alyster Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, Roquentin said: I mean whatever strain is gone then and everyone is a big Wilhelm fan once more. He said he wanted to undo the FA damage Kayser and I did to tS and he's done it in spades. You(tS) didn't take a gamble in any real sense on us unless the gamble was whether we'd be up for facilitating some sort of vendetta based on Camelot raids or something or facilitating everyone's dogpile on BK. You had us twisting ourselves into pretzels for you and one disagreement was enough to kill the relationship. You were not interested in working things out. You failed to inform you no longer valued NPO as an ally and that the decision had been made to move on from NPO until you pulled a fast one and signed new allies that had exited the war and essentially told us to go to hell. I mean you may even be right. (May). Nonetheless how many of your allies do you let getting rolled with out doing anything this year? At first it was DB, now t$ to defend BK who you're not even tied to. If they were so awful ally just cancel on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, alyster said: I mean you may even be right. (May). Nonetheless how many of your allies do you let getting rolled with out doing anything this year? At first it was DB, now t$ to defend BK who you're not even tied to. If they were so awful ally just cancel on them. There's been a war ongoing and coalition warfare has always taken precedent over external things. It's one of the things Partisan himself has criticized BK over in that he saw them as valuing shooting first in raid situations over coalition warfare. We weren't planning to cancel as we hoped the relationship could be salvaged but when it was clear it'd just all be a game of deception, we couldn't get to that until the war was over. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyster Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 Just now, Roquentin said: There's been a war ongoing and coalition warfare has always taken precedent over external things. It's one of the things Partisan himself has criticized BK over in that he saw them as valuing shooting first in raid situations over coalition warfare. We weren't planning to cancel as we hoped the relationship could be salvaged but when it was clear it'd just all be a game of deception, we couldn't get to that until the war was over. So BK with no ties took precedent over t$ MDP? Got it. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 59 minutes ago, Roquentin said: There's been a war ongoing and coalition warfare has always taken precedent over external things. It's one of the things Partisan himself has criticized BK over in that he saw them as valuing shooting first in raid situations over coalition warfare. We weren't planning to cancel as we hoped the relationship could be salvaged but when it was clear it'd just all be a game of deception, we couldn't get to that until the war was over. 58 minutes ago, alyster said: So BK with no ties took precedent over t$ MDP? Got it. ^Multiple times. I can frankly see why (if this is what happened; I wasn't there for it) t$ gov might have started deprioritizing NPO, all things considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 1 hour ago, alyster said: So BK with no ties took precedent over t$ MDP? Got it. I mean non-chaining treaties are non-chaining for a reason no? Or, do I have to start oA'ing every time tS decides to play dumb? tS had an option to wait for the war to get over and carry out it plans, or talk to us and attempted to figure out a solution. Or cancelled us if they did not value us anymore. Instead they decided to undermine our war efforts, inserted themselves in the centre of a conflict they claimed to be neutral in, broke our intel clause in our treaty and used that treaty as a shield to continuously undermine our war. But if all of that makes them great allies, yay I guess? 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: ^Multiple times. I can frankly see why (if this is what happened; I wasn't there for it) t$ gov might have started deprioritizing NPO, all things considered. Um what? Your other deals took precedent over being allied to us multiple times. We have allies on the coal B side as well. I can't recall a single time tS was hit before this and this was due to you prioritizing your ratlines for these guys over us. You had been enabled in all sorts of stunts prior to this and we no longer had a reason to enable you by threatening people when you made it clear you no longer wanted us as an ally. They didn't start deprioritizing. They decided NPO was finished as far as tS was concerned and weren't upfront. You deprioritized us way before anything else happened and prioritized PR and relations with Chaos over sensible military strategy/flexibility. When Kayser disappeared, tS more or less decided we were just a redheaded step child that could either be smacked into line or cut. This whole BK is the end all be all is frankly a joke and it became evident the rabid irrational grudge you have when it wasn't good enough that BK sustained the same economic damage a losing war would have given them. Oh no Gorge and Leo might get to shittalk a bit. The world is going to end. Edited October 3, 2019 by Roquentin 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 10 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: I mean non-chaining treaties are non-chaining for a reason no? Or, do I have to start oA'ing every time tS decides to play dumb? tS had an option to wait for the war to get over and carry out it plans, or talk to us and attempted to figure out a solution. Or cancelled us if they did not value us anymore. Instead they decided to undermine our war efforts, inserted themselves in the centre of a conflict they claimed to be neutral in, broke our intel clause in our treaty and used that treaty as a shield to continuously undermine our war. But if all of that makes them great allies, yay I guess? You mean the same way NPO undermined t$ by breaking an agreement on the rules of engagement vs GOB which was tacidly approved by Roq? As explained in the OP of my other thread, your chains also do not apply to a set of specific alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Prefonteen said: You mean the same way NPO undermined t$ by breaking an agreement on the rules of engagement vs GOB which was tacidly approved by Roq? As explained in the OP of my other thread, your chains also do not apply to a set of specific alliances. The chains do apply. We view it the same way. The funny thing though, we spoke to tS about our reasoning for it before. tS told us they disagree with the course of action, we said fine with us, but it was imperative to do it for our security. But I mean spending time debating, discussing and being up front with tS is now equal to breaking intel clauses of a MD and doing things behind our back. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Roquentin said: Um what? Your other deals took precedent over being allied to us multiple times. We have allies on the coal B side as well. I can't recall a single time tS was hit before this and this was due to you prioritizing your ratlines for these guys over us. You had been enabled in all sorts of stunts prior to this and we no longer had a reason to enable you by threatening people when you made it clear you no longer wanted us as an ally. They didn't start deprioritizing. They decided NPO was finished as far as tS was concerned and weren't upfront. You deprioritized us way before anything else happened and prioritized PR and relations with Chaos over sensible military strategy/flexibility. When Kayser disappeared, tS more or less decided we were just a redheaded step child that could either be smacked into line or cut. This whole BK is the end all be all is frankly a joke and it became evident the rabid irrational grudge you have when it wasn't good enough that BK sustained the same economic damage a losing war would have given them. I mean, BK picked this fight with us. Not the other way around. Spin it however you want, t$ jumped on GOB-Guardian this war. That's hardly propping up Chaos/Kerchtogg now is it. That effort to balance scales was turned into a shitfest where we involuntarily propped up a BK-NPO led ghost IQ the moment you broke your agreement with Sisy and struck TKR. So spare me the crocodile tears, because in terms of prioritization, t$' transgressions are nothing in comparison to your blatant violation of the premise N$O was supposedly built in. House Stark siding with t$ is a testament to that. 1 minute ago, Shadowthrone said: The chains do apply. We view it the same way. The funny thing though, we spoke to tS about our reasoning for it before. tS told us they disagree with the course of action, we said fine with us, but it was imperative to do it for our security. But I mean spending time debating, discussing and being up front with tS is now equal to breaking intel clauses of a MD and doing things behind our back. please view above. friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 3 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: I mean, BK picked this fight with us. Not the other way around. Spin it however you want, t$ jumped on GOB-Guardian this war. That's hardly propping up Chaos/Kerchtogg now is it. That effort to balance scales was turned into a shitfest where we involuntarily propped up a BK-NPO led ghost IQ the moment you broke your agreement with Sisy and struck TKR. Firstly, you picked this fight with BK. Every time you did stuff to undermine the coalition, we enabled it by shielding you from the repercussions. When you were warned about TEst by both us and Coalition B, you had time to solve it. Three weeks later, you had enough time to work on a MD+ treaty switch but zero time solving a simple peace negotiation. I mean it wasn't just Sisy who was informed about TEst. We told Leo (NPO) personally, that TEst needs to be sorted with the rest of Coalition B, but we won't hit them etc since you know they are your protectorates at this point. With regards to hitting TKR, we had a valid CB and we took it. Sisy's agreement was something we didn't see before it was posted, and moreover while it was a tacit understanding, the war changed gears and we felt sticking with it was counterproductive to our security. We intimated the same at that time. That's literally the difference between tS and the NPO. We were honest/up front about all our actions and transparent at all times with our actions. Instead your gov accused us of leaking and started breaking intel clauses, so whatever. 