Imperial Decree - New Polar Order

[King Srqt]

[quote name='Roadie' date='02 February 2010 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1265135588' post='2153502']
On the other hand, it will be all of these allies of Polar that will be (and were set to be, excepting RoK possibly) on the opposite side of this war than Polar. So perhaps it's Polars allies that should be ashamed of themselves here, not Polar.
[/quote]

Excepting RoK, and yet RoK were the only one's who have now twice had an ally attacked by polar.

[quote name='Methrage' date='02 February 2010 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1265135630' post='2153504']
Regardless of what you believe, they aren't neutral, so no use whining about it now. Your points don't matter since more important factors came into play. If you still can't grasp the basic concept of sticking by those who fight alongside you, I don't think you'll ever understand.

Now enjoy the war and stop complaining about NpO so much.
[/quote]
I am not complaining, I am just discussing the war and adding how I feel about it, you mistake my intentions as someone who has a real stake in this, I do not, I stopped caring many many months ago about the trivial politics here on Bob, I do still find them entertaining and fun to debate which is why I stick around. GOD doesn't at all mind this war so I have no reason to either. If NpO wanted in they could have said they like their allies in NSO most and that is the treaty we choose to honor and that would have been understandable from an alliance in a tough position. They did not do that though they came in and made cries of how they were played and how everyone else is an opportunist which is a load of crap.

I like calling people out when they are full of crap and, that in fact is usually my favorite part of war, so I am enjoying this don't worry about me.

[King DrunkWino]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1265136150' post='2153519']
If NpO wanted in they could have said they like their allies in NSO most and that is the treaty we choose to honor and that would have been understandable from an alliance in a tough position. They did not do that though they came in and made cries of how they were played and how everyone else is an opportunist which is a load of crap.

I like calling people out when they are full of crap and, that in fact is usually my favorite part of war, so I am enjoying this don't worry about me.
[/quote]

This I agree with. We know Polar puts the highest value on the NSO. It's not a bad thing, everyone has friends after all, but everyone also has best friends that they would go to bat for against anything. It's not some tragic flaw and it's not everyone else being opportunistic. Playing that card, did you really have to throw that down on the table? Going to war to back your best friends is cool, dropping a blame card on everyone else isn't so cool.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1265136150' post='2153519']
Excepting RoK, and yet RoK were the only one's who have now twice had an ally attacked by polar.


I am not complaining, I am just discussing the war and adding how I feel about it, you mistake my intentions as someone who has a real stake in this, I do not, I stopped caring many many months ago about the trivial politics here on Bob, I do still find them entertaining and fun to debate which is why I stick around. GOD doesn't at all mind this war so I have no reason to either. If NpO wanted in they could have said they like their allies in NSO most and that is the treaty we choose to honor and that would have been understandable from an alliance in a tough position. They did not do that though they came in and made cries of how they were played and how everyone else is an opportunist which is a load of crap.

I like calling people out when they are full of crap and, that in fact is usually my favorite part of war, so I am enjoying this don't worry about me.
[/quote]
Alliances on the other side have hit allies of treaty partners as well (I don't see you calling them out ) and I don't think NpO claimed they didn't, but considering we were at war with GOD they had better reason than most who ended up hitting an ally's treaty partner in this war.

[King Srqt]

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='02 February 2010 - 01:38 PM' timestamp='1265135907' post='2153516']
As you claim you don't throw common sense to the wind, then in the future, when things are obvious and clear to pretty much anyone as to why one alliance (in this case, the NpO) does anything (in this case, re-joining the fight on the side of NSO), then I would expect you to not so blatantly ignore that which is obvious, and not let your own personal opinions and feelings cloud your better judgement.

If you can manage that. I'm not so sure you can, to be honest.
[/quote]
Oh boy you are very literal aren't you. Your emperor said many things that common sense disproves in this OP, I used extremism to exaggerate the point that common sense is not always something that applies to your alliance and so it should not always be assumed that common sense reasons are used even if they may exist.

[Angrator]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 06:42 PM' timestamp='1265136150' post='2153519']
I like calling people out when they are full of crap and, that in fact is usually my favorite part of war, so I am enjoying this don't worry about me.
[/quote]

Your filter seems to be especially particular for the NpO. I don't know why, but it certainly is curious. Everyone is connected on the MDP web. NpO is no exception. Nor is the CnG side. GATO is attacking the ally of an ally of an ally of my neighbour's best friend, but I don't hear you talking about it.

