Vanguard Edict

[Bob]

You're not betraying them, but you're being colossally thick.

I don't really give a damn which side you would have come in on if it hadn't been like this. As I'm reading this: with your support, Vanguard unilaterally treatied another bloc (thus, thanks to the MADP of CnG, treaties YOUR WHOLE BLOC to another bloc) filled to the brim with incompetent people (alright, a couple guys in iFOK are OK), all to get into a certain side of a war.

I don't know 100% if this was sanctioned by all of CnG (it just looks like it in public which can be deceiving), if not, you need to take a hard look at Vanguard. If it was, I think I just lost any and all respect I may have had for CnG as a whole and the colossal amount I had for MK.

How did you pull any of that from this?

Vanguard has been allied to SLCB for a while, and this was going to happen eventually. Timing sucks and I'm quite upset, as is STA, but this will not be used to pull us into a war. Rafael stated that already.

To point it out MK, at least our membership didn't know about this at all.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[delendum]

*Do not attack our allies, allies.*

This was made clear by MKers and its their attitude to have. Maybe its not most on topic, but can you explain this mentality to me further.

It comes down to you, being allied to people your allies allied. That is essentially, how you are acting. I do not understand that, you can be an ally to someone if you have such arrangement with them, via written or verbal arrangement.

You do not have such, with allies of allies, in this case with metal alliance. Not even that, many of you expressed some negative comments about their actions in this mess and weren't overly joyed by them in general. But you will, bat for them, because one of your allies, allied them and due to that you will go/try to limit your other direct allies actions?

Now, this would make sense if every of your allies, first comes to you to get a green light on who they can ally or not, otherwise, is a mess of a policy. You can get ties as such with any bad rubbish.

I now see, how MK is actually taking offense in NpO attacking an ally of an ally. Why? If your direct ally feels that is to be course taken against someone you have no ties with, what is this grievous offense to you then? No, you do not have any connection to metal alliance, your ally has. And even they, yet, didn't acted in any way (RoK) and just called all sides stupid.

If we all adopted this ally of an ally or whatever mentality, in this overly connected world, really there would be no war, ever.

I hope though, the new Gremlings are paying attention to this all, heh. Good thing you have that MHA treaty otherwise,...man in a world of current mentalities you would be complete free game and everybody stopping the tech raid of you would get stomped by allies ally mentality.

We've been calling everybody involved in this mess stupid from the beginning, yet it stops being funny when it escalates to it's true potential and you are forced to watch your friends fight each other on account of one man's ego.

What can I say, I wish only the best of inter-ally fights in your future, you seem to fancy the idea.

[Micheal Malone]

I didn't know we Sith were playing World Police.

Well, if those of us opposite you are supporting \m/'s choices by proxy... what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or does that not fit here because of some Sith force power.

[Seerow]

No, I'm simply asking why MK was able to get Athens to back off, but decided that \m/ wasn't worth the effort of getting some kind of punitive action secured, while fully aware that Grub was serious about his threats (again).

What made the two situations so different? I'm sure you guys could have done more to stop this war from happening than you did, but didn't for whatever reason. Hell, securing anything would have been a complete improvement over the results MK had to show for whatever diplomacy they attempted.

Seriously, MK did everything they could to stop the war before it started, Grub wasn't keen on listening. I personally have no idea what happened on the \m/ front, but really saying we wanted this war is stupid. This whole war is stupid and nobody in MK really wants any part in it. Yet it seems inevitable we will get dragged in.

You're not betraying them, but you're being colossally thick.

I don't really give a damn which side you would have come in on if it hadn't been like this. As I'm reading this: with your support, Vanguard unilaterally treatied another bloc (thus, thanks to the MADP of CnG, treaties YOUR WHOLE BLOC to another bloc) filled to the brim with incompetent people (alright, a couple guys in iFOK are OK), all to get into a certain side of a war.

Seriously, this treaty is not needed for any alliance to get in on any side of the war. MK already has a treaty with FOK we could get in on. Vanguard already had a treaty with one of the stickmen alliances to get in on. The treaty was poorly timed and probably shouldn't have been posted, I'll agree wholeheartedly that Vanguard $%&@ed up by posting this right now. But if you think that it's going to change anything at all about how this war would play out you're delusional.

[TehChron]

You have no idea how much MK tried to end this. Stop being ridiculous. The fact that we don't control our allies prevented us from doing that.

We secured a day of negotiation for Grub. He blew it with his "not appropriate v wrong" debate with them. MagicalTrevor, Archon, and our government worked their collectives @#$% off to stop this.

No, I don't have any idea how much MK tried. That's why I've been asking. But if the point is that MK doesn't control it's allies, and Athens backed down after a simple discussion (as did GOONs), then the problem obviously lies with \m/.

So if \m/ refused to play ball diplomatically, where do you get off blaming Grub for negotiations failing, when previous diplomatic efforts were able to achieve results with more reasonable individuals?

Seriously, MK did everything they could to stop the war before it started, Grub wasn't keen on listening. I personally have no idea what happened on the \m/ front, but really saying we wanted this war is stupid. This whole war is stupid and nobody in MK really wants any part in it. Yet it seems inevitable we will get dragged in.

I'm not implying you all wanted this war, I'm honestly wondering what made MK throw up it's hands and give up this time around, instead of proceeding to a successful resolution like it did with Athens.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Chron

[delendum]

What measures were taken to handle things with reprimanding \m/? That is what I am asking. MK did it with Athens to stop a war before it happened, what made this time so different?

I didn't know we Sith were playing World Police.

\m/ were not our allies. Contrary to what some of you seem to fancy, MK doesn't make a habit out of trying to advise on policies belonging to alliances we are not tied directly to. We fully believe RoK should have handled this, and I'm sure they would have, even if that meant eventually cancelling on them if no agreement was reached. Unfortunately that really doesn't work when somebody plugs their ears and goes "LALALALALALALAALALAL I CAN'T HEAR YOU" while charging head first into the wall.

Edited January 25, 2010 by delendum

[D34th]

So the new MK propaganda aproach is say that we are who to blame for do not accept "not appropriate" instead of "wrong", and why not blame \m/ for not accept "wrong" instead of "not appropriate"? More biased support should I think?

[Merrie Melodies]

It's not like this is a first time thing. You all were more than happy to placate Grub when Athens pulled this crap. What made \m/ not worth the effort?

While not privy to the talks I can't give exact details but I can say with certainty that MK tried with great determination to help avert this war. Even though they hate \m/ and would be happy to sit back and watch us burn, they came and work exhaustively with our Triumvirate to find away for all of this to be avoided. To claim any different is plain wrong, NpO should be honored to have allies of that calbre, I know we would be.

[Rush Sykes]

No, I don't have any idea how much MK tried. That's why I've been asking. But if the point is that MK doesn't control it's allies, and Athens backed down after a simple discussion (as did GOONs), then the problem obviously lies with \m/.

So if \m/ refused to play ball diplomatically, where do you get off blaming Grub for negotiations failing, when previous diplomatic efforts were able to achieve results with more reasonable individuals?

I'm not implying you all wanted this war, I'm honestly wondering what made MK throw up it's hands and give up this time around, instead of proceeding to a successful resolution like it did with Athens.

What made them throw up their hands? Its written ALL over this thread. The agreement was there in principle. TWO WORDS... "NOT APPROPRIATE" vs ONE WORD..."WRONG" was the snag. When it is SO petty, and when someone like Magical Trevor works all the hours he worked to reach a deal, and sees it all fall flat on its face OVER TWO WORDS...What else could he do but throw up his hands? I watched pretty much the whole process, and I told him over and over again, I would have told everyone where to stick it multiple times.

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

What measures were taken to handle things with reprimanding \m/? That is what I am asking. MK did it with Athens to stop a war before it happened, what made this time so different?

When we talked with him in a last-ditch effort to keep this cluster@!#$ from going down, he said he wasn't interested in diplomacy at that point (the day of the declaration), but he would be the day after. We were trying, and unable, to get a dialog going between \m/ (and PC) and Grub. I'm not sure what happened the day after, but that's what I know of our attempts to avert the whole crisis.

EDIT: See above.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Tolkien

[Branimir]

We've been calling everybody involved in this mess stupid from the beginning, yet it stops being funny when it escalates to it's true potential and you are forced to watch your friends fight each other on account of one man's ego.

What can I say, I wish only the best of inter-ally fights in your future, you seem to fancy the idea.

I see. So what I am getting from you and Seerow, is that you do not approve of how (I suspect Grub) conducted it self during the peace talks?

With that you are taking an actual issue?

Is that towards which it all boils down to, so we can cut through all the ally ally ally of an uncle babble.

[delendum]

So the new MK propaganda aproach is say that we are who to blame for do not accept "not appropriate" instead of "wrong", and why not blame \m/ for not accept "wrong" instead of "not appropriate"? More biased support should I think?

When you post your view, it's an argument, but when we do it, it's propaganda?

[TehChron]

\m/ were not our allies. Contrary to what some of you seem to fancy, MK doesn't make a habit out of trying to advise on policies belonging to alliances we are not tied directly to. We fully believe RoK should have handled this, and I'm sure they would have, even if that meant eventually cancelling on them if no agreement was reached. Unfortunately that really doesn't work when somebody plugs their ears and goes "LALALALALALALAALALAL I CAN'T HEAR YOU" while charging head first into the wall.

So you agree that a failure of diplomacy is the fault of \m/? Or what? I don't get what you're referencing here. Besides, the entire point of diplomacy is to be able to try and influence another alliance's policies, regardless of immediate treaty ties.

You all got involved to begin with, so...Where did you all draw the line?

]What made them throw up their hands? Its written ALL over this thread. The agreement was there in principle. TWO WORDS... "NOT APPROPRIATE" vs ONE WORD..."WRONG" was the snag. When it is SO petty, and when someone like Magical Trevor works all the hours he worked to reach a deal, and sees it all fall flat on its face OVER TWO WORDS...What else could he do but throw up his hands? I watched pretty much the whole process, and I told him over and over again, I would have told everyone where to stick it multiple times.

And that's why Athens is known for it's skilled and sagacious foreign affairs maneuvers. That being said, how *did* those negotiations go down?

Edited January 25, 2010 by Chron

[Rebel Virginia]

opportunism

You keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it does.

[Seerow]

I see. So what I am getting from you and Seerow, is that you do not approve of how (I suspect Grub) conducted it self during the peace talks?

With that you are taking an actual issue?

Is that towards which it all boils down to, so we can cut through all the ally ally ally of an uncle babble.

I know my personal problem is how the peace talks went down. I can't speak for others, though I can tell you right around then is when the general feeling seemed to turn against Polar, where it seemed mostly in favor of prior to that point. Up until that point I supported NpO, and had the talks dissolved over anything that seemed like a reasonable disagreement, I'd support them still. But what happened is just so ridiculous I'm still trying to force myself to believe it happened.

[TehChron]

I know my personal problem is how the peace talks went down. I can't speak for others, though I can tell you right around then is when the general feeling seemed to turn against Polar, where it seemed mostly in favor of prior to that point. Up until that point I supported NpO, and had the talks dissolved over anything that seemed like a reasonable disagreement, I'd support them still. But what happened is just so ridiculous I'm still trying to force myself to believe it happened.

Really?

I'd like to hear this story in full, then.

[Micheal Malone]

Really?

I'd like to hear this story in full, then.

Perhaps ask your ally? You know, the one you came to defnse of?

[Stumpy Jung Il]

Just one more step in my domination of the Purple sphere. Half down, half to go.

Seriously though, I'm not reading this thread.

[Seerow]

Really?

I'd like to hear this story in full, then.

It's pretty simple isn't it? Peace is on the table. The talks disolve because Grub wouldn't accept saying their actions were wrong, but "not appropriate".

Seriously sucking it up over 2 words isn't worth avoiding putting everyone into this mess? (In case you're really slow this is where a lot of the "NpO is in no position to be calling anyone else out over semantics" earlier in the topic is coming from as well)

[Nobody Expects]

Vanguard and Stickmen wrapped up in a bow and it's not even Christmas!

[delendum]

I see. So what I am getting from you and Seerow, is that you do not approve of how (I suspect Grub) conducted it self during the peace talks?

With that you are taking an actual issue?

Is that towards which it all boils down to, so we can cut through all the ally ally ally of an uncle babble.

We were a bit more than pissed when Polaris nearly did to us what they did now to RoK, namely attacking a direct ally of ours on account of moral outrage or whatever else you want to call it. Call it what you will, it was a pattern that raised serious concerns, and we were sympathetic to the situation RoK was put through. Regardless of how much we tried to reason with them before they attacked, we were still willing to show support, but them refusing to reach peace on account of a synonym was the straw that broke the camel's back.

This is obviously a complex story, but in the end they managed to prove that their allies don't really matter so long as there's ego and "morals" involved. That could be perfectly fine for some people, but it isn't for us.

[TehChron]

It's pretty simple isn't it? Peace is on the table. The talks disolve because Grub wouldn't accept saying their actions were wrong, but "not appropriate".

Seriously sucking it up over 2 words isn't worth avoiding putting everyone into this mess? (In case you're really slow this is where a lot of the "NpO is in no position to be calling anyone else out over semantics" earlier in the topic is coming from as well)

I dont get it, why go for the lite version of saying the same thing to begin with? And thanks for the context, Seerow. Gonna need some time to think this over.

Perhaps ask your ally? You know, the one you came to defnse of?

You should be a comedian. You are just that good.

[Branimir]

I know my personal problem is how the peace talks went down. I can't speak for others, though I can tell you right around then is when the general feeling seemed to turn against Polar, where it seemed mostly in favor of prior to that point. Up until that point I supported NpO, and had the talks dissolved over anything that seemed like a reasonable disagreement, I'd support them still. But what happened is just so ridiculous I'm still trying to force myself to believe it happened.

Ok, I see now how it went down for you. All the "ally of an ally" babble got in the way of me picking this up.

I didn't see those talks, cant comment. Its up with you all to clear that up, then, among yourself.

It is, obviously enough, open for various spins, one must be careful with stuff like that and keep that in mind.

[D34th]

When you post your view, it's an argument, but when we do it, it's propaganda?

It's propaganda because you are delibarating spreading such information widely to blame Polaris for don't reach peace when you could blame \m/ for the same thing but chose blame just one side.

So why in your point of view we are who to blame for not accepting "not appropriate" instead of "wrong"? Why don't blame \m/ too for not accepting "wrong" instead of "not appropriate"?

Edited January 25, 2010 by D34th

[Bob]

So the new MK propaganda aproach is say that we are who to blame for do not accept "not appropriate" instead of "wrong", and why not blame \m/ for not accept "wrong" instead of "not appropriate"? More biased support should I think?

Are you being serious? We expect that kind of ridiculous behavior out of \m/. It doesn't justify it, but we can't really hate them more. You are just as guilty as they are though, and so we are upset with you since we expect better out of you.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris