Jump to content

Coalition A is trying to do something very obvious


Raigen
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Oh, bud. Buuuud. Does you have any forward gears or are they all backpedaling?

If you want to stop being misogynist, stop assuming she can't read.

 

It doesn't say anything misoygnistic. It's referring to that specific screenshot and nothing else. If you think I'm actually a misogynist, then that's a pretty hard accusation to level.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Well the actual reason is HS didn't tell us everything before and we did say tS was hostile. To give info when it would have been sensitive on the actual details would have compromised the operation. It's  a tricky situation to deal with allies on opposing ends of an issue which I know HS been through IW and Guardian in the past. It really is unfortunate that we couldn't be more forthright with HS, but it's how things go.

Well this is blatantly false. If we’re willing to keep IW, an alliance we only have an ODP with who coincidentally is on the opposing side, in the loop as to what we’re doing, post war plans etc, what cause would there be for me not to tell you what’s going on? Now I’m not faulting your choice in not informing us that you’re going to be attacking tS’ protectorates. Secrecy within your coalition trumps informing allies on the other side to a degree after all, but to say that we didn’t tell you everything beforehand is false. Nothing was withheld from our talks with yourself, Keshav and any joint channels between ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Cypher said:

Well this is blatantly false. If we’re willing to keep IW, an alliance we only have an ODP with who coincidentally is on the opposing side, in the loop as to what we’re doing, post war plans etc, what cause would there be for me not to tell you what’s going on? Now I’m not faulting your choice in not informing us that you’re going to be attacking tS’ protectorates. Secrecy within your coalition trumps informing allies on the other side to a degree after all, but to say that we didn’t tell you everything beforehand is false. Nothing was withheld from our talks with yourself, Keshav and any joint channels between ourselves.

HS didn't inform us it was peacing out. It's the only instance I can think of, but I wasn't trying to  harangue you guys over it since it was differently handled than tS. It was just a mention of an instance.

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roquentin said:

HS didn't inform us it was peacing out. It's the only instance I can think of, but I wasn't trying to  harangue you guys over it since it was differently handled than tS. It was just a mention of an instance.

 

It took two hours from point of contact to CoA to announcement of peace, all of which happened with only three combined HS/tS gov members awake. We made it clear that we wouldn’t support expansion of the war, and with your declaration against TKR, it shouldn’t have been a surprise that our support was gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cypher said:

It took two hours from point of contact to CoA to announcement of peace, all of which happened with only three combined HS/tS gov members awake. We made it clear that we wouldn’t support expansion of the war, and with your declaration against TKR, it shouldn’t have been a surprise that our support was gone.

Um, actually when it was originally announced 2 days before, HS had committed to defending NPO against counters even if it lost. I didn't hold it against you though and those logs have been shown to you before.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Um, actually when it was originally announced 2 days before, HS had committed to defending NPO against counters even if it lost. I didn't hold it against you though and those logs have been shown to you before.

Well no, that’s still false. No one from HS offered to give your counter support if you went in against TKR. We explicitly told you we wouldn’t support expansion of the war, why would we then turn around mid convo and promise you support?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I wait for a reply, @Roquentin can I get a comment from you on NPO and GPWC demanding House Stark ban me from the alliance in exchange for peace? That’s certainly no way to treat the *only* gov member who was interested in reviving N$O from the get go and keeping the individual treaty post war.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cypher said:

While I wait for a reply, @Roquentin can I get a comment from you on NPO and GPWC demanding House Stark ban me from the alliance in exchange for peace? That’s certainly no way to treat the *only* gov member who was interested in reviving N$O from the get go and keeping the individual treaty post war.

Did this occur? If so, Holy shit. 

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we've all learned that Roquentin will:

Backpedal on his commitments, or refuse to honor his end of an agreement. 

Collude with "rivals".

Break allied terms of engagement.

Insert his alliance into an aggressive war against the wishes and stated goals of his sphere.

Actively plot an aggressive war against his own allies/sphere with "unaffiliated" antagonists.

Encourage and participate in duplicitous negotiation tactics designed to force players from the game. 

Promote the concept of disbanding entire communities.

Actively infringe upon the sovereignty of his own allies by making external demands on their internal operations. 

A real example of moral integrity, that.

I get that everyone's at least beginning to abandon the pretense that anybody in Col B (who hasn't already left the war) is operating in good faith on any level, and we're all starting to gravitate to the classic "might makes right / bend the knee" angle - but if nothing else let us set the record straight on what parts you'll all be playing postwar:

Good Dog or Bad Dog. 

Servant or Enemy.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

I heard he doesn't clean up his fingernail clippings after he cuts them, too.  Evil.

I wanted to start small before I worked my way up to the big guns. 

  • Haha 1

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Cypher said:

Well no, that’s still false. No one from HS offered to give your counter support if you went in against TKR. We explicitly told you we wouldn’t support expansion of the war, why would we then turn around mid convo and promise you support?

Nope. It happened. Zygon said to stop daunting and go ahead and do it and that HS would counter. You can't literally revise the actual event on your convenience. It's what happened when it was announced. Again you are also repeating the lie that either tS or HS gave any notification of their intent to exit the war if x happened. It was never done.

 

20 hours ago, Cypher said:

While I wait for a reply, @Roquentin can I get a comment from you on NPO and GPWC demanding House Stark ban me from the alliance in exchange for peace? That’s certainly no way to treat the *only* gov member who was interested in reviving N$O from the get go and keeping the individual treaty post war.

The peace is in terms of the current on-going war. GPWC's wish was that they wouldn't peace the lower tier of HS while the war was ongoing so you could continue being a de facto member of HS and just move back on after.  If there's a peace, then you can move back on to HS after that but they didn't want the rest of HS to go scot-free if you were still a de facto member/gov just not on AA for the time being.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Cypher said:

While I wait for a reply, @Roquentin can I get a comment from you on NPO and GPWC demanding House Stark ban me from the alliance in exchange for peace? That’s certainly no way to treat the *only* gov member who was interested in reviving N$O from the get go and keeping the individual treaty post war.

You've been ghosting GPWC for months, which was let slide until you dropped the pretense and moved back to HS proper to continue your hostility. At which point GPWC declared open raiding season on all members of House Stark, essentially treating you and your alliance the same way you've been treating them. HS didn't like this and asked for GPWC to peace out, and you've since left the alliance. However, there's absolutely no reason to trust that you aren't still a de facto member given your extreme proclivity for ghosting, and if HS's Gov is continuing to wage a campaign against GPWC then GPWC will respond with reciprocal force. A ban is one way for them to prove that they aren't associated with your actions anymore if they don't like being rolled by GPWC. It has nothing to do with the overall global, it has to do with House Stark not being on the raidlist for GPWC until recently, and you're entirely to blame for that changing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sisyphus said:

So we've all learned that Roquentin will:

Backpedal on his commitments, or refuse to honor his end of an agreement. 

Collude with "rivals".

Break allied terms of engagement.

Insert his alliance into an aggressive war against the wishes and stated goals of his sphere.

Actively plot an aggressive war against his own allies/sphere with "unaffiliated" antagonists.

Encourage and participate in duplicitous negotiation tactics designed to force players from the game. 

Promote the concept of disbanding entire communities.

Actively infringe upon the sovereignty of his own allies by making external demands on their internal operations. 

A real example of moral integrity, that.

I get that everyone's at least beginning to abandon the pretense that anybody in Col B (who hasn't already left the war) is operating in good faith on any level, and we're all starting to gravitate to the classic "might makes right / bend the knee" angle - but if nothing else let us set the record straight on what parts you'll all be playing postwar:

Good Dog or Bad Dog. 

Servant or Enemy.

My car is out the front if you want to slash my tyres, ex.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Nope. It happened. Zygon said to stop daunting and go ahead and do it and that HS would counter. You can't literally revise the actual event on your convenience. It's what happened when it was announced. Again you are also repeating the lie that either tS or HS gave any notification of their intent to exit the war if x happened. It was never done.


I never mentioned in my post that we promised to leave the war if the war was expanded. I said we wouldn’t support your actions, nor would tS/HS offer up any form of counter defence. Both of us made it clear at the time we were solely after attacking Guardian and Grumpy, no one else. Any attempts to dislodge us from attacking GG and focus on others weren’t going to happen.
 

Going back to Zygon supposedly offering counter support, I can flat out tell you that was not true. Neither Zygon, Revan or even I would have risked the alliance by putting it in that position when we explicitly said we wouldn’t support expansion against TKR.

2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

The peace is in terms of the current on-going war. GPWC's wish was that they wouldn't peace the lower tier of HS while the war was ongoing so you could continue being a de facto member of HS and just move back on after.  If there's a peace, then you can move back on to HS after that but they didn't want the rest of HS to go scot-free if you were still a de facto member/gov just not on AA for the time being.

Let me quote what you told HS, “unless he’s banned from HS the GPWC hits will continue”. You’ve given GPWC a blank cheque to hit HS anytime they’d like as long as they suspect me a member of the alliance. Let me put that in layman’s terms for those watching in with no stake in what’s going on, you’ve told your protectorate to continue attacking your ally as long as they suspected me a member. Nowhere did you mention to your ally that they could accept me postwar. Furthermore with you liking Pop’s post calling for me to be banned, you had no intentions whatsoever for me to return back to House Stark.

 

2 hours ago, Pop said:

You've been ghosting GPWC for months, which was let slide until you dropped the pretense and moved back to HS proper to continue your hostility. At which point GPWC declared open raiding season on all members of House Stark, essentially treating you and your alliance the same way you've been treating them. HS didn't like this and asked for GPWC to peace out, and you've since left the alliance. However, there's absolutely no reason to trust that you aren't still a de facto member given your extreme proclivity for ghosting, and if HS's Gov is continuing to wage a campaign against GPWC then GPWC will respond with reciprocal force. A ban is one way for them to prove that they aren't associated with your actions anymore if they don't like being rolled by GPWC. It has nothing to do with the overall global, it has to do with House Stark not being on the raidlist for GPWC until recently, and you're entirely to blame for that changing.


Let me make this clear, save from the few days at TMC, I have not ghosted a single alliance this war. Terminus BEst was a one man AA devoted to attacking *both* sides of the war, in pursuant of the HS-NPO treaty. You can check my war history on your site, I have attacked nations in TKR, both SKs, Guardian, CoS and a handful of other alliances on Co A. The only reason why I temporarily returned to HS was because I made a mistake believing I could create a new alliance in my current state but lo and behold Sheepy was there to stop me. There was even a large portion of time where I spent my time not in an alliance to support my point that it was me acting alone. I’m not attacking GPWC’s decision to escalate what was just a one nation thing, what I am attacking is your belief that you can tell an alliance to ban someone lest they be attacked for perpetuity. After all, GPWC attacking the rest of HS has nothing to do with the global war, right? 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Cypher said:


I never mentioned in my post that we promised to leave the war if the war was expanded. I said we wouldn’t support your actions, nor would tS/HS offer up any form of counter defence. Both of us made it clear at the time we were solely after attacking Guardian and Grumpy, no one else. Any attempts to dislodge us from attacking GG and focus on others weren’t going to happen.
 

Going back to Zygon supposedly offering counter support, I can flat out tell you that was not true. Neither Zygon, Revan or even I would have risked the alliance by putting it in that position when we explicitly said we wouldn’t support expansion against TKR.

Let me quote what you told HS, “unless he’s banned from HS the GPWC hits will continue”. You’ve given GPWC a blank cheque to hit HS anytime they’d like as long as they suspect me a member of the alliance. Let me put that in layman’s terms for those watching in with no stake in what’s going on, you’ve told your protectorate to continue attacking your ally as long as they suspected me a member. Nowhere did you mention to your ally that they could accept me postwar. Furthermore with you liking Pop’s post calling for me to be banned, you had no intentions whatsoever for me to return back to House Stark.

 


Let me make this clear, save from the few days at TMC, I have not ghosted a single alliance this war. Terminus BEst was a one man AA devoted to attacking *both* sides of the war, in pursuant of the HS-NPO treaty. You can check my war history on your site, I have attacked nations in TKR, both SKs, Guardian, CoS and a handful of other alliances on Co A. The only reason why I temporarily returned to HS was because I made a mistake believing I could create a new alliance in my current state but lo and behold Sheepy was there to stop me. There was even a large portion of time where I spent my time not in an alliance to support my point that it was me acting alone. I’m not attacking GPWC’s decision to escalate what was just a one nation thing, what I am attacking is your belief that you can tell an alliance to ban someone lest they be attacked for perpetuity. After all, GPWC attacking the rest of HS has nothing to do with the global war, right? 

Wrong. He has already been shown the line in question.   Don't have the time to argue the gpwc aspect but the first part is outright false. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cypher said:

Let me make this clear, save from the few days at TMC, I have not ghosted a single alliance this war. Terminus BEst was a one man AA devoted to attacking *both* sides of the war, in pursuant of the HS-NPO treaty. You can check my war history on your site, I have attacked nations in TKR, both SKs, Guardian, CoS and a handful of other alliances on Co A. The only reason why I temporarily returned to HS was because I made a mistake believing I could create a new alliance in my current state but lo and behold Sheepy was there to stop me. There was even a large portion of time where I spent my time not in an alliance to support my point that it was me acting alone. I’m not attacking GPWC’s decision to escalate what was just a one nation thing, what I am attacking is your belief that you can tell an alliance to ban someone lest they be attacked for perpetuity. After all, GPWC attacking the rest of HS has nothing to do with the global war, right? 

That depends entirely on you and HS. If you continue your perpetual campaign of aggression against GPWC and HS continues to endorse that by taking no tangible steps against you then why wouldn't GPWC hold your alliance accountable for the actions of a member they refuse to disavow? GPWC raids virtually every member of Coalition A, House Stark was exempted out of respect for their treaty with NPO. Thanks to your actions that courtesy has been rescinded and HS now gets the same treatment from GPWC as any other Coalition A member. Obviously if the Global ended and a NAP was signed the raids would end, provided you actually respected the NAP yourselves of course, we can only control us not you.

I could have phrased my last sentence better, although you're clearly misinterpreting it deliberately, but let me try to be more clear for the class. Until your recent actions rendered it unconscionable, GPWC didn't consider House Stark to be a hostile alliance, and refrained from raiding them. HS being opened up as a target is a state of affairs that was created entirely by your actions, and when it stops is entirely up to you and HS. As I understand it Roq presented banning you to HS as an option for how they could disavow your actions because they came to him asking for the GPWC raids to stop, and GPWC didn't feel like stopping while you still had carte blanche.

In your original post that I was replying to you made it seem like Roq demanded that HS ban you to get peace in the Global, which is what this sentence was regarding; "It has nothing to do with the overall global, it has to do with House Stark not being on the raidlist for GPWC until recently, and you're entirely to blame for that changing." You are a member of House Stark, and no matter what AA you ghost to, unless HS takes a tangible action to make it clear that they no longer endorse your actions, or you cease your dogged aggression against GPWC, House Stark will continue to be held accountable for your actions. That's not unreasonable in the slightest.

It's also funny you'd mention the stats site, since I can clearly see on there that you barely earn jack shit from your raids on GPWC, you could be making 10x what you have hitting real raid targets, but you're not in it for the money are you? If I had to guess I'd say you're attacking GPWC out of pure, meaningless hostility, you're like ET but you take longer to get bored.

Edited by Pop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I suppose I will respond and not meme around here with gifs. Correct I told you all to go on with your TKR crusade after 4 days of HS/t$ telling you why it was not only an extremely poor idea but how it would destroy any strategy we had with our front. Through these four days you made it ever so clear that you would not back down after HS/t$ made it more than clear that we were not OK with this course of action and we would not stand for it if there was to be an attack on TKR. Actions have consequences. As NPO made it more than clear you were not going to listen to your two closest allies at the time, we made it clear to NPO by our immediate peace with our front due to the lie you would have us told on the strict post we made entering, not to mention you agreed to.

As to the countering I supposedly promised, we only said that we should look at TKR once we were done with Guard/GoB and if there was something there, we would be perfectly happy going to war against them then. Unfortunately copy pastes of Polaris logs aren't enough evidence. So, as you can imagine there was some animosity seeing the devolution of the plan we had had and agreed to and unfortunately, paranoia got the better of you and you completely cleaned the whole channel of the log’s history, as you claimed things were being leaked with no clear evidence. If anyone is revising history here, it's you.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Zygon said:

So, as you can imagine there was some animosity seeing the devolution of the plan we had had and agreed to and unfortunately, paranoia got the better of you and you completely cleaned the whole channel of the log’s history, as you claimed things were being leaked with no clear evidence.

Given the logs and the authors of the discussion was shared only with HS/tS and folks had already started attempting to name the authors of it in public (folks only you knew), it was posited that the name/log was sent around. This was also shown later on when KERTCHOGG leaders attempted hard to draw us into a discussion of whom said what and have us post the logs in public. Both of which we've denied to enter since the persons involved in the discussion were not okay with sharing the information outside of tS/HS and we respected the said request. 

7 hours ago, Zygon said:

Well I suppose I will respond and not meme around here with gifs. Correct I told you all to go on with your TKR crusade after 4 days of HS/t$ telling you why it was not only an extremely poor idea but how it would destroy any strategy we had with our front. Through these four days you made it ever so clear that you would not back down after HS/t$ made it more than clear that we were not OK with this course of action and we would not stand for it if there was to be an attack on TKR. Actions have consequences. As NPO made it more than clear you were not going to listen to your two closest allies at the time, we made it clear to NPO by our immediate peace with our front due to the lie you would have us told on the strict post we made entering, not to mention you agreed to.

We made it clear that NPO's sovereignty is at risk. That isn't paranoia, but arose from information that we passed on to you. There was a firm belief no amount of information would change your position, so we told y'all to let us expand alone/act to protect our own sovereignty and you said go for it. There was no logical argument for the NPO or actually any of us to sit out a war just because y'all wanted BK to lose so badly, if it ended up hurting us right after that war. 

