The Following Program has been rated G

[Lord Curzon]

For an alliance that cares about its allies, regardless of the position they have been placed in, their only real option is not to declare on anyone. To actually honor the spirit that the treaty was created in, and not just the exact wording. I apologize if you want to force RoK into this war against their own MDoAP partner.

God I hate the Cyberverse. We now have people trying to elawyer for other alliances to force them into a war with their own treaty partner. >_<

Again, you have misinterpreted and would do well to follow this discussion on the other thread, before getting pissed at me. As I mentioned in the previous post and in the other thread. I believe RoK has every right to say out of the fight based on their friendship with NpO as outlined by the spirit of their treaty. I just refuse to accept the false logic that their hands are legally tied in this matter. From what I understand, \m/ is not upset by RoK's nonintervention which speaks highly of their friendship as well.

Don't lose faith Penlugue, I'm not trying to goad anyone into anything. I just want people to acknowledge that it is RoK's commitment to their friendship with NpO which is keeping them out, not their treaty. If anything that should speak even more highly on the relationship of RoK with NpO, and of RoK's commitment to its friends.

Chill out, you don't have to always be right, and can maybe lean from discourse rather than having a knee jerk reaction. Don't put words in my mouth, and i'll try not to put them in yours.

Edit: spell fail

Edited January 22, 2010 by Lord Curzon

[WcaesarD]

Yes, a strategic move could I suppose in theory be cowardly, but in this case it's just strategic (if the goal was to get PC in the war in the first place).

If their goal was to get PC to war, it would have been as simple as putting their name next to \m/'s in thier original declaration. If I were in charge of PC, I would probably state that they're fighting a defensive war, with the point being Polaris chose actions that were 100% designed to bring PC in as an offensive combatant. It's e-lawyering at it's finest. I'd say PC is perfectly entitled to all of it's defensive partners and that NpO should deal with it.

Edit: Spelling

Edited January 22, 2010 by WCaesarD

[Valtamdraugr]

Frustrated is the word I used and it's the word I choose to describe how myself and a few others, those that I have spoken to, feel about this. I and those that I am refering to are not conflicted about who is the right here as we believe they are both in the wrong. Ergo, frustrated is a more correct term than conflicted.

Sorry if I was unable to keep that confined to the other conversation.

[Lord Brendan]

A MDoAP treaty pretty much implies a NAP clause, even if it isn't written.

Article III. Nonaggression and Intelligence Sharing

A. The past is the past and shall remain there. The signatories agree to remain cordial and respectful towards each other at all times. Should any issues arise, both signatories agree to attempt to resolve them in private.

Even if it doesn't actually say "you can't attack each other", it's obviously meant.

[Valtamdraugr]

Please, and I apologize for my apparent derailing, let's try to keep this conversation on topic.

This is about PC and Polar... not about Rok and erbuddy else.

edit: spelling.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Valtamdraugr

[cjav0]

Good luck PC

[Chaoshawk]

Well this war won't end well. Good luck to the warring parties.

[Chinatownbus]

If their goal was to get PC to war, it would have been as simple as putting their name next to \m/'s in thier original declaration. If I were in charge of PC, I would probably state that they're fighting a defensive war, with the point being Polaris chose actions that were 100% designed to bring PC in as an offensive combatant. It's e-lawyering at it's finest. I'd say PC is perfectly entitled to all of it's defensive partners and that NpO should deal with it.

Edit: Spelling

once you get into grey areas of e-lawyering, alliance leaders will simply choose the side of grey which best suits their purposes. There is no such thing as "precedence" on CN, because there is nobody holding anyone accountable for their past opinions.

[Tick1]

You really want this to escalate beyond the three alliances? What i say is by no means a reflection of the reasoning, except that of my own. If we attacked PC, it would then turn global. By attacking \m/, PC comes to there defense and it stays contained, so as to not put everyone into a world wide conflict.

That is just my two cents on the matter.

Yet your members seem to think that PC getting involved was brought upon by \m/. Please update the ignorant with your actual reasoning rather than letting them sit and look stupid.

