Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[raasaa]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='23 February 2010 - 01:22 PM' timestamp='1266949374' post='2199239']
I can guarantee that wars would happen a lot more often and for more legitimate reasons "I don't like you" DoW by IRON to this day was one of the best CB's in the game imo. Instead of trying to hide behind some BS Casus Belli they came right out and stated their intent and for what purpose. I'd there hasn't been a decent CB produced since the days of GWI. It is for that reasons that I believe war should be a fun thing (we all seem to like it regardless of what side you're on) and why reps are a modality of the past.
[/quote]
So you are saying, that if Nueva Vida and allies get bored, we can run around attacking anyone and everyone we want to, using the CB, best one in your opinion, "I dont like you".....

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='23 February 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1266951536' post='2199301']
Liquid Mercury, myself, and various others all discussed this scenario ad naeuseam. The fact of the matter was that Fark was prepared to enter in on IRON, and it was expected that MHA/Gramlins might very well follow them in, thereby bogging down IRON and allowing C&G to run rampant without a counter and come over the top. Our reasoning was rationale and well thought out, the \m/ peace was not taken into account, indeed nobody thought of it, not even Moridin or other Polar representatives, the assumption was that since the front had escalated that that peace was no longer a viable option.
[/quote]

wait, didn't MHA/Gre hit IRON anyways? so it seems your little plan did not work at all. and everything that ya'll attempted to avoid happened anyways and it was even worse since your forced \m/ to accept the peace offer in order to clear up many of the alliances that were currently tied up on ya'lls side.

if ya'll had read the peace (and i won't say anything on the part of Polars who either knew or should have known better) but the peace was always available for the taking. Grub stated that from day one. if Grub stated it, there is no "oh it escalated and thus no longer valid" until Grub himself states that statement. thus, since Grub never detracted the peace offer, it was always valid. anyone (and i mean anyone) who thought differently was either lying or ignorant of what it means to be Polar Emperor.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Italgria' date='23 February 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1266951603' post='2199305']
I actually was at \m/ during that time and there was no way to evade the reps that NpO forced on \m/ at that time other than to disband.

Kinda funny that I always end up in the alliances that go harakiri
[/quote]

i was in Polaris at the time. fighting would have been a good way to evade the terms. disbandment was another. but do not attempt to state that Polaris forced you since it is impossible to force anything in CN. FAN, GATO, and Legion all survived worse stuff. \m/ just seriously lacked real leadership at the time (due to that incident) and had a bunch of bullies and thugs that were used to being on the winning side of curbstomps, not the losing side. Polaris's terms were only a small reason why \m/ disbandment, but not the main nor only as ya'll keep trying to state. your leadership and the regular \m/embers are the true reason for the disbandment as no one could have made you disband if you actually had the heart to stay with your alliance. none of you really did have that heart thus, \m/ disappeared and we got stuck with a bunch of crybabies for 2+ years.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1266951828' post='2199308']
wait, didn't MHA/Gre hit IRON anyways? so it seems your little plan did not work at all. and everything that ya'll attempted to avoid happened anyways and it was even worse since your forced \m/ to accept the peace offer in order to clear up many of the alliances that were currently tied up on ya'lls side.

if ya'll had read the peace (and i won't say anything on the part of Polars who either knew or should have known better) but the peace was always available for the taking. Grub stated that from day one. if Grub stated it, there is no "oh it escalated and thus no longer valid" until Grub himself states that statement. thus, since Grub never detracted the peace offer, it was always valid. anyone (and i mean anyone) who thought differently was either lying or ignorant of what it means to be Polar Emperor.
[/quote]

Yes, that is most definitely true, the only reason why that happened was because of the initial peace out and subsequent Polar craziness. If the war had proceeded as it had been with the current sides then those hits on IRON would have likely been avoided and TOP/IRON would have been able to disable C&G while CDT/PEACE took out Superfriends.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='23 February 2010 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1266952322' post='2199320']
Yes, that is most definitely true, the only reason why that happened was because of the initial peace out and subsequent Polar craziness. If the war had proceeded as it had been with the current sides then those hits on IRON would have likely been avoided and TOP/IRON would have been able to disable C&G while CDT/PEACE took out Superfriends.
[/quote]

again, the war would never have proceeded in that fashion. ever. peace was always there for \m/ to take and the fact that this was dismissed is the biggest mistake ya'll made. so you can do all the what ifs you want, but it won't matter as in terms of reality, those what ifs don't matter. peace was always there for \m/ to take and that should have been accounted for but wasn't.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1266951513' post='2199300']
so wait, it was "socially acceptable" then and not now? talk about !@#$%^&* and redefining !@#$. just because TOP and co found it acceptable does not mean that the rest of us did. so essentially, surrender terms are easily redefinable now? i thought people defending TOP/IRON (on the boards) did not want that to occur, because that means that draconian [i]is[/i] a redefinable term and can then have its definition changed to meet whatever needed.

