capitalC Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 So it begins? o/ PC! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 I'm pretty sure they either policed their own actions, or just accepted the former rules and morals (more the latter since I still think they are the same as when you led them) to be the rightful ones. Or did you rather seen them banning raiding all along, or not signing with \m/? Maybe I missed your point again, in which case you should maybe explain what you mean instead of being fuzzy. If they had actually policed their actions, instead of just letting things be, they wouldn't be in this mess. By policing their actions, I mean enforcing their own internal rules, holding people accountable when they $%&@ up, and ensuring that these sort of things don't happen that often, and if they do, changes are made because of it. They have not policed their actions. \m/ was a !@#$@#$ stupid alliance to treaty to, bel air was a !@#$@#$ stupid alliance to treaty to, but so be it, they still could have avoided things had they policed their actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wargarden Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 And while I don't like your play style which includes raiding entire alliances, I laughed at this. Not because you said anything stupid. To the contrary, its your perspective and I honor that. The thing that made me laugh is that "Raid-PM for peace" used on an alliance over 20 nations, to me, is just as vaild a CB as most of the CBs I've seen come and go for almost 3 years. (There were some good and valid ones though) Acquisition through force has always been and always will be a valid reason or as valid a reason as some of the !@#$soup we've seen cooked up on here. ...Now someone coming along and punching you in the face for it should also be expected and considered valid. But good luck punching everyone in the face, all the time, everytime they do it. I think alot of this !@#$storm boils down to particular folks in the 'community' think this sort of action is bad, not because raiding is bad....mostly because \m/ didn't go through the effort to cook up some !@#$%^&* excuse and call it a war instead of a raid and when the high minded came calling, they sort of flopped their johnsons in their faces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Some alliances consider it important to take a stand for the things they believe in, instead of run away from their responsibilities at the first opportunity. I would think you'd be familiar with that concept First off I do believe the war could have been ended quickly and without massive bloodshed, that option is pretty much over now. NpO will be able to soak up the damage and rebuild much more easily. \m/ is going to take the brunt of the damage while PC for the most part will sit in the higher tiers. So for some good PR they go balls deep....sorta....and in the process have not actually defended \m/ as they could have but instead have brought more ruin upon them. But hey, you go ahead and see it how you like to. The truth is though this could have been much smaller and despite all the bravado this is going to seriously hurt \m/ now and part of the responsibility for that lies on PC's shoulders. As far as the comment about me, you mind explaining further because if you are intending to infer that I have run from responsibilities at the first opportunity at some point then I would kindly ask you to point out when that was the case. Seriously, do try. How strange that some alliances stand by their friends, even when the odds are overwhelming.... right? Nice spin, that would be the shallow way of looking into my words. Try digging a little deeper. To me a good ally in this case would have helped to get quick peace for their ally that could potentially get seriously damaged over insults given. That truly is a shame. While \m/'s actions were horrible they do not deserve to receive massive damage over it but PC has decided to turn this into positive PR for them after a few bouts of seriously negative PR. I think what PC's old leader might be getting at when he says failure to police themselves is that they have let their desire to get some good PR overwhelm any good sense. I hope their good PR is worth the destruction of \m/. Talk about honor and glory from the peanut gallery fades away rather quickly, the scars of war do not. I love a good show as do any of you, who coined the phrase The Popcorn War? That doesn't mean I want to see an alliance get crushed over the stupid actions of a few members on IRC. I know the idealists are praising PC for showing up and "Doing it like you are supposed to" but who's best intentions did they have in mind with going all out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 I laughed at this. Not because you said anything stupid. To the contrary, its your perspective and I honor that. The thing that made me laugh is that "Raid-PM for peace" used on an alliance over 20 nations, to me, is just as vaild a CB as most of the CBs I've seen come and go for almost 3 years. (There were some good and valid ones though) Acquisition through force has always been and always will be a valid reason or as valid a reason as some of the !@#$soup we've seen cooked up on here. ...Now someone coming along and punching you in the face for it should also be expected and considered valid. But good luck punching everyone in the face, all the time, everytime they do it. I think alot of this !@#$storm boils down to particular folks in the 'community' think this sort of action is bad, not because raiding is bad....mostly because \m/ didn't go through the effort to cook up some !@#$%^&* excuse and call it a war instead of a raid and when the high minded came calling, they sort of flopped their johnsons in their faces. Well if you think its ok to attack a 20 nation alliance out of the blue then why is it not ok to attack an alliance the size of \m/ when they treat your leader the way they treated Grub in their Diplomatic Channel? That is what this is really about. Grub went there to talk and they insulted him so since they like alliance versus alliance wars Grub and Polar gave them one. Unlike the poor alliance that \m/ raided as a whole though \m/ has allies and wants their allies to help them in the same situation. I bet if you compared \m/'s size versus that of the alliance they raided and then the size of Polaris versus \m/ you will find a ratio that is somewhat similiar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 First off I do believe the war could have been ended quickly and without massive bloodshed, that option is pretty much over now. NpO will be able to soak up the damage and rebuild much more easily. \m/ is going to take the brunt of the damage while PC for the most part will sit in the higher tiers. So for some good PR they go balls deep....sorta....and in the process have not actually defended \m/ as they could have but instead have brought more ruin upon them. But hey, you go ahead and see it how you like to. The truth is though this could have been much smaller and despite all the bravado this is going to seriously hurt \m/ now and part of the responsibility for that lies on PC's shoulders. Well here's the thing, wars which end quickly... most probably should never be. I am sure PC and \m/ have discussed and agreed upon their war strategy, so it's not really for you to imply that PC is damaging \m/ - because if it were an issue of significance, I am sure \m/ would try and act upon it to find a solution. I am also sure that \m/ and PC would disagree with you as to PC's share of the responsibility in regards to the duration and extent of the conflict. As far as the comment about me, you mind explaining further because if you are intending to infer that I have run from responsibilities at the first opportunity at some point then I would kindly ask you to point out when that was the case. Seriously, do try. No, I meant more like because Polaris chose to take a stand on this issue, just as PC has taken a stand. Both have done something they believe is right, in a way which best suits them. Can't really blame PC for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanillaNapalm Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 HeinousOne, i'm not too sure what you think we're at war for. Is it for insulting someone, or is it for raiding? Unless you assume Grubs purportedly 'easy' peace solution alludes to watching our language (which we have not only apologized for but acted upon) i'd suggest discussing only relevent aspects of the conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 For you, I'll bring back a whole case of polar cub veal. When you do, my friend, we shall eat, drink, and sing songs of your feats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Better then asking those friends to leave the others so you could be on the winning side. EDIT: Mandating them to leave the losing side or you cancel your treaty Even though they had put their necks out for you, and made sure you were safe when people wanted to stomp you then sent billions of aid to make you a stronger alliance out of pure good will, because they wanted you to prosper....more accurate. OH, wait, maybe even though they did it out of friendship, you say they wanted to buy you? PFFT> FOK, if I were Crymson, I would do much worse then call you out on your !@#$%^&*. Because frankly, friendship doesn't mean !@#$ to you. I lol'ed. This coming from you, of all people, is hilarious. Very insightful though. Please, continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Nice spin, that would be the shallow way of looking into my words. Try digging a little deeper. To me a good ally in this case would have helped to get quick peace for their ally that could potentially get seriously damaged over insults given. That truly is a shame. While \m/'s actions were horrible they do not deserve to receive massive damage over it but PC has decided to turn this into positive PR for them after a few bouts of seriously negative PR. I don't think this is an attempt by PC to turn this in to positive PR. They are doing what they think is the best thing to do: to stand by their allies, which would have been crushed by Polaris anyways because Grub hates \m/'s guts. I think what PC's old leader might be getting at when he says failure to police themselves is that they have let their desire to get some good PR overwhelm any good sense. I hope their good PR is worth the destruction of \m/. Again, I don't think this is an attempt to get some good PR, its them doing what they deem to be righteous. Talk about honor and glory from the peanut gallery fades away rather quickly, the scars of war do not. I love a good show as do any of you, who coined the phrase The Popcorn War? That doesn't mean I want to see an alliance get crushed over the stupid actions of a few members on IRC. I know the idealists are praising PC for showing up and "Doing it like you are supposed to" but who's best intentions did they have in mind with going all out? They have allies who will aid them and help them to rebuild when this is all over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 If they had actually policed their actions, instead of just letting things be, they wouldn't be in this mess. By policing their actions, I mean enforcing their own internal rules, holding people accountable when they $%&@ up, and ensuring that these sort of things don't happen that often, and if they do, changes are made because of it.They have not policed their actions. \m/ was a !@#$@#$ stupid alliance to treaty to, bel air was a !@#$@#$ stupid alliance to treaty to, but so be it, they still could have avoided things had they policed their actions. I disagree with you. Namely because it wasn't their internal rules that got them in this. It was their treaty partner that got declared, and what they are now doing is defending them. And I'm not going to argue whether or not they should've treatied to \m/ or not, it has nothing to do with their internal policies. Not that I know of, at least. You can correct me if I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Well here's the thing, wars which end quickly... most probably should never be. I am sure PC and \m/ have discussed and agreed upon their war strategy, so it's not really for you to imply that PC is damaging \m/ - because if it were an issue of significance, I am sure \m/ would try and act upon it to find a solution.I am also sure that \m/ and PC would disagree with you as to PC's share of the responsibility in regards to the duration and extent of the conflict. No, I meant more like because Polaris chose to take a stand on this issue, just as PC has taken a stand. Both have done something they believe is right, in a way which best suits them. Can't really blame PC for this. Ahh, alright then it seemed like you were making a direct comment at me and you know, I am not in NpO. As far as the rest if \m/ really wants this then so be it, no harm no foul. HeinousOne, i'm not too sure what you think we're at war for. Is it for insulting someone, or is it for raiding? Unless you assume Grubs purportedly 'easy' peace solution alludes to watching our language (which we have not only apologized for but acted upon) i'd suggest discussing only relevent aspects of the conflict. Yes, I read the OP. Polaris doesn't like the way you do business. I won't buy the line though that they would have declared if you guys had not insulted Grub the way you did. He came to your open public channel in which diplomats can approach your leadership and was flamed to the point that your leader felt a public apology was needed. Unfortunately it did not seem as if