Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[NoFish]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' date='02 February 2010 - 02:53 AM' timestamp='1265097237' post='2152802']
So when GOD declares it's about it being a bloc. And when GOD won't go ahead with white peace it's about being a bloc.

But when NpO declares on GOD the bloc goes out the window? It's not fair because GOD was a part of the bloc that was working towards white peace? What happened to the bloc?
[/quote]
GOD declared alongside RnR - it was about being a bloc. When NSO declared on CSN it was about and then Fark counter-declared on NSO it was about being a bloc. When GOD tried to organize white peace for NSO it was about being a bloc. When NpO declared on GOD you can bloody well bet it's going to be a goddamn bloc.

Edited February 2, 2010 by NoFish

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

[quote name='Mussolandia' date='02 February 2010 - 02:57 AM' timestamp='1265097465' post='2152810']
Right, except I never mentioned or made a passing reference at C&G.
[/quote]
Yar. I cannot read edits, apparently.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Tolkien' date='02 February 2010 - 02:54 AM' timestamp='1265097258' post='2152803']
You do understand that CnG is not some unified entity with the same opinions on everything, right? I know quite a few Athens and FoB members who were rabidly supportive of \m/: and neither alliance holds any treaty to the NpO. Generalizing what CnG thinks is bad, because the ones you should be looking at are MK and GR.
[/quote]
Maybe it shouldn't be a MDAP bloc if CnG isn't a unified entity.

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

[quote name='Methrage' date='02 February 2010 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1265097591' post='2152814']
Maybe it shouldn't be a MDAP bloc if CnG isn't a unified entity.
[/quote]
Are we not allowed to disagree and hold different opinions? Do not members within an alliance hold different opinions? Are not alliances not in essence an MADP bloc of nations? I crossed it out in reference to Musso, as I apparently fail at counting upwards, but it does apply here also.

[quote]Every bloc member can have it's own opinions and it's own treaties, no? We had strong disagreements during the prior war (or this war, whichever belie you ascribe to), but that is nothing more then the disagreements you get within an ordinary alliance over policy, only on a larger scale. At the end of the day, C&G rolls together, and that much is a given constant.[/quote]

But you're right, we ought to dissolve. I mean, we have the audacity to disagree on things! And have different sets of treaties!

Edited February 2, 2010 by Tolkien

[Mussolandia]

I think Vanguard set a new precedent about these sorts of disagreements when they signed a treaty with an entire bloc. I could see Methrage's point as valid in that case.

EDIT: just editing to confuse Tolkien, I promise

Edited February 2, 2010 by Mussolandia

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Methrage' date='02 February 2010 - 01:59 AM' timestamp='1265097591' post='2152814']
Maybe it shouldn't be a MDAP bloc if CnG isn't a unified entity.
[/quote]

Ugh, please no. How long has it been since we've all had this much fun? Fun is what unified blocs are the death of.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Methrage' date='02 February 2010 - 01:59 AM' timestamp='1265097591' post='2152814']
Maybe it shouldn't be a MDAP bloc if CnG isn't a unified entity.
[/quote]
At the time it came about, it was entirely unified.

Behind Polar no less.

[Chalaskan]

[quote name='mushi' date='01 February 2010 - 10:37 PM' timestamp='1265096233' post='2152760']
I can say for certain that we did not have any guarantee's of support while going into defend \m/. We dont just leave allies out to dry because odds aren't in your favor. The FOK support came after PC had hit Polar. heck if we knew we were getting support, why would we send 2/3rd n hippy to come out a later day.
[/quote]

Not communicating? Are you gov?

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

[quote name='Mussolandia' date='02 February 2010 - 03:04 AM' timestamp='1265097883' post='2152817']
I think Vanguard set a new precedent about these sorts of disagreements when they signed a treaty with an entire block. I could see Methrage's point as valid in that case.
[/quote]
Valid in what way? Vanguard signed an MDoAP with the remaining members of Stickmen, and it is in their sovereign right to do so. In the end, they're first obligation is to C&G. I fail to understand how it is valid in that case, though perhaps you can explain to me.

EDIT: CURSE YOU MUSSO! CURSE YOU!

