Sylvia

I found it funny that I got criticised for being critical of a post where the person made a point of telling the OP to "get off my lawn." I pointed out that the OWF was not his lawn (it is a public place) and someone else was critical of a snide comment that I made along with that- it was along the lines of "your're welcome for informing you ( of the fact that the OWF is not your lawn) So I quoted both of them in my post and responded with what the first person said after. Full circle? ------------- In general, I find it ironic when the objection to this thread by some people is some type of pointing out that people are free to think, believe or say what they want. Yeah...and the OP is doing exactly that. So what is the problem? If the connection I was trying for in the post was not clear then my bad.

I'm not standing for this shit! I'm entitled to think, feel and say what I want! Now get off my lawn and (insert word filter here) OFF!

Maybe if people were less sexist on the internet, more woman would want to be there. I've spent years on the internet with a gender neutral name and no one treated me at all different. When I mentioned I am female the majority of men were cool with it. There was a small minority however that started treating me different. Using an obviously female name in PnW has also shown me that there is a difference. No. Since when has saying sexist things become "edgy"? Sexism isn't anything new or avent-garde. Women have been considered (wrongly) the "lesser" sex for the vast majority of human history. In case you have not noticed, the OWF is not your lawn. You're welcome for informing you of that fact. When did "they" ever register people or "wrap up a label around your hand" for making hateful comments about women? Again, since when is being hateful toward women "having independent beliefs and opinions"? For the vast majority of human history women were at best had the same rights as children. In a number of countries today we're still treated like second class citizens. Believing that women are inferior to men today may be an "opinion" but only in the same way that "the world is flat" is also an opinion. I am truly surprised someone needs to correct any part of Orbis on this matter but apparently it is necessary. Thank you Kynlo for educating the people who apparently didn't know any better. -------------------------------- Just in general, it has been my experience having used a female name (and yes, I really am female) on PnW when I used a neutral one elsewhere that some people do treat me different depending and made assumptions based on my sex. I'm not looking for a date by coming here. I am not some sort of representative of "all women" or the female sex anymore than individual men are of their own. I'm looking to play a nation/alliance sim game. I see this OP as simply asking the rest of the community to treat woman as equals regardless of gender in PnW and encourage others to do the same. If they do not, call them out on it. Yeah, they can have their sexist opinions but the rest of us are free to point out that their opinions are wrong. Why is that at all controversial?

My guess is that this will happen eventually.

Being popular socially is just good politics. It is a big factor in how one establishes and maintains power here regardless. If I wanted a purely social on line place, there are plenty out there that have nothing to do with building nations or alliances or power sphere's for that matter. I am curious how you think power should be used. As things currently stand in PnW i would guess there are more males in the top spot of the alliances here than females. Thus if one has issues on how the politics here are playing out ...

Now people know the TRUE POWER of our applicant list

Things are different in PnW from what I'm use to apparently. I'm use to the losers complaining, not the winners. When I first saw #2 I thought it was a somewhat odd term myself. I mean, it seems obvious to me that when a war is over the sides shake hands and move on. I have never seen so many complaints about the peace terms from people in the winning coalition before. More along the lines of those meanies are complaining about having to shake hands and say "good game" after they won a competition. Trash talk and laugh all you want. Just not on the OWF. Frankly, I don't see how not trash talking on the OWF when it was agreed to by your leadership already is some sort of great hardship. The peace terms are signed by both coalitions. The leaders already agreed. If members do not like it, complain to your leaders on your own forums.

Hail peace! The grumpy little alliance that disagrees with that can simply make a statement on their own alliance page saying it is the premier lime based alliance. VE is not stopping them. The second term is brilliant, actually, when taking into account the narrative that people who do not like the current hegemoney are telling others. They are saying that the hegemoney is nothing more than a high school "cool kids club" made up of people who treat everyone except their "in" group of friends in the "right" alliances like dirt, dominate the OWF with shit posts and self-congratulations and who insult anyone who disagrees with their point of view. Yeah, the second term does essentially say what you've described. That much is true. However, people could of - you know - followed it (i.e. be nice, shake hands, move on) but instead it's received far more complaints than I would of imagined and this appears to give some credence (true or not) to the narrative that i mentioned previous. Brilliant on IQ's part.

Well fought, The Federal Reserve. :salute:

Roses are red, Violets are blue, Cerberus and The Federal Reserve are sweet, but we prefer being beiged by you! A great deal of our membership are new to Orbis, everyone has to start somewhere. As for me, as a former Rose member (before you got oh so good), I'm rather use to being rked. If anything, this is an improvement from the Rose I recall.

Indeed. The best part, though, is now we got the recipe! Thank you, Cerberus, it will be the official cookie recipe for HBE from now on. After all, we ARE Hades Bot Empire. Cookies are part of the programing.

Then what are you doing even replying? Get on with your life

I am not a fan of these types of messages. One the one hand, they rarely actually work. Instead they annoy the person getting them and in my experience can be used as a way to rally the alliance(s) that receive them to fight longer, not the opposite. IF (and I'm not saying it should happen at all) someone is going to send out messages, send out messages telling the other side's members to tell their leadership that they want peace. That's what I suggest if our members get requests for peace from people on an individual basis. I would never leave my alliance in the middle of a war. However, the point others have made about being raid bait with the additional requirement of getting rid of their personal military is 100% correct. Bad idea. If one is going to leave, find an alliance not involved in the war that is willing to take you (assuming there is an alliance out there that will take nations already at war) and keep your military. The above is, of course, just my personal opinion. I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself. HBE attacked Black Knights previously. Our involvement in that war lasted about a week and we surrendered to them. After that point we made efforts to get on better terms with Black Kights (i.e. sent people over to their forum to get to know them better, etc.) We had no plans to attack them what so ever after the first war. What happened is that we kept hearing from other alliance leaders (plus others) that the Black Knight's leader still held some negative feelings toward us. Okay, that's their right. However, we also have the right (I would say responsibility being that good leaders should work to protect their membership) to figure out how to move forward from the situation and otherwise protect ourselves as best we can from an attack by Black NIghts. This included behind the scenes government to government conversations with both NPO and TKR. Keep in mind that all of this happened before IQ was formed. I had no idea that BK and NPO were talking about a treaty before their treaty was announced. This is understandable as HBE was not allied with NPO at the time and thus NPO had no duty to inform us. Now that we do have a treaty with NPO and they are tied to Black Knights, I'm far less concerned about BK possibly attacking HBE. I suppose they could, however the better move would be to either be neutral toward us or try to move us to their side of the treaty web. I'm sure you realize, Bourhann, that the treaty web can change. Governments talk to governments all the time behind the scenes and when there is no treaty tie there is no reason to share what you're saying to one government with another. In fact, it's expected that you DO NOT (unless permission is given) except in cases of where there is a treaty tie. That is what communication clauses and intelligence clauses are supposed to encourage. So please stop trying to spin this into something that is not an issue.

Here is a comment worth your weight in salt (or credits, if you prefer, i do mean this as a compliment.) Well done.

Oh you think so, do you? Good luck with that. I'm coming for you (see below)

We can care about Rose if we want to. It's our declaration of war. What HBE should and should not care about is our business. You want a say in what we do, come join us. If not, then please stop with the lecture. As far as the entire "salt" discussion goes, that's fine. You can call me "salty." In fact, I would rather be salty now and get it out of my system than spend too much time holding a grudge and working to position our alliance into a politically advantageous position and pretend like we have no issues with Rose until that time that we can effectively "do something about it." Too much trouble .I would rather just do the DoW as soon as the opportunity presents itself, get the "salt" out of our system and call it a war If the number of people who got assigned to Rose is too little for you, oh well. It doesn't change my point that we had other priorities. .

So you are saying that that the advice that was given them "was snarky, rude" but correct. Are the same people who were snarky and rude while they give correct advice to NPO also snarky and rude when they give correct advice to their fellow members? How does that work out? Clearly members of an alliance taught in such a fashion say "oh thank you, the advice was as snarky as hell, but it's worth the correct advice, we will tell everyone to join this alliance for your great wisdom." (you see what I did there - I'm sure you all appreciate my advice here in spite of how snarky I'm being now) If you want to be snarky and rude then do so. However, at least give others enough respect to man up to what you were really doing instead of turning around and saying "I told you so" and pretending like you were being fair and not anti NPO (or whatever alliance you're being snarky to) knowing damn well that it was never really about somehow teaching what should be done or otherwise attempting to improving the situation.

Although it is the thought that counts, perhaps that distinction should be given to an alliance that only declared on ONE alliance? HBE declared on TWO other alliances in defense of our treaty partners in the same DoW and only then added Rose as a third. The other two were more important to us since they were due to treaty obligations. You didn't feel the love because there were others that we cared about more. I can understand how that might hurt, though.

I appreciate the thought. It was not up to my standards, however. Next time show me a draft first and I will make the appropriate changes. We still have nations in the closet?! Damn. I thought hades fixed that. If anyone else notices a bug within the HBE, please report it to hadesflames posthaste. Hail Hades Bots Empire! After declaring on three alliances in this war and the possible butt kicking that might result, we would need a true bottom feeder alliance for our next one. One that has no paper attached to it. I wonder who that could be...

My fellow Britannians, Our Beloved Emperor hadesflames and Ladies and Gentlemen of Orbis, Not all decisions that have to be made are simple. The Holy Britannian Empire has recently moved from being paperless to signing treaties. Unlike other alliances who hold a large number of allies, we have three. Each one we decided to treaty we are close to and desire to defend if attacked. We did not pick our allies based on the politics of the rest of the world and in this particular war that has put us in a difficult position. However, a decision has finally been made. The Holy Britiannian Empire hereby declares war on Cerberus in defense of The Knights Radiant. The Holy Britannian Empire hereby declares war on The Federal Reserve in defense of Viridian Entente and last, but certainly not least, A very well deserved Declaration of War on that VE traitor Olorin - oh, I mean The Holy Britannian Empire hereby declares war on Rose, which certainly is aware of the crimes committed by Olorin when they welcomed him into their alliance. All Hail Britannia! Signed: hadesflames, Emperor of Britannia TheSnipe, Prime Minister and Lord of Lords Sylvia, Lady of Foreign Affairs Chekhov, Lord of Defense Kasai, Lord of Internal Affairs Steuart Geharon, Lord of Finance Torshiro Mifune, Senator of Foreign Affairs Hamilton, Senator of Internal Affairs Dom Luiz Orleans, Senator of Defense Nyagato, Senator of Finance _________________________________ tl;dr DoW on Cerberus, Fed and Rose

Apparently you think that dropping the treaty isn't going to undo it either and want blood. Noted. Reasonable people can disagree. News flash - the Lady of Foreign Affairs for HBE had access to some conversations that our allies also had access to and might of even said a word or two or three (or more) during the conversation. (I actually do have an opinion now and then, in case people have failed to notice ) I mean, HBE has been around for just over a year and we've been "paperless" for the majority of it. We finally decide that it's time to venture out into the world and find allies beyond VE, especially since we spent a great deal of time getting to know various alliances, all of them full of cool people who we are happy to call friends. However, being that we did not want to be a neutral alliance the alternative is to pick and chose who to treaty and being that the people we like may or may not all be allied to the other people we like (a sad situation but when one joins a club long after other people a lot of who is whose friend or not has already worked itself out.) If finding out that in making that choice we discussed pluses and minuses about everyone we talked about signing a treaty with offends someone, I'm afraid I can't do anything about that. However, I consider you bringing this up a compliment because the only reason to bother to bring it up at all and attempt to discredit what I'm saying with it is because what I'm saying makes good sense. So thank you Hail TKR

You are the one that brought up the comment (above) "if this results in war" - not I. If I thought people were stupid I wouldn't bother posting here. There would be no point. I've got plenty of other things I could do. If I'm embarrassing myself, it's by the fact that I keep saying over and over again that I'm not saying you are the bad guys. From now on I'll trust that people get it and if they don't it isn't for my lack of trying.

I'm not saying VE did anything more than what a good Protector should do. The reason I bothered to point it out is because there are some people who have posted in this thread who seem surprised (even to the extent of suggesting we shouldn't continue to have good relations with VE because of all this) that we are still allied. My comment was in response to someone essentially doing that. I also find it ironic that we have some people 1) giving their opinion about how immoral (or whatnot) realpolitik is while and others 2) seeming to suggest that we are doing something immoral by maintaining a treaty with the people who helped us (HBE) from the star just because they are in a very nasty spot right now. In some cases (I'm not going to go back and look) it might even be the same people. Well, abandoning tVE now is probably the most immoral thing I can think of in this situation for HBE to do. It is exactly the kind of thing that people point to when saying that realpolitik philosophy is bad and doing things based on friendship only is good. I also never said that what Seeker, as one member of VE's triumvirate, said (when I found out about it) didn't alarm me. However, if I have negative things to say about one member of an ally alliance, I bring it up it in private. I've also said more than once already that I do not have a problem with the decision by tS to drop the treaty. From the perspective of tS, it's a reasonable decision. So you suggesting that "It seems kind of ridiculous that you don't mind really, but that's your prerogative and we're just pointing the fact out for you" is incorrect. HBE is not tS, however. Our relationship with VE has been good and tVE continues to work with us and vice versa. I'm sorry it didn't work out for VE and tS. There is a difference between dropping a treaty because one member of a three member government said some mean things about a treaty partner's allies in a private conversation and got caught because another member of the government provided a copy of the conversation to their ally after an internal dispute (i.e. for his own political reasons and not for the benefit of VE) verses having a reason for war. Dropping the treaty is a reasonable response. However that doesn't mean that going to war over the same incident would also be reasonable or the morally correct side of the fight. Agreed on the first part. On the second part I would personally go farther and say that even though the act of dropping the treaty itself may, ethically speaking, be a reasonable response, going further at any time may not necessarily be. We are talking about comments made by only one of three government members while having a private discussion with the others after all. I'm not saying a war couldn't occur. There are lots of wars on Orbis. However, just because one can do something doesn't make one morally on the "right side" of any given war. There are many things that could happen, not all of them are what should happen if one is looking at it from a moralistic point of view.

Lets see, what has VE in general (and Moonpie in particular) done for HBE: 1. Agreed to protect us when HBE was a new alliance and would otherwise been raided to the point of probably needing to move into a better established alliance had we not had a protector. 2. Provided us with large amounts of cash and resources to help us get started. 3. Been an advocate for us when we've run into trouble for over a year. yeah, I agree. we do know how to pick a good ally for HBE. look, i'm sorry that Seeker said something mean in a private discussion about the other allies of tS. However, just because tS is unhappy with their former ally does not mean that VE has been a bad ally to HBE. Different alliances.

Considering that I'm sticking up our friends in VE even when they are getting a great deal of shit from much of the world - yes, I do. What Olorin did is betray the trust of his alliance mates and his fellow alliance leaders, the very people who he owes the most allegiance to. In short, he's a traitor. One's alliance mates should be above all others in terms of loyalty and friendship (and yes, that means above even the allies or potential allies of ones alliance). This is the entire basis of the alliance system. If Olorin was more loyal to some other alliance, he should of gone and become a member there. Again, I am not judging tS here. They dropped the treaty. That is their choice and I'm not being critical of it. However it does not clear Olorin of wrongdoing in the slightest and I'm surprised to find that apparently some people think otherwise. ------------------------------------------------------- As far as how I would feel in a similar situation, if there are any traitors out there who want to send us logs of their alliance leadership's private internal discussions because it has stuff about HBE in it that you think we might be interested in, please feel free to pass the logs to hadesflames at anytime. Reading it will not hurt my feelings. In fact, I encourage the very realpolitik move of tattling on your former friends as long as it helps my friends and my allies. Thank you.