Notice of Cancellation

[Thrashersk]

wrong thread

Edited February 24, 2010 by Thrashersk

[The AUT]

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 06:08 PM' timestamp='1267035116' post='2201715']
I personally request you stop using that image.

I should also note that the situations are not the same...in the least. And your use of LUE 2.0 propaganda is o so clever. You disgust me, which is sad because I was probably one of the last people on this planet to respect you.
[/quote]

Yes I care so much. You've been using the same line for 2 years as if I owe you something. If I "disgust" you then I must be doing something right. I'm not here to humor you or make friends out of my enemies. I work hard to earn the respect of my friends, I could care less about earning those of my enemies. If I am the way I am, it's because there's a reason for it.

So I don't like NpO, NV, your alliance and many others learn to live with it. I'm going to make posts that don't support your viewpoint no matter how "idiotic" you think they are. If you're in this game for a one world system, get NPO back in power.

Polaris trying to defend itself from the obvious betrayal of a friend who came to their defense, that's just mind boggling.

Edited February 24, 2010 by The AUT

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Branimir' date='24 February 2010 - 06:47 PM' timestamp='1267037440' post='2201786']
You mean, in your personal opinion on how benign or not the term is. Irrelevant to the point of my post.

What is relevant to any true ally of NSO is how they see it, if they want to be true allies of theirs. Especially after wronging them originally.
NpO had a obligation they chosen to ignore twice now. [b]What would be more polite is to then just cancel the treaty[/b] and not making NSO do that as well.

Honestly, cant be bothered further with this crap. You all carry on gents.
[/quote]

Oh ho, but it is relevant as my entire point was NSO attaching a massive and unrealistic significance to a benign term, when there is nothing that entitles them to do so when compared with others who have also been subject to that term, is the underlining factor here as it effectively hurts NpO (far more then NSO one might argue as they have more in general to loose) simply because of NSO's misplaced sense of pride. If NSO is not seeing things realistically, and that clouded vision is adversely effecting their allies (i.e. Polar), how they see it looses its importance over time. One could argue that NSO had an obligation to act within reason when not doing so would hurt their allies, and I find that argument to have much more weight when placed along side the argument that NpO had an obligation to continue to bleed while NSO acted outlandishly.

However, the bold portion is the best counter point I have seen so far. I agree that it probably would have been for the best, or at least much better than this, if Polar canceled this treaty when it became clear that NSO did not care about the adverse effects that their unreasonable decision (i.e. claiming to be above a silly beer review when there is nothing in reality to entitle them as such) was having on their allies.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1267032436' post='2201628']
I've met your requirements.
[/quote]
You probably think this song is about you.

Ill be sure to replace it with AND next time for the critically impaired.

Edited February 24, 2010 by tamerlane

[Fluoroalien]

[quote name='Branimir' date='24 February 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1267038850' post='2201821']
Already explained in my previous post. But you do not read.

NSO considers it to be humiliating for them, thus, forcing them to do it is forcing them to make an act of humiliation by their standards. If, as you said, you do not seek their humiliation and the term in your eyes is anyway just playful fun and nothing crucial, then dropping it isn't a problem, is it?[/quote]

I find it quite interesting that you're accusing somebody else of not reading properly, given that you're still calling for us to drop the beer review clause for NSO.

Allow me to point out something that you obviously missed:


[quote name='Jim Bob the Glorious' date='24 February 2010 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1267033536' post='2201654']
Going forward, NSO will not be getting 'White Peace' from Fark. They have been given many chances to get out at terms they found acceptable only to back away without notice. Like everyone else that Fark fights today, if they want peace it will come through surrender.
[/quote]

You can rest assured, we will not be seeking a beer review from NSO to end this conflict.

[pezstar]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='24 February 2010 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1267039085' post='2201826']
You probably think this song is about you.

Ill be sure to replace it with AND next time for the critically impaired.
[/quote]

I'm sorry. Did you actually just insult me for not understanding that when you typed or you meant and? The words are opposite. How in the world am I supposed to know that you meant to type something different than what you typed?

