Imperial Decree - New Polar

[WarriorConcept]

Most of the commings and goings on this forum are complete and utter drivel. An atmosphere where anything of any intellectual value cannot exist here, but god forbid, I'll try.

Alliances derive their sovereignity from their individual ability to get things done. As a group, all of the collective alliances in the Cyberverse have standards that are set and followed. Every alliance has a certain degree of responsibility to one another. However an alliance can only remain soverign so long as it can retain control of its internal and external affairs.

This retention of control is the most important aspect of sovereignity. An alliances posses a right to control its affairs, as long as it has the ability to ensure that its affairs can go on unhampered by the will of others. Without the means or desire to back up its claims, an alliances sovereignity is forfeited.

So might makes right? We've known this for quite a while, but thanks for stating it again.

[Fireandthepassion]

I clarified this already, \m/'s charter only states the rules for individual nations. A raid with two other alliances isn't covered, so it's up to the government.

It doesn't matter how you try to word it. That charter that all members of \m/ have agreed to always implies to \m/'s standards and ethics. Why? Because that is what a charter's purpose is. It doesn't matter if you're with 2 other alliance or solo. You are a member of \m/, you represent \m/ and that charter that you agreed to. If you throw away your charter just because you're with 2 other alliances then you have thrown away your sovereignty as an alliance which then makes you a puppet to whomever orchestrated the war.

[AlmightyGrub]

Damn you for making me agree with you!

But I still reserve the right to raided the unalined/untreatied

And no one called AlmightyGrub has ever suggested you won't, shouldn't or can not.

[Jipps]

So might makes right? We've known this for quite a while, but thanks for stating it again.

Apparently many have forgetton so it is nice to be reminded every once in awhile.

[Aeternalis]

It doesn't matter how you try to word it. That charter that all members of \m/ have agreed to always implies to \m/'s standards and ethics. Why? Because that is what a charter's purpose is. It doesn't matter if you're with 2 other alliance or solo. You are a member of \m/, you represent \m/ and that charter that you agreed to. If you throw away your charter just because you're with 2 other alliances then you have thrown away your sovereignty as an alliance which then makes you a puppet to whomever orchestrated the war.

but why can you or should you enforce what THEIR charter says?

[President Obama]

It doesn't matter how you try to word it. That charter that all members of \m/ have agreed to always implies to \m/'s standards and ethics. Why? Because that is what a charter's purpose is. It doesn't matter if you're with 2 other alliance or solo. You are a member of \m/, you represent \m/ and that charter that you agreed to. If you throw away your charter just because you're with 2 other alliances then you have thrown away your sovereignty as an alliance which then makes you a puppet to whomever orchestrated the war.

Why do you have such an interest in making sure \m/'s charter is enforced?

[Doitzel]

So might makes right? We've known this for quite a while, but thanks for stating it again.

That's not what he said at all. He said might makes security. I know, I know -- it doesn't rhyme, but at least it's not trite.

[Dochartaigh]

No, making terrible decisions while tech raiding is going out of style..oh wait it never was.

really? because lets see, first we had PC raiding California with is public fallout, then Athens and FoB with public fallout occurring. Now we have \m/, PC, and GOONS raiding FoA with public fallout. seems like it was being pushed into style by several allies of CnG or alliances within CnG and pushed hard.

to state that it was not in style is just ridiculous given the history during the past 6 months or so. seems that once the Karma War hit and alliances were capable of doing as they pleased, they decided to run roughshod over any alliance weaker than them and as \m/ put it, "not politically tied to the web"...

hmm... sounds like a slightly watered down version of the old Heg tactic of isolating and destroying...

good to see that Heg tactics are encouraged nowadays, so long as they are slightly watered down. Wonder how long until it is okay for the full on versions to be encouraged?

