Syndicate Declaration of Actually Making Declarations

[Canik]

"pattern of aggression"

 

>after one offensive war, suddenly there's a pattern

So Syndisphere was never going to attack anyone ever again so long as we didn't attack you and we were all going to live in peace and harmony forever but NPO and it's 'crazy' paranoia ruined it all. Totally believable. xD

[Buorhann]

So Syndisphere was never going to attack anyone ever again so long as we didn't attack you and we were all going to live in peace and harmony forever but NPO and it's 'crazy' paranoia ruined it all. Totally believable. xD

 

Oh, I'm sure we would attack you again, but this certainly wasn't a time for it.  All of us were caught with our pants down.

 

Literally the only reason why some of us had military was due to someone bringing up that some of the alliances in your sphere had a military growth spike, about a day or two in.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Buorhann

[Boony]

So Syndisphere was never going to attack anyone ever again so long as we didn't attack you and we were all going to live in peace and harmony forever but NPO and it's 'crazy' paranoia ruined it all. Totally believable. xD

That is irrelevant to what Hippo was saying.

[Roquentin]

Oh, I'm sure we would attack you again, but this certainly wasn't a time for it.  All of us were caught with our pants down.

 

Literally the only reason why some of us had military was due to someone bringing up that some of the alliances in your sphere had a military growth spike, about a day or two in.

 

Well, because the writing was on the wall, any bulking for you increased alarm and since you're saying it would have happened eventually, none of us are going to feel bad about it. You guys set the precedent.

[Buorhann]

Wait, we did? We set the precedent?  The hell you smoking?

 

I mean, hell, I'd gladly take the credit for that as a Mensa member, but..  what the hell?

[Flame of the Flawed]

I think you guys have been misinterpreting what I said. We went aggressive as a preemptive measure in response to your sphere's consolidation and pattern of aggression, which showed itself in the last war. The game mechanics make it better for us to strike first. We tried being purely defensive in the last war, which was a mistake, and we couldn't afford it this time to due to the statistical changes. The thing I've been trying to emphasize is any notion of your side's innocence was dispelled by the last war. You can't just go "oh we're really nice guys again who wouldn't attack anyone and are always defending." You threw that away and made this our best option. It was attack or be attacked now or later.

 

Roq, you are right in a sense in that we attacked your aggressively last war; and yes, of course another war would happen at some point at some time in the future for some reason.

 

Effectively what you are saying in the above though is that t$ can never be critical again of someone else's aggression because we were aggressive once. But that one occasion of aggression came after a series of wars in which we were not the aggressors. So you are asking us to buy the logic of, 't$ is the villain because they were aggressive once after a series of wars in which they were not the aggressors, but those aggressors in those prior wars are not the villains; t$ is still the villain'. 

 

In the end, I honestly don't have a problem with the broader ParaCov sphere being aggressive in a war. This has been a really fun war that wouldn't have happened without that aggression. And seeing as this is a game, that is good. But certain accusatory tones, whether you think some in the opposing sphere are guilty of it also, aren't helpful to the alleviation of the situation you are criticizing. 

 

As for the issue of paranoia, both sides have a right to be paranoid. One side certainly has a much more established history of aggression on the global level though, and it isn't ours. I'm not saying that is good or bad. Of course, NPO is new and has only been in two global wars: one aggressive, one defensive. So that can't be said objectively about NPO, and you still have much of your history to write; but it is quite clear when you view the wider coalition you are fighting with. 

 

And you mentioned the threat of consolidation. Here is some advice: The consolidation is mostly a result of defensive war. The greatest threat to the so-called 'Syndisphere' is a period of never being aggressively attacked. Our primary source of consolidation would evaporate, and drifting would become far more likely. 

Edited September 16, 2016 by Flame of the Flawed

[Placentica]

"pattern of aggression"

 

>after one offensive war, suddenly there's a pattern

Your math is off.  The Syndicate started the last two wars before this one, and arguably the last 3 if you count Mensa.

 

And lets just take a look here:

 

OOC War - straight Syndi aggression

Alpha-tS - staight tS aggression

168-day War - people will argue this one, so we can omit it sure, but Mensa attacked Vanguard

Oktoberfest - This was a war that was going to happen, TC attack was a true pre-empt.

VE-Guardian War - again, Guardian pre-empt, this was was going to happen either way.

