Jump to content

Peace In Our Time


JT Jag
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Keegoz said:

Ehh, I think you'll find most of us were getting plenty of beige from your allies. I know I certainly did.

Fortunately your coalition-mates in Farksphere have a history of thoughtful, deliberate beiging

Edited by hope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TLE broke their NAP with GOONS by blitzing us, we did not hit them nor did we plan to. 

The immortals were hit only after they flatly told us they were going in because they viewed our hit on TMC as violating the NAP even though both GOONS and TMC did not exist when the NAP was signed.

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

The immortals were hit only after they flatly told us they were going in because they viewed our hit on TMC as violating the NAP even though both GOONS and TMC did not exist when the NAP was signed.

Plus the fact that this whole thing started with TMC attacking Camelot's ally, so even if they were included in the NAP, they would have broken it from the outset. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2020 at 1:31 AM, Micchan said:

Your enemies are now your allies

73VkYjK.png

Ah. They are referring to that war when they charged aggressively into syndisphere without even trying to formulate a CB when tS was being run by (at the time) the most paragon/covenant friendly FA figure t$ had had at that point (thrax). After getting their teeth kicked in, BK -their current ally, out of all people- demanded reps.

 

Imagine being this disingenuous in your logic.

9 hours ago, Roquentin said:

When did we blitz our allies? tS cancelled and there were no wars on them before.

On the slotting thing in your other post. Your coalition is entirely reliant on slotfilling and beiging. Our side had a few people do it as a protest and it was punished relatively quickly for a small scale action. At this the A in Coalition A stands for Akuryo. Just don't forget that any resurgence for tS or anyone beiged here is just due to blindness and illegitimate. The issue is being addressed too late but that is the case. If people will cheat while the ref is snoozing how can they be trustworthy?

You're right. You plotted to have your allies rolled by 3rd parties. Then as soon as your allies cancelled on you, you began filling up tS' slots.

 

You've betrayed your treaties in every possible way. Even if you want to make an argument for t$ deserving it (which I dispute), HS by any logic did not, and got rolled in your duplicitous plans anyway.

1 hour ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

TLE broke their NAP with GOONS by blitzing us, we did not hit them nor did we plan to. 

The immortals were hit only after they flatly told us they were going in because they viewed our hit on TMC as violating the NAP even though both GOONS and TMC did not exist when the NAP was signed.

There's a few gaps in your logic, but even not withstanding that, what exactly do you want to do with TLE- a micro caught in the crossfire of a larger war due to allies being brought in? Ima go ahead and advocate for leniency :) .

  • Like 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
10 hours ago, Roquentin said:

When did we blitz our allies? tS cancelled and there were no wars on them before.

On the slotting thing in your other post. Your coalition is entirely reliant on slotfilling and beiging. Our side had a few people do it as a protest and it was punished relatively quickly for a small scale action. At this the A in Coalition A stands for Akuryo. Just don't forget that any resurgence for tS or anyone beiged here is just due to blindness and illegitimate. The issue is being addressed too late but that is the case. If people will cheat while the ref is snoozing how can they be trustworthy?

It is true you made no attacks on T$ before they cancelled the treaty, however you really going to act as if that's not what you forced to happen when you hit CoA?

Protectorate: A one-way MDP wherein one alliance agrees to protect another. The protected alliance is under no obligation to defend the protector. T$ had to defend CoA due to your actions, please do not act dumb, we know you are a smart person and you knew full well hitting T$ allies and those T$ protected was an hit on T$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

It is true you made no attacks on T$ before they cancelled the treaty, however you really going to act as if that's not what you forced to happen when you hit CoA?

Protectorate: A one-way MDP wherein one alliance agrees to protect another. The protected alliance is under no obligation to defend the protector. T$ had to defend CoA due to your actions, please do not act dumb, we know you are a smart person and you knew full well hitting T$ allies and those T$ protected was an hit on T$.

Saying we forced something is wrong. Mayne under circumstamce and chain of events may be more suitable from what I have read.  But because ur treaty was broken with us and due to circumstance u needed to do what u need as ur treaties or agreements may have forced u to do what u needed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, brucemna said:

Saying we forced something is wrong. Mayne under circumstamce and chain of events may be more suitable from what I have read.  But because ur treaty was broken with us and due to circumstance u needed to do what u need as ur treaties or agreements may have forced u to do what u needed.  

