[RoH] Glass Houses on Eclipse Way

[Pascal]

13 hours ago, Krameleon said:

By shifting the narrative, you avoid addressing the double standards and systemic issues in the FA meta, instead framing Rose as the perpetual bad actor, absolving yourself of the responsibility you yourself had in forming and perpetuating it. Who benefits more from this deflection: Those raising legitimate concerns on the long-standing stagnation of Orbis, or those attempting to evade the scrutiny by redirecting the spotlight?

We're not framing you as the "bad actor". Everyone thinks of you as the "bad actor" right now because of your past and recent actions. General belief is not a narrative. Your repeated actions are the primary driver of the anti-Rose sentiment. It stems from you, not from some supposed Eclipse-crafted narrative.

Nobody else shares your concerns about the "FA meta" nonsense and supposed Orbis stagnation—except you. Why? Because you only share this sentiment because you're getting rolled by us right now. That’s the only reason you suddenly care about it. You even admitted to benefiting from it yourself in the past. 

13 hours ago, Krameleon said:

<A HUGE amount of bullshit to spin basically the same thing every single paragraph>

(tl;dr : "Eclipse not receiving criticism", "deflection", "Eclipse CBs","Eclipse stacking MDoAPs",")

I don't recall Eclipse avoiding criticism for our moves—nor has any major alliance. We’ve faced just as much as you did for similar actions. If Rose is being vilified now while Eclipse is not, maybe you should look inward instead of pointing fingers.

The part about the Casus Belli was simply to mean that you are not better than us or anyone else in that aspect; nothing else was meant to be implied. When you roll someone without CB, you don't complain or invent out-of-subject narratives about imaginary problems, so why do it now? Either way, my own reasons (after the RoH, you'd be right to mention that) were given in private in our embassy, and shall remain as such.

You are only criticizing only the visible part of the iceberg when you innocently argue that we have lots of MDoAPs. But not questioning the current political climate around it while enumerating all our visible on-paper treaties is also rich coming from Rose. As an alliance specialized in backroom FA, you know what I mean. Our moves are not here to satisfy and be justified by only what an uninformed public can see. So, with this said, this argument does not need to go further. I will note here, however, that you do operate a double standard between your public FA and backroom FA—does that remind you of one of your arguments?

With all the above clarified, I still don't see what we are supposedly deflecting from. You are trying to invent an imaginary issue that you accuse Eclipse of being responsible for. Are you accusing Eclipse of being on top because of a supposed handcrafted FA meta related to NAPs and megaspheres that Eclipse is, again, sole responsible of ? That is just nonsense, and you know it.

So let's be clear: we are not deflecting, and we assume all of our past FA moves, including the ones that led us to roll Rose today, to your great misfortune. You accuse us, among many other intangible things, of NAP cycling and stalling Orbis, but you are no different. You are, in fact, arguably worse when it comes to being a cause of FA stagnation. This is not me spinning again, this is the popular belief.
 

13 hours ago, Krameleon said:

In conclusion, Eclipse dismisses criticism as self-pity, when in reality it is an attempt to hold them accountable. Instead of addressing the issues raised, they default to deflection and mockery. For an alliance that apparently prides itself on being “better,” I would’ve expected they could muster a more substantive defense, rather than redirect the complaints back at us.

My question, and the purpose of this post, still remains: Why does Eclipse operate without the same scrutiny as others? Why are their actions excused while others are vilified? Until Eclipse can answer these, the conversation isn’t about victimhood - it’s about accountability.

So, to answer both of your questions directly:

1. Eclipse operates with a different scrutiny than Rose because we are not Rose (shocking). We don't share your history. Feel free to acknowledge your past that led to this war, or live in denial. We assume ours, including the times we got rolled.
2. Our actions are not "excused." They are a result of the political climate, which includes both public FA (what everyone can see, like right now) and backroom FA. The mix of both is why you are currently vilified and Eclipse is not.

Eclipse takes full accountability for its actions - whether they're questionable or not, both successes and failures. You do not need to make up imaginary problems supposedly negatively impacting all of Orbis because of Eclipse- that is untrue. Instead, now may be the time for you to quit your emotional arguments and for Rose to take accountability for their actions in Darkest Hour, the One-Day War, and more recently, Darkest Hour 2. You are still denying your own accountability for one of  those in private. With some research, maybe that will answer your questions as to why Rose is in the situation they are in today.

If the new Rose administration is truly committed to change, start by owning up to your past actions before accusing others of all the ills of the game for your personal gain. This is a poor act from you.

[Buorhann]

I'm confused.  Is Rose doing FA talks or not?  Because I was led to believe that Rose was too quiet hence the hit.  Maybe I missed something.

