Vanguard Edict

[Poyplemonkeys]

Bob doesn't speak for VE on this matter.

However, I have that ability. Official VE policy is that both sides are wrong in so many ways and dumb in so many ways, and we are all dumber having been exposed to this stupidity.

I find myself agreeing with an official VE policy and I'm not quite sure how to handle the turmoil raging inside my head

[Hydro]

Rather than signing a treaty based on mutual respect and friendship, Vanguard signs treaties so it has an excuse to jump onto the proverbial bandwagon. Good to know.

[Micheal Malone]

Rather than signing a treaty based on mutual respect and friendship, Vanguard signs treaties so it has an excuse to jump onto the proverbial bandwagon. Good to know.

You're not a fan of Reading Rainbow are you? TAke a gander through the thread.

[Khyber]

I think trying to impose your own values or standards through force is immeasurably more wrong than raiding itself or p much any other IC action really. And i do support raiding, i have done it, sometimes been a !@#$% about it, most of the time making friends with the people i raided and keeping contact with them for a long time. I don't support the degree of sheer stupidity m/ is showing in this situation, but i try to accept because, well, it's what they're like.

uaciaut, what are you talking about. This precident has already been imposed. What was Karma? It was people saying no to the NPO for thousands of so called evils commited. You had people wanting many old hegamony alliances to suffer reps due to past actions that were labled as evil. You had people pay reps due to past crimes, notabely Echelon to MK.

NPO being torn down was done so by a community that was tired of their actions. Most came in via long winded treaty chains and tried to justify it with "they are bad guys".

See this is what i think i fought the last war for - not for a war without raiding, or wars, or whining, or stupidity. No, i just grew to tolerate all that !@#$ over time, if i didn't i'd prolly have exited planet bob long ago. I've also tolerated people aggressively imposing their decisions, their political movements and much more through use of effective force for a very long time - time in which most alliances were happy to give us their treaty-less friendships, man what times. I'm sorry i tolerated that !@#$ for so long back then and i personally (in b4 "bawww mk is trolling NpO") am not willing to tolerate that again.

Raiding will happen again. Somewhere in the future. You may accept it because the alliance has only 10 members (sidenote: like it makes a !@#$@#$ difference). Or because it's an ally doing it. Or because it's most of the world and the raided alliance is called GPA. But if you'll accept anyone else telling you what your standards and morals should be and impose them, well, might as well pre-emptively say anyone who does that is righteous and good and call it a day. There's always evil and it always need to be destroyed rawrrrr

This is more then raiding. This is effectively attacking an entire alliance for 2 days with the only CB being "I want your tech". How is that CB any more valid then the CB "your doing something I disagree with". NpO is attacking someone because of their beliefs, while \m/ has done the same. They both through military force impose their will on someone else.

I am more inclined to side with NpO, as it serves my alliance to stand against attacks simply because we are smaller and without treaties.

Also, Vanguard, why even bother with treaties? This seems pointless to me.

[The FSM]

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.

The point I am attempting to make (and perhaps not making clearly due to the fact I should not be awake right now) is that something about this whole situation does not sit right with me. Vanguard says this does not change their treaty orientation, ok, fine, they do have a treaty with SLCB. Vanguard also says this treaty has been in the works for a long time, ok fine.

What doesnt sit right with me is the fact that when other alliances may have waited until after hostilities ended to announce a treaty, to avoid such criticism as this, Vanguard announced it anyways. If they knew they would get this response (outrage would be a fairly logical reaction on first reading the announcement) then why did they feel they had to announce it now. Kriekfreak says it is because they dont give a damn about what people think of them; I think there may be something else at work.

Is that a little clearer?

[Micheal Malone]

The point I am attempting to make (and perhaps not making clearly due to the fact I should not be awake right now) is that something about this whole situation does not sit right with me. Vanguard says this does not change their treaty orientation, ok, fine, they do have a treaty with SLCB. Vanguard also says this treaty has been in the works for a long time, ok fine.

What doesnt sit right with me is the fact that when other alliances may have waited until after hostilities ended to announce a treaty, to avoid such criticism as this, Vanguard announced it anyways. If they knew they would get this response (outrage would be a fairly logical reaction on first reading the announcement) then why did they feel they had to announce it now. Kriekfreak says it is because they dont give a damn about what people think of them; I think there may be something else at work.

Is that a little clearer?

Why would outrage be a logical conclusion considering that Vanguard was already tied firmly with SLCB?

Edit: wrong word

Edited January 25, 2010 by Micheal Malone

[The FSM]

Why would outrage be a logical conclusion considering that Vanguard was already tied firmly with SLCB?

Edit: wrong word

I think we can agree that very few people here have the entire treaty web memorized and sitting in the back of their head. Just looking at the first few threads here in the OWF you would see Stickmen declaring war on Polaris, and then Vanguard announcing an MDoAP with the entire aforementioned bloc. If you are not privvy to the discussions that led to this treaty (again, most people are not) it would look like a thinly veiled attempt by Vanguard to make sure it has a direct route towards getting involved in this war since the number of NpO-CnG treaties means CnG will possibly be unable to fight as a unit in this war.

Judging from the number of people who came in here and expressed this opinion just based on the OP and not the subsequent arguements I think there is a good deal of support for what you quoted.

[Joe Stupid]

The only thing we can do at the moment is support our allies on both sides. Most of our treaty partners are on different sides, and this is surely the worst Foreign Affairs situation Rok has ever hand to try and diffuse. For the first time in my life I want peace talks and diplomacy to emerge the victor instead of global war breaking out.

Also big congrats to Vanguard for this.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Joe Stupid

[Bob Janova]

I have to say that I don't understand the outrage about the treaty, either. Vanguard and C&G in general can chain their way into this war already if they want to. Joining the war on that side is a bad thing, but this treaty doesn't affect whether or not that is likely to happen.

Edit: And obviously I speak for myself, if you hadn't all worked that out already.

Handy guide to this claim. True if and only if rewritten to: "I want to support a world where standards and acceptable behavior are not decided by whoever has more nukes/NS on his side (unless it is my side)."

This is exactly what I stand against, why I voted to enter GW3, why I fought in Karma and why I am extremely disappointed in those who are supporting the raiders in this case.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Micheal Malone]

I think we can agree that very few people here have the entire treaty web memorized and sitting in the back of their head. Just looking at the first few threads here in the OWF you would see Stickmen declaring war on Polaris, and then Vanguard announcing an MDoAP with the entire aforementioned bloc. If you are not privvy to the discussions that led to this treaty (again, most people are not) it would look like a thinly veiled attempt by Vanguard to make sure it has a direct route towards getting involved in this war since the number of NpO-CnG treaties means CnG will possibly be unable to fight as a unit in this war.

Judging from the number of people who came in here and expressed this opinion just based on the OP and not the subsequent arguements I think there is a good deal of support for what you quoted.

I would agree, that most people only know what pertains to their own alliance. Nothing wrong with that, but hammering a point that's not true (that Vanguard is being opportunistic) is just plain silly, especially after it has been pointed out to be false already. And to answer the question from your previous post of "why now?", why not? Every alliance operates ((plays)). Some alliances try to do things outside of the normality to maintain their own unique identities.

And then of course the was the whole communication network being demolished by an earthquake.

[The FSM]

I would agree, that most people only know what pertains to their own alliance. Nothing wrong with that, but hammering a point that's not true (that Vanguard is being opportunistic) is just plain silly, especially after it has been pointed out to be false already. And to answer the question from your previous post of "why now?", why not? Every alliance operates ((plays)). Some alliances try to do things outside of the normality to maintain their own unique identities.

And then of course the was the whole communication network being demolished by an earthquake.

Indeed, after following this for 17 pages I must say my initial outrage has dissipated now that we have moved past the 'gut reactions' phase of this discussion here. However I just cant shake this feeling that this treaty was signed for reasons other than those stated. Indeed every alliance does operate differently and every leader views the world differently based on their past experiences. My past experiences, for example, leaves me suspicious of this treaty. If this doesn't end up affecting on which side, or how soon Vanguard gets involved, then I will wish you all well and congratulate Vanguard and the Stickmen members on building a friendship of such a level.

[Micheal Malone]

Indeed, after following this for 17 pages I must say my initial outrage has dissipated now that we have moved past the 'gut reactions' phase of this discussion here. However I just cant shake this feeling that this treaty was signed for reasons other than those stated. Indeed every alliance does operate differently and every leader views the world differently based on their past experiences. My past experiences, for example, leaves me suspicious of this treaty. If this doesn't end up affecting on which side, or how soon Vanguard gets involved, then I will wish you all well and congratulate Vanguard and the Stickmen members on building a friendship of such a level.

I look forward to sharing laughs afterwards then.

[uaciaut]

I'm in love with VE's official policy.

You've been overly exposed :x

[cjav0]

This is exactly what I stand against, why I voted to enter GW3, why I fought in Karma and why I am extremely disappointed in those who are supporting the raiders in this case.

You contradict yourself. If anything. \m/ were the raiders, that was settled, whether by your liking is irrelevant. Subsequently NpO without any valid reason attacked \m/ in a manner that is not at all different from being a raider, as in might makes right and we don't like you. So in that case you should be arguing against NpO yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right Bob Janova, you know better. You know that at this point NpO is the raider.

[x Tela x]

You contradict yourself. If anything. \m/ were the raiders, that was settled, whether by your liking is irrelevant. Subsequently NpO without any valid reason attacked \m/ in a manner that is not at all different from being a raider, as in might makes right and we don't like you. So in that case you should be arguing against NpO yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right Bob Janova, you know better. You know that at this point NpO is the raider.

No valid reason? Racial slurs are most certainly a valid reason for war.

[TehChron]

You contradict yourself. If anything. \m/ were the raiders, that was settled, whether by your liking is irrelevant. Subsequently NpO without any valid reason attacked \m/ in a manner that is not at all different from being a raider, as in might makes right and we don't like you. So in that case you should be arguing against NpO yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right Bob Janova, you know better. You know that at this point NpO is the raider.

That doesn't make sense. How is NpO the raider for deciding that they had a proper CB to attack \m/, acted upon it, and made clear to point out it wasn't a tech raid? You're just jumping all over your Conclusions Mat without using any logic here.

[Bob Janova]

Subsequently NpO without any valid reason attacked \m/ in a manner that is not at all different from being a raider

Without any valid reason is subjective. They certainly had a reason, well two actually: members of \m/ used racist terms against their Emperor, and \m/ had just raided a large alliance. NpO's purpose is certainly not to take free tech and land, so 'not at all different from being a raider' is simply false, and your argument falls apart at this point.

[cjav0]

Right proper CB

I am sure \m/ could come up with one too..

Their CB is BS and you know it. I don't blame you for sticking with your allies but don't buy into each others crap will ya.

@ Bob Janova, I have no idea what was and what was said or implied. I do know NpO wanted \m/ dead, no if only they had such noble goals as merely raiding some tech and land. No they are even worst. Bot \m/ and NpO thought they could just attack and get an easy win. To bad ain't happening.

Edited January 25, 2010 by cjav0

[Joe Stupid]

No valid reason? Racial slurs are most certainly a valid reason for war.

I disagree, even though racism is a terrible thing I don't think it's a cause for war.

[SpiderJerusalem]

No valid reason? Racial slurs are most certainly a valid reason for war.

Why the [insert bad word here] is OOC stuff a valid reason for an IC war?

Edited January 25, 2010 by SpiderJerusalem

[TehChron]

Right proper CB

I am sure \m/ could come up with one too..

Their CB is BS and you know it. I don't blame you for sticking with your allies but don't buy into each others crap will ya.

Sure they could, if they actually gave a damn. But they didn't, and decided that "Tech Raid, lol" was a valid enough reason.

I'm sure you would be completely fine if TOP tech raided you all right this second, and gave no CB? Quit talking out of ignorance, or even better, just don't comment.

[SpiderJerusalem]

Sure they could, if they actually gave a damn. But they didn't, and decided that "Tech Raid, lol" was a valid enough reason.

I'm sure you would be completely fine if TOP tech raided you all right this second, and gave no CB? Quit talking out of ignorance, or even better, just don't comment.

Difference is that Nemesis has treaties and whatnot.

(Not that I agree with tech raiding at all, since I find it despicable, just making a point)

[kriekfreak]

Sure they could, if they actually gave a damn. But they didn't, and decided that "Tech Raid, lol" was a valid enough reason.

I'm sure you would be completely fine if TOP tech raided you all right this second, and gave no CB? Quit talking out of ignorance, or even better, just don't comment.

The situation was handled, nor was it the interest of Polaris to interfere what was something between the raiders (PC, Goons and \m/) and the raided (FoA). Again, the situation was over, but yet, this was not enough in the mind of Grub. No, he even went that far and gave a deadline to one of the raiders (I'm going to left out the discrepancy of letting the others off the hook). And cause they didn't respond in a fashionable state Grub decided to Attack (which is even worse than raiding i.m.o.).

So to get back to your analogy, if TOP raided us, and if we settled it with TOP, the situation would be completely fine indeed.

[Chickenzilla]

TLDR: Vanguard really really want to go to war and they're not going to take "No," for an answer.

Nah, you're p much wrong.

[Mustakrakish II]

Wouldn't that make them part of the bloc?

I feel this treaty is unnecessary. Just join a bloc or don't. Don't skirt around the edge, leaving our minds to wounder