Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[Bob]

I know that when MK lacks any substantive point its first reaction is to troll 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.

Yes, I have no substantive point /related/ to Polaris because I am doing my best not to argue against Polaris, but rather to argue MK's role in this. I apologize for not badtalking Polaris, if it suits your agenda better I can start now.

And you ignored my points related to MK, so I guess we are even

Edited January 21, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[MCRABT]

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.

CB's last forever, following the example of Athens, RoK et al they should have attacked \m/ out of the blue at random six months down the line for the annoyance this incident has likely caused.

[Lord Philip]

I'd just like to thank the mighty NpO for serving up a war just twenty days after I've joined, it's appreciated and I'm looking forward to being bloodied in their name.

Hurrah!

[kriekfreak]

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

What part of a resolved issue, don't you understand? \m/ were the aggressors in their, again, resolved techraid. Polaris had no business in this, so they shouldn't have sought diplomatic ways to resolve it, since it was already over.

They continued to attack them, so it is Polaris who is now on the offensive.

[kriekfreak]

CB's last forever, following the example of Athens, RoK et al they should have attacked \m/ out of the blue at random six months down the line for the annoyance this incident has likely caused.

Euh yeah, that point would stick if it was FoA that was doing this attacking, not Polaris.

[Il Impero Romano]

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?

\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.

And here is where it is possible to agree with you on one and disagree on another.

I completely agree \m/ did ask for it, and I truly have no problem with Polar declaring given the perticular circumstances between the two alliances.

I disagree that it was an actual concrete CB in the sense that \m/ was so clearly wrong as to warrent Rok dropping them. The validity of Polars decision is a matter of opinion, and while me and you agree that it was the right one does not mean it is steadfast enough to pop out at one as a "CB" (juxtapose the current situation with "X was spying, here is IP matches and screen shots" or "X had a rogue and refused to pay reps"). Rok did not see \m/'s raid and subsequent remedial diplomatic handling of the situation as cause to automatically drop them. Perhaps after they had more time they would have, which we will never know seeing at the DoW is in the OP of this thread.

However, like you said, its Polars decision and theirs alone, which I also agree with, and once more I agree that in a situation such as this a concrete CB is not needed to give someone what they are clearly asking for. Yet just because it is within Polars right to do something does not mean that other considerations aside from the direct circumstances with \m/ (i.e. \m/ being treaty partners with their ally, Rok) should be dismissed from their decision making process, which they apparently were here. This I find to be distasteful.

How people weigh these two things is completely subjective, and I could see where reasonable minds would put differing importance on each of the issues at hand within the current situation. The fact stands though that they are two separate and distinct issues, and because its possible for people (like me personally) to, for example, support Polar on one hand and find them at fault on another, it leaves a very odd feeling. I don't like being conflicted on situations lol

Personally, I would like to see this wrapped up as quickly and painlessly as possible. In my mind, it would be ideal to see white peace from Polar after a day or so, an apology from \m/ for the raid and their subsequent conduct afterwords with an assurance that they will chance policy and no longer allow such things to occur, and an apology from Polar to Rok for their myopic consideration of the issue and dismissal of Rok's status as a mutual treaty partner (privately, if nothing else).

...but that's just me.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[King Srqt]

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.

Wait Wait Wait, the crux of your argument is that a full scale organized attack against an entire alliance by an entire alliance is not an alliance war? And I am delusional? That is laughable

what I mean by "membership and treaty police" is that \m/ decided that because FOA didn't have a lot of members and no treaties it was ok to declare war on them which is what they did.

Polaris declared war on \m/ because they do not like how \m/ conducted their war which Polaris feels is their right, how is \m/ right and Polar wrong?

If you say that declaring war on an alliance is ok for the purpose of a raid than I feel you have no leg to stand on in criticizing anyone's reason for attacking any alliance.

[Roadie]

Okay, this entire line of argument revolving around Polar attacking a treaty partner of a treaty partner is getting old. Didn't we all debate that nonsense to death during Karma, anyway. Sheesh.

