Jump to content

A Treatise on the Current War


Agent W
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

I'll just briefly touch on those.  First, the ghosts from OB and Grumpy.  Let me be clear.  We in no way would ever conspire against our own allies.  I'll even add that OB was then the major party who responded to KT despite their members ghosting in KT.  This isn't a reason nor is it an indication of anything.  

I think the reasoning behind WANA mentioning the ghosts was lost in translation a bit, so I'll make it clear as it's own point. It wasn't "OMG LOOK HW IS GHOST HITTING US???" it was "Oh look, Grumpy members who constantly go raid and then go back to Grumpy the second they get bored with 0 consequence are at it again". 

 

48 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Second, the statement made by SRD.  I just did a brief search in our own embassy, RON, and some other public places.  Some of the refrains associated with T$ gov (not just eumir) and Grumpy is bad,  threat, needs to take damage (you get the point).  SRD admitted that T$ was a potential target, but that TKR and its other allies in HW rejected that.  Even if we forget SRD's IC character, you can't really claim a highground here.  

Grumpy is a threat and needs to take damage. Look how effective it is! Ronny can barely string words together as he watches his alliance finally take some damage early in a war. Grumpy is objectively bad for the meta. There's a few others that are too, but Grumpy is easily the number one issue currently. We discussed this in the embassy. t$ has been steadfast on this point at least since I joined, and even longer than that from what I've heard. SRD actively flaunted Grumpy's inability to be hurt/lose/etc and straight up said t$ was a target that had been floated but that the only reason we weren't hit is because Quack had just split. Don't pretend TKR wouldn't have taken that as a threat if you'd been in our situation. We both know you would have. 

 

53 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

timeline stuff

As far as I'm aware this is accurate - though my gov is free to correct you if it isn't. 

55 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Every step of the way we were openly communicating our intent, and it takes some serious 4-D upon 4-D chess to conceive a way where we were not being transparent about our intent.  The likely scenario is that you saw the sunk cost of militarization, you wanted to get your hit in to take out a perceived threat, and you had Rose who could be mobilized off of their grudge.  It's a brazen and political move, but we can't really begin to break it down until we get on the same page.  

Here's the issue, Coops. HW and BW didn't start off on a good foot. T$ found out you were making war plans behind our back during a war while we were still allies and had an information clause and before we'd even given an official notice. It was during our notice that we realized you weren't prepping for rebuild, while t$ was in the process of starting. I was getting a few messages from parties I won't mention here asking what was going on, and I had 0 clue despite still being allied to you at the time. This is after I'd probed Adri/Ben a few times on your post-quack plans and was met with silence despite giving you a heads up on what our plans were. Once the treaty dropped, you debuted your new allies in an offensive war against the only other sphere that you, SRD, and others claimed could "definitely fight GG guys" with the entirety of TKR's half of Quack, plus BK and all of HM. Let's break that down a bit and restate a few things. You:

-Hit Rose with an overwhelming force while allying a group you knew we took issue with for various reasons, making essentially a new Quack.

-Made these plans behind our backs despite the information clause in our treaty, knowing we'd be less than thrilled about the idea, and refused to tell us anything about your plans.

-During the war, twisted my words more than a few times and used my broad number statements while ignoring the statements I made about tiering.

 

Forgive us if we're less likely to trust you and consider you an honest party.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

thalmorcommie.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Etat said:

I appreciate your response!  But despite your words, you've only confirmed my position...you've long term issues with GG (I'm not challenging any justification you might have), and you've manufactured a weak reason for bringing in Rose and creating yet another global war to scratch that itch.  The rest of what you're dredging up about minispheres, though perhaps pertinent in your head and influential in how you perceive TKR, is pretty much a red herring to the issue in question.

"Your story is weak and half assedly come up with to cover a grudge."

"The stance dates back to literal years and upheld several times even by people who had no beef on the situation simply because they weren't there when a bunch of stuff happened."

"Haha lol your story is weak and I won't actually address anything of you've said in my rehash of my first post."

10/10.

  • Haha 4
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

@Agent W

In some ways, this post is an improvement upon the original stated CB because I think we all recognize that they were not substantiated nor justifiable.  The first few lines do justice that these weren't your reasons, but the latter paragraphs then just try to justify them again.

Our biggest response to all of T$' points has been a request to just be unequivocal about your intent.  You don't like what you perceive as "upper tier consolidation" in GG.  Some of us thinks that's overblown, but we can have that argument without the muddling that is the other claims being made.  

I'll just briefly touch on those.  First, the ghosts from OB and Grumpy.  Let me be clear.  We in no way would ever conspire against our own allies.  I'll even add that OB was then the major party who responded to KT despite their members ghosting in KT.  This isn't a reason nor is it an indication of anything.  