so no, there is no !@#$@#$ "socially acceptable" anything. it is either something set in stone, or don't even attempt to bring it up. if what TOP and co pulled on Polaris, does not mean exactly what you stated for CnG, then it does not mean that for CnG either. there is no stupid bs definition switching. it either means the same thing or it does not mean what you posted at all.

you are better than that Ejay.

as for TOP moving away from NPO, somehwat. but it is just as easy to state they are NPO-like given people trying to associate CnG (many of whom have never been associated in any way but enemy format to NPO) as being NPO-like, they are just plain blind to what TOP has done in the past and just did currently.

so you are stating that many of us are biased and refuse to listen to anything. look at yourself Ejay. look at what you just posted here and tell me you are in no way biased and refusing to listen to anything. i know and like TOP personally. hell i am probably one of the few outside TOP that genuinely likes and gets along wit Saber (just like i did with Reyne while she was in OG). but i can attempt to view their actions objectively but will admit i am biased due to my associations with CnG.

you and this whole redefining your own terms to fit whatever bias you want, is just well... not like you.
[/quote]
If you wish to bring forth the past, lets bring the past up of Polaris and everyone else involved. Now, should we try forcing Polaris to pay terrible reps because of the hideous crimes they have supported or done so themselves in the past? Whether you agree or not, essentially you are supporting the demise in Polaris if we are to always judge on the past and actions in the past. EZI is a social taboo, but it wasn't in the older days; so should I kill them for it? Wouldn't I just be adding to the cycle of hatred and unethical profoundness? You bring up TOPs past, but fail to bring up others, and more importantly, their more recent past in which they have given white peace and :HAVE: adapted, or even shaped, the 'new world'. Should we consider GOD a terrible alliance for sanctioning someone they tech raided? No, not at all, because it was acceptable then and no longer is now. Anyone can look in the past and laugh as silly actions or ideas because of evolution in terms of how we progress as a society and in how we progress in ourselves. Lets look at funny scientific explanations, or theories, and lets laugh at the way people were punished in the old days. We can look at them as morally unjust, but back then, we were different as a society and dictated by different terms or standards.

This isn't '!@#$%^&*' my friend, but rather understanding. You dwell too much on the past and what's worse is you give a vivid image of TOP and purposely isolated the things which, in your terms, 'have done right.' If someone punches me in the nose, are they always forever bad? If someone picks on me in sixth grade, are they always a bully? No. People change. Societies change. But one thing that doesn't is dwelling on the past and hatred for it. Imagine if African Mericans kept the burden of what Southern white men did in the old days, or even to their ancestors? (In my country, in Bob, we had slavery issues in a particular nation called "Merica") It took a leader to end that hatred, to end the past and create a future. That is what we need, we need that leader, but unfortunately, no one will ever amount to that greatness. Furthermore, TOP's history doesn't affect CnG, so the act of revenge is moot.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 12:48 PM' timestamp='1266950903' post='2199280']
you do realize that many of the alliances that proliferate from CnG/SF were already engaged on your side of the war don't you? Polaris was one of the main alliances tied to both CnG/SF that dragged many of those proliferations away from CnG/SF's side. so TOP/IRON had the best chance by entering via NSO since many alliances tied into CnG/SF were already fighting on either side. in fact, iirc there were many more alliances on Polaris's side waiting to go in that had yet to go in.

you screwed that up by preemptively striking. that big shiny Peace between \m/ and Polaris was always on the table. that is the biggest thing you missed. you should have taken that into account since \m/ is tied to RoK and thus SF, it would have been easy for CnG/SF to push \m/ to finally take peace in order to clear up a massive amount of alliances formerly tied up on [i]your[/i] side of the war. had you entered via NSO, those alliances would never have left and you would have been in a far better situation. but instead you want to blame Polaris for accepting a peace that had [b]always[/b] been on the table and you [b]failed[/b] to take into account. so there is only 2 ways this would have played out. the first is the current way. the second is you doing the smart thing and entering via NSO/IRON.

since Peace was ALWAYS on the table, ready to be accepted by Polaris, that should have been the first and foremost in your mind. not the, "zomg Polaris condones a preemptive strike!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yippie lets go kill us some CnG [insert slathering of the mouth]" (yes, being somewhat sarcastic with the slathering bit). so, there was never a chance that Polaris was going to stay on your side. just never. and seriously, for as smart as many of ya'll in TOP are, the fact that you missed the huge neon !@#$@#$ sign that was the peace offer by Polaris to \m/ is just sad and shows just how focused you were on hitting CnG over anything else. that more than anything just proves to me that what is posted in the DoW as "much of [y]our reason" is utterly true.
[/quote]

Very few of the alliances that proliferate out of SF/CnG were engaged. At the time, PC/\m/ and GOONS as well as FOK. That's 4 alliances, 3 of which were relatively small (no offense intended) in terms of nation count and NS in comparison to those they were fighting NpO. 4 alliances out of 60+ is not a lot, not a majority, not even a minority (which I term anything in the 20-49% range).

Missed the peace? I really didn't think it would even be remotely an issue. If it were an issue, I had assume there would be a communication between the two fronts i.e. polaris contacting us before it was go-time which was well known (hell I think go-time was even known by the other side or at least some parties). The miscommunication was the issue, not necessarily that there was a peace offer on the table. It was a great move whoever thought it up, it was an utter failure on us as a collective whole (polaris/those who hit CnG) in terms of the miscommunication. I do not deny that in the least. As I still do take Polaris (not necessarily Grub, but polaris) at their word (call me naive or ignorant) I truly do believe that error was indeed a miscommunication and nothing more, agreeably the biggest fubar of a miscommunication Bob has ever seen. The blunder of trusting polaris can be laid directly at my feet. For months I have been stating how well Polaris has done and how they've really come a long way since. I'd even been personally hoping for a treaty or at least increased relations with them. People trusted me to make that call and I in turn trusted Grub. Though I still believe Grub to be an admirable person in an OOC sense, I feel shamed that misplaced my trust that ultimately put my alliance at risk. If I told you Doch, in regards to a war planning issue that "it was taken care of" or "don't worry about that tidbit, I was assured it would not be an issue" you would take my word for it I assume. You know me to be (I hope) a man of my word and someone who takes war-planning seriously. TOP knows this as well, as does all on our side. I told them it was a non-factor because Grub had told me it was a non-factor as well as told our government. I vouched for him, albeit hind-sight would say that was the wrong move and "our side" trusted me. So while you say plenty of TOPpers are smart people and should of known better, I will say that many did "know better" and many did express many reservations, however they went on my word that it was "taken care of." It may have been the biggest err in judgement the cyberverse has seen.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1266951828' post='2199308']
wait, didn't MHA/Gre hit IRON anyways? so it seems your little plan did not work at all. and everything that ya'll attempted to avoid happened anyways and it was even worse since your forced \m/ to accept the peace offer in order to clear up many of the alliances that were currently tied up on ya'lls side.
[/quote]

Yes MHA/Gre hit IRON. That is a whole other issue that I'd be glad to discuss with you Doch, via IRC as I will not bring that up on here.

EDIT: added last quote line in

Edited February 23, 2010 by LiquidMercury

[Timeline]

more and more on reps LOL

the loser pays what ever the winner wants or they keep fighting, end of story.

if you do not like it then talk to your Gov because they fight for the same reason

[Affluenza]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='23 February 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1266950924' post='2199281']
The past is the past Doch, we all did things which were 'socially acceptable' in those days.
[/quote]

What? how does one define "socially acceptable"?

EZ/PZI was never socially acceptable...people just turned a blind eye because the people doing it were bigger and connected enough that no one ever dared do or say something about it. That is self-preservation not social acceptance. Big difference.

Those involved in this conflict will not makes decisions based on what is socially acceptable but what is acceptable for themselves and their friends.

I would be all for white peace but the fact is that if an alliance decides to engage in aggressive wars they do not deserve white peace. TOP's DOW pretty much stated they attacked to bloody C&G.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='23 February 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1266953014' post='2199335']
If you wish to bring forth the past, lets bring the past up of Polaris and everyone else involved. Now, should we try forcing Polaris to pay terrible reps because of the hideous crimes they have supported or done so themselves in the past? Whether you agree or not, essentially you are supporting the demise in Polaris if we are to always judge on the past and actions which we have done in the past. EZI is a social taboo, but it wasn't in the older days; so should I kill them for it? Wouldn't I just be adding to the cycle of hatred and unethical profoundness? You bring up TOPs past, but fail to bring up others, and more importantly, their more recent past in which they have given white peace and :HAVE: adapted, or even shaped, the 'new world'. Should we consider GOD a terrible alliance for sanctioning someone they tech raided? No, not at all, because it was acceptable then and no longer is now. Anyone can look in the past and laugh as silly actions or ideas because of evolution in terms of how we progress as a society and in how we progress in ourselves. Lets look at funny scientific explanations, or theories, and lets laugh at the way people were punished in the old days. We can look at them as morally unjust, but back then, we were different as a society and dictated by different terms or standards.[/quote]

