The Amazing Survivalist Alliance Race

[Titus Pullo]

In response to the post you quoted (see below), there was an option left out.

Defend all your treaty partners. If you're willing to sign with them in the first place, and not cancel before the war (say early April), then defend them during the war regardless of sides. If there were too many conflicts you should have thought about it before scattering yourselves politically, which does in fact lay the blame with your alliance.

Edit: the quote

In fact, this option would have been impossible. I'm not sure how TOP "scattered itself politically", most of TOP's allies fell in the same general sphere of influence when they were signed. This war happened just after Citadel had drifted away from Continuum (splitting one SOI into two) and TOP was in the process of leaving Q. Something that has already been brought up in this thread.

Also, everyone says TOP should have seen it coming. However, TOP was negotiating a settlement between NPO and OV/VE when NPO attacked. TOP wasn't exactly "in the loop" on either side.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Titus Pullo

[Vladimir Stukov II]

In response to the post you quoted (see below), there was an option left out.

Defend all your treaty partners. If you're willing to sign with them in the first place, and not cancel before the war (say early April), then defend them during the war regardless of sides. If there were too many conflicts you should have thought about it before scattering yourselves politically, which does in fact lay the blame with your alliance.

Edit: the quote

I suggest you read Crymson's post in this thread.

[Tushar Dhoot]

In response to the post you quoted (see below), there was an option left out.

Defend all your treaty partners. If you're willing to sign with them in the first place, and not cancel before the war (say early April), then defend them during the war regardless of sides. If there were too many conflicts you should have thought about it before scattering yourselves politically, which does in fact lay the blame with your alliance.

Edit: the quote

You'll know better than most that CN's political environment is fluid, and changes week by week, month by month.

So, when we do cancel on some alliances because they have drifted politically, it seems we are label "survivalist". However, if we don't, we still are.

Doesn't make sense to me.

[King Chill I]

In response to the post you quoted (see below), there was an option left out.

Defend all your treaty partners. If you're willing to sign with them in the first place, and not cancel before the war (say early April), then defend them during the war regardless of sides. If there were too many conflicts you should have thought about it before scattering yourselves politically, which does in fact lay the blame with your alliance.

Edit: the quote

In fairness TOP's drift away from Q was ongoing for weeks before the !@#$ hit the fan. The process was being handled delicately not only by them but also their allies who ended up on the karma side.

Where TOP really got screwed was on the IRON front (and partly MCXA). Had IRON/MCXA not felt the need to defend NPO and avoid being called cowards TOP would not have been as torn given that they were pretty much washing their hands of the crap that Q pulled at the end.

OG wasnt even that big of a deal because they had the brilliant idea of signing an MDAP and honoring it during a clearly wrong and offensive war by NPO.

The situation is not as black and white as your option would suggest (although technically correct). What you say should have been done, was being done albeit slowly and a little late.

I doubt anyone predicted how badly NPO would mess up everything. In my worst case scenario we still had 2 weeks to 2 months before anything major happened.

Plus again, the same would have applied to RIA.

EDIT: One thing that was clear back in February was that the next war would not be about treaties but about what people saw as right and wrong. TOP's main failures were not seeing that fact and just how bad NPO had become.

Edited October 14, 2009 by King Chill I

[Drai]

In fact, this option would have been impossible. I'm not sure how TOP "scattered itself politically", most of TOP's allies fell in the same general sphere of influence when they were signed. This war happened just after Citadel had drifted away from Continuum (splitting one SOI into two) and TOP was in the process of leaving Q. Something that has already been brought up in this thread.

Also, everyone says TOP should have seen it coming. However, TOP was negotiating a settlement between NPO and OV/VE when NPO attacked. TOP wasn't exactly "in the loop" on either side.

If you weren't in the loop, then that shows how valuable your treaties were with those involved and that either the alliances drastically changed in the days leading up to the war, or you failed to see that the treaties were a poor choice well beforehand.

You may not have been scattered politically a month before but you certainly didn't do anything about that "scattering" when it did occur until it was too late.

[Drai]

You'll know better than most that CN's political environment is fluid, and changes week by week, month by month.

So, when we do cancel on some alliances because they have drifted politically, it seems we are label "survivalist". However, if we don't, we still are.

Doesn't make sense to me.

What I'm saying is you left it all until the end. If they had been drifting politically beforehand you should have looked into that before the war broke out.

[wickedj]

Of course we were for IRON getting lighter terms from our "friends" who chose to attack them.

What other expectation could you have possibly expected from us?

Funny how that works. IRON got attacked for attacking Rok...simple as that. they had their chance to continue to be part of the CoC

I'm listening and would be interested to hear more. How did the war "play out" after TOP entered? How did TOP's entrance change the war? (I hear a lot of comments suggesting that TOP's participation did nothing due to the targets chosen, the length of involvement, etc.) Why are people upset/angry over how the war changed once TOP entered?

The war changed after you guys entered? Well other than slowing the GRL down due to not using nukes.

[Drai]

The situation is not as black and white as your option would suggest (although technically correct). What you say should have been done, was being done albeit slowly and a little late.

I doubt anyone predicted how badly NPO would mess up everything. In my worst case scenario we still had 2 weeks to 2 months before anything major happened.

Plus again, the same would have applied to RIA.

EDIT: One thing that was clear back in February was that the next war would not be about treaties but about what people saw as right and wrong. TOP's main failures were not seeing that fact and just how bad NPO had become.

I completely agree with you here. My post may have exaggerated the point but really what I was saying is TOP didn't deal with these issues when they should have.

[mattski133]

The situation is not as black and white as your option would suggest (although technically correct). What you say should have been done, was being done albeit slowly and a little late.

I doubt anyone predicted how badly NPO would mess up everything. In my worst case scenario we still had 2 weeks to 2 months before anything major happened.

I remember being told war was coming between 2 weeks and 2 months since December with it requiring only a spark to set it off at any given moment. I can't speak for how FA works in another alliance intelligently, but my alliance (MOON) had made its mind up as to what direction it would be going if a war broke out, regardless of how the sides were looking. We pushed the chips to the center and joined the side where our best friends were, and were fortunate our friends were all on the same side, due to a tight FA policy.

There may very well be other reasons for keeping treaties on both sides when sides are clearly forming (timing, confusion, worrying about someone's feelings even if they are ruthless warmongers) but in this thread, that choice has been labelled Survivalism and it looks like a good amount of people feel it was the correct reason to apply to the situation.

Edited October 14, 2009 by mattski133

[Tushar Dhoot]

What I'm saying is you left it all until the end. If they had been drifting politically beforehand you should have looked into that before the war broke out.

As Crymson points out near the start of this thread, we had begun cancelling well before the war broke out or before we knew it was going to break out.

Also, TOP is a democracy with many, many, former government members in its general membership. We have vigorous debates on small things, like changing the name of what we call our normal members to "Grand Assembly" from "General Assembly". You can't expect as quick of a reaction simply because the way our government is made up.

Frankly, that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

[Bob Janova]

I certainly can't absolutely know to what extent TOP was involved in those negotiations, but I thought we only talked to Gre about it and that they agreed with us that IRON should have lighter reparations. Again, I may be wrong, but this is how it was portrayed to me. Perhaps someone more familiar (particularly someone in Gre) with how things happened could enlighten me.

We agreed that IRON should have light terms, but we did feel under (slightly) more pressure to push that on the other people on our front because of TOP's position. I think TOP takes an unfair amount of blame for that though. We'd have been only very slightly less strident in making that point without you. (And IRON did bring a lot of it upon themselves by fighting on beyond the point where they were offered a way out.)

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Of course we were for IRON getting lighter terms from our "friends" who chose to attack them.

What other expectation could you have possibly expected from us?

But then why are you so surprised that we're angry at you? Why would you expect us to take your actions with a grin?

[Heracles the Great]

If you weren't in the loop, then that shows how valuable your treaties were with those involved and that either the alliances drastically changed in the days leading up to the war, or you failed to see that the treaties were a poor choice well beforehand.

You may not have been scattered politically a month before but you certainly didn't do anything about that "scattering" when it did occur until it was too late.

So what you're saying is that if you have friends who don't like each other, then you have to pick one and can't try and resolve their differences and bring them back together?

[Dr. Dan]

But then why are you so surprised that we're angry at you? Why would you expect us to take your actions with a grin?

What actions?  There were only words.  I find your reaction to be completely unreasonable.

[Fronz]

What actions?  There were only words.  I find your reaction to be completely unreasonable.

you know what else is only words, the OP. I too find the reaction completely unreasonable.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Fronz

[Azaghul]

In fact, this option would have been impossible. I'm not sure how TOP "scattered itself politically", most of TOP's allies fell in the same general sphere of influence when they were signed. This war happened just after Citadel had drifted away from Continuum (splitting one SOI into two) and TOP was in the process of leaving Q. Something that has already been brought up in this thread.

Also, everyone says TOP should have seen it coming. However, TOP was negotiating a settlement between NPO and OV/VE when NPO attacked. TOP wasn't exactly "in the loop" on either side.

I think the worst thing TOP can be blamed for is naively believing that they could prevent war from breaking out through negotiation. Then when that failed, they stuck with those friends who weren't the ones to make those efforts at peace fail.

MK would have been stuck in the exact same situation if TORN hadn't withdrawn from the war. I think that's something my fellow MK members fail to realize and account for. Granted our situation was easier, we only had one MDP partner on the other side while the rest of our high-level treaty partners were on the other.

There was simply nothing TOP could do, once the divides had taken place creating separate camps among their allies, which were likely to eventually go to war. They were bound to have to not fight for one of them. They could either cancel their treaties early on once those divides appeared, in which case they'd be blamed for being survivalist now, or later as they did. This leaves the question of why they chose the camp that they did. Some try to pin the fact that karma was obviously going to win (after the first day or two) as the reason. There's also the reasoning of who their closest ties were with (NPO/IRON/OG or Gremlins/Umbrella/FoK ?) and who started the war. NPO's actions, where they started the war without notification after not treating TOP like an ally, make an obvious case for picking the side who had been better allies to them, those in Karma, regardless of who happened to be the larger side.

There's literally nothing they could have done where they couldn't have been accused of being survivalists, aside from the absurd proposition of "fighting" for both sides. In the end they chose the best course of option, trying to maintain peace and if that failed picking the side that wasn't the aggressor and was the better friend.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Azaghul

[Heracles the Great]

Wise words Azaghul - I'm glad to see there is still reason and understanding in this world

[Kowalski]

So what you're saying is that if you have friends who don't like each other, then you have to pick one and can't try and resolve their differences and bring them back together?

I think what's being said is that if you're loyal enough to be planning your allies' downfall well in advance to be able to cancel early then you're honourable and decent, if you're disloyal to your allies and stick with them to within five days of war trying to sort things out before absolutely having to choose then you're cowardly and survivalist.

[Heracles the Great]

I think what's being said is that if you're loyal enough to be planning your allies' downfall well in advance to be able to cancel early then you're honourable and decent, if you're disloyal to your allies and stick with them to within five days of war trying to sort things out before absolutely having to choose then you're cowardly and survivalist.

I believe you have hit the nail on the head dear sir.

[Poobah]

Funny how that works. IRON got attacked for attacking Rok...simple as that. they had their chance to continue to be part of the CoC

The war changed after you guys entered? Well other than slowing the GRL down due to not using nukes.

Ask Purple. The war did change once TOP entered.

And exactly, we were attacked for honoring a treaty, and I guess this is more towards Jefferson, but that's all we did this past war, so getting off "scott free" I don't think would have been a big deal (Not that we had these extremely crippling terms, by any means.)

But WickedJ, I believe you were taking his quote out of context. I think that he said "friends" because of some of the terms that could have been thrown in and were attempted to be thrown in, not that alliances are horrible for attacking us due to their treaty obligations.

[astronaut jones]

Maybe I'm projecting, but I think some of the anger towards TOP as presented in this thread is more about how the war played out after TOP had entered and not before.

you, sir, are a smart one. And 99% of the anger towards TOP that stems from the karma war, is due to their abhorent behaviour to their supposed "allies" during the conflict, towards the end of the conflict, and their subsequent throwing of alliances under the bus (atleast attempting to, since it failed and it just made TOP look even worse in the eyes of many.)

TOP simply needs to stop trying to hide their true colours, it really is, and I say this with 100% honesty, it really is okay to behave in the manner in which you've behaved, but it's in your attempts to cover up and smear others in the process that pisses people off. Just be honest, be yourself, and of course I look forward to the countless TOP members who will no doubt try to spin this.

[Heracles the Great]

you, sir, are a smart one. And 99% of the anger towards TOP that stems from the karma war, is due to their abhorent behaviour to their supposed "allies" during the conflict, towards the end of the conflict, and their subsequent throwing of alliances under the bus (atleast attempting to, since it failed and it just made TOP look even worse in the eyes of many.)

TOP simply needs to stop trying to hide their true colours, it really is, and I say this with 100% honesty, it really is okay to behave in the manner in which you've behaved, but it's in your attempts to cover up and smear others in the process that pisses people off. Just be honest, be yourself, and of course I look forward to the countless TOP members who will no doubt try to spin this.

Their allies? Which allies did they behave abhorently towards?

And I'm sorry but which allies did they throw under the bus? Are we referring to the fact they stuck to their values when Echelon's surrender terms were being manufactured?

Refresh my memory here

[astronaut jones]

Their allies? Which allies did they behave abhorently towards?

And I'm sorry but which allies did they throw under the bus? Are we referring to the fact they stuck to their values when Echelon's surrender terms were being manufactured?

Refresh my memory here

They attempted to throw RoK and GOD under the bus with what amounted to nothing more than a smear topic to garner some PR for themselves, which thankfully backfired, and people quickly saw through the attempt.

They also acted pretty abhorently to everyone involved in, well, any peace talk they were a part of, with very minor exceptions to their "long standing" allies, but really I think it was just to alliances that could have given them a run for their money in case anyone called them out on their !@#$. That last bit is merely my opinion, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did indeed play into how they decided to throw their weight around.

[Dr. Dan]

you know what else is only words, the OP. I too find the reaction completely unreasonable.

You misunderstand my intent, probably because you're not involved.  What I meant is that there were no actions taken and that he's likely misinformed as to what actually happened.

[Heracles the Great]

They attempted to throw RoK and GOD under the bus with what amounted to nothing more than a smear topic to garner some PR for themselves, which thankfully backfired, and people quickly saw through the attempt.

They also acted pretty abhorently to everyone involved in, well, any peace talk they were a part of, with very minor exceptions to their "long standing" allies, but really I think it was just to alliances that could have given them a run for their money in case anyone called them out on their !@#$. That last bit is merely my opinion, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did indeed play into how they decided to throw their weight around.

I'm looking at my allies Treaty list and don't see RoK or GOD on there... nor do I recall them ever having signed a treaty with either of those alliances so I don't think you can call them allies. The attempt to throw RoK and GOD under the bus was nothing more than an explanation of why they were doing something so unusual. Had an explanation not been offered, everyone would have cried out and demanded to know why, or speculated as to such.

And I'm curious if you actually know the definition of an ally based on your comments thus far.