Jump to content

How long will this war go on for?


Kastor
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

I like how after members of your coalition have called NPO's leadership deranged (Manthrax), liars/disingenuous (Buorhann/Manthrax), dishonest (Smith) and threatened to target them relentlessly and anyone who is allied to them (Sketchy), you're now appealing to NPO to end the war on easy terms for your side.

Ehm... Where did Hodor ask for easy terms exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

I mean, yes. When you are the largest actor alliance the game and you decide you want to force bipolarity by maintaining ties to the second largest while purporting to buy into a new ally grouping that believes in multipolarity, I am going to say you were the "bad actors". Did you want to go back to the drawing board all along? NPO never expressed this... they just hit us again, after BK planned to. :P

There's no inherent tendency towards one thing or another. We're all actors in a blank, ideological space.

We've explained this repeatedly. It wasn't a secret tie to BK. If this is so unsatisfactory for you that you'd ask whether we "want to go back to the drawing board", perhaps you should reconsider the soundness of what was on the drawing board in the first place.

8 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

"When I said earlier that a doctrine of intervention against inter-sphere coalitions was the best way NPO knew how to maintain the system, I meant it." I am sure you can appreciate the irony here?

Of course it's ironic. But the fact that the thing we feared - a multisphere coalition, not to mention the prospect of that coalition opportunistically hitting NPO - happened should tell you something about the immense fallacies of the entire concept and the necessity of some contingency plan.

8 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Even the way that these "multisphere coalitions" was counted by your alliance seemed like a construct to justify you folding into BK against TKR. You always counted Covenant, Citadel, and BK as one sphere, for example. On the whole your alliance just.... doesn't seem to have problems with anything BK does, and I think that's by design. You may put stock in your own government's justifications there... I'm more cynical, and see them as fabricated. They start from the conclusion "we need to help bk!" and then work backwards, in my eyes.

You are, of course, free to draw separate circles around BK, Citadel, and Covenant, but that doesn't mean that other people have to. And if their not doing so makes them bad actors or disingenuous in your eyes, perhaps that's a good indicator that this was half-baked all along.

8 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

I don't really have much idea how much you expressed the inherent flaws in multi polarity to your current allies. I was working more from the intent of the deal brokered by Partisan, Pre, and Ripper, which in my eyes you completely and deliberately violated the intent of. But your current allies have certainly been acting fairly flabbergasted, so it's incredibly difficult for me to give you the benefit of the doubt...

...even, again, putting aside the fact that you declared this war based on a justification I believe to be a lie.

We expressed our misgivings publicly for months. Pretty much every time I saw Keshav or Roquentin say something about multipolarity in the abstract, it was skeptical. If you want someone to talk specifically about what was and wasn't said when this whole thing was being put together, you'll have to talk to someone who was there. The public record, though, is detailed enough to figure out pretty much what we thought about the inherent flaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Edward I said:

We've explained this repeatedly. It wasn't a secret tie to BK. If this is so unsatisfactory for you that you'd ask whether we "want to go back to the drawing board", perhaps you should reconsider the soundness of what was on the drawing board in the first place.

Of course it's ironic. But the fact that the thing we feared - a multisphere coalition, not to mention the prospect of that coalition opportunistically hitting NPO - happened should tell you something about the immense fallacies of the entire concept and the necessity of some contingency plan.

You are, of course, free to draw separate circles around BK, Citadel, and Covenant, but that doesn't mean that other people have to. And if their not doing so makes them bad actors or disingenuous in your eyes, perhaps that's a good indicator that this was half-baked all along.

We expressed our misgivings publicly for months. Pretty much every time I saw Keshav or Roquentin say something about multipolarity in the abstract, it was skeptical. If you want someone to talk specifically about what was and wasn't said when this whole thing was being put together, you'll have to talk to someone who was there. The public record, though, is detailed enough to figure out pretty much what we thought about the inherent flaws.

Then we're going in circles. I would call it a secret tie, yes. And it's certainly more of a secret tie than what your leaders accused others of, when it suited them.

Your point about the contingency plan is a self fulfilling prophecy. There's your fallacy. :P The first multisphere coalition is the one BK made, which you then joined. You can't really justify your necessity of maintaining a secret tie on the fact that you were under a threat that did not happen. That proves nothing about the concept, but more about you, I'd wager.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hodor said:

I didn't ask NPO for help. I asked for their opinion on how this war should end. Roq has cited our animosity as reason to act on certain intel and or impulses, but he's yet to say it's his reason for staying in the war having accomplished his goals. If it's now his position that it's perma war or surrender, that's really good to know and that's why I'm asking.

