Rush Sykes' Blog

I'd say.

Your title should be "hypocrisy: when you all need to learn to just shut the $%&@ up"

imho

poetry

I agree with this 100%. The whining about hitting an ally of an ally has gotten out of hand.

What's worse is that they actually believe it, too.

You can be certain that the other 4/5ths of the Spartan government didn't know about Silent Spectre's little field trip and wouldn't have signed the peace terms if they had any chance of coming to fruition. I'm personally embarrassed by his inexcusable behavior.

We didn't declare on Olympus for fun. (Well, not entirely for fun, anyway).

You sound mad bro.

Also, the 'following treaties' argument is hilariously stupid. You can't make an argument in favor of coalition warfare and then simultaneously hold the position that alliances should honor their treaties, which I've seen you doing more then once.

You sound mad bro.Also, the 'following treaties' argument is hilariously stupid. You can't make an argument in favor of coalition warfare and then simultaneously hold the position that alliances should honor their treaties, which I've seen you doing more then once.

Come on Tromp. You know me better than that. This blog has nothing to do with following treaties. This blog has everything to do with "you are dishonorable because you hit an ally of an ally, but we are strategic for putting you in that position." Its a nonsense way of masking and hiding, that the moment you sign on to side a or side b of a conflict, you empower your coalition to put every single one of your allies on the other side, in the worst position possible, but there is no dishonor in this. Its a stupid double standard. And, it is NOT a new stance for me. I preached it straight MKs face in \m/-NpO, and you know I did, you and I talked literally EVERY day back then. This is nothing new for me, and Im not mad. I am ODNs friend and ally, and I am here to say the "RAWR ODN HITTING MHA DISHONORS SPARTA" tag line is flipping stupid.

You sound mad bro.Also, the 'following treaties' argument is hilariously stupid. You can't make an argument in favor of coalition warfare and then simultaneously hold the position that alliances should honor their treaties, which I've seen you doing more then once.

Do people not realize by now that starting a post with a "u mad" statement makes their post not worth reading?

Alliances should accept that by having allies on two fronts that hitting an ally of an ally is almost inevitable. Whining about it then, or trying to prevent it, is simply a waste of time. Accept the fact they if you aren't clear in your FA, it can lead to problems like these.

u mad, fyfe?

Everyone sees everyone for exactly who they are.

This blog has nothing to do with following treaties.

Ofcourse it does. The implication of your argument is that when you're on one 'side' because of a 'coalition' that yes, an alliance has to disregard treaties with alliances 'on the other side'. Even to the point where you'd (temporarily) consider them enemies.

And I know you're not mad, quite on the contrary. I just noticed how many words you had capitalized, which, as I'm sure you are aware, gives the impression of 'screaming' on the internet.

Do people not realize by now that starting a post with a "u mad" statement makes their post not worth reading?

Such a wonderful retort, well done!

Rush, I don't disagree with you, but I think the truth is more nuanced. A coalition does not have a single goal, and for each member "winning" is defined differently. Just as the coalition positions itself for victory, there is always an unspoken (and in some cases unrecognized) drive for individual members to accomplish their own agenda. And those individual agendas don't always align.

In order to bring together a diverse coalition, compromises must be made. The coalition members are not allies with each other. If the compromises are not respected, the coalition disintegrates. If such an event occurs, it is a failure of some coalition members to respect the broad consensus that brings everyone to the table.

-Craig

Rush, I don't disagree with you, but I think the truth is more nuanced. A coalition does not have a single goal, and for each member "winning" is defined differently. Just as the coalition positions itself for victory, there is always an unspoken (and in some cases unrecognized) drive for individual members to accomplish their own agenda. And those individual agendas don't always align.In order to bring together a diverse coalition, compromises must be made. The coalition members are not allies with each other. If the compromises are not respected, the coalition disintegrates. If such an event occurs, it is a failure of some coalition members to respect the broad consensus that brings everyone to the table.-Craig

Well said, Craig.

I think there are too many who value honor > strategy. Tho, without 'honor' there would be less big wars and more curbstomps, as allies strategically choose to live & fight another day.

That conversation did not occur. The logs are fake. Simple as that.