Notice of Cancellation

[mhawk]

[quote name='D34th' date='23 February 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1266993947' post='2200923']
Whatever conclusion make you happy, Ivan has free access to our forums and knows our reasons, and he and his membership is the only who need to like it or not.
[/quote]
Is there not another answer you can come up with to the accusation that Polar has deeply wronged many people that came to your defense on good will or as allies, other than "we have our reasons don't be quick to judge". Over and over you use very superficial excuses or side steps to that very direct question. It is pretty clear there was some secret deal behind the scenes for quite some time. You can't pretend to play super honorable victim and honor both sides of your treaties then make a secret pact with half the war and use all your forces on the other. More disturbing is you are utilizing what limited resources you have against the people that came to your defense. To that all you have to say is "whatever conclusions make you happy."

Pathetic.

[Haflinger]

Fingo is correct about Altheus as well. That quote was from a discussion that had nothing to do with this war, but rather was an abstract discussion of what action alliances would take in cases of being given a CB.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='delendum' date='24 February 2010 - 01:43 AM' timestamp='1266994044' post='2200926']
Pretty much how the NSO would never force their allies to remain in a war by virtue of refusing to accept something silly like doing a beer review?
[/quote]

If you think that we refused to accept white peace because we don't like Fark's beer review, then you are sadly misinformed. That and your spin has failed completely.

And don't forget that you guys asked Polar to remain in the war too. Hmmm. Good try though.

[Haflinger]

Also, if you're surprised by this announcement, you need to get your head out of the sand. It was really necessary.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='delendum' date='24 February 2010 - 01:43 AM' timestamp='1266994044' post='2200926']
Pretty much how the NSO would never force their allies to remain in a war by virtue of refusing to accept something silly like doing a beer review?
[/quote]
First, we entered to defend them, not the other way around. Simply because they left the field the fight never stopped for us.

Second, we didn't request that they re-join because of the fact that they had left us on the field.

Third, when they told us that they would re-join we asked them to declare on Fark since they are our biggest and strongest opponent. We were told that they couldn't handle Fark at the time so they declared on a meatshield. We all know how effective that is in gaining a tactical advantage, right?

Shortly thereafter, even though they couldn't handle Fark, they declared on TOP, a larger alliance that was already outnumbered by a great deal. Over the past week they have stopped declaring new wars on GOD and started concentrating on TOP.

So, no, I have not kept anyone in war at all. In fact I did the opposite. My counter declaration on Fark was to alleviate our allies in Terra Cotta for having to continue to defend us since they were left holding the bag with us.

As far as the term goes, it doesn't matter what it is. The entire front exited on white peace. The rest of the front exited again tonight on white peace. We will not bend over and take it like happy fools simply because others, who got white peace, think we should surrender.

[SpoiL]

[quote name='Jrenster' date='24 February 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1266994298' post='2200949']
If you think that we refused to accept white peace because we don't like Fark's beer review, then you are sadly misinformed. That and your spin has failed completely.

[b]And don't forget that you guys asked Polar to remain in the war.[/b] Hmmm. Good try though.
[/quote]

Gotta love it..

[Anthony]

[quote name='Smacky' date='24 February 2010 - 06:45 AM' timestamp='1266994135' post='2200932']
If standard procedure was cowering in the corner as soon as you got a chance to, sure.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure a good chunk of PC members were in peace mode during the scuffle with Polar last month.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1266993883' post='2200916']
Oh, you mean my alliance being pissed that the allies that we entered to defend went to peace and left us holding the bag? Yeah, you are completely justified in crediting us with that as a "bad move" on our part.

Good job.

I am beginning to believe that it is a systemic issue in Polar instead of a policy one if you are the best they have in this regard.
[/quote]

Went to peace and came back. Your argument here is no better than a peace-mode jibe. The second aspect of this is whether you think it's a good idea to spend a bunch of time trolling us on public forums *right before* we came back in to support you (not in the exact way you wanted, but how much of what we do would you like to control?). You know as well as I that despite many of us feeling bad about the way this has happened, the majority of our membership is so fed up with the way your membership has been treating us during this war that we're having a little bit of trouble summoning a lot of outrage over this.

[KahlanRahl]

I can't say this is surprising. You're not the only ally NpO jerked around.

Best of luck, NSO. May you soon find peace.

Edited February 24, 2010 by KahlanRahl

[Corinan]

[quote name='Elyat' date='24 February 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1266994212' post='2200940']
I'm saying that Dopp has perpetrated a number of the blunders that caused the breakdown of relations between NpO and NSO; while NpO's errors can be measured in the last month, those of NSO stretch back to the foundation of Frostbite. This conclusion was determined when NSO chose IRON over NpO and STA.
[/quote]

Christ, are you serious? You're out of touch, brother. Get on back to that retirement home you call an alliance.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Corinan

[Heft]

[quote name='Smacky' date='24 February 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1266994135' post='2200932']
If standard procedure was cowering in the corner as soon as you got a chance to, sure.
[/quote]
You're dumb.

