WorldConqueror Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Behold a person lacking in knowledge of what goes on in the backrooms of IRC. But I'm sure you have an opinion on what treaties we should have dropped. Let's hear it oh wise one. Commenting on your publicly stated policy does not require knowledge of your backroom dealings, I would have thought. As for your treaties, you're obviously happy with your position, nothing better than having your cake and eating it too right? Holding conflicting treaties with two opposing spheres and then citing them as your reason for inaction come wartime seems like a pretty transparent cop out to me though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Commenting on your publicly stated policy does not require knowledge of your backroom dealings, I would have thought. As for your treaties, you're obviously happy with your position, nothing better than having your cake and eating it too right? Holding conflicting treaties with two opposing spheres and then citing them as your reason for inaction come wartime seems like a pretty transparent cop out to me though! They actually just waited to figure out what side was going to win and then made sure to help them out, it's totally a better political decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaera Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 All I can really say is that this policy would've been exceptionally handy at a previous date. You do you, Valhalla. You do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Formal request for Polar to declare on Umbrella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingervites Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Well that's about as much as I'd expect from Valhalla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Stupid Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Don't worry. No one expected you to do anything about it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Formal request for Polar to declare on Umbrella If your coalition would peace out with them, they might just be talked into doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 You want to hear it? You sure will. I could force myself to respect and stomach this position if not for your silence last war as a BS treaty was drawn up and signed in 5 minutes to allow another ally to shirk responsibilities to one side of a coalition, and enter on the other side of a coalition, on YOUR FLIPPING ALLY... who was already more than well covered. THAT was not an "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" moment for Valhalla to make any public declarations. Not enough to stir the fires that ANY coalition would have the audacity to do that to a might Valhallan ally. You, your alliance, and this stance is an utter joke. NOW enough is enough? Give me a flipping brake. I hope (even though it wont happen because for some unknown reason IRON wants to protect you) that someone else runs headfirst into Polar or Mi6 so your crapstain of an alliance can by dismantled in the manner in which it deserves. Cowards. Sanctimonious, self-righteous, honorless-honor-soaking cowards. You utterly disgust me. Cool story bro, and if you told the entire tale, it might have even been placed with the non-fiction section in the book store. But let's talk for a moment about the NG-Valhalla relationship, hmm? NG knew we were going to be on other side during the last war and also knew we were oAing in. At no point did you actually ever formally ask for our help. The alliance in question was LoSS. Were you actually hit by LoSS? No, you weren't. I wonder how that happened? Magic, clearly. <_< NG and Valhalla parted more or less on good terms, though it was obvious we weren't heading in the same direction FA-wise and hadn't been for a while, as in before the war. Clearly you are bitter. Can't help you there. They don't give a !@#$ about some of their allies though, they're making this statement so their precious allies on the winning side won't get damaged any more than they have to be.(exactly like they did last war, as a matter of fact.) You've abandoned Polar and MI6, you can pretend you "worked as best as you could", but you let Polar get declared on by a dozen alliances and didn't lift a !@#$@#$ finger to help them, don't pretend you're able to really act like you did much to help them. You're choosing a side by making this statement, and soon enough people will grasp what you are really doing by making this statement, I pray Polar drops you for being such fairweather friends. If you knew what I knew you'd think differently. Have a look at our treaty with Polar, it's non-chaining. Levi and Dajobo discussed that fact multiple times and what would happen if NpO declared first. However, enough is enough. Commenting on your publicly stated policy does not require knowledge of your backroom dealings, I would have thought. As for your treaties, you're obviously happy with your position, nothing better than having your cake and eating it too right? Holding conflicting treaties with two opposing spheres and then citing them as your reason for inaction come wartime seems like a pretty transparent cop out to me though! Speaking for myself and not for Valhalla, I am not in love with our position, I'll put it that way. It is however what it is. Levi explained the rest in the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 If you knew what I knew you'd think differently. Have a look at our treaty with Polar, it's non-chaining. Levi and Dajobo discussed that fact multiple times and what would happen if NpO declared first. However, enough is enough. Your alliance knew what the counters would be tonight, and decided to make sure Polar did not get as much relief as they could have, that is not helping Polar, but you know this already, and Polar chained in defensively, you know this as well, so all you really did is help out IRON/NEW/FTW, while watching Polar burn, I can't wait to see all the post war assistance you'll be providing Polaris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 This is the shining example of having so many treaties that you end up being unable to meaningfully do anything with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 This is the shining example of having so many treaties that you end up being unable to meaningfully do anything with them. You don't seem to have a problem with other alliances that do, so long as they ignore them when it comes to war time to make sure they're on the winning side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orville Reginbacher Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 You want to hear it? You sure will. I could force myself to respect and stomach this position if not for your silence last war as a BS treaty was drawn up and signed in 5 minutes to allow another alliance to shirk it's already existing obligations to one coalition, and enter on behalf of YOUR coalition, on YOUR FLIPPING ALLY... who was already more than well covered. THAT was not an "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" moment for Valhalla to make any public declarations. Not enough to stir the fires that ANY coalition would have the audacity to do that to a might Valhallan ally. You, your alliance, and this stance is an utter joke. NOW enough is enough? Give me a flipping brake. I hope (even though it wont happen because for some unknown reason IRON wants to protect you) that someone else runs headfirst into Polar or Mi6 so your crapstain of an alliance can by dismantled in the manner in which it deserves. Cowards. Sanctimonious, self-righteous, honorless-honor-soaking cowards. You utterly disgust me. 1. That literally has nothing to do with the thing that you proposed to speak about. 