Syndicate Declaration of Actually Making Declarations

[Roquentin]

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.

 

 

 

 

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

The point is, you acknowledged it was a possibility. The imagination stuff doesn't hold water when several of your allies have expressed that they did want to do one of the two hypotheticals.

 

It's not really dogshit when it's bringing up the reality. You even had people saying stuff "we raided TOG hoping  VE's protectorate would defend". Just making allusions to some magical alternative means nothing. You had nothing but a vague notion of "not every war has to be a global". At the end of the day, I'm sure you know the possibilities were very limited and continuing to be super dismissive when people had legitimate concerns to act on seems very disingenuous.

[greatkitteh]

You had guys calling us out on OWF

[Spaceman Thrax]

The point is, you acknowledged it was a possibility. The imagination stuff doesn't hold water when several of your allies have expressed that they did want to do one of the two hypotheticals.

 

It's not really dogshit when it's bringing up the reality. You even had people saying stuff "we raided TOG hoping  VE's protectorate would defend". Just making allusions to some magical alternative means nothing. You had nothing but a vague notion of "not every war has to be a global". At the end of the day, I'm sure you know the possibilities were very limited and continuing to be super dismissive when people had legitimate concerns to act on seems very disingenuous.

 

In acknowledging one possibility, it automatically becomes what I will do? And I'm being disingenuous...?

 

In the leadup to every war, a lot of people say a lot of nonsense. And then someone actually acts and shows you what their intentions are. Yours were to try and force the same war to happen again but with your AA in a better position to mount an offensive. Some paranoid people fell for it. Shame on them. But they're not doing as well as your alliance, presently, so I guess it's fine for you?

 

Meanwhile our sphere was lagging in military. My own alliance had only planes.

 

If I'm dismissive of your claims it's because they are transparent and entirely self serving. I'm gonna go back to doing a good job of dismissing them though, since I don't think this is particularly fruitful.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Manthrax

[greatkitteh]

In acknowledging one possibility, it automatically becomes what I will do? And I'm being disingenuous...?

 

In the leadup to every war, a lot of people say a lot of nonsense. And then someone actually acts and shows you what their intentions are. Yours were to try and force the same war to happen again but with your AA in a better position to mount an offensive. Some paranoid people fell for it. Shame on them. But they're not doing as well as your alliance, presently, so I guess it's fine for you?

 

Meanwhile our sphere was lagging in military. My own alliance had only planes.

 

If I'm dismissive of your claims it's because they are transparent and entirely self serving. I'm gonna go back to doing a good job of dismissing them though, since I don't think this is particularly fruitful.

We also fought FOR STEVE

[Roquentin]

In acknowledging one possibility, it automatically becomes what I will do? And I'm being disingenuous...?

 

In the leadup to every war, a lot of people say a lot of nonsense. And then someone actually acts and shows you what their intentions are. Yours were to try and force the same war to happen again but with your AA in a better position to mount an offensive. Some paranoid people fell for it. Shame on them. But they're not doing as well as your alliance, presently, so I guess it's fine for you?

 

Meanwhile our sphere was lagging in military. My own alliance had only planes.

 

If I'm dismissive of your claims it's because they are transparent and entirely self serving. I'm gonna go back to doing a good job of dismissing them though, since I don't think this is particularly fruitful.

 

In acknowledging the only real possibility,more or less yes.

 

Dismissing all the evidence of how people on your side felt is disingenuous. Your sphere has shown the capacity for aggression and you did it in the last war. You gave up any claims to being defensive after that and have shown you will try to eliminate opposition. Denying that is preposterous. Trying to walk it back after and pretending you wouldn't harm a fly is really getting old. Trying to pin this all on me and making me into some sort of arch-villain when plenty of people shared the same concerns, and those concerns are the only reason this could come together is ridiculous. It's not really about us doing well and we're not really anymore since you keep adding more alliances. The stakes were life or death for us, so I stressed participation. Continuing to pretend people were just paranoid when there is so much pointing to the contrary just helps prove my point.

 

As if your comments aren't transparent or self-serving. Please. At least Partisan would try to argue rather than this.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Roquentin

[Phiney]

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

I put my reading specs on and I believe he was saying we arnt 'outside the system' like another guy was saying we and aargh were.

[Buorhann]

Dismissing all the evidence of how people on your side felt is disingenuous. Your sphere has shown the capacity for aggression and you did it in the last war. 

 

We did it last war to prove a point.  That you can win offensive wars.  And if I recall, that was the only offensive war we planned since our sphere developed?

 

This war, nobody had plans to attack your sphere at all.  Someone brought up military build up from a few alliances, rumors were spread around, and we started speculating what could be going on.  The major fact here is that none of our alliances were 100% built up militarily by the time multiple of your alliances attacked us.  I mean, smart plan for you guys to take advantage of it, honestly, but don't sit there thinking we had the plans to attack first.  We didn't.  Otherwise we would've been the first to build up.

[Roquentin]

We did it last war to prove a point.  That you can win offensive wars.  And if I recall, that was the only offensive war we planned since our sphere developed?

 

This war, nobody had plans to attack your sphere at all.  Someone brought up military build up from a few alliances, rumors were spread around, and we started speculating what could be going on.  The major fact here is that none of our alliances were 100% built up militarily by the time multiple of your alliances attacked us.  I mean, smart plan for you guys to take advantage of it, honestly, but don't sit there thinking we had the plans to attack first.  We didn't.  Otherwise we would've been the first to build up.

 

It set a precedent and honestly that's an interpretation issue. Everyone supported you in Proxy as well. It's usually dismissed with "Our sphere wasn't developed so it doesn't count", though.

 

You maybe didn't have plans to attack us when we hit you, but you'd want to attack us when you felt ready and there was no other way for the game to go. Continuously signing treaties with each other and constantly shitting all over us at every opportunity just shows that. Many in your sphere have expressed what their desires were in terms of who to fight, so it's ultimately a question of timetable.  The point is as long as your side exists it is a severe problem for anyone outside of is who can be seen as a threat and you gave up any pretense of being defensive by gleefully initiating an aggressive war. 

Edited September 16, 2016 by Roquentin

[Buorhann]

Unless you have actual proof about your claim, that's pure speculation.

 

Of course people are going to want war, but there were also many who didn't.

[Eumirbago]

Unless you have actual proof about your claim, that's pure speculation.

 

Of course people are going to want war, but there were also many who didn't.

They're a sphere that prefer to live and die with their assumptions :3

[donsberger]

They're a sphere that prefer to live and die with their assumptions :3

And say we are too gigantic and thus this game is stale even though numbers are very equal.

[Roquentin]

Unless you have actual proof about your claim, that's pure speculation.

 

Of course people are going to want war, but there were also many who didn't.

 

When people have told me "We wanted to roll UPN, We wanted to roll SK. We initiated raids on an alliance to draw in their Paragon or Cov aligned ties", I'm not going to think differently. When I was told outright by someone that they wanted to fight me, it just becomes part of a pattern. I don't care if you guys felt you needed more time, your aggression was all over the place and the last war dispelled any notions of innocence. 

 

 

 

And say we are too gigantic and thus this game is stale even though numbers are very equal.

 

The casual vs active dynamic has been gone over a million times. You can pretend the numbers are equal on papre, but we can't make people play the game more than your people. Several of your alliances draw in hyperactives from other games like Mensa and tS and that is an advantage. Granted, not *every* alliance is like that,  but it gives  a specific advantage. I mean, at the end of the day, if you only want hyperactives to play, that's what you're going to end up getting. Only about 2000 out of 4500 people have logged in the last week. I don't know who's going to lose interest after this.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Roquentin

[LordRahl2]

Who wants to roll UPN? Soooo last year.

 

Cute that the leaders of the aggressive sphere are trying to spin that they are not agressors.

 

I would probably do the same thing though so carry on Roq.

 

Actually, I would prbably be honest and say that we assessed we had a better shot this way and everyone can just dealwithit.jpg

Edited September 16, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Sisyphus]

The casual vs active dynamic has been gone over a million times. You can pretend the numbers are equal on papre, but we can't make people play the game more than your people. Several of your alliances draw in hyperactives from other games like Mensa and tS and that is an advantage. Granted, not *every* alliance is like that, but it gives a specific advantage. I mean, at the end of the day, if you only want hyperactives to play, that's what you're going to end up getting. Only about 2000 out of 4500 people have logged in the last week. I don't know who's going to lose interest after this.

On behalf of the hegemoney, I apologise for the fact that we have better alliance compositions and have been forced to work together on several occasions because our former, less competent allies failed to take us into consideration during their aggressive war campaigns.

 

I further apologize for the fact that we have actually enjoyed it, every step of the way.

 

It's always hilarious to me when you post, because you always base your lofty speculations on your revisionist view of history and then probably wonder why everyone disagrees with you.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Roquentin]

On behalf of the hegemoney, I apologise for the fact that we have better alliance compositions and have been forced to work together on several occasions because our former, less competent allies failed to take us into consideration during their aggressive war campaigns.

 

I further apologize for the fact that we have actually enjoyed it, every step of the way.

 

It's always hilarious to me when you post, because you always base your lofty speculations on your revisionist view of history and then probably wonder why everyone disagrees with you.

 

Typical.

 

It's not revisionist history. It's just not Syndisphere's perspective on history. The problem is, you have this manifest destiny view and you're always the good guys and all other potential narratives are pushed out of the game. It's also helped because pretty much everyone else gave up on seriously posting here so you set the tone of everything. 

[LostWorld]

Very very happy

Edited September 16, 2016 by LostWorld

[Foltest]

Typical.

 

It's not revisionist history. It's just not Syndisphere's perspective on history. The problem is, you have this manifest destiny view and you're always the good guys and all other potential narratives are pushed out of the game. It's also helped because pretty much everyone else gave up on seriously posting here so you set the tone of everything. 

 

"we gave up trying to change things, I'm just here to whine about how things never change"

 

If the tone of the forums bother you, post more and change the tone.

[Cromstar]

Typical.

 

It's not revisionist history. It's just not Syndisphere's perspective on history. The problem is, you have this manifest destiny view and you're always the good guys and all other potential narratives are pushed out of the game. It's also helped because pretty much everyone else gave up on seriously posting here so you set the tone of everything. 

 

Good point.

 

Rahl, Buorhann: We're the villains now. We need Snidely Whiplash mustaches on all our avatars, STAT.

[LordRahl2]

I like the bad guy thing more.

 

Are any of the good guys cooler than bad buys?

[Sargun]

Roq's arguments here remind me so much of Southern "The War of Northern Aggression" revisionism re: the civil war I decided to paint this

 

[Sisyphus]

Typical.

 

It's not revisionist history. It's just not Syndisphere's perspective on history. The problem is, you have this manifest destiny view and you're always the good guys and all other potential narratives are pushed out of the game. It's also helped because pretty much everyone else gave up on seriously posting here so you set the tone of everything.

It's easier to push a narrative when it's based in fact.

[Roquentin]

Roq's arguments here remind me so much of Southern "The War of Northern Aggression" revisionism re: the civil war I decided to paint this

 

 

 

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.

[Ivan the Red]

 

You maybe didn't have plans to attack us when we hit you, but you'd want to attack us when you felt ready and there was no other way for the game to go. Continuously signing treaties with each other and constantly shitting all over us at every opportunity just shows that. Many in your sphere have expressed what their desires were in terms of who to fight, so it's ultimately a question of timetable.  The point is as long as your side exists it is a severe problem for anyone outside of is who can be seen as a threat and you gave up any pretense of being defensive by gleefully initiating an aggressive war. 

 

 

So, the Emperor of NPO decrees that we don't have a right to exist now.

 

Nice.

 

Duly noted.

[Buorhann]

"pattern of aggression"

 

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

[Boony]

"pattern of aggression"

 

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

^^^

 

To be fair, alliances in our sphere do like to war, but to say there is a pattern is silly.