[quote name='Elyat' date='24 February 2010 - 12:46 AM' timestamp='1266994212' post='2200940']
I'm saying that Dopp has perpetrated a number of the blunders that caused the breakdown of relations between NpO and NSO; while NpO's errors can be measured in the last month, those of NSO stretch back to the foundation of Frostbite. This conclusion was determined when NSO chose IRON over NpO and STA.
[/quote]
I wasn't aware we "chose" anyone over anyone else.

[delendum]

[quote name='mhawk' date='24 February 2010 - 06:47 AM' timestamp='1266994259' post='2200947']
Is there not another answer you can come up with to the accusation that Polar has deeply wronged many people that came to your defense on good will or as allies, other than "we have our reasons don't be quick to judge". Over and over you use very superficial excuses or side steps to that very direct question. It is pretty clear there was some secret deal behind the scenes for quite some time. You can't pretend to play super honorable victim and honor both sides of your treaties then make a secret pact with half the war and use all your forces on the other. More disturbing is you are utilizing what limited resources you have against the people that came to your defense. To that all you have to say is "whatever conclusions make you happy."

Pathetic.
[/quote]

If you don't like how particular alliances handle fighting two sides at once, you could refrain from attacking one of their direct treaty partners so you wouldn't have to witness it to begin with.

Edited February 24, 2010 by delendum

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Smacky' date='24 February 2010 - 01:47 AM' timestamp='1266994259' post='2200946']
Are you kidding? Unlike you I've keep my war slots full and the missiles flying for over a month now. What effort have you put into this war on the battlefield?
[/quote]
Yeah, we have some of those too, big deal.

When PC entered this war over 90% of your alliance was in peace mode. It seemed to be a good tactic for you at the time, right? That is because that is how it works. You escape a stagger, enter peace mode, rebuild and when the time is right you come back out, especially if you are facing great odds and possibly perpetual war.

For me to be telling you how this is done is really, really bad. Ask around.

[Smacky]

[quote name='Anthony' date='23 February 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1266994369' post='2200954']
I'm pretty sure a good chunk of PC members were in peace mode during the scuffle with Polar last month.
[/quote]
Then you're pretty wrong. I'd look up the numbers if I had the means but aside from second wave only a couple were in peace.

[Pearl]

Bummer w/ the treaty. I would do the same thing in your shoes.


I find it a bit lulzy that no one has offered you white peace. Are you really surprised? Really? I hate to be a douche, but I can't say I am surprised.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Elyat' date='24 February 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1266994212' post='2200940']
I'm saying that Dopp has perpetrated a number of the blunders that caused the breakdown of relations between NpO and NSO; while NpO's errors can be measured in the last month, those of NSO stretch back to the foundation of Frostbite. This conclusion was determined when NSO chose IRON over NpO and STA.
[/quote]

Yeah, NSO totally chose IRON over NpO and STA, they totally didn't DoW on FOK in defense of NpO, stand strong when dogpilled by 15 million NS, and then DoW on CSN in defense of STA despite not even having a treaty obligation to do so anymore. Wait...they did.

[Heft]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' date='24 February 2010 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1266994377' post='2200955']
Went to peace and came back. Your argument here is no better than a peace-mode jibe. The second aspect of this is whether you think it's a good idea to spend a bunch of time trolling us on public forums *right before* we came back in to support you (not in the exact way you wanted, but how much of what we do would you like to control?). You know as well as I that despite many of us feeling bad about the way this has happened, the majority of our membership is so fed up with the way your membership has been treating us during this war that we're having a little bit of trouble summoning a lot of outrage over this.
[/quote]
I'm actually of the opinion we've been pretty light-handed in publicly discussing such things over the last few weeks.

[Pingu]

[quote name='Jrenster' date='24 February 2010 - 01:38 AM' timestamp='1266993696' post='2200893']
Good one. I guess losing 100% instead of 70% NS would constitute giving it all in your mind, right?
[/quote]

Well, technically 100% is a synonym of 'all' so that would be one literal, if farcical interpretation. I don't think anyone who's paying attention can seriously doubt that NSO has fought hard and given much. I am sad to see this parting of the ways. I'll leave some cake here for Chron - it may ease the pain a little. I know Ivan's views on cake so won't leave any for him.

