Jump to content

Flame of the Flawed

Members
  • Content Count

    209
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Flame of the Flawed last won the day on June 24 2018

Flame of the Flawed had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

438 Excellent

3 Followers

About Flame of the Flawed

  • Rank
    I'm Special

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests
    $
  • Alliance Pip
    The Syndicate
  • Leader Name
    Flame of the Flawed
  • Nation Name
    Ascendance of Man
  • Nation ID
    9492
  • Alliance Name
    The Syndicate

Recent Profile Visitors

1541 profile views
  1. I can't be bothered to read everything here, and many of you know I avoid the OWF, but I did noticed this... Since when can t$ actually hitting KETOG be rephrased as t$ merely feigning interest in hitting KETOG? That's some Olympic-level verbal gymnastics right there. I want to see those Chinese Olympians' birth certificates verifying their age.
  2. TI (properly known as The Dongminion) wasn't just for $yndisphere alliances (though it was much more profitable for them), it was open to any nation who wanted in. You had to pay very high taxes to join, but the bonus made it more than worth it, which is why so many nations joined and to this day it is still the largest alliance to have ever existed in terms of total score (outside of a certain bug that occurred once...).
  3. Blubber is also a great lubricant There is such a thing as baby whales you know. They need to be put on a diet before those bad habits are set. Blubber is what whales have.
  4. Back in my day, the definition of a whale wasn't based on city count but infra per city. Infra = Fat; Fat=Blubber; Blubber is used in whaling. If you have a lot of cities but a rational infra cap, you ain't no whale in my book.
  5. I'll start out by saying when reading the post I quoted, I did think Edward meant a doctrine directly pertaining to an agreement with BK, and that he was referring to that as the foundational doctrine. So I just want to add clarity there since it seems I misinterpreted his intent. As for the idea that N$O had the right to intervene as it pleased, I won't disagree with there being agreement with that. I'm not active in any of those channels, but I don't doubt that it seemed there would have been support for the idea of using N$O power to prevent consolidation if we wished. Now, the question is how the interpretation of that is playing out here. Even the 'doctrine' in this sense is highly ambiguous as to how to actually act on it, and it doesn't change the fact of how the doctrine was acted on and communicated differently to t$ prior to the hit on Guard/GOB and after the hit. NPO never communicated out to t$ prior to the hit that they considered this war to be a part of the 'doctrine' and therefore meant we should hit everyone, and I think you all knew if you did communicate that out, that t$ wouldn't have attacked. The entire internal narrative of allied discussions was focused on other motivations, though based on what is being said, NPO had that in mind the entire time. I believe that inconsistency is important to point out, as it is key to understanding t$'s perspective.
  6. So the intent of my posts in this thread are mainly just about clarifying information in regard to t$ when we are mentioned. So I'm going to respond to this as well. The agreement between BK and NPO is not a foundational doctrine of the NPO/t$/HS grouping. At most, only one person from t$/HS knew of it (i.e. no one from HS knew about it), and that person is now inactive and can neither confirm nor deny the claims in question. If the claim is true that Kayser did indeed agree to this, he never informed anyone else in t$. It is also important to note that a single tri in t$ doesn't even have the authority to unilaterally agree to such a term on behalf of t$, as it would require support from the other two tri's as well. So he could have agreed to support it himself and to try and convince the rest of t$ gov, but he could not commit t$ to it himself. Additionally, when the new head of FA (one of our oldest members and former tri, Sisyphus/Wilhelm) took over following Kayser's departure, the 'doctrine' was never mentioned to him at all by allied gov until after NPO approached t$ about expanding the war beyond Guardian and GOB, even though if it was considered something that t$ had agreed to, it would had made sense to bring it up far earlier and quite aggressively. So that tells you that NPO was aware of the validity of this 'doctrine' when it came to t$. So maybe this is something Kayser said he would support, but I have no doubt he never would have been able to make it happen even if he was still around—maybe that explains some things... And anyone with basic knowledge of how triumvirates work and internal t$ politics would know the same. So this could be another strategic miscalculation on NPO's part to try to make a side agreement with an individual gov member, but not the gov in itself; or it could be something was lost in translation between Kayser and NPO. With Kayser no longer being around, it is hard to say. But I can say that not only was it not a foundational doctrine of the NPO/t$/HS grouping, it wasn't something that t$/HS agreed to at all. heh, I creeped on you and saw your nation is penis shaped. What a glorious feat. If only all nations were penis shaped. I approve.
  7. t$ has always been about losing. We've just been highly unsuccessful at it