4 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: I mean, BK picked this fight with us. Not the other way around. Spin it however you want, t$ jumped on GOB-Guardian this war. That's hardly propping up Chaos/Kerchtogg now is it. That effort to balance scales was turned into a shitfest where we involuntarily propped up a BK-NPO led ghost IQ the moment you broke your agreement with Sisy and struck TKR. If anyone is in blatant violation of what N$O was built on, it's your government. Since an agreement we struck with your government, in a server/channel all of them were present in was blatantly ignored/changed up at the last minute because Sisy was too busy protecting his dear friends in Chaos, you voided that premise. Maybe if you were around actually involved in that, rather than giving half assed instructions to your deputy, it would have helped though! friend 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Cooper_ Posted October 3, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 3, 2019 11 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: We were honest/up front about all our actions and transparent at all times with our actions. Can we keep this one for posterity? 6 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 12 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: If anyone is in blatant violation of what N$O was built on, it's your government. Since an agreement we struck with your government, in a server/channel all of them were present in was blatantly ignored/changed up at the last minute because Sisy was too busy protecting his dear friends in Chaos, you voided that premise. Maybe if you were around actually involved in that, rather than giving half assed instructions to your deputy, it would have helped though! friend Why did you have to go and play the man instead of the topic? This is beneath you Keshav. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 10 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: I mean, BK picked this fight with us. Not the other way around. Spin it however you want, t$ jumped on GOB-Guardian this war. That's hardly propping up Chaos/Kerchtogg now is it. That effort to balance scales was turned into a shitfest where we involuntarily propped up a BK-NPO led ghost IQ the moment you broke your agreement with Sisy and struck TKR. So spare me the crocodile tears, because in terms of prioritization, t$' transgressions are nothing in comparison to your blatant violation of the premise N$O was supposedly built in. House Stark siding with t$ is a testament to that. please view above. friend. It didn't affect what Chaos or KETOG were doing much, but the issue was it wasn't actually about GOB-Guardian, it was about boxing NPO into a position where it couldn't defend its sovereign interests. We weren't aware of how strict Sisyphus would insist on it being because it became problematic when the other side saw it as a beneficial deal for them and rather than a unilateral stance that could be modified if it made sense, it was instead more or less a deal made with KERTCHOGG where they would get to win the overall war similar to TEst-Pantheon situation where paperless didn't expand. The point was never about a ghost IQ but that an absolute win for KERTCHOGG would be problematic if it enabled them to come against us. You wanted it to be a ghost IQ because it suited you better than admitting we might have had genuine concerns. HS is a different thing altogether and they've been allied to tS forever and tS has included them in their future FA, so they don't have the same incentives we do to not partake. TS doesn't want NPO around, but they do want HS and HS hasn't had animosity shown to them by tS. We didn't have an alternative to offer them in terms of an FA path as there are very few potential options and they hadn't been interested in parting ways with tS so it was a very tricky situation. Ultimately our tie with HS has come about in part due to our tie with tS except HS has always treated us an equal partner but it would be arrogant for us to expect them to choose us over their ally of almost 3 years. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 14 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: Why did you have to go and play the man instead of the topic? This is beneath you Keshav. Yes, of course. Pointing out that you were not involved in these discussions is playing the man. Maybe if you were around to actually witness what went down, your arguments would be made on facts rather than spin. But if you're going to insert yourself as the spokesperson regarding tS' actions the last three months, it would be nice if you were actually involved in it. I mean if you were, I think we'd have a far more optimal outcome between tS and NPO, since at least you're honest and upfront about what you want from any deal. But you weren't, yet asserting objectively false information as the truth in public. 21 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: Can we keep this one for posterity? Go ahead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 13 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: Yes, of course. Pointing out that you were not involved in these discussions is playing the man. Maybe if you were around to actually witness what went down, your arguments would be made on facts rather than spin. But if you're going to insert yourself as the spokesperson regarding tS' actions the last three months, it would be nice if you were actually involved in it. I mean if you were, I think we'd have a far more optimal outcome between tS and NPO, since at least you're honest and upfront about what you want from any deal. But you weren't, yet asserting objectively false information as the truth in public. Go ahead I have at no point inserted myself as a spokesperson, nor have I