Jump to content
Rache Olderen

Driving the money lenders out

Recommended Posts

We get it. Betraying your long standing friends wasn't personal. It was just business for you

 

 

Simply calling it a betrayal because it doesn't suite you doesn't mean anything. All people do on forums is to spin things and make them look favourable for themselves, I mean I was on your side so far, it's not like I'm unaware of how comments come here.

 

Say if we were asking for a demilitarization, wait for your side to demilitarize and then attack, that will be a betrayal of trust really. But regarding this war, your side was expecting a war long before we even responded. When Inquisition was formed, your side took it as a threat and were building up your military (but we didn't respond though), so why were you building up back then? (This is not TKR's first militarization) Even now, Inquisition alliances didn't decide we want to fight, it's just a reaction to a few events.

 

When we asked to demilitarize mutually, what was the reason to plan an attack side by side? How would you respond if you were in a situation where you ask for demiliarization, then get leaks saying a few alliances are preparing to attack you? This is not the first leak though. We got several rumours, even from Rose/Pantheon nations that they were planning to attack CS (over a raid issue). That speaks volumes about what the intentions are.

 

Probably no matter what I say, what people believe comes from their alliance affiliation, so I don't expect you to agree to anything. But I don't want such comments to be passed without a reply

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tS getting clapped tho [email protected]#$ you mean.

 

I was specifically referring to Kelson and I, we've fought each other in at least two previous wars and it never went well for him. This time around seems to be no different.

Edited by Big Brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply calling it a betrayal because it doesn't suite you doesn't mean anything. All people do on forums is to spin things and make them look favourable for themselves, I mean I was on your side so far, it's not like I'm unaware of how comments come here.

 

Say if we were asking for a demilitarization, wait for your side to demilitarize and then attack, that will be a betrayal of trust really. But regarding this war, your side was expecting a war long before we even responded. When Inquisition was formed, your side took it as a threat and were building up your military (but we didn't respond though), so why were you building up back then? (This is not TKR's first militarization) Even now, Inquisition alliances didn't decide we want to fight, it's just a reaction to a few events.

 

When we asked to demilitarize mutually, what was the reason to plan an attack side by side? How would you respond if you were in a situation where you ask for demiliarization, then get leaks saying a few alliances are preparing to attack you? This is not the first leak though. We got several rumours, even from Rose/Pantheon nations that they were planning to attack CS (over a raid issue). That speaks volumes about what the intentions are.

 

Probably no matter what I say, what people believe comes from their alliance affiliation, so I don't expect you to agree to anything. But I don't want such comments to be passed without a reply

 

 

Just so I am clear. You do not understand why we would interpret you secretly planning to form a bloc that would nullify OO as a threat? 

 

Excuse me if I don't accept the fact that you heard some rumors as good enough reason to attack people who had fought by your side many times before. Rumors were flying on all sides about who was going to attack who

Edited by Simple Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so I am clear. You do not understand why we would interpret you secretly planning to form a bloc that would nullify OO as a threat? 

 

Excuse me if I don't accept the fact that you heard some rumors as good enough reason to attack people who had fought by your side many times before. Rumors were flying on all sides about who was going to attack who

 

We fought side by side, no doubt about it. It's not just "You fought by our side", it's also "We fought by your side" as well, again you can't just put things out their with the only intention to show us in a bad light. We are known to stand by our allies whenever it's needed, even so being called as meat shields by a few alliances in the past.

 

As far as OO is concerned, both BoC and BK decided it won't work out and they decided to end it. If you take it as a threat, it simply means TKR wants to always remain in-charge of things and is just upset that a few alliances decided to dissolve the bloc. There were ex-Covenant alliances, when we signed NPO, they didn't look at it as a threat because NPO is no longer in a bloc with them and is now allied to BK. So when an ally separates and wanted to form their own bloc, you took it as a threat, no I don't understand it, especially when you have a few allies with that bloc and you act from the beginning as if everyone is hostile.

 

Say if I consider a few alliances as a threat (the way you do now), I'd just work towards getting myself in a better position (just like how TKR consolidated treaties after formation of Inquisition). What's concerning is, the way a few people here try to spin a drama out of what is happening, then use it to put a few alliances in bad light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we asked to demilitarize mutually, what was the reason to plan an attack side by side? How would you respond if you were in a situation where you ask for demiliarization, then get leaks saying a few alliances are preparing to attack you? This is not the first leak though. We got several rumours, even from Rose/Pantheon nations that they were planning to attack CS (over a raid issue). That speaks volumes about what the intentions are.

 

Probably no matter what I say, what people believe comes from their alliance affiliation, so I don't expect you to agree to anything. But I don't want such comments to be passed without a reply

 

Aerys, you're so full of shit here.

 

In regards to CS, CS approached Rose first with threats over a single nation that was already involved in battles outside of CS.  Rose straight up told them that they would finish the rounds (No threat to CS bank as the battles started outside of the alliance) then leave it alone.  Did Rose continue on with CS?  No.  Even that nation that went crying to CS, shortly left CS afterwards.

 

As for "rumors" to attack Inquisition, there were no hard plans made to attack Inquisition - at all.  You may have speculations and/or hypotheticals to see where people would side in case a war brewed up since we actually got word that two alliances were being left to protect VE as bait, to get Inquisition involved.  The only thing you guys got that were actually confirmed was Mensa's intentions to attack VE due to the deception bit that Seeker, Keza, and Impero planned out for Syndicate with tieing themselves to NPO.  Yet we held back on request to let things resolve (And no, it wasn't just Syndicate who requested it.  It was also CKD, Yoda, and a couple others).

 

Go !@#$ off with that shit.  Your reasonings are off, own up to it.

 

If you had just said, "We just want to fight", I'm perfectly fine with that.  It's good to see pixels burned and a challenge created.  But don't think you're anything more than a tool being used over there.  It's a betrayal, especially after all the efforts that certain people invested in your Chola to see you guys in fighting shape, and I think you know who I'm referring to.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

EDIT: The war shouldn't really be looked as a backstab though, it's just a war, let's fight, move on and build our nations later.

 

Yeah, no. It is a backstab. Just because you can't defend your stance doesn't mean your opponents will let the narrative be buried under the false guise of an honorable conflict. It is what it is and it is a backstab. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there ever a conflict where we fight each other and you don't end up on the losing side?

It's a bit early to begin declaring the victors.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit early to begin declaring the victors.

Good luck to you, mate.

 

Your friends are making us earn this, but I don't think I've witnessed anyone crumple quite as quickly as you always tend to.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aerys, you're so full of shit here.

 

In regards to CS, CS approached Rose first with threats over a single nation that was already involved in battles outside of CS.  Rose straight up told them that they would finish the rounds (No threat to CS bank as the battles started outside of the alliance) then leave it alone.  Did Rose continue on with CS?  No.  Even that nation that went crying to CS, shortly left CS afterwards.

 

As for "rumors" to attack Inquisition, there were no hard plans made to attack Inquisition - at all.  You may have speculations and/or hypotheticals to see where people would side in case a war brewed up since we actually got word that two alliances were being left to protect VE as bait, to get Inquisition involved.  The only thing you guys got that were actually confirmed was Mensa's intentions to attack VE due to the deception bit that Seeker, Keza, and Impero planned out for Syndicate with tieing themselves to NPO.  Yet we held back on request to let things resolve (And no, it wasn't just Syndicate who requested it.  It was also CKD, Yoda, and a couple others).

 

Go [email protected]#$ off with that shit.  Your reasonings are off, own up to it.

 

If you had just said, "We just want to fight", I'm perfectly fine with that.  It's good to see pixels burned and a challenge created.  But don't think you're anything more than a tool being used over there.  It's a betrayal, especially after all the efforts that certain people invested in your Chola to see you guys in fighting shape, and I think you know who I'm referring to.

 

To reply from the end, yes I'm happy that there is a good challenge and there is a war, rather than stagnation and a random rolling of isolated alliances. Frankly, I'm not even interested to wrap anything with such drama on forums, related to what's happening here. I know who you are referring to there, I'd totally agree that, we did a lot together, been a part of TI (I'm still in contact and grateful for the person who helped us). The part I disagree is "betrayal", that shit is pure drama that a few are trying to spin when things don't go their way.

 

If you are going to look at this war from a purely meta perspective, then did Zodiac (or CS) ever lie or deceive anyone for the war to be called as deceptive/betrayal/Treachery? We didn't even militarize first, when we started to build military, Rose/Mensa had way more than us, slightly less than war level.

 

Otherwise, be happy that there is something to fight for in this game and let's leave it there. Apart from all these discussions about betrayal, this is a war game and by nature it will have sides which fight against each other. We fight against each other simply because we exist.

 

And no, I'm not full of shit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck to you, mate.

 

Your friends are making us earn this, but I don't think I've witnessed anyone crumple quite as quickly as you always tend to.

lolno

We're fighting like hell, and we will continue to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lolno

We're fighting like hell, and we will continue to do so.

I was speaking to Kelson directly but good luck to you, too.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was speaking to Kelson directly but good luck to you, too.

Thanks for the good wishes. :)

I'll try to win against y'all, but rip being upper tier when your group is lower tier. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is pretty sad. As far as I know the most noteworthy relations between CS and t$ have been several wars on the same side where they were considered de-facto allies, and then Treasure Island, where both made lots of money together. Is there a CB for this?

I mean, judging by their little bump with Rose, forming a CB isn't their strong point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no, I'm not full of shit.

 

ioFn1GJ.png

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there ever a conflict where we fight each other and you don't end up on the losing side?

168 day war :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ioFn1GJ.png

 

If anything, it shows we are on the opposite side :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this true? CS is literally basing this reaction from this? Hahahaha....

We're still waiting for the logs BK gave them about Spectrum's supposed involvement in the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're still waiting for the logs BK gave them about Spectrum's supposed involvement in the war.

 

I hope you're not implying that their whole reason for this war was a complete lie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DISCLAMER: A regular t$ member, so no clue if we were planning an offensive war against CS.
 

Simply calling it a betrayal because it doesn't suite you doesn't mean anything. All people do on forums is to spin things and make them look favourable for themselves, I mean I was on your side so far, it's not like I'm unaware of how comments come here.

 

Valid one-liner, but it just points further to the fact that you guys haven't released the logs to back up your CB. Normally people want to curry public favor to win the moral war as quick as possible, so they make a Partisan level wall-of-text/exposé with damning logs, blasting the other alliance for their treachery etc.

 

So it's very weird that you guys are deciding not to release the logs. You say you don't want to reveal the source, but we're already fighting so I don't get what the further consequence could be for that person (the sole exception is if you're referring to a mole), and in either case I think it'd be worth the moral highground.

 

I respect you Aerys so any response would be appreciated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DISCLAMER: A regular t$ member, so no clue if we were planning an offensive war against CS.

 

 

Valid one-liner, but it just points further to the fact that you guys haven't released the logs to back up your CB. Normally people want to curry public favor to win the moral war as quick as possible, so they make a Partisan level wall-of-text/exposé with damning logs, blasting the other alliance for their treachery etc.

 

So it's very weird that you guys are deciding not to release the logs. You say you don't want to reveal the source, but we're already fighting so I don't get what the further consequence could be for that person (the sole exception is if you're referring to a mole), and in either case I think it'd be worth the moral highground.

 

I respect you Aerys so any response would be appreciated

 

Just to clear up, the logs that I saw did not specify direct assault against CS, but on an indirect route eventually on Inquisition. You're right about the public opinion and I'd like to release it myself. May be at some point in future we will post them on forums :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clear up, the logs that I saw did not specify direct assault against CS, but on an indirect route eventually on Inquisition. You're right about the public opinion and I'd like to release it myself. May be at some point in future we will post them on forums :)

 

When dat entire top tier is gone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clear up, the logs that I saw did not specify direct assault against CS, but on an indirect route eventually on Inquisition. You're right about the public opinion and I'd like to release it myself. May be at some point in future we will post them on forums :)

 

In other words, a speculation.  Got it.  Thanks Aerys, maybe you're not entirely full of shit.

 

Just FYI, that "indirect route" to Inquisition was through Lordaeron/HBE triggering NPO if Mensa had attacked VE - which didn't happen for reasons already stated in another thread.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just FYI, that "indirect route" to Inquisition was through Lordaeron/HBE triggering NPO if Mensa had attacked VE - which didn't happen for reasons already stated in another thread.

 

This is not what I was talking about :P May be you don't know hippo, iirc you mentioned somewhere you didn't know we approached fo decommissioning military, so I wouldn't be surprised lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When dat entire top tier is gone

 

When Zodiac disbands, hell freezes over, Alex fixes the game !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only did we offer a mutual decom to all of Syndisphere,

You'd been a t$ ally for a fair old time. You really think we'd ever take a mutual decom deal? We must have been burned trusting people on those at least 3 or 4 times now?

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.