Imperial Decree - New Polar

[Prime minister Johns]

No, you have stated you desired \m/ to adhere to the "community standard for tech raiding".

This "community" you spoke of seems to be largely divided in this, so how can you claim to be speaking for the "community"?

The community is polarised, on one side is the noisy minority of pro raiders that are making a big fuss because they can't raid small alliances any more. Funnily enough though polaris has said nothing about ordinary tech raids.

I can't see the big deal, you recognise the sovereignty of all alliances above a certain size and not just raid them (but DoWs on them with the same standard of CBs for every other alliance are ok).

[Micheal Malone]

The community is polarised, on one side is the noisy minority of pro raiders that are making a big fuss because they can't raid small alliances any more. Funnily enough though polaris has said nothing about ordinary tech raids.

I can't see the big deal, you recognise the sovereignty of all alliances above a certain size and not just raid them (but DoWs on them with the same standard of CBs for every other alliance are ok).

Because \m/ and other alliances need to adhere and seek the approval of Polaris for raids? For a "side" that claims to be fighting for the community standards, you all seem to blatantly disregard the one standard that every(nearly) alliance adheres to. Sovereignty. By chance, what was FoA's size when \m/, PC, GOONS raided? I don't recall, but I know I was going to raid it as a single raid and recall it was only barely above iFOK's techraiding rules. So I had to seek approval, by the time I did that, they had their protectors.

Every alliance has the right to do what they want. If an alliance doesn't become part of the OWF, they learn the hard way and at least seek some form of protection. It's a "community standard", as you'd say. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Polar didn't have the sovereign right to attack \m/ and not any of the other raiding alliance. Nor am I saying those alliance are right or wrong. All I'm saying is can we quit trying to stop this war and blow some dang pixels up?

For a second there, you guys almost made this WWE2.

[Godwin]

I'm in a bit of a rush so this will be short, but I think I actually understand what you're trying to get at, Grub.

Nevertheless, I joined \m/ for the sole reason of making this game interesting, and thus I have a vested interest in prolonging this as long as possible - War is fun!

[Prime minister Johns]

Because \m/ and other alliances need to adhere and seek the approval of Polaris for raids? For a "side" that claims to be fighting for the community standards, you all seem to blatantly disregard the one standard that every(nearly) alliance adheres to. Sovereignty. By chance, what was FoA's size when \m/, PC, GOONS raided? I don't recall, but I know I was going to raid it as a single raid and recall it was only barely above iFOK's techraiding rules. So I had to seek approval, by the time I did that, they had their protectors.

Every alliance has the right to do what they want. If an alliance doesn't become part of the OWF, they learn the hard way and at least seek some form of protection. It's a "community standard", as you'd say. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Polar didn't have the sovereign right to attack \m/ and not any of the other raiding alliance. Nor am I saying those alliance are right or wrong. All I'm saying is can we quit trying to stop this war and blow some dang pixels up?

For a second there, you guys almost made this WWE2.

Respecting sovereignty? like \m/ respected the sovereignty of FoA?

[Micheal Malone]

Respecting sovereignty? like \m/ respected the sovereignty of FoA?

So Polar is taking the whole Two Wrongs make a Right approach. It's cool though, cause others are returning the favor. Hi there. Would you care for some cocoa?

[Zangmonkey]

The community is polarised, on one side is the noisy minority of pro raiders that are making a big fuss because they can't raid small alliances any more. Funnily enough though polaris has said nothing about ordinary tech raids.

I can't see the big deal, you recognise the sovereignty of all alliances above a certain size and not just raid them (but DoWs on them with the same standard of CBs for every other alliance are ok).

I remember when the spindoctors tried to pass the Unjust War as a war to end raiding.

If I believed that were actually the case now perhaps I'd have a different outlook... but Polaris hasn't effectively made the case that anti-raiding is their motivation for war.

Had they instead sought an allocution from \m/ and worked to aid the oppressed then it would have made a different impression on the cyberverse. Instead, we see them responding with military force to an oh-so-familiar situation apparently based on the perpetrator rather than the deed.

[SpoiL]

So Polar is taking the whole Two Wrongs make a Right approach. It's cool though, cause others are returning the favor. Hi there. Would you care for some cocoa?

So supporting the weak against the thuggery of \m/ is now considered a wrong. Your world truly is upside down.