Attacking someone does not infringe on their sovereignty; it infringes on their territory. Forcing alliances or rulers to act in a certain way does.

seriously? every alliance has the sovereign right to not be attacked unless the attack is justified. Them being politically isolated was not okay when NPO and friends did it, but all of a sudden it is okay for \m/ to do it? heh. guess Schatt was very similar to SF and actually barely if ever believed in the crap he spouted and just wanted a chance to take down NPO. Schatt all about the vengeance, unless of course he believes someone else is all about the vengeance, in which case then it is wrong and ebil...

If Polar gets its way, then yes, it will. But why should we be held accountable or better yet, at the mercy of what Polaris deems to be "politically correct" ? In essence they are violating every alliance's sovereignty.

i would say by the outcry on the FoA raid, as well as the fact that many of ya'll believe that \m/ was in the wrong, where is it that only Polaris deems this to be a "politically correct" ideal? oh wait, it is not just Polaris, it is everyone. Polaris just had the cajones to actually do something that was quickly becoming a trend in CN and to try and stop it before it became acceptable. though if ya'll had your way, any alliance that was not tied to the treaty web would be a victim in waiting for alliances to raid at will. heh. coming from those who deemed that NPO was wrong for attacking alliances for no just cause it is quite amusing to see ya'll think it is now okay to do such a thing.

And, I'm not in \m/.

This is no longer about \m/; it's about everyone, just as Polaris claims that FOA is about everyone.

If I decide that CoJ needs practice and I direct the Cult to attack a small alliance tomorrow, Polaris is asserting that they may attack me not as an exercise of their right to declare war as they see fit, too, but in order to prevent CoJ from acting in a way they dislike.

so it would be okay for you to attack an alliance for no good reason, but wrong for Polaris to attack for what they feel is a good reason? hypocrisy is quickly becoming your only style Schatt.

By attacking an alliance until they pursue a protectorate, \m/, PC, and GOONS have forced an alliance to act in a way that they deemed acceptable. Is that not an infringement of sovereignty?

seems that many do not think this is true for some reason. either FoA got a protectorate or continued to be raided or targeted for raids. but of course they were not "officially" forced to do anything, just that if they did not, their alliance would continue to be attacked at will by \m/, GOONS, and PC.

but then again, the communities double standards are quite high it seems.

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.

anything done to NPO is okay. same with former Heg alliances. but hey, i learned far to late that those alliances that led the charge into Karma are amongst the most hypocritical and pathetic alliances. MK- seems to think their allies can do as they please without consequence including attacking alliances without a cb. could have sworn that the "Voice of Karma" was against that whole thing. seems after MK shifted into a more powerful role, they deemed that it is after all quite acceptable behavior.

That's the exact problem many have with this war, and the exact reason many oppose and condemn Polaris for what they have done. It'd be foolish for any foreign leader to try and control another alliances policies or dictate how they enforce their own Code of Conduct, charter, etc.

Polaris has begun its Imperialistic Era ?

\m/, PC, GOONS telling alliances that they can be raided unless they get a treaty... dictating to other alliances their policies and attempting to control the foreign leader and foreign affairs of other alliances.

\m/, PC, GOONS have begun their Imperialistic Era.

Which rules were those?

i would say the rule in ya'lls charter that stated \m/ could not raid any alliance above 10 or 15 members (forgot which one it was).

You're trying to define community standards by rolling everyone who has standards contrary to your own. It isn't quite the same thing.

really, cuz i saw three alliances hitting a single alliance simply because that alliance did not have a treaty. so it seems that \m/ was also attempting to define community standards by rolling any alliance that does not have a treaty. so yes, very similar.

[AlmightyGrub]

Why do you have such an interest in making sure \m/'s charter is enforced?

Because it is consistent with our goals and agenda... seriously are you struggling to keep up or just acting dumb?

[juslen]

I did not agree one bit with \m/ raiding a 30 member alliance just because they could. However, I was under the impression that NpO was seeking diplomacy in the matter and that members of \m/ government had spit in their face and told them to take a hike. Instead.. I discover that these are essentially a bunch of goons from \m/ insulting NpO after they were given an ultimatum. So this war is about members of an alliance misbehaving and insulting the high and mighty NpO?

