Jump to content

The First Snek on The Moon (No Whales Allowed)


Agent W
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Haven't y'all hit us all 3 or 4 of the times we've fought? I think it's time to assess whether our OpSec is non-existent or you're paranoid.

Is it paranoid to take your leader at face value?

Former Imperial Officer of Internal Affairs and Emperor of the New Pacific Order, Founder of the Syndicate, Current Chief Global Strategist of the Syndicate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Agent W said:

Talk is cheap, infra isn't. When was the last time y'all fought a challenging war again?

If talk is cheap why do you care that I made "threats" towards you?  I mean I do agree that actions speak louder than words, and I would have to double check but everytime we have fought tS, its because tS hit us, not the other way around.  So I am not exactly sure what your point is.

The last war we fought was pretty fun, when was the last time you guys fought a challenging war that you won?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

If talk is cheap why do you care that I made "threats" towards you?  I mean I do agree that actions speak louder than words, and I would have to double check but everytime we have fought tS, its because tS hit us, not the other way around.  So I am not exactly sure what your point is.

The last war we fought was pretty fun, when was the last time you guys fought a challenging war that you won?

It’s been awhile, but we’ve done it years on end. We should be the ones retiring

  • Upvote 1
Lxr4VfE.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

If talk is cheap why do you care that I made "threats" towards you?  I mean I do agree that actions speak louder than words, and I would have to double check but everytime we have fought tS, its because tS hit us, not the other way around.  So I am not exactly sure what your point is.

The last war we fought was pretty fun, when was the last time you guys fought a challenging war that you won?

NPOLT was pretty challenging i'd say. Not that GG really participated in that one.

  • Haha 4

Former Imperial Officer of Internal Affairs and Emperor of the New Pacific Order, Founder of the Syndicate, Current Chief Global Strategist of the Syndicate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Justin076 said:

I've been wondering the same about your side? 

I'm confused as to when ghosting all of a sudden no longer was considered an aggressive act? Intentional or not, multiple members of HW leaving to join KT in a war against a Syndicate ally is and always has been an aggressive act. You can't play the "they were bored and wanted to do something card". You folks have been around long enough to know that is unacceptable and should've put a stop to it or came to us upfront and explained that they left on their own accord and you won't be taking them back. 

I think a little common sense and realization that it's not just you they were hitting would have gone a long way.

21 minutes ago, Justin076 said:

Your side did not do that. Instead, you immediately started militarizing when we were forced to militarize in defence of Eclipse. Do you not see how the chain of events unfolded and how your side was coming off to us?

We militarized because we didn't trust you not to take advantage of the situation, particularly as you were clearly over-militarizing for things. We didn't want to get caught unawares like Rose did last war and we reached out to you about deescalating. You chose not to trust us, that's fine. No harm, no foul. I don't know how often I can repeat that I get it. I said your actual reasons on this very thread, first page, long before y'all saw fit to publicly elaborate.

25 minutes ago, Justin076 said:

 And this is all recent, GoB has been continuously hostile towards The Syndicate dating back a very long time. We were dogpiled by them just over 6 months ago. Before that it was TCW. After us it was Rose. During and after the Rose hit, SRD made it quite clear that if it wasn't them it was us and if not then we're next. When you consider the history and pair it with the recent developments you should be able to understand that you're not innocent. 

And yes, SRD's word is credible. You cannot pass off his rhetoric as a joke as his past actions speak for themselves. 

So what? You guys have also been consistently hostile to us. I didn't say you shouldn't consider his words. I did say I thought reacting to words spoken months ago and not taking into consideration our weeks of chats discussing our rationale and mindset to you was a slap in the face and that using ghosting when it also impacted our sphere is weak sauce. You have actual reasons besides what you presented in the DoW and I think you did yourselves a disservice by not taking the time to actually explain those upfront. Your DoW makes you look weak and easily spooked. Your actual reasons do not.

That is my entire point here. This argument could have been done pages ago if you guys stopped ignoring it, deflecting, and making weird claims.

We get it. You wanted to clap Grumpy's cheeks because there's a history there and you don't like G/G being together and you think they were in need of a rolling and the drama surrounding our split didn't exactly help matters. We ain't mad. Have fun, boo and come visit me next round, please 😘

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Agent W said:

Is it paranoid to take your leader at face value?

If everyone took every other leader's word with the same amount of unfounded fear as y'all, we'd never have peace. Ya gotta learn to sift through the memery and nonsense, use some discretion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Agent W said:

This war isn't about pride, pride is a fool's errand better left to Grumpy. This war, like most of what tS engages in, is business. For that matter, our business is largely with Grumpy, y'all interjected into that business, and the fact that you and Adrienne are all over this thread trying to make this war about you shows just how little you understand FA.

Would be sad if business resulted in a net negative result. Cause there are no bad businesses, just failed business men and investors.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Adrienne said:

I think a little common sense and realization that it's not just you they were hitting would have gone a long way.

Your side's interest in defending Chocolate Castle was pretty revealing, signs were there of what was going to come eventually.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

You shouldn't quote someone if you're going to ignore the point they were making and the context it was said in. I made a point that the alliances of T$ and Rose alone were likely enough to take down GG based on tiering.  It was an explanation that they're not some unstoppable force, but could be taken down by just two alliances' tiering alone.  In the grand scheme, GG, T$, and Rose (along with their affiliates) were all upper tier poles and that had a balancing effect in that any combination of two could take out the third.  That doesn't imply that it is necessary to have two to take out one rather it implies that they no single pole was too powerful.   

Obviously, GG barely sustained damage.  We were dogpiled just like you're doing to us right now, which is frankly more than a bit hypocritical.  You're not getting coverage.  You're guaranteeing a lopsided war because you were too afraid to fight us fairly.  

This is just a pure lie.  I've said on numerous occasions that I think BW v HW would be a fair matchup.  I've continually pointed out how BW alone is a decently larger sphere than HW to the tune of 10-20% larger, and how you guys outtier us in the upper tier too.  The only tier that we have an advantage in is the 20 or so nations that are C40+ in a war of 1000s of nations.  

I said BW v HW would be a competitive matchup where we'd probably have an advantage in the whale tier while you guys win everything else, and that was when we still had CoTL/E404.  With a good blitz, the current BW could've definitely won a war against HW.  It might've not been easy mode, but it would've been a fun and fairer war.  I think @hidude45454 has already said as much.  Bringing Rose in with you was a cowardly and unnecessary move.  

You and your government are intimately aware of the issues we had getting adequate coverage on the planning of GW16. It's a simple reality that when updeclaring any fairly meaningful amount (not like one or two cities apart from each other) you effectively need at least 50% more nations than the other guy does by virtue of assigning 3 on 2 to offset the fact they're smaller nations and the penalties accompanied with such (worse rolls, needing to rely on dogfights vs the other guy simply being able to ga you for higher effect, etc). This is the unfortunate change brought about by the rebalance Alex introduced the past year. Even if we were to take the 10-20% as being truthful (I'd say not, but for argument's sake let's pretend it is), and assume that said 10-20% actually represent nations in the upper-top and not people in the low tier, that's nowhere near sufficient.

The reality is that your sphere, owing the heavy top tier and the escalation of effectiveness thereof, can rather comfortably take on any other sphere solo and have a reasonable chance at victory. The same cannot be said on the inverse. In spirit, it's quite similar to Quack in that as a sphere it was meant to have a reasonable chance at deterring a 1v1 and in good conditions, withstanding a 2v1. The reason Quack retained such set up, though, is because there was a very credible reason for believing that such would happen owing to immediate post-NPOLT diplomatic and narrative developments; to put it in other words, people had jumped to conclusions and began narrative crafting before the people in Quack had any chance to reassess the dramatic FA landscape change that had occurred towards the end of NPOLT and properly adjust to such, instead being forced into the defensive from the get-go. Your sphere lack any such rationale justifying that sort of set-up because you put it together based on what you saw as being pragmatically beneficial for you, as opposed to having what was effectively a leftover infrastructure which was not allowed to be revised. Put in another way, you had a clean slate you could've worked with, and from the ground up went with this. The fact that Quack also showed considerable restraint throughout it's existence, owing exactly due to it's size and perceived threat, while you pretty much didn't care about the latter two as evidenced by the fact that you deemed it sensible to start right off with a war also didn't help matters on your end and how your sphere is perceived.

