A $yndicate message - on the BK narrative

[Cooper_]

1 hour ago, Leo the Great said:

TKR doesn’t sign subhumans, right Mitsuru?

So just ignore the FA gov and listen to the Econ gov who isn’t too involved in our FA decisions.  That makes sense.

Anyways, this issue has been dealt with in detail.  If you have issues with us or any of our actions, I invite you to my or any of TKR FA’s DMs.  Your view of the hate between our two alliances is solely your own as I personally don’t believe in grudges.  But let’s just continue to ignore the damning evidence Partisan is posting in favor of maligning TKR (for something that wasn’t even intentional btw).  

[Guest Curufinwe]

59 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

So just ignore the FA gov and listen to the Econ gov who isn’t too involved in our FA decisions.  That makes sense.

Anyways, this issue has been dealt with in detail.  If you have issues with us or any of our actions, I invite you to my or any of TKR FA’s DMs.  Your view of the hate between our two alliances is solely your own as I personally don’t believe in grudges.  But let’s just continue to ignore the damning evidence Partisan is posting in favor of maligning TKR (for something that wasn’t even intentional btw).  

So BK/TKR MADP when?

[Roquentin]

I'm not really sure why my post was included, I said nothing to that point had been presented besides the rainbow thing. Your Alexio screen must have been given recently, but I never once said much about the CBs. The CBs are just a proximal cause. They don't motivate the war. People have had CBs on alliances before and not acted. To pretend wholly however it was reactionary and there was no negative mutual sentiment is the problem. I stand by my stance that war was more or less inevitable the day Chaos was signed and made more inevitable by the TCW-BK signing. TCW had an opsec problem and someone dropped the ball, but it did not change the overall situation of a KETOG/Chaos/Rose configuration winning a war decisively with the aim of removing the BKsphere as a threat creating a favorable situation for them that would be severely problematic especially if there existed tensions with people in that triumphant alignment as they would be free to come together at any time with only marginal disputes between them and only tensions between marginalized elements. 

The  troubling consolidation is a response to the decision to stay unified that KERCHTOGG has had made for quite sometime as we could no longer remain on the hook as a mere isolated independent agent and needed to solidify an FA trajectory. We weren't going to let the other side "stick together" paperlessly without a response and a formal alignment was preferred due to most alliances not being fond of paperless agreements.

 

  

49 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

So just ignore the FA gov and listen to the Econ gov who isn’t too involved in our FA decisions.  That makes sense.

Anyways, this issue has been dealt with in detail.  If you have issues with us or any of our actions, I invite you to my or any of TKR FA’s DMs.  Your view of the hate between our two alliances is solely your own as I personally don’t believe in grudges.  But let’s just continue to ignore the damning evidence Partisan is posting in favor of maligning TKR (for something that wasn’t even intentional btw).  

To comment on your post before this, essentially your offers to stop bipolarity have just been to have people join KERTCHOGG to fight the real bad guys(tm). This situation is a product of the long-term unity we see.

[Guest Viva Miriya]

1 hour ago, Ripper said:

So, your suggestion is that the "losing side" should just stay silent and let the "winning side" hide the truth?

Surprised a member of Goons would support such a stance. I will keep it in mind.

 

Quote

The Siege of Melos occurred in 416 BC during the Peloponnesian War, fought between Athens and Sparta. Melos is an island in the Aegean Sea roughly 110 km east of mainland Greece. Though the Melians had ancestral ties to Sparta, they chose to remain neutral in the war. Athens invaded Melos in the summer of 416 BC and demanded that the Melians surrender and pay tribute to Athens or face annihilation. The Melians refused, so the Athenians laid siege to their city. Melos surrendered in the winter, and the Athenians executed their men and enslaved their women and children.

This siege is best remembered for the Melian Dialogue, a dramatization of the negotiations between the Athenians and the Melians before the siege, written by the contemporary Athenian historian Thucydides. In the negotiations, the Athenians offered no moral justification for their invasion, but instead bluntly told the Melians that Athens needed Melos for its own ends and that the only thing Melians stood to gain in submitting was self-preservation. It is taught as a classic case study in political realism to illustrate the ultimately selfish and pragmatic concerns that motivate a country at war.

 

 

SynopsisEdit

The Athenians offer the Melians an ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be destroyed. The Athenians do not wish to waste time arguing over the morality of the situation, because in practice might makes right—or, in their own words, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".^[29]

The Melians argue that they are a neutral city and not an enemy, so Athens has no need to conquer them. The Athenians counter that if they accept Melos' neutrality and independence, they would look weak: Their subjects would think that they left Melos alone because they were not strong enough to conquer it.

The Melians argue that an invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves. The Athenians counter that the Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. It is the islands in the Aegean Sea that are more likely to take up arms against Athens.

The Melians argue that it would be shameful and cowardly of them to submit without a fight. The Athenians counter that it is only shameful to submit to an opponent whom one has a reasonable chance of defeating. There is no shame in submitting to an overwhelmingly superior opponent like Athens.

The Melians argue that though the Athenians are far stronger, there is still a chance that the Melians could win, and they will regret not trying their luck. The Athenians counter that this argument is emotional and short-sighted. If the Melians lose, which is highly likely, they will come to bitterly regret their foolhardiness.

The Melians argue that they will have the assistance of the gods because their position is morally just. The Athenians counter that the gods will not intervene because it is the natural order of things for the strong to dominate the weak.

The Melians argue that their Spartan kin will come to their defense. The Athenians counter that the Spartans are a pragmatic people who never put themselves at risk when their interests are not at stake, and rescuing Melos would be especially risky since Athens has the stronger navy.

The Athenians express their shock at the Melians' lack of realism. They reiterate that there is no shame in submitting to a stronger enemy, especially one who is offering reasonable terms. The Melians do not change their minds and politely dismiss the envoys.

Are you still reading? Cool, that's your PSCI 101 lesson. Stop crying about peace and your rights. The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. And you all=weak.

 

Edited November 28, 2019 by Viva Miriya

[Adrienne]

21 minutes ago, Viva Miriya said:

They reiterate that there is no shame in submitting to a stronger enemy, especially one who is offering reasonable terms.

 

21 minutes ago, Viva Miriya said:

especially one who is offering reasonable terms.

 

22 minutes ago, Viva Miriya said:

reasonable terms.

 

Man. Must be nice to know what the terms are and be able to decide if they're reasonable. 

[Prefonteen]

3 hours ago, alyster said:

At first day Partisan spoke up for Coalition B. Partisan saw that the post was good and he separated upvotes from downvotes. 

On the second day Partisan said "Let there be vault between t$ and NPO" and Partisan cancelled their treaty. He called t$ as Home and NPO as liars. And Partisan saw that it was good. 

On the third day Partisan said "Let the land produce log dumps: show people the true colours of tCW. and BK" And it was so. And Partisan saw that it was good.

 

Book of Genesis. @Prefonteen you've set the bar high. However you only get to take the day 7 off for a much needed rest. I expect new good topic tomorrow. 

I work in mysterious ways, and definitely not by any man's timeline. 

34 minutes ago, Viva Miriya said:

 

 

We've been given terms? 

[Guest Viva Miriya]

26 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

I work in mysterious ways, and definitely not by any man's timeline. 

We've been given terms? 

The powers that be in GONS TECH have recruited me for my singleminded devotion to destruction, not foreign affairs. I do not know, nor care, about terms offered to you people, nor the lack thereof. That's your problem, not mine.

38 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

 

 

 

Man. Must be nice to know what the terms are and be able to decide if they're reasonable. 

The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. You assume that you guys deserve terms beyond "surrender or die." Again, I do the fighting not the diplomacy. But I see posts like this and shake my head. Whatever rights you think you are entitled to are irrelevant if you can't back your stuff up. We've destroyed all comers. I'm not concerned with the whining of mewling little manchildren in yet another nation sim. There is nothing new under the sun, and this isn't my first rodeo. Maybe it's yours?

[Prefonteen]

3 minutes ago, Viva Miriya said:

The powers that be in GONS TECH have recruited me for my singleminded devotion to destruction, not foreign affairs. I do not know, nor care, about terms offered to you people, nor the lack thereof. That's your problem, not mine.

So why are you posting elaborate FA analogies then? 

[Guest Viva Miriya]

1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:

So why are you posting elaborate FA analogies then? 

Because I have relevant education and hope to correct your flawed perception of the political realities at play. And because I'm bored. Actually its mainly the last one.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Viva Miriya

[Alexio15]

10 minutes ago, Viva Miriya said:

The powers that be in GONS TECH have recruited me for my singleminded devotion to destruction, not foreign affairs. I do not know, nor care, about terms offered to you people, nor the lack thereof. That's your problem, not mine.

The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. You assume that you guys deserve terms beyond "surrender or die." Again, I do the fighting not the diplomacy. But I see posts like this and shake my head. Whatever rights you think you are entitled to are irrelevant if you can't back your stuff up. We've destroyed all comers. I'm not concerned with the whining of mewling little manchildren in yet another nation sim. There is nothing new under the sun, and this isn't my first rodeo. Maybe it's yours?

Did you say surrender it's almost as if you cant read... I'm fairly certain Col A posted two surrender threads nearly a month ago now. Stick to blowing things up like a good boy.

[Prefonteen]

10 minutes ago, Viva Miriya said:

Because I have relevant education and hope to correct your flawed perception of the political realities at play. And because I'm bored. Actually its mainly the last one.

How exactly can you draw a correct conclusion about our flawed perceptions if you do not know nor care to know about what has been offered and/or said?

[Auctor]

when yall find out all the terms have been in @TheNG's posts in the form of anagrams all along youre gonna freak

[Adrienne]

22 minutes ago, Viva Miriya said:

You assume that you guys deserve terms beyond "surrender or die."

You're right. We are not worthy. I will just take my surrender and leave.

[Micchan]

Edited November 29, 2019 by Micchan

[Guest Viva Miriya]

38 minutes ago, Alexio15 said:

Did you say surrender it's almost as if you cant read... I'm fairly certain Col A posted two surrender threads nearly a month ago now. Stick to blowing things up like a good boy.

DEAR ALEXIO15 STOP

THAT REQUIRES ME TO READ THESE FORUMS AND CARE WHAT HAPPENS STOP

YOUR TSHIRT LOOKS LIKE A DISHRAG STOP

REGARDS STOP 

VIVA MIRIYA

35 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

How exactly can you draw a correct conclusion about our flawed perceptions if you do not know nor care to know about what has been offered and/or said?

The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. This is all you need to know right now. The next lesson can come another day. 

[Cooper_]

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

Your Alexio screen must have been given recently, but I never once said much about the CBs. The CBs are just a proximal cause. They don't motivate the war. People have had CBs on alliances before and not acted. To pretend wholly however it was reactionary and there was no negative mutual sentiment is the problem. I stand by my stance that war was more or less inevitable the day Chaos was signed and made more inevitable by the TCW-BK signing.

I don’t buy that.  Y’all fault TKR for enforcing terms that weren’t ours because we were part of the peace treaty.  Now, NPO is responsible for trying to enforce the invalidation of our CBs.  To say that your or coalition B doesn’t care about them is just patently false otherwise I expect that wouldn’t be involved in your first term.  CBs are preeminent in determining the harshness of terms.  You and Keshav have said as much in the “lightness” of KF terms.

Also, the point that people have desires to hit people is just not unique.  That is involved in nearly any consideration of war and it is unfortunate, but without those logs this war wouldn’t have happened (at least not in a preemptive form).  You can continue to parrot whatever you want about Chaos’ formation, but I point you to Chaos’ DoE.  As far as I know Chaos has stayed true to those values, so let’s stop scapegoating and start taking responsibility for clearly described actions in the OP.

[AkAk]

[Redarmy]

"The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. "

Hmmmm not a very leftist thought.

[Shadowthrone]

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

As far as I know Chaos has stayed true to those values, so let’s stop scapegoating and start taking responsibility for clearly described actions in the OP.

Yes consolidating spheres and trying to win wars. I do love how though, if Chaos/KETOGG is reactionary, it's because of necessity and to save themselves and that's all good. But when we do similar "reactionary" actions, we're killing the game, and it's terrible and we have something to prove to all of you (that we are great at killing ourselves for your pleasure.) 

 

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Comrade Marx]

3 hours ago, Alexio15 said:

Did you say surrender it's almost as if you cant read... I'm fairly certain Col A posted two surrender threads nearly a month ago now. Stick to blowing things up like a good boy.

[Cooper_]

25 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

 

Yes consolidating spheres and trying to win wars. I do love how though, if Chaos/KETOGG is reactionary, it's because of necessity and to save themselves and that's all good. But when we do similar "reactionary" actions, we're killing the game, and it's terrible and we have something to prove to all of you (that we are great at killing ourselves for your pleasure.) 

It’s simply a false equivalency to parallel those two circumstances.  Chaos and KETOG were reacting to serious threats of a cataclysmic hit during rebuild, which we now know to due to these logs to be an existential crisis for the alliances involved. We had a myriad of logs and evidence even before the rainbow leaks that BK planned to try to enter.  Now, you compare this to two conversations where Adrienne’s tone in telling you that we weren’t going to hit y’all didn’t meet your standards.  And despite this, there are numerous conversation and logs that show the exact contrary to what you postulated.  Either way, there was no threat to the level that Chaos and KETOGG faced as even the localized comments by Sketchy and co (which were later disavowed by their own alliance’s gov) only occurred after you attacked. 

And yes BK/cov successfully got two warring spheres to work together, that isn’t consolidation that is a necessity of survival.  That says more about BK’s threat than our ties with KETOGG, which weren’t particular strong because we were having a war and all.  But we can discuss how your CB is incomparable another time, I believe the OP is about the lies that are being perpetuated by your side on the original circumstances of the war.  Y’all seem so intent on baiting us and deflecting, but where’s the responses to the legitimate evidence being presented?

[Dr James Wilson]

3 hours ago, Viva Miriya said:

DEAR ALEXIO15 STOP

THAT REQUIRES ME TO READ THESE FORUMS AND CARE WHAT HAPPENS STOP

YOUR TSHIRT LOOKS LIKE A DISHRAG STOP

REGARDS STOP 

VIVA MIRIYA

The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. This is all you need to know right now. The next lesson can come another day. 

Preeeeeeeetty sure they call that bullying now, but ok, champ. 

[kalev60]

If anything OP seems to be hinting at coloA, while publicly flirting with the narrative of them being hell-bent on peace, is actually trying their hardest on lengthening the conflict by leaks, spying on you and leaking is valid CB right?   and it´s working, I for one have a strong renewed feelings of  this global should last till the end...  

Edited November 29, 2019 by kalev60

[Guest Viva Miriya]

4 hours ago, Dr James Wilson said:

Preeeeeeeetty sure they call that bullying now, but ok, champ. 

How can I bully him by saying his tshirt looks like a dish rag, pray tell?

Like tell me how that can be interpreted as anything but nonsensical and whimsical in nature. Riddle me that.

Edited November 29, 2019 by Viva Miriya