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Bob these one-off statements about how that war was about tech raiding can at best be called 'intentionally misleading'.[/quote]
Regarding the wider war, clearly other factors are in play and it isn't really about the original dispute any more. But the original starting of the war by Polar was, at root, about raiding alliances. Sure, there were other aggravatory factors (basically \m/ being terrible at diplomacy and daring you to do something about it), but that was what started the dispute.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1267039221' post='2201829']
I'm sorry. Did you actually just insult me for not understanding that when you typed or you meant and? The words are opposite. How in the world am I supposed to know that you meant to type something different than what you typed?
[/quote]

No. I'm saying the intent of my post was obvious and that you chose to hang your response on what I will admit was, a grammatical error. The intent being, STA and NSO's cases of surrender couldn't be any more different.

Edited February 24, 2010 by tamerlane

[Duncan King]

Good luck, NSO. I can't say that I blame you here, NpO has not been a steadfast ally of yours of late even though you willingly jumped into the fire for them.

[Electron Sponge]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='24 February 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1267038588' post='2201815']
I do not disagree. Unfortunately considering the hidden nature of NpO's withdrawal it was necessary in order to clarify our reasons for cancellation. Frankly, and I think my alliance will agree, I am tired of the secret diplomacy throughout this conflict that seems to be the causation of so many of our problems. They are what they are, there's no reason to try to cover them up in this instance.
[/quote]
You do realize that your leader has access to all Polar leadership discussions, right? There was no hidden nature to our withdrawal as far as NSO is concerned.

Edit: Clarifying your reasons for the public at large is nothing more than grandstanding.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Electron Sponge

[Branimir]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='24 February 2010 - 08:12 PM' timestamp='1267038976' post='2201825']Oh ho, but it is relevant as my entire point was NSO attaching a massive and unrealistic significance to a benign term, when there is nothing that entitles them to do so when compared with others who have also been subject to that term, is the underlining factor here as it effectively hurts NpO (far more then NSO one might argue as they have more in general to loose) simply because of NSO's misplaced sense of pride.[/quote]
Entitles them? Their sense of self respect? It could be different then some of the other alliances, does not make it less valid.

Again, and I repeat as you are repeating yourself like a broken record in the spirit of false debating, you can judge how silly NSO is and find them to be stupid for rejecting those terms. That way, you can try to make things look better for Polaris. And they are from your point of view.

It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, though, to the other way at looking at this, the one that comes when you look at the entire picture here.

NpO did not secure peace for NSO when originally leaving the battlefield. Epic wrong as it was their obligation. Then, in an effort to make things right, they re entered on their side, but also on the other side of NSO to then just leave them again out to dry by peacing out and not managing to secure NSO peace in the process. I dunno if they even tried,...

"We will make things right", were Grub's words. He didn't. Original mistake was not mended and NSO was not granted white peace. NSO backed NpO in what NpO thought was right. NpO did not give back in the same measure. They could have just dropped the treaty and be over with it.

For NSO the beer review (and not only for them but also some other people as we can see here) term is an insult to them. That is a serious matter. True ally of theirs would respect that and back them, or would recognize that it does not want to back them and end it by a treaty cancellation.
Not, let their allies out to dry --twice-- and then leaving it up to them to do the act that needs to be done after something like that-- cancel their mutual treaty. Low class.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Branimir

[pezstar]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='24 February 2010 - 02:27 PM' timestamp='1267039832' post='2201842']
No, im saying the intent of my post was obvious and that you chose to hang your response on what I will admit was, a grammatical error. The intent being, STA and NSO's cases of surrender couldn't be any more different.
[/quote]

Right, but they actually were pretty much the exact same in the original conflict. Fark wouldn't let NSO off with the same white peace granted to STA in that one, which is why NSO decided to just call their continuing war with Fark a declaration in defense of IRON, so that their friends and allies would not be stuck in a war defending them when absolutely everyone else was already at peace.

My point is that the conflict has evolved beyond the original declaration upon NSO by Fark in defense of FoK, however even in the original conflict, Fark was unwilling to grant the same white peace afforded to others, so the idea that they're only refusing to do so now because the surrenders are so different is kind of moot.

Edited February 24, 2010 by pezstar

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='24 February 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1267040029' post='2201846']
You do realize that your leader has access to all Polar leadership discussions, right? There was no hidden nature to our withdrawal as far as NSO is concerned.
[/quote]

You of all people should realize politics is a public affair.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1267040110' post='2201850']
Right, but they actually were pretty much the exact same in the original conflict. Fark wouldn't let NSO off with the same white peace granted to STA in that one, which is why NSO decided to just call their continuing war with Fark a declaration in defense of IRON, so that their friends and allies would not be stuck in a war defending them when absolutely everyone else was already at peace.

