The Knights Radiant Declaration of War

[Guest Curufinwe]

I think it's also important to note that NPO tried to ally BK and BK turned them down maybe a month ago?

Don't see how NPO could have possibly been the aggressors.

Yeah, I have to say I have no idea what you're talking about and neither does any of the other BK gov I just consulted with on IRC. We did approach NPO to discuss the possibility of establishing relations about 6 months ago, but we were rebuffed. Since then there hasn't been any serious discussion of NPO joining OO or even of a possible treaty between NPO and BK, as our foreign policy orientations did not appear to be compatible. I don't know what conversation you're referencing, but whatever NPO thought it was communicating was apparently so opaque that it didn't even register on our gov subforums, since I couldn't find any reference to it in past threads. So, yeah, I think you may be proceeding on faulty information there.

 

As for NPO being the aggressor, that's not the case, obviously - we pre-empted them to precipitate the current conflict. As I and others have previously stated our reasons derived from the fact that we believed NPO's intentions towards us were not benign based on their public and private FA moves. We continue to stand by that interpretation and believe our decision to pre-empt them was justified when viewed from our perspective.

[Roquentin]

Yeah, I have to say I have no idea what you're talking about and neither does any of the other BK gov I just consulted with on IRC. We did approach NPO to discuss the possibility of establishing relations about 6 months ago, but we were rebuffed. Since then there hasn't been any serious discussion of NPO joining OO or even of a possible treaty between NPO and BK, as our foreign policy orientations did not appear to be compatible. I don't know what conversation you're referencing, but whatever NPO thought it was communicating was apparently so opaque that it didn't even register on our gov subforums, since I couldn't find any reference to it in past threads. So, yeah, I think you may be proceeding on faulty information there.

 

As for NPO being the aggressor, that's not the case, obviously - we pre-empted them to precipitate the current conflict. As I and others have previously stated our reasons derived from the fact that we believed NPO's intentions towards us were not benign based on their public and private FA moves. We continue to stand by that interpretation and believe our decision to pre-empt them was justified when viewed from our perspective.

 

I couldn't speak to 6 months ago as NPO was just founded then. 

 

There was no discussion of joining OO but I think James' point is we'd be a de facto member by allying 2/3rds of it rather than positing that we had tried to join OO. I don't really agree with that interpretation, but thought it right to clarify since I think his statement was misinterpreted.

 

I can say for a fact that there was actual outreach on it. I'm not going to logdump on here, but the evidence exists and will be presented privately. 

 

I can't recall a time where anyone talked about going after BK or did anything to give the impression we were so we can't agree with that characterization. 

[MrHat]

Yeah, I have to say I have no idea what you're talking about and neither does any of the other BK gov I just consulted with on IRC. We did approach NPO to discuss the possibility of establishing relations about 6 months ago, but we were rebuffed. Since then there hasn't been any serious discussion of NPO joining OO or even of a possible treaty between NPO and BK, as our foreign policy orientations did not appear to be compatible. I don't know what conversation you're referencing, but whatever NPO thought it was communicating was apparently so opaque that it didn't even register on our gov subforums, since I couldn't find any reference to it in past threads. So, yeah, I think you may be proceeding on faulty information there.

 

As for NPO being the aggressor, that's not the case, obviously - we pre-empted them to precipitate the current conflict. As I and others have previously stated our reasons derived from the fact that we believed NPO's intentions towards us were not benign based on their public and private FA moves. We continue to stand by that interpretation and believe our decision to pre-empt them was justified when viewed from our perspective.

NPO are the ones who approached BK, not the other way around. NPO are the ones who asked about a treaty, to both Yoso and Strum. I have logs from both, Yoso has the logs.

[Guest Curufinwe]

NPO are the ones who approached BK, not the other way around. NPO are the ones who asked about a treaty, to both Yoso and Strum. I have logs from both, Yoso has the logs.

Yeah I think we're talking about two different events - we did approach you back in late January/early February (around the time you ended your protectorate status and signed TKR) and you approached us more recently (which is what you, Roq and James are talking about). From looking the logs over it looks like there was some room for interpretation in terms of how they can be understood, but I will say that (at least at that time) a treaty wasn't seriously discussed in our internal governmental deliberations, which is why we weren't 100 percent clear on what you guys were referencing.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Curufinwe

[James II]

Yeah I think we're talking about two different events - we did approach you back in late January/early February (around the time you ended your protectorate status and signed TKR) and you approached us more recently (which is what you, Roq and James are talking about). From looking the logs over it looks like there was some room for interpretation in terms of how they can be understood, but I will say that (at least at that time) a treaty wasn't seriously discussed in our internal governmental deliberations, which is why we weren't 100 percent clear on what you guys were referencing.

Naturally, BK interprets this as a hostile action by NPO.

[Lordship]

Naturally, BK interprets this as a hostile action by NPO.

Not sure if you read anything that Curufinwe just said or are just trying to shitpost, but what you quoted literally had nothing to do with BK interpreting them as a threat.

[James II]

Not sure if you read anything that Curufinwe just said or are just trying to shitpost, but what you quoted literally had nothing to do with BK interpreting them as a threat.

I'm bringing up the fact that BK fed it's members NPO was hostile towards BK. 

[donsberger]

I'm bringing up the fact that BK fed it's members NPO was hostile towards BK. 

Again best idea not to make assumptions

[Lordship]

I'm bringing up the fact that BK fed it's members NPO was hostile towards BK. 

Listen here, BK government can tell it's members whatever the heck they want to tell them, and it's not yours or anybody else's business what goes on inside their walls. I can guarantee you that their whole gov lineup does whatever is in the best interest of their alliance and nothing else. They believed there was a threat, they sought to neutralize it. Simple as that, nothing else to it. James, I honestly do not understand why you continue to antagonize everyone that stands in front of you considering the position you and your alliance are in. One would think you would try to begin rebuilding what little positive PR you have rather than continue to wash it down the drain.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Lordship

[Filthy Fifths]

I'm bringing up the fact that BK fed it's members NPO was hostile towards BK. 

 

you are like a mini version of steve so...

 

no

[Foltest]

I'm bringing up the fact that BK fed it's members NPO was hostile towards BK. 

 

NPO being a potential threat is not the same as NPO being hostile.

[James II]

NPO being a potential threat is not the same as NPO being hostile.

You're arguing a matter of convenience. We both know NPO didn't pose any threat to OO. You just needed to do tS' bidding so you came up with the excuse hoping everyone forgot that NPO was friendly to OO.

[Jodo]

I'm bringing up the fact that BK fed it's members NPO was hostile towards BK. 

"Guys, build up for war."

BK: Sweet.

"Ok, we're punching NPO."

BK: Sweet.

"Keep punching until we say stop."

BK: !@#$in sweet.

 

And thats all gov told us, and our responses. Sorry mate, no conspiracies here. You can put the tinfoil hat down, we don't want to know whats on your mind.

[Filthy Fifths]

You're arguing a matter of convenience. We both know NPO didn't pose any threat to OO. You just needed to do tS' bidding so you came up with the excuse hoping everyone forgot that NPO was friendly to OO.

 

no

[Eumirbago]

You're arguing a matter of convenience. We both know NPO didn't pose any threat to OO. You just needed to do tS' bidding so you came up with the excuse hoping everyone forgot that NPO was friendly to OO.

 

No

[Yosodog]

I'm convinced Alpha has become the loony bin. Just a bunch of crazy grumpy old people !@#$ing about the youth these days and ranting about shit no one cares about.

[Guest Curufinwe]

You're arguing a matter of convenience. We both know NPO didn't pose any threat to OO. You just needed to do tS' bidding so you came up with the excuse hoping everyone forgot that NPO was friendly to OO.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to accomplish here. BK's reasoning for its action have been outlined in multiple posts - we percieved NPO as a threat and acted accordingly. Frankly, it's immaterial whether Alpha agrees with our reasoning or not - the important part was that BK (and its allies) percieved the evidence to be sufficiently persuasive to justify our actions, from our gov on downwards to the membership as a whole. If Alpha doesn't agree that's fine - we honestly didn't expect you to given your position in the treaty web. So we can agree to disagree there, as far as I'm concerned. Secondly, the idea that we had to decieve our members to goad them into war with NPO is laughable - our members love fighting (and are pretty damn good at it). As Jodo pointed out, our members jumped at the opportunity to build up when the mobilization order went out - gov's main concern at that point was finding everyone something to do if for some reason the possible pre-empt we were concerned about didn't occur (and yes, GPA dodged a bullet there, as Yoso observed in a different post).

 

Edited: For clarity

Edited June 24, 2016 by Curufinwe

[Hooves]

"Guys, build up for war."

BK: Sweet.

"Ok, we're punching NPO."

BK: Sweet.

"Keep punching until we say stop."

BK: !@#$in sweet.

 

And thats all gov told us, and our responses. Sorry mate, no conspiracies here. You can put the tinfoil hat down, we don't want to know whats on your mind.

Biggest tl;dr and sum up of my reactions.

[Eumirbago]

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to accomplish here. BK's reasoning for its action have been outlined in multiple posts - we percieved NPO as a threat and acted accordingly. Frankly, it's immaterial whether Alpha agrees with our reasoning or not - the important part was that BK (and its allies) percieved the evidence to be sufficiently persuasive to justify our actions, from our gov on downwards to the membership as a whole. If Alpha doesn't agree that's fine - we honestly didn't expect you to given your position in the treaty web. So we can agree to disagree there, as far as I'm concerned. Secondly, the idea that we had to decieve our members to goad them into war with NPO is laughable - our members love fighting (and are pretty damn good at it). As Jodo pointed out, our members jumped at the opportunity to build up when the mobilization order went out - gov's main concern at that point was finding everyone something to do if for some reason the pre-empt didn't occur (and yes, GPA dodged a bullet there, as Yoso observed in a different post).

 

tl;dr "No"

[Tali]

You're arguing a matter of convenience. We both know NPO didn't pose any threat to OO. You just needed to do tS' bidding so you came up with the excuse hoping everyone forgot that NPO was friendly to OO.

No.

[Buorhann]

I'm bringing up the fact that BK fed it's members NPO was hostile towards BK. 

 

But it's ok for NPO to feed it's members that a threat from Syndicate is there to recruit from their alliance in another game.

 

Cool.

[Tali]

But it's ok for NPO to feed it's members that a threat from Syndicate is there to recruit from their alliance in another game.

 

Cool.

Buorhann don't feed the trolls.

[Roquentin]

But it's ok for NPO to feed it's members that a threat from Syndicate is there to recruit from their alliance in another game.

 

Cool.

Based on the things going on at the time such as mobilization by their allies, there was cause for concern  especially given threatening comments and comments that were perceived as threatening were actually issued by tS members. Besides,  the Syndicate wasn't actually named in the recruitment topic. A new player wouldn't know what alliance Chimaera is in.

 

If we did not believe there to be a significant risk of an attack on NPO, we wouldn't have begun preparations, which the recruitment topic was a part of and which was only made after several days of mobilization by other alliances.

[Prefontaine]

I'm convinced Alpha has become the loony bin. Just a bunch of crazy grumpy old people !@#$ about the youth these days and ranting about shit no one cares about.

At least with respect to leadership you're correct. As someone whose been inside the alliance, James and Steve are really poor leaders. They create topics to discuss things already knowing what their action is going to be, they don't give two shits what's said. Somewhere near 75% of the posts in the Rose treaty alliance announcement were against signing Rose, and those were just the ones willing to speak up. The alliance is entirely Steve and James's doing. 99% of where they are now is their fault. They took what many thought was going to be the best alliance of 2016 and made the political moves that turned them into the biggest crater of 2016.

[Buorhann]

Based on the things going on at the time such as mobilization by their allies, there was cause for concern  especially given threatening comments and comments that were perceived as threatening were actually issued by tS members. Besides,  the Syndicate wasn't actually named in the recruitment topic. A new player wouldn't know what alliance Chimaera is in.

 

If we did not believe there to be a significant risk of an attack on NPO, we wouldn't have begun preparations, which the recruitment topic was a part of and which was only made after several days of mobilization by other alliances.

 

We already beat this horse 6ft under and you're trying to resurrect it back.  Point of my statement was, if James is going to make a snide comment about another alliance doing it - then he should not ignore his own allies doing it.

 

Kinda...  awkward how this is all working out, huh?