I was hoping to see treaties dropped after \m/ essentially bullied a smaller alliance. Now the bully is getting beat up by a bigger bully. No sympathy here. Both decisions on the part of both alliances. Public reactions after the tech raid started sent \m/ scrambling to fix their mistake because the public had spoken up.. and before the drama could even subside there comes NpO to show them who is boss. This was already resolved, \m/ already looked liked the overstepped their boundaries and low and behold they look like the victims now! Congrats NpO.. no matter how good your intentions may or may not have been we all get to enjoy the aftermath of such hasty decisions.

[mmansfield68]

Because it is consistent with our goals and agenda... seriously are you struggling to keep up or just acting dumb?

Most observers would suggest the former.....

Just sayin....

[Dochartaigh]

Disingenuous stalling.

They've been unofficial because no one is arrogant enough to try and enforce anything on the entirety of CN - with good reason. And I've seen many, and until people started crying on the OWF about them, very few people ever cared. As a point of fact, GOD was on the receiving end of one once.

You either play the game or you die off, CN is brutal like that but it weeds out the weak and amateurish among us.

They have been unofficial because no alliance was arrogant to attempt to break them. thus, no need to really enforce something that rarely, if ever, occurred.

and if CN is brutal and you either play or die, then it seems that this is exactly what is happening. quite possibly \m/ is the weak and amateurish amongst us that will die off yet again.

but it seems that you don't truly think the last sentence is true, otherwise you would not have an issue with this war, since what you stated is exactly what is occurring.

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.

wait, ain't that the argument \m/ used when they attacked FoA? or something quite similar? you attacked because you could. Polaris attacked because they could. the reasons are different. Polaris felt what they did was the right thing to do, just as i am sure \m/, PC, and GOONS thought it was the right thing to do when ya'll hit FoA. because if ya'll thought it was the wrong thing to do, ya'll would not have done it.

We did not force them to accept a protectorate, they chose to accept it themselves.

yes, accept a protectorate or continued to be raided and continue to be a target of raids as long as they existed. yes, no forcing there at all...

Last time I checked, diplomacy, or any agreement consist of both parties giving up something; In this particular instance Polaris was not willing to concede anything while demanding everything. I see a flaw, here. Please correct me, if I'm wrong.

not true at all. diplomacy could also be where one alliances messes up and pays for the mistake in some way other than war. diplomacy is not always a give and take. sometimes diplomacy is for simply getting out of a war. so yes, you are wrong.

Baaaw, they insulted you after you tried threatening them into submission.

according to Hoo, Grub was insulted prior to even saying anything in #\m/.

as for the OWF posts, i would think that if \m/ had not wanted this war, then they would have attempted diplomacy. since they refused to do so, then it is obvious they wanted this war as much as Polaris. their response the entire time was "do something about it". so, you can state all you want that Grub threatened \m/ but honestly, boo$%&@inghoo considering that \m/ was all "do something about it". thus, since they asked, Grub only complied. how is that a threat when it seems to be so highly wanted by the other side? oh wait, it is not.

[mmansfield68]

as for the OWF posts, i would think that if \m/ had not wanted this war, then they would have attempted diplomacy.

War is Diplomacy!

o/ Polaris!

[Fireandthepassion]

Why do you have such an interest in making sure \m/'s charter is enforced?

Because their charter recognized the community standard and I would rather not see the community of Bob degrade into a worse standard where people can do anything with out repercussion. If people think this form of Bob communication is bad now it would only be worse in such a world with out some form of standard. No small alliance would be able to thrive with out a protectorate or some form of treaty. We should not encourage raiding small alliances because that, potentially, leads to people leaving our community because their nation and/or alliance is crippled. Now that <x> amount of nations per alliance would be the medium and quite frankly I think that medium works.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Fireandthepassion

[Dochartaigh]

You have no clue what your saying here, what you said is in no way the same as he was arguing for...not even on the same page.

The way I read what your saying seems to be a round about threat, one I would sincerely tread softly about.

GRUB, I agree 100% with what you said, for what its worth I stand with NpO and their decision.

I also see no reason why \m/ can't swallow their pride and defate their blown up ego's and surrender to the simplest terms I've seen in some time.

I find it funny that the very same people wearing the shoes TPF wore a few weeks ago are now complaining, whining, and throwing temper tantrums...seems its OK to throw stones as long as their the one throwing them, its OK to attack smaller AA's as long as they are the ones attacking, but when the tables are turned there are all kinds of reasons why they have been wronged or what ever they want to call it.

I seem to recall posting something weeks ago about this being CN, and sooner or later the same people attacking TPF might just find them selves in the same situation, only difference here is this is actually justified!

Next time I think these people should think twice before they are so quick to jump on the lynching team.

Just being honest,

BG.

now i am agreeing with TPF... heh. never thought i would see the day i agreed with a post by any TPF member.

No, that doesn't work, because unlike most times that argument is used, you literally did put the proverbial gun to their forehead and forced them to.

seems that it is okay for them to provide a "reason" to dictate how other alliances operate and act, but not okay for Polaris to provide a "reason" to do the same. seriously, if \m/ is gonna argue that they did not force FoA to seek a protectorate, then they honestly cannot say that Polaris is forcing them to do anything at all. it is not like ya'll don't have allies to help defend you unlike FoA that had 3 alliances hitting them without any allies. thus, if FoA fought back they would have been destroyed and you know it. thus the only thing they could do is find a protectorate. thus, it is quite easy to see how \m/ forced them to do something and thus violated their sovereignty just as ya'll are crying about on here.

this is true Karma. what goes around comes around \m/.

Sure, one side, usually holding the big stick (Polar) dictates to the small guy (\m/), knowing full well that the small guy will give into whatever demands. Usually, you see the dictating party take a notch back in their demands because the small guy wont give in, sadly, I have not seen Polar do that. It's either their way or no way at all.

sounds awfully similar. i think i read about this small alliance who was attacked by three other alliances, the moment its protectorate treaty was voided. the small alliances was forced to find a protectorate in order to end the raid and to be allowed to exist without being a raid target.

i doubt that had FoA not given in and had fought back, we would have seen \m/, PC, or GOONS take a notch back on their demand. instead we would have seen FoA destroyed and listed as a raid target until they give in and find a protectorate.

but hey, continue to think that somehow \m/ does not deserve this at all. and continue to think that what \m/ did was somehow better than what you are stating Polaris is doing. because in all honesty, it is not. what \m/ did was worse because at least Polaris made it public. \m/, PC, and GOONS hid their crime from the community. they were found out, and GOONS was allowed to go because diplomacy worked. \m/was hit because PC would defend \m/, thus no need to hit them.

wait, i heard something similar to this too. two alliances did a crime, which it hid from the community. 4.5 months later this crime was found out. one alliance was allowed to go scott free but the other alliance was hit by 4 other alliances. many of those who somehow find this wrong, found that in the right...

again, i am finding the hypocrisy from those who support \m/ astounding. especially those in Athens who let ZH off scott free because of diplomacy, but are hating on Polaris because they did the same thing with GOONS. not to mention those in GOD and \m/ who hit TPF because TPF hid their crime for 4.5 months. but hey, obviously it is okay for ya'll to hit an alliance for something unrelated to ya'll.

[Dochartaigh]

I was hoping to see treaties dropped after \m/ essentially bullied a smaller alliance. Now the bully is getting beat up by a bigger bully. No sympathy here. Both decisions on the part of both alliances. Public reactions after the tech raid started sent \m/ scrambling to fix their mistake because the public had spoken up.. and before the drama could even subside there comes NpO to show them who is boss. This was already resolved, \m/ already looked liked the overstepped their boundaries and low and behold they look like the victims now! Congrats NpO.. no matter how good your intentions may or may not have been we all get to enjoy the aftermath of such hasty decisions.

actually, the public reactions sent \m/ into the "do something about it" mode, in which they continuously said "$%&@ you" to anyone who thought they were in the wrong. so where was the "scrambling to fix their mistake" bs you speak of?

that is when Polaris decided to state they would "do something about it". then when Grub went to #\m/, before he said anything, he had racial slurs slung at him.

so, i suggest you learn the facts first.

[WarriorConcept]

yes, accept a protectorate or continued to be raided and continue to be a target of raids as long as they existed. yes, no forcing there at all...

I do believe there were peace offers right after the attacks, therefore there really wouldn't be any further attacks.

[mmansfield68]

actually, the public reactions sent \m/ into the "do something about it" mode, in which they continuously said "$%&@ you" to anyone who thought they were in the wrong. so where was the "scrambling to fix their mistake" bs you speak of?

that is when Polaris decided to state they would "do something about it". then when Grub went to #\m/, before he said anything, he had racial slurs slung at him.

so, i suggest you learn the facts first.

But that would require reading.....c'mon Doch, LOWER THE BAR! I mean, like, a little...? Pweeeze?

[Dochartaigh]

I do believe there were peace offers right after the attacks, therefore there really wouldn't be any further attacks.

yes, but if \m/, PC, and GOONS had their way, FoA would continue to be a raid target until they got a treaty. thus, regardless of whether the attacks continued now, more would most likely come in the future and would continue until FoA got a treaty. thus, it does not matter whether or not peace was sent. until FoA got a treaty, they would not know peace as they would have continued to be a raid target and continued to be raided.

[Dochartaigh]

But that would require reading.....c'mon Doch, LOWER THE BAR! I mean, like, a little...? Pweeeze?

nah, i am waiting for someone to tell me i am illogical or can't read myself. i love those posts. they amuse me alot.

[WarriorConcept]

yes, but if \m/, PC, and GOONS had their way, FoA would continue to be a raid target until they got a treaty. thus, regardless of whether the attacks continued now, more would most likely come in the future and would continue until FoA got a treaty. thus, it does not matter whether or not peace was sent. until FoA got a treaty, they would not know peace as they would have continued to be a raid target and continued to be raided.

All alliances without a treaty are a raid target.

[Dochartaigh]

All alliances without a treaty are a raid target.

no, they are not. what would make them a raid target, and if so, at least have the balls to raid GPA, TDO, or one of the larger alliances. otherwise just gtfo with that crap as it is weak and pathetic. if you actually think that, then quite honestly, Polaris hitting \m/ should mean nothing at all since they did as \m/ did. hit a weaker alliance than them. who cares if they have treaties, it was only 2. and what is 2 treaties compared to an alliance like MK who has a dozen?

[zoskia]

i like our Emperor and I think he's one of the best Emperor of CN!!!!!

o/ NpO

[Earogema]

no, they are not. what would make them a raid target, and if so, at least have the balls to raid GPA, TDO, or one of the larger alliances. otherwise just gtfo with that crap as it is weak and pathetic. if you actually think that, then quite honestly, Polaris hitting \m/ should mean nothing at all since they did as \m/ did. hit a weaker alliance than them. who cares if they have treaties, it was only 2. and what is 2 treaties compared to an alliance like MK who has a dozen?

Well there you go. They hit \m/ because they could.

That's why \m/ hit FoA.

Welp, I'm done here.

[WarriorConcept]

no, they are not. what would make them a raid target, and if so, at least have the balls to raid GPA, TDO, or one of the larger alliances. otherwise just gtfo with that crap as it is weak and pathetic. if you actually think that, then quite honestly, Polaris hitting \m/ should mean nothing at all since they did as \m/ did. hit a weaker alliance than them. who cares if they have treaties, it was only 2. and what is 2 treaties compared to an alliance like MK who has a dozen?

I think you're arguing with yourself there.

From my understand of "community standards" alliances without a treaty are valid raid targets. "Community standards" also dictate that when you raid it's a smaller alliance. Unless you're saying community standards are wrong?