The Knights Radiant Declaration of War

[japan77]

Then you'd be wrong. Basically anything other than "don't worry about it" and then vilifying us for preparing anyway would be fine. 

Can you provide a specific case in which TKR villified you for preparing for war?

[Lordship]

Then you'd be wrong. Basically anything other than "don't worry about it" and then vilifying us for preparing anyway would be fine. 

Not sure how we vilified you?

[Roquentin]

You mean UPN? I personally was more upset that they actually hit our ally (which is why I get why they are also upset), I did not expect them to actually tell us about it. "Oh yeah we are going to go ahead and hit your ally okay?"...I give you examples just so you can see how silly it looks.

 

I remember indignation about UPN lying about its plans to allies coming from your corner. Your personal perspective is one thing, but it was all over here.

 

If you knew, you and your allies would have started militarizing ASAP.

Let's be real Roq, you didn't know. You may have suspected, but you didn't know.

 We knew. I can't speak to the internals of other alliances, but we discussed militarization with other alliances. We had a lot still militarized from the alpha thing except for some people who were inactive due to RL.

[jimmyvbuck]

Then you'd be wrong. Basically anything other than "don't worry about it" and then vilifying us for preparing anyway would be fine. 

Except it would not be fine, since saying anything else would be telling you it was true and you know it, and as I have gone over they could not really just tell you it was true. You can't expect an ally with almost all their ties to the other sphere to tell you everything, you should have known things would end up like this eventually when you signed them but no, you wanted ties to both sides I guess and now it's bitten you in the arse and you are upset at them for it.

[Roquentin]

Not sure how we vilified you?

 

When the recruitment topic callout went up, it was made to appear as totally unprompted and that we were just positioning tS as an enemy with nothing to go on except the logs in the dominations channel. You agreed with this assessment.

[jimmyvbuck]

I remember indignation about UPN lying about its plans to allies coming from your corner. Your personal perspective is one thing, but it was all over here.

From what I remember their lie was a lot bigger than "it will be fine" so I don't think it's the same, similar yes but not the same.

[Roquentin]

Except it would not be fine, since saying anything else would be telling you it was true and you know it, and as I have gone over they could not really just tell you it was true. You can't expect an ally with almost all their ties to the other sphere to tell you everything, you should have known things would end up like this eventually when you signed them but no, you wanted ties to both sides I guess and now it's bitten you in the arse and you are upset at them for it.

No. No specifics would have to be given. Just anything that didn't downplay the risk of war.  Allies are usually expected to share things pertinent to the security of the other. Some of our other allies have ties to alliances on the other side too and were a lot more forthcoming.

[Lordship]

When the recruitment topic callout went up, it was made to appear as totally unprompted and that we were just positioning tS as an enemy with nothing to go on except the logs in the dominations channel. You agreed with this assessment.

It did indeed seem like that, but we kept that to ourselves until you threw a fit at us for declaring on VE in defense of our ally. Whatever opinions we had of you, it was kept to ourselves and never aired in public like that. Can we not have an opinion now? So not only do we have to tell you our coalitions plans and hit our treaty partners, we can't form any sort of opinion about you other than the one you'd like us to have?

 

You're being totally unfair.

 

Also, which of your allies were more forthcoming? None of them are as invested in tS/BK as we are, I can guarantee it.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Lordship

[Roquentin]

From what I remember their lie was a lot bigger than "it will be fine" so I don't think it's the same, similar yes but not the same.

So you don't dispute BK was upset about being lied to? "it will be fine" is a pretty big lie when you are telling it to the main target of the war.

[jimmyvbuck]

No. No specifics would have to be given. Just anything that didn't downplay the risk of war.  Allies are usually expected to share things pertinent to the security of the other. Some of our other allies have ties to alliances on the other side too and were a lot more forthcoming.

Perhaps but TKR is not an ally with ties to the other side, TKR is on the other side, they are in bloc with us ffs lol.

[Roquentin]

It did indeed seem like that, but we kept that to ourselves until you threw a fit at us for declaring on VE in defense of our ally. Whatever opinions we had of you, it was kept to ourselves and never aired in public like that. Can we not have an opinion now? So not only do we have to tell you our coalitions plans and hit our treaty partners, we can't form any sort of opinion about you other than the one you'd like us to have?

 When you know the concerns have a basis in reality, it doesn't make sense to think that or endorse it as a line of thought. When we tried to show why we had it up, we were mostly ignored and explanations brushed aside. At this point, we're just going in circles, so it doesn't matter and we've done too much of this. I'll just leave this thread alone.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Roquentin

[Lordship]

 When you know the concerns have a basis in reality, it doesn't make sense to think that or endorse it as a line of thought. When we tried to show why we had it up, we were mostly ignored and explanations brushed aside. At this point, we're just going in circles, so it doesn't matter and we've done too much of this. I'll just leave this thread alone.

Are you debating with me the merits of you posting that (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) recruitment thread? I thought we were discussing our massive betrayal.

[Auctor]

You mean UPN? I personally was more upset that they actually hit our ally (which is why I get why they are also upset), I did not expect them to actually tell us about it. "Oh yeah we are going to go ahead and hit your ally okay?"...I give you examples just so you can see how silly it looks.

 

Your disgusting, dysfunctional relationship with people you delude yourselves into calling "allies" as if the word has no meaning is neither here nor there.

[Filthy Fifths]

NPO is just butthurt it's losing it's first war. They can't fight worth of shit and over-extended themselves. Your 100% commie build is not going to work. It's only good for building up but when war comes around you will fall and fallen you have. Take this moment to learn from this war. Learn some coordination tactics. And be ready next war to actually prove yourselves or you will have a long and tough road in this world. Most of the alliances you guys have problems with have years of experience dealing with this world's war mechanics. Stop trying to spin the FA game in your favor when it's not going to work. You're getting rolled. You are allied with shit-tier war alliances. Realign yourself or get better.

[Prefonteen]

Um what? Are you really saying we were actively trying to get you to hit us? You guys were the ones that went around talking to people about the For Steve thing and had threats out there. You were the ones to call  us out as well. Just because we prepared because we knew you guys are aggressive and have a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean we were trying to get you to hurt us. Again, if we're attributing motivations I get you guys just want a simulcra of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) where you win and are on top. That's cool but horribly ironic when complaining about crossplay.

 

So you are saying that you were preparing for a potential war with tS before we made any aggressive move towards you whatsoever because something in our interaction with you somehow made you feel like 'we have a chip on our shoulder' and wanted to come for you?

 

Perfect. Then I have made the right decision in my capacity as tS FA. Thank you for your confirmation.

[jimmyvbuck]

Your disgusting, dysfunctional relationship with people you delude yourselves into calling "allies" as if the word has no meaning is neither here nor there.

[T-Pain]

Let's see if I understand this. Most of us had played nation simulation games for quite a while. (3-10 years).

 

Yet people still come to the Alliance Affairs in attempt to tell their version of the truth. Everyone already has a side and knows what party line they're going to support. Is there any benefit to this or do you all just enjoy wasting time in general?

 

Edit: Changed OWF to Alliance Affairs.

Edited June 15, 2016 by T-Pain

[jimmyvbuck]

Let's see if I understand this. Most of us had played nation simulation games for quite a while. (3-10 years).

 

Yet people still come to the Open World Forum in attempt to tell their version of the truth. Everyone already has a side and knows what party line they're going to support. Is there any benefit to this or do you all just enjoy wasting time in general?

We play nation sims for years...We obviously like to waste time in general  

[T-Pain]

We play nation sims for years...We obviously like to waste time in general

A reasonable response and the first time.

 

I approve. (Why are all the emoji's so bad.)

[Best Leader]

All I'm getting from this thread is that NPO doesn't understand the difference between a treaty and being allied.

 

trea·ty

ˈtrēdē/

noun

 

1. a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.

    

 

al·li·ance

əˈlīəns/

noun

 

1. a union or association formed for mutual benefit, especially between countries or organizations.

    

    

   We have a TREATY with npo, which we did not break or dishonor in anyway due to our NAPs and alliances with t$ and bk. Y

    

    

   We have an ALLIANCE with BK and t$, via our bloc with bk and former protectorate status/formal alliance with t$.

    

    

   You wanted us to declare war on bk in defense of you, when we are formally allied in literally the closest way possible with bk. And thats ignoring the fact that our NAP made us literally unable to declare war on them. A declaration of war is an inherently aggressive act, whether its in defense of another or not. It would be us attacking them. If you had communicated properly and asked us to help in some way that didnt break our NAP, such as resources or money, we might have been able to work with that, but you didn't and instead got immediately salty we didn't completely forsake all our longterm political ties for you guys, who have only been on orbis for 6 months and we have never even fought a major war with.

    

    

   A treaty is basically a business agreement between nations and/or alliances. It does not make us allies. In fact, by promoting diplomatic relations with LITERALLY EVERYBODY on the other side of the fence from us with treaties, you made yourself an enemy. If you had wanted to become an ally, you could have communicated more, worked with us and asked to join the obsidian order. Or even asked for an NAP or some other form of more concrete declaration that we were allied. But you didn't, and now we're here. 

 

And thats not even mentioning that you're all dirty commie scum.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Oh hey, i didnt see this topic, Good luck this war TKR.  

 

 

Lordship, I love ya buddy, but if you pull the same crap you pulled at the end of last war we fought against each other, I am coming after you.

[Milord]

Oh hey, i didnt see this topic, Good luck this war TKR.

 

 

Lordship, I love ya buddy, but if you pull the same crap you pulled at the end of last war we fought against each other, I am coming after you.

See he knows the point of a DoW thread.

Not a freaking Debate about FA stuff

Edited June 15, 2016 by Milord

[Lordship]

Oh hey, i didnt see this topic, Good luck this war TKR.  

 

 

Lordship, I love ya buddy, but if you pull the same crap you pulled at the end of last war we fought against each other, I am coming after you.

Never again my friend

[Crust]

Everyone should really think more about where they position themselves, what risk they put themselves and their allies in when they treaty up. You can't have +3 treaties without making a mess, it's not gonna happen, especially when you got allies in two separate blocs.

[Canik]

5, 6, 7. Flippant but not trolling. My point was that since the bloc is question is an MDoAP bloc (as opposed to MADP) and since non-aggression pacts pledge non-aggression, not selective nullification of other treaties, TKR had no other obligations that conflicted or superseded its treaty with NPO. We wanted you to come to NPO's defense regardless of who attacked NPO since that's what you promised to do. You could have defended us without violating any NAP's since it would have been defense - not aggression. Obviously it would have been a terrible move, but such are the consequences of being either dumb enough or unscrupulous enough to assent to having one MD-level ally attack another. The very least TKR could have done was cancel the treaty.

 

Oh so it's only a MDoAP bloc. Well then, I am less understanding now on why TKR felt obligated to support BK and not NPO. You make a good point too with NAPs being Non-Aggression, not Non-Defending your allies.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Canik