Jump to content

Hayzell

Members
  • Posts

    415
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hayzell

  • Birthday 11/15/1989

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    Rotandan
  • Alliance Name
    The Order of the Paradox
  • Resource 1
    Aluminum
  • Resource 2
    Uranium

Hayzell's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. The events mentioned here have been difficult for our Order. It seems the worst of it is over now, and I must express great appreciation for all those who helped get us through this situation as well as those who support us now. May Feanor serve the Order to the best of his abilities now, as he has done in the past. Paradoxia Vult!
  2. Recent updates need more commentary...
  3. Is the STA of the opinion that the war that TOP is currently engaged in is a completely separate war from the one that began with Polaris attacking \m/? What is your opinion of the alliances that the STA has been at war with over the past month, both overall and specifically regarding their performances and actions in this war?
  4. [quote name='Seth Muscarella' date='28 February 2010 - 12:07 AM' timestamp='1267333836' post='2207611'] I wasn't aware; i'm sooooo bad at these things sometimes! You know that big run-on sentences that can add more and more parts and try to explain everything until the only thing it does is confuse? Our allies were standing by to defend ever since rumors of this war developed. Look through the war history and you'll see almost every single ally, defensive and ODP, was standing by and eventually assisted us in defense. This includes key names within NOIR as well. Of course our friends saved us; that's what friends do. [b]We could have taken TOOL/Legion/OMFG ourselves while attacking IRON/TOP,[/b] but why deny the assistance of our friends, ready to lock their shields in place with the phalanx, when they ask? With Sparta and her allies working together as a unified front, we cannot be defeated. So I'm sorry we ruined your plan and decided to let our friends come to war with us ;-P Anyway, this was far too long a reply for someone such as The Big Bad, who I have been very unimpressed with anytime I've seen him. [/quote] Wow. The bolded part invalidates everything else you said because it shows a distinct detachment from reality. Sparta showed one of, if not the worst performances and preparedness among mid sized and big alliances involved in the war.
  5. I'm glad TOOL was able to achieve peace though it is unfortunate some of their opponent's could not be classy at the negotiation table. Then again, some of them were so I guess we just walk away from this with clearer views on some alliances.
  6. [quote name='TheNeverender' date='27 February 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1267292642' post='2206695'] Actually, we're busy fighting the war you started. If you didn't want to be in this mess you shouldn't have started the war. Mindblowing concept, I know - this is some real original !@#$ right here. Regarding the content of your post, I was responding to this: [/quote] That's got nothing to do with it. You can't tell me your entire government(s) are so consumed with making target lists, parsing nations, discussing strategy, and what not that no one has enough free time to think about and come up with some rep ideas, and contact allied leadership. I mean, you might even have different departments in charge of military affairs and another in charge of foreign affairs or something. I think what you mean to say instead of "we're too busy fighting the war to come up with rep ideas" is "we don't think you've sufficiently lost enough NS to consider offering you terms". I don't really have a problem with the latter but would just prefer if the pretense was dropped, honest dialog is so much better than diplospeak. [quote]I believe I had a rather simple way to tell you that. That your intellect struggled to comprehend it is not my problem.[/quote] Ah, there's the condescending !@#$%^& I've come to love. All you did was claim that you're personally too busy to do anything regarding peace terms, and that everyone else is apparently too busy "fighting the war" to do anything regarding peace terms. Which is !@#$%^&*. I just thought I'd point that out. You can throw out all the convoluted excuses or try to debase that fact by calling it crying, but it's still a fact. [quote]Regarding this comment: That's not weird at all, if you take a moment to actually read it. "Having to" implies intent or need, and [i]not an action already completed[/i]. Or, more simply, it implies that not everyone has been spoken to yet. Thus it is quite natural that some individuals would be unaware that folks like you have been crying to anyone who would listen that you want peace terms. You might not have needed them, but your idols were busy starting one of the dumbest wars this planet has ever seen, so maybe you should try crying a little less. In fact, one of the original assailants appears to have already gotten peace - I imagine it wasn't because they weren't proclaiming "white peace or nothing!" and thus made the process quite a lot easier. Just a guess, though, I wouldn't actually know. Remember? [/quote] Point taken. I just didn't know it took weeks to get into contact with other leaders in one's coalition to form even a vague idea on something like peace terms. I guess I've been spoiled by being in actually well organized coalitions all this time.
