Name that War!

[Spaceman Thrax]

 

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.

 

Probably the most telling thing, in all honesty, is that of all the potential threats, you decided to see ours as about fifty times as salient. We were perfectly nice to you and had some good chats when NPO first joined. Somewhere around the Vanguard merger, though, communication really fell off, and I know your alliance is more than capable of looking past old grievances and acting cordial when you have a mind to. Your alliance was the one that shifted, and we waited a fairly long time to react.

 

Put another way, the "antagonism" you feel from us is illusory, based on your own perceived political gain rather than anything our alliance has done. Why else would you continue to make all these posts in unrelated threads, while our queries remain empty? If you have a genuine wish to move forward, feel free to contact us. Otherwise, why not give the public shitshow a rest? I'll be taking my own advice, as well, since I find this cyclical nonsense fairly boring.

 

Shrug. I could be wrong, but you're not convincing me I am, at present.

[LordRahl2]

LordRahl2, sure went silent fast. It would be nice if he apologized for slandering Alpha.

 

It's not what we were making, it's what we were spending on nukes mainly. We were dropping 50-70 nukes a week. You can do that math on what those cost and realize $2.8b/week is a laughable number. Our income didn't come from net cash income clearly, but we were still making resources which was a number many people have failed to factor into things. It's also why they are confused at how Alpha self-funded the war tS declared on us. We didn't pull $2.8b from our alliance warchest the entire war, lol. Not even close to that.

Huh? I told you I was not speaking to your mealy mouth lapdog. Reading comprehension is still not your sttong suit?

[Peacity Peace]

[Chapsie]

I thought this was a naming thread.

 

Maybe we should name the war salt.

 

Just "Salt"

[Roquentin]

Probably the most telling thing, in all honesty, is that of all the potential threats, you decided to see ours as about fifty times as salient. We were perfectly nice to you and had some good chats when NPO first joined. Somewhere around the Vanguard merger, though, communication really fell off, and I know your alliance is more than capable of looking past old grievances and acting cordial when you have a mind to. Your alliance was the one that shifted, and we waited a fairly long time to react.

 

Put another way, the "antagonism" you feel from us is illusory, based on your own perceived political gain rather than anything our alliance has done. Why else would you continue to make all these posts in unrelated threads, while our queries remain empty? If you have a genuine wish to move forward, feel free to contact us. Otherwise, why not give the public shitshow a rest? I'll be taking my own advice, as well, since I find this cyclical nonsense fairly boring.

 

Shrug. I could be wrong, but you're not convincing me I am, at present.

 

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.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Roquentin

[Auctor]

Haha no, communication dropped off weeks before the Vanguard merger and there were several instances of hostility well before then. Try again.

[Phiney]

LordRahl2, sure went silent fast. It would be nice if he apologized for slandering Alpha.

 

It's not what we were making, it's what we were spending on nukes mainly. We were dropping 50-70 nukes a week. You can do that math on what those cost and realize $2.8b/week is a laughable number. Our income didn't come from net cash income clearly, but we were still making resources which was a number many people have failed to factor into things. It's also why they are confused at how Alpha self-funded the war tS declared on us. We didn't pull $2.8b from our alliance warchest the entire war, lol. Not even close to that.

Right, so actually it was likely at least 2.8b a week if you include opportunity cost and actual costs together Is what you're saying.

[Filthy Fifths]

The War of the Salt Shakers 

[Apeman]

Why is NPO pushing so hard for an explanation? If the efforts prove anything its that a CB is bull. The rules are written by the victors. I agree a CB could be used but really people should just declare wars for the reasons they state. Please see my threads for examples. Nobody cares and the war is over. Why fight it now thru this channel.

 

My advice, develop a grudge, work towards redemption or retaliation or just....... roll over and zip it. NPO could be deadly, becoming another martyr isn't going to help.

[HopeSolo]

Huh? I told you I was not speaking to your mealy mouth lapdog. Reading comprehension is still not your sttong suit?

dodging appears to be your strong suit. just admit you got caught in a lie and we can all move on.

[Prefonteen]

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. 

 

Do you deny that we confirmed with MrHat that the matter was investigated and dropped? If you don't deny it, why are you bringing this up on the OWF, and framing it as an 'attempted CB'?

 

There was smoke being blown in public from and towards all direction. As a government official, it is your task to discern between smoke, mirrors and actual things. It sounds like you've simply taken everything said that can be remotely used to villify tS, and taken it as tS policy.

 

If you intend to take that M.O in the future, might I suggest you join Alpha?

[Prefonteen]

LordRahl2, sure went silent fast.  It would be nice if he apologized for slandering Alpha.

 

It's not what we were making, it's what we were spending on nukes mainly.  We were dropping 50-70 nukes a week.  You can do that math on what those cost and realize $2.8b/week is a laughable number.  Our income didn't come from net cash income clearly, but we were still making resources which was a number many people have failed to factor into things.  It's also why they are confused at how Alpha self-funded the war tS declared on us. We didn't pull $2.8b from our alliance warchest the entire war, lol. Not even close to that.

 

I'm not confused at all as to how you are funding yourself. I *am* however, incredibly confused on how you still have allies.

 

Probably the most telling thing, in all honesty, is that of all the potential threats, you decided to see ours as about fifty times as salient. We were perfectly nice to you and had some good chats when NPO first joined. Somewhere around the Vanguard merger, though, communication really fell off, and I know your alliance is more than capable of looking past old grievances and acting cordial when you have a mind to. Your alliance was the one that shifted, and we waited a fairly long time to react.

 

Put another way, the "antagonism" you feel from us is illusory, based on your own perceived political gain rather than anything our alliance has done. Why else would you continue to make all these posts in unrelated threads, while our queries remain empty? If you have a genuine wish to move forward, feel free to contact us. Otherwise, why not give the public shitshow a rest? I'll be taking my own advice, as well, since I find this cyclical nonsense fairly boring.

 

Shrug. I could be wrong, but you're not convincing me I am, at present.

 

I will valiantly soldier on in public in your stead. (./joke)

 

More seriously: free to move this into private channels if you wish. It's not my deal anymore.

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.

 

While I do understand your reasoning here, my callout had a specific purpose, and succeeded in that. Right around the time the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) shenanigans started, t$ queries (of members government, friends of tS) got bombed with questions, allegations and insinuations. Rumors started popping up. The thread dragged all that into the open and gave me a perfect picture of where you stood. Was the move a bit rogue? Certainly. Do I care? Not at all. I have no regrets of getting a sneak peak into your functioning. Something which was previously kept in backrooms.

 

I'm quite happy with your continuation of the OWF shitshow. With every post you make, you confirm to my members and allies that our internal analysis and conclusion on your M.O is entirely correct, and that we did indeed make the right move in pre-empting any hostilities.

[HopeSolo]

I'm not confused at all as to how you are funding yourself. I *am* however, incredibly confused on how you still have allies.

it's also interesting that you continue to act like our allies should drop us when they actually know that alpha wasn't planning an attack or coalition building and that you were the clear aggressors here.

 

so it really looks more like you have been convicted of the crime you accuse us of.

Edited June 30, 2016 by HopeSolo

[Prefonteen]

it's also interesting that you continue to act like our allies should drop us when they actually know that alpha wasn't planning an attack or coalition building and that you were the clear aggressors here.

 

so it really looks more like you have been conflicted of the crime you accuse us of.

 

I am merely expressing my confusion as to your current positioning. What crime have I just accused you of in the post you quoted? And how am I 'conflicted' with that crime? I don't feel conflicted at all.

[HopeSolo]

I am merely expressing my confusion as to your current positioning. What crime have I just accused you of in the post you quoted? And how am I 'convicted' with that crime? I don't feel convicted at all.

our current positioning is that we respect our allies, especially when those allies don't attack our other allies. we are loyal to them and they know where we stand. the fact that all the horrible awful things you have accused us of doing, if even 10% of what you accuse of us were truthful, i expect all of our allies to have dropped us. but they haven't. and that sheds light on your alliance really.

