War. War Never Changes.

[Roquentin]

 

You didn't really answer my entire question, what exactly do you think needs to happen in order to achieve "political dynamism"?

 

Also I find it odd that you mention grudges. I myself cited this exact reason and pointed out the conduct during the peace talks, the ridiculous stubbornness to admit a loss (which you ultimately ended up admitting in the end), the attempts to shift blame entirely on your opposition for your own aggressive war etc as ways this would just continue to generate grudges. Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't trying to claim that you yourself or even your closer allies were not operating on/holding grudges this war, as that would be hilariously false. May I suggest then, that you attempt to rectify that problem amongst you and your own before demanding it be done by your opposition?

 

Also your personal incessant need to push narratives against certain alliances (like  Rose for example) on subjects that you have no specific knowledge of or any real reason to do so other than to downplay other alliances may contribute to generating the grudges you so desperately want to avoid in your quest for political dynamism.

 

Like I said there has to be a willingness to move on and a desire to avoid recurring patterns and serious consideration to realignments. I haven't seen the interest in more general shake-ups. There's no one thinking that "oh dominance at this stage isn't a good thing" when compared to Partisan not wanting Paragon to be dominant forever. 

 

Given the general tone from the Syndisphere side, there was never going to be an amicable atmosphere. I'm not really sure how you can play the victim here on the lack of civility given the accusations that were being bandied about "You're hiding peace talks and keeping everyone in the war". It was less about holding grudges for me and more about dealing with people who are hostile and unwilling to change.  The general hatefulness from Syndisphere here and in the talks got an equal reaction. The problem is you expect people to be doormats and deferential.

 

We signed alliances we fought and there had been acrimony between us. The way that changed was there was mutual respect and not a relationship where we had to renounce anything we previously did. Trying to paint it as anything other than a feed back loop is inaccurate.  The amount of rage from Syndisphere when IQ was signed because we were in it was palpable.

 

I'm just saying how most people see it. I'll be honest, it wasn't as if Rose's involvement in the VE situation did it any favors on this side of the fence. The optics are basically you switched sides because you wanted to stop losing and then had VE couped to get them with you. Everyone's seen the logs where you said you riled Mensa up to hitting tVE as well so your apparent agenda was to affect a positive outcome for Syndisphere. The indignation when that's how people have seen it, especially when Rose gov were openly trolling with the war grading thread didn't really give me any incentive not to criticize Rose based on how it looked. When people in your alliance openly say we're trying to screw our blocmates  so we can better control them after, that's going to get a response, so don't play innocent and no saying "oh but I didn't say it personally" doesn't change it.  If I'm supposed to just take it, that's unreasonable especially when the whole "NPO !@#$ed us with Silent" narrative from one of your gov has been a thing for a while. With Rose's FA moves and greater integration into Syndisphere, the incentive for me to tiptoe is questionable.

 

edit: I tried to maintain an open mind to what Rose was doing for a long time, but the results have been awful from my perspective and I stopped feeling a need to hold back my opinions. If you want to sort it out, I'm more than open to it. If you want to stay angry, then not much I can do there.

 

 

 

Do I have to spell it out for you? I was saying Freddie(Bollocks) has an anti-NPO bias. It was pretty evident earlier on in the war and was also when he was saying that I was hiding my supposed intent to try to form a hegemoney to avoid other IQ alliances getting upset. The general tone from The Coalition has been that we were using their former ally CS as a meatshield. They have continued to espouse that narratve despite CS being an equal partner in the decision-making. The general narrative has been to cast it as a Svengali type scenario where people were hoodwinked into turning on their allies. I know you're just being obtuse but seriously. I'm not going to fully spell out all the context because it'd be a waste of my time.

 

 

 

Right, there's no evidence, got it. 

 

If that's what you want to think, whatever. I have no reason to lie nor any need for CBs like that as I've been perfectly fine with using the same rationale your side has in the past(consolidation + a threat). It was simply the reason we chose to move at the time and not one we were trying to sell to the opposition so imperiling the source of the intelligence is not something I'm inclined to do without permission. 

Edited June 18, 2017 by Roquentin

[Kastor]

So, something interesting. I realized you guys have actually not seen the CB, which is weird, because the leader of one of the major Syndisphere alliances actually has it and showed it to me to "prove a point" I made on the radio show. So I guess you guys are keeping things from each other for whatever reason.

[Big Brother]

I get that point.

 

The point is if that's your plan, then the rest of the alliances at hand should go to war with you for not balancing out the rest of the world.

 

Merely having different playstyles doesn't automatically imply a problem either.  Team chemistry comes in many forms.

 

Wait, what? Are you saying that if Mensa doesn't want to abandon their allies and team up with their enemies or people they have no relationship with, they should be rolled by the "alliances at hand"? Where does logic and fairness come into this? Mensa's plan is what it is and they're going to do what they want to do. What you seem to be suggesting is that anyone who doesn't conform to your way of playing the game should be fought against, which is just tyranny. We might have a hegemoney now but at least it's a hegemoney that for the most part lets alliances make their own plans and forge their own relationships. Like I posted before dude, no one is going to go for the kind of team-based gameplay you've idealized. Relationships and rivalries have been solidified, history has been written. It's extremely unlikely that radical changes and mix-ups of relations is going to happen anytime soon as as long as that remains true what you're suggesting remains unrealistic.

 

Not for you guys. You seem to think it's the only way to have fun and play correctly.

 

Why do you let your brain do this to you? Why do you let it think these things? I don't get it, I really don't. Do you not have that safeguard in your mind that tells you that when you post stuff like this you're just making an unsubstantiated generalization about hundreds of players, which probably means that what you're saying is bullshit? Like, why would you not think these things through?

Edited June 18, 2017 by Big Brother

[Roquentin]

What I've learned from this thread so far is that IQ has learned absolutely nothing from their loss...which is quite funny coming from the side that wants to tear down the Syndisphere hegemoney in order to create political dynamism. It's just that, instead of asking Syndisphere to sign new treaties, shouldn't you be asking you and your bloc how to perform better next war and maybe actually win.

This is a classic trope: "git gud". I don't think just posting here and even saying there's no expectation they break up is indicative of it being begging instead of trying to make improvements. You're reading too much into what amounts to the usual debate that happens after every war.

 

I'll spell something out for you, however, there isn't an infinite amount that can be done with a relatively unstable mass as "The Divided"(non-Syndisphere) has been. Too many people see wars as a referendum on their entire political outlook. if they don't win, and people a lot of the time want to avoid the difficulty rather than continue to push the boulder up the hill in hopes of getting to the top. After each war where Syndisphere won, there wasn't a spirit of universal cooperation among the parties that had fought against it. People started thinking "How can I get out of this cycle and avoid the defeats?" as it's an alternative. Among the alliances that are more stable and have a set path, I'm sure there are ongoing efforts as there have always been, but there is a limit to what you can do compete with a limited group of people when the number of hyperactives isn't likely to increase. 

[Eumirbago]

So, something interesting. I realized you guys have actually not seen the CB, which is weird, because the leader of one of the major Syndisphere alliances actually has it and showed it to me to "prove a point" I made on the radio show. So I guess you guys are keeping things from each other for whatever reason.

Fake news

[Guest Karl VII]

Wait, what? Are you saying that if Mensa doesn't want to abandon their allies and team up with their enemies or people they have no relationship with, they should be rolled by the "alliances at hand"? Where does logic and fairness come into this? Mensa's plan is what it is and they're going to do what they want to do. What you seem to be suggesting is that anyone who doesn't conform to your way of playing the game should be fought against, which is just tyranny. We might have a hegemoney now but at least it's a hegemoney that for the most part lets alliances make their own plans and forge their own relationships. Like I posted before dude, no one is going to go for the kind of team-based gameplay you've idealized. Relationships and rivalries have been solidified, history has been written. It's extremely unlikely that radical changes and mix-ups of relations is going to happen anytime soon as as long as that remains true what you're suggesting remains unrealistic.

 

Uhhhhm mensa and bk were allies so we weren`t exactly enemies or people who have no relationship to mensa

[Shiho Nishizumi]

Do I have to spell it out for you? I was saying Freddie(Bollocks) has an anti-NPO bias. It was pretty evident earlier on in the war and was also when he was saying that I was hiding my supposed intent to try to form a hegemoney to avoid other IQ alliances getting upset. The general tone from The Coalition has been that we were using their former ally CS as a meatshield. They have continued to espouse that narratve despite CS being an equal partner in the decision-making. The general narrative has been to cast it as a Svengali type scenario where people were hoodwinked into turning on their allies. I know you're just being obtuse but seriously. I'm not going to fully spell out all the context because it'd be a waste of my time.

 

Honestly? Yes, because in that context (CB and evidence) it came across as 'Asking for evidence is to be biased', which wouldn't have been a surprising claim coming from you lot.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Shiho Nishizumi

[Bollocks]

The fact that you're portraying it that ways shows your bias. I'm not really sure how I could have thrown them into meatgrinder when the intelligence didn't come to IQ via me/NPO. At the end of the day, there was enough suspicion towards Syndisphere by their former spheremates that the evidence they obtained was enough. I'm not washing my hands of it as I was for preempting in response to the evidence.

 

As I've stated before, the evidence isn't mine to disclose and the parties involved with it have chosen to not go public, so I won't violate their wishes.

> gets asked to show the smoking gun intelligence

> hems and haws about showing the mythical CB

 

> so if this is the smoking gun CB that allegedly forced your hand, why wouldn't you just show it instead trying to validate it in a peace term?

> "you're biased"

 

We all get it, you got nothing in terms of a CB.

 

You're scared of actually admitting you got nothing because you pushed your allies into the meat grinder. And boy, a lot of the general membership would be pissed if they knew they lost so much for nothing.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Bollocks

[Senry]

24 pages in and I still don't understand why Roq refuses to git gud.

[Senry]

(Can this thread die yet?)

[Sketchy]

Like I said there has to be a willingness to move on and a desire to avoid recurring patterns and serious consideration to realignments. I haven't seen the interest in more general shake-ups. There's no one thinking that "oh dominance at this stage isn't a good thing" when compared to Partisan not wanting Paragon to be dominant forever. 

 

Given the general tone from the Syndisphere side, there was never going to be an amicable atmosphere. I'm not really sure how you can play the victim here on the lack of civility given the accusations that were being bandied about "You're hiding peace talks and keeping everyone in the war". It was less about holding grudges for me and more about dealing with people who are hostile and unwilling to change.  The general hatefulness from Syndisphere here and in the talks got an equal reaction. The problem is you expect people to be doormats and deferential.

 

"I'm not really sure how you can play the victim here on the lack of civility"

 

I wasn't, I've pointed out it is a problem on both sides multiple times across the various posts I've made on the subject. I wasn't claiming it was a one-sided affairs. Me citing the various things IQ did wasn't to imply IQ was solely to blame, I was pointing out that you claim you want all these things but then the actions you and your allies take contradict what you claim. Trying to paint it as a "reaction" is funny considering you just accused me of pretending to be the victim lmfao.

 

We signed alliances we fought and there had been acrimony between us. The way that changed was there was mutual respect and not a relationship where we had to renounce anything we previously did. Trying to paint it as anything other than a feed back loop is inaccurate. The amount of rage from Syndisphere when IQ was signed because we were in it was palpable.

 

I'm just saying how most people see it. I'll be honest, it wasn't as if Rose's involvement in the VE situation did it any favors on this side of the fence. The optics are basically you switched sides because you wanted to stop losing and then had VE couped to get them with you. Everyone's seen the logs where you said you riled Mensa up to hitting tVE as well so your apparent agenda was to affect a positive outcome for Syndisphere. The indignation when that's how people have seen it, especially when Rose gov were openly trolling with the war grading thread didn't really give me any incentive not to criticize Rose based on how it looked. When people in your alliance openly say we're trying to screw our blocmates so we can better control them after, that's going to get a response, so don't play innocent and no saying "oh but I didn't say it personally" doesn't change it. If I'm supposed to just take it, that's unreasonable especially when the whole "NPO !@#$ed us with Silent" narrative from one of your gov has been a thing for a while. With Rose's FA moves and greater integration into Syndisphere, the incentive for me to tiptoe is questionable.

 

edit: I tried to maintain an open mind to what Rose was doing for a long time, but the results have been awful from my perspective and I stopped feeling a need to hold back my opinions. If you want to sort it out, I'm more than open to it. If you want to stay angry, then not much I can do there.

"It wasn't as if Rose's involvement in the VE situation did it any favors on this side of the fence"

 

The VE situation isn't very complicated. Olorin couped VE over a slew of various issues with Seeker. We can debate the morality or justification of that all day but its fairly irrelevant to what you mentioned. Regardless, those logs were a small snippet of a very very long chat. I shared different logs from the same chat to Codonian which demonstrated the situation in a different light entirely, although somehow I doubt those received the same traffic. If you wish to see learn more about that situation you can contact me privately or not, I haven't really shied away from it. 

 

"The optics are basically you switched sides because you wanted to stop losing"

 

As far as the "optics". I've shed plenty of light on the situation surrounding that. But people seem to have selective memory when it suits them. So allow me to rectify the timeline of events and put you at ease.

 

1) NPO's First Time

2) Rose (under Keegoz) drops all MD level treaties besides VE and upgrades VE to an MDAP.

3) Rose (under Keegoz) signs SK in a move to found a third sphere

4) Rose (under Keegoz) enters into Silent War with NPO and Covenant. We all get rekt.

5) Rose has an internal crisis, almost loses the majority of our high and low government and a large segment of our core to a mass exodus splinter alliance.

6) Seven Kingdoms cancels their treaty with Rose. We are now down to just an MDAP with VE.

7) Rose holds an election, Durmij is elected emperor of Rose.

8) Sometime after this, VE's own Seeker comes to one of our members at the time and demands we foot the 500m bill for their rebuild. Threats of dropping Rose are thrown out. (To clarify, this situation was more or less resolved after I was elected and approached Moonpie/Seeker to talk it out. So no hard feelings rofl)

9) We are presented a treaty downgrade by VE that has language that pretty much attempts to put the blame of Silent solely on Roses shoulders. 

10) At this point, we are in talks with Mensa. VE has burnt us twice in a short period of time, so we decided to drop VE and sign Mensa.

 

Now with the exception of the VE stuff, which doesn't change much other than explain our mindset for cutting ties with them, all of this is fairly public knowledge. In order for Rose to have "switched sides" we'd have needed to be on your side at the time we signed Mensa and we weren't. We cut ties with Covenant. We then, despite having already cut ties, entered another war alongside you on the intelligence that you were to be hit. That failed, the third sphere attempt failed, and then VE hammered the final nail in the coffin and we were left with limited options.

 

Now at that point we could have taken multiple different paths. Instead of sulking in a corner and blaming everyone else, we focused instead on improving ourselves and that was what we did. And what I've noticed, is that we've received from the people we left behind the same sort of treatment that you so readily accuse Syndi-sphere of perpetrating against the people who leave it. The hypocrisy is rather amusing tbh.

 

"You guys just left because you didn't want to lose anymore"

 

No, we left to ironically "change the political dynamic and try something new" and it failed. Then we cut ties completely when our last remaining ally burnt us. Now I know this might be hard for you to believe, but overall, Mensa has been a very good ally. So, naturally, we feel a sense of loyalty to them. After all, its not like many other people had their arms open willing to help Rose at the time.

 

Had someone else came to us during that time, took the same risk (and it was definitely a risk) in signing us, and afforded us the same mutual respect and loyalty Mensa did, its entirely possible we'd be their best friend right now instead. But they didn't. So here we are.

 

"Especially when Rose gov were openly trolling with the war grading thread"

 

Your citing us shitposting on the dick measuring contest thread? Really?

 

99% of the shitposting done by Rose gov this war was directed at the people we were fighting, specifically BK and HBE. In the case of BK, it was just braggadocios shit-flinging for fun. Since they deserved it after that DoW thread. They got clapped period, and they didn't expect it. Doesn't make it a reflection of our overall opinion of BK, not that that is really an argument, BK and Rose had no negative relations of any kind before they you know, hit us.

 

As for HBE, we called them out for being scum and trying to pretend to defend their allies while allocating the majority of their resources to fighting an alliance they weren't obligated to enter against. HBE should have just had the balls to enter on Rose straight out, and not pretend to be an actual ally, since it was clear they were not "neutral".

 

"whole "NPO !@#$ed us with Silent" narrative from one of your gov has been a thing for a while"

 

Him stating it and then time passing doesn't make it a thing for a while lol.

 

To be fair, I stepped in and intervened in that situation IN your defense.  I clarified that wasn't my position on the subject, and ultimately my position on the subject is what Roses position on the subject is since I dictate the FA of Rose. If my intervention wasn't enough then there isn't much I can do for you on that, that ball is in your court.

 

-snip-

Anyway, I think you were missing my point. My point was that you pushed narratives, ones that you had no particular reason to, based on assumptions of motive rather than any facts, and then you cite "grudges" as the reason for the lack of political dynamism. If you really are after political dynamism like you claim, wouldn't it be more prudent not to push narratives and assume motives and actually talk to the people involved? Or at the very least not create more problems? Your actions don't line up with your claimed motives and your response to me pointing this out hasn't really done much to change that perception.

[Dubayoo]

Wait, what? Are you saying that if Mensa doesn't want to abandon their allies and team up with their enemies or people they have no relationship with, they should be rolled by the "alliances at hand"? Where does logic and fairness come into this? Mensa's plan is what it is and they're going to do what they want to do. What you seem to be suggesting is that anyone who doesn't conform to your way of playing the game should be fought against, which is just tyranny. We might have a hegemoney now but at least it's a hegemoney that for the most part lets alliances make their own plans and forge their own relationships. Like I posted before dude, no one is going to go for the kind of team-based gameplay you've idealized. Relationships and rivalries have been solidified, history has been written. It's extremely unlikely that radical changes and mix-ups of relations is going to happen anytime soon as as long as that remains true what you're suggesting remains unrealistic.

 

First off, this is a game.  Realism doesn't entirely apply.  For example, in reality, people ally for the sake of peace.  In games like this, the point is to be militantly dominant.  If you insist on being a peaceful carebear, then people will get bored and will attack you eventually just to experience what the game's about.  On the other hand, if your goal is to just create an elite tier without making something happen, then again, people will get bored and will attack you.

 

Second off, I never said to team up with your enemies.  In fact, the treaty I proposed provided neutral arbitration. Heck, Mensa actually became teamed up with TKR, and you still have the opportunity to draft secondary alliances that you might find favorable outside of the top 10.

 

Third off, your hegemoney is tyranny.  Suggesting that I'm a tyrant is flat out projection.

 

Lastly, while relationships and history might exist, again, this is a game.  It's not reality.  Excitement comes from mixing things up and not going along with how things have always been done.  It involves seeking out new angles.  If this is locked down, then people get bored and they attack out of boredom.

 

If they don't attack, then they all suffer the consequence of doing nothing while playing by themselves.  Again, new players won't stay, and the newest generations will leave. In fact, this has already plagued your game for a while with the number of active players regularly diminishing over time...

 

...and this isn't the only game that's had that problem.  Other social strategy games like eRepublik and RenaissanceKingdoms have faltered from that as well.  You can likewise compare them against other games like Travian, Imperial Conflict, and Space Federations Galactic Conquest that have succeeded for doing the opposite.

[Keegoz]

Are people actually reading this? Y'all have way too much time on your hands.

[Sketchy]

-snip-

 

Pretty sure that hegemoney talk is a couple months out of date. The "hegemoney" ended when IQ was formed. This is coming from someone who called it a hegemoney since after NPOFT.

[Guest Karl VII]

"I'm not really sure how you can play the victim here on the lack of civility"

 

I wasn't, I've pointed out it is a problem on both sides multiple times across the various posts I've made on the subject. I wasn't claiming it was a one-sided affairs. Me citing the various things IQ did wasn't to imply IQ was solely to blame, I was pointing out that you claim you want all these things but then the actions you and your allies take contradict what you claim. Trying to paint it as a "reaction" is funny considering you just accused me of pretending to be the victim lmfao.

 

"It wasn't as if Rose's involvement in the VE situation did it any favors on this side of the fence"

 

The VE situation isn't very complicated. Olorin couped VE over a slew of various issues with Seeker. We can debate the morality or justification of that all day but its fairly irrelevant to what you mentioned. Regardless, those logs were a small snippet of a very very long chat. I shared different logs from the same chat to Codonian which demonstrated the situation in a different light entirely, although somehow I doubt those received the same traffic. If you wish to see learn more about that situation you can contact me privately or not, I haven't really shied away from it. 

 

"The optics are basically you switched sides because you wanted to stop losing"

 

As far as the "optics". I've shed plenty of light on the situation surrounding that. But people seem to have selective memory when it suits them. So allow me to rectify the timeline of events and put you at ease.

 

1) NPO's First Time

2) Rose (under Keegoz) drops all MD level treaties besides VE and upgrades VE to an MDAP.

3) Rose (under Keegoz) signs SK in a move to found a third sphere

4) Rose (under Keegoz) enters into Silent War with NPO and Covenant. We all get rekt.

5) Rose has an internal crisis, almost loses the majority of our high and low government and a large segment of our core to a mass exodus splinter alliance.

6) Seven Kingdoms cancels their treaty with Rose. We are now down to just an MDAP with VE.

7) Rose holds an election, Durmij is elected emperor of Rose.

8) Sometime after this, VE's own Seeker comes to one of our members at the time and demands we foot the 500m bill for their rebuild. Threats of dropping Rose are thrown out. (To clarify, this situation was more or less resolved after I was elected and approached Moonpie/Seeker to talk it out. So no hard feelings rofl)

9) We are presented a treaty downgrade by VE that has language that pretty much attempts to put the blame of Silent solely on Roses shoulders. 

10) At this point, we are in talks with Mensa. VE has burnt us twice in a short period of time, so we decided to drop VE and sign Mensa.

 

Now with the exception of the VE stuff, which doesn't change much other than explain our mindset for cutting ties with them, all of this is fairly public knowledge. In order for Rose to have "switched sides" we'd have needed to be on your side at the time we signed Mensa and we weren't. We cut ties with Covenant. We then, despite having already cut ties, entered another war alongside you on the intelligence that you were to be hit. That failed, the third sphere attempt failed, and then VE hammered the final nail in the coffin and we were left with limited options.

 

Now at that point we could have taken multiple different paths. Instead of sulking in a corner and blaming everyone else, we focused instead on improving ourselves and that was what we did. And what I've noticed, is that we've received from the people we left behind the same sort of treatment that you so readily accuse Syndi-sphere of perpetrating against the people who leave it. The hypocrisy is rather amusing tbh.

 

"You guys just left because you didn't want to lose anymore"

 

No, we left to ironically "change the political dynamic and try something new" and it failed. Then we cut ties completely when our last remaining ally burnt us. Now I know this might be hard for you to believe, but overall, Mensa has been a very good ally. So, naturally, we feel a sense of loyalty to them. After all, its not like many other people had their arms open willing to help Rose at the time.

 

Had someone else came to us during that time, took the same risk (and it was definitely a risk) in signing us, and afforded us the same mutual respect and loyalty Mensa did, its entirely possible we'd be their best friend right now instead. But they didn't. So here we are.

 

"Especially when Rose gov were openly trolling with the war grading thread"

 

Your citing us shitposting on the dick measuring contest thread? Really?

 

99% of the shitposting done by Rose gov this war was directed at the people we were fighting, specifically BK and HBE. In the case of BK, it was just braggadocios shit-flinging for fun. Since they deserved it after that DoW thread. They got clapped period, and they didn't expect it. Doesn't make it a reflection of our overall opinion of BK, not that that is really an argument, BK and Rose had no negative relations of any kind before they you know, hit us.

