Libera Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) It's a surrender term. Extending your given example, it's just like the ending of the first Moldavi Doctrine and the cancellation of all the NPO's treaties at the end of the Karma War. [/q] My understanding of the OP was the enforcement of another's charter is the cause for NpO to go to war....to play "world police" as it is being popularly called. Edited January 25, 2010 by Libera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozenrpg Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I'm not sure what you are saying here. Did FoA have a protectorate when \m/, PC, and GOONS attacked them? Nope. It was canceled on them prior. Your argument was that \m/ was forcing them to do something, they had already done - as if they were uncomfortable with it or did not want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 No, we are asking them to follow their own charter that is aligned with the community standards. What if the community standards are lowered? Will you attack them again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Well Polar will have to burn i guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fingolfin Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I'm getting real tired of the argument that the attack was right because the New Polar Order felt it was right. That really makes no sense at all. Why call the "right"ness of them into question? All that matters is that they think that it was right. Just like all that matters is that you think that your attack on FoA is justified/right. "Right" is all a matter of individual opinion and perspective, not an objective truth, no matter what all the neo-moralists would like to claim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEd Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) So the negotiations held to halt \m/'s tech raid were....? The excuse to engage \m/. Don't play the "good guy" card, it's far to late for that. Polaris knew the reaction \m/ would have to Polaris demands, nevertheless, they continued and pressed on those same demands, trying to reach a "compromise" they knew would never be reached, but that's exactly what they wanted. They needed a reason to attack \m/, they got it, they attacked. It's all done, now. Don't preach that this will "end" on \m/'s Terms when they have to concede to your demands which violates their sovereignty . Edited January 25, 2010 by KingEd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) It's a surrender term. Extending your given example, it's just like the ending of the first Moldavi Doctrine and the cancellation of all the NPO's treaties at the end of the Karma War. [/q] My understanding of the OP was the enforcement of another's charter is the cause for NpO to go to war....to play "world police" as it is being popularly called. Your understanding is incredibly flawed, then. So, you're asking us to brown-nose him. Any time someone is annoyed with us, we should try to appease them? When someone openly states multiple times that they'll go to war with us, we should kiss his feet? I know those three members screwed up, and we apologized for that. What else does Grub want, a cake? Welcome to diplomacy. The excuse to engage \m/. Don't play the "good guy" card, it's far to late for that. Polaris knew the reaction \m/ would have to Polaris demands, nevertheless, they continued and pressed on those same demands, trying to reach a "compromise" they knew would never be reached, but that's exactly what they wanted. They needed a reason to attack \m/, they got it, they attacked. It's all done, now. Don't preach that this will "end" on \m/'s Terms when they have to concede to your demands which violates their sovereignty . Umm...No. My point was that the diplomacy to halt \m/'s tech raiding was also a violation of their sovereignty by your abused definition. Yet you seem to have had no problem with it being done back then. Edited January 25, 2010 by Chron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 We did not force them to accept a protectorate, they chose to accept it themselves. Indeed, but they would have been raided until they did or until you got bored with them. What does that suggest to many unaligned nations out there? Better get a protectorate if you don't want to get attacked. So, yes, you are forcing unaligned alliances to comply with your ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Why call the "right"ness of them into question? All that matters is that they think that it was right. Just like all that matters is that you think that your attack on FoA is justified/right. "Right" is all a matter of individual opinion and perspective, not an objective truth, no matter what all the neo-moralists would like to claim I agree with you. Which is why I am displeased that NpO has brought morality into this when it has no place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 See, cause I thought \m/ were the ones asking everyone else to conform to their standards by letting them do as they please without consequence, including forcing smaller alliances to surrender and give over their tech, as well as not conducting themselves reasonably when approached about it. \m/ does not just "do what they want." they raid targets who they know do not have the capacity to bring out consequences for \m/ as they have learned from "world standards" (that seem to be dictated by NpO). Though I would agree that they are opportunists, you're not following general convention by declaring on \m/, thus your hypocrisy begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 The excuse to engage \m/. Don't play the "good guy" card, it's far to late for that. Polaris knew the reaction \m/ would have to Polaris demands, nevertheless, they continued and pressed on those same demands, trying to reach a "compromise" they knew would never be reached, but that's exactly what they wanted. They needed a reason to attack \m/, they got it, they attacked. It's all done, now. Don't preach that this will "end" on \m/'s Terms when they have to concede to your demands which violates their sovereignty . What about the tech raided's sovereignty again? Oh.