iamthey

That is precisely what is being discussed. 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'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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. I think I said the same thing to nongrata last war. lol

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 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.

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.

Seems kind of ridiculous that a player can hold an implicit eternal protectorate over an entire continent with barely any maintenance to speak of. Isn't this one of the very grievances that CNRP2 was created to address?

We'll send someone at once, we apologize for the delay- there has been much in the way of organizational inefficiency since the process of reform began.

Looking through the posts since my original nation expired- lynneth never took action to reassert his protectorate. As far as I was concerned (and I think as far as anyone sensible here is concerned) the land I rerolled into was whitespace and not covered by any IC stipulation requiring permission. If that isn't sufficient one could further note that he did not actually deny me rolling into the land either- he instead invited me to an IC conference to discuss diplomatic arrangements. During the time since then my nation has been a valid existing entity within the game- only pending an IC recognition which has nothing to do with my ooc status in the game itself. It's purely a matter of our fictional bilateral standing relative to one another. That being said, I declared the nation less than three weeks ago so it has not yet again expired. That I haven't posted since is immaterial in the eyes of the rules, and that not withstanding, I fully intended to respond to lynneth's invitation- I have only lacked the time given RL conflicts and other priorities in cn proper. Regardless, if lynneth wants to block people from playing the game, particularly someone he welcomed into the game the first time around then I can't help but be confounded (Particularly given that I've done nothing hostile towards him). I realized my nation had gotten wiped, and I wanted to come back and finished what I started, it's as simple as that.

Vote of no confidence.

That flag... oman.

We should just plaster hartfw's comics everywhere.

Congrats atlas.

After a brief interlude of chaos, New England re-emerged on the east coast of the united states reconstituting its unheld (by the USNA) previous holdings. A resurgent senate under the leadership of Michael Rockafeller announced this reform, and promised a speedy return to services. ooc: this is cnrp2

Rational argument requires common objective standards, and our standards of discourse collapsed quite some time ago. If the world was rigidly legalist, we could make complicated elawyer arguments over the finer points of treaties. If there was a commonly held morality we could argue about that in rational terms. We have neither. The closest thing we have is debate over the effectiveness of a given strategy, or if this or that will drive people out, but even then there's something lacking in that.

Passenger pigeons.

Once Unknownsmurf admits to wrongdoing the posters you quote will be satisfied. Using PM in the upper tier under these circumstances makes a lot of sense. Given the stream of ghosts that have entered to support kaskus, Mi6 can't be certain what additional resources kaskus has at its disposal. Keeping a reserve on hand to perform staggers, and forcing kaskus to focus its efforts on nations already engaged reduces their vulnerability to the early war underdog effect (kaskus has more targets to spread nuclear strikes over while mi6 has fewer). Once kaskus expends their nukes and the ghosts stop we'll probably see nations move out of Pm. Really it's just sad to see the same silly argument again and again. People who do so are either completely insincere, or far too dense to be taken seriously.

Everyone accepts screenshots kim knows this.

But why are my collections down?!?!

Aloha snackbar.

In fairness to smurf declaring at ten wasn't an error in it of itself, nuking requires 25 hours of prior war to unlock. This way the mi6ers declared on will only have an hour to retaliate at 11 tomorrow evening. There are many reasons to detract from this effort, but that isn't one of them.

Congrats. Nice to see janax return.