Joint New Polar Order/Ragnarok Announcement

[Caliph]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='01 April 2010 - 04:49 AM' timestamp='1270122579' post='2243579']
So then Hoo was lying?
[/quote]
Hoo was not lying, I had a talk with Hoo last night about this treaty, I just had no idea it was going to be announced today.

I personally don't like this treaty, but Hoo gave me some reassurances last night of what RoK would do in some ...hypothetical situations.

He reassured me enough to where I am not against this treaty being resigned, but that doesn't mean I like it. Polar treated like !@#$ last time around, and this time around. Polar has done nothing to mend relations with us, I just don't see \m/ and Polar being friends, or treaty partners, and I see us as complete opposites. I would just rather have RoK treaty someone who isn't so hostile towards us.

And as for us being so paranoid, I invite you to take a look at what we've been through in our 3 months of existence, and you'll see why we are so cautious, and if you know anything about our history you'll understand why we are so paranoid, especially regarding Polar.

[D34th]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='01 April 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1270144666' post='2244047']
If making life difficult for your allies is a good day for you, you have some serious issues my friend.
[/quote]

I think that Hoo have more to worry about than I saying how much I dislike your alliance.

[Swiper]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='01 April 2010 - 01:43 PM' timestamp='1270143767' post='2244026']
Look, I have very direct ties to members in RoK, I wish them nothing but the best and I understand their desire to regain their treaty with NpO, hell it don't take a rocket scientist to figure out that between NpO and \m/ NpO is the better bet. That being said as a member of \m/ I have asked myself the following questions and came to the following answers.
1. Do I trust that RoK would defend us against future NpO aggression? No
2. Do I thrust that RoK would have our best interest at heart if conflict should arise between \m/ and any other alliance tied in any obscure way to this treaty? No
3. Do I feel that RoK adequately sought out the feelings of \m/ membership prior to this re-signing? No

I really feel in light of this re-signing and what has been said since that RoK and \m/ need to spend some time together re-evaluating our levels of commitment. I know I have lost some of that desire to defend RoK to a state of ZI if necessary, and if my feelings are common within \m/ it does bring into question whether a MDoAP is a proper treaty to hold.
[/quote]

If you don't think your ally will defend you then perhaps you should drop the treaty. I have more faith in RoK's dedication to you as allies than you do evidently.

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='01 April 2010 - 01:46 PM' timestamp='1270143958' post='2244031']
Let me offer you my congratulations for e-lawyering yourself out of a sticky situation. While you may have followed every letter on a piece of paper, we were content to go much further than the ink and lay our entire existence on the line for the camaraderie that existed.
[/quote]

Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps we didn't want you to continue to the death of us both? That perhaps it would have been better for both of our alliances for you to accept terms with no impact on your alliance in the game, and that would probably cause the general population of this game to have [i]more[/i] respect for you as reasonable players? That we lost control of the situation and a real friend in that situation would have been willing to do what was mutually beneficial for both alliances, once it became clear Fark would not give you white peace?

We made a promise we unfortunately lost the ability to keep, to get everyone white peace. Our bad. Once we lost the ability to do that, you deliberately hurt yourselves and your friends in order to keep a promise your leader made to his people. Not only that but it could easily be argued that the original condition on which the promise was made no longer existed, and that therefore the promise Ivan made not to surrender was void. But you still acted solely out of self-interest.

What we did to you was unintentional. What you did to us was not.

[Caliph]

[quote name='D34th' date='01 April 2010 - 10:58 AM' timestamp='1270144665' post='2244046']
Oh I hurt your fellings because I don't like \m/? It isn't ok for you don't like you? What about your members insuting my former emperor? What about your members doesn't liking us? What about you insulting us in this thread? But when I say that I don't like you all that you can say is "look Hoo/RoK they don't like us" bawww.
[/quote]
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the disrespect Almighty Grub showed us prior to any disrespect towards him from \m/.

You are also ignoring that the insults thrown about since have not been unilateral, they have come from both sides. Don't paint a rosey picture, with Polar being the innocent victim here. Polar is no more innocent of this than \m/.

[Jake Liebenow]

[quote name='Swiper' date='01 April 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1270143145' post='2243998']
We followed treaty obligations to the letter in each scenario. You decided to be an hero, deliberately keeping both of our alliances at war simply to satisfy the urges of an egomaniac. That is betrayal. The fact that we felt the urge to counter-betray simply shows just how effective your betrayal really was.

Also you aren't seriously trolling just to get us to counter-troll, are you? That is quite amateur of you. Real trolling is done to sway the public opinion, which is evidently something you are not very good at, considering we are re-signing treaties and all.
[/quote]

No, I'm not. I wasn't originally trying to troll, ironically enough, but it just managed to dig under your skin enough that it could probably be considered that. I figured, "Why fight it?" Besides, the fact that it dug under your skin is telling enough.

Be that as it may...

NSO fought that war to defend Polar. We would've fought for you through hell and back to defend you, and you damn well know it. If that's how you classify egomania, then that's a damn shame. Being a good e-lawyer is not the same thing as being a good treaty partner. Honoring the spirit of a treaty is being a good treaty partner, and we did that in spades. You did not, especially by declaring on a meatshield. Simple as that.

Also, it's weird. I think I'm starting to actually like \m/. Hmph.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Jake Liebenow

[Harry Dresden]

This thread is about Rok and NpO, not \m/ or NSO. Any more discussions of anyone's relationship with \m/ or NSO will be met with a warn.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Swiper' date='01 April 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1270144826' post='2244053']
Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps we didn't want you to continue to the death of us both? That perhaps it would have been better for both of our alliances for you to accept terms with no impact on your alliance in the game, and that would probably cause the general population of this game to have [i]more[/i] respect for you as reasonable players? That we lost control of the situation and a real friend in that situation would have been willing to do what was mutually beneficial for both alliances, once it became clear Fark would not give you white peace?

We made a promise we unfortunately lost the ability to keep, to get everyone white peace. Our bad. Once we lost the ability to do that, you deliberately hurt yourselves and your friends in order to keep a promise your leader made to his people. Not only that but it could easily be argued that the original condition on which the promise was made no longer existed, and that therefore the promise Ivan made not to surrender was void. But you still acted solely out of self-interest.

What we did to you was unintentional. What you did to us was not.
[/quote]
You lost the ability because you didn't even try. What pressure did Polar put on Fark in regards to getting us clear white peace? Any? Aside from conversations in which you, our allies, agreed with our enemies that we were being "unreasonable", even though at that point no terms were even on the table, what did you do? Did you ask any of the other allies that you were so happy to fight to the end for if they would even ask Fark to reconsider? Did you threaten anything beyond a token declaration (which backfired) on one of their meatshields?

You can't justify that. The beer review term was initially declined because Polar was still telling me that it was going to help me get white peace. Then it was removed from the table altogether and yet you still attempt to use that as complete justification for Polar's abandonment of the NSO. "Ivan stands by his word - therefore he is an egomaniac and we don't need to honor our word to him."

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Anyway, apologies for continuing the discussion I walked into. This is about ROK and Polar renewing their friendship. Again, congratulations.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Ivan Moldavi

[D34th]

[quote name='Caliph' date='01 April 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1270144836' post='2244054']
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the disrespect Almighty Grub showed us prior to any disrespect towards him from \m/.

You are also ignoring that the insults thrown about since have not been unilateral, they have come from both sides. Don't paint a rosey picture, with Polar being the innocent victim here. Polar is no more innocent of this than \m/.
[/quote]

Two wrongs don't make a right specially when the wrong involve racial jokes.

Also if you read what I said I'm not trying to picture Polaris as innocent in fact what I'm saying is that for MM is ok \m/ say that they don't like us but when I do that he point his finger "See RoK/Hoo Polaris is bad!"

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Swiper' date='01 April 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1270144826' post='2244053']
Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps we didn't want you to continue to the death of us both? That perhaps it would have been better for both of our alliances for you to accept terms with no impact on your alliance in the game, and that would probably cause the general population of this game to have [i]more[/i] respect for you as reasonable players? That we lost control of the situation and a real friend in that situation would have been willing to do what was mutually beneficial for both alliances, once it became clear Fark would not give you white peace?

We made a promise we unfortunately lost the ability to keep, to get everyone white peace. Our bad. Once we lost the ability to do that, you deliberately hurt yourselves and your friends in order to keep a promise your leader made to his people. Not only that but it could easily be argued that the original condition on which the promise was made no longer existed, and that therefore the promise Ivan made not to surrender was void. But you still acted solely out of self-interest.

What we did to you was unintentional. What you did to us was not.
[/quote]

First, my issue isn't that you organized peace for yourself, but that you did it without talking with us whatsoever. Instead it was designed to be a secret agreement of which we would not be informed until after the fact. This only illustrates the belief of at least some level of wrong-doing. Further, we have consistently been willing to back up your ideals. We have never second-guessed the ability to win, nor whether or not we'd get destroyed. It was simply an accepted possibility, but many things are more important. Finally, your alliance never once tried to understand the reasons by which we were stubborn. You did not seem to care about our principles or beliefs. Instead, your leadership created a arbitrary goal it wished to achieve, and set out to do so without attempting to adequately understand our position. It was a never ending series of promises that couldn't be kept, and expectations that we'd continue to accept apologies and second bests.

Again, I reiterate my earlier statement that had individuals been more readily open to communication, we would not be having this conversation.

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='01 April 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1270143767' post='2244026']
Look, I have very direct ties to members in RoK, I wish them nothing but the best and I understand their desire to regain their treaty with NpO, hell it don't take a rocket scientist to figure out that between NpO and \m/ NpO is the better bet. That being said as a member of \m/ I have asked myself the following questions and came to the following answers.
1. Do I trust that RoK would defend us against future NpO aggression? No
2. Do I thrust that RoK would have our best interest at heart if conflict should arise between \m/ and any other alliance tied in any obscure way to this treaty? No
3. Do I feel that RoK adequately sought out the feelings of \m/ membership prior to this re-signing? No

I really feel in light of this re-signing and what has been said since that RoK and \m/ need to spend some time together re-evaluating our levels of commitment. I know I have lost some of that desire to defend RoK to a state of ZI if necessary, and if my feelings are common within \m/ it does bring into question whether a MDoAP is a proper treaty to hold.
[/quote]

Gosh, by the way this thread has gone, it seems like Starfox may wake up the next day treatied to the Sith! The look on his face... wouldn't that be a Kodak moment?




In any event, my position remains the same. I do wish Emperor Penguin the best of luck and hope that he will be able to right the wrongs and mend the wounds of the recent events. It is to my displeasure that this does not seem to be occurring.


edit: I see the mod's post now, so I suppose I will end by saying: good luck to Polar and RoK on this treaty. Lines are being drawn, etc.

Edited April 1, 2010 by KainIIIC

[Swiper]

[quote name='Jake Liebenow' date='01 April 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1270145096' post='2244057']
No, I'm not. I wasn't originally trying to troll, ironically enough, but it just managed to dig under your skin enough that it could probably be considered that. I figured, "Why fight it?" Besides, the fact that it dug under your skin is telling enough.

Be that as it may...

NSO fought that war to defend Polar. We would've fought for you through hell and back to defend you, and you damn well know it. If that's how you classify egomania, then that's a damn shame. Being a good e-lawyer is not the same thing as being a good treaty partner. Honoring the spirit of a treaty is being a good treaty partner, and we did that in spades. You did not, especially by declaring on a meatshield. Simple as that.

Also, it's weird. I think I'm starting to actually like \m/. Hmph.
[/quote]
You did not honor the spirit of our treaty. You acted in a manner that hurt us both once it became clear we were unable to get you white peace.

There is more to friendship than attempted murder-suicide in the name of honor.

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='01 April 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1270145348' post='2244068']
First, my issue isn't that you organized peace for yourself, but that you did it without talking with us whatsoever. Instead it was designed to be a secret agreement of which we would not be informed until after the fact. This only illustrates the belief of at least some level of wrong-doing. Further, we have consistently been willing to back up your ideals. We have never second-guessed the ability to win, nor whether or not we'd get destroyed. It was simply an accepted possibility, but many things are more important. Finally, your alliance never once tried to understand the reasons by which we were stubborn. You did not seem to care about our principles or beliefs. Instead, your leadership created a arbitrary goal it wished to achieve, and set out to do so without attempting to adequately understand our position. It was a never ending series of promises that couldn't be kept, and expectations that we'd continue to accept apologies and second bests.

Again, I reiterate my earlier statement that had individuals been more readily open to communication, we would not be having this conversation.
[/quote]

It was never designed to be a secret agreement. It was a public offer of peace at the beginning of the war. We plenty well understood why you didn't want to accept the best offer we could get for you, but it was still wrong.

Agreed that better communication could have avoided the bulk of this though. That doesn't change that you behaved in a way that damaged your ally for the sole benefit of Ivan once communication failed.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Swiper

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Swiper' date='01 April 2010 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1270145383' post='2244070']
You did not honor the spirit of our treaty. You acted in a manner that hurt us both once it became clear we were unable to get you white peace.

There is more to friendship than attempted murder-suicide in the name of honor.
[/quote]
You are wrong. I have already illustrated this above.

You are also talking out of both sides of your mouth since in this instance you are speaking on the spirit of the treaty whereas earlier you talked about having to honor the letter of the treaty in regards to your actions with other alliances.

Would you say that the spirit of the treaty included a summary exit from the war with no warning and no consideration to those that entered in your defense as happened when you left the first time? I mean, since the "spirit" is so important why aren't you mentioning that? It seems somewhat germane to this discussion of what it means to be a "good ally". I have never, ever, defined a good ally with a clause that included leaving the field of battle without consideration of those bleeding on your behalf.

But, maybe that is just me.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Proko' date='01 April 2010 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1270140273' post='2243911']
They were in a war for IRON when we re-entered and they made that abundantly clear. It is not that they were presented with a single set of terms and rejected them - rather, they were presented with a single set of terms and changed their demands daily from willing to accept to taking issue with various points inconsistently.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]And why was IRON at war? Because they and TOP believed in Polar's cause and promised to help you. They did, and once they did you turned tail and then attacked them. I don't mean to justify TOP or IRON's attack and CnG, but let's face it, you brought them into the war. You brought NSO and everyone else into that war. How many people did you screw over? Face it, your word means nothing. You don't even have the resolve to finish your own fights. Pathetic.[/color]

[Swiper]

Ivan, the exit from the war was done on an offer made publicly in the very first declaration. You knew we would exit as soon as \m/ accepted their peace when you entered. Everyone did. You either knew of that fact or you didn't know of that fact, but that was entirely on you. We already apologized for not getting to every single alliance involved notifying them that the deal had been accepted as soon as it was. However, if we were to stay at war at that point we would have been breaking our word to \m/ [i]at a time when we had no idea that would mean breaking our word to you[/i] that you would also receive white peace.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Swiper

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Swiper' date='01 April 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1270146011' post='2244084']
Ivan, the exit from the war was done on an offer made publicly in the very first declaration. You knew we would exit as soon as \m/ accepted their peace when you entered. Everyone did. You either knew of that fact or you didn't know of that fact, but that was entirely on you. We already apologized for not getting to every single alliance involved notifying them that the deal had been accepted as soon as it was. However, if we were to stay at war at that point we would have been breaking our word to \m/ [i]at a time when we had no idea that would mean breaking our word to you[/i] that you would also receive white peace.
[/quote]
No.

Grub has even admitted that he knows it was a mistake to have left the terms open and that he did not expect them to be accepted in the manner in which they did.

That being said, the rest of your argument falls flat, just because terms are accepted does not automatically mean the war ends, it never has. There could have at least been communication from Polar to NSO (and indeed more importantly to TOP and IRON at the time) that you were leaving the field. Instead, a post was made and then a promise made from Grub that the war would not end until peace was achieved for all combatants involved. That was a lie. Members of STA, NSO and Polar government were in the same room at the same time that the announcement was posted. It wasn't that you simply couldn't get to "every single alliance involved" it was that you just didn't. Period. Members of Polar government were also in the planning room with TOP and IRON at the time.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Ivan Moldavi

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Swiper' date='01 April 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1270146011' post='2244084']
Ivan, the exit from the war was done on an offer made publicly in the very first declaration. You knew we would exit as soon as \m/ accepted their peace when you entered. Everyone did. You either knew of that fact or you didn't know of that fact, but that was entirely on you. We already apologized for not getting to every single alliance involved notifying them that the deal had been accepted as soon as it was. However, if we were to stay at war at that point we would have been breaking our word to \m/ [i]at a time when we had no idea that would mean breaking our word to you[/i] that you would also receive white peace.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]What? And where did \m/ accept peace? In private. And I know not everyone else was going to be happy about the ordeal, so you obviously had to make peace with PC, FOK, and God knows who else. Where? In private, of course. Face it, your peace negotiations were done quickly and in secret. You did not tell NSO at all, nor any of your other allies. Even STA felt a little slap in the face, although odds are they won't admit it. Point is, you didn't tell anyone you were accepting peace. Your attempts to revise history are rather weak, and I'll be here to correct you ever time.[/color]

[Swiper]

Ivan, that was a mistake, yes, but it [i]did happen[/i]. You can't just pretend that because we did something wrong, it didn't happen. No, we shouldn't have left terms open at the beginning. But we did, and my argument that NSO acted in poor form in response to our mistake is still valid.

We both made mistakes, the difference is that we did not intend to.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='01 April 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1270146477' post='2244097']
[color="#0000FF"]What? And where did \m/ accept peace? In private. And I know not everyone else was going to be happy about the ordeal, so you obviously had to make peace with PC, FOK, and God knows who else. Where? In private, of course. Face it, your peace negotiations were done quickly and in secret. You did not tell NSO at all, nor any of your other allies. Even STA felt a little slap in the face, although odds are they won't admit it. Point is, you didn't tell anyone you were accepting peace. Your attempts to revise history are rather weak, and I'll be here to correct you ever time.[/color]
[/quote]

Public Treaty Negotiations, take one:
Grub: So you accept terms?
Noob1: BAWWWW
Noob2: BAWWWW
Noob3: BAWWWW
. . .

Yeah, private negotiations are totally terrible and not at all common precedent.

EDIT: I am done with this thread. I'll end with a great big HAIL to RoK and Polar to make up for all this crap I've spewed here.

[size="7"]HAIL[/size]

Edited April 1, 2010 by Swiper

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Swiper' date='01 April 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1270146665' post='2244101']
Ivan, that was a mistake, yes, but it [i]did happen[/i]. You can't just pretend that because we did something wrong, it didn't happen. No, we shouldn't have left terms open at the beginning. But we did, and my argument that NSO acted in poor form in response to our mistake is still valid.

We both made mistakes, the difference is that we did not intend to.
[/quote]
Again, no.

The NSO did not act in "poor form" at all, especially at that point. The only thing that happened was Polar left the field without informing anyone and then did not follow through on their promise to continue the war if peace was not achieved for its allies. That is a simple fact. The NSO being understandably pissed at Polar over that can hardly be used as justification for any of what you have stated in that regard.

Also, are you somehow stated that Polar leaving the field and not returning under the terms of its promise was unintentional? Did you reopen your war with \m/, FOK, PC and others as the initial statement from Grub stated you would after it was apparent that your allies in NSO were not getting what you promised was already arranged to begin with? We all know the answer to that.

So the NSO turning down terms that it believed were unfair in the given circumstances and then getting no terms at all and being told that it would fight until such time as Fark was bored is somehow an [i]intentional[/i] act by myself to harm Polar? Are you really this delusional or have your arguments just confused you?

Edited April 1, 2010 by Ivan Moldavi

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Swiper' date='01 April 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1270146011' post='2244084']
Ivan, the exit from the war was done on an offer made publicly in the very first declaration. You knew we would exit as soon as \m/ accepted their peace when you entered. Everyone did. You either knew of that fact or you didn't know of that fact, but that was entirely on you. We already apologized for not getting to every single alliance involved notifying them that the deal had been accepted as soon as it was. However, if we were to stay at war at that point we would have been breaking our word to \m/ [i]at a time when we had no idea that would mean breaking our word to you[/i] that you would also receive white peace.
[/quote]

If you have to break your word to an enemy or an ally, you pick the enemy.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Swiper' date='01 April 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1270146011' post='2244084']
Ivan, the exit from the war was done on an offer made publicly in the very first declaration. You knew we would exit as soon as \m/ accepted their peace when you entered. Everyone did. You either knew of that fact or you didn't know of that fact, but that was entirely on you. We already apologized for not getting to every single alliance involved notifying them that the deal had been accepted as soon as it was. However, if we were to stay at war at that point we would have been breaking our word to \m/ [i]at a time when we had no idea that would mean breaking our word to you[/i] that you would also receive white peace.
[/quote]

I was speaking in regards to the final withdrawal. As far as I am aware it was meant to be kept in back channels. Rather than being informed by my ally, I was informed by a party we were at war with.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Swiper' date='01 April 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1270146665' post='2244101']
Public Treaty Negotiations, take one:
Grub: So you accept terms?
Noob1: BAWWWW
Noob2: BAWWWW
Noob3: BAWWWW
. . .

Yeah, private negotiations are totally terrible and not at all common precedent.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Did you just completely miss the point? I never said private negotiations were unacceptable. Most of the time that's where its done. I was simply saying that since negotiations were done in private that your allies had no idea that you were accepting peace, which has been confirmed by said alliances numerous times already. This was said in response to your claim that "the peace was no secret." Well, it was, and with this response you just confirmed that.

I really hate to have to spell things out, but it was necessary here. Either way, I applaud your incredible ability to remain inconsistent. You know I think you've just been trained to contradict anything that paints Polar in a bad light without giving it any thought? How else could you defend the epic stupidity and poor management that Polaris displayed in the last war? Maybe your revisionism is best for you. I mean, how else could you remain in an alliance after a failure of that kind? I'd be so embarrassed I'd have left. Come to think of it, it really is amazing how wrapped up in a false belief the human mind can become. Ignorance truly is bliss for some.[/color]

[MiSS TRiGGA]

This makes me happy.

o/ RoK
o/ NpO

[DracoAltair90]

As happy I am to see that our (RoK) treaty with NpO is back together, still I wonder why all the hatred from all of you NSO, and \m/? Is it because you think what we did is wrong? I certainly don't, because I'm looking at this from strictly diplomatic POV........I mean, RoK and NpO put their differences behind...and everything is alright again..... If you guys believe that....then believe what you want to.....

Edited April 1, 2010 by DracoAltair90

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='DracoAltair90' date='01 April 2010 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1270150616' post='2244201']
As happy I am to see that our (RoK) treaty with NpO is back together, still I wonder why all the hatred from all of you NSO, and \m/? Is it because you think what we did is wrong? I certainly don't, because I'm looking at this from strictly diplomatic POV........I mean, RoK and NpO put their differences behind...and everything is alright again..... If you guys believe that....then believe what you want to.....
[/quote]
I think some of the comments from NSO were misguided, along with some of the responses from Polar. I can see no reason why ROK and Polar can not and should not endeavor to follow their own paths without undue interjection into their personal affairs.

Most of my comments in this thread stem from what I perceive as direct insults and accusations towards my character, thus I have responded. As it seems that has ended I am fine to leave this thread.

Again, as I said in my first post, congratulations to both parties.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Ivan Moldavi

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='DracoAltair90' date='01 April 2010 - 07:37 PM' timestamp='1270150616' post='2244201']
As happy I am to see that our (RoK) treaty with NpO is back together, still I wonder why all the hatred from all of you NSO, and \m/? Is it because you think what we did is wrong? I certainly don't, because I'm looking at this from strictly diplomatic POV........I mean, RoK and NpO put their differences behind...and everything is alright again..... If you guys believe that....then believe what you want to.....
[/quote]
I do not feel what RoK did was wrong for RoK at all. And as I have said over and over I wish you guys the best of luck and hope this is the great move for you guys it has the potential of being. The memberships of both RoK and \m/ have had a long history of great friendship, the same can not be said of the alliance you just resigned with.
The RoK resigning with NpO once again puts us in a position where a MDoAP ally of ours can choose to step aside while one of their other allies give us a beat down, it has already happened twice in our history, can't you see where we would be like "WTF. why let ourselves be put in that situation ever again"

Once again,
Much love for RoK
Much suspicion for NpO