Coalition A is trying to do something very obvious

[Arthur Wellington]

2 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Everybody had access to the dumped logs.  You could read them yourself.

So is that a yes?

[Charles Bolivar]

56 minutes ago, Duke Arthur said:

Does coal A actually think they are white knights and coal B are black knights?

 

Coal B is evil?*

Not sure about being white knights but I can confirm we aren't a bunch of asses in comparison to other coalitions if that helps?

Edited December 10, 2019 by Charles the Tyrant

[kalev60]

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

BK/Cov wasn’t going to die you paranoid jackass, lol.

Never in any of our history (The leadership vets on our side) ever thought about pulling the same shit like you’re doing now.

You lied.  You betrayed.  You freaked out.

Thats all on you Roq.

But that was your sides narrative and basic battle cry at the beginning when you still  thought you were winning...

[Buorhann]

1 hour ago, kalev60 said:

But that was your sides narrative and basic battle cry at the beginning when you still  thought you were winning...

No it wasn’t.  You took one players word and paraded it around even after we had multiple say otherwise.

You’d do well at being a fear mongerer.

[Prefonteen]

6 hours ago, Roquentin said:

I'll just spell it the falsehoods here. 1. You never said you would not stand for it and peace out. Wrong wrong wrong.  2. HS had barely any targets to hit on Grumpy/Guardian and was equally free as NPO and had said it would do what it could with regards to counters. 

So yeah it comes down to you not caring about the evidence in question and some sort of untold reason for giving the benefit of the doubt to TKR for apparently.

And you can take the whole no clear evidence thing away, because  Leopold was literally twisting things to other people about the contents of the channel while ignoring us. The "contacts in BK" line is apparently based on something different I said that was leaked to Partisan who wasn't in the channel as there would be no way for him to know we were entering otherwise. 

I'm glad I don't have to feel an ounce of guilt now that you're literally just repeating BS. 

 

  

 

6 hours ago, Roquentin said:

How did I plot against HS?  They chose to stick with you. Had they be willing to cancel,  they would have been able to get out of the way. 

They decided to stick with tS and liked the OWR/Carth treaties, so we can't enable that.

You plotted to escalate a war you knew full well would roll not only your ally in t$, but also force your other ally in HS to defend and thus get rolled. You did so with the explicit purpose of destroying your old allies as punishment.

In doing so, you *at best* broke your intelligence clause with HS, something you've often cited as one of your main grievances against t$ (not informing you of OWR/CTO). At worst, you broke a damn NAP clause. Depends on your interpretation. 

Regardless of interpretation: It was a hypocritical and malicious breech of both the terms and the spirit of your treaty with HS.

 

6 hours ago, Roquentin said:

  

You made your hostility clear with your actions prior to any of that. You had multiple opportuntiies to resolve the issues. You as in tS refused. You became severely hostile and we couldn't let you just continuously provoke us without a reaction.

We don't  need unrefutable proof to deal with a threat. We have no reason to allow a non-allied entity to clear the field enough for an eventual hit. People have gone to war on much less. If we hit someone we considered to be a friend then we might need unrefutable proof, but an alliance that was actively antagonizing us and when an openly antagonistic coalition was gaining ground, then we don't.  We knew tS and co wouldn't be able to fight all of the alliances on their own if it came down to it. You wanted Cov/BK to die and that's what it comes down to even if it would screw us over.

 

Old tS gov was upset with you, yes. This was clear. It's funny how your knee-jerk reaction to you viewing an ally as hostile is plotting to roll them, rather than you know uhh... canceling the treaty.

 

This whole "NPO WAS GONNA DIE NEXT" narrative of yours as a justification for going back on your word and forcing your entire sphere into a shit spot for your own gain is little more than weaponized paranoia.

5 hours ago, Roquentin said:

It's not ironic at all though. tS would be in great shape right now if it had just stayed in lol.   Pretty much everyone fighting GOB/Guardian that wasn't tS was fine with some expansion. The war would have gone much faster and if tS had wanted to sign some peirpheral alliances after, it wouldn't have been a problem.  The alliances tS itself called into help them disliked KETOG and preferred expansion if the overall wouldn't be won otherwise. Simple fact. It would have been a pretty decent scenario for tS not to screw us. They cared about PR with KERTCHOGG instead and facilitating the destruction of BK/Cov who were already going to take copious amounts of damage anyway. 

We'd also be in great shape if our ally hadn't plotted to get us rolled. Our shape has nothing to do with the GOB-Guard war and everything to do with NPO's actions. 

[Guest Curufinwe]

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

 

You plotted to escalate a war you knew full well would roll not only your ally in t$, but also force your other ally in HS to defend and thus get rolled. You did so with the explicit purpose of destroying your old allies as punishment.

In doing so, you *at best* broke your intelligence clause with HS, something you've often cited as one of your main grievances against t$ (not informing you of OWR/CTO). At worst, you broke a damn NAP clause. Depends on your interpretation. 

Regardless of interpretation: It was a hypocritical and malicious breech of both the terms and the spirit of your treaty with HS.

 

Old tS gov was upset with you, yes. This was clear. It's funny how your knee-jerk reaction to you viewing an ally as hostile is plotting to roll them, rather than you know uhh... canceling the treaty.

 

This whole "NPO WAS GONNA DIE NEXT" narrative of yours as a justification for going back on your word and forcing your entire sphere into a shit spot for your own gain is little more than weaponized paranoia.

We'd also be in great shape if our ally hadn't plotted to get us rolled. Our shape has nothing to do with the GOB-Guard war and everything to do with NPO's actions. 

Here you go, friend.

[Roquentin]

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

 

You plotted to escalate a war you knew full well would roll not only your ally in t$, but also force your other ally in HS to defend and thus get rolled. You did so with the explicit purpose of destroying your old allies as punishment.

In doing so, you *at best* broke your intelligence clause with HS, something you've often cited as one of your main grievances against t$ (not informing you of OWR/CTO). At worst, you broke a damn NAP clause. Depends on your interpretation. 

Regardless of interpretation: It was a hypocritical and malicious breech of both the terms and the spirit of your treaty with HS.

Old tS gov was upset with you, yes. This was clear. It's funny how your knee-jerk reaction to you viewing an ally as hostile is plotting to roll them, rather than you know uhh... canceling the treaty.

Nope. We had discussed the tS-NPO situation with HS and it was taken for granted that tS was ending the relationship and even mentioned. We discussed the scenario of HS cancelling and they wanted to keep a situation where NPO and tS wouldn't be allied but they would still be allied to both.

Seeing tS' power move made it clear their knives were sharpened and they would cancel at an opportune time and then be a problem going forward as their hostility was self-evident, so I did the smartest thing which was to avoid them being able to take the initiative there. They(you) must have assumed I would continue taking the abuse until you were ready to make a more definitive move in addition to all your provocations, sheltering of problematic actors, shittalking, etc.Cancelling when the treaty is dead and we're insulted to our face and it's a matter of who shoots first is just a choice:  one of cover for a plan vs messing up the plan. You were beyond any such consideration at that point.

Quote

 

 

 

This whole "NPO WAS GONNA DIE NEXT" narrative of yours as a justification for going back on your word and forcing your entire sphere into a shit spot for your own gain is little more than weaponized paranoia.

We'd also be in great shape if our ally hadn't plotted to get us rolled. Our shape has nothing to do with the GOB-Guard war and everything to do with NPO's actions. 

I don't really care. If you're going to continue playing dumb and ignoring the obvious outcome of one sphere being taken out and leaving another with bad history as the biggest and as a managable chunk, then we don't really need to keep indulging this "paranoia" argument. 

It has everything to do with the choices you made with trying to either screw us for your PR or just pure spite and your desire to facilitate what had been transpirng. Had you not been so eager to stick it to us, you would be in a much better position than now. You just assumed you could keep provoking us and get away with pulling it so many times. Again, the clear lack of contrition is severely telling and unfortunate.

 

  

4 hours ago, Buorhann said:

BK/Cov wasn’t going to die you paranoid jackass, lol.

Never in any of our history (The leadership vets on our side) ever thought about pulling the same shit like you’re doing now.

You lied.  You betrayed.  You freaked out.

Thats all on you Roq.

This propaganda line has been addressed before. 

You don't really need a long war to do the same thing. You just can keep hitting at different times as your damage will get in faster and the same impact occurs. Again it's always been marketability on your side rather than morality for what you guys have tried.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Roquentin

[HARPER.txt]

52 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

words

Hi Roq, one of your many abandoned Chirren here... are you back from the store? Sister P&W is sick and you spent the all the money on Cigarettes  and cheap malt liquor???

[Buorhann]

Morality @Roquentin?

Only one side this war has pushed so many away, resulting in multiple betrayals, lies, and even pushing one long time supporter of yours into dropping a massive log dump.

Want to talk more about morality in this conflict?

[HARPER.txt]

4 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Want to talk more about morality in this conflict?

where is Big Boss :c

[Prefonteen]

7 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Nope. We had discussed the tS-NPO situation with HS and it was taken for granted that tS was ending the relationship and even mentioned. We discussed the scenario of HS cancelling and they wanted to keep a situation where NPO and tS wouldn't be allied but they would still be allied to both.

Seeing tS' power move made it clear their knives were sharpened and they would cancel at an opportune time and then be a problem going forward as their hostility was self-evident, so I did the smartest thing which was to avoid them being able to take the initiative there. They(you) must have assumed I would continue taking the abuse until you were ready to make a more definitive move in addition to all your provocations, sheltering of problematic actors, shittalking, etc.Cancelling when the treaty is dead and we're insulted to our face and it's a matter of who shoots first is just a choice:  one of cover for a plan vs messing up the plan. You were beyond any such consideration at that point.

 

Again: recognizing that the treaty might be canceled is a far step from actively plotting to roll both allies while the treaty was still active. What you did was duplicitous no matter how you try to justify it by pointing at t$.

 

7 hours ago, Roquentin said:

I don't really care. If you're going to continue playing dumb and ignoring the obvious outcome of one sphere being taken out and leaving another with bad history as the biggest and as a managable chunk, then we don't really need to keep indulging this "paranoia" argument. 

I frankly don't know what to make of it besides paranoia, because you're simply overstating the threat. Even if the intention was there, economic gains by t$-NPO would've outweighed being rolled, and the wake of that war would have seen BK-TKR even further entrenched, which would have given plenty of diplomatic options to mitigate any threat.

Instead of working with your sphere, you decided to default back into the BK-NPO vs the world mentality, and in doing so you put t$ in a shit position. There is no real way for me to make sense of our rationale in that light beyond paranoia.

 

7 hours ago, Roquentin said:

It has everything to do with the choices you made with trying to either screw us for your PR or just pure spite and your desire to facilitate what had been transpirng. Had you not been so eager to stick it to us, you would be in a much better position than now. You just assumed you could keep provoking us and get away with pulling it so many times. Again, the clear lack of contrition is severely telling and unfortunate.

You weren't screwed for PR. You knowingly put t$ in a shitty situation where you forced it to choose between:

- being pushed into coalition with an alliance it considered hostile (BK) in a war t$ didn't care about (since BK *was* caught plotting anyway). This option also forced t$ to break its own rules of engagement.

- Following the rules of engagement it had laid out prior to you pulling the trigger, and leaving the war without any semblance of victory or satisfaction, while pissing you off.

Frankly, if you first agreed to the terms of engagement but reneged "because new intel hurr durr", I can see why @Sisyphus went with option two. t$ never has and never will take kindly to its hand being forced.

 

[Prefonteen]

22 hours ago, Roquentin said:

I'll just spell it the falsehoods here. 1. You never said you would not stand for it and peace out. Wrong wrong wrong.  2. HS had barely any targets to hit on Grumpy/Guardian and was equally free as NPO and had said it would do what it could with regards to counters. 

So yeah it comes down to you not caring about the evidence in question and some sort of untold reason for giving the benefit of the doubt to TKR for apparently.

And you can take the whole no clear evidence thing away, because  Leopold was literally twisting things to other people about the contents of the channel while ignoring us. The "contacts in BK" line is apparently based on something different I said that was leaked to Partisan who wasn't in the channel as there would be no way for him to know we were entering otherwise. 

 

Tbh with you, I actually didn't know you were entering. My IQ post was just a troll joke which hilariously coincided. I recall my gov finding it quite funny when it happened.

But it's probably easier to pretend I knew so you can accuse my gov of leaking

[Harry Flashman]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Roquentin]

17 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Morality @Roquentin?

Only one side this war has pushed so many away, resulting in multiple betrayals, lies, and even pushing one long time supporter of yours into dropping a massive log dump.

Want to talk more about morality in this conflict?

Hm, the side that required more initial sacrifices wasn't attractive? Nice.

With Gorge it has nothing to do with betrayals or morality. His personal goals of self-enrichment just were no longer in sync and he chose to logdump as a result as it would curry favor with people who don't like us. To pretend it was some moral awakening is super disingenuous.

His attention was no longer there, so he didn't like it. It's marketablity and not morality. If we had been able to affect the same outcomes in a shorter war,  then he'd have been fully onboard as he was because he didn't care for the other side. The length is what annoyed him after the demotion(or maybe even before) and that's just a product the difference in the hands we  have available to play. It doesn't make you or him any more moral than we are.  We couldn't make it any faster for him.

10 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

 

Again: recognizing that the treaty might be canceled is a far step from actively plotting to roll both allies while the treaty was still active. What you did was duplicitous no matter how you try to justify it by pointing at t$.

Not at all. The treaty was going to be canceled and it was treated as a fact. You made a power play with the treaties and the context they were signed in; it was essentially a challenge to do something about it or just stay angry until you made an even more flagrant move.  We can go over all the other prior things where you took measures that were counter-productive/provocative beforehand like Sanreizan.