[Matthew Conrad]

As the former protectors of FoA it was extremely unfortunate to see them raided but this ended up being resolved satisfactorily by both sides. This war was started in a completely unnecessary and worst possible way.

[HeinousOne]

And here is where it is possible to agree with you on one and disagree on another.

I completely agree \m/ did ask for it, and I truly have no problem with Polar declaring given the perticular circumstances between the two alliances.

I disagree that it was an actual concrete CB in the sense that \m/ was so clearly wrong as to warrent Rok dropping them. The validity of Polars decision is a matter of opinion, and while me and you agree that it was the right one does not mean it is steadfast enough to pop out at one as a "CB" (juxtapose the current situation with "X was spying, here is IP matches and screen shots" or "X had a rogue and refused to pay reps"). Rok did not see \m/'s raid and subsequent remedial diplomatic handling of the situation as cause to automatically drop them. Perhaps after they had more time they would have, which we will never know seeing at the DoW is in the OP of this thread.

However, like you said, its Polars decision and theirs alone, which I also agree with, and once more I agree that in a situation such as this a concrete CB is not needed to give someone what they are clearly asking for. Yet just because it is within Polars right to do something does not mean that other considerations aside from the direct circumstances with \m/ (i.e. \m/ being treaty partners with their ally, Rok) should be dismissed from their decision making process, which they apparently were here. This I find to be distasteful.

How people weigh these two things is completely subjective, and I could see where reasonable minds would put differing importance on each of the issues at hand within the current situation. The fact stands though that they are two separate and distinct issues, and because its possible for people (like me personally) to, for example, support Polar on one hand and find them at fault on another, it leaves a very odd feeling. I don't like being conflicted on situations lol

Personally, I would like to see this wrapped up as quickly and painlessly as possible. In my mind, it would be ideal to see white peace from Polar after a day or so, an apology from \m/ for the raid and their subsequent conduct afterwords with an assurance that they will chance policy and no longer allow such things to occur, and an apology from Polar to Rok for their myopic consideration of the issue and dismissal of Rok's status as a mutual treaty partner (privately, if nothing else).

...but that's just me.

I figure you summed it all up pretty well. What's done is done and I hope that this will be a short war because if its not then its going to be a rather long and much larger war. Then again, maybe that wont be so bad either. The last one was a dud.

Anyways, was fun getting in the ring again, glad to see it was all respectfully done here in This ring.

Best of luck to all sides.

[Merrie Melodies]

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.

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.

I know for a fact you are wrong, (the very wrong statements made by a couple of our members in IRC aside) Diplomacy would not have worked, \m/ was un willing to give Grub what he was asking for, ask Grub I believe he knows this.

[MCRABT]

Euh yeah, that point would stick if it was FoA that was doing this attacking, not Polaris.

Polar's CB is that \m/ has dragged down the standards of the community and have been generally offensive toward them during their attempts to resolve the original issue which was that they do not accept the right of any alliance to impose itself on another without some form of justification.

It might be a rather unusual CB but it is an alleged CB nonetheless. If TPF's alleged crime of spying which is also unacceptable in the eyes of the community does not expire then why should \m/'s alleged crimes until they have met the consequences of their actions? I'm not saying I actually agree with the view in either case just pointing out where my point comes from.

[HeinousOne]

I know for a fact you are wrong, (the very wrong statements made by a couple of our members in IRC aside) Diplomacy would not have worked, \m/ was un willing to give Grub what he was asking for, ask Grub I believe he knows this.

Seems I was not very clear with my words. My apologies. It was not my intention to say a diplomatic solution could have been made but that both parties would have acted diplomatically and respectfully towards the other. It is in your alliance's best interests to not treat those who come to you diplomatically like !@#$. That means even if you dont like what they have to say. When you do, you invite them to attack you because your disrespect is an invitation for a CB. Yes you will get people calling them out for it but as long as they keep it to just a bloody nose conflict and not something larger that is all it will remain.

You could have told him diplomatically that he was not going to get what he wanted. You didn't and you guys went so far that you had to try and cover yourselves with a public apology that didn't really seem all that sincere.

[kriekfreak]

Polar's CB is that \m/ has dragged down the standards of the community and have been generally offensive toward them during their attempts to resolve the original issue which was that they do not accept the right of any alliance to impose itself on another without some form of justification.

It might be a rather unusual CB but it is an alleged CB nonetheless. If TPF's alleged crime of spying which is also unacceptable in the eyes of the community does not expire then why should \m/'s alleged crimes until they have met the consequences of their actions? I'm not saying I actually agree with the view in either case just pointing out where my point comes from.

I also think IRON drags down the standards of the community, and yet, you don't see me claiming this is enough grounds to destroy your alliance. So reiterating, I think this is a nonsense CB and I object to it.

[Matthew Conrad]

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.

The fact is currently they were a third party. They don't really have a leg to stand on when the situation was already resolved from the involved/affected alliances. Their diplomats, to be quite honest, didn't have a reason to be there when the situation was being resolved. Diplomats should be treated well but those diplomats shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[TheEraser]

I also think IRON drags down the standards of the community, and yet, you don't see me claiming this is enough grounds to destroy your alliance. So reiterating, I think this is a nonsense CB and I object to it.

good for you, i'm sure Grub will reconsider our position b/c of your words here today.

[Heft]

I am just glad that the rest of the world understands the justness of Polar's actions here and will not interfere with this necessary endeavor.

[Merrie Melodies]

Seems I was not very clear with my words. My apologies. It was not my intention to say a diplomatic solution could have been made but that both parties would have acted diplomatically and respectfully towards the other. It is in your alliance's best interests to not treat those who come to you diplomatically like !@#$. That means even if you dont like what they have to say. When you do, you invite them to attack you because your disrespect is an invitation for a CB. Yes you will get people calling them out for it but as long as they keep it to just a bloody nose conflict and not something larger that is all it will remain.

You could have told him diplomatically that he was not going to get what he wanted. You didn't and you guys went so far that you had to try and cover yourselves with a public apology that didn't really seem all that sincere.

I invite you to seek out my posts in our apology thread, it might clear a few things up.

In case you missed it, war was coming prior to that incident, our apology wasn't to avoid it, it was an apology plain and simple, one I personally wish was made in private.

[MCRABT]

I also think IRON drags down the standards of the community, and yet, you don't see me claiming this is enough grounds to destroy your alliance. So reiterating, I think this is a nonsense CB and I object to it.

Well if you ever change your mind you know where the DoW button is

[Roadie]

Again with the Grub shouldn't have been there line of argument.

How the heck does anyone figure that an alliance leader shouldn't be speaking - for any reason - to other alliance leaders? That's what leadership should do. If they aren't talking to other alliances leaders, they shouldn't be leading one themselves.

If Spartan leaders stopped by in our public chan to talk to us about something that isn't their business, we certainly aren't going to take a dump in their faces and would deserve a kick in the butt if we did.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Roadie

[neneko]

You know you've done a brilliant political move when you get support from baps, tpf and tso.

[Phetion]

Well if you ever change your mind you know where the DoW button is

He'll probably hit it faster than you guys have in the recent past.

[General Ozujsko]

That is actually the oldest definition of sovereignty in the Cyberverse. Everything else that has been fabricated has only been so in order to protect the precious infrastructure of those afraid to fight unless they have a very very clear advantage.

Any alliance can declare upon any other alliance for whatever reason it chooses. That is the sovereign right of every alliance. Dealing with the ramifications and consequences goes along with that but the right still exists.

I agree with some of what you said; disagree with other parts. At the risk of going completely OOC, I'll pm you to discuss this further.

[FreddieMercury]

Grub, you have made my day.

Have fun hunting.

[MCRABT]

He'll probably hit it faster than you guys have in the recent past.

Before 6 days from now, I do hope so.