[Bob Sanders]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='24 February 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1266994108' post='2200928']
SF threatened NSO after Corinan started throwing his own our way. Don't be daft.
[/quote]
Doesn't really matter why. They were worried about a war and acted to strengthen their position. I don't particularly like NSO or SF but it was pretty obvious that NSO was gonna get hit at some point if this war hadn't happened. Yes they were reckless but the point of this was you claiming that the IRON treaty was a mistake, due to the situation I don't think it was.

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='joracy' date='24 February 2010 - 01:43 AM' timestamp='1266994000' post='2200925']
You mean the one treaty that got hit aggressively for no good reason, and therefore didn't activate the non-chaining clause? Gee Whiz, who knew *that* could cause some problems, and maybe piss some people off and damage your support? Your side put UPN in an utterly atrocious situation, and they've been doing the best they can to deal with it. I really wish they hadn't been placed in such a situation, but such is life I guess.
[/quote]

Because their treatied purple allies were fighting C&G? Did i miss something here?

Considering that UPN is CDT, has an MDAP with Invicta, and an MDoAP with Legion among others, it doesn't take much to understand that they could have easliy found a target which had absolutely nothing to do with the IRON/TOP/C&G front.

Add to that our favourite quote from altheus "of not attacking if we're going to lose" then it's really obvious to all but the most simple or closed minds as to what UPN's stance was during this war.

I never expected them to come to Valhalla's aid, but when they watched Invicta and USN burn, i was shocked. I didn't think they would go so low just to suck up to C&G.

[KagetheSecond]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='23 February 2010 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1266994639' post='2200966']
Yeah, NSO totally chose IRON over NpO and STA, they totally didn't DoW on FOK in defense of NpO, stand strong when dogpilled by 15 million NS, and then DoW on CSN in defense of STA despite not even having a treaty obligation to do so anymore. Wait...they did.
[/quote]
Hey Fin, can you please join OMFG now?

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' date='24 February 2010 - 01:49 AM' timestamp='1266994377' post='2200955']
Went to peace and came back. Your argument here is no better than a peace-mode jibe. The second aspect of this is whether you think it's a good idea to spend a bunch of time trolling us on public forums *right before* we came back in to support you (not in the exact way you wanted, but how much of what we do would you like to control?). You know as well as I that despite many of us feeling bad about the way this has happened, the majority of our membership is so fed up with the way your membership has been treating us during this war that we're having a little bit of trouble summoning a lot of outrage over this.
[/quote]
Umm, no.

You forget that I know as much as you know. Polar went to peace. There were no plans to re-enter until there was an outrage amongst some of the membership.

You pointing out a couple of days of trolling when you obviously $%&@ed up is absurd considering how certain other alliances have been treating Polar for months with no repercussions.

For you to play the victim here is high comedy. I salute you for your effort. Get back to me in the alternate reality where we were told you were definitely peacing out before it was posted, where you bothered to inform IRON and TOP about it even though you knew they were planning to attack and where you didn't just generally $%&@ up my entire alliance because I trusted you when I was told white peace was coming and it was a lie.

[Anthony]

[quote name='Smacky' date='24 February 2010 - 06:51 AM' timestamp='1266994514' post='2200963']
Then you're pretty wrong. I'd look up the numbers if I had the means but aside from second wave only a couple were in peace.
[/quote]

Not very convincing but alright. The 'heh you're in PM heh' argument was taken care of pretty nicely by RV on the last page anyway.

[D34th]

[quote name='mhawk' date='24 February 2010 - 03:47 AM' timestamp='1266994259' post='2200947']
Is there not another answer you can come up with to the accusation that Polar has deeply wronged many people that came to your defense on good will or as allies, other than "we have our reasons don't be quick to judge". Over and over you use very superficial excuses or side steps to that very direct question. It is pretty clear there was some secret deal behind the scenes for quite some time. You can't pretend to play super honorable victim and honor both sides of your treaties then make a secret pact with half the war and use all your forces on the other. More disturbing is you are utilizing what limited resources you have against the people that came to your defense. To that all you have to say is "whatever conclusions make you happy."

Pathetic.
[/quote]

I wasn't trying to say "we have our reasons don't be quick to judge" but "we have our reasons and they doesn't concern to you." I'll not lose my time explaining thing for you when all you want is make us look bad and support your side of war.

Want to know a funny thing? You and the others haters in this thread are all about [i]"You abandoned your allies in war, this isn't honorable, allies shouldn't act like that!"[/i] but I'm sure that all of you would be happy and saying how much yoo love Polaris if we hadn't honored our treaty with MK. So why should we care to explain things to hypocrities like you?

[joracy]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='24 February 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1266994179' post='2200937']
You mean, the one treaty that got suspended when UPN was facing enormous odds lined up against them?

Gee.
[/quote]

Well that was certainly relevant, and addressed my point.