Second, the statement made by SRD.  I just did a brief search in our own embassy, RON, and some other public places.  Some of the refrains associated with T$ gov (not just eumir) and Grumpy is bad,  threat, needs to take damage (you get the point).  SRD admitted that T$ was a potential target, but that TKR and its other allies in HW rejected that.  Even if we forget SRD's IC character, you can't really claim a highground here.  

I'd also like to clarify the timeline since you seem to make out that we didn't communicate.  This isn't true:
On 8/14: I inquire in the T$ embassy about your militarization and mention that we're concerned about it.  Gray responds that it is for the C20+ to prevent raids.
Later on 8/14: HW internals recognize that there was a change in the MMR builds of E$ and CTO outside the parameters given, and HW was already on edge after all of the shit flinging T$ did last war.  The decision was made to militarize since not militarizing could result in us getting hit like Rose during GnR.  Rose follows us.
On 8/15: Eclipse asks TKR about our militarization.  We respond that we're concerned and milled up in response given how Rose got hit during GnR.
On 8/17: HW decided that once it reached full militarization and was in a position to negotiate to reach out to both.  We asked directly to Rose and T$ to work together to deescalate acknowledging the possibility that T$ may have actually been just militarizing for KT and that Rose and our militarization was reactionary.  You hit us later that day.

Every step of the way we were openly communicating our intent, and it takes some serious 4-D upon 4-D chess to conceive a way where we were not being transparent about our intent.  The likely scenario is that you saw the sunk cost of militarization, you wanted to get your hit in to take out a perceived threat, and you had Rose who could be mobilized off of their grudge.  It's a brazen and political move, but we can't really begin to break it down until we get on the same page.  

Friend, moving and hangovers take precedence over WoTs.  Unfortunate, but as life goes.

None of your (TKR's) members joined KT. It was Grumpy/Obv. The fact that Grumpy/Oblivion can't stop their members from roguing is their own cross to bear, especially when it causes friction with another sphere and damages your own.

I'm well aware of what SRD said, as is everyone else. When I spoke to Adrienne about this topic earlier in the year, she said that she would have been upset had we been the target, I believe her. This being the case, we all know how blocs work. I find it very hard to believe that just Adrienne not liking the idea would have kept Grumpy from acting on their threats forever, though it did keep us from blows at that time. Let me also further reiterate that we had been asked to join the coalition against HW at that time. We declined, we showed restraint. We had hoped that conflict wouldn't become inevitable with HW, that hope never came to fruition.

As for your inquiries, they are accurate, but lack context. We told you honestly why we were mil'd up, and even gave you specifics for our mil order. It was TKR that chose not believe us. For someone who proclaims not to lie, I'm not sure why you didn't take the honest truth at face value. You came to us, the day we had planned to blitz, and asked us to speak about demil'ing. Both Harry and I agreed to speak on the matter, but then got no further response from Benfro. At that point, we had no other choice but to roll with the plan to neutralize the threat.

Perhaps instead of focusing on the fact that there was a minimal attempt at communication, you should look in the mirror about the failings of those communications. Just because conversation happens, doesn't make it anything of 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

6 minutes ago, Agent W said:

If you had any concept of who I am...

Calm friend :) I did try to generalize to your other members rather than pin it all on you, so if you've personally been misrepresented, I apologize.

It might be surprising to know that I too have a memory, and have not so fond ones of NPO doing exactly what I stated in my previous post.  As for mentioning yours and others history in NPO...yet another red herring.  I am talking about the NPOLT NPO, the one we both fought together.  Any attempt at drumming up support against my position on that front is baseless.  You might read back through this thread and identify some of your colleagues responses to some of of ours; dismissive, ridiculing and not inclined to discuss in the least, intimating that because one is not FA has no place joining in...well that is what the gov back channels of communication are for (which afaik you seem to have ignored).  I'm not bothered how long you've been playing this game, I'll challenge that nonsense.

 

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Etat said:

Calm friend :) I did try to generalize to your other members rather than pin it all on you, so if you've personally been misrepresented, I apologize.

It might be surprising to know that I too have a memory, and have not so fond ones of NPO doing exactly what I stated in my previous post.  As for mentioning yours and others history in NPO...yet another red herring.  I am talking about the NPOLT NPO, the one we both fought together.  Any attempt at drumming up support against my position on that front is baseless.  You might read back through this thread and identify some of your colleagues responses to some of of ours; dismissive, ridiculing and not inclined to discuss in the least, intimating that because one is not FA has no place joining in...well that is what the gov back channels of communication are for (which afaik you seem to have ignored).  I'm not bothered how long you've been playing this game, I'll challenge that nonsense.