[King Srqt]

[quote name='Methrage' date='02 February 2010 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1265136643' post='2153541']
Alliances on the other side have hit allies of treaty partners as well (I don't see you calling them out ) and I don't think NpO claimed they didn't, but considering we were at war with GOD they had better reason than most who ended up hitting an ally's treaty partner in this war.
[/quote]
The other's didn't do a song and dance about how they got played by opportunists so they must have slipped by me

Honestly if Grub didn't put all that crap in his OP to score PR points my first post in this thread probably would have been the last.

[quote name='Angrator' date='02 February 2010 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1265137027' post='2153567']
Your filter seems to be especially particular for the NpO. I don't know why, but it certainly is curious. Everyone is connected on the MDP web. NpO is no exception. Nor is the CnG side. GATO is attacking the ally of an ally of an ally of my neighbour's best friend, but I don't hear you talking about it.
[/quote]
see above, I was all for NpO's war on \m/ too don't forget so it is not like I am some blind polar hater, I actually usually like them as of late.

Edited February 2, 2010 by KingSrqt

[Sulmar]

Not going to read all 36 pages, but I just want to say that this makes me happy.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Sulmar' date='02 February 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1265137447' post='2153595']
Not going to read all 36 pages, but I just want to say that this makes me happy.
[/quote]
You know, if you took the time to read you might not be so happy.

[Sulmar]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='02 February 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1265137751' post='2153607']
You know, if you took the time to read you might not be so happy.
[/quote]
See this is why I'm not going to read it. Ignorance is bliss.

[Willaim Kreiger]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1265137388' post='2153591']
Honestly if Grub didn't put all that crap in his OP to score PR points my first post in this thread probably would have been the last.
[/quote]
Honestly as someone who has served under Grub for over a year, I sincerely doubt he's concerned with whether or not you care about his OP. He said it to be said, whether or not you care, believe him, or anything else can't really be helped because let's be honest, most people already formed their opinion about us and our involvement on this side or the other, before they entered this thread.

If you like us you like us, if you hate us you hate us. I'm sure some feelings have changed over the last week, and probably not for the better, but that is just the way the cookie crumbles I suppose. We can't change the past, but we can give you our reasons. If they're not good enough for you, that is fine, but they're still the basis on which our actions were taken.

[Yggdrazil]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' date='02 February 2010 - 09:13 AM' timestamp='1265123596' post='2153173']
Well, well, well. I am saddened by the fact that you concealed some information to get Polar to join you in your [b]aggressive[/b] action. That's what I've heard at least. Why don't you want your dear ally NpO to have peace? Are they less important than IRON to you? Because, effectively, you've condemned Polar to a long time of pain because of [i]your[/i] stubbornness in the matter of saving IRON. All you have to do is accept the white peace offered to you, and Polar will have no ties to "your" side in this war. And you would also have a much better chance of helping IRON rebuild if you don't end up as a crater.

Remember kids, revenge is a dish best served cold
[/quote]
White peace comes with no terms. Fark rather than giving white peace had a term, telling NSO what commitments they would follow. You can not change the definition of white peace no matter how hard you try.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='King DrunkWino' date='02 February 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1265136485' post='2153528']
This I agree with. We know Polar puts the highest value on the NSO. It's not a bad thing, everyone has friends after all, but everyone also has best friends that they would go to bat for against anything. It's not some tragic flaw and it's not everyone else being opportunistic. Playing that card, did you really have to throw that down on the table? Going to war to back your best friends is cool, dropping a blame card on everyone else isn't so cool.
[/quote]
That is the problem with people these days. (Not your or your post) You shouldn't have "Friends and best friends" in terms of treaties. Too many people sign too many treaties and begin choosing 'who is the better friend', which really makes them useless.

[King Srqt]

[quote name='Willaim Kreiger' date='02 February 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1265138803' post='2153649']
Honestly as someone who has served under Grub for over a year, I sincerely doubt he's concerned with whether or not you care about his OP. He said it to be said, whether or not you care, believe him, or anything else can't really be helped because let's be honest, most people already formed their opinion about us and our involvement on this side or the other, before they entered this thread.

