Imperial Decree - New Polar

[Rebel Virginia]

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.

Actually the NPO paid reps.

[Godwin]

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

Rationalize what? What those members said was wrong. They were punished for it. \m/ apologized. I don't see how explaining that is rationalization for ANYTHING, especially in the context that it had nothing to do with the war. Keep going with these "witty" comments, they're entertaining.

[Krunk the Great]

Rationalize what? What those members said was wrong. They were punished for it. \m/ apologized. I don't see how explaining that is rationalization for ANYTHING, especially in the context that it had nothing to do with the war. Keep going with these "witty" comments, they're entertaining.

You apologized? When?

Ohh you must mean that completely sarcastic excuse of an apology you posted....

trust me, I know my sarcastic apologies :-p

Edited January 25, 2010 by Krunk the Great

[Earogema]

You apologized? When?

Ohh you must mean that completely sarcastic excuse of an apology you posted....

trust me, I know my sarcastic apologies :-p

Our Tri also got on us pretty badly for it. Whatever you'd like to see though. I understand that this is more of a "he said this!" and a "HE ISN'T SINCERE" type deal.

[Kochers]

In order for this matter to be resolved, \m/ will publicly acknowledge that there is a recognized convention for tech raiding on Bob and agree to hold themselves to that standard. This of course should not be an issue for them, it is self contained within their own charter, a previously recognized convention enshrined in their own paperwork.

You're asking them to surrender and give over their sovereignty wholesale by aligning their techraiding policies to "community standards" which is high-horse speak for "public opinion."

I'd cuss you out, too.

I'm sorry Schattenmann, but your claim just doesn't hold up.

[Tulafaras]

Actually the NPO paid reps.

that's BS.

KoN wanted donation deals as reps, those were paid for by athens.

Regarding community standards, i am not going to try to argue with you Bob. You have an opinion, which i obviously do not share, but since both of our opinions are based on feelings it is not worth an argument which won't go anywhere anyway.

Fact remains that the NpO decided this was a crusade worth fighting and as a result it looks like we'll blow up a decent amount of infra and glow green for a month. Well worse things have happened...

[Adam Suttler]

In all fairness, establishing a "tech raiding" convention would take out the element of surprise in doing so, as well as some of the fun. However, what \m/ did was not a tech raid; it was an unofficial DoW made by a good number of their members, on an alliance that was not being protected at the time. This was staged to be a "wipe-out" conflict between them, rather than an official war. The defenders obviously asked for aid of some sort, and we are left at this conundrum of what this whole conflict really is.

To be fair, an unprotected alliance, as far as their treaties go, should be considered fair game, as any other "None" nation is. How they defend themselves and who they ask for assistance should be up to them, rather to be judged in a committee of people who believe their opinion is larger than life. Adding ridiculous guidelines as to what and how a tech raid is conducted is up to you to decide. Each alliance has their own charter that describes what they can/cannot do; it's only a matter of sticking to it. If you stick to it, there shouldn't be any moral problem in doing what you're doing.

Therefore, I disagree with AlmightyGrub and his basis for making war. If you don't like the fact that someone's beating on the little guys, that's fine; go ahead and do something about it. But don't preach morals and proper conduct; that's something for every alliance to decide for themselves. Otherwise, the majority of alliances are just sheep, simply ready to be led on by the next political moralist. If you wanted to declare on \m/ because you want to defend the smaller guy, then do so, and explain that it is so. But don't blame your reasons on your beliefs and morals, or lack thereof, and don't lobby for support from other simply based on such reasons.

I don't not support \m/ (Marx and I mutually despise each other), but I support their "Stay the !@#$ out of our business" attitude. NpO has no right is telling them how they can fight their wars, and with who, under what circumstances.

[BlkAK47_002]

You're asking them to surrender and give over their sovereignty wholesale by aligning their techraiding policies to "community standards" which is high-horse speak for "public opinion."

I'd cuss you out, too.

I somewhat agree with your statement but at the same time if your alliance goes around making an $@! of itself eventually someones going to confront them, and \m/ had the misfortune of having NpO step to them and say " Hey thats not right" Knowing \m/ they probably said " Go ^&*9 yourselves you aren't the boss of us". At that point NpO probably said "ok this is the part where we mop the floor with you and see how you like it"

Thats the non High horse version

Take it to em Polaris

o/

Edited January 25, 2010 by BlkAK47002

[lordliam]

White peace in exchange for a lengthly admission of guilt? I'd kill for an offer like that. D:

Edited January 26, 2010 by lordliam

[Merrie Melodies]

White peace in exchange for a lengthly admission of guilt? I'd kill for an offer like that. D:

When I time comes Ill see if I can get our leadership to offer it to you guys.

[welshgazza1992]

Really sad to see this... but needs must. :/

[Rebel Virginia]

When I time comes Ill see if I can get our leadership to offer it to you guys.

You seem to be full of all sorts of different delusions. First you think you will be getting to PZI, and now you think you're going to win. Hilarious.

[Valtamdraugr]

I was wondering something.

If Grub had not subscribed to his "crusade", would \m/ have avoided backlash?

I think a strong possibility exists that \m/'s allies would have reacted strongly over the attack on FoA.

I think it was stated, that had NpO been allied to \m/, then cancellation would have been the outcome.

I wonder if \m/'s allies would have failed to make a statement in accordance with community standards.

Sadly, we will never know.

Just a thought.

[Merrie Melodies]

I was wondering something.

If Grub had not subscribed to his "crusade", would \m/ have avoided backlash?

I think a strong possibility exists that \m/'s allies would have reacted strongly over the attack on FoA.

I think it was stated, that had NpO been allied to \m/, then cancellation would have been the outcome.

I wonder if \m/'s allies would have failed to make a statement in accordance with community standards.

Sadly, we will never know.

Just a thought.

Actually the answer is available, NpO is still treatied to Goons, the same Goons who participated in this raid.

[Teriethien]

Actually the answer is available, NpO is still treatied to Goons, the same Goons who participated in this raid.

As though we didn't cancel that treaty.

[Merrie Melodies]

As though we didn't cancel that treaty.

You didn't cancel that treaty. Just threatened to it seems.

[savethecheerleader]

You didn't cancel that treaty. Just threatened to it seems.

Our leadership approached them with the issue and, after being met with class and professionalism rather than vulgarity, were able to reach an agreement through diplomacy that was acceptable to all parties. Funny how that sort thing works out.

[Merrie Melodies]

Our leadership approached them with the issue and, after being met with class and professionalism rather than vulgarity, were able to reach an agreement through diplomacy that was acceptable to all parties. Funny how that sort thing works out.

Funny is your moral high horse when you keep a treaty with one of the raiding alliances, don't even talk to the other raiding alliance at all, zip, zero nadda, not one word and then set out to crucify the third, and you wonder why we gave you the bird.

EDIT: You might want to explain your position with your own members since they don't even know what the hell you are doing;

As though we didn't cancel that treaty.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Merrie Melodies

[Penguin]

Funny is your moral high horse when you keep a treaty with one of the raiding alliances, don't even talk to the other raiding alliance at all, zip, zero nadda, not one word and then set out to crucify the third, and you wonder why we gave you the bird.

Grub approached you to talk about it in the exact same way that he approached GOONS. One of you listened to us and agreed that the standard was important and the other... well you know the rest.

[Earogema]

See I don't get it.

You mean if we talked pretty to you, this war wouldn't have happened?

Then you wouldn't really be trying to correct the behavior you dislike.

[Proko]

Funny is your moral high horse when you keep a treaty with one of the raiding alliances, don't even talk to the other raiding alliance at all, zip, zero nadda, not one word and then set out to crucify the third, and you wonder why we gave you the bird.

Errrr...

Alright, I am sure you have heard our side of events over fifty times by now, so I'll stick to the pieces of information that I think are most important to you.

1) GOONS was approached first because of our treaty

2) We intended to talk to PC after we spoke to \m/. We never got that far

3) Grub went into your channel to talk to you. There was not simply [OOC] racism occurring[OOC], but abuse directed at him specifically by \m/ members while \m/ leadership was present and active in the channel.

Sorry, we don't deal with that. One bad apology later, here we are.

[savethecheerleader]

See I don't get it.

You mean if we talked pretty to you, this war wouldn't have happened?

Then you wouldn't really be trying to correct the behavior you dislike.

Not necessarily, war might still have been an option had no agreement been reached. But it's hard to work out a diplomatic solution when you are met in the manner my Emperor was.

[Aeternalis]

Grub approached you to talk about it in the exact same way that he approached GOONS. One of you listened to us and agreed that the standard was important and the other... well you know the rest.

He approached GOONS with threats and a pre-disposition to destroy that alliance?

[Penguin]

See I don't get it.

You mean if we talked pretty to you, this war wouldn't have happened?

Then you wouldn't really be trying to correct the behavior you dislike.

If you didn't launch into a verbal assault when Grub tried to talk to you then we could have had a nice chat, agreed that this was a one-time mistake on your part (if it was?) and gone our separate ways. The fact that we were told to do something about it and called names when we tried talking to you about your actions is when Grub decided he'd have to roll tanks to be taken seriously. He never removed from the table a simple (1) white peace, (2) no surrenders, (3) stop raiding alliances, set of terms, which is effectively what GOONS agreed to right from the start (i.e. to stop raiding alliances).

Edited January 26, 2010 by Penguin

[Gerald Meanĕ]

See I don't get it.

You mean if we talked pretty to you, this war wouldn't have happened?

Then you wouldn't really be trying to correct the behavior you dislike.

Pretty much. As much as people won't seem to believe it we do learn from our actions, and had we been allowed to deal with the issue ourselves instead of the way its been handled would have made sure not to repeat the FoA incident.