In Defense of Grub: Why TOP should not be upset.

[lanceman1972]

[quote name='Kijuna69' date='06 February 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1265501154' post='2165416']
Further proof that Grub is solidly on TOP's side. Lets see...

-He consented to a plan to hit CnG.

-In the eve of a painful wave of nuclear war, he declares war against MK's coalition and diverts dozens of alliances, including some that would have been very helpful against TOP (Like VE with their big nations) away from the TOP/CnG front.

-He has one nation fill one slot on one TOP nation.

I know Grub's words must have hurt, but I have no idea how this equals a betrayal of TOP and support of MK...
[/quote]


Whether its one nation or 100 declared on, they still went to war against TOP. Its not less important because they only declared on one nation. How many alliances would let another alliance attack "only" one member in good standing and let it go?

[Baldr]

In defense of Grub, lots of people have gone rogue.

He's just done it in an epic manner.

[Haflinger]

I find myself vaguely horrified by agreeing with Bob Sanders.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Bob Sanders' date='06 February 2010 - 06:09 PM' timestamp='1265501398' post='2165429']
Incorrect, there is no legitimate defense of Grub or Crymson. This war was a black hole of stupid at the very top of the two biggest alliances in the coalition. Grub is and will always be at fault for leaving the open-ended white peace offer on the table.
[/quote]

well i am not entirely sure an open-ended white peace offer is a bad thing... not sure why it would ever be considered a bad thing? not to mention, there was one term attached to it so not exactly a white peace.

anyways, since this open-ended white peace was quite well known amongst everyone involved, i would say the fault lies with TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN for knowing that there is an open-ended peace out there and then preemptively striking. i would think they would have thought that "gee, there is an open-ended peace on the table between Polaris and \m/, maybe we should rethink preemptively striking and essentially guaranteeing that that peace is taken and thus, effectively pushing Polaris out of the picture."

if they did not think about that, well that is just outright stupid. plus i would think that part of the reason for the open-ended offer of peace was cuz Grub had already pissed RoK off with hitting \m/ and thus to attempt to minimize the damage, ensuring that peace can be gained quite easily (yes that one term was not well liked by \m/) was at least something for RoK. if peace would have been more difficult then RoK may have become even more pissed at Polaris than they already were.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='07 February 2010 - 07:02 AM' timestamp='1265526160' post='2166451']
well i am not entirely sure an open-ended white peace offer is a bad thing... not sure why it would ever be considered a bad thing? not to mention, there was one term attached to it so not exactly a white peace.

anyways, since this open-ended white peace was quite well known amongst everyone involved, i would say the fault lies with TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN for knowing that there is an open-ended peace out there and then preemptively striking. i would think they would have thought that "gee, there is an open-ended peace on the table between Polaris and \m/, maybe we should rethink preemptively striking and essentially guaranteeing that that peace is taken and thus, effectively pushing Polaris out of the picture."

if they did not think about that, well that is just outright stupid. plus i would think that part of the reason for the open-ended offer of peace was cuz Grub had already pissed RoK off with hitting \m/ and thus to attempt to minimize the damage, ensuring that peace can be gained quite easily (yes that one term was not well liked by \m/) was at least something for RoK. if peace would have been more difficult then RoK may have become even more pissed at Polaris than they already were.
[/quote]

Yes, we all should have just waited around for weeks and never attacked because open-ended white peace was on the table.

[DaJoW]

Or maybe it's that we want to honour it fully but currently can't because we're already kind of busy. So why the timing if we can't honour it fully right away? Because MK and GR requested us to honour it so we are, even though we are incapable of helping in a meaningful way. It does not mean we've abandoned them. Someone asked if 1 war would have been okay for Continuum alliances if one of theirs had been hit, but that's a completely different scenario: The other alliances would not have been at war with a bunch of other people when that happened. More appropriate would be to ask if it would have been okay for a WUT alliance to only declare one war on any given League alliance and it still "counting". Still not perfect but more fitting as the other alliances would also have had stuff to do.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Baldr' date='07 February 2010 - 10:41 AM' timestamp='1265503273' post='2165542']
In defense of Grub, lots of people have gone rogue.

He's just done it in an epic manner.
[/quote]
Grub is no longer emperor as far as I know.

[harmoxe]

Damn you Polaris, trying to do the right thing by everyone and making a complete `pigs ear' of it; that's our (TOP's) thing. If we weren't already at war, we'd be serving you with copyright violation.

Oh well, see you on the battle field. *Goes back to fighting.

[Weirdgus]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='07 February 2010 - 01:17 PM' timestamp='1265541473' post='2166686']
Grub is no longer emperor as far as I know.
[/quote]

Is this just a rumor, or ?

[Saber]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='07 February 2010 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1265541473' post='2166686']
Grub is no longer emperor as far as I know.
[/quote]
I asked in #Polaris yesterday and Pezstar told me Grub will stay emperor till war ends. So unless there are new developments and Polaris members state otherwise I'll assume Grub is still emperor of NpO.

[Branimir]

How does one defend assassination of logic and reason,...hmm tough one.

I hope its clear to everybody that you can not defend allies on both sides of an ad hoc coalitions war, by means of a war. If you do this, you are harming all of your allies as it is in the interest of MK that GOD does well in the war, as its in the interest of NSO that their war allies TOP and also IRON do well as well. I suppose no need to mention the black hole of logic which is opened when alliance accepts military support of other alliance and agrees to its plan of said support only to later on declare on them for exactly that military support it received and agreed upon.

Yeah,...ok. No, valid defense is not-- they only declare one nation on nation war-- that actually makes it even more WTF moment as, why then declare in the first place and commit this monumental act of stupidity and trampling of your words? Your nations are already in anarchy and you already deployed on one side. In an ad hoc coalitions war, one can not fight for both sides. Not to mention, what can possibly go in the heads of your allies from the other side to ask you for military support in such a deployed position,...asking you to do a salto mortale and you accept smilingly?

This moment and war truly will be remembered for all times, thank you everybody for making it possible

[President Obama]

I don't know if you can fault Polar for the amount of wars declared. They seem to be quite busy at the moment with VE/GOD/others they are at war with.

[MadScotII]

[quote name='Vladimir' date='06 February 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1265497775' post='2165299']
Crymson's logs claim to prove that he did: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80162&view=findpost&p=2163314

If we accept this, and if Grub was keeping to the letter of the MK treaty, then he also notified them of the TOP/IRON attack under [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=70180&hl=6461&st=0]Article VI[/url].
[/quote]

Which if you believe the words coming from MK and ODN at least we know Grub didn't. As many people claim this was an attack out of the blue, but if Grub was sticking by the treaty than MK would have known asap that the war was coming...

It is the membership of Polar I feel for - and her other allies on "this" side of the war. As it would be in many an alliances right to DoW on Polar in defence of TOP, which could leave other alliances on "this" side in the WTF position of possibly fighting on both sides.

I have to hand it to Grub though, you have certainly made sure your name goes down in history...

[Kijuna69]

[quote name='MadScotsman' date='07 February 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1265569084' post='2167094']

It is the membership of Polar I feel for - and her other allies on "this" side of the war. As it would be in many an alliances right to DoW on Polar in defence of TOP, which could leave other alliances on "this" side in the WTF position of possibly fighting on both sides.
[/quote]
Thankfully, for the sake of TOP's coalition, this is not a real DoW. The only people in combat with Polaris are folks from the MK side. Polar is doing a lot for your side, are you really that upset and feeling that betrayed over an OWF thread and one declaration? When they're in hundreds of wars for you?

MK is the one that should be upset, if anyone. They'll probably lose a few million extra NS due to Polar's DOW on GOD whereas Polar saved TOP/IRON and company from a totally lopsided stomping.

I'm sure MK would rather have a broken promise from Grub in exchange for real help from Polar in the war, or heck, even their neutrality. I understand TOP's anger but they need to look at reality and get over it, there is no betrayal.

[MadScotII]

NpO didn't come in to save TOP from GOD. They came in to sort out the mess they left NSO in. They signed a peace treaty without a backwards glance at the NSO before realising they had ****ed up.

Edited February 7, 2010 by MadScotsman

[Saber]

[quote name='Branimir' date='07 February 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1265566256' post='2167026']
How does one defend assassination of logic and reason,...hmm tough one.

I hope its clear to everybody that you can not defend allies on both sides of an ad hoc coalitions war, by means of a war. If you do this, you are harming all of your allies as it is in the interest of MK that GOD does well in the war, as its in the interest of NSO that their war allies TOP and also IRON do well as well. I suppose no need to mention the black hole of logic which is opened when alliance accepts military support of other alliance and agrees to its plan of said support only to later on declare on them for exactly that military support it received and agreed upon.

Yeah,...ok. No, valid defense is not-- they only declare one nation on nation war-- that actually makes it even more WTF moment as, why then declare in the first place and commit this monumental act of stupidity and trampling of your words? Your nations are already in anarchy and you already deployed on one side. In an ad hoc coalitions war, one can not fight for both sides. Not to mention, what can possibly go in the heads of your allies from the other side to ask you for military support in such a deployed position,...asking you to do a salto mortale and you accept smilingly?

This moment and war truly will be remembered for all times, thank you everybody for making it possible
[/quote]
I really am struggling to find a plausible explanation for all Grub's actions in this war. Crymson's yes, Archon's yes, Ivan's yes, but Grubs, hell no. It really warrants an scholarly investigation of sorts.

[Saber]

[quote name='Kijuna69' date='07 February 2010 - 08:12 PM' timestamp='1265569972' post='2167117']
Thankfully, for the sake of TOP's coalition, this is not a real DoW. The only people in combat with Polaris are folks from the MK side. Polar is doing a lot for your side, are you really that upset and feeling that betrayed over an OWF thread and one declaration? When they're in hundreds of wars for you?

MK is the one that should be upset, if anyone. They'll probably lose a few million extra NS due to Polar's DOW on GOD whereas Polar saved TOP/IRON and company from a totally lopsided stomping.

I'm sure MK would rather have a broken promise from Grub in exchange for real help from Polar in the war, or heck, even their neutrality. I understand TOP's anger but they need to look at reality and get over it, there is no betrayal.
[/quote]
Seriously we are not angry. We are just WTFing. I mean there are 18-19 alliances fighting TOP, NpO after 2 weeks of being nuked to kingdom come doesn't bring that much to the table. Especially not in this way as I seriously doubt that their members are going to be crazy to fight against their own side.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Saber

[Moridin]

[quote name='Saber' date='07 February 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1265597805' post='2167894']
I really am struggling to find a plausible explanation for all Grub's actions in this war. Crymson's yes, Archon's yes, Ivan's yes, but Grubs, hell no. It really warrants an scholarly investigation of sorts.
[/quote]

The best explanation is that there is no explanation. There is no method to the madness.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Saber' date='07 February 2010 - 08:56 PM' timestamp='1265597805' post='2167894']
I really am struggling to find a plausible explanation for all Grub's actions in this war. Crymson's yes, Archon's yes, Ivan's yes, but Grubs, hell no. It really warrants an scholarly investigation of sorts.
[/quote]

Grub went rogue. Much like an individual nation going "nuke rogue" when quitting the game, Grub is quitting as emperor, and he went rogue.

That's how it looks to me. Epic rogueness.