Syndicate Declaration of Actually Making Declarations

[Spaceman Thrax]

I got my orders from Jessica, i asumed This was ok'ed by SK gov so i attacked.

When it was noticed i was reprimanded for not dubble checking with SK gov.

Remeber, i was there, why else would i stick my nose in This?

 

This doesn't sound quite right. Probably the Parti boy remembers, I'll ping him.

[Callum]

if you can give me a date, i could probably dig through and find it if you really wont take Ole's word.

[Spaceman Thrax]

I think that was two separate things. There was a kerfuffle with Jess and some targets, and then there was the hit on NAC. Look it up if you got it, I am going off memory vapors here.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Manthrax

[Callum]

*Shrug* wasnt Gov at the time.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Callum

[Valdoroth]

Those who were not involved in government at the time do not know all the details and should refrain from speaking that which they do not know. It only causes more arguments from speculation and sideline guessing. That gives rise to salt like this, all of which is ill-sourced.

[Mikey]

Sounds like we all made our share of mistakes that war, I think we can just recognize these things happen, especially in the thick of warfare spanning dozens of alliances.

 

 

 

 That gives rise to salt like this, all of which is ill-sourced.

 

Mans gotta feed his family Val! I don't see no free salt lines anywhere, gotta earn it somehow.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Mikey

[Valdoroth]

Sounds lke we all made mistakes.

Yes. And the problem is people want to place all the blame on only one person/alliance. That is both ridiculous and narrow-minded. Edited September 14, 2016 by Valdoroth

[Spaceman Thrax]

Sounds like we all made our share of mistakes that war, I think we can just recognize these things happen, especially in the thick of warfare spanning dozens of alliances.

 

I certainly agree about errors being made, though in terms of those two particular items, they're different in scope and intentionality.

 

In any case I think it's mostly cleared up and if SK's current gov doesn't want the particulars delved into, I'd say we're fine on that point.

[Boony]

Yes. And the problem is people want to place all the blame on only one person/alliance.

I actually very much enjoy giving people shit for !@#$ing up, which is why I always asked people for evidence when they used to claim Partisan minupulates everything because I'd love to give him shit for example. That being said, I'm trying to get the truth so I dont spout bullshit in the future.

 

Also, keep nuking me please.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Boony

[Brooklyn666]

No its just you guys doing that

 

It's gettin' meta up in here!

 

 

Lets see what happens when I do a little something:  "No its just you guys doing that", without extraneous words, becomes "No its just you guys doing that"

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Brooklyn666

[Flame of the Flawed]

What? I literally have no idea what you're talking about. This doesn't make any sense.

 

Re-read the relevant paragraphs and it is fairly clear what I'm referring to. I'll lay it out.

 

Partisan claims you said something in an irc chat which counters a major part of your narrative that he had responded to.

 

You seemingly acknowledge you said those things (unless you now want to accuse partisan of lying), but say what does it matter since Partisan claimed you are a liar, so he couldn't care if you said that.

 

So, either one, you admit you were lying (either in that chat or in this thread), or two, you weren't and were telling the truth, but since it counters your prior point in this thread, it clearly shows cognitive dissonance, which you accused Partisan of yourself.

[Charles Bolivar]

Didn't say it would be by us. Don't care, still going to love seeing tS KO'ed. But go ahead and focus on it not being us that KO'ed you and that you beat us in our 1st war ever, where you got the 1st strike.. if that makes you feel better. Oh and you had BK's help too. Good job you & BK together beat a new alliance. *slow claps*

 

NPO will show you why they need other people to win wars for them.

[Canik]

NPO will show you why they need other people to win wars for them.

Catchy, but misleading and hypocritical. Of course we need help taking down all of Syndisphere. You couldn't take us all down by yourselves either. Attack Paracov yourselves next time with no help, see what happens.

 

I liked the subtle admission of defeat though. If you need to bite down on a shtick to help deal with the pain, I understand.

 

[Charles Bolivar]

Catchy, but misleading and hypocritical. Of course we need help taking down all of Syndisphere. You couldn't take us all down by yourselves either. Attack Paracov yourselves next time with no help, see what happens.

 

I liked the subtle admission of defeat though. If you need to bite down on a shtick to help deal with the pain, I understand.

 

 

I wouldn't know anything about defeat actually, I leave such things to people more knowledgeable through experience such as you and your allies.

 

Feel free to educate everyone about how it feels to suffer repeated defeats and losses. I am sure we are very interested in what a person or alliance has to do in order to deliberately lose a war because that is the only possible explanation I can think of for your sphere's repeated losses. That you are deliberately trying to lose because I simply can't understand why we keep beating you against all odds.

 

Actually, I am pretty sure last war we were at war with you and quite a few of paracov? Not that it mattered, we still won in the end.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Night King

[Canik]

That's right, bite down hard. This one's gonna hurt.

[Brooklyn666]

Re-read the relevant paragraphs and it is fairly clear what I'm referring to. I'll lay it out.

 

Partisan claims you said something in an irc chat which counters a major part of your narrative that he had responded to.

 

You seemingly acknowledge you said those things (unless you now want to accuse partisan of lying), but say what does it matter since Partisan claimed you are a liar, so he couldn't care if you said that.

 

So, either one, you admit you were lying (either in that chat or in this thread), or two, you weren't and were telling the truth, but since it counters your prior point in this thread, it clearly shows cognitive dissonance, which you accused Partisan of yourself.

 

Partisan and I chatted, yes, and no, he's not lying. I'm assuming you're talking about this: "We're at war and this one was *not* initiated by tS. It was planned an coordinated by SK alongside a coalition of paracov. That in itself *directly* contradicts all the claims yo made to us in query when you tried to amiably part".

 

Narrative implies I'm telling a story, which ok, I get why you might think that, but I have no reason to. I told Partisan and Manthrax the same thing and I have receipts. I told them both we weren't dropping tS with the intention of hitting you, but that it was possible it could end up happening due to the circumstances and treaty web, and the fact that you guys fight rose a lot and with us allied to them, it was a distinct possibility.

 

Partisan is saying (I think) that the fact that we were planning to roll in on you with rose is incontrovertible proof that we in fact dropped you with the specific intention of hitting you, contradicting what I said in private. Now that depends on whether you believe Partisan or not. I can't prove a negative, other than to say that we've all consistently said here that we had no plans to roll tS until a few days before war kicked of when Rose told us their plans. You can be mad that we hit *you*, but you can't be mad that we backed up our allies the same way literally everyone else does and is standard op in this game.

 

Here's what I meant by the cognitive dissonance: Partisan says he has believed/known for months that SK was plotting against tS, yet he seemed to acknowledge that at least at the time, he believed what I had said in pm, although it's possible I misread that. Both those things can't be true. Either he believed at the time of our pm that I was lying about everything, or he believed I was being sincere. If he thought I was plotting at the time, why would he have believed me? We talked about a lot of stuff and it makes no sense that he would selectively believe certain things and not others if he thought there was a plot already in motion.

[Agent W]

This just in, Syndisphere is going to be marking all of Paracovenant's territories and holdings as a no flex zone, thus ending their hubristic ways once and for all.

[Charles Bolivar]

Partisan and I chatted, yes, and no, he's not lying. I'm assuming you're talking about this: "We're at war and this one was *not* initiated by tS. It was planned an coordinated by SK alongside a coalition of paracov. That in itself *directly* contradicts all the claims yo made to us in query when you tried to amiably part".

 

Narrative implies I'm telling a story, which ok, I get why you might think that, but I have no reason to. I told Partisan and Manthrax the same thing and I have receipts. I told them both we weren't dropping tS with the intention of hitting you, but that it was possible it could end up happening due to the circumstances and treaty web, and the fact that you guys fight rose a lot and with us allied to them, it was a distinct possibility.

 

Partisan is saying (I think) that the fact that we were planning to roll in on you with rose is incontrovertible proof that we in fact dropped you with the specific intention of hitting you, contradicting what I said in private. Now that depends on whether you believe Partisan or not. I can't prove a negative, other than to say that we've all consistently said here that we had no plans to roll tS until a few days before war kicked of when Rose told us their plans. You can be mad that we hit *you*, but you can't be mad that we backed up our allies the same way literally everyone else does and is standard op in this game.

 

Here's what I meant by the cognitive dissonance: Partisan says he has believed/known for months that SK was plotting against tS, yet he seemed to acknowledge that at least at the time, he believed what I had said in pm, although it's possible I misread that. Both those things can't be true. Either he believed at the time of our pm that I was lying about everything, or he believed I was being sincere. If he thought I was plotting at the time, why would he have believed me? We talked about a lot of stuff and it makes no sense that he would selectively believe certain things and not others if he thought there was a plot already in motion.

 

So when did you actually start planning to attack us?

[Prefonteen]

!@#$ you, Jessica orderd that hit, to relive some of you'r guys. That shit is not On SK, its On you.

 

PS we are still friends.

Uh no?

 

I'd told TKP to coordinate with Guardian and Mensa on the VE front when VE hit TKP.

 

TKP messaged SK govt with NAC targets. SK went in om NAC without checking with us (or any other coalition partner, really).

 

That brought UPN in.

 

 

Question: who told you this 'jess ordered it' bogus?

[Prefonteen]

I got my orders from Jessica, i asumed This was ok'ed by SK gov so i attacked.

When it was noticed i was reprimanded for not dubble checking with SK gov.

Remeber, i was there, why else would i stick my nose in This?

What orders did you specifically get from Jessica? We did have her send orders re: actual coalition)-approved targeting. NAC was never discussed for SK as our strategy revolved around dodging all UPN chains (meaning: ve and NAC)

[Brooklyn666]

So when did you actually start planning to attack us?

 

Like 3 or 4 days before the war started. Once Rose told us their plans, we knew you would preempt us anyway so there was no reason for us to hold back.

 

What orders did you specifically get from Jessica? We did have her send orders re: actual coalition)-approved targeting. NAC was never discussed for SK as our strategy revolved around dodging all UPN chains (meaning: ve and NAC)

 

This is mostly true. The Jessica thing and the NAC thing are separate. Jessica sent out targets to our members without going through our gov but that was unrelated to NAC.

[Prefonteen]

Subtext, man. No, you didn't "literally" say that, and you didn't "literally" 'disown us', but I'm not Amelia Bedelia so I'm capable of deriving non-literal meaning from words and broader discussions. And whatever I said in query, you've already accused me of lying about everything else, so I'm not sure why you think *that* part would be the one thing that was true. Sounds like there's some cognitive dissonance going on.

 

1. No one is bemoaning anything. We own our mistakes. I told Manthrax several weeks ago we were prepared for the large chance that this would happen to us. As for driving narratives, this may surprise you, but not everyone in SK thinks or feels the same way about things, and people are free to talk about what they want. That doesn't make it our policy. All this "direct evidence to the contrary" e-lawyering is beneath you.

 

2. You're clearly still angry about it. And no I don't agree. Every time I talk to you you push back the date that we allegedly started plotting against you even further, so it makes for a good story for you, but it doesn't even hold its own internal logic. At some point we'll have created SK just to take down a tS that didn't even exist yet.

 

3. Yep.

 

4. See #2

 

5. It was planned and initiated by Rose and we rolled in because 1. they're our allies and 2. we knew you would pre-empt us anyway because we are Rose allies even if we didn't plan on it. I'm not upset about because that's how the game works and you shouldn't be either.

 

6. It was an invitation that you're free to decline, although I think it makes all of this a lot more unpleasant for everyone. Nothing more.

 

7. Great.

 

8. See #1

 

9. For us it's individuals expressing their opinions, for you it seems to be your MO. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sure seems like it, and I guess you're free to interpret the same for us, although I think an objective observer would see a pretty stark contrast.

 

10. You already responding to this in your follow up, but again, even if all we did was switch sides, (which wasn't our intention but turned out to be the de facto result), that's still us in a different position than before. And as predicted, your denial just makes me believe it even more.

 

- And yea, sure. I don't disagree nor did I say anything to the contrary. You're just responding to things you wish I'd said and not things I actually said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is dead may never die!

 

I'm perfectly fine with reading subtext when it actually makes sense. Perhaps you can show me how I should interpret the whole 'disown' line? How was it intended?

 

On accusing you of lieing: In hindsight, it definitely looks that way. That's the problem. I realize that there may be a grey middle ground but shit. Your word definitely did not hold up- be it deliberate or not. With that established: If I look back at the chain of events I noted, it looks like complete and total garbage and arguably a ploy to simple stab us. Now I am told to believe your word that it isn't. Can you see how that might be troublesome for me?

 

1. I'm well aware that SK is not uniform in its thoughts. Not a single alliance is. That is exactly why I base my interpretation of your intentions on your actions, rather than your words.

 

2. No, I am not angry. However, you have to agree with me that these recent events (See: coalition war and your intended DoW on us) paint that particular chain of events in a rather damning light. That's not anger, it's deduction. Where the truth lies? I don't know. The problem is that literally every word that has ever come out of Gandalf's mouth has literally pointed towards this exact chain of events occurring. That is subsequently also why we 'anticipated this'. The leak was the first domino in that regard, and when it occurred you did not stamp it out. You (re)installed him into FA and seemingly gave him carte blanche to A) run his mouth, execute the plan to move away from us and C) eventually adopt what to us looks like a hostile stance

 

5. So you are saying that you signed Rose, and within 3 weeks, they approached you with a fully planned war plan against the ally you dropped 3 weeks ago. You then agreed to pre-empting your former ally while your allies pre-empted your other former allies. Are you aware that you had the option to tell them to sod off if you did not like the idea of hitting us? More importantly though, are you saying that no discussions whatsoever took place to form the coalition and warplan? Rose just randomly had everything ready and came to you?

 

That's without even touching on the fact that both Gandalf and Keegoz telegraphed this: Keegoz has been openly hostile for some time now, and it was quite easy to see that he would probably strike if given the opportunity. I'm having a hard time following how you can have been oblivious right up until the war was there.

 

9. I'm pretty sure you'll find a distinct difference in how Manthrax in his capacity of head of FA approaches his interactions with you and how I in my capacity of retired snek do. I'm simply giving it to you bluntly. You've engaged in a dick move and i'm making sure you know that. It's not much different from when we talked earlier.

 

10. Sure, it's a different position. That's not at all the point I made in my follow-up post though: My point is that it's idiotic to scope in on *that* as the reason for any negative sentiments towards you, rather than you literally looking to engage in a war against us.

 

Partisan and I chatted, yes, and no, he's not lying. I'm assuming you're talking about this: "We're at war and this one was *not* initiated by tS. It was planned an coordinated by SK alongside a coalition of paracov. That in itself *directly* contradicts all the claims yo made to us in query when you tried to amiably part".

 

Narrative implies I'm telling a story, which ok, I get why you might think that, but I have no reason to. I told Partisan and Manthrax the same thing and I have receipts. I told them both we weren't dropping tS with the intention of hitting you, but that it was possible it could end up happening due to the circumstances and treaty web, and the fact that you guys fight rose a lot and with us allied to them, it was a distinct possibility.

 

Partisan is saying (I think) that the fact that we were planning to roll in on you with rose is incontrovertible proof that we in fact dropped you with the specific intention of hitting you, contradicting what I said in private. Now that depends on whether you believe Partisan or not. I can't prove a negative, other than to say that we've all consistently said here that we had no plans to roll tS until a few days before war kicked of when Rose told us their plans. You can be mad that we hit *you*, but you can't be mad that we backed up our allies the same way literally everyone else does and is standard op in this game.

 

Here's what I meant by the cognitive dissonance: Partisan says he has believed/known for months that SK was plotting against tS, yet he seemed to acknowledge that at least at the time, he believed what I had said in pm, although it's possible I misread that. Both those things can't be true. Either he believed at the time of our pm that I was lying about everything, or he believed I was being sincere. If he thought I was plotting at the time, why would he have believed me? We talked about a lot of stuff and it makes no sense that he would selectively believe certain things and not others if he thought there was a plot already in motion.

 

 

I already touched on this earlier in my message:

 

I believed you personally when we spoke. Since then, events have unfolded that make me feel like the benefit of doubt given to you was misplaced. That is why I touched on those various incidents. In each particular one, we gave you the benefit of the doubt and continued working with you. Now we are at war. Can you really fault me for thinking that perhaps there was something to it?

 

Is it an accusation? Yes.

 

Can I 100% prove it? No.

 

Can you 100% disprove it? No.

 

Does the accusation have a reasonable foundation? Yes.

[Brooklyn666]

Yea, I understand why you might interpret things that way, but can you also understand that there might be some confirmation bias in play on your part? It's pretty much impossible to prove a negative in this instance, so there's no way for me to absolutely prove to you that I'm telling the truth, but let's look at this way If we can agree on the following:

 

1. That tS and SK were extremely close allies for a long time and we worked together to smash paracov together many times

2. That we have witnessed firsthand your side's war capabilities by being on your side and winning with you all the time

3. That we know the less than stellar fighting capabilities of our current allies by having fought against them many times

 

If we can agree that the above things are true, then why on earth would we plan for months to deliberately turn on you for absolutely no reason just to run to paracov where'd we be certain to get our asses kicked by you?

One of two things are true. Either we deliberately planned and schemed for months to drop you and then roll you in a war that we had also been planning the whole time (if you look at the buildup prior to the war, you'll see in the beginning we were a day or two behind everyone else, so we clearly that far in still hadn't planned on attacking), or, we tried to do something different but it just didn't work and we ended up back in the same pattern but on the other side because of our treaty changes. Can you honestly say that the former seems like the more likely scenario?

Edited September 15, 2016 by Brooklyn666

[Karrde]

Seems like a personality clash to me. Teneges must've liked Partisan et al, and val, gandalf et al didn't really, and got on more with people on the other side. That's how the decision to switch reads to me.

[Sisyphus]

Yea, I understand why you might interpret things that way, but can you also understand that there might be some confirmation bias in play on your part? It's pretty much impossible to prove a negative in this instance, so there's no way for me to absolutely prove to you that I'm telling the truth, but let's look at this way If we can agree on the following:

 

1. That tS and SK were extremely close allies for a long time and we worked together to smash paracov together many times

2. That we have witnessed firsthand your side's war capabilities by being on your side and winning with you all the time

3. That we know the less than stellar fighting capabilities of our current allies by having fought against them many times

 

If we can agree that the above things are true, then why on earth would we plan for months to deliberately turn on you just to run to paracov where'd we be certain to get our asses kicked by you?

One of two things are true. Either we deliberately planned and schemed for months to drop you and then roll you in a war that we had also been planning the whole time (if you look at the buildup prior to the war, you'll see in the beginning we were a day or two behind everyone else, so we clearly that far in still hadn't planned on attacking), or, we tried to do something different but it just didn't work and we ended up back in the same pattern but on the other side because of our treaty changes. Can you honestly say that the former seems like the more likely scenario?

For somehow who tries to build the foundation of his arguments on cognitive fallacies, you sure do set up a lot of false dichotomies.