RoK is no longer SuperFriendly

[Goldie]

I felt at the time and still feel that if you were in charge at Rok, Hoo, that you would have at the very least given it to us straight, and I'm actually pretty confident that it would have played out as you having a major issue with it, then allowing us to talk you into staying out, and then it going forward, and we'd still be friends. But it didn't happen that way, and sadly the leadership of Rok post-you (this time around) has failed the alliance you built.

But we'll always have Paris, Hoo.

[Penguin]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1300639106' post='2671127']
Ah I had forgetten about the NEW front. But the point still remains that they didn't engage in the main front, and it's quite likely that they believed the 'it's a separate war' line that C&G were claiming about the pre-empt and didn't consider it to be fighting against you. (They didn't come in in defence of GOD, they chained in on a completely different front.)

So, um, technically wrong, but I think the essence of the point is still good
[/quote]
They didn't exactly have any option to express that sentiment other than attacking us directly (we went back in on that front alone), which is something I'm sure they wouldn't have done to an ally (or recent former ally as the case may be) then or now. We turned BiPolar into a mess beyond any comparison to this war and I think it's a little misguided to blame Ragnarok for which target they selected amidst the circus. I am near certain the essence of your point is also wrong and that if the situations were reversed and Polar had attacked VE, Ragnarok would have joined in on your side.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Penguin

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1300637342' post='2671110']
This, combined with Typo's post just after talking about Bipolar, is rather interesting. You see, in Bipolar, Polar declared on a direct Ragnarok ally with a weaker CB than we had this war ('community standards' and \m/ baiting them into it), and did you activate the MDP? No. And then Polar also attacked GOD later in the war. Did you activate the MDP? No.[/quote]

Who were we supposed to attack? As Penguin said, Polar went in alone. It is almost like you are suggesting that attacking a MDoAP partner is perfectly fine and normal ...


[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1300639106' post='2671127']
Ah I had forgetten about the NEW front. But the point still remains that they didn't engage in the main front, and it's quite likely that they believed the 'it's a separate war' line that C&G were claiming about the pre-empt and didn't consider it to be fighting against you. (They didn't come in in defence of GOD, they chained in on a completely different front.)

So, um, technically wrong, but I think the essence of the point is still good
[/quote]


We didn't view it as a separate war.

The only point you do have is that we would not turn around and attack Polar. We aren't in the habit of directly attacking someone who was our ally just a day before. However, we weren't asked to anyway ... we attacked the alliance (NEW) that the coalition decided they needed the most help with at the time.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Van Hoo III

[Bob Ilyani]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1300637342' post='2671110']
This, combined with Typo's post just after talking about Bipolar, is rather interesting. You see, in Bipolar, Polar declared on a direct Ragnarok ally with a weaker CB than we had this war ('community standards' and \m/ baiting them into it), and did you activate the MDP? No. And then Polar also attacked GOD later in the war. Did you activate the MDP? No.

So in fact we see that when given pretty much the same decision to make, when it would have involved fighting your friends Polar you stay neutral*, but when you can jump into bed with them, you do so.

(*: Yes, I'm aware that later in Bipolar you did jump in, but that was after Polar had peaced out of the main war and in fact it may well be after they switched sides entirely.)
[/quote]

When an ally attacks another ally, we [u]don't[/u] get involved. It's as simple as that. We didn't get involved when you attacked NpO either. When someone we did not have a treaty with attacked our ally, we came in. How does this explain "jumping into bed" with them? I fail to see the purpose of the examples you give when all they prove is that we don't get involved in conflicts between our allies.

Or are you saying that we should have activated the MDP in our Polar treaty and declared war on you?

[hizzy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1300637342' post='2671110']
This, combined with Typo's post just after talking about Bipolar, is rather interesting. You see, in Bipolar, Polar declared on a direct Ragnarok ally with a weaker CB than we had this war ('community standards' and \m/ baiting them into it), and did you activate the MDP? No. And then Polar also attacked GOD later in the war. Did you activate the MDP? No.

So in fact we see that when given pretty much the same decision to make, when it would have involved fighting your friends Polar you stay neutral*, but when you can jump into bed with them, you do so.

(*: Yes, I'm aware that later in Bipolar you did jump in, but that was after Polar had peaced out of the main war and in fact it may well be after they switched sides entirely.)
[/quote]

Are you actually comparing an attack on an ally's ally with an attack on a current ally? come on now...

[Bob Janova]

Hizzy: what? In all cases the attacked alliance was a direct MDP partner of RoK.

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1300657460' post='2671430']
Hizzy: what? In all cases the attacked alliance was a direct MDP partner of RoK.
[/quote]


[b]By[/b] a MDP partner of RoK alone. Why do you keep ignoring that fact every time it is pointed out?

That's cool though, Bob. I don't expect a response. This has been pointed out to you a good ten times in the last few weeks and you've yet to come back with anything. I am going to assume that you have nothing and are just repeating yourself in hopes that someone will buy it.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Van Hoo III

[King Wally]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1300657460' post='2671430']
Hizzy: what? In all cases the attacked alliance was a direct MDP partner of RoK.
[/quote]


Can you give me one good reason why RoK wouldn't defend any of its treaty partners from an alliance like Poison Clan that we have no ties to?

If the situation was "really" reversed and RoK, Polar \m/ and Amazon all attacked Poison Clan would you sit on your hands and do nothing out of respect for our treaty partners? Get some perspective man, the truth is your upset because someone went against the power structure. You thought we would play your game and you were wrong. Enough said. Lets move along I dont intend to dwell on this forever we never intended to go against so many friends we were just put into a situation where we had morally little other option.

[Bob Janova]

Hoo, there were plenty of places you could have joined the non-Polar coalition in the first part of Bipolar. Considering you did exactly that in the second part (when Polar were no longer the main focus of that side), it's more you that doesn't have an argument.

Edit: King Wally, yes, one extremely good reason. The war was cleared with you before it was declared and you had no problems with it.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Bob Janova

[Bob Ilyani]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1300660192' post='2671470']
Hoo, there were plenty of places you could have joined the non-Polar coalition in the first part of Bipolar. Considering you did exactly that in the second part (when Polar were no longer the main focus of that side), it's more you that doesn't have an argument.

Edit: King Wally, yes, one extremely good reason. The war was cleared with you before it was declared and you had no problems with it.
[/quote]

Whether we cleared the war or not (and that is [u]certainly[/u] still up for debate) is irrelevant, because even if we had, that still doesn't change the fact that a MDoAP partner of ours was attacked by someone who we had no treaty with. The "approval" you flaunt so highly like it was a get-out-of-!@#$-free pass would apply only to you and Polar, not PC and Polar.

[Monster]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1300662851' post='2671520']
Whether we cleared the war or not (and that is [u]certainly[/u] still up for debate) is irrelevant, because even if we had, that still doesn't change the fact that a MDoAP partner of ours was attacked by someone who we had no treaty with. The "approval" you flaunt so highly like it was a get-out-of-!@#$-free pass would apply only to you and Polar, not PC and Polar.
[/quote]

Van Hoo has said under the circumstances, RoK should not have declared war on PC. The initial declaration on Polar would have gone differently if it was not cleared and everyone knows that.

[King Wally]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1300660192' post='2671470']
Hoo, there were plenty of places you could have joined the non-Polar coalition in the first part of Bipolar. Considering you did exactly that in the second part (when Polar were no longer the main focus of that side), it's more you that doesn't have an argument.

Edit: King Wally, yes, one extremely good reason. The war was cleared with you before it was declared and you had no problems with it.
[/quote]

The fact you "cleared" the war with [u]Taut[/u] does not make your examples the same though.

Bi polar = NpO (MDoAP partner) hits \m/ (MDoAP partner)= RoK is neutral in the initial front and enters later on when another Ally needs us.

PB War = VE (MDoAP partner) + FOK + iFOK + PC hits NpO (MDoAP partner) = RoK hits one of the non aligned attackers.

Stop trying to say its the same thing. If you cleared it with Taut and Taut realised he made a mistake and changed his mind and then stood down from the Emperor's Position thats our fault and a seperate issue. It still doesn't make Bipolar and this war the same thing so stop trying to say we should have acted the same. If you have a problem with Taut rant ahead but stick to the real problem and stop making this about polar when its not.

Edited March 20, 2011 by King Wally

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1300663468' post='2671534']
The fact you cleared the war with [u]Taut[/u] does not make your examples the same though.

Bi polar = NpO (MDoAP partner) hits \m/ (MDoAP partner)= RoK is neutral in the initial front and enters later on when another Ally needs us.

PB War = VE (MDoAP partner) + FOK + iFOK + PC hits NpO (MDoAP partner) = RoK hits one of the non aligned attackers.

Stop trying to say its the same thing. Sure you cleared it with Taut and Taut realised he made a mistake and changed his mind and then stood down from the Emperor's Position. Thats our fault and a seperate issue. It still doesn't make Bipolar and this war the same thing so stop trying to say we should have acted the same. If you have a problem with Taut rant ahead but stick to the real problem and stop making this about polar when its not.
[/quote]


Everything is about Polar, Wallace. [b]Everything[/b].

[King Wally]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1300663606' post='2671538']
Everything is about Polar, Wallace. [b]Everything[/b].



[/quote]

Its like Polar are the new NPO... everything everyone does is secretly due to polar puppet strings etc. Now I know why it annoyed Pacifica so much the last couple years.

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1300660192' post='2671470']
Hoo, there were plenty of places you could have joined the non-Polar coalition in the first part of Bipolar. Considering you did exactly that in the second part (when Polar were no longer the main focus of that side), it's more you that doesn't have an argument.

Edit: King Wally, yes, one extremely good reason. The war was cleared with you before it was declared and you had no problems with it.
[/quote]


Two allies were fighting eachother directly, so we stayed out of the entire conflict. One of them then decided to attack yet another of our allies directly ... so, we joined the side of the attacked ally. How on earth is that choosing Polar over anyone else? Obviously, our decision to enter the war had nothing to do with whether or not Polar was "the main focus", and everything to do with their decision to hit GOD.

You simply seem to have a mean on for Polar, and that is fine. But to claim that RoK has a history of favoring Polar is not only horribly inaccurate, but absolutely ridiculous.

[hizzy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1300657460' post='2671430']
Hizzy: what? In all cases the attacked alliance was a direct MDP partner of RoK.
[/quote]

True, but in the NpO/m war, RoK's only option would have been to attack an MDoAP ally. Why this is even up for debate is retarded.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]The fact you "cleared" the war with Taut does not make your examples the same though.[/quote]
Taut was your Emperor, and you're an autocratic alliance. He spoke for RoK when he cleared it. Even Hoo has agreed with this point earlier in the thread, and said that RoK shouldn't have entered against us.

The examples aren't the same but they're as close to the same as you're likely to get when looking at the record of a single alliance.

You've also got the fact that your long time Emperor and figurehead of the alliance chose Polar so much that he joined them, along with Alfred von Tirpitz (and some others I believe), and then you had to go to a member of Polar to get your current one.

[quote]Two allies were fighting eachother directly, so we stayed out of the entire conflict.[/quote]
Yes, what a sensible policy. If only it applied when Polar was the defender ...

[Tautology]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1300665836' post='2671575']
Taut was your Emperor, and you're an autocratic alliance. He spoke for RoK when he cleared it.[/quote]
I didn't clear the war for VE. Keep trying.

[Monster]

Why does everyone else think you did then, including the alliances in SF and the former Emperor who left after you weren't going to defend polar?

[Tautology]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300666785' post='2671585']
Why does everyone else think you did then, including the alliances in SF and the former Emperor who left after you weren't going to defend polar?[/quote]
Do they?

[Monster]

They do. Even one of your own members posted saying you cleared it and everyone thinks you messed up.

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1300665836' post='2671575']Yes, what a sensible policy. If only it applied when Polar was the defender ...[/quote]

Had VE attacked Polar alone and without allies, and I been in charge, I would have done the exact same thing as in the \m/ vs. Polar issue. Conversely, had Polar brought in allies against \m/ we would have attacked them. They were made aware of that before attacking.

Furthermore, Alfred was already in Polar long before the war started. I joined since RoK was not going to defend an attacked ally against non-allies, it didn't matter who it was.

[Tautology]

Impero can cast some light on it.

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1300666912' post='2671588']
Do they?
[/quote]


Based on your conversation with Impero, I would have been under the impression that RoK was staying out. You should not have declared after giving that impression.

[ChairmanHal]

The "Monday morning quarterbacking" is getting amusing here.

If I were running an alliance again (if I ever do, please, just shoot me), I would [i]pray[/i] that I had allies like Ragnarok.

Perhaps the question shouldn't be where Taut "messed up" (he made something called a 'decision', with more than enough justification for it), but whether NpO deserves to have Ragnarok as an ally.