Tulafaras Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I disagree. Treaty or otherwise, you have been planning this strike for months. It is the result of a grudge. Just like you, I have no proof of this accusation. There is no proof we attacked \m/ because of an old grudge. There is no proof FOK attacked us because of an old grudge. I'll try my best with this cluster of stupidity and simplification. I am asserting that FOK declared war on us because they still have a grudge against us from the SPW. I am also fighting a war. I do not understand why writing messages here, and fighting wars in nation, are mutually exclusive? What aren't you doing, that you are spending time here? Surely, if my time could be spent more productively, yours could be as well. I do not care if FOK gives my arguments attention or heed. I have little hope of changing their minds. They claimed that Polaris attacked \m/ because of an old grudge, a claim for which I have seen absolutely no proof. I think that FOK attacked us exclusively because of an old grudge. I asked you to disprove me. You have not, and basically opted to not engage and challenge me, but to simply bluster. That's fine, bluster all you would like. In the mean time, try and find proof that FOK is not attacking us because they hold a grudge against us. Cheers. EDIT: OOC: Made it a bit more IC You seem to lack reading comprehension. I'll try to explain it to you in small words because you seem to have missed a key point or two in the OP: 1) The OP is split up into two parts, one being their subjective opinion of the general situation. There is no proof and they do not even pretend that they have proof, but it is their opinion. You can disagree with that opinion of course that is your right, but frankly neither of you has any kind of proof. 2) The second part of the OP is the treaty activation and their DoW. Basically they are in this to defend PC their ally. So, now to get back to your post, you do not make the slightest bit of sense. Wether they have a grudge or not is a moot point, since their DoW was based on a treaty activation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Read the OP. They're entering the war because they have some tinfoil idea about NpO wanting to destroy \m/, the treaty with PC is merely the vehicle by which they're entering. You have it backwards. They're entering the war to support their allies in Poison Clan. The theory about NpO doesn't matter; they even said as much. TBH they probably shouldn't even have included it given the debate its caused. Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulafaras Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) Read the OP. They're entering the war because they have some tinfoil idea about NpO wanting to destroy \m/, the treaty with PC is merely the vehicle by which they're entering. Read the OP. They're entering the war because they do not believe their ally PC deserves to burn alone, the opinion piece they posted above that is merely background information and their subjective opinion. Edited January 25, 2010 by Tulafaras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proko Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 You seem to lack reading comprehension. I'll try to explain it to you in small words because you seem to have missed a key point or two in the OP: 1) The OP is split up into two parts, one being their subjective opinion of the general situation. There is no proof and they do not even pretend that they have proof, but it is their opinion. You can disagree with that opinion of course that is your right, but frankly neither of you has any kind of proof. 2) The second part of the OP is the treaty activation and their DoW. Basically they are in this to defend PC their ally. So, now to get back to your post, you do not make the slightest bit of sense. Wether they have a grudge or not is a moot point, since their DoW was based on a treaty activation. You know, I would have really liked this post if you didn't go out of your way to insult me in the process. Thank you for at least trying to refute my argument, and it upsets me you feel the need to aggressively attack my ability to read and interpret as you have. I read FOK's OP. I like their admission that nothing is as it seems. That's a very mature and responsible position to take. My issue comes in their justification, not the following conditional statements about objectivity. They did not have an obligation to enter this war. They did not state that they are entering because they believe defending \m/ is necessarily the right thing to do. They activated an optional clause, and the reason they activated this clause was based on their belief that we attacked \m/ because we have wanted to kill them since they died (???) in September 2007. That seems to have been the most important factor in their decision making process. Otherwise, why bother to highlight and emphasize it in the Declaration? If it was just an afterthought or idle speculation, maybe just leave it out, rather than giving it paramount importance in the OP? That claim is false. In response, I am asserting that their claim is a lie, and that instead they have a grudge against us that they are looking to settle from SPW. I have as much proof as they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 You know that you are still indirectly tied to FOK, do you? You are indirectly tied to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nada2486 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 haha, Will this escalate to another big war?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 haha, Will this escalate to another big war?? Yes. Even if parties choose to avoid directly declaring on NSO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 FOK will do what they feel is right too. In this case, that means not watching our ally PC (one of the most loyal allies one can have) getting massacred at the hands of an alliance whom we feel has orchestrated this whole war from the start. FOK therefore hereby activates the optional Agression, the Defense clausule and/or the general spirit of the treaty with Poison Clan and declares war on the New Polar Order. As Proko pointed out, the treaty was optional. They chose to activate it because they felt that Polar had "orchestrated this whole war from the start." I don't understand the people saying it's unrelated. He mentions it in the actual declaration part of the announcement, it's clearly the reason they're activating the treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Yes. Even if parties choose to avoid directly declaring on NSO. Who'd avoid the opportunity to declare on you guys? Lets be serious now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaone Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 They did not have an obligation to enter this war. Except our treaty partner Poison clan is being attacked. They did not state that they are entering because they believe defending \m/ is necessarily the right thing to do. You actually got something right. They activated an optional clause, We came in to defend Poison clan, I'm not going to e-lawyer if it was through an aggresion or defensive clause. and the reason they activated this clause was based on their belief that we attacked \m/ because we have wanted to kill them since they died (???) in September 2007. The reason of this was that we didn't want to see Poison clan burn, because we couldn't enter on a technicality. As some people on the OWF would probably argue. That seems to have been the most important factor in their decision making process. Otherwise, why bother to highlight and emphasize it in the Declaration? If it was just an afterthought or idle speculation, maybe just leave it out, rather than giving it paramount importance in the OP? What part of "But this doesn't matter at all" don't you understand? OOC: The reason a part is in quote tags is because the old forums didn't support spoiler tags and if they did it would be against the rules to use them in a DoW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Who'd avoid the opportunity to declare on you guys? Lets be serious now. I know, right? I was thinking the same thing. Take your alliance for example. We declared war on FOK, who entered in your defense. Shouldn't you reply in kind and declare on the NSO? Why didn't that occur? I know the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I know, right? I was thinking the same thing. Take your alliance for example. We declared war on FOK, who entered in your defense. Shouldn't you reply in kind and declare on the NSO? Why didn't that occur? I know the answer. Fear. Am in the ballpark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Except our treaty partner Poison clan is being attacked. Even by the most spectacular interpretation of treaty chaining, this isn't true. PC declared war on NpO and nobody has declared on them in response. PC can be claimed to have entered a defensive war for m, but they are definitely not 'being attacked'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proko Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) Except our treaty partner Poison clan is being attacked. You actually got something right. We came in to defend Poison clan, I'm not going to e-lawyer if it was through an aggresion or defensive clause. The reason of this was that we didn't want to see Poison clan burn, because we couldn't enter on a technicality. As some people on the OWF would probably argue. What part of "But this doesn't matter at all" don't you understand? OOC: The reason a part is in quote tags is because the old forums didn't support spoiler tags and if they did it would be against the rules to use them in a DoW. Right. Yes. I understand. You are defending PC because PC is at war. That has been made abundantly clear to me. Repeating it over and over again does not make my argument false. I will respond to what I think are the most important parts of your post. We came in to defend Poison clan, I'm not going to e-lawyer if it was through an aggresion or defensive clause. I am not sure if you are stating that you are ignorant of the content of your treaties, or if you think the content of your treaties is unimportant. Your leadership verified that this was an optional decision - that because PC is defending \m/ and not themselves. We interpret your move as aggressive, not defensive, because not only did we not attack FOK, we did not attack Poison Clan. No ally of FOK was harmed in the creation of the Polar DoW. But really, all of this is fine. Defend your ally's ally or not, you still have no evidence that we attacked \m/ because of an old grudge. And I have the same evidence that you are attacking Polaris for an old grudge. Maybe you are defending your beloved \m/, or maybe you are trying to settle an old score. Once wasn't enough, you needed to kill us twice. We stated reasons for attacking \m/, more than just one. You stated reasons for attacking Polaris. You believe we are not attacking \m/ for the reasons we listed but instead because we want to kill them again. I believe you are not attacking Polaris for the reasons you listed but instead want to kill us again. Edited January 25, 2010 by Proko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Even by the most spectacular interpretation of treaty chaining, this isn't true. PC declared war on NpO and nobody has declared on them in response. PC can be claimed to have entered a defensive war for m, but they are definitely not 'being attacked'. Bob, you're a smart guy. You may not want to admit it but you know as well as anyone that Grub declaring on \m/ was his way to kill two birds with one stone while limiting the counter attacks. His plan would have gone off without a hitch if he hadn't underestimated the loyalty of PC's friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carfre Inpor Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Well FOK we meet again... at least you could have been honest in the DoW... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proko Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Bob, you're a smart guy. You may not want to admit it but you know as well as anyone that Grub declaring on \m/ was his way to kill two birds with one stone while limiting the counter attacks. His plan would have gone off without a hitch if he hadn't underestimated the loyalty of PC's friends. I do not know that. I do not have proof of that. All I have is proof that \m/ attacks sizable unaligned sovereign groups and that its leadership sits idly by while foreign leaders are harassed in their channel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Divi Filius Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Well FOK we meet again... at least you could have been honest in the DoW... We were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Fear. Am in the ballpark? I really doubt our allies had anything to do with - oh, wait, you meant cowardice, not FEAR. My bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulafaras Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I do not know that. I do not have proof of that. All I have is proof that \m/ attacks sizable unaligned sovereign groups and that its leadership sits idly by while foreign leaders are harassed in their channel. so, reprimanding the members in question and posting a public apology is your definition of "idly", i must admit my dictionary has a different one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlkAK47_002 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) I must say even though I would take NpO's side on this I really respect his announcement. Leaders of many alliances wouldn't have the balls to come out and say what you just said, I feel you're completley justified in what you're doing and however this conflict ends I hope FOK and NpO find peace with eachother. After seeing this announcement FOK is alright in my book. o/ FOK o/ NpO Edited January 25, 2010 by BlkAK47002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulafaras Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Even by the most spectacular interpretation of treaty chaining, this isn't true. PC declared war on NpO and nobody has declared on them in response. PC can be claimed to have entered a defensive war for m, but they are definitely not 'being attacked'. considering the size of the NpO on the one hand and PC and \m/ on the other hand i can safely state that yes they are "being attacked". Are they being attacked by a seperate alliance as well? No but the NpO has more than enough warslots to attack two alliances at once. PC has entered a war on the defensive side in honor of their treaty, and is now being attacked by the agressive side. That the NpO did not need to bring in any allies to fight the war is immaterial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proko Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 so, reprimanding the members in question and posting a public apology is your definition of "idly", i must admit my dictionary has a different one. Given up trying to disprove that the FOK DoW is the result of an old grudge, have you? The apology was meaningless. The apology said 'I guess we're sorry, but you should have known better.' It is promising that the members were reprimanded, but the abuse went on for many minutes while \m/ leadership was not only online and active but talking in the channel. Either they understood what their members were doing was wrong at the time, or they stand by what their members did and they are caving to international pressure and trying to garner PR. That is to say, if what the \m/ members were saying at the time was so offensive, why did the leadership not tell them to stop, ban them from the channel, remove their vops, or something along those lines? Instead of just watch, and try and talk over them, \m/ made a double-edged apology and reprimanded its members after someone told them that their members were out of line. Either they thought it was wrong, or they reprimanded them because they are gaining something, either through PR or because their allies told them to. In either case, this discussion is off-topic. I do not know that Grub attacked \m/ to kill PC. I have seen no proof of that whatsoever. I have only seen proof that \m/ attacks sovereign groups without legitimate cause and harasses foreign leaders in its channel while its leaders ignore it and then later try and cover for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyangel Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 try ur best fok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proko Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 considering the size of the NpO on the one hand and PC and \m/ on the other hand i can safely state that yes they are "being attacked". Are they being attacked by a seperate alliance as well? No but the NpO has more than enough warslots to attack two alliances at once. PC has entered a war on the defensive side in honor of their treaty, and is now being attacked by the agressive side. That the NpO did not need to bring in any allies to fight the war is immaterial. We did not issue a declaration of war against the Poison Clan. We did not issue a declaration of war against FOK. We did not issue a declaration of war on Stickmen. We issued a declaration of war on \m/. Any wars between alliances that are not \m/ and New Poalr Order are out of our hands. We did not attack Poison Clan. Offensive wars were only made against Poison Clan after dozens of offensive wars were made against the New Polar Order by the Poison Clan. In contrast, no defensive war slot of the Poison Clan was filled by the New Polar Order because we declared war on \m/ until first defensive slots ofthe New Polar Order were filled by members of the Poison Clan. You are reaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.