actually, i have always stood by the stance that Polaris got what it deserved in the SPW. Polaris did some jacked up things and got destroyed due to them. never once have i said otherwise. i said this while i was in Gremlins just after the SPW finished and have continued to say the same since. i simply stated what i said because TOP has done some rather unsavory things in the past and you are stating that CnG could do something akin to disbanding them (forcing them to pay unreasonable reps). you also stated "Somewhere along the lines someone needs to completely and utterly destroy the cycle". why could it not have been the SPW this was done? why should it occur now? just because you like TOP?

as for GOD- i care very little about them or what happens to them. my like/dislike of GOD fluctuates pretty much but overall, i care very little what happens to them at all. i may argue for or against them depending on the situation but overall, they register very little with me.

this whole, "it was acceptable back then" bs is ridiculous. extortionist reps have never been acceptable by everyone in CN. it was only acceptable to Initiative/Q/1V mostly and was used by their allies at the time. those who fought against those parties i sure as hell would bet did not like the unreasonable reps. so to state it was "acceptable" is ridiculous as it was only acceptable by a minority within CN. thus, that whole argument fails based on the fact that a minority=/=CN.

[quote]This isn't '!@#$%^&*' my friend, but rather understanding. You dwell too much on the past and what's worse is you give a vivid image of TOP and purposely isolated the things which, in your terms, 'have done right.' If someone punches me in the nose, are they always forever bad? If someone picks on me in sixth grade, are they always a bully? No. People change. Societies change. But one thing that doesn't is dwelling on the past and hatred for it. Imagine if African Mericans kept the burden of what Southern white men did in the old days, or even to their ancestors? (In my country, in Bob, we had slavery issues in a particular nation called "Merica") It took a leader to end that hatred, to end the past and create a future. That is what we need, we need that leader, but unfortunately, no one will ever amount to that greatness. Furthermore, TOP's history doesn't affect CnG, so the act of revenge is moot.
[/quote]

no it is !@#$%^&*, complete and utter. i dwell on the past because TOP has hit alliances for just that. remembering an alliances past is always a good thing since you can see whether or not they have changed. if they continue to do the same bs they did in the past, then they have not. if they were honorable* in the past and that trend continues, then you can see that. if they were honorable in the past and are now on a trend that leads them to conduct dishonorable !@#$, you can see that. if they did dishonorable crap in the past and now conduct themselves honorably now then that can also be seen. so the past is quite a font of information and should be tapped into to allow yourself to see the mindset of your enemy or friend.

and TOP's history sure does affect CnG because this preemptive attack based on the reason of "threat to our security" is not the first time they have pulled this off. if it was the first time, i could see some lenience being demanded but it is not. they have done it in the past, which means that they have the mindset that it is okay to do this.

your bully analogy only works if the bully stops bullying everyone. if he stops bullying you and moves onto another target, then he is still a bully. this is essentially what TOP did. they moved on from Polaris and targeted CnG. so, again, the past is an important thing.

you are completely biased in your assessment, much like Bob Janova is. frankly, i don't like MK that much or most of the alliances in CnG (this should be relatively well-known to anyone who reads the OWF) and in fact, i like TOP more than i do CnG (as a whole, i do love GR). but, their past is their past and it gives clear indications as to the mindset of those within TOP.

[size="1"]*honorably as in honoring treaties, white peace or minimal terms (such as staying neutral for the rest of the war), using diplomacy instead of war whenever possible, and things like that. dishonorably would of course be using draconian terms, not honoring treaties, warring instead of using diplomacy and things like that.[/size]

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='23 February 2010 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1266953759' post='2199348']
Very few of the alliances that proliferate out of SF/CnG were engaged. At the time, PC/\m/ and GOONS as well as FOK. That's 4 alliances, 3 of which were relatively small (no offense intended) in terms of nation count and NS in comparison to those they were fighting NpO. 4 alliances out of 60+ is not a lot, not a majority, not even a minority (which I term anything in the 20-49% range).[/quote]

wait what? you missed Umbrella, STA, Polaris, Nueva Vida, Genesis, and many others who were involved in the war one way or another. not to mention SF themselves. so actually most of CnG's allies were tied up in the war either on your side or on the other already fighting. do not attempt to state that only a small handful was tied up when that is just blatantly false.

[quote]Missed the peace? [b]I really didn't think[/b] it would even be remotely an issue. If it were an issue, I had assume there would be a communication between the two fronts i.e. polaris contacting us before it was go-time which was well known (hell I think go-time was even known by the other side or at least some parties). The miscommunication was the issue, not necessarily that there was a peace offer on the table. It was a great move whoever thought it up, it was an utter failure on us as a collective whole (polaris/those who hit CnG) in terms of the miscommunication. I do not deny that in the least. As I still do take Polaris (not necessarily Grub, but polaris) at their word (call me naive or ignorant) I truly do believe that error was indeed a miscommunication and nothing more, agreeably the biggest fubar of a miscommunication Bob has ever seen. The blunder of trusting polaris can be laid directly at my feet. For months I have been stating how well Polaris has done and how they've really come a long way since. I'd even been personally hoping for a treaty or at least increased relations with them. People trusted me to make that call and I in turn trusted Grub. Though I still believe Grub to be an admirable person in an OOC sense, I feel shamed that misplaced my trust that ultimately put my alliance at risk. If I told you Doch, in regards to a war planning issue that "it was taken care of" or "don't worry about that tidbit, I was assured it would not be an issue" you would take my word for it I assume. You know me to be (I hope) a man of my word and someone who takes war-planning seriously. TOP knows this as well, as does all on our side. I told them it was a non-factor because Grub had told me it was a non-factor as well as told our government. I vouched for him, albeit hind-sight would say that was the wrong move and "our side" trusted me. So while you say plenty of TOPpers are smart people and should of known better, I will say that many did "know better" and many did express many reservations, however they went on my word that it was "taken care of." It may have been the biggest err in judgement the cyberverse has seen.[/quote]

the bolded is the important section. you didn't think. sorry, you came up with a semi-decent plan but it all hinged on no peace between \m/ and Polaris for some reason. a peace offer that had been on the table since day one and \m/ just had to say yes to since day one. why that did not register as extremely important i do not know. all your reasoning behind this boils down to Polaris did not tell you is just bs since it was known to anyone who has eyes and read the OWF. it was in the DoW of \m/ i believe (or released in a statement shortly thereafter).

and actually LM- if you had told me that the biggest issue of the war plan was not an issue, i would have been "wtf...". so no, i have always questioned my gov on things like that. ask Polaris bout the time TPF declared on NoV for OOC reasons and how much hell i raised when Polar gov told me "i saw the evidence and it is okay". hell Slayer even showed me (as a rank and file) all the evidence he showed Polar gov because i raised that much hell.

so no, i don't take things for granted, nor would i take anyone's word just because. if i was in TOP, i would not have rested until Grub had publicly detracted the peace offer as that would have been the only way that "small" issue would have become moot. so long as that peace offer still stood, it would be a huge and potentially detrimental issue to the attack.

LM- to me, everyone is a person of their word but everyone can make mistakes. there are very few people that i honestly feel are people who would lie through their teeth. but fact is, war is a time when things get iffy and thus, i personally would never accept someone at their word in a back room deal (especially if they were not an ally). something would have to be done in public in some way to ensure they keep their word. i.e. Grub detracting the peace offer would have ensured that the peace would have been a non-issue. nothing else would have sufficed as Grub is a man of honor (despite what some may think now) and thus, since he stated that all \m/ had to do was accept peace and the war was over, when \m/ accepted peace he would not go back on his word.

[quote]Yes MHA/Gre hit IRON. That is a whole other issue that I'd be glad to discuss with you Doch, via IRC as I will not bring that up on here.

EDIT: added last quote line in
[/quote]

alright, don't have time now as i have to get ready to go to school, but maybe tonite. PM me for what time you may be available.

[Bob Janova]

Doch, you're basically posting walls of text that say 'the pre-emptive attack was a mistake and you missed out considering X, Y, Z'. I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

As for the post of mine 3 pages ago that started this diatribe: yes, C&G would then be in anarchy after they countered TOP/IRON, but TSO, TORN and DAWN don't have the top end to be an effective deployment against them. If C&G hadn't managed to press the other side into peace then you'd be seeing now that the strategy wasn't [i]completely[/i] idiotic as it looks now, though it was still a major mistake (bringing unengaged alliances like Harmlins that can do a lot of damage onto the other side).

