Vanguard Edict

[Yawoo]

Much love to Nemesis' allies in Vanguard and SLCB, congratulations friends!

[Rebel Virginia]

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".

I don't think you understand the power of words. Certain words, although they could say they same thing, can also say very different things. They have different connotations. Just because something is "not appropriate" does not make it "wrong," which Grub and many others see \m/'s actions as being. The choice of words could be important in the future, as fighting against something "not appropriate" is ridiculous, while "wrong" is not. \m/ was trying to weasel its way out of having to own up to their actions. That's what this is all about.

[D34th]

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.

So we in Polaris should let the ones with ridiculous behavior choose what words they will use in their own surrender terms?

Edited January 25, 2010 by D34th

[Penguin]

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)

Before addressing your other points, for my personal curiosity do you think our actions prior to the negotiations were wrong or not appropriate?

Edited January 25, 2010 by Penguin

[Bob]

So we in Polaris should let the ones with ridiculous behavior choose what words they will use in their own surrender terms?

You should be willing to work towards peace instead of lowering yourself to their level and squabbling over word choice.

We hold you to a higher standard as allies of ours then we do most alliances.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Branimir]

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.

They showed they would act for their beliefs and will not be limited in doing so by who is allied to who. By resolving one situation completely diplomatically, they showed they do not intend to push it to war every time as long as beliefs they hold, are satisfied.

That is a strong and independent position. They didn't go against you in any of these situations, but they weren't to be limited by friendship with you. I see where the problem could arise between you, where with you friendship is everything and above everything-- right, wrong, sovereignty, etc.

[Seerow]

Before addressing your other points, for my personal curiosity do you think our actions prior to the negotiations were wrong or not appropriate?

I fail to see or care about the difference. As far as I'm concerned \m/ needed to be rolled. However I will say it was wrong to hold up negotiations over such a petty point and not appropriate to force this extended situation upon those you call allies.

Edit: In response to why NpO is in the wrong and not \m/ for arguing over petty word choice, both are wrong. However we know \m/ is !@#$. We expect them to be !@#$. We are not tied to them because we don't like them. We are allied with NpO and expect them to be better than that, and by descending to \m/s level as Solaris said, they effectively took a !@#$ on everyone who would inevitable dragged into the prolonged war for the sake of their own pride.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Seerow

[deth2munkies]

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.

Time, I'm sure, is going to prove that !@#$%^&*.

Regardless, I'm well aware the treaties were likely to break to the same effect, I just think allowing a member of your MADP bloc to unilaterally treaty ANOTHER bloc is pretty ridiculous. That said, as soon as someone jumps anyone in Stickmen (it will happen) you're now obliged to get in thanks to the almighty chain.

As of right now, you had a reason to stay neutral, a treaty with both FOK and NpO, now this tips the balance considerably. I have no doubt that as allies declared and this war begins spreading, you'd end up on the same side, but pulling a stunt like this to ensure it just makes all of you look ridiculous.

Also, general membership doesn't know much of anything in advance, OPSEC (was) quite tight in MK.

[delendum]

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"?

You need to get your "who didn't accept what"'s right first. It was Grub who didn't accept the word "wrong", not \m/.

We never defended \m/'s actions, actually we called them what they were from the beginning: retarded. Responding to a retarded action with more retarded action is not the way though, especially not when you have no obligation to do so and end up !@#$ting all over your allies in the process.

[Bob]

They showed they would act for their beliefs and will not be limited in doing so by who is allied to who. By resolving one situation completely diplomatically, they showed they do not intend to push it to war every time as long as beliefs they hold, are satisfied.

That is a strong and independent position. They didn't go against you in any of these situations, but they weren't to be limited by friendship with you. I see where the problem could arise between you, where with you friendship is everything and above everything-- right, wrong, sovereignty, etc.

I don't disagree here, it is a fundamental difference in ideals between NpO and MK that has manifested itself in this case.

[Bob]

Time, I'm sure, is going to prove that !@#$%^&*.

I trust my allies~

Regardless, I'm well aware the treaties were likely to break to the same effect, I just think allowing a member of your MADP bloc to unilaterally treaty ANOTHER bloc is pretty ridiculous. That said, as soon as someone jumps anyone in Stickmen (it will happen) you're now obliged to get in thanks to the almighty chain.

We already were. See the Vanguard treaty with SLCB that has existed for years?

As of right now, you had a reason to stay neutral, a treaty with both FOK and NpO, now this tips the balance considerably. I have no doubt that as allies declared and this war begins spreading, you'd end up on the same side, but pulling a stunt like this to ensure it just makes all of you look ridiculous.

I don't disagree at all with this. I think this was a terribly timed event.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

I never would have imagined that the expansion of my kingdom would cause so much debate.

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

RV: Is there honestly a difference between the words "wrong" and "not appropriate"? Until now, I had no idea they had different meanings, so I would genuinely ask if you could elaborate on the differences. But in any event, was this really necessary? Honestly, is it really worth it to throw the rest of us (and by us, I mean CnG) between a rock and a hard place?

[Branimir]

I fail to see or care about the difference. As far as I'm concerned \m/ needed to be rolled. However I will say it was wrong to hold up negotiations over such a petty point and not appropriate to force this extended situation upon those you call allies.

So you approve of the war. Ok. You think it should have been waged. Fine.

You have a problem with escalation as it could involve you.

Who made things go needlessly bigger, then. FOK or NpO?

[erikz]

I never would have imagined that the expansion of my kingdom would cause so much debate.

Stumpy I you.

Still remember me? I used to be one of your minions.

[D34th]

You need to get your "who didn't accept what"'s right first. It was Grub who didn't accept the word "wrong", not \m/.

We never defended \m/'s actions, actually we called them what they were from the beginning: retarded. Responding to a retarded action with more retarded action is not the way though, especially not when you have no obligation to do so and end up !@#$ting all over your allies in the process.

You think that our response was retarded, while in our opinion we were just showing our resolve.

"If two parties disagree on a definition, then they will argue forever and never agree."

[Stumpy Jung Il]

Stumpy I you.

Still remember me? I used to be one of your minions.

Once a minion, always a minion. :colbert:

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

You have a problem with escalation as it could involve you.

Who made things go needlessly bigger, then. FOK or NpO?

Both. In this instance, however, NpO moreso, considering all of this could've been avoided to begin with.

For the record, while I strongly disapprove of tech raiding, and don't like \m/ or PC very much (to put it mildly), this is a war that shouldn't have been. At least, from my perspective. Others may feel differently.

[Seerow]

So you approve of the war. Ok. You think it should have been waged. Fine.

You have a problem with escalation as it could involve you.

Who made things go needlessly bigger, then. FOK or NpO?

Not just that it could involve us, the fact that it puts us directly between two groups of allies is what troubles me.

FOK is retarded for escalating from an optional clause, NpO is more retarded for not ending this when they had a chance. The entire war has been retarded from day 1, and I wish we could hit a reset button and go start a war that made some semblance of sense.

Also, please note that at the start of the war Grub waived all treaty obligations, in case you forgot, while no other allies have done any such thing. At this point while we are allied with Polar, for the duration of conflict by Grubs own words we are not obligated to defend Polar, so it will be other treaties that determine our course.

And of course Archon has the ultimate say in where we go with our policy, we may yet end up on Polars side, we may end up defending FOK, we may even end up staying neutral, I have no real way to say. It's been a long time since I've held a government position, and frankly with all the !@#$ going on in this war I'm glad I don't have one now. I don't envy Archon or any of our other government members' position at the moment.

[delendum]

They showed they would act for their beliefs and will not be limited in doing so by who is allied to who. By resolving one situation completely diplomatically, they showed they do not intend to push it to war every time as long as beliefs they hold, are satisfied.

That is a strong and independent position. They didn't go against you in any of these situations, but they weren't to be limited by friendship with you. I see where the problem could arise between you, where with you friendship is everything and above everything-- right, wrong, sovereignty, etc.

We didn't force them to be allied with us. If we were limiting them, I would have been perfectly fine with a cancellation prior to them taking action. Also, every alliance here has their own beliefs, and no two alliances hold beliefs truly identical to each other. To presume to enforce your own set of beliefs arbitrarily on people is arrogant to say the least.

If you think it's perfectly fine for one of your allies to attack another one of your allies, then good for you. If you think it's justified for one of your allies to disregard all your efforts and continue to push for something even though it would end up leading to your allies fighting each other, again, good for you. As far as sovereignty goes, nobody is forced to sign with us, and I'd hope that anybody who feels it's acceptable to attack our other allies on account of a moral outrage, takes this as an invitation to cancel on us. I know i'll personally thank them for it.

Edited January 25, 2010 by delendum

[Penguin]

I fail to see or care about the difference. As far as I'm concerned \m/ needed to be rolled. However I will say it was wrong to hold up negotiations over such a petty point and not appropriate to force this extended situation upon those you call allies.

That isn't what I asked.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that it takes two sides being stubborn over a choice of wording, that it wasn't us that asked our allies to come in first, and that I don't see why the other side isn't at least equally to blame for the escalation, I actually agree with you. Last I checked our offer for white peace (with or without the word "wrong" or "not appropriate" by the way) was still on the table and barring any complications from the ever increasing number of alliances on either side I'll do what I can to keep it there for the duration of the conflict. Perhaps we'd all like to blow off some steam for a few weeks first and then return to where we left the discussion.

[Rebel Virginia]

We hold you to a higher standard as allies of ours then we do most alliances.

So that is why Athens is able to get away with things such as raiding a 54-man alliance? Because you do not hold them, or a few other of your allies, to that same high standard that you do Polar?

[HeinousOne]

We didn't force them to be allied with us. If we were limiting them, I would have been perfectly fine with a cancellation prior to them taking action. Also, every alliance here has their own beliefs, and no two alliances hold beliefs truly identical to each other. To presume to enforce your own set of beliefs arbitrarily on people is arrogant to say the least.

If you think it's perfectly fine for one of your allies to attack another one of your allies, then good for you. If you think it's justified for one of your allies to disregard all your efforts and continue to push for something even though it would end up leading to your allies fighting each other, again, good for you. As far as sovereignty goes, nobody is forced to sign with us, and I'd hope that anybody who feels it's acceptable to attack our other allies on account of a moral outrage, takes this as an invitation to cancel on us. I know i'll personally thank them for it.

Problem is, too many people are allied. If everyone goes by your rules of don't attack an ally of ours or even an ally of a close ally of ours then no wars will ever happen because now CnG is basically the center of the treaty grid. Is that what you want? A CnG controlled Treaty Grid Hegemony?

[Seerow]

That isn't what I asked.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that it takes two sides being stubborn over a choice of wording, that it wasn't us that asked our allies to come in first, and that I don't see why the other side isn't at least equally to blame for the escalation, I actually agree with you. Last I checked our offer for white peace (with or without the word "wrong" or "not appropriate" by the way) was still on the table and barring any complications from the ever increasing number of alliances on either side I'll do what I can to keep it there for the duration of the conflict. Perhaps we'd all like to blow off some steam for a few weeks first and then return to where we left the discussion.

I think my edit addresses the idea that both sides are to blame. You are right there, I just feel that with NpO taking the moral highground you could have taken the high road and just let it go. Let \m/ have their minor victory, you would have gotten the knowledge you held your ground and proved that you don't bluff, and I doubt anyone would have thought worse of you for it.

As for blowing off steam for a few weeks then white peace all around... it's possible, but I don't forsee this ending quite so easily now that things have begun chaining outwards. We can hope, but I don't see it as a likely outcome.

So that is why Athens is able to get away with things such as raiding a 54-man alliance? Because you do not hold them, or a few other of your allies, to that same high standard that you do Polar?

We do hold Athens to a higher standard as well. You'll note they haven't made a habit of tech raiding large alliances.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Seerow

[Chickenzilla]

Problem is, too many people are allied. If everyone goes by your rules of don't attack an ally of ours or even an ally of a close ally of ours then no wars will ever happen because now CnG is basically the center of the treaty grid. Is that what you want? A CnG controlled Treaty Grid Hegemony?

That's absurd, I want the old hegemony to take back over so I have someone to hate. :viper: