Hello From the Other Side

[Prefonteen]

It is only because the comic had different sizes and I randomly chose yours to be that one. In fact, it wasn't until after I started puting the flags in that I realized that there was a size difference(I don't really focus on schlongs, ya know?). You really shouldn't read into it, or frankly anything I post, too much.

 

So you're saying my schlong is bigger?

[Spaceman Thrax]

 In fact, it wasn't until after I started puting the flags in that I realized that there was a size difference(I don't really focus on schlongs, ya know?).

 

This is probably the least plausible lie of the whole thread.

 

(I probably don't know you well enough to have really earned that joke but I had to do it.)

[Buorhann]

metro, it's ok man.

[Fox Fire]

Who makes your propaganda? 

They finally made something I like....

Edited March 19, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Rozalia]

Perhaps 10 POL was too generous a score to give. Placentica is a mess. I call him lyin' Plaque. He holds the treaty web up high. He puts it down. And then he lies! And boy does he lie, believe me. 

 

You know what?  I genuinely considered you a friend, someone who would understand a difficult position Alpha was in last war, or at least try to.  In the end, I think you were just being opportunistic and never considered myself or Alpha to be your friend - only your "on paper ally" and just merely your meatshield, something to be tossed aside when it didn't suit your goals.  You want to feel betrayed, but you, in fact, were the one doing the betraying. 

 

It wasn't Alpha that cancelled tS.  I think you were afraid we were going to cancel you, and that's why you were so quick to cancel on us (which is kinda funny, since we weren't going to until we had talked it through post-war in a more calm environment).  I was constantly trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you were just saying stuff out of anger.  I was more than happy to work on the relationship.  I realized that you really didn't want to work on things and talk like friends, but you just wanted your way.  The fact that you and your alliance members were constantly running the spin machine about how bad Alpha was in the forums here....while we were still allied, even....shows your true intentions.  And that doesn't appear to have changed.  And that's your right, you can play the games you want to play.

 

But Alpha is not your enemy, Partisan.

 

 

As for the rest I'll not go into it though there is a lot of subject matter there, believe me. Not that I need bother because I saw a meltdown of a human being like I've never seen. It was Plaque. ... [Partisan] started and he looked at Plaque and they went back and forth and all of a sudden. ... I watched Partisan go after this lightweight ... and he's over here, and I see him starting to sweat like I have never seen anything like it. Thank God he has really large ears, the biggest ears I've ever seen, because they were protecting him. I have never seen any human being sweat like this guy. It's disgusting folks.

 

[Kastor]

It was only when you broke your promises to The $yndicate, went back on your word and launched a large scale surprise offensive on an ally of t$ without any pre-existing ties that would give cause for such a move, that we began to view our relation as ended..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty sure SK hit Rose last war which would give Alpha that tie. Or SK hit Arrgh and used Fark's MDAP to counter in.

[Prefonteen]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty sure SK hit Rose last war which would give Alpha that tie. Or SK hit Arrgh and used Fark's MDAP to counter in.

 

Incorrect.

 

This has been covered a few times, and i'm certain some will attempt to argue the technicalities with me. But here goes:

 

If we're looking at the technicalities of the treaty web, Alpha had no business hitting SK as no 'mandatory' clause was triggered. Breaking it down:

 

Rose:

- Rose hit Mensa in defense of Vanguard, with whom it holds no official treaty. Their claim of paperless defense is a valid CB, but it does not equate a treaty trigger. SK's strike on Rose in defense of Mensa was brought about by a direct treaty trigger.

- The pact between Alpha and Rose explicitly states that defense becomes optional in situations where either party is declared on as a result of a declaration in defense of third parties (non-chaining clause). Ergo: Alpha was under no obligation to defend Rose against SK.

 

Fark:

- The pact between Fark and Rose sports a similar non-chaining clause.

- Fark chained in on Mensa HQ in the first strike alongside Rose in defense of Vanguard. 

- SK's MDP with Mensa is directly triggered, and SK counters.

- As Fark chained in on an oA alonside Rose, the non-chaining clause applied and Alpha was under no obligation to defend Fark.

 

Those are the technicalities that have been argued over a while back. Now, those are *not* the prime cause for t$' grievance. In the interim between SK's declarations on Fark/Rose and SK's declaration on NAC, Alpha explicitly stated to The $yndicate that it would not expand its involvement beyond their front with Roz Wei. Their rationale being that they were *not* a part of Rose's coalition, *not* in any coaliton channels, and that they felt an obligation to defend Rose (while we disagree, we did respect that). As such, they picked Roz Wei due to their paperless entry in order to appease and respect both Rose's position and The $yndicate's position.

 

looking  back even further, to before hostilities commenced, they made it clear on multiple occasions that they did not wish to fight SK/t$/Guardian (those were specifically mentioned) as they did understand the need for these parties to defend their ally in Mensa HQ.

