We are here for the Whales

[Ryan1]

I'm honestly just trying to get this to 1000 posts.

[Gatorcock]

13 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Posting a log where Frawley doesn't say IQ is back proves my point that he never said it. 

The implication was he may as well "bring IQ" back. Stop being an idiot and reading it word for word. 

NPO likes to analyze every little detail, soon as we do that though its unfair and we are in the wrong.  Hypocrisy runs deep 

[Shadowthrone]

2 hours ago, Akuryo said:

You're the one not reading, it's stated right there. Roq, leader of NPO, had an agreement with Leo, leader of BK, to defend them if ever two spheres combined forces to attack. Considering that agreement nullifying N$O for the most part, its specifically targetting Chaos and KETOG ever uniting to attack BK. Like, in the case if for example, BK and its allies were planning to roll one of them.

Your alliance is ran by lying trash and has lying trash like you to scream "no no no no!" when the truth is given from the man up high himself. I can call you a retard or a mindless drone, pick your choice. 

Again what a load of crock. There never existed any agreement with Aragorn of BK. The agreement was with Kayser to defend any sphere that’s hit by a combined sphere in this game. Any sphere meaning if BK decides to combine with chaos to KETOG, we’d most likely have been in defending KETOG under the terms of that agreement we made.

Though continue lying. Nothing like an alliance being run by lying trash no?  

[PDunny]

56 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Again what a load of crock. There never existed any agreement with Aragorn of BK. The agreement was with Kayser to defend any sphere that’s hit by a combined sphere in this game. Any sphere meaning if BK decides to combine with chaos to KETOG, we’d most likely have been in defending KETOG under the terms of that agreement we made.

Though continue lying. Nothing like an alliance being run by lying trash no?  

Who was this agreement made with and why wasn't it made publically if it's in the defense of all of the spheres as it's being claimed?

[japan77]

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

Again what a load of crock. There never existed any agreement with Aragorn of BK. The agreement was with Kayser to defend any sphere that’s hit by a combined sphere in this game. Any sphere meaning if BK decides to combine with chaos to KETOG, we’d most likely have been in defending KETOG under the terms of that agreement we made.

Though continue lying. Nothing like an alliance being run by lying trash no?  

Let's quickly note that BK sphere on it's own has more cities, members, and alliances than chaos+KETOG+Rose combined. Similarly so for N$O. As such, your "agreement" is either A. A blatant excuse to help defend BK sphere since the only time any sphere would team up is to hit a sphere so much larger than it that it would be suicide to fight it 1v1, or B. You're so naive that you can't count numbers. If it's the latter, I have serious questions regarding your intelligence, which given that Marina is your FA head, is rather shocking, so ofc, I'm going to assume it's option A. 

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

For the record, you can shit on each other's points, without directly shitting on each other.  Be better, all of you.

[Lu Xun]

I really don't understand why you don't grasp the downdeclare principle. 3 24 city nations are worth more than 4 18 city nations. You can sim it whether in battle simulator, actual combat experience, or on the Test server.

Likewise, claiming that BK-sphere had more alliances than Chaos KETOG Rose was plain BS. If, say, you had decided to protect a bunch of micros, would it now be impossible for you to go to war if you brought the micros along because you'd have more alliances? Member counts, likewise, don't guarantee military superiority. Would 20 15 city nations be able to beat down 19 20 city nations?

I think we discussed the concept of a qualitative downdeclare, but that doesn't mean you just ignore tiering. When KETOG hit you in SIKE, they brought out all sorts of weird charts to argue that they were updeclaring because you had more members (who had lower average city counts), and you were losing then. In actuality, the fight was essentially fair until NR disbanded; Chaos had more members, but KETOG had better average city counts, and this canceled out. Once NR died, Chaos began falling apart because of the loss of only 100 members.

[Pasky Darkfire]

2 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Again what a load of crock. There never existed any agreement with Aragorn of BK. The agreement was with Kayser to defend any sphere that’s hit by a combined sphere in this game. Any sphere meaning if BK decides to combine with chaos to KETOG, we’d most likely have been in defending KETOG under the terms of that agreement we made.

