iamthey

I nominate Master Hakai for worst/best host of cn awards 2014.

The glove has been dropped!

That's pretty remarkable.

Adequately captures my thoughts.

I'd like to see what you come up with. One for myself, and TOP if you will.

Mogar simultaneously lambasting iron for not losing wars often enough, while trying to shame dt into hitting us. At one time that was the kind of coordination one could only dream of.

Fingers of a pianist.

All this crypto-tywinism is making me uncomfortable. To a good fight with IRON. o/

You guys work fast.

Still think there might be a problem with the piat.

Wouldn't want to dishonor your PIAT- srry.

Gl/hf polar.

"Treaty chess" and tighter coalition warfare are a byproduct of the limited shared interest of not losing (or losing as badly) by controlling the unfolding of the war and responding to the other side's attempt to exercise such control. As with anything political alliances that participate in coalitions and cooperate with them should evaluate what is asked of them and determine whether or not such requests are reasonable or serve their best interest. As others have said, one has no real obligation to a coalition, its an open political association, but failing to collaborate (and simply "letting the chips fall as they may") might also make your participation mechanical and predictable such that the opposition in turn gains the opportunity to control your involvement. There may be a fine line between following a sound strategy and being a pawn, but refusing to participate in the politics of war doesn't necessarily safeguard you from either.

Almost the entirety of odn's first page is in peacemode what would we even hit? You're a smart guy, and you know how silly the proposition of countering ODN is. I know you're better than this.

I think we've all used and defended against both of those a few times by now. Doomsquad opened without a cb, so I was under the impression we were all going to go without hypocrisy this war?

What is actually accomplished by these silly semantic exercises? It's pretty obvious afm and xx are collaborating together and the current approach and its conditions of escalation are part of a wider plan developed through joint consensus (as with all coalitions that have ever existed ever). If you don't like what you see, you can always preempt accordingly.

The second war of argent relevancy.

ODN gains +200 relations with TOP.

An interesting idea I guess we'll see if it pays off.

Your statement was vague so I'll do my best to respond to it. IRON's diplomatic missteps were their own to make and they are responsible for them. Their incompetence during that war has little to do with the rest of us- nor should it reflect poorly on the rest of the participants. In terms of targeting, IRON volunteered for the CnG front, they refused GATO as a target, and TLR was settled on at their preference. That IRON took flack for this was not part of our calculation, or something we particularly cared about. It was IRON's job to consider such things and IRON apparently didn't. That they didn't follow through in that front and allowed 90% of your alliance to get to peace also reflects poorly on them and further contributed to the flack they got form our side (mainly from the people that were fighting along side them). So here I would affirm your false alternative yes IRON in this instance was either staffed by fools, or was completely duplicitous (to honesty both sides of the war). In either case they were not set up to fail, they chose to fail. In terms of LoSS again this was a matter of helping an alliance affiliated with the coalition to avoid an uncomfortable diplomatic situation. The problem was raised for discussion it floated around and ultimately it was executed without a real go ahead. IRON's characteristic absence on IRC ended up screwing them here as they failed to contribute to the discussion- they failed to make their own particular interests well known and they failed to weigh in. IRON's response was impulsive, it was rightly criticized, but it blew over after they had reaffirmed their affiliation. They were not here set up to fail, they were simply not around, and because of that the state of their unique situation was not part of the conversation. IRON was one alliance among many, each with their own treaties and each with their own interests to balance, that IRON failed to be attentive and make their challenges known is something they themselves are to blame for. You said it yourself several years ago before EQ: IRON as an alliance is systematically incapable of taking responsibility for their mistakes, they are pathologically reactive, and they blame others before examining themselves. You were right then, and I was wrong. Their behavior in that war, and their narrative after are simply one more item in that catalog you started.

You're welcome.

TLR wasn't the alliance IRON was originally supposed to fight. They were supposed to fight GATO but threw a fit over the prospect of fighting GATO's upper tier. TLR was a compromise that IRON chose and insisted upon. LoSS was rushed in because they were concerned they would end up getting pulled in by the otherside. The decision to put them on NG was made spur of the moment by people who had little to do with the macro-management of the coalition itself. IRON's response (threatening to counter LoSS) was handled and resolved through a negotiation where NG mad an ass of itself and IRON ultimately opted to continue to prefer its allies among the coalition and its commitment to the coalition. To broadly respond to your point though, you're giving way too much credit to the architects of that coalition. It was as surprising and baffling to us that IRON fared so badly in the war as it probably was to IRON. You're of course free to reject this, but know that I myself would much prefer to believe it was a huge conspiracy and have little to gain at this point from blowing smoke up anyone's ass. History is just never quite that interesting.

It wasn't so much a set up as it was IRON preferring one set of its allies over the other and making a conscious choice. Valhalla and VE were both invested in the coalition, and IRON had just burned its bridge with NPO. NG was probably then seen as the unfortunate alliance who just didn't quite fit into a largely workable group. IRON was well received and I don't think the negative !@#$ really began until the war itself started and bickering over distribution of forces and coverage began. I don't think IRON really anticipated planb making the choice they did, and I don't think they expected NG to react as vehemently as they proved to. I imagine IRON thought they would slide through the war quietly without an incident as historically they haven't been a great nexus of public attention. That IRON came out of that war in such poor shape is more attributable to key resignations in their government (prior to the war), and just plain mishandling of certain key moments. In short a very bad accident. By the end of the war I think IRON basically felt they had nothing to lose and this fueled a cycle of bad decision making that culminated in the almost side change. That being said, I think the error you make in your assessment of them is to attribute their success to diplomatic handiwork on their part when in fact it has more to do with the strategic thinking of those who ultimately chose to keep their ties to IRON. Non-Grata and GloF both deserve credit for their thoughtful decision to maintain a treaty, and for their foresight in betting long on IRON rather than short. Where IRON is really due credit is in the strength of their macro. IRON's internals are and have always been extremely impressive, this year it was their stats that saved them, and for that they owe most of their current fortune to people like samus.

F is for fabulous.

Until zero warchest!