iamthey
-
Posts
3,604 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by iamthey
-
-
I'd like to see what you come up with. One for myself, and TOP if you will.
-
You should have just hit DT if that's who you really wanted, coward!
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. -
and Iamthey's strong hands.
Fingers of a pianist. -
All this crypto-tywinism is making me uncomfortable.
To a good fight with IRON. o/ -
You guys work fast.
-
We know you're still there, but are you actually gonna do anything?
Still think there might be a problem with the piat. -
At least my allies are willing to defend me, how is that TOP treaty working for you?
Wouldn't want to dishonor your PIAT- srry. -
Gl/hf polar.
-
lol, that's quite transparent and desperate, even by your own standards, but it's good to know what you hope vis a vis IRON & NPO relationship. Oh and you can always refer to page 2 for pixel preservation stats. Our allies are doing a great job burning your ally to the ground. UPN needs you alot more than our friends need us atm :-) but hey, unlike you, our friends actually know exactly where we stand.
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. -
Yeah, c'mon Dcrews, there's nothing like the ol' "Let them totally destroy half the coalition before getting involved" strategy. It's a classic.
Nah it's the "Let's let them destroy our allies and burn their warchests and then we'll enter at the end and roll through them" strategy.
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? -
Wait, so you won't be entering the war on your terms but on the terms of your allies?
I think a more accurate discription of what they are doing is getting the crap beaten out of them while their friends watch on the sidelines.
Must be some serious brainwashing scheme you guys have going on. Only a master hypnotist can convince so many alliances to butcher themselves for your sake.
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. -
As requested:
The second war of argent relevancy. -
For Joracy!
ODN gains +200 relations with TOP. -
An interesting idea I guess we'll see if it pays off.
-
Until zero warchest!
-
Now on topic, this thread is about how awesome IRON is.
That is precisely what is being discussed.
Why dont you look at what actually happened(hint:IRON did not attack TOP) Instead of whining about what ifs.
I get it, if IRON hit you last war you would be mad, but they didn't so suck it up.
Given that they potentially broke ranks to help you I can understand why you're defending them. Regardless that they didn't hit us has less to do with the character of the alliance and more to do with the fact that by the time they were prepared to pull the trigger we had already organized to counter them. Whether you think it was justified is immaterial to the fact that it was enormously stupid and indicative of how inconsistent and neurotic IRON can be. -
You were always an idiot and continue to be an idiot, even more so when you lie to yourself. The fact is that no switching was planed, period.
One would have expected that you'd at the very least have the decency not to be an idiot and repeat stupidity in public.
Not a tale Centuries, you are at liberty to disregard what I said. But it is not a tale.
You're a good guy theo, but you're missing the point here. If you want to have a semantics debate over the finer definition of 'side switch' and 'betray' feel free to continue, nobody really cares what words you or anyone else chooses to describe what it is you/iron council planned to do. IRON planned to attack TOP because TOP (along with others) escalated the planb front by attacking NATO. You construed the attack on NATO as an attack on TIO, through an unorthodox series of linguistic and mental gymnastics by which the ordinary planb defensive clause was read to mean something or justify more than it did.
Simply put you planned to attack a member of the coalition you helped to architect. I and many other people call that turning on your coalition, if you want to call it something else cool deal. -
It was IRON that was wronged and instead of backing it's oldest treaty partner, IRON was asked to bend over. It was IRON that ensured that there would be no escalation to CnG and IRON would still take care of it's own business and maintain and continue to contribute to the coalition in a war where TOP sat around, hid half the alliance in pm and chilled. The route you're saying would lead to a war with CnG actually led to a treaty with CnG.
That may be convincing to others, it was certainly convincing to top but it simply isn't true. Having been in argent at the time and directly courted by your alliance to participate in the CnG war I can tell you nobody I talked to from IRON actually gave two !@#$% about INT masquerading as MCRABT and acting like an idiot. The entire discussion was utterly concerned with targeting MK and turning the war that they and you're ally TOP were invested in into a losing one where their threat could be safely neutralized.
It was TOP that pushed for an aggresive war against NPO and placed IRON in the position of choosing between NPO and TOP. Everyone knew where the lines were being drawn, and IRON and TOP were likely to be on opposing sides, and perhaps we could have reconvened after the war and move on, like in Karma after you dropped treaties left and right to be on the winning side...but IRON cancelled the treaty when TOP literally told them that IRON is just a tool for their own end, and that it's just TOP's M.O [ Half alliance goes into PM, ride on the success/failure of one mass recruitment alliance], along with the grand delusions of the universe revolving solely around yourself.
After dave MK was in an entirely defensive position, if you actually consult the conversations of TOP/DH people at the time you'll find that they were acutely aware of their deteriorating diplomatic position and impending inevitable war. TOP-IRON/PF largely collapsed over this tension and differing opinions over what side to take. DR helped to foster this atmosphere and chose to break their ties with TOP and capitalize on anti-MK sentiment. This after fairly significantly benefiting from TOP's relationship with MK for years. I'm not saying you were wrong to push for an EQ like war, but I will say you chose a winning move against MK over a very long partnership with an ally. While it goes without saying that the TOP/IRON relationship had already been stressed for sometime, I'd argue that your own work to undermine TOP's diplomatic position, and the general lack of trust promoted by MCRABT's crusade are largely to blame.
Did you expect IRON to carry the war for you when more than half of your allies idled and half of you sat in peace mode? . We closed our front with a simple white peace and werent interested in pushing for anything else..you and some friends wanted to fight on for longer and other purposes, you carried on, your choice, we weren't obliged and certainly not obliged when people calling for action are chilling around idling by and specifically taking actions to make things harder (easing tensions lol?). Being part of that coalition was a big mistake, that I'll give you.
No I expected you to put up an actual effort. To actually you know fight TLR, instead you blew virtually every stagger and forced sengoku to carry the war. You let 90% of TLR hit peacemode. By contrast we heavily fought NSO, TPF, NATO, RnR and TIO. We also had limited participation against NG, GATO, NPO, and Kashmir. We consistently generated net damage output in the top 3 for the coalition, and did total damage in the top five. I didn't expect you to out do yourself, or take considerable risk on our behalf, I just anticipated an attempt. What I saw was a an embarrassment.
Ease of tensions? It was your govt guys caught discussing rolling us and putting a nail in that coffin, it was your govt guy who was caught saying how he cant wait to see us rolled and this was all well after EQ. Fast forward and Post/end disorder, It was you guys who went around tipping your toes on the roll-IRON plan, which didn't take off. So dont tell us about irrational paranoia. Prejudices? Your guy came into this thread trolling us man, we didn't come to your thread for a pissing contest. We've always tried to keep a healthy caution due to some of the facts yet we've also tried to pursue cordial relations, but coming in here with the sole intention of pissing on the thread reaffirms the belief of the kind of opinion TOP holds of IRON. Purposely going in to troll is quite a unique way of 'easing tensions'.
Serious attempts at detente occurred after disorder not before, if you're actually surprised that TOP didn't quite fancy youafter you triple timed them in EQ then welcome to the real world. Even so we didn't seriously make an attempt to coalition build against you and you were instead invited/welcomed into the proto-coalition a month before disorder happened. I tend to think actions speak louder than words, so if you're going to hold us responsible for the sentiments a gov member held against you two years ago then forgive me if I call you petty.
NG and STA and plenty of others have had good reasons to be pissed at us, but that's something that we'll manage amongst ourselves and have in many of the cases. It's quite a spin to portray TOP as an innocent bystander going about it's business and getting harmed by evil IRON on every turn and corner. We have tried to maintain cautious yet cordial relation despite TOP's repeated attempts to harm us at every opportunity it has gotten or to create such opportunities. You've tried your best to make our lives harder and that's absolutely fine bro. At least have the guts to own up.
You have some allies who really do know how to ease tensions and get a meaningful conversation going getting past all the hubris of he-said she-said.
Cautious but cordial isn't quite what I'd call hysterical over whether or not we'll take damage in this war, or the fixation with rolling TOP you, from what I've heard, possess. -
Fully agree with this statement. If only others would actually quit acting like they have some moral high ground. I never said IRON was perfect or never did anything that was/could be seen in a negative light, obviously have, as has every alliance. I just don't have the time/nor interest in going back through history picking out things negative about a certain alliance like some do.
Nothing I've said has anything to do with a claim to moral high ground nor is it cherry picking a few negative instances among a largely positive basket. The events mentioned encompass in large part the sum total of decisive decisions/trends that characterize moments of IRON actually acting and thinking for itself. Far from claiming you're some kind of immoral evil alliance, I'm simply answering samus's as well as other common IRON mischaracterizations of their relationship/interactions with TOP. That you have done or sought to do far more to harm to us than we have ever done to you, and that you're characterization of us as the duplicitous double dealer is a more fitting description of yourself.
Obviously you wouldn't sit here and openly admit to it anyway, which is honestly fine with me, I wouldn't expect you'll to anyway, nor would I expect any alliance to do so. However we've heard quite the opposite from reliable sources that would go completely against your statement, but alas there's no point in arguing this as it will go no where, and I honestly hate when people just go around in circles. And no, I'm not talking about during the war.
I mean you can believe what you want, I'm saying you've either been lied to or are making vague claims to obscure the well documented instances of awful already listed above. I could just as easily say that we heard you were also organizing a coalition (from very reliable sources) against us and that we organized to counter. Neither happened to the best of my knowledge but that's the sort of argument you're making. If someone from our alliance made fun of you in a private query to others, you're free to think that's a conspiracy to roll you, but regardless we played pretty straight up with you after the war. In hindsight that was probably a mistake.
Thats a lot of crying and whining from TOP. Crymson used to do it bettter. :popcorn:
I think I said the same thing to nongrata last war. lol -
The last NAP/Easing of tensions or whatever you'd like to call it, was following TOP's failed attempt to get a group together to roll us following Disorder. Don't come here acting like you guys are some innocent victims and haven't looked to make something of the "tension," or our bad PR.
At least you get what this thread is about by your last statement....now if only you and STA could keep on topic.
I'm aware of no such attempt to marshal a coalition to roll IRON. The only thing I can imagine you're thinking of was the one we threw together at the last minute when it came to light that you were hours away from turning on your own coalition and declaring on us. On the contrary our position after the war was to co-exist with you since our own spheres were strongly intertwined.
-
I still find it funny how all this time TOP have been approaching us for ODP's, trying to setup joint .gov channels, sending diplomats to our forums etc and now they see war is approaching and all their efforts were in vain and ineffective they result to the trolling.
Gotta love em
I mean I'm not sure what your point is here. If you're suggesting that deep down TOP always had a lurking ill will for IRON and their overtures for detente were disingenuous then I'd say you were incorrect.
It was IRON that tried to split and place at a steep disadvantage the DH/TOP coalition in the dave war by inciting a war with CnG. It was IRON that tried to get Brehon/NPO to hit MK in the middle of that war as well. This while you were our oldest ally.
It was IRON that pushed for an aggressive war against DH and placed TOP in the position of choosing between DR and DH then cancelled when TOP wouldn't sell out MK. It was IRON that aggressively proselytized and destabilized their own ally's bloc. It was TOP that lost half their tech in EQ for defending their ally and it was TOP that lost PF and IRON as support.
It was IRON that was invited into the coalition of the last war, partook in planning that war and took a softball front where they allowed 90% of the alliance they were fighting to hit peace mode. It was IRON who planned and almost executed a mid war side switch and a pre-empt on TOP.
After all three instances it was TOP that pursued an easing of tensions, Gov channels, naps, and odps. It was TOP that let the above go- it was IRON that didn't. It was IRON that told us that a nap would 'limit their options'. If there is a problem between our alliances, it is the intractability of IRON and your own apparent hostility and distaste for us. It has little to do with TOP or its history with your alliance because frankly there isn't an offense against you TOP hasn't already paid for in spades. It's IRON and their either irrational paranoia, diplomatic calculations, or simple prejudice that stands in the way of a functional relationship between us.
If you're saying that TOP is to blame for IRON not liking her then you're wrong. If you're saying IRON is not to blame for dislike held for her now- then again you're mistaken. You can hold us up as the scum lord alliance of alliances, but in truth it was your own alliance that led the mass cancellation of NPO in the lead up to karma, you turned a simple cancellation/reposition with NPO into a public Crucifixion, and you were the ones who chose to screw your ally (NonGrata) in the last war. When it comes to spiteful and untrustworthy you should be our standard, and its a testament to the self deceit or self interest of everyone in this game that you have a single treaty to your name.
Anyway this thread isn't about our history, its about your milestone so congratulations you have 2 million tech. -
Certainly a significant milestone, IRON's IA has without a doubt been superlative since Eq. It's amazing what you can do with hundreds of potential tech farms, and if anything I'd say they're a solid case for the strength of a mass member model.
-
Levying heavy fees on nations who don't conform to certain trade setups is very authoritarian and needs to be opposed. Currently with the resources gaining bonuses and the resources losing people extra revenue, the only setups which can benefit are ones meant purely for maximizing collections.
You seem to be mistaking trades/trade setups for the static immutable things they were in the past. In today's world a nation can freely adjust their trades to optimize themselves for a given situation. In the OP you mischaracterize the efforts required to take advantage of the burgers not war proposal: you describe the effort required as something tedious that requires intense micromanagement - this is hardly the case. A nation like mine carries multiple trades that were harmed by the proposal, trades which I only maintain while paying bills and I swap essentially once a month to collect. This requires barely any effort at all and garnered the full benefit of the proposal.
Maybe you're right though, maybe I'm just a large wealthy nation and thus make for an unfair standard. In either case your position is still silly because there remains classic 3br's (FF/construction/beer) directed at growth which also benefited from the proposal as for each of the three resources they took a penalty on they had three others to offset- for them the proposal was a net gain. This includes most of our small growth oriented nations and tech sellers- smaller nations you purport to represent. It seems the only group who failed to benefit from the proposal were those whose circles included no economic buffs and were directed entirely at war capability. The only nations who in fact require such a circle are those at war, and as this is a period of relative peace I can't imagine why that tiny minority should exclude the majority of others from significant boosts to their income. -
Well deserved congrats to sengoku.
Producers vs Parasites: The filthy history of Lulzism
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
Adequately captures my thoughts.