Notice of Cancellation

[Innerspeaker]

I hate watching Polar go through one colossal $%&@ up after another.
Probably one of the most fantastic alliances this game has ever seen, and yet so doomed to a catastrophic mistake (or 50, in the case of Grub).

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='KagetheSecond' date='24 February 2010 - 11:55 AM' timestamp='1267030738' post='2201582']
I would not either, sire. However, if that is truly what he expects, I don't see why everyone is arguing over the beer review. The sides are at an impasse and the only real solution that I can see is continuing the war until one submits to the other. But then again, most mortals are not gifted with the higher intellect of the Purple Royalty.
[/quote]
It is enlightened members of the Purple monarchy, like ourselves, that must guide these bumbling fools towards the truth. We must move our sway from beyond purple to bring an end to this barbarism.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='24 February 2010 - 10:03 AM' timestamp='1267027633' post='2201498']
Doesn't take much balls to fight a war when you have the numerical superiority. It was much more grueling in the first weeks.
[/quote]
[quote name='jimbacher' date='24 February 2010 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1267027501' post='2201495']
Easy to say face it when you are winning. Look at when they [b]Originally[/b] declared on polar. Subtract out the AA pirates and see what you are left with. I love how you now look at their stats when doing so currently is pointless since they are under no real threat.
[/quote]
Yeah, and I was right there fighting with them. PC did more than their fair share of work on the Polar front. Don't believe me, ask FOK, \m/, and Polar. You know, the 3 alliances that were actually involved in that front. They've lost around 2 million since the start of the war while being engaged in fronts they're "obviously" going to win.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1267030166' post='2201560']
Not really, you stayed in defense of the original ally that was in the war. NSO was fighting in defense of Polar and then had a ceasefire and was about to have peace when they re-declared in defense of IRON.

TPF's situation was straight forward. NSO's is a ball of yarn.
[/quote]

The motivations for declaring on FARK are important. It is already well known that we were not willing to take terms. The peace deal that was worked out between all combatants on that front (including our allies) required the review which is a hot topic of contention. When it was decided (the first time) that such was unacceptable, some of our allies (we still have some amazing ones) said they would not leave as long as we were still at war. Therefore, we declared an offensive war to ensure that they would be able to maintain peace and not be bound to defend us. Convoluted logic? Sure, but these are convoluted times. Did it work? You betcha.

[KagetheSecond]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='24 February 2010 - 08:56 AM' timestamp='1267030810' post='2201585']
It is enlightened members of the Purple monarchy, like ourselves, that must guide these bumbling fools towards the truth. We must move our sway from beyond purple to bring an end to this barbarism.
[/quote]
I may even go so far as to encourage the members of the NSO and Fark to move to the purple sphere so they may become enlightened. Knowledge is a gift that must be shared with the ignorant so that they may see the light.

[pezstar]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='24 February 2010 - 08:51 AM' timestamp='1267019706' post='2201371']
Just for clarification, because I think you may have your incidents convoluted. You say that Frostbite was terminated due to the Athens-Ni! incident. IIRC, the termination of FB came right around the Athens-TPF incident. Did you cite the wrong incident or was it something that foundation was laid for during the Ni! incident? Because, again, IIRC, it was Polar doing the threatening of Athens in the Ni! incident, and I find it highly unlikely(I admitted could be wrong, wouldnt be the 1st time) that a) MK asked you to be ready to defend them in that instance, and b) you said you would side against Polar. As I said, just seeking clarification, as I think you cited the wrong incident.
[/quote]

You're right. I did cite the wrong incident. It was the Athens-TPF one.

[Jens of the desert]

I look forward to your continued and imminent destruction with bated breath.

[Coven]

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1267030166' post='2201560']
Not really, you stayed in defense of the original ally that was in the war. NSO was fighting in defense of Polar and then had a ceasefire and was about to have peace when they re-declared in defense of IRON.

TPF's situation was straight forward. NSO's is a ball of yarn.
[/quote]

Oh I know, their's is more complicated.

But I was more referring to someone negotiating peace without telling you they are doing so, when you declared on their behalf, leaving you on the field to fend for yourself. That's the similarity.

But yes, I know what you mean.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Airikr

[Bob Janova]

And so Polar destroys another relationship.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='KagetheSecond' date='24 February 2010 - 12:00 PM' timestamp='1267031039' post='2201593']
I may even go so far as to encourage the members of the NSO and Fark to move to the purple sphere so they may become enlightened. Knowledge is a gift that must be shared with the ignorant so that they may see the light.
[/quote]
My loving arms are always open to sheep who have strayed from my flock.