No, it's pretty clear. Especially with regards to house stark, whom you duly stabbed in the back.

  • Like 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
12 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

No, it's pretty clear. Especially with regards to house stark, whom you duly stabbed in the back.

Thanks for ignoring the Intel agreement clause! Clearly you've never done anything wrong. No sir, you didn't sign certain parties behind our backs and take in Coalition A war dodgers. Very innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said:

Thanks for ignoring the Intel agreement clause! Clearly you've never done anything wrong. No sir, you didn't sign certain parties behind our backs and take in Coalition A war dodgers. Very innocent.

I mean, why is your response to a gripe with your ally t$, to keep the treaty and plot to roll your ally t$ *and* to plot to roll your ally HS?

  • Like 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

There's a few gaps in your logic, but even not withstanding that, what exactly do you want to do with TLE- a micro caught in the crossfire of a larger war due to allies being brought in? Ima go ahead and advocate for leniency :) .

I'd be interested to see what those logic gaps are.

Regardless, "caught in the crossfire" is a little generous. TLE canceled a NAP and attacked us, in order to join in on TMC/NP's aggressive war. No allies were being destroyed and in need of their assistance, and none of them are even involved with the war anymore. 

This was a pure act of spite, and leniency is not on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
30 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

I mean, why is your response to a gripe with your ally t$, to keep the treaty and plot to roll your ally t$ *and* to plot to roll your ally HS?

We did everything we could to avoid the outcome, you poked BK one too many times. As for HS everyone in the order is truly saddened of the events with them, they've been nothing but honorable and respectful and we do not fault them for honoring their treaty. It was unfortunate.

Edited by PhantomThiefB
spelling/words
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said:

We did everything we could to avoid the outcome, you poked BK one too many times. As for HS everyone in the order is truly saddened of the events with them, they've been nothing but honorable and respectful and we do not fault them for honoring their treaty. It was unfortunate.

We've seen the logs. You actively pushed for the outcome. As for HS: You got them rolled, and then participated in keeping them at war for an extended period of time "because t$ hadn't burned enough".

 

You show being sorry for the situation in a strange way.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
25 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

We've seen the logs. You actively pushed for the outcome. As for HS: You got them rolled, and then participated in keeping them at war for an extended period of time "because t$ hadn't burned enough".

 

You show being sorry for the situation in a strange way.

Had you accepted the reps this would have ended and you'd have made up production and then some by now. It all circles back to stubbornly protecting pixels. To each their own but you still have fault in this too. Honestly you've pushed your narrative so far by now you've convinced yourselves your faultless. Reminds me of the guy I work with that likes to make up stories about his conquests of japanese twins and finding 600$ followed by 1000$ followed by 2000$ just lying on the ground somewhere random.

Why'd I bring it up? Because he told the stories so many times he convinced himself they were true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Ah. They are referring to that war when they charged aggressively into syndisphere without even trying to formulate a CB when tS was being run by (at the time) the most paragon/covenant friendly FA figure t$ had had at that point (thrax). After getting their teeth kicked in, BK -their current ally, out of all people- demanded reps.

 

Imagine being this disingenuous in your logic.

You're right. You plotted to have your allies rolled by 3rd parties. Then as soon as your allies cancelled on you, you began filling up tS' slots.

 

You've betrayed your treaties in every possible way. Even if you want to make an argument for t$ deserving it (which I dispute), HS by any logic did not, and got rolled in your duplicitous plans anyway.

There's a few gaps in your logic, but even not withstanding that, what exactly do you want to do with TLE- a micro caught in the crossfire of a larger war due to allies being brought in? Ima go ahead and advocate for leniency :) .

Breaking a NAP being ok is not a precedent I plan on setting.

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said:

Had you accepted the reps this would have ended and you'd have made up production and then some by now. It all circles back to stubbornly protecting pixels. To each their own but you still have fault in this too. Honestly you've pushed your narrative so far by now you've convinced yourselves your faultless. Reminds me of the guy I work with that likes to make up stories about his conquests of japanese twins and finding 600$ followed by 1000$ followed by 2000$ just lying on the ground somewhere random.

Why'd I bring it up? Because he told the stories so many times he convinced himself they were true.

That does seem a lot like someone I know, although perhaps not the person you had in mind.

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

Breaking a NAP being ok is not a precedent I plan on setting.

Says the serial pactbreaker that's consistently supported pactbreaking? You've set the precedent, might as well own it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SleepingNinja said:

Had you accepted the reps this would have ended and you'd have made up production and then some by now. It all circles back to stubbornly protecting pixels. To each their own but you still have fault in this too. Honestly you've pushed your narrative so far by now you've convinced yourselves your faultless. Reminds me of the guy I work with that likes to make up stories about his conquests of japanese twins and finding 600$ followed by 1000$ followed by 2000$ just lying on the ground somewhere random.

Why'd I bring it up? Because he told the stories so many times he convinced himself they were true.

We're not the ones whose duplicitous logs proving stacked lies and plans to backstab allies, frustrate peace talks and run people out of the game are plastered all over the OWF. But keep on coming with the "no u"s.

1 hour ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

Breaking a NAP being ok is not a precedent I plan on setting.

Why are you still allied to certain alliances if you don't want to set a precedent on breaking treaties?

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Upvote 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Salt Meat said:

TLE canceled a NAP and attacked us, in order to join in on TMC/NP's aggressive war.

An in-game treaty has nothing to do with the diplomatic realities.  As I've tried to explain to y'all, TLE had a valid option to enter defensively through their previous treaty to Pantheon (I believe that treaty was since cancelled/expired) and Schrute Farms.  I don't believe they entered until Pantheon was hit AND countered by other alliances, representing an expansion of the war.  This chain of events constitutes a valid defensive entry coherent with adherence to a NAP in-game treaty notwithstanding and frankly irrelevant.  

If y'all want to contest TLE's CB, then I suggest actually discussing their intent because that is what you're trying to get.  I've known them to be nice people, but in order to be coherent with treaty definitions the accusation you're looking to make is not of breaking a NAP but acting in bad faith.  I'm willing to have that conversation, and explain positions there, but this sound-bite propaganda bits aren't productive for constructing arguments on this stage.  

I mean this with all the respect towards yourself and your alliance.  I just hope that we can keep our discourse organized, on-task and within set conventions albeit perhaps that's too high of a standard for all of us.

14 hours ago, Roquentin said:

When did we blitz our allies? tS cancelled and there were no wars on them before.

In this war, NPO has:
- Hit OFA (their coalition ally who later disbanded for "beiging too much")

- Participated in the circumstances that resulted in CU's disbandment

- Blitzed/Aid a blitz on TFP when Quichwe got mad at Roq for threatening moderation over a treasure deal

- Aided allies who systematically hit uninvolved protectorates, including AD, CC, HA, and an assortment of previous alliances who had already been months at war.  AD and CC both disbanded and/or merged.

- Conspired to hit their allies in T$/HS

- Hit OWR/CTO who wished to be peaced out

- Actively extended the war to make people quit the opposing coalition, delete nations and have alliances disband
--------

Call your actions what you will, but you don't have much ground to stand on.  

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

An in-game treaty has nothing to do with the diplomatic realities.  As I've tried to explain to y'all, TLE had a valid option to enter defensively through their previous treaty to Pantheon (I believe that treaty was since cancelled/expired) and Schrute Farms.  I don't believe they entered until Pantheon was hit AND countered by other alliances, representing an expansion of the war.  This chain of events constitutes a valid defensive entry coherent with adherence to a NAP in-game treaty notwithstanding and frankly irrelevant.  


TLE formally surrendered and signed the surrender. They broke a formal treaty, and there is no action that justifies breaking a signed treaty. Also, TLE has no tie to The Immortals which was the only alliance attacked by GOONS, and only after they admitted that they were going to hit us. So the idea that their actions are defensive in nature is also incorrect. They're bandwagoners and will be treated as such.

 

TLE did not declare due to any treaty obligation, nor was it after Pantheon was countered, it was after the Immortals were hit on the morning of Jan 11th.

 

Edited by Jazz R Oppenheimer
  • Upvote 2

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:


TLE formally surrendered and signed the surrender. They broke a formal treaty, and there is no action that justifies breaking a signed treaty. Also, TLE has no tie to The Immortals which was the only alliance attacked by GOONS, and only after they admitted that they were going to hit us. So the idea that their actions are defensive in nature is also incorrect. They're bandwagoners and will be treated as such.