Well the fact that they’re still fighting indicates that they don’t feel the war goals are fulfilled, regardless of what kastor said, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Then we're going in circles. I would call it a secret tie, yes. And it's certainly more of a secret tie than what your leaders accused others of, when it suited them.

Your point about the contingency plan is a self fulfilling prophecy. There's your fallacy. :P

Serious question: what are you trying to accomplish here? Are you only trying to articulate a sense of despair and disappointment? If that's the case, then what you're doing makes complete sense and I won't try to keep having circular discussions about it. I never expected us to see each other in a positive moral light; instead I've been trying to indicate a path forward to save or resurrect multipolarity without the pitfalls of this first attempt.

Edited by Edward I
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Well the fact that they’re still fighting indicates that they don’t feel the war goals are fulfilled, regardless of what kastor said, no?

Certainly, so they've either got new goals, new beef, or both. What's wrong with asking that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Certainly, so they've either got new goals, new beef, or both. What's wrong with asking that?

Well not quite. You said that they have fulfilled their goals. They can have the same goals they have stated and simply feel they aren't achieved yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Edward I said:

Serious question: what are you trying to accomplish here? Are you only trying to articulate a sense of despair and disappointment? If that's the case, then what you're making complete sense and I won't try to keep having circular discussions about it. I never expected us to see each other in a positive moral light; instead I've been trying to indicate a path forward to save or resurrect multipolarity without the pitfalls of this first attempt.

Oh, I'm quite disappointed. My intent is less to have a dialogue with NPO for my own sake: as I have indicated, I feel I've been lied to enough times personally for that well to be poisoned. My intent is similar in outlining a path forward without pitfalls of the first attempt, but more for other people who may be reading this than the people whose positions I already judge to be intransient.

I also intend to drag you guys through the coals politically for my ally's sake, since they're the ones you keep attacking.

Also I enjoy sizing you up (in particular, as opposed to Keshav or Roq) because our starting points are very different but I still don't perceive you as arguing in bad faith.

... that's the honest truth of it. Judge your use of your own time accordingly, no foul. :P

Edited by Spaceman Thrax

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Edward I said:

I've been trying to indicate a path forward to save or resurrect multipolarity without the pitfalls of this first attempt.

You guys are still interested in maintaining multipolarity then?

  • Upvote 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Well not quite. You said that they have fulfilled their goals. They can have the same goals they have stated and simply feel they aren't achieved yet.

Fair enough, I guess we'll both find out if/when Roq answers, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Smith said:

It's not. I am talking from a completely OOC/Meta perspective. You'll noticed both of example I gave actually hurt TKR directly and I did that intentionally. The point I am trying to make is that leadership changes often result in political change even if I disagree with what that political change is and even if it hurts TKR.

But when the same leaders are bringing up the same 3 year old grudges it makes it difficult for change to happen. 

This is actually interesting.

Sketchy, myself, Partisan, Prefontaine, Curufinwe, Valdorath, Adrienne, and...  maybe Saru (?) are the only ones who either created new alliances or inherited an alliance that fought against previous allies shortly afterwards.  (Purposefully fought against previous allies, not get dragged into wars through treaties)

Maybe Gorge too with his days in Cornerstone (lol)?

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

I think Thrax wants that to happen.

:3

Honestly one of these days I should juxtapose me talking about political things all serious-like and annoyed on the forums with me just talking about butts or whatever nonsense on discord.

I literally had a chat with Adrienne last night about her butt being an honourgland that entrances our sphere with mind control like a colony of ants.

Wow, I hope that doesn't embarrass her more than the actual conversation did.

  • Haha 1

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I think Thrax wants that to happen.

Bagels aren't the only thing he handles.

Humans cannot create anything out of nothingness. Humans cannot accomplish anything without holding onto something. After all, humans are not gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Curufinwe said:

I like how after members of your coalition have called NPO's leadership deranged (Manthrax), liars/disingenuous (Buorhann/Manthrax), dishonest (Smith) and threatened to target them relentlessly and anyone who is allied to them (Sketchy), you're now appealing to NPO to end the war on easy terms for your side.  You guys may want to work on the consistency of your messaging, since I'm not sure heaping abuse on NPO is the best way to get them to give you what you want.

Oh boy.  Like Thrax stated, all of that occurred after their involvement.

Until that point happened, we took NPO at their word that they've given us.  Their actions showed otherwise, so we are upset, and until I see otherwise - I have no reason to see them in a better light.  We reached out and offered good intentions towards them first, and even supported their move.

They simply cannot let you (BK) go.  I don't think it's our end where things fell initially.  I feel that they simply do not trust anyone else, nor are they willing to actually push through and try (Despite the fact that there's been multiple examples of alliances changing things up and having good things develop for them in other paths all throughout the game's history, in fact, BK is one of them that did so).

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spaceman Thrax said:

:3

Honestly one of these days I should juxtapose me talking about political things all serious-like and annoyed on the forums with me just talking about butts or whatever nonsense on discord.

I literally had a chat with Adrienne last night about her butt being an honourgland that entrances our sphere with mind control like a colony of ants.

Wow, I hope that doesn't embarrass her more than the actual conversation did.

Thraaaaaaax. You're giving away all my secrets :( How am I supposed to achieve world domination if everyone knows about the honourgland?

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
1 hour ago, Hodor said:

I didn't ask NPO for help. I asked for their opinion on how this war should end. Roq has cited our animosity as reason to act on certain intel and or impulses, but he's yet to say it's his reason for staying in the war having accomplished his goals. If it's now his position that it's perma war or surrender, that's really good to know and that's why I'm asking.

'You've achieved all your goals'. 'This war has now been bogged down into a draw by your entry. So, do you exit?' 'You've got all the leverage here... your word should matter most'.

Perhaps I misinterpreted the musings of a simple stable boy from Winterfell, but your line of questioning does seem to suggest a preferred outcome.

1 hour ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Edit: all of that happened after they attacked us for what we perceive to be a fake reason, by the by. I wouldn't be expecting much in the way of pleasantries.

 

21 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

This is actually interesting.

Sketchy, myself, Partisan, Prefontaine, Curufinwe, Valdorath, Adrienne, and...  maybe Saru (?) are the only ones who either created new alliances or inherited an alliance that fought against previous allies shortly afterwards.  (Purposefully fought against previous allies, not get dragged into wars through treaties)

Maybe Gorge too with his days in Cornerstone (lol)?

We're the heroes Orbis deserves? 

Edited by Curufinwe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Oh, I'm quite disappointed. My intent is less to have a dialogue with NPO for my own sake: as I have indicated, I feel I've been lied to enough times personally for that well to be poisoned. My intent is similar in outlining a path forward without pitfalls of the first attempt, but more for other people who may be reading this than the people whose positions I already judge to be intransient. 

I also intend to drag you guys through the coals politically for my ally's sake, since they're the ones you keep attacking. 

... that's the honest truth of it. Judge your use of your own time accordingly, no foul. :P

Fair enough. I'll leave you with one parting thought then:

We knew we'd be dragged through the coals for this, and we did it anyway. For better or worse, power gives us the luxury of being both intransient and intransigent (not sure if that was a typo or not :P). For better or worse, power gives us some say in what the rules of the metagame should be.

 

1 minute ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

You guys are still interested in maintaining multipolarity then? 

We haven't fully made up our minds, honestly. Like I said, NPO always had misgivings about multipolarity, but they were primarily - if not exclusively - about the details, not the principle. If the details are properly worked out and the credible assurances against bad actors I mentioned earlier are incorporated, I imagine we'd be fine with it.

 

This will likely be a high bar for many people, though. An incomplete list would (probably) include, in no particular order:

No expectation of a cage match between NPO and BK. We're not against fighting them at some point in the future, but we're not going to hate them overnight, and blowing up all the infra in the mid-tier while the whales sit and watch is going to be a hard sell in itself.

A better definition of what a sphere is, and what kinds or sizes of spheres aren't allowed. For instance, if BK-sphere was too big for the system to handle, that's as much a fault of the system as it is of BK because, as far as I can tell, no one bothered to work that out before early April when this all came together. This will also need to be a discussion about the nature of the Paracovenant-IQ model of large numbers of less active, less experienced players, not just an exercise in plopping scores and city counts into spreadsheets.

A better definition of acceptable ties and cooperation between spheres. If there's a sense, even a misplaced one, that some people are dealing under the table it will kill the whole endeavor. This needs to take into account IC and OOC friendships, what ad hoc cooperation between spheres can and should look like, and how many traditional treaties define a sphere. (I'm waiting for someone else to tell me an ODP between NPO and one BK-sphere alliance means we're a hegemony.)

A model for change. Unless we're going to delineate permanent alliances later this year and keep them until the servers get shut off, there needs to a way to change treaties or FA goals without breaking the system.

A contingency plan. What happens if (probably when) this all goes south? As we've said before, it's not just a matter of stylized, multipolar separation between groups; it's also a matter of incorporating and accommodating other agendas. We don't want to be stabbed in the back, we don't want to see upper tier consolidation or runaway upper tier growth, and it would be nice if we could hit people over a grudge every once in awhile. And that's just NPO; I don't know what every other alliance wants, but I can't imagine their only goals are a pretty treaty web and smaller wars.

 

Those conditions alone may very well be unattainable. Personally, I'm skeptical that it's even possible for minispheres to be truly self-sustaining. But, regardless of what happens, I think it would be nice if most of us could figure out and agree on what went wrong and why. If there isn't an existential disagreement, maybe future wars will feel less existential.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

This is actually interesting.

Sketchy, myself, Partisan, Prefontaine, Curufinwe, Valdorath, Adrienne, and...  maybe Saru (?) are the only ones who either created new alliances or inherited an alliance that fought against previous allies shortly afterwards.  (Purposefully fought against previous allies, not get dragged into wars through treaties)

Maybe Gorge too with his days in Cornerstone (lol)?

TKR are our allies. TKR have always been our allies. We are at war with NPO. We have always been at war with NPO. We are at war with TKR. We have always been at war with TKR. NPO are our allies. NPO have always been our allies. 

  • Upvote 4

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Ripper said:

"Ri/Manthrax joined a bloc after its course had already been plotted. If you are saying Chaos formed so SRD could get revenge on you, then I'm impressed Ri/Manthrax got that out of the rest of us." 

As I said, try to be consistent with your spins, else it gets pointless.

Not sure what you hate you did. If you are talking about throwing logs, I am 100% fine with that. I never asked you or t$ to hide anything and I never hid my agenda. And, apparently, it may shock you, but I am not cryptic as most of the leaders playing this game.

Not sure what you don't understand from the "a reason" part. IQ splitting was a great bonus. So, it was one more reason for us to roll with it, without any fear of you doing to the game exactly what you are doing right now. I see nothing contradictory.

As I said, your statement doesn't add up:

> Did TEst/CoS strart planning? Yes.
> Was IQ-NPO one of the first alliances to join? Yes.
> Did TEst/CoS accept you joining the war based on certain conditions imposed on you? No.
> Was t$ waiting to join the war till they got assurance from you you would split? Yes.
> Would we have started the war regardless? Yes, since what we cared about mostly was not t$ joining but t$ fighting against that (and that was secured it would happen)

So, from a timeline point of view, your whole arguement that TEst/CoS accepted you (!!!) to paticipate in Knightfall 2 months before the start of the war because you made an agreement with Partisan a few weeks before the war makes 0 sense. As you say: "Two different timelines".

I mean, seriously, I don't get it. What do you imply? That if you hadn't agreed on the t$ thing, TEst/CoS would kick you from the coalition? Or that TEst/CoS would cancel the plans they've been working on for months? I think you see both scenarios are ridiculous.

The only "obligation" you had post-war, was to follow-up with the "deal" you've made with Partisan, Pre and I, and as I've proven/said, that was independent of the war. Even if the war hadn't happened, I would still go with it. What I was giving in the deal was making my alliance non-paperless for the first time in order to protect two alliances that I wouldn't necessarily profit from in the future (needless to say that's a lot to ask from our members). What you were getting was a chance for something new, since you supposedly wanted new people to work with, turn a page, etc. etc. And what Partisan wanted was a strong ally and to break the fronts of the game to something new and non-repetitive (that's where his interests alligned with Pre's and mine).

Like Pre, I never said you were "obliged" to follow-up after Partisan quiting. It's right there in the logs you threw:

"I am ok with starting from scratch." / 
"I want to trust you." / "I want to work with you in that front." / "I won't hide my agenda from you."

I don't know what else you could ask from an non-allied-to-you alliance with no past history of cooperation. I followed up with all of my statements. As I said, CoS has to prove nothing to anyone. After all we've done for the game and your community (I care more about your members than the alliance per se) to help, and after sympathizing with your partial external political isolation, I will be honest, I am shocked when you accuse CoS of hating you/plotting agaist you/ using you or whatever.

It hadn't been plotted. She joined it as the biggest member and she gave her rationale for doing so in the leaked screenshots that the cluster she was a part of needed to see the "big picture" so IQ could go down and she was taking the opportunity. If you had Chaos plotted before Manthrax was upset and all the internal coalition fights then, you were making it during the war, which is also a problem.

I didn't mean to have to drop the logs .The a reason part is part of the problem. It shouldn't have been a reason because you already wanted to do the war. I don't know if it's a cultural difference in terms of why you don't get how it came off as trying to pressure me into doing the tS thing on a desired timetable. You said you were fine starting over but that you had an expectation something would come from it.