2. "Give me a flipping brake." What sort of brake would you like? I'm partial to disk brakes, but let me know, I might have a hand brake around. 3. you have some hyphenated phrases that make no sense in there. Care to try again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 You don't seem to have a problem with other alliances that do, so long as they ignore them when it comes to war time to make sure they're on the winning side. Oh I don't? Please feel free to provide some evidence to back up this assertion. Go ahead, I'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Oh I don't? Please feel free to provide some evidence to back up this assertion. Go ahead, I'll wait. IRON. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Oh I don't? Please feel free to provide some evidence to back up this assertion. Go ahead, I'll wait. Don't hold your breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 IRON. Lolwut? At any rate, IRON has a far better track record of actually honoring treaties with actual, yknow, WARS than Val can claim right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Cool story bro, and if you told the entire tale, it might have even been placed with the non-fiction section in the book store. But let's talk for a moment about the NG-Valhalla relationship, hmm? NG knew we were going to be on other side during the last war and also knew we were oAing in. At no point did you actually ever formally ask for our help. The alliance in question was LoSS. Were you actually hit by LoSS? No, you weren't. I wonder how that happened? Magic, clearly. <_< NG and Valhalla parted more or less on good terms, though it was obvious we weren't heading in the same direction FA-wise and hadn't been for a while, as in before the war. Clearly you are bitter. Can't help you there. If you knew what I knew you'd think differently. Have a look at our treaty with Polar, it's non-chaining. Levi and Dajobo discussed that fact multiple times and what would happen if NpO declared first. However, enough is enough. Speaking for myself and not for Valhalla, I am not in love with our position, I'll put it that way. It is however what it is. Levi explained the rest in the OP. Your assertion that I am bitter is kind of silly. What your alliance does has zero bearing on me or my alliance. I simply know the smell of fecal matter when it is wafted towards my nostrils. You sat, for weeks, watching allies everywhere get hit, and suddenly, tonight, Enough is Enough. It would, as I said, have been a respectable position, had you taken that same ENOUGH IS ENOUGH (not neutrality) position when your buddies allowed and abetted and non-combatant to dogpile an ally of yours last war. It is not your neutrality (though I find that to be complete cowardice), it is your "enough is enough" statement in the OP. To try to paint me as bitter... or to try to somehow suggest that LoSS not hitting TLR, but instead hitting NG (which was my freaking point) was somehow magically because of Valhalla's efforts. You are freaking absurd. Your allies on both sides committed to this war. You chose not to. It is your prerogative, but your enough is enough mantra is simply a public attempt to sweep your obvious cowardice aside and try to soak up some honor, and it would have wings to fly on if you have taken 30 seconds to make a public "enough is enough" statement regarding dogpiling an ally of yours in the last war. So what we have discerned is TWO, not one, is the proper number of allies on opposite coalition to all of your others, to necessitate neutrality. Like I said, cowards. 1. That literally has nothing to do with the thing that you proposed to speak about. 2. "Give me a flipping brake." What sort of brake would you like? I'm partial to disk brakes, but let me know, I might have a hand brake around. 3. you have some hyphenated phrases that make no sense in there. Care to try again? Aren't you just cute? LOOK MOM, I FOUND A TYPO ON TEH INTERWEBZ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 You guys were in a bad spot, this is the best way to handle it. Good show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Lolwut? You are responsible for IRON. Bet you didn't know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
partymaster Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Formal request for Polar to declare on Umbrella FTW is fighting Polaris Umb, VE, and IRON are fighting Mi6 Umb and Polaris wouldn't really be able to engage each other if they did fight. According to the wiki, Val has a single MD treaty mixed in with those MnD treaties :P Regardless, obligatory yays or nays, or something, I will just stick to the battlefield, I know it better than anything else... *walks back to the nuclear paradise with green rain* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 You are responsible for IRON. Bet you didn't know that. I do so love learning new things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) NG and Valhalla parted more or less on good terms, though it was obvious we weren't heading in the same direction FA-wise and hadn't been for a while, as in before the war. Clearly you are bitter. Can't help you there. More or less on good terms....We did NOT part on "more or less good terms". Valhalla staying inbetween factions to save their pixels, same old same old. Edited December 19, 2014 by Stewie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehmina Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Feeling sad for Valhalla. neutrality sucks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Holy crap, why does anyone even bother with a Valhalla treaty anymore. Can NATO redeclare on Polar and that counts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) Holy crap, why does anyone even bother with a Valhalla treaty anymore. Can NATO redeclare on Polar and that counts? Valhalla has more our allies on our side and several alliances they don't have historically good relations with attacked their oldest treaty partner, IRON. I'm not sure why you or others would expect Valhalla to forsake 4 of its allies. It would be far easier for Valhalla to throw in on either side and not look back. This is a more difficult path to take presently. Edited December 19, 2014 by Monster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts