Will your opinion of Pacifica or Polaris change after this war?

[Anhur]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1297805288' post='2634670']
No one wants reps from NPO. Ability to pay is no concern of anyone's this time around like it was then.
[/quote]

I'll probably regret asking, but: Then what exactly IS the goal, this time around???

I think Qazzians words echo the sentiments of many Pacificans.

In terms of the way FAN was treated, I think many of us truly regret that and wish things were done differently. Of the alliances currently attacking us, they are the ones I can understand still wanting a piece of us. As far as our FA w/them, I thought we were quite cordial w/each other on our forums and in their Embassy.
In regards to our actions post-Karma... it almost seems as if we were in a "damned if you do; damned if you don't" scenario.

Lastly, I would also like to express appreciation for the civil discussion in this thread, I have enjoyed reading it and hearing honest opinions from people on either side of this conflict.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Midkn1ght' timestamp='1297813070' post='2634820']
WC, they've flat out said that they were trying to project neutrality, constantly. In our embassy, in most of their posts on here where they play the victim card and insist they want to be left alone, it's even mentioned a few times in here unless I'm wrong. By mdping up, and then withdrawing into themselves so hard and barely talking to anyone, it appears they wanted the cover of neutrality/political isolation, but the option of discarding it and rolling tanks. You just can't have it both ways. You're right, maybe it wouldn't of worked for Pacifica, but they wouldn't know unless they tried. I know if NPO came out of terms, and said... alright we just want to be left alone for awhile to reorganize our alliance from the ground up, no one I know of would of touched them. I've floated the idea to multiple folks, and they all agree it would of shocked them to death to see such a huge beacon of change being shown.
[/quote]
Well, they may have said that in your embassy, I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure I haven't seen them in public saying that's what they are trying to project. I guess I would term their stance as non-belligerence, rather than neutrality as commonly defined in this realm. And I don't think they were as withdrawn as you think, we had dialogues going with alliances since we were in terms, when I was involved in FA over there. And I'm not sure what you mean by the 'cover of neutrality/political isolation'. Yes they were fairly isolated, but by virtue of that it means that they couldn't have rolled tanks even if they wanted to, because the people they conceivably could have wanted to hit were linked into the giant post-Karma power blob. It doesn't make sense to me that their isolation is somehow something they are utilizing in their quest to bring a new age of oppression to Bob, or whatever the line is.

And what exactly would you mean by 'reorganize our alliance from the ground up'? I mean it sounds good, but it doesn't actually say anything. There was substantial change in the NPO since Karma, but whenever it's brought up it's always shouted down as not good enough, or too little too late. I'm not sure that a proclamation like that would do anything except draw cries of 'ALL TALK AND NO ACTION', which they still get now even after significant change.

[Glen MoP]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1297807334' post='2634698']
Nation Created: 10/22/2010 4:34:59 AM (116 days old)

You may feel differently once you have lived through some history yourself. Especially if you have the misfortune to experience the kind of atrocities that many of us have. [/quote]

This one made me laugh. You may feel differently if you are attacked out of the blue for no reason and kept in war for months. Oh, wait....

[Qazzian]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1297807334' post='2634698']
Nation Created: 10/22/2010 4:34:59 AM (116 days old)

You may feel differently once you have lived through some history yourself. Especially if you have the misfortune to experience the kind of atrocities that many of us have.
[/quote]

He may not have, but I have. I've been in an alliance forced from the world because someone didn't like the way we reacted to a tech raid. Everyone in the alliance left, and it took me a year to come back and found a new nation. When I said before I have no desire to see the cycle started up again, I meant it. And when I said that I truly believed the cycle would not be started or I would not be here, I meant it.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1297807334' post='2634698']
Naturally you dont see yourselves that way, if the system wasnt pretty good at preventing that it wouldn't have lasted anywhere near this long. Yet, from the outside, you do indeed look like that. Yet, here you are, fighting valiantly against tremendous odds, to defend the alliance from the consequences of its past. To my eye it is tragedy. I feel fairly certain none of your attacker had anything against you personally, but they must strike Pacifica and you have placed yourself as an obstacle, so what can be done?
[/quote]

We fight, let out some rage, and hope to move on.


[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1297807334' post='2634698']
You know, most mass-membership alliances close recruitment during wars, out of respect for the newbies, out of the belief that being sucked immediately into a war they had nothing to do with is not the ideal start for a new nation, and also out of the fear that new recruits might be spies. Pacifica, on the other hand, went on their greatest ever recruiting drive during karma. No respect, no concern - and a solid belief that general membership will never see anything worth spying for anyway? I wonder, are you on another recruitment drive at the moment, or has that at least changed?

It's my experience that as time goes by, newbies wind up picking up the grudges of whatever alliance they serve in, whether justifiable or not.
[/quote]

This part bugs me a bit, as the person in charge of the mentoring of new recruits into the alliance. The idea that the work we do shows no respect for new recruits and no concern for their well being shows to me that you're basing your opinions on incorrect information and. As for the "a war they had nothing to do with", the same could be said for anyone who joined the NPO in the past 800 or so days.

[Solaris]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1297813722' post='2634839']
Pure B.S.

I remember the GUN disbandment thread here on the OWF, with VE members, and VE government, [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90232"]trolling the disbandment thread[/url]. So much for your "I will not tolerate barbaric behavior" argument.
[/quote]
What insolence. That disbandment thread was not in our embassy row, and you would be wise to pay closer attention to my words - though admittedly, your tongue has greater purpose, answering to things I never spoke.

There are places and times for when civilized behavior can to be forheited in favor barbarism and emotion, but any self-respecting alliance's embassy-row is not one of them. I said nothing about these public international communication channels, where experimenting on trigger patterns is rampant, and meaningful discourse is hardly ever withnessed by the gaze of a thoughtful one.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Solaris' timestamp='1297827150' post='2635128']
What insolence. That disbandment thread was not in our embassy row, and you would be wise to pay closer attention to my words - though admittedly, your tongue has greater purpose, answering to things I never spoke.

There are places and times for when civilized behavior can to be forheited in favor barbarism and emotion, but any self-respecting alliance's embassy-row is not one of them. I said nothing about these public international communication channels, where experimenting on trigger patterns is rampant, and meaningful discourse is hardly ever withnessed by the gaze of a thoughtful one.
[/quote]

Experimenting on trigger patterns? So the world is your guinea pig now and you are a scientist? Nice to know.

And people wonder why we're not all warm fuzzy and affectionate with them.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Solaris]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1297827506' post='2635135']
Experimenting on trigger patterns? So the world is your guinea pig now and you are a scientist? Nice to know.
[/quote]= *squeek, squeek*

Hahaha, yeah, but seriously speaking, it's not really a mode of operation as you seem to imply, but rather a question of appreciation and perception. All who are willing to understand the universe, should appreciate available data from a scientific point of view too.

[Roadie]

[quote name='Midkn1ght' timestamp='1297813070' post='2634820']
WC, they've flat out said that they were trying to project neutrality, constantly. In our embassy, in most of their posts on here where they play the victim card and insist they want to be left alone, it's even mentioned a few times in here unless I'm wrong. By mdping up, and then withdrawing into themselves so hard and barely talking to anyone, it appears they wanted the cover of neutrality/political isolation, but the option of discarding it and rolling tanks.
[/quote]

I think I can speak to this a little bit as TPF also went through much the same - I'll call it a phase for the lack of a better word - after Karma.

The political hangover was immense. When I say immense, I mean migraine x infinity. What happens after that I can best describe as bunker mentality. Just get together with those close to you and stick together. That's it. No desire to get involved with politics at all. Now, making happy with other alliances would be common sense and ultimately much better protection than a couple MDPs with alliances that have no political power, but lets face it, all interactions with other alliances are political to at least some extent. Because of the political hangover and the bunker mentality, it makes interacting with other alliances, I don't even know how to describe it, something you shy away from almost instinctively.

If an alliance had a desire to get back the power they once had or had a desire for revenge, they'd be all over the web making new relationships. We all know that did not happen.

In my opinion, people are ready the signs that NPO signed some MDPs completely incorrectly. Either that or they're simply suffering from confirmation bias.

[Deatvert]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1297818185' post='2634936']
So its completely off topic but I'm feeling flippiant so....

Not GUN, just Zynergy.

We aren't allowed to not like people?
[/quote]
Funny, we asked the same question about SethB. For us apparently the answer was a resounding "no", at least from you.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

@Solaris

I suppose I can respect that pov.

So my question is, if you feel this way now about you know.. activities in embassies. Why aren't you upset with MK? Their actions in our embassy aren't a matter of propaganda. One of their members, who ended up being a sort of spy went out of their way to make a mess of our internal community when they were a former alliance member. They tried blowing up Francograd! I can appreciate a desire for decorum, but I often see it written off as well. Perhaps the expectation of such is unrealistic after recent hostilities? Maybe one should expect a cool down period?

If your pedestal and platforms are that embassies should be sanctuaries of civil discourse, why is your targeting so selective?

Edited February 16, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Charles Stuart]

So we are evil for accepting applicants in war? Is there anything that we do that cannot be considered evil?

[Solaris]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1297829495' post='2635166']
I suppose I can respect that pov.

So my question is, if you feel this way now about you know.. activities in embassies. Why aren't you upset with MK? Their actions in our embassy aren't a matter of propaganda. One of their members, who ended up being a sort of spy went out of their way to make a mess of our internal community when they were a former alliance member. They tried blowing up Francograd![/quote]

Oh, I might be upset, if I had reliable data on the subject - but semi-random quarrels between lovers or haters isn't something I'd assume authority over, and as such the particular case, like countless other incidents, does not warrant full research. [i]If[/i] MK acts in a barbaric manner, then consider my frown directed in their general direction, but don't expect me to raise word or hand, on matters that aren't my business.

I frankly can't be upset if there's barbarism between two alliances I'm not even allied with, because the degree of relevance therein is neglible.

[quote]I can appreciate a desire for decorum, but I often see it written off as well. Perhaps the expectation of such is unrealistic after recent hostilities?[/quote] If you don't expect the best of people, you can always expect a half-cocked performance. Elementary pattern.

[quote]Maybe one should expect a cool down period?[/quote] Maybe one should remove gaze from places that stoke fires and heat, and direct ones emotion to more productive venues. I firmly believe that all individuals are responsible for their own cooling systems, as no-one can cool you down like yourself.

[quote]If your pedestal and platforms are that embassies should be sanctuaries of civil discourse, why is your targeting so selective?
[/quote]
Relevance is crucial. It's not up for me to expect everyone everywhere would act enlightened everywhere, and I can claim authority only over instances I'm personally, or institutionally, involved with. That would be hubris. I'm sure there's a lot of barbaric behavior in the embassy rows between all the micros out there, but I will never loose sleep, or raise concern, over issues I neither have responsibility or interest with.

I'm not saying here, that the degree of relevance in MK-NPO relations and their bi-lateral behavior is, as low as relevance of relations and behavior between some random micros, from all points of view, it's just that emotional responses, like getting upset, mostly applies when there are entities involved, with whom I have an emotional attachment in effect. Not all expect the same standards as myself in their embassies, as can be demonstrated by behavior, and for me to mind of matters not pertaining to me at all, would be superfluous.


I frown on barbaric behavior in embassies, on principle, but I can't get emotional (like upset) over stuff I'm not involved with. I also can't pass judgement over specific incidents I'm not interested with, as without even the motivation to find out what really transpired has, all judgements are unjust, and all claims of authority, unwise.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Solaris' timestamp='1297832181' post='2635227']
Oh, I might be upset, if I had reliable data on the subject - but semi-random quarrels between lovers or haters isn't something I'd assume authority over, and as such the particular case, like countless other incidents, does not warrant full research. [i]If[/i] MK acts in a barbaric manner, then consider my frown directed in their general direction, but don't expect me to raise word or hand, on matters that aren't my business.

I frankly can't be upset if there's barbarism between two alliances I'm not even allied with, because the degree of relevance therein is neglible.
[/quote]

Acceptable, if not wise.

[quote]
If you don't expect the best of people, you can always expect a half-cocked performance. Elementary pattern.
[/quote]

I never expect the best of people because I do not like being disappointed. It's always nice when you get it though. You can still give your best effort and that I'm always willing to see through, but you can never predict the nature of the response. If we could we would all have to be machines.

[quote]
Maybe one should remove gaze from places that stoke fires and heat, and direct ones emotion to more productive venues. I firmly believe that all individuals are responsible for their own cooling systems, as no-one can cool you down like yourself.
[/quote]

I agree, but it typically wasn't us that was throwing the fit. Some of our members did, I admit.. there's no body that's perfect. But when you send the worst possible representation in terms of soft relations (member to member) you are going to draw those people out. As a veteran you should realize and expect this. This was why the response to SethB was so powerful. It was like a glove, filled with a brick meant to be taken to our face in spite. Perhaps in time after relations warmed slowly re-introduce SethB to the body, that may have been wiser if you had truly cared about the diplomatic status you were attempting to preserve. As you said.. "Maybe one should remove gaze from places that stoke fires and heat, and direct ones emotion to more productive venues," like a more context relevant diplomat that showed you were actually attempting to achieve that ends. So if you knew all this, what explanations should I develop for your actions in that specific incident?

[quote]
Relevance is crucial. It's not up for me to expect everyone everywhere would act enlightened everywhere, and I can claim authority only over instances I'm personally, or institutionally, involved with. That would be hubris. I'm sure there's a lot of barbaric behavior in the embassy rows between all the micros out there, but I will never loose sleep, or raise concern, over issues I neither have responsibility or interest with.
[/quote]

Except of course the ones where your AA is sovereign. And that is why your say in what happens in those are crucial in terms of their representation of your intent. Always give your best, right? Was SethB your best for Pacifica? I can name you dozens of others that would have better filled his shoes at the time and place of the incident in question from your own ranks. It was not appropriate for someone giving their best face and best foot forward.

[quote]
I'm not saying here, that the degree of relevance in MK-NPO relations and their bi-lateral behavior is, as low as relevance of relations and behavior between some random micros, from all points of view, it's just that emotional responses, like getting upset, mostly applies when there are entities involved, with whom I have an emotional attachment in effect. Not all expect the same standards as myself in their embassies, as can be demonstrated by behavior, and for me to mind of matters not pertaining to me at all, would be superfluous.
[/quote]

I am just pointing out here that when you're talking of behavior in embassies, if you have a policy that you want to stand by and support. Should you not follow it yourself? Shouldn't you demonstrate grace in order to expect grace be given?

[quote]
I frown on barbaric behavior in embassies, on principle, but I can't get emotional (like upset) over stuff I'm not involved with. I also can't pass judgement over specific incidents I'm not interested with, as without even the motivation to find out what really transpired has, all judgements are unjust, and all claims of authority, unwise.
[/quote]

Perhaps not MK, but you were involved with the SethB incident previously discussed. I would like to know how you would relate the two and your policy?

[Midkn1ght]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1297813584' post='2634835']
Play victim card? We didn't start doing that til we were made the victims! We were keeping our nose in our own business! I believe this is what people had been fighting for wasn't it? [/quote]

Have you actually read a chunk of NPO's posts since they got peace? Anytime someone says something negative about them, they roll out the "you're just as bad as us, you were lying about morals in Karma, you just want to hit us again, you want to force us to fight, etc, etc" constantly.

[quote]There was no higher morality in Karma, except in the hearts of a few, it was simply a sham. Many of the alliances who were aligned with you were disingenuous. They were more evil than we.[/quote]

There was no morality. Only a few people on the Karma side have claimed that, ever. Mostly it's been the other side sitting there going, "you fought for a better world, but you're not acting like perfect little angels!" Morality and Karma have become some sort of talking point for the other side, while most of us who fought in Karma couldn't have cared less.

[quote]it will come back to haunt you.
[/quote]
I honestly, honestly hope so. I hope you get to experience the lead up to that moment like we did. The panic, the fear, the nonstop bickering among allies. It was incredible and the absolute most fun I've had in an environment like this.

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1297813929' post='2634843']
In other words, they started after they paid their reps. And one of the terms of their surrender was to drop all treaties and do no diplomacy, no new treaties, until after the reps were paid.
You're blaming them for following the terms of surrender that they agreed to.
[/quote]

Nope. NPO came out of terms in May 2010. They just started a few months ago branching out and talking to people outside of their comfort zone afaik. If they'd have started mid to late 2009, they'd be in an entirely different spot right now. Notice how the surrender clause doesn't say anything about they're not allowed to conduct diplomacy.

[quote]VII. The New Pacific Order will immediately cancel and dissolve all treaties with military clauses. The New Pacific Order will not sign any new treaties without the approval of the victorious coalition until these terms end. All cancellation clauses are considered waived. [/quote]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1297818848' post='2634949']
And what exactly would you mean by 'reorganize our alliance from the ground up'? I mean it sounds good, but it doesn't actually say anything. There was substantial change in the NPO since Karma, but whenever it's brought up it's always shouted down as not good enough, or too little too late. I'm not sure that a proclamation like that would do anything except draw cries of 'ALL TALK AND NO ACTION', which they still get now even after significant change.
[/quote]

Retraining military so if you did get hit, they could actually put up a fight. NPO always ran with huge numbers, and we found many of their members had a pack mentality. They could cause great damage in huge numbers against a small amount of targets, but with an equal or larger amount of targets against them, they folded, hard. Many of their members in Karma going off their coordination and nation stats, flat out didn't know what they were doing. I'm really trying not to be offensive with that comment, but we saw tons of war chests of larger nations with a day or two of bills, nations without nukes in the top 5%, WRC nations with lower tech counts then you'd believe, I mean you name the screwed up military description, and many of their folks would of had it applied. Other stuff like working with new up and comers and getting the old guard out of their entrenched spots, which I'll give them credit for this, they were working on. Completely retooling their FA, new friends, new faces, an embassy blitz, stuff like that. Just sitting there for their entire terms + 6 months or more and only talking to what are essentially viewed as yes-men didn't do them any favors.

[quote name='Roadie' timestamp='1297829346' post='2635162']
What happens after that I can best describe as bunker mentality. Just get together with those close to you and stick together. That's it. No desire to get involved with politics at all. Now, making happy with other alliances would be common sense and ultimately much better protection than a couple MDPs with alliances that have no political power, but lets face it, all interactions with other alliances are political to at least some extent. Because of the political hangover and the bunker mentality, it makes interacting with other alliances, I don't even know how to describe it, something you shy away from almost instinctively.

In my opinion, people are ready the signs that NPO signed some MDPs completely incorrectly. Either that or they're simply suffering from confirmation bias.
[/quote]

That's an awesome explanation Roadie, never thought of it like that. As for the confirmation bias, I think I can agree with that as well to some extent. I just hope when after this is over, Pacifica will see that it's an uphill battle to change perceptions of them, if they actually want to avoid a situation like this in the future. You can't just sit there and hang out and wonder why people don't suddenly change their views of you.

[alyster]

[quote]Nope. NPO came out of terms in May 2010. They just started a few months ago branching out and talking to people outside of their comfort zone afaik. If they'd have started mid to late 2009, they'd be in an entirely different spot right now. Notice how the surrender clause doesn't say anything about they're not allowed to conduct diplomacy. [/quote]

Trust me I was doing the field work first hand. Not easy to do the job when everywhere you go your looked at as the evil pacifican, just like you'd got lepra. So I think the time we took off at first was rather reasonable. Later things got back in track before May. Maybe we didn't reach to GOD then, but hey well....

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Midkn1ght' timestamp='1297833696' post='2635251']
Have you actually read a chunk of NPO's posts since they got peace? Anytime someone says something negative about them, they roll out the "you're just as bad as us, you were lying about morals in Karma, you just want to hit us again, you want to force us to fight, etc, etc" constantly.
[/quote]

That's not a card. That's pretty much the truth and it did happen. If you don't want to hear the truth, close your ears now.

[quote]
There was no morality. Only a few people on the Karma side have claimed that, ever. Mostly it's been the other side sitting there going, "you fought for a better world, but you're not acting like perfect little angels!" Morality and Karma have become some sort of talking point for the other side, while most of us who fought in Karma couldn't have cared less.
[/quote]

I could go back 2-3 years and dredge through posts and point out an entirely different PoV being argued by a large portion of Karma. However, I'm not going to waste my time. Are you really putting that much effort into self-deception as to suppress an entire 6 months worth of personal memories? I do at least give you that much credit. You're not holding to the fact you are not evil. You have instead accepted it.

[quote]
I honestly, honestly hope so. I hope you get to experience the lead up to that moment like we did. The panic, the fear, the nonstop bickering among allies. It was incredible and the absolute most fun I've had in an environment like this.
[/quote]

You did read that correctly right? I am hoping it comes back to haunt you. Not us. Our time with it is done. We've had our grand apocalypse. I'm glad you celebrate other's woes. Personally, I do not. I regret having to destroy my enemies. I regret in some cases them leaving our community. But I do what I must to protect my family.. and that is Pacifica.

[Solaris]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1297833129' post='2635244']
Acceptable, if not wise.[/quote]
I hardly see wisdom in an [i]emotional[/i] response to matters I'm not attached to.




[Quote]I agree, but it typically wasn't us that was throwing the fit. Some of our members did, I admit.. there's no body that's perfect. But when you send the worst possible representation in terms of soft relations (member to member) you are going to draw those people out. As a veteran you should realize and expect this. This was why the response to SethB was so powerful. It was like a glove, filled with a brick meant to be taken to our face in spite. Perhaps in time after relations warmed slowly re-introduce SethB to the body, that may have been wiser if you had truly cared about the diplomatic status you were attempting to preserve. As you said.. "Maybe one should remove gaze from places that stoke fires and heat, and direct ones emotion to more productive venues," like a more context relevant diplomat that showed you were actually attempting to achieve that ends. So if you knew all this, what explanations should I develop for your actions in that specific incident?[/quote]I think you're responsible for who you let into your embassies, not me. Also, I'm a veteran of internal affairs, typical of dominantly introverted people, if that wasn't already obvious.


[quote]
Except of course the ones where your AA is sovereign. And that is why your say in what happens in those are crucial in terms of their representation of your intent. Always give your best, right? Was SethB your best for Pacifica? I can name you dozens of others that would have better filled his shoes at the time and place of the incident in question from your own ranks. It was not appropriate for someone giving their best face and best foot forward.[/quote]Seth posted a faceless set of data regarding our treaties and such. I don't see a problem with that. If there are people you can't bear to see, you shouldn't let them to your embassies. I'm not responsible for your decision making processes.



[quote]I am just pointing out here that when you're talking of behavior in embassies, if you have a policy that you want to stand by and support. Should you not follow it yourself? Shouldn't you demonstrate grace in order to expect grace be given?



Perhaps not MK, but you were involved with the SethB incident previously discussed. I would like to know how you would relate the two and your policy?
[/quote]
If you send someone over our forums I can't bear to eye upon while maintaining respectful composure, I will do all within my power to remove the person from our forums, thus removing the problem. You should reciprocate, and we shall be one step closer to a more civilized world, together, as coexisting entities we are.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Solaris' timestamp='1297836582' post='2635334']
I hardly see wisdom in an [i]emotional[/i] response to matters I'm not attached to.
[/quote]

I was agreeing with you. I'll expound the abbreviated sentence: Acceptable if not (even or also) wise.

[quote]
I think you're responsible for who you let into your embassies, not me. Also, I'm a veteran of internal affairs, typical of dominantly introverted people, if that wasn't already obvious.
[/quote]

Technically it's your diplo department who is responsible for assigning the diplomat who attends our VE embassy.

[quote]
Seth posted a faceless set of data regarding our treaties and such. I don't see a problem with that. If there are people you can't bear to see, you shouldn't let them to your embassies. I'm not responsible for your decision making processes.
[/quote]

The problem was Seth and who he was to the Body of our alliance. VE effectively bricked everyone who had a grievance with SethB in the face by appointing him as diplomat. Personally, I have nothing against him myself.

[quote]
If you send someone over our forums I can't bear to eye upon while maintaining respectful composure, I will do all within my power to remove the person from our forums, thus removing the problem. You should reciprocate, and we shall be one step closer to a more civilized world, together, as coexisting entities we are.
[/quote]

The problem is that often that is considered a hostile act to expel or to reject a diplomat. I think this is what ended up occurring. My point is that Seth was a poor first choice as primary diplomat for an alliance seeking affable relations with us as you propose that you were, while seeking 'not to stoke fires that need not stoked'. Wouldn't you agree?

Edited February 16, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Solaris]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1297837098' post='2635353']
I was agreeing with you. I'll expound the abbreviated sentence: Acceptable if not even wise.[/quote] I misunderstood it as "acceptable, but unwise" and I'm happy to stand corrected. The dangers of intuitive translators are more real than I remembered.


[quote]Technically it's your diplo department who is responsible for assigning the diplomat who attends our VE embassy.



The problem was Seth and who he was to the Body of our alliance. VE effectively bricked everyone in the face by appointing him as diplomat.[/quote]I'm sorry our state department wasn't sensitive to your sensibilities, but ultimately, you hold the authority on your forums, and as such are the ones most responsible, in my view.



[quote]The problem is that often that is considered a hostile act to expel a diplomat. I think this is what ended up occurring. My point is that Seth was a poor first choice as primary diplomat for an alliance seeking affable relations with us as you propose that you were, while seeking 'not to stoke fires that need not stoked'. Wouldn't you agree?
[/quote]
I'd have to look into the matter more closely, recap what exactly transpired and when, and under which prevailing conditions. Certainly being sensitive towards other alliance's sensitivities can expediate improvement of relations, as to understand, is to forgive. I have no problem with expelling diplomats, as that can be communicated respectively, but other people's sensitivities may vary.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Solaris

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Solaris' timestamp='1297838002' post='2635381']
I misunderstood it as "acceptable, but unwise" and I'm happy to stand corrected. The dangers of intuitive translators are more real than I remembered.

I'm sorry our state department wasn't sensitive to your sensibilities, but ultimately, you hold the authority on your forums, and as such are the ones most responsible, in my view.

I'd have to look into the matter more closely, recap what exactly transpired and when, and under which prevailing conditions. Certainly being sensitive towards other alliance's sensitivities can expediate improvement of relations, as to understand, is to forgive. I have no problem with expelling diplomats, as that can be communicated respectively, but other people's sensitivities may vary.
[/quote]

Given our condition we were concerned with restarting the war and now perhaps you understand the crux of our situation. Keep diplomat we have a history with and most of our community will be fuming against resulting in a decline of relations rather than an improvement.. or expel him and risk a re-conflagration of a conflict that was just terminated. To be exact, rock and hard place. Not everyone, as you have observed has the same sensitivity levels when it comes to expulsions.

[Solaris]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1297838237' post='2635389']
Given our condition we were concerned with restarting the war and now perhaps you understand the crux of our situation. Keep diplomat we have a history with and most of our community will be fuming against resulting in a decline of relations rather than an improvement.. or expel him and risk a re-conflagration of a conflict that was just terminated. To be exact, rock and hard place. Not everyone, as you have observed has the same sensitivity levels when it comes to expulsions.
[/quote]
You should've come talking to me, and we would've replaced the representation. We wont start a war over a temporarily closed embassy thread, or a frozen embassy, while you come asking if we were reasonable enough to see if we anyone else to spare.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Solaris

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Eh, yeah, I suppose so. I do not work in our Diplomatic corps. I rarely have as much time as I do tonight to commit to the Order or its affairs, let alone that of my own state. If I did, perhaps things would have been different. All the same, regrettable all around.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1297709181' post='2633122']
The terms won't necessarily involve a 'pay-off', though I imagine they probably will unless you want to get beaten down so far that you're fighting a FAN-style resistance.
[/quote]
And if NPO accepts another set of record-breaking terms, when will the next attack on them happen? Another year after they're done paying round 2 of the Karma reparations?

[Charles Stuart]

[quote]Have you actually read a chunk of NPO's posts since they got peace? Anytime someone says something negative about them, they roll out the "you're just as bad as us, you were lying about morals in Karma, you just want to hit us again, you want to force us to fight, etc, etc" constantly.[/quote]

I know I have seen a chunk of posts full of the infamous "we aren't as evil as NPO" line. Is that what you were referring to?

[Lord Velox]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1297839479' post='2635414']
And if NPO accepts another set of record-breaking terms, when will the next attack on them happen? Another year after they're done paying round 2 of the Karma reparations?
[/quote]
I heard disbanding is the flavor of the month.