Jump to content

t$ Foreign Affairs Update: Viridia Update


Zed
 Share

Recommended Posts

I totally get that HBE and VE have a great relationship, and that they have performed their duty to you guys. (though I will say that your list of VE favors seems like an unremarkable, ordinary protectorate agreement, and I don't know why you bothered listing it out)

 

However, shouldn't this casual talk of "real-politik" and stabbing of an MD-level ally be at least slightly alarming to you? As, I dunno, their MD-level ally? It seems kind of ridiculous that you don't mind really, but that's your prerogative and we're just pointing the fact out for you.

 

I'm not saying VE did anything more than what a good Protector should do.  The reason I bothered to point it out is because there are some people who have posted in this thread who seem surprised (even to the extent of suggesting we shouldn't continue to have good relations with VE because of all this)  that we are still allied.  My comment was in response to someone essentially doing that.

 

I also find it ironic that we have some people 1) giving their opinion about how immoral (or whatnot) realpolitik is while and others 2) seeming to suggest that we are doing something immoral by maintaining a treaty with the people who helped us (HBE) from the star just because they are in a very nasty spot right now.  In some cases (I'm not going to go back and look) it might even be the same people. 

 

Well, abandoning tVE now is probably the most immoral thing I can think of in this situation for HBE to do.  It is exactly the kind of thing that people point to when saying that realpolitik philosophy is bad and doing things based on friendship only is good. 

 

I also never said that what Seeker, as one member of VE's triumvirate, said (when I found out about it) didn't alarm me.  However, if I have negative things to say about one member of an ally alliance, I bring it up it in private. 

 

I've also said more than once already that I do not have a problem with the decision by tS to drop the treaty.  From the perspective of tS, it's a reasonable decision. So you suggesting that "It seems kind of ridiculous that you don't mind really, but that's your prerogative and we're just pointing the fact out for you" is incorrect. 

 

 

HBE is not tS, however.  Our relationship with VE has been good and tVE continues to work with us and vice versa.  I'm sorry it didn't work out for VE and tS.

 

 

If this results in war, I look forward to seeing which alliances fight on the "signing someone to back stab them later isn't wrong" side. :)

 

There is a difference between dropping a treaty because one member of a three member government said some mean things about a treaty partner's allies in a private conversation and got caught because another member of the government provided a copy of the conversation to their ally after an internal dispute (i.e. for his own political reasons and not for the benefit of VE) verses having a reason for war.

 

Dropping the treaty is a reasonable response.  However that doesn't mean that going to war over the same incident would also be reasonable or the morally correct side of the fight. 

 

 

While things may have been said that are bad, I don't think abandoning them in their time of need is the honorable thing to do. I also don't think hitting them during an interal split is honorable either. I'm not saying the why is bad, I'm saying the when.

 

Agreed on the first part.

 

On the second part I would personally go farther and say that even though the act of dropping the treaty itself may, ethically speaking, be a reasonable response, going further at any time may not necessarily be.  We are talking about comments made by only one of three government members while having a private discussion with the others after all.

 

I'm not saying a war couldn't occur.  There are lots of wars on Orbis.  However, just because one can do something doesn't make one morally on the "right side" of any given war.  There are many things that could happen, not all of them are what should happen if one is looking at it from a moralistic point of view.

Edited by Sylvia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between dropping a treaty because one member of a three member government said some mean things about a treaty partner's allies in a private conversation and got caught because another member of the government provided a copy of the conversation to their ally after an internal dispute (i.e. for his own political reasons and not for the benefit of VE) verses having a reason for war.

 

Dropping the treaty is a reasonable response.  However that doesn't mean that going to war over the same incident would also be reasonable or the morally correct side of the fight. 

 

 

Sorry for the double post, but I just saw this now.

 

"Said some mean things" - you sure have a knack for euphemisms. Tbh, idk why you keep throwing shit against the wall to see if something sticks. My advice would be to stop embarrassing yourself by trying to make us look like the bad guys here. Seriously, how stupid do you think people are?

 

Idk what's gonna happen, but I'm sure as hell we didn't ask to be betrayed.

Edited by Insert Name Here
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Said mean things" is the new jargon for "actively plotted to take advantage of a treaty we just signed in good faith" now, eh?

 

Can't say much for VE nor their internals (I've got all the patience and understanding in the world for that) but Seeker is a problem we can't just sweep under the rug and ignore, and no self-respecting alliance leader should interpret his actions lightly. He barely even let the ink dry.

 

Hope anyone willing to work with him moving forward has better results than we did, is all I'm saying.

  • Upvote 1

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this results in war, I look forward to seeing which alliances fight on the "signing someone to back stab them later isn't wrong" side. :)

 

 

 

 My advice would be to stop embarrassing yourself by trying to make us look like the bad guys here. Seriously, how stupid do you think people are?

 

 

You are the one that brought up the comment (above) "if this results in war" - not I.

 

If I thought people were stupid I wouldn't bother posting here.  There would be no point.  I've got plenty of other things I could do.

 

If I'm embarrassing myself, it's by the fact that I keep saying over and over again that I'm not saying you are the bad guys.  From now on I'll trust that people get it and if they don't it isn't for my lack of trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are the one that brought up the comment (above) "if this results in war" - not I.

 

If I thought people were stupid I wouldn't bother posting here.  There would be no point.  I've got plenty of other things I could do.

 

If I'm embarrassing myself, it's by the fact that I keep saying over and over again that I'm not saying you are the bad guys.  From now on I'll trust ttry to spew.hat people get it and if they don't it isn't for my lack of trying.

 

 

You can try all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that my alliance was wronged. No rhetoric in the world is going to undo what happened: t$ being signed for the sole purpose of being used. That can't be changed or erased by any BS you guys try to spew.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying VE did anything more than what a good Protector should do.  The reason I bothered to point it out is because there are some people who have posted in this thread who seem surprised (even to the extent of suggesting we shouldn't continue to have good relations with VE because of all this)  that we are still allied.  My comment was in response to someone essentially doing that.

 

 

You know, I wondered why you were so adamant about defending VE on this matter, until I came across a piece that showed you had access to some of the conversations.  Now, I don't know if you had access to that particular conversation that is public knowledge here now, but I do have some logs that involve you in other conversations with some of the individuals I was already suspicious of.

 

So many leakers around, damn.

 

It is amusing how many "ideas" you guys had, and it does explain HBE's involvement in this matter.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I wondered why you were so adamant about defending VE on this matter, until I came across a piece that showed you had access to some of the conversations.  Now, I don't know if you had access to that particular conversation that is public knowledge here now, but I do have some logs that involve you in other conversations with some of the individuals I was already suspicious of.

 

So many leakers around, damn.

 

It is amusing how many "ideas" you guys had, and it does explain HBE's involvement in this matter.

the-lady-doth-protest-too-much-me-thinks

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this results in war, I look forward to seeing which alliances fight on the "signing someone to back stab them later isn't wrong" side. :)

I think we already know who is allied to TKR.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying VE did anything more than what a good Protector should do. The reason I bothered to point it out is because there are some people who have posted in this thread who seem surprised (even to the extent of suggesting we shouldn't continue to have good relations with VE because of all this) that we are still allied. My comment was in response to someone essentially doing that.

 

I also find it ironic that we have some people 1) giving their opinion about how immoral (or whatnot) realpolitik is while and others 2) seeming to suggest that we are doing something immoral by maintaining a treaty with the people who helped us (HBE) from the star just because they are in a very nasty spot right now. In some cases (I'm not going to go back and look) it might even be the same people.

 

Well, abandoning tVE now is probably the most immoral thing I can think of in this situation for HBE to do. It is exactly the kind of thing that people point to when saying that realpolitik philosophy is bad and doing things based on friendship only is good.

 

I also never said that what Seeker, as one member of VE's triumvirate, said (when I found out about it) didn't alarm me. However, if I have negative things to say about one member of an ally alliance, I bring it up it in private.

 

I've also said more than once already that I do not have a problem with the decision by tS to drop the treaty. From the perspective of tS, it's a reasonable decision. So you suggesting that "It seems kind of ridiculous that you don't mind really, but that's your prerogative and we're just pointing the fact out for you" is incorrect.

 

 

HBE is not tS, however. Our relationship with VE has been good and tVE continues to work with us and vice versa. I'm sorry it didn't work out for VE and tS.

 

 

 

There is a difference between dropping a treaty because one member of a three member government said some mean things about a treaty partner's allies in a private conversation and got caught because another member of the government provided a copy of the conversation to their ally after an internal dispute (i.e. for his own political reasons and not for the benefit of VE) verses having a reason for war.

 

Dropping the treaty is a reasonable response. However that doesn't mean that going to war over the same incident would also be reasonable or the morally correct side of the fight.

 

 

 

Agreed on the first part.

 

On the second part I would personally go farther and say that even though the act of dropping the treaty itself may, ethically speaking, be a reasonable response, going further at any time may not necessarily be. We are talking about comments made by only one of three government members while having a private discussion with the others after all.

 

I'm not saying a war couldn't occur. There are lots of wars on Orbis. However, just because one can do something doesn't make one morally on the "right side" of any given war. There are many things that could happen, not all of them are what should happen if one is looking at it from a moralistic point of view.

The only moralistic side to ever take on Orbis is TKR's side. Whoever is against them is wrong by definition. The definition being decided by the community once a year.

 

I agree with you guys defending VE because if I, too, was !@#$ed, I would also want that grave cozy af. As cozy as chugging 5-8 bottles of Moscato in the cold winter.

 

It is always a good time to rely on Roquentin if you suck at FA imo. I believe Lordship and the TKR fam bam agrees that is the moralistic approach on that side of the world.

 

TKR said the only moralistic thing is winning and you guys have not been winning so therefore you guys are the scum for being very very immoral. Stop being immoral.

 

Edit: After thinking about it, don't stop being immoral lmfao. UNDE!@#$INFEATED MUTHA!@#$AS!! BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO BE!!

Edited by Jacob Moore
Lxr4VfE.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can try all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that my alliance was wronged. No rhetoric in the world is going to undo what happened: t$ being signed for the sole purpose of being used. That can't be changed or erased by any BS you guys try to spew.

Apparently you think that dropping the treaty isn't going to undo it either and want blood.  Noted.  Reasonable people can disagree.

 

You know, I wondered why you were so adamant about defending VE on this matter, until I came across a piece that showed you had access to some of the conversations.  Now, I don't know if you had access to that particular conversation that is public knowledge here now, but I do have some logs that involve you in other conversations with some of the individuals I was already suspicious of.

 

News flash - the Lady of Foreign Affairs for HBE had access to some conversations that our allies also had access to and might of even said a word or two or three (or more) during the conversation.  (I actually do have an opinion now and then, in case people have failed to notice :P )

 

I mean,  HBE has been around for just over a year and we've been "paperless" for the majority of it.  We finally decide that it's time to venture out into the world and find allies beyond VE, especially since we spent a great deal of time getting to know various alliances,  all of them full of cool people who we are happy to call friends.  

 

However, being that we did not want to be a neutral alliance the alternative is to pick and chose who to treaty and being that the people we like may or may not all be allied to the other people we like (a sad situation but when one joins a club long after other people a lot of who is whose friend or not has already worked itself out.)   If finding out that in making that choice we discussed pluses and minuses about everyone we talked about signing a treaty with offends someone, I'm afraid I can't do anything about that.  

 

However, I consider you bringing this up a compliment because the only reason to bother to bring it up at all and attempt to discredit what I'm saying with it is because what I'm saying makes good sense.   So thank you

 

 

The only moralistic side to ever take on Orbis is TKR's side. Whoever is against them is wrong by definition.

 

Hail TKR :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I consider you bringing this up a compliment because the only reason to bother to bring it up at all and attempt to discredit what I'm saying with it is because what I'm saying makes good sense.   So thank you

 

You're welcome.  Granted I didn't have to mention that, but I just wanted to clarify the obvious bias here and why you would discredit VE's plotting to betray Syndicate as a lesser concern than the people (plural use here) who are leaking information to me.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

tS has done the same in the past. A little hypocritical to get upset when someone does it to you.

Doesn't make it right in either instance

Jl0McAJ.gif

Mans two modes of existence can be thought of as his light and dark side. He is either the Protector or the Ravager. The Immovable Object or the Unstoppable Force.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering a NAP was signed between the two VE's I would like to see if there is some sort of remerge that could happen. It would kinda suck if some third entities more keen at rolling tVE ruin that and forever probably entrench a split VE.

  • Upvote 1

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from a pretty outside perspective and reading only was was posted in the OP and the subsequent couple of pages, it seems to me that the VE-tS treaty was signed for practical purposes and not necessarily because they liked each other. I thought it was generally accepted that this is a common practice. You see it all the time, across the board. It should not surprise anyone that Seeker may not have liked tS but signed them anyway.

 

Is any of this proof that the intention of signing tS malicious? Doesn't seem like it to me. I have no qualms with tS or VE, in fact I don't really care if either of them exists as I don't have many connections to either of them. But it's pretty clear that Seeker hadn't decided upon anything yet and was just having a discussion. It's clear he didn't really like tS or syndisphere. Surprise surprise, not everyone does. But you can't just blow it out of proportion and claim he intentionally signed tS will clear cut plans to betray them. Unless there is evidence to say the contrary, it's merely speculation.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from a pretty outside perspective and reading only was was posted in the OP and the subsequent couple of pages, it seems to me that the VE-tS treaty was signed for practical purposes and not necessarily because they liked each other. I thought it was generally accepted that this is a common practice. You see it all the time, across the board. It should not surprise anyone that Seeker may not have liked tS but signed them anyway.

 

Is any of this proof that the intention of signing tS malicious? Doesn't seem like it to me. I have no qualms with tS or VE, in fact I don't really care if either of them exists as I don't have many connections to either of them. But it's pretty clear that Seeker hadn't decided upon anything yet and was just having a discussion. It's clear he didn't really like tS or syndisphere. Surprise surprise, not everyone does. But you can't just blow it out of proportion and claim he intentionally signed tS will clear cut plans to betray them. Unless there is evidence to say the contrary, it's merely speculation.

There is a spectrum that runs friendship/trust to realpolitik, alliances never are fully one side or the other of course.  In my experience, t$ tends to run toward the friendship side and so their reaction makes sense.  And those who are less realpolitik probably find this commendable, like myself.  Those who are more realpolitik prob. don't have as much of an issue with Seeker signing t$ despite his feelings about them.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is any of this proof that the intention of signing tS malicious? Doesn't seem like it to me. I have no qualms with tS or VE, in fact I don't really care if either of them exists as I don't have many connections to either of them. But it's pretty clear that Seeker hadn't decided upon anything yet and was just having a discussion. It's clear he didn't really like tS or syndisphere. Surprise surprise, not everyone does. But you can't just blow it out of proportion and claim he intentionally signed tS will clear cut plans to betray them. Unless there is evidence to say the contrary, it's merely speculation.

Shhhh, that's too much logic for this thread.

  • Upvote 1

gkt70Td.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from a pretty outside perspective and reading only was was posted in the OP and the subsequent couple of pages, it seems to me that the VE-tS treaty was signed for practical purposes and not necessarily because they liked each other. I thought it was generally accepted that this is a common practice. You see it all the time, across the board. It should not surprise anyone that Seeker may not have liked tS but signed them anyway.

 

Is any of this proof that the intention of signing tS malicious? Doesn't seem like it to me. I have no qualms with tS or VE, in fact I don't really care if either of them exists as I don't have many connections to either of them. But it's pretty clear that Seeker hadn't decided upon anything yet and was just having a discussion. It's clear he didn't really like tS or syndisphere. Surprise surprise, not everyone does. But you can't just blow it out of proportion and claim he intentionally signed tS will clear cut plans to betray them. Unless there is evidence to say the contrary, it's merely speculation.

 

 

Shhhh, that's too much logic for this thread.

 

 

Maybe you two enjoy that sort of stuff.

 

Well, I know hades does.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much talking, not enough rolling of tve who deserve a beating for the crap they pulled with tS.

 

Back in my day, rose would have attacked tS already and lost by this point 4 days in :P

I guess they know better now. It took their coalition 9 L's to finally realize that they ain't about it.

 

There is a new age dawning in PW, and it is full of unaccountable leaders that are molded in a fire so weak, I can put my eggs on it and it won't cook.

 

Just as Rose has been talkin wild off the cuff after signing Mensa, it seems like HBE is doing the same with their own treaty signings. May both of them show Orbis who has truly improved and who should be dropped to irrelevancy.

Edited by Jacob Moore
Lxr4VfE.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess they know better now. It took their coalition 9 L's to finally realize that they ain't about it.

 

There is a new age dawning in PW, and it is full of unaccountable leaders that are molded in a fire so weak, I can put my eggs on it and it won't cook.

 

Just as Rose has been talkin wild off the cuff after signing Mensa, it seems like HBE is doing the same with their own treaty signings. May both of them show Orbis who has truly improved and who should be dropped to irrelevancy.

You doing odds on this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we already know who is allied to TKR.

 

I'm just quoting to you so Buorhann can give me his customary "<replying to Auctor>" response. Don't lemme down, Hippo!  :P

 

Apparently you think that dropping the treaty isn't going to undo it either and want blood.  Noted.  Reasonable people can disagree.

 

The fact that your side (the ones who believe signing someone to &#33;@#&#036; them over later) is trying to cling to every imaginable BS is pitiful. It smells like fear and desperation for validation.

 

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. The fact that my alliance was conspired against by someone who had signed it for that specific purpose ain't a matter of opinion. It happened. There's no going back to try and undo it or make it right with BS reasoning.

 

You can't alter reality. Just embrace the fact that Seeker and his posse messed up and then you'll win more credibility, as Orbis will realize you aren't trying to feed it all sorts of crap anymore. Reality can't be changed by dancing around the subject.

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.