WarriorConcept

[size=4][quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1358218154' post='3076531'] The person I quoted was implying Chax abandoned NEW. My point, as is your point to that said person was that responsibility lies not with Chax, but BFF. [/quote][/size] [size=4]Sorry, long week [/size] [size=4][quote name='Tiggah' timestamp='1358218310' post='3076533'] This was well beyond an announcement of a change in government. The op flat out states, "But he betrayed that trust". That's not laying out facts or anything of the sort. It's an assertion of guilt. [/quote][/size] [size=4]I feel like you glossed over the lines below that completely:[/size] [size=4][quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]BFF government then decided, with all the information it had available and after evaluating it, that it merited an announcement to let the OWF know what information was out there, what it believed to be the case, and that per its charter even a further review would be held. [/quote][/font][/color][/size] [size=4][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Let me break it down for you:[/font][/color][/size] [size=4][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]1. BFF acknowledged and shared some of the information that was being leaked around[/font][/color][/size] [size=4][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]2. BFF government stated what it believes to be the outcome after evaluating all the information (both released and not, which includes their belief that Chax is guilty)[/font][/color][/size] [size=4][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]3. Per their charter they will continue with a mandatory trial that in the meantime keeps Chax with limited power.[/font][/color][/size]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1358217308' post='3076524'] Chax did not abandon NEW, BFF did. Else you'd have seen withdrawal of cancellation or something along those lines. No, all of Chax's actions regarding this episode are very much in place. [/quote] Chax and BFF both agreed in how to deal with NEW (regardless of this current episode, NEW has done more than enough to warrant a cancellation including plotting to rogue VE). I have no idea what you're trying to claim.

[quote name='Tiggah' timestamp='1358216419' post='3076515'] In the future, should you attempt to condemn a man in public, expect the public to demand evidence. As has been stated before, there was no reason to take this public pre-trial. That was a poor decision on many levels. [/quote] Government changes, even temporary ones, are typically always announced. Especially when said alliance/leader was on the brink of war just last week. As has been stated before (12 pages worth), many parties were already starting to talk about this in public venues. BFF government then decided, with all the information it had available and after evaluating it, that it merited an announcement to let the OWF know what information was out there, what it believed to be the case, and that per its charter even a further review would be held. If the OWF isn't pleased with the evidence, I'm fairly certain BFF won't lose any sleep over it.

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1358216148' post='3076512'] Chax is innocent until proven guilty. Not shown so far. Anyone leaping to judgment either doesn't know him or has an agenda. [/quote] Or has access to more information. Regardless, BFF is abiding by their charter and handling it internally and as stated from the beginning BFF's allies are there for them.

[quote name='Ovidsidios' timestamp='1358214641' post='3076500'] Which is funny, because people don't seem to be reading the 10 pages of "that's already been said" history. You should have hyper-linked. Not because it would have been easy, but because some people like shiny things... [/quote] *chax "bails" on new" He's a terrible man! *chax is undergoing an internal trial per charter* Chax is a great man stop treating him like that!

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1358131316' post='3076021'] Last I looked the only people trying to roll CnG was your allies in VE. Unless you think VE set this up the you just look dumb. [/quote] Watch out Rush we're going to steal your cane!

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1358211585' post='3076472'] And after making 25 posts, would you mind telling us what you would have done differently and what BFF's mistake was here, if one was made at all? Bear in mind that this information was moments away from being posted by a third party. How would an esteemed thinker such as your self have handled it, all while making it so no one thinks they were intentionally deceived? [/quote] You said he thinks. I laughed.

I found it really hard to believe, as I took him to be an honest person. We're here for you BFF. And I apologize to anyone who I argued with, I took an ally at his word and feel betrayed. I'm not afraid to admit when I was wrong and I want to thank Rob for helping prove this lie.

[quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1358071292' post='3075790'] Manufactured outrage, how predictable. [/quote] I miss you good sir.

[quote name='Roadie' timestamp='1358084673' post='3075819'] Do you genuinely believe this, or is this just OWF SOP? [/quote] He's super cereal.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1358037283' post='3075657'] /me looks through logs from 3 days ago. Nope... balls out of place on them too. Ask around. [/quote] But they're so tough!

[quote name='ckmanero' timestamp='1357969332' post='3075295'] Aww love you guys too! Best of luck to you and the next poor group of suckers you get to treaty you so you can cancel on them right before a war! [/quote] Now tell us how you really feel.

Since this whole debacle has started I've been blaming SniperJoe and will continue to. Best of luck on these forum issues, it's always a pain.

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1358000547' post='3075395'] Friend Luchenkov, don't mistake me calling BFF's and INT's !@#$%^&* out as a disappointment. If we wanted to release some pressure we would just have declared on NEW. [/quote] This is cute.

