Jump to content
Prefonteen

$yndicate treaty cancellation

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Partisan posts reasons for cancellation except they're retconned and they had already decided to cancel before any of those listed. For us it was dead the day their intentions became clear and keeping it until the war ended was a courtesy.

l

 

 

 

I wasn't aware I, in my capacity as t$ FA made an executive decision before I became gov.

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

 

Remember when you tried to write us off? 

Remember when you thought I'd take a loss? 

Don't you remember? You thought I'd need ya! 

Follow procedure, remember? Oh wait you got amnesia? 

It was my season for battle wounds,

Battle scars, body bumped, bruised, 

Stabbed in the back, brimstone, fire jumping through, 

 

Welp, Parti baby, we now got bad blood. Thanks for nothing! I look forward to EMC v2.0 coming up next ;) 

Are you challenging me to a $wift-off?

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, all this time the treaty was still active? Consider me shocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

I wasn't aware I, in my capacity as t$ FA made an executive decision before I became gov.

Are you challenging me to a $wift-off?

You're using reasons made after the current gov with the exception of you had decided. You were only called up to retake the FA position because of how the situation unfolded. Your justifications are actions taken in response to tS' orientation as we had to see tS as hostile based on what it done before and adjust accordingly. Had we had any real reason to believe things could turn out differently,  a lot of things wouldn't have transpired.

Edited by Roquentin
previous gov doesn't apply since utmos/leopold still listed as gov
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Roquentin said:

You're using reasons made after the previous gov had decided. You were only called up to retake the FA position because of how the situation unfolded. Your justifications are actions taken in response to tS' orientation as we had to see tS as hostile based on what it done before and adjust accordingly. Had we had any real reason to believe things could turn out differently,  a lot of things wouldn't have transpired.

I think it'd be more fair to see that the breakdown in communications between you and previous gov was a perfect storm of misalignment of interests and 2 sides drawing their conclusions prematurely. You are *at the very least* as much a party to that as our side. As has been rehashed in private time and time again, your defense of BK was -within the dynamics of our sphere- indefensible.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:

I think it'd be more fair to see that the breakdown in communications between you and previous gov was a perfect storm of misalignment of interests and 2 sides drawing their conclusions prematurely. You are *at the very least* as much a party to that as our side. As has been rehashed in private time and time again, your defense of BK was -within the dynamics of our sphere- indefensible.

Well, you know, some of the decision makers are still presently gov. We made every effort to communicate and it was your side that had already had its decisions made which resulted in us acting in kind.  It's good for you to admit however, you have seen the so-called "defense of BK" as indefensible for 5 months, though so we can stop pretending you weren't cancelling over the entry anyway. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Well, you know, some of the decision makers are still presently gov. We made every effort to communicate and it was your side that had already had its decisions made which resulted in us acting in kind.  It's good for you to admit however, you have seen the so-called "defense of BK" as indefensible for 5 months, though so we can stop pretending you weren't cancelling over the entry anyway. 

Which decision maker is presently gov? I am in Sisy's seat and Jordan is interim in Leo's seat.

With regards to BK.... yes. BK is not a friendly entity to t$. It hasn't been for a long time. t$ also is not and has not been interested in propping up BK, or in any way linking ourselves to BK. Your defense of BK forces all of that. The unilateral decision to come in to swing BKs war and root out KETOG was problematic to us because you knew our disposition, yet you still tried to corner us into a situation where we had to join BK's larger coalition.

 

So we bowed out, and the rest flowed from there.

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Which decision maker is presently gov? I am in Sisy's seat and Jordan is interim in Leo's seat.

With regards to BK.... yes. BK is not a friendly entity to t$. It hasn't been for a long time. t$ also is not and has not been interested in propping up BK, or in any way linking ourselves to BK. Your defense of BK forces all of that. The unilateral decision to come in to swing BKs war and root out KETOG was problematic to us because you knew our disposition, yet you still tried to corner us into a situation where we had to join BK's larger coalition.

 

So we bowed out, and the rest flowed from there.

Would have shown the same level of disinterest in propping up GOONS though? Which would you see as worse to be in a coalition with, GOONS or BK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Would have shown the same level of disinterest in propping up GOONS though? Which would you see as worse to be in a coalition with, GOONS or BK?

