AirMe Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 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. This post proves something. I have a headache so I can't explain what. \m/ is just to much to blame here as Polar is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 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. Argument over. Everyone go home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) Great post, Hoo. You are a gentleman and a scholar. 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... Edited January 21, 2010 by Branimir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kahnite Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I agree with the declaration. The reason being, that I said in as much during the Karma war that this would be the end result. (... as usual, right again! God I hate being so dead on all the time.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 What was the diplomatic resolution that NpO tried to approach \m/ about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoADarthCyfe6 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Lol, about time, I commend NpO for this DoW. All I do is wish you the bestest of luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Neither of you cared enough about Ragnarok to simply walk away. Shame on you both. If only it was that simple. Grub took that option away from us a long time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wad of Lint Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 i answered Sqrt when he asked the same question about 1 page before you asked. I did not believe i need to answer twice. But if you insist, no i would do what any target of a techraid does and that is respond to the best of my ability. Meaning, i'd ask you to pay reps and if you refuse i'd nuke the stuffing out of you until one of us drops out of range of the other. You won't find any post of mine where i try to defend a "techraid gone bad" retaliation. Frankly it's an inherent risk of techraiding that your target might fight back. Just so we're clear, you would request no help from your alliance or allies, and deny any that is offered? Or does "best of your abilities" include accepting and coercing help from others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 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 I love seeing the sides that fought against us last war turn on each other. We told them it'd happen, glad to see it finally coming to fruition. If I had a request it'd be those that fought for the "Hegemony" last war remain completely independent and just let these guys tear into each other but no one ever listens to me. So we will see what happens, and who sides where. If I am a mean and cold person, then believe me, I have reason to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 If only it was that simple. Grub took that option away from us a long time ago. Actually by raiding a 30+ man alliance you took the option away first tough guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted January 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Maybe NpO should have asked ask Rok to intervene if they felt so insulted. \m/ apologized for what occurred, but it wasn't good enough for NpO. I really would like to know what NpO expects \m/ to do help solve this situation. Maybe you should stop speculating about what we should have done and actually refer to what we did do re RoK... or do facts get in the way of a good story? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 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. Isn't that a bit like wagging your finger at your son when he does something bad but then beating your neighbours kid with a golf club when he does the exact same thing? And if this is all about stopping \m/ from being oppressive or w/e then why are PC who actually have a long history of similar behaviour not facing the same punishment? Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of \m/ and they've brought this on themselves but you cannot tell me this war is about stopping oppression or any of that crap and expect my to buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Maybe you should stop speculating about what we should have done and actually refer to what we did do re RoK... or do facts get in the way of a good story? Since I know this thread is going fast, maybe you skipped over it. What was the diplomatic resolution that NpO tried to approach \m/ about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonOfHoward Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 This about Grub wanting to be the world police. It's my guess about half of PB isn't amuse about that prospect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
519 Nigras Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) Can I just say that I'm in \m/ and I still <3 Polar. We had your back prior to, and up until this. It's a shame we won't be able to fight along side one another in the future. Carry on. Edit: I also agree with what Hoo said. (I see you looking at me Hoo, I love you too!) Edited January 21, 2010 by 519 Nigras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulafaras Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Just so we're clear, you would request no help from your alliance or allies, and deny any that is offered? Or does "best of your abilities" include accepting and coercing help from others? i am not really sure what kind of strange words you are reading, but i am decently sure we are not reading the same posts. Obviously i would defend my nation, and also obviously i would expect my alliance to defend my nation otherwise why would i be in an alliance? We have also left the topic the thread is devoted to, quite far behind. If you want to continue this sidetrack you can find me on irc or send me a pm.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I love seeing the sides that fought against us last war turn on each other. We told them it'd happen, glad to see it finally coming to fruition. If I had a request it'd be those that fought for the "Hegemony" last war remain completely independent and just let these guys tear into each other but no one ever listens to me. So we will see what happens, and who sides where.If I am a mean and cold person, then believe me, I have reason to be. Oh wow, you predicted that an unofficial coalition would have alliances in it that would at some point fight in the future. Thats like me proclaiming that 3 years ago I predicted that members of WUT would some day fight, except even THEY were a bloc. I guess I deserve a cookie too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastico Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Argument over. Everyone go home. Framing the debate this way highlights the sanctity some hold for the treaty web over all else, common sense be damned. If you think bowing before the throne of formality will save us from another hegemony, that is your argument to defend. It is certainly not the cue for the end of this debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottimus prime Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 If only it was that simple. Grub took that option away from us a long time ago. Grub expressed his issues, you all taunted us and dared us to do something about it......he then went to you right before the end to give you another chance to resolve it and some of your alliance crossed some major lines with your gov still not willing to evaluate your policy. Your policy of assaulting dramatically smaller alliances for personal gain is against our policy of letting smaller alliances get attacked for personal gain. Throw in some bragging about assaulting the aforementioned smaller alliances for personal gain, some begging us to stop you, some betting we wouldn't, and some racist slurs and voila... at no point, including now, do you not have the option to make this stop... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Oh wow, you predicted that an unofficial coalition would have alliances in it that would at some point fight in the future. Thats like me proclaiming that 3 years ago I predicted that members of WUT would some day fight, except even THEY were a bloc. I guess I deserve a cookie too. Way to completely miss the point. Karma felt it'd be all good in da hood but we knew after the war they'd go to plotting against one another. I guess there were signs that tension would form but those were the signs of a CnG/SF/FB v. Citadel brawl. Remember that? Now those rumors have been laid to rest for all eternity. We didn't predict that this exact event would happen but somewhere along the line your loose coalition would just run rampant on one another. And to be honest, I hope you guys do just ravage one another and destroy each other. Makes no difference to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottimus prime Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 And if this is all about stopping \m/ from being oppressive or w/e then why are PC who actually have a long history of similar behaviour not facing the same punishment? Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of \m/ and they've brought this on themselves but you cannot tell me this war is about stopping oppression or any of that crap and expect my to buy it. So basically, don't stop one crime if you can't stop them all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) Way to completely miss the point. Karma felt it'd be all good in da hood but we knew after the war they'd go to plotting against one another. I guess there were signs that tension would form but those were the signs of a CnG/SF/FB v. Citadel brawl. Remember that? Now those rumors have been laid to rest for all eternity. We didn't predict that this exact event would happen but somewhere along the line your loose coalition would just run rampant on one another. And to be honest, I hope you guys do just ravage one another and destroy each other. Makes no difference to me. I didn't miss the point. Karma had no intentions of staying together. Most of us didn't even like each other DURING the war. We didn't plan to unite after the war, we didn't even unite DURING the war. As a matter of fact, you are just stating what most everyone in Karma has been stating since Karma even formed. Our loose coalition wasn't going to exist following the war's end. You don't even have a point, just regurgitated points that many people have already made. You are just trying to throw mud at ex-Karma alliances as much as possible for no real reason other than you are bitter you lost the war. Also if Karma stayed together forever this would be the most boring place on Earth. Luckily, none of us intended to do so. Edited January 21, 2010 by Stumpy Jung Il Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) I didn't miss the point. Karma had no intentions of staying together. Most of us didn't even like each other DURING the war. We didn't plan to unite after the war, we didn't even unite DURING the war. As a matter of fact, you are just stating what most everyone in Karma has been stating since Karma even formed. Our loose coalition wasn't going to exist following the war's end. You don't even have a point, just regurgitated points that many people have already made. You are just trying to throw mud at ex-Karma alliances as much as possible for no real reason other than you are bitter you lost the war. Or I want to see you boneheads destroyed. Also if Karma stayed together forever this would be the most boring place on Earth. Luckily, none of us intended to do so. Your allies 6 month old CB cemented that, thank you Athens. Edited January 21, 2010 by The AUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Way to completely miss the point. Karma felt it'd be all good in da hood but we knew after the war they'd go to plotting against one another. No one who knew anything in Karma thought that, and I would venture to say that more on the hegemony side thought that than on the Karma side since I remember lots of theories about karma being a super bloc and already forming the new hegemony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) No one who knew anything in Karma thought that, and I would venture to say that more on the hegemony side thought that than on the Karma side since I remember lots of theories about karma being a super bloc and already forming the new hegemony. And apparently he thought that at some level. Seriously, people come up with the most ridiculous ideas mang. Your allies 6 month old CB cemented that, thank you Athens. How does that have to do with the quoted part you separated above it? Edited January 21, 2010 by Stumpy Jung Il 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.