Roquentin

No. It's pretty simple. In any potential war, BK would hit us again simply due to alliance composition. The Syndicate wouldn't have been able to execute an all out war against us in the last war without BK going along with it and oAing. At least not with the same amount of ease. We had and have no issues with BK on a personal level, but it was clear they were the alliance most well positioned to hit us again so any movement on their part would likely be directed at us. The addition of a Mensa treaty showed that Syndisphere consolidation would continue and no shake up would result so an attack was imminent and we had to prepare for it. A month ago, when we lost several treaties our situation was a total disaster. We saw a last stand for us as inevitable. We have known for quite some time we would be targeted again. I would not force another losing war where we had to eat an enemy offensive as the first shot on our members. If we have to go down, we're doing it swinging. The amount of anti-NPO rhetoric on the forums has only grown and the militarization was quite worrying and we knew we had to do something. A major reason we lost the last war and ended up in a position where our side lost a statistical advantage was our side's lack of aggression. BK was allowed to go from 0 mil to 100% in 6 days. While we no longer possess a statistical advantage and cooperation is last minute because of the cancellations, this is the best we can do even if it's another loss. This was the rationale your alliance openly supported in the last war and it consisted of "consolidation and preemption". This is preemptive. There isn't much else to say.

Not what I was expecting. I thought it'd just be "For Steve".

Yeah, I mean, a protectorate where it's just a party stating protection over another with no sigs or written articles can be considered not to be a treaty(paper agreement). Don't mean to butt in, but that's how I've seen it when I've done it that way in the past/present even while having other actual written out agreements. I wouldn't say this is a break with TEst tradition across games and no one threw Roz Wei's paperless status into question with their guarantees of independence or the temporary Syndicate protection from a while back.

I have already clarified our official position on the matter. edit: no point.

For the record, I agree with you. T-Pain's speculation is just based on how he's observed things in his browser game experience. Nothing else to say here really. Best of luck to Paragon.

I agree with this and the other posts.

First off: it's no longer in use and it went through several changes after that post was made. If the point is to avoid investment in potential inactives and in general at a time where war is imminent, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to make a guide to 1-1.5k infra as it would cost a lot more money. Exactly. You can only make 3 Bauxite mines as opposed to a bigger number of coal mines and coal was the best back then. Food was also almost at double its normal price. I can see your point here and Bauxite mines would take priority with the current market, but I refer to what people said about it being self-sufficient entirely and woot's post about the coal prices. The people who used it initially prior to it being posted were accounting for the possibility some stay active and having to manage a bunch of nations in deficit wouldn't really be good. It's basically like Woot said the nation would be self-sufficient relatively quickly after being made. They could go either way ultimately in terms of playing or quitting, so it was accounted for. Again, it's not really a thing anymore, so this discussion is just a product of a funny gravedig. Don't really have anything else to say so it'll be my first and final post as I need to get going again.

Please add SK-NPO MDP . https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/12898-the-drinkers-toast-treaty/

Probably not. There'd have to be extenuating circumstances.

Doesn't look like GPA is a Stand user. No Hierophant Green or Green Green Grass is Green.

Then if that account did it a lot of times and it was not an isolated incident, then the moderation staff should pursue a harsher penalty. I think that's fair. It's outside of the boundaries of the game. I don't care to get into it further, but I'm glad Partisan appears to agree on something regardless of differences in-game.

Nicholas shouldn't have said it but a ban may be too far unless he's repeatedly done this. It's easy for people to say dumb stuff or make insinuations to in-game opponents out of temporary anger. I doubt he even knows much about you except that you're the opposing AA's leader. Hopefully the moderation team deals with the issue in-game and gives a warning, warning point or some other penalty as mentioned earlier on. I don't think waiting on it was prudent since it's causing people to question it and it's making it into an IC issue regardless of your intent so naturally people will get defensive and see it as a way to go at them, but that's your decision. I can't really find a lot of fault in some of the reactions as a result. I think it would have made for sense for EliteCanada to file it sooner. Doing it after even though the IC issues persist doesn't really do much. I just hope there is consistency in dealing with incidents. Hopefully everyone will subscribe to your belief that being a polarizing figure in a game shouldn't carry over to assessments of them as a person, but I really haven't seen it. As I said, I'm unsure of whether a ban is in order unless he's a repeat offender. Individuals should ultimately pursued/disciplined unless their alliance leadership is aware of the actions and there have been failed attempts to straighten it out with them privately. edit: clarified

Have fun with retirement. Regardless of differences, it would be wrong to dispute your contributions here and it is regrettable seeing a personality leave the world stage. I can only imagine what the Eumir Era will bring.

You keep missing the point highlighted: Most of the nations were beiged. Given sporadic raids had been an issue prior to the mass raid, there was no reason to believe the raids would not resume. MrHat was unaware of any end date until after the fact. It's really all not that big of a deal though compared to recent events, so this isn't an argument we're particularly invested aside from historical purposes. A lot of alliances recruit people from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) including your own, so recruiting from there would have to be considered "a violation" for everyone and it hasn't been . Usually when there are wars or potential wars, it's a time to recruit more people who wouldn't have normally gotten engaged otherwise as it's more exciting ie. GOONS would recruit from Something Awful and get a lot of newer people from there when they went to war. We went over this a million times but highlighting player attitudes is usually a good way to get people revved up. There have been other alliances with same names/brands that actually were able to play different roles/end up differently. A lot of alliances in LW for instance had names like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) alliances and they did things differently.

Most of the questions were a result of statements made by people within tS. Had the "For Steve" thing been taken for what it was, I doubt you would have gotten them at all. This all reads like you had predetermined notions and you're reading them into responses given to your public callout. It screams of confirmation bias. I could "understand" why the predetermined notions would exist but they would heavily rely on rationale you usually look down upon. I don't think anyone would go "Oh, they weren't so bad after all. We screwed up in attacking them," if they won. You can't "understand" the reasoning behind someone having to take up a defensive posture in public in response to your callout and at the same time get upset when you're responded to in kind or use it as an ex post facto justification. This isn't really about martyrdom or anything like that. I just don't like the unnecessary vilification and how things are framed on here.

It's easy to be cordial with people and have some chats. People could also point to some dismaying statements made around that time and already have. It doesn't really mean a whole lot on its own. Communication already had dropped off and Vanguard merging had little to do with it. The only person we had talking regularly to us from tS was someone who ended up leaving. I think it's a bit much to attribute some sort of paradigm shift to that when it simply wasn't the case. I'm not sure what delay in reaction you guys had as we would have to you know, actually do something to react to, which we didn't. It's difficult for this to be the case and I'm not sure what you could perceive as being the political gain. Your alliance rushed to post the topic after receiving the leak. There was no attempt to discuss it privately. You were the ones to initiate public antagonism/ had a desire to make diplomacy public on an alliance level that way. It's odd you are surprised that there is wariness and defensiveness given that. You then followed it up with making us the primary target of a war. Hard for it to be illusory with those facts. I haven't made any posts about it in unrelated topics without things related being referenced. I've just seen nothing to indicate any good faith, which is why your queries have been empty. I don't think you really are open to being convinced, which is the issue here. I won't comment on this further unless I'm responded to and would be willing to take it private if there is a desire.

Thing is, I'm prepared to argue for it and have been. It's an easy conclusion to draw given the timing of the investigation and also the fact I was asked about whether we were aiding alpha or not by a tS gov in the context of a thread being linked titled "NPO is gearing up for war". If we're going to talk about things that shouldn't be said, I think statements that could easily perceived as threats are up there, especially when in our perception you are the initiators of any antagonism that exists between our alliances. Ultimately, I have no reason to try to blow smoke. There isn't really a PR war to win on here. People who agree with you in most cases will anyway due to the partisan(no pun intended) nature of the forums.

Let's clear it up. I have no reason to do an inaccurate portrayal. Several sources relayed that it was being cited as a potential cause for war. We heard that people were "reserving the right to hit for aiding" and that certain things were being looked at and then I was asked outright in a public (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) channel if we were aiding Alpha or not. It's not really blowing smoke with those things being said.

I might have not correctly remembered that discussion between Partisan/MrHat with regards to peacing out for the 1 v 1 since I remember both Vanguard and Arrgh being mentioned. Maybe they didn't have the expectation of Arrgh peacing out like you said, so I'm willing to concede the point. I wasn't actually involved in terms of taking an active part until near the end of the wider war when both Carter and MrHat were unavailable aside from having access to the discussions posted. If Abbas and Tim had reached an agreement(not sure on this one), he might have told Carter(who isn't around to ask), but MrHat was under the impression that his last discussion with Pfeiffer was definite and unaware of a date set being binding. I'm only able to go off what was available internally, unfortunately. I can understand your perspective on it with that being said. The original point this side discussion stemmed from was about not tying into a bloc not working out for Vanguard, so I think James' point stands that being paperless didn't work out for us due to the situation being possible in the first place with repeat raids.

Yes, tS had wanted both Arrgh and Vanguard to peace mensa for the Rose v Mensa 1 v 1 they offered to set up. I don't mean to be overly combative here, but the discussion ended at the impasse of "I have no reason to tell my members to stop raiding you", more or less so it was a valid assumption to believe the raids would resume. I'm not particularly upset over it at this point but trying to correct what I perceive to be historical inaccuracies.

We're talking two different wars if you're referring to my comment about the attack on Vanguard for treaty manipulation purposes. That was last summer. The other Vanguard-Mensa war happened earlier this year and is the one Carmen and James were talking about.

Action was demanded by the membership as recurring raids by Mensa had been an issue for the month preceding that and most people were beiged so there was no way to tell if the raids were going to start again once people came off beige. The last discussion between Mensa and Vanguard ended at an impasse. Even a unilateral statement of "we're not going to raid you anymore" would have made it different, but it was a unilateral internal decision that was never relayed. There were no attempts at diplomatic intervention until it was clear Rose would get involved. The Vanguard response had been ongoing for a while. I do not recall reparations being offered. The only resolution that appeared to be on the table was a 1 v 1 between Rose and Mensa with Vanguard peacing out(with no reparations offer) as it was too uneven for tS's liking otherwise. Willing to be corrected on this, however.

Congrats to our allies in UPN and their new allies in TLF.

Thanks. iirc They've said their issues weren't with UPN being forthcoming but rather the act in itself, so not sure how it would have helped. I will admit I'm not familiar with the backroom dynamics behind Oktoberfest, however. The difference here is when there's a centralized hub and ties that are long-standing and more or less unshakable, people are more willing to agree to responses that go beyond their obligations. For instance, when Rose hit Mensa in response to the Vanguard-Mensa mass raid situation, alliances not alled to Mensa oAed against Rose. This dynamic of willingness to go beyond treaties limits utility for "isolated hits" as you put them. I know you guys have this idea, but the first time the majority of your coalition rolled out was when Mensa hit Vanguard in response to something a person in Rose had done because there was the desire to avoid Rose's temporary DEIC treaty that was carried over from Uranicus Socialitas and wanted to lure Rose into tapping Mensa's UPN treaty instead. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain this action had the support of the Syndicate and it was an aggressive action. That war was fairly even and when perceived swing alliances showed they leaned towards tS/Mensa or wanted to stay out, it became a clear loss.

There is nothing about it in the charter that specifically clarifies what an Executive VP is, but thanks for stating it to clear it up. Two Executive VPs are covered by the Advisor section(edit: it was two: Zed and Manthrax), but nothing about the rest. I don't get how this makes sense from a historical perspective as the smaller individual spheres usually got beaten separately and it really didn't produce different results since the issue of a unified sphere being able to coordinate a response was the major determinant in successes for the tS side in each instance and that wouldn't change. That is, unless you're posing the scenario that the tS sphere would have broken up in a major fashion if there were other smaller individual sides, which has always been pretty unlikely. The issue in the end is the charges of worrying "consolidation" were really oversold as there was never an attempt to form a configuration like the tS + allies configuration. Instead it was a patchwork quilt of treaties that didn't really make it into a political bloc. Jaguar's assessment has a lot of merit.