Jump to content

James Spanier

Members
  • Posts

    793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    Lowsten
  • Alliance Name
    Argent
  • Resource 1
    Coal
  • Resource 2
    Silver
  • CN:TE Nation Name
    Lowsten
  • CN:TE Alliance Name
    The Phoenix Cobras

Recent Profile Visitors

1,854 profile views

James Spanier's Achievements

  1. The Reds must be repelled, glory to the White Army and the Expeditionary Forces!
  2. You're the one that's crying NAP, I've been real this whole conversation: we reacted to your actions. Justify them as much as you want, fact is you were planning a war. And no, actually, the first piece of intel was Thrash DMing me and saying "hey what if RFI fought Oculus?" and when I called him out on how hopelessly obvious his fishing expedition was he had the audacity to ask me who leaked. THAT was when we knew what was up, before any of Hitchcock's nonsense reached our eyes. Mistakes were made that let you and yours control the narrative despite lying through your teeth at every opportunity, but in the end we're still here. So I hope you enjoyed taking that one pound of flesh for the few months you had before NG enjoyed taking all of yours.
  3. And you were just going to leave out that bit of the perspective about us in fact actually responding to your plotting as early as June because you forgot to mention it and weren't just !@#$%^&*ting again I assume? Give me a break mate, you plotted a war, got caught, got fought. Don't bring NAP-this garbage out, like we're supposed to let you just do whatever you want under the guise of a NAP. I personally pushed for that extension to prevent a war mind you, and there was dialog through each event of your side and CLAWS attempting to instigate conflict over one stupid thing after another. Then come to find out you were plotting the whole time anyway.
  4. What a load of hogwash and you know it. You literally gave us the logs of you and Stewie doing exactly what we knew you were doing, which was the basis for us understanding peace was never an option from you and yours (our understanding that is, not your logs which just confirmed what we already knew). The fact anyone believed your crocodile tears and blatant lies reflects more poorly on them than the people that were right all along, poorly managed intel clauses or not. The curtains closed, you can stop the act now, there's no Bloc left for you to protect.
  5. Glad to finally see this, the IRON Curtain now encompasses the ice cap! Congratulations to our first and oldest allies in IRON and our on again off again geopolitical frenemies in Polar.
  6. Both can be true, I never said it wasn't possible, or even untrue here. That's why I separated the line about pettiness from the line about sincerity. You're right, I don't think it's sincere on an alliance level, and do I read the silence as being unable to not engage at that level rather than a true sense of being bigger. That's why I broke my own silence to make the observation. That doesn't mean I'm right, the same as it doesn't mean you're right because you might hold an opposite opinion to mine. It's up to NG, not you or I, to be the change, but it is all of us that will see the results regardless. I'm happy to be pleasantly surprised, I'm just not holding my breath for it.
  7. There's being the bigger man because you'd otherwise be lowering yourself to match someone else's level of pettiness and simply not engaging because when you do you can't help being petty. Because of that it's hard to distinguish actual change from just keeping your head down in a thread about a recent example where you went too far in your pettiness. Relative silence from an otherwise extremely vocal group reads less as sincerity and more as damage control optics.
  8. There are almost as many words in in sigs than the actual document, good lord.
  9. I wish you good fortune in the wars to come. May future endeavors find FTW well.
  10. Your position is acknowledged. I'm simply explaining one of the "why's" left over from the now completed conflict. Moving forward, the goal is to make sure this conflict doesn't repeat.
  11. The leadership of both sides wants to avoid that sentiment, per the rhetoric of the summit. It's a valid concern, and something I believe will get its due investment with the attention of so many influential sphere leaders working towards it.
  12. The whole situation was bad and everyone involved should feel bad. The fact remains, lured or not, he did it and it was not only rhetorically defended, but it required him to stand his allies down. That's not encouraging to the idea we should have bothered to try and convince people to not defend NG or COBRA in this case, much less hope they stood you all down. Could have, could have not. At the end of the day, it's all hindsight regardless.
  13. Which was fine, the understanding we had was that we always intended to put things on the table during the peace conference. While it happened earlier than we expected and slightly altered (we intended to provide them during, not immediately preceding, but that was whatever). Yeah, I imagine they were. That wasn't my department and is something Oculus will have to reconcile. That's great, and as I said, it fits mine too. As someone who was not only there, but a primary voice in the negotiations, the Oculus draw back was at the request of Polar to avoid immediate escalation. Negotiations had a time limit that I set specifically allowing for Pacifica and IRON to catch staggers as necessary if time ran out (which it technically did, but we still hammered something out). Had negotiations outright failed, Pacifica and IRON would have snapped right back on at any time. I'm not sure why this "truth" you think came out dictated Pacifica and IRON's response, they weren't even particularly fond of the idea of drawing back.
  14. I understand the point he was making, I also noticed his example of when CLAWS declared on TIE being justified, but also acknowledging that their allies needed to be told to stand down. Now imagine this scenario where we have every belief that the strategy would be to deny everything. Was NG and COBRA going to tell their allies to stand down? I doubt it, so why cater to a reality that isn't going to happen? I don't know where I implied that wasn't the case. Again, it was always going to be a waste of time arguing about it in a DoW thread. Kapleo himself can attest that, post peace accord, we had a conversation wherein I laid out my perspective. As I recall without looking (or log dumping), he didn't agree with our action (as was expected), but I believe he understood my position. It wouldn't have changed any of the actions taken if we had had it the day before the war, the day after, or never.
  15. If your position is that we didn't provide the logs at the start because we knew the CB was weak, then why would we present them to argue? If our position is that your side would deny everything anyway if we provided the logs at the start, then why would we present them to argue? There wasn't a scenario where it mattered in either narrative, and of course the favoring of narratives will for the most part be down partisan lines.
×
×
  • Create New...