I'm not saying you had it as your rationale the entire time, I'm saying you either didn't and retconned it as a rationale or you did. Either way it was deployed against me in that convo to try to guilt trip me and it gave me a lot of misgivings when you went onto sign Chaos. Partisan was gone and you didn't inquire about it until well after.  No one else in NPO gov who saw it interpreted differently.

 

Quote

 

We've been talking (you and me specifically) for literally months for the war and your future plans, and the only thing you do is going ahead and pretending I don't exist just to prove how CoS is not nice towards you. The only things you have to say is how Manthrax who isn't a leader since May-June 2018 doesn't like you or The Covenant, or how Bezzers that became leader during this war also had issues with you while he was in AIM.

At least you remembered the above logs you threw. And thanks for posting them, further proving my points and how as an alliance we've been following a straght line based on sincerity, being open to work with others, and trusting them about their motivations.

Well, I also am not "scared" about anything. I just have "worries". That's the way I will put it from now on. Thanks for worrying for us though.

I'm not pretending you didn't exist. We cooperated while you had a mutual goal. During the war there were multiple instances where you tried to make it out like getting TKR to make concessions would be impossible and then you said at one closing the gap wasn't a concern. In the logs,  I didn't do what you wanted when  you wanted which is how it came to off me in terms of your interpretation. You were upfront that you wanted to do the split and you were willing to work on that without an actual part of the mini-sphere.  You then went onto sign an alliance on the other side of the last war and made an entirely new sphere. It was framed to me as being a consequence of not having done the tS thing by that point by Kayser based on his communications with you and that you were operating on the premise that I had lied the entire time. See how it looks?

I just don't remember actually wanting to keep GOB out. Some people thought it was viable but I didn't think it would be viable to keep them due to knowing their ties to TKR/Guardian. Given it was conveyed to me by others that SRD had personal issues, I would have never had an interest in avoiding conflict with GOB.

 

8 hours ago, Hodor said:

Certainly, so they've either got new goals, new beef, or both. What's wrong with asking that?

There isn't really a new goal. It's more we saw the opportunity execute the original goals of our entry partially and we don't really feel it's great if some people walk out relatively unscathed from the war while we have had to do what is necessary to get the point. I didn't intend for the HS/tS exit to mean a walk in the park for the people they had been fighting. 

The coalition has not decided fully on any conditions in terms of a consensus, but it's odd to me when you had defined victory before that you're saying it's perma war if you're asked to surrender. The flipside of it is also and why I provided a lot of the background is i knew that I could potentially be cornered into a situation where either I potentially set up a solo rolling down soon or down the line or I'd have to bite the bullet be seen as  a cartoonesque villain for  breaking some sort of implicit honor code and hitting people who had shown hostility. So the problem then if those people are angry and feel they have a bunch of justified reasons to hate us and that we are not worthy of any trust(earlier on the out of chances thing was particularly alarming), there isn't really a basis for peace without conditions. It would essentially be pretty naive on our part to simply let a group of angry people get things on their terms and establish external support as we have been framed as being the only ones who had ever considered touching a hair on KETOG's chinny chin chin and that we made up the TKR thing in order to have an excuse to kill KETOG off so we could eradicate the mini-spheres and establish a hegemony. Do you see the logic here? This is kind of why I replied to Sketchy and Buorhann the way I did. Their opinion is I made up all the beef with TKR, CoS, etc in order to get at them indirectly. I didn't have the numbers to hit the entire coalition and the only intel I had was about TKR and how they saw it as an opportunity to have tS cordon us off for the time being and then they would go for it.   We had multiple other entry points including using the ODoAP or just aiding protectorates.

 

8 hours ago, Hodor said:

I didn't ask NPO for help. I asked for their opinion on how this war should end. Roq has cited our animosity as reason to act on certain intel and or impulses, but he's yet to say it's his reason for staying in the war having accomplished his goals. 

See above.

 

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

Honestly, after reading multiple replies, I think I’ve found the issue:  NPO/Roq is jealous of the attention that BK/Cov got and wanted us to look at them too.

Nope. I just know you guys are pretty cutthroat and pragmatic. It's hard to just forget the ruthless pragmatism in TGH/KT/Rose all planning Ayyslamic Crusade war to get at people who had spent billions rebuilding their infra after having fought Terminal Jest. The TRF war even though you didn't impose harsh terms on them was also pretty opportunistic as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alex locked this topic
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.