We are here for the whales - t$ DoW

[Cooper_]

20 minutes ago, Lord Tyrion said:

I may have missed it.  What "new information that directly contradicts your previous statements about there not being coordination between the spheres." are you referring to?  

A) The Rose-Swamp secret treaty

B) The non-subtle play to force Rose's hand (Don't take this as making Rose innocent bc they're not)

[Lord Tyrion]

Just now, Cooper_ said:

A) The Rose-Swamp secret treaty

The non-subtle play to force Rose's hand (Don't take this as making Rose innocent bc they're not)

I thought we established over a week ago we had a defensive agreement in place with Rose for Quack aggression?  And for your second point, not sure what you're referring to there either.  They assessed a similar risk as we did and determined it was in their best interest to do what they did.  

[Cooper_]

1 minute ago, Lord Tyrion said:

I thought we established over a week ago we had a defensive agreement in place with Rose for Quack aggression?  And for your second point, not sure what you're referring to there either.  They assessed a similar risk as we did and determined it was in their best interest to do what they did.  

I think you mean artful cuts without context from a private conversation.

[Prefonteen]

58 minutes ago, Lord Tyrion said:

You mention Swamp-Rose as if there was an actual MDP in place, there was/is not.  If Hedge had hit Rose or Swamp, the other would have stayed out.  Similarly, if Rose had hit Hedge or Swamp, the other would have stayed out.  These were not general MDP agreements.  The agreement in place was for a single purpose and that was to defend against Quack if Quack got aggressive.  Quack was literally about to dogpile HM and TCW, probably 3.6M score vs 1.5M score or whatever it was, so those fears weren't completely unfounded.  We've already gone back and forth with you saying you thought we were coming on the offensive and us saying we weren't, so it's dumb to keep arguing over that unless new facts come out.  But the point being, the only reason those agreements were in place was to defend against the exact scenario that played out.  There is not some overarching configuration that exists beyond the parties working together to defend against one deemed mutual threat.

Fine, we'll call them Mutual Defense against Quack Pacts (MDQP)? Not sure what your point is. The pacts where there. The offensive coalition was there. The rhetoric on which your pact *and* coalition were based was absolutely faulty, and the degree of contradiction between your action and propagated ideology enormous.

46 minutes ago, Lord Tyrion said:

As I said "We've already gone back and forth with you saying you thought we were coming on the offensive and us saying we weren't, so it's dumb to keep arguing over that unless new facts come out. "

 

Yes. We brought evidence. People you're in-coalition with confirmed said evidence. You yelled "NAH ITS NOT OUR FAULT. QUACK TOO BIG QUACK THREAt".

 

1 minute ago, Lord Tyrion said:

I thought we established over a week ago we had a defensive agreement in place with Rose for Quack aggression?  And for your second point, not sure what you're referring to there either.  They assessed a similar risk as we did and determined it was in their best interest to do what they did.  

Don't make me drop the god damn logs. Your choice whether to force my hand.

You can either take your innocent spiel into dm's, or we can have a public log review of your sphere's attempts at setting us up against rose, and failing that, beginning your preparations to coalition build against us.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

15 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Don't make me drop the god damn logs. Your choice whether to force my hand.

Drop em!

[Hodor]

46 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Don't make me drop the god damn logs. Your choice whether to force my hand.

It's all we want!!!

[Sisyphus]

3 minutes ago, Hodor said:

It's all we want!!!

It's always about you, you, you and what you want. 

We have feelings too, you know!

[Charles Bolivar]

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

Fine, we'll call them Mutual Defense against Quack Pacts (MDQP)? Not sure what your point is. The pacts where there. The offensive coalition was there. The rhetoric on which your pact *and* coalition were based was absolutely faulty, and the degree of contradiction between your action and propagated ideology enormous.

Yes. We brought evidence. People you're in-coalition with confirmed said evidence. You yelled "NAH ITS NOT OUR FAULT. QUACK TOO BIG QUACK THREAt".

 

Don't make me drop the god damn logs. Your choice whether to force my hand.

You can either take your innocent spiel into dm's, or we can have a public log review of your sphere's attempts at setting us up against rose, and failing that, beginning your preparations to coalition build against us.

Drop the logs. Don't let fear hold you back.

[Phoenyx]

5 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

Drop the logs. Don't let fear hold you back.

Agreed, let's see those logs 🙂

[Hodor]

1 hour ago, Sisyphus said:

It's always about you, you, you and what you want. 

We have feelings too, you know!

Well I guess I can take this picture off my nightstand!

[Sisyphus]

why must you hurt me so

[HeroofTime55]

[zigbigadorlou]

15 hours ago, HeroofTime55 said:

Membership-facing, OPSEC-friendly advisory messages 

You'd be surprised how much we know. Its not good form to reveal your own alliance's opsec though. 

17 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

 Rose wants to make it seem like they decided 2 hours beforehand, but the evidence just doesn't support that.  Swamp also wants to imply that there was no coordination, and that they're guiltless in any planning.  Your post makes it seem like the coordination was definitely there between multiple spheres.  It also makes you wonder why that sort of coordination was happening that far in advance if there were no serious plans to follow-up on the Sphinx leaks.