he meant it only that he felt he had to do it and he wanted it to be seen that he didnt really mean it. I have no idea what his easy peace solution fully entails nor do I care to go find out but let me assure you, you are most certainly not the judge of what aspects are "relevent". Being able to judge means to hold no bias of which you cannot boast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wargarden Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Well if you think its ok to attack a 20 nation alliance out of the blue then why is it not ok to attack an alliance the size of \m/ when they treat your leader the way they treated Grub in their Diplomatic Channel? That is what this is really about. Grub went there to talk and they insulted him so since they like alliance versus alliance wars Grub and Polar gave them one. Unlike the poor alliance that \m/ raided as a whole though \m/ has allies and wants their allies to help them in the same situation.I bet if you compared \m/'s size versus that of the alliance they raided and then the size of Polaris versus \m/ you will find a ratio that is somewhat similiar. I didn't say it wasn't okay. As a matter of fact I equivicated pretty clearly in that post. I see it like this: Grub goes to tell them he's gonna kick their $@! for a massive raid, he gets insulted and goes to war not over his original complaint (the raid), but over the insult. Thats fine with me. Also, its not \m/'s fault they have allies willing to back them and the group they raided did not. Frankly I'm waiting to see a war for wars sake, a war of conquest or the like in CN. Noone has the balls. Everyone wants to either play "CB gotcha" and jump into a war, or play "twisted into an unreconizable CB" and go to war. Nobody has gone to war for wars sake...like ever....except for raiders. Can you imagine someone like Polar, looking at \m/ and saying "you know, I don't like them, I want the toys and I'm gonna kick them in the face." I would squeal like a little girl and love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanillaNapalm Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Not only is that statement presumptuous, it is axiomatically incorrect. How can you interpret an apology as sincere or insincere? Furthermore, such an apology (and, i cannot stress enough, a stance which was acted upon) would of course had been necessary, regardless of the context. Additionally, i would remind you that AlmightyGrub has himself stated that we are not at war for these insults. Bias does not necessarily depend upon being directly involved within the conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coven Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Wipe the floor with them Polaris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooksland Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Congratulations PC, you probably assured \m/ that their bloody nose was upgraded to a long hospital visit. Atleast \m/ will be thanking you while laying in bed. As long as you are also lying in the hospital bed down the hall. Thought you could \m/ug an innocent alliance and get away with it scratch free and make it profitable? Not when the PC world police are around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 As long as you are also lying in the hospital bed down the hall. Thought you could \m/ug an innocent alliance and get away with it scratch free and make it profitable? Not when the PC world police are around. I would hardly call \m/ innocent. In fact, I would hardly call most alliances innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheyCallMeJeezy Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Have fun PC. I'm glad to see you sticking to your allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) Congratulations PC, you probably assured \m/ that their bloody nose was upgraded to a long hospital visit. Atleast \m/ will be thanking you while laying in bed. I don't think anyone expects you to understand that not everyone cares about their infrastructure more than their sovreignty/principles. Edited January 22, 2010 by Drostan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncos98 Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Congrats Polaris, more tech for you. o/ Penguins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall14 Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Awesome thank you pinkos... See you soon, Love Dixie... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evitressa Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Let's kick some $@!. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omfghi2u2 Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) To get this out of the way, I have not read this thread, after the first few pages I couldn't stomach the ignorant crap being slung around, "lol peace mode" and "polaris only had 10% of their nations declared". No one is fighting this war stupid, and while I don't know much about \m/, I know PC and NpO are worthy fighters.That said, good job in jumping in PC. And while I don't like your play style which includes raiding entire alliances, valor is to be commended, and encouraged in our time. I'm disappointed at the ODP \m/ holds. If I was that alliance, and signed a treaty with \m/, I would have jumped in to defend them. My logic is I know who \m/ is, nothing has changed, and this was pretty predictable, so if they get attacked for what I knew they would do, and I signed an ODP with them, I would jump in there to defend them. You don't attack any of my friends without me coming in to defend them. Lastly, is PC looking to turn this war into a 4 week war? I ask because the peace mode stratigy only helps you if you can force bill collects in nuclear anarchy. Hence ZDP's deployment with that intention initially against GOONS. If not, then I recommend the bloody nose tactic, where you drop all the nukes you have, and get the easy peace deal promised by the NpO. This ensures that you've done a good deal of damage, maintained your warchests, and suffered little for a good hit on the NpO. Just thoughts. Shame no one bothered to mention this. Though I am sure it has been said many times, \m/ and PC have specifically stated they will not call in allies. -omfg Edited January 22, 2010 by omfghi2u2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krunk the Great Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 I don't think anyone expects you to understand that not everyone cares about their infrastructure more than their sovreignty/principles. \m/? Principles? That's the whole point of this war. Over their lack thereof Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiss Goodbye Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Oh he is loyal alright. After this war he will be right back. Unlikely. 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.