Daveth

You're partially right, Bolby. We did not want them on Gold, we told them as much before they moved, but they did so anyway. And that wasn't cool, but doesn't warrant much beyond a strongly worded letter. Then their allies moved to Gold, and tanked our bloc. And that's where we draw the damn line. Let the record show we have and continue to try to maintain peace. They continue to refuse to acknowledge their wrongdoing, both past and current, instead playing the victim. They have refused our offer for peace. We will continue to try to resolve this crisis, even if ultimately we must go to war.

Waaaah waaah. Cry me a river, man. Those who live by the sword, die by it too. Man the !@#$ up.

With respect, I think the "letter of the law" view on things is... incomprehensibly stupid. We keep testing the borders of what is an is not a violation, when it's fairly clear what it's intended to do, be it with nuke lotteries, spying, hiring mercenaries and over time, these have all made their way into what is really a stupid list of things that are on there. An NAP serves stop acts of aggression, deliberately sabotaging the other signatory's economy is just that.

Okay. Can I tank your color, whatever it is, then?

Thanks for the opinion. Aside elaborating can't speak to it.

Our decision to move first, had nothing to do with you. We moved to Gold because Olive was not ideal, and it's literally GOLD. That's it. Stop trying to spin, lmao.

(1) Yes. We moved first and claimed the Bloc. That's how new territories usually work, lol. (2) Ok, here's the direct quote, verbatim, after he was passive aggressive. I'll even highlight it for you, to make it easier! This was followed up by moving despite us telling you we wouldn't appreciate that. In other words "We moved, deal with it". Then right after that, you tanked the Bloc. If that doesn't scream bad faith and spite, I don't know what does. I mean, if we made it clear we don't want you to do something, you do it anyway, can you really blame us for being upset and looking at deterrents and pressure to stop you from doing it in the first place? We've acted in pretty clear good faith as to that we didn't want you on Gold. We've been open on that from the start, and how we'd likely proceed if you continued to !@#$ around.

(1) Again, just going off what your own leader told me. He said you guys were initially going to stay on Yellow, so claiming "you were always going to go to Gold" seems... contradictory? I'm sure you guys can coordinate better than when Buorhann tried to nuke The Syndicate and "nobody knew about that one". I believe in you, even! (2) The record so far has shown you guys are not only hostile, but were the ones to act in bad faith first. I was personally for good faith and working together, but everything about how this played out just screams bad faith and provocation. You can't spit in our face and expect us to what, say thank you? (3) Riiiiiight... the classic shifting the blame tactic. Haven't we been here before? You told them to move, for once stop denying your bullshit and own up to it like a man. (4) Cool. You know where we're at on that.

(1) Upon reaching out to y'all, you denied having any desire to move from Yellow to Gold. This was then flipped to "we're on Gold now, deal with it" essentially. At this point @Kastor fricking up and then trying to spinning things differently any which way is his standard procedure, which I am more than happy to showcase again, if it's necessary. (2) Correct, they're not backstabbers and liars, you are. (3) As Kastor said, we're not required to work with you. We don't trust, you. We don't like you. And that's fine, but to add insult to injury, you tanked our bonus Bloc. That's where we draw the line. (4) Right... so you're telling me the same TGH &Co who was party to Darkest Hour Deux, arguably one of the biggest dogpiles in recent times, wheels around and plays the victim? A tad hypocritical don't you think? Conversely, we were very fair in the revenge war against you. (5) So, the facts are the matter will not change. AA, THT, and others being on there tank our Bloc. This seems to me like a fairly clear provocation from people who clearly have an allegiance to TGH and moved at your behest, regardless if "you're" not the direct offender. For instance, addressing your "Oh you hit me, NAP violation" you're apparently TGH's offshore, but also an Extension of The High Table? Let's have a look at the evidence! Respectfully, I don't think anyone can really blame our Milcom boys on that one. If it looks, talks and acts like a THT, maybe it is one?

Let the record show I was a total sweetheart, as usual. He made a hard stance, we made a hard stance. Now it's a game of chicken.

The issue at hand is not even exclusively moving in without any sort of asking aside "we're moving, deal with it". At the crux of the issue, it seems fairly evident they moved despite us saying we wouldn't like them to, then deliberately tanking the Gold bonus by having THT, AA, etc move. Nobody is happy about that.

Peace in our time. P.S. Velyni, I can be hired to proof read your statements for a modest fee. Just ask TFP, they'll refer my services.

So, since it's out there, worth clarifying I was the third mediator, acting on my own behalf and not of my Alliance. A fair portion here frankly warrants an ummm... no? Not what happened? That being said, I can point out the inconsistencies if that's acceptable to the parties... Worth pointing out it's not super conducive to peace negotiations to rehash what occured, and rather try to move forward with the clarifications that were made in RON. I'll forward my own here also, in the interest of transparency. First, let me try to explain my method, which admittedly comes from a more, contract creation oriented process, as that's a portion of my background. Generally, it goes: 1. Principles (must have) -> 2. Initial or preliminary terms -> 3. counterproposal/negotiation -> 4. Final contract -> 5. Review/Signature. Probably was a mistake to forward the principles portion... kind of assumes the parties wouldn't immediately perceive things as bad faith, or what have you, breaking things down. I think Party B (R*se/TFP) were generally well-behaved, despite some hiccups, on that note. We got to like, step 3 barely. I was hoping to clarify working with Epi directly as to what TFP/R*se would and wouldn't go for, in a counterproposal or consolidated terms, so that we could go from there. But alas, it didn't materialize. I made it clear despite the headaches, I am happy to continue mediating the process, likely in a direct format, since that appears to be a possibility now. Moving away from my position as a private individual, for which discretion was already kind of blown (smh Velyni), I can probably offer Camelot a temporary Protectorate, tied to the duration of the NAP. I reckon that may get you closer to peace. Feel free to let me know. @Velyni Vas@EpimetheusTalks@Shwin

Here's to another 10 years of The Nerds Radiant.