AlmightyGrub Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 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. Ah Bob, alas, you are well behind the times, at least 24 hours to be exact. But do keep on plugging away, hammering hammering always hammering, never letting facts get in the way of a good story. You could have read this on your forums if you were being objective Check the facts, come back, repost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 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). The next alliance that you choose to raid despite your charter and the will of the community would lose. Our charter allowed for this raid thank you very much, although feel free to continue and try and make it mean something other than what "WE" meant it to, after all it's not like it's our char............ohwai I guess everyone was correct, nothing left to discuss. Hope you guys enjoy burning the world down. /me runs off to play with his army Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DictatatorDan Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 Our charter allowed for this raid thank you very much, although feel free to continue and try and make it mean something other than what "WE" meant it to, after all it's not like it's our char............ohwai I guess everyone was correct, nothing left to discuss. Hope you guys enjoy burning the world down. /me runs off to play with his army iii. You will not declare war on a nation within an alliance. \m/ defines an alliance as any group of nations with more than 10 members. -From the \m/ charter. Food for thought maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 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. Everyone loses in that scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 (edited) Ah Bob, alas, you are well behind the times, at least 24 hours to be exact. But do keep on plugging away, hammering hammering always hammering, never letting facts get in the way of a good story. You could have read this on your forums if you were being objective Check the facts, come back, repost. I don't let facts get in the way of what I think, you should know that. On that note, going to read now through the massive !@#$ fest that is that thread. Edit: I do believe it is a matter of interpretation. As you are a good friend of mine and will be regardless what happens in this situation (at least from my side) I will stop. I wish you well with the path you have chosen, my friend. Edited January 26, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 (edited) iii. You will not declare war on a nation within an alliance. \m/ defines an alliance as any group of nations with more than 10 members. -From the \m/ charter. Food for thought maybe? That's in reference to 1v1 wars. V. War:1. Inter-alliance war, whether it be aggressive or defensive, is sometimes necessary. A majority approval from the Triumvirate is necessary to declare war. i. Nuclear First Strike Policy: The government & members of \m/ realize that nuclear weapons are beneficial to the alliance and fully support nuclear development. We also realize that nuclear weapons are built for 2 reasons: B. To cause maximum damage to enemy nations. Therefore \m/ authorizes nuclear first strikes in war, unless deemed not necessary by the Triumvirate (for duels, mass raids, etc.) Commonly-used terms: # -- tech raid: All wars are tech raids until the game mechanics allow individuals to isolate what is taken or destroyed in war. Basically they consider all wars to be tech raids, and seeing as they're allowed to declare war on whoever they want, they figure they can tech raid whoever they want as well. Presumably their raid/war on FoA received triumvir approval, so they were within their charter. Edited January 26, 2010 by Lord Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 iii. You will not declare war on a nation within an alliance. \m/ defines an alliance as any group of nations with more than 10 members. -From the \m/ charter. Food for thought maybe? How about we put the whole section in rather than cherry pick: VI. Nation-on-Nation War: 1. \m/ does not promote or encourage single-nation war, but will allow individuals to fight in accordance with the following guidelines: i. You will only declare war on one nation at a time. ii. Other \m/ nations are under no obligation to provide any assistance to your nation. iii. You will not declare war on a nation within an alliance. \m/ defines an alliance as any group of nations with more than 10 members. You will see this refers to nation on nation war only. It does not refer to alliance wide tech raids, which are at the descretion of the Triumvirate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 (edited) The fact that it's in their charter doesn't justify it, of course, but it proves that they haven't broken their own rules, which they've been accused of repeatedly. Edited January 26, 2010 by Lord Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 Then why does Grub keep throwing that offer around, seems some minor tweaking and something could be worked out. My friend I'm no diplomat, I don't speak for Polaris nor do I wish to. I am though a Warrior, and always have been. I like seeing my tanks rolling don't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 The fact that it's in their charter doesn't justify it, of course, but it proves that they haven't broken their own rules, which they've been accused of repeatedly. And there is the rub, if you look at Grubs terms what are we supposed to be admitting to do? We followed our charter, if we agreed to follow our charter in the future, this situation would just pop up again, now if Grub wanted to throw out what he would be an acceptable number there might be something to discuss, but even at that it really isn't up to \m/ or NpO to set a global standard now is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 My friend I'm no diplomat, I don't speak for Polaris nor do I wish to. I am though a Warrior, and always have been. I like seeing my tanks rolling don't you? Sides in this war aside, I do indeed like seeing NSO dust off their military, now go forth and spread your dark ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Raven Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 Tisk tisk tisk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boscher Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 Good luck FOK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen Fool Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 Hi FOK! Welcome to the fight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 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. Because of course all treaties are MADPs ... right? The charter stuff is fairly irrelevant as the issue is that raiding large alliances crosses the line, not whether your internal laws 'allow' it. The resolution needs to be 'We will not raid alliances', not 'we will follow our charter' – after all, if it were just that, you'd immediately change your charter to allow large raids. But since you've diverted the topic in that direction, you still weren't 'allowed' to raid without a DoW ... 1. Inter-alliance war, whether it be aggressive or defensive, is sometimes necessary. A majority approval from the Triumvirate is necessary to declare war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 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). The next alliance that you choose to raid despite your charter and the will of the community would lose. CAuse this worked so well when MK attempted it, amirite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 As far as I am aware MK are not allied to PC and haven't tried to mediate peace talks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmmehhh Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 As far as I am aware MK are not allied to PC and haven't tried to mediate peace talks. They have mediated. We (FOK) were present too. In the end an agreement couldn't been reached. I know you are worried about \m/ and their techraiding, you shouldn't be, after this war they will be heavily damaged, and so will we 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.