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 01:52 PM' timestamp='1266954728' post='2199370']
wait what? you missed Umbrella, STA, Polaris, Nueva Vida, Genesis, and many others who were involved in the war one way or another. not to mention SF themselves. so actually most of CnG's allies were tied up in the war either on your side or on the other already fighting. do not attempt to state that only a small handful was tied up when that is just blatantly false.



the bolded is the important section. you didn't think. sorry, you came up with a semi-decent plan but it all hinged on no peace between \m/ and Polaris for some reason. a peace offer that had been on the table since day one and \m/ just had to say yes to since day one. why that did not register as extremely important i do not know. all your reasoning behind this boils down to Polaris did not tell you is just bs since it was known to anyone who has eyes and read the OWF. it was in the DoW of \m/ i believe (or released in a statement shortly thereafter).

and actually LM- if you had told me that the biggest issue of the war plan was not an issue, i would have been "wtf...". so no, i have always questioned my gov on things like that. ask Polaris bout the time TPF declared on NoV for OOC reasons and how much hell i raised when Polar gov told me "i saw the evidence and it is okay". hell Slayer even showed me (as a rank and file) all the evidence he showed Polar gov because i raised that much hell.

so no, i don't take things for granted, nor would i take anyone's word just because. if i was in TOP, i would not have rested until Grub had publicly detracted the peace offer as that would have been the only way that "small" issue would have become moot. so long as that peace offer still stood, it would be a huge and potentially detrimental issue to the attack.

LM- to me, everyone is a person of their word but everyone can make mistakes. there are very few people that i honestly feel are people who would lie through their teeth. but fact is, war is a time when things get iffy and thus, i personally would never accept someone at their word in a back room deal (especially if they were not an ally). something would have to be done in public in some way to ensure they keep their word. i.e. Grub detracting the peace offer would have ensured that the peace would have been a non-issue. nothing else would have sufficed as Grub is a man of honor (despite what some may think now) and thus, since he stated that all \m/ had to do was accept peace and the war was over, when \m/ accepted peace he would not go back on his word.



alright, don't have time now as i have to get ready to go to school, but maybe tonite. PM me for what time you may be available.
[/quote]


I'd still argue that the majority of the total NS surrounding CnG/SF was not engaged. IIRC (and my timeline may be off) at the time of the switcheroo I still counted polaris our side, STA/NV/Genesis/Umb other side but not anywhere close to highly engaged.

The rest of your thoughts are your opinions/views and nothing to really respond to there other then we'll have to agree to disagree about the methods behind the madness.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Affluenza' date='23 February 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1266953889' post='2199352']
What? how does one define "socially acceptable"?

EZ/PZI was never socially acceptable...people just turned a blind eye because the people doing it were bigger and connected enough that no one ever dared do or say something about it. That is self-preservation not social acceptance. Big difference.

Those involved in this conflict will not makes decisions based on what is socially acceptable but what is acceptable for themselves and their friends.

I would be all for white peace but the fact is that if an alliance decides to engage in aggressive wars they do not deserve white peace. TOP's DOW pretty much stated they attacked to bloody C&G.
[/quote]
At one point, more of the majority of CN accepted PZI, and lesser of an extent, EZI, politically. You expressed it brilliantly, people 'turned a blind eye', however because of this, it appeared as if it was more acceptable than what it truly was and yes, it was deemed as socially acceptable. Socially acceptability becomes taboos or something similar to those lines when, as Campbell once stated, "When we quit thinking primarily about ourselves and our own self-preservation,[is when] we undergo a truly heroic transformation of consciousness.". Self-preservation or not, more of the majority was in support, and I emphasize the word "politically." Most turned the blind eye from EZI, not PZI, ESPECIALLY 3.5 years ago.


[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 02:40 PM' timestamp='1266954010' post='2199356']
actually, i have always stood by the stance that Polaris got what it deserved in the SPW. Polaris did some jacked up things and got destroyed due to them. never once have i said otherwise. i said this while i was in Gremlins just after the SPW finished and have continued to say the same since. i simply stated what i said because TOP has done some rather unsavory things in the past and you are stating that CnG could do something akin to disbanding them (forcing them to pay unreasonable reps). you also stated "Somewhere along the lines someone needs to completely and utterly destroy the cycle". why could it not have been the SPW this was done? why should it occur now? just because you like TOP?[/quote]

So because you like Polaris, their actions are forgiven over ONE incident involving SPW? What about their other victims who want revenge for other actions which they themselves never got to 'give'? It is an endless cycle and somewhere sometime someone needs to look at themselves and say "lets end this nonsense."