Edited January 25, 2010 by SpoiL

[Dochartaigh]

Because \m/ and other alliances need to adhere and seek the approval of Polaris for raids? For a "side" that claims to be fighting for the community standards, you all seem to blatantly disregard the one standard that every(nearly) alliance adheres to. Sovereignty. By chance, what was FoA's size when \m/, PC, GOONS raided? I don't recall, but I know I was going to raid it as a single raid and recall it was only barely above iFOK's techraiding rules. So I had to seek approval, by the time I did that, they had their protectors.

Every alliance has the right to do what they want. If an alliance doesn't become part of the OWF, they learn the hard way and at least seek some form of protection. It's a "community standard", as you'd say. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Polar didn't have the sovereign right to attack \m/ and not any of the other raiding alliance. Nor am I saying those alliance are right or wrong. All I'm saying is can we quit trying to stop this war and blow some dang pixels up?

For a second there, you guys almost made this WWE2.

IIRC, FoA had 33 members.

So Polar is taking the whole Two Wrongs make a Right approach. It's cool though, cause others are returning the favor. Hi there. Would you care for some cocoa?

so essentially, you are taking the whole "\m/ can do what it wants and not have consequences" approach?

[Micheal Malone]

IIRC, FoA had 33 members.

Ah you're right, I was thinking of another group I was prowling about.

so essentially, you are taking the whole "\m/ can do what it wants and not have consequences" approach?

Not in the least, I'm merely stating that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim that \m/ was wrong in their alliance-wide raid and that it broke sovereignty of FoA, without admitting you're wrong for jumping into a situation that was handled by said alliance and their sovereign choices. Now... if Grub were to have used a CB of "Yo M, I don't like you, plain and simple" there'd be much less hype. But the fact that he's attempted to slant this as a wholesome moral obligation stinks.

[Bob Janova]

You can't claim that \m/ was wrong in their alliance-wide raid and that it broke sovereignty of FoA, without admitting you're wrong for jumping into a situation that was handled by said alliance and their sovereign choices

If you believe FoA decided to take peace without seeking reps through its own 'sovereign choice', instead of effectively being blackmailed by the prospect of taking more of a beating if they didn't, then sure. I don't think that is true, I think FoA would certainly have looked for reps if they had a real choice about it, and so the situation was never handled by FoA and their sovereign choices.

[Adrian LaCroix]

So supporting the weak against the thuggery of \m/ is now considered a wrong. Your world truly is upside down.

If The Corporation hadn't already supported FoA and stopped the raid, I'd accept your point. Things being as they are, not so much.

[Kzoppistan]

If you believe FoA decided to take peace without seeking reps through its own 'sovereign choice', instead of effectively being blackmailed by the prospect of taking more of a beating if they didn't, then sure. I don't think that is true, I think FoA would certainly have looked for reps if they had a real choice about it, and so the situation was never handled by FoA and their sovereign choices.

If I were FoA, I would drop the Corp. and offer their support for NpO, who might actually demand, and enforce, reps being paid.

[Tulafaras]

If you believe FoA decided to take peace without seeking reps through its own 'sovereign choice', instead of effectively being blackmailed by the prospect of taking more of a beating if they didn't, then sure. I don't think that is true, I think FoA would certainly have looked for reps if they had a real choice about it, and so the situation was never handled by FoA and their sovereign choices.

FoA got a new protectorate from the Corporation as their "price" for peace. As such yes, the situation WAS handled. On the other hand they could have said no to peace and the protectorate and hoped someone would back them up, that was their choice and we know which option they choose.

No matter how you turn this around, the situation of FoA was over and done with, full stop.

Grub himself has said he is waging this war because of community standards (and yes that is a very short summary of 2 rather lengthy posts). Frankly as soon as that empty phrase is being thrown around i stop listening to their excuses. No such thing exists, this is a board where by default a true "standard" cannot be developed because we do not have any mechanism to create those. So basically his community standards are a subjective opinion based on his perception of the OWF. Frankly that slope is too slippery to make a good CB which is why so many people disagree with the CB (even if they dislike \m/).

[Micheal Malone]

If you believe FoA decided to take peace without seeking reps through its own 'sovereign choice', instead of effectively being blackmailed by the prospect of taking more of a beating if they didn't, then sure. I don't think that is true, I think FoA would certainly have looked for reps if they had a real choice about it, and so the situation was never handled by FoA and their sovereign choices.

I'm going to use words from Grub here. "Look at the bigger picture"... Sure. FoA didn't seek reps and got peace with the help of The Corp, but without the Corp stepping in and coming to a quick and viable solution for all the parties involved, wouldn't the damage accrued have been greater?

I make that point mockingly, and fully support your right to crusade for the little people, as long as we get to blow up pixels I'm happy.

[Bob Janova]

FoA got a new protectorate from the Corporation as their "price" for peace.

Obviously, I am aware of this . But my point is that they made that choice (paid the price, to use your metaphor) under the threat of significant destruction, not through their own free will.

Grub himself has said he is waging this war because of community standards

Indeed. I support a community which does not tolerate racist remarks directed at diplomats or the raiding (that is, war with no reason other than theft and greed) of established alliances. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy for a reason – this is not the beginning of Polar trying to take control of everything.

[TehChron]

If The Corporation hadn't already supported FoA and stopped the raid, I'd accept your point. Things being as they are, not so much.

However, those kind of attacks were developing into a pattern, and something needed to be done to show that there were consequences for that kind of raiding.

How was Athens reprimanded as a result for their attacks on the Knights of Ni? They weren't. I'm pretty sure that if this war is won by \m/ and it's supporters (Dare I say, \m/onsters?), then there really will be a precedent set whereby a Tech Raid is considered a valid Cassus Belli for attacking a legitimate alliance.

Pattern recognition, as well as viewing things in the long term, kind of render that response moot.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Chron

[Khyber]

Indeed. I support a community which does not tolerate racist remarks directed at diplomats or the raiding (that is, war with no reason other than theft and greed) of established alliances. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy for a reason – this is not the beginning of Polar trying to take control of everything.

I tend to always agree with you Bob.

[Adrian LaCroix]

Athens paid reps for attacking Ni as I recall, and they got a good chunk of PR chewed up as a result. I'd call that a reprimand.

[TehChron]

Athens paid reps for attacking Ni as I recall, and they got a good chunk of PR chewed up as a result. I'd call that a reprimand.

Not really a reprimand, as it was done at the request of their allies so as to avoid any real political fallout. Moreover, the Knights of Ni! were incredibly easygoing about all of it, so about the only real pressure they faced was from the peanut gallery.

Right.

[Khyber]

Athens paid reps for attacking Ni as I recall, and they got a good chunk of PR chewed up as a result. I'd call that a reprimand.

It wasn't till after NpO threatened to go to war, and several days of them claiming that they did nothing wrong. MK even stated they would back their allies no matter what, reminding me of how the old hegamony used to work, one would bully, the rest would provide a united front no matter what their opinions were, all for the sake of realpolitik. Friends > Moral Values

Edited January 25, 2010 by Khyber

[Dochartaigh]

Ah you're right, I was thinking of another group I was prowling about.

Not in the least, I'm merely stating that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim that \m/ was wrong in their alliance-wide raid and that it broke sovereignty of FoA, without admitting you're wrong for jumping into a situation that was handled by said alliance and their sovereign choices. Now... if Grub were to have used a CB of "Yo M, I don't like you, plain and simple" there'd be much less hype. But the fact that he's attempted to slant this as a wholesome moral obligation stinks.

if the situation had unfolded any other way than:

\m/, PC, GOONS tech raid FoA

Corporation temp protects FoA

Alterego brings this to the publics attention

\m/ struts around stating "do something about it"

Grub says, "fine, i will do something about it"

Grub joins #\m/ and gets racial slurs hurled at him

after this, all attempts at diplomacy fail as neither Polaris nor \m/ give anything

War

and yes, somewhere in there is FoA/Corp made a deal with \m/, PC, and GOONS but that was never made public to my knowledge and FoA got screwed royally because at least Athens/FoB paid reps

also, what Bob said about FoA not ever being in a position to actually assert their sovereignty is true. Corporation could not have effectively defended FoA should FoA had told all three alliances to $%&@ off, and from the fact that Corporation even stated that the protection does not cover the raids, FoA would have been destroyed had they attempted to fight back. if they had demanded reps, they would have been laughed at and without a way to force \m/, PC, or GOONS to give them reps what could they do? nothing.

so in my opinion, there is a moral obligation to try and stop this precedent of being allowed to raid alliances over a certain number (in my opinion that number should be 2) because otherwise, all we will see is new alliances being raided over and over and over and over again until someone else steps up.

but hey, we may have gotten rid of the old Heg that destroyed alliances for no reason, why not start a new tradition of destroying alliances by having them constantly raided instead. tis so much easier too since there is no CB to argue over.