The strict post itself was something that Roq has dealt with, but the premise behind which those actions were taken where changed the moment the NPO received the said information that threatened the safety of your closest ally at that point in time. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Nope. It happened. Zygon said to stop daunting and go ahead and do it and that HS would counter. You can't literally revise the actual event on your convenience. It's what happened when it was announced. Again you are also repeating the lie that either tS or HS gave any notification of their intent to exit the war if x happened. It was never done.

 

The peace is in terms of the current on-going war. GPWC's wish was that they wouldn't peace the lower tier of HS while the war was ongoing so you could continue being a de facto member of HS and just move back on after.  If there's a peace, then you can move back on to HS after that but they didn't want the rest of HS to go scot-free if you were still a de facto member/gov just not on AA for the time being.

Then why have you and your coalition been doing exactly this with regards to your escalation on TEst with the explicit purpose of drawing in t$ and exterminating us? You plotted to roll your ally and attempted to frame it as an aggressive move by us. That's you literally revising the actual event on your convenience.

 

Before you deny this, I remind you that the logs proving my claim are readily available on this forum.

8 hours ago, Zygon said:

Well I suppose I will respond and not meme around here with gifs. Correct I told you all to go on with your TKR crusade after 4 days of HS/t$ telling you why it was not only an extremely poor idea but how it would destroy any strategy we had with our front. Through these four days you made it ever so clear that you would not back down after HS/t$ made it more than clear that we were not OK with this course of action and we would not stand for it if there was to be an attack on TKR. Actions have consequences. As NPO made it more than clear you were not going to listen to your two closest allies at the time, we made it clear to NPO by our immediate peace with our front due to the lie you would have us told on the strict post we made entering, not to mention you agreed to.

As to the countering I supposedly promised, we only said that we should look at TKR once we were done with Guard/GoB and if there was something there, we would be perfectly happy going to war against them then. Unfortunately copy pastes of Polaris logs aren't enough evidence. So, as you can imagine there was some animosity seeing the devolution of the plan we had had and agreed to and unfortunately, paranoia got the better of you and you completely cleaned the whole channel of the log’s history, as you claimed things were being leaked with no clear evidence. If anyone is revising history here, it's you.

 

30 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Given the logs and the authors of the discussion was shared only with HS/tS and folks had already started attempting to name the authors of it in public (folks only you knew), it was posited that the name/log was sent around. This was also shown later on when KERTCHOGG leaders attempted hard to draw us into a discussion of whom said what and have us post the logs in public. Both of which we've denied to enter since the persons involved in the discussion were not okay with sharing the information outside of tS/HS and we respected the said request. 

We made it clear that NPO's sovereignty is at risk. That isn't paranoia, but arose from information that we passed on to you. There was a firm belief no amount of information would change your position, so we told y'all to let us expand alone/act to protect our own sovereignty and you said go for it. There was no logical argument for the NPO or actually any of us to sit out a war just because y'all wanted BK to lose so badly, if it ended up hurting us right after that war. 

The strict post itself was something that Roq has dealt with, but the premise behind which those actions were taken where changed the moment the NPO received the said information that threatened the safety of your closest ally at that point in time. 

 

My bullshit-o-meter is going off again.


Shadow friend, the polaris copy pasta logs which HS refers to weren't admissable as unrefutable proof that NPO faced an existential threat. They were circumstantial at best. Unless you have some smoking gun material which you haven't shown HS, your entire premise for joining the war and fricking over 2 allies falls with that.

  • Upvote 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Then why have you and your coalition been doing exactly this with regards to your escalation on TEst with the explicit purpose of drawing in t$ and exterminating us? You plotted to roll your ally and attempted to frame it as an aggressive move by us. That's you literally revising the actual event on your convenience.

 

Before you deny this, I remind you that the logs proving my claim are readily available on this forum.

 

My bullshit-o-meter is going off again.


Shadow friend, the polaris copy pasta logs which HS refers to weren't admissable as unrefutable proof that NPO faced an existential threat. They were circumstantial at best. Unless you have some smoking gun material which you haven't shown HS, your entire premise for joining the war and fricking over 2 allies falls with that.

So what you're trying to say is that we don't want peace talks? Bullshit. Stop saying things that contradict yourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Raigen said:

So what you're trying to say is that we don't want peace talks? Bullshit. Stop saying things that contradict yourselves.

t$ has not been allowed to start peace talks since its surrender on November 1st.

Logs have been posted which show your coalition leadership directly stating that they don't want to peace t$ yet.

 

So...yes? Again: Have you read the logs? 

 

EDIT: Im also unsure why you are quoting this post, as it's a post about an entirely different subject. Did you mean to quote me in the other thread?

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
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...
 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.