[Merow]

If I would've known me commending rose on making a public statement would derail the thread to this extend I wouldn't have done it

[Buorhann]

I'll be honest, this is actually a really hilarious conversation between Rose and Eclipse.

[Vein]

9 hours ago, Jesus Prime said:

😭I’m hoping it’s bad but I can’t see anything.

Not sure why that happened, but it’s fixed now

[Avatar Patrick]

On 12/24/2024 at 1:30 AM, Krameleon said:

If Eclipse was attacked directly, all of the following would be obligated to respond in their defense, per treaties signed in-game: WAP, WEEB, TI, KT, Spectre, Singularity, TEst, and Paragon.

Oh God not TEst and Paragon.

@VeinThis hegemony has gone to far

[Solomon Ben-David]

Apologies for the delay @Krameleon, but I figured as the former FA head of the sole alliance in the offensive coalition not mentioned in your original post I'd quickly say a few words.

While the size argument tends to be a favorite for those in Rose - an argument I will not comment on at this juncture - there were also many other factors behind this war. All things considered, you could boil this war down to a simple lack of outreach from Rose and hostility to many of the parties involved, as I've discussed with you in more detail pretty much as soon as the war started.

Frankly, it's unfortunate that you have to deal with the consequences of your predecessors' actions - especially the one that doesn't play the game anymore - but the fact of the matter is that Rose is being rolled because of its past actions (or lack thereof). Even though you are saying you want to start a new chapter, that doesn't come with a full pardon for all of Rose's sins.

Edited December 25, 2024 by Solomon Ben-David
Clarifying role

[John M Keynes]

On 12/24/2024 at 12:05 AM, Rageproject said:

I am so confused. No nation. No alliance.

is this like the ultimate war dodging scenario? Trolling? Or am I missing something…?

The person from the quoted post deleted their nation after leaving Rose and making their own alliance and wardodging.

[Daveth]

I'm gonna be honest, the breadth of the point made seems to be shifting blame.

Aka "no u" in an appeal to political action against exclusively Eclipse, when to the best of my knowledge there isn't an equivalent sentiment against them? 

Solomon made a good point in acknowledging a "sins of the father" perspective to it, and I can appreciate trying to distinguish oneself from your predecessor with this post... but thus far, while commendable, it's honestly not been a sufficient, or rather fortunate attempt in my eyes.

Edited December 25, 2024 by Daveth

[Tartarus]

7 hours ago, Solomon Ben-David said:

Apologies for the delay @Krameleon, but I figured as the sole alliance in the offensive coalition not mentioned in your original post I'd quickly say a few words.

While the size argument tends to be a favorite for those in Rose - an argument I will not comment on at this juncture - there were also many other factors behind this war. All things considered, you could boil this war down to a simple lack of outreach from Rose and hostility to many of the parties involved, as I've discussed with you in more detail pretty much as soon as the war started.

Frankly, it's unfortunate that you have to deal with the consequences of your predecessors' actions - especially the one that doesn't play the game anymore - but the fact of the matter is that Rose is being rolled because of its past actions (or lack thereof). Even though you are saying you want to start a new chapter, that doesn't come with a full pardon for all of Rose's sins.

In your post you say Rose both does things and doesn’t do things, and is getting rolled because of said things they do (but also don’t do?)

they don’t talk to you but are hostile to you… is this not paradox in your paragraph Solo

Edited December 26, 2024 by Tartarus

[Solomon Ben-David]

10 minutes ago, Tartarus said:

In your post you say Rose both does things and doesn’t do things, and is getting rolled because of said things they do (but also don’t do?)

they don’t talk to you but are hostile to you… do you see the paradox in your paragraph, Solo? 

I presume you're referencing this: "but the fact of the matter is that Rose is being rolled because of its past actions (or lack thereof)."

This is here to cover all cases contributing to this war. Actions here can be e.g., antagonizing/targeting an alliance, and inaction can be e.g., neglecting to try to normalize things/work with certain parties.

Simply, it doesn't create a paradox; I'm just working to cover both "past actions" that led to a worsening opinion of Rose and the "lack thereof [i.e., of action]" that led to open issues remaining unresolved or normalization attempts to fail.

[Totally Hatebi]

Hi, 👋 I don’t really post much of substance on the forums except trying (and failing) to bring back the Alliance Power Rankings. However, I have noticed this interesting document detailing your score movements and historical positions. Interestingly, Rose has only dropped below second twice after the Yakuza merge on the 6/1/2020 (American dating I believe) one these drops happened because of the current conflict. This means for nearly a full four years (4 years 28 days) Rose has dropped down to third once. I would like to congratulate you but I somehow believed this war was going to happen sooner or later.

