Joint Statement

[flak attack]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 07:48 AM' timestamp='1266583711' post='2191921']
so that's what this is all about? it has nothing to do with you simply defending yourself, you want to completely destroy a bloc. yet, all this time you guys were denying it. i guess this is "justice" in your book, eh?
[/quote]
And what bloc is this we're trying to destroy?

Edited February 19, 2010 by flak attack

[raasaa]

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 10:24 AM' timestamp='1266593081' post='2192035']
I can tell you who will be the last one off.

The Order of the Paradox. We won't leave before everyone on our side gets peace.
[/quote]
Is that by choice ??

[mitchh]

[quote name='raasaa' date='19 February 2010 - 09:33 AM' timestamp='1266593591' post='2192045']
Is that by choice ??
[/quote]
We certainly weren't coerced into that decision, if that's what you mean.

[Saber]

[quote name='raasaa' date='19 February 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1266593591' post='2192045']
Is that by choice ??
[/quote]
Yes, it's by choice. While I am not ignorant to our situation it does not change the fact that regardless of circumstances we won't leave until everyone else does.

[Auctor]

I think raasaa's point just flew over yall's heads there.

[mitchh]

[quote name='Auctor' date='19 February 2010 - 10:38 AM' timestamp='1266597531' post='2192122']
I think raasaa's point just flew over yall's heads there.
[/quote]
Feel free to drop some knowledge on a brother then.

[WildeKaard]

[quote name='joracy' date='18 February 2010 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1266533066' post='2190405']
1) I think you reversed that. The "core" of the Karma conflict would probably be NPO and the hegemony. The majority of the smaller peripheral alliances were out within about 3 weeks. NPO, and a few others stayed much, much longer, and many did not get white peace.
2)Are you referring to TOP et al here? They are hardly broken.
3) I don't think NS is the greatest way to determine this. TOP et al are still capable of putting up a very decent fight, and although they are losing, are quite effect at fighting.
[/quote]

To clarify Joracy,

1) Core being defined moreso as the level of fighting than the ideological reasoning for the war. Perhaps I should have used a different word.
2) Not necessarily TOP as they are legendary for their massive warchests, but many alliances on that list have seen the sum total of their NS drop more than 50% and many of their member nations are no longer capable of mounting any sort of defense against future aggression. Now, call that what you would like, poor planning, but to allow those alliances to dither in combat without terms, could be construed as "harsh"
3) This was simply a comparison to Fallen Fool's use of numbers to demonstrate the one-sidedness of Karma compared to this conflict. I was merely pointing out that there is false logic in trying to refute a comparison between Karma and this war based upon the relative closeness of the sides (which, as everyone knows, is not very close)

[pigsticker]

[quote name='Saber' date='20 February 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1266597020' post='2192109']
Yes, it's by choice. While I am not ignorant to our situation it does not change the fact that regardless of circumstances we won't leave until everyone else does.
[/quote]
just a query, knowing crymsom's massive dislike for C&G, will he ever be put into a position again where he could act out his innermost dislikes, bearing mind that his actions could always have the suspicion that it's motivated by his dislikes.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1266593081' post='2192035']
Avernite our Grandmaster is from Netherlands and I am from Croatia. Both of us were away when you posted this and it's only reason you did not get a response so far.

First of all, what Crymson did and what Heptagon voted upon and whether he abused his position is a TOP internal affair. TOP as sovereign alliance does not allow external parties to interfere in our internal affairs. Personally I do not believe Crymson abused Heptagon vote but rather that it was a case of Heptagon trusting the government not to engage in attack of this sort. There can be few interpretations, one which says everything is legal and one which says Crymson abused his position. In any case it is up to our internal bodies to determine this, and really not your concern.
[/quote]
Considering that the effects of Crym's actions hurt our allies and caused the entire world to go to war I would say it is indeed [i]everyone's[/i] concern.

Of course I wouldn't want that to be mistaken for Sparta interfering in TOP's internal investigations, but Crym abusing his power (in my opinion) is as much as issue for us as it is for TOP given the results of the events.

I do have one question though if it is as all possible to answer...does your membership even know what went down?

Edited February 19, 2010 by Hyperion321

[jstep]

[quote name='pigsticker' date='19 February 2010 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1266600183' post='2192189']
just a query, knowing crymsom's massive dislike for C&G, will he ever be put into a position again where he could act out his innermost dislikes, bearing mind that his actions could always have the suspicion that it's motivated by his dislikes.
[/quote]

should he decide to run again, the TOP GA will decide this fact

Step off Crymson, afaik he'll not be running for government again and the decisions prior to this war have eaten away at him quite a bit

We voted for him, he did what he thought was right, as an alliance we face the consequences, you'll be hard pressed to find someone within TOP who is angry with Crymson, maybe disappointed with the situation we find ourselves in but that is not Crymson's fault it is all of ours

[jstep]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='19 February 2010 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1266600586' post='2192197']
Considering that the effects of Crym's actions hurt our allies and caused the entire world to go to war I would say it is indeed [i]everyone's[/i] concern.

Of course I wouldn't want that to be mistaken for Sparta interfering in TOP's internal investigations, but Crym abusing his power (in my opinion) is as much as issue for us as it is for TOP given the results of the events.

I do have one question though if it is as all possible to answer...does your membership even know what went down?
[/quote]

Yes, Government transparency is extremely important to TOP, almost every winning platform in someway includes a way to increase the transparency of our government for the GA

[Auctor]

[quote name='mitchh' date='19 February 2010 - 11:41 AM' timestamp='1266597716' post='2192130']
Feel free to drop some knowledge on a brother then.
[/quote]

I don't mean to put words in the mighty raasaa's(holy be he) mouth, but I think his point was that something along the lines of 1) you're probably not getting white peace, 2) It would be ridiculous for any alliance to start a war and not see the allies that came in in their defense get peaced out first, and 3) that you're acting as if this is some gift to everyone is sort of silly when in all actuality it's not something you can either dictate or claim it's out of anything other than what's expected from an alliance in your position that has absolutely one shred of one iota of honor.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Auctor' date='19 February 2010 - 12:57 PM' timestamp='1266602274' post='2192230']
I don't mean to put words in the mighty raasaa's(holy be he) mouth, but I think his point was that something along the lines of 1) you're probably not getting white peace, 2) It would be ridiculous for any alliance to start a war and not see the allies that came in in their defense get peaced out first, and 3) that you're acting as if this is some gift to everyone is sort of silly when in all actuality it's not something you can either dictate or claim it's out of anything other than what's expected from an alliance in your position that has absolutely one shred of one iota of honor.
[/quote]

Stop being so rude to Polar

I for one am glad to hear TOP assure its coalition allies that it will not be leaving without us. Given the events which led to this point vis a vis NpO this is obviously no longer a "given". I'm glad half my coalition will not simply evaporate because my coalition leader believed it was acceptable to get peace with no regard for those who came to support them. Thanks TOP!

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='jstep' date='19 February 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1266601818' post='2192222']
Yes, Government transparency is extremely important to TOP, almost every winning platform in someway includes a way to increase the transparency of our government for the GA
[/quote]
If I only had a time machine.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 09:24 AM' timestamp='1266593081' post='2192035']
I can tell you who will be the last one off.

The Order of the Paradox. We won't leave before everyone on our side gets peace.
[/quote]
I suspect it will be a multi-way tie.

[raasaa]

[quote name='mitchh' date='19 February 2010 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1266596489' post='2192096']
We certainly weren't coerced into that decision, if that's what you mean.
[/quote]
[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1266597020' post='2192109']
Yes, it's by choice. While I am not ignorant to our situation it does not change the fact that regardless of circumstances we won't leave until everyone else does.
[/quote]
[quote name='mitchh' date='19 February 2010 - 11:41 AM' timestamp='1266597716' post='2192130']
Feel free to drop some knowledge on a brother then.
[/quote]
[quote name='Auctor' date='19 February 2010 - 12:57 PM' timestamp='1266602274' post='2192230']
I don't mean to put words in the mighty raasaa's(holy be he) mouth, but I think his point was that something along the lines of 1) you're probably not getting white peace, 2) It would be ridiculous for any alliance to start a war and not see the allies that came in in their defense get peaced out first, and 3) that you're acting as if this is some gift to everyone is sort of silly when in all actuality it's not something you can either dictate or claim it's out of anything other than what's expected from an alliance in your position that has absolutely one shred of one iota of honor.
[/quote]
Let me make it shorter and more to the point. When i said "is that by choice" i was sarcastically referring to the fact that you don't exactly have a choice in that matter, after dragging in every known ally to support your blunder. If you did otherwise, it would be most dishonorable, which is unlike TOP.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Auctor' date='19 February 2010 - 11:57 AM' timestamp='1266602274' post='2192230']
I don't mean to put words in the mighty raasaa's(holy be he) mouth, but I think his point was that something along the lines of 1) you're probably not getting white peace, 2) It would be ridiculous for any alliance to start a war and not see the allies that came in in their defense get peaced out first, and 3) that you're acting as if this is some gift to everyone is sort of silly when in all actuality it's not something you can either dictate or claim it's out of anything other than what's expected from an alliance in your position that has absolutely one shred of one iota of honor.
[/quote]
Saber's point is that we could easily switch our position on white peace/reps and give alliance #1 - #7 75% of our tech and some other ridiculous terms in order to get ourselves out of this war. What he saying is that we will not do that. Even in the insanely slight chance we are given reasonable terms we will still refuse them until our friends are offered and accept them aswell.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Feanor Noldorin

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='jstep' date='19 February 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1266601818' post='2192222']
Yes, Government transparency is extremely important to TOP, almost every winning platform in someway includes a way to increase the transparency of our government for the GA
[/quote]
did they know before or after the cards were dealt? (there's a point to that question)

If they knew before the strike, does that mean that Gov consulted with membership before they decided whether or not to pre-emptively strike C&G. And, if they did (which would suggest that the majority of TOPpers voted for war), how can one claim that C&G was the threat in this case when your [i]entire alliance[/i](provided a yes answer to the previous questions) wished for war? And when I say wished for war, I mean not in the context of strategical maneuvering for this conflict, I mean as an aggressive action that C&G "brought on themselves" for past grievances (said Crymson).

[jstep]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='19 February 2010 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1266606360' post='2192297']
did they know before or after the cards were dealt? (there's a point to that question)

If they knew before the strike, does that mean that Gov consulted with membership before they decided whether or not to pre-emptively strike C&G. And, if they did (which would suggest that the majority of TOPpers voted for war), how can one claim that C&G was the threat in this case when your [i]entire alliance[/i](provided a yes answer to the previous questions) wished for war? And when I say wished for war, I mean not in the context of strategical maneuvering for this conflict, I mean as an aggressive action that C&G "brought on themselves" for past grievances (said Crymson).
[/quote]

in a case of opsec- the government is not expected or desired to release a target prior to the declaration. That is not to say the alliance didn't support the purpose of the war (aiding IRON/NpO-yes really) but the alliance as a whole did not have knowledge of the methodology for war entry

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='jstep' date='19 February 2010 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1266607084' post='2192304']
in a case of opsec- the government is not expected or desired to release a target prior to the declaration. That is not to say the alliance didn't support the purpose of the war (aiding IRON/NpO-yes really) but the alliance as a whole did not have knowledge of the methodology for war entry
[/quote]
I know that at face value TOP did enter to help IRON defend NSO, but I can't help looking at Crym's words and see that as a shell for the real reason.

[quote]To our opponents: We agree with the New Polar Order's reasons for war against \m/, and we consider ourselves part of that particular side of the war. For our part, however, [b]much our reason to enter this war lies in our desire to defeat those who have shown time and time again, in public and in private, that doing harm to us is high on their agenda---and that, indeed, they would take advantage of any advantageous opportunity to do so. This is a war they have brought upon themselves.[/b][/quote]

That right there shows that Crym, regardless of your belief in defending IRON over just going after C&G, was in this war for personal reasons. He authorized the pre-emptive strike [i]against the heptagon[/i] (in my opinion) so that he could facilitate the defeat of C&G. What he planned to do with C&G if he won is another matter entirely, but the fact remains that this war was mostly not about strategic maneuvering at all - instead it was about one man's personal agenda against an entire bloc, and he abused his power to interpret his alliance's laws in order to carry out that agenda.

Perhaps I seem heated in this argument, maybe even overly so, but nothing angers me more than an alliance leader putting his personal goals above those of his people. Pre-empting C&G and calling it an "interpretation" is just plain selfish on his part and not fair to your members at all. They deserve better treatment than that. Yes, technically Crym authorizing the pre-emptive strike could be called "legal" given his amount of power to interpret your charter, but that does not make it right given the true reasons for said decision. In fact, it's about as far from right as possible. He came into this war to assist in Polar's moral war...but he sacrificed those morals to do so.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Hyperion321

[Stetson76]

This is the finest piece of writing regarding this conflict yet produced:

[quote name='JoshuaR' date='19 February 2010 - 05:03 AM' timestamp='1266577424' post='2191853']
Johnny, Johnny, wouldn't you say that they had plenty of solid evidence that C&G would attack them?

Ponder this: If I wished to attack any one member of C&G (in defense of another ally), then I would expect all other members of C&G to come to the first member's defense and then attack me. I then KNOW that all of C&G will attack me. At this point, I have solid evidence, garnered through simple logic, that I will be at war with all of C&G. Armed with this knowledge, I can safely declare war on all of these alliances, assured that this gives me the greatest tactical advantage possible in a war of this magnitude and with my nation strength and cash reserves.

(Please note that while this may have been a tactical act of brilliancy, it was a strategical blunder. I do not advocate this method of warfare. Even though I suggested to PC that they had every right to ask for assistance of allies in a "defensive war" against Polar in the beginning simply because Polar planned on attacking them through a shrewd means of manipulating the letter of the law (treaty) even while asking PC's allies to violate the spirit of it...

But back to TOP. In this day in age, when only Starcraftmazter feels free to declare war on alliances simply for being on the other side of a coalition - and not through direct treaties -, TOP allowed not just the C&G union and any other direct allies of some possible "individual" target to respond, but allowed all of C&G and ALL of the individual alliances' allies within C&G to have a direct, letter-of-the law rationale for attacking TOP. So yes, although the brilliant stat collectors figured they'd gain the upper hand in a war that WAS INDEED SURE TO COME ABOUT, they did make a simple strategic mistake in allowing C&G+allies to respond instead of just target+allies.)

And then we also have the interesting added layer of complexity, the fact that C&G, indeed desiring the destruction of TOP, used this war declaration as propaganda and fuel in being able to call this a "new" war, one in which they could call the shots rather than Polar or \m/.

TOP should have seen that coming too, especially if they were indeed paranoid about a scenario just like this one.
---

So now we have this giant war. We have the propaganda flowing. One side (SuperGrievances we shall call them,or SG for short) offering white peace to individual alliances in order to strengthen their grips around the necks of those alliances remaining on the Stat Collector side of things. And here in this thread we have the Grub Not Grub (GNG) side offering the very same deal to alliances on the SG side. Whereas one is hailed as merciful, the other is derided. An interesting tactic in the war of propaganda. I tip my hat to SG, as it seems that that war (the war of propaganda) is also leaning your way.

But what about the final outcome of this war?

SG want to hurt TOP and Co, just as they have recently hurt Pacifica. Perhaps they really do think they were wronged. TOP and Co believe themselves to have been links in an earlier chain of events, with no choice but to be pulled ahead by the ring(s) of metal before them. And maybe they did think this would be a good chance to reduce the future threat, imagined or not. What of it? They still entered into the war because of those links of chain, it would have happened anyway.

My opinion, just the small tiny opinion of one lone nation ruler, one lone nineteen-nation alliance leader, is that I am glad I am not part of any of this machine. And yet somehow, for some reason, I am drawn toward it, a voyeur, wondering whether the talking heads really believe what they say (I doubt it, but who cares, it's what I'd do in their place. It's a war of propaganda!), and wondering still if the lesser pawns believe what they think the officers believe (I sure hope they at least put some thought into the matter and form their own opinions, whatever those opinions may be).

Oh right, the opinion. Meh, ask yourself why you are fighting, what it is exactly that you perceive to be the wrong. Then ask yourself how you can prevent that wrong from occurring in the future.

If you believe the other side wants you dead, then maybe you should destroy it after all.

If you believe the other side is fighting without heart, but only to fight allies of allies of allies of allies, then maybe you should lend them your own hearts.

If you don't actually believe in the propaganda of your side, then maybe you should lobby for peace.

Finally, if you believe the other side really did constitute a threat to yourself, ask,

well be that as it may, how do I want this world to look when I am done with it?

Be the change you want to see in the world. And make it as you may.
[/quote]

And just do I don't double post I'll address this as well:

[quote name='flak attack' date='19 February 2010 - 09:24 AM' timestamp='1266593084' post='2192036']
And what bloc is this we're trying to destroy?
[/quote]

Probably the same one this guy is referencing. Sometimes terms get used inappropriately. If you weren't trying to nitpick each statement for it's smallest point to disagree with you'd see that.

[quote name='Krack' date='19 February 2010 - 04:23 AM' timestamp='1266575015' post='2191834']...your bloc is impotent.
[/quote]

[Krack]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 06:48 AM' timestamp='1266583711' post='2191921']
so that's what this is all about? it has nothing to do with you simply defending yourself, you want to completely destroy a bloc. yet, all this time you guys were denying it. i guess this is "justice" in your book, eh?
[/quote]

I am simply acknowledging reality, as he asked me to do. It's not my fault that reality sucks for your side; you put yourselves in that situation by being aggressive and/or being treatied to other aggressive alliances. I didn't say anything about "wanting to completely destroy a bloc". I did, however, acknowledge that your own actions are causing that to occur and you don't seem too worried about changing that behavior in hopes of preventing it.

[Krack]

[quote name='Stetson' date='19 February 2010 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1266610249' post='2192355']
Probably the same one this guy is referencing. Sometimes terms get used inappropriately. If you weren't trying to nitpick each statement for it's smallest point to disagree with you'd see that.
[/quote]

When did I say we were [i]trying to destroy[/i] it? I said [i]it is being destroyed[/i]. There's a big difference; particularly when it's TOP/IRON/TORN's own actions that are leading to its destruction.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Krack

[deadlyoutlaw danish]

Course why take this threat seriously when your on the winning side of a curb stomp.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Krack' date='19 February 2010 - 02:29 PM' timestamp='1266611386' post='2192373']
When did I say we were [i]trying to destroy[/i] it? I said [i]it is being destroyed[/i]. There's a big difference; particularly when it's TOP/IRON/TORN's own actions that are leading to its destruction.
[/quote]

I was just answering the guy who asked what bloc was being discussed. Since you used the term "bloc" to refer to the TOP/IRON side of the war, I was pointing out that the term was being used loosely. But if you want to continue to be insecure and put words in my mouth feel free. I was just quoting what you said and in fact made no judgements about it other than it's an incorrect use of the term "bloc".