 

Now, after SK's hit on NAC- a party that was completely unaffiliated with Alpha-, Alpha failed to informed t$ of its plans to aggressively strike SK, its ally. After it became clear that UPN became involved, it launched a surprise offensive on SK, breaking its word (of limited involvement) in the process. Alpha knew full well that with UPN's entry, it was unlikely that it would see any counters. Specifically because of its treaty with t$. I suspect that the expectations in their coalition were also that the offensive would serve as the nail in the coffin for our coalition, and that the war would be over. Events obviously played out differently, but that does not take away their intent.

 

Alpha used The $yndicate as a shield to avoid counters, waited until everyone was occupied, waited until the moment where they thought the war would be won (due to UPN involvement. I should note that I do not fault UPN for coming in: Their treaty was triggered without cause and they had every right to move in), and they struck $yndicate allies without cause or need, in a period where t$ was in a rough spot, breaking their word in the process. It was spineless opportunism at its finest, and it is this slithering that has earned Steve our ire. His claims of friendship. Of giving us 'the benefit of the doubt', of being 'in a rough spot' - they are all transparent spin. Ill-hearted attempts at mitigating and deflecting damage to their credibility.

 

It is abundantly clear that throughout the entire episode, there was no good will involved in Steve's actions and rationale. So long as he continues his propaganda game on these forums and in backchannels, we are therefore forced to engage him intellectually in the arena where he is demonstrates to be at his weakest, and to structurally refute his claims, his half-truth and his lies.

[Apeman]

o/ Partisan

[Beatrix]

I liked Partisans reply because of its detail, structure & posture. I'm not knowledgeable enough to make a disctinction on who's correct based on facts I know, but it's clear to me - and probably to everyone else reading this - who's correct anyways just based on the humiliating interaction.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Beatrix

[Prefontaine]

Incorrect.

 

This has been covered a few times, and i'm certain some will attempt to argue the technicalities with me. But here goes:

 

If we're looking at the technicalities of the treaty web, Alpha had no business hitting SK as no 'mandatory' clause was triggered. Breaking it down:

 

Rose:

- Rose hit Mensa in defense of Vanguard, with whom it holds no official treaty. Their claim of paperless defense is a valid CB, but it does not equate a treaty trigger. SK's strike on Rose in defense of Mensa was brought about by a direct treaty trigger.

- The pact between Alpha and Rose explicitly states that defense becomes optional in situations where either party is declared on as a result of a declaration in defense of third parties (non-chaining clause). Ergo: Alpha was under no obligation to defend Rose against SK.

 

Fark:

- The pact between Fark and Rose sports a similar non-chaining clause.

- Fark chained in on Mensa HQ in the first strike alongside Rose in defense of Vanguard. 

- SK's MDP with Mensa is directly triggered, and SK counters.

- As Fark chained in on an oA alonside Rose, the non-chaining clause applied and Alpha was under no obligation to defend Fark.

 

Those are the technicalities that have been argued over a while back. Now, those are *not* the prime cause for t$' grievance. In the interim between SK's declarations on Fark/Rose and SK's declaration on NAC, Alpha explicitly stated to The $yndicate that it would not expand its involvement beyond their front with Roz Wei. Their rationale being that they were *not* a part of Rose's coalition, *not* in any coaliton channels, and that they felt an obligation to defend Rose (while we disagree, we did respect that). As such, they picked Roz Wei due to their paperless entry in order to appease and respect both Rose's position and The $yndicate's position.

 

looking  back even further, to before hostilities commenced, they made it clear on multiple occasions that they did not wish to fight SK/t$/Guardian (those were specifically mentioned) as they did understand the need for these parties to defend their ally in Mensa HQ.

 

Now, after SK's hit on NAC- a party that was completely unaffiliated with Alpha-, Alpha failed to informed t$ of its plans to aggressively strike SK, its ally. After it became clear that UPN became involved, it launched a surprise offensive on SK, breaking its word (of limited involvement) in the process. Alpha knew full well that with UPN's entry, it was unlikely that it would see any counters. Specifically because of its treaty with t$. I suspect that the expectations in their coalition were also that the offensive would serve as the nail in the coffin for our coalition, and that the war would be over. Events obviously played out differently, but that does not take away their intent.

 

Alpha used The $yndicate as a shield to avoid counters, waited until everyone was occupied, waited until the moment where they thought the war would be won (due to UPN involvement. I should note that I do not fault UPN for coming in: Their treaty was triggered without cause and they had every right to move in), and they struck $yndicate allies without cause or need, in a period where t$ was in a rough spot, breaking their word in the process. It was spineless opportunism at its finest, and it is this slithering that has earned Steve our ire. His claims of friendship. Of giving us 'the benefit of the doubt', of being 'in a rough spot' - they are all transparent spin. Ill-hearted attempts at mitigating and deflecting damage to their credibility.

 

It is abundantly clear that throughout the entire episode, there was no good will involved in Steve's actions and rationale. So long as he continues his propaganda game on these forums and in backchannels, we are therefore forced to engage him intellectually in the arena where he is demonstrates to be at his weakest, and to structurally refute his claims, his half-truth and his lies.

 

How dare you put Steve in that position. You were horrible, inconsiderate allies.

[Keegoz]

Incorrect.

 

This has been covered a few times, and i'm certain some will attempt to argue the technicalities with me. But here goes:

 

If we're looking at the technicalities of the treaty web, Alpha had no business hitting SK as no 'mandatory' clause was triggered. Breaking it down:

 

Rose:

- Rose hit Mensa in defense of Vanguard, with whom it holds no official treaty. Their claim of paperless defense is a valid CB, but it does not equate a treaty trigger. SK's strike on Rose in defense of Mensa was brought about by a direct treaty trigger.

- The pact between Alpha and Rose explicitly states that defense becomes optional in situations where either party is declared on as a result of a declaration in defense of third parties (non-chaining clause). Ergo: Alpha was under no obligation to defend Rose against SK.

 

Fark:

- The pact between Fark and Rose sports a similar non-chaining clause.

- Fark chained in on Mensa HQ in the first strike alongside Rose in defense of Vanguard. 

- SK's MDP with Mensa is directly triggered, and SK counters.

- As Fark chained in on an oA alonside Rose, the non-chaining clause applied and Alpha was under no obligation to defend Fark.

 

Those are the technicalities that have been argued over a while back. Now, those are *not* the prime cause for t$' grievance. In the interim between SK's declarations on Fark/Rose and SK's declaration on NAC, Alpha explicitly stated to The $yndicate that it would not expand its involvement beyond their front with Roz Wei. Their rationale being that they were *not* a part of Rose's coalition, *not* in any coaliton channels, and that they felt an obligation to defend Rose (while we disagree, we did respect that). As such, they picked Roz Wei due to their paperless entry in order to appease and respect both Rose's position and The $yndicate's position.

 

looking  back even further, to before hostilities commenced, they made it clear on multiple occasions that they did not wish to fight SK/t$/Guardian (those were specifically mentioned) as they did understand the need for these parties to defend their ally in Mensa HQ.

 

Now, after SK's hit on NAC- a party that was completely unaffiliated with Alpha-, Alpha failed to informed t$ of its plans to aggressively strike SK, its ally. After it became clear that UPN became involved, it launched a surprise offensive on SK, breaking its word (of limited involvement) in the process. Alpha knew full well that with UPN's entry, it was unlikely that it would see any counters. Specifically because of its treaty with t$. I suspect that the expectations in their coalition were also that the offensive would serve as the nail in the coffin for our coalition, and that the war would be over. Events obviously played out differently, but that does not take away their intent.

 

Alpha used The $yndicate as a shield to avoid counters, waited until everyone was occupied, waited until the moment where they thought the war would be won (due to UPN involvement. I should note that I do not fault UPN for coming in: Their treaty was triggered without cause and they had every right to move in), and they struck $yndicate allies without cause or need, in a period where t$ was in a rough spot, breaking their word in the process. It was spineless opportunism at its finest, and it is this slithering that has earned Steve our ire. His claims of friendship. Of giving us 'the benefit of the doubt', of being 'in a rough spot' - they are all transparent spin. Ill-hearted attempts at mitigating and deflecting damage to their credibility.

 

It is abundantly clear that throughout the entire episode, there was no good will involved in Steve's actions and rationale. So long as he continues his propaganda game on these forums and in backchannels, we are therefore forced to engage him intellectually in the arena where he is demonstrates to be at his weakest, and to structurally refute his claims, his half-truth and his lies.

So this is what the treaty web has done /o\

 

I stopped reading after the first few lines but I imagine most of this is e-lawyering. Not going to lie things were much simpler when we didn't have that much paper

[LordStrum]

why is this still going

[Prefonteen]

So this is what the treaty web has done /o\

 

I stopped reading after the first few lines but I imagine most of this is e-lawyering. Not going to lie things were much simpler when we didn't have that much paper

 

I tried to keep the treaty technicalities out of the argument since it's not what our grievance is really about. Unfortunately...people brought it up as an argument so I had to do the e-lawyer thing .

 

And yes. Things used to be simpler.

[Buorhann]

why is this still going

Blame Yosodog

 

Guys keep it going. Maybe this will hit 10 pages?

[Hooves]

We're almost there

[Yosodog]

Let's start some more drama?

 

!@#$ you Mensa.

[Buorhann]

Let's start some more drama?

 

!@#$ you Mensa.

 

You have to join Rose first before saying that.

[Chapsie]

We're almost there

 

Close, but no banana.

[Bezzers]

Gotta get to ten xD

[Sisyphus]

It's a shame anyone from the Syndicate had to waste any time or effort refuting Placentica's drivel.

 

 

I'm really quite pleased for the Obsidian Order and our allies therein. BoC should make a good contribution to the sphere and I look forward to what they all accomplish together as their political sphere matures and takes on a prominent role in world politics.

 

BoC was wise to break away from this tiresome status quo. Congrats to them on starting a new chapter in their alliance's history.

[Zoot]

You have to join Rose first before saying that.

You heard the man, Yoso, we're merging with Rose!

[Young]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI

[jaguar]

Someone bring Clarke here so we can hit 10 pages

[Buorhann]

You heard the man, Yoso, we're merging with Rose!

 

 

Time to call in XCOM and deal with these dirty ayyliens.

[jimmyvbuck]

Time to call in XCOM and deal with these dirty ayyliens.

XCOM lost that war