Stickmen DoW

[erikz]

The decision to escalate was yours (FOK) not Polar.

I'm sorry we took away your curb stomp opportunity. Better luck next time?

[Fallen Fool]

I'm sorry we took away your curb stomp opportunity. Better luck next time?

A curbstomp generally occurs because the "aggressors" are unwilling to come to terms. In the case of Polar and \m/, that wasn't true. We were perfectly happy to return to peace if \m/ apologized to FoA and swore to uphold their own charter. It was \m/ who wanted to fight. ChiefSavageMan to keep fighting even said so.

So yeah, yawn.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Fallen_Fool

[Poyplemonkeys]

A curbstomp generally occurs when there's a huge difference in strength between the sides. There's no other variables required. Of course it suits you to redefine what it means as it would be unbecoming of Polaris to be seen attempting to curbstomp an alliance or two. I can only hope everyone refuses to see through the smokescreen you're throwing up.

Remind me again though, Polaris had the opportunity to end this war did it not? They were unwilling to come to terms though, specifically regarding the wording of the surrender? I didn't make that up did I?

[Meer Republic]

The decision to escalate was yours (FOK) not Polar.

FOKs entry was just levelling up the sides, any escalation came from your allies. Saying you don't want something to escalate when you have a massive advantage then escalating yourselves when it evens up makes you look a touch cowardly.

[Fallen Fool]

A curbstomp generally occurs when there's a huge difference in strength between the sides. There's no other variables required. Of course it suits you to redefine what it means as it would be unbecoming of Polaris to be seen attempting to curbstomp an alliance or two. I can only hope everyone refuses to see through the smokescreen you're throwing up.

You're revising my revision of your revisionism? Have you no sense of decency?!

Remind me again though, Polaris had the opportunity to end this war did it not? They were unwilling to come to terms though, specifically regarding the wording of the surrender? I didn't make that up did I?

Polar set down a very specific, and very simple set of criteria for the end of this conflict before it escalated. \m/ chose to reject those simple criteria and tried to offer an unsuitable alternative. Polar declined said alternative, and in response \m/ escalated the conflict.

It's pretty simple really.

FOKs entry was just levelling up the sides, any escalation came from your allies. Saying you don't want something to escalate when you have a massive advantage then escalating yourselves when it evens up makes you look a touch cowardly.

If you want to level the sides then you, by definition, need to escalate.

[Meer Republic]

If you want to level the sides then you, by definition, need to escalate.

It's only irritating me due to the claims of Polar being 'dogpiled', if you weren't comfortable fighting an even war that's fine but don't complain when others come in to stop you curbstomping their friends.

[juslen]

Fine.. so \m/ escalated the conflict and NpO escalated the war. Now can we all stop arguing over what the meaning of is.. is?

This entire war could have been avoided by getting FoA peace and and both sides putting their **** back in the pants. Instead two alliances that have a history of "hating" one another decide to meet in a room and NpO gets upset because someone that doesn't like them basically told them to **** off after they were given an ultimatum.

Like I said before.. both sides are to blame. Anyone who says otherwise chooses not to look at the facts of the matter and instead wish to argue over "no u!"

[Fallen Fool]

It's oonly irritating me due to the claims of Polar being 'dogpiled', if you weren't cmfortable fighting an even war that's fine but don't complain when others come in to stop you curbstomping their friends.

I haven't seen a Polar claim that we were being dogpiled. In fact, we're doing pretty swell. Swell enough, in fact, that someone of us (i.e. me) haven't even been engaged.

As for claiming that we were "curbstomping" anyone, well I still take issue with that characterization. A curbstomp is crushing an alliance for an extended period of time without offering an easy way out. We've hardly been at war with \m/ a week, and they had an easy as hell way out on the second day.

Like I said before.. both sides are to blame. Anyone who says otherwise chooses not to look at the facts of the matter and instead wish to argue over "no u!"

But arguing about "no u!" is just so much fun Edited January 26, 2010 by Fallen_Fool

[juslen]

I haven't seen a Polar claim that we were being dogpiled. In fact, we're doing pretty swell. Swell enough, in fact, that someone of us (i.e. me) haven't even been engaged.

As for claiming that we were "curbstomping" anyone, well I still take issue with that characterization. A curbstomp is crushing an alliance for an extended period of time without offering an easy way out. We've hardly been at war with \m/ a week, and they had an easy as hell way out on the second day.

But arguing about "no u!" is just so much fun

Fair enough. As far as curb stomping is concerned.. NpO simply took on a much smaller alliance and hoped they could beat up on them without any real opposition besides a few smaller alliances joining in. No doubt NpO would have given \m/ some type of fair terms since I don't believe the object of this war was to knock out all \m/'s teeth but instead team them a bit of humility.

Now lets say my scenario is way off base and NpO simply wanted to do one massive tech raid and have a reason to oil up their tanks and blow off a little steam I still don't think they would be given overly harsh terms.

But in either case, instead of a small conflict NpO ended up with a much more even battle and then it was free reign for either side to invite their buddies in.

So now what? We wait until this war goes global.. we nuke each other for a week or two and then the negotiations begin. Meanwhile everyone here is simply making this war more entertaining

Edited January 26, 2010 by juslen

[Poyplemonkeys]

You're revising my revision of your revisionism? Have you no sense of decency?!

Fair enough, if you don't like the use of the word curbstomp I guess describing it as 'beating down a smaller alliance(s) with the sole purpose of bending them to your will' fits as well? Polaris' declaration tactics say more than any post ever could about how they wished this war to go. Again, I'm sure FOK and Stickmen are deeply apologetic for refusing to let you get away with it.

Polar set down a very specific, and very simple set of criteria for the end of this conflict before it escalated. \m/ chose to reject those simple criteria and tried to offer an unsuitable alternative. Polar declined said alternative, and in response \m/ escalated the conflict.

It's pretty simple really.

Of course you think \m/ offered an unsuitable alternative. Of course \m/ thinks the original offer was unsuitable. Why should one of you take the blame over the other?

If you want to level the sides then you, by definition, need to escalate.

If you want to go from peace to war the situation needs to escalate too... Who cares?

[Iosif]

I can't seem to find any treaty between Stickman and FOK ... or did you guys all merged to iFOK? If that's the case then I'm sorry for the mess on my part

If not, then Stickman is just engaging in a war of aggression, with no real CB given... cool!

Obviously, you have no understanding of the Stickmen foreign policy here. We're essentially a federation of most esteemed alliances, builded on the infamous doctrine of rolling as one. Sure, the Stickmen as a bloc doesn't have a treaty with FOK! Alliance but really, does it have to have? We hold FOK! in high regard and they are one of the main allies of one of the Stickmen. Considering our policy of generally fighting our wars together as a bloc whenever it's plausible, it's just natural we just go in as a bloc with one declaration. Of course, we could've let iFOK just declare their war first and then activate the A clause FCO and SLCB have with iFOK and make again two other declarations, but considering the result would've been the same anyways, I personally think it would've been rather pointless.

Of course, if you don't think activating a god damn treaty isn't a casus belli valid enough, we could take a more... Polar approach to this declaration of war. You know, from a certain point of view, all we are doing is forcing a community value over you, a community value of generally more libertarian Bob without alliances like the New Polar Order policing outside their sphere of jurisdiction.