FOK Declaration of War

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1266972304' post='2200131']
chefjoe..do you want to have a tea party with CnG? You can just ask if that's the case, Valhalla is more then welcome

[/quote]

Ive been trying to party with you guys for years Only problem is we seem to allways be waving at each other from across the dance floor

Maybe we can meet at the bar up front and have a beer sometime

[AirMe]

[quote name='Saber' date='23 February 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1266972476' post='2200136']
Actually you are mistaken. I think that our high NS advantage was mainly through quality of our community which brought many ex government leaders and prominent members from other alliances into our own. From Gremlins, FOK, Valhalla, NPO, IRON, ODN, VE, ONOS, FAN, GOONS, Umbrella, ... Many people joined TOP after their alliances were disbanded and/or curbstomped. Strong development projects and quality of community is reason our nations were that strong.

Cowardice? Not our fault our opponents were incompetent and we soundly defeated them all. That is until this war which took two betrayals and backstabs, lot of dirty tricks and 22 alliances on us and our allies. And we still are not down.
[/quote]

Can you point me to a war between GW3 and Karma where the odds were not at least 4:1 in your favor?

Strength of community has nothing to do with absurdly high tech and infra levels. Betrayals and Backstabs? You were the fools for trusting someone who historically hates you. Don't blame that on Grub, he was just staying true to his beliefs. You were also fools for attacking direct treaty partners of your allies. And you didn't just do it to FOK either. As for the other backstab I am not sure to what you are referring to.

Dirty Tricks? I don't know what you are referring to there either. But TOP isn't innocent in anything.

[Roadie]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1266971996' post='2200118']
Nope. They attacked us directly, and should pay to us for that.

Looking at the NPO situation objectively, I think the reparations should have been paid to OV, and OV alone. Whoever is attacked deserves the reparations, not those that join in. However, I realize that my logic is not that of the Cyberverse for the most part, and I accept that.

I don't like IRON or TOP, but TORN I actually consider to be a quite good alliance and I am saddened to see them at war against us.
[/quote]

I happen to agree with you on the reps in regards to NPO. But my point is more that MK never says a waord against the extended stomping of an alliance on the other side of the web. A list that now includes NPO, TOP, IRON, TORN and NSO (and I suppose TPF) but never misses a chance to complain about their own very-breif-in-comparison stomping.

I think it's a legit view to see long stompings as acceptable, but to complain about receiving a tiny one at the same time is becoming tiresome and I wish MK would give us all a break with that. Eventually people are going to call them out for wanting it both ways.

After Karma, a cornholing of TOP wouldn't have bothered me in the least (even TORN to a lesser extent - far less) but seeing that they've both conducted themselves well (generally) I'm kinda bummed to see either of them get whooped like this. And IRONs muh peeps, take it easy on them. Kplzthnx.

FOK: Take it easy on IRON, we don't have many enough aid slots to rebuild them as it is.

[Denial]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1266972548' post='2200138']
You're going to need to back that up. At worst their intention was to defeat C&G. Senior figures in TOP these days are the Grämlins who were involved in the Codex (which has a no stomping ethos).
[/quote]
Oh, please. That's just playing semantics. And simply because there are some senior members in TOP that played a role in crafting the Grämlins' codex does not mean they automatically still abide by it. People change, particularly when they switch environments.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 12:35 AM' timestamp='1266971910' post='2200117']
You realize that IRON, TORN, TOP and co. started this war to stomp someone right?
[/quote]

No we didn't. We knew IRON would have to enter on the NpO side in the war and we weren't about to let a Karma repeat happen. TOP knew there would be a large war with ex-heg vs CnG and SF. We knew we had to be on the ex-heg side. Making it seem like we were just trying to stomp CnG is utter BS. Of course we wanted to win the war, but it's not like we've been planning a curbstomp of CnG and it turned out horribly.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 07:45 PM' timestamp='1266972548' post='2200138']
You're going to need to back that up. At worst their intention was to defeat C&G. Senior figures in TOP these days are the Grämlins who were involved in the Codex (which has a no stomping ethos).
[/quote]

To defeat someone you have to stomp them Bob. Stop being intentionally obtuse.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='23 February 2010 - 07:49 PM' timestamp='1266972768' post='2200153']
No we didn't. We knew IRON would have to enter on the NpO side in the war and we weren't about to let a Karma repeat happen. TOP knew there would be a large war with ex-heg vs CnG and SF. We knew we had to be on the ex-heg side. Making it seem like we were just trying to stomp CnG is utter BS. Of course we wanted to win the war, but it's not like we've been planning a curbstomp of CnG and it turned out horribly.
[/quote]

So then the DoW where Crymson stated you were taking advantage of a situation to take care of a threat was not intended to say you were stomping C&G while their allies were tied up?

[Bob Janova]

AirMe, that's not at all true. We defeated IRON in Karma, for example. Or Illuminati in GW3. Most of the alliances that have been intimidated out of the war on the TOP side were defeated but not stomped.

(e: grammar)

Edited February 24, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Bob]

[quote name='chefjoe' date='23 February 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1266972678' post='2200144']
Ive been trying to party with you guys for years Only problem is we seem to allways be waving at each other from across the dance floor

Maybe we can meet at the bar up front and have a beer sometime
[/quote]
We should

you are a lovable man and i have no issues with valhalla except that you defend your allies you scum insert line of insanity here

Edited February 24, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[potato]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 01:45 AM' timestamp='1266972548' post='2200138']
You're going to need to back that up. At worst their intention was to defeat C&G. [b]Senior figures in TOP these days are the Grämlins who were involved in the Codex (which has a no stomping ethos)[/b].
[/quote]

brb obeying ODN's charter. Sorry Archon.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 12:51 AM' timestamp='1266972883' post='2200158']
So then the DoW where Crymson stated you were taking advantage of a situation to take care of a threat was not intended to say you were stomping C&G while their allies were tied up?
[/quote]

Of course we viewed CnG as a threat. Don't pretend you weren't acting hostile toward us for a long time before this war. I know you always say despite what your members post on the OWF you weren't planning to kill us, but TOP perceives these harsh posts much differently. Everyone knew this war was coming. Instead of waiting for CnG to come in we decided to do a preemptive attack.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Vladimir Stukov II

[AirMe]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1266972917' post='2200160']
AirMe, that's not at all true. We defeated IRON in Karma, for example. Or Illuminati in GW3. Most of the alliances that have been intimidated out of the war on the TOP side were defeated but not stomped.

(e: grammar)
[/quote]

The fact that they said they were removing a threat indicated to me that they intended to stomp because to remove a threat means to put them in a place they can't hurt you anymore.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1266972927' post='2200161']
We should

[b]you are a lovable man [/b]and i have no issues with valhalla except that you defend your allies you scum insert line of insanity here
[/quote]

Why ty. I try to watch my girlish figure......ohwai, no I dont :s hmmm It must be the Axe(imma viking cwutididthar?) body spray thats so attractive then

Srsly though, I dont hold animosity for MK either. I AM leary as hell though. Anyone not leary after seeing the brilliant(yes it was a great move)play to engineer this war is 'insert line of insanity here'

[Denial]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='24 February 2010 - 10:29 AM' timestamp='1266973401' post='2200171']
Of course we viewed CnG as a threat. Don't pretend you weren't acting hostile toward us for a long time before this war. I know you always say despite what your members post on the OWF you weren't planning to kill us, but TOP perceives these harsh posts much differently. Everyone knew this war was coming. Instead of waiting for CnG to come in we decided to do a preemptive attack.
[/quote]
So, again, your justification for this war is "they said bad things about us! (but we won't call it teasing)" and "C&G were going to be involved in a war against us anyway! (but we have no proof)".

Awesome.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='24 February 2010 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1266973401' post='2200171']
Of course we viewed CnG as a threat. Don't pretend you weren't acting hostile to us for a long time before this war. I know you always say trolling on the OWF doesn't mean you were planning to kill us, but TOP perceives harsh trolling much differently. Everyone knew this war was coming. Instead of waiting for CnG to come in we decided to do a preemptive attack.
[/quote]

Perhaps TOP will perceive our constructive criticism differently at the conclusion of this war. There is obviously thicker skin that needs to be grown...

Edited February 24, 2010 by tamerlane

[Bob Janova]

[quote]The fact that they said they were removing a threat [/quote]
And where did they say this? In their DoW they say only that they wish to 'defeat' C&G.

Edit: Not to mention that you seem to agree that C&G will be stomping the PEA (and FOK will be party to that). I thought that side of the web didn't like stompings and incited moral outrage over them last year and 2008 ...

Also, for TBR and anyone else who is still claiming that it is a new war, a couple of less used quotes from the [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441]DoW[/url] ...

[quote]The Order of the Paradox herein announces its entry into this conflict ...

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. ...

To [i]all[/i] alongside whom we fight in this larger war: You have our support. We stand together.[/quote]

Edited February 24, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Saber]

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1266972735' post='2200147']
Can you point me to a war between GW3 and Karma where the odds were not at least 4:1 in your favor?

Strength of community has nothing to do with absurdly high tech and infra levels. [/quote]
It's not cowardice. Both UjW and Karma war were not really our wars. They were powerplays between groups which we did not agree with nor support. In UjW Electron Sponge was pushing his own agenda with 404 and others theirs, and in Karma we were trying to stop it only to NPO jump over us. If we had our way neither would have happened.

Yes, some of us didn't get ZIed in those wars but plenty of members did while fighting for other alliances. You seriously underestimate number of new members TOP gets.

Also, I think that strength of community has a lot to do with high tech and infra levels. We attract lot of prominent players who play the game for a long time. By nature their nations are bigger in NS than average one (though there are exceptions due to wars). This leads to us getting more "strong" nations on average then regular alliance. Even in this war we got some very prominent figures like Ivanelterrible and Syzygy (imagine that ). So appeal to serious long term players which TOP has and our strict entry procedures lead to community of high NS nations, not hiding out in a corner.

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1266972735' post='2200147']
Betrayals and Backstabs? You were the fools for trusting someone who historically hates you. Don't blame that on Grub, he was just staying true to his beliefs. You were also fools for attacking direct treaty partners of your allies. And you didn't just do it to FOK either. As for the other backstab I am not sure to what you are referring to. [/quote]
First one = peacing out on the day of our DoW
Second one= DoWing us

It is our fault though. We trusted Emperor of a major alliance will keep his word. We know we won't trust him again.

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1266972735' post='2200147']
Dirty Tricks? I don't know what you are referring to there either. But TOP isn't innocent in anything.[/quote]
Alliances were threatened to accept white peace immediately or suffer harsh terms down the line. Things such as that I consider dirty tricks.

I don't know what kind of dirty tricks you speak for TOP, but I can assure you we threatened no one with harsh terms down the line.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='chefjoe' date='24 February 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1266973688' post='2200179']
Why ty. I try to watch my girlish figure......ohwai, no I dont :s hmmm It must be the Axe(imma viking cwutididthar?) body spray thats so attractive then

Srsly though, I dont hold animosity for MK either. I AM leary as hell though. Anyone not leary after seeing the brilliant(yes it was a great move)play to engineer this war is 'insert line of insanity here'
[/quote]
You realize that by saying this you are, in effect, calling magicaltrevor brilliant- right? Archon isn't active enough to engineer such a "brilliant" war and sirwilliam is almost always chemically impaired.

Please recant this statement, please.

Edited February 24, 2010 by tamerlane

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='23 February 2010 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1266973963' post='2200188']
Perhaps TOP will perceive trolling differently at the conclusion of this war. There is obviously thicker skin that needs to be grown...
[/quote]
Agreed. When this war eventually ends (lol) we'll make sure to take full advantage of trolling everyone we dislike and when they have a problem about it we will laugh in their faces. When we start to rebuild, and we will rebuild quickly, I wonder how many people will be looking over their shoulder due to our members posting. I can't wait.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Saber' date='23 February 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1266974037' post='2200193']


It is our fault though. We trusted Emperor of a major alliance will keep his word. We know we won't trust him again. [/quote]

Well you don't need to worry about that. We also had the word of the leadership of major alliances that we were not a target prior to WoTC but guess what, we were still dragged into that one. Don't place blind faith in someone that dislikes you.


[quote]Alliances were threatened to accept white peace immediately or suffer harsh terms down the line. Things such as that I consider dirty tricks. [/quote]

Unless you have proof other wise, this is a lie.

[quote]I don't know what kind of dirty tricks you speak for TOP, but I can assure you we threatened no one with harsh terms down the line.
[/quote]

I wasn't referring to just this war, I am talking through out history.

[KingEd]

[quote name='HellAngel' date='23 February 2010 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1266961951' post='2199705']
Reading this announcement broke my heart

All i can say is, i hope you will experience one day how it feels to have someone who was that close to you do this to you.
[/quote]

But they wont. I don't think FOK would ever do what you did, by attacking their MDoAP partner you knowingly forced their hand and I know you hoped for one of the following:

a) Their our friends, they wont attack in Defense of MK because of our past relations.
b) They honor their treaty regardless of our friendship and we flame them; regardless of the fact that we're to blame for the action itself.

Paradoxia and its members---What your doing is truly sad---If you were truly FOK's friend you would ADMIT that you are in the wrong and that your to blame for their DoW on YOU, not them. After all, friends < Infra right ?

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='23 February 2010 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1266964965' post='2199847']
We (yes I was in FOK at the time) didn't want your dirty money for this sole reason. It was MrCyber who accepted the money, who is now (ironically) in TOP. Also, FOK has sent out thousands of tech to you, which you are now using to destroy their allies. We both can play this game.
[/quote]

And the truth always comes out, nice try at playing the "We Aided You" card.


[quote name='chefjoe' date='24 February 2010 - 12:05 AM' timestamp='1266970165' post='2200050']
After all your guys crap and whinning regarding previous 'curbstomps' that have gone down here on planet bob you sure look a fool to any intelligent person watching you guys justify one now.

Also before you try and whine about me and how ive participated in aforementioned 'curbstomps' both now and in the past on BOTH sides of the equation realize im not judging if 'curbstomps' are good or bad. Im just pointing out the 180 degree change in PR and stance being shown.
[/quote]

Yea, I guess. Nevertheless the differense lies in the fact that TOP initiated this war, yet their the ones being curb stomped. Oppsed to previous times in history where the Aggressors were the ones doing the stomping.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 12:51 AM' timestamp='1266972917' post='2200160']
AirMe, that's not at all true. We defeated IRON in Karma, for example. Or Illuminati in GW3. Most of the alliances that have been intimidated out of the war on the TOP side were defeated but not stomped.

(e: grammar)
[/quote]

This is very true. Most alliances got peace quickly and light terms for the ones that received any terms at all.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='24 February 2010 - 01:09 AM' timestamp='1266973963' post='2200188']
Perhaps TOP will perceive our constructive criticism differently at the conclusion of this war. There is obviously thicker skin that needs to be grown...
[/quote]

Well usually when TOP posts bad things about other alliances it means we would like to see them burn. I guess CnG posts this way about everyone though so we had no reason to be concerned.

[Denial]

[quote name='Saber' date='24 February 2010 - 07:11 AM' timestamp='1266961494' post='2199679']
I pointed out that you intentionally put them in a bad position by requesting and activation when it is not really needed. Like you did to NpO as well (and possible some others too, I didn't pay attention really).

[b]As a counter example, TOP did not ask to activate treaties that would put our allies in bad positions.[/b] One example are our MHA, Umbrella and AO treaties. All three alliances are fighting on the other side, and even while we were bandwagonned aggressively without a CB by some alliance (from top of my head TJO) we did not even consider to activate the treaty. Knowing it would be highly disrespectful and clear elaywering them into a bad spot.
[/quote]
No, instead TOP just aids those alliances at war with its allies. Oh, and puts an entire swath of alliances in "bad positions" by declaring an aggressive war without reason or provocation. It should be no surprise that when you directly attack an alliance, their treaty partners will come to their defence. Particularly if you, as the aggressor, have also entered into a de facto state of war with said treaty partners by providing financial assistance to their opponents. The loss of 60% of your total strength, and similar losses from many of your allies, comes down to nothing other than your own senseless pugnacity.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 10:39 AM' timestamp='1266974007' post='2200191']
And where did they say this? In their DoW they say only that they wish to 'defeat' C&G.

Edit: Not to mention that you seem to agree that C&G will be stomping the PEA (and FOK will be party to that). I thought that side of the web didn't like stompings and incited moral outrage over them last year and 2008 ...

Also, for TBR and anyone else who is still claiming that it is a new war, a couple of less used quotes from the [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441]DoW[/url] ...
[/quote]
Firstly, go and read the Crymson logs where he explains, in detail, the thought process behind the war. They are publicly available and every active participant in these debates has perused them, yet you continue to be purposefully ignorant. Secondly, just because something is stated within a TOP declaration of war does not automatically ensure that statement's veracity. If TOP declared that each and every one of them were Batman, and were attacking Complaints & Grievances to assist the ~ Coalition, would you believe that too? The fact of the matter is - by very definition - you cannot join a conflict by declaring war against parties that are not involved in that conflict. It defies logic. It is plain and simple: TOP, IRON & friends initiated an entirely new war by striking Complaints & Grievances.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Denial

[Cyber Nationz]

sad to see this happen.
Why dosent MK just let them have peace and end this ridiculous war.

o/ Cn Apocolypse

[Coursca]

[quote name='Saber' date='23 February 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1266974037' post='2200193']
Alliances were threatened to accept white peace immediately or suffer harsh terms down the line. Things such as that I consider dirty tricks.

I don't know what kind of dirty tricks you speak for TOP, but I can assure you we threatened no one with harsh terms down the line.
[/quote]

Piggybacking off Saber's point: Anyone who says TOP is threatening harsh terms for anyone down any line for not accepting their blanket white peace offer is way off base. That is not in the character of the Paradoxians currently occupying government positions. I know and have worked with these people and any implication of "dirty tricks" as I saw earlier is patently ridiculous.

Likewise, I, too have been hearing of certain large alliances making threats of harsh terms arrangements down the line should they not accept white peace expediently. So anyone saying that "we're being fair to the alliances who came in via treaty requirements" is also way off base. And some of the alliances engaging in this behavior are, to me, surprising and disappointing.