 

As for HBE, we called them out for being scum and trying to pretend to defend their allies while allocating the majority of their resources to fighting an alliance they weren't obligated to enter against. HBE should have just had the balls to enter on Rose straight out, and not pretend to be an actual ally, since it was clear they were not "neutral".

 

"whole "NPO !@#$ed us with Silent" narrative from one of your gov has been a thing for a while"

 

Him stating it and then time passing doesn't make it a thing for a while lol.

 

To be fair, I stepped in and intervened in that situation IN your defense.  I clarified that wasn't my position on the subject, and ultimately my position on the subject is what Roses position on the subject is since I dictate the FA of Rose. If my intervention wasn't enough then there isn't much I can do for you on that, that ball is in your court.

 

 

Anyway, I think you were missing my point. My point was that you pushed narratives, ones that you had no particular reason to, based on assumptions of motive rather than any facts, and then you cite "grudges" as the reason for the lack of political dynamism. If you really are after political dynamism like you claim, wouldn't it be more prudent not to push narratives and assume motives and actually talk to the people involved? Or at the very least not create more problems? Your actions don't line up with your claimed motives and your response to me pointing this out hasn't really done much to change that perception.

So at first getting totally dicked and then getting bailed out by daddy pantheon counts as clapping bk?

[ArcKnox]

Mensa has been a very good ally.

 

Can I have a time machine to post this quote on the OWF 2 years ago

[Pubstomper]

So at first getting totally dicked and then getting bailed out by daddy pantheon counts as clapping bk?

"Totally dicked"... fighting like 45 rose nations with your like 130 bk and your blitz didn't eliminate us? The funniest part is that your top tier still got !@#$ed up before pantheon even entered. I don't think anyone seriously expected an alliance with ~50 members to 1v1 an alliance with over twice the member count and win every tier. Good job winning the lower tier though, it clearly crippled us.

 

 

Keep up with the 4head strats.

[Abbas Mehdi]

Can I have a time machine to post this quote on the OWF 2 years ago

 

No cause 2 years ago you had pfeiffer as a leader mate. Hold your horses.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Abbas Medhi

[Felkey]

"Totally dicked"... fighting like 45 rose nations with your like 130 bk and your blitz didn't eliminate us? The funniest part is that your top tier still got !@#$ed up before pantheon even entered. I don't think anyone seriously expected an alliance with ~50 members to 1v1 an alliance with over twice the member count and win every tier. Good job winning the lower tier though, it clearly crippled us.

Keep up with the 4head strats.

Sorry guys but you did not 1v1 bk, I'm not sure what you are thinking of, but considering we entered within 30-40 minutes of you being attacked, you definitely were not the only ones responsible for removing BK's upper tier and the holding them down until tkr came in. Edited June 18, 2017 by Felkey

[Roquentin]

"I'm not really sure how you can play the victim here on the lack of civility"

 

I wasn't, I've pointed out it is a problem on both sides multiple times across the various posts I've made on the subject. I wasn't claiming it was a one-sided affairs. Me citing the various things IQ did wasn't to imply IQ was solely to blame, I was pointing out that you claim you want all these things but then the actions you and your allies take contradict what you claim. Trying to paint it as a "reaction" is funny considering you just accused me of pretending to be the victim lmfao.     

 

The post you made only cited instances where you felt rubbed the wrong way by IQ in the talks. The issue is, you have this bizarre expectation that you guys can be super antagonistic and not get it in return. If you get in return, it's our issue. I'd have a greater trust in people who stuck to their guns and defended their positions rather than people who cave and try to be conciliatory when it isn't reciprocal. 

 

 

 

"It wasn't as if Rose's involvement in the VE situation did it any favors on this side of the fence"

 

The VE situation isn't very complicated. Olorin couped VE over a slew of various issues with Seeker. We can debate the morality or justification of that all day but its fairly irrelevant to what you mentioned. Regardless, those logs were a small snippet of a very very long chat. I shared different logs from the same chat to Codonian which demonstrated the situation in a different light entirely, although somehow I doubt those received the same traffic. If you wish to see learn more about that situation you can contact me privately or not, I haven't really shied away from it. 

 

The issue is, it looked politically motivated because there was the possibility of VE not following your trajectory of what looked to be advancing Syndisphere interests and general discontent with them not wanting to tie themselves further into it. A foreign power being involved in another alliance's internal affairs will never look good.

 

 

 

 

"The optics are basically you switched sides because you wanted to stop losing"

 

As far as the "optics". I've shed plenty of light on the situation surrounding that. But people seem to have selective memory when it suits them. So allow me to rectify the timeline of events and put you at ease.

 

1) NPO's First Time

2) Rose (under Keegoz) drops all MD level treaties besides VE and upgrades VE to an MDAP.

3) Rose (under Keegoz) signs SK in a move to found a third sphere

4) Rose (under Keegoz) enters into Silent War with NPO and Covenant. We all get rekt.

5) Rose has an internal crisis, almost loses the majority of our high and low government and a large segment of our core to a mass exodus splinter alliance.

6) Seven Kingdoms cancels their treaty with Rose. We are now down to just an MDAP with VE.

7) Rose holds an election, Durmij is elected emperor of Rose.

8) Sometime after this, VE's own Seeker comes to one of our members at the time and demands we foot the 500m bill for their rebuild. Threats of dropping Rose are thrown out. (To clarify, this situation was more or less resolved after I was elected and approached Moonpie/Seeker to talk it out. So no hard feelings rofl)

9) We are presented a treaty downgrade by VE that has language that pretty much attempts to put the blame of Silent solely on Roses shoulders. 

10) At this point, we are in talks with Mensa. VE has burnt us twice in a short period of time, so we decided to drop VE and sign Mensa.

 

Now with the exception of the VE stuff, which doesn't change much other than explain our mindset for cutting ties with them, all of this is fairly public knowledge. In order for Rose to have "switched sides" we'd have needed to be on your side at the time we signed Mensa and we weren't. We cut ties with Covenant. We then, despite having already cut ties, entered another war alongside you on the intelligence that you were to be hit. That failed, the third sphere attempt failed, and then VE hammered the final nail in the coffin and we were left with limited options.

 

Now at that point we could have taken multiple different paths. Instead of sulking in a corner and blaming everyone else, we focused instead on improving ourselves and that was what we did. And what I've noticed, is that we've received from the people we left behind the same sort of treatment that you so readily accuse Syndi-sphere of perpetrating against the people who leave it. The hypocrisy is rather amusing tbh.

 

I'm  referring to the Mensa signing and then on. The point was up until that point rather than saying there was anyone left for Rose to drop I was talking about  how, Rose maintained independence from Syndisphere along with a general attitude of seeing its power consolidation as bad.   That all changed when Rose decided to join it with via the Mensa treaty. It's less the dropping of VE and more the signing of a core Syndisphere alliance and then following its trajectory. That is joining the side you were traditionally not on when said alliance has been one of the most resistant to any changes. A lot of people gave you the benefit of the doubt for a while due to the Lordaeron treaty to see if there was some greater play being made, so when there wasn't, it just looked like you had effectively stockholm syndromed into Syndisphere.

 

Again, there's a recurring theme where "improving ourselves" is conflated with signing Mensa. It's not the same thing to work on your internals and then just treaty alliances who are more active. The option was open to you to switch because they hated other people and that's what it comes down to. It's just not going to engender any good feelings towards Rose given the general trajectory of Mensa.  If you can't see how the posture Mensa has been taking would make people think they have a vested interest in perpetuating the same dynamics, then I can't help you there.  It's also a different situation when one appears to be a risk on the alliance's part and one where it's the opposite(joining a stronger side).

 

 

"You guys just left because you didn't want to lose anymore"

 

No, we left to ironically "change the political dynamic and try something new" and it failed. Then we cut ties completely when our last remaining ally burnt us. Now I know this might be hard for you to believe, but overall, Mensa has been a very good ally. So, naturally, we feel a sense of loyalty to them. After all, its not like many other people had their arms open willing to help Rose at the time.

 

Had someone else came to us during that time, took the same risk (and it was definitely a risk) in signing us, and afforded us the same mutual respect and loyalty Mensa did, its entirely possible we'd be their best friend right now instead. But they didn't. So here we are.

 

"Especially when Rose gov were openly trolling with the war grading thread"

 

Your citing us shitposting on the dick measuring contest thread? Really?

 

99% of the shitposting done by Rose gov this war was directed at the people we were fighting, specifically BK and HBE. In the case of BK, it was just braggadocios shit-flinging for fun. Since they deserved it after that DoW thread. They got clapped period, and they didn't expect it. Doesn't make it a reflection of our overall opinion of BK, not that that is really an argument, BK and Rose had no negative relations of any kind before they you know, hit us.

 

As for HBE, we called them out for being scum and trying to pretend to defend their allies while allocating the majority of their resources to fighting an alliance they weren't obligated to enter against. HBE should have just had the balls to enter on Rose straight out, and not pretend to be an actual ally, since it was clear they were not "neutral".

 

"whole "NPO !@#$ed us with Silent" narrative from one of your gov has been a thing for a while"

 

Him stating it and then time passing doesn't make it a thing for a while lol.

 

To be fair, I stepped in and intervened in that situation IN your defense.  I clarified that wasn't my position on the subject, and ultimately my position on the subject is what Roses position on the subject is since I dictate the FA of Rose. If my intervention wasn't enough then there isn't much I can do for you on that, that ball is in your court.

