A sad truth about the Swampy Rose Hedge...

[Sir Scarfalot]

Just now, Phoenyx said:

-blah blah blah-

[Phoenyx]

1 minute ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

 

Sure, but there's a big difference between attacking first and counter attacking.

[Vero]

1 minute ago, Phoenyx said:

 

Sure, but there's a big difference between attacking first and counter attacking.

So you admit it, Swamp was attacking first.

 

6 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

I think I may have figured it out now. Basically, I think that the HM leader who talked to Ronnie about Swamp wanting to "counter Quack's growth" was just talking about the defensive Coalition that Swamp fully admits happened. Ronnie misinterpreted this and said what he said. He actually said that he believed that the plan fizzled out after he hadn't heard about it again, when it was more that the plan he had in mind was just a misinterpretation. At this point, he may have realized his mistake but doesn't want to admit it as he may think it makes his leadership look weak or something to that effect.

Yeahhhhh

[Phoenyx]

1 minute ago, Vero said:

So you admit it, Swamp was attacking first.

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I was saying that Swamp had made an agreement to counter attack Quack if they attacked HM/TCW/Rose first. Which they did, so Swamp counter attacked. 

2 minutes ago, Vero said:

Yeahhhhh

 

Glad we agree 🙂

[Vero]

>Unsure of how I arrived at this conclusion
>Also is apparently blind to everyone but Swamp propaganda
>Also cannot take hints to get off the forums

[dtc justice]

4 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I was saying that Swamp had made an agreement to counter attack Quack if they attacked HM/TCW/Rose first. Which they did, so Swamp counter attacked. 

 

Glad we agree 🙂

Imagine when he finds out that swamp was attacked by quack alongside HM, and that swamp is on the defensive and not the offensive.

 

Can't even get his narrative right lol

[HeroofTime55]

5 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Sorry, I do have to correct some things here. TKR, t$, and TI allied each other before NPO imploded. After NPO left the game, Partisan, Tyrion, and I, along with our FA teams, spent a considerable amount of time talking about what we wanted to do and how to move forward in a post-IQ world. In the end, we didn't agree on how best to do that and TI elected to resolve those disagreements by cutting ties with us and t$ and forming their own sphere, Swamp. It was an amicable split.

Fair enough.  I wasn't there and, admittedly, am reading into it and hypothesizing on what caused the split post-IQ.  I know we all fought together against NPO (who didn't?).

[Vero]

3 hours ago, dtc justice said:

Imagine when he finds out that swamp was attacked by quack alongside HM, and that swamp is on the defensive and not the offensive.

 

Can't even get his narrative right lol

Mfw not only you spy statpad, but cannot take context clues

Edited November 25, 2020 by Vero

[Charles Bolivar]

1 hour ago, HeroofTime55 said:

Fair enough.  I wasn't there and, admittedly, am reading into it and hypothesizing on what caused the split post-IQ.  I know we all fought together against NPO (who didn't?).

Some also fought with NPO and/or aided their interests.

[The Emperor]

10 hours ago, Lord Tyrion said:

Partisan knows whats going on, and if he does succeed and meet his FA objectives by doing what he's doing, he'll just laugh about how he managed to pull it off. You're just the current person he's trying to Impero. He's done this before, he'll do it again LOL. Don't think for a second he actually eats his own BS though, that he tends to leave to others

Edited November 25, 2020 by The God Emperor of Mankind

[Prefonteen]

9 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

-.-

 

I think I may have figured it out now. Basically, I think that the HM leader who talked to Ronnie about Swamp wanting to "counter Quack's growth" was just talking about the defensive Coalition that Swamp fully admits happened. Ronnie misinterpreted this and said what he said. He actually said that he believed that the plan fizzled out after he hadn't heard about it again, when it was more that the plan he had in mind was just a misinterpretation. At this point, he may have realized his mistake but doesn't want to admit it as he may think it makes his leadership look weak or something to that effect.

 

Partisan may still believe Boyce's claim that HM/TCW/Swamp was probably going to attack Quack in early December in theory, but in practice, he doesn't really seem to be defending him, so I'm thinking he may have doubts at this point. That's pretty much it.

No doubts here friend. 

9 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I was saying that Swamp had made an agreement to counter attack Quack if they attacked HM/TCW/Rose first. Which they did, so Swamp counter attacked. 

 

Glad we agree 🙂

 

4 hours ago, dtc justice said:

Imagine when he finds out that swamp was attacked by quack alongside HM, and that swamp is on the defensive and not the offensive.

 

Can't even get his narrative right lol

So you're saying tcw *is* part of swamp? 

Guess that's what triggered your paperless mdp. 

Get your narrative straight spy boy. 

1 hour ago, The God Emperor of Mankind said:

Partisan knows whats going on, and if he does succeed and meet his FA objectives by doing what he's doing, he'll just laugh about how he managed to pull it off. You're just the current person he's trying to Impero. He's done this before, he'll do it again LOL. Don't think for a second he actually eats his own BS though, that he tends to leave to others

I want to respond to this seriously but I feel it will trigger you into another flailing frenzy of faulty deduction and flawed logic, oh great one. 

So I will yield instead. 

[Micchan]

13 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Sure, but there's a big difference between attacking first and counter attacking.

This is the part you really don't understand, defensive and offensive are the same thing here

If you do defensive paperless ties between HM, Swamp, and Rose you're actually planning a dogpile on Quack

Since we are not here to die of boredom so sooner or later Quack is going to attack someone

 

I'm not going to read any reply longer than 3 lines and/or any reply which contains Ronnie, Tyron, or Boyce

ps: my master, my sweet love, his holiness, my majesty, daddy, the owner of all my orifices, all count as Tyron

Edited November 25, 2020 by Micchan
typo

[WarriorSoul]

14 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

 

Masterful. There are no words...

🤢

[Prefonteen]

59 minutes ago, Micchan said:

This is the part you really don't understand, defensive and offensive are the same thing here

If you do defensive paperless ties between HM, Swamp, and Rose you're actually planning a dogpile on Quack

Since we are not here to die of boredom so sooner or later Quack is going to attack someone

 

I'm not going to read any reply longer than 3 lines and/or any reply which contains Ronnie, Tyron, or Boyce

ps: my master, my sweet love, his holiness, my majesty, daddy, the owner of all my orifices, all count as Tyron

Correcting this before doughnuts try to run with it. 

 

The issue is the paperless network in combination with tacid approval and effort of *at least* a sizeable portion of the parties involved to go aggro once there is enough buy in. 

Between the defensive treaties cornering quack into being dogpiled or sitting around, and the progression toward getting buy in, it makes war a matter of when, not if. 

[HeroofTime55]

8 hours ago, Charles Bolivar said:

Some also fought with NPO and/or aided their interests.

Like Camelot, right?

[Charles Bolivar]

3 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Correcting this before doughnuts try to run with it. 

 

The issue is the paperless network in combination with tacid approval and effort of *at least* a sizeable portion of the parties involved to go aggro once there is enough buy in. 

Between the defensive treaties cornering quack into being dogpiled or sitting around, and the progression toward getting buy in, it makes war a matter of when, not if. 

Sooooo what you are saying is each of these three spheres should have instead let quack attack and roll them individually?

Come on man, you know better than that and it's simply not how the game operates. Alliances/spheres find common causes against mutual and potential/actual threats and group their spheres together for specific strategic purposes. You know this better than most because you yourself did it plenty enough times against the likes of Rose and UPN back in the day. You even did so midway during the last war when you aligned tS's war efforts against NPO with the rest of us despite the actual reasoning for tS being in the war differing significantly thanks to NPO being stupid.

Does it suck being dogpiled or being significantly outnumbered? Hell yeah, and I feel the pain because more than a few of us went through it during NPOLT for 6-8 months. But let's not try and paint this as something which it isn't.  Much like how you blame chaos/ketog/HM's FA decisions last war for alienating tS from supporting us against IQ, it's tS's own FA actions and decision making which have resulted in today's state of affairs. Sure, you can argue indirect or direct actions of tS being the cause, but it all amounts to the same at the end of the day.