[quote]
as for GOD- i care very little about them or what happens to them. my like/dislike of GOD fluctuates pretty much but overall, i care very little what happens to them at all. i may argue for or against them depending on the situation but overall, they register very little with me.[/quote]
Your opinion is irrelevant concerning them as a faction, as is mine, but it's the point that is valid. Dwell on the past and you'll never move forward.

[quote]
this whole, "it was acceptable back then" bs is ridiculous. extortionist reps have never been acceptable by everyone in CN. it was only acceptable to Initiative/Q/1V mostly and was used by their allies at the time. those who fought against those parties i sure as hell would bet did not like the unreasonable reps. so to state it was "acceptable" is ridiculous as it was only acceptable by a minority within CN. thus, that whole argument fails based on the fact that a minority=/=CN. [/quote]
I never once mentioned extortionist reps as being an example, that is an obvious dispute which many have understood since long ago. But what are extortionist reps? What are "harsh terms?" One side will always claim merciful while the other claims being a victim,but I never once stated anything pertaining to reps. Furthermore, we'll see whether TOP receives fair terms or not, only time will tell. What do you feel are appropriate terms? What about if they hit 2m ns, what should terms be? I gave my opinion, its your turn.
[/quote]

[quote]
no it is !@#$%^&*, complete and utter. i dwell on the past because TOP has hit alliances for just that. remembering an alliances past is always a good thing since you can see whether or not they have changed. if they continue to do the same bs they did in the past, then they have not. if they were honorable* in the past and that trend continues, then you can see that. if they were honorable in the past and are now on a trend that leads them to conduct dishonorable !@#$, you can see that. if they did dishonorable crap in the past and now conduct themselves honorably now then that can also be seen. so the past is quite a font of information and should be tapped into to allow yourself to see the mindset of your enemy or friend.
[/quote]
Then follow your own advice; compare TOP now to the former TOP. You may say you do not agree with their reasonings, but what about the white peace they gave in, I believe, their last war? Or not joining the blue ball wars with a stupid cb of moronic spying so they could get Gremlins to join on a technicality? I am very understanding but your so biased you're painting a fairly inaccurate picture of biased opinions rather than logical facts. If you're going to paint a picture, be reasonable to paint it all, not just certain sections you like and expecting every other artist to appreciate it as well.
[quote]
and TOP's history sure does affect CnG because this preemptive attack based on the reason of "threat to our security" is not the first time they have pulled this off. if it was the first time, i could see some lenience being demanded but it is not. they have done it in the past, which means that they have the mindset that it is okay to do this.
[/quote]
When and where? My mind may be a little muddy right now. As I said, I am always open for logical debate.
[quote]
your bully analogy only works if the bully stops bullying everyone. if he stops bullying you and moves onto another target, then he is still a bully. this is essentially what TOP did. they moved on from Polaris and targeted CnG. so, again, the past is an important thing.
[/quote]
Moves on? You're assuming he will move on. If a bully bullied someone years ago and gets himself in a sticky situation years later, deciding to throw the first punch, it doesn't necessarily mean he is still a bully, it means he wished to protect himself and for you to paint him as a bully may be your own fallacy. Was that person going to punch him? Maybe, maybe no, I am not defending them, but I'm certainly saying they aren't the brightest for their actions; which we both can agree to, but it doesn't necessarily make them a bully.
[quote]
you are completely biased in your assessment, much like Bob Janova is. frankly, i don't like MK that much or most of the alliances in CnG (this should be relatively well-known to anyone who reads the OWF) and in fact, i like TOP more than i do CnG (as a whole, i do love GR). but, their past is their past and it gives clear indications as to the mindset of those within TOP.
[/quote]

I have laid out TOP's true past, their mistakes, their resurfacing, and everything in between countless times. I am not painting them as saints, but rather giving a non-biased description of them. TOP has made mistakes, especially diplomatically, hell, they were completely moronic for this war; but not for one second do I consider them 'bullies', especially to what bullies in this world refer to as. You have shown their ugly side, I have shown both, but more importantly, you have shown TOP from 2-3 years ago, not TOP from the past year and who they are now.

We will have to respectfully disagree and leave it at that.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[Tick1]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='23 February 2010 - 05:17 PM' timestamp='1266945435' post='2199168']
This doesn't make sense to me. Most people acknowledge that if IRON had declared on Fark that the escalation that followed would have led to CnG entering the war at a later stage. I didn't know that was even in question. The error occurred in skipping a step (or two or three) unnecessarily to reach the same end in some respects.

As far as the rest of whatever you are trying to articulate goes, PC and others had plenty of opportunity to attack NSO. On several occasions I offered to fight without the benefit of our allies and alliances were too cowardly to take us up on it and declare. I am certain now that we have lost 65% of our total NS (so far) that you and those like you will finally have the courage to declare on us, or maybe not. I fully expect the cowards of six months ago to come out of their holes once this is over, whether they prove to be blowhards or opportunists remains to be seen. Good show.
[/quote]

Key word if you statement is 'if.' The problem is that IRON didn't declare on Fark which therefor makes IRON/TOP the aggressors. If it didn't happen you can't say that it would have happened. I do agree with you that the results may have ended in the same current situation, but TOP/IRON wouldn't have been the aggressors. Yes we are arguing the same thing I suppose maybe I completely messed up on my last statement I don't know. (Yes, I did make a huge mistake and I'm still looking at it before Fark jumped into the scene.... I guess I should watch the DoW before I post although when we where at war with NpO I didn't pay that much attention to the political scene.)

To reply to your second statement; please don't pay attention to my alliance affiliation seeing as you clearly don't know where I'm from. You may have offered people several chances to declare war upon NSO to some alliance, but none of the alliances that I've resided in over the last past year and a half. Given the opportunity I can assure you we'd have taken it up, but seeing as we must uphold our treaty obligations we don't believe in attacking or provoking a friends ally.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Tick1

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Tick1' date='23 February 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1266957080' post='2199482']
If it didn't happen you can't say that it would have happened.
[/quote]

And vice versa, if it didn't happen, you can't say that it wouldn't have happened.

Yes there are a lot of negatives in that one sentence.

[Tick1]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='23 February 2010 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1266957333' post='2199492']
And vice versa, if it didn't happen, you can't say that it wouldn't have happened.

Yes there are a lot of negatives in that one sentence.
[/quote]

Exactly which is why you shouldn't be declaring a pre-emptive strike.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Tick1' date='23 February 2010 - 03:31 PM' timestamp='1266957080' post='2199482']
Key word if you statement is 'if.' The problem is that IRON didn't declare on Fark which therefor makes IRON/TOP the aggressors. If it didn't happen you can't say that it would have happened. I do agree with you that the results may have ended in the same current situation, but TOP/IRON wouldn't have been the aggressors. Yes we are arguing the same thing I suppose maybe I completely messed up on my last statement I don't know. (Yes, I did make a huge mistake and I'm still looking at it before Fark jumped into the scene.... I guess I should watch the DoW before I post although when we where at war with NpO I didn't pay that much attention to the political scene.)

To reply to your second statement; please don't pay attention to my alliance affiliation seeing as you clearly don't know where I'm from. You may have offered people several chances to declare war upon NSO to some alliance, but none of the alliances that I've resided in over the last past year and a half. Given the opportunity I can assure you we'd have taken it up, but seeing as we must uphold our treaty obligations we don't believe in attacking or provoking a friends ally.
[/quote]
You are correct. If you are not in Poison Clan, which is what you have listed, then I have no idea where you are from, nor do I care.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Tick1' date='23 February 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1266957407' post='2199495']
Exactly which is why you shouldn't be declaring a pre-emptive strike.
[/quote]

Remember, 2+2=4.

You're not being logical when discussing ifs/not-ifs. Either way it's a pointless argument.

[Tick1]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='23 February 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1266957785' post='2199507']
Remember, 2+2=4.

You're not being logical when discussing ifs/not-ifs. Either way it's a pointless argument.
[/quote]

Actually it can be proven the two plus two does in fact not equal four, but I don't feel like bringing metaphysics into our disagreement.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Tick1' date='23 February 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1266958084' post='2199518']
Actually it can be proven the two plus two does in fact not equal four, but I don't feel like bringing metaphysics into our disagreement.
[/quote]
Prove it. Thanks.

[Lord Rune]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='23 February 2010 - 09:26 PM' timestamp='1266960361' post='2199619']
Prove it. Thanks.
[/quote]


Base 3, where 2+2=11

[Derwood1]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='23 February 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1266960361' post='2199619']
Prove it. Thanks.
[/quote]


That would be more productive then this thread seeing how it has devolved

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Lord Rune' date='23 February 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1266960757' post='2199634']
Base 3, where 2+2=11
[/quote]
Ah the old alternative number system approach, eh?

It is not that of using logic, but rather you on a completely different page.

[Lord Rune]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='23 February 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1266962961' post='2199757']
Ah the old alternative number system approach, eh?

It is not that of using logic, but rather you on a completely different page.
[/quote]


I know, but it looks good, until you realise that it is still 4!