firingline

His actions repeatedly violated not only CCC's Discord policies but also their Charter. Why would it be 'mad' to talk to CCC government about those violations?

It's sadcat. He's just going to align himself opposite of wherever I stand on any given issue, and then try to invent some reason to justify it. Like Wobblies, he never really got over the beating we gave him.

Even after I attacked, I offered CCC gov an immediate end to my wars if they would firmly commit to holding Armen accountable if he makes another specific type of OOC attack in the future (the OOC attacks against Ghost). It was the same offer I made before the conflict. The demand to boot Armen came only after four others had joined me in sacrificing their nations to 1) draw attention to CCC supporting personal attacks, 2) inflict a cost on CCC for doing so. At that point, the alliance felt that we were in this deeply enough that a promise to hold Armen accountable would no longer be sufficient (particularly given LWW's bad faith in previous conversations). So our demand changed to simply 'we'll end the war if Armen is booted.' I think our goal has been clear - we want Armen's personal attacks to stop. But we realistically see no other path to that than Armen being booted from CCC at this time.

Hey @CrinkledStraw I just wanted to follow up and ask for those examples of my story changing in this thread. Figured you've had a few days now?

The "F" and "L" aren't capitalized.

He probably got tired of you trying to manipulate him into avenging the humiliating beating the Wolves and I gave you. People don't like it when you try to play them.

To be fair, this is the guy who claimed me saying 'AA' was some kind of personal attack about Alcoholics Anonymous when I was literally referencing Admiral Alexander. For a guy so quick to play the victim, it's really a wonder he isn't aligning against Armen, who repeatedly and intentionally personally attacks others. I guess he's just still really mad about me and my friends in TW kicking his ass despite his side having a like 3-1 advantage. He must identify with CCC in that respect.

No. I've specifically said that trolling is fine, but personal attacks are not. Try to keep up.

Nah. CCC started something by enabling Armen's repeated personal attacks. Dared people to do something about it, then immediately cried to their allies when they couldn't cash the check they had written. Look, I get it. Their performance in the last global was piss-poor and their rebuild was even worse. They literally could not take the five of us on after all their sh*t talk. They had two options: talk sh*t, invite a war and get rolled by 5 nations, or talk sh*t;, invite a war and have to call in the rest of TC to save them. They chose option two, which I suppose is the less humiliating of the two options... but not by much. Justify it all you want with "there were a few crude jokes exchanged with Armen in DS' public channel (please don't search NG's public channel nothing to see there!), and also when Armen would troll you, you would troll back, therefore you deserve it." CCC started this, CCC invited a conflict in response, and CCC ran and hid when the conflict came. You make the mistake of thinking this is about politics. CCC is intentionally harboring someone making personal attacks because they find it funny and, at the moment, can get away with it. They've paid just enough lip service to punishing personal attacks to keep their allies by their side, and if Armen really messes up badly enough they can just dump him citing his former actions. As long as their allies aren't leaving their side, they'll allow him to make personal attacks against DS, because quite frankly that's a feature not a bug as far as they're concerned. We've decided to do something about that, not because it's a "smart political play", but because it's the right thing to do. And it's been a fun ride. Watching CCC puff up their chests and then run and hide behind FTW/NG/NATO... chef's kiss.

Were sanctions used against those two groups?

Howdy! Please provide your examples of me changing my story! (you're also really, really bad at this and should probably just stop posting.)

I think the key difference is they didn’t talk !@#$ and invite a fight. You did. Then you ran and hid behind your allies. Nobody would question you asking for help out of the blue. That’s dumb. But it IS quite embarrassing to talk !@#$ and then be unable to handle your business with a 6 to 1 advantage. And to be clear - you were unable to handle your business. The 5 of us would have straight up defeated CCC and forced your surrender. Which is also pretty embarrassing.

Those who exercise rights within their respective spheres who could exercise their rights in the future. That's who. CCC just clearly legitimized the use of sanctions against an acknowledged alliance. Therefore, TC has set a precedent that sanctions are a legitimate tool of alliance warfare, not something reserved for a nuke rogue intent on destruction for destruction's sake. It's a line the community has long been careful to avoid. If there was any doubt, you simply didn't sanction, because nobody wanted a !@#$-show where everybody was sanctioning everybody else during wars. Now, RFI/Occulus can weaponize sanctions against TC if it suits them, and point to today and the DBDC sanctions as precedent, and TC won't have much of a leg to stand on. This should be fairly obvious stuff. You've really lost a step, ES. First you claimed Polar to be an ardent supporter of her allies and in the next breath admitted you've plotted against one for 15 years using your treaty as cover. Then you claimed actions from the previous year were "several years ago", and were promptly corrected (with receipts). Each time you quietly slink away, then come back for more. Why?

Hey - can you please provide those examples, 'from this very thread', where I changed my story?

They're not going to give you a straight answer, because they don't actually have any principled stance on the matter, they just want to make whatever argument is most convenient for them at the time. @CrinkledStraw made the mistake of saying something concrete, and to this moment all they can do is wiggle around and avoid the topic (still waiting for some examples of me changing my story!) Moving the goalposts on sanctions (sanctioning DBDC and now Nukes^6) is clearly just an effort to see how much they can get away with. They'll say whatever it takes to justify that action in that moment.

Are you allergic to the truth or something? I first (confidentially!) answered AO's question, stating we hadn't decided if kicking Armen would be enough to end the conflict at this point. I then talked to my alliance, and the next day confirmed with AO that booting Armen would indeed be sufficient. That was the official response from our AA, and I told AO he could share it with you. This is why I wanted to keep the first part confidential - to avoid confusion about our stance. For what possible reason would you explain it in the opposite direction - claiming I first demanded you kick your member, and later claimed 'oh I might not even accept that'? As of now, the offer on the table is that the war ends from our perspective if you boot Armen. A promise to 'never talk to us again' is insufficient at this point, as you have not stood by your word to hold Armen accountable in the past. We've decided we'll impose a cost for that decision, and you will continue to pay the bill.

I think this logic actually goes against you. Sanctions didn't start flying until Nukes6 grew in size. Suddenly we were 'rogues' and it was critical to sanction us. Seems more like CCC didn't care until they started losing, then they rushed to implement sanctions. Even though, as LWW has acknowledged, precedent is that sanctions are not used in conflicts such as these.

This brings up two obvious questions: How would it be setting a precedent not to sanction when you acknowledge that the existing precedent is... not to sanction? CCC is also 'breaking established norms' for repeated personal attacks. Is it only appropriate they be subject to sanctions for breaking these established norms?

Then why is it taking so long for you to prove your point? Just lay a couple out. Initial story (with a quote), then 'changed story' (with a quote.) Should take like 15 seconds.

I'm still waiting for you to provide some examples of me changing my story. Maybe after that you can provide examples of where I've been proven wrong. But first you need to back up your initial claim, and it seems like you're not really able to do that.

To be fair I'd rather hear Hoo and Trout continue that for the rest of my life than ever hear from sniveling @Wobblies ever again. You're nearly as bad as whoever that dude is from Fark who follows me around all the time.

Please point out a couple examples of my story shifting. Be incredibly specific - point out what my story was, then what it became. I think the trend you're noting is actually a case of TC gov 'flooding the zone with sh*t', and then being corrected with receipts shortly after, but I'll be interested to see what you come up with!

They'd object to it regardless. Nothing is going to change that. But it seems like the end of the next global is the most likely scenario to wrap this up in a way that works for everyone. I doubt CCC is going to boot Armen, so it likely won't end sooner. No need in being purposefully obtuse about that 🤷‍♂️

What does that have to do with starting a global? Our intention would be to fight until the next global (which almost certainly won't be started by us - we're at war already), align with Doom (since their values align with ours), and resolve our conflict with those peace negotiations. Did you not see that as the most reasonable way this ends? He's far from the only one in your sphere I discussed that scenario with. Here's me explaining it to someone else in your sphere, proving that it's nothing to do with starting a global so much as it is piggybacking on one.

Where do you get the impression that I'm trying to start a global now? You'd think I'd at least sign a treaty or two first if that was my goal. I don't know what a global war has to do with whether you had issues with my comments to Paul, though. Care to elaborate on the link?