Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Caliph]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='15 February 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1266292999' post='2184363']
The declaration occurred prior to the peace between Polar and \m/, correct?
[/quote]
The declaration occured while \m/ gov was trying to get PC and FOK's approval for the white peace with Polar. I believe \m/ gov had stated they would accept the white peace with Polar provided PC and FOK also agreed, and before \m/ had PC and FOK's agreement (or prior to Chief Savage Man making the white peace thread) that is when TOP/IRON/DAWN/TORN's DOW on C&G came in.

So essentially during the peace talks, at the tail end of them.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Denial' date='15 February 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1266293191' post='2184373']
The peace agreement had been reached prior to the declaration of war from TOP & IRON. If TOP & IRON were representing the Polar coalition as they claim to be, you think they would be more up to date with information regarding said coalition. Either way, the point is irrelevant, as there is no way TOP & IRON can be operating for and defending the Polar coalition by attacking an entirely uninvolved bloc that contains two of Polar's allies.
[/quote]
Nice try, but no.

Simply because Polar failed to inform their allies that they were reaching peace doesn't place fault on those allies for taking action prior to peace being made public, whether you agree with said action or not.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1266293198' post='2184374']
I haven't actually addressed this much, I'll admit, but frankly the extent to which you saw these perceived actions has been highly exaggerated in the past. Not once did TOP ever attempt diplomacy with regard to this, either. You've cried about that in the past, but you never once attempted diplomacy here - you simply attacked aggressively. So a few members spouted off occasionally about rolling TOP (along with just about every other alliance on the face of the planet, none of whom were ever rolled), and instead of diplomacy, you went with war.

Yeahhhhhhhh.
[/quote]

But they did it for Polar!

[Denial]

[quote name='Richard Rahl' date='16 February 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1266292976' post='2184361']
"The attacks perpetrated by TOP and her allies against the Complaints and Grievances Union were born out of paranoia, unsubstantiated by concrete evidence beyond teasing and whatnot by regular C&G members (but few or no instances by government)..."

It interesting that you think you can let your members say anything they want (roll TOP) over and over again and expect it to have no consequences. MK and CnG spent months taunting, trolling, and flaming TOP. You saying "Oh but our government didn't do it" means nothing. Take responsibility for the actions of your alliance. MK wanted to roll TOP. Your members said it often enough. Own up to it. I don't see why you have to hide the fact that you wanted to roll TOP.

Also, it surprises me that people would wonder why TOP attacked such measures as it did after the actions of MK. I understand why people wouldn't like it, that makes sense. Asking "Why did you attack someone that has been saying they wanted to destroy you for months?" is just plain foolishness.
[/quote]
This is amusing coming from a member of an alliance that has fallen over themselves to claim that Crymson's comments since stepping down from leadership do not represent any official stance from TOP, and thus should not be used as a method of criticising them. Sorry, you cannot have it both ways.

[NoFish]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='15 February 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1266292734' post='2184349']
doesnt mean it wasnt being discussed, either.
[/quote]
So [i]discussing[/i] going to war with someone is a valid CB now?

wat.

[Denial]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='16 February 2010 - 01:38 PM' timestamp='1266293307' post='2184382']
Nice try, but no.

Simply because Polar failed to inform their allies that they were reaching peace doesn't place fault on those allies for taking action prior to peace being made public, whether you agree with said action or not.
[/quote]
Either way, the point is irrelevant, as there is no way TOP & IRON can be operating for and defending the Polar coalition by attacking an entirely uninvolved bloc that contains two of Polar's allies. And further, lackluster communication amongst a piss-poor coalition does not justify attacks against Complaints & Grievances.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Denial

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 07:58 PM' timestamp='1266292733' post='2184348']
I'll address these two. We're not stopping peace talks, they are. They have said "either white peace or nothing." They have an unwillingness to budge, and thus they are stopping progress from occurring.
[/quote]

Well what were you offering them? I assume there was some discussion about peace in which they replied "either white peace or nothing".

[Bob]

[quote name='NoFish' date='15 February 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1266293346' post='2184385']
So [i]discussing[/i] going to war with someone is a valid CB now?

wat.
[/quote]
Well then. All of the Cyberverse should probably just declare on..everyone.

[delendum]

[quote name='Richard Rahl' date='16 February 2010 - 04:02 AM' timestamp='1266292976' post='2184361']
"The attacks perpetrated by TOP and her allies against the Complaints and Grievances Union were born out of paranoia, unsubstantiated by concrete evidence beyond teasing and whatnot by regular C&G members (but few or no instances by government)..."

It interesting that you think you can let your members say anything they want (roll TOP) over and over again and expect it to have no consequences. MK and CnG spent months taunting, trolling, and flaming TOP. You saying "Oh but our government didn't do it" means nothing. Take responsibility for the actions of your alliance. MK wanted to roll TOP. Your members said it often enough. Own up to it. I don't see why you have to hide the fact that you wanted to roll TOP.

Also, it surprises me that people would wonder why TOP attacked such measures as it did after the actions of MK. I understand why people wouldn't like it, that makes sense. Asking "Why did you attack someone that has been saying they wanted to destroy you for months?" is just plain foolishness.
[/quote]

There are plenty of replies in our embassy on the TOP boards that address that whole "roll TOP" thing, but to sum it up: If you are paranoid enough to take whenever our members jokingly go "roll TOP" as a serious threat, then you have a problem. By the same logic, 90% of CN should consider us a threat, including some of our closest allies, because as far as memes go, "roll <insertwhateverhere>" is one of the most used in MK. We even wanted to roll Archon a couple of times.

Lets put this another way: what's more threatening? Somebody who jokingly says "you make me want to punch you sometimes" or somebody who simply starts punching you because they thought you were being serious. We certainly don't want you punching us whenever you feel threatened by our jokes.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='15 February 2010 - 11:07 PM' timestamp='1266293235' post='2184376']
roll NSO
roll FOK
roll Athens
roll NPO
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]So I take it that you are no longer planning to roll the SOS Brigade? I shall see to it that they are informed of this change in their situation.[/color]

[Drai]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='15 February 2010 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1266293235' post='2184376']
And you clearly have had no contact with MK, at all. Well done thinking that we want to kill you from what our members (aka me) say to most alliances in the Cyberverse. You aren't alone, and you were not anywhere NEARBY the people who we have said that to the most.

roll NSO
roll FOK
roll Athens
roll NPO

I await all of your Declarations of War upon MK for my threats as a member towards you.
[/quote]
I think TOP took it more to heart simply because they were the #1 alliance and thought we actually meant it.

How selfish of them

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Denial' date='15 February 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1266293352' post='2184387']
Either way, the point is irrelevant, as there is no way TOP & IRON can be operating for and defending the Polar coalition by attacking an entirely uninvolved bloc that contains two of Polar's allies. And further, lackluster communication amongst a piss-poor coalition does not justify attacks against Complaints & Grievances.
[/quote]
Oh, it wasn't piss poor communication necessarily, it was one party determined to carry out their own plan even as those actually fighting voiced concern and disagreement with it.

Believe me, very few people are more pissed about the overall direction that some of the "grand strategy" planners took this then myself, but I still believe the factual stream of events be preserved, if only to highlight the sheer amount of idiocy from start to finish in this conflict.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='NoFish' date='15 February 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1266293346' post='2184385']
So [i]discussing[/i] going to war with someone is a valid CB now?

wat.
[/quote]

i thought "discussing" would be a rather neutral way of putting it but if you want me to edit it to "it doesnt mean CnG wasnt trying to find a way in", then i'll get right on that.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='15 February 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1266293437' post='2184392']
[color="#0000FF"]So I take it that you are no longer planning to roll the SOS Brigade? I shall see to it that they are informed of this change in their situation.[/color]
[/quote]

RV, SOS is on their side. Why would they roll their puppets?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Mr Damsky

[merlin]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='15 February 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1266293307' post='2184382']
Nice try, but no.

Simply because Polar failed to inform their allies that they were reaching peace doesn't place fault on those allies for taking action prior to peace being made public, whether you agree with said action or not.
[/quote]

I would say that it casts some doubt as to whether or not the actions of TOP and their friends were actually intended to help Polar or just to get in a swing at CnG before peace was declared.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Denial' date='15 February 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1266293352' post='2184387']
Either way, the point is irrelevant, as there is no way TOP & IRON can be operating for and defending the Polar coalition by attacking an entirely uninvolved bloc that contains two of Polar's allies. And further, lackluster communication amongst a piss-poor coalition does not justify attacks against Complaints & Grievances.
[/quote]
Except, as ill advised as supporting Polar was, that is exactly what occurred. If the peace agreement was struck before the attack begun, the attack would not have happened, period.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='16 February 2010 - 05:07 AM' timestamp='1266293235' post='2184376']
I await all of your Declarations of War upon MK for my threats as a member towards you.
[/quote]
Roll Bob.

[Bob]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='15 February 2010 - 11:10 PM' timestamp='1266293437' post='2184392']
[color="#0000FF"]So I take it that you are no longer planning to roll the SOS Brigade? I shall see to it that they are informed of this change in their situation.[/color]
[/quote]
:| Just a sample list RV. roll SOS brigade as well, and roll FAIL.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='merlin' date='15 February 2010 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1266293578' post='2184400']
I would say that it casts some doubt as to whether or not the actions of TOP and their friends were actually intended to help Polar or just to get in a swing at CnG before peace was declared.
[/quote]
None of us were informed there even WERE peace talks.

As far as we were made aware, Grub told chefjoe about an "interesting situation" minutes after the attack begun.

[AAAAAAAAAAGGGG]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 07:58 PM' timestamp='1266292733' post='2184348']
I'll address these two. We're not stopping peace talks, they are. They have said "either white peace or nothing." They have an unwillingness to budge, and thus they are stopping progress from occurring. As far as C&G being on the fence, we had not had any allies attacked at that point, and thus our only entry would be via optional aggression. We had not decided on that.
[/quote]

Jeeze Archon, stop being a jerk and just give them white peace already <3

Edited February 16, 2010 by AAAAAAAAAAGGGG

[Branimir]

[quote name='Denial' date='16 February 2010 - 05:09 AM' timestamp='1266293352' post='2184387']
as there is no way TOP & IRON can be operating for and defending the Polar.... by attacking ....two of Polar's allies.
[/quote]
Grub did said he was ok with that. Weird ally huh?...Sanctioning attacks on his treaty partners like that,...

Well, thanks Archon for once again repeating everything we be hearing over and over again, some time now.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Branimir

[delendum]

[quote name='Tromp' date='16 February 2010 - 04:13 AM' timestamp='1266293604' post='2184402']
Roll Bob.
[/quote]

Roll FOK IMO, they use nukes immorally!

[Stetson76]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1266292733' post='2184348']
I'll address these two. We're not stopping peace talks, they are. They have said "either white peace or nothing." They have an unwillingness to budge, and thus they are stopping progress from occurring.[/quote]

The statement quoted below while well said, is in direct opposition to what you've just stated. You say that they are not willing to budge in one breath and in the other that you're not willing to even begin discussing the matter. Would you care to clarify?

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1266288410' post='2184044']
I can state, unequivocally, that the Union has not even begun to contemplate terms of surrender to offer to the TIFDTT alliances. This is not out of any desire to prolong the war, or to keep the TIFDTT alliances in a state of warfare akin to that seen in the VietFAN war, but rather it is because we are busy [i]fighting the war[/i]. The martial prowess of TIFDTT...well, some of TIFDTT, is such that we are by no means nearing a decisive victory, and as such any talk of surrender terms would be not only premature, but an unnecessary and harmful distraction to the much more pressing matter of war planning and execution.[/quote]

[quote]As far as C&G being on the fence, we had not had any allies attacked at that point, and thus our only entry would be via optional aggression. We had not decided on that.
[/quote]

And as far as this, I was under the impression that NpO was an ally of MK? And yes, I know they said they didn't want any any help with \m/ or the expected counter from PC however, as soon as FOK escalated the situation, your obligation was the same as NSO's. And no, NpO was not the aggressor, \m/ aggressively attacked another alliance and NpO used paperless FA to defend them...I heard somewhere that you were familiar with that concept, so I won't explain it for you.

And you really have no response to the first two points?

[mythicknight]

[quote name='Caliph' date='15 February 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1266293291' post='2184380']
The declaration occured while \m/ gov was trying to get PC and FOK's approval for the white peace with Polar. I believe \m/ gov had stated they would accept the white peace with Polar provided PC and FOK also agreed, and before \m/ had PC and FOK's agreement (or prior to Chief Savage Man making the white peace thread) that is when TOP/IRON/DAWN/TORN's DOW on C&G came in.

So essentially during the peace talks, at the tail end of them.
[/quote]


Something like that. Polar informed the rest of us that "\m/ just agreed to white peace" some time after the declarations rolled out. Whether they meant just \m/, or \m/|etc., :unsmigghh:

[Bob]

[quote name='Stetson' date='15 February 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1266293697' post='2184410']
And as far as this, I was under the impression that NpO was an ally of MK? And yes, I know they said they didn't want any any help with \m/ or the expected counter from PC however, as soon as FOK escalated the situation, your obligation was the same as NSO's. And no, NpO was not the aggressor, \m/ aggressively attacked another alliance and NpO used paperless FA to defend them...I heard somewhere that you were familiar with that concept, so I won't explain it for you.

And you really have no response to the first two points?
[/quote]
No, it wasn't. Read the treaty between Polaris and MK, help must be requested to activate the treaty.