The Skies of Aurora Ignite - Ragnarok Unleashed Upon Midgard

[Tiberius Aurion]

@Xi Jinping response to Midgard for asking them to leave 🤣

 

Happy hunting Aurora. 🚀

[BigMorf]

Aurora has studied at the t$ school for people who can't count to 72.

[Xi Jinping]

45 minutes ago, BigMorf said:

Aurora has studied at the t$ school for people who can't count to 72.

No 72h clause existed in Midgard but thanks for the comment

Edited April 26, 2023 by Xi Jinping

[Lord Tyrion]

6 minutes ago, Xi Jinping said:

No 72h clause existed in Midgard but thanks for the comment

Apparently you have a hard time remembering your post that was leaked....

 

[Majima Goro]

1 hour ago, BigMorf said:

Aurora has studied at the t$ school for people who can't count to 72.

Pfft.... I can't even count to 7!

[Alexio15]

Imagine not being able to count and the hypocrisy loaded in the OP

[Xi Jinping]

43 minutes ago, Lord Tyrion said:

Apparently you have a hard time remembering your post that was leaked....

 

lol. I wonder who leaked it/back stabbed and burned that 72h away. I keep my word with people who reciprocate.
 

Anyway what I was referring to was no 72h clause in the Midgard treaty.

[iAlrea]

Couldn't this have waited till after Coven got rolled?

[Kevanovia]

I wonder if the folks/cattle in LoD just think that they’re lucky that they didn’t get hit.

“Whew, dodged a close one!”

 

[Johnson Boris]

7 hours ago, Xi Jinping said:

No 72h clause existed in Midgard but thanks for the comment

  

It is good to know your word is worth nothing

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Johnson Boris

[Fluffy]

1 hour ago, Johnson Boris said:

  

It is good to know your word is worth nothing

 

In fairness, if you'd milled up like we'd asked this wouldn't have happened. We did warn you that an attack could be imminent.

 

You were playing stupid games and are now subsequently winning stupid prizes

[Xi Jinping]

2 hours ago, Johnson Boris said:

  

It is good to know your word is worth nothing

 

 

8 hours ago, Xi Jinping said:

lol. I wonder who leaked it/back stabbed and burned that 72h away. I keep my word with people who reciprocate.
 

Anyway what I was referring to was no 72h clause in the Midgard treaty.

Refer to the post above.

[Jacob Knox]

Today I Learned (TIL) in the Orbis Forum School of Foreign Affairs (OFSFA)

• You're expected to honor a non-existent clause and if you don't "your word means nothing" (regardless of how they wronged you)
• It's ok to vote out a core, founding member in secret while giving them no chance to defend themselves
• It's acceptable to leak opsec information
• When an ally tells you about what they feel is a credible threat and tries to gather a defense for the sphere, you should tell them to f off
• Even though everyone complains about P&W being "excel simulator," the moment you try to do anything remotely interesting, people will be up in arms one way or another

 

Thanks for all the useful information about FA, everyone!

[Xi Jinping]

Just now, Jacob Knox said:

Today I Learned (TIL) in the Orbis Forum School of Foreign Affairs (OFSFA)

• You're expected to honor a non-existent clause and if you don't "your word means nothing" (regardless of how they wronged you)
• It's ok to vote out a core, founding member in secret while giving them no chance to defend themselves
• It's acceptable to leak opsec information
• When an ally tells you about what they feel is a credible threat and tries to gather a defense for the sphere, you should tell them to f off
• Even though everyone complains about P&W being "excel simulator," the moment you try to do anything remotely interesting, people will be up in arms one way or another

 

Thanks for all the useful information about FA, everyone!

checks out tbh

[James II]

TI violates treaty, then cries about it when they get hit and claims after the fact that aurora violated a non existent treaty clause? Plotting against your ally while allied to them warrants you getting rolled by them. You also actively sabotaged the previous war trying to get aurora, CoA, and Hive to absorb damage for you, citing your infra as priority. You absolutely deserve this.

 

For posterity:

Edited April 26, 2023 by James II

[Axley]

[James II]

Just now, Axley said:

Self depreciation is unbecoming.

[Axley]

Just now, James II said:

Self depreciation is unbecoming.

And life is more fun with a sense of humor. 

[Fluffy]

28 minutes ago, Axley said:

And life is more fun with a sense of humor. 

not that you'd know

[Axley]

4 hours ago, Fluffy said:

not that you'd kno

 

[Alcyr]

8 hours ago, Jacob Knox said:

Today I Learned (TIL) in the Orbis Forum School of Foreign Affairs (OFSFA)

• You're expected to honor a non-existent clause and if you don't "your word means nothing" (regardless of how they wronged you)
• It's ok to vote out a core, founding member in secret while giving them no chance to defend themselves
• It's acceptable to leak opsec information
• When an ally tells you about what they feel is a credible threat and tries to gather a defense for the sphere, you should tell them to f off
• Even though everyone complains about P&W being "excel simulator," the moment you try to do anything remotely interesting, people will be up in arms one way or another

 

Thanks for all the useful information about FA, everyone!