 

i don't expect you to accept this, you can't and i get that. but since you pretty well control these forums, i'm not sure why you keep going with this line of thought.

[Eumirbago]

our current positioning is that we respect our allies, especially when those allies don't attack our other allies. we are loyal to them and they know where we stand. the fact that all the horrible awful things you have accused us of doing, if even 10% of what you accuse of us were truthful, i expect all of our allies to have dropped us. but they haven't. and that sheds light on your alliance really.

 

i don't expect you to accept this, you can't and i get that. but since you pretty well control these forums, i'm not sure why you keep going with this line of thought.

No

[Prefonteen]

our current positioning is that we respect our allies, especially when those allies don't attack our other allies. we are loyal to them and they know where we stand. the fact that all the horrible awful things you have accused us of doing, if even 10% of what you accuse of us were truthful, i expect all of our allies to have dropped us. but they haven't. and that sheds light on your alliance really.

 

i don't expect you to accept this, you can't and i get that. but since you pretty well control these forums, i'm not sure why you keep going with this line of thought.

 

Indeed, I control these forums. Bring me to my throne room. Prefontaine!

 

You did not mention what exactly I accused you of in the post I made, or how I am convicted of that crime (yes, I saw your edit! I had to make the joke. Sorry. )

 

So... to summarize: Your allies not dropping us invalidates any claims t$ has made and backed up with logs and evidence regarding Alpha's actions. Alpha's allies, for whatever reason, deciding to stick with Alpha, washes Alpha's hands from any potential blood or crimes.

 

Got it. By that logic, t$' allies not dropping us means t$  has never wronged anyone either. Hear that, Hans/Impero/Pub/Roq/Steve? Leave us alone!

Edited June 30, 2016 by Partisan

[Valakias]

our current positioning is that we respect our allies, especially when those allies don't attack our other allies. we are loyal to them and they know where we stand. the fact that all the horrible awful things you have accused us of doing, if even 10% of what you accuse of us were truthful, i expect all of our allies to have dropped us. but they haven't. and that sheds light on your alliance really.

 

i don't expect you to accept this, you can't and i get that. but since you pretty well control these forums, i'm not sure why you keep going with this line of thought.

 

Lmao fam they just signed TLF out of desperation for numbers and they gonna drop you? Need more souls for the meatgrinder lmao, rally all the microes you need more fam.

[HopeSolo]

english isn't my first language.

 

i believe it was you who questioned why alpha's allies haven't dropped us. not the other way around.

 

Lmao fam they just signed TLF out of desperation for numbers and they gonna drop you? Need more souls for the meatgrinder lmao, rally all the microes you need more fam.

we didn't sign tlf, not sure where you got that, but you might want to check your facts and edit your post. doesn't ts have the most treaties/protectorates of any alliance ever?

Edited June 30, 2016 by HopeSolo

[Prefonteen]

english isn't my first language.

 

i believe it was you who questioned why alpha's allies haven't dropped us. not the other way around.

 

That's fair. I appreciate that: It's not mine either so I understand the difficulty with it at times. Sorry if I offended you there. Unintended.

 

I did wonder why you still have allies. That's mostly based on your government's behavior. You know, i've been allied to you and speak from experience. So pulling back:

 

So... to summarize: Your allies not dropping us invalidates any claims t$ has made and backed up with logs and evidence regarding Alpha's actions. Alpha's allies, for whatever reason, deciding to stick with Alpha, washes Alpha's hands from any potential blood or crimes.

 

Got it. By that logic, t$' allies not dropping us means t$  has never wronged anyone either. Hear that, Hans/Impero/Pub/Roq/Steve? Leave us alone!

 

 

Correct?

[Valakias]

we didn't sign tlf, not sure where you got that, but you might want to check your facts and edit your post. doesn't ts have the most treaties/protectorates of any alliance ever?