This seems to come down the question of what caused what: was coordination caused by the Quack militarization, or was coordination there the whole time. And what level? I don't think anyone that has responded in this thread can fully answer that except for perhaps Tyrion. The rest are suspiciously silent, aren't they. Perhaps because the only one not scared about talking is the one and only SRD. 

7 hours ago, Sisyphus said:

Ah yes, who wants political intrigue anyway?

Have we found ourselves on the flipside of Politics & War and traveled all the way to Politics & War now?

Is sphere balance considered a CB? Its a hard sell to call it a CB. At least, CB's in these usually try to pretend for a moral high ground, not a pursuit of ambition or internal goals. 

4 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Yes. We brought evidence. People you're in-coalition with confirmed said evidence. You yelled "NAH ITS NOT OUR FAULT. QUACK TOO BIG QUACK THREAt".

 

Don't make me drop the god damn logs. Your choice whether to force my hand.

Paperless conditional MDP. Question: would hedge have gone in against you if you hit rosecam? I guess we'll not find out. 

Post the logs. POST THE LOGS. Its not for them, its for everyone. DO IT. 

[Sir Scarfalot]

12 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said:

Paperless conditional MDP

Which is a paperless treaty... obviously?

What you're describing is either a paperless treaty which invalidates the argument that 'quack is too big', or it is a coalition agreement against quack which invalidates the argument that 'quack is the aggressor'.

Either way there's at least one falsehood.

[Phoenyx]

19 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said:

[snip]Post the logs. POST THE LOGS. Its not for them, its for everyone. DO IT. 

Agreed. I think anyone who is in favour of the truth being easier to decipher wants to see them at this point. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by Phoenyx

[Phoenyx]

4 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Fine, we'll call them Mutual Defense against Quack Pacts (MDQP)? Not sure what your point is. The pacts where there. The offensive coalition was there. The rhetoric on which your pact *and* coalition were based was absolutely faulty, and the degree of contradiction between your action and propagated ideology enormous.

 

It just seems to me like you're confusing a defensive mutual defense pact against Quack for an offensive coalition against Quack. I can understand why based on Boyce's conversation with Sphynx, but at least when it comes to Swamp, I have a log of my own that strongly suggests that Swamp would never have attacked Quack first. I posted it around here somewhere too.

[Shiho Nishizumi]

2 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

 

It just seems to me like you're confusing a defensive mutual defense pact against Quack for an offensive coalition against Quack. I can understand why based on Boyce's conversation with Sphynx, but at least when it comes to Swamp, I have a log of my own that strongly suggests that Swamp would never have attacked Quack first. I posted it around here somewhere too.

You're fairly new, yet eager. So I'll explain it to you.

Signing something defensive to then articulate for an offensive is a very basic 101. And the existence of these defensive arrangements invariably means that the signatories wouldn't aggress on each other, for self explanatory reasons.

Swamp had such arrangements with both Hedge and Rose. That only leaves one party to be hit. Namely, Quack. 

And then you have e.g. SRD stating that Swamp had approached him to hit us.

The log you cite, which I've read, is a run of the mill statement meant for internal consumption. The only eyebrow rising thing is that it seems like Swamp has little to no self confidence internally, which is in contrast with the bravado displayed v. Arrgh.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Shiho Nishizumi

[Phoenyx]

1 minute ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

You're fairly new, yet eager. So I'll explain it to you.

Signing something defensive to then articulate for an offensive is a very basic 101. And the existence of these defensive arrangements invariably mean that the signatories wouldn't aggress on each other, for self explanatory reasons.

Swamp had such arrangements with both Hedge and Rose. That only leaves one party to be hit. Namely, Quack. 

The log you cite, which I've read, is a run of the mill statement meant for internal consumption. The only eyebrow rising thing is that it seems like Swamp has little to no self confidence internally, which is in contrast with the bravado displayed v. Arrgh.

Actually, that log wasn't a public one. It was one between him and me alone and it happened after I'd been removed from TFP. It definitely wasn't meant for public consumption. He made it clear that he didn't want any of his words shared. Personally, I just found it too frustrating though. The other parties are talking here, Rose, Quack, but where's Swamp? Nowhere to be found, at least since I joined the conversation. This fellow explicitly said that he feels it's best not to talk here but I strongly disagree with that. So I decided to share it.

[Prefonteen]

2 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Actually, that log wasn't a public one. It was one between him and me alone and it happened after I'd been removed from TFP. It definitely wasn't meant for public consumption. He made it clear that he didn't want any of his words shared. Personally, I just found it too frustrating though. The other parties are talking here, Rose, Quack, but where's Swamp? Nowhere to be found, at least since I joined the conversation. This fellow explicitly said that he feels it's best not to talk here but I strongly disagree with that. So I decided to share it.