• It doesn't matter whether there's an official clause or not, if you say you are giving 72 hours notice, then you attack us before those 72 hours are up, that is still lying. People are generally expected to follow their word. Shocking.
• So, you're allowed to outright lie about a 72h notice but not being consulted is a valid CB? Wow. Maybe there's a reason your allies didn't consult you first.
• Surprise: no alliance likes people who leak opsec! Just because it happened doesn't mean it is acceptable. Amazing how that works. Also:
  • You state in your own DoW you don't know who leaked. Do you even know which side did the leak? There really isn't any good motivation for leaking on either side, so why are you so sure someone on your side didn't decide to leak because they were unhappy about being kicked out and wanted to stir the pot?
  • Even assuming that you are correct that it was someone on our side, the cancellation would have to become public anyway when, you know, you left the bloc. Is it really worth breaking a cancellation notice and being labelled as a liar because people found out you got kicked out a few days earlier than intended?
• If a threat is assessed and everyone but you decides it isn't significant, unilaterally trying to gather a coalition with alliances unrelated to the bloc you're in (which can easily turn into a CB which only makes you even more likely to be attacked) is absolutely an issue, yes.
• The game is called Politics & War. Just because war hawks associate war with fun doesn't mean you can ignore your bloc and do whatever you want in the name of fun. And this is a community filled with many people with different views and goals, of course if you focus on one (rather vocal) part of the community you'll end up making another part of the community upset for different reasons.

[Alcyr]

8 hours ago, James II said:

TI violates treaty, then cries about it when they get hit and claims after the fact that aurora violated a non existent treaty clause? Plotting against your ally while allied to them warrants you getting rolled by them. You also actively sabotaged the previous war trying to get aurora, CoA, and Hive to absorb damage for you, citing your infra as priority. You absolutely deserve this.

 

See above about the "non-existent treaty clause" (tl;dr: doesn't matter whether it is a clause, you gave a 72h notice, not following it makes you a liar). Dunno what you're specifically referencing in regards to violating a treaty, unless you think having a private discussion somehow violates a treaty?

"Plotting" is a ridiculous term to use here. Were we planning to drop and roll you immediately? Doubtful. Not being asked for a defense is, at most, rude - but hardly a "plot" deserving a CB and free reign to lie about a cancellation notice.

"Actively sabotaged" is again ridiculous. You're using the opinion of one person (LT) who (checks notes)... Doesn't actually determine our war policy. As someone literally in TI's milcom, LTs opinion was not how we were running our beige policy, and we certainly weren't trying to throw Aurora, CoA, or Hive under the bus for our own benefit.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Alcyr

[SleepingNinja]

Just now, Alcyr said:

See above about the "non-existent treaty clause" (tl;dr: doesn't matter whether it is a clause, you gave a 72h notice, not following it makes you a liar). Dunno what you're specifically referencing in regards to violating a treaty, unless you think having a private discussion somehow violates a treaty?

See that's the thing, they left it ambiguous, what they meant was within that 72h that CTO is gonna come roll you. We came. So they told you the truth. 😉

[Xi Jinping]

3 hours ago, Alcyr said:

• It doesn't matter whether there's an official clause or not, if you say you are giving 72 hours notice, then you attack us before those 72 hours are up, that is still lying. People are generally expected to follow their word. Shocking.
• So, you're allowed to outright lie about a 72h notice but not being consulted is a valid CB? Wow. Maybe there's a reason your allies didn't consult you first.
• Surprise: no alliance likes people who leak opsec! Just because it happened doesn't mean it is acceptable. Amazing how that works. Also:
  • You state in your own DoW you don't know who leaked. Do you even know which side did the leak? There really isn't any good motivation for leaking on either side, so why are you so sure someone on your side didn't decide to leak because they were unhappy about being kicked out and wanted to stir the pot?
  • Even assuming that you are correct that it was someone on our side, the cancellation would have to become public anyway when, you know, you left the bloc. Is it really worth breaking a cancellation notice and being labelled as a liar because people found out you got kicked out a few days earlier than intended?
• If a threat is assessed and everyone but you decides it isn't significant, unilaterally trying to gather a coalition with alliances unrelated to the bloc you're in (which can easily turn into a CB which only makes you even more likely to be attacked) is absolutely an issue, yes.
• The game is called Politics & War. Just because war hawks associate war with fun doesn't mean you can ignore your bloc and do whatever you want in the name of fun. And this is a community filled with many people with different views and goals, of course if you focus on one (rather vocal) part of the community you'll end up making another part of the community upset for different reasons.

I know which side leaked. Given my side didn't have access to half of what was leaked. 

And you can call me a liar, I really genuinely don't care. I was lied to and none of you seem to care. Keep crying about the 72h, doesn't change anything.

And welcome to the the other half of Politics & War.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Xi Jinping

[Mayor]

13 hours ago, Jacob Knox said:

Today I Learned (TIL) in the Orbis Forum School of Foreign Affairs (OFSFA)

• You're expected to honor a non-existent clause and if you don't "your word means nothing" (regardless of how they wronged you)
• It's ok to vote out a core, founding member in secret while giving them no chance to defend themselves
• It's acceptable to leak opsec information
• When an ally tells you about what they feel is a credible threat and tries to gather a defense for the sphere, you should tell them to f off
• Even though everyone complains about P&W being "excel simulator," the moment you try to do anything remotely interesting, people will be up in arms one way or another

 

Thanks for all the useful information about FA, everyone!

I like you Jacob but this move was pretty pathetic from Aurora even if Shitgard looks even worse for getting rid of their best and founding member of a bloc, without Aurora, they are just shit and that's it. You guys could have waited the 72 hours, clause or no clause, call it convention or call it not being a untrustworthy d-bag take your pick, but you could have waited the 72 hours and attacked them at a later date and it would have been good because !@#$ Midgard. 

Since you attacked early though you couldn't keep it in your pants and now you look like you don't honor agreements, backstab your allies, leak like a sieve and just ... yeah, well, you look like shit bud. Honestly after Aurora waited several years before attacking TKR for some CTO grudge you guys had I would have thought you understood this.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Mayor