This thread is not about GOONS. Please stay on topic. There's a hundred other threads for you and GOONS to go at it in, friend.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Prefonteen said:

This thread is not about GOONS. Please stay on topic. There's a hundred other threads for you and GOONS to go at it in, friend.

I think its relevant to the war since GOONS came during the war & currently BK is in a coalition with GOONS despite not choosing that. Would have been interesting to hear your viewpoint in specific if you were answering questions, but not answering says plenty. Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

I think its relevant to the war since GOONS came during the war & currently BK is in a coalition with GOONS despite not choosing that. Would have been interesting to hear your viewpoint in specific if you were answering questions, but not answering says plenty. Good luck.

You are free to ask me the same question on the PW discord, in DM or in another thread and I am happy to answer you, friend.

Just @ me and I will come running.

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Thalmor said:

DB_treaty_quote.png

Yeah, people sure were surprised alright. :P

So happy I left when I did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The time it took T$ to cancel that treaty is further proof why we don´t have peace already, how could one negotiate with such slow creatures? :D:D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kalev60 said:

The time it took T$ to cancel that treaty is further proof why we don´t have peace already, how could one negotiate with such slow creatures? :D:D 

jsp.jpg.db652f98f467ac30a573a86d3194286a.jpg

Give us a minute.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, kalev60 said:

The time it took T$ to cancel that treaty is further proof why we don´t have peace already, how could one negotiate with such slow creatures? :D:D 

I'm sure you're not a troll at all.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

I think it'd be more fair to see that the breakdown in communications between you and previous gov was a perfect storm of misalignment of interests and 2 sides drawing their conclusions prematurely. You are *at the very least* as much a party to that as our side. As has been rehashed in private time and time again, your defense of BK was -within the dynamics of our sphere- indefensible.

Your OP claims otherwise, considering all your listed reasons is simply pointing the finger and not just straight out acknowledging that it was a breakdown of communications on both sides. Which is a foul in my opinion. So in conclusion I'll just leave this quote here and be on my way.

"every action has an equal and opposite reaction" - Sir Isaac Newton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said:

Your OP claims otherwise, considering all your listed reasons is simply pointing the finger and not just straight out acknowledging that it was a breakdown of communications on both sides. Which is a foul in my opinion. So in conclusion I'll just leave this quote here and be on my way.

"every action has an equal and opposite reaction" - Sir Isaac Newton.

The above are *our* reasons for the cancellation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Which decision maker is presently gov? I am in Sisy's seat and Jordan is interim in Leo's seat.

With regards to BK.... yes. BK is not a friendly entity to t$. It hasn't been for a long time. t$ also is not and has not been interested in propping up BK, or in any way linking ourselves to BK. Your defense of BK forces all of that. The unilateral decision to come in to swing BKs war and root out KETOG was problematic to us because you knew our disposition, yet you still tried to corner us into a situation where we had to join BK's larger coalition.

 

So we bowed out, and the rest flowed from there.

Leopold is still listed and any change is recent.

I don't really recall asking Syndicate to join the coalition at any point or having that as my expectation. The reasons for why not entering would be bad were given ad nauseam and it had nothing to do with linking tS to BK. Propping up in the sense that it was clear it would be hemmorhage a lot of people and leave other people in the driver's seat going forward if we didn't change things, maybe.

5 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Funny how Roq is calling out Partisan/Syndicate about how the treaty was dead, yet NPO failed to cut the treaty then.  Doesn't exactly tell you it was dead...  they simply failed at handling the situation and trying to blame Syndicate for it.

I don't really see why we'd telegraph our reaction and the reaction was to let the TEst situation play out as we no longer viewed the Syndicate as having the potential to be a good faith actor. Until the OWR/Carthago signings, we held out a small hope of mediation working. The response to the OWR/Carthago signings was that we were not informed because we would leak it to BK even though we never had disclosed confidential information such as  Leopold's sponsorship and commissioning of tS members  to join Terminal Jest before the war to hit Yakuza and others. and then we were mocked by the other person in the discussion, to paraphrase "I can listen to the voices in my head and conjure up reasons too."  We don't really have any reason to take the high road when it's clear the other party is making chess moves and hostile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

This thread is not about GOONS. Please stay on topic. There's a hundred other threads for you and GOONS to go at it in, friend.

Actually everything is about GOONS now.  Everything that occured prior to our arrival (B.G.) must rightly be discarded as apocrypha.  Since our holy arrival, everything can and will be viewed through our lens.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Funny how Roq is calling out Partisan/Syndicate about how the treaty was dead, yet NPO failed to cut the treaty then.  Doesn't exactly tell you it was dead...  they simply failed at handling the situation and trying to blame Syndicate for it.

Roquentin literally just answered this, sheesh. 

The Syndicate is known for trashing allies for future interests, turning them into ex-allies when convenient. Partisan is just trying to spin anything he can spin in hopes he can "win" a PR war. I know it sucks that you thought you could swing the war and get your ally trashed, but nothing is going to change the amount of shitty actions done by The Syndicate this war.  It just thought it could cancel NPO just before they were to be rolled instead of NPO realizing what was going on and being proactive.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, wasn’t aware he already answered it by cutting the treaty once he realized it was dead.  Oh wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Roquentin said:

You're using reasons made after the current gov with the exception of you had decided. You were only called up to retake the FA position because of how the situation unfolded. Your justifications are actions taken in response to tS' orientation as we had to see tS as hostile based on what it done before and adjust accordingly. Had we had any real reason to believe things could turn out differently,  a lot of things wouldn't have transpired.

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Partisan posts reasons for cancellation except they're retconned and they had already decided to cancel before any of those listed. For us it was dead the day their intentions became clear and keeping it until the war ended was a courtesy.

False, I spoke with t$ gov, as well as you (as you know) about trying to keep the treaty alive. While reluctant, they were willing to humor me and had decided not to cancel the treaty. You however, as admitted previously, decided the treaty was dead the day you assumed t$ was out to get you when we declared war on grumpy and Guardian. You consistently deny equality at the table unless an alliance is a macro like BK. You've threatened your own allies with war if they don't comply, you've gone against the wishes of a vast majority of your allies by forcing the continuation of this conflict as outlined here: 

and you continue to pretend to be the victim of some elaborate plot. BK and NPO are the sole reason this conflict rages on, and you choose to only listen to the few micro loyalist to prop yourself up on the throne of morality. Implicating that all the other voices of dissent are not relevant, and don't have a seat at your table. If anyone disagrees with you, you throw them out. The moment someone tells you no, you've decided they're your enemy, just like you did with t$. 
 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sardonic said:

Actually everything is about GOONS now.  Everything that occured prior to our arrival (B.G.) must rightly be discarded as apocrypha.  Since our holy arrival, everything can and will be viewed through our lens.

Yes master. 

1 hour ago, The Point Guard said:

Roquentin literally just answered this, sheesh. 

The Syndicate is known for trashing allies for future interests, turning them into ex-allies when convenient. Partisan is just trying to spin anything he can spin in hopes he can "win" a PR war. I know it sucks that you thought you could swing the war and get your ally trashed, but nothing is going to change the amount of shitty actions done by The Syndicate this war.  It just thought it could cancel NPO just before they were to be rolled instead of NPO realizing what was going on and being proactive.

 

 

Interesting allegation. Csn you give me specific examples? 

 

 

Also please see:

20 minutes ago, James II said:

False, I spoke with t$ gov, as well as you (as you know) about trying to keep the treaty alive. While reluctant, they were willing to humor me and had decided not to cancel the treaty. You however, as admitted previously, decided the treaty was dead the day you assumed t$ was out to get you when we declared war on grumpy and Guardian. You consistently deny equality at the table unless an alliance is a macro like BK. You've threatened your own allies with war if they don't comply, you've gone against the wishes of a vast majority of your allies by forcing the continuation of this conflict as outlined here: 

and you continue to pretend to be the victim of some elaborate plot. BK and NPO are the sole reason this conflict rages on, and you choose to only listen to the few micro loyalist to prop yourself up on the throne of morality. Implicating that all the other voices of dissent are not relevant, and don't have a seat at your table. If anyone disagrees with you, you throw them out. The moment someone tells you no, you've decided they're your enemy, just like you did with t$. 
 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • 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.