Rose's Surrender

[Prefonteen]

We never made any promise to you to stay on just Roz Wei, if more people entered or the war changed.  But at the time you were trying to get logs on me, RW was our only target and I can't obviously comment on things that haven't happened yet (SK/Chola).  SK declared war on our entire coalition so you were notified by their DoW, lol.

 

 

You promised us you'd limit yourself to Roz Wei. There was no caveat added to that. The natural assumption in a global war *is that it will escalate naturally*. You knew this. Claiming that you 'never promised to stay on roz wei if the war changed' when that topic was never discussed and you just promised to stick on Roz Wei period is trying to absolve yourself by arguing semantics.

[Yosodog]

Hahaha this thread keeps on delivering.

[Saru]

 

 

And when they were already one full round into the war, when we entered. You claim it was 15, that's still a very few for an alliance as top tier heavy (at the time) as Alpha was. Most of the people we hit weren't at max military and had already used their rebuys for the day. As someone well versed in the top tier tactics, that's a death sentence. Alpha hit soft targets while having overwhelming power against said soft targets. They were soft because we waited long enough to enter and they didn't have any backup to come hit us as a counter. It was an easy fight that had no impact on the grand scheme of the war.

 

That's the point, it was very few for an alliance as top tier heavy and an alliance who had so much time to prepare as... Alpha. And we are talking about their impact on the war. Had they not entered, there wouldn't of been a case of our upper tier and DEIC's (who Guardian already admitted they struggled with) being very few to any of the alliances we faced. It is all relative, as your own post implies, and that "few" (which was still a sizable amount) wouldn't of been regarded the same to the other coalition without Alpha. Updeclares would of been made a lot more difficult with VE likely to have been tasked with someone else as oppose to Arrgh. 

 

I still don't understand why you are viewing it in isolation to everything else. That's not how coalition wide warfare/politics works. These things have knockon effects, which in turn have their own knockon effects...

 

--

 

 

You have someone who was in UPN gov telling you that if Alpha had not entered it would of likely been a stalemate without reps being imposed due to VE most likely taking someone else (among other things that it effected -- such as things that may of materialised with Rose), you have one of the leaders of the opposite coalition saying the same, and you also have the leader of Alpha agreeing. All of whom clearly have more information and were involved in the planning of the war from the different angles, and have a better idea of went on, and what could of happened had Alpha not entered. Yet you still think you are onto something and continue to view it in isolation, viewing it from your personal perspective, as oppose to talk about it in the grand scheme of the war -- which was my initial point that you quoted. Alpha's entrance did have a significant impact in swinging the war in tS's favor... 

 

So you are wrong. Not that your ego would ever let you admit it. So just continue making yourself look like an idiot I guess.

 

Back to my original point: Arrgh and Alpha most likely secured the win for their side, because either of them not entering would of changed the dynamics of the war significantly imo, and both of them entering left us with virtually no way back.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Saru

[Prefontaine]

Better yet, Saru in this whole thread.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Prefontaine

[Buorhann]

The only thing Alpha did was speed up the process of ending the war.  Statistically we had the war won once Arrgh brought some much needed relief into it.  We had so many fronts secured, that even if the top tier was dropping - we'd just up declare and drag you guys down one by one.

 

The problem is that Alpha jumped in the war too late.  You didn't join the war during Round 1.  You joined it in Round 2, when the vast majority of military was already wiped because Covenant side mostly gave up or wasted their rebuilds (Didn't double build like they should've).

 

I don't even know why this is an issue here.  This a fact.  Even without Arrgh, we'd possibly have turned the tide or at least brought it to a stalemate.  There were many nations in the low-mid score range that was giving up on Covenant side.

[Saru]

ITP Saru shows how little he actually knows. 

 

I guess you just can't stand to accept you are wrong, so it has become self-delusion at this point. Funny how multiple people involved in the organisation of the war from multiple angles seem to know less than you.

 

You are as ignorant as can be.

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Saru

[Saru]

The only thing Alpha did was speed up the process of ending the war.  Statistically we had the war won once Arrgh brought some much needed relief into it.  We had so many fronts secured, that even if the top tier was dropping - we'd just up declare and drag you guys down one by one.

 

You think it would of been a lot easier than it was going to be. Had VE committed their resources to the coalition -- as oppose to just Arrgh, and with DEIC's and UPN's uppers going strong, you would of had a battle on your hands. 

 

Even without Arrgh, we'd possibly have turned the tide or at least brought it to a stalemate.  There were many nations in the low-mid score range that was giving up on Covenant side.

 

 

And you wouldn't of won without Arrgh & Alpha imo -- certainly wouldn't get those reps. Stalemate was the most likely.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Saru

[Prefontaine]

I guess you just can't stand to accept you are wrong, so it has become self-delusion at this point. Funny how multiple people involved in the organisation of the war from multiple angles seem to know less than you.

 

You are as ignorant as can be.

 

 

Sad clown is sad. Be a happy clown instead! The winning side tells you "yeah Alpha didn't matter, they just sped up what was already happening", and you don't listen. I mean, I get you're commitment to being wrong. It's not going to stop me from laughing at you. Clearly I'm wrong. I was only involved in the war effort, had the top amount of wars declared (perhaps tied) offensively for my alliance, and saw how blistering irrelevant our strike was in the grand scheme of things. 

 

You know nothing about the war system in this game, and it's sad really. I've seen logs and such from former members of UPN that make me realize how much of a joke you and hans in specific are at this game. If you had been better at know how it works and/or playing politics you wouldn't be the sad clown you are today. Steve's just desperately trying to cling to Alpha doing something good, because there are only a few moments he could point to as possibilities. The truth is Alpha did not impact the outcome of that war whatsoever. The pixels blown up would've still been blown up just at a slightly costlier rate and 1 round of war later. I understand it's hard for you to grasp, as you don't know how winning works, but you'd think that with your massive losing experience you'd know that you were already beaten, because you were. Argue all you want, you're flat out wrong, and the more you cling to it, the sadder and desperate you become, clown. 

[Sketchy]

11 pages later and noone has renamed the thread yet.

[Aerys Targaryen]

And when you had any sort of log you could cherry pick and show to everyone, you then sent in other alliances like Chola to try to convince others that we backstabbed you.  We never did.  You changed the situation.

 

What are you talking about? No one sent us to convince other alliances lol, check your facts properly.

 

Also, regarding Alpha's role in Oktoberfest, you did enter late. You even went inactive for a while before the war and during the military build up, I remember very well as we were in contact with each other and I was ghosting into different alliances (like The King's parliament, BK etc..,). I was even planning to ghost into Alpha but didn't do it only because of your slow build up and low activity in game at that time.

[Don Juan]

11 pages later and noone has renamed the thread yet.

Or split it off.

[Charles Bolivar]

 

 

Obviously there is... The leadership of the alliances cannot do anything to make people become active. I guess your response will be, well just kick the inactive ones... well that doesn't do much to change anything, since it's not like there's a massive influx of players into the game.

 

Mensa are the anomaly in terms of activity, and would keep their levels whatever happens I would guess. You have to realise that with most people interest level in the game is somewhat determined by how the game is going too... for example UPN has gradually got less and less active with every war that we lost. Not that I am saying it's your fault or whatever, just pointing to the observation that the losing side will always get less active if things aren't competitive.

 

Well you can't have it both ways. You can't complain about having an inactive bloated alliance incapable of achieving results and then simultaneously complain about having to implement measures to rectify this. You either stick with the bloated and inactive membership or take a gamble and kick the dead weight and impose some higher standards. 

 

You wouldn't need an influx of new members in order for it to work and you don't need a large membership either in order to become competent. It just takes some hard work and a genuine drive to succeed coupled with competent leadership. Such notions naturally attract more competent and experienced members. The perfect example of this being naturally TEst.

 

If UPN wants to keep their community alive and not lose members as a result of losing wars constantly...then stop making silly decisions which lead to you losing war after war. No one is forcing you to continuously attack the same coalition over and over again, UPN's and paracov's leadership in general need to start taking responsibility for their own decisions.

 

Do you really think tS' gov members would still be in gov if they had the same track record of continuously losing wars for decisions they made and refused to take responsibility for the aforementioned decisions? They would have been forced to step down or have the alliance vote with their feet long ago if they had. If we had lost the massive gamble that was the last war when we basically pulled a leeroy jenkins inspired attack then heads would have rolled. 

 

To be frank, I don't really need to inform UPN about this since I am pretty much preaching to the choir when it comes to telling UPN about members voting with their feet given the decline in membership since the last war.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Night King

[Charles Bolivar]

I just read 19 pages of this crap and all I got from it is that commies gonna commie and Roquentin's tears could end California's drought.

 

[Aerys Targaryen]

This is one of the longest threads we ever had in Alliance affairs section.

 

Other longest threads in decreasing order are as follows,

 

(1) Syndicate Press Release: Kangaroo's meat sales increase by 200%! - 28 pages

(2) a Statment from Hansarius and the United Purple Nations - 26 pages

(3) Mensa HQ Declaration of War - 25 pages

(4) Hello to the Syndicate - 23 pages

(5) UPN Joins the Brawl - 21 pages

(6) DEIC Bank Content Anomaly - 21 pages.

(7) Rose's Surrender - 21 pages and counting !

 

All we need right now is, a public debate from Roq and Yoso regarding how much NPO should be paying as reps, some comments from Saru and Partisan regarding hegemoney and Steve about Alpha's relevance in Okroberfest. We can surely make it to 30 pages !!

[Roquentin]

Well you can't have it both ways. You can't complain about having an inactive bloated alliance incapable of achieving results and then simultaneously complain about having to implement measures to rectify this. You either stick with the bloated and inactive membership or take a gamble and kick the dead weight and impose some higher standards. 

 

You wouldn't need an influx of new members in order for it to work and you don't need a large membership either in order to become competent. It just takes some hard work and a genuine drive to succeed coupled with competent leadership. Such notions naturally attract more competent and experienced members. The perfect example of this being naturally TEst.

 

If UPN wants to keep their community alive and not lose members as a result of losing wars constantly...then stop making silly decisions which lead to you losing war after war. No one is forcing you to continuously attack the same coalition over and over again, UPN's and paracov's leadership in general need to start taking responsibility for their own decisions.

 

Do you really think tS' gov members would still be in gov if they had the same track record of continuously losing wars for decisions they made and refused to take responsibility for the aforementioned decisions? They would have been forced to step down or have the alliance vote with their feet long ago if they had.

 

To be frank, I don't really need to inform UPN about this since I am pretty much preaching to the choir when it comes to telling UPN about members voting with their feet giving the decline in membership since the last war.

 

This is like the dumbest argument you could make. UPN did a lot of purging fairly recently and it just meant a reduced member count. There wasn't some improvement in overall activity. Just kicking people doesn't change anything and it's very wrong minded. There was a reason for it and it was probably beneficial in terms of avoiding bank raids and such, but it didn't make them elite or anything.

 

It's time to stop acting like you have some formula going that others could just simply implement with ease. In your alliance's case you basically ported the most active people from several (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) alliances(inb4 no connection to MI6/Sparta) and actives from Tournament Edition and other places.  TEst is completely different and they were a fairly small membercount alliance until this year and they didn't aim to be huge before. I'm not downplaying the achievements, but the circumstances are pretty unique in terms of their boom, especially the Sparta merger. Being a small paperless alliance for most people is being a raid target.

 

Honestly, members that would leave because their alliance lost a war aren't members you want to keep anyway. It just shows that alliances can become bloated with fairweather people during good times who won't be able to handle adversity. If everyone took your advice, it'd be a huge kumbaya circlejerk if every time someone lost, they would have to basically suck up to the other side and reach some accommodation hoping for mercy. 

 

Um, pretty sure Partisan wouldn't have been forced to step down if you lost the last war or any of the ones before that. Simply losing isn't a criteria of judgement for anything. It's a really weird attitude you have here where winning is the only thing that matters. Like I said, it's bizarre seeing this perspective from you, but power or rather the notion of having it can get to people. I mean, no one forced Tenages to step down for having his backstab leaked which ended up  resulting in a total loss and he was a celebrated leader of your sphere for a very long time.

 

 

With your other post, it's just so funny since it seems like you're somehow so upset that not everyone is just subscribing to the '"WINNING IS EVERYTHING. SUCK UP TO TS TO AVOID LOSING" mantra you're preaching here. 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Roquentin

[Charles Bolivar]

This is like the dumbest argument you could make. UPN did a lot of purging fairly recently and it just meant a reduced member count. There wasn't some improvement in overall activity. Just kicking people doesn't change anything and it's very wrong minded. There was a reason for it and it was probably beneficial in terms of avoiding bank raids and such, but it didn't make them elite or anything.

 

It's time to stop acting like you have some formula going that others could just simply implement with ease. In your alliance's case you basically ported the most active people from several (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) alliances(inb4 no connection to MI6/Sparta) and actives from Tournament Edition and other places.  TEst is completely different and they were a fairly small membercount alliance until this year and they didn't aim to be huge before. I'm not downplaying the achievements, but the circumstances are pretty unique in terms of their boom, especially the Sparta merger. Being a small paperless alliance for most people is being a raid target.

 

Honestly, members that would leave because their alliance lost a war aren't members you want to keep anyway. It just shows that alliances can become bloated with fairweather people during good times who won't be able to handle adversity. If everyone took your advice, it'd be a huge kumbaya circlejerk if every time someone lost, they would have to basically suck up to the other side and reach some accommodation hoping for mercy. 

 

Um, pretty sure Partisan wouldn't have been forced to step down if you lost the last war or any of the ones before that. Simply losing isn't a criteria of judgement for anything. It's a really weird attitude you have here where winning is the only thing that matters. Like I said, it's bizarre seeing this perspective from you, but power or rather the notion of having it can get to people. I mean, no one forced Tenages to step down for having his backstab leaked which ended up  resulting in a total loss and he was a celebrated leader of your sphere for a very long time.

 

 

With your other post, it's just so funny since it seems like you're somehow so upset that not everyone is just subscribing to the '"WINNING IS EVERYTHING. SUCK UP TO TS TO AVOID LOSING" mantra you're preaching here. 

 

I would love to see a post from you which doesn't make a reference to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways),

 

Anyway, moving on because I don't feel like wasting my time discussing a game which has no bearing whatsoever within this war.

 

TEst is completely different and they were a fairly small membercount alliance until this year and they didn't aim to be huge before. I'm not downplaying the achievements, but the circumstances are pretty unique in terms of their boom, especially the Sparta merger. Being a small paperless alliance for most people is being a raid target.

 

 

I personally believe TEst is as potent a force now as it was before the sparta merger. Then again, I thought TEst was pretty fearsome before Pref even joined it and when Phiney was the original nation killer on Orbis. I would say TEst's influence now is directly attributable to the work Pref and others have put into it and not just the result of random chance. Or do you really think having Sparta, an alliance which had considerable stats in its own right, merging into another alliance is just a piece of random luck? TEst's influence is a direct result of their membership requirements, policies and particular style of leadership, it isn't some miracle of sheer luck but a result of the effort put into the alliance and the reasoning used in deciding the alliance's direction.

 

Responsible leadership achieves superior results. poor leadership achieves poor results.

 

 

Honestly, members that would leave because their alliance lost a war aren't members you want to keep anyway. It just shows that alliances can become bloated with fairweather people during good times who won't be able to handle adversity. If everyone took your advice, it'd be a huge kumbaya circlejerk if every time someone lost, they would have to basically suck up to the other side and reach some accommodation hoping for mercy. 

 

 

I actually somewhat agree, members who leave after one defeat aren't generally the sort of members you want. This is different however from members who leave after repeated defeats which can be attributed directly to the mistakes of their leaders time and time again. If the leadership won't take steps to rectify these mistakes or step down in favour of new leaders who will provide better outcomes for the membership then voting with their feet is the only real and reasonable option for a member to take. The sole purpose of an alliance's leadership is to look after the best interests of the members, if the leadership cannot provide this then why should a member stick around only to keep getting rolled repeatedly just because one or two of their leaders refuse to take an alternative course of action?

 

Um, pretty sure Partisan wouldn't have been forced to step down if you lost the last war or any of the ones before that.

 

 

I will let Partisan elaborate on the drama which occurred after he trusted Cynic with certain intel last year. If I remember correctly Partisan himself was ready to step down and left it to the membership to decide his fate. We stuck with him after Impero annoyed a few of us by demanding we replace him and made it pretty clear to Partisan he had to fix his mess or his head would roll.

 

Not recommending anyone start sucking up to tS, far from it. What I am recommending however is to not keep repeating the same mistakes and then crying rivers of tears when you keep getting the same result over and over again.

 

Quit this constant whinging and blaming everyone else and get to work on improving your own sphere, I strongly doubt anyone is buying this faux outrage you are conveniently flooding the forums with, it's unbecoming of a Pacifican leader and l won't bother writing much more on it but instead I will just paste what Aza posted previously on the matter.

 

I'd talk about it further but it's a waste of time because I don't believe any of the complaining about it to be sincere, it's just a form of stonewalling because you don't want to take the economic hit of paying reps.  I can't blame you for not wanting to pay reps, I personally don't like reps, and I could respect rejecting them on the principle that reps shouldn't be a thing in this world.  But the insincere whining is unbecoming and makes me not at all sympathetic.

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Night King

[Prefontaine]

I actually somewhat agree, members who leave after one defeat aren't generally the sort of members you want. This is different however from members who leave after repeated defeats which can be attributed directly to the mistakes of their leaders time and time again. If the leadership won't take steps to rectify these mistakes or step down in favour of new leaders who will provide better outcomes for the membership then voting with their feet is the only real and reasonable option for a member to take. The sole purpose of an alliance's leadership is to look after the best interests of the members, if the leadership cannot provide this then why should a member stick around only to keep getting rolled repeatedly just because one or two of their leaders refuse to take an alternative course of action?

 

What if the one defeat was Alpha's multiple month suicide fest against tS? Would you fault members who left Alpha after that? 

 

Also thanks for the praise to TEst. Solid leadership can only take us so far. We've got some kick ass members.

[Prefonteen]

This is like the dumbest argument you could make. UPN did a lot of purging fairly recently and it just meant a reduced member count. There wasn't some improvement in overall activity. Just kicking people doesn't change anything and it's very wrong minded. There was a reason for it and it was probably beneficial in terms of avoiding bank raids and such, but it didn't make them elite or anything.

 

It's time to stop acting like you have some formula going that others could just simply implement with ease. In your alliance's case you basically ported the most active people from several (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) alliances(inb4 no connection to MI6/Sparta) and actives from Tournament Edition and other places.  TEst is completely different and they were a fairly small membercount alliance until this year and they didn't aim to be huge before. I'm not downplaying the achievements, but the circumstances are pretty unique in terms of their boom, especially the Sparta merger. Being a small paperless alliance for most people is being a raid target.