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 No isn't the same thing, unless you are trying to deny the fact that don't raid alliances is a community standard. You're trying to assume the mantle in defining community standards. If most of CN attacks NpO for this, doesn't the argument that the "community" considers you justified in this pretty much go to Hell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) What if the community standards are lowered? Will you attack them again? If my father was a women I would have two mothers. I don't argue about "ifs". You're trying to assume the mantle in defining community standards. If most of CN attacks NpO for this, doesn't the argument that the "community" considers you justified in this pretty much go to Hell? More "ifs", what I see is just 2 alliances defeding \m/ right now and even some of their allies know that \m/ acted stupid and stayed out, other alliances who could be dragged for this war also don't like the fact of defeding an alliance like \m/. Edited January 25, 2010 by D34th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Well Polar will have to burn i guess. Somehow, I'm perfectly ok with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acetone Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Welcome to diplomacy. Gotcha. So, should I ever roll your alliance, I expect a 1000 word minimum poem hailing my greatness in rhyming iambic pentameter. Anything less and you will be considered the offensive side in the war for not practicing diplomacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Obama Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 What about the tech raided's sovereignty again? Oh.. How were those who were raided's sovereignty infringed upon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdasda10 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 So, what I've gotten out of this is that both parties are at least partially in the wrong. Can we just settle the arguement by blowing !@#$ up, because clearly no one is going to be convinced by BB posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Gotcha. So, should I ever roll your alliance, I expect a 1000 word minimum poem hailing my greatness in rhyming iambic pentameter. Anything less and you will be considered the offensive side in the war for not practicing diplomacy. Now, now, no need to exaggerate, I'll simply give you three words, although some would consider it quite the epic: "!@#$@#$ Bring it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acetone Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Now, now, no need to exaggerate, I'll simply give you three words, although some would consider it quite the epic: "!@#$@#$ Bring it" That's what \m/ said, and you seem to have a problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) That's what \m/ said, and you seem to have a problem with that. Really? Mind pointing out where? Moreover, I would disagree with you, as there seem to be several \m/ members, and supporters, who are doing nothing but whine about how "unjust" Polaris' war upon you all is. Make up your mind, now. Edited January 25, 2010 by Chron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 The problem with yours is that the curbstomp was over. Polaris then proceeded to tell it's allies to sit down and shut up while they did what they want with \m/, give a slide to GOONS with some backroom agreement that they've alluded to, and then try to pass this off as a good things for everyone. Both parties suck, I already told Chief I'm pretty pissed, but frankly Polaris' actions pose a greater threat that \m/'s. When is Polar declaring on Athens? Come onnnnnnnnnn. Hey, guess what. Politics is all about enforcing your will on others. Or are you forgetting that your alliance is only on Red Team because a certain alliance's "sovereignty" over that sphere was "infringed" upon by war? I happen to believe that only those who first infringe on others' right to self-governance and independence deserve to be retaliated against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Now, now, no need to exaggerate, I'll simply give you three words, although some would consider it quite the epic:"!@#$@#$ Bring it" Don't make us go find those damn mighty mouse avatars again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remaliat Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I can't say this wasn't expected. Sad to see you really sink down to that level, Grub. Once, before the power got to your head, I thought you were a respectable guy. You should talk to me if you value my opinion at all anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 How were those who were raided's sovereignty infringed upon? I don't know what to say. Is the world upside down or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Don't make us go find those damn mighty mouse avatars again. I'm sure RIA has them somewhere in storage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts