Jump to content

We are here for the Whales


Sisyphus
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Mikey said:

I mean, you do but we don't. Maybe the logs are honestly from someone high up in the coalition. But they are always going to be viewed suspiciously while the source is unknown. Especially when many of us haven't seen anything internally backing up your assertions. If you feel that keeping the source secret is too important, fair enough. I can see the advantages to that. But it should come as no surprise people are unwilling to take them at face value either.

In any case, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I honestly don't read any of your conclusions into that DM. I see the main point that we decided we didn't need to fight you and that you weren't working with BK. I don't even remember discussing the numbers, because we wouldn't have had a choice if you were collaborating anyway, but I take it as a note that even if we wanted to for the lulz (like Partisan is going around doing under cover of the war), it wouldn't be feasible. If the logs are legit, I doubt it would have been coming from Chaos given our general war weariness and lack of reason to attack an uncommitted NPO. If it is coming from KETOG, I'm not sure why we'd back them up. You on the other read the numbers comment, and see a desire for conflict suppressed only by lack of opportunity. I suppose the climate of distrust is such that we will be interpreting the worst of each other.

Excuse me?

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2019 at 9:00 PM, 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?

tumblr_mzbn8mO7Kx1qd52doo5_r1_250.gif

Solid post, Chaunce.

  • Like 1

image.gif.d80770bf646703bba00c14ad52088af9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2019 at 6:56 PM, Codonian said:

Well i'm glad I just spent an hour catching up on this dumpster fire of a thread (/s). The only person that said anything with a shred of common sense was Ivk when he said that each side is going to have their preconceptions and that's it's useless trying to change each others mind. Going to go lie down in a dark and quiet room now... 

Why the /s :?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Darzy said:

I meant, why the sarcasm? This thread is already a dumpster fire :)

Because the /s was after the sentence wherein he said "so glad I spent an hour catching up".

I've been awake 31 hours man c'mon, ya can't miss that stuff! ?

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

32 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Because the /s was after the sentence wherein he said "so glad I spent an hour catching up".

I've been awake 31 hours man c'mon, ya can't miss that stuff! ?

Oh god, I think I should sleep too holy shit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

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

 

To be clear: Your "idea to make minispheres work" was to paperless tie the largest sphere to the second largest.

Good..... try....?

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sisyphus said:

As Officer of Strategic Planning for the Syndicate, without confirming this with the rest of the Board of Executives at all, I'd like to say that whomever posts the 1,000th reply to this thread can consider that a diplomatic obligation from the Syndicate to declare war upon them, and I can conclusively assure everyone that nothing bad will come of this per our Charter.

I thought t$ was all about winning not losing. Looks like that misconception is gone.

settradirect.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see why Chaos wanted to go with the war; when the plans involved BK hitting Chaos & their war with KETOG looked to be in kind of a stalemate; so they decided they'd rather do damage to BK than keep taking damage against KETOG while BK remained untouched. Although I can also see Shadowthrone's point on if two minispheres team up against another, the more interesting move would be assist the sphere being teamed up & make it more balanced versus just joining in on the already bigger side if getting involved.

I feel like some will only believe NPO & BK have really split if one of them peaces out, then lets the other one slowly be killed off without helping after both have rolled for a while. So it's probably is pointless for them to try now. The only way I could really see NPO feeling secure cutting themselves off from BK is if Syndicate pulling out was an agreed tactical withdrawal; with them deciding the upper tier wasn't worth fighting over anymore. Although it doesn't look like there was much agreement between them from the outside at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Settra said:

I thought t$ was all about winning not losing. Looks like that misconception is gone.

t$ has always been about losing. We've just been highly unsuccessful at it :( 

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 4

a.k.a. Chaunce

 

Chaunce - Today at 9:55 PM
with the watermelons there isn't much space left
I still have a lot of room to improve
 
Manthrax Has Venomous Bite! - Today at 9:57 PM
Hee hee. Room indeed.
 
Sabriel - Today at 10:01 PM
I feel like, if the other AAs knew how we act, they'd feel a deep sense of shame in knowing that they consistently get beat by us.
when we talk about how many vegetables we can fit in Chaunce's ass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

To be clear: Your "idea to make minispheres work" was to paperless tie the largest sphere to the second largest.

Good..... try....?

You've deliberately taken a quote out of context, not just from the thread but from the rest of Keshav's post. And your argument still doesn't make sense even after doing that.

Keshav made it clear that the agreement in question was a foundational FA doctrine of the NPO/t$/HS grouping, not a treaty. The people mentioned in the part of post you quoted were NPO and t$ government. And NPO and t$ have a public MD treaty, so there's hardly anything secret about the existence of that relationship.

Good..... try....?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Edward I said:

You've deliberately taken a quote out of context, not just from the thread but from the rest of Keshav's post. And your argument still doesn't make sense even after doing that.

Keshav made it clear that the agreement in question was a foundational FA doctrine of the NPO/t$/HS grouping, not a treaty. The people mentioned in the part of post you quoted were NPO and t$ government. And NPO and t$ have a public MD treaty, so there's hardly anything secret about the existence of that relationship.

Good..... try....?

Ok, my bad. The reason I did that is because Keshav is a liar, so I'm not believing him that the BK-NPO tie was as nebulous as he was claiming, since obviously that is precisely what a disingenuous FA person would claim, and that's what he is. Better? My point was about BK-NPO, not NPO-t$.

I didn't read the rest of his post because his posts are usually a waste of time to read, in all honesty.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Like 2

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Flame of the Flawed said:

t$ has always been about losing. We've just been highly unsuccessful at it :( 

Only when you were around chaunce.

settradirect.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real losers have always been the people who are still carrying on forum conversations after 42 pages.  

Actually, that's a lie... The people still talking here aren't losing anything anytime soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Edward I said:

You've deliberately taken a quote out of context, not just from the thread but from the rest of Keshav's post. And your argument still doesn't make sense even after doing that.

Keshav made it clear that the agreement in question was a foundational FA doctrine of the NPO/t$/HS grouping, not a treaty. The people mentioned in the part of post you quoted were NPO and t$ government. And NPO and t$ have a public MD treaty, so there's hardly anything secret about the existence of that relationship.

Good..... try....?

I've posted the exact logic elsewhere, but that agreement doesn't even make sense in context as stated. Why wasn't it immediately activated upon Chaos' war declaration? Why would it apply to Chaos/KETOG being teaming up against Citadel and BK; if we take them as separate spheres then your agreement wouldn't have applied since it's 2v2 after all? And why keep such a "foundational" doctrine non-public for so long if not to use it to entrap spheres not privy to the agreement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Ok, my bad. The reason I did that is because Keshav is a liar, so I'm not believing him that the BK-NPO tie was as nebulous as he was claiming, since obviously that is precisely what a disingenuous FA person would claim, and that's what he is. Better? My point was about BK-NPO, not NPO-t$.

I didn't read the rest of his post because his posts are usually a waste of time to read, in all honesty.

Do tell me where I have lied till date? Curious!

1 hour ago, Flame of the Flawed said:

The agreement between BK and NPO is not a foundational doctrine of the NPO/t$/HS grouping. At most, only one person from t$/HS knew of it (i.e. no one from HS knew about it), and that person is now inactive and can neither confirm nor deny the claims in question. If the claim is true that Kayser did indeed agree to this, he never informed anyone else in t$. It is also important to note that a single tri in t$ doesn't even have the authority to unilaterally agree to such a term on behalf of t$, as it would require support from the other two tri's as well. So he could have agreed to support it himself and to try and convince the rest of t$ gov, but he could not commit t$ to it himself.

 

Again there never existed an agreement with BK. In the chats with Kayser, various scenarios were discussed and fundamentally the idea was for N$O to be able to join any side it pleases as long as it was stopping a combination of two sides from consolidating. These discussions were undertaken in a channel with the entire tS triumvirate present and literally Sisyphus posted right after with regards to public postings of our doctrines/rules is a silly idea. Now I give into the idea that Sisyphus/Leo/Utmos may have been misled by Kayser, but that is not on us, as much as on your government communication issues as we've pointed out to Sisyphus in private. 

 

1 hour ago, Flame of the Flawed said:

Additionally, when the new head of FA (one of our oldest members and former tri, Sisyphus/Wilhelm) took over following Kayser's departure, the 'doctrine' was never mentioned to him at all by allied gov until after NPO approached t$ about expanding the war beyond Guardian and GOB, even though if it was considered something that t$ had agreed to, it would had made sense to bring it up far earlier and quite aggressively. So that tells you that NPO was aware of the validity of this 'doctrine' when it came to t$.  

Yes and no. I did bring it up with Sisyphus and he understood where/when the conversation happened and where I came from with the conversations. It was in the middle of our discussions for our reasons for expanding and why we believed in the TKR CB. But nice try. I imagined it was known across the government, so colour me surprised when it wasn't and I spoke to Sisyphus to clear it up. 

 

1 hour ago, Flame of the Flawed said:

So maybe this is something Kayser said he would support, but I have no doubt he never would have been able to make it happen even if he was still around—maybe that explains some things... And anyone with basic knowledge of how triumvirates work and internal t$ politics would know the same.  

So this could be another strategic miscalculation on NPO's part to try to make a side agreement with an individual gov member, but not the gov in itself; or it could be something was lost in translation between Kayser and NPO. With Kayser no longer being around, it is hard to say. But I can say that not only was it not a foundational doctrine of the NPO/t$/HS grouping, it wasn't something that t$/HS agreed to at all.  

Can't be a side agreement when it was literally in the server we used to plan our discussions in which you're a member lol. So the logs there for your perusal, the search button helps. It was why we signed up based off Kayser's promises. If that was not shared before HS signed on, that's his communication error as was pointed out to me earlier yesterday. Nevertheless it is what it is~

Edited by Shadowthrone
  • Like 2
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

as long as it was stopping a combination of two sides from consolidating.

So, again, to prevent two sides from consolidating, you make a secret agreement that de-facto and logically consolidated two sides? Is that what you're sayin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

So, again, to prevent two sides from consolidating, you make a secret agreement that de-facto and logically consolidated two sides? Is that what you're sayin?

It'd be if any of the three other minispheres outside of N$O consolidate in whichever configurations, yes. That was the prevailing idea that Kayser/Roq/NPO discussed. I mean it seemed exciting enough at the time~ 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well considering the other minispheres haven't consolidated I don't see how that is a viable excuse to enter the war at all then.

Explains why you are pushing this fake war shit so hard.

  • Upvote 3

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.