[Treaty] Why NAP when you can sleep?

[Duluth]

I love this thread

[John M Keynes]

Currently there are 4 distinct spheres that signed a 3-month NAP extension without fighting a single conflict. This means that over 60% of the alliances are subject to the NAP extension with the other 40% under an NAP which ends next month or neutral alliances. With 3 seperate NAPs running concurrently, here are a few takes: 

1. Where did the definitive purpose of signing a non-agression pact shift from a tool to rebuild after long-lasting and costly wars to a political method utilized to circumvent wars and discourage game activity?
2. Is this just a new rendition of the same NAP to discourage the hiring/auctioning of mercs/pirates to hit another coalition after notable instances? (e.g. Wheel of Misfortune, TGH)
3. Does this recent foreign affairs move set a precedent on future NAPs to be signed in a similar manner?
4. How will this affect the overall game activity in the next 2-4 months given these are often the months of highest game activity? Ty @Themonia for pointing this out. 

[Buorhann]

15 hours ago, lancelot1 said:

Dude, can you make it more than 4 sentences without giving yourself a high five over how involved you are in the goings on of Orbis as compared to others?

“I was TKR high gov for 2 years bro”

High Five man!

[Who Me]

Well hell, we all know what a pile of crap the war system is, so why don't we just have sheepy take it out of the game. Then we can save all the money we spend on upkeep for the military building and all those pesky military units. Not to mention all the money we spend on rebuilding. We can all just sit around hugging our pixels and building more cities. Think of all those poor raiders, they can finally build cities and infra without fear.

[Insert Name Here]

18 hours ago, Sketchy said:

On an unrelated note, the thread has reached 10 pages. It's too bad the forums aren't this active more often.

 

Are you suggesting we need a 2 year NAP? 

[Alastor]

12 hours ago, Vein said:

i'm a NAP enjoyer

We are all acutely aware.

[Buorhann]

22 hours ago, Benfro said:

You accuse everyone else of not staying on topic, but whenever a response is posted, your go to is just “you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.”

That may have worked against our veteran TKR members, some of whom are retired gov etc. But in this case, you didn’t even bother to check who you responded to…

This is the FA high gov of The Immortals. Try a different dismissive argument since you clearly don’t want to actually engage with anyone’s conversation. 

Just FYI - If @Dr James Wilsonknows the context, and continued to “ignore” @Sketchy’s points…

…that makes the situation worse for you guys and justifies Sketchy’s feelings about your sphere, and the current decision that was made regarding this NAP.

[Ramona]

4 hours ago, John M Keynes said:

Currently there are 4 distinct spheres that signed a 3-month NAP extension without fighting a single conflict. This means that over 60% of the alliances are subject to the NAP extension with the other 40% under an NAP which ends next month or neutral alliances. With 3 seperate NAPs running concurrently, here are a few takes: 

1. Where did the definitive purpose of signing a non-agression pact shift from a tool to rebuild after long-lasting and costly wars to a political method utilized to circumvent wars and discourage game activity?
2. Is this just a new rendition of the same NAP to discourage the hiring/auctioning of mercs/pirates to hit another coalition after notable instances? (e.g. Wheel of Misfortune, TGH)
3. Does this recent foreign affairs move set a precedent on future NAPs to be signed in a similar manner?
4. How will this affect the overall game activity in the next 2-4 months given these are often the months of highest game activity? Ty @Themonia for pointing this out. 

1. When this tumour reached stage 2.

[KindaEpicMoah]

On 4/22/2024 at 1:24 PM, Vein said:

Sorry, I should of gotten an MDP treaty with rose & sail & cis instead, this is a huge blunder 

What ODOO thinks is going on behind the scenes:

 

What is actually going on behind the scenes: 

 

[Mima]

Lame as hell, in my personal opinion.

#CrapOnTheNAP

[Mistken]

I think i can see where this is going

NAP -> Sleep -> Coma -> Eternal rest

 

[Adrienne]

19 hours ago, Daveth said:

I guess that's one way to look at it. From what I gather, they repeatedly denied your claims, and you didn't prove them wrong and don't seem to intend to, which is fine. 

While it does seem they've stopped engaging here, this could be for any number of reasons like:

- They believe they'd be repeating points made ad nauseam and chose to do whatever else;

- They can't prove the negative of "TKR wasn't working on a deal of their own";

- They have started reaching out privately, etc.

I'm not sure that means the matter has been settled? That said, I'm not particularly vested on the narrative either way, was simply curious.

We’ve not engaged much partially because we’ve been busy, but also because with much of this, we have already made our stance on what happened in the lead up to this NAP clear in Roberts’ post here: 

On 4/21/2024 at 10:59 AM, Raphael said:

The lie is that House-SAIL-Eclipse were in serious talks about a NAP, and that TKR was leading the charge on this, or that anyone in our bloc even agreed to anything more than listening to someone else's pitch.

It wasn't us who pitched the idea, and it died in DM's within a very short conversation.

I've brought it up in private with many already, but this just flatly was not a thing that was happening. It wasn't even a backup plan, it was just a pitched thought that never went anywhere after one discussion.

We aren’t interested in repeating them ad nauseam, and we have been reaching out privately to talk to folks as well. That said, there are a few points made here we wish to clarify on publicly.
 

On 4/22/2024 at 12:09 AM, Sketchy said:

TKR immediately planned to attack us as soon as the Fortuna war in which we fought together was over. And they did, bringing in Syndicate. That put us under a NAP cycle, the same one that prompted their entry into our war later on.

This particular claim makes very little sense to me. Singularity didn’t even exist when the Fortuna war ended, and at that point, we were still allied to one of the alliances that would go on to form Singularity. So no, we weren’t immediately plotting against you. If Rose instead wanted to make that claim, they might have a leg to stand on. However, that decision to fight them was based on our understanding they were blaming us for the coalition against Fortuna, which we made clear in our CB/discussions with them following that war, even if they disagreed with our conclusions.
 

On 4/22/2024 at 12:09 AM, Sketchy said:

TKR made a deal that, as I said earlier, was beneficial to them, in order to bring themselves in, and then when things got too hairy for them, struck a different deal behind our backs, and attempted to exclude us from the process, which would have inevitably left us in the same war they are purported to have rescued us from lmfao.

Did we try to make an arrangement that was as much to our advantage as to the advantage of the other members of the coalition? Of course we did. As did you, as does any alliance. But blaming everything that went wrong in that war on TKR shows a lack of accountability for your own role in how that war played out. Everyone involved contributed to the breakdown of that war. Best I can tell, there was at least one glaring possibility that was missed and/or not adequately planned for during war prep, which when happened, led to panicked decision making, a breakdown of communications, and a war that went down quickly in flames. We all had a hand in that.

To clarify your misconception here, the moment the offer was made to us, we took it to the coalition. There was no separate deal. Despite your perception that you were going to be left behind, that was never a reality nor a real possibility. Although, by your own words, you were doing just fine and didn't need our help, we can agree that had that been a legitimate thing we were trying to do, it would have been bad. Fortunately, that wasn't the case. We assume this misinterpretation of our intent comes from the fact we first took the offer to Rose to gauge their interest, since they had the most to lose from continuing the war and we were willing to continue fighting if they were. Our only mistake during that part of things was to not push for a public peace server, considering how quickly rumors began circulating following the end of the war and again, how quickly responsibility for that entire war was shoved onto us.
 

On 4/22/2024 at 12:09 AM, Sketchy said:

But past behaviour is a pretty good indicator for future behaviour, and TKR has proven time and time again, that collaboration with you ends poorly for us.

I could likewise say the same, considering every effort in collaboration with you for the past year results in malicious rumors and our name being smeared. While we don’t deny we’ve made mistakes and are fine taking ownership of them when we’ve actually done something wrong, there have been countless rumors about us of late that are clearly false and, whether intentionally or unintentionally, manufactured. It's easy to read between the lines and completely misinterpret statements when one is searching for ill intent. This is what we believe has been happening on your end. We're choosing to give you the benefit of the doubt here instead of assuming you're intentionally lying and smearing us. There is clearly some mutual mistrust between our alliances fueling this, and that's something we are willing to admit and work toward resolving. We’ve already started talking with your alliance privately and are happy to try and work this out if you're willing to as well. Same offer goes to Rose and Guardian, who I understand to have similar concerns as well.

Edited April 24, 2024 by Adrienne

[Dr James Wilson]

2 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Just FYI - If @Dr James Wilsonknows the context, and continued to “ignore” @Sketchy’s points…

…that makes the situation worse for you guys and justifies Sketchy’s feelings about your sphere, and the current decision that was made regarding this NAP.

Ignore them?  I didn't ignore them.   I dismissed them.  They're bad points.

[MasterChief]

Why TKR so angry? 🤔🤔🤔🤔

[MBaku]

On 4/20/2024 at 4:17 PM, BettaChecka said:

One of your 2 major allies (TI), has fought for 1 day total in the past year and yet was still by far fighting the best out of your whole sphere.  Perhaps it is in your best interest to look inwards before projecting your salt out onto the world. Perhaps even go back to sticking what you are good at, baseball and perma stockpiling nukes. 

imagine thinking TI fought well or that you could gauge fighting after a day of conflict smh they went -8.5b and had a grand total of like 120 defensive wars, hardly something to write home about 

[Kan0601]

You know what’s ironic, everyone who was defending and forced the 1 day war nap is now trying to shoot at this nap which was both caused by the same group of people.
 

Sketchy basically explained everything that happened, if you guys had gotten your way you wouldn’t be complaining right now.

Idk why you guys are even trying to shift blame on someone else after all that backroom talk it’s best everyone who was involved shut up because if logs starts coming out everyone will see what’s up and how this nap unfolded into where we are at right now. 

[Tartarus]

1 hour ago, Kan0601 said:

 because if logs starts coming out everyone will see what’s up

PNW's 2024 motto just dropped

[Sketchy]

8 hours ago, Adrienne said:

This particular claim makes very little sense to me. Singularity didn’t even exist when the Fortuna war ended, and at that point, we were still allied to one of the alliances that would go on to form Singularity. So no, we weren’t immediately plotting against you. If Rose instead wanted to make that claim, they might have a leg to stand on. However, that decision to fight them was based on our understanding they were blaming us for the coalition against Fortuna, which we made clear in our CB/discussions with them following that war, even if they disagreed with our conclusions.

You seem to be forgetting I was leading Paradise at the time. You are correct that you weren't plotting to hit Singularity at that point, because it didn't exist, but it's a moot point, you did plan to hit Singularities predecessor, you DID hit Singularity ultimately, when it merged, on the back of that plan. There was even a retroactive attempt to use the formation of Singularity and the numbers it provided to Florida, as a justification, completely ignoring the fact you were more than willing to hit Florida, with TKR/Grumpy AND CATA.

I was establishing why I don't trust you by pointing to an example of when I worked with you in a coalition, and then you immediately plotted to target the people you worked with in that same coalition. You can say it was all about Rose all you like, but Rose didn't even front the coalition against Fortuna, nor the formation of Florida, I have as much of a basis to make that claim as Rose does, and given my role in the formation of that coalition, more so I'd say. And considering you just conceded that Rose has a leg to stand on, it's clear you aren't denying you chose to target us immediately after the war ended.

8 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Did we try to make an arrangement that was as much to our advantage as to the advantage of the other members of the coalition? Of course we did. As did you, as does any alliance.

I wasn't criticizing your desire to make an arrangement that benefited you. I was directly responding to the claim you "rescued us" and that we should be "grateful."

You made a self interested decision to enter. We made overtures towards you before the war ever started, to which you guys turned down. That's within your rights, but the attempt to spin the events of last war as a "rescue" of a group of alliances who had already lost all their infra and been fighting that specific conflict for 2 months is laughable. We COULD have gone through with what by all accounts would have been long nap, sat out of the next cycle, leaving you guys to fend for yourselves. (Which, amusingly, is what happened here.), but instead we chose to fight longer in order to avoid a potential nap cycle being placed on all parties.

 

8 hours ago, Adrienne said:

But blaming everything that went wrong in that war on TKR shows a lack of accountability for your own role in how that war played out. Everyone involved contributed to the breakdown of that war. Best I can tell, there was at least one glaring possibility that was missed and/or not adequately planned for during war prep, which when happened, led to panicked decision making, a breakdown of communications, and a war that went down quickly in flames. We all had a hand in that.

I'm going to assume this is because you only became leader after the war, and so your involvement was limited. There was definitely discussion and counter measures put into place for the one glaring possibility you are alluding.

And you are correct, panicked decision making did take place, but it wasn't ours. We had very specific expectations that were set, and when the chips were down, those expectations were not met by the parties on your side of the coalition. We didn't panic, we immediately responded, and urged others to follow through on the commitments they had made, but out of fear, they chose not to.

So no, I don't concede that at all.

8 hours ago, Adrienne said:

To clarify your misconception here, the moment the offer was made to us, we took it to the coalition. There was no separate deal. Despite your perception that you were going to be left behind, that was never a reality nor a real possibility. Although, by your own words, you were doing just fine and didn't need our help, we can agree that had that been a legitimate thing we were trying to do, it would have been bad. Fortunately, that wasn't the case. We assume this misinterpretation of our intent comes from the fact we first took the offer to Rose to gauge their interest, since they had the most to lose from continuing the war and we were willing to continue fighting if they were.

My claim, from the beginning, is that there was an attempt, by Morf, to leave us behind. That is what he supported, that is what he wanted. And that is why he brought the deal only to Rose first, and pitched it that way. Had Rose agreed to it then, that's what would have happened.

You say he brought the offer to Rose first, what you are omitting, is he brought the offer that included leaving Singularity/TFP in the war alone, to Rose first, and advocated for it.

And he did a lot more advocating for it from what I have seen.

8 hours ago, Adrienne said:

I could likewise say the same, considering every effort in collaboration with you for the past year results in malicious rumors and our name being smeared. While we don’t deny we’ve made mistakes and are fine taking ownership of them when we’ve actually done something wrong, there have been countless rumors about us of late that are clearly false and, whether intentionally or unintentionally, manufactured. It's easy to read between the lines and completely misinterpret statements when one is searching for ill intent. This is what we believe has been happening on your end. We're choosing to give you the benefit of the doubt here instead of assuming you're intentionally lying and smearing us. There is clearly some mutual mistrust between our alliances fueling this, and that's something we are willing to admit and work toward resolving. We’ve already started talking with your alliance privately and are happy to try and work this out if you're willing to as well. Same offer goes to Rose and Guardian, who I understand to have similar concerns as well.

This I find a little ridiculous. Your only grievance from us is that as you say, is malicious rumors. But those "malicious" rumors, are just the same accusations that I have made here. Essentially, you are mad that we are mad at you.

You can call what I've said lies and smears, but when things started to get heated here, I approached you and offered to settle this privately. I haven't yet dropped any of the information on here to make my points, because ultimately, the only audience here that I've been directing this is you and your government.

So here is my question, Do you want me to start dropping logs? Because being called a liar for the claims I've been making is, to me, a direct call out. And the only way I can defend myself here is to start doing so.

I am happy to start responding, with logs, starting with every post Canbec has made, and then you, and then the random ass members of TKR and their various hot takes, if that is where we feel this needs to go.

Or, we can deal with it privately, and you stop trying to argue points in public that aren't true.

Edited April 25, 2024 by Sketchy

[BettaChecka]

3 hours ago, MBaku said:

imagine thinking TI fought well or that you could gauge fighting after a day of conflict smh they went -8.5b and had a grand total of like 120 defensive wars, hardly something to write home about 

You didn't see the backrooms lmao.

[Buorhann]

It starting to get juicy.  Quick, page @Dr James Wilson so he can dismiss @Sketchy again.

[TheRiddler]

Waiting for tkr to call bs so logs can drop 🍿🍿🍿

[John M Keynes]

9 hours ago, Ramona said:

1. When this tumour reached stage 2.

 

[Tiberius Aurion]

2 hours ago, Sketchy said:

I am happy to start responding, with logs, starting with every post Canbec has made, and then you, and then the random ass members of TKR and their various hot takes, if that is where we feel this needs to go.

Or, we can deal with it privately, and you stop trying to argue points in public that aren't true.

💯

[Alexio15]

Can we all just stop tip teasing and log drop?

[Kastor]

On 4/23/2024 at 8:16 PM, Daveth said:

I'm gonna be honest, I find it largely understandable @lancelot1 or anyone would take issue with going along with your claims on TKR, right? Not to say I haven't had my bone to pick with them in the past as well... 

But I've often noticed there seems to be a dynamic of FA heads alluding to having evidence of their claims for the sake of posturing and then withholding said evidence for the sake of OPSEC or some other similar concern. This makes it basically impossible for anyone, let alone someone who has no reason to trust you and doubt their government, to be convinced or take your claim of current or past wrongdoing at face value.

From my understanding, there seems to be a chunk of context missing, which makes it more credible to me as an outside observer that you were "bailed out", "rescued", whatever you want to call it, than the proposed alternative you spoke on extensively. So I don't think its entirely unfair to be dismissive or skeptical when the burden of proof is on you? Again I don't even really like @Dr James Wilson either lol. 

Wow Daveth this is a terrible post lol