If you like us you like us, if you hate us you hate us. I'm sure some feelings have changed over the last week, and probably not for the better, but that is just the way the cookie crumbles I suppose. We can't change the past, but we can give you our reasons. If they're not good enough for you, that is fine, but they're still the basis on which our actions were taken.
[/quote]
If his points about being played made any sense even under the lightest of scrutiny I would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but to say he was played by opportunists is ludicrous.

I am sure he isn't concerned and I am honestly not concerned with his concern. I am just telling it like it is and the way events went down there is no way he or your alliance could have been played by anyone.

[Penguin]

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 10:42 AM' timestamp='1265136150' post='2153519']
I am not complaining, I am just discussing the war and adding how I feel about it, you mistake my intentions as someone who has a real stake in this, I do not, I stopped caring many many months ago about the trivial politics here on Bob, I do still find them entertaining and fun to debate which is why I stick around. GOD doesn't at all mind this war so I have no reason to either. If NpO wanted in they could have said they like their allies in NSO most and that is the treaty we choose to honor and that would have been understandable from an alliance in a tough position. They did not do that though they came in and made cries of how they were played and how everyone else is an opportunist which is a load of crap.
[/quote]
If you fight for something knowing that it will complicate things and things get complicated (as should have been expected), I doubt you'd think it right to get out of it and leave allies behind. If you start a war then you are responsible to see it through, plain and simple. If you are unwilling to deal with the consequences of complications then keep your head down and your beak shut.

[quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 11:03 AM' timestamp='1265137388' post='2153591']
The other's didn't do a song and dance about how they got played by opportunists so they must have slipped by me

Honestly if Grub didn't put all that crap in his OP to score PR points my first post in this thread probably would have been the last.[/quote][quote name='KingSrqt' date='02 February 2010 - 11:37 AM' timestamp='1265139460' post='2153670']
If his points about being played made any sense even under the lightest of scrutiny I would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but to say he was played by opportunists is ludicrous.

I am sure he isn't concerned and I am honestly not concerned with his concern. I am just telling it like it is and the way events went down there is no way he or your alliance could have been played by anyone.
[/quote]You are switching outplayed with played and opportunity with opportunist in such a way that each word's meaning shifts from a positive to a negative connotation. Obviously we wouldn't be facing a greater force if we weren't [i]outplayed[/i]. Obviously when the [i]opportunity[/i] arises to win a war and you take it you need not be faulted for it. Neither of the comments were meant as the slights, whines, or attempts to pass blame that you seem to read in them.

Further, if all it takes is for a Polar to admit to the mistakes that led us here, then I've already admitted it twice. This current war is a byproduct of Polaris complicating the treaty web and creating an opening that brought about the TOP declaration. It was a delicate balance that we disturbed and it wouldn't feel right to watch our ally in NSO face the more severe consequences of our actions without us. You probably won't believe me, but it'd be the same if it was any of our other allies that got themselves stuck and outmatched in a war that [i]we[/i] brought them into in the first place.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Penguin

[King DrunkWino]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='02 February 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1265139295' post='2153667']
That is the problem with people these days. (Not your or your post) You shouldn't have "Friends and best friends" in terms of treaties. Too many people sign too many treaties and begin choosing 'who is the better friend', which really makes them useless.
[/quote]

That's kind of the trick though. Folks get to know each other and decide their cool and sign a MDAP. That ain't right. When you sign something like that, the folks your signing it with had better be on that level of best butt buds. Folks just don't do that so much. The other thing is, when you sign a treaty with somebody, you're not only tying yourselves toghether, but you have to look at what it's gonna do to your friends and the other guys friends.

THIS is the direct consequence of that tangled up monstrosity we call the treaty web. I can only hope enough folks in high places realize this and kill it with fire.

[Ying Yang Mafia]

[quote name='Bower3aj' date='02 February 2010 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1265135139' post='2153488']
To those complaining about RoK being screwed, I don't see it that way. RoKs allies are fighting NpOs allies. NpO has a right and an obligation to defend her allies here.
[/quote]

Funny, I must have missed NpO's declaration on TOP and IRON.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Penguin' date='02 February 2010 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1265135770' post='2153509']

We're not particularly upset at anyone on the other side, we simply have an ally left in the conflict who looks like they could use us a bit more than most and we feel largely responsible for that.
[/quote]

Will you defend MK if they ask?