asserted that I am. I have only dutifully carried out orders given to me by Leopold himself. I do agree that we would have a more optimal outcome between tS and NPO if I had represented tS, as I would have told you to frick off the moment you came to me about reigniting some ghost IQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Roquentin said: I mean whatever strain is gone then and everyone is a big Wilhelm fan once more. He said he wanted to undo the FA damage Kayser and I did to tS and he's done it in spades. You (tS) didn't take a gamble in any real sense on us unless the gamble was whether we'd be up for facilitating some sort of vendetta based on Camelot raids or something or facilitating everyone's dogpile on BK. You had us twisting ourselves into pretzels for you and one disagreement was enough to kill the relationship. You were not interested in working things out. You failed to inform you no longer valued NPO as an ally and that the decision had been made to move on from NPO until you pulled a fast one and signed new allies that had exited the war and essentially told us to go to hell. You this, you that, you this and finally you that again. Does NPO accept any element of wrongdoing on their own part whatsoever? Edited October 3, 2019 by Charles the Tyrant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexio15 Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 Just now, Charles the Tyrant said: You this, you that, you this and finally you that again. Does NPO accept any element of wrongdoing on their own part whatsoever?i You not been keeping up? They dont know how to do that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Alexio15 said: You not been keeping up? They dont know how to do that I know, Roq’s language does speak volumes though. You couldn’t blame a person for thinking NPO’s FA is entirely reactionary and makes no moves of its own considering they seem to always be reacting to what everyone else does around them. If that’s the case, you can add terrible FA to the list of everything else they are terrible at. Edited October 3, 2019 by Charles the Tyrant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said: You this, you that, you this and finally you that again. Does NPO accept any element of wrongdoing on their own part whatsoever? 2 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said: I know, Roq’s language does speak volumes though. I don't get why I deserve this kind of hostile rhetoric. Just tryna have a conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 6 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: I have at no point inserted myself as a spokesperson, nor have I asserted that I am. I have only dutifully carried out orders given to me by Leopold himself. I do agree that we would have a more optimal outcome between tS and NPO if I had represented tS, as I would have told you to frick off the moment you came to me about reigniting some ghost IQ. (((GHOST IQ))) 5 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said: You this, you that, you this and finally you that again. Does NPO accept any element of wrongdoing on their own part whatsoever?i Everything NPO does is already objectively wrong on here, so we don't need to admit anything Everyone will present themselves in the best possible light, but for a minority voice on the OWF, it is even more important to argue its side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Roquentin said: (((GHOST IQ))) Everything NPO does is already objectively wrong on here, so we don't need to admit anything Everyone will present themselves in the best possible light, but for a minority voice on the OWF, it is even more important to argue its side. Ghost IQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Roquentin said: (((GHOST IQ))) Everything NPO does is already objectively wrong on here, so we don't need to admit anything Everyone will present themselves in the best possible light, but for a minority voice on the OWF, it is even more important to argue its side. Aaand you just did it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 13 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said: Aaand you just did it again. Okay. Ultimately most actions will be in reaction to something else. If you have a concern, you can wait for it to happen or preempt it, but there are few genuinely spontaneous actions that come out of nowhere and don't arise from something else. As an alliance that has tried to avoid being overbearing and sadistic, we don't really go around looking to beat on people for no reason so yes very few of our actions will be super spontaneous or unconnected to other events like Soup's hit of Fark. We messed up by not knowing the expectations tS outside of Kayser had for us. We rather than waiting for the predicted scenario to come to us hit TKR to prevent it which alienated tS as they hoped for a decisive TKR/Chaos victory and viewed them as a genuinely friendly group. This difference of opinion hadn't existed with the previous FA head and we failed to sort out the differing goals Sisyphus, Leopold, and Utmos had when compared to Kayser. We messed up by not realizing we were getting cancelled for sure before the recent treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 55 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: I don't get why I deserve this kind of hostile rhetoric. Just tryna have a conversation. Go home, you are drunk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.