A Non Grata and TLR cancellation

[Azaghul]

lol, we both pretty much told each other MEAT was dead back in 2013.  About time we posted this.  I personally have enjoyed the stability of maroon, unlike other colors like black who resort to sanction wars.

 

o7 maroon

We talked a lot about using the message system to t-word SF but that effort died after TLR apologized for the first message bashing a C&G ally (RIA who was tied to GATO IIRC.)

 

After that MEAT was pretty pointless since most people on both sides wanted to avoid a sanction war.

 

It's too bad, a war of words through the message system would have been fun and funny.  And actually made use of a feature that has hardly ever been used.

[Steve Buscemi]

We talked a lot about using the message system to t-word SF but that effort died after TLR apologized for the first message bashing a C&G ally (RIA who was tied to GATO IIRC.)

 

After that MEAT was pretty pointless since most people on both sides wanted to avoid a sanction war.

 

It's too bad, a war of words through the message system would have been fun and funny.  And actually made use of a feature that has hardly ever been used.

Aye.  With trade circles what they are, and the complete near-OOC annoyance that trades are, it just really shows nothing more than butthurt to resort to sanction wars imo.  Plus people can switch to uranium in a pinch.

[magicninja]

We talked a lot about using the message system to t-word SF but that effort died after TLR apologized for the first message bashing a C&G ally (RIA who was tied to GATO IIRC.)
 
After that MEAT was pretty pointless since most people on both sides wanted to avoid a sanction war.
 
It's too bad, a war of words through the message system would have been fun and funny.  And actually made use of a feature that has hardly ever been used.

RIA tied to us? Not that I ever remember......INT maybe.

[Stewie]

Yeah, think it was INT raising a stink

[Devilyn Caster]

Yeah, think it was INT raising a stink

 

There was a time where TLR was tied to RIA, though in this instance I don't think that applies.

 

Oh no my maroonity! :(

[HeroofTime55]

You didn't bring down SF, for the record, it was mostly CSN.

[603Redneck]

This topic is still being commented on?

[Rush Sykes]

You didn't bring down SF, for the record, it was mostly CSN.

 

I disagree with the sentiment that we set out to "bring down" SF. We simply did MEAT to mess with GOD, there was really no other reason. Was it petty? Sure it was. But the world that all of us (winners and losers alike) have built, allows only for pettiness. There are no more real divisive relationships. Moves are made now "just to see if we can do it," because everyone in the 1st 3 years of Planet Bob worked in unison to stamp out any bad inter-alliance behavior. I think most folks in GOD, deep down , know it was nothing overly personal, it was a "C&G and friends" need an enemy, SF was the most likely target. It is much the reason that NPO still remains the target, because people need someone, not something, to rail against.

[Caustic]

It was a joke Rush, let it die ;)

[Rush Sykes]

No fun at all in that . :D

[Neo Uruk]

I can vouch that CSN killed SF

[RevolutionaryRebel]

HoT has a background in destroying alliances, he must be right.
 

Go go PEAT!

That would either reignite colour politics or bog down the treaty web further. Do it.

[HeroofTime55]

HoT has a background in destroying alliances, he must be right.
 

That would either reignite colour politics or bog down the treaty web further. Do it.

I have a background in destroying alliances?

To Rush, Regarding NPO (since all threads must, by rule of nature, become discussions about NPO), they're getting !@#$ on right now because of the !@#$ they pulled in Equilibrium.  Nobody appreciated that at all, and NPO very quickly and foolishly squandered all the PR they had worked so hard to gain post-Karma.  It's likely going to be that way for a long time, under the "fool me twice" principle.

Edited April 14, 2014 by HeroofTime55

[Steve Buscemi]

I have a background in destroying alliances?

To Rush, Regarding NPO (since all threads must, by rule of nature, become discussions about NPO), they're getting !@#$ on right now because of the !@#$ they pulled in Equilibrium.  Nobody appreciated that at all, and NPO very quickly and foolishly squandered all the PR they had worked so hard to gain post-Karma.  It's likely going to be that way for a long time, under the "fool me twice" principle.

I think there is some of that, but mostly that fact that when NPO gets one oz of power, everyone uses them as a bogeyman for another great war to bandwagon into.  Instead of actually trying something new it's just the same old rinse and repeat who can we dogpile onto for an easy thrill.  When alliances stop being part of the bandwagon and have a little self-respect and actually stick with the non-chaining clauses then things will change.  Not holding my breath.  o7 DT/GLOF/AB/FEAR/NEW

Edited April 14, 2014 by Steve Buscemi

[HeroofTime55]

Well, last time they got an ounce of power, they went and put knives in everyone else's backsides.  That's nobody's fault but their own.

I don't know how appropriate the term "boogeyman" is, it seems to me that they're just going to be isolated for a while, largely due to the lack of trust towards them post-Equilibrium.  They will likely suffer a number of losing wars, not so much because they are being targeted, but because they have effectively isolated themselves by proving themselves utterly untrustworthy.  Just a sort of inevitable consequence of where they put themselves, I'm not aware of anyone specifically gunning for them.

As far as non-chaining clauses go, they are always optional, and the option will almost always be taken if on the winning side and almost never be taken if on the losing side.  I do agree that many alliances are far more cowardly than back in the day, and honestly, that "non-chaining" treaties are being signed is a symptom of this cowardice, as alliances write in ways to get out if things go south.

I've always held, that if you like someone enough to sign with them, sign something meaningful.  Treaties that start with the letter O and treaties containing "non-chaining unless we feel like it" clauses [i]are[/i] the cancer.

[porksaber]

we support one or more of the two parties involved in this cancellation.  this is a message of positive encouragement.  we love hereno.