 

Stats: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YIVdid7vHVz5yJIJohmESL5dHd6tM2gM59FJs1l371k/htmlview#

[Krameleon]

@Pascal

Let me first summarize how I took this response: Mostly echoing of Vein’s points, consisting of dismissing concerns and reframing my arguments. There were also some outright denial of my claims, and a claim of accountability with no specific details therewithin. All the while you have still yet to substantively address the concerns raised, preferring to dodge and weave through the accusations and throw a buckshot of anti-Rose points back at me. I’ll give credit where credit’s due, I respect a cohesive defense even if it doesn’t actually address the issues presented.

On 12/24/2024 at 3:12 PM, Pascal said:

We're not framing you as the "bad actor". Everyone thinks of you as the "bad actor" right now because of your past and recent actions. General belief is not a narrative. Your repeated actions are the primary driver of the anti-Rose sentiment. It stems from you, not from some supposed Eclipse-crafted narrative.

My claim was never that no one had reason to criticize Rose and its past actions. If that’s the path you choose to take in response, we’re going to continue to have very different conversations. The point remains that all of Vein’s response was to move away from the claims I was making and point to every reason anyone has to call Rose the bad guy. I won’t really get into how “General belief is not a narrative.” isn’t even true, because frankly I get what you were trying to say there. However, I disagree with the insinuation that Rose’s actions are fundamentally somehow worse than Eclipse’s and therefore more worthy of public scrutiny. Rose simply hasn’t been in public aggressively shutting down the rhetoric against us. Something that, mind you, I still won’t do, and haven’t here.

Regardless, the claim wasn’t that Eclipse was the sole catalyst behind the anti-Rose sentiment, but rather that Vein’s arguments took all of the concerns presented in the immediate post and attempted to reframe them as “Rose is the bad guy, not us.”

On 12/24/2024 at 3:12 PM, Pascal said:

Nobody else shares your concerns about the "FA meta" nonsense and supposed Orbis stagnation—except you. Why? Because you only share this sentiment because you're getting rolled by us right now. That’s the only reason you suddenly care about it. You even admitted to benefiting from it yourself in the past. 

I’ll be blatant here - I have no clue what world you live in that you believe no one else is concerned with the current FA meta. Complaints about NAP length and stagnation in the parties fighting aren’t hard to come by, especially looking just at the forum posts regarding the wars of contention we argue about today. They have existed long before this conflict, and resonate far beyond just Rose. You denying the existence of these concerns and claiming Rose is the sole complainant based on this recent rolling is both overly reductive and disingenuous - it is an easy way to redirect the argument. It’s very possible that this sentiment simply doesn’t reach you, as you’ve proven to a lot of the game to be rather aggressive towards parties who voice disagreement with you.

In fact, Eclipse’s aggressive approach toward alliances that don’t align with their goals or criticize their actions is worth considering here. That posture, coupled with Eclipse’s deep integration into the public sphere of Orbis, likely contributes to the disparity in public criticism. While Rose has historically operated more behind the scenes, Eclipse’s dominance in shaping public discourse, directly or indirectly, creates an environment where dissenting voices often remain silent, fearing retaliation. All the while performing the same types of backroom deals as Rose - and as you guys put it, you do them "better."

On 12/24/2024 at 3:12 PM, Pascal said:

<A HUGE amount of bullshit to spin basically the same thing every single paragraph>

(tl;dr : "Eclipse not receiving criticism", "deflection", "Eclipse CBs","Eclipse stacking MDoAPs",")

I’d just like to point out that you don’t even bother to fairly represent my argument at this point. Instead of quoting the specific statements you’re addressing, you summarize my argument by calling it “bullshit” and argue that I’m “spinning the same thing every single paragraph.” These statements miss the entire point of building a cohesive argument: I’m tying your misdirections back to my original claims, instead of allowing the widespread attacks coming my way to distract from the point I am making.

You again bring up the CB argument which, to be clear if I wasn’t previously, was never meant to be a major point of contention in regards to this conversation but rather an example of a broader issue I would like to push to change. I acknowledge and respect Eclipse’s choice to provide their rationale for the war privately in our embassy, regardless of Rose’s feelings about those reasons.

On 12/24/2024 at 3:12 PM, Pascal said:

You are only criticizing only the visible part of the iceberg when you innocently argue that we have lots of MDoAPs. But not questioning the current political climate around it while enumerating all our visible on-paper treaties is also rich coming from Rose. As an alliance specialized in backroom FA, you know what I mean. Our moves are not here to satisfy and be justified by only what an uninformed public can see. So, with this said, this argument does not need to go further. I will note here, however, that you do operate a double standard between your public FA and backroom FA—does that remind you of one of your arguments?

I’ll go point by point here. You begin by talking about the ‘visible part of the iceberg’ and claim our arguing of large MDoAPs is a deceptively innocent argument, yet you don’t address the fact that once a treaty is signed there is no longer an “art to negotiation" in activating that treaty. Your many MDoAPs were, as far as I’m aware (again, feel free to correct me), not signed for a purpose other than to rally more people to be obligated to defend you with no negotiation necessary.

You point out that Rose “specializes in backroom FA,” which unless I’m mistaken, every major alliance speaks in back rooms and attempts to plan in them. This is standard diplomacy in Orbis. The only difference with Rose was that we did not also engage in public discourse for a long time. Again, something actively being changed by the current administration, but I understand that it takes time for these things to be cemented.

Finally, to address your “political climate” comment - you bring up this political climate and how I don’t question it - Am I not actively questioning it right now? What reasoning can you give as to why you need to have that scale of parties obligated in your defense? Do you fear that if someone doesn’t have an on-paper treaty with you that they will fail to defend you when you need them most? These aren’t accusations, I am genuinely confused by this idea.

On 12/24/2024 at 3:12 PM, Pascal said:

So, to answer both of your questions directly:

1. Eclipse operates with a different scrutiny than Rose because we are not Rose (shocking). We don't share your history. Feel free to acknowledge your past that led to this war, or live in denial. We assume ours, including the times we got rolled.
2. Our actions are not "excused." They are a result of the political climate, which includes both public FA (what everyone can see, like right now) and backroom FA. The mix of both is why you are currently vilified and Eclipse is not.

Eclipse takes full accountability for its actions - whether they're questionable or not, both successes and failures. You do not need to make up imaginary problems supposedly negatively impacting all of Orbis because of Eclipse- that is untrue. Instead, now may be the time for you to quit your emotional arguments and for Rose to take accountability for their actions in Darkest Hour, the One-Day War, and more recently, Darkest Hour 2. You are still denying your own accountability for one of  those in private. With some research, maybe that will answer your questions as to why Rose is in the situation they are in today.

If the new Rose administration is truly committed to change, start by owning up to your past actions before accusing others of all the ills of the game for your personal gain. This is a poor act from you.

I appreciate the direct answers.

Suggesting Eclipse operates under the same level of scrutiny as Rose can be true, yet something Vein mentioned about the times historically that Rose has made big spheres goes to show that's not always the case. Its been argued in the current debate that Eclipsesphere is fractured, so it isn't as bad as it seems, and therefore that's why you receive no scrutiny for it. Yet as I've pointed out and you wish to downplay, anyone wishing to wage war against Eclipse must deal with all of your M-level allies and possibly even the allies of that already large coalition; anyone who downplays that is either misleading or has never lead a war coalition. Then to say “we are not Rose” in regard to why you don't receive that criticism is not an argument, it’s an excuse, and one that we have noted to being a good one to lay low. Dismissing concerns while simultaneously demanding others take accountability for their history only reinforces the claim of hypocrisy.

Rose isn't discrediting the opinions of others for our past actions. We've come to understand and respect many of the grievances and beliefs held by others towards Rose for previous actions. We understand that a higher level of communication and betterment of how we conduct ourselves are things we can address immediately and moving forward. At this point, it's a matter of time and dedication for us to mend the wrongdoings of those before me, which is not something I get to decide the timeframe for, and I accept that.

----------

@Solomon Ben-David

12 hours ago, Solomon Ben-David said:

Apologies for the delay @Krameleon, but I figured as the former FA head of the sole alliance in the offensive coalition not mentioned in your original post I'd quickly say a few words.

While the size argument tends to be a favorite for those in Rose - an argument I will not comment on at this juncture - there were also many other factors behind this war. All things considered, you could boil this war down to a simple lack of outreach from Rose and hostility to many of the parties involved, as I've discussed with you in more detail pretty much as soon as the war started.

Frankly, it's unfortunate that you have to deal with the consequences of your predecessors' actions - especially the one that doesn't play the game anymore - but the fact of the matter is that Rose is being rolled because of its past actions (or lack thereof). Even though you are saying you want to start a new chapter, that doesn't come with a full pardon for all of Rose's sins.

It seems, by far and large, I’ve done myself a disservice by framing this as an RoH rather than just posting it independently. Admittedly, I was naively unaware that I didn’t have to have a tag when posting in the Alliance Affairs forum (Rose dumb), and RoH was the closest tag for what the goal of this post was. While coming a week after getting declared on by the opposing coalition, the arguments made within this post truly have very little to do with the war itself. At this point, all parties involved have discussed with Rose their involvement in this war and their intentions behind it.

I do find it odd to reference an argument you say is common for Rose, but in that same sentence say you wont comment on, by commenting on it nonetheless. I do agree that the lack of outreach was what TSC had mentioned as their reasoning for this war, but the part of hostility to many of the parties involved was distinctly left out. As far as I can recall, the only actions toward The House by the most recent administration and that of mine have only been "friendly" in nature, namely our joint war in Blue Balled, and one situation that happened during my administration in which House reached out to garner our votes in the Arrgh Reverse Nuke Auction event to get TSC specifically out of the runnings. A move that was intended to show that despite wounds on neither side being fully healed, that the current administration saw it unfit and unbecoming to continue active hostility towards your alliance. I take it that it may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but it does make me wonder how you felt hostilities from us at that time, and did not bring this to me then or when we first spoke on this war.

While I am adamant that this is a new administration and direction for Rose, I am not under the illusion that the leaving of the previous administration absolves the alliance itself of all actions taken up to that point. I understand and respect that many still have grievances with Rose for events in recent history, and we have reached out to many in regards to mending these, something we have long neglected.

----------

@Daveth

9 hours ago, Daveth said:

I'm gonna be honest, the breadth of the point made seems to be shifting blame.

Aka "no u" in an appeal to political action against exclusively Eclipse, when to the best of my knowledge there isn't an equivalent sentiment against them? 

Solomon made a good point in acknowledging a "sins of the father" perspective to it, and I can appreciate trying to distinguish oneself from your predecessor with this post... but thus far, while commendable, it's honestly not been a sufficient, or rather fortunate attempt in my eyes.

Hey Daveth. My goal here is not simply to shift blame on to Eclipse or engage in “no u” arguments. Instead, it is my goal to address systemic double standards. You state that to the best of your knowledge there isn’t an equivalent sentiment against them, and that is where my question is raised: Why? The specific details are, of course, more thoroughly explored in my responses to Vein and (more recently) Pascal.
I appreciate the acknowledgements of my efforts to distinguish myself from my predecessors. It’s not an easy thing, obviously, and I am aware it cannot be done with a single post. My hope is that in time Rose can be shown to be taking a heading towards accountability and fostering a more balanced discussion about politics within Orbis. I understand that you believe I missed the mark here, though I do believe that my arguments still have merit. However, I am going to continue to engage and refine my approach for future discussions.

Edited December 26, 2024 by Krameleon
Replies made consecutively autojoin :PepeStraightFace:

[Sketchy]

45 minutes ago, Krameleon said:

Instead, it is my goal to address systemic double standards. You state that to the best of your knowledge there isn’t an equivalent sentiment against them, and that is where my question is raised: Why?

 

No one cares about standards unless it's their enemy breaking them. People only care about these sort of transgressions if it's their direct rivals or people they dislike doing them.

Rose has fought more people, so you have more enemies, hence more public backlash. Since all the CB's for this war seem to mostly have been kept private, I'm assuming this isn't an ideological war at all, but one of removing competition and "outgrowing" a major alliance.

I like the public turn to FA, It's been very interesting to read the back and forth, but I would be genuinely surprised if we saw a meta shift away from any of this stuff being debated, after years of it. Perhaps I'm just doom posting, and someone will actually do so, but I have interacted with enough alliances to know regardless of public rhetoric, the actual difference in playstyle is small between them. The growth meta is in the drivers seat of politics.

[Pascal]

6 hours ago, Krameleon said:

<another 5k words essay turning in circles>

I'm not going to bother answering a 5k word essay with another 5k words, especially as this discussion is going in circles. We all have lives, and I have important matters to handle, such as climbing to Iron 3 on LoL 🙏. So I will just reiterate my key points.

1. Your entire RoH and rhetoric revolve around self-victimization and questioning why "Rose bad" in an obvious and desperate attempt to create a new narrative of "Eclipse bad." This is getting tiresome and redundant. You keep insisting that we are not addressing the fictitious issues you've concocted in a sophistic attempt to discredit us. Your acting remains extremely petty and disingenuous. We, like any other major alliance, receive criticism for our actions and will continue to do so. Now I will readdress the two main points below.

2. The "FA meta" has been like this for years, albeit with some slight shifts. I still fail to see the point of your argument (which is absolutely pointless) emphasizing Eclipse's responsibility in this "FA meta." Everyone contributes to it, and nobody is solely responsible for it. What exactly do you expect us to say about this? We are simply playing the game, so are you, so is every other major. You aggressively accusing us of being a main component of it and supposedly "shaping the public discourse" (Lmao?) won't change anything. Again, Eclipse assumes full accountability for all its past and present actions, whether the public deems them good or bad. The same way, you also have to assume accountability for yours. If you're not happy with it, cope harder. Forums are not the best place for actual change.

3. Your sole actual argument with substance is about our many MDoAPs. You argue, to sum it up, that it is unfair, only using arguments that can be seen by an uninformed public. First, I personally think your FA politics and blatant dogpiles/dogpile attempts over the past 3 wars are much more unfair and deserve to be called out much harder since you like to call us out for this. The "political climate" I'm talking about revolves not only around public treaties but everything altogether, which you know extremely well. For instance, you know perfectly well why this war required Eclipse and House to work together. You also know (or should know) why we do not receive the same scrutiny as you do for our current treaties. Your argument here is extremely hypocritical and shouldn't even require an answer from me. But so be it, our current treaties are certainly not going to last forever if that can comfort you and the public reading this.

In short, your discourse is riddled with self-serving narratives and a refusal to acknowledge the bigger picture. You prefer to deflect and project blame onto Eclipse while hiding behind supposed larger systemic issues instead of addressing your own realities. We are not downplaying anything, you are the ones emphasizing and desperately attempting to create new narratives in your favor. We are not perfect; we deserve some criticism, and so do you. Your attempt to shift all blame onto Eclipse, when we are actively attacking you for the first time in over 2 years on these matters, is shallow and petty. Keep crying about it, you are the only party crying right now, and for good reasons (different public scrutiny and all that).

(Btw, I agree with Sketchy's answer above, a more concise way to summarize most things rather than all of this public blame shifting attempt bullshit).

[Prophet of Profit]

49 minutes ago, Pascal said:

such as climbing to Iron 3 on LoL

Haven't bothered to read most of the thread, but you automatically lose the argument because of this. 

[Solomon Ben-David]

12 hours ago, Krameleon said:

I do find it odd to reference an argument you say is common for Rose, but in that same sentence say you wont comment on, by commenting on it nonetheless. I do agree that the lack of outreach was what TSC had mentioned as their reasoning for this war, but the part of hostility to many of the parties involved was distinctly left out. As far as I can recall, the only actions toward The House by the most recent administration and that of mine have only been "friendly" in nature, namely our joint war in Blue Balled, and one situation that happened during my administration in which House reached out to garner our votes in the Arrgh Reverse Nuke Auction event to get TSC specifically out of the runnings. A move that was intended to show that despite wounds on neither side being fully healed, that the current administration saw it unfit and unbecoming to continue active hostility towards your alliance. I take it that it may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but it does make me wonder how you felt hostilities from us at that time, and did not bring this to me then or when we first spoke on this war.

While I am adamant that this is a new administration and direction for Rose, I am not under the illusion that the leaving of the previous administration absolves the alliance itself of all actions taken up to that point. I understand and respect that many still have grievances with Rose for events in recent history, and we have reached out to many in regards to mending these, something we have long neglected.

While I don't speak for TSC or House here - I'll leave that to the active FA gov - I do appreciate the outreach you've done since you came to power. However, that's not my point. What I'm saying is that actions not under your administration tainted Rose's reputation. In TSC, previous FA actors regularly accused us of poaching for us talking to some of the people in our former alliance, and billions in both ties before Casino Royale were found to be coming from Rose. That did not exactly give us the rosiest (pun intended) opinion of Rose. 

Despite this, I am happy to welcome further outreach to smooth things over.

Edited December 26, 2024 by Solomon Ben-David

[Inta Luang]

I'm fairly new in Orbis and just beginning to start engaging in the forum when this war happened. I know very little. So, I read everything on this thread and come in with a pretty open mind to be brainwashed by whoever can convince me to agree with them.

This is going to sound biased coming from a Rosian, but in term of providing clear premises and supporting arguments (true or not) for their talking points (which is a very effective way to brainwash me), @Krameleon did a good job at this. I learn what his stances are and why he thinks that in a very legit "political debate" kind of manners. It's quite enjoyable to read through people who actually made counterargument against an actual point he is talking about with an equally legit argument, but for right now I'm sided with Rose (Not because I owe them allegiance! I swear by my grandma! I'm ready and willing to be swayed by anyone who made a better point and an enjoyable counter.)

Just want to give my humble opinion and some perspective of someone who is kind of new.

PS. The previous DOWs is funny for sure. But for new players? clueless. Haven't got an idea what's happening. Now, back to getting absolutely annihilated to the dirt by armies of knights in shining armor.

[Vein]

1 hour ago, Inta Luang said:

This is going to sound biased coming from a Rosian

my condolences 

[Corvidae]

17 hours ago, Sketchy said:

No one cares about standards unless it's their enemy breaking them.

You* don't care about standards unless its your enemy breaking them. Don't speak for everyone.

[Sketchy]

17 minutes ago, Alastor said:

You* don't care about standards unless its your enemy breaking them. Don't speak for everyone.

Ah Roberts you finally posted.

I don't think that's true at all. We have seen multiple examples of dogpiles, long naps, consolidation of larger spheres, crossphere MD's etc in the past 2ish years, I don't think I have seen one consistent voice who has opposed each instance of this happening, and every major has participated in them at some point. It's always anger directed at whoever was the last person to roll them.

It is what it is, that's the meta now. Pretending it's not is disingenuous. Pretending you have personally been consistent on this issue is also disingenuous.

[Prophet of Profit]

  

On 6/10/2024 at 10:24 PM, Kastor said:

3.18 wars per member at your BIG age is CRAZY.

Where is the passion? Where is the drive? 

Edited January 1 by Emperor Adam

[Conald Petersen]

On 12/25/2024 at 11:55 PM, Krameleon said:

@Pascal

Let me first summarize how I took this response: Mostly echoing of Vein’s points, consisting of dismissing concerns and reframing my arguments. There were also some outright denial of my claims, and a claim of accountability with no specific details therewithin. All the while you have still yet to substantively address the concerns raised, preferring to dodge and weave through the accusations and throw a buckshot of anti-Rose points back at me. I’ll give credit where credit’s due, I respect a cohesive defense even if it doesn’t actually address the issues presented.

My claim was never that no one had reason to criticize Rose and its past actions. If that’s the path you choose to take in response, we’re going to continue to have very different conversations. The point remains that all of Vein’s response was to move away from the claims I was making and point to every reason anyone has to call Rose the bad guy. I won’t really get into how “General belief is not a narrative.” isn’t even true, because frankly I get what you were trying to say there. However, I disagree with the insinuation that Rose’s actions are fundamentally somehow worse than Eclipse’s and therefore more worthy of public scrutiny. Rose simply hasn’t been in public aggressively shutting down the rhetoric against us. Something that, mind you, I still won’t do, and haven’t here.

Regardless, the claim wasn’t that Eclipse was the sole catalyst behind the anti-Rose sentiment, but rather that Vein’s arguments took all of the concerns presented in the immediate post and attempted to reframe them as “Rose is the bad guy, not us.”

I’ll be blatant here - I have no clue what world you live in that you believe no one else is concerned with the current FA meta. Complaints about NAP length and stagnation in the parties fighting aren’t hard to come by, especially looking just at the forum posts regarding the wars of contention we argue about today. They have existed long before this conflict, and resonate far beyond just Rose. You denying the existence of these concerns and claiming Rose is the sole complainant based on this recent rolling is both overly reductive and disingenuous - it is an easy way to redirect the argument. It’s very possible that this sentiment simply doesn’t reach you, as you’ve proven to a lot of the game to be rather aggressive towards parties who voice disagreement with you.

In fact, Eclipse’s aggressive approach toward alliances that don’t align with their goals or criticize their actions is worth considering here. That posture, coupled with Eclipse’s deep integration into the public sphere of Orbis, likely contributes to the disparity in public criticism. While Rose has historically operated more behind the scenes, Eclipse’s dominance in shaping public discourse, directly or indirectly, creates an environment where dissenting voices often remain silent, fearing retaliation. All the while performing the same types of backroom deals as Rose - and as you guys put it, you do them "better."

I’d just like to point out that you don’t even bother to fairly represent my argument at this point. Instead of quoting the specific statements you’re addressing, you summarize my argument by calling it “bullshit” and argue that I’m “spinning the same thing every single paragraph.” These statements miss the entire point of building a cohesive argument: I’m tying your misdirections back to my original claims, instead of allowing the widespread attacks coming my way to distract from the point I am making.

You again bring up the CB argument which, to be clear if I wasn’t previously, was never meant to be a major point of contention in regards to this conversation but rather an example of a broader issue I would like to push to change. I acknowledge and respect Eclipse’s choice to provide their rationale for the war privately in our embassy, regardless of Rose’s feelings about those reasons.

I’ll go point by point here. You begin by talking about the ‘visible part of the iceberg’ and claim our arguing of large MDoAPs is a deceptively innocent argument, yet you don’t address the fact that once a treaty is signed there is no longer an “art to negotiation" in activating that treaty. Your many MDoAPs were, as far as I’m aware (again, feel free to correct me), not signed for a purpose other than to rally more people to be obligated to defend you with no negotiation necessary.

You point out that Rose “specializes in backroom FA,” which unless I’m mistaken, every major alliance speaks in back rooms and attempts to plan in them. This is standard diplomacy in Orbis. The only difference with Rose was that we did not also engage in public discourse for a long time. Again, something actively being changed by the current administration, but I understand that it takes time for these things to be cemented.

Finally, to address your “political climate” comment - you bring up this political climate and how I don’t question it - Am I not actively questioning it right now? What reasoning can you give as to why you need to have that scale of parties obligated in your defense? Do you fear that if someone doesn’t have an on-paper treaty with you that they will fail to defend you when you need them most? These aren’t accusations, I am genuinely confused by this idea.

I appreciate the direct answers.

Suggesting Eclipse operates under the same level of scrutiny as Rose can be true, yet something Vein mentioned about the times historically that Rose has made big spheres goes to show that's not always the case. Its been argued in the current debate that Eclipsesphere is fractured, so it isn't as bad as it seems, and therefore that's why you receive no scrutiny for it. Yet as I've pointed out and you wish to downplay, anyone wishing to wage war against Eclipse must deal with all of your M-level allies and possibly even the allies of that already large coalition; anyone who downplays that is either misleading or has never lead a war coalition. Then to say “we are not Rose” in regard to why you don't receive that criticism is not an argument, it’s an excuse, and one that we have noted to being a good one to lay low. Dismissing concerns while simultaneously demanding others take accountability for their history only reinforces the claim of hypocrisy.

Rose isn't discrediting the opinions of others for our past actions. We've come to understand and respect many of the grievances and beliefs held by others towards Rose for previous actions. We understand that a higher level of communication and betterment of how we conduct ourselves are things we can address immediately and moving forward. At this point, it's a matter of time and dedication for us to mend the wrongdoings of those before me, which is not something I get to decide the timeframe for, and I accept that.

----------

@Solomon Ben-David

It seems, by far and large, I’ve done myself a disservice by framing this as an RoH rather than just posting it independently. Admittedly, I was naively unaware that I didn’t have to have a tag when posting in the Alliance Affairs forum (Rose dumb), and RoH was the closest tag for what the goal of this post was. While coming a week after getting declared on by the opposing coalition, the arguments made within this post truly have very little to do with the war itself. At this point, all parties involved have discussed with Rose their involvement in this war and their intentions behind it.

I do find it odd to reference an argument you say is common for Rose, but in that same sentence say you wont comment on, by commenting on it nonetheless. I do agree that the lack of outreach was what TSC had mentioned as their reasoning for this war, but the part of hostility to many of the parties involved was distinctly left out. As far as I can recall, the only actions toward The House by the most recent administration and that of mine have only been "friendly" in nature, namely our joint war in Blue Balled, and one situation that happened during my administration in which House reached out to garner our votes in the Arrgh Reverse Nuke Auction event to get TSC specifically out of the runnings. A move that was intended to show that despite wounds on neither side being fully healed, that the current administration saw it unfit and unbecoming to continue active hostility towards your alliance. I take it that it may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but it does make me wonder how you felt hostilities from us at that time, and did not bring this to me then or when we first spoke on this war.

While I am adamant that this is a new administration and direction for Rose, I am not under the illusion that the leaving of the previous administration absolves the alliance itself of all actions taken up to that point. I understand and respect that many still have grievances with Rose for events in recent history, and we have reached out to many in regards to mending these, something we have long neglected.

----------

@Daveth

Hey Daveth. My goal here is not simply to shift blame on to Eclipse or engage in “no u” arguments. Instead, it is my goal to address systemic double standards. You state that to the best of your knowledge there isn’t an equivalent sentiment against them, and that is where my question is raised: Why? The specific details are, of course, more thoroughly explored in my responses to Vein and (more recently) Pascal.
I appreciate the acknowledgements of my efforts to distinguish myself from my predecessors. It’s not an easy thing, obviously, and I am aware it cannot be done with a single post. My hope is that in time Rose can be shown to be taking a heading towards accountability and fostering a more balanced discussion about politics within Orbis. I understand that you believe I missed the mark here, though I do believe that my arguments still have merit. However, I am going to continue to engage and refine my approach for future discussions.

Hard to believe "OnE oF tHe LaRgEsT aLlIaNcEs In pOlItIcS & wAr ThAt HaS a RiCh HiStOrY oF bEiNg InVoLvEd In AlMoSt AlL mAjOr EvEnTs ThE wOrLd Of OrBiS hAs SeEn OvEr ThE yEaRs" can't handle losing a few pixels without their rookie leader crying on the forums, and the temper tantrum is their first appearance on public forums in ages, hard to believe.... At least NPO had some balls and OG BK would back up their words. No involvement with the game and nothing but a paper tiger. This is just plain soft, no wonder you're getting rolled into the new year and can't do anything about it.... I'm sure you can't muster the strength to dignify a response either.

Edited January 3 by Conald Petersen

[Black Oily Men]

Idk why ya all still crying and yapping. There is raiding to be raided, there is infra to be nutted, and there are Rosians to bully.

P.S. Rose, can u invite Antarctic in ur little club? These &#33;@#&#036; keep countering.

[Arthur Wellington]

I for one would welcome some discord screen dumbs in here. Wasnt there someone who paid for those?