 

Honestly, members that would leave because their alliance lost a war aren't members you want to keep anyway. It just shows that alliances can become bloated with fairweather people during good times who won't be able to handle adversity. If everyone took your advice, it'd be a huge kumbaya circlejerk if every time someone lost, they would have to basically suck up to the other side and reach some accommodation hoping for mercy. 

 

Um, pretty sure Partisan wouldn't have been forced to step down if you lost the last war or any of the ones before that. Simply losing isn't a criteria of judgement for anything. It's a really weird attitude you have here where winning is the only thing that matters. Like I said, it's bizarre seeing this perspective from you, but power or rather the notion of having it can get to people. I mean, no one forced Tenages to step down for having his backstab leaked which ended up  resulting in a total loss and he was a celebrated leader of your sphere for a very long time.

 

 

With your other post, it's just so funny since it seems like you're somehow so upset that not everyone is just subscribing to the '"WINNING IS EVERYTHING. SUCK UP TO TS TO AVOID LOSING" mantra you're preaching here. 

 

Actually, I was on a hotseat following my Cynic mishap. If i'd led us into a losing war by making strategic mistakes following that, trust in me would likely have eroded to a point where it's likely that i'd have been asked to step down. Accountability is important. Activity and involvement amongst members is great in a lot of way, if channeled right. When it comes to mistakes and dissent however: The pressure to perform is higher as well, if only because there are so many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak

 

In terms of attitude and weird notions.... Not once in my gaming career have I seen anyone so consistently bring up "the activity of the opponent" and "the opponent wanting to win" as the primary reasons for literally everything. Activity, however you look at it, is a good thing. Good for the alliance(s) involved. Good for the game in general. You're literally achieving nothing by trying to use that to mask your own inadequacies.

 

'winning is everything'..... Are you referring to Eumir's trolling? Because frankly, we you're the one making a big deal out of that stuff while arbitrarily attributing that fictional motivation to any entity that no longer wishes to affiliate with you. The world is not black-and-white. There are a lot of reasons why one may want to flip over to our side. Can consistently losing be a factor? Certainly. Can it also have to do with other intangibles? Certainly.

[Charles Bolivar]

What if the one defeat was Alpha's multiple month suicide fest against tS? Would you fault members who left Alpha after that? 

 

Also thanks for the praise to TEst. Solid leadership can only take us so far. We've got some kick ass members.

 

To be honest, I found fault with the Alpha members who remained in Alpha during that entire war. Literally defied belief that any reasonable person would allow themselves to remain in an alliance being led by a leader who made the decisions steve and his fellow leaders made both before and during that war. Loyalty is a two way street in my opinion, if the leadership isn't rewarding the loyalty of the membership by taking reasonable decisions for the betterment of the membership itself then members sticking around out of blind loyalty is really achieving nothing else but the enabling of poor leaders to continue making poor decisions.

 

I certainly wouldn't have deemed any Alpha members who left during the war as deserters and so on, I would have just regarded them as people making the correct decision in looking after their best interests because their own leaders clearly weren't performing that duty which is their sole duty.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Night King

[Prefonteen]

I will let Partisan elaborate on the drama which occurred after he trusted Cynic with certain intel last year. If I remember correctly Partisan himself was ready to step down and left it to the membership to decide his fate. We stuck with him after Impero annoyed a few of us by demanding we replace him and made it pretty clear to Partisan he had to fix his mess or his head would roll.

 

 

 

This, pretty much. After Impero demanded my resignation in private, I put my faith in the hands of the rest of govt initially. They backed me up. At that point I had govt pose the exact same question to the member body at large while I remained uninvolved in the internal discussion. A poll was held following the discussion. Membership decided that I should stay on for various reasons. It was made very clear that I could not afford another mistake like that though.

 

tl;dr- accountability.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Partisan

[Charles Bolivar]

Let's stop in Proxy, Rose had around 95 nations, of those, several couldn't actually fight because they were so high(top 10). tS had way for than 30 nations because they had merged with TEL. They had at least 58-60 nations. It was very even and Rose messed up their blitz, nothing more.

 

Also, VE wasn't that large, they were around the same strength as Rose.

 

Every war has been even. You guys usually have more alliances while Paracov has the bigger alliances. Your side is usually even in members and around the same in score.

 

Edit: Last war is proof of that, 585 to 585 members.

 

Against rose I think we (tS) at the time had 40 or 50 members, I think it was a high 40 (48 is coming to mind for some reason).

 

After the TEL merger we only had I think a membership in the mid 30s. Both tS and TEL before the merger had membership accounts around 20 and not all of the TEL members merged into us.

[Roquentin]

I would love to see a post from you which doesn't make a reference to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways),

 

Anyway, moving on because I don't feel like wasting my time discussing a game which has no bearing whatsoever within this war.

 

 

I personally believe TEst is as potent a force now as it was before the sparta merger. Then again, I thought TEst was pretty fearsome before Pref even joined it and when Phiney was the original nation killer on Orbis. I would say TEst's influence now is directly attributable to the work Pref and others have put into it and not just the result of random chance. Or do you really think having Sparta, an alliance which had considerable stats in its own right, merging into another alliance is just a piece of random luck? TEst's influence is a direct result of their membership requirements, policies and particular style of leadership, it isn't some miracle of sheer luck but a result of the effort put into the alliance and the reasoning used in deciding the alliance's direction.

 

Responsible leadership achieves superior results. poor leadership achieves poor results.

 

 

I actually somewhat agree, members who leave after one defeat aren't generally the sort of members you want. This is different however from members who leave after repeated defeats which can be attributed directly to the mistakes of their leaders time and time again. If the leadership won't take steps to rectify these mistakes or step down in favour of new leaders who will provide better outcomes for the membership then voting with their feet is the only real and reasonable option for a member to take. The sole purpose of an alliance's leadership is to look after the best interests of the members, if the leadership cannot provide this then why should a member stick around only to keep getting rolled repeatedly just because one or two of their leaders refuse to take an alternative course of action?

 

 

I will let Partisan elaborate on the drama which occurred after he trusted Cynic with certain intel last year. If I remember correctly Partisan himself was ready to step down and left it to the membership to decide his fate. We stuck with him after Impero annoyed a few of us by demanding we replace him and made it pretty clear to Partisan he had to fix his mess or his head would roll.

 

Not recommending anyone start sucking up to tS, far from it. What I am recommending however is to not keep repeating the same mistakes and then crying rivers of tears when you keep getting the same result over and over again.

 

Quit this constant whinging and blaming everyone else and get to work on improving your own sphere, I strongly doubt anyone is buying this faux outrage you are conveniently flooding the forums with, it's unbecoming of a Pacifican leader and l won't bother writing much more on it but instead I will just paste what Aza posted previously on the matter.

 

You've had no problem referencing it in previous posts, but fine.

 

It became #1 with the Sparta merger, however. It wasn't random chance, but it wasn't exactly an overnight success. TEst has always been competitive for a smaller member count alliance and that has mostly come from having a fairly stalwart memberbase that has spent a lot  of time together. It's been a staple in many realms. Years long relationships also figure into that success and they have their merits as well. I think Prefontaine's relationships from Guardian helped a lot in making the Sparta merge viable.  The point was that it's not something everyone can replicate if they decide one day they want to act as an elite alliance. I'm not disregarding the effort, but there are circumstances involved that aren't replicable for every alliance. 

 

See the thing is not everyone agrees with your definition of responsible leadership.

 

It really depends on what the definition of trying to remedy things is. I know for a fact UPN tried to fix its military readiness after the last war and they put the work there. The issue here is, your complaint is they didn't wish to reach an accommodation with an enemy many in their alliance do not like that has harmed them as well and you have the expectation and that is the mistake you're highlighting("attacking the same alliances). This specific type of valuation is the one I find problematic. The best interests of an alliance can vary on a case by case basis. Remaining true to the values your alliance holds can be more important than avoiding war if you might lose. If it was just one or two leaders, would Hans have won his election? No. He was voted in and his stances were known.

 

So basically external actors offering their opinions of what an  alliance should do with their leadership backfired? You don't say. How ironic you guys keep trying it, though.

 

Here's the issue: you guys keep twisting a realistic assessment of the statistical state of a particular grouping as tears and then chalk that up to being all that we've done.  Basically, it's your end all be all argument. "You guys are salty." There's a real problem with the fact that you essentially want this to be an echo chamber and you don't like dissenting viewpoints and perspectives. Any grievance  is just crying. Maybe instead of the politics and war forums we can call it "Syndisphere Forums". When you guys are upset about something, it's legitimate. When anyone else is upset, it's just whining.

 

I'm not really sure where I blamed anyone else? I've consistently admitted the reason we lost is because we're not as active as a group. No one on our side has denied your side is more active.  You guys are doing what you want to do.  Basically, here  we are at the "git gud" argument stage, again. There's only so much you can do with what's left over and pretending efforts weren't made/haven't been made is disengenuous.

 

 

 

Actually, I was on a hotseat following my Cynic mishap. If i'd led us into a losing war by making strategic mistakes following that, trust in me would likely have eroded to a point where it's likely that i'd have been asked to step down. Accountability is important. Activity and involvement amongst members is great in a lot of way, if channeled right. When it comes to mistakes and dissent however: The pressure to perform is higher as well, if only because there are so many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak

 

In terms of attitude and weird notions.... Not once in my gaming career have I seen anyone so consistently bring up "the activity of the opponent" and "the opponent wanting to win" as the primary reasons for literally everything. Activity, however you look at it, is a good thing. Good for the alliance(s) involved. Good for the game in general. You're literally achieving nothing by trying to use that to mask your own inadequacies.

 

'winning is everything'..... Are you referring to Eumir's trolling? Because frankly, we you're the one making a big deal out of that stuff while arbitrarily attributing that fictional motivation to any entity that no longer wishes to affiliate with you. The world is not black-and-white. There are a lot of reasons why one may want to flip over to our side. Can consistently losing be a factor? Certainly. Can it also have to do with other intangibles? Certainly.

 

What if it had been VE/Rose attacking you before you could get more of your pieces for your sphere ready and you lost? Would it have been blamed on you?

 

I haven't really been saying activity is bad. You're either not reading what I've said correctly or deliberately misinterpreting it. It is merely a frank assessment of why you are able to win.  It's to your credit, but it's not something easily overcome. We tried to overcome it using a specific method and it didn't work. We never had the type of statistical mass on paper to make it up, either as we would need  a higher ratio than we have.

 

I'm not attributing fictional motivations to anything. You plaster the forums with it and I've heard it verbatim from alliances. "we just don't want to get rolled anymore, "I thought being allied to X would lead to our destruction long-term." Those are just the most blatant examples. Even people on your side have admitted people got tired of losing.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

So this thread is 22 pages of Roquentin crying about their defeat, and justifying how the sneak attack that failed due to incompetence was the best option they had?

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Kemal Ergenekon

[Roquentin]

So this thread is 22 pages of Roquentin crying about their defeat, and justifying how the sneak attack that failed due to incompetence was the best option they had?

 

 

except you missed the part where it was your side bringing up NPO's current situation first, which lead to the derail. I've merely offered the reasoning for our course of action. If you don't like them, I can't help you.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

except you missed the part where it was your side bringing up NPO's current situation first, which lead to the derail. I've merely offered the reasoning for our course of action. If you don't like them, I can't help you.

 

You don't need to help me, pal. I'm doing quite fine. Focus on helping yourself and your alliance instead :*