Vanguard Edict

[Mack Truck]

No, but I'm pretty sure that your treaty won't be lasting and that MK will probably be fighting against Polar's allies or allies of their allies or whatever. The rapidity with which hostilities have sprung up between Polar and MK is pretty telling that this isn't the first issue.

Even if all that is true - I'm not sure if the treaty will be canceled. Most of the NpO as a whole is still well liked - that doesn't mean it's any more reasonable to think that this treaty is a CnG conspiracy, orchestrated, at least in part, by MK.

[The Big Bad]

You know the old saying Garbage in Garbage out, and I can not think of a better case than this one. This war is working very hard to collect all the alliances people hate and put them on one side. Congrats on making me laugh. This is gonna be fun.

[uaciaut]

It wasn't a plot, you just jumped in the first opportunity and were prepared the entire time before.

Impressive how you still can't seem to understand the difference between personal interpretation and theories based on what produced a war (more or less conspiracy-based) and an actual CB.

NPO had an actual CB. It said "i think you spied on us, with the intent to harm". Not "we don't like you, you raided and we think that's against the CN standards". There's a huge difference.

[hizzy]

Can you disrespect an ally who is currently disrespecting allies?

I wouldn't, no. But then again what constitutes "disrespecting" is rather subjective. Some people think it's disrespectful to disagree in public, others don't.

What are you getting at?

[Marty McFly]

Even if all that is true - I'm not sure if the treaty will be canceled. Most of the NpO as a whole is still well liked - that doesn't mean it's any more reasonable to think that this treaty is a CnG conspiracy, orchestrated, at least in part, by MK.

So you're like one of those who act like you hate us in public once we "slip up", but love us in private? Awesome.

[Mack Truck]

So you're like one of those who act like you hate us in public once we "slip up", but love us in private? Awesome.

When did I say anything like that? I like the NpO all up. I don't like what you've caused right now but I don't hate you over it.

[Stetson76]

...There was no 'conspiracy' to destroy the New Pacific Order; the alliance would still be intact if they had not decided to aggressively attack an alliance without adequate justification in the middle of peace negotiations. The Karma War, for the side of Karma, was entirely focused on the defence of friends and allies.

If the bolded was true, then why did their reps include punishment for past crimes?

...Then again, when you come knocking and bring threats of war and threaten other alliances to get them to back down, don't be too shocked when sooner or later you find an alliance who won't back down from your threats.

As opposed to just picking off the easy targets and calling it a tech raid? At least they had the cojones to make the threat ahead of time, instead of attacking a defenseless alliance without warning.

[Rafael Nadal]

I think there's been enough talk about Polar's actions and disrespecting allies of allies in here. There are enough other places to discuss that than here. The bottom line is that this treaty has been in the works for quite a while, and while I lament the circumstances surrounding it's announcement, it changes nothing regarding this whole situation. Vanguard had plans in this war before this treaty's announcement, and we have the same plans now. There is no opportunism present to strike Polar, sorry to disappoint.

[Marty McFly]

When did I say anything like that? I like the NpO all up. I don't like what you've caused right now but I don't hate you over it.

Sorry to say its hard to believe when you and all your alliance mates are trolling us up and down today and not just on this one particular issue.

Also, people wanted war. Here it is, have fun, they only come once a year.

EDIT: The first line is the general feeling of a lot of Polars, A LOT.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Marty McFly

[Jyrinx]

Because you guys really considered your allies feelings when you started this mess. Go back under your bridge. You put STA in this mess not anyone else.

FAKEDIT: I am only on page 3.

err, omfghi2u2 is an STA member.

Also, hi Airme. How've you been?

[hizzy]

So you're like one of those who act like you hate us in public once we "slip up", but love us in private? Awesome.

I think you're overreacting just a bit. MK has always been an alliance made up of people who tell it how they see it. If one member says "you did something stupid", it's because that specific member thinks you just did something stupid, nothing more, nothing less. Whether they say it in public or private won't change. I personally like them more for it, even if it means we bump heads in public.

