dejarue

Why do you @&$%#%#$%^!#s keep only quoting one sentence out of six? Because if you had quoted the rest of my post, your post would look idiotic. The analysis of the evidence that any reasonable and unbiased person would see was in what you cropped out.

I will absolutely be found defending my allies when I am absolutely convinced they are in the right. If I doubt they are in the right, I will be conspicuously absent.

That is clearly exactly what I was saying. Don't bother addressing the facts and reasoning I have presented. Keep doing your thing. Some people will fall for it, I assure you.

Because there is a correct answer as to who is right, and it can be logically ascertained by the given info. [ooc]Your username is President Obama and you're asking why people are arguing about something you say they won't agree with each other on?[/ooc]

Then you are completely ignoring reason. Why the farce of a reaction? Do you believe Hoo was circulating around the version that he's claiming to have doctored? Because that's the only reasonable explanation for Warbuck not recognizing the logs when confronted about them. Unless you think the logs in the original post ABOUT the doctored logs are doctored themselves. But no one has disputed the logs of Hoo confronting Warbuck.

But it's not. Hoo didn't circulate the logs, Warbuck did. Why would Warbuck not remember it and have to look it up if he had been the one thinking it was significant enough to relay on to others? His reaction was a farce. Then you should start incorporating reason into your logical decision-making processes. In other words: start being reasonable.

Not only that, but he had to have passed the logs around, so the whole "I'm checking my logs" thing is an obvious farce. There's only one place that a log of "person A with person B" could've come from when person A is complaining about a leak. If he had passed it around and copied and pasted, he would be able to say "yeah, I remember that, and yeah it was there". Not "oh... hmmm... let me go find that... what day did you say that was? Oh well... I mean it looks like it's still there, but I don't remember... maybe I got hacked". That's a terrible, terrible lie. Yeah, I'm sure someone's gonna think I'm just an SF flunky, but my reaction to this from the outset was "eek, I hope Hoo's being honest here", but really, look at the sides and how they behave. Only one of them adds up. The only alternate conclusion is that Hoo circulated the "incriminating" version in an attempt to head off warbuck circulating them, in which case warbuck would indeed be caught off guard and have to look them up. I find this version of events implausible.

Your allies are on multiple sides. Look, guys, I understand what you're trying to do here, I really do. And this whole announcement sounds great, and it sounds staunch and principled, but completely unpractical. You get the pleasure of everyone saying "noble stance!" and "that's how you stand by your allies", but in reality, to your allies this is completely unhelpful, and they're left wondering what they have to do to actually win your treaty-level support when the blows start flying, and further, wondering if you're going to be a liability by fighting with them while simultaneously undermining their efforts and helping the opposing side. I realize that you guys are in a difficult position; I'm just trying to call this a little more like it is. If one of my allies made a public decision like this, I would be totally sketched out.

You are so predictable.

You are very easy to impress.

Are you kidding? You have treaties pointing in every possible direction.

And the peace mode is because you guys like peace. I was responding to the statement that TPF can only call in a max of 7 alliances to its defense by pointing to the obvious indicators that TOP will be joining the war effort, illustrating that TPF's treaty reach doesn't end at the original treaty ties. Edit: On looking over your stats, the number of nations with seniority < 3 days does account for the NS spike, so your point is taken there.

Right. They haven't announced anything. TOP is interested in peace and diplomacy. I got it. Back in reality, TOP's NS spikes after the declarations against TPF and 40% of the alliance hits peace mode.

That's not even remotely accurate. Otherwise TOP wouldn't be mobilizing.

Quoting and agreeing with a post that is in the process of being outright refuted makes me smile. Edit: or at least aspects of it

Right, but I think there's a distinction between having a superior force and bringing in 10 to 1 odds. And note for the record, the only reason \m/ and GOD were called in was because they had to move the declaration date up a day and didn't have the planned number of people online to cover TPF. I'm not saying it was even originally going to be even numbers, but was merely distinguishing between the curbstomps NPO and "the hegemony" was accused of and the current war against TPF.

I wasn't aiming to make this personal. But with all of GATO's allies combined, it would still be 10 on 1. A clear curbstomp. With just TPF against the declaring alliances it may be 5 on 1, but I never looked at that as a curbstomp. It's not a curbstomp when you know your enemy can call in an enormous amount of firepower to defend itself. And you need not look much further than the treaty web to witness the thousands of nations that can come to TPF's defense.

Perhaps. My interpretation has always been that NPO and Co. would get together friends and roll people with flimsy CBs that they knew couldn't defend themselves. Two part. You can question the CB here, though I personally think it stands up, and I think a lot of uninvolved people agree, but there's no question that this isn't just a curbstomp. TPF has the allies to make this a costly war, and RoK, GOD, and Athens knew it.

I'm not following. I was illustrating how the war against TPF differed from the war against NADC. NADC and GPA did not have allies that the aggressors knew could be called in to defend. The aggressors (RoK, GOD, Athens) in this conflict against TPF knew full well that TPF could call in tens of millions of NS to their defense. This is not a curbstomp, nor can it be compared to the conflicts people complained about under NPO.

Understandable how you came to the conclusion you did.

On one hand sure, but if the only reason you're rolling an alliance is because you can and you know they can't fight back (a la GPA), well... I can see why people would complain about it. That would be interesting. I'd like to speak to who made such a claim and ask about it.

Did you like, only read every third word or something?

Where are these curbstomps you speak of? TPF? TPF is allied to tens of millions of NS. The declaring alliances declared this war fully expecting that they were going to get hit back by a formidable force. No, a curbstomp is getting together your buddies numbering in the thousands and attacking a neutral, completely peaceful alliance like GPA knowing they can't call in their friends to hit you back. Or manufacturing a war against NADC and when you get called out on your CBs, clam up and claim you're just not going to tell anyone the real reasons, but "trust me, they exist". I think the point is that if the enemies knew what they were doing and were even halfway on the ball, they would already be in the war defending their allies. Saying "so you're expecting your enemies to be prepared? There is a secret not-prepared tactic being deploying" doesn't exactly win you any points.

TOP needs a mention in here. 40% of them are in peace mode. I know that pales in comparison to IRON having 60% in peace mode, but it's an honorable mention.

Then they're not allies.