So, I just want to ask, boot. Three Spheres; BK, Covenant, and Citadel planned to hit either Kettogg or Chaos, I can't remember which at this point. If Kettogg and CHAoS hadn't teamed up or struck first, you're saying that you would have joined either CHAoS or Kettogg against BK Sphere and friends? Knowing that if it was CHAoS hit, you would be aligning with the alliance, tKR, who you claim CB against because of some logs that no one can provide said the idea that they would hit you after the war?

But also, In this case, in the case of the leaked logs leading to the ceasefire and redirection of efforts, BK and friends, three Spheres, still hit two spheres. So... Why is NPO on the Aggressor side? We all know they were coming for us. That three Spheres were teaming up to come after one or both of us. If your "treaty" is true, then aren't you on the wrong side?

Edited June 30, 2019 by Pasky Darkfire

[Mitsuru]

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

Nothing like an alliance being run by lying trash no?  

Have you recently had the chance to check who's running your alliance?

[Pasky Darkfire]

13 hours ago, Flame of the Flawed said:

I think we need to focus on the key issue here. Several times earlier I know you've shared similar feelings, and you had framed this as being a matter of NPO sovereignty (a term not used in this post, but several times elsewhere) when it comes to deciding to join the war contrary to the terms t$ had laid out. But I don't think anyone here has denied NPO's sovereignty. It is a matter of trust.

As I've said earlier, I'm retired so I'm not actively involved in these convos or decisions anymore, but I don't actually doubt that there was, as you put it, 'no assurance of zero retaliation ever' that came actively and verbally from NPO. But is that all an ally should expect? It was known within t$ that NPO had different views on this war (though the degree of how strong those differences were was clearly not known), but nonetheless the terms of this war were agreed upon, even if just 'tacitly', as you put it, if in this context 'tacitly' means you allowed t$ gov to believe you would follow the terms while never overtly promising 'no assurance of zero retaliation ever' ('ever', an absolute term, which certainly gives an absolute amount of flexibility). But I don't think t$ thought that such an overt assurance was needed to avoid NPO not following the previous agreement based out of an assertion of their sovereignty. No one is saying an alliance can't back out of earlier agreements if they so wish, but the repercussions are that it will impact your perceived trustworthiness amongst both your allies and the broader community. That is why this isn't a controversy or matter of sovereignty, but trust.

Ultimately, I think the calculations come down to that NPO always wanted in the war, but knew if they were upfront with t$ as to their intent, they knew t$ would never join. But they believed that a t$ hit on GOB and Guardian would garner counters which would prove the whole disagreement moot and allow entry without needing to be honest of their intentions to t$. t$ on the other hand believed that those counters would not occur if the terms were clearly communicated. NPO then acted as they did because t$'s prediction proved correct, which meant they wouldn't be able to enter the war as they desired. So this is actually all based in a strategic miscalculation of NPO in incorrectly predicting the response of Guardian's and GOB's allies.

Yes, Hilme's unexpected inactivity caused issues and dynamics to change, but that doesn't change the root of the issue of how NPO traversed this whole process.

 

If t$'s intent was flattery of the likes of CoS and their friends, then it is clear they never would have entered. But you do make an interesting point on not being informed beforehand to the exit from the war. But that is something that should go both ways. Though you had told t$ gov that you were planning to enter, which you then received a strongly negative reaction to (based on what I've already shared above), the timing of your entry was something that came as a complete shock and surprise to t$ leadership. NPO never informed t$ that they would be entering as soon as they did, as t$ found out about it at the same time as everyone else in this game. NPO did this knowing that it would result in an escalation of the war, which meant mass counters from the broader coalition on t$ and a complete alteration to t$'s war strategy, yet you did not inform them so that all of this, which meant t$ going to war with many more alliance's unexpectedly, was once again a complete surprise. If you had informed t$ leadership of your specific plans, and the timing, I'm confident t$ leadership would have told you what the response would be. I still see the gov channels and know that immediately before your strike, t$ gov was unaware and still ideally hoped to dissuade you from the attack. 

So yes, informing an ally of major moves is quite important. And I'm sorry you were so displeased that t$ took such a hard stance on following the criteria they had told the entire game of (truly a matter of t$ sovereignty) and of which NPO, as you acknowledged, had given its 'tacit' approval. But on the matter of being informed before hand, is it reasonable to expect such courtesies from others when you deny it to them?

Also. None of you have responded to this. I'm wondering why?

[japan77]

25 minutes ago, Inst said:

I really don't understand why you don't grasp the downdeclare principle. 3 24 city nations are worth more than 4 18 city nations. You can sim it whether in battle simulator, actual combat experience, or on the Test server.

Likewise, claiming that BK-sphere had more alliances than Chaos KETOG Rose was plain BS. If, say, you had decided to protect a bunch of micros, would it now be impossible for you to go to war if you brought the micros along because you'd have more alliances? Member counts, likewise, don't guarantee military superiority. Would 20 15 city nations be able to beat down 19 20 city nations?

I think we discussed the concept of a qualitative downdeclare, but that doesn't mean you just ignore tiering. When KETOG hit you in SIKE, they brought out all sorts of weird charts to argue that they were updeclaring because you had more members (who had lower average city counts), and you were losing then. In actuality, the fight was essentially fair until NR disbanded; Chaos had more members, but KETOG had better average city counts, and this canceled out. Once NR died, Chaos began falling apart because of the loss of only 100 members.

3 24 is better than 4 18, sure, but that's not what we're talking about here, it's closer to 3 24 going against 5 or 6 18s. There's a sheer city count advantage. If we're being honest, that advantage is huge, and in favor of BK sphere or N$O in any theoretical engagement between one of those spheres and any other sphere than each other. Also, this just sounds like people !@#$ing about their lack of functional econ programs, which I've stated for years was going to come back and bite AAs that run such high tax rates in the ass, and it's seems that I'm right on that count.  (For sake of argument, I'm not going to deal with the entire issue of covenant and citadel existing, but also being part of BK sphere, and just treat them as BK sphere since everyone else is doing the same)
Member and Alliance counts, I agree don't inherently guarantee anything, however, when the advantages are so large that you can literally get away with blitzes so shit you get declared more on than you declare, get away with running nations with basically no WC, get away with zero-coordination, and force the enemy to win 2-3 v1s just to be able to reasonably have any chance of victory, it's apparent that the advantage exists and is so large that you've gained quality through sheer quantity. 
As for surf's up, there's more going on in that fight than a sheer number of cities vs members situation there. It's also worth noting that war white peaced before TKR could recover from the initial blitz, many of us in TKR were finally getting things working when the white peace hit. 

[Buorhann]

2 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Again what a load of crock. There never existed any agreement with Aragorn of BK. The agreement was with Kayser to defend any sphere that’s hit by a combined sphere in this game. Any sphere meaning if BK decides to combine with chaos to KETOG, we’d most likely have been in defending KETOG under the terms of that agreement we made.

Though continue lying. Nothing like an alliance being run by lying trash no?  

Guess that includes defending BK after their plot to hit both spheres is revealed.

[Lu Xun]

The actual ratio is about 5:4 or about 13:10 if you want to be precise (17500 vs 13500). Then you have to remember the fact that your alliances trimmed a lot of fat during SIKE (Surf's Up); CoS, for instance, is down from 38 members to 21, while Empyrea went from 80 to 50. I'm not saying this to accuse your alliances of sucking; it's very hard to deal with Grumpy blockade holding you, or being eaten up by Chaos assets downstairs. It's just to say that all the weak hands and milquetoast members have already been applicant-ed. Meanwhile, BK was in peacetime and still contained a lot of garbage assets which inflated their nominal strength, but this is closer to the actual qualitative downdeclare I was talking about (efficiency advantage, not tiering advantage).

 

3 24s (72) are actually quite qualified to take out 5 18s (90, or about 5:4 city ratio), if we just do Lanchester's Square Law it comes out 1728 vs 1620. When you put in adjustments for air superiority and ground control, it gets much grislier than that. One key factor is always the first strike; 18:24 is a planestrattable number, but it might take multiple waves, #1, and #2, if the 24s get the jump on the 18s, as you did, you're in much better position to destroy and suppress the C18s.

 

====

 

I appreciate that you and I are not getting personal about this. I have strong reservations about the propaganda line about "we're outnumbered" and so on. I mean, I can actually admit local dogpiles; i.e, in the BK-NPOsphere zones of control it is very nasty to be a KERCHTOG member. There are insurgents who are reasonably successful at the task (sub 1k), but there are also people who are getting combo-tossed with blockades (provided a sufficiently competent alliance is handling the case). But in upper tiers, you have advantages and you're beating up on BK-NPO whales. And when we consider P^2 (i.e, squares to account for the concentration of planes), the concentration advantage upstairs is so flagrant that despite a declining P^1 value, you actually have twice the effective planes of BK-NPO. And on a C2.8 basis, you're still ahead of BK-NPO.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Inst

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

When you're keshav and try so hard to be clever and witty but fail because roq's brainwashing training didn't prepare you for dealing with people who possess and understand legitimate, proven, evidence supported CBs that would make BK the aggressor.

Gosh it was a sight to see you try though. I'm sure you'll incorporate these lessons into the next generation of training though, next time should surely be filled even more bullshit that pretends you're a victim.

I might be trash, I'll give you that. But I'm alot more honest than your lot have ever been.

[japan77]

35 minutes ago, Inst said:

The actual ratio is about 5:4 or about 13:10 if you want to be precise (17500 vs 13500). Then you have to remember the fact that your alliances trimmed a lot of fat during SIKE (Surf's Up); CoS, for instance, is down from 38 members to 21, while Empyrea went from 80 to 50. I'm not saying this to accuse your alliances of sucking; it's very hard to deal with Grumpy blockade holding you, or being eaten up by Chaos assets downstairs. It's just to say that all the weak hands and milquetoast members have already been applicant-ed. Meanwhile, BK was in peacetime and still contained a lot of garbage assets which inflated their nominal strength, but this is closer to the actual qualitative downdeclare I was talking about (efficiency advantage, not tiering advantage).

 

3 24s (72) are actually quite qualified to take out 5 18s (90, or about 5:4 city ratio), if we just do Lanchester's Square Law it comes out 1728 vs 1620. When you put in adjustments for air superiority and ground control, it gets much grislier than that. One key factor is always the first strike; 18:24 is a planestrattable number, but it might take multiple waves, #1, and #2, if the 24s get the jump on the 18s, as you did, you're in much better position to destroy and suppress the C18s.

 

====

 

I appreciate that you and I are not getting personal about this. I have strong reservations about the propaganda line about "we're outnumbered" and so on. I mean, I can actually admit local dogpiles; i.e, in the BK-NPOsphere zones of control it is very nasty to be a KERCHTOG member. There are insurgents who are reasonably successful at the task (sub 1k), but there are also people who are getting combo-tossed with blockades (provided a sufficiently competent alliance is handling the case). But in upper tiers, you have advantages and you're beating up on BK-NPO whales. And when we consider P^2 (i.e, squares to account for the concentration of planes), the concentration advantage upstairs is so flagrant that despite a declining P^1 value, you actually have twice the effective planes of BK-NPO. And on a C2.8 basis, you're still ahead of BK-NPO.

Here's the problem with bring in Lanchester's square law. First, this is a hilarious unrealistic polisim relative to the real world (I haven't actually run exact numbers, but I doubt it works out anywhere near the model, given how unrealistic it is). Second, even IRL, most experts use an exponent of 1.5 since that's more realistic. We'd probably have to make a whole new model to deal with this polisim (I'm too lazy to do that, and sheepy hasn't leaked the formulas, so it'd be near impossible without huge amounts of data collection)
As in any war with NPO/BK sphere, low tier goes to them, upper tier goes to us by sheer numbers, and the fight is in the middle. However, a basic analysis of this situation militarily suggests that in a fight between equally competent groups, the one with more cities is going to win. Yes, there's a minor advantage towards having more cities on average, but that's almost certainly going to get canceled out by the city count advantage enjoyed by BK-sphere. I'm too lazy to do proper modeling, but relying on IRL simulator rules is almost certainly a bad idea. 
Most of the reason we have more effective planes is because we have more active and competent members, which is due to the fact that our econ program encourages that relative to the other side's econ program. Our econ programs also attract and create more of an upper tier, so it isn't surprising that this has happened as well. As I said years ago, NPO's econ program is going to stunt its growth and hamper its activity, and I was right, and now we have them complaining about the results of exactly that. 

[Shadowthrone]

3 hours ago, PDunny said:

Who was this agreement made with and why wasn't it made publically if it's in the defense of all of the spheres as it's being claimed?

Why would it have to be made public? Nevertheless, that was the working agreement Kayser/Roq and ourselvees agreed to. The former did wish to post it publicly, but alas we never did. There was a specific vision with which tS/NPO/HS got together, and that vision involved in trying to make the minisphere attempt work (even if I'm still skeptical of the whole idea from experience), but thats the deal, and thats why  we signed what we did. 

 

3 hours ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

So, I just want to ask, boot. Three Spheres; BK, Covenant, and Citadel planned to hit either Kettogg or Chaos, I can't remember which at this point. If Kettogg and CHAoS hadn't teamed up or struck first, you're saying that you would have joined either CHAoS or Kettogg against BK Sphere and friends? Knowing that if it was CHAoS hit, you would be aligning with the alliance, tKR, who you claim CB against because of some logs that no one can provide said the idea that they would hit you after the war?

But also, In this case, in the case of the leaked logs leading to the ceasefire and redirection of efforts, BK and friends, three Spheres, still hit two spheres. So... Why is NPO on the Aggressor side? We all know they were coming for us. That three Spheres were teaming up to come after one or both of us. If your "treaty" is true, then aren't you on the wrong side?

Firstly, no that wouldn't be three spheres. But yes, if BK/KETOG did indeed combine for a hit and Kayser was still around, quite certain we'd be having discussions to aid Chaos lol. That was the vision document, but the idea was we'd work with whomever, whenever to try keeping the game away from bi-polarity for as long as possible. Yeah well we have to go with the information we have, and when we trust the individual enough, we will act upon it. Moreover, we did also post the logs of Chaos gov discussing plans on hitting N$O which confirmed our suspicions at the time. If we did indeed want to join into this war to aid BK, I daresay we'd have done a myriad of things differently. Our intent was not that as much as when the information was received, we decided on rectifying the situation. 

Your combination is one thing, but the logs/information add a different dimension to the situation. Our entrance is based off that. Nice of you suddenly to consider BKsphere as three separate spheres though, thats a first here!

3 hours ago, Mitsuru said:

Have you recently had the chance to check who's running your alliance?

Yes and? 

 

2 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Guess that includes defending BK after their plot to hit both spheres is revealed.

Mostly defending ourselves, but I mean hitting based off plots is a valid CB when you do it, and not when anyone else does it, got it. 

 

1 hour ago, japan77 said:

Most of the reason we have more effective planes is because we have more active and competent members, which is due to the fact that our econ program encourages that relative to the other side's econ program. Our econ programs also attract and create more of an upper tier, so it isn't surprising that this has happened as well. As I said years ago, NPO's econ program is going to stunt its growth and hamper its activity, and I was right, and now we have them complaining about the results of exactly that. 

Woo boy, yes, spending billions on growth for every member is definitely a bad idea! Great, try again.

[Buorhann]

Just now, Shadowthrone said:

Mostly defending ourselves, but I mean hitting based off plots is a valid CB when you do it, and not when anyone else does it, got it. 

So you admit that IQ still exists?  Pretty sure the logs you guys have pre-dates the disbanding of IQ and nothing more recent.

[Mikey]

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

Moreover, we did also post the logs of Chaos gov discussing plans on hitting N$O which confirmed our suspicions at the time.

If thats the log with Adrienne and Thrax spitballing a war on IQ, that isn't about N$O at all, but the presumably defunct IQ, and involved alliances that are currently our enemies. If there was another log, could you point me to it? These threads have been moving faster than I can keep up with sometimes, and its quite possible I just missed it.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Mikey

[Pasky Darkfire]

Wow. You said exactly what everyone said you would. Is NPO that predictable? What are the loto numbers tonight for the powerball?

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

But yes, if BK/KETOG did indeed combine for a hit and Kayser was still around, quite certain we'd be having discussions to aid Chaos lol. That was the vision document, but the idea was we'd work with whomever, whenever to try keeping the game away from bi-polarity for as long as possible.

Y'all really stuck to the heart of that document, didn't ya? Instead of supporting and preventing bi-polarity, you guys went right on and made it more bi-polar than ever. Good show.
 

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

and Kayser was still around

Very strange constraint to the terms of that agreement. You would think you'd want to keep to such terms without the need for one person to be there. Or could work out the terms with someone else. But you didn't.

 

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

Nice of you suddenly to consider BKsphere as three separate spheres though, thats a first here!

I mean. Are you suggesting The Covenant and Citadel don't have ambitions of their own and are specifically adhered to the will of BK?

18 hours ago, Flame of the Flawed said:

I think we need to focus on the key issue here. Several times earlier I know you've shared similar feelings, and you had framed this as being a matter of NPO sovereignty (a term not used in this post, but several times elsewhere) when it comes to deciding to join the war contrary to the terms t$ had laid out. But I don't think anyone here has denied NPO's sovereignty. It is a matter of trust.

As I've said earlier, I'm retired so I'm not actively involved in these convos or decisions anymore, but I don't actually doubt that there was, as you put it, 'no assurance of zero retaliation ever' that came actively and verbally from NPO. But is that all an ally should expect? It was known within t$ that NPO had different views on this war (though the degree of how strong those differences were was clearly not known), but nonetheless the terms of this war were agreed upon, even if just 'tacitly', as you put it, if in this context 'tacitly' means you allowed t$ gov to believe you would follow the terms while never overtly promising 'no assurance of zero retaliation ever' ('ever', an absolute term, which certainly gives an absolute amount of flexibility). But I don't think t$ thought that such an overt assurance was needed to avoid NPO not following the previous agreement based out of an assertion of their sovereignty. No one is saying an alliance can't back out of earlier agreements if they so wish, but the repercussions are that it will impact your perceived trustworthiness amongst both your allies and the broader community. That is why this isn't a controversy or matter of sovereignty, but trust.

Ultimately, I think the calculations come down to that NPO always wanted in the war, but knew if they were upfront with t$ as to their intent, they knew t$ would never join. But they believed that a t$ hit on GOB and Guardian would garner counters which would prove the whole disagreement moot and allow entry without needing to be honest of their intentions to t$. t$ on the other hand believed that those counters would not occur if the terms were clearly communicated. NPO then acted as they did because t$'s prediction proved correct, which meant they wouldn't be able to enter the war as they desired. So this is actually all based in a strategic miscalculation of NPO in incorrectly predicting the response of Guardian's and GOB's allies.

Yes, Hilme's unexpected inactivity caused issues and dynamics to change, but that doesn't change the root of the issue of how NPO traversed this whole process.

 

If t$'s intent was flattery of the likes of CoS and their friends, then it is clear they never would have entered. But you do make an interesting point on not being informed beforehand to the exit from the war. But that is something that should go both ways. Though you had told t$ gov that you were planning to enter, which you then received a strongly negative reaction to (based on what I've already shared above), the timing of your entry was something that came as a complete shock and surprise to t$ leadership. NPO never informed t$ that they would be entering as soon as they did, as t$ found out about it at the same time as everyone else in this game. NPO did this knowing that it would result in an escalation of the war, which meant mass counters from the broader coalition on t$ and a complete alteration to t$'s war strategy, yet you did not inform them so that all of this, which meant t$ going to war with many more alliance's unexpectedly, was once again a complete surprise. If you had informed t$ leadership of your specific plans, and the timing, I'm confident t$ leadership would have told you what the response would be. I still see the gov channels and know that immediately before your strike, t$ gov was unaware and still ideally hoped to dissuade you from the attack. 

So yes, informing an ally of major moves is quite important. And I'm sorry you were so displeased that t$ took such a hard stance on following the criteria they had told the entire game of (truly a matter of t$ sovereignty) and of which NPO, as you acknowledged, had given its 'tacit' approval. But on the matter of being informed before hand, is it reasonable to expect such courtesies from others when you deny it to them?

@Shadowthrone And again, seeing as it keeps getting buried, Any response to this?

[Shadowthrone]

2 hours ago, Buorhann said:

So you admit that IQ still exists?  Pretty sure the logs you guys have pre-dates the disbanding of IQ and nothing more recent.

That would be what the Friday before last I think, can ask Dio to give you an exact date. In essence, that made us perk up, and combined with the information on Adrienne + her deletion of logs and post that with whats going on, we were put into a position of whether the attack is down the road. Its why we did what we did. 

Moreover the rest of the logs was the whole picture that Dio wished to share. It did show that Adrienne has lied to us, and that given the plans that were shared later on with TKR/CoS having tCW go about trying to peel away allies and create a ghost minisphere up until IQ broke, or hope that those pick ups would be useful to their side till that relationship went to shit, was curious to read about. What interests me though is TKR's more recent actions, and statements made by her. Again, there is no log to dump here and as I've stated in other threads that is my biggest regret, not getting those screenshotted before deleted, but given the individuals who did share the basics of the conversation, and my faith/trust in their words, it was enough to do what we did. Mind you, I was the one that shared the information with Roq and post which we spent a few days discussing our course of action, including with the sphere at large. May not have been the easiest of discussions, but it was a time bound/pressure situation and we work with what we have. 

It's easy to go around shitting on players/leaders and calling them liars, but most of you who have been in spheres and the centre of politics know how these things go, we do the best with what we have and work with it for our alliance/community/game at large. Again, given our experience and knowledge of strategy, if we did indeed want to defend BK as is stated here, we'd have done a bunch of things differently and aided them entirely with our best foot forward. That is not the case here. I'm less interested in y'all going around having a grudge match unless that match is brought to my doorstep, or will eventually be coming to our end of the treaty web. In that case we would act as we need to. 

You all are forgetting that we always had an in into this war and could have optionally gone in with Polaris if we really wanted that route, rather than tacitly agree to tS' war with GoB/Guardian. Again, our intentions was not to scheme/hit TKR for the sole purpose of defending BK, but it was a confluence of things that arose that made us act. You may disagree with that, and its fine. But what is disappointing is the general level of debate here, outside the few folks who take it seriously enough to discuss the variety of issues. I mean we're all on the opposite sides of this for now, but thats always subject to change, as is most foreign policy in the game, so the levels of personal/ooc dislike is funny given that we may end up working together in the future lol. It's a war, it'll end however and we'll move on to the next one ?‍♀️. Lest everyone's decided this how its going to be for the rest of Orbis' time and that's fine lol, we'll play with those circumstances and continue doing what we have to do as a community to survive here. 

1 hour ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

Y'all really stuck to the heart of that document, didn't ya? Instead of supporting and preventing bi-polarity, you guys went right on and made it more bi-polar than ever. Good show.

Thanks, we aim to please  

1 hour ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

Very strange constraint to the terms of that agreement. You would think you'd want to keep to such terms without the need for one person to be there. Or could work out the terms with someone else. But you didn't.

There were a lot of things in flux in the last couple of weeks. I mean we've tried to do the best we can to folks involved with N$O and done what we could given the choices we had foreseen at the given moment. 

1 hour ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

I mean. Are you suggesting The Covenant and Citadel don't have ambitions of their own and are specifically adhered to the will of BK?

I mean that's pretty much your side's argument till date. The sudden turn around is funny into calling them three individual blocs. But I mean the way I look at it is that given their ties, they are one larger sphere and may operate as different parts (I'm not really in touch with BK's allies in a few months, so no idea how things work between Citadel/BK), I do know that given their treaty ties, you folks decided they are one large sphere. So trying to turn that around is kinda hilarious. 

 

1 hour ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

And again, seeing as it keeps getting buried, Any response to this?

If I need to respond to tS, I'll do it in private with Flame/Sisyphus or anyone involved. I'm not interested in a public sling fest for your humour  

Edited June 30, 2019 by Shadowthrone

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

So your reason for attacking was because we decided not to attack you and expected you'd keep to t$ word? 

I'm sure there's some dimension somewhere where that follows normal logical patterns, but that dimension ain't this one. For supposedly pragmatic Pacifica you really failed on the pragmatism part here.

[Shadowthrone]

Just now, Akuryo said:

So your reason for attacking was because we decided not to attack you and expected you'd keep to t$ word? 

I'm sure there's some dimension somewhere where that follows normal logical patterns, but that dimension ain't this one. For supposedly pragmatic Pacifica you really failed on the pragmatism part here.

Ha, not attack us now. Given that Adrienne went on to state that its temporary and she's hoping to lock BK down and come around to hit us, we acted. Now, again you need not have to buy that given that I do not have the screenshots of her in those conversations, and that sucks, but it is what it is. 

If anyone's lied here regarding things, I'd point that way and if the IQ logs/discussions that appear later on, the tCW's involvement originally to me seems far more duplicitous.

Also to whomever was quoting Frawley's logs earlier as proof, its hilarious. IQ's dead and I would like to keep it that way. Alas' lets see how things proceed from here. 

[Pasky Darkfire]

36 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

If I need to respond to tS, I'll do it in private with Flame/Sisyphus or anyone involved. I'm not interested in a public sling fest for your humour   

Woah. I resent that. I definitely didn't want a slug fest. I was just curious as to why everyone kept ignoring it. Because they make some very valid points that... support what most everyone else has been saying. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't just out of convenience that NPO ignored it. Just curiosity.
 

40 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

I mean that's pretty much your side's argument till date.

Well. While I do not represent the views or opinions of the alliances of CHAoS or Kettogg, They all, too, do not represent the opinions of I. We agree on many points. But I do believe the argument wasn't that they weren't their own people, but they were being made meat shields by a bigger alliance. Akin to someone hiding behind someone else as the human shield takes the bullet.

 

27 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Also to whomever was quoting Frawley's logs earlier as proof, its hilarious. IQ's dead and I would like to keep it that way. Alas' lets see how things proceed from here.

This is not reflective of the views of your leadership apparently. Both Roq and Frawley express views contrary to this across multiple posts. So, what's you're plan for stopping it?

 

[durmij]

47 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Unblock that name. That could be literally anyone under there. 

[Mikey]

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

 

Alright, as others have stated we have no idea who this is, if they are on our side, how much info they have, etc. But it doesn't even matter, because even if that was Adrienne herself, it doesn't support any of your claims! So I'm going to humor you in this post, and assume our mystery man here is a high ranking member of Chaos/KETOG/Rose.

For starters, lets take a step back and recognize the irony in using these logs to allege a plot against NPO. Logs that allege we had considered fighting N$O out of fear that you were working with BK, but then decided you weren't and our conflict didn't involve you. I don't know what Mr X here considers 'planning to preempt N$O', but it is true that we were worried about fighting you before the war started. The sphinx logs, which kicked off our whole collaboration, alleged you were to take part in BK's action. If true, it would necessitate a response. The answer arose as quickly as the question - no. No, we decided you weren't working together and were not our enemy. There was mistrust, as there always is, but we'd take you at your word and let the war prove it. If you didn't join, it would confirm our decision correct. If you were secretly collaborating, well we'd find out the hard way. And we did. But I don't regret, because if we weren't willing to give you the opportunity, why should anyone do so for us? Sometimes life just lets you down.

Mr X's logs also run directly counter the claim that we always treated you as part of IQ. Here he is saying we didn't think N$O would enter; that we decided you weren't cooperating. If we truly thought you were our enemy, we'd have hit you on the spot. There's nothing worse than leaving a large, competent enemy AA untouched. Some of us learned that the hard way. We didn't, though, because we chose to give you the benefit of the doubt. Even after t$ came in with their highly suspicious timing, we decided to take your word and let you prove it. To their credit, t$ did.

What reason, then, would we have to hit you post-war? We gave you the opportunity and it would have proved even your fiercest detractors wrong. All you really have is a belief that TKR is just out to get you. There's still been no direct proof of that, aside from a snippet of Adrienne talking about attacking a sphere you aren't even in. If it's a matter of intuition, fine! Just say so. We still wouldn't agree, but we wouldn't have nearly as much fault with your reasoning.

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Mikey