Public consumption means "non opsec". I.e. Whatever plan existed, exist or will one day exist generally isn't shared with members or outsiders outside a small gov group until postfacto, or unless it leaks. 

An admittance after all would validate quack further. Why would they tell you anything like that with the risk of it getting on the forums? 

[Phoenyx]

2 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Public consumption means "non opsec". I.e. Whatever plan existed, exist or will one day exist generally isn't shared with members or outsiders outside a small gov group until postfacto, or unless it leaks. 

An admittance after all would validate quack further. Why would they tell you anything like that with the risk of it getting on the forums? 

Fine, fine, you want to believe that it's all an elaborate plan, you can do that. But it's not just this Swamp official who's said this. Everything I've seen while in Swamp Alliances (which is most of the 2 months I've been playing) suggests a very defensive network and absolutely no interest in becoming an offensive one. They are all about building up their armies to max if they feel like there may be an imminent attack on them or their allies but they are content to then sit on those maxed armies until they feel that either the threat has passed or they are attacked. I remember at first objecting to building up my armies so much, but I certainly wasn't objecting when it came time to fight in this global war, especially when some of my opponents were also around maxed as well.

 

Ofcourse, I decided to go the extra mile- to not just fight, but find out how all of this started. Still on that journey, but while I'm still fuzzy on some particular details, one thing seems to keep on becoming clearer- there was never any huge force getting ready to attack Quack before some in Quack attacked Hedge and Commonwealth. A small force thinking about it? Possibly, but nothing that would have caused Quack more than a minor irritation and massive losses for said force. After that happened though, defensive networks were triggered and that's what's happening now.

 

Anyway, from what I have seen, wars don't benefit the people who are actually fighting them (war profiteers are another matter). So while I imagine we could continue debating who started this war for quite a long time, wouldn't it make more sense to see how we can end it?

[zigbigadorlou]

14 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Which is a paperless treaty... obviously?

What you're describing is either a paperless treaty which invalidates the argument that 'quack is too big', or it is a coalition agreement against quack which invalidates the argument that 'quack is the aggressor'.

Either way there's at least one falsehood.

Its a conditional treaty. How does that invalidate the idea of quack being too big? That is the presumed impetus of the agreement. And quack is still the aggressor depending on the timing of agreement. What state was this agreement pre-militarization? I look forward to seeing more back channel information.

Swamp and Hedge have been so far pretty open about their conditional paperless mdp against Quack. The biggest part where there is uncertainty from a non-privileged member like myself is who from Swamp or Quack has made a connection with Rose, and how tenuous is it? 

But even if Quack is shown to be "the aggressor" that doesn't mean they/you were wrong in acting. 

[Phoenyx]

2 hours ago, zigbigadorlou said:

Its a conditional treaty. How does that invalidate the idea of quack being too big? That is the presumed impetus of the agreement. And quack is still the aggressor depending on the timing of agreement. What state was this agreement pre-militarization? I look forward to seeing more back channel information.

Swamp and Hedge have been so far pretty open about their conditional paperless mdp against Quack. The biggest part where there is uncertainty from a non-privileged member like myself is who from Swamp or Quack has made a connection with Rose, and how tenuous is it? 

But even if Quack is shown to be "the aggressor" that doesn't mean they/you were wrong in acting. 

I think we can agree that it all depends on whether any significant force was truly going to attack Quack. Maybe Sphinx thought about it, but would his Alliance have followed through with it, not sure. Anyway, if they'd attacked Quack first, I think we can agree that they would now be in a load of trouble.

 

If it's true that any plans to attack quack were feeble to non existent in most non Quack sectors, then from everyone's perspective, including Quack's, they should never have attacked the Commonwealth and Hedge. It didn't benefit them and it didn't benefit anyone else either. Real wars (as opposed to raids) are generally a losing game in terms of resources for anyone actually fighting in them. So here's to hoping that some feelers are going out towards peace.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Phoenyx

[HeroofTime55]

Imagine getting kicked out of multiple Dumpster Coalition alliances and still parroting their nonsense.

Also, characterizing a defensive preemptive strike as "aggression" is laughable, when your spheres spent months plotting a dogpile on us.  Watching the C-team come out here to continue to lie about this when the truth is plain as day is something else totally.

[Buorhann]

On 11/10/2020 at 10:21 AM, Sisyphus said:

Ah yes, who wants political intrigue anyway?

Have we found ourselves on the flipside of Politics & War and traveled all the way to Politics & War now?

This is coming from the person who had told other spheres they had no idea on the TCW leaked plans that had (bad) BK and TCW get rolled by Chaos/KETOGG, then later joined the war to aid NPO who had joined the war to aid BK.

[Prefonteen]

20 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

This is coming from the person who had told other spheres they had no idea on the TCW leaked plans that had (bad) BK and TCW get rolled by Chaos/KETOGG, then later joined the war to aid NPO who had joined the war to aid BK.

Do you ever think before you post, hippo?

NPO had not entered the war by the time t$ joined, and when NPO did join..... t$ left the war, in protest.