 

 

UPN did which is going to be the next one to lead everyone back into it lel, yeee we have shitton of treaties but we at least make sure they are competent and don't just treaty everything that moves because we need drones to send in the first wave lmao

[HopeSolo]

That's fair. I appreciate that: It's not mine either so I understand the difficulty with it at times. Sorry if I offended you there. Unintended.

 

I did wonder why you still have allies. That's mostly based on your government's behavior. You know, i've been allied to you and speak from experience. So pulling back:

 

Correct?

not offended, just clarifying since you seemed to be confused, my apologies. i was allied to you too, and i've seen enough logs to know placentica was extremely patient with you. in the end, when an ally attacks another ally the treaty is pretty well dead i'm sure you'd agree with. and it's unfortunate there wasn't more respect but you can't manufacture that and i don't blame you for that.

 

i do wish you and the syndicate well. given that i like war i've enjoyed this time of the longest conflict in orbis history.    the fact that only your alliance knows if you will attack alpha again, just adds a bit of excitement i guess.   

 

infra is cheap, cities are forever bby.

[Roquentin]

I'm not confused at all as to how you are funding yourself. I *am* however, incredibly confused on how you still have allies.

 

 

I will valiantly soldier on in public in your stead. (./joke)

 

More seriously: free to move this into private channels if you wish. It's not my deal anymore.

 

While I do understand your reasoning here, my callout had a specific purpose, and succeeded in that. Right around the time the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) shenanigans started, t$ queries (of members government, friends of tS) got bombed with questions, allegations and insinuations. Rumors started popping up. The thread dragged all that into the open and gave me a perfect picture of where you stood. Was the move a bit rogue? Certainly. Do I care? Not at all. I have no regrets of getting a sneak peak into your functioning. Something which was previously kept in backrooms.

 

I'm quite happy with your continuation of the OWF shitshow. With every post you make, you confirm to my members and allies that our internal analysis and conclusion on your M.O is entirely correct, and that we did indeed make the right move in pre-empting any hostilities.

 

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. 

Edited June 30, 2016 by Roquentin

[Filthy Fifths]

For Steve!

[Prefonteen]

not offended, just clarifying since you seemed to be confused, my apologies. i was allied to you too, and i've seen enough logs to know placentica was extremely patient with you. in the end, when an ally attacks another ally the treaty is pretty well dead i'm sure you'd agree with. and it's unfortunate there wasn't more respect but you can't manufacture that and i don't blame you for that.

 

i do wish you and the syndicate well. given that i like war i've enjoyed this time of the longest conflict in orbis history.    the fact that only your alliance knows if you will attack alpha again, just adds a bit of excitement i guess. 

 

infra is cheap, cities are forever bby.

 

We keep hearing that argument brought forward: 't$ attacked an alpha ally'. Don't you think it's a bit strange to blame t$ for doing so, when said ally (Rose) opened a direct war (without treaty trigger because vanguard was paperless) on a t$ ally, thus triggering its treaty?

 

And hey. If anything I can appreciate the resilience of Alpha members, sticking it out for so long. Your conduct (referring to various OOC attacks at the address of tS) is something I will always condemn, and I probably won't see eye to eye wit steve/james politically anytime soon though.

 

Let's see what the future brings I suppose!

 

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. 

 

The problem with taking the 'for steve' thing for what it was, was that we had no way of figuring out what it was until post-facto. That's not a mistake on our part: We ran with what information we had been given. Ultimately though, it is not why we decided to go to war and it is probably better to let the crossover for as far as it occured die in its crib.

 

It was not that specific text of the responses which was read into, but rather the manner in which you handled it. It's not about being upset with you. Seeing someone's reaction will often tell a lot about that person. The same can be said for alliances. There's not much profit to be had in discussing that with you here though. I would give you one suggestion: Heed Mrhat more. He will probably be able to piece things together.

 

As for villification and framing: That is something every single alliance here, which has been part of anything worth of note, has engaged in. You yourself included. In the end, we felt our war was justified because we felt sufficiently threatened by NPO and UPN. You may look at your repertoire of treaties and t$' collective  history with those alliances for context.