Imperial Decree - New Polar

[Dochartaigh]

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.

what could the backlash have possibly been? PC was in on the raid and Corporation protected FoA. that is 2 of the 3 alliances allied to \m/. neither of which did any real sort of backlash at all. i doubt the Corporation pushed \m/ to pay reps. that leaves only Ragnarok, and since we have not seen a cancellation from RoK, i doubt there would have been an outlash other than what may have already been given. thus, what reaction would be needed in order to stem this escalation?

so yes, i honestly believe that \m/'s allies would have failed to make any sort of relevant statement especially in regards to canceling their treaties with \m/.

it is not that hard to figure out considering \m/'s treaties (all 3 of them) and what has already occurred. if RoK had any actual serious issues over \m/'s actions, we would have seen a cancellation already.

[Earogema]

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 stop raiding alliances. Allies were called in, things were added to the terms, further negotiations broke down and here we are.

That's why I meant by "Why bother with the talks?"

We didn't take you seriously even when the tanks got rolling.

EDIT:

i doubt the Corporation pushed \m/ to pay reps.

They didn't.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Earogema

[AlmightyGrub]

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 we had reached agreement, then the behaviour would have been corrected to my satisfaction. I may well be very naive, but I am more than happy to accept people's word that they intend to modify their behaviour. GOONS were not spoken to as nicely as you were, they were my allies after all, but for some reason they understood that the negative impact of their raid on FOA was not something they could justify to either themselves or to me.

Their treaty was re-instated in good faith, on their word, the same word that was all that was required from you. Instead, you spazz out and start with the crap. Bring it has been brought, it can easily be unbrought if you agree to agree. Seems simple really from where I sit.

As for the spurious PC arguments, PC weren't the ones posting all over the forums, all over IRC and anywhere else they felt they had a forum challenging everyone to do something about it. I have no real issues with PC, not even now, they happened to be third on the my list of situations to address, but seeing how they were neither allies to me, nor rubbing everyone's nose in it publicly, they became #3 on the list. \m/ was number two...

The absolute drivel I see being used to justify the escalation, Grub has not offered peace and never will, Grub this Grub that etc is all diversionary crap. The terms have no substantially differed from day one, they were offered in person to CSM day one and apart from me conceding to admit that I am not the sole moral authority on Bob and do so publicly, there has been no real change.

You are free of course to keep embarrassing yourselves by continuing with such drivel, but intelligent people can read the simple offer, they can see the simple offer for what it is, for it is no more than asking \m/ to stick to their own rules and thereby ensure that smaller alliances are not raided without some consequence.

As for the moral police, world enforcers, moralist scum etc etc... IF not me, then who? You, you have no standards you are willing to accept even ones imposed by yourself? Your allies, you ignored them as well. Your like minded friends who didn't budge an inch to say boo? Unlikely they will do much. So then who? I will tell you simply, in the absence of anyone else who is prepared to move on something without a massive groundswell of public support, me.

Do something about it, I just did. The real question is simple, can \m/ man up and admit they screwed up or do we have to destroy the whole world just to get some concession to sensible behaviour?

It is actually much worse than I realized, the lunatics are truly on the grass.

[Gerald Meanĕ]

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

Nope, that would be corps response of getting involved to stop the incident diplomatically. As I've stated before the reason I dislike raiding alliances is due to the fact that it gets many more people involved.

[Proko]

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.

Actually, that proves Grub was after GOONS specifically.

Expect our DoW.

[Merrie Melodies]

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

The very Goons that you are treatied to? I would hope it would be easy for you to have a conversation with them.

[SpoiL]

Nope, that would be corps response of getting involved to stop the incident diplomatically. As I've stated before the reason I dislike raiding alliances is due to the fact that it gets many more people involved.

What does the corporation have to do with FoA being a sovereign alliance? So you only admit wrong doing when the alliance has some other alliance supporting them?

[Bob]

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.

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.

Did you cancel the treaty and then uncancel it? That is all I asked.

[Dochartaigh]

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?

lawlz. i love the whole "you failed because of such and such" nonsense. you realize that while some things do escalate, not everything escalates. tech raiding can easily be kept to unaligned or one man alliances. your analogy inadequately describes the actual circumstances. i would more describe it as being similar to: I beat up and mugged one person. it is wrong and (in RL) i would get jail-time for it. you and your friends, on the other hand have beaten up and robbed 15 people at the same time. your jail-time would be much greater than mine because while the crime is the same, the magnitude changes the sentence.

tech raiding is not tech raiding is not tech raiding. tech raiding an unaligned nation is not the same as tech raiding an aligned. i remember when tech raiding aligned nations used be considered rogue actions and would be dealt with as such. now people like you want to make rogue actions okay.

what is next, the act of spying on an alliance being okay? cuz if that is true, then Athens/RoK/GOD/\m/ all owe TPF some apologies and reps and ZH should not have disbanded but been regarded as doing nothing wrong.

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.

considering \m/'s attitude in Alterego's thread, publicly it looked very much like ya'll would continue unless stopped from the outside (whether allies or others). so do not even attempt to state that \m/ would have stopped. even now, most of the view from \m/ is that they fight this war to continue tech raiding as they please, including alliances.

i would suggest if you want to promote this new viewpoint, it would do well to have all members on the same page otherwise, it fails to carry any actual weight.

[Penguin]

Did you cancel the treaty and then uncancel it? That is all I asked.

My apologies, I guess I thought it was one of those sarcastic, rhetorical questions and thus didn't reply directly. We expressed notice of intent to cancel after the raid, worked out the issues diplomatically, were pleased with the discussions, and as a result decided not go through with the cancellation.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Penguin

[Bob]

My apologies, I guess I thought it was one of those sarcastic, rhetorical questions and thus didn't reply directly. We expressed notice of intent to cancel after the raid, worked out the issues diplomatically, were pleased with the discussions, and as a result decided not go through with the cancellation.

No, it was just that I hadn't heard that aspect of this situation before. My apologies for the confusion my dear Penguin.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Gerald Meanĕ]

considering \m/'s attitude in Alterego's thread, publicly it looked very much like ya'll would continue unless stopped from the outside (whether allies or others). so do not even attempt to state that \m/ would have stopped. even now, most of the view from \m/ is that they fight this war to continue tech raiding as they please, including alliances.

i would suggest if you want to promote this new viewpoint, it would do well to have all members on the same page otherwise, it fails to carry any actual weight.

I will attempt to state it, because I would have made damn sure of it myself, and it would have been done internally where it really mattered.

[AlmightyGrub]

I will attempt to state it, because I would have made damn sure of it myself, and it would have been done internally where it really mattered.

And how simple would that have been to state publicly? mmm? Instead of the other crap you produced?

I am really sorry you are misunderstood, it happens when you send very clear messages to the contrary of what you want understood

[Earogema]

If we had reached agreement, then the behaviour would have been corrected to my satisfaction. I may well be very naive, but I am more than happy to accept people's word that they intend to modify their behaviour. GOONS were not spoken to as nicely as you were, they were my allies after all, but for some reason they understood that the negative impact of their raid on FOA was not something they could justify to either themselves or to me.

Their treaty was re-instated in good faith, on their word, the same word that was all that was required from you. Instead, you spazz out and start with the crap. Bring it has been brought, it can easily be unbrought if you agree to agree. Seems simple really from where I sit.

As for the spurious PC arguments, PC weren't the ones posting all over the forums, all over IRC and anywhere else they felt they had a forum challenging everyone to do something about it. I have no real issues with PC, not even now, they happened to be third on the my list of situations to address, but seeing how they were neither allies to me, nor rubbing everyone's nose in it publicly, they became #3 on the list. \m/ was number two...

The absolute drivel I see being used to justify the escalation, Grub has not offered peace and never will, Grub this Grub that etc is all diversionary crap. The terms have no substantially differed from day one, they were offered in person to CSM day one and apart from me conceding to admit that I am not the sole moral authority on Bob and do so publicly, there has been no real change.

You are free of course to keep embarrassing yourselves by continuing with such drivel, but intelligent people can read the simple offer, they can see the simple offer for what it is, for it is no more than asking \m/ to stick to their own rules and thereby ensure that smaller alliances are not raided without some consequence.

As for the moral police, world enforcers, moralist scum etc etc... IF not me, then who? You, you have no standards you are willing to accept even ones imposed by yourself? Your allies, you ignored them as well. Your like minded friends who didn't budge an inch to say boo? Unlikely they will do much. So then who? I will tell you simply, in the absence of anyone else who is prepared to move on something without a massive groundswell of public support, me.

Do something about it, I just did. The real question is simple, can \m/ man up and admit they screwed up or do we have to destroy the whole world just to get some concession to sensible behaviour?

It is actually much worse than I realized, the lunatics are truly on the grass.

So what, an agreement is only one if we play by your rules? I don't believe that's how compromises or diplomacy works. There you have it. You've practically admitted that diplomacy was a farce. You had no intentions of coming to a compromise over the situation. Instead we were "your way, or the high way." Well so be it, I'm mobile, and I love it.

Indeed, it has been brought. You did as we asked. Then you expect us to not fight, turn tail, and just accept that we've lost immediately, just because of a simple peace? You mock us good sir. You state that Polar has its moral codes, that Polar will not tolerate even distasteful words and attitudes. Yet when \m/ fights - In the name of its own moral codes - you act surprised that we merely do not call for peace.

You then bring up CSM - Yet you ignore the fact that he fought for months in Vox over the ideals he preached. That seems quite odd to me.

As for our words: Really? Are you saying that if we had said nothing, this would be any different? Does that even matter? That's it, you just wanted to show us huh? You thought it was all an act, that we weren't going to fight. That you were "doing something about it" in a way that would make us an example, shame us to our very core, and make us seem like a bunch of pansies to never be taken seriously again. It is odd that you figured we'd immediately accept peace when such a thing is on the table.

As for the moral police: You said we were a self regulating community yourself. You are no better than any other of the "regulators."

As for "sensible behavior." No man could fight a war over morals, murdering the lives of innocent people, and expect to be "sensible." I admit what I am. I hold myself to my standards.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Earogema

[Penguin]

No, it was just that I hadn't heard that aspect of this situation before. My apologies for the confusion my dear Penguin.

Not to worry. When on the defensive, I tend to read more hostility in things than actually exists. The misunderstanding was likely on my end.

[Gerald Meanĕ]

What does the corporation have to do with FoA being a sovereign alliance? So you only admit wrong doing when the alliance has some other alliance supporting them?

Where did I say we did anything wrong? All it showed us was that people get involved when alliances are the subject of an incident.

And how simple would that have been to state publicly? mmm? Instead of the other crap you produced?

Not as simple as letting us do it in our own home instead of involving unneeded parties.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Gerald Meane

[Dochartaigh]

I will attempt to state it, because I would have made damn sure of it myself, and it would have been done internally where it really mattered.

so you are stating that you want to get \m/ to stop raiding alliances internally? all Grub wants is ya'lls word that you will do just that. and there is a reason why \m/ refuses peace then?

the issue i see is \m/'s initial response and continued response (except the last few posts of yours). none of which have even remotely implied stopping the raiding of alliances.

i would suspect that if these posts of yours were amongst the first or even just amongst the majority of responses from \m/, Grub would not have even threatened ya'll.

but i am still unsure what the issue with the peace terms are then? since it seems that you and Grub want the same thing. Grub is not issuing some viceroy to ensure ya'll do this, he wants your word and that is all. all the work will be done by \m/ and no one else.

[King Louis the II]

I wish this war was called "The Lame War..." The last 2 incidents here on planet Bob were much cooler reasons to go to a war (in particular the "No-War" war).

[Merrie Melodies]

so you are stating that you want to get \m/ to stop raiding alliances internally? all Grub wants is ya'lls word that you will do just that. and there is a reason why \m/ refuses peace then?

the issue i see is \m/'s initial response and continued response (except the last few posts of yours). none of which have even remotely implied stopping the raiding of alliances.

i would suspect that if these posts of yours were amongst the first or even just amongst the majority of responses from \m/, Grub would not have even threatened ya'll.

but i am still unsure what the issue with the peace terms are then? since it seems that you and Grub want the same thing. Grub is not issuing some viceroy to ensure ya'll do this, he wants your word and that is all. all the work will be done by \m/ and no one else.

If that is all Grub really wanted he could have agreed to simple word change, no?

[Dochartaigh]

Where did I say we did anything wrong? All it showed us was that people get involved when alliances are the subject of an incident.

Not as simple as letting us do it in our own home instead of involving unneeded parties.

again, public perception was the opposite of what you are proposing now. if ya'll wanted to do it in house, telling others to do something about it, is involving everyone, not just Polaris but anyone who has issues with ya'lls actions.

i would highly suggest that if you want matters to stay internal in \m/ if ya'll screw up again, you tell your membership to stuff their attitudes or not post. cuz, telling everyone to do something about it, is an invite to everyone to get involved. thus, Polaris ceased being uninvolved when Grub was told to do something about it. if you invite someone to do something, and they do it, how can you even state they are uninvolved?

for example, i hit some random person smaller and weaker than me. you walk up and say that i should apologize and pay their medical bills. i tell you to $%&@ off and do something about it. you punch me. do i seriously have any claim that you were uninvolved? not really since i invited you to do something about it and you did.

[Gerald Meanĕ]

so you are stating that you want to get \m/ to stop raiding alliances internally? all Grub wants is ya'lls word that you will do just that. and there is a reason why \m/ refuses peace then?

Because NpO is attempting to tell us to do it. If Grub really wants peace all he needs to do is let us self regulate the issue. That's it, no owf drama about half assed statements and such.

the issue i see is \m/'s initial response and continued response (except the last few posts of yours). none of which have even remotely implied stopping the raiding of alliances.

We're \m/ in case you haven't noticed we generally dislike others telling us how to run our affairs.

[Dochartaigh]

If that is all Grub really wanted he could have agreed to simple word change, no?

from what i read it was ya'll abide by your charter and not tech raid alliances above a certain membership. unless i am mistaken, Gerald seems to want to end all raiding of alliances (correct me if i am wrong Gerald). from his post in the last few pages, i saw that he would even state he was not the sole moral authority.

[Gerald Meanĕ]

from what i read it was ya'll abide by your charter and not tech raid alliances above a certain membership. unless i am mistaken, Gerald seems to want to end all raiding of alliances (correct me if i am wrong Gerald). from his post in the last few pages, i saw that he would even state he was not the sole moral authority.

That only applies to individual raids.

VI. Nation-on-Nation War:

1. \m/ does not promote or encourage single-nation war, but will allow individuals to fight in accordance with the following guidelines:

i. You will only declare war on one nation at a time.

ii. Other \m/ nations are under no obligation to provide any assistance to your nation.

iii. You will not declare war on a nation within an alliance. \m/ defines an alliance as any group of nations with more than 10 members.

Group raids fall under the discretion of the triumvirs. Though I will be making the effort to ensure we don't raid alliances, as quite simply to me it gets things way more complicated then it needs to be.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Gerald Meane

[Gerald Meanĕ]

for example, i hit some random person smaller and weaker than me. you walk up and say that i should apologize and pay their medical bills. i tell you to $%&@ off and do something about it. you punch me. do i seriously have any claim that you were uninvolved? not really since i invited you to do something about it and you did.

A more apt example is that a couple groups of people got into a fight, it went on for a little while, and then the fight ended. After the fight ended another group shows up and demands that the first group better do what it wants. Do you really think the first group is going to respond positively to another group just showing up inserting themselves into a finished matter?

[Bob]

from what i read it was ya'll abide by your charter and not tech raid alliances above a certain membership. unless i am mistaken, Gerald seems to want to end all raiding of alliances (correct me if i am wrong Gerald). from his post in the last few pages, i saw that he would even state he was not the sole moral authority.

The word change had to do with Grub's own actions towards \m/. He admitted they were "not appropriate" but "wrong" was going too far for him. Reverse goes for \m/. "wrong" was fine, but "not appropriate? Not going far enough.