If a coalition builds up against a sphere there are always simply two factors involved. The first being 1) that sphere did something to cause said coalition forming , and 2) said sphere also did not take enough corrective action to prevent the aforementioned coalition arising.  So it's all well and good to come out here and scream things about coalitions forming but you know the rules of the game better than most. I get why you are saying it, namely because you need to paint some narrative which supports your own cause but the only people buying into it are the already converted hence the radio silence mostly from our side 🤷‍♂️ 

Also, done this on a phone so forgive the grammar 👍🤣

Good luck old friend.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Charles Bolivar

[Charles Bolivar]

2 hours ago, HeroofTime55 said:

Like Camelot, right?

Along with others closer to home 👍

[Adrienne]

49 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

Sooooo what you are saying is each of these three spheres should have instead let quack attack and roll them individually?

Logical fallacy aside here, what's actually being said is that it's against minispheres - what most of these spheres that have combined claim to want - to be forming paperless treaties. The issue isn't the coalition forming. Working together and deciding to form a coalition to fight someone else is one thing. Hiding actual treaties for over a month and claiming "Quack is too big" when you've created a paperless sphere twice their size is another. And for most of these guys, it's undeniably hypocritical.

[Phoenyx]

9 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

No doubts here friend. 

 

I can't see how you can be so trusting of Boyce, but alright.

5 hours ago, Micchan said:

This is the part you really don't understand, defensive and offensive are the same thing here

 

No, they really aren't. 

4 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Correcting this before doughnuts try to run with it. 

 

The issue is the paperless network in combination with tacid approval and effort of *at least* a sizeable portion of the parties involved to go aggro once there is enough buy in. 

Between the defensive treaties cornering quack into being dogpiled or sitting around, and the progression toward getting buy in, it makes war a matter of when, not if. 

I will agree that war may well have happened eventually. My main point is that up to the point Quack attacked HM/TCW, Swamp had no plans to initiate a first strike against Quack. 

1 hour ago, Charles Bolivar said:

Sooooo what you are saying is each of these three spheres should have instead let quack attack and roll them individually?

 

Looks like :-p. 

[Charles Bolivar]

1 hour ago, Adrienne said:

Logical fallacy aside here, what's actually being said is that it's against minispheres - what most of these spheres that have combined claim to want - to be forming paperless treaties. The issue isn't the coalition forming. Working together and deciding to form a coalition to fight someone else is one thing. Hiding actual treaties for over a month and claiming "Quack is too big" when you've created a paperless sphere twice their size is another. And for most of these guys, it's undeniably hypocritical.

I somewhat agree tbh, it is somewhat hypocritical, but then again I always regarded the notion of minispheres as idealistic nonsense only a fool could actually believe possible. I said it during the last war when people made a fuss about NPO defending BK for much the same reason which I found incredulous. How could anyone have reasonably entertained the notion that NPO would not have defended BK? And I say much the same now, we can talk about moralism, ethics, dogpiles, coalitions etc till the sun comes up and goes back down again but it's largely irrelevant to the fundamental basics behind this war in that a coalition of varying interests felt threatened by quack for whatever individual reasons and banded together for their mutual defence. That's rational behaviour and any alliance leader who attempted to tell their members " sorry guys, we are getting rolled by quack, we would have averted said rolling if we had joined up with other folks but I wanted to make minispheres instead" should be couped immediately for being a moron.

So yes, we have hypocrites on one side and fools on the other. Much the same as any other war in that regards.

[Phoenyx]

44 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

I somewhat agree tbh, it is somewhat hypocritical, but then again I always regarded the notion of minispheres as idealistic nonsense only a fool could actually believe possible. I said it during the last war when people made a fuss about NPO defending BK for much the same reason which I found incredulous. How could anyone have reasonably entertained the notion that NPO would not have defended BK? And I say much the same now, we can talk about moralism, ethics, dogpiles, coalitions etc till the sun comes up and goes back down again but it's largely irrelevant to the fundamental basics behind this war in that a coalition of varying interests felt threatened by quack for whatever individual reasons and banded together for their mutual defence. That's rational behaviour and any alliance leader who attempted to tell their members " sorry guys, we are getting rolled by quack, we would have averted said rolling if we had joined up with other folks but I wanted to make minispheres instead" should be couped immediately for being a moron.

