Imperial Decree - New Polar

[DictatatorDan]

The current conflict of which we endeavoured upon is not about a curbstomp, or a disbandment of \m/, and its not soley about techraiding. It is about the standards of which the community has set, not only in the practice of techraiding, but in the conduct and interaction with the outside world.

To date, \m/ has proven themselves unbecoming of any respect, and exhibits a total lack of integrity. In their own charter, they have perscribed their own standards of tech raiding, and then openly, and malliciously violated those standards. At an opurtune moment, \m/ attacked a defenseless alliance, and then spitefully challenged the collective community to take action.

Polaris answered that call to action, and has taken upon herself to not make simple, veiled threats, and back down at the last moment because of political expediency. Instead we champion our values in the face of adversity, because it is what we beleive in.

Polaris stands to gain no tangable benifit at the conclusion of this war. We are not asking that \m/ give up any of its rightfully possesed sovereignity. The fate of \m/ is in our hands, but unlike wars of the past, we have not engaged upon a never ending blood lust and war of attrition, nor have we demanded any compensation for the damages that we have received. Furthermore, from the beggining, everyone was forewarned of the actions that we would be taking. Our plan of action was no great secret upon the cyberverse, or plotted in back rooms, it was public for everyone to see. Polaris gave \m/ ample opurtunity to act, and they did not. Diplomacy failed.

This conflict is not about tech raiding. It is about integrity. The integrity of alliances to enjoy their sovereignity, and reap the benifits and consequences of its actions. The integrity to back up your words, with your actions. It is for the ideal, that people ought to do as they say, and say as they do.

This is from the temp forums we were using. I reposted it for everyones viewing pleasure.

[TehChron]

And it's my opinion that I don't like your posting, so does that mean it's alright if GOD gets its allies together and threatens to roll you if you don't shut up? Because that's what you're arguing for.

Well, as I like to say; You're welcome to try.

[Acetone]

Not really, if Grub goes to them asking for a diplomatic solution, and is instead met with a couple dozen petty insults as a result, I'd say it's hardly the result of an old vendetta, and more the result of one \m/ was happy to make on their own.

That's really not even close to what happened. Grub came into our channel and said he'd declare war on us in 3 days. 3 members of \m/, none in government, insulted him. We then apologized and warned people that our members do stupid things like that. They were punished within \m/ itself. If Polar views that as war worthy, they're more bloodthirsty than we are.

[Gerald Meanĕ]

That's also forcing an alliance to abide by the rules that \m/ finds acceptable.

Which rules were those?

[Xiphosis]

No, we are asking them to follow their own charter that is aligned with the community standards.

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

[TehChron]

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 ?

So the negotiations held to halt \m/'s tech raid were....?

[Dilber]

When did I use the word curbstomp? I was more referring to Athens being out to get TPF. I didn't complain when you followed your legitimate CBs, it was just what you did after that frustrated me to no end.

Yeah, a 6 month CB that was over before the last war was shows a legitimate CB. It's what you did 6 months later that bothered me.

[Proko]

Should \m/ face consequences? Of course! I would love to see Ragnarok cancel their treaty with them. That would be a reasonable consequence. Being rolled by NpO after the situation is resolved? That's less "reasonable" and more of someone picked up an old vendetta.

There is no old vendetta. That's completely preposterous. On over a half dozen occasions in the past year, the current leaders or other individuals have sought our permission to reform \m/, and every single time since we have been released from our terms we told them that we had absolutely no issue with them reforming, and that our grudges died in the war. If we were intent on preventing \m/ from existing, we would have discouraged their reformation, rather than reacted with apathy.

[kulomascovia]

Which rules were those?

That an alliance must have a protectorate in order to exist unmolested in this world.

[Dilber]

When is Polar declaring on Athens? Come onnnnnnnnnn.

To be fair, the Athens Strategos already did declare war on Polar.

[Bob]

<random kulomascoia post>

It is good to see you betray your standards and supporting an alliance get rolled when the difference between peace and no peace was the wording of "not appropriate" and "wrong".

Edited January 25, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Lord Fingolfin]

And it's my opinion that I don't like your posting, so does that mean it's alright if GOD gets its allies together and threatens to roll you if you don't shut up? Because that's what you're arguing for.

/me shrugs

Why not. However, I do find your argument quite specious in that in such a case you weigh things comparatively. Polar felt that \m/'s actions were egregious enough to merit going to war and suffering the obvious consequences of such. As a member of GOD's government, you would have to determine whether you felt my posting was annoying/immoral/you didn't like it enough that it would be worth sparking a major war and eating a thousand nukes for. Now chances are you wouldn't find that such a move would be worth it so you wouldn't go to war. But if you did, good show, if its important enough to you that you felt like sacrificing your NS then go for it mate. Thats all I'm advocating.

[kulomascovia]

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

These standards have been unofficial but they were followed by most alliances up to this point. How many alliance wide tech-raids have you seen in your time here?

[KingEd]

This is from the temp forums we were using. I reposted it for everyones viewing pleasure.

I'm guessing Grub wrote this ?

[TehChron]

That's really not even close to what happened. Grub came into our channel and said he'd declare war on us in 3 days. 3 members of \m/, none in government, insulted him. We then apologized and warned people that our members do stupid things like that. They were punished within \m/ itself. If Polar views that as war worthy, they're more bloodthirsty than we are.

Then it was your job to try and convince him to not declare war, not give him more reason to.

Clearly Grub had a reason aside from the insults to attack you all, maybe you should have worked on that? I've seen the logs, and you all did a pretty craptacular job of appeasing to Grub's well-known love of diplomacy.

[TehChron]

I'm guessing Grub wrote this ?

No, the poster was the author.

[Bob]

Yeah, a 6 month CB that was over before the last war was shows a legitimate CB. It's what you did 6 months later that bothered me.

Your timeline is wrong~

First off, 4 and a half month CB

Second off, it had nothing to do with the last war. It was independent in the minds of Athens and myself personally, as Athens was not at war with TPF.

Third off, I am not in Athens and did nothing last war D:

Fourth off, this is a silly discussion that will end in the same circular logic by both sides as always. Let's continue!

Edited January 25, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Xiphosis]

So the negotiations held to halt \m/'s tech raid were....?

Disingenuous stalling.

These standards have been unofficial but they were followed by most alliances up to this point. How many alliance wide tech-raids have you seen in your time here?

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.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Xiphosis

[Chief Savage Man]

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.

[SpoiL]

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.

See, cause I thought \m/ were the ones asking everyone else to conform to their standards by letting them do as they please without consequence, including forcing smaller alliances to surrender and give over their tech, as well as not conducting themselves reasonably when approached about it.

[TehChron]

Disingenuous stalling.

And were in no way an attempt to dictate how \m/ could and could not act, right?

[kulomascovia]

It is good to see you betray your standards and supporting an alliance get rolled when the difference between peace and no peace was the wording of "not appropriate" and "wrong".

Oh, I don't think you will find anything in my posts that suggests that I like the course of action that NpO took. However, you will find me trying to clear up some misconceptions. For the record, I do agree with the reasoning that NpO used to take action. However, I do not support the specific action that they took. I would have suggested something in the lines of political isolation and economic sanctions ooc : (not the in-game kind).

EDIT: Also, don't get me wrong. I may have argued against wars in the past but I'm not a pacifist. I would gladly go to war should all other options for resolving an issue fail.

Edited January 25, 2010 by kulomascovia

[Acetone]

Then it was your job to try and convince him to not declare war, not give him more reason to.

Clearly Grub had a reason aside from the insults to attack you all, maybe you should have worked on that? I've seen the logs, and you all did a pretty craptacular job of appeasing to Grub's well-known love of diplomacy.

So, you're asking us to brown-nose him. Any time someone is annoyed with us, we should try to appease them? When someone openly states multiple times that they'll go to war with us, we should kiss his feet? I know those three members screwed up, and we apologized for that. What else does Grub want, a cake?

[Gerald Meanĕ]

That an alliance must have a protectorate in order to exist unmolested in this world.

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

[D34th]

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

No isn't the same thing, unless you are trying to deny the fact that don't raid alliances is a community standard.