Jump to content

Imperial Decree - New Polar


Recommended Posts

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?

A Cake would have been nice...:)

I am not going to tell you how to run your alliance, but simply put,\m/ and its members have shown themselves to be total harebrains in the conduct that they have towards the rest of the cyberverse. Can the current situation hardly be a surprise, when any attempt at diplomacy, was met with total and complete disrespect, where not a single bit of common courtesy was used?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, but they would have been raided until they did or until you got bored with them. What does that suggest to many unaligned nations out there? Better get a protectorate if you don't want to get attacked. So, yes, you are forcing unaligned alliances to comply with your ideology.

Nope, all wars in that incident were four ground battles, and then a peace offer. After the four we left what would happen up to FoA, they could either chose to continue the fight, or peace out.

What this says to unaligned nations out there is that the existence they partake in is a dangerous one. People will attack them if they are viewed as weak, and as such it is up to the unaligned nations if they wish to join an alliance to avoid the possibility, or stick it out on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Cake would have been nice...:)

I am not going to tell you how to run your alliance, but simply put,\m/ and its members have shown themselves to be total harebrains in the conduct that they have towards the rest of the cyberverse. Can the current situation hardly be a surprise, when any attempt at diplomacy, was met with total and complete disrespect, where not a single bit of common courtesy was used?

Hard to say when there was never an honest attempt at diplomacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you. Which is why I am displeased that NpO has brought morality into this when it has no place.

Ah, well I can agree with you there. I'm not a fan of the morals thrown about, the opportunity of blowing things up is more intriguing to me right now. Good luck with your fight, standing for what you believe in is always admirable. I hope \m/ will stick around to provide future entertainment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Cake would have been nice...:)

I am not going to tell you how to run your alliance, but simply put,\m/ and its members have shown themselves to be total harebrains in the conduct that they have towards the rest of the cyberverse. Can the current situation hardly be a surprise, when any attempt at diplomacy, was met with total and complete disrespect, where not a single bit of common courtesy was used?

so this war IS because you're butthurt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, guess what. Politics is all about enforcing your will on others. Or are you forgetting that your alliance is only on Red Team because a certain alliance's "sovereignty" over that sphere was "infringed" upon by war? I happen to believe that only those who first infringe on others' right to self-governance and independence deserve to be retaliated against.

So I take it you're supporting \m/ in this war, then? FoA's self-governance and independence seem to be entirely intact from what I can see, while NpO is clearly trying to force a rule on \m/ by military might.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to diplomacy.

Umm...No.

My point was that the diplomacy to halt \m/'s tech raiding was also a violation of their sovereignty by your abused definition.

Yet you seem to have had no problem with it being done back then.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Cake would have been nice...:)

I am not going to tell you how to run your alliance, but simply put,\m/ and its members have shown themselves to be total harebrains in the conduct that they have towards the rest of the cyberverse. Can the current situation hardly be a surprise, when any attempt at diplomacy, was met with total and complete disrespect, where not a single bit of common courtesy was used?

There was one incident that we regret. Other than that, all of our diplomatic communications with Grub and NpO have been cordial and respectful. You obviously know nothing past what you'd like to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Cake would have been nice...:)

I am not going to tell you how to run your alliance, but simply put,\m/ and its members have shown themselves to be total harebrains in the conduct that they have towards the rest of the cyberverse. Can the current situation hardly be a surprise, when any attempt at diplomacy, was met with total and complete disrespect, where not a single bit of common courtesy was used?

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

Get used to it.

Edit:

Also, to post mine and much of MK's opinion on this:

You all suck.

You lie :smug:

Edited by mythicknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Yes, they were unofficial because most people did not consider them to be acceptable and no one was willing to publicly demonstrate their violation of community standards. Last time someone did that, it did not end very will.

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

It also weeds out those that might have been an active and contributing member of the community. If you raided my nation within the first two weeks of creation, I probably wouldn't be here arguing with you. Does that mean I was worthless? Well, no. I just never had the chance to see what Planet Bob had to offer when I was two weeks old. This mentality is what's causing Planet Bob to stagnate.

Nope. It was canceled on them prior. Your argument was that \m/ was forcing them to do something, they had already done - as if they were uncomfortable with it or did not want it.

You forced them to accept a protectorate. If you had not attacked FoA, would they have chosen Corp as their protectorate? Would they have gotten a protectorate in the first place? Did you not force them to take a specific course of action in order to avoid destruction? Are you claiming that them accepting Corp. 's offer and you raiding them were unrelated events?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh the pain is too great

I am glad that TOP considers this situation a good one, and doesn't think both sides are terrible and should feel bad for being this terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad that TOP considers this situation a good one, and doesn't think both sides are terrible and should feel bad for being this terrible.

One member isn't representative of an alliance-wide opinion.

Unless it's a gov member, don't take it as an alliance wide viewpoint.

Edited by President Obama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn.

This community has descended into a new level of petty pathetic behavior. When multiple alliances who fought for a better world, will accept that \m/ are allowed to do whatever they like because they are sovereign, and that no one can touch anyone for any reason unless they happen to land on the opposite side of the ''treaty web'' you have a giant Charlie Foxtrot of stagnation spiralling into complete anarchy backed by the appearance of order.

To all and sundry, I started what I started because I believe, I still do. I am just ashamed that some of my allies and their friends have such a desire for their own political agenda that they will not look at a slightly bigger picture. You will get what you want, your shot at the title, but it will be at a great cost, one I don't think you can comprehend just yet. If this ends in peace today, there will still be a massive fall out, things will never ever be the same.

Reap what you sow, so plant while you may.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One member isn't representative of an alliance-wide opinion.

Unless it's a gov member, don't take it as an alliance wide viewpoint.

"How were those who were raided's sovereignty infringed upon?"

Could you expound please. I'm a little stunned..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Schattenmann here.

I don't see why any alliance would accept terms from you telling them what they can and cannot do. Keep fighting the good fight \m/, PC and FOK.

o/ the new world police

edit: This is my personal opinion, not the opinion of my alliance, etc.

Soooooo no one should EVER accept surrender terms? Because those surrender terms tell alliances to disband nuclear arms with the exclusion for the few to defend from nuclear rogues. I don't think you realize your argument implies that no one should ever accept peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forced them to accept a protectorate. If you had not attacked FoA, would they have chosen Corp as their protectorate? Would they have gotten a protectorate in the first place? Did you not force them to take a specific course of action in order to avoid destruction? Are you claiming that them accepting Corp. 's offer and you raiding them were unrelated events?

We did not force them to do anything. As I said the wars were four ground attacks, and peace. The onus on proving that \m/, pc, and goons attacks would have resulted in FoA's destruction is on you, and I don't see anything substantial in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn.

This community has descended into a new level of petty pathetic behavior. When multiple alliances who fought for a better world, will accept that \m/ are allowed to do whatever they like because they are sovereign, and that no one can touch anyone for any reason unless they happen to land on the opposite side of the ''treaty web'' you have a giant Charlie Foxtrot of stagnation spiralling into complete anarchy backed by the appearance of order.

To all and sundry, I started what I started because I believe, I still do. I am just ashamed that some of my allies and their friends have such a desire for their own political agenda that they will not look at a slightly bigger picture. You will get what you want, your shot at the title, but it will be at a great cost, one I don't think you can comprehend just yet. If this ends in peace today, there will still be a massive fall out, things will never ever be the same.

Reap what you sow, so plant while you may.

that's a lot of rhetoric for a nearly meaningless post.

We'd all be fine with the attacks if they weren't laden with such hypocrisy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soooooo no one should EVER accept surrender terms? Because those surrender terms tell alliances to disband nuclear arms with the exclusion for the few to defend from nuclear rogues. I don't think you realize your argument implies that no one should ever accept peace.

It was poorly phrased. It should have said "taking terms that tell them how to interpret their charter, and force them to interpret their charter in a certain way".

Edited by President Obama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...