So yes, we have hypocrites on one side and fools on the other. Much the same as any other war in that regards.

 

I think I agree with all of this. 

[Adrienne]

48 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:

I somewhat agree tbh, it is somewhat hypocritical, but then again I always regarded the notion of minispheres as idealistic nonsense only a fool could actually believe possible. I said it during the last war when people made a fuss about NPO defending BK for much the same reason which I found incredulous. How could anyone have reasonably entertained the notion that NPO would not have defended BK? And I say much the same now, we can talk about moralism, ethics, dogpiles, coalitions etc till the sun comes up and goes back down again but it's largely irrelevant to the fundamental basics behind this war in that a coalition of varying interests felt threatened by quack for whatever individual reasons and banded together for their mutual defence. That's rational behaviour and any alliance leader who attempted to tell their members " sorry guys, we are getting rolled by quack, we would have averted said rolling if we had joined up with other folks but I wanted to make minispheres instead" should be couped immediately for being a moron.

So yes, we have hypocrites on one side and fools on the other. Much the same as any other war in that regards.

Yeah, to be honest, not going to argue with you too much on that. I definitely feel at least a bit the fool, especially since this is the second time now something similar to this has happened to my alliance. But I'd rather be in the position we're in now, being deemed foolish for believing the word of people who we thought trustworthy on this particular topic than the alternative of having betrayed a significant portion of what we spent nine months fighting for alongside them.

2 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

I think I agree with all of this. 

Trust me, you don't. It goes against at least a solid half of what you keep repeating in your plethora of posts and topics. Not to mention it calls your "idle" a hypocrite.

[HeroofTime55]

3 hours ago, Charles Bolivar said:

Along with others closer to home 👍

Which ones on our side fought alongside NPO till the bloody, toxic end?

[Phoenyx]

23 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

Trust me, you don't. It goes against at least a solid half of what you keep repeating in your plethora of posts and topics. Not to mention it calls your "idle" a hypocrite.

 

I had to typo the word too -.-. Anyway, if he's saying that, then yes, you're right, I don't agree with him on that point at least. Or at least, I don't think I do. I imagine we're talking something about spheres and their size and such. Like Charles, I've never been a fan of all that stuff. To me, it's about doing what's right, not whether your sphere isn't quite the "right" size. 

[Charles Bolivar]

2 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Yeah, to be honest, not going to argue with you too much on that. I definitely feel at least a bit the fool, especially since this is the second time now something similar to this has happened to my alliance. But I'd rather be in the position we're in now, being deemed foolish for believing the word of people who we thought trustworthy on this particular topic than the alternative of having betrayed a significant portion of what we spent nine months fighting for alongside them.

Trust me, you don't. It goes against at least a solid half of what you keep repeating in your plethora of posts and topics. Not to mention it calls your "idle" a hypocrite.

To be honest, TKR is in this war alongside tS for much the same reasons as to why the opposing coalition banded together against quack. Mutual interests and defence being best served by working with others of similar mind. Although I do freely admit the common reaction amongst a decent portion of our side, or at least amongst the oldies I speak to anyway, is a feeling of pity for TKR being dragged into yet another war courtesy of tS. Sipping on tS koolaid is the common phrase.

Like I get why, if TKR didn't ride alongside tS there would be a readily apparent belief within TKR that they would be next on the chopping block. That would be the rational thought process so it really does benefit TKR's interests to side with tS during this war. but in that case, TKR would be, and most likely is for that matter, utilising the same logic as a portion of our coalition anyway. Hypocrites on both sides it would appear perhaps?

And yes, I suppose you do have the right to feel foolish. Lets not pretend it is a badge of honour though. There is no honour in having your membership pay the price for the idealistic notions of a few.

2 hours ago, HeroofTime55 said:

Which ones on our side fought alongside NPO till the bloody, toxic end?

C'mon man. You can do better than this.

At least I hope you can anyway.

If not, keep on truckin.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Charles Bolivar