[King DrunkWino]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='02 February 2010 - 02:48 PM' timestamp='1265140086' post='2153686']
Will you defend MK if they ask?
[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a mutual defense clause that neither side has to ASK for assistance in a war because the other party said in writing that they automatically extend assistance?

/and I don't give a frackin' !@#$ on the [i]de facto[/i] state of Planet Bob and how treaties are interpreted lawyer style, so save that load of frackin' garbage.

[King Srqt]

[quote name='Penguin' date='02 February 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1265139571' post='2153675']
If you fight for something knowing that it will complicate things and things get complicated (as should have been expected), I doubt you'd think it right to get out of it and leave allies behind. If you start a war then you are responsible to see it through, plain and simple. If you are unwilling to deal with the consequences of complications then keep your head down and your beak shut.

You are switching outplayed with played and opportunity with opportunist in such a way that each word's meaning shifts from a positive to a negative connotation. Obviously we wouldn't be facing a greater force if we weren't [i]outplayed[/i]. Obviously when the [i]opportunity[/i] arises to win a war and you take it you need not be faulted for it. Neither of the comments were meant as the slights, whines, or attempts to pass blame that you seem to read in them.

Further, if all it takes is for a Polar to admit to the mistakes that led us here, then I've already admitted it twice. This current war is a byproduct of Polaris complicating the treaty web and creating an opening that brought about the TOP declaration. It was a delicate balance that we disturbed and it wouldn't feel right to watch our ally in NSO face the more severe consequences of our actions without us. You probably won't believe me, but it'd be the same if it was any of our other allies that got themselves stuck and outmatched in a war that [i]we[/i] brought them into in the first place.
[/quote]
Don't get me wrong I have a lot of respect for NpO and Grub has actually been one of my favorite members of your alliance since even before his rise to emperor when we had a rather nice conversation and I realized he had much the same attitude toward the politics of this world as myself.

If he does mean outplayed in terms of being put into this situation of being outnumbered I still disagree I don't think anyone's actions but his own put you here and I do not think many of the people on the other side of the conflict have any real desire to see Polar burn. If that is how he meant it then it is certainly not the disingenuous sentiment I interpreted it to be but I do feel it is equally wrong.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='King DrunkWino' date='02 February 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1265140340' post='2153694']
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a mutual defense clause that neither side has to ASK for assistance in a war because the other party said in writing that they automatically extend assistance?

/and I don't give a frackin' !@#$ on the [i]de facto[/i] state of Planet Bob and how treaties are interpreted lawyer style, so save that load of frackin' garbage.
[/quote]

You're acting as if I do.

But yes technically in their treaty one side has to ask for help before it's given, much like in STA's treaty I assume. Seeing anyone e-lawyer their way out of helping is disgusting.

[Penkala]

[quote name='King DrunkWino' date='02 February 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1265136485' post='2153528']
This I agree with. We know Polar puts the highest value on the NSO. It's not a bad thing, everyone has friends after all, but everyone also has best friends that they would go to bat for against anything. It's not some tragic flaw and it's not everyone else being opportunistic. Playing that card, did you really have to throw that down on the table? Going to war to back your best friends is cool, dropping a blame card on everyone else isn't so cool.
[/quote]

So much value on NSO, in fact, that they're not only willing to support them after they entered in a gray ground of an MDP (attacking in "defense" of an ally who acted aggressively) but leave their ally who was pre-emptively attacked to burn.

I just don't get it.

[King DrunkWino]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='02 February 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1265140574' post='2153704']
You're acting as if I do.

But yes technically in their treaty one side has to ask for help before it's given, much like in STA's treaty I assume. Seeing anyone e-lawyer their way out of helping is disgusting.
[/quote]

Heh, I snuck that little censored tirade to try and skip the e-lawyer mumbo jumbo that's sure to pop up.

We're on the same point, but I don't think there are any technicalities involved. If you say "I got your back, period," then you're kinda honor-bound to follow through on that. And no, it doesn't have to be direct military assistance, there are things like diplomacy and aid rebuilding packages after all.

But you have to do something, otherwise don't tell me jack frackin' !@#$ about how you drip honor from your pores.