 

The difference is based on ethos, I think. I don't believe we've had the chance to meet, but your government is well aware of who I am and what I have stood for. NPO waged a scorched earth war, a war where there could be no winners. They cheated and bullied their way through the game, without a sense of decency. Perhaps my comparison to KF isn't a perfect allegory, especially given the events that followed, but as someone who fought TKR in that war, then became their ally in CoS, I think I have some historical legitimacy. Let me make this as clear as I can, I have not and will not ever advocate for the policies NPO pursued in-game. I found these policies both toxic and incredibly harmful to the health of the game. However, Grumpy's alliance with both Guardian and then TKR presents a stratification of whales in one single place, which while admittedly is probably less harmful than the OOC politics NPO drove, is still harmful to the game. I've said this before, but I quite like many members of your alliance, the fact that I have been able to have many pleasant conversations with them despite the ongoing war is a testament to this. Our goal isn't to drive TKR and her allies from the game, force them to disband, or attempt to bully their members into leaving the game. The goal has always been to use in-game actions to reduce the in-game harm that the pairing could cause. Forgive me if I came off as upset or defensive about the actions of NPO,  the scars of that war still cause me much sorrow.

  • Like 3

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

7 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

"Your story is weak and half assedly come up with to cover a grudge."

"The stance dates back to literal years and upheld several times even by people who had no beef on the situation simply because they weren't there when a bunch of stuff happened."

"Haha lol your story is weak and I won't actually address anything of you've said in my rehash of my first post."

10/10.

I'm happy to expound upon my reasons as time allows.

1.  I'm not challenging your issues with GG.  But don't make the mistake of thinking everyone cares, or that your issues should be everyones.
2.  HW militarizing in response to BW is a normal precautionary evolution; you put the cart before the horse to use our militarization as an excuse, especially since our reasons were clear and represented to you while trying to deescalate things. 
3.  You trying to paint yourselves as aggrieved in any way by our split to then use it as a reason to suspect our motives is, as far as I'm aware, fully manufactured to support your current agenda.  TKR was not interested in war, but I guess you can't have your PR machine's audience believe that can you?

Perhaps instead of doubling down on your own narrative and introducing red herrings left and right, you might perhaps try to tell us why you think your HW militarization argument (significantly after you militarized) is substantial enough to make it into this treatise?  You might ridicule and dismiss my reasons instead, I'm starting to expect no less tbh.

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Agent W said:

...the scars of that war still cause me much sorrow.

It burnt us all my friend, some much more than others certainly.  Having arrived during Surfs Up I had not much to lose in the way of friends, but what little I did enjoy was still very much on the line.  The NPO of 2019 and onwards left an indelible notion of what I can and should rail against, and a tendency towards a little hypersensitivity perhaps, also clear in your response.  You are due more respect than perhaps I've implied (a clear failure of tone on my part), and I'll reign in my hints at an NPO likeness as unsuitable for the now; I'd not have you think I believe you lot fit that mould.

  • Like 1

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Etat said:

I'm happy to expound upon my reasons as time allows.

1.  I'm not challenging your issues with GG.  But don't make the mistake of thinking everyone cares, or that your issues should be everyones.
2.  HW militarizing in response to BW is a normal precautionary evolution; you put the cart before the horse to use our militarization as an excuse, especially since our reasons were clear and represented to you while trying to deescalate things. 
3.  You trying to paint yourselves as aggrieved in any way by our split to then use it as a reason to suspect our motives is, as far as I'm aware, fully manufactured to support your current agenda.  TKR was not interested in war, but I guess you can't have your PR machine's audience believe that can you?

Perhaps instead of doubling down on your own narrative and introducing red herrings left and right, you might perhaps try to tell us why you think your HW militarization argument (significantly after you militarized) is substantial enough to make it into this treatise?  You might ridicule and dismiss my reasons instead, I'm starting to expect no less tbh.

I don't believe that I have come off as "mistaking everyone cares", or "Our issues being everyone's issues." I do think the health of the game is something everyone should care about, though. That being said, various people have various ability to respond to issues. Half the alliances in this game have no actual way to combat Grumpy, I do not hold it against them, but I do understand that reality.

It may have been precautionary, but at the same time, we were open and honest about our reasoning for our mil order. TKR chose to not take us at our word, is it any surprise that we felt uncomfortable doing the same? As for the de-escalation bit, I have previously documented the failings of that process. TKR, from my view, had two separate opportunities to prevent this war from happening. Both opportunities were flubbed when I received no response or action on the part of TKR. I understand that Benfro has been busy due to IRL circumstances, and trust me when I say I empathize with that, but that's why you have people like Cooper, to make sure these opportunities were seized upon before things got out of hand. Whether or not Benfro communicated my willingness to have a dialogue both times to either Cooper or any of his FA gov, I cannot say. What I can say is that discussions were proposed, I agreed to speak, and then nothing happened.

I don't think that either party came out of Quack without a gripe or two about one another. I certainly know that we had some frustrations over the fact that TKR planned a war on Rose with HM, all while keeping us in the dark during TLR. All of this happened when we were allied, in channels where we had gone on the record as being concerned about Grumpy. Whether TKR was interested in a war with tS, I can't say it, but it certainly seems Grumpy was. With TKR having previously obscured their intentions to go to war with Rose, it was hard to convince myself that they weren't/wouldn't further obscure their intentions.

It's plain as day, so let me repeat myself. We mil'd up, informed TKR why we mil'd up, TKR decided not to believe us and mil'd themselves.

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

1 hour ago, Emperor Adam said:

Oh look, Grumpy members who constantly go raid and then go back to Grumpy the second they get bored with 0 consequence are at it again". 

That isn't unique to Grumpy.  I'd remind you that TJest is usually a T$-centric venture.  Oblivion was also quite active in the counter even against their own members.  I'm not here to justify it just to say that this point deserves no mention in any discussions even close to your CB.  

1 hour ago, Emperor Adam said:

Grumpy is a threat and needs to take damage. Look how effective it is! Ronny can barely string words together as he watches his alliance finally take some damage early in a war. Grumpy is objectively bad for the meta.

Yes, that's tantamount to making a similar level threat as what SRD said in the radio show.  We didn't hit you.  You were briefly considered as a target.  You weren't the target.  In both cases, I can see a reason for some antagonism but not even close to a case or even support for a CB.   

As an addendum, I'm perfectly happy to dig in to the meta conversation about GG, but we need to be clear that we're past the other excuses  about ghosting and SRD's comments.  Both of which are a bit hypocritical coming from T$ and not relevant to your actual reasoning. We can't have a cogent conversation on the validity of your actual CB "the threat of GG/upper tier" until we move past this.  Otherwise, we talk about GG and tiering and the back-and-forth just becomes circular until you bring back up these shallower reasons.  

1 hour ago, Emperor Adam said:

Here's the issue, Coops. HW and BW didn't start off on a good foot. T$ found out you were making war plans behind our back during a war while we were still allies and had an information clause and before we'd even given an official notice

For all intents and purposes, we had an informal notice weeks back.  While we were agreed on a mutual breakup, you sprung up a timeline that we weren't prepared for.  HW was our only option at the time.  We didn't really have much of a choice given that TKR/TO/BK would not stand on its own as a sphere being from 1/3 to 1/2 the size of other spheres plus the lack of trust for Rose that public ties were all that were present.  

One of the key reasons why T$ was rejected as a target so quickly out of hand is because of the understanding of our position (informally going to break but not yet official), and what we saw as a relatively ok breakup.  That said, we did not get the war we were pushing for, which was against Rose (and HM).  You guys talk about being consistent on being against GG.  Well, our consistent stance since KF (and for the entirety of my tenure in FA) has been for transparency and against secret ties.  I get why you guys didn't want to hit them due to differing priorities and a vacillating Nexus, but we saw TLR as a war to respond to your concerns with &/Alexio.  

1 hour ago, Emperor Adam said:

Hit Rose with an overwhelming force while allying a group you knew we took issue with for various reasons, making essentially a new Quack.

-During the war, twisted my words more than a few times and used my broad number statements while ignoring the statements I made about tiering.

Our numbers versus Rose were in the range of 1.3:1 meaning we had about a 30% force advantage.  At the time, we had a lot of respect for Rose's milcom, and we expected this wouldn't be an easy fight.  I think the odds were in our favor, but among the closest of any war since Surf's Up.  And we had a reason that we didn't make secret internally or externally.  We disagreed with their FA style of sneaking around and failing to publicly acknowledge their ties for the PR cover.  The goal was ~2 weeks and a recognition that folks should value transparency.  We didn't expect Rose not to be militarized nor for the shenanigans with Oasis and half of MI (nor their failure to fully militarize either).  And I can only hope y'all will be as gracious as we were in peace talks.  

Friend, I feel like that's what you did to me.  You took my statements out-of-context, and then tried to show them as some gotchas of not being consistent despite a little bit of nuance perfectly explaining my positions.  

1 hour ago, Agent W said:

Grumpy/Oblivion can't stop their members from roguing is their own cross to bear, especially when it causes friction with another sphere and damages your own.

Read where I mentioned TJest above and where Oblivion was among the most active in countering KT.  

1 hour ago, Agent W said:

I find it very hard to believe that just Adrienne not liking the idea would have kept Grumpy from acting on their threats forever, though it did keep us from blows at that time. Let me also further reiterate that we had been asked to join the coalition against HW at that time. We declined, we showed restraint. We had hoped that conflict wouldn't become inevitable with HW, that hope never came to fruition.

I read back in the embassy, and see myself also reacting favorably to the post.  That's Adrienne and Cooper.  There were other further clarifications in both public and private spaces.  This was abundantly clear and made a public position for TKR that we wouldn't have endorsed a hit on T$.  For DMs, it was you who chose to reach out to Adrienne.  If you were concerned about Adrienne's opinion to being enough, you could've reached out to someone else to get confirmation.  Communication is a two-way street, and we've been responsive and consistently engaging you in our embassy, in public, and when otherwise contacted.  

1 hour ago, Agent W said:

For someone who proclaims not to lie, I'm not sure why you didn't take the honest truth at face value. You came to us, the day we had planned to blitz, and asked us to speak about demil'ing. Both Harry and I agreed to speak on the matter, but then got no further response from Benfro. At that point, we had no other choice but to roll with the plan to neutralize the threat.

Our original militarization was prompted by two factors.  First, we saw build changes in of E$ and CTO.  Second, Rose's recent experience in GnR taught us a lesson.  We told you that immediately when asked on 8/15.  

Ben messaged you both around noon.  He got confirmation from Harry that they were interested, and was waiting on you after you sent a message at 2 and he got back to you at 5.  People have lives and work.  This is a very poor excuse of evidence that we didn't communicate.  And given that you guys had a full blitz done, you guys were already locked and loaded.  I have very hard time believing that this was just knocked up in the span of a couple of hours because Ben can't respond the second you sent a message.  

52 minutes ago, Agent W said:

t's plain as day, so let me repeat myself. We mil'd up, informed TKR why we mil'd up, TKR decided not to believe us and mil'd themselves.

When we saw evidence of militarization beyond what you suggested and a rationale that wasn't fully fitting of the need.  We were also upfront about this in our response to Eclipse and when Ben messaged you.  If you need it to be explicit, we stated:
"Ok. Inquiry time.  And truth/telling time.  If you guys really built up fro KT, and we built up because of you, and rose built up because of both of us, what are the chances that you me, SRD, and Valk can get in a room and figure out how to structure a decoy rather than shedding pixels without a reason?" 

It was all out on the table.  You blitzed later that day.  You also never reached out to us once.  Only Eclipse did.  

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

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

I'd also like to clarify the timeline since you seem to make out that we didn't communicate.  This isn't true:

I'll correct a few things in turn.

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

On 8/14: I inquire in the T$ embassy about your militarization and mention that we're concerned about it.  Gray responds that it is for the C20+ to prevent raids.

He told you it was max for 30+, rest got a buy.

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

Later on 8/14: HW internals recognize that there was a change in the MMR builds of E$ and CTO outside the parameters given, and HW was already on edge after all of the shit flinging T$ did last war.  The decision was made to militarize since not militarizing could result in us getting hit like Rose during GnR.  Rose follows us.

Rose did mil after everyone else. As I've said before, I don't mind you milling as a precaution. CTO had gone max soldiers because we had gotten involved on the KT thing so it was a reasonable precaution on their end, and upped it following your mass swapping. HS also started milling after HW's response.

As for e$... really? Need I elaborate that they're an extension of t$? Yes, naturally things such as MMR's are going to be standardized between both alliances. If you genuinely thought that they were a separate entity and that changes in it were outside of the response given to you, then that's frankly on you.

The rest's been covered by W/Adam, so I won't expand upon it.

  • Upvote 3
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Agent W said:

...I do think the health of the game is something everyone should care about, though.
...Half the alliances in this game have no actual way to combat Grumpy...
...discussions...

Not being familiar with your history of issues with Grumpy, I will for sake of discussion assume your purity of intent to contribute to 'game health'. 

Yes of course we all look to improve game health, though it seems to me (and analogous to RL - sim or what hey??) one does not achieve it without a certain degree of consensus about:
a. what the issues are that are in need of addressing, and
b. how said issues are to be addressed. 

It appears to me that neither of these points have been suitably addressed, even if you've attempted to, at least not in public.  I don't consider Rose joining in as contributing to any sort of majority consensus due to the muddying effect of the much more recent history of tit-for-tat between us, nor it being mentioned in their somewhat empty DoW (for now the only issue I see with this paucity of substance is that it does nothing to contribute to moving forwards in what is quickly becoming a fairly stale and predictable relationship - hardly contributing to 'game health').  Anyway I'm not here to dump on Rose, was happy that the last war had created some sort of balance to recent history.

As for half of the alliances having no way to combat Grumpy, well they've no reason to!  It's not like Grumpy has the ability to militarily dominate the vast majority of players, the meta prevents this.  Grumpy does their thing which clearly impacts t$ as a competitor, but to assume that GG dominance of the upper/whale tiers is an Orbis wide issue massively impacting on 'game health' ought be convincingly demonstrated should it be seen as a valid component of your CB.

Somewhat following this, I'm also aware that people have argued the dogpile in this instance was unnecessary and damaging and whatever other reasons.  I'm not fundamentally against dogpiling, a valid tactic to accomplish an end goal and I guess in this instance it marries well with your stated outcome of 'game health' by reducing the power of a consolidated whale tier, and hopefully quickly.  Though I suggest that the potentiality of other less clear motives driving this war will become more likely the longer it carries on, and I look forward to seeing it play out.

I cannot really determine the verity of much of what else you're stating here as it is rapidly turning into a case of the devil being in the detail embedded in embassies and private chats.  I'm not calling you dishonest, however I know both Ben and Cooper to be of great integrity (Cooper knows me to be quite argumentative, but he absolutely has my support and respect as one of our FA leads).  Ultimately I strongly suspect there may be something else at play here yet to be elucidated which has driven such a rapid breakdown in IC relations and a GW between our such recently allied alliances.

Have a great day :)

  • Like 2

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Rose did mil after everyone else. As I've said before, I don't mind you milling as a precaution. CTO had gone max soldiers because we had gotten involved on the KT thing so it was a reasonable precaution on their end, and upped it following your mass swapping. HS also started milling after HW's response.

As for e$... really? Need I elaborate that they're an extension of t$? Yes, naturally things such as MMR's are going to be standardized between both alliances. If you genuinely thought that they were a separate entity and that changes in it were outside of the response given to you, then that's frankly on you.

The rest's been covered by W/Adam, so I won't expand upon it.

You're right it was 30 (although it makes my point stronger), sorry.  I was noting militarization where  it wasn't expected.  E$ doesn't have a lot of C30s and their military builds went beyond what was implied.  Similar story with CTO, who didn't have a direct treaty tie and was someone we were watching.  That's when the spidey-senses went off given how antagonistic T$ had been to HW at that point and with Rose a prime example of what happens if you're not careful.

Edited by Cooper_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

You're right it was 30 (although it makes my point stronger), sorry.  I was noting militarization where  it wasn't expected.  E$ doesn't have a lot of C30s and their military builds went beyond what was implied.  Similar story with CTO, who didn't have a direct treaty tie and was someone we were watching.  That's when the spidey-senses went off given how antagonistic T$ had been to HW at that point and with Rose a prime example of what happens if you're not careful.

Lots of E$ raids so they naturally have standing ground force....especially the lower tier ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

You're right it was 30, sorry.  I was noting militarization where we it wasn't expected.  E$ doesn't have a lot of C30s and their military builds went beyond what was implied.  Similar story with CTO, who didn't have a direct treaty tie and was someone we were watching.  That's when the spider-senses went off given how antagonistic T$ had been to HW at that point and with Rose a prime example of what happens if you're not careful.

I mean, a bunch of CTO's ties were involved in counters, with their MDP's own ties being hit. It's not exactly surprising they'd max soldiers as a precaution.

As for the builds; you max slots for what you intend to buy to get the largest buy you can. Even if it's just one buy. You then decide whether to keep the imps or sell them once you've got the buy in. It's not really outside of what you had been informed.

  • Upvote 3
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

I'd remind you that TJest is usually a T$-centric venture.

Wrong. Tjest historically borrows members from across the game. Parti runs it, yes, but calling it a t$ centric venture instead of a "Partisan's bored and wants to start shit" is a bit disingenuous. 

4 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

For all intents and purposes, we had an informal notice weeks back.

Clearly not for "all intents" given I asked if there was any need for it given the multiple weeks notice before, and Ben said yes. In retrospect, probably using that as an excuse to finalize war shit while warding off potential preempts.

4 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

Well, our consistent stance since KF (and for the entirety of my tenure in FA) has been for transparency and against secret ties.

Transparency is out the door when you're actively pulling the wool over the eyes of your ally, breakup incoming or not.

4 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

We disagreed with their FA style of sneaking around and failing to publicly acknowledge their ties for the PR cover.  The goal was ~2 weeks and a recognition that folks should value transparency.  We didn't expect Rose not to be militarized nor for the shenanigans with Oasis and half of MI (nor their failure to fully militarize either).

Then that's not only ridiculously stupid FA on your part, it's a complete failure to use common sense. Makes it worse that I directly told you any hit on Rose with that CB would result in Oasis/Swamp (or MysInc, as the rename branded them) joining in. Y'all are lucky they didn't plan better.

4 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

 You took my statements out-of-context, and then tried to show them as some gotchas of not being consistent despite a little bit of nuance perfectly explaining my positions

You are extremely inconsistent. You can pretend otherwise all you wish, we know the tune you're singing now is much different than it was when you were with us. 

thalmorcommie.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

I mean, a bunch of CTO's ties were involved in counters, with their MDP's own ties being hit. It's not exactly surprising they'd max soldiers as a precaution.

As for the builds; you max slots for what you intend to buy to get the largest buy you can. Even if it's just one buy. You then decide whether to keep the imps or sell them once you've got the buy in. It's not really outside of what you had been informed.

Given the context, anything more than what was said was enough to give us a reason to militarize.  Max slots also position you to get more buys in quickly and move to 2-3 days ahead of us with a double buy.  Rose in GnR and the stances T$ had taken on our allies had put all of HW on edge.  

11 hours ago, Emperor Adam said:

Wrong. Tjest historically borrows members from across the game. Parti runs it, yes, but calling it a t$ centric venture instead of a "Partisan's bored and wants to start shit" is a bit disingenuous. 

I'm not sure how right that is, but it doesn't matter.  The point I was making was that prominent T$ members have in the past gotten away with ghosting with impunity.  To make the claim that it is unique to Grumpy or OB is ridiculous.  That's true whether or not you want to call TJest T$-centric.

11 hours ago, Emperor Adam said:

Clearly not for "all intents" given I asked if there was any need for it given the multiple weeks notice before, and Ben said yes. In retrospect, probably using that as an excuse to finalize war shit while warding off potential preempts.

By late April, you had already sprung on us a timeline that we weren't prepared for.  While we had agreed to break, you put a deadline on us that left us with a singular option.  You had a sphere while we had an indefensible position.  We were working with the hand we had.  Regarding actual discussions of a hit on Rose, those were only started as an idea about a week before we broke (13-15th from what I see) and becoming serious as TLR was ending.  And because of the understanding of the line we had to straddle ntm our perception of good relations, we dismissed a hit on BW immediately.  

11 hours ago, Emperor Adam said:

Transparency is out the door when you're actively pulling the wool over the eyes of your ally, breakup incoming or not.

You knew exactly what our intentions were.  We had literally spent the past few months getting yelled at by you, Partisan, and Nexus because we wanted to hit Rose and HM with a particular emphasis on Rose for their use of secret treaties.  You also were aware about our conversations with SRD, and I think even Shiho said that this was your expectation.  You may not agree with our actions or wouldn't do them yourselves, but you can't claim they were not in line with the thought process we had been using for months in Quack beforehand.  

11 hours ago, Emperor Adam said:

Then that's not only ridiculously stupid FA on your part, it's a complete failure to use common sense. Makes it worse that I directly told you any hit on Rose with that CB would result in Oasis/Swamp (or MysInc, as the rename branded them) joining in. Y'all are lucky they didn't plan better.

T$ doesn't have exclusive rights on ideology.  We're allowed to pursue our own path and have our own stances.  You folks talk about all the costs involved in fighting GG and ROI and what not, and then you're surprised when someone else is willing to sacrifice to take a stand of their own?  I'd also add that Oasis entered before we even clarified our CB publicly, so I doubt that being the reason.  

You're right in the last point though.  We should've not had the upper-hand.  It was a lot of luck, but I'm not looking back.  

11 hours ago, Emperor Adam said:

You are extremely inconsistent. You can pretend otherwise all you wish, we know the tune you're singing now is much different than it was when you were with us. 

We spent months yapping in Quack internals about secret treaties.  We spent months after Quack yapping about the same thing.  We harped on multipolarity in Quack.  We harped on it after Quack.  

Your stances on the upper tier have been your own.  Yes, we've had trouble fighting G/G, but we don't think it is overwhelming just as this war is showing.  Just because we didn't share your stances doesn't make us inconsistent.  

Edited by Cooper_
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear about how bad we are for the game, but at the same time you dont want to force us to disband.  Yet tS attacks us over and over again because of it, and openly talks about it all over the place.  Almost like they want us to disband, but know that if they outright say it, they become even bigger bad guys.
 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Emperor Adam said:

Grumpy is objectively bad for the meta.

I think we can close it up now. The issue is our existence, so it's disband or t$ will be hitting us in a few more months again.

Damn, SRD beat me to it...

38 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I hear about how bad we are for the game, but at the same time you dont want to force us to disband.  Yet tS attacks us over and over again because of it, and openly talks about it all over the place.  Almost like they want us to disband, but know that if they outright say it, they become even bigger bad guys.
 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I hear about how bad we are for the game, but at the same time you dont want to force us to disband.  Yet tS attacks us over and over again because of it, and openly talks about it all over the place.  Almost like they want us to disband, but know that if they outright say it, they become even bigger bad guys.
 

 

1 minute ago, Hodor said:

I think we can close it up now. The issue is our existence, so it's disband or t$ will be hitting us in a few more months again.

Damn, SRD beat me to it...

 

Now both of you are being dense af. Like you've said, you have seen our posts. What we fricking want is you to be on MY fricking level. Not your level, but MINE. !@#$ you and whatever the !@#$ you want. We want what I, ME wants. To repeat, I want YOU to be on the level of my nation's city count. I want YOU to be put on MY level.

Again, !@#$ you and what you want and we will keep attacking you until this happens.

To repeat again, !@#$ you and what you want, you will be put on MY nation's level.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Lxr4VfE.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Eumirbago said:

Now both of you are being dense af. Like you've said, you have seen our posts. What we fricking want is you to be on MY fricking level. Not your level, but MINE. !@#$ you and whatever the !@#$ you want. We want what I, ME wants. To repeat, I want YOU to be on the level of my nation's city count. I want YOU to be put on MY level.

Again, !@#$ you and what you want and we will keep attacking you until this happens.

To repeat again, !@#$ you and what you want, you will be put on MY nation's level.

Why not on our level? Y'all gotta lower them taxes cus we aren't destroying our cities so you got come up to us. My 5 cities before Grumpy were purchased, on average, once every 190 days. Since Grumpy I'm averaging one every 67 days.

I'd love some more company!

Edited by Hodor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Given the context, anything more than what was said was enough to give us a reason to militarize.  Max slots also position you to get more buys in quickly and move to 2-3 days ahead of us with a double buy.  Rose in GnR and the stances T$ had taken on our allies had put all of HW on edge.

Indeed you can do that with those slots. But Gray had informed you what our plan was. You felt as though our word wasn't sufficiently credible and chose to fully militarize. As I've said before, I don't fault you for taking the precaution and think that it's fine for you to have done such, as you have an actual obligation to your sphere and none to us.

That does go both ways though. Your response was "it's defensive", which is a, if not the, generic placeholder phrase that doesn't actually mean anything.

Why should anyone in BW have taken it at face value as demonstrative of your intent? They had no reason to, so they didn't. Hence, CTO going from max barracks to max everything, HS mobilizing, and us simply continuing to buy as a response to your militarization.

 

  • Upvote 2
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Why not on our level? Y'all gotta lower them taxes cus we aren't destroying our cities so you got come up to us. My 5 cities before Grumpy were purchased, on average, once every 190 days. Since Grumpy I'm averaging one every 67 days.

I'd love some more company!

This is proof you have not been reading and just capping.

Now that you are reading, like I said before, I want to fricking roll the ever loving shit out of GOB and Guardian for about 2-3 more times after this. This is the path that I want and this is the path you can expect.

@Cooper_ and @BigMorf can get their fricking alliance rolled to smitherins 2-3 more times with you guys as well. idgaf. What I do give a !@#$ about is clapping those fricking cheeks until your nations are on MY level.

Again, !@#$ you and !@#$ your level. My level and my level alone. Get a city etc etc idgaf. We'll just add another war if that level isn't met yet.

Lxr4VfE.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodor said:

Why not on our level? Y'all gotta lower them taxes cus we aren't destroying our cities so you got come up to us. My 5 cities before Grumpy were purchased, on average, once every 190 days. Since Grumpy I'm averaging one every 67 days.

I'd love some more company!

GoB isn't the bloated size it is today because it has grown through the traditional means. GoB grew entirely through immigration of the games biggest whales from their traditional/original alliances and spheres to GoB. You are an example of that. 

 

2 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I hear about how bad we are for the game, but at the same time you dont want to force us to disband.  Yet tS attacks us over and over again because of it, and openly talks about it all over the place.  Almost like they want us to disband, but know that if they outright say it, they become even bigger bad guys.
 

No one in t$ would ever encourage nor want an alliance to disband. GoB is a community and those community members have every right to be and play together. 

Edited by Justin076
  • Upvote 4

Chief Financial Officer of The Syndicate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am too lazy to see which one of these forums topics this was talked about in, but people complaining about former Grumpy members ghosting KT to raid, and how they come back to no repercussions.   If you are going to whine about this, Cooper is 100% right to make comparisons to tJest and the crap they pulled with no real repercussions. You can say hey Partipants wasnt a member of tS when he did that.  The same goes for the guys you are whining about.

If you had an issue with them, as long as I can remember not a single person has ever messaged me about it. You know, me the leader of Grumpy, not once.   To complain about it as some sort of CB is laughable.  

Lastly, you can ask Horse, they are not ghosts, from my understanding they had to apply to KT, and they are members of KT.  They are currently not affiliated with Grumpy.   Plus they left knowing what Grumpy's official stance is on raiding.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Why should anyone in BW have taken it at face value as demonstrative of your intent? They had no reason to, so they didn't. Hence, CTO going from max barracks to max everything, HS mobilizing, and us simply continuing to buy as a response to your militarization.

Our actions were defensive in nature.  We explained this, and Ben openly acknowledged this to you.  I quoted Ben's statement beforehand.  We were very willing to believe you still, but just had to be safe (I feel quite bad for the alternate timeline HW that doesn't mil).  I was in fact among the strongest supporters of your case internally–@Vanek26 will eternally torment me now.

The issue is that you guys singlehandedly escalated from there into an overwhelming blitz with another sphere while we were openly asking you and Rose to deescalate.  Shortly after responding to us, you blitzed us.  We didn't make any offensive moves, and we even took steps to scale back the defensive moves once we were in a position to do so.  

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.