Heft
-
Posts
2,802 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Heft
-
-
It was a point of contention even if it wasn't brought up. You had to cancel with NPO over it. You say that NPO was trying to do CnG a favor or protect us or not see us rolled etc....which means you must have had the opposite stance of not doing us any favors, not wanting to help out an ally's bloc and wanted to see us rolled.... If none of that is true of IRON...it wouldn't be a problem would it?
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.
-
Then why mention CnG at all in the OP? It was stated quite clearly to me. If we weren't part of it why say "NPO was obliged to preserve CnG" or "NPO valued CnG over a full victory." in your lists of reasons? Don't bullshit a bullshitter Heft. So again, why was it such a point of contention? You seem to have wanted us rolled...NPO did not so it caused a rift. It's explicitly in the OP. So, again, I ask why?
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. Obviously many of you didn't hold a high opinion of IRON before this, and that is fine, but you are allowing those doubts to shape your reaction to this announcement.
-
It's easy when its 20+ on 5 isn't it? We fought our way and it worked exceedingly well. Your frustration of not finding people to pile on and our top tier outnumbered those we fought combined. Also, we didn;t knock them down we pretty much destroyed them. None of this is either here or there. [b]I'm still interested in why IRON thought CnG had to die[/b]..... I mean we knew that was their plan after reading AI trying to calm the fears of some of the smaller alliances whose top tiers were being decimated... He said getting CnG out was a priority. The thought was as laughable then as it is now.
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 respect IRON, but I have to disagree with the reasoning behind this.
The last war was as clear a victory for eQ as they were likely to get. Almost all of the alliances on Competence's side fought a lot and took a major hit, as much as most on the loosing side, if not more, than in previous wars. The war lasted for several months. They've claimed they didn't want reps. I'm not sure what else IRON could have wanted. Dragging it out for many more months to try to take out what top tier you couldn't defeat Gremlins style? The probability of that actually working that way was low, and probably would have ended up being a relatively even exchange. It was time for that war to end when it did.
As for NPO balancing their allies in C&G vs. the desires of their allies in Equilibrium, especially IRON, NPO's actions heavily leaned towards eQ. They fought on that side, put a lot of power onto that side, helped start the war that many in eQ wanted, and didn't stop it from going for several months. Showing that you don't just completely abandon your allies on the other side during war when it comes time for the politics of peace, doesn't make you a bad ally to your allies on the side you join.
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.
-
You missed the point which is the last sentence of the post of mine that you quoted.
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 ever materialize. It just comes across as an attempt to look bigger and badder than you actually are. Puffery and hot air.
-
No we didn't this is a from here on in kinda thing.
For the record what we consider good to go:
GATO DoW on GOD Via CnG
GATO DoW on Invicta Via CnG
RnR DoW on GATO Via SF
DBDH DoW on GATO Via oDoAP with Invicta
All legit and good to go. Anyone else wanna get involved based off MD treaties with GOD and Invicta? Fine just post it up. Anyone wanna get involved with GATO via MA or oA with RnR or DBDH? Fine with us just post it up. Somone with an oA to an oA partner of RnR wanna get involved? Go right ahead just post it up and the treaty chain you are using. Not too much to ask. Someone without a valid tie in to any of the above want to get involved? We're gonna have a problem with that and hopefully all of our allies will too.
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 remained on the AA, we would obviously prefer to spend our resources on the person who has helped the alliance, and even then we would ensure that the other Spartan receive their own aid as soon as the resources open up.
[/quote]
So you did indeed create an economically privileged class within your alliance, and justified this as a reaction to a lack of internal tech sellers? Fascinating. -
[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. -
[quote name='Dajobo' timestamp='1350533106' post='3042407']
Settle down Heft, there's no need for logic to be used around here!
[/quote]
I can't settle down, the only thing I have left is my smoldering resentment for, well, everyone. Without that, who am I? -
Maybe all the people complaining should just go ahead and declare war on NPO. Or you're all just a bunch of weak-willed children so dependent on others to fulfill your desires for you that you can actually find this offensive.
-
[quote name='Sniper Joe' timestamp='1340854193' post='2998988']
I'm not suggesting that SF isn't in a bad position right now. What I'm disagreeing with is your implication that Mjolnir had anything to do with that. You were coattail riders who got a cheap shot in, you were not leaders in their destruction and indeed played a very small part. Your war performance was also horrendous and [b]I have no doubt that SF would have destroyed you in a one-on-one fight.[/b]
[/quote]
I think we can all agree that that is simply not true. Also, that MK should attack Dave for aiding CSN during wartime. Also, that Banksy is just [i]the worst[/i]. Also, that MK probably should've gotten a more reliable patsy. -
An excellent decision.
-
[quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1340672926' post='2996343']
I thought you and yours got your piece (and peace) last war.
[/quote]
Why would you think that? SF, and especially, spent the last war being shielded and only having to fight a relatively modest battle, one dictated by their own allies. Chasing down SF wasn't really the point of the last war, and it showed - SF was largely let off the hook. GOD has spent the last couple years dodging bullets, and even now transparently attempts to mitigate the damage of this conflict by painting themselves as downtrodden victims. Such woe, to be oppressed by the demonic Mushroom Kingdom and her acolytes - a hegemonic force more evil than even the reviled Continuum, seeking out the misery of poor, innocent GOD and SF for no other reason than...sadism?
This declaration is nothing more than the desperation of a pathetic, cowardly alliance. -
[quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1340508130' post='2994003']
Meh, bring it IRON.
It's unfortunate you guys are playing this way, though.
[/quote]
And what way would that be? Also, this is TOP's thread. Hi TOP! -
Hurray! For justice, and oranges!
-
[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1340249974' post='2991120']
It matters if you're going to use it against us. Drop it and I'll drop my objections to your little crusade.
[/quote]
Well that seems a little hyperbolic. -
[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1340248033' post='2991054']
I've been pointing out two points. Of course, I don't expect *you* in specific to appreciate the arguments. Former IRON government members aren't exactly the people I'm trying to talk to.
Two points out of three seem to be a good deal to me. That's 66% of their OP. 66% of their war reasons.
And yes, it's complicated to send tech to a guy who's not online to confirm the tech must be sent to him and, when he is, he ignores us.
I've only repeated myself as many times as IRON has said the lie about Opti being a member. I already acknowledged that they were perfectly in their right to DoW on us for the apology presented. I don't know how I am the one being obtuse or refusing to recognize what is right and what isn't.
[/quote]
I've only noticed the one. It's pretty clear that Rab assumed LSF was abiding by the terms when he thought they were apologizing. Once it was clear you guys had actually done basically the opposite of that, someone went and double-checked the rest and noticed that Opti was still masked. His AA wasn't LSF, but it hadn't been LSF during the entire situation, as I understand it. So, no visible change in membership status.
Not that it really matters, following "$%&@ you in the ass." -
[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1340244621' post='2990954']
No, like ZL. So Zee-Ell. But I agree, $%&@ life.
[/quote]
Oh, I see. I guess that explains it. It's still, uh, pretty dumb.
IRON Announcement
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
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.