 

If you look at these wars, which date back mostly to the start of your alliances, you'll see that you were either always the aggressor or looked to be on the verge of attacking.  No one really buys you aren't the aggressors most times.  I don't know why you keep claiming you are just defensively minded alliances.  We can all admit that's not the case and that's fine, but be truthful.  I'm not sure why you keep bring up Oktoberfest out like it's the only war ever fought and thus justifies your belief you are usually on the defensive side of great wars.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Placentica

[LordRahl2]

Well, because the writing was on the wall, any bulking for you increased alarm and since you're saying it would have happened eventually, none of us are going to feel bad about it. You guys set the precedent.

 

I like your logic.  Someday in the future you guys will attack us again.  We should just keep you zeroed forever.

[Goalenator]

You do realize telling Mensa to be more aggressive is prob not the best idea, right?

Giving us a reason to piss you off now sounds fun and seems fun.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Goalenator

[Buorhann]

Your math is off bro.  The Syndicate started the last two wars before this one, and arguably the last 3 if you count Mensa.

 

 

To you, sure.

 

Syndicate only attacked Alpha ( TEst aided, by their own admission though ).

 

Mensa attacked GPA

 

There was SOPA as well, which involved TKR, BoC, and Resplendent (?) on Arrgh/RW.

 

The only Syndi/OO sphere wide declaration was NPO's First Time.

 

 

If you're including Mensa on Vanguard, let's remember that Vanguard was paperless and it was only Mensa on Vanguard.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Buorhann

[LordRahl2]

Vanguard - which really was a raid (in the raiders minds at least - for proof they mostly headed off to aargh).

[greatkitteh]

I like the bad guy thing more.

 

Are any of the good guys cooler than bad buys?

Steve Buscemi

[Foltest]

Your math is off.  The Syndicate started the last two wars before this one, and arguably the last 3 if you count Mensa.

 

And lets just take a look here:

 

OOC War - straight Syndi aggression

Alpha-tS - staight tS aggression

168-day War - people will argue this one, so we can omit it sure, but Mensa attacked Vanguard

Oktoberfest - This was a war that was going to happen, TC attack was a true pre-empt.

VE-Guardian War - again, Guardian pre-empt, this was was going to happen either way.

 

If you look at these wars, which date back mostly to the start of your alliances, you'll see that you were either always the aggressor or looked to be on the verge of attacking.  No one really buys you aren't the aggressors most times.  I don't know why you keep claiming you are just defensively minded alliances.  We can all admit that's not the case and that's fine, but be truthful.  I'm not sure why you keep bring up Oktoberfest out like it's the only war ever fought and thus justifies your belief you are usually on the defensive side of great wars.

 

We are all peace-loving creatures of Sheepy's Great Pasture.

[Roquentin]

I like your logic.  Someday in the future you guys will attack us again.  We should just keep you zeroed forever.

It was not in the far off future. I've heard some people wanted another month. Why should we wait the month?  I mean, getting zeroed forever now isn't much worse than getting zeroed by you every 3 months. Anyone would have done what we did given you guys weren't really secretive.

 

Wait, we did? We set the precedent?  The hell you smoking?

 

I mean, hell, I'd gladly take the credit for that as a Mensa member, but..  what the hell?

 

In terms of the full Paracov-Syndisphere wars, yes. You hit. If we want to go way further back, you set it with Proxy. Your example is usually Oktoberfest, which is after.

Roq, you are right in a sense in that we attacked your aggressively last war; and yes, of course another war would happen at some point at some time in the future for some reason.

 

Effectively what you are saying in the above though is that t$ can never be critical again of someone else's aggression because we were aggressive once. But that one occasion of aggression came after a series of wars in which we were not the aggressors. So you are asking us to buy the logic of, 't$ is the villain because they were aggressive once after a series of wars in which they were not the aggressors, but those aggressors in those prior wars are not the villains; t$ is still the villain'. 

 

In the end, I honestly don't have a problem with the broader ParaCov sphere being aggressive in a war. This has been a really fun war that wouldn't have happened without that aggression. And seeing as this is a game, that is good. But certain accusatory tones, whether you think some in the opposing sphere are guilty of it also, aren't helpful to the alleviation of the situation you are criticizing. 

 

As for the issue of paranoia, both sides have a right to be paranoid. One side certainly has a much more established history of aggression on the global level though, and it isn't ours. I'm not saying that is good or bad. Of course, NPO is new and has only been in two global wars: one aggressive, one defensive. So that can't be said objectively about NPO, and you still have much of your history to write; but it is quite clear when you view the wider coalition you are fighting with. 

 

And you mentioned the threat of consolidation. Here is some advice: The consolidation is mostly a result of defensive war. The greatest threat to the so-called 'Syndisphere' is a period of never being aggressively attacked. Our primary source of consolidation would evaporate, and drifting would become far more likely. 

 

Another was likely to happen and many in your sphere wanted to fight TC/NPO or SK/Rose/VE. There's no disputing it. It wouldn't have been perpetual peace.

 

Yes you can't blame us for doing what we did when you did that to us. We weren't going to cower and wait for you or your allies to come to hit us again. It's just you have zero room to complain that we did this.  I was mostly talking about NPO as the previous wars are a mix really and open to interpretation.  I just don't like being painted us having gone after a bunch of non-aggressive people who wouldn't have hit us.  We're using basically the same rationale you did except we feel a bit more justified. We had never done anything to you prior to you hitting us and had no intentions of being aggressive. We always just had expected an ally on the paracov side to get hit first. You made this the best move to make by making it clear you didn't have a problem going aggressive. That's it.  I don't know how accusatory it is, it's just we're not being bad guys here.

 

I disagree with this interpretation. Most people have had outs they could have taken. It's honorable that they didn't ditch to save themselves, but anyone outside of the core could have departed at any time. If they chose to rally to tS/Mensa, it wasn't because of a threat to themselves, but rather they believe in promoting the ascendance of those alliances. No one had any real beef with OO prior to the last war, for instance and no one really dislikes most of the peripherals except when they do screwed up stuff.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Roquentin

[greatkitteh]

Well, you guys basically admitted to me that BK was going to roll UPN

[Prefonteen]

Your math is off.  The Syndicate started the last two wars before this one, and arguably the last 3 if you count Mensa.

 

And lets just take a look here:

 

OOC War - straight Syndi aggression

Alpha-tS - staight tS aggression

168-day War - people will argue this one, so we can omit it sure, but Mensa attacked Vanguard

Oktoberfest - This was a war that was going to happen, TC attack was a true pre-empt.

VE-Guardian War - again, Guardian pre-empt, this was was going to happen either way.

 

If you look at these wars, which date back mostly to the start of your alliances, you'll see that you were either always the aggressor or looked to be on the verge of attacking.  No one really buys you aren't the aggressors most times.  I don't know why you keep claiming you are just defensively minded alliances.  We can all admit that's not the case and that's fine, but be truthful.  I'm not sure why you keep bring up Oktoberfest out like it's the only war ever fought and thus justifies your belief you are usually on the defensive side of great wars.

 

Let's start off by making a distinction between our grander sphere and just tS, since tS' members and government can only speak for tS' actions and motivations. Moreover, Our sphere is *not* a conglomrate which moves as a single unit: The different entties making it up all have their own motivations and agendas at times, and have to some degree been pressed together by circumstance in their early days.

 

Now second, wars peraining tS:

 

Syndicate-FSA: FSA raids tS, escalates by going full scale after reps are demanded. Hostilities recognized. ----> 100% Defensive

Guardian-VE: Guardiansphere pre-empts Viridian Entente after a leak detailing a planned assault on VE. Syndicate MDP triggered ----> 100% Defensive

Proxy: Mensa wants to go after Rose. UPN and tS both promise to protect Mensa from counters but neither wants to support a direct assault for reasons of their own. Vanguard hits Mensa. Rose pre-empts tS and leaves UPN be ---> tS? Definitely 100% defensive.

Oktoberfest: Covenant all out assault on tS  (you can argue that 'it was going to happen' but that's a fallacy. tS was not in a position to do jackshit against covenant by virtue of mutual ties with BK and Mensa (both of whom wanted to prevent escalation. Without them, tS was harmless.)  ------> 100% defensive

168: Rose hits Mensa citing a supposed paperless tie on a weeks old war. Given that no treaty was held between Rose and Vanguard, tS' treaty is triggered ----> 100% Defensive.

Alpha: leaving our motivations (pre-emptive strike) behind, this was syndicate initiated and therefore technically aggressive.

NPO's first time: Aggressive.

 

That's it. Now, see the pattern: We have for the gross of our history related to our current opposition been on the defensive end. We traded defense for offense in one sequence of wars (Alpha and NPO's first time can arguably be considered 2 wars under the same umbrella). The key here: Perhaps there is  reason why we went aggressive for once.

 

*shrug* but keep trying to spin lads. That one's directed not just at Steve. (Hi Roq)

[Foltest]

Well, you guys basically admitted to me that BK was going to roll UPN

 

I would be interested in some proof that includes context.

[greatkitteh]

Let's start off by making a distinction between our grander sphere and just tS, since tS' members and government can only speak for tS' actions and motivations. Moreover, Our sphere is *not* a conglomrate which moves as a single unit: The different entties making it up all have their own motivations and agendas at times, and have to some degree been pressed together by circumstance in their early days.

 

Now second, wars peraining tS:

 

Syndicate-FSA: FSA raids tS, escalates by going full scale after reps are demanded. Hostilities recognized. ----> 100% Defensive

Guardian-VE: Guardiansphere pre-empts Viridian Entente after a leak detailing a planned assault on VE. Syndicate MDP triggered ----> 100% Defensive

Proxy: Mensa wants to go after Rose. UPN and tS both promise to protect Mensa from counters but neither wants to support a direct assault for reasons of their own. Vanguard hits Mensa. Rose pre-empts tS and leaves UPN be ---> tS? Definitely 100% defensive.

Oktoberfest: Covenant all out assault on tS (you can argue that 'it was going to happen' but that's a fallacy. tS was not in a position to do jackshit against covenant by virtue of mutual ties with BK and Mensa (both of whom wanted to prevent escalation. Without them, tS was harmless.) ------> 100% defensive

168: Rose hits Mensa citing a supposed paperless tie on a weeks old war. Given that no treaty was held between Rose and Vanguard, tS' treaty is triggered ----> 100% Defensive.

Alpha: leaving our motivations (pre-emptive strike) behind, this was syndicate initiated and therefore technically aggressive.

NPO's first time: Aggressive.

 

That's it. Now, see the pattern: We have for the gross of our history related to our current opposition been on the defensive end. We traded defense for offense in one sequence of wars (Alpha and NPO's first time can arguably be considered 2 wars under the same umbrella). The key here: Perhaps there is reason why we went aggressive for once.

 

*shrug* but keep trying to spin lads. That one's directed not just at Steve. (Hi Roq)

Vanguard did not hit Mensa, Mensa hit Vanguard if I am correct

[Buorhann]

Your math is off.  The Syndicate started the last two wars before this one, and arguably the last 3 if you count Mensa.

 

And lets just take a look here:

 

OOC War - straight Syndi aggression - Mensa aggression, but fair enough.

Alpha-tS - staight tS aggression - That was strictly between Syndicate and Alpha due to leaks

168-day War - people will argue this one, so we can omit it sure, but Mensa attacked Vanguard

Oktoberfest - This was a war that was going to happen, TC attack was a true pre-empt. - "true pre-empt", no.

VE-Guardian War - again, Guardian pre-empt, this was was going to happen either way. - This wasn't Syndi/OO sphere at the time. In fact, Syndicate and BK were on the other side~

 

If you look at these wars, which date back mostly to the start of your alliances, you'll see that you were either always the aggressor or looked to be on the verge of attacking.  No one really buys you aren't the aggressors most times.  I don't know why you keep claiming you are just defensively minded alliances.  We can all admit that's not the case and that's fine, but be truthful.  I'm not sure why you keep bring up Oktoberfest out like it's the only war ever fought and thus justifies your belief you are usually on the defensive side of great wars.

 

Didn't see the edit, so here we go.

 

Bolded my comments in the quote.

 

If the statement was, "Mensa is known to be aggressors." I'd agree. Mensa did set a precedent on being aggressive. However, the statement was broad on the sphere - and that is simply not true on them.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Buorhann

[greatkitteh]

Didn't see the edit, so here we go.

 

Bolded my comments in the quote.

 

If the statement was, "Mensa is known to be aggressors." I'd agree. Mensa did set a precedent on being aggressive. However, the statement was broad on the sphere - and that is simply not true on them.

No

[Roquentin]

Didn't see the edit, so here we go.

 

Bolded my comments in the quote.

 

If the statement was, "Mensa is known to be aggressors." I'd agree. Mensa did set a precedent on being aggressive. However, the statement was broad on the sphere - and that is simply not true on them.

 

It is true due to their optional support. You guys have said no one has any obligation to support us here as we are the aggressors, but everyone  in that sphere supported you, enabling your aggression.

[Buorhann]

Actually, our allies have very clearly been vocal about what they will and will not support.  We were walking on egg shells early on in the Syndisphere development as our FA was, well, lacking.  So you're heavily speculating there.

 

Had things gone differently, or had alliances actually taken their foreign affairs seriously - Mensa would've been tied up in 1v1s or 1v2s a few times without allied support.

 

EDIT:

 

For example, in the OOC War - Syndicate and friends made it very clear that they would not support Mensa in a war of aggression.  Had Rose attacked Mensa, instead of Syndicate, it would've been a straight up Mensa vs. Rose/Vanguard situation.  No others would've been involved.

 

But no one took Syndicate's FA seriously at the time since VE made them look suspicious.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Buorhann

[Prefonteen]

It was not in the far off future. I've heard some people wanted another month. Why should we wait the month?  I mean, getting zeroed forever now isn't much worse than getting zeroed by you every 3 months. Anyone would have done what we did given you guys weren't really secretive.

 

 

In terms of the full Paracov-Syndisphere wars, yes. You hit. If we want to go way further back, you set it with Proxy. Your example is usually Oktoberfest, which is after.

 

Another was likely to happen and many in your sphere wanted to fight TC/NPO or SK/Rose/VE. There's no disputing it. It wouldn't ahve been perpetual peace.

 

Yes you can't blame us for doing what we did when you did that to us. We weren't going to cower and wait for you or your allies to come to hit us again. It's just you have zero room to complain that we did this.  I was mostly talking about NPO as the previous wars are a mix really and open to interpretation.  I just don't like being painted us having gone after a bunch of non-aggressive people who wouldn't have hit us.  We're using basically the same rationale you did except we feel a bit more justified. We had never done anything to you prior to you hitting us and had no intentions of being aggressive. We always just had expected an ally on the paracov side to get hit first. You made this the best move to make by making it clear you didn't have a problem going aggressive. That's it.  I don't know how accusatory it is, it's just we're not being bad guys here.

 

I disagree with this interpretation. Most people have had outs they could have taken. It's honorable that they didn't ditch to save themselves, but anyone outside of the core could have departed at any time. If they chose to rally to tS/Mensa, it wasn't because of a threat to themselves, but rather they believe in promoting the ascendance of those alliances. No one had any real beef with OO prior to the last war, for instance and no one really dislikes most of the peripherals except when they do screwed up stuff.

 

Roq. My problem with you lies not in your move: You're right. You have every right to go aggressive on us if you believe us to be a threat. Whether we actually are or not is irrelevant- if you perceive us as such, then I can understand where you are coming from.

 

It's the astounding hypocricy in your (and others on your side) rhetoric that burns away any credibility you have in our eyes. The entirety of Paracov/ALNPO has spent the gross of the past 2 years rationaizing their own political opportunism as being morally superior to moves of the same nature conducted by their opposition: You continue to ostracize us for acts and decisions that you and your allies are guilty of yourself. Worse yet, you structurally demonize The Syndicate in particular for acts it has never committed, attributing to us aggression which never existed. 

 

This is the fifth war we have fought against different lineups of paracov/NPO alliances. Out of these 5 wars, we were struck pre-emptively on 3 seperate occasions, and in all 3 of these case, no Syndicate offensive was planned anywhere in the near future. When you pre-emptively bliz an alliance, you effectively take away your opponent's opportunity/ability to decide on his course of actions: You force him to become part of the fray on terms set by you. It provides a distinct miliary advantage, often at the cost of political capital. When you pre-empt an alliance however without having any tangible proof/knowledge of a planned attack against you, you can not later claim that that alliance was inherently aggressive in its conduct.

 

The fourth occasion consitutes a Syndicate treaty being triggered directly by an attack on an ally. As no treaties were in play on the other side, no non-chaining clauses applied. Again, you can not attack an alliance's ally and then accuse said alliance of being inherently aggressve when it comes to its allies defense.

 

If you want to paint us as aggressive, stick with recent history. Because anything and everything before Alpha/NPO will only serve to make you look like shit.

[Prefonteen]

Vanguard did not hit Mensa, Mensa hit Vanguard if I am correct

 

Vanguard had no direct ties to Rose at the time. Mensa raided Vanguard. Vanguard recognized hostilities a week (or so?) later and launched a counterblitz. A week or two later and after a few other incidents which showed a degree of chaos in Syndicate/sphere's ranks, Rose began pushing the Vanguard issue to war and ultimately declared war.

 

I'll repeat: Rose was not formally allied to Vanguard and as such, tS' treaty was directy triggered. I will not delve further into Rose's reason for attacking as it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They had their reasons. That did not however nullify our obligations to Mena as an ally.

[greatkitteh]

"Anything after NPO history" has indeed been aggressive. Remember NPO's first tine?