[Tick1]

ahh yes words spoken from those who know might I add who also has 2/3 of their nations in peace mode, it would appear that your alliance is unsure just how much to commit to this effort. I would say 1/3

You know, the funny thing is out of the 425 nations you'd think at least the 24 nations not in peace mode. 50% of their war slots would be occupied, but I guess your to ignorant to grasp that. seeing as only 32% of our nations not in PM have their war slots occupied and that does include the wars we declared. So please step it up NpO.

[Bob Janova]

You declared last update. Polar will counter quad this update. No-one's going to be declaring a counter-offensive at this time of day. (OOC: I wish the war mechanics weren't so update centric but there you go.)

[Tick1]

You declared last update. Polar will counter quad this update. No-one's going to be declaring a counter-offensive at this time of day. (OOC: I wish the war mechanics weren't so update centric but there you go.)

Although 2 members from NpO attacked me before update, they seem extremely smart! At least I'll get an update attack on them, lucky me.

[Daikos]

This is true, however some of us are hoping he will listen to reason and reconsider.

So first you go to war over how morally outraged you are that \m/, PC and GOONS raided a 30 man alliance. But here you are talking about how badly you would like for Polar to destroy \m/ and PC and force them out of the world? Weird. It would seem if you really wanted to be the moral world police then you wouldn't be trying to destroy alliances and remove them from Planet Bob.

Looks like morality only counts when you're looking for a reason to declare war on someone you don't like.

Why can't you?

Probably the same reason you haven't used your oA clause to attack PC or \m/ despite how much you want this war to escalate.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Daikos

[Bob Janova]

Could you explain to me how defending an ally makes PC spineless cowards? Probably not.

You should check (i) Han's AA and (ii) your sarcasm detector.

[Daikos]

You should check (i) Han's AA and (ii) your sarcasm detector.

My mistake. Power reading through 28 pages of mostly gibberish ya miss things from time to time.

[Ashok]

So first you go to war over how morally outraged you are that \m/, PC and GOONS raided a 30 man alliance. But here you are talking about how badly you would like for Polar to destroy \m/ and PC and force them out of the world? Weird. It would seem if you really wanted to be the moral world police then you wouldn't be trying to destroy alliances and remove them from Planet Bob.

Looks like morality only counts when you're looking for a reason to declare war on someone you don't like.

Probably the same reason you haven't used your oA clause to attack PC or \m/ despite how much you want this war to escalate.

Sadly Polar has asked its allies to remain out of this conflict unless other allies besides PC declares our bad

[WarriorConcept]

You should check (i) Han's AA and (ii) your sarcasm detector.

Considering he tried to say I have no war experience earlier, I don't think he's too bright either.

Edited January 22, 2010 by WarriorConcept

[Ivellios]

All that needs to be said: swift death to PC and may the strength of righteousness be on the side of NpO 0/

[Daikos]

Considering he tried to say I have no war experience earlier, I don't think he's too bright either.

When did I say something about your war experience?

[WarriorConcept]

When did I say something about your war experience?

I was referring to han.

[Daikos]

I was referring to han.

Gotcha.

[Choader]

Considering he tried to say I have no war experience earlier, I don't think he's too bright either.

We all know what happens when you assume.

[John Ron]

Tell me this PC! Who is Aircastle going to compete with now in the nukes per nation stat? You've destroyed Aircastle's will to live. On behave of all our employees I surrender to the forces of PC. We're in your bankruptcy court now. Please be gentle.

Seriously though. This takes balls and I have great deal of respect for you. It saddens me that it has to be the NpO, another alliance I respect, but I can't think of a better opponent on the battlefield. I'm jealous of your casualties.

[Tick1]

Tell me this PC! Who is Aircastle going to compete with now in the nukes per nation stat? You've destroyed Aircastle's will to live. On behave of all our employees I surrender to the forces of PC. We're in your bankruptcy court now. Please be gentle.

Seriously though. This takes balls and I have great deal of respect for you. It saddens me that it has to be the NpO, another alliance I respect, but I can't think of a better opponent on the battlefield. I'm jealous of your casualties.

You could always join PC, I don't think we'd mind.

[Chinatownbus]

I was referring to han.

perhaps you need to stop letting that ego get in the way of your sarcasm detector. seriously, lighten up, it appears as though your shoulders are weighed down by your need for everyone to acknowledge how crazy awesome you may have once been. we can only be judged on our success in the moment. legacies are formed after you retire.