[KagetheSecond]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='24 February 2010 - 09:04 AM' timestamp='1267031251' post='2201600']
My loving arms are always open to sheep who have strayed from my flock.
[/quote]
You never hugged me as a child

[pezstar]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='24 February 2010 - 11:35 AM' timestamp='1267029567' post='2201546']
That line happens to be directly correlated with the actions taken by a given alliance during conflict. Perhaps you'd like to show me where STA declared in support of IRON or rejected near-white peace for x,y,z reasons. Its alot easier to get white peace when you aren't going about sticking your finger in everyone's eye and throwing temper tantrums such as this.
[/quote]

We did reject almost white peace. It resulted in us getting actual white peace.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='KagetheSecond' date='24 February 2010 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1267031409' post='2201605']
You never hugged me as a child
[/quote]
You never needed it. You were born a hero.

[kevin32891]

I'm not that upset that this treaty has been cancelled. Hopfully we will be able restore the better connection we had.
Enjoy peace Grub.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Roadie' date='24 February 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1266996724' post='2201083']
So as has been stated earlier, NSO has not been offered white peace. A beer review as fun or for Teh Lulz is one thing, but being serious about making someone spend a RL time chasing to the liquor store, spending their RL money and drinking an alcoholic beverage is not a reasonable term in any way.
[/quote]

I have to agree with this. if FARK is that stupidly serious about a beer review, then they should rethink their entire deal there. if a beer review is supposed to just be a funny way to ease the terms and the alliance you are offering it to does not want to do one, then why even bother to keep it? this makes FARK/those against NSO look even more stupid and frankly pathetic, than it does NSO, since beer reviews are supposed to be lulzy. Guess what guys, it obviously ain't lulzy. again, Get over yourselves and realize that beer reviews are not funny to everyone. this is why OOC terms should not be mandatory at all. if an alliance does not mind, so be it the choice is on them, but obviously NSO minds.

maybe the allies of Fark, GOD, CSN, and anyone else involved against NSO should start pounding some heads over the fact that Fark, GOD, CSN and the others are acting retarded and frankly, shameful.

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='24 February 2010 - 01:31 AM' timestamp='1266996904' post='2201090']
The terms are honorable and standard. NSO may have entered for Polar, but they're not staying on their account. Polar made an effort to ensure they left with NSO, they were rebuked.
[/quote]

obviously not that honorable if NSO refuses them due to what is supposed to be a "lulzy" beer review. frankly, i do not see why the beer review is such a sticking point since again from what i have heard since the reviews were instituted, they were meant to be a funny and what not. not like a real term is meant to be (i.e. like reps, military decommission, so on) thus, why the need to keep NSO in a war over a beer review that could just as easily not be there at all? some honor ya'll have...

[quote name='Willaim Kreiger' date='24 February 2010 - 01:34 AM' timestamp='1266997055' post='2201094']
Not to derail your sound logic, but it takes all of 5 minutes to make a story up, it would probably make it far more entertaining too.
[/quote]

while this is true, that does not mean that Fark/others have to accept it which means NSO could get drawn back into the war because of some stupid beer review. from how serious Fark/GOD/others are taking it, i would not doubt they would do just that either. their honor is not that honorable it seems.

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='24 February 2010 - 01:36 AM' timestamp='1266997215' post='2201100']
That is not what FARK, GOD, Polar and many others have been told by NSO. Especially considering it is white peace.
[/quote]

not white peace if there is a term that is not wanted and NSO is being forced to accept said term or stay at war. try again.

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='24 February 2010 - 02:45 AM' timestamp='1267001315' post='2201158']
Why? Would you assert that each situation is identical? Situations change, and so do the terms. A variety of factors influence what if any terms are presented. Perhaps NSO has earned whatever is coming to them?

Lets look at it another way, NSO declared in support of an aggressive war/preemptive strike, what part of that action earns them white peace?

Should not we as a community be attempting to depress that kind of behavior? While our opponents may not take our wishes into account, perhaps with enough consequences spread around, in the future the next time someone contemplates a war of aggression their allies will put pressure on them not to do so.
[/quote]

actually NSO did not need to declare in support of said war since they never got peace from the Polar-\m/ war and continued fighting the same parties. they only declared so that their allies in Terra Cotta could finally leave. i would say that is a stand up thing for NSO to do and that Fark/GOD/others are just some pathetic pieces of crap compared to the actions that NSO has taken. so no, we should be stopping the actions that Fark/GOD/others are doing to NSO not stopping alliances from helping allies or attempting to get their allies out of a war that would have destroyed them.

yeah, but i can see your point. lets not stop the actions of keeping an honorable alliance in a war where said alliance has already been destroyed just for a beer review or maybe reps since you know those fighting said honorable alliance aren't essentially kicking the alliance while they are down. what next, supporting alliance a that make alliance b bite the curb just because the alliance b happened to support alliance c that declared war on alliance d, where alliance d is allied to alliance a? good to see that Karma actually meant anything to alliances like Fark and GOD and CSN and whomever else is fighting NSO.

[quote name='Goose' date='24 February 2010 - 04:21 AM' timestamp='1267007116' post='2201216']
That was not The Commonwealth's reasoning for fighting the war. Our allies were on the side of Karma, so we were on the side of Karma. And, I'd argue that a beer review is no more degrading than having to put up with post after post from the general mouth breathers at NSO about how The Commonwealth is a horrible failure of an alliance. Ivan Moldavi being one of the few exceptions from the Sith that hasn't shown outright aggression and contempt for The Commonwealth, starting even before they decided to declare on us as a token to STA.
[/quote]

in my opinion, CSN is living up to those posts... maybe ya'll should reconsider takin out the term and then you may see your reputations stay intact with others. some may think what you are doing is kewl or whatever, but frankly, if the peace is supposed to be white peace then i honestly do not see why the beer review needs to stay? if it is of such importance that you are willing to make CSN look like a horrible failure of an alliance and keep NSO in this war for that much longer, then do so. but just remember, it ain't white peace if there is a term that is considered degrading by the other side.

if i ever lead an alliance, i would be damned if i ever took on an OOC term for an IC action. OOC should stay OOC and in my opinion should never be brought IC. to do so in my opinion, just makes your alliance (the one giving the term) look like a complete and utter jackass.

[quote name='Fireandthepassion' date='24 February 2010 - 06:51 AM' timestamp='1267016070' post='2201317']
It has been on the table for weeks with Polaris offering to do the beer review and FARK doing a review as well in return. Of course Ivan wont mention that because it will make NSO look bad for cancelling the treaty.
[/quote]

wait, so Polaris would have done the beer review that NSO did not want to do and NSO still refused? then they cancel on Polaris, cuz Polaris got tired of taking a beating for NSO's pride, when they were willing to do the beer review on NSO's behalf...

heh. have to say that this changes much (though Fark/GOD/others should now just drop the stupid beer review regardless) bout what i thought was going on if this is true. NSO trying smear Polaris's already smeared name is quite pathetic.

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='24 February 2010 - 10:30 AM' timestamp='1267029248' post='2201534']
A beer review isn't a surrender term. It [b]is[/b] an admission of defeat. There is actually a difference. An admission of defeat is just that. An admission of "Ok, you really whupped us, you win, let's call this off." This is what the vast majorities of so-called "white peace" declarations entail.

A surrender is, in addition to an admission of defeat, a submission to the will of the victor. It is saying "you have vanquished us, we want out, but we recognize that we must bend to your whims and will to do so." No one (yet) is asking this of NSO.

NSO has lost this war. No two ways around it. Trying to seek a simple "end of hostilities" where no one is officially the victor, simply for the egotistical and utterly transparent claim of being "undefeated" is, at this juncture, stupid and counterproductive. A "white peace" the way that NSO is trying to define it is something reserved for opponents who are so evenly matched that no clear victor is apparent, and for opponents who acquit themselves so well that they earn the respect, mercy, and approbation of their opponents. Sadly, for NSO, things are not evenly matched and they have spit in the face of every opportunity to earn respect or mercy.

So now, they have to admit they lost. Not surrender, but own up to the reality of the situation.
[/quote]

fairly certain that NSO knows that they have been stomped on and defeated. but the fact that all they want is what has been offered to essentially everyone else is not much. fact is, i don't see how hard it is to give them a simple white peace (though i do agree that NSO should accept the term to not re-enter) but the beer review can easily be removed. the fact is, it is plain for all to see that NSO lost and i doubt NSO is gonna go around saying that they won this war but the fact that ya'll continue this war because you don't want to compromise, shows ya'll to be worse than whatever you are attempting to throw on NSO (way friggin worse). i used to have respect for Fark and CSN (never knew GO and pretty much expect this from GOD) but after this and seeing some of their posts, not so much. beating on a defeated enemy is not honorable.

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 10:41 AM' timestamp='1267029919' post='2201552']
Normally I applaud and appreciate your style but in this case you are wrong. You have denied peace with no in-game repercussions and are guilty of holding your ally in a war that you refuse to peace out of. You currently aren't in the war because you came to the defense of Polar, you are currently in a war that you declared in Defense of IRON. How deliciously IRONic that you left that out of your OP. Polar, while much of it was their own doing, has every right to peace out after a month of fighting if you won't accept peace because you don't want to do a beer review.
[/quote]

i do have to agree with this post. calling out Polaris for what is inevitably NSO's own doing is just as pathetic as Fark/GOD/CSN/GO and whomever else is keeping NSO in this war due to a beer review. i can understand standing by your principles, but forcing your ally to do so (especially considering you redeclared to get some of your allies out of the war) is kinda stupid.

[kevin32891]

[quote name='Jens of the desert' date='24 February 2010 - 12:01 PM' timestamp='1267031125' post='2201597']
I look forward to your continued and imminent destruction with bated breath.
[/quote]
Trust me, just because we lost much pixels that doesn't mean we're going to bend over and disband. Good day sir.

[Wabooz]

I thought Fark said no to Polar doing the beer review in NSO's place?

[Choader]

[quote name='Earogema' date='24 February 2010 - 08:59 AM' timestamp='1267030973' post='2201589']
Yeah, and I was right there fighting with them. PC did more than their fair share of work on the Polar front. Don't believe me, ask FOK, \m/, and Polar. You know, the 3 alliances that were actually involved in that front. They've lost around 2 million since the start of the war while being engaged in fronts they're "obviously" going to win.
[/quote]
No one has fought longer then Poison Clan in this war, I don't even know how it got brought up. We might be on the winning side of this war but it didn't start that way and fighting seven alliances makes quite a dent.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1267031482' post='2201606']
We did reject almost white peace. It resulted in us getting actual white peace.
[/quote]
And was this before or after you declared in support of IRON?

[pezstar]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='24 February 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1267032315' post='2201627']
And was this before or after you declared in support of IRON?
[/quote]



[quote]Perhaps you'd like to show me where STA declared in support of IRON [b] or [/b]rejected near-white peace for x,y,z reasons.[/quote]

I've met your requirements.

Edited February 24, 2010 by pezstar

[The Pansy]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='24 February 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1267031251' post='2201600']
My loving arms are always open to sheep who have strayed from my flock.
[/quote]
So are my....... wait, never mind

[Branimir]

NSO remains a rare beacon of integrity and reason in this war, if not the only.

Also, probably the most wronged party in this war.
Entered in defense of an ally (which started a stupid war to begin with), left out to dry when that ally peaced out not securing them peace in the process, or even informing them of it on time. Had to face half hearted show of re entry from that ally on their behalf to not only seeing them also deploy against their side but as well, leaving them to dry again by peacing out.

lol, that is just nasty. You may lost some NS, but you gained incredibly in reputation and respect, NSO. I wish you all the best.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1267030166' post='2201560']
Not really, you stayed in defense of the original ally that was in the war. NSO was fighting in defense of Polar and then had a ceasefire and was about to have peace when they re-declared in defense of IRON.

TPF's situation was straight forward. NSO's is a ball of yarn.
[/quote]
The NSO never got a ceasefire. Not sure what you are talking about.

[Electron Sponge]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1267031229' post='2201599']
And so Polar destroys another relationship.
[/quote]
I don't think you can put this squarely on Polar's shoulders. There's enough blame to go around. Treaties without our signature on them chaining us to alliances we don't really care for could very well be a major source of irritation. I'm not speaking for Polar here (and haven't since July 4, 2008), but I personally had a big problem with my alliance fighting for IRON by proxy given our history. In my opinion it is right and proper for Polaris to stick to the side more ideologically aligned with itself, and if that means ties are cut with an alliance that denigrated our efforts to both defend them and get them a very equitable peace agreement then so be it. It's a shame that that alliance happens to be led by a permanent member of Polaris but we can't expect him to toe the Polar line all the time. Disagreements happen and sometimes treaties get canceled. I'm sure the healthy communication that exists between Ivan and our command staff will continue to exist, treaty or no. As the one of the founders of our alliance and an Imperator Emeritus, he will always have the respect and admiration of our membership even if we may at times disagree.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Choader' date='24 February 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1267032171' post='2201626']
No one has fought longer then Poison Clan in this war, I don't even know how it got brought up. We might be on the winning side of this war but it didn't start that way and fighting seven alliances makes quite a dent.
[/quote]
NSO declared on FOK a good deal of time before PC entered the war.