Jump to content

James Spanier

Members
  • Content Count

    663
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About James Spanier

  • Rank
    Deceive Inveigle Obfuscate

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

1,326 profile views
  1. Can someone edit the RFI alliance flags over their hat badges? Kind of damned if you do damned if you don't. People gave FTW crap for not defending IRON from NG, but IRON refused all offers of help because they didn't want people doing exactly what you're doing here. At a certain point you have to realize we're in a newly formed bloc and a member alliance was attacked by three (granted much smaller) alliances. Why wouldn't we respond? Like what material incentive is there for us to let it alone?
  2. Isn't COBRA attempting to set the precedent that you should always defend allies when attacked?
  3. I certainly hope you cancelled your ODP and NAP first.
  4. I seem to recall implying several times that both parties bungled the actual negotiation portion of the negotiations. I just used nicer words because I'm allied to FTW and try not to go out of my way to flame debate/discussion opponents. Though after a certain number of hours going back and forth on a sleepy mind the filters start to wear down.
  5. I mean, to paraphrase you, "it's a little too late for that." Everything has already been laid bare: you tried to sell everyone on the narrative that FTW was conspiring to start a war, when they were at best not very punctual. If it didn't take three pages of debate to reach the point you admit this was a completely avoidable scenario from your own end by sending out a single mass message, even though you had at your disposal all the information I have and more at your own fingertips, you might not come across as disingenuous as you do right now. At this point I'm really just curious to see what, if anything, Kashmir themselves will weigh in with.
  6. Let's not be dishonest, citing the treaties you activated doesn't erase the fact you've invested a copious number of posts trying to justify this war. This has been three pages of walkback from 'the entire premise of FTW's """"aggression"""" against a single raider is illegal and unjustified' which your cited in your DoW to 'I was tired and couldn't undo what had been started with the kneejerk attack order I gave.' What do you think a justification is if not telling everyone your version of a series of events that led you to a decision to support the decision? Your recollections weren't from a faulty memory, you had far more access than I did to all this information that we had to wait one Canik screenshot for at a time, only for you to move the goal posts again and again. If all this was was activating a treaty that would have been that, instead you decided to debate every single point presented against the narrative in your own DoW.
  7. Kashmir would have had plenty to err on, COBRA did not when they declared war. Again, as I said before, if you had countered immediately, the narrative could have been different, but instead it came after clarification, which tired or not would have been grounds for a pause. The entirety of COBRA can be notified of anything in one mass message. And yes I can confirm to understand such scenarios, you may recall the incident where TTK nations attacked Kashmir while peace talks for NADC with Polar were ongoing. But the difference there was that TTK immediately came out and said "Oh that was an error resulting from not keeping up with messages". They didn't post a DoW where they attempted to justify it only to later say they dropped the ball and they didn't mean to interrupt the dialog, oops. If you're starting the war/front to defend an ally, it's generally recommended to at least consult said ally before declaring. Unless Kashmir did sign off on this, though considering the lack of a coordinated DoW or even hail or acknowledgement I don't think that was the case. I get your whole defend immediately trigger thing, I'm just saying it doesn't make your narrative any more valid unless that is your narrative, no frills of attempted justification on top of attempted justification.
  8. That also assumes they noticed the AA change beforehand. I agree they should have notified beforehand (if they had noticed), though I also don't know exactly how it played out. The order for the fourth nation may have been received late for instance. We again circle back to the "FTW should have consulted Kashmir" vs "Kashmir should have consulted FTW" debate. The fact remains that neither happened (directly anyway, again I don't know if you and/or Polar were relaying information back to Kashmir), and COBRA forced a war when dialog was by no means no longer an option, especially when it was established that there was an end date. There was even a new player to consult, SirWilliam could have offered a refreshing change of tune to the dialog.
  9. First off, the agreement may have been riddled with non-definitive terms for the end date, but the scope was set. We have both agreed on this: it was two rounds, nothing less, maybe more. While the fourth war may not have been necessary to complete two weeks, it is in no way out of line with a two round timeline. FTW notified you (again, late but still done) seemingly without prompting that this fourth war did not extend the two round mark out beyond what the original date was set at. That is clear as day. Now if they said the end date and attacks continued or worse, more wars were declared, after the fact then that is absolutely a breach of agreement at any level of formalization at that point. It's also not a scenario that exists in reality. I again ask to know where it was even tentatively agreed that four wars were too many, or that no new wars could be declared after the date of the beginning of the second round.
  10. Everything that has been seen so far points to the terms being two weeks (at least) before they were confirmed to be two weeks by FTW. That was within the scope of what you and they had declared acceptable prior. This happened all before you declared war.
  11. I'm not saying FTW's communication was either exemplary or punctual, but I am saying they did communicate it and you declared war anyway. Which is fine, you're free to renege on agreements on behalf of your allies (I guess?), but own up to it. You accuse FTW of plotting a war with COBRA through the actions outside of their control while you actively do everything in your power to make it happen. It's not even a self fulfilling prophecy, you went out of your way to cut out the prophecy and just did fulfilled it yourself. They probably would, so does that mean you are denying that you had full knowledge of the scope of terms and actively kept it from Kashmir to create a war you claimed the other side wanted?
  12. Okay, so the line is four, not three, glad we established that. Where was that agreed to, or even proposed, again? All I see is every party agreeing with two rounds, which this doesn't violate. Your subjective opinion that four is too many is just that, a subjective opinion. Maybe someone could have sent them a message protesting it, like Kashmir. But before you declared war. So everyone was fine with two rounds, FTW continues to operate within the scope of two rounds, they tell you and Polar (who I assume was talking to FTW on behalf of Kashmir) there was a set date for peace, the day two rounds from the start of counters would end, but you yet still had no idea what their intentions were? What happened in the week would have more relevance to actual events if you had declared war at that time. It would actually have come off as preemptively defensive, disputable, but optically defensive. Instead you waited until after everyone involved clarified that the scope of the agreement not only hadn't changed but was now set in stone with a specific date. You stated you didn't know their intent when their intent was stated before you declared war. They told you, albeit late, so it it wasn't ambiguous. That now goes from preemptively defensive because they might escalate to preemptively offensive to prevent peace from actually having a chance. Now everyone is left to ponder if you actually informed Kashmir that there was a set date, or if you instead colluded to create a war where there was none. There's also the troubling scenario where both happened, but I don't imagine there will be answers to that.
  13. Again, I'll reiterate. You suggested two rounds of war. Canik said two to three rounds of war would be acceptable. Then Canik said two rounds looked like they'd work. Then you said two rounds were acceptable. Then you were told it was only to be two rounds, within the two round period. Kashmir's other ally went to FTW and confirmed two rounds. Then you declared war anyway. The one and only point two rounds weren't on the table was when you pack pedaled to two counters, but you then went back again and said two rounds were acceptable. What does specifying the number of times hit in two rounds have to do with anything? Is it somehow possible to fight two rounds without new declarations? You can't claim FTW was extending the deal by letting the newest war expire when they explicitly told you it would end in a peace offer after the two round statuary limit.
  14. Oh boy a new line of defense to pick apart. Why would Kashmir infringe on FTW's sovereignty to enforce a protectorate without first approaching them diplomatically? Why didn't Kashmir defend themselves if they actually disagreed with the terms? Did you or Korlath not tell Kashmir about matters and SirWilliam had no clue? Did you tell them but Kashmir didn't care? Kashmir seems to have spoken to Polar, who approached FTW and got the same answer as you and I, everyone was satisfied. If you want to strengthen the case for a CB on Kashmir go ahead, it'd be a great image for them I'm sure, but don't sit there and pretend FTW were some puppet masters playing 64D chess knowing what Korlath would do or how Kashmir would act beforehand. Korlath was due for at least two rounds no matter the AA regardless if you actually confused counters for rounds or not, and if Kashmir wanted to dispute it they could have. Instead you disputed it for them and tried to justify your mistake by inadvertently or intentionally misrepresenting the actual process and the timeline within.
×
×
  • Create New...