  7. What are you going on about? It sounds like you just admitted that [i]you [/i]in fact are not doing anything to move forward the peace process, which was my point. Aside from that, you failed to address why your side is taking so long to even come up with a rough idea to at least begin discussions. I think it's funny that 2 months ago you were critiquing our coalition for not being able to get our affairs in order in a timely manner yet your leaders can't even query/message a couple dozen leaders or put forth your own ideas. Say what you want about him but at least Crymson knows how to lead a coalition and keep it up to date(see WoTC),same goes for LM. Also, stop trying to score pity points. It clashes with the whole "I am god" thing you do so well.
  8. [quote name='Style #386' date='26 February 2010 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1267241804' post='2205774'] Archon is a pretty capable leader, but in spite of this he has not perfected becoming the sovereign leader of twenty or so [any TOP member can help me here] alliances. Nice try, but I think you dropped something. [/quote] 23 iirc. There's really no way you can tell me Archon can't even give an approximation for what MK would want to see, or at least convene with the CnG crew and put forward an estimate? Also, I find it weird how he can speak of 'having to speak with his coalition' yet have some of those leaders not even aware that peace was actually being pursued. And go figure the response of the rest of them is essentially, we're waiting on CnG or go talk to Archon.
  9. [quote name='TheNeverender' date='26 February 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1267238093' post='2205712'] Interestingly enough, bros doesn't actually make decisions regarding surrender terms. But then I'm sure you all knew that. [/quote] Apparently neither do you.
  10. After fighting 7 MKers I'm willing to admit that (most of them) they are pretty good. tR was surprising in how well they did, and on our side TSO and TORN put up a crazy fight, pound for pound. In my opinion TOP has been the most impressive alliance involved in this war.
  11. [quote name='WarriorConcept' date='26 February 2010 - 06:49 PM' timestamp='1267228396' post='2205524'] So TOP won't be accepting terms where they have to send tech? [/quote] You misread the post. Also, TOP can't accept anything when nothing is being offered.
  12. [quote name='bros2' date='23 February 2010 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1266946810' post='2199196'] No TOP, that is not how war works. War has not worked like that for a while. War is not a prim and proper affair in which the general wears the brightest coat with the most feathers in his hat. War is a process in which you hit whatever you can get as quick as you can. TOP, you are being TOPpled, you do not dictate rules to the winner. The main players on your side will never get white peace. Should be fun to watch you kick and scream while we rend the tech from your nations. Discuss. [/quote] I think TOP is acutely aware of how war works. "Hit whatever you can get as quick as you can" - you mean like, our entrance into this war and everything we've been sending at you and our other opponent's for the past month? MK, you're coming down with us; you can stall peace talks into 2011 but we will not capitulate to douchebaggery. If you want to rend tech from our nations you'll have to eat nukes while you do it, and given your high infra: tech ratio, I think it's a favorable situation for us.
  13. Good to see MK still requires significant "defense" at this point. I hope the clear FA path continues to be fruitful for you, FOK.
  14. [quote name='Denial' date='16 February 2010 - 10:07 PM' timestamp='1266376056' post='2186813'] No, Archon stated that C&G would enter against TOP and IRON if they attacked one of our allies. That is like saying water is wet, the sky is blue, IRON posters are hopeless, or Bob Janova is a hypocrite. It should be no surprise to anyone that Complaints & Grievances would defend any ally that found itself a victim of aggression. [/quote] Right. And based on the above observation it was strategically decided (by undoubtedly one of the greatest military minds of our time and confirmed by others) that the best strategic move would have been to cripple CnG from being able to effectively counter the blitz which would have otherwise been launched against CnG allies. Obviously in hindsight the move seems to be our greatest folly, but based on the evidence that we had at the time (\m/ not peacing out) it was strategically sound. It was so strategically sound, in fact, that it caused you all to put pressure on \m/ to peace out, so that you would have enough resources and a rallying cry strong enough to potentially defeat us, presumably because otherwise our move would have assured our coalition's victory. [quote] 1. Crymson, whilst in leadership, famously stated that TOP & co were taking this opportunity to "bloody up" Complaints & Grievances, in a time where we were perceived to be most vulnerable, because they saw us as a threat.[/quote] I'm not sure where he specifically said that, but in our DoW the reasoning was not that "you were vulnerable and we wanted to destroy you" so much as it was "we were likely to engage you anyway in a war we happened to agree with morally and intellectually, saw you as an overall threat, and decided the best thing to do would be to pre empt you as it as it coalesed well with our desire to enter that war, win that war, and defeat (which means to somewhat weaken relatively, not utterly annihilate) what we perceived to be a threat all at the same time". [quote]2. Crymson and other senior TOP members have also stated that they sought to continue this war against C&G until they no longer considered us a threat. [/quote] Our DoW states we wished to [i]defeat [/i]you, which was only ever insofar as we wished to win the war, militarily and for the moral cause, in addition to reducing the perceived relative threat. [quote]3. TOP only ever became interested in white peace the moment they saw the odds were against them.[/quote] No, TOP became interested in white peace when we saw the conclusion of the war we initially joined in as a part of. Though increasing our security and reducing you as a threat was a goal, the ultimate justification and cause for the war was to help the Polaris side achieve victory; that front having come to its own conclusion left us involved in a war we should have peaced out of with everyone else, as the primary reasons for our entry had ended. [quote] 4. Why, exactly, would we accept white peace after we've been aggressively attacked for absolutely no reason, by a bunch of conniving, underhanded miscreants? [/quote] Because, it is intellectually inconsistent to defame your enemies as "hegemony cronies", "bullies" "conniving underehanded miscreants" etc. for being motivated for similar reasons to your own. How is it that TOP being motivated to remove a threat (while in the context of a war it agrees with and in a particular situation which was thought to be strategically advantageous) so much worse than CnG being motivated to eliminate TOP as a threat? If you were intellectually honest you would see our [i]motivation ([/i]or rather, one of the several motivators)[i] [/i]was the same as yours are now, and if our motivations are understandable then we aren't the heinous villains you portray us as. [quote] Thus, if we hypothetically accept your argument of "strategy" and "removing a threat" as a valid case for initiating or continuing a war, then Complaints & Grievances extending this war should be just as acceptable in your eyes as TOP & IRON initiating it. If not more acceptable, considering TOP & IRON clearly displayed their capacity as a threat to C&G, whereas TOP & IRON only had a 'belief' (Crymson's own term) that we were a threat because we said bad things in public about them now and then.[/quote] Not entirely. Removal of a threat serves as a good [i]contributing [/i]reason to wage war, but when it becomes the sole purpose of a war it becomes a terrible reason. You cannot [i]completely [/i]remove any alliance as a threat unless you are willing to pressure them into disbanding, force them to pay exorbitant reparations, or wage war against them indefinitely. The previous are all tactics that the last major war sought to abolish. Thus it might be a good reason to engage a particular alliance in a war, assuming there is a conflict they are or will be drawn in to and that conflict itself has proper justification, but is not a good reason to declare out of the blue in the middle of peace time -- a picture you all seem intent on painting as what happened. I'm willing to admit that you do have more a reason to view us a threat than we you (there is even a small chance we were mistaken in viewing you as a threat ) but that reason in itself is not sufficient grounds for a war that seeks to "remove us as a threat", as it would require at least one of the above mentioned methods.
  15. [quote name='joracy' date='15 February 2010 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1266290890' post='2184210'] Our idea of a reasonable solution is not getting attacked, and then granting you white peace right after. [/quote] Well the alternative is making the next 6 months look like the last 2 weeks. I mean, I'm totally cool with that, but I don't see how you guys think you're doing yourselves a favor by "putting an end to us as a threat" when that entails bringing yourselves as near any destruction you impart on us. Sane nation leaders interested in their people's well being and safety would look for a way to avoid further destruction, rather than sacrificing those you're supposed to be protecting... But keep telling yourselves you're doing this for your safety, and not to settle an agenda.
×
×
  • Create New...