Syndicate Declaration of Actually Making Declarations

[Agent W]

  

If you don't want the community to comment, take it to private. You always come to the forums to spin that "Oh, tS is amazing and tS did nothing wrong and it's all on the other guy." Then the second someone disagrees with you, you immediately say "you don't know what you're talking about" you do this countless times. I'd link for you, but I don't feel like looking over the countless threads vs Alpha when you did this.

 

So my point is: either take this pointless ass conversation elsewhere or don't get hurt when people call you out on your BS- because there's a lot of it.

 

 

 

I can see this point. It's reasonable, but your side was going above just "not trusting" SK. Several members actively trolled them up and down the forums. Eumir was saying several times that they were going to roll SK(first example came to mind, there was another). But the point is Gandalf being gov didn't matter then, and doesn't now. You both stayed allied because you "respected and liked SK" but if the issue didn't matter enough to drop them then, why does it matter so much now? You were content with having Gandalf when SK was on your side but not when SK is against you. Now they're "actively" out to get you.

Imagine being so misinformed. There was a number of us in tS who would very much have liked to have dropped and rolled SK for their dumb !@#$ery, but we got overruled, and the decision was made to keep the treaty and work with them, because despite that error, they had generally been ok allies. Then, a month ago, SK decided that they didn't want to keep any of their Syndisphere treaties, and go and join a sphere that has been traditionally hostile to us and attempted to destroy us on numerous occassions. The people who wanted to roll SK back then still wanted to roll them now, but gov has never approved of going right after ex-allies, and thus there was no plan to attack or be aggressive towards SK.

 

Cut to five days ago, and VE/Rose attack our allies, it becomes obvious to us that SK wouldn't be far behind, so gov planned a preemptive strike on them, in order for us to go in with the advantage.

 

There was no grand conspiracy to hit SK, there never was until SK's allies hit ours, and if SK's allies hadn't done some dumb shit, we would've left SK to go off and play in their own little corner.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Agent W

[Sisyphus]

Imagine being so misinformed. There was a number of us in tS who would very much have liked to have dropped and rolled SK for their dumb !@#$ery, but we got overruled, and the decision was made to keep the treaty and work with them, because despite that error, they had generally been ok allies. Then, a month ago, SK decided that they didn't want to keep any of their Syndisphere treaties, and go and join a sphere that has been traditionally hostile to us and attempted to destroy us on numerous occassions. The people who wanted to roll SK back then still wanted to roll them now, but gov has never approved of going right after ex-allies, and thus there was no plan to attack or be aggressive towards SK.

 

Cut to five days ago, and VE/Rose attack our allies, it becomes obvious to us that SK wouldn't be far behind, so gov planned a preemptive strike on them, in order for us to go in with the advantage.

 

There was no grand conspiracy to hit SK, there never was until SK's allies hit ours, and if SK's allies hadn't done some dumb shit, we would've left SK to go off and play in their own little corner.

Can confirm.

[Buorhann]

 I can see this point. It's reasonable, but your side was going above just "not trusting" SK. Several members actively trolled them up and down the forums. Eumir was saying several times that they were going to roll SK(first example came to mind, there was another). But the point is Gandalf being gov didn't matter then, and doesn't now. You both stayed allied because you "respected and liked SK" but if the issue didn't matter enough to drop them then, why does it matter so much now? You were content with having Gandalf when SK was on your side but not when SK is against you. Now they're "actively" out to get you.

 

 

Trust me.  If I had a gov spot at the time, I would've pushed hard to drop them once I learned they "only suspended" Gandalf.  Fortunately, they left once I got into a gov spot.  So that was easy on me.

 

Guess SK just doesn't want to fix that whole leaker issue they tend to have here and there.

 

Sad thing is, at one point, I liked them more than any other alliance.  The alliance, the players, the hard-to-read scrolls, etc.  All solid.  Then I see that a lot of the players I liked left, and then we get into this mess.  Even Val had the audacity to change the text of the scrolls!

[Sisyphus]

Even Val had the audacity to change the text of the scrolls!

Tbf I really like Vald's personal touch to the unintelligible scroll. Any alliance that roleplays hand-written, script scrolls should take note.

 

I agree with 100% of everything else you said. I was even one of the people who advocated for staying tied to them (and don't even hate Gandalf because I enjoyed working with him while in SK, but do think SK was too lenient on him) I liked them so much. Genuinely like a lot of the people still there, too.

 

Lately though I am very disappoint.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Callum]

Can we all take a second to calm down, remember the good old days. laugh at any NA nations, because they have -100% food production. but then notice that the rest of the worlds about to follow suite?

 

 

It'll be fun.

 

 

 

Lately though I am very disappoint.

From a former SK'er that's pretty disheartening to hear.

 

We put our members first. asked them on what they believe the best course is, and for better or for worse. this was the path we all chose.

 

I'd of hoped you of all people could respect that, regardless of how foolish it may seem.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Callum

[Ogaden]

Do they now?

 

We always have fun, win or lose

[Sisyphus]

From a former SK'er that's pretty disheartening to hear.

 

We put our members first. asked them on what they believe the best course is, and for better or for worse. this was the path we all chose.

 

I'd of hoped you of all people could respect that, regardless of how foolish it may seem.

I respect and completely understand the decision, don't get me wrong. That doesn't mean I have to approve of it, however.

 

It just sucks advocating for you guys in private against many vocal critics after multiple wars, just to end up on this end of a conflict with y'all.

 

I'd be more okay with this if we were actually losing, in a twisted sort of way.

[Prefonteen]

 

If you don't want the community to comment, take it to private. You always come to the forums to spin that "Oh, tS is amazing and tS did nothing wrong and it's all on the other guy." Then the second someone disagrees with you, you immediately say "you don't know what you're talking about" you do this countless times. I'd link for you, but I don't feel like looking over the countless threads vs Alpha when you did this.

 

So my point is: either take this pointless ass conversation elsewhere or don't get hurt when people call you out on your BS- because there's a lot of it.

 

 

 

I can see this point. It's reasonable, but your side was going above just "not trusting" SK. Several members actively trolled them up and down the forums. Eumir was saying several times that they were going to roll SK(first example came to mind, there was another). But the point is Gandalf being gov didn't matter then, and doesn't now. You both stayed allied because you "respected and liked SK" but if the issue didn't matter enough to drop them then, why does it matter so much now? You were content with having Gandalf when SK was on your side but not when SK is against you. Now they're "actively" out to get you.

You are free to comment. You are not entitled to a reply.

[LordRahl2]

We always have fun, win or lose

 

Your mercenaries that is different.

 

TEST however is a bit different and the piece of his logic that I dispute is not the "having fun" part.  I am sure they are.

[Kastor]

You are free to comment. You are not entitled to a reply.

Don't think I ever said you had to reply, I just said don't get upset when I reply.

[Sisyphus]

Don't think I ever said you had to reply, I just said don't get upset when I reply.

Don't tell him how to live his life.

[Prefonteen]

Don't think I ever said you had to reply, I just said don't get upset when I reply.

 

It's not about getting upset. It's about correcting a factual inaccuracy. No more, no less.

[Yosodog]

It's not a tS DoW without 20 pages and we're only on 14 so far. Pick up the pace, people.

[Roquentin]

Let's assume this guy was actually somehow able to control our entire sphere, just for sake of argument. Even though anyone can make any number of comments without making a single DoW.

 

Maybe he meant he was only going to roll your alliance, because he was concerned you would try to push a bipolar war, and shame on everyone else for thinking it might have mattered to them?

 

Anyways before this gets too cyclical... I'll take the criticisms about what our sphere might have done from people who know it, and don't have a vested interest in having protection from an inevitable conflict they assume is coming for them. So cheers.

 

I mean, several of your allies have weighed in and said what their desires were. It wasn't on your time table and your own response when you were told about the dynamic that had people worried was "I'd have a harder time supporting that if they hadn't been fed a diet of dogshit by that grouping".

 

It's quite tiring being made out to be irrationally paranoid. It seems like you just don't like it not being on your side's timetable. A decent number of people have said they'd have done the same thing in our position, so the condescension is really getting old.

[greatkitteh]

I mean, several of your allies have weighed in and said what their desires were. It wasn't on your time table and your own response when you were told about the dynamic that had people worried was "I'd have a harder time supporting that if they hadn't been fed a diet of dogshit by that grouping".

 

It's quite tiring being made out to be irrationally paranoid. It seems like you just don't like it not being on your side's timetable. A decent number of people have said they'd have done the same thing in our position, so the condescension is really getting old.

 

I would attack anyways FOR STEVE

[Prefontaine]

Your mercenaries that is different.

 

TEST however is a bit different and the piece of his logic that I dispute is not the "having fun" part.  I am sure they are.

 

I tuned out of this thread for a while and started having my own conversations with sock puppets. What about TEst now?

[greatkitteh]

I tuned out of this thread for a while and started having my own conversations with sock puppets. What about TEst now?

TEST is new GPA!

[Ivan the Red]

The reason that Orbis clumped into two spheres is the same reason why 3 or more spheres will not work in the future. Its a basic theory of IR that when security is the central concern of actors that they will seek to maximize their personal security. The way to do this is to gather the maximum number of allies, preferably good ones - but barring that any will do.

And this is a war game - so it will happen.

After so many wars curbstomping the people who reckless sign treaties with all possible sides like if there was no tomorrow, I would have hoped that people got the point that "security != number of treaties". The more you increase the size of the blob, the harder you get hit.

 

This is why I welcomed the 3rd Sphere thing. I thought it meant Rose and others had finally figured out that a small number of efficient allies would work better for them than a big blob. Even a paperless approach has proven to work better than saturating the treaty web.

 

And this is also why I'm dissapointed to know the "3rd Sphere" move was just a shameful attempt at divide an conquer.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Ivan the Red

[greatkitteh]

After so many wars curbstomping the people who reckless sign treaties with all possible sides like if there was no tomorrow, I would have hoped that people got the point that "security != number of treaties".

 

This is why I welcomed the 3rd Sphere thing. I thought it meant Rose and others had finally figured out that a small number of efficient allies would work better for them than a big blob. Even a paperless approach has proven to work better than saturating the treaty web.

 

And this is also why I'm dissapointed to know the "3rd Sphere" move was just a shameful attempt at divide an conquer.

 

Not there fault TS warred every single "3rd sphere" attempt

[Ivan the Red]

Not there fault TS warred every single "3rd sphere" attempt

That claim is false. There has been only one instance of t$ going into agression, and it was after NPO bound itselfself to ParaCovenant through UPN.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Ivan the Red

[greatkitteh]

That claim is false. There has been only one instance of t$ going into agression, and it was after NPO bound itselfself to ParaCovenant through UPN.

 

Paragon -  TS prempts once and backstabbed VE

Conevant - Tried to attack UPN; got it's cover blown out

NPO sphere (NPO had a treaty with TKR and Former TS ally SK; it was a sphere) - Attacked member and pisses of NPO, then uses that to invade NPO

"Paperless club" - Vanguard, Arrgh, Roz Wei, etc. all got attacked for filmsy reasons.

[Prefonteen]

Paragon - TS prempts once and backstabbed VE

Conevant - Tried to attack UPN; got it's cover blown out

NPO sphere (NPO had a treaty with TKR and Former TS ally SK; it was a sphere) - Attacked member and pisses of NPO, then uses that to invade NPO

"Paperless club" - Vanguard, Arrgh, Roz Wei, etc. all got attacked for filmsy reasons.

Lolwhat

[greatkitteh]

Lolwhat

FOR STEVE...

Edited September 16, 2016 by greatkitteh

[Sailor Jerry]

FOR STEVE...

FOR YOUR MOM...

[Spaceman Thrax]

I mean, several of your allies have weighed in and said what their desires were. It wasn't on your time table and your own response when you were told about the dynamic that had people worried was "I'd have a harder time supporting that if they hadn't been fed a diet of dogshit by that grouping".

 

I would have hard a harder time supporting it, yep. Still doesn't necessarily mean I did.

 

Here's a better snippet of that conversation. You'll note my comment was a reference to Keegoz's hypothetical, not necessarily an affirmation of it.

 

 

Keegoz - 09/09/2016

I've more or less got the impression that BK/TKR/Mensa are waiting to re-group and then flip a coin as to whether they hit Rose/VE/SK or NPO/TC

Manthrax - 09/09/2016

That would be a pretty hard thing to support if they hadn't been on an all-dogshit diet from those parties for the past... year plus?

Keegoz - 09/09/2016

Who else they gonna hit? They have shown in the past that they get bored and will eventually hit someone

Which is fair, I mean I get bored too

Anyone else who I didn't list is on your side so unless you guys intend to have some sort of implosion

Manthrax - 09/09/2016

Shrug. You're not using your imagination.

Not every war's gotta be a global, for one.

 

 

 

Also quoting me out of context is a good example of that dogshit.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Manthrax