Ibrahim (Banned) Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) Finally caught up with the discussion and it hasn't progressed one bit. (Surprise, surprise.) Edited October 17, 2015 by Ibrahim 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent W Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 So UPN has no CB and attacked several of their allies allies. BRILLIANT POLITICAL MOVE. 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 More sharing options...
Alataq Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 So UPN has no CB and attacked several of their allies allies. BRILLIANT POLITICAL MOVE. It's clear now. Nobody needs a !@#$ing CB anymore. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent W Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 It's clear now. Nobody needs a !@#$ CB anymore. Which makes it even more baffling. If UPN had a real reason for hitting their allies allies, then maybe they could justify it. Instead, it just leaves people scratching their heads wondering who the hell handles strategic planning for this group. 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 More sharing options...
Saru Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) Which makes it even more baffling. If UPN had a real reason for hitting their allies allies, then maybe they could justify it. Instead, it just leaves people scratching their heads wondering who the hell handles strategic planning for this group. The reasoning is there. Whether you think it holds up to scrutiny is another matter entirely. It's very simple. tS have admitted to trying to get us attacked, and that plot only failed because of internal issues within Paragon. So if tS had their way, we would be in a very different position right now. We also don't feel like Partisan's queries assuring us that they aren't going to target us, were effective in settling our concerns, given that he pretty much outright lied to us before. As an alliance, we also decided that several movements made by tS were to consolidate a sphere that is fairly anti-TC and also had some other information to suggest that the grouping had us in their crosshairs in the future (this part will obviously be open to debate, but from the information we were provided, we are confident that was going to be the case at some point). With that in mind we decided to act on our own terms, as opposed to wait for tS and co to be able to act on theirs. Edited October 17, 2015 by Saru Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNG Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Which makes it even more baffling. If UPN had a real reason for hitting their allies allies, then maybe they could justify it. Instead, it just leaves people scratching their heads wondering who the hell handles strategic planning for this group. It's just Shellhound multis fighting even more Shellhound multis. Truly the depravity knows no bounds. 2 "They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays. <Kastor> And laughs and shit. <Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent W Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 The reasoning is there. Whether you think it holds up to scrutiny is another matter entirely. Hah, is that what you say to everyone else in your coalition chan? "Hey guys, tS really had the means to roll us so we're taking them out while we can?" Maybe you guys really are this dumb. 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 More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 It's just Shellhound multis fighting even more Shellhound multis. Truly the depravity knows no bounds. Will the real Shellhound please stand up? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Hah, is that what you say to everyone else in your coalition chan? "Hey guys, tS really had the means to roll us so we're taking them out while we can?" Maybe you guys really are this dumb. Read the post again. I am guessing logic is not your strong point, but let me put it in simply terms for you. We did not necessarily think that tS was an immediate threat. But we do believe that they still had ill wish towards us, want to be the force that dominates the game and see tC as the obstacle to getting there. So like I said, we attacked and made sure it's on our terms, as opposed to yours. 1 Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TheNG Posted October 17, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted October 17, 2015 Will the real Shellhound please stand up? I repeat. Will the real Shellhound please stand up? Uh..... we're gonna have a problem here. 7 "They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays. <Kastor> And laughs and shit. <Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent W Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Read the post again. I am guessing logic is not your strong point, but let me put it in simply terms for you. We did not necessarily think that tS was an immediate threat. But we do believe that they still had ill wish towards us, want to be the force that dominates the game and see tC as the obstacle to getting there. So like I said, we attacked and made sure it's on our terms, as opposed to yours. So you still attacked an ally of an ally. Once again, brilliant political move guys. 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 More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Guys, this is great and everything, but can we redirect all of our aggression towards Ole until he fixes the thread title? (p.s. go into the full editor, you can change it from there) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) So you still attacked an ally of an ally. Once again, brilliant political move guys. Something that the Syndicate have done themselves in the past. So atleast stay consistent when applying some sort of moral judgement. Now I judge every situation on a case by case basis, and don't think attacking an ally of an ally is inherently wrong. Provided there is valid reasoning behind it. Now we can argue about whether you agree with the validity or that reasoning. But putting it down to "you attacked an ally of an ally so you are bad" is a lazy troll attempt, particularly when you have done the same. Edited October 17, 2015 by Saru 1 Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pfeiffer Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 I love Saru defending all this shit he was totally cut out of, and wouldn't have let happen if he were around. 2 ☾☆ Chairman Emeritus of Mensa HQ ☾☆ "It's not about the actual fish, themselves. Fish are not important in this context. It's about fish-ing, the act of fishing itself." -Jack O'Neill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent W Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Something that the Syndicate have done themselves in the past. So atleast stay consistent when applying some sort of moral judgement. Now I judge every situation on a case by case basis, and don't think attacking an ally of an ally is inherently wrong. Provided there is valid reasoning behind it. Now we can argue about whether you agree with the validity or that reasoning. But putting it down to "you attacked an ally of an ally so you are bad" is a lazy troll attempt, particularly when you have done the same. When have we ever done that? Last war we were hit by Rose, the war before that we hit SK who was not allied to any of our allies, before that we rolled FSA. Stop spouting idiocy. Too bad Mensa isn't on your side this war, you could really use someone with half a brain. 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 More sharing options...
Saru Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 I love Saru defending all this shit he was totally cut out of, and wouldn't have let happen if he were around. I wasn't cut out of anything. I was simply not as active as before. And my arguments are still consistent. Would I of handled somethings differently, particularly where Mensa is concerned? Yes. Did I have some sort of moral objection to attacking a group that we perceive to be a threat to us in the future? Not particularly. Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 The reasoning is there. Whether you think it holds up to scrutiny is another matter entirely. It's very simple. tS have admitted to trying to get us attacked, and that plot only failed because of internal issues within Paragon. So if tS had their way, we would be in a very different position right now. We also don't feel like Partisan's queries assuring us that they aren't going to target us, were effective in settling our concerns, given that he pretty much outright lied to us before. As an alliance, we also decided that several movements made by tS were to consolidate a sphere that is fairly anti-TC and also had some other information to suggest that the grouping had us in their crosshairs in the future (this part will obviously be open to debate, but from the information we were provided, we are confident that was going to be the case at some point). With that in mind we decided to act on our own terms, as opposed to wait for tS and co to be able to act on theirs. I can't wait until Paragon rolls you in two months on a hunch, since that's a precedent now. UPN has gone mad with power, they'll say, mad with power! It'll be the only righteous option they'll have! One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 I can't wait until Paragon rolls you in two months on a hunch, since that's a precedent now. UPN has gone mad with power, they'll say, mad with power! It'll be the only righteous option they'll have! You feel like it's a hunch. We feel like it's a fair assessment given the data we have available. Not sure why you think that's only a precedent now either. Our first war with TAC was for similar reasons... Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 TEst isn't used to people bringing the party to them, I think they're just pleasantly surprised. Well in the last war BoC was set to attack TEst and like 24 hours before launch, we were told (by Impero iirc?)TEst didn't want to be attacked and switched to VE side just sayin [22:05] <&Clarke> And what do you do Ivan? [22:05] <&Clarke> Do you make artwork and stuff [22:05] <@Goomy> he sort of prances about fabulously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) When have we ever done that? Last war we were hit by Rose, the war before that we hit SK who was not allied to any of our allies, before that we rolled FSA. Stop spouting idiocy. Too bad Mensa isn't on your side this war, you could really use someone with half a brain. I will refrain from doing what your leader did and log dumping, particularly when the people haven't consented. But let's just say that the Mensa-tS treaty largely came about down to tS's desire to hit Rose at some point (which was their commonality), and don't be that naive as to think that tS weren't in the planning backchannels on the war on Paragon. And the former isn't me with my own analysis, it is directly what was said to me by the people involved in signing the treaty. Edited October 17, 2015 by Saru Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Mustang Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) Something that the Syndicate have done themselves in the past. So atleast stay consistent when applying some sort of moral judgement. Now I judge every situation on a case by case basis, and don't think attacking an ally of an ally is inherently wrong. Provided there is valid reasoning behind it. Now we can argue about whether you agree with the validity or that reasoning. But putting it down to "you attacked an ally of an ally so you are bad" is a lazy troll attempt, particularly when you have done the same. Hey, you can stick to your guns and keep calling us these super-dastardly plotters if you like (it rather inflates my ego, truth be told, even if it's completely unmoored from reality), but I absolutely will not stand for the idea that we attacked an ally of an ally. I've been here since the founding of the alliance, and the only truly offensive war we've started was against FSA. We answered allies' call defensively in Great VE War (and I believe our little bloc was two degrees removed at least from Guardian, et al), and as we all know, were preempted in Proxy (sure, we fought an ally of an ally, but they attacked us!) And of course here we are, being preempted by the ally of an ally through TWO alliances. I mean okay, cool, whatever, kick over our blocks and roar like Godzilla if it makes you feel cool. But don't sit here calling us hypocritical in our behavior. We've never attacked allies of allies, and have no intention of doing so going forward either. EDIT: Saw your reply as I was writing my last. The Mensa-t$ treaty was born of a far simpler reason: You hated our guts, and at the time we wanted to get the hell away from VE. But that still doesn't make any sense. I know you guys are fond of taking talk as action, but talking about hitting Rose != actually hitting Rose. Edited October 17, 2015 by Roy Mustang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) Hey, you can stick to your guns and keep calling us these super-dastardly plotters if you like (it rather inflates my ego, truth be told, even if it's completely unmoored from reality), but I absolutely will not stand for the idea that we attacked an ally of an ally. I've been here since the founding of the alliance, and the only truly offensive war we've started was against FSA. We answered allies' call defensively in Great VE War (and I believe our little bloc was two degrees removed at least from Guardian, et al), and as we all know, were preempted in Proxy (sure, we fought an ally of an ally, but they attacked us!) And of course here we are, being preempted by the ally of an ally through TWO alliances. I mean okay, cool, whatever, kick over our blocks and roar like Godzilla if it makes you feel cool. But don't sit here calling us hypocritical in our behavior. We've never attacked allies of allies, and have no intention of doing so going forward either. Well either your upper echelon lied to Mensa to establish a basis on which to sign a treaty, or you are lying in this post. Parties involved in signing this treaty have specified to me that it was on the basis that tS showed a desire to hit Rose at some point. Also are you forgetting the fact that we shared a mutual ally in BK? And that you guys have already admitted to proactively pushing for a war on us? Edited October 17, 2015 by Saru Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Mustang Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Well either your upper echelon lied to Mensa to establish a basis on which to sign a treaty, or you are lying in this post. Parties involved in signing this treaty have specified to me that it was on the basis that tS showed a desire to hit Rose at some point. Also are you forgetting the fact that we shared a mutual ally in BK? And that you guys have already admitted to proactively pushing for a war on us? You are aware that alliances are capable of dropping treaties, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 You are aware that alliances are capable of dropping treaties, yes? I am aware. And at that point BK was not considering cancelling on either Rose or UPN, to my knowledge. So you showed a desire to attack an ally of an ally, and signed a treaty with Mensa to further their agenda in that. And also actively pushed for a war on us -- who also shared a mutual ally in BK. So what were you saying about never having intentions to attack allies of allies? Sounds to me like it's not much of a consideration for you at all. 1 Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 I repeat. Will the real Shellhound please stand up? Uh..... we're gonna have a problem here. Ya'll act like you've never see a Shell multi before. Jaws all on the floor like a shitposter just burst through the door. 3 Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts