FOK DoW

[SpacingOutMan]

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.

He has just as much evidence in his claim as yours of "FOK declaring for an old grudge".

[Proko]

He has just as much evidence in his claim as yours of "FOK declaring for an old grudge".

Ha! Good point. And similarly, as much proof that we attacked \m/ because of an old grudge. So let us say, there is equal proof of the following:

The New Polar Order attacked \m/ for an old grudge

The New Polar Order attacked \m/ but really wanted to attack PC too

FOK attacked the New Polar Order for an old grudge.

Sum Total of Proof:

I will reiterate my opinions:

The New Polar Order did not attack \m/ for an old grudge. There is no proof of this, or at least no proof that has been presented.

The New Polar Order did not attack \m/ in order to attack PC, too. There is no proof of this, or at least no proof that has been presented.

FOK attacked the New Polar Order for an old grudge. There is as much proof for this as for the previous two sttatements.

[Tulafaras]

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.

I am sorry if you feel offended, but since yours was not the only post where people insist on ignoring the key point of the FOK announcement i felt it was necessary to ask "your side" to read a bit more thouroughly.

Considering the kind of announcements your leader has been writing in this war, i believe (and this is strictly my personal opinion, i do not have any facts or inside knowledge to back it up) that FOK felt they needed to make an equally verbose announcement. Their theory might be wrong or right (frankly some kind of grudge against \m/ was definitly present, otherwise why should Grub have singled them out in this way instead of voicing his ire against PC as well) but then on the same topic so is some of the hot air Grub was spewing in his.

Regardless the point is moot, since they have entered on behalf of their ally PC who was engaged with a far stronger opponent at the point of that DoW. Offensive/defensive well that is a slippery slope to discuss in this specific case, because you could e-lawyer argue both sides equally well. I made an argument for defensive in a previous post, and i stand by it, but frankly as FOK said they did not feel the need to e-lawyer in a similar war. As their tl:dr stated pretty clearly the situation for them was clear:

One of our most loyal allies is engaged in a war against a far stronger opponent.

The far stronger opponent has refused peace.

Therefor we enter to prevent our ally from burning alone.

Could they have been clearer?

[Zombie Glaucon]

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.

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".

A different one that defines "being attacked" in relation to the size of the alliance? Neat-o.

[Timmmehhh]

The "old grudge" thing is getting really old. While I might not be the biggest fan of Polar myself, the membership and the gov in general don't have an "old grudge" feeling, there is even friendship at some places with Hawky[NpO]as an example. The war we fought against you during WOTC was mainly to support our allies in TOP and Gremlins, we have moved on since then. You really think we attack a much larger alliance than us who is reasonably well connected over some kind of old grudge? We are simply here to help our friends in Poison clan out, who were fighting a much larger force, we are here to even things up.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Timmehhh

[Tulafaras]

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.

And so are you. \m/ alone is not even a mouse compared to your size, which is why your Emperor stated he expects \m/'s allies to enter on their side and that you stand alone expecting them.

Frankly after such a statement you really cannot complain if their allies enter. And neither can you really complain if an ally of their ally decides to make the sides even.

Edit:

A different one that defines "being attacked" in relation to the size of the alliance? Neat-o.

Want me to go and post screenshots of the warscreen? Of course they are being attacked stop being ridiculous. the question we might (and can) argue is if they (as in PC) are being attacked as a defensive action or offensive action.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Tulafaras

[Tulafaras]

double post sorry :/

Edited January 25, 2010 by Tulafaras

[Penguin]

The "old grudge" thing is getting really old. While I might not be the biggest fan of Polar myself, the membership and the gov in general don't have an "old grudge" feeling, there is even friendship at some places with Hawky[NpO]as an example. The war we fought against you during WOTC was mainly to support our allies in TOP and Gremlins, we have moved on since then. You really think we attack a much larger alliance than us who is reasonably well connected over some kind of old grudge? We are simply here to help our friends in Poison clan out, who were fighting a much larger force, we are here to even things up.

It is a satirical comment aimed at you because you specifically called us out for attacking over a grudge in the announcement ("This is just NpO taking a shot at one of their old nemesis.")

I personally don't think FOK attacked us over a grudge and I know for a fact that we didn't attack \m/ over a grudge. Had you not included that libelous comment in the announcement, everything else (read: defending an ally, having an opinion on what is right and wrong) would sound perfectly fine to me.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Penguin

[Proko]

The "old grudge" thing is getting really old. While I might not be the biggest fan of Polar myself, the membership and the gov in general don't have an "old grudge" feeling, there is even friendship at some places with Hawky[NpO]as an example. The war we fought against you during WOTC was mainly to support our allies in TOP and Gremlins, we have moved on since then. You really think we attack a much larger alliance than us who is reasonably well connected over some kind of old grudge? We are simply here to help our friends in Poison clan out, who were fighting a much larger force, we are here to even things up.

The idea that you attacked us out of an old grudge, as Penguin observed, is an argumentative construct. It's not a real claim, and I would sound insane if I earnestly believed it. I simply have the exact same amount of reason to believe that you are attacking us for an old grudge, as you have that we are attacking \m/ for an old grudge.

Both claims are false. No one has any reason to believe either, unless they know something I don't.

[Heft]

He has just as much evidence in his claim as yours of "FOK declaring for an old grudge".

The "old grudge" thing is getting really old. While I might not be the biggest fan of Polar myself, the membership and the gov in general don't have an "old grudge" feeling, there is even friendship at some places with Hawky[NpO]as an example. The war we fought against you during WOTC was mainly to support our allies in TOP and Gremlins, we have moved on since then. You really think we attack a much larger alliance than us who is reasonably well connected over some kind of old grudge? We are simply here to help our friends in Poison clan out, who were fighting a much larger force, we are here to even things up.

Are you guys serious?

[Timmmehhh]

It is a satirical comment aimed at you because you specifically called us out for attacking over a grudge in the announcement ("This is just NpO taking a shot at one of their old nemesis.")

I personally don't think FOK attacked us over a grudge and I know for a fact that we didn't attack \m/ over a grudge. Had you not included that slanderous comment in the announcement, everything else (read: defending an ally, having an opinion on what is right and wrong) would sound perfectly fine to me.

Okay I take you on your word. Well in the end it doesn't matter we are here to help PC out.

[AlmightyGrub]

Okay I take you on your word. Well in the end it doesn't matter we are here to help PC out.

In the end, I have no issues with you helping PC out, but what I do take exception is the notion that we wouldn't let PC have peace...because that is a deliberate lie and will continue to be a lie until the moo-cows come home.

Fight for whatever reason you feel like, but do not twist reality so far that you stoop to overtly lying to support your cause over something is is clearly demonstrated by actual fact.

In case you are unclear, PC may walk away whenever they like, \m/ will comply with our very 'onerous' demand and we will concede as we already very publicly have. Why FOK has anything to do with the surrender terms is somewhat beyond me.

[Starcraftmazter]

So you support that there is no abuse of power involved in the recent incidences?

What power?

You have decided to back up the most outrageous of raiders, supporting a terrible precedent that the global community is second to optional treaty ties and ensured that many more alliances will be pressured into fighting for said terrible precedent. You should be ashamed.

Again, I fail to see how \m/ is at all relevant to this DoW. The only thing of relevant to any good alliance, is supporting it's friends and allies. Nothing else.

[Merrie Melodies]

In the end, I have no issues with you helping PC out, but what I do take exception is the notion that we wouldn't let PC have peace...because that is a deliberate lie and will continue to be a lie until the moo-cows come home.

Fight for whatever reason you feel like, but do not twist reality so far that you stoop to overtly lying to support your cause over something is is clearly demonstrated by actual fact.

In case you are unclear, PC may walk away whenever they like, \m/ will comply with our very 'onerous' demand and we will concede as we already very publicly have. Why FOK has anything to do with the surrender terms is somewhat beyond me.

Are we could all just walk away with no one having to comply with anything, just put our guns back in the racks and go home. No one wins and no one loses.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Merrie Melodies

[kevin32891]

Are we could all just walk away with no one having to comply with anything, just put our guns back in the racks and go home. No one wins and no one loses.

We have passed the point of no return, my old friend.

[Proko]

Again, I fail to see how \m/ is at all relevant to this DoW.

I am trying to empathize with your side here, but this statement is beyond me. I guess you could say FOK is attacking someone because PC is attacking someone. \m/ is relevant because they, with Polaris, are the core of this war. Without \m/, there is no war.

Are you still failing to see how \m/ is at all relevant to this DoW? I feel like I didn't tell you anything you didn't know.

[Starcraftmazter]

I am trying to empathize with your side here, but this statement is beyond me. I guess you could say FOK is attacking someone because PC is attacking someone. \m/ is relevant because they, with Polaris, are the core of this war. Without \m/, there is no war.

Are you still failing to see how \m/ is at all relevant to this DoW? I feel like I didn't tell you anything you didn't know.

Maybe I should clarify. It's irrelevant to the reasons for the DoW, and hence should not be mentioned here.

[Merrie Melodies]

We have passed the point of no return, my old friend.

Then why does Grub keep throwing that offer around, seems some minor tweaking and something could be worked out.

[Bob Janova]

Again, I fail to see how \m/ is at all relevant to this DoW. The only thing of relevant to any good alliance, is supporting it's friends and allies. Nothing else.

Are you serious? You (and FOK) are entering a war that is NpO vs \m/. And 'good allies' don't have to escalate a small skirmish into a major war which does far more damage – if FOK had provided mediation and advice, PC would be sitting at peace right now, and probably so would \m/ (though they claim not to care about that).

Are we could all just walk away with no one having to comply with anything, just put our guns back in the racks and go home. No one wins and no one loses.

The next alliance that you choose to raid despite your charter and the will of the community would lose.

[Starcraftmazter]

Are you serious? You (and FOK) are entering a war that is NpO vs \m/. And 'good allies' don't have to escalate a small skirmish into a major war which does far more damage – if FOK had provided mediation and advice, PC would be sitting at peace right now, and probably so would \m/ (though they claim not to care about that).

Escalation vs non-escalation is irrelevant. It is very simple:

1. Your ally is at war

2. You declare war on their enemies

That's it - nothing else matters.

[Bob]

Are you serious? You (and FOK) are entering a war that is NpO vs \m/. And 'good allies' don't have to escalate a small skirmish into a major war which does far more damage – if FOK had provided mediation and advice, PC would be sitting at peace right now, and probably so would \m/ (though they claim not to care about that).

Preventing their allies from being destroyed when it became clear Grub was going to be unreasonable.

Those scum in FOK.

[Proko]

Then why does Grub keep throwing that offer around, seems some minor tweaking and something could be worked out.

Kevin is not a sanctioned representative of the New Polar Order. While he may feel this situation has become to complex to be solved with the original peace proposition, the terms that Grub proposed are still on the table.

[Proko]

Preventing their allies from being destroyed when it became clear Grub was going to be unreasonable.

Those scum in FOK.

\m/ have been offered extremely lenient and reasonable terms. There is one condition. It is a condition my alliance meets. It is a condition your alliance meets. It is a condition that \m/, on paper, should meet. They do not. We are asking them to stop hurting people.

[Bob]

\m/ have been offered extremely lenient and reasonable terms. There is one condition. It is a condition my alliance meets. It is a condition your alliance meets. It is a condition that \m/, on paper, should meet. They do not. We are asking them to stop hurting people.

The only issue is the wording of not appropriate v wrong in Grub's statement. Why will Polaris not give in on this, which regardless, is a very minor thing and would at this point save face for Polaris instead of losing it? Why must you continue to lead us down this path?

I don't say that \m/ is in the right here. I think their actions were acceptable personally, but NOT by the community standards. It was a stupid move. They are being just as silly as Polaris, but I expect that from them.

[Mustakrakish II]

Good luck you dutchies