Quote

 

I frankly don't know what to make of it besides paranoia, because you're simply overstating the threat. Even if the intention was there, economic gains by t$-NPO would've outweighed being rolled, and the wake of that war would have seen BK-TKR even further entrenched, which would have given plenty of diplomatic options to mitigate any threat.

It would depend on how long it'd take to happen. The reason the KETOG/Chaos hit was a win-win for them was they had nothing to lose infra-wise. They wouldn't have to wait around for long to affect a similar charge. On a short-term basis maybe,  but it would have forced us into a permanently reactive role. We don't know how prepared BK or whoever would have been or how much resentment would result from sitting pretty. In previous wars where two sides duked it out, it was often easier to resent the biggest alliances that sat out especially when they occupied the top spots.  You as in tS were relying on it not fostering resentment which I brought up as a potential ramification or maybe you wanted that to happen.  Anyway, it was known you were partially engineering the scenario with a limited front. 

Quote

Instead of working with your sphere, you decided to default back into the BK-NPO vs the world mentality, and in doing so you put t$ in a shit position. There is no real way for me to make sense of our rationale in that light beyond paranoia.

 

You weren't screwed for PR. You knowingly put t$ in a shitty situation where you forced it to choose between:

- being pushed into coalition with an alliance it considered hostile (BK) in a war t$ didn't care about (since BK *was* caught plotting anyway). This option also forced t$ to break its own rules of engagement.

- Following the rules of engagement it had laid out prior to you pulling the trigger, and leaving the war without any semblance of victory or satisfaction, while pissing you off.

Frankly, if you first agreed to the terms of engagement but reneged "because new intel hurr durr", I can see why @Sisyphus went with option two. t$ never has and never will take kindly to its hand being forced.

 

I'm not really sure what "working with the sphere" entails as you had no interest in doing anything worthwhile and as I said, the lack of willingness of tS to commit to real war scenarios that weren't limited or curbstomps wasn't particularly reassuring.

It didn't have to be in "coalition" but just stay where it was which wouldn't be breaking the terms and the interpretation where it only applied to tS was even brought up in the conversations, but that was killed off by Sisyphus. The rules never stated if we hit someone else that anything would change.  You're twisting them to make it incumbent on you to react to what we did that way.

The condition was never supposed to be unconditional. Such a condition with no wiggle room was utterly self-defeating and it's not how I interpreted the concept. It would be the smartest thing to not counter until the rest had been fully cleared out and when it would be most opportune go for the throat if someone was knowingly tying a hand behind their back in such a fashion. That's basic logic. I pointed to every other instance of limited front not being productive. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Tbh with you, I actually didn't know you were entering. My IQ post was just a troll joke which hilariously coincided. I recall my gov finding it quite funny when it happened.

But it's probably easier to pretend I knew so you can accuse my gov of leaking

Um, your own private channels were where it was leaked from.  It wasn't an intentional leak by you, but rather it was from when Fillmore logdumped your stuff.  That's why I don't take this at face value right away. The fact that your line and the line used by the others in tS is the same referring to "contacts" makes it hard to believe  "it was a joke".

 

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by Roquentin
some tense issues; not content

[ComradeMilton]

16 hours ago, Dondarrion said:

Hi Roq, one of your many abandoned Chirren here... are you back from the store? Sister P&W is sick and you spent the all the money on Cigarettes  and cheap malt liquor???

Would you consider joining GOONS?  We could use a person with your knack for absurdity.  I don't mean that in a bad way, the offer is genuine.

Edited December 11, 2019 by ComradeMilton
Typo

[Singha]

Considering both sides have been trying to discredit each others claims this whole time, this is no surprise. 

[Teaspoon]

13 hours ago, Singha said:

Considering both sides have been trying to discredit each others claims this whole time, this is no surprise. 

Yeah at this point I'm honestly not sure why anybody is bothering to keep posting in these threads. It's just an endless rehash of the same shit, over and over again. Nobody has changed their minds on anything, nor will they.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

On 12/5/2019 at 1:51 AM, Duke Arthur said:

Suppose the actual goal is to force coal a out of the game. Suppose coal A is losing badly. What isnl coal A gonna do next? There are 99 threads about it but what is coal A actually going to do?

The only choice would be to win if surrender isn't an option; unless they decide to give up and delete instead. Should be obvious enough.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum

[ComradeMilton]

15 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

The only choice would be to win if surrender isn't an option; unless they decide to give up and delete instead. Should be obvious enough.

If that were the case Coalition B is losing terribly.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

14 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

If that were the case Coalition B is losing terribly.

With time who is winning can change. Even the sides aren’t set in stone with many who were Coalition B now A. So who’s winning atm doesn’t decide the winner if it’s not taken advantage of properly regardless.

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum