Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[Joe Stupid]

I'm truly ashamed to call both of you my allies.

[Phetion]

As has been said before by someone (I don't recall who, sorry), the situation between \m/ and Polaris was not resolved. There are two different situations here, one between FoA and \m/ and another between Polaris and \m/, one of which has been resolved and the other has culminated in this. Before you continue to throw out your idiotic one-liners, try and make sure you actually know what happened and can speak with some knowledge on the matter.

Getting involved when it is already resolved (and imposing a deadline, no less) and not your concern is stupid.

The reason a second situation occurred was due to Polar doing the above. I believe that's a sturdy enough word and knowledge for me to post with confidence so that I can speak with "some knowledge".

Unfortunately, I don't resort to insults in my arguments. Much like what Polar is hitting (and kidding themselves it's the reason) \m/ for now.

Yeah, yeah I know, spouting racist slurs isn't quite the same as calling someone an idiot, but you have to start somewhere?

[Mergerberger II]

If you had decided to techraid \m/ and organised such i'd tip my hat to you for the irony and that would be it.

Instead you declared an alliance war.

Frankly i am sick and tired of this thread, so i will take my leave now. Hoo has posted the only relevant post of the last 5 pages, everything else is the same endless back and forth of the same arguments we have had for nearly 60 pages before that.

PS: My personal opinion is that both sides made plenty of errors in their behaviour to go around.

For the record, I did suggest that the OP contain the words 'Raid, peace sent' and nothing else, but I think Grub did a good job without sacrificing seriousness.

[Ivan Moldavi]

i have become disenchanted with the alliances formerly part of Karma. it seems that oppression was in fact the goal of many and that others simply support it for no real reason whatsoever. even the voice of Karma now supports attacking alliances simply because they have no treaties.

If you want to take a position of power and utilize the oppressed in order to do it then you must endear yourself to the downtrodden masses. Once that has been accomplished and the victory won, the facade of "universal freedom from oppression" can swiftly be shed.

[Dochartaigh]

You are quite correct, can you guess why we haven't so far?

do you think i honestly care enough to guess? if you do, then you do not know me. frankly, you state you are standing up for your "beliefs" against the "ebil" Polaris, when essentially Polaris is doing exactly what you want to protect. Exercising their sovereignty as an alliance. so hey, have fun with that. though if you truly want to protect your sovereignty, i would suggest you start telling your allies to back off as if it becomes precedent that Polaris was wrong in this matter despite Polaris exercising their sovereignty as an alliance, it is only a matter of time before your sovereign "right" to attack un-treatied alliances is threatened or stopped by a larger coalition.

but hey, continue to call Polaris ebil or allow your allies to state that Polaris is in the wrong for exercising their sovereignty. once that bit of sovereignty is gone, soon more and more sovereignty an alliance has will be shredded until there is very little left and we are all once more under the jackboot of a new (possibly old) hegemony.

again though have fun with getting the world to agree that Polaris is wrong in this matter.

[Kindom of Goon]

i have become disenchanted with the alliances formerly part of Karma. it seems that oppression was in fact the goal of many and that others simply support it for no real reason whatsoever. even the voice of Karma now supports attacking alliances simply because they have no treaties.

Going by your argument, Grub also supports it as long as it's his own ally doing it.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

actually at that point it would be PC putting you in that position, not Polaris. as Polaris hit someone that is indirectly allied to CnG but not directly tied. PC on the other hand is directly tied and thus would be the ones putting CnG in the tight spot by attacking Polaris.

but good attempt at spinning this into being Polaris's fault because \m/ fails at diplomacy and instead hurls racial slurs.

You are wrong. Just plain wrong. PC has an obligation to defend \m/ against aggressive attacks. Thus PC HAS to enter the conflict. Polaris knew this going in and thus knew that they'd be putting the allies of PC in a very tight spot. Polaris has shown complete disregard for its allies over an issue that was resolved between all parties involved, and has put the safety of our alliances and our other allies at risk. Polaris your actions we uncalled for and in many ways broke the spirit of the treaties you hold. Im glad Im not in a position to decide the future of ties to your alliance because I would be disgusted if I was your ally being treated like this.

Also, \m/ is stupid for raiding an alliance. Just thought I'd add that. But you are clearly ONLY targeting them cause they don't have the weight to throw around like PC and GOONS did.

It's funny that you guys keep saying that, yet it is not even close to the truth. \m/ knew you were going to attack them and assume you would no matter what they did. There is no shock on the part of \m/ whatsoever. Keep proclaiming that they didn't think you'd go through with it because you look pretty stupid from where those of us in the know are sitting.

Another important point is that Grub didn't say anything to \m/ to start the commentary in \m/'s channel. You went after him with horrid and childish insults simply for being there. This wasn't just individuals saying what they please in their home channel or joking around with eachother. This was you going after someone who you knew damn well wasn't "in on the joke" in public.

Anyway, those two points were just irking me to no end. While I understand Polar and \m/'s reasons to an extent ... I do not agree in any way, shape, or form and both sides have been told this.

Tech raiding a 34 man alliance is stupid.

Getting involved when it is already resolved (and imposing a deadline, no less) and not your concern is stupid.

Goading someone who doesn't like you (while using racial slurs, no less) is stupid.

Attacking an ally of an ally is stupid.

Neither of you cared enough about Ragnarok to simply walk away. Shame on you both.

Actually this sums it up quite nicely.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Stumpy Jung Il

[LegendoftheSkies]

It's funny that you guys keep saying that, yet it is not even close to the truth. \m/ knew you were going to attack them and assume you would no matter what they did. There is no shock on the part of \m/ whatsoever. Keep proclaiming that they didn't think you'd go through with it because you look pretty stupid from where those of us in the know are sitting.

Another important point is that Grub didn't say anything to \m/ to start the commentary in \m/'s channel. You went after him with horrid and childish insults simply for being there. This wasn't just individuals saying what they please in their home channel or joking around with eachother. This was you going after someone who you knew damn well wasn't "in on the joke" in public.

Anyway, those two points were just irking me to no end. While I understand Polar and \m/'s reasons to an extent ... I do not agree in any way, shape, or form and both sides have been told this.

Tech raiding a 34 man alliance is stupid.

Getting involved when it is already resolved (and imposing a deadline, no less) and not your concern is stupid.

Goading someone who doesn't like you (while using racial slurs, no less) is stupid.

Attacking an ally of an ally is stupid.

Neither of you cared enough about Ragnarok to simply walk away. Shame on you both.

Corp doesn't like people who make Hoo cry.

[Tulafaras]

Oh so it is acceptable to attack an alliance if you follow those guidelines. I will go ask Xiph if he would consider it an alliance war if an alliance came in with an organized attack against GOD using those criteria. I think you and I both know what type of war he would consider it.

Considering i've had "techraiders will be nuked" in my nation bio for nearly 2 years i think it's pretty clear what i think of someone techraiding us. Honestly i don't agree with techraiding on principle (as in, i don't believe it makes sense. If you hit a nation who is willing to fight back you loose more than you gain in 3 raids) but neither do i agree that just because an alliance techraids or organises techraids they should be open to all kind of bullying from stronger opponents.

Is that a doublestandard? Yes to some extent it is, but it's also an easily explainable one. To defend yourselve from a techraid all you need is a single protector, something almost any alliance can find if they are willing to go looking. To protect yourselve from Bullying from an alliance of NpO's size you need to be very well connected in the treaty web, and have a decent size to start with, something far more difficult to achieve.

Ps: Now i will really take my leave of this thread. If you want to continue this discussion we can do so on IRC after tomorrow, when my exam is over

[Triyun]

It might have something to do with the lack of nukes, AC attacks, CMs and navy attacks.

It also might have something to do with the easy way to stop the raid ("pm for peace" ring any bells?).

I think you should definitely start doing this too alliances and see how that works for you. Logically since tech raiding isn't the same as an act of war, when you inevitably get nuked, CMed, or bombed back to the stone age you should logically then claim that they are the aggressors.

[Wad of Lint]

It might have something to do with the lack of nukes, AC attacks, CMs and navy attacks.

It also might have something to do with the easy way to stop the raid ("pm for peace" ring any bells?).

So I can declare on you... and as long as I only ground attack, it's alright, 'cause it's just a tech raid?

[Vilien]

Note: I've skipped all of the intervening banter. If I make a mistake, correct me in a non-embarrassing manner.

This was a pretty stupid thing to do. You've put your allies in an extremely uncomfortable position, and you've potentially weakened yourself and your allies to the benefit of certain uninvolved parties. You went in to conduct diplomacy with war in mind, and it's no surprise to any of us that your cursory attempts to "work this issue out" were fruitless. As much as I'd like to see \m/ put in its place, this is absolutely the wrong way of doing it. I am completely aware that all of you pretend moralists don't even begin to understand the irony of this situation. Enjoy the fireworks, children.

Also: Tech raid, PM for peace.

[Kzoppistan]

A powerful move for collective security.

[Reagan1]

The question of "does tech raid=war?" gets thrown around and debated in every war scenario I've seen. It's not complicated. If you "attack" a nation for any reason, you are committing an act of war. I believe this community argues just to hear themselves talk, and judging by 65 pages on this topic alone, I'd say I'm right.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Reagan

[Bob]

Note: I've skipped all of the intervening banter. If I make a mistake, correct me in a non-embarrassing manner.

This was a pretty stupid thing to do. You've put your allies in an extremely uncomfortable position, and you've potentially weakened yourself and your allies to the benefit of certain uninvolved parties. You went in to conduct diplomacy with war in mind, and it's no surprise to any of us that your cursory attempts to "work this issue out" were fruitless. As much as I'd like to see \m/ put in its place, this is absolutely the wrong way of doing it. I am completely aware that all of you pretend moralists don't even begin to understand the irony of this situation. Enjoy the fireworks, children.

Also: Tech raid, PM for peace.

Yes. Exactly, yes. Vilien hits the issue spot on, well explained sir.

[Joe Stupid]

Note: I've skipped all of the intervening banter. If I make a mistake, correct me in a non-embarrassing manner.

This was a pretty stupid thing to do. You've put your allies in an extremely uncomfortable position, and you've potentially weakened yourself and your allies to the benefit of certain uninvolved parties. You went in to conduct diplomacy with war in mind, and it's no surprise to any of us that your cursory attempts to "work this issue out" were fruitless. As much as I'd like to see \m/ put in its place, this is absolutely the wrong way of doing it. I am completely aware that all of you pretend moralists don't even begin to understand the irony of this situation. Enjoy the fireworks, children.

Also: Tech raid, PM for peace.

I have rarely agreed with any of your thoughts, I am in full support of what you said here, and you said it better then I could ever hope to. My mind after separating all this horse!@#$ feels like ive been watching Jersey Shore for 2 full hours.

[WarriorConcept]

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.

When will you be attacking MK and every alliance that allows raiding on small alliances?

[Gunnar Griffin]

Ah, I find it interesting that both sides claim the other is oppressive.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Gunnar Griffin

[LegendoftheSkies]

Note: I've skipped all of the intervening banter. If I make a mistake, correct me in a non-embarrassing manner.

This was a pretty stupid thing to do. You've put your allies in an extremely uncomfortable position, and you've potentially weakened yourself and your allies to the benefit of certain uninvolved parties. You went in to conduct diplomacy with war in mind, and it's no surprise to any of us that your cursory attempts to "work this issue out" were fruitless. As much as I'd like to see \m/ put in its place, this is absolutely the wrong way of doing it. I am completely aware that all of you pretend moralists don't even begin to understand the irony of this situation. Enjoy the fireworks, children.

Except for the \m/ hate, I agree with all your points.

So actually, you pretty much hit the nail on the head here as far as I'm concerned anyway.

Though you as a moralist are in agreement with me of all people so clearly you're missing something

[Dochartaigh]

Sad sad day when I find myself agreeing totally with Dochartaigh.

Have fun all, see some of you if it chains as far as me

but, but i thought you loved me...

/me runs off to cry

If you want to take a position of power and utilize the oppressed in order to do it then you must endear yourself to the downtrodden masses. Once that has been accomplished and the victory won, the facade of "universal freedom from oppression" can swiftly be shed.

so true. hopefully this time around it won't take 3 or so years to take out anyone trying to become the Heg.

Going by your argument, Grub also supports it as long as it's his own ally doing it.

not true in the least as GOONS was chastised in private. thus, that in no way states that Grub or Polaris condones it. but good try.

i was happy when MK stated that they had chastised Athens/FoB over the KoN incident. but it seems they still feel as if it is okay that their allies or friends of friends of friends do as they please and bear no real consequences. i doubt that GOONS would tech raid an alliance again.

You are wrong. Just plain wrong. PC has an obligation to defend \m/ against aggressive attacks. Thus PC HAS to enter the conflict. Polaris knew this going in and thus knew that they'd be putting the allies of PC in a very tight spot. Polaris has shown complete disregard for its allies over an issue that was resolved between all parties involved, and has put the safety of our alliances and our other allies at risk. Polaris your actions we uncalled for and in many ways broke the spirit of the treaties you hold. Im glad Im not in a position to decide the future of ties to your alliance because I would be disgusted if I was your ally being treated like this.

Also, \m/ is stupid for raiding an alliance. Just thought I'd add that. But you are clearly ONLY targeting them cause they don't have the weight to throw around like PC and GOONS did.

Actually this sums it up quite nicely.

yes and once PC attacks Polaris, PC has now attacked a direct ally of MK. that is not the same as Polaris attacking \m/ who is allied to PC who is allied to Athens/FoB, who are then allied to MK. PC hitting Polaris is 1 degree of separation. Polaris hitting \m/ is 3 degrees of separation.

the allies of PC are Athens and FoB, not MK. thus, in reality there is again 3 degrees of separation not even 2.

so no, Polaris spoke to Hoo and RoK, as Hoo even stated. so Polaris has shown absolutely no disregard towards their allies. instead it is MK who has publicly disparaged Polaris who has shown disregard towards their allies and in many ways have broken the spirit of the treaty.

also i find it funny that you bring up the fact that Polaris did not hit PC. could this in fact be because they have a direct tie to CnG whom their ally MK is part of? oh wait, ignore that bit of regard that Polaris has for MK as it gets in the way with ya'll trashing Polaris about their lack of regard to MK...

\m/ brought this on themselves for slinging racial slurs, unwarranted, at Grub (from Hoo himself). thus, ya'll can't even honestly state that it was because Grub was sticking his nose where it does not belong as he had said nothing before the racial slurs came a-hurling at him.

[scottimus prime]

My mind after separating all this horse!@#$ feels like ive been watching Jersey Shore for 2 full hours.

I feel comfortable speaking for all of Polaris when I say we wouldn't wish the Jersey Shore on anyone including \m/.....that's just uncivilized

[Ivan Moldavi]

Ah, I find it interesting that both sides claim the other is oppressive.

I don't claim anyone as oppressive, at least not more oppressive. I simply point out that those in power oppress.

If I am ever in the power position I will oppress, as I have in the past. That is what Tyrants do.

I am a Tyrant.

[neneko]

Pretending that you didn't read the OP or inferring to the reasons what you wish to infer is not bait that I will bite at.

I'm not sure if you're feigning ignorance in your second point or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. My point was about their treaty web specifically and by extension their infra. This is likely going to or at least easily could effect their treaty web negatively. This can easily be seen by how poorly this move has been received by their treaty partners and a shrinking treaty web endangers their infras.

The OP even includes a plea not to drag more alliances in against poor polar.

That satement is simply pathetic. One of the worst things I have read in this entire thread. Grub told his allies that they may feel free to stay home, he didn't ask that nobody defend /m\. In fact, he openly welcomes those that are going to defend m. Here's the actual quote from the OP.

**For those concerned, we will require NO assistance from our allies in dealing with this matter. If this matter is to escalate that will be by your choosing alone. I understand that a treaty partner of \m/ will choose to defend, we will await your deployment, also alone.

Reading betwen the lines isn't your thing is it? Or anyone else that made comments similar to yours. The part where they say that it will be by \m/s own actions this would escalate is the same as stating directly in the DoW that they'd prefer that nobody else hits them.

Am I supposed to be impressed by the fact that they didn't drag in assistance to fight this 80 man aa? No the reason they even brought that part up is because they both want a easy fight and step away from any responsibility for this conflict in case it would escalate.

Grub might be bat!@#$ insane but he's not that dumb. He didn't enter this war without checking to see that he would not leave his back open. This conflict will not escalate in any way where it could be a threat to NpO and grub knew that when he decided to roll \m/ for not liking them.

Bravery? I think not.

Edited January 21, 2010 by neneko

[Texas Longhorn]

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.

Even if you did have the grounds too, you couldn't.

[Balder]

Note: I've skipped all of the intervening banter. If I make a mistake, correct me in a non-embarrassing manner.

This was a pretty stupid thing to do. You've put your allies in an extremely uncomfortable position, and you've potentially weakened yourself and your allies to the benefit of certain uninvolved parties. You went in to conduct diplomacy with war in mind, and it's no surprise to any of us that your cursory attempts to "work this issue out" were fruitless. As much as I'd like to see \m/ put in its place, this is absolutely the wrong way of doing it. I am completely aware that all of you pretend moralists don't even begin to understand the irony of this situation. Enjoy the fireworks, children.

Also: Tech raid, PM for peace.

[14:55] <&Legendoftheskies[Corp]> Vilien made a post I agree with

[14:55] <&Legendoftheskies[Corp]> I must not be well

[14:55] <&Legendoftheskies[Corp]> http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=2122538

[14:56] <&iClean[Corp|CEO]> VILE BETRAYER

[14:56] <&iClean[Corp|CEO]> Checking it now

[14:57] <&iClean[Corp|CEO]> Oh snap, I agree too.

I do believe I agree with what Vilien said. This is something I didn't believe possible. Kudos to you, good sir.