  8. I think we need to focus on the key issue here. Several times earlier I know you've shared similar feelings, and you had framed this as being a matter of NPO sovereignty (a term not used in this post, but several times elsewhere) when it comes to deciding to join the war contrary to the terms t$ had laid out. But I don't think anyone here has denied NPO's sovereignty. It is a matter of trust. As I've said earlier, I'm retired so I'm not actively involved in these convos or decisions anymore, but I don't actually doubt that there was, as you put it, 'no assurance of zero retaliation ever' that came actively and verbally from NPO. But is that all an ally should expect? It was known within t$ that NPO had different views on this war (though the degree of how strong those differences were was clearly not known), but nonetheless the terms of this war were agreed upon, even if just 'tacitly', as you put it, if in this context 'tacitly' means you allowed t$ gov to believe you would follow the terms while never overtly promising 'no assurance of zero retaliation ever' ('ever', an absolute term, which certainly gives an absolute amount of flexibility). But I don't think t$ thought that such an overt assurance was needed to avoid NPO not following the previous agreement based out of an assertion of their sovereignty. No one is saying an alliance can't back out of earlier agreements if they so wish, but the repercussions are that it will impact your perceived trustworthiness amongst both your allies and the broader community. That is why this isn't a controversy or matter of sovereignty, but trust. Ultimately, I think the calculations come down to that NPO always wanted in the war, but knew if they were upfront with t$ as to their intent, they knew t$ would never join. But they believed that a t$ hit on GOB and Guardian would garner counters which would prove the whole disagreement moot and allow entry without needing to be honest of their intentions to t$. t$ on the other hand believed that those counters would not occur if the terms were clearly communicated. NPO then acted as they did because t$'s prediction proved correct, which meant they wouldn't be able to enter the war as they desired. So this is actually all based in a strategic miscalculation of NPO in incorrectly predicting the response of Guardian's and GOB's allies. Yes, Hilme's unexpected inactivity caused issues and dynamics to change, but that doesn't change the root of the issue of how NPO traversed this whole process. If t$'s intent was flattery of the likes of CoS and their friends, then it is clear they never would have entered. But you do make an interesting point on not being informed beforehand to the exit from the war. But that is something that should go both ways. Though you had told t$ gov that you were planning to enter, which you then received a strongly negative reaction to (based on what I've already shared above), the timing of your entry was something that came as a complete shock and surprise to t$ leadership. NPO never informed t$ that they would be entering as soon as they did, as t$ found out about it at the same time as everyone else in this game. NPO did this knowing that it would result in an escalation of the war, which meant mass counters from the broader coalition on t$ and a complete alteration to t$'s war strategy, yet you did not inform them so that all of this, which meant t$ going to war with many more alliance's unexpectedly, was once again a complete surprise. If you had informed t$ leadership of your specific plans, and the timing, I'm confident t$ leadership would have told you what the response would be. I still see the gov channels and know that immediately before your strike, t$ gov was unaware and still ideally hoped to dissuade you from the attack. So yes, informing an ally of major moves is quite important. And I'm sorry you were so displeased that t$ took such a hard stance on following the criteria they had told the entire game of (truly a matter of t$ sovereignty) and of which NPO, as you acknowledged, had given its 'tacit' approval. But on the matter of being informed before hand, is it reasonable to expect such courtesies from others when you deny it to them?
  9. When you're gurgling my you know what later tonight while unsuccessfully trying to spell the word successful in your sub-German accent, you'll understand when I win, we all lose. @durmij dear, come downstairs. Mommy wants you to watch this.
  10. Well the other other Founder just had to google that to realize that excuse was b.s.
  11. I love conspiracy theories. I love conspiracy theorists. The more conspiratorial you get, SRD, the more you will please me. This particular one is wrong in several key points that lead you to a false conclusion, but what you propose isn't entirely unreasonable given what is public knowledge. Either way, don't let that stop you. A group of us from PnW a couple years ago used to regular listen to a local Toronto conspiracy AM radio program. Unfortunately the powers that be have shut the program down now. It did serve as a major component of the inspiration for CoS's theme though, so the Spaceman lives on. Though my only issue is that your post wasn't conspiratorial enough.
  12. You thought t$ thought taking out the GOB and Guardian upper tiers, which many others had quite recently failed to do, would be easy? Good for you. I myself would say an easier option, if that is what t$ was looking for, would have been smashing into the mid-tiers with NPO. That's just me though.
  13. I'm retired from gov now a days so I won't get into the handling of the specifics in itself, but I will say I couldn't disagree more on the PR point. Not only would the PR damage have been far worse to have to admit you lied to the entire game, but if we had been willing to do that, and follow through on a bold faced lie, then our PR would deserve to be in the toilet. As for the timing of pulling out, if that was our logic of when was the best time militarily to withdraw, we either would have never entered or had stayed in the conflict for the long haul. It doesn't make sense from that perspective to declare and give them enough time to do the easy and expensive infra damage, and then leave. But that took on secondary importance compared to the matter of whether we were willing to fail to meet our basic ethical standards.
  14. The blitz was certainly lackluster. As I mentioned before, there are definitely areas for improvement. My point is simply though the the damage ratio is indicative of a strategy that front-loads infra damage at the start of the conflict. Though we could have blitzed better no doubt, the early heavy damage is something t$ has grown accustomed to over the years and was fully expected. When you send zero ships and tanks at 300+ ships and 30k+ tanks, it would be foolish of t$ not to expect that all your expensive infra is about to get totally rekt. P.S. I'm also not saying we would have won in the long run either. I don't know if we would have. This is just in response to the ratio. Why would he? I see nothing OOC here.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.