As for the "cowardliness" you mention. As far as I'm concerned, it's rather unreasonable to expect people that have shared interests/concerns which are rooted on credible reasons not work together. And it's certainly something that in the past was used to justify rather lop-sided match-ups, with the rest of the spheres going like "Well okay, your rationale is sound." and largely accepting it. Case in point, the war between tCW and Swamp and HM. Nobody denies that it was a lopsided conflict. People also agree that Swamp and HM had more than justifiable reasons which warranted such coalition. Now, if the concern is irrational or otherwise unfounded, then sure. But such isn't the case here. If I'm being frank, this whole "cowardice" whole line of thought comes across as lazy, unaccountable FA. Instead of acknowledging that your moves were such that alienated or otherwise caused concern among other spheres, you reduce people acting on said concerns in unison as doing so "unnecessarily and cowardly". That's not how it works. It's on you to do your due diligence by not providing said people cause for which to have concerns, or not give them a reason to act against you. This whole situation is essentially you failing to do so and blame shifting instead of acknowledging that you somehow positioned your sphere in such a manner that gardened zero sympathizers from anywhere.

I guess, if I have to summarize about HW. It's your prerogative how you decide to set up your sphere. I can understand and respect the pragmatic reasons you had for setting it up the way you did. That said, that goes both ways and people elsewhere are likewise going to find it necessary to act in ways which safeguard their pragmatic needs. Reducing those as "cowardice" does you no service as they neither will endear the other party and even obfuscates your failings which put you in the current predicament. Ultimately, I find the whole moralistic undertone to be empty and ultimately betrayed by said pragmatic needs, because said idealism invariably requires compromises to be made, and these compromises affect pragmatic considerations, which in this particular case were given clear precedence. 

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
Minor edit.
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

Your side's interest in defending Chocolate Castle was pretty revealing, signs were there of what was going to come eventually.  

.....what? If you're saying what I think you're saying, this is funnier than the KT ghosting line. Well, maybe not, but it's close at least.

Edited by Adrienne
  • Downvote 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

I guess, if I have to summarize about HW. It's your prerogative how you decide to set up your sphere. I can understand and respect the pragmatic reasons you had for setting it up the way you did. That said, that goes both ways and people elsewhere are likewise going to find it necessary to act in ways which safeguard their pragmatic needs. Reducing those as "cowardice" does you no service as they neither will endear the other party and even obfuscates your failings which put you in the current predicament.

I won't address the rest of the points as this wasn't addressed at me but I did want to talk about this bit. I do generally agree with your point here and you know my thoughts on the team up but I would also like to point out that you guys (several major actors in t$, not you specifically) did the exact same thing when we made Hollywood. We were cowards, we went against your beliefs regarding G/G (beliefs we didn't share but you were under the impression we did in acknowledging that they sucked to fight), we were hypocrites, etc. Cooper and I have differing beliefs on the current situation, as do you and the members of t$ that were saying that stuff (several of whom are liking your post, amusingly enough to me). So, just as the pragmatism goes both ways, it should be no surprise that the objections to it do too.

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hillbilly said:

Wasn't t$ allied to NPO for most of that war?

 

Yes, that was the era when tS was Roqs !@#$ (for a time). Honestly I'm surprised people expected better from an alliance like Syndicate which for a long time has been a relic of the past. I can't remember them doing much at all except sitting around complaining about everyone else while doing nothing at all besides the occasional failed assault against Hedge/GG. Leave it to KT to bring life to this game and intimidate the whales.

GLHF, I hope all alliances destroy themselves completely so that we can have more easy raid targets. Good luck with it!

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

1 hour ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

snip

Ftr, we have had this discussion many times before (on all of the subjects you covered and not worthy of further WoTs), and I think it is an agree to disagree, but Wana was pretty flagrantly misquoting me.  My intent was to correct that.  

I think you're overemphasizing the cowardice rhetoric since it isn't the thrust of our argumentation.  I used the word because alliances being too zealous with security instead of taking risks contributes to imbalanced wars.  I assume this disagreement results from my political priorities being different than yours, which is to see more competitive and interesting wars instead of minimizing my own risk/damage.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Agent W said:

Cooper doesn't think our spheres were evenly matched, I clearly remember him saying it would take two spheres to take y'all down. As for getting good, can I perhaps recommend your coalition to stop using naval attacks against us? I  hear that's a pretty ineffective tactic.

He has answered you and i hope you understand. 

Edited by Indger
Removed coz i don't want to be arrogant

image.png.4824d77377c05ab0639aa7b3275e3aea.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Justin076 said:

I've been wondering the same about your side? 

I'm confused as to when ghosting all of a sudden no longer was considered an aggressive act? Intentional or not, multiple members of HW leaving to join KT in a war against a Syndicate ally is and always has been an aggressive act. You can't play the "they were bored and wanted to do something card". You folks have been around long enough to know that is unacceptable and should've put a stop to it or came to us upfront and explained that they left on their own accord and you won't be taking them back. 

Your side did not do that. Instead, you immediately started militarizing when we were forced to militarize in defence of Eclipse. Do you not see how the chain of events unfolded and how your side was coming off to us?

And this is all recent, GoB has been continuously hostile towards The Syndicate dating back a very long time. We were dogpiled by them just over 6 months ago. Before that it was TCW. After us it was Rose. During and after the Rose hit, SRD made it quite clear that if it wasn't them it was us and if not then we're next. When you consider the history and pair it with the recent developments you should be able to understand that you're not innocent. 

And yes, SRD's word is credible. You cannot pass off his rhetoric as a joke as his past actions speak for themselves. 

tbf, you go back further and it was t$ hitting Grumpy and Guardian whilst we were rolling the pre-cursor to IQ 2.0. They had decent grounds to be hostile towards you for a while :P

  • Upvote 1

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

 



As for the "cowardliness" you mention. As far as I'm concerned, it's rather unreasonable to expect people that have shared interests/concerns which are rooted on credible reasons not work together. And it's certainly something that in the past was used to justify rather lop-sided match-ups, with the rest of the spheres going like "Well okay, your rationale is sound." and largely accepting it. Case in point, the war between tCW and Swamp and HM. Nobody denies that it was a lopsided conflict. People also agree that Swamp and HM had more than justifiable reasons which warranted such coalition. Now, if the concern is irrational or otherwise unfounded, then sure. But such isn't the case here. If I'm being frank, this whole "cowardice" whole line of thought comes across as lazy, unaccountable FA. Instead of acknowledging that your moves were such that alienated or otherwise caused concern among other spheres, you reduce people acting on said concerns in unison as doing so "unnecessarily and cowardly". That's not how it works. It's on you to do your due diligence by not providing said people cause for which to have concerns, or not give them a reason to act against you. This whole situation is essentially you failing to do so and blame shifting instead of acknowledging that you somehow positioned your sphere in such a manner that gardened zero sympathizers from anywhere.

 

@Hodor

Remember that time we had a convo in the old TGH server about this sort of logic (which I agree with I might add, even when it is used against my own interests) with a particular tS gov member who just refused to accept such logic as being reasonable when we rolled tS last year? I even remember myself saying tS was being rolled on account of lazy FA.

I wonder how @Justin076 feels now? No doubt changed his tune I dare say 🤣

 

Edited by Charles Bolivar

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welp, I see a lot of talk that involves me in this thread and so far no one in BW has chosen to actually engage with me directly so I guess I'll invite myself or something.

15 hours ago, Agent W said:

Cooper has admitted that it'd take two spheres to take down GG. In Duck Hunt alone, GG barely sustained damage despite the combined forces of Quack. When you get into dealing with these mega whales, you need all the coverage you can get.

In Duck Hunt, GG barely sustained damage because they were on the winning dogpiling side. You could've made that argument for a lot of alliances on that side as well, really -- for example, I remember being thoroughly doubtful at KT entering paperless for how little of a part they played during that war. Similarly, plenty of BW and Rose alliances this war will probably also sustain relatively little damage because it's difficult to lose a war with such an advantage. Regardless, I do agree that (relatively obviously) GG has a much easier time rebuilding than some other alliances might.

15 hours ago, Agent W said:

Maybe this war isn't about TKR? The entire world doesn't revolve around you. Perhaps the decision to ally someone tS had been claiming was a threat, someone who we had recently fought an unsuccessful war against recently had something to do with this? Or maybe it's the immediate war of aggression on the only other high-tier sphere? Though I do suppose casting oneself as the victim and opining that the whole world is out to get you is easier.

Continuing from my previous point, if the war is about GG and not about TKR, why was there the need to get so many alliances involved? Then was there a reason to call in so many low-tier alliances and protectorates that would never be able to help in a war against GG? Was there a need to involve low-tier HW prots (and alliances certain BW alliances thought were still HW prots) besides the obvious of having more easy targets to statpad off of? (Side note: I noticed a lot of ppl indirectly accusing me of being dishonest with my tiering charts. They're literally open source lmao.) Just like GW17, it would've been easy to limit the scale of involvement with a fair objective in mind. I think that HW's cries of secret treaty here are baseless. But I also think it's baseless to claim HW as a direct aggressor to BW in this scenario.

15 hours ago, Agent W said:

I forgot that Duck Hunt was a dogpile! Silly me.

Gonna quote this because if I quote anyone else I'm probably gonna stir up a lot of salt. IMO there are only two ways to go about this: either people admit they were wrong in complaining about a dogpile against Quack in GW16 and go back to salt-mining HW tears on the forums, or they stick with their initial viewpoint and understand why most people in HW right now are unhappy with being dogpiled. Anything in between is not tit-for-tat, it is hypocrisy (and as an aside, no tit-for-tat conflict has ever been pleasant for anyone involved.) Otherwise, the dogpiling narrative that has already been driven into the ground will continue forever and no one is ever going to learn anything.

15 hours ago, Agent W said:

From what I hear, at least 3-4 of the Grumpy players who left didn't just get "bored".

Most of the Grumpy players who left went to VooDoo and are fighting on your side against Grumpy. The other part is in KT on zero military doing nothing to contribute to the war effort. If you'd like to provide some logs as to why they were there specifically to undermine BW, I'd love to see them.

15 hours ago, Agent W said:

The upper-tier consolidation is definitely a large part of it, but in and of itself isn't sufficient, IMO. If we truly believed that GG's intentions were peaceful, then there wouldn't be a reason to go after them. However, SRD made his intentions clear, and thus we have war. Upper-tier consolidation ruined another game some of us played, so people actually having the cajones to combat it before it gets out of hand should be applauded, IMO.

Before you accuse me of being a HW puppet I actually agree with you on this point for the most part rofl. I think the bigger issue isn't that they're inherently large, but that they tied themselves to a large sphere that is able to provide reasonable coverage. Still, behind the scenes you should know that Grumpy over the past month or two has been doing the complete opposite of aggresively posturing against BW, but even if there is some grain of truth to this, I still don't see why BW could've gone alone (and I still argue would've won it alone). Also, every sphere talks about rolling every other sphere. So in most cases imo it's a pretty dumb CB but it's how wars have happened since the game began so meh :P

13 hours ago, Agent W said:

ghosting from KT

Again, would love to see some elaboration on this point. When me and a grand total of two other Grumpy people left to KT, we did it on the basis of not knowing which targets KT was hitting. Again, we took a leap of faith, we were not out to target BW, nor were we doing it on the orders of HW gov. We hit CC along with Legion, which might as well give HW just as much a valid CB against us as BW (and indeed we were rolled both by HW and BW). If your bigger issue here is that HW members are ghosting to hit BW members regardless... does that mean BroFam has a valid CB against tS because of TJest rolling Pantheon? Or that HS/ex-Swings or Johnsons has a valid CB against tS because of Partisan joining us to hit them a few wars ago? Or that any ex-pirates in tS or Eclipse have a valid CB from everyone they've hit? In all those cases, I would hope that you'd defend your own members just the same as any other.

PS: I'm also in Eclipse right now. Yes, after hitting them. Would appreciate why me literally being in your coalition is a valid CB against HW.

13 hours ago, Agent W said:

I love how y'all are forming a narrative like we coerced Rose to join this war. That I was in Vexz DM's begging for them to fight with us. The truth is simpler than that, y'all made Rose your enemy, they willingly joined us as equal partners in this war.

I hope no one is assuming you were begging in Vexz's DMs rofl but either way someone was responsible for letting the dogpile happen. I understand that BW is probably willing to burn a significant amount of political capital in order to bring GG down a notch but that don't mean people will be willing to let you off that easily :P

5 hours ago, Darth Revan said:

Your side's interest in defending Chocolate Castle was pretty revealing, signs were there of what was going to come eventually.  

Hanlon's razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Order were grossly incompetent, but not malicious, for not deciding to counter the wars faster and I will leave it at that 🙃 And Ob carried their tier and ended the war on the highest net damage out of anyone fighting KT as well.

Anyways, the rest of the thread devolves a bit from here, so in short: I think it is pretty clear from the outcome of the war thus far that tS at the very least massively overestimated how difficult it would be to take down GG. HW went from holding off a 3v1 from Roasis Inc to collapsing against BW and Rose and that isn't just something that can be accomplished from skill alone. As a pretty much independent party, do I understand the reasoning behind BW frustration? Yeah, I do, and I don't disagree with most of it, but this was a seriously flawed execution on how to handle it correctly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hidude45454 said:

Anyways, the rest of the thread devolves a bit from here, so in short: I think it is pretty clear from the outcome of the war thus far that tS at the very least massively overestimated how difficult it would be to take down GG. HW went from holding off a 3v1 from Roasis Inc to collapsing against BW and Rose and that isn't just something that can be accomplished from skill alone. As a pretty much independent party, do I understand the reasoning behind BW frustration? Yeah, I do, and I don't disagree with most of it, but this was a seriously flawed execution on how to handle it correctly.

Rose somewhat gave them a poison chalice imo. They'll likely get out of this war relatively well PR wise, t$ probably less so.

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Adrienne said:

I won't address the rest of the points as this wasn't addressed at me but I did want to talk about this bit. I do generally agree with your point here and you know my thoughts on the team up but I would also like to point out that you guys (several major actors in t$, not you specifically) did the exact same thing when we made Hollywood. We were cowards, we went against your beliefs regarding G/G (beliefs we didn't share but you were under the impression we did in acknowledging that they sucked to fight), we were hypocrites, etc. Cooper and I have differing beliefs on the current situation, as do you and the members of t$ that were saying that stuff (several of whom are liking your post, amusingly enough to me). So, just as the pragmatism goes both ways, it should be no surprise that the objections to it do too.

What each person thought of the situation is their prerog based on their own experiences and line of thinking. That said; you've rooted your FA rather heavily on stuff that you deem to be ideologically good, rather than be more of a ruthlessly pragmatic type. That has it's ups and downs. It certainly helps narratively on your end, both internally and externally, if there's consistency to it. That's the key part. I'd say that the common point was that people saw your prioritizing of security as an abandonment, partial of otherwise, of said ideological roots, and criticized such. 

It should go without saying that objections were expected going into this. I'd be far more surprised if they weren't there. So no issues there.

8 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

I think you're overemphasizing the cowardice rhetoric since it isn't the thrust of our argumentation.  I used the word because alliances being too zealous with security instead of taking risks contributes to imbalanced wars.  I assume this disagreement results from my political priorities being different than yours, which is to see more competitive and interesting wars instead of minimizing my own risk/damage.  

I saw it (or things meaning similar things) repeated like thrice on the same page, if not top half thereof. I'd not call it overemphasizing based on that.

Some people do like to throw even the kitchen sink with the plumbing still attached to it into the situation for the reasons you mentioned; I find that to be dumb by all metrics. That's also not what's happening here. Personally speaking, I'm not one to mind reasonable dice rolls all that much, and in fact rolled them a few times in the past. I wouldn't consider going head-on into a situation that you have a slim chance of success without having any reason for doing so (as opposed to, say, thinking you were going to be preempted and blitzing to have a slim chance at winning rather than no chance) to be sensible in any capacity which wasn't just "Well I'm bored, let's yolo for shits ang gigs" though. Especially if there are specific practical considerations to be met which wouldn't be fulfilled in such a manner.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

That's the key part. I'd say that the common point was that people saw your prioritizing of security as an abandonment, partial of otherwise, of said ideological roots, and criticized such. 

It's always a balance between maintaining our ideology and maintaining security/member needs and desires, as it should be. Our ideology may be important but not any more so than our members and our community. We don't feel like we've betrayed our ideology. Others do. I'm not really surprised by that; it's not an unusual thing to have happen, either by virtue of a lack of understanding from others, a lack of communication from us, or a combination of the two.

Edited by Adrienne
Small clarification

BrOQBND.jpg

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.