Rush Sykes
-
Posts
3,329 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Rush Sykes
-
-
One man in a multiperson gov't. You act as if what he believes holds bearing for the whole of TLR. That would be like saying my opinion, as a lowly officer in Inquisition (or even if I were say the head of Inquisition [our war department]) would hold a high level of bearing for NSO as a whole.
It doesn't and your attempts to insinuate it does in Rush's case merely shows your grasping at straws.
The funny thing is, I have no say and really had no idea my sig was on this, since I was not part of the process in any fashion.
-
OP says otherwise. Just saying.
How exactly does my sig being on this contradict what James said? TLR raised no concerns during the peace talks or whatever it is they were. My sig being on this document does not change that one iota. What a silly silly post.
-
Your alliance has six active wars, and a negative damage ratio against us. If this grudge is so profound, why is there a distinct lack of urgency? At this point, you're better off simply joining NPO.
Your grudge is misplaced, though.
The grudge is mine. Also, lets be honest... 95% of that damage ratio is taking place between 0 and 30K... which makes it almost negligible.
-
You are aware of the history of who was really pushing for those terms, correct?
Your grudge may be a little misplaced.
You are perpetuating a cycle, then, and becoming what you despise. There is quite a bit of hypocrisy in this statement.
Of course I am. I even promised that I would in the thread announcing NPOs terms. I am okay with all of this.
-
Way to go back in time Bob and throw that announcement just to win the point! YOU sire are quite clever indeed.
-
No one is saying you can't have your own views of GOONS position, but at the same time people were attributing negative feelings over it to their allies.
Perhaps, but I think it is more that they are trying to sow the discontent with their allies. That is also another political tool (albeit not a very effective one.)
-
Pot meet kettle
If you care to point out something specific, do so.
-
It would have been problematic as it would have made things more complicated.The allies hitting allies is just what will happen in coalition warfare. Making it seem like it's only Umbrella and VE doing it and that it reflects poorly on GOONS for holding to their predetermined stance and not having an emotional reaction to it would be ignoring a lot of the other examples.
The core of the issue surrounding in this topic(ironically about misguided peace mode) is the implication that GOONS' allies were upset with GOONS significantly over their stance and them not returning calls. Granted, those things were being lobbed at GOONS as an alliance when one member was giving his own opinions and people were firing back at his alliance affiliation which is a natural reaction, but it isn't the actual case. People are welcome to their personal views of GOONS' conduct in this war, but it's rather important pointing out that there isn't any hiding going on.
See, that is just not right. There are a couple of issues here. You see GOONS has a history. That history very notably includes mass trolling of alliances like R&R and RIA and STA (there are others, but these prominently come to mind), for allowing themelves, in past wars to be put in a position where their FA was so divergent that they could do nothing but look bad. This is not a unique problem to GOONS, many other alliances joined in on that nonsense, despite some level-headed folks telling them that some day you will be judged accordingly because you will be in the same position. Here we are. Now we have some allies of GOONS, who also joined in on the trolling of other AAs for fragmented FA, now diving head first into the ocean of hypocrisy acting like it is absurd for people to hold GOONS to the same standard that they always held the likes of RIA, STA and R&R to. Nobody is saying "this judgement should never be occurring." They are saying "This should not happen to GOONS. The truth is, GOONS is not a special snowflake. Marx, for instance, roundly and openly trolled TLR (while still allied to us , no less) about not diverging from the NPO path and letting it put us on the losing side of a war. Well, this war shaped up exactly as it is, long ago. Let us not kid ourselves and act like the NPO-Umb treaty suddenly made this war possible, because all of us knew that NPO-Umb was brewing for months beforehand. We all knew it was happening, we all knew what it would mean. There was time aplenty for GOONS to do exactly what one of their gov members at the time trolls US for not doing. Like it or not, a prime institution on this planet is the weighing of FA decisions such as those to sit out a war in how they plot their post-war course.
If GOONS allies are A-Okay with all of this, great for them. But for those who are not GOONS allies, this is just part of the process and a component of due-diligence when either they or one of their allies maybe gets approached in a courting manner by GOONS post-war. You have to make your determination of what a treaty with them is worth. So let the process happen, dont act like GOONS have not participated in these very same processes with other alliances in the past.
-
But that was the point. GOONS has kept us informed and we understand their position very well. I don't know anyone in TOP who holds it against them. And quite frankly I'm appalled that this stance can be held against them, but then again it is CN.
But that was the point. GOONS has kept us informed and we understand their position very well. I don't know anyone in TOP who holds it against them. And quite frankly I'm appalled that this stance can be held against them, but then again it is CN.
Appalled? Are you kidding me? The whole world is watching. One possible explained stance for GOONS sitting out is that entering on the losing side would "strain relationships with long time partners (VE and Umb)... but the world is really not full of idiots. If the relationship with those alliances is strained, it SHOULD be strained by the fact that both of their "partners" are hitting GOONS allies. People CARE about this stance because it will determine , on an individual alliance basis, who will and will not give GOONS the time of day in the lead-up to the next war. Therefore the point of discussing it is to lay the foundation for pro and/or anti GOONS propaganda as the new political landscape takes shape. It has ALWAYS been this way. It really still is mind boggling that so many people act like things that have become an institution are "silly chatter" when used against them, but embrace the very same institution when it works in their favor.
-
Yeah I think GOONS' allies are better suited to talk about their moves and as you can see yourself we don't share your position on their actions.
See, this is where you and 99% of the rest of Planet Bob are wrong. GOONS allies are better suited for one thing and one thing only... and that is to determine if they are okay with GOONS stance. The notion that you are better suited to "talk about their moves" is absurd. Because post-war as the political topography changes, proximity to alliances who sat out the war absolutely WILL be weighed and considered by damn near anyone with a pulse as new ties are pursued.
In many ways, others talking about GOONS moves, pro or con, are simply getting ahead of the curve on spinning the discussion in favor of whatever post-war direction they envision themselves embarking on.
-
And don't forget the whole trying to negotiate limited engagement terms for it's upper tier as a condition of coming out of PM...thats pretty important too imho.
It almost is a page right out of Valhalla's book.
-
What an ignorant chump.
No, it's not a matter of harshness. As I've noted in the past (in the comments), CoJ's terms proposition was the harshest, it called for 90 days aid restrictions. Brehon opened with 150 (5 months)--how, then, could anyone have criticized him for being too lax?
When it was settled in EQ that no terms would be agreeable to all of us, we told him don't negotiate an extended war, just keep fighting, and when we're ready for peace we'll give white peace. Instead he negotiated a formalized extended war. You don't know what you're talking about.
You are literally ignorant, I don't care what sweet nothings Brehon was whispering in your ear while the coalition he organized to wreck you and your allies was wrecking you and your allies. He also told all of you there would be a "handshake peace"--how'd that work out? You think anyone in EQ likes me? Hah! Even NSO's guy is out here saying you're wrong.
You're ignorant.
Honestly, the handshake peace worked out quite well, because in the end, that is what happened.
-
I'd argue that while all three applied, they did not apply to the same alliances. There were those unready, those who said they couldn't be enforced, and those who didn't care and wanted more. Some overlap with the middle and the first, of course.
You know what that tells me? That tells me that no matter what Brehon did, he would piss off a great many people.
-
I completely agree and I think it is very gracious of you to say so.
The terms Brehon negotiated were: 1-Negotiated before anyone wanted to start negotiating (we just wanted to keep fighting) 2-Not even the terms that we told him we wanted (those who wanted any) when we had to give him terms wishlists since he decided to negotiate even though we told him not to. When you guys all went catatonic over the offer of 5 mos no aid (which was Brehon's invention), we all kept fighting a while. 3-Internally, the terms debate got nasty, Brehon lost his blob and said he would no longer negotiate anything. 4-The next day, Brehon negotiated an extended war even though no one wanted an formalized extended war 5-We told Brehon to kick rocks we weren't agreeing to his stupid crap anymore and to just end the war altogether.
By the way, while you're out here shooting your mouth off about how we backed off the extended war because we have vaginas, I'd like to point out to you that the biggest opponents of any terms whatsoever are in your coalition, not ours, because they were the AAs with the upper tier that was going to be stuck fighting Umbrella. I'm personally amused by your goofy mouth, I don't know about them.
Funny enough, this same attitude was the biggest obstacle to terms in EQ: AAs simply refused to fight a war in support of terms they didn't really care about. Good for you.
There's only one moralist in Polaris, it's Dajobo, and he's dyed in the wool. It's disgusting. :gag:
And in comes a 3rd narrative. Nobody was ready for terms... but nobody could enforce terms... but the terms were not harsh enough. What fun.
-
Watching Marx try to spar with Branimir in a duel of wits is the only thing that made this thread worth reading.
Rush, it delegitimizes you when you're deliberately insulting to Schatt. You're both intelligent fellows, albeit on opposite sides of an argument. Why not practice some courtesy?Courtesy you say?
Schatts 1st words to me in this thread:
While we're being ridiculous, I think TLR should be punished for allowing those terms to be given to their ally. I mean Brehon/Letum/NPO didn't allow EQ to give out any terms, then TLR turns around and lets NPO get terms the very next war. TLR should be ashamed. Whoever is sharing a front with TLR should put terms on TLR regardless of which coalition TLR is in.
In all seriousness, the idea that defending alliances in the defensive coalition of a war started with no CB should be given any terms is an idiotic idea worthy of only the most liberally idiotic such as Rush.
Courtesy you say?
-
Quite frankly, giving terms to Aftermath would achieve nothing that hasn't been achieved on the battlefield already.
I don't desire to piss on their war effort, but most Aftermath members have taken a thorough beating during this war without landing back many blows (apart for a few noticeable exceptions of course).
If you want a more pragmatic approach, the political cost for giving Aftermath terms would be much higher than the value of a few toptier nations (and before people spin my words, no: I don't support terms for anyone in this war, nor does R&R).The hilarious thing is that you all think I am promoting terms to aftermath. I am simply promoting what SHOULD have been promoted.. come out of Peace Mode, then we will talk closing down the front. It is literally something that they could not possibly object to after imposing terms for peace mode use (of , and I cannot stress this enough) literally 17 nations out of 393 in the last war. And let us not kid ourselves... not one person cared about the other 20-30 in the 20-60K range that were in PM, anyone who claims to care is a liar at worst and disingenuous at best.
Come out of Peace Mode, then we talk. Nothing more.
-
As a person who was involved at a government level in an ally of NPO at the time, I can state that this is almost a completely flawed analysis of the events which transpired
NPO wanted to impose terms and went through with it without really consulting anyone else, when brehon was informed that most of us simply didn't have much upper tier nations left to throw at the opposing coalition and actually be able enforce the terms that he wanted, he quickly dropped the terms again with little or no consultation. It really was a case of now you see me, now you don't. The failure was almost completely NPO's and they paid the price for it during disorder.
Like what some have mentioned recently, it's all cyclical.
Its cute that you act like I was not an ally of his at the time and did not talk to him EVERY single day about terms. Its cute that you think you need to educate me. I have logs from Sparta gov... AI gov(who all are strangely enough in Valhalla) lambasting Brehon because the terms were not harsh enough. Hence my incredulous disconnect with understanding how one group was like "Oh no Brehon is imposing terms!" and an entirely different group is mad because "Brehon is letting them off far too easy just to appease C&G".. both narratives played, and they both cannot be true... and only a fool is unable to wade through what really happened.
-
Best logic ever.
"I am totally for imposing terms, but I don't like those imposing terms for imposing terms"
Perhaps you do not understand that you reap what you sow. Seems to be a common problem in Polaris. Which is hilarious for an alliance sporting so damn many pseudo-moralists.
-
Punishing Aftermath via peace terms after a sound victory achieved in war would be misguided considering all.
One man's misguided is another man's prudence. You do not have the omnipotence to unilaterally say it would be "misguided" just as I do not have the omnipotence to unilaterally say THIS peace was a mistake. What we both have is our divergent opinions. I have offered up reasons for my opinion.
-
Our alliance with TOP is working out well, and everyone who needs to understands our position. I'm sure there are individuals within our allies' memberships and governments that lament the fact that we have so far remained neutral in the conflict just as you do, but when you have good friends and partners on both sides of a conflict it doesn't leave us with any good choices to make. Instead of choosing one side or the other, it is best to not work against either of our groups of friends by remaining on the sidelines. I've been retired and out of the decision making process in GOONS for roughly a year now, but if I had to guess I would say Sardonic, Ken and Milton chose the best option out of several really terrible ones available. Our long-term planning hinged on a few constants, so when a convenient political shift occurred (or inconvenient depending on who you ask) it left us in a difficult position.
Have you thanked Letum for making it easier for C&G to be on the winning side of the war? And for allowing your bloc to perpetuate the tired grudge you have against XX and Polaris in particular? I'm glad it seems I hit the nail on the head hard enough to have you out here trying to, what? I'm not sure what your purpose is anymore beyond being NPO's unwanted talking head.Congratulations Valhalla! You earned it.
Also hint: I needed only the terms on NPO to perpetuate my grudge with Polar. I have no grudge whatsoever with the rest of XX.
The "friends on both sides" argument is really cute. 2 must be the magic number to sit out.
-
Aftermath is not New Pacific Order's enemy, our engagement in this war is a matter of circumstance.
Aftermath being your enemy is not relevant to me.
-
Isn't the war itself revenge?
Not when you sit in PM in the numbers that AFM (save Invicta, and kudos to them) did.
-
That's disappointing. I was sure that someone so closely allied to Pacifia would have some insight into their political direction.
But why don't we speculate? A good argument can be made that the "terms" at the end of the Disorder War set Pacifia down a path of vengeance. This is very easy to see if you look at their post-war diplomatic moves and treaties. Or better yet, why not ask the folks in Polar or TOP if they regretted pushing those terms through?
This is what I said? I'm pretty sure this is what I said.
You're pointing to a situation where terms were unenforcable and saying "See, see! I told you so!" That is not a remotely comparable situation. That in fact, is a situation where "strong leadership" tried to force "terms" through while ignorant of the status of their coalition, and it backfiring terribly on their faces.
...which sort of backs up my argument... no?
You have been in many coalitions, but you seem to have taken the wrong lessons from them.
Regardless, different members of a coalition will have different incentives. It is those on the periphery of the conflict, with the least involvement and the least at stake, than can afford to talk the loudest about punishment and vengeance.
Clearly I have taken the wrong lessons from my coalitions, and the current leadership have take all the correct lessons. I am glad you exist to set me straight. In fact, I have no idea how any of the old power bases stayed on top for so long with leaders who took all the wrong lessons. NPO on top 3 years by being pretty douchebaggy. MK on top for 3 years by being plenty douchebaggy... oh, you mean since then nobody has been on top for more than 1 war? Yes, wrong lessons from past wars because the current leaderships have all proven that they are really good at forward thinking.
-
Why would anyone formulate terms on the basis of an issue that has nothing to do with the war at hand?
Revenge. Did I not make that clear? Maybe you no speak basic? Me wanna wanga?
Also, what did the terms on NPO last war have to do with NSO and NG logs revealing that dastardly plan to roll NpO ? I will wait for an answer.
I can't think of a topic title to post so here it is!
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
That pretty much sums it up. I have been trying to tell everyone its an almost 100% ceremonial position for the entire 4 months I have had the title. If that concept is so foreign to everyone, the fault lies with those who dont get it, not with me.