James Spanier
-
Posts
832 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by James Spanier
-
-
Didn't someone try this like a year ago only to putter out in like three rounds?
-
43 minutes ago, Tankobite said:
It does seem like a bit of braggadocio to go on and on about rolling an 8 person alliance. But I guess safety in numbers always makes for a feeing of complacency.
The Great and Powerful Lowsten does not take kindly to you words.
-
2 hours ago, The Big Bad said:
They only have 8 nations. People sure are bored at this point.
I mean yeah, there aren't a huge number of targets above 15k NS among the other 80 combatant nations.
-
15 minutes ago, Walshington said:
Ah, the ol' "Cardi B Offensive", eh?
This is CLEARLY just one more way for Lowsten to pretend he doesn't want a treaty with us. Hard to get on a whole 'nother level.And just for the e-lawyers out there:
Kattegat being what Kashmir was called back then.
All I see is an error, why must you lie to me?
-
If somebody once told me we were gonna roll Screaming Red Asses again, I’d have told them they weren’t the sharpest tool in the shed. It feels like only yesterday the last time SRA attacked an Argent ally without cause or Declaration of War, and now they do so again! Last time they admitted defeat, their finger and their thumb in the shape of an L on their forehead.
As it turns out however it was actually a few years ago, although the years don’t stop coming, and they don’t stop coming, and they don’t stop coming. Regardless, here we are again with yet another display of SRA’s ruthless opportunism. I concede it doesn’t make sense not to live for fun as everyone’s collective brains get smart while their heads get dumb, there’s so much to do and so much to see, but I however contend there indeed is something wrong with taking these back streets. As with last time, we will once again go to bat for our ally, and our nukes will make sure SRA glows.
The Dragon will once again take a bite out of the Ass, perhaps we’ll even eat the whole thing this time.
Lowsten: The Great and Powerful Emperor of Argent
Trimm: RegentIMP REBS: Minister of Internal Affairs
Gingervites: Interim Minister of War
King William: Interim Minister of Finance
Legatus: Interim Minister of Foreign Affairs
iamthey: Interim Minister of ProctologyJanax: Dragon Emperor Emeritus
-
I eagerly await the section on your wiki about this. Make sure to dab on em like I taught you for maximum effect.
-
11 hours ago, Alexio15 said:
I kinda think the fact it's gotta take that much to beat them, they kinda already won.
I mean, tiers kind of make the difference. 8.6mil NS sits unusable in FTWs first page alone. Fighting a 90 nation coalition of almost exclusively bottom tier nations that out wonder you will generally cause a nuisance to any AA. And before anyone says "but IRON 1v1'd NG!" again, IRON has almost as many lower tier nations as FTW has nations.
-
11 minutes ago, General Kanabis said:
Knowing them, they will probably end up calling it the Super-Fantastic-Wolves-Riding-Eagles-And-Cats-Using-Claws-Riding-Silver-Dragons-With-The-League-Of-Smol-Suburbs War, or something.
That reminds me of Men Riding Dragons Throwing Wolves At Maggots.
-
43 minutes ago, Lucius Optimus said:
I don't think that's what I was getting at but ok...
I was going to ask you to clarify what you were getting at then, but following a reread fair enough. You were merely drawing a conclusion based on a subjective assertion replying to what was a stupid comment by Vortagre. I should have based my reply on their comment alone, apologies.
-
2 hours ago, Lucius Optimus said:
Eh you got way more information out of my last post than was intended. Please run a diagnostic.
It was a general reply to Vortage, Korlath, and yourself over the talking point that anyone who happens to be bored should fight with the underdogs even if it means you fight your own allies. The inference that not doing so was pixel hugging and pathetic being the only option is what Crinkledstraw and myself are replying to.
-
3 hours ago, Lucius Optimus said:
I for one would expect nothing less from the....venerable CLAWS!
You do know that you are the odd one out if you actually believe AAs betray allies just to make things more interesting, right? It happens very rarely and is usually the result of a dispute that already ruined the relationship. It also usually has like, a plan, not just some weird random reaction to sad OWF callouts. Go back to "it's a down declare!" and "it's a dogpile!" please, those at least make sense in reality.
-
7 hours ago, General Kanabis said:
I was wrong. My apologies, good sir.
As you were-
Can someone edit the RFI alliance flags over their hat badges?
5 hours ago, Vortagre said:4th largest alliance in Bob FTW needs Legion, Argent, Loss, Claws plus few other alliance whose names I can't remember right now against
Tankobite, myself, Lucius and 12 Cobra Guys plus the handful of rebels in sell swords and losing.
Oh boy... this becoming a bigger embarrassement than when OoT disbanded that Oculus micro ally while fighting against 11 AA coalition virtually alone 😂😂
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 hours ago, General Kanabis said:
The only joke here is FTW needing help from half of Planet Bob to fight some micros.
Isn't COBRA attempting to set the precedent that you should always defend allies when attacked?
-
Well I guess it's something.
-
I certainly hope you cancelled your ODP and NAP first.
-
3 hours ago, General Kanabis said:
This is closer to the point than Low's narrative.
I maybe should have reached out to someone else at that point because it's been proven before that FA between myself and Canik directly is... a troublesome endeavor.
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.
-
Just now, General Kanabis said:
If the answers I give in response to your questions are being treated as justifications, then I have nothing else to say tbh.
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.
-
25 minutes ago, General Kanabis said:
These are not justifications. My CB has been stated and I did my best to publicly recall the series of events that led to our decision to make war upon the Freehold.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, General Kanabis said:
There is room for FTW to err but not much for us, it would seem.
I immediately set out to plan a counter as soon as I saw the Kashmir AA had been attacked.
Historically, we are known to defend Kashmir almost within minutes.
You may have some idea how many messages I sent out, given your experience here, so you will understand that when I actually ran my sleep deprived eyes over Canik's (much nicer) message, it was almost too late to actually change course with full effect.
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.
-
1 minute ago, General Kanabis said:
It was not and for this same reason, Korlath switched Alliances.
They could have messaged us beforehand but they either chose not to, or waited for a third party to contact them.
All I am saying is that they commenced the second round with a previous attack. They should have waited when they saw Korlath in Kashmir and discussed it further Precisely because the unofficial agreement didn't specify anything about number of wars.
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.
-
1 minute ago, General Kanabis said:
Let's just say this half-assed agreement wasn't riddled with words like "probably".
Even if this was the case, the last FTW attack on Korlath wasn't even necessary to complete those two weeks.
It was definitely out of line and we only truly considered a possibility of war beyond this point.
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.
-
Just now, General Kanabis said:
I am denying that there were any real, concrete terms to begin with. The delay in communications hampered any desire to think optimistically.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, General Kanabis said:
When I said ambiguous I was referring to his previous two messages, when I was still considering the possibility of a peaceful resolution.
I waited more than a week for a response or some sort of confirmation.
(to go from "hey man i don't know the best i can probably do is two rounds but my people don't like you and they would love to escalate so we'll see probably just leave it at that" to "We will grant your guy peace before the wars expire" is significant)
He didn't feel the need to reach out until there was real chance we'd counter.
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.
8 minutes ago, General Kanabis said:
Maybe the "some ppl" he mentions would find it more convenient your way.
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?
-
2 minutes ago, General Kanabis said:
Yes because FTW's third counter was already ongoing, and round 2 already underway.
The fourth declaration was overkill.
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.
1 minute ago, General Kanabis said:He only reached out after they attacked the Kashmir AA.
He wasn't so diplomatic before.
To be clear, your are basing everything off my last message with Canik while we are basing everything off HIS last message, which clearly wasn't the same vibe.
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.
Birds have Claws
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
Caw caw. o/