 

 

Anyway, I think you were missing my point. My point was that you pushed narratives, ones that you had no particular reason to, based on assumptions of motive rather than any facts, and then you cite "grudges" as the reason for the lack of political dynamism. If you really are after political dynamism like you claim, wouldn't it be more prudent not to push narratives and assume motives and actually talk to the people involved? Or at the very least not create more problems? Your actions don't line up with your claimed motives and your response to me pointing this out hasn't really done much to change that perception.

 

I already pointed out what I meant by "leaving". There was simply a general trajectory Rose had of some independence from Syndisphere until that point regardless of the treaty ties. Like I said that loyalty is ultimately the reason why people are going to push back against Rose because being allied to Mensa carries a lot of connotations.

 

If you're just dismissing things said on here as shitposting, then taking it seriously when people shit on Rose would be equally overreacting. The point of the "shitposts" was to drive a particular narrative, which you then complain about happening to Rose. 

 

The thing is your intervention just happens to be the Rose stance right now when the other stance had been the Rose stance from Silent on. If the war tore Rose apart or whatever as has been frequently stated, then I would assume others feel similar.  The actions taken by Rose hint more at that.

 

It takes two to tango. If your side hadn't been so fervent in pushing its own narratives from the get-go, then there'd be a lot less need to swing back.  The issue is there isn't much room for prudence in  avoiding offending people when people on your side have made their intentions more or less clear and aren't showing any willingness. Again, you expect a sort of "feel free to be dicks to us and we'll just take it" free card when that hasn't done anyone any favors ever.  

Edited June 18, 2017 by Roquentin

[Kastor]

Sorry guys but you did not 1v1 bk, I'm not sure what you are thinking of, but considering we entered within 30-40 minutes of you being attacked, you definitely were not the only ones responsible for removing BK's upper tier and the holding them down until tkr came in.

Fight amongst yourselves, yes. Pubstomper started Rose, whatever he says can be taken 100% as an official statement from the government of Rose. Just trust me on this.

[Felkey]

Fight amongst yourselves, yes. Pubstomper started Rose, whatever he says can be taken 100% as an official statement from the government of Rose. Just trust me on this.

Not really fighting, just correcting one person. I mean if we want to talk about discord within a coalition, should we take a look at the relationships between you guys?

[Kastor]

Not really fighting, just correcting one person. I mean if we want to talk about discord within a coalition, should we take a look at the relationships between you guys?

I was just trolling there, obviously, but sure go ahead.

[Talostastic]

Given the general tone from the Syndisphere side, there was never going to be an amicable atmosphere.

I wonder why that is.

 

 

- Proxy war: Yes, Mensa was the aggressor. No, syndicate was not. No, syndisphere as is did not exist yet at the time due to the fragile position in which the syndicate found itself following the bloc split. This war saw both syndicate and UPN provide passive treaty guarantee to Mensa (Meaning: If mensa was countered, we'd counter). VE/Rose at the time opted to pre-empt the Syndicate and Guardian while leaving UPN out entirely. There is no spin to be made here: Syndicate was targeted, simple as that. We did not have the luxury of choice.

 

- Oktoberfest: Goes without saying. Full covenant pre-empt on syndisphere coming out of a destructive war. Resource and size advantages gained due to the proxywar sitout were leveraged against us.

 

- Proxyfest: Mensa-Vanguard raid --> No Rose response --> TLF situation (and buildup on both sides) --> Handled/deal made to demilitarize between Rose and tS ---> Rose brings Vanguard issue back up and refuses to demilitarize. ---> I try to mediate ---> Rose essentially lets us know its get out the way because they're killing mensa --> We defend. In this particular instance it should also be noted that Rose held no treaty and thus no obligation to defend vanguard. That they did so is their prerogative, but we can not be faulted for defending our ally from what looked like a pure power play.

 

- NPO's first time: This one was aggressive on our part. Motivations aside.

 

- Silent war: Aggression on your part.

 

- This war: Aggression on IQ's part.

 

[Roquentin]

> gets asked to show the smoking gun intelligence

> hems and haws about showing the mythical CB

 

> so if this is the smoking gun CB that allegedly forced your hand, why wouldn't you just show it instead trying to validate it in a peace term?

> "you're biased"

 

We all get it, you got nothing in terms of a CB.

 

You're scared of actually admitting you got nothing because you pushed your allies into the meat grinder. And boy, a lot of the general membership would be pissed if they knew they lost so much for nothing.

 

Anyway, didn't see this before. 

 

Not at all and Kastor has alluded that someone on your side has gotten their hands on it. That was a surprise to me.

 

Again, this whole spin is just exemplary of what I've been talking about about the narrative being pushed from the get-go. "You're a liar. You got nothing. You pushed your allies into the meatgrinder."

 

I've already shared the rationale for not sharing it. The people involved would be identifiable by those who know who them based off how they write, so they would have to be willing to have their names out there and that sort of clearance hasn't been given.