Edit to add moar:
[quote name='Penkala' date='02 February 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1265140598' post='2153706']
So much value on NSO, in fact, that they're not only willing to support them after they entered in a gray ground of an MDP (attacking in "defense" of an ally who acted aggressively) but leave their ally who was pre-emptively attacked to burn.

I just don't get it.
[/quote]

What's to get. You're CSN and I know you were RIA. That's a pair of SF alliances. Riddle me this, if any one of those alliances got in deep doo-doo, wouldn't ya think every other SF alliance would be going full out, other treaties be damned if necessary?

Edited February 2, 2010 by King DrunkWino

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Penkala' date='02 February 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1265140598' post='2153706']
So much value on NSO, in fact, that they're not only willing to support them after they entered in a gray ground of an MDP (attacking in "defense" of an ally who acted aggressively) but leave their ally who was pre-emptively attacked to burn.

I just don't get it.
[/quote]
I disagree.

I don't think this has anything to do with Polar placing one ally above another. If RoK had come to the defense of Polar in another situation and that offending alliance had been an ally of NSO I would not be crying to Polar about honoring their treaty and supporting RoK. The same for MK or anyone else.

I personally believe the lack of !@#$%*ing and moaning from the NSO side of this, and the abundant amount from the other side, has more to do with this that any favoritism.

You people seem to forget that NSO was downgraded by Polar not so long ago. If we were of equal value to these others that are complaining then that most likely wouldn't have happened. I know for a fact that until these most recent events Polar placed a great deal of value in their relationship with RoK. Unfortunately wars sometimes don't go as planned. One of the hazards of having so many treaties.

When the war is over perhaps some of those !@#$ting on Grub and Polar about standing up for a small alliance that is outnumbered instead of joining in a collosal gangbang can reflect on these events with a bit more level headedness and re-address the situation appropriately.

[King DrunkWino]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='02 February 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1265140980' post='2153711']
I disagree.

I don't think this has anything to do with Polar placing one ally above another. If RoK had come to the defense of Polar in another situation and that offending alliance had been an ally of NSO I would not be crying to Polar about honoring their treaty and supporting RoK. The same for MK or anyone else.

I personally believe the lack of !@#$%*ing and moaning from the NSO side of this, and the abundant amount from the other side, has more to do with this that any favoritism.

You people seem to forget that NSO was downgraded by Polar not so long ago. If we were of equal value to these others that are complaining then that most likely wouldn't have happened. I know for a fact that until these most recent events Polar placed a great deal of value in their relationship with RoK. Unfortunately wars sometimes don't go as planned. One of the hazards of having so many treaties.

When the war is over perhaps some of those !@#$ting on Grub and Polar about standing up for a small alliance that is outnumbered instead of joining in a collosal gangbang can reflect on these events with a bit more level headedness and re-address the situation appropriately.
[/quote]

Ivan, you are one of my favorite leaders mainly because you typically skip the BS. In this case, though, I think you underestimate the value of the friendship between the Sith and Polar. The proof is in the now. Polar got backed into a corner and felt she had to chose. On one side was a friend of a close friend and on the other was another friend. Polar knew taking one side wouldn't exactly help the relationship with the other. Still, she made the tough choice and chose. Personally, I find no fault in that, and me being a pristine Jedi Master and you being a fitly Sith Lord should say something.

Polar felt she had to get involved and had to make a tough choice. There was no right or wrong choice, no black, white or even gray area. There was just a choice to make and she made it.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='King DrunkWino' date='02 February 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1265141387' post='2153718']
Ivan, you are one of my favorite leaders mainly because you typically skip the BS. In this case, though, I think you underestimate the value of the friendship between the Sith and Polar. The proof is in the now. Polar got backed into a corner and felt she had to chose. On one side was a friend of a close friend and on the other was another friend. Polar knew taking one side wouldn't exactly help the relationship with the other. Still, she made the tough choice and chose. Personally, I find no fault in that, and me being a pristine Jedi Master and you being a fitly Sith Lord should say something.

Polar felt she had to get involved and had to make a tough choice. There was no right or wrong choice, no black, white or even gray area. There was just a choice to make and she made it.
[/quote]

I disagree, there was a gray area to choose in this particular situation. They could have contacted GOD before attacking them, instead of attacking GOD whom was helping NSO get peace. FARK was the one holding up peace, and NpO knows this, yet they attack GOD. That's possibly one of the worst ways to handle this situation.