Sardonic Posted May 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1304362946' post='2704267'] Sard prefers to do his wheelings and dealings over IRC, so the embassy's date isn't as indicative of the total time we've been talking with them. [/quote] This is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1304364134' post='2704283'] Forgive us both for not taking the determinations of inconsequential parties into consideration before signing this and further entangling the treaty web. We are truly sorry. [/quote] Are you implying that individually your alliances are consequential (actually you're both total tools) or were you just being self deprecating? Either way, it's kinda funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Lord Curzon' timestamp='1304363022' post='2704268'] Alright cool, I’ll bite. I’m not going to sign up on your forums because I don’t care enough, so let’s start our Q & A right here. We’ll call it, “A Righteous Interrogation”[/quote] I'm too bored to really care, so why not, I'll bite on your nibble of the hook. [quote]Question 1) Why is CSN so bad? (you said we shouldn’t tell you, so I’ll ask your opinion instead)[/quote] Because of the whole DT affair I'd surmise. The only "mass" group who called CSN bad prior to this event was NSO. Do I think we're really bad? Nope, but I'm obviously biased. [quote]Question 2) Is CSN capable of having an original thought?[/quote] Sure. It's the reason why we haven't merged with GOD yet. [quote]Question 3) If CSN is capable of having an original thought, why did CSN think they should put their SF allies in a !@#$ position with their reps request[/quote] Before the war, there was a moderate opinion of us. After the war, there is a lesser opinion of us. Other than that, nothing else has changed (people seem to still hate on GOD, like RIA, and anywhere between indifferent and liking RnR). So I'm not sure how that puts SF! in a !@#$ position. As to why did we continue the reparations request? Pride and a jolly ol' stubbornness. Apparently, as we found out, the two don't always mix too well. But if you really think that we didn't stay in constant touch with our allies, either you have missed all of the Xiphosis jokes, or are just plain dumb. We kept them informed, they made their opinions known, and we made it clear we were not looking to escalate the war beyond what it already was (other than the brief 'stint' between DT's protectorate and GOD). DT wasn't looking to escalate the war either, so without the threat of escalation, it made staying in easier since we wouldn't have to pull in our allies for a rather lackluster and petty cause (regarding the pursuit of the reparations). Miscommunications between CSN and DT also didn't help the situation along, either. [quote]Question 4) Did CSN think that they would get into the cool kid club if they got big reps from DT? Does CSN believe this treaty with GOONS is vindication of their DT reps policy as evidenced by their entrance into the cool kids club?[/quote] No. No. [quote]Question 5) Did CSN anticipate the level of outrage they got from the DT reps? As a follow up, if not, why are you that incompetent. If so, why are you that incompetent? Is it the ghost of MA fail that haunts you?[/quote] Yes. N/A. N/A. [quote]Question 6) what percent of CSN regularly posts on your boards? Is it an alliance wide opinion that you guys are doin’ it right, or are most people just too inactive to care?[/quote] Anywhere between 70 and 90% I'd imagine. Regular check ins (with the threat of being kicked out if you are inactive) tends to improve activity. EDIT: Also note that I'm not looking to derail this thread so if you have any further "questions" regarding the DT affair, please PM me. Other than that, let's leave them at that. This thread is about the horrible relationship of GOONS and CSN. Srsly. Edited May 2, 2011 by SpacingOutMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1304370735' post='2704347'] Are you implying that individually your alliances are consequential (actually you're both total tools) or were you just being self deprecating? Either way, it's kinda funny. [/quote] Are you implying that GOONS and CSN are inconsequential in how we conduct of our own FA, or are you just not very smart? Either way, it's kinda funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Williambonney Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1304374338' post='2704386'] Are you implying that GOONS and CSN are inconsequential in how we conduct of our own FA, or are you just not very smart? Either way, it's kinda funny. [/quote] Chairman Hal may have his own opinions but for goons mine can be found [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=101494&view=findpost&p=2703470"]here[/url] csn= in my books, Goose can explain in further detail if you're curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1304374675' post='2704395'] Chairman Hal may have his own opinions but for goons mine can be found [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=101494&view=findpost&p=2703470"]here[/url] csn= in my books, Goose can explain in further detail if you're curious. [/quote] Did you hear that faint "woosh" sound? That was the point sailing past, and it went quite a distance over the top of your head. Hal's response to SirWilliam either A) implied that both CSN and GOONS were inconsequential in the signing of this treaty (huh?), or B) demonstrated a complete and perhaps willful lack of reading comprehension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Williambonney Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1304375550' post='2704414'] Did you hear that faint "woosh" sound? That was the point sailing past, and it went quite a distance over the top of your head. Hal's response to SirWilliam either A) [b]implied that both CSN and GOONS were inconsequential in the signing of this treaty [/b](huh?), or B) demonstrated a complete and perhaps willful lack of reading comprehension. [/quote] Point taken sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Curzon Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1304371421' post='2704359'] Do I think we're [b]really bad[/b]? Nope, but I'm obviously biased.[/quote] Ok, so just sorta bad. I suppose that’s acceptable. [quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1304371421' post='2704359'] Before the war, there was a moderate opinion of us. [b]After the war, there is a lesser opinion of us.[/b] Other than that, nothing else has changed (people seem to still hate on GOD, like RIA, and anywhere between indifferent and liking RnR). So I'm not sure how that puts SF! in a !@#$ position. As to why did we continue the reparations request? Pride and a jolly ol' stubbornness.[b] Apparently, as we found out, the two don't always mix too well.[/b] But if you really think that we didn't stay in constant touch with our allies, either you have missed all of the Xiphosis jokes, or are just plain dumb. [b]We kept them informed[/b], they made their opinions known [/quote] Well I’m glad to see that you too, are not a fan of your terms. Also, I’m glad to see your astute analysis of public perception. I’m actually quite sure you did keep in touch with your allies, which is why I’m rather skeptical about