Farkistan Detective Agency

[Bob Janova]

I refuse to sign such a contradictory treaty

No, of course Fark are losing very little material by signing this (though it states it is a PIAT, not a NAP, in the OP, so they [i]are[/i] signing more than just a 'don't attack me' – they have to give you intel and potentially aid). A PIAT makes much less difference to the balance of where an alliance will choose to put itself in a war than higher levels of treaty. But it is still making a statement which I don't agree with about Polar.

But, I think I've made my point, and you are just disagreeing with it, instead of arguing against it ... which is fine, since I wouldn't expect you to agree with my current opinion of your alliance . So I'll leave that line of conversation at this post.

[Voytek]

Some people's capacity for butting into someone else's business and yelling and screaming about it as though their opinions are in any way relevant never ceases to astound.

Any treaties Polaris (or anyone really) signs, cancels or maintains with other alliances is strictly a matter for them and the people they are dealing with (pre-existing allies are also somewhat relevant in that their opinions are presumably important to the people involved) only.

Bob: Shocker! Not everyone has become as rabidly anti-Polar as you. Get over it.

NSO: Your right to a say in this and any future FA moves by Polar ended the second you cancelled your treaty with them. Get over it.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Voytek

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Voytek' date='11 April 2010 - 01:53 AM' timestamp='1270965170' post='2256198']
NSO: Your right to a say in this and any future FA moves by Polar ended the second you cancelled your treaty with them. Get over it.
[/quote]

We have a right to say whatever we damn please about anybody in the Cyberverse. And we know of the consequences when we do so. Apparently whenever we disagree about what Polar does, everyone wants to exaggerate it and call us out for bawwing out hearts out. That is fine with me.

I was not one of those people because I knew damn well what sort of people CnG and SF are when it comes to calling out the Sith.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Jrenster

[Voytek]

[quote name='Jrenster' date='11 April 2010 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1270966235' post='2256210']We have a right to say whatever we damn please about anybody in the Cyberverse.[/quote]
Forgive me, I should have said "a say that any of the participants care about beyond its amusement value". NSO appears to still be operating under the idea that their opinion is in any way valued or listened to by Polaris; this is incorrect.

[quote name='Jrenster' date='11 April 2010 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1270966235' post='2256210']Apparently whenever we disagree about what Polar does, everyone wants to exaggerate it and call us out for bawwing out hearts out. That is fine with me.[/quote]
Have you read some of the posts in this thread from your alliancemates? I don't think you have. I like to think I can be objective when it comes to identifying hyperbole and exaggeration but in this case "bawwing your hearts out" is right on the money.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Voytek' date='11 April 2010 - 02:21 AM' timestamp='1270966887' post='2256216']
Forgive me, I should have said "a say that any of the participants care about beyond its amusement value". NSO appears to still be operating under the idea that their opinion is in any way valued or listened to by Polaris; this is incorrect.
[/quote]

Like I said. I know exactly how you CnG and SF people post and prance yourself on the OWF. You make presumptions, not arguments. Had Polaris members not cared, perhaps they would not care to respond to our posts. If they did not respond, then you would have an argument and I would agree.

[quote]
Have you read some of the posts in this thread from your alliancemates? I don't think you have. I like to think I can be objective when it comes to identifying hyperbole and exaggeration but in this case "bawwing your hearts out" is right on the money.
[/quote]

No. You are not being objective. Sorry. I would qualify those initial posts as "complaining" at worst. They are disappointed with people who they called brothers two months ago, and now they see those same "brothers" aligning themselves with people who we called enemies during the last war. They have a perfect legitimate cause for concern. The difference between them and I is that they chose to call it out publicly. To call them out like "bawwing your hearts out" is a hyperbole to all extents. Sith do not cry.

[Proko]

[quote name='Jrenster' date='11 April 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1270966235' post='2256210']
Apparently whenever we disagree about what Polar does, everyone wants to exaggerate it and call us out for bawwing out hearts out.
[/quote]

No one needs to exaggerate it. Go read Mussolandia's first post in this thread. No one needs to manipulate posts like that to make your alliance look like a crying child.

[wickedj]

I dont know if ive ever seen so many people screaming and yelling bloody murder over something so insignificant. Guess NSO no longer hates us the most

[Proko]

[quote name='Jrenster' date='11 April 2010 - 02:38 AM' timestamp='1270967884' post='2256221']
Had Polaris members not cared, perhaps they would not care to respond to our posts. If they did not respond, then you would have an argument and I would agree.[/quote]

"Stop poking me back when I poke you. You're clearly the problem here, if you weren't provoking us by responding to our verbal attacks, it wouldn't be so bad."


[quote]
No. You are not being objective. Sorry. I would qualify those initial posts as "complaining" at worst. They are disappointed with people who they called brothers two months ago, and now they see those same "brothers" aligning themselves with people who we called enemies during the last war. They have a perfect legitimate cause for concern. The difference between them and I is that they chose to call it out publicly. To call them out like "bawwing your hearts out" is a hyperbole to all extents. Sith do not cry.
[/quote]


As I have just argued exhaustively with Bob Janova, we did not align ourselves with Fark in almost any way. The only military change to the political climate is that Fark and Polaris are no longer going to attack each other. Since Polaris and Fark were not already attacking each other, this doesn't actually matter in any immediate way. Just expect us not to attack each other. And, in the short term, expect no future Polar treaties with any SF alliances that are not on Aqua.

Again, go read Musso's post. Or any of the other bitter, broken-hearted, unreasonable nonsense your comrades are throwing around. The Sith do cry, and if you can somehow disprove that with something in this thread, I'll be amazed.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Proko

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Proko' date='11 April 2010 - 02:41 AM' timestamp='1270968088' post='2256224']
No one needs to exaggerate it. Go read Mussolandia's first post in this thread. No one needs to manipulate posts like that to make your alliance look like a crying child.
[/quote]

I don't get it. Why do you all of a sudden have to make the post of one man from the NSO to make it representational of all of NSO? You did the same thing with Grub as well. Lumping all the blame to one man of the alliance sure makes for a bad argument.

And you know who Musso is. He is very dissatisfied with your recent actions. You, who he called a brother a few months ago, have just aligned yourself with our greatest enemy in the last war. I would not say he's crying; more like he is showing an intense amount of resentment toward you. While I don't resent you, I see how it can be justified.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Proko' date='11 April 2010 - 02:48 AM' timestamp='1270968513' post='2256226']
"Stop poking me back when I poke you. You're clearly the problem here, if you weren't provoking us by responding to our verbal attacks, it wouldn't be so bad."
[/quote]

You know damn well that was not my original argument. If you don't, then you are just straw-manning. Which does not work on me.

[quote]
As I have just argued exhaustively with Bob Sanders, we did not align ourselves with Fark in almost any way. The only military change to the political climate is that Fark and Polaris are no longer going to attack each other. Since Polaris and Fark were not already attacking each other, this doesn't actually matter in any immediate way. Just expect us not to attack each other. And, in the short term, expect no future Polar treaties with any SF alliances that are not on Aqua.

Again, go read Musso's post. Or any of the other bitter, broken-hearted, unreasonable nonsense your comrades are throwing around. The Sith do cry, and if you can somehow disprove that with something in this thread, I'll be amazed.[/quote]

I do not want to play the semantics game with you. You opened relationships with Fark, and you have intentions of continuing such relationships. That is what I meant.

As for our bitterness, we are fully justified in it. Polar treated us like garbage in the last war. Does bitterness equivocate to crying? I think not. There are some Sith that resent you fully and they will be very vocal about it. The rest of us place you people at a position of neutrality.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='wickedj' date='11 April 2010 - 02:46 AM' timestamp='1270968343' post='2256225']
I dont know if ive ever seen so many people screaming and yelling bloody murder over something so insignificant. Guess NSO no longer hates us the most
[/quote]

We never hated you the most to begin with.