Whoa there, partner. You're unraveling hundreds of words of bullshit Cooper spent a lot of time working on. Now he is going to need to find other micro alliances to fear monger into hitting GOONS. ;)

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

TLE formally surrendered and signed the surrender. They broke a formal treaty, and there is no action that justifies breaking a signed treaty. Also, TLE has no tie to The Immortals which was the only alliance attacked by GOONS, and only after they admitted that they were going to hit us. So the idea that their actions are defensive in nature is also incorrect. They're bandwagoners and will be treated as such.

 

TLE did not declare due to any treaty obligation, nor was it after Pantheon was countered, it was after the Immortals were hit on the morning of Jan 11th.

You're playing with words.  An in-game NAP is a mechanic designed to prevents wars declared by errant members and to symbolize that relationship on the treaty web is not diplomatically relevant.  Those lines are about as meaningful as sheepy's continued promises to actually fix the game (aka they don't mean shit).  The treaty you link does have force to it as part of the global politics, but I believe Pantheon entered as soon as TI was blitzed by GOONS.  As Pantheon received counters from alliances other than GOONS, TLE had the right to join at Pantheon's call (which they did at update).  Also, we had this conversation in TLE's DoW thread where I explained this to you and @Richard Payne III clarified that he did use this as a CB.  

22 minutes ago, Comrade Marx said:

Whoa there, partner. You're unraveling hundreds of words of bullshit Cooper spent a lot of time working on. Now he is going to need to find other micro alliances to fear monger into hitting GOONS.

I have no interest in arguing here rather I'm just telling you the facts of the matter.  Can we please leave meaningless provocations out of this?  I am trying to engage in good faith discourse, and I hope that goal can be mutual. 

Edited by Cooper_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Comrade Marx said:

Whoa there, partner. You're unraveling hundreds of words of bullshit Cooper spent a lot of time working on. Now he is going to need to find other micro alliances to fear monger into hitting GOONS. ;)

not sure why you feel the need to be disrespectful to people engaging in actual thoughtful discussion with you  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cooper_ said:

You're playing with words.  An in-game NAP is a mechanic designed to prevents wars declared by errant members to symbolize that relationship on the treaty web.  Those lines are about as meaningful as sheepy's continued promises to actually fix the game (aka they don't mean shit).  The treaty you link does have force to it as part of the global politics, but I believe Pantheon entered as soon as TI was blitzed by GOONS.  As Pantheon received counters from alliances other than GOONS, TLE had the right to join at Pantheon's call (which they did at update).  Also, we had this conversation in TLE's DoW thread where I explained this to you and @Richard Payne III clarified that he did use this as a CB.  

I have no interest in arguing here rather I'm just telling you the facts of the matter.  Can we please leave meaningless provocations out of this?  I am trying to engage in good faith discourse, and I hope that goal can be mutual. 

This is quite obviously not in good faith on your side, please keep going around to micros warning them of the threats of GOONS and Opus Dei. Every time you do, they ping me about me. TLE absolutely did have the right to join in, but call it what it is, pact-breaking and band wagoning. Or are you too worried that if you okay TLE's pact-breaking that you have no room to !@#$ about NPOs.

2 minutes ago, hope said:

not sure why you feel the need to be disrespectful to people engaging in actual thoughtful discussion with you  

He's spewing talking points to avoid being seen as hypocritical due to the tS narrative about NPO, not engaging in thoughtful discussion.

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

An in-game treaty has nothing to do with the diplomatic realities.  As I've tried to explain to y'all, TLE had a valid option to enter defensively through their previous treaty to Pantheon (I believe that treaty was since cancelled/expired) and Schrute Farms.  I don't believe they entered until Pantheon was hit AND countered by other alliances, representing an expansion of the war.  This chain of events constitutes a valid defensive entry coherent with adherence to a NAP in-game treaty notwithstanding and frankly irrelevant.  

Just to make sure I'm not confused with who I'm talking to. Is this the same Cooper that recently tried to tell me that BK defending BoC with Camelot wasn't a defensive action? TLE hits us because someone 2 treaty chains away also hit us, and that's what you call entering defensively?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
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.