Imperial Decree - New Polar

[Kim Jaym Il]

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.

I think by having you agree to correct the behavior, it would have accomplished their goal quite well, actually.

[SpoiL]

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.

So if NpO had never gotten involved, \m/ would have come to agreement with FoA that \m/ was wrong to tech raid their sovereign alliance? You are full of it.

[chris8967]

Actually you have no idea what your talking about The Corporation had already solved the \m/ - FoA issue.

[Gerald Meanĕ]

So if NpO had never gotten involved, \m/ would have come to agreement with FoA that \m/ was wrong to tech raid their sovereign alliance? You are full of it.

No we just wouldn't be raiding alliances anymore due to the response we saw.

[Zombie Glaucon]

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

Given that Grub was apparently sooooo threatening, why didn't \m/ log-dump on the first day?

The claims of pre-disposition are more about your problems with NpO than our supposed grudge against \m/.

[Bob]

So if NpO had never gotten involved, \m/ would have come to agreement with FoA that \m/ was wrong to tech raid their sovereign alliance? You are full of it.

No, that is nowhere nearby what he said.

Read his post, he specifically said they would "have mad esure not to repeat the FoA incident.".

Nice try though.

[Aeternalis]

Given that Grub was apparently sooooo threatening, why didn't \m/ log-dump on the first day?

The claims of pre-disposition are more about your problems with NpO than our supposed grudge against \m/.

If that much is true, I'm still wondering why he singled out only \m/ to attack, then. You're right! Maybe it was no pre-disposition, but rather the fact that \m/ didn't have the treaties to back themselves up.

[Prime minister Johns]

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).

But if they agreed to that then they would not be able to "ruin the game" as is stated as their goal in their motto.

OOC: I am using the word game here in an IC sense to refer to a motto that appears on many \m/ signatures.

[Teriethien]

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

The treaty was reinstated afterwards, but the point remains that GOONS didn't get to walk away.

[Bob Janova]

No we just wouldn't be raiding alliances anymore due to the response we saw.

I am dubious of this claim, because you clearly did not learn from the very similar response that Athens had got not very long ago.

[Earogema]

I am dubious of this claim, because you clearly did not learn from the very similar response that Athens had got not very long ago.

Oh we did.

We learned they didn't get attacked

[Gerald Meanĕ]

I am dubious of this claim, because you clearly did not learn from the very similar response that Athens had got not very long ago.

What can I say, we learn by doing. As such we wouldn't be in any hurry to repeat what happened, and I would be damn sure that it wouldn't happen again as I actually want growth in my alliance not political !@#$ storms.

[Zombie Glaucon]

If that much is true, I'm still wondering why he singled out only \m/ to attack, then. You're right! Maybe it was no pre-disposition, but rather the fact that \m/ didn't have the treaties to back themselves up.

This bogus claim has been put paid to a number of times in the relevant threads. Diplomacy worked with PC and GOONS, it did not with \m/. "Diplomacy" by \m/ increased hostilities - surprise!

Are you new here? Too lazy to read all the threads before commenting? Those questions are rhetorical; I don't care which one's the case.

Edit: Still waiting on that log dump.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Zombie Glaucon

[Merrie Melodies]

Given that Grub was apparently sooooo threatening, why didn't \m/ log-dump on the first day?

The claims of pre-disposition are more about your problems with NpO than our supposed grudge against \m/.

Could be \m/ believes in a certain "community standard" in regards to log dumps

[Earogema]

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.

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).

True, true.

However, if no agreement could be reached, then why even bother with the talks? If we refused after the war had been declared, before PC was engaged, what made you think that diplomatic talks would even be possible?

[Bob]

The treaty was reinstated afterwards, but the point remains that GOONS didn't get to walk away.

Wait what?

You canceled the treaty, and then uncanceled it?

I don't recall this~

[Baldr]

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.

When you were questioned on the forum, pretty much every post from your alliance was something along the lines of "Hey, we can do what we want, we don't see anything wrong with raiding alliances if we can get away with it, if you don't like it then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!! You can't tell us what to do, so go jump off a cliff and mind your own business".

It was pretty clear that you would have continued to do the same stuff, and that some other small alliance would get rolled.

As for the timing, Athens had tried the same nonsense just a few weeks before, and it wasn't a popular decision. The difference between you and Athens is that when everyone jumped on Athens case, they said "You're right, that was a mistake, we'll work out some reps with the guys we rolled". \m/ said "If you want us to stop, you'll have to make us".

You would have continued doing it and yelling "Do something about it" until someone did something.

Now, perhaps, you'll change, because someone did something about it.

[Merrie Melodies]

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.

Seems to me if the original issue was about that raid on FoA Grub would have been talking with PC at the same time they were speaking with \m/, the fact that didn't happen clearly points out Grub was after \m/ specifically.

[SpoiL]

No, that is nowhere nearby what he said.

Read his post, he specifically said they would "have mad esure not to repeat the FoA incident.".

Nice try though.

"Handle it themselves" can be interpreted so many different ways. Given \m/'s twisted phiolosophy, you'll have to forgive your misunderstanding of my understanding.

Also, what?:

No we just wouldn't be raiding alliances anymore due to the response we saw.

[Bob Janova]

Except that, well, it doesn't. Grub couldn't actually talk to every alliance at once – from Proko's post it seems pretty clear that the order was basically a fluke, and your alliance made idiots out of themselves before Grub had got around to visiting PC. In fact he outright states the second half of that sentence.

[Kim Jaym Il]

Seems to me if the original issue was about that raid on FoA Grub would have been talking with PC at the same time they were speaking with \m/, the fact that didn't happen clearly points out Grub was after \m/ specifically.

And the fact that GOONS were approached before \m/ clearly unravels the hidden Polar plot to take out GOONS.

[SpoiL]

No, that is nowhere nearby what he said.

Read his post, he specifically said they would "have mad esure not to repeat the FoA incident.".

Nice try though.

"Handle it themselves" can be interpreted so many different ways. Given \m/'s twisted philosophy, you'll have to forgive your misunderstanding of my understanding.

Also, what did you say?:

No we just wouldn't be raiding alliances anymore due to the response we saw.

What response would that be? Someone getting some support against your thuggish actions?

Edited January 26, 2010 by SpoiL

[SpoiL]

x

Edited January 26, 2010 by SpoiL

[Penguin]

Wait what?

You canceled the treaty, and then uncanceled it?

I don't recall this~

They agreed to the same set of principles about not attacking alliances that were presented to \m/ and remain presented to \m/. It is a perfect example of two alliances dealing with the same situation in two completely different ways. Rather than somehow proving our hypocrisy, simplifying the story down to two different outcomes just demonstrates how easy it would have been for \m/ and allies to settle this diplomatically at any point in time including right now.

True, true.

However, if no agreement could be reached, then why even bother with the talks? If we refused after the war had been declared, before PC was engaged, what made you think that diplomatic talks would even be possible?

What do you mean why bother with the talks? We didn't particularly want this to escalate and figured that once you saw we were taking it seriously, you might actually take it seriously too and acknowledge that there would be no future alliance raids. Allies were called in, things were added to the terms, further negotiations broke down and here we are.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Penguin

[Gerald Meanĕ]

When you were questioned on the forum, pretty much every post from your alliance was something along the lines of "Hey, we can do what we want, we don't see anything wrong with raiding alliances if we can get away with it, if you don't like it then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!! You can't tell us what to do, so go jump off a cliff and mind your own business".

That's because like most sovereign entities we dislike being told to do what other people want. As I'm sure you wouldn't like \m/ dictating your policy the same extends to anyone else.

It was pretty clear that you would have continued to do the same stuff, and that some other small alliance would get rolled.

Speculation on your part. We would have internally dealt with the responses, and altered ourselves as such. Were it not for the war I would have been personally getting it done, but now other matters have taken center stage.

As for the timing, Athens had tried the same nonsense just a few weeks before, and it wasn't a popular decision. The difference between you and Athens is that when everyone jumped on Athens case, they said "You're right, that was a mistake, we'll work out some reps with the guys we rolled". \m/ said "If you want us to stop, you'll have to make us".

The difference is we settled our incident before anyone decided to jump in. It was done, over, finished, but other parties decided that they were not content with that.

You would have continued doing it and yelling "Do something about it" until someone did something.

And I say we wouldn't. But then again you can't see the future, and I have a direct channel to stopping any more incidents so which one of us do you think is more likely to be right in that regard.

Now, perhaps, you'll change, because someone did something about it.

If we're going to change it is because we want to, and not because of a foreign power. This war is proof of that.