Edited February 2, 2010 by Tolkien

[Mussolandia]

In that it leaves little room in terms of individual choice to members of Stickmen. Surely that is a view on the role of members of blocs Vanguard does not share with you, or only partially

EDIT: kekeke

Edited February 2, 2010 by Mussolandia

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' date='02 February 2010 - 07:30 AM' timestamp='1265095833' post='2152740']
So I was right, then. You were never open to the idea that we were up to exactly what we said we were up to.

The chip on your shoulder really is driving. It's doing a fine, if somewhat repetitive, job.
[/quote]
ZG, \m/ government, myself included have been in several threads since our war ended affirming NpO's motive being your moral quest against raiding alliances, you yourself have posted in close vicinity to these statements.

[Chalaskan]

[quote name='Tolkien' date='01 February 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1265097980' post='2152821']
Valid in what way? Vanguard signed an MDoAP with the remaining members of Stickmen, and it is in their sovereign right to do so. In the end, they're first obligation is to C&G. I fail to understand how it is valid in that case, though perhaps you can explain to me.

EDIT: CURSE YOU MUSSO! CURSE YOU!
[/quote]

The convenience of this is somewhat ironic... or not

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

[quote name='Mussolandia' date='02 February 2010 - 03:08 AM' timestamp='1265098084' post='2152822']
In that it leaves little room in terms of individual choice to members of Stickmen. Surely that is a view on the role of members of blocs Vanguard does not share with you, or only partially.
[/quote]
I suppose I can see your point: it ties Stickmen to C&G defensively (though specifically only Vanguard. They could easily opt out if Vanguard were to declare in defense of another C&G member), if not wholly offensively. However, with an MDoAP with SLCB (or was it SCLB? I'm tired, sue me.) , this was already a given. Similarly, you could make the case for any alliance who has an MDoAP with any member of C&G, as it means they may very well be relied upon to defend another member of the bloc.

I'm still not quite sure what this conflicting view is though. I'm likely just sleep deprived.

EDIT: Musso, you will face the wrath of the Edit Gods if you continue.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Tolkien

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='02 February 2010 - 02:11 AM' timestamp='1265098319' post='2152823']
ZG, \m/ government, myself included have been in several threads since our war ended affirming NpO's motive being your moral quest against raiding alliances, you yourself have posted in close vicinity to these statements.
[/quote]

I'm referring to Starfox specifically. This relates to my questioning him in another thread where he claimed something like that we wouldn't give \m/ peace, and that we'd declared for other motives. (He did not reply in the other thread, despite me re-asking my question)

Or am I not getting what you're saying? I don't think we're disagreeing on anything.

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

[quote name='Chalaskan' date='02 February 2010 - 03:12 AM' timestamp='1265098349' post='2152824']
The convenience of this is somewhat ironic... or not
[/quote]
What convenience? As convenient as, say, NV, a member of AZTEC, having an MDoAP with GR? Does the fact we also hold treaties with the remaining members of AZTEC (including MDoAPs, though at this time, my memory sucks, so don't ask me to recite a list of treaties) make it any more ironic? Are you saying that if Vanguard signed these treaties individually (and outside a war), nothing would've come of it?

EDIT: Really, I'm confused. All I see is Vanguard signing multiple treaties at the same time. This doesn't make any sense to me how this means we ought to dissolve or something.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Tolkien

[Mussolandia]

[quote name='Tolkien' date='02 February 2010 - 08:12 AM' timestamp='1265098356' post='2152825']
I suppose I can see your point: it ties Stickmen to C&G defensively (though specifically only Vanguard. They could easily opt out if Vanguard were to declare in defense of another C&G member), if not wholly offensively. However, with an MDoAP with SLCB (or was it SCLB? I'm tired, sue me.) , this was already a given. Similarly, you could make the case for any alliance who has an MDoAP with any member of C&G, as it means they may very well be relied upon to defend another member of the bloc.

I'm still not quite sure what this conflicting view is though. I'm likely just sleep deprived.

EDIT: Musso, you will face the wrath of the Edit Gods if you continue.
[/quote]

The debate seems to linger around whether you believe blocs should be unified in everything. Vanguard certainly believes Stickmen should be unified in everything (why would they have treatied the bloc instead of the alliances individually, then) and this does affect opinion about this theory on CnG.

