issue with diplomacy, and this time, that diplomacy unfortunately failed thanks to the immaturity and disrespect of \m/.

[AirMe]

You have treaties with Athens and \m/ who generally do as they please without any consideration for their allies. If you have a treaty with an alliance that acts like that its your decision not their fault.

No Alterego they do not have a treaty with \m/. MK hates \m/ with every fiber of their being. Which has been stated a couple of times. Nice try though.

[James Maximus]

i c wut u did thar

But by your logic we should now be attacking Polar to ensure it doesn't become a pattern, because a stern talking to isn't enough anymore.

(btw to the best of my knowledge that action is the furthest thing from MK's mind)

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.

[Il Impero Romano]

Going to respond to you both at the same time, or atleast try to. If as Bob says is true and RoK was approached by Polar before this then really the main talking point about why Polar was wrong in this is moot now, right?

Could someone from RoK please stand up?

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).

[Alterego]

No Alterego they do not have a treaty with \m/. MK hates \m/ with every fiber of their being. Which has been stated a couple of times. Nice try though.

My (genuine)mistake.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Alterego

[HeinousOne]

Who's policing anything? I am raising concerns with regards to how much Polaris cares about its allies, yes, and I am more than entitled to do so seeing as I'm currently allied to them and this is the second time they decide to screw our opinions in the name of doing what they think "is right".

I don't see anybody else holding \m/ accountable for their actions, certainly not alliances who would have been a lot more able to do so seeing as no treaties would conflict to them stomping \m/, yet they are all here cheering Polar for doing so.

Call me crazy, but it's as if they like this friction between Polar and its allies more than they like "justice being served".

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.

[King Srqt]

Who's policing anything? I am raising concerns with regards to how much Polaris cares about its allies, yes, and I am more than entitled to do so seeing as I'm currently allied to them and this is the second time they decide to screw our opinions in the name of doing what they think "is right".

I don't see anybody else holding \m/ accountable for their actions, certainly not alliances who would have been a lot more able to do so seeing as no treaties would conflict to them stomping \m/, yet they are all here cheering Polar for doing so.

Call me crazy, but it's as if they like this friction between Polar and its allies more than they like "justice being served".

I dont think anyone is policing anyone. I was responding to someone who does using his own definition to prove a point.

And again jsut because Polar are the only ones doing it doesn't mean it is not the right thing to do.

Edited January 21, 2010 by KingSrqt

[BraveNewWorld]

I believe that Frostbite was publicly described as an MDoAP bloc, so again your statement is not accurate.

While C&G and SF are MADP blocs. The o there is pretty important. Again, Frostbite was certainly not a traditional bloc working as a group, which is why it didn't last.

[Bob]

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.

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

Edited January 21, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Joe Izuzu]

The community of Bob generally has very little problem with the punishment/destruction of rogues. When a single nation goes off the deep end and commits atrocities, the resulting punishment of the nation is almost always universally hailed as the correct action.

Why is it different when the rogue is an entire alliance? \m/ went rogue when it violated the terms of its charter and mass raided another alliance. When called on that fact, the response was "Shut up, we can do whatever we want to". In my mind, an alliance that casually disregards its own charter is a rogue alliance. Rogue alliances need to be punished and brought back into line.

As for the "friends don't antagonize/assault the friend of a friend of a friend" argument, the first order friend of the rogue alliance should have severed its ties with the rogue as soon as it became apparent that the friend had gone rogue and had absolutely no remorse and no intention of curtailing its illicit actions in the future. In the great nation of Momoland, when a friend commits a crime, you have an absolute obligation to assist in the capture and prosecution of the friend. Not doing so makes you an accomplice after the fact. \m/ is a rogue and by going rogue intentionally surrendered any claim to protection by its friends.

I have no problem with Grub and Polaris acting as the neighborhood watch in this case, especially since their attempts to resolve the matter diplomatically were met with derision and intractable disdain.

(edited for spelling phail)

Edited January 21, 2010 by Joe Izuzu

[AirMe]

......and this time, that diplomacy unfortunately failed thanks to the immaturity and disrespect of \m/.

That is where you are wrong. Diplomacy failed when your leader rushed into an issue that didn't involve him and that had been solved 2 days prior to the satisfaction of all parties involved when Polaris ran in and threatened a direct Polaris treaty partner with war as well as the 2 other alliances involved.

Since Polaris's involvement this has become a train wreck of relative tragic proportions. Not only did you threaten a direct treaty partner with war, you ended up actually bringing war to a direct treaty partner of one of your allies over a situation that HAD ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED TO THE INVOLVED PARTIES SATISFACTION.

It is one thing standing up for the little guy when they ask for help. But when the little guy solves things with the big guy and then you come and beat him up 2 days later, it makes you no better if not worse than the original big guy.

[AirMe]

While C&G and SF are MADP blocs. The o there is pretty important. Again, Frostbite was certainly not a traditional bloc working as a group, which is why it didn't last.

Stop splitting hairs. Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but .....just means you don't have a foot to stand on.

[James Maximus]

Your logic is flawed then.

To you it may be but I find it quite fine. Then again that may just be the moralist in me talking.

[BraveNewWorld]

Stop splitting hairs. Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but .....just means you don't have a foot to stand on.

The fact that Frostbite no longer exists I think is a pretty sturdy foot.

The point is still the same. Polaris is an independent alliance and we will hold our treaties to their word. If you want more control over our alliance than that, put it in the treaty (but don't expect a signature).

[Dochartaigh]

And God forbid we can't act like !@#$@#$ grown ups and shrug off profanities. Christ, it's like we're all in elementary school and saying "suck" gets you stuck on the wall at recess for 10 minutes.

this is the most pathetic excuse i have seen thrown around. how about a god forbid we all act like grown ups and not throw around racial insults at anyone just cuz we can?

if you can't realize which is worse, then well...

[BraveNewWorld]

That is where you are wrong. Diplomacy failed when your leader rushed into an issue that didn't involve him and that had been solved 2 days prior to the satisfaction of all parties involved when Polaris ran in and threatened a direct Polaris treaty partner with war as well as the 2 other alliances involved.

Since Polaris's involvement this has become a train wreck of relative tragic proportions. Not only did you threaten a direct treaty partner with war, you ended up actually bringing war to a direct treaty partner of one of your allies over a situation that HAD ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED TO THE INVOLVED PARTIES SATISFACTION.

It is one thing standing up for the little guy when they ask for help. But when the little guy solves things with the big guy and then you come and beat him up 2 days later, it makes you no better if not worse than the original big guy.

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.

[Triyun]

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.