[Godwin]

A few of you seem to confuse what actually happened regarding Grub coming to our channel. Before that even happened, \m/ knew beyond reasonable doubt that Polar was attacking us soon and had already begun planning for it, though since I'm not gov I don't know the exact details of it. The incident on IRC had nothing to do with the war other than to fuel the moralist front and give Polar a better image, not to mention the spawning of arguments like this. Just my $.02.

EDIT: Also, calling \m/ a bunch of racists when one or two unimportant members made racial comments (and were severely punished for it, might I add) is kind of a leap, you know. I personally don't have a racist bone in my body, but that's neither here nor now.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Godwin

[Micheal Malone]

<snip>

so in my opinion, there is a moral obligation to try and stop this precedent of being allowed to raid alliances over a certain number (in my opinion that number should be 2) because otherwise, all we will see is new alliances being raided over and over and over and over again until someone else steps up.

but hey, we may have gotten rid of the old Heg that destroyed alliances for no reason, why not start a new tradition of destroying alliances by having them constantly raided instead. tis so much easier too since there is no CB to argue over.

Comparing this to Heg is silly. To be honest, you've lost the argument when you try to put an arbitrary # on what is an acceptable alliance size before it's offlimits to techraiding, for multiple reasons;

1) You'd have to get everyone to agree on said arbitrary #.

2) You'd have to get everyone to agree on changes to that #.

As you're aware, what is considered the "norm" escalates as time progresses. Avg infra, tech, warchests, etc. Inflation of the system with less and less wars causes these #'s to rise. As does the "size" of what is considered an actual community participating alliance. Because remember, Grub claims to be enforcing community standards.

Either you're for tech-raiding, or against. Attempting to justify it by placing a "well it was only such and such amount of people or NS" is laughable. Using an example to demonstrate my point:

You're walking past me on the way to the podium and I see you have some money hanging out of your pocket. I deftly swipe a $5 (or some small denomination of whatever money you use). Did I steal from you? Of course I did, did the amount of money or amount of money you had make a bit of difference in whether I stole from you?

Now, on your way back from the podium, you see Archon swipe a $5 from someone you've not seen around the stage before... Did he steal? If so, why is it ok for some of your allies, and not for everyone?

[HeinousOne]

A few of you seem to confuse what actually happened regarding Grub coming to our channel. Before that even happened, \m/ knew beyond reasonable doubt that Polar was attacking us soon and had already begun planning for it, though since I'm not gov I don't know the exact details of it. The incident on IRC had nothing to do with the war other than to fuel the moralist front and give Polar a better image, not to mention the spawning of arguments like this. Just my $.02.

Just another attempt to explain and rationalize your actions. How many more of you will have your go at this?

[Triyun]

Comparing this to Heg is silly. To be honest, you've lost the argument when you try to put an arbitrary # on what is an acceptable alliance size before it's offlimits to techraiding, for multiple reasons;

1) You'd have to get everyone to agree on said arbitrary #.

2) You'd have to get everyone to agree on changes to that #.

As you're aware, what is considered the "norm" escalates as time progresses. Avg infra, tech, warchests, etc. Inflation of the system with less and less wars causes these #'s to rise. As does the "size" of what is considered an actual community participating alliance. Because remember, Grub claims to be enforcing community standards.

Either you're for tech-raiding, or against. Attempting to justify it by placing a "well it was only such and such amount of people or NS" is laughable. Using an example to demonstrate my point:

You're walking past me on the way to the podium and I see you have some money hanging out of your pocket. I deftly swipe a $5 (or some small denomination of whatever money you use). Did I steal from you? Of course I did, did the amount of money or amount of money you had make a bit of difference in whether I stole from you?

Now, on your way back from the podium, you see Archon swipe a $5 from someone you've not seen around the stage before... Did he steal? If so, why is it ok for some of your allies, and not for everyone?

I totally agree, comparing this to Heg's actions is silly. We never tech raided entire alliances for no reason. You might not have liked our CBs, I didn't like some of our CBs, but we had at least had them. We never just said, "we're going to steal your tech cause you are weaker." That is essentially what both Athens and \m/ did. Its wars for lolz and piracy alone. The first FAN and Unjust Wars pretty much established a precedent widely respected up until now that this type of behavior that \m/ exhibited isn't acceptable. I realize a good chunk of Super Complaints and their friends were on the other side of that fight. Some of us on both sides have both risen or fallen, but generally that war had kept some sort of standard practice. If \m/, Athens, or anyone wants to go about violating it, you better be prepared for the architects of that war, namely Polar to stand up and fight for what they believe in. Anyone who wouldn't expect Polar to do just that doesn't know their history very well.