We're drifting away and away on a tangent, so I'll just retire for the evening.

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

[quote name='Mussolandia' date='02 February 2010 - 03:17 AM' timestamp='1265098644' post='2152831']
The debate seems to linger around whether you believe blocs should be unified in everything. Vanguard certainly believes Stickmen should be unified in everything (why would they have treatied the bloc instead of the alliances individually, then) and this does affect opinion about this theory on CnG.

We're drifting away and away on a tangent, so I'll just retire for the evening.
[/quote]
Agreed. We can move this off into a separate debate thread somewhere else. It's refreshing to have intelligent discourse, for a change. Something you don't see everyday in the OWF. Not by a long shot.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Tolkien

[Urmom]

[quote name='SupremePrince' date='02 February 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1265094291' post='2152660']
To TOP and TOP's allies: I simply dislike you people. You doubted us and left us no time to explain. You went right ahead and call our emperor traitor and left no room for him to explain first. You had your own agenda yet you call Polar traitors and when we prove you wrong, you thought you could get away with some mindless hailing. We will remember this.
[/quote]
Can I just ask what you would have thought if you were in our shoes? When MK members are saying "LOL U FELL INTO THE TRAP", with whom you are allied to? It was awfully suspicious, although I tried to word my posts to allow for the possibility that it was a coincidence.

Anyways, have a good war.

[The Warrior]

[quote name='Louis Balfour' date='02 February 2010 - 06:33 AM' timestamp='1265092383' post='2152533']
Please, we're better off against them. Who knows what sort of mess they'd put us in the middle of if they were on our side.
[/quote]

Oh really? I wouldn't have thought so.

[kriekfreak]

Guess this is the last time NpO gets white peace. Good luck.

[King Wally]

I had to grit my teath when you hit \M/ polar...but hitting superfriends??!!??!!

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' date='02 February 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1265097237' post='2152802']
So when GOD declares it's about it being a bloc.
[/quote]

When GOD declared, actually it was about 'coalition'.

The actions here would be alot simpler to understand if people stopped believing their own propaganda about two different wars.

o\ Polar
o\ NSO

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Tolkien' date='02 February 2010 - 03:15 AM' timestamp='1265098553' post='2152830']
What convenience? As convenient as, say, NV, a member of AZTEC, having an MDoAP with GR? Does the fact we also hold treaties with the remaining members of AZTEC (including MDoAPs, though at this time, my memory sucks, so don't ask me to recite a list of treaties) make it any more ironic? Are you saying that if Vanguard signed these treaties individually (and outside a war), nothing would've come of it?

EDIT: Really, I'm confused. All I see is Vanguard signing multiple treaties at the same time. This doesn't make any sense to me how this means we ought to dissolve or something.
[/quote]
When I said maybe CnG shouldn't be MDAP bloc if you're not unified I was referring to the mandatory aggression clause in it, as it really doesn't matter the differences in your views if your going to choose those allies over others regardless of circumstances. Would those who only hold a MDoAP with you ever really be able to expect you to side with them over Athens or any other CnG alliance? I think as long as you are in CnG you will always pick your allies there over others, so whether your views differ from them doesn't matter much.

[Xavii]

Here we go again it seems.

Good luck GOD and have fun Big_Z the Cameron always prevails!

Edited February 2, 2010 by Xavii

[NoFish]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='02 February 2010 - 03:31 AM' timestamp='1265099499' post='2152840']
When GOD declared, actually it was about 'coalition'.

The actions here would be alot simpler to understand if people stopped believing their own propaganda about two different wars.

o\ Polar
o\ NSO
[/quote]
They would also be a lot easier to understand if AlmightySponge had posted any reason why they were going to war with GOD instead of one or all of the many other alliances declared on NSO - For all our fighting prowess, I really doubt our attacks on about 8% of NSO's nations are really putting that much pressure on them. The only reason for this declaration that makes any sense - that Grub hates Xiphosis and saw a good opportunity to bloody his nose - has been expressly denied in the OP.

Of course maybe Grub's just a liar and I'm reading way too much into this. That also makes them simpler to understand.