Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[Penkala]

Point is, \m/ hit an alliance for no reason and we attacked \m/ for bullying another alliance. That it supposed to mean we are doing an NPO-like act? I realize they didn't do what \m/ and Athens exactly did, but it was closer to what they did than what we are doing.

You attacked \m/ for being rude diplomatically. Don't try to turn this into a stand against oppressive behavior. If it was you'd have attacked the others, too. Call a spade a spade. \m/ deserves to get rolled for their comments and they're getting rolled. It's really that simple.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

You attacked \m/ for being rude diplomatically. Don't try to turn this into a stand against oppressive behavior. If it was you'd have attacked the others, too. Call a spade a spade. \m/ deserves to get rolled for their comments and they're getting rolled. It's really that simple.

This has been addressed. Firstly, they are doing it as a stand against oppressive behavior, read the OP. They expect PC to come in in defense of \m/, that's them taken care of, and GOONS was diplomatic and some sort of agreement was reached.

[Penkala]

This has been addressed. Firstly, they are doing it as a stand against oppressive behavior, read the OP. They expect PC to come in in defense of \m/, that's them taken care of, and GOONS was diplomatic and some sort of agreement was reached.

And once again, that doesn't really matter. FoB, Athens, GOONS, \m/, PC, Kronos have all raided alliances. NpO will fight two of them. That's hardly a 'stand', that's taking easy pot shots at those you don't like, or in the case of \m/ rolling an alliance who has no idea what the word 'diplomacy' means.

[Heft]

And once again, that doesn't really matter. FoB, Athens, GOONS, \m/, PC, Kronos have all raided alliances. NpO will fight two of them. That's hardly a 'stand', that's taking easy pot shots at those you don't like, or in the case of \m/ rolling an alliance who has no idea what the word 'diplomacy' means.

So what you're saying is the alliances which actually were capable of diplomacy didn't get attacked? Fascinating.

[Vesalius]

And once again, that doesn't really matter. FoB, Athens, GOONS, \m/, PC, Kronos have all raided alliances. NpO will fight two of them. That's hardly a 'stand', that's taking easy pot shots at those you don't like, or in the case of \m/ rolling an alliance who has no idea what the word 'diplomacy' means.

I appreciate the honorable mention, though I'd like to know at what point Kronos raided an alliance.

EDIT:

On subject, it's not the act of war itself I take issue with, it's the notion that this act sets a precedent that should not be allowed go unchallenged.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Vesalius

[heggo]

And once again, that doesn't really matter. FoB, Athens, GOONS, \m/, PC, Kronos have all raided alliances. NpO will fight two of them. That's hardly a 'stand', that's taking easy pot shots at those you don't like, or in the case of \m/ rolling an alliance who has no idea what the word 'diplomacy' means.

This is an obvious fallacy. Taking a stand against injustice doesn't require assaulting every offender all at once. That's impractical, as we are all aware. Stopping the latest injustice, however, has the possibility of setting a precedent against future unjust action. If one were to "take a stand" this is clearly how a person would start.

[Lord Curzon]

I appreciate the honorable mention, though I'd like to know at what point Kronos raided an alliance.

You know... that one time? I mean... you know. You dont remember...What?

Insert "All tech raids are created equal rant" here.

[Thistledown]

This is an obvious fallacy. Taking a stand against injustice doesn't require assaulting every offender all at once. That's impractical, as we are all aware. Stopping the latest injustice, however, has the possibility of setting a precedent against future unjust action. If one were to "take a stand" this is clearly how a person would start.

Yes, the best possible option is to take a stand against a small alliance with few treaty ties that you have historically been at odds with. That will show people that you really mean business.

I dream of a world in which small alliances can be picked off for their moral transgressions while big alliances do whatever the hell they want.

[heggo]

Yes, the best possible option is to take a stand against a small alliance with few treaty ties that you have historically been at odds with. That will show people that you really mean business.

I dream of a world in which small alliances can be picked off for their moral transgressions while big alliances do whatever the hell they want.

The best option is to react to the latest and most egregious instance of whatever it is you would like to oppose.

[Thistledown]

The best option is to react to the latest and most egregious instance of whatever it is you would like to oppose.

Ah, so Polaris suddenly became opposed to it after Athens did it? Or, in the case of GOONS and PC, it's okay to tech raid an alliance as long as you're nice to Grub?

Noted.

[Zombie Glaucon]

Yes, the best possible option is to take a stand against a small alliance with few treaty ties that you have historically been at odds with. That will show people that you really mean business.

I dream of a world in which small alliances can be picked off for their moral transgressions while big alliances do whatever the hell they want.

I dream of a world where no one takes action unless everyone at these meetings agrees that it's the right thing to do.

We all have our dreams.

[juslen]

Wow...

You know maybe \m/ could probably get peace by simply not insulting every single person who does not agree with them.

I thought tech raiding a 30 member alliance was low. I don't care about what the meaning of is, is. Someone can disagree with another or even defend themselves without resorting to insults and bad diplomacy, communication, whatever you want to call it.

Absolutely no respect and now we all get to sit around and wait to see if we get to join in on the fun.

meh

Good luck NpO and \m/

Edited January 22, 2010 by juslen

[Thistledown]

I dream of a world where no one takes action unless everyone at these meetings agrees that it's the right thing to do.

We all have our dreams.

I'm all for taking action, actually. I like war, and kudos for going for it, though making sure your target was small, contained, and dramatically outmatched sort of cancels that out. I just don't see the how this is a great way to improve morality, if that's honestly what this is all about.

[Shimmer]

I'm curious. If Polaris doesn't require assistance then where does that leave people? Aggressive clauses being activated? Then people will plea one side escalated the war into something more then it should have been.

[Earogema]

I'm curious. If Polaris doesn't require assistance then where does that leave people? Aggressive clauses being activated? Then people will plea one side escalated the war into something more then it should have been.

He said if they want to escalate it, Polar will. But with just \m/ (and I assume PC) nobody will be doing so.

[Biff Webster]

I think this lacks artistry. I believe it would have been much better for the global community to utilize this venue to build a case and work towards this goal instead of rushing into it. Debate and propaganda are much more engaging than crushing those who disagree under your boot heel.

[Zombie Glaucon]

I'm all for taking action, actually. I like war, and kudos for going for it, though making sure your target was small, contained, and dramatically outmatched sort of cancels that out. I just don't see the how this is a great way to improve morality, if that's honestly what this is all about.

I disagree that we choose who we fight based on their size. It would be convenient for our detractors if we did, of course, but the idea of "This alliance has attribute A, therefore you decided to attack them because they have attribute A" only stands to reason if you have an agenda that puts basic reasoning in the back seat.

[Fantastico]

I'm curious. If Polaris doesn't require assistance then where does that leave people? Aggressive clauses being activated? Then people will plea one side escalated the war into something more then it should have been.

If we go by traditional treaty logic (obviously, none have been activated and Polar leaves this to us to decide), where conflicts can only be judged as aggressive or defensive, it comes down to whether you see this action as defensive or aggressive and whether you want to take your own initiative here and take a stand.

If we go by the principle Emperor Grub is acting on, I believe any alliance in the cyberverse can declare war aggressively in support of the NpO or defensively in support of the NpO.

Maybe it really comes down to who can act on their convictions?

[Earogema]

If we go by traditional treaty logic (obviously, none have been activated and Polar leaves this to us to decide), where conflicts can only be judged as aggressive or defensive, it comes down to whether you see this action as defensive or aggressive and whether you want to take your own initiative here and take a stand.

If we go by the principle Emperor Grub is acting on, I believe any alliance in the cyberverse can declare war aggressively in support of the NpO or defensively in support of the NpO.

Maybe it really comes down to who can act on their convictions?

\m/ has had its possible ally come into the war. PC has not requested any allies (from what I know).

Polar will not call in for backup because if they do against PC, PC's allies will come in. I'm pretty sure this will be it.

But as they say: The more the merrier!

Edited January 22, 2010 by Earogema

[omfghi2u2]

\m/ has had its possible ally come into the war. PC has not requested any allies (from what I know).

Polar will not call in for backup because if they do against PC, PC's allies will come in. I'm pretty sure this will be it.

But as they say: The more the merrier!

I believe he has it right.

To answer some points.

1. Polaris has specifically stated that her allies will not be brought in unless the war escalates.

2. PC had declared war on Polaris in defense of \m/, and from what I can infer from some posts here, they will not request assistance from their allies.

3. So this answers the question, "Why didnt Polaris declare on PC?" Because they knew that PC would uphold their treaty and fight with \m/, thus killing 2 birds with 1 stone.

4. However, if PC does call in some allies, most likely DT and CnG and what not, then Polaris will call upon their allies, and we shall have a global war on our hands.

But this leads us to some questions, if global war DOES escalate, which side shall MK and RoK be on?

MK has expressed that they don't wish to be involved in this war (I am infering from what Archon said # of pages ago) and they also have treaty ties with Polaris and STA. MK also has treaty ties with CnG as we all know, so MK should theoritically be neutral.

RoK on the otherhand, has treaty ties with SF, and if SF were to go to war, they would go in defense of \m/, which means RoK is in the sticky situation as well, and would logically save face (and infra) and sit out this war due to conflicting treaties.

Am I missing anything?

-omfg

[Bernardo]

Disrespectful and vulgar behavior has consequences. Maybe this matter will convince some of the truth of that statement, or at least compel them to be more respectful in the future. I am sick and tired of the OWF being a cesspit of degradation and assorted crudity. These days, intelligent debate is insulted and degraded rather than encouraged. That needs to change; and those who involve themselves in such behavior need to consider becoming more constructive in dialogue.

After reading Crymson's comment, my first thought was "Why is he discussing the US House of Representatives in this thread about NpO and \m/?" Then I read it a second time and realized that he was referring to "OWF".

Maybe that is the problem: too many CN players watch CSPAN.

[Riddick]

I know many members of \m/ who have been loyal to ROK in time of war even after they had left. I know this will not go unforgotten.

As for this war as it stands. How many members of \m/ actually tech raided FoA? The only alliance declaring on an alliance was polar. Dont walk in our irc giving us orders and such. I dont condone what took place, and im sure im not the only one. (Hence Goby's public apology)

But those who expressed themselves knew this was Grub with a vendetta. There was no resolve except to neal down to Grub. I dont see that as diplomacy.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Riddick

[Dochartaigh]

I know many members of \m/ who have been loyal to ROK in time of war even after they had left. I know this will not go unforgotten.

As for this war as it stands. How many members of \m/ actually tech raided FoA? The only alliance declaring on an alliance was polar. Dont walk in our irc giving us orders and such. I dont condone what took place, and im sure im not the only one. But those who

expressed themselves knew this was Grub with a vendetta. There was no resolve except to neal down to Grub. I dont see that as

diplomacy.

actually you may want to get that straight since Hoo stated that Grub walked into your IRC and said nothing prior to the racial insults. after that, i would assume barking orders would come as a response since ya'lls leaders seemed incapable of handling an actual diplomatic stance. just because \m/ leadership seems to inept to handle the situation from the get go, does not mean you get off when a psuedo-apology is given later.

most people don't see diplomacy as allowing racial slurs to be slung and nothing done immediately either. but diplomacy is usually about negotiations and mediation (Hoo comes to mind if \m/ had such issues) but it seems that \m/ refused to attempt even that and just went with allowing the racial slurs to go unpunished immediately.

and before it gets to the "but this is how #\m/ always is" argument, does not matter since diplomacy does occur using IRC, \m/ needs to realize that it is not always okay to do that in a public channel that diplomats may need to visit in order to contact \m/ regarding urgent matters. not everyone wants to be witness to such talk and should not have to be in order to deal with \m/. fairly certain \m/ has a private channel they can act racist in and that does not involve people that are not in \m/.

that is something that allows \m/ to continue to do as they please regardless of others since only \m/embers will be in the private channel.

[Fantastico]

I believe he has it right.

To answer some points.

1. Polaris has specifically stated that her allies will not be brought in unless the war escalates.

2. PC had declared war on Polaris in defense of \m/, and from what I can infer from some posts here, they will not request assistance from their allies.

3. So this answers the question, "Why didnt Polaris declare on PC?" Because they knew that PC would uphold their treaty and fight with \m/, thus killing 2 birds with 1 stone.

4. However, if PC does call in some allies, most likely DT and CnG and what not, then Polaris will call upon their allies, and we shall have a global war on our hands.

But this leads us to some questions, if global war DOES escalate, which side shall MK and RoK be on?

MK has expressed that they don't wish to be involved in this war (I am infering from what Archon said # of pages ago) and they also have treaty ties with Polaris and STA. MK also has treaty ties with CnG as we all know, so MK should theoritically be neutral.

RoK on the otherhand, has treaty ties with SF, and if SF were to go to war, they would go in defense of \m/, which means RoK is in the sticky situation as well, and would logically save face (and infra) and sit out this war due to conflicting treaties.

Am I missing anything?

-omfg

I think you are missing something, but I mean this in a big picture way.

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.

The conflict escalated with the addition of Poison Clan to the fight.

At least one alliance was very open about wanting to defend PC in their DoW. That raises another question for that alliance.

The question to me seems to remain, will we think in terms of treaties or what is right?

One the one hand, why are the alliances who think \m/ has been wronged not jumping in? I am guessing because they are still treaty huggers.

On the other hand, same question as regards the NpO, other side. And my answer, sadly I think, is the same, more treaty huggers.

Time will tell.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Fantastico

[Earogema]

I think you are missing something, but I mean this in a big picture way.

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.

The conflict escalated with the addition of Poison Clan to the fight.

At least one alliance was very open about wanting to defend PC in their DoW. That raises another question for that alliance.

The question to me seems to remain, will we think in terms of treaties or what is right?

One the one hand, why are the alliances who think \m/ has been wronged not jumping in? I am guessing because they are still treaty huggers.

On the other hand, same question as regards the NpO, other side. And my answer, sadly I think, is the same, more treaty huggers.

Time will tell.

PC has pretty much requested they don't come in. I didn't know any alliances liked \m/ outside the ones we have treaties with, but they don't have a standard of obligation to do anything for us.

Besides, this really isn't worth a global war, and I'm sure most people realize that.