[Marty McFly]

I think you're overreacting just a bit. MK has always been an alliance made up of people who tell it how they see it. If one member says "you did something stupid", it's because that specific member thinks you just did something stupid, nothing more, nothing less. Whether they say it in public or private won't change. I personally like them more for it, even if it means we bump heads in public.

This has happened in the past between us and MK. Whats gone down the past few days is not that.

[AirMe]

err, omfghi2u2 is an STA member.

Also, hi Airme. How've you been?

Stressed.

My point stands.

FAKEDIT: [ooc] I am sitting in an airport right now waiting for a flight. I have been up since 2am. I am tirrrrreeeeeeeddddd. [/ooc]

EDIT:

This has happened in the past between us and MK. Whats gone down the past few days is not that.

Just because it has happened in the past doesn't mean it isn't true. MK Members have always been pretty blunt. When I was there, that was one of the reasons that people allied MK because they told them what they thought without sugar coating it.

Edited January 25, 2010 by AirMe

[MikeTheFirst]

This war is working very hard to collect all the alliances people hate and put them on one side. Congrats on making me laugh. This is gonna be fun.

Hah, I was thinking the same thing.

Edited January 25, 2010 by MikeTheFirst

[Crowdog07]

So you're like one of those who act like you hate us in public once we "slip up", but love us in private? Awesome.

Oh heavens no, both Fallen_Fool and cockavich (the ambassadors on our [ooc]forums[/ooc]) have been awesome since before we had a treaty and still are in my book. I think Moridin is mislead and I think we all know how Grub is viewed through this. His wall of text explanations have turned into empty words given his handling of this. If I'm forgetting any ambassadors I'm sorry, but beyond Grub I hold no ill will towards Polar. But if I don't like the guy who calls the shots, I'm not going to play dumb about it.

[Rebel Virginia]

If Vanguard enters the war against Polaris I will be forced to destroy it. Just as did with Vox Populi, the first one, and the Family.

[lebubu]

So you're like one of those who act like you hate us in public once we "slip up", but love us in private? Awesome.

Hate you in public and love you in private? I don't think you've read your embassy, sir.

[Takku]

If Vanguard enters the war against Polaris I will be forced to destroy it. Just as did with Vox Populi, the first one, and the Family.

OH GODDAMNIT STOP PLAYING WORLD POLICE

[Rebel Virginia]

OH GODDAMNIT STOP PLAYING WORLD POLICE

No.

[Marty McFly]

Hate you in public and love you in private? I don't think you've read your embassy, sir.

The one at your place? I've never gotten around to applying for a mask. Plus I don't have much time (save for this war) to run around visiting embassies, thats why I quit being a diplomat. I'll make sure to stop by soon though.

[Mack Truck]

Sorry to say its hard to believe when you and all your alliance mates are trolling us up and down today and not just on this one particular issue.

Also, people wanted war. Here it is, have fun, they only come once a year.

EDIT: The first line is the general feeling of a lot of Polars, A LOT.

Some people are angry. As lebubu implied, they aren't being two faced about it either. That said it's a generalisation to say that MK as a whole has been trolling the NpO.

I haven't trolled Polar (yet) by the way.

[Eric Cantona]

I don't see any - direct or indirect - mentions of the Mushroom Kingdom in the OP. That leaves us with two options: 1. You keep it up; 2. You stay on topic.

For the record, #1 ends with a warn from me, #2 ends with a smile from me.

[NoFish]

Quoting posts made early on in a debate/argument can often lead to situations such as this. If you have read the entirety of my postings here you will notice that I addressed that point which you just raised.

In case you dont feel like scrolling through pages of arguments, I will summarize for you.

In a situation where Vanguard was already MDoAP'd to SLCB why did it decide to make this treaty announcement if it was going to a) aggravate some of their allies, and b) damage their credibility in the eyes of a broad swath of the community. The fact that they already had a treaty they could have used to fight alongside this particular bloc means they could have very easily waited until after the war (as many combatants do in situations where they are unable to announce treaties before a war or the treaty is agreed to during wartime) to announce this treaty and avoided this... argument, mess, what have you.

But they didnt, which leads me (and a number of other people as well) to question the motives of this agreement. Namely, if announcing this treaty was going to elicit such a reaction, and they had the opportunity to avoid this reaction with not adverse impact to their war alignment, then why did they go ahead and announce the treaty?

So yes, the earlier argument you have quoted and so deftly deflected may indeed be thrown out the window, but a different one has taken its place.

You're using circular logic here, my friend, which is why I discounted the argument when glancing over it before. Let me simplify things for you. You're saying that Vanguard angered its allies and damaged their credibility in the eyes of a broad swath of the community because... they did something that would aggravate their allies and damage their credibility in the eyes of a broad swath of the community. Your argument is that Vanguard upset people because it did something it new would upset people. If there was something else you meant to say, by all means, say so.

[Denial]

What's your point? "waaa but NpO insulted RoK, so why can't Vanguard insult whoever they want too? WAAA!" Do you want to be like NpO, or don't you? Pick one already.

That is not a valid comparison. Firstly, the New Polar Order did not only insult Ragnarok, they have blatantly disrespected a large swath of alliances. By attacking a well-established alliance with what is clearly considered to be either a non-existent or, at best, a dubious casus belli, Polaris forced a large collection of alliances into a terribly difficult position. Vanguard, and Complaints & Grievances as a whole, is faced with three options:

1. Support the New Polar Order in what we view as an aggressive, unnecessary, short-sighted, arbitrary, and down-right idiotic moral crusade against one group of technology raiders, forsaking a much larger number of allies on the opposing side (keep in mind that the addition of the Orange Defense Network to C&G has provided further links to the non-Polar side of this conflict).

2. Support what we largely view as the defensive side in this conflict; a side where we have a number of friends and allies that did not demand or expect our support and/or quiet compliance with their actions, but rather approached us diplomatically and requested it, acompanied with a full understanding and acknowledgement of the predicament we are in.

3. Stay entirely neutral, abandoning all friends and allies.

Anyone with an understanding of how C&G operates would realise #3 is out of the question. Then, look at things from our perspective regarding options #1 and #2. Option #1 comprises supporting the alliance that forced this situation upon us, whilst #2 comprises of a number of alliances that have treated us with respect. If certain groups are frustrated that this treaty was signed (we'll ignore the fact that this treaty changed nothing in regards to the current conflict) - which is something I can comprehend, but do not agree with - they too must understand and acknowledge why we in Vanguard and C&G are equally, if not more so, frustrated by having being put in this position in the first place. And by extension, vexed by the decision of any alliance that supports Polaris' actions. However, despite this vexation, we can sympathise with alliances that feel compelled to stand by their allies; after all, we are doing the exact same thing. What it comes down to in the end is that some people are disappointed we did not meet their expectations that we abandon our other allies in favour of them. As I said before, if Polar desired our support, they should have put more thought and consideration into their preparation for this crusade.

If the bolded was true, then why did their reps include punishment for past crimes?

This is really no place to discuss the Karma War, but considering I drafted the final reparation figures, I feel obliged to comment. The figures did not take into consideration the past actions of Pacifica. Rather, they were reached by acknowledging that Pacifica was the initial aggressor, Pacifica attacked without what we saw as valid justification, and Pacifica attacked during peace negotiations. Additionally, reparations were adjusted so that the initial victim of aggression, Ordo Verde, was appropriately compensated, as were those alliances that were directly tied to Ordo Verde. Lastly, reparations took into account the damage suffered throughout the war and the amount of wars fought by each alliance per capita.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Denial

[Schattenmann]

Wow, that is opportunism at the lowest level.

My iron-o-meter is now fried.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Schattenmann