Understandable move Int, I always blame Trotsky too.

double edit to make this post useful: I apologize for mispeaking earlier, it was not NPO who proposed no nukes but neither was it BFF.

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1357876659' post='3074478'] Cancelling on NEW was completely understandable and required no explanation. The laughable part is BFF trying to secure a non-nuke agreement with us and NPO so they could look "honorable". It always looks bad when alliances try to cut backroom deals. Very dissapointing BFF. [/quote] You do realize it wasn't BFF who offered the no nuke term, right? Stop the tough guy act, especially considering NG also didn't want this war to escalate when they could have made it happen.

[quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1357876342' post='3074467'] I don't see how a non-nuclear war for a set amount of time is "honouring" a treaty at all. But hey, let's not argue over semantics. [/quote] Let's just agree to disagree then, I think we've both made our case plenty enough here. Cheers.

[quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1357875610' post='3074452'] I was under the impression the likes of NG would only get involved if BFF enterred. Therefore making the situation worse. Correct me if I am wrong. I still don't see how you can justify the whole termed war idea. BFF should of either committed themselves to NEW fully, or told NEW to $%&@ off. [/quote] NEW would get rocked regardless of BFF entering or not. Do you honestly think NG or NPO's other allies aren't bored/dedicated enough to come in and kick their teeth in? The "termed" war idea was BFF fighting until the grace period of their treaty wore off. You're completely entitled to your opinion but that's just the way it is, BFF honoring their treaty.

[quote name='longnameislonger' timestamp='1357875409' post='3074446'] Him having those logs points to his presence in the right discussions. Perhaps he fabricated them! [/quote] Cherry picked logs that were overruled by others in NEW. [quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1357875441' post='3074449'] Well they would be defending but not assisting them to win the war, so I think it's a fair statement. The best thing that could have happened to help both BFF and my allies would have been for BFF to cancel on NEW. Our allies agreeing to absorb BFF and NEW even in a limited capacity so BFF could save face, I think shows the lengths they were willing to go to in order to contain this rather than the other way around. All BFF had to do was drop NEW who recklessly broke and voided their treaty, but that was to much for them [/quote] Why yes, the easy option was for BFF to just drop and bail, thanks Mr. Obvious. Let's not even pretend NPO would have needed help for BFF, I fought them last war and they can take care of themselves, especially for a limited time encounter.

[quote name='longnameislonger' timestamp='1357874971' post='3074437'] Did one of their gov members just resign publicly after posting about how BFF totally screwed their ally? [/quote] He resigned publicly without knowing full details of what went on. In respect to BFF I'll leave them to correct him if they want, but we have the logs that show NEW was doing this deliberately and were planning on calling in all their allies. [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1357874978' post='3074438'] So you recognise that BFF are in effect making the situation worse for NEW... and still don't see it as an orchestrated trap? [/quote] How is that making the situation worse for NEW? NEW doesn't have to attack anyone, if they do so however they will be ripped apart regardless of BFF being there or not.

NEW gets what their treaty entails, helps during the grace period. If they wanted full BFF support for a war they shouldn't have broken the treaty.

[quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1357874366' post='3074424'] For the benefit of everyone bar NEW, who they are supposedly assisting? Yeah because that makes sense. [/quote] NEW was going to get help from BFF as long as the treaty grace period was in place. How does that not make sense?

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1357873940' post='3074415'] I tend to just say it how it is, they acted recklessly with want and abandonment for your interests, they deserve nothing from you. In my view posting a cancellation thread saying you will honour cancellation period with no intention of actually assisting because you have made other agreements to mitigate your liability is in danger of looking like a trap for NEW who you are quite understandably aggrieved with. Knowing NEW as you do, did you not consider the possibility that this cancellation would enrage them and they, thinking that activating the treaty before the cancellation period was up would be bad for BFF, would activate it resulting in a situation where they get there teeth smashed in and you guys honour your commitment in legalese only. Of course NEW are completely mental so no one really knows how these situations may pan out. It would have been much less ugly in my view just to void the treaty and as far as these predicaments go, this situation strikes me as one where this approach would be quite justifiable. [/quote] No intention of actually assisting? You realize these "terms" were put in place to help out YOUR allies mostly, right? And that even without them, BFF would have gone in? Keep on trying to appear all "blunt", but you're just being obtuse and pushing an obvious agenda to discredit BFF.

[quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1357873844' post='3074413'] This guy is a senior member of BFF, and led FEAR at several points. He knows NEW better than most people do. I don't think he was saying that they didn't $%&@ up at all. He was merely pointing out that they deserved better treatment than what they got. And an outright cancellation would of been a lot better than these termed war proposals. [/quote] These "termed war proposals" were essentially for the benefit of everyone's mutual allies so it wouldn't escalate (namely CnG as they were stuck in the middle if it exploded).