Jump to content

Syndicate Declaration of Actually Making Declarations


Spaceman Thrax
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

That is incorrect. Both of Mensa's largest allies (tS and UPN) agreed to defend Mensa from Rose attacks. This is what set in motion the strategic talks between Ole and I.

Edited by Partisan

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Rose was formally tied. Just because it wasn't a paper treaty doesn't mean it wasn't a tie. It was an obvious tie between the 2 that Mensa exploited. Vanguard was paperless and Rose made it clear to all the world that they were still friends.

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is incorrect. Both of Mensa's largest allies (tS and UPN) agreed to defend Mensa from Rose attacks. This is what set in motion the strategic talks between Ole and I.

But we split because we didnt defend them for steve.

:sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:               :sheepy:              :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy:


Greatkitteh was here.-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I totally understand what you're saying.

 

That's not going to stop me from shitposting.

  • Upvote 1

120209800_meirl2.png.0a9b257b4d3e0c1ac6d6b8be8184cba7.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

You are confusing your wars. The Mensa raid on Vanguard was 168. 

 

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.

 

I don't blame you. As I said, you have every right to be aggressive. Look at all the comments though. Your logic implies t$ isn't the villains either, but the forums are splattered with just as many comments accusing us of being horrible and bad and aggressive as it is vice versa. The logic goes both ways.

 

And sure, they could depart, but when war keeps arising it drives people together. If it wasn't for certain aggressive wars against our sphere, I doubt the Mensa-OO link would have arisen. But the wars drove them closer. It consolidated them since they both had the same alliances wanting them rolled. 

a.k.a. Chaunce

 

Chaunce - Today at 9:55 PM
with the watermelons there isn't much space left
I still have a lot of room to improve
 
Manthrax Has Venomous Bite! - Today at 9:57 PM
Hee hee. Room indeed.
 
Sabriel - Today at 10:01 PM
I feel like, if the other AAs knew how we act, they'd feel a deep sense of shame in knowing that they consistently get beat by us.
when we talk about how many vegetables we can fit in Chaunce's ass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rose was formally tied. Just because it wasn't a paper treaty doesn't mean it wasn't a tie. It was an obvious tie between the 2 that Mensa exploited. Vanguard was paperless and Rose made it clear to all the world that they were still friends.

 

If the whole point is being paperless but then claiming the functional equivalence of the paper, are you really paperless?

 

Mother of Christ, people.

  • Upvote 3

☾☆


And Dio said unto him, "I trust you.  Share my word."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the whole point is being paperless but then claiming the functional equivalence of the paper, are you really paperless?

 

Mother of Christ, people.

The wiki lietrally says your shere was preparing to hit Rose

:sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:               :sheepy:              :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy:


Greatkitteh was here.-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rose was formally tied. Just because it wasn't a paper treaty doesn't mean it wasn't a tie. It was an obvious tie between the 2 that Mensa exploited. Vanguard was paperless and Rose made it clear to all the world that they were still friends.

 

Friends =/= ally.

 

Friendship =/= a formal tie obligating you to defend one another.

 

Vanguard departed the Paragon as a political entity to remove itself from the sphere wars (as we understand).

can

 

Moreover, the problem with acknowledging paperless defense as being 'formal' and therefore a valid way to negate MD+ clauses on allies is that it opens up a can of worms: If I allow Rose to hit Mensa for hitting Vanguard because of 'paperless ties' and accept that as valid enough to apply my non-chaining clause, I set a precedent where anyone can do this: any infraction at any point in the web can become a point of contention. BK raids an unaffiliated micro? VE can go 'THATS A PAPERLESS ALLY' and hit BK without me doing jackshit about it (just an example).

 

That does not even touch on the delay (why didnt ROse defend weeks ago when the raids happened, but waited until it was alread milled up from a different incident and things were already dieing down?) or the manner in which Rose entered ( Why did, by Vanguard's own admission, Rose randomly hop in, rather than at Vanguard's request? Why didn't Rose state their demands for peace when diplomacy was attempted?)

 

So no. Try again. I'm not criticizing Rose for going in. I am however explaining to you why the treaty was considered triggered.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friends =/= ally.

 

Friendship =/= a formal tie obligating you to defend one another.

 

Vanguard departed the Paragon as a political entity to remove itself from the sphere wars (as we understand).

can

 

Moreover, the problem with acknowledging paperless defense as being 'formal' and therefore a valid way to negate MD+ clauses on allies is that it opens up a can of worms: If I allow Rose to hit Mensa for hitting Vanguard because of 'paperless ties' and accept that as valid enough to apply my non-chaining clause, I set a precedent where anyone can do this: any infraction at any point in the web can become a point of contention. BK raids an unaffiliated micro? VE can go 'THATS A PAPERLESS ALLY' and hit BK without me doing jackshit about it (just an example).

 

That does not even touch on the delay (why didnt ROse defend weeks ago when the raids happened, but waited until it was alread milled up from a different incident and things were already dieing down?) or the manner in which Rose entered ( Why did, by Vanguard's own admission, Rose randomly hop in, rather than at Vanguard's request? Why didn't Rose state their demands for peace when diplomacy was attempted?)

 

So no. Try again. I'm not criticizing Rose for going in. I am however explaining to you why the treaty was considered triggered.

 

Well, the wiki (which is pro TS) blantly said everyone was expecting Rose to come in to beat them down.

:sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:               :sheepy:              :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy:


Greatkitteh was here.-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is incorrect. Both of Mensa's largest allies (tS and UPN) agreed to defend Mensa from Rose attacks. This is what set in motion the strategic talks between Ole and I.

 

 

Fair enough.  You would know better than I. :P

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The all knowing wiki. No one should dare oppose the wiki.

 

Do people read the wiki?

a.k.a. Chaunce

 

Chaunce - Today at 9:55 PM
with the watermelons there isn't much space left
I still have a lot of room to improve
 
Manthrax Has Venomous Bite! - Today at 9:57 PM
Hee hee. Room indeed.
 
Sabriel - Today at 10:01 PM
I feel like, if the other AAs knew how we act, they'd feel a deep sense of shame in knowing that they consistently get beat by us.
when we talk about how many vegetables we can fit in Chaunce's ass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I did say I was mostly referring to recent history. If a pattern of things in the past 6 months isn't enough to paint you as aggressive, idk what to say. I'm not really sure what more tangible proof there can be of people wanting war than saying "I want to fight you" or "we raided someone to hopefully get a paragon protectorate to defend", the intent of your sphere was too obvious. Kastor before outlined various examples. It's getting exhausting at this point dealing with you guys pretending otherwise.

 

 

Oh I see Roq, proximity to the event (1 month) justifies your action. If it was 2 months away then you would not have attacked.

 

Your logic is clear.

 
The point is imminence. It was always going to happen. It's not as if you were going to reach out or anything.
 
 
Anyway, this'll be my last post. I've had my fill here. This was our last chance to avoid permanent OO/tS dominance(short of severe internal disputes), which is why we did it. No point in saying anymore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I did say I was mostly referring to recent history. If a pattern of things in the past 6 months isn't enough to paint you as aggressive, idk what to say. I'm not really sure what more tangible proof there can be of people wanting war than saying "I want to fight you" or "we raided someone to hopefully get a paragon protectorate to defend", the intent of your sphere was too obvious. Kastor before outlined various examples. It's getting exhausting at this point dealing with you guys pretending otherwise.

 

 

 

The point is imminence. It was always going to happen. It's not as if you were going to reach out or anything.

 

 

Anyway, this'll be my last post. I've had my fill here. This was our last chance to avoid permanent OO/tS dominance(short of severe internal disputes), which is why we did it. No point in saying anymore.

You still haven't learned a damn thing from what history shows. If your sphere wasn't so hell-bent on destroying t$ when the t$sphere just started out, it wouldn't have grown ffs. They grew due to common interest and the fact the other side wanted them rolled. So if anyone is to blame for OO/T$sphere growth and dominance. It was your side for making them work together to ensure their own survival. So thanks for giving us the OO/T$sphere :3

  • Upvote 3

PoJQyFJ.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also, this was your last chance at avoiding dominance?  winning this war wouldn't have stopped that.  war in this game provides no long term benefit or detriment.

  • Upvote 1

☾☆


And Dio said unto him, "I trust you.  Share my word."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason why the OO/T$sphere "dominates" the game, is because a certain group of people set our destruction as their personal goal, and more than a year after they keep failing at it.

 

Maybe if they just set a different personal goal for themsleves, like becoming the #1 alliance in the ranking, rather than rolling us, we wouldn't be "dominating" the game anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People often forget what started the relationship between Mensa and t$. It was the fact that Paragon wanted us both rolled. It began because we needed treaty partners to deter Paragon attacks on each of us, even though prior to that we had been in opposing coalitions.

a.k.a. Chaunce

 

Chaunce - Today at 9:55 PM
with the watermelons there isn't much space left
I still have a lot of room to improve
 
Manthrax Has Venomous Bite! - Today at 9:57 PM
Hee hee. Room indeed.
 
Sabriel - Today at 10:01 PM
I feel like, if the other AAs knew how we act, they'd feel a deep sense of shame in knowing that they consistently get beat by us.
when we talk about how many vegetables we can fit in Chaunce's ass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one of the more casual leaders of the game i don't understand why people spend hours arguing on this yeah it's a great game but yanno, arguing wont solve anything haha

They bid me take my place among them. 


In the halls of Valhalla Where the brave may live forever.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What also helps with dominance is organizing with your allies.

 

When Fark/Alpha hit Mensa - those that were attacked by Mensa should've double built back up.  They would've been able to keep us down while Alpha/Fark dealt with the counters our allies put on them.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.