[Finch]

oh man I love this treaty so much I think I need a drink, perhapse NSO has some reccomendations on drinks. Maybe you could take a second to write me a little review on your favorite beers.

[Proko]

[quote name='Jrenster' date='11 April 2010 - 02:54 AM' timestamp='1270968842' post='2256228']
I don't get it. Why do you all of a sudden have to make the post of one man from the NSO to make it representational of all of NSO? You did the same thing with Grub as well. Lumping all the blame to one man of the alliance sure makes for a bad argument.

And you know who Musso is. He is very dissatisfied with your recent actions. You, who he called a brother a few months ago, have just aligned yourself with our greatest enemy in the last war. I would not say he's crying; more like he is showing an intense amount of resentment toward you. While I don't resent you, I see how it can be justified.
[/quote]

It was an example. If you have difficulty finding more examples, there are hoards of NSO posts in this thread, from different people, with nearly identical content and attitude. I selected Musso because I believed he was active leadership. I could be mistaken, I am not sure who is Sith leadership anymore.

[quote name='Jrenster' date='11 April 2010 - 03:00 AM' timestamp='1270969189' post='2256230']
I do not want to play the semantics game with you. You opened relationships with Fark, and you have intentions of continuing such relationships. That is what I meant.

As for our bitterness, we are fully justified in it. Polar treated us like garbage in the last war. Does bitterness equivocate to crying? I think not. There are some Sith that resent you fully and they will be very vocal about it. The rest of us place you people at a position of neutrality.
[/quote]

You're the one who began this particular semantics argument. 2,000 Sith come into this thread to tell us that we are bad people for signing a fun and very loose treaty with our friends, an alliance whom we were definitely getting to know much better well before the war started. They come in mass quantities with extreme bitterness and [i]without clear intention[/i]. Are they secreting excessive water through their tear glands, causing it to overflow from the eye? No, probably not. Do they sound like they could be? Sure, who cares. Immaturely expressing resentment, crying, whatever. If you want to drop the semantics, consider it dropped. But it certainly seems like you're crying, because so many of you have nothing better to do than to stalk every Polar announcement (and some non-Polar announcements) and remind us how much you hate us. It's been noted, thanks.

Yeah, we'll be continuing relations with our new treaty partner. They're great fellows, you should try getting to know them. They have a good sense of humor, they are known for honoring their treaties, and they present themselves intelligently and rationally. They have been one of my favorite alliances in the game for well over a year, if not longer. And I am both proud and pleased to see a document like this finally signed.

I do not intend to see another Polar treaty announcement locked because your alliance is obsessed with pretending you did not try and manipulate Grub in the last war. I am not going to get into the details of [i]why[/i] you are all still crying about the last war. If you want to talk about the Polar-Fark treaty and what it means to NSO, be my guest

Edited April 11, 2010 by Proko

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Bill Adama' date='11 April 2010 - 03:20 AM' timestamp='1270970383' post='2256237']
oh man I love this treaty so much I think I need a drink, perhapse NSO has some reccomendations on drinks. Maybe you could take a second to write me a little review on your favorite beers.
[/quote]

You should try Corinian Pale Ale. It tastes quite bitter, but it gets the job done.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Proko' date='11 April 2010 - 03:21 AM' timestamp='1270970478' post='2256238']
It was an example. If you have difficulty finding more examples, there are hoards of NSO posts in this thread, from different people, with nearly identical content and attitude. I selected Musso because I believed he was active leadership. I could be mistaken, I am not sure who is Sith leadership anymore.
[/quote]


No, he's not leadership. Yes, I have seen those posts. There were five or six. Out of an alliance of one hundred and twenty six people. If you recall, I was one of the few that actually congratulated you. There were two or three others that did the same. So if you want to cherry pick, there you go.

You can take this for a fact or not; only a few vocal members truly resent you. The rest simply do not care. Unless you bring up your revisionist history. That is when people like me spring up to defend ourselves.


[quote]
You're the one who began this particular semantics argument. 2,000 Sith come into this thread to tell us that we are bad people for signing a fun and very loose treaty with our friends, an alliance whom we were definitely getting to know much better well before the war started. They come in mass quantities with extreme bitterness and [i]without clear intention[/i]. Are they secreting excessive water through their tear glands, causing it to overflow from the eye? No, probably not. Do they sound like they could be? Sure, who cares. Immaturely expressing resentment, crying, whatever. If you want to drop the semantics, consider it dropped. But it certainly seems like you're crying, because so many of you have nothing better to do than to stalk every Polar announcement (and some non-Polar announcements) and remind us how much you hate us. It's been noted, thanks.

Yeah, we'll be continuing relations with our new treaty partner. They're great fellows, you should try getting to know them. They have a good sense of humor, they are known for honoring their treaties, and they present themselves intelligently and rationally. They have been one of my favorite alliances in the game for well over a year, if not longer. And I am both proud and pleased to see a document like this finally signed.

I do not intend to see another Polar treaty announcement locked because your alliance is obsessed with pretending you did not try and manipulate Grub in the last war. I am not going to get into the details of [i]why[/i] you are all still crying about the last war. If you want to talk about the Polar-Fark treaty and what it means to NSO, be my guess (spoiler alert: it means basically nothing).
[/quote]

[i]I[/i] did not bring up anything about the semantic argument with Fark. I do not recall any other Sith members doing so. I could be wrong. And do not try to spin this Fark relationship into something of a minuscule matter when your Imperator Emeritus just confirmed that one of the reasons you did not attack Fark was because you liked them.

And I do not want to see this thread derailed either, but when I will call out bad arguments when I see them. And I will slam dunk on them. Especially on your mindless drivel about us "crying" over you. Hear me out. There are many of us who do not wish you ill will. We do not want to become friends with you anytime soon, but you will see a vocal few who have feel that you betrayed them. And you will hear their justification quite clearly. Otherwise, I am getting a little tired of seeing dozens of posts from people in CnG, SF and Polar bandwagoning on this "NSO is bawwing" issue when only five or six did so, and other Sith congratulated you.

And LOL. We manipulated Grub? I would sure love to see your argument on that. Find me on private channels and show me what you got.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Jrenster

[Proko]

[quote name='Jrenster' date='11 April 2010 - 03:34 AM' timestamp='1270971234' post='2256247']
No, he's not leadership. Yes, I have seen those posts. There were five or six. Out of an alliance of one hundred and twenty six people. If you recall, I was one of the few that actually congratulated you. There were two or three others that did the same. So if you want to cherry pick, there you go.

You can take this for a fact or not; only a few vocal members truly resent you. The rest simply do not care. Unless you bring up your revisionist history. That is when people like me spring up to defend ourselves.




[i]I[/i] did not bring up anything about the semantic argument with Fark. I do not recall any other Sith members doing so. I could be wrong. And do not try to spin this Fark relationship into something of a minuscule matter when your Imperator Emeritus just confirmed that one of the reasons you did not attack Fark was because you liked them.

And I do not want to see this thread derailed either, but when I will call out bad arguments when I see them. And I will slam dunk on them. Especially on your mindless drivel about us "crying" over you. Hear me out. There are many of us who do not wish you ill will. We do not want to become friends with you anytime soon, but you will see a vocal few who have feel that you betrayed them. And you will hear their justification quite clearly. Otherwise, I am getting a little tired of seeing dozens of posts from people in CnG, SF and Polar bandwagoning on this "NSO is bawwing" issue when only five or six did so, and other Sith congratulated you.
[/quote]

I will be completely honest with you when I say, first, that I am really happy to hear most Sith have no opinion of us, and, second, that I did not know that. My genuine impression, from posts made by footsoldiers to the Emperor himself, was that the Sith hated us.

I know you, Lennox, maybe one or two others congratulated us, and I was grateful. I recall you did the same when we re-established our RoK treaty. Thank you for your warm wishes. They were islands in the ocean of antagonism from your comrades though. While one or two kind posts were welcome, most posts were full of far more vitriol than can be reasonable justified.

You did bring up the semantics argument, but this line of debate is stemming into pettiness. Many people noted, possibly independently, that the Sith seemed to be crying. You then disputed that claim. Calling someone for a semantic error is beginning the argument, right?

And my arguments aren't bad! They're as manipulative as yours

Edited April 11, 2010 by Proko

[Jrenster]

The Sith Emperor does not hate you. He's mentioned that quite clearly. In fact, he was one of the first proponents who mentioned that we show no resentment.

And my original argument about semantics was with the "Fark" alignment thing. I do not see how it got to be talking about the "crying" issue. I think you straw manned into that one again. The "crying" issue was not a semantics argument. And I have defended myself quite clearly on it. And I would not call it an "ocean" of antagonism. I think it is obvious that we are quite split in our opinion of you.

Regardless, I have said enough. Congratulations on this treaty, again.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Jrenster

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='10 April 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1270938023' post='2255848']
That doesn't make any sense ... why would you put a big hitter like Polar on a 'crappy alliance'?
[/quote]

Crappy doesn't have to mean in a military sense. Large alliances, or those with a high ANS, can be crappy (I won't name any names, because I've been told--shockingly--that some of you nice folks see me as a trouble-maker).

[fireguy15207]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='10 April 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1270938023' post='2255848']
Well, aside from the fact that in other threads we have SG claiming that Crymson's words at the start of that front [i]did[/i] reflect badly on the whole of TOP, we're not talking about words here. We're talking about the actions taken by Polar, the alliance. Those reflect badly on the whole alliance.

You can't have this both ways – either you think that the whole alliance matters, and therefore Polar as a whole did all that crazy stuff, or you think only the Emperor matters, in which case getting to know the other members is pointless.[/quote]One of those leaders is democratically elected, while the other is an autocrat. Sure, the members of the autocrat could overthrow said person, but it wouldn't have done much good when so many people already have a negative view of said alliance.

On the issue of getting to know the members is, that's just what we do. Those members are going to eventually be the future leaders of an alliance, and it's best to make contact with them as soon as possible, so when one of them gets into power, we're not shocked. Another thing is that we look for a great understanding between the two alliances. Fark is democratically elected, nearly every major position is elected, so our constituency likes to know what we do. We have a fairly open government, and the members usually take an active role in our foreign affairs policy.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='10 April 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1270938023' post='2255848']I've never liked certain alliances in SG, and they have shown in the last few months exactly why – and the peace terms for the just concluded war are another example of that. You, Fark, may not be taking up the mantle of Hegemony, but other members of SF and C&G are looking like trying it on.[/quote]But this sort has only started after Karma. You can't claim surprise that, say, GOD is acting like they want to rule the world, because that's how they've always acted, even before NPO was deposed. Alliances in CnG I can't comment on because I've mainly focused on SF.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='10 April 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1270938023' post='2255848']I have not 'suddenly started hating'. For one thing, I don't hate you, and for another thing, it is not sudden – check out my comments on the Echelon peace terms in Karma, or Athens' attack on Ni. Any alliance that shows that kind of behaviour is going to get called out.[/quote]I was not around for the Athens attack on Ni. But again, it seems that this has only started after Karma.

And I didn't mean that you hated Fark in particular, just that you've focused your ire at the winners of Karma.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='10 April 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1270938023' post='2255848']And to be honest I've been in SF sphere for only four months and in that time I've talked to many of you less than I did in Grämlins, so that's not really enough time and interaction to make any further judgements about you.[/quote]I consider Grämlins to be in the SF sphere, or in the least, Fark sphere since they've been a major ally for a long time.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='10 April 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1270938023' post='2255848']Edit: It's not 'just a NAP', it's a PIAT, and while it doesn't actually contain traditional treaty text, a PIAT would usually be taken to mean mandatory intelligence sharing and financial aid on request. But if you have to downplay a treaty then that should tell you something about the alliance you're signing it with
[/quote]A PIAT is little more than just a NAP, honestly. The only functional components are a non-optional non-aggression clause, the non-optional intelligence sharing, and optional aid. It's not very strategically important, hence nothing to really downplay. We just put the relationship that we perceive to already exist onto paper.

If we were ashamed to have signed this, firstly, we would not have wasted such great text, and secondly, we would not have signed it.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]it seems that this has only started after Karma.[/quote]
That's because before Karma these alliances were not in a position to project power and so weren't managing to do anything bad. I'm not sure why it surprises you that I only start criticising alliances when they start to do bad things! Though again it is not entirely true, for example GOD/VE/Argo got a lot of criticism back in the day for sanctioning a tech raid victim. But yeah, if you can point me at C&G/SF alliances attacking an alliance for its tech, or starting an aggressive war, from pre-Karma which I missed and did not criticise, please go ahead

[quote]You can't claim surprise that, say, GOD is acting like they want to rule the world, because that's how they've always acted, even before NPO was deposed. [/quote]
I've never liked GOD but I haven't been putting a lot of criticism at GOD in the war just concluded so I'm not sure why you bring them up, particularly as (as noted above) they are one of the current SG alliances who did get some in pre-Karma time.

[quote]A PIAT is little more than just a NAP, honestly. The only functional components are a non-optional non-aggression clause, the non-optional intelligence sharing, and optional aid. It's not very strategically important[/quote]
I guess we just disagree on the strategic value of mandatory intelligence sharing then. That means that you have to tell Polar if you are going to attack anyone who could reasonably be expected to chain Polar in, or if you learn that someone else is, which means that if anyone in SG wants to start a war with anyone close to NpO on the web, you have to tell them about it. That has significant strategic value.

[Moridin]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 April 2010 - 03:32 AM' timestamp='1270981929' post='2256286']
I guess we just disagree on the strategic value of mandatory intelligence sharing then. That means that you have to tell Polar if you are going to attack anyone who could reasonably be expected to chain Polar in, or if you learn that someone else is, which means that if anyone in SG wants to start a war with anyone close to NpO on the web, you have to tell them about it. That has significant strategic value.
[/quote]

While I am unsure what "SG" means, I'm curious how many alliances are tied to Fark and not MK or Ragnarok and thus would not already be covered by intelligence sharing clauses in those treaties.

[Starfox101]

I'm just going to point out here, that I look forward to the day when Polaris is cycling through Emperor's again, after another $%&@ up, and everyone is claiming they are changed people, and shouldn't be blamed for things in the past.

I swear, Polar gets more free passes than anyone, ever. Get it through your heads - it's not the Emperor, it's the alliance itself.

[Coursca]

[quote name='Starfox101' date='11 April 2010 - 09:29 AM' timestamp='1270992580' post='2256326']
I swear, Polar gets more free passes than anyone, ever.
[/quote]

You seem to forget a war fought in 2008 which resulted in the near-complete destruction of the New Polar Order.

There are no free passes in this world.

[Egwaterboy61]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='11 April 2010 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1270981929' post='2256286']I guess we just disagree on the strategic value of mandatory intelligence sharing then. That means that you have to tell Polar if you are going to attack anyone who could reasonably be expected to chain Polar in, or if you learn that someone else is, which means that if anyone in SG wants to start a war with anyone close to NpO on the web, you have to tell them about it. That has significant strategic value.
[/quote]

Your right Bob, but it's a matter of semantics in my opinion. I think the level of the treaty shows the general spirit of things fairly well. It is not meant to be strategic, only to quantify the emerging friendship.

I can't say I agree with everything polar as done, but I do know Fark chooses it's allies carefully.

Good Luck, and congrats to both of you.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='Coursca' date='11 April 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1271005310' post='2256403']
You seem to forget a war fought in 2008 which resulted in the near-complete destruction of the New Polar Order.

There are no free passes in this world.
[/quote]
Yes, and right after that war you rebuilt, signed 30 treaties and were a "changed" alliance.