My point is that the conflict has evolved beyond the original declaration upon NSO by Fark in defense of FoK, however even in the original conflict, Fark was unwilling to grant the same white peace afforded to others, so the idea that they're only refusing to do so now because the surrenders are so different is kind of moot.
[/quote]


So an alliance at war should give out the same generic peace offer to all involved combatants? I don't think I necessarily agree with that.

[pezstar]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='24 February 2010 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1267040487' post='2201854']
So an alliance at war should give out the same generic peace offer to all involved combatants? I don't think I necessarily agree with that.
[/quote]

Fark didn't give out the same generic peace offer to everyone. Some had to do beer reviews. Others didn't.

[Electron Sponge]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='24 February 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1267040263' post='2201852']
You of all people should realize politics is a public affair.
[/quote]
Indeed I do, which leads me to questions - why is it that NSO intends on scoring political points against Polaris? What possible good can come of that for you? Is this one of those "You can't fire me because I quit, now who's coming with me?" kind of things? I honestly don't see where any of this drama benefits you in the slightest. For most people it comes off rather hollow and childish.

Speaking to the larger points of this cancellation, you can't sanely expect us to join in your voluntary eternal war suicide pact. If you did expect us to, I'm very glad this treaty is canceled. You guys refused [i]very[/i] reasonable terms under a silly "no surrender" ethos. When you're losing a war, sometimes the smart thing to do is cut your losses and bow out gracefully. I've done it before, so has Ivan. It stings but you can use that sting as a motivator, too.

Refusing peace because someone thought being required to write a couple paragraphs about a beverage was insult is a gigantic slap in the face to the people who time and time again backed you to the hilt even when you were very, very much in the wrong. Our image has suffered greatly in the past several months in no small part due to our treaty with NSO. Hopefully now that we don't have to balance treaty obligations with our sense of dignity we can move forward and repair some severely damaged long-term friendships.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='24 February 2010 - 02:48 PM' timestamp='1267041113' post='2201865']
Indeed I do, which leads me to questions - why is it that NSO intends on scoring political points against Polaris? What possible good can come of that for you? Is this one of those "You can't fire me because I quit, now who's coming with me?" kind of things? I honestly don't see where any of this drama benefits you in the slightest. For most people it comes off rather hollow and childish.[/quote]

No. Seeing as the cancellation is public knowledge, the reason should be too.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Wad of Lint

[pezstar]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='24 February 2010 - 02:48 PM' timestamp='1267041113' post='2201865']
Indeed I do, which leads me to questions - why is it that NSO intends on scoring political points against Polaris? What possible good can come of that for you? Is this one of those "You can't fire me because I quit, now who's coming with me?" kind of things? I honestly don't see where any of this drama benefits you in the slightest. For most people it comes off rather hollow and childish.

Speaking to the larger points of this cancellation, you can't sanely expect us to join in your voluntary eternal war suicide pact. If you did expect us to, I'm very glad this treaty is canceled. You guys refused [i]very[/i] reasonable terms under a silly "no surrender" ethos. When you're losing a war, sometimes the smart thing to do is cut your losses and bow out gracefully. I've done it before, so has Ivan. It stings but you can use that sting as a motivator, too.

Refusing peace because someone thought being required to write a couple paragraphs about a beverage was insult is a gigantic slap in the face to the people who time and time again backed you to the hilt even when you were very, very much in the wrong. Our image has suffered greatly in the past several months in no small part due to our treaty with NSO. Hopefully now that we don't have to balance treaty obligations with our sense of dignity we can move forward and repair some severely damaged long-term friendships.
[/quote]


As a member of government of an alliance who spent quite a lot of time treatied to NSO, I think it is very unfair for you to say that Polaris's image suffered in no small part due to your relationship with them. We're talking about an alliance who stood beside you and defended you when your leader declared an aggressive war on \m/ for no reason other than that he didn't feel as though he could back out once he threatened them. The damage to your image is pretty much entirely the fault of Grub. Moldavi is on record saying he did not support the aggressive war TOP and IRON declared. STA is on record for saying the same thing.

NpO has made mistake after mistake in the last 2 months. Exactly none of them are NSOs fault. The damage to your image lies entirely on your own leader.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1267040593' post='2201858']
Fark didn't give out the same generic peace offer to everyone. Some had to do beer reviews. Others didn't.
[/quote]

As it is FARK's right as the victor to give out terms as they please. They won. It is not the place of a defeated enemy to dictate the terms to the victor. If you take out all the other alliances who surrendered and look at these terms on an individual basis, they are quite generous and reasonable. It was Ivan's right to reject them as it is also his right to hoist himself onto a cross that he created and martyr himself. Doing so only endangered the well-being of his friends and allies in polar which is something that should not be applauded nor rewarded. The fact that Polar did not cancel on NSO says a great deal about their patience and commitment.

[pezstar]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='24 February 2010 - 02:55 PM' timestamp='1267041524' post='2201872']
As it is FARK's right as the victor to give out terms as they please. They won. It is not the place of a defeated enemy to dictate the terms to the victor. If you take out all the other alliances who surrendered and look at these terms on an individual basis, they are quite generous and reasonable. It was Ivan's right to reject them as it is also his right to hoist himself onto a cross that he created and martyr himself. Doing so only endangered the well-being of his friends and allies in polar which is something that should not be applauded nor rewarded. The fact that Polar did not cancel on NSO says a great deal about their patience and commitment.
[/quote]

You are absolutely correct there. It is Fark's right to ask for whatever terms they'd like to. It is NSO's right to react to their request in whatever fashion they please. It is the right of the observer and peripherally involved to let whichever party they disagree with know why.

[CaptainImpavid]

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1267040593' post='2201858']
Fark didn't give out the same generic peace offer to everyone. Some had to do beer reviews. Others didn't.
[/quote]

Either way NSO isn't/wasn't being singled out.

I'll ask you this, to put things a different way. NSO expects Fark to treat them like all Fark's other opponents were treated. Is it not reasonable, as the flip side of that coin, for Fark to expect NSO to treat them like all Fark's other opponents, then? It all comes down to the fact that one's actions and outcomes do not exist in a vacuum. The each influence the other.

Fark, and CSN, and GOD, and GO, and anyone else fighting NSO are well within their rights to say that mercy and generosity given will be in direct proportion to the respect and civility received. Simple as that.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='24 February 2010 - 03:00 PM' timestamp='1267041836' post='2201877']
Fark, and CSN, and GOD, and GO, and anyone else fighting NSO are well within their rights to say that mercy and generosity given will be in direct proportion to the respect and civility received. Simple as that.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Oh, I get it now. NSO was disrespectful to you? Sure you've been much more volatile and quite frankly started whatever bad blood there is between you, but because NSO didn't act timid and bow before you they clearly must pay the price that comes with not respecting your authority. You know, I am pretty sure that if the situations were reversed that the NSO would not be so petty with you as you are being with them.[/color]

[tamerlane]

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1267041668' post='2201875']
You are absolutely correct there. It is Fark's right to ask for whatever terms they'd like to. It is NSO's right to react to their request in whatever fashion they please. It is the right of the observer and peripherally involved to let whichever party they disagree with know why.
[/quote]

Aint that the truf.

[CaptainImpavid]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='24 February 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1267042159' post='2201881']
[color="#0000FF"]Oh, I get it now. NSO was disrespectful to you? Sure you've been much more volatile and quite frankly started whatever bad blood there is between you, but because NSO didn't act timid and bow before you they clearly must pay the price that comes with not respecting your authority. You know, I am pretty sure that if the situations were reversed that the NSO would not be so petty with you as you are being with them.[/color]
[/quote]

Ah yes, it was us who publicly threatened the other with war over a stupid, minor incident that could have been quietly and amicably handled. It was us who continued to snipe and make insulting comments about them in every one of their threads. It was us who consistently insult the other and call them a terrible alliance. It was us who labeled the other the "D-Bag Front." It was us who routinely lied to the rest of the world about the circumstances of our communications.

We are humbled and contrite, oh great one! Please teach us, that we might learn better to coexist with our brothers!

[mhawk]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='24 February 2010 - 11:48 AM' timestamp='1267041113' post='2201865'] Our image has suffered greatly in the past several months in no small part due to our treaty with NSO.
[/quote]
I'd actually say NSO has been the least of your image suffering in recent times.