Heft

I have explained it. The problem was that NPO was torn in multiple directions precisely at the moment we needed them in one direction. That one of the competing directions happened to be you is immaterial. It could have very well been someone else, and the end result would have been the same. Clearly, IRON does not have a great relationship with most of C&G, and I don't envy Int their current position, and I hope and trust that we will do whatever is necessary to alleviate any concerns they may have. But attempts to paint this cancellation as a shot at C&G are misguided and wrong.

We didn't cancel with NPO because of you. If you wish IRON to be your enemy then that is on you, not us. You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face, but that will not make your interpretations any more correct.

Because it was relevant to the point being made, which was to illustrate an instance of our relationship not working properly. Perhaps IRON would have preferred a more robust prosecution of the war, but that doesn't imply lingering ill-will towards C&G, just a desire to see wars we enter into fought fully. It [i]exposed[/i] a rift. Honestly, from what I've seen, IRON doesn't in general seem to care much one way or the other what happens to C&G, with the exception of Int. But we were on opposite sides in the war. You are reading into the text meanings that simply don't exist. Obviou

That was never stated, nor even implied. I understand that the focus of the OP has caused confusion and consternation, but now you're just reaching for something that isn't there. This cancellation isn't about CnG. It's about NPO and IRON, and no one else. There's no need for all this gnashing of teeth.

I don't think anyone disagrees that NPO gave a lot to the war effort. We did not cancel on them because of the war - the OP is merely using the conflicts that arose during the war to illustrate that IRON and NPO are no longer in lock step diplomatically. Does this mean we don't like them? No. We still respect them and I expect our two alliances to continue to work together productively in the future. But we will both be well-served by having a little bit of legal and political distance.

Very nice. Congrats to all involved.

Awesome, glad to see this.

I understand the point of a policy like this is to serve as a deterrent against further attacks, however I don't believe you have much of a credible deterrent. I don't imagine that the coalition arrayed against yours failed to somehow account for the possibility of GATO's allies entering the conflict, or that it would, ultimately, change the outcome of the war. I imagine that unconnected alliances will be unlikely to declare war directly on you - but that [i]was already the case[/i]. You've announced a deterrent that would be an irritant at best in response to a threat that was unlikely to

I'm sure all those alliances are glad that you approve of their wars against you, and I'm sure that any other alliance which was thinking of declaring war on you will make sure that they meet your standards of conduct before doing so. This would be less dumb if you were unequivocally winning the war, but since that's not the case, it's just dumb.

[quote name='Yerushalayim' timestamp='1357529631' post='3072258'] All Spartans are entitled to participate in, and benefit from, any Spartan economic programs. Unfortunately, we do have some limited resources, such as having only so many internal tech sellers. In situations where our resources are limited and we have to choose between Spartans, we try to choose based on need (ie: we prefer to help boost people who need it, rather than people who are already secure). In a situation where there is an equal need between two Spartans, and one has worked for the alliance while the other has simply

[quote name='Yerushalayim' timestamp='1357524276' post='3072221'] It's Sourcy's twisted view of something. He's raging against an honour given to members who have held positions within the alliance. [/quote] Does Sparta grant economic privileges to these members over other members based on these honorifics?

So is the policy real? Because that's pretty terrible.

I'm just amused that TENE made the "acceptable" list from an NSO member. It's the little things that delight me. [quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1356628811' post='3068498'] Well, to be fair, is it any worse than Krnk's threads? [/quote] This is so much better than a krunk thread. Those were just painful and awkward. This: chuckle-worthy.

Congrats on the new alliance. Sad to see Tetris going away, but NsO were cool in that war, so I'm sure this alliance will continue to be awesome. Also congrats on losing the VE connection.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1350535649' post='3042420'] Fancy way to say "Do something about it." May be all the people complaining about complainers should just go ahead and declare war on said complainers. [/quote] Too lazy. Much easier to just castigate others. Actually, the problem is these are all people who want people to "do something about it" and then NPO and Sparta went ahead and did something, but it wasn't the something that these people apparently wanted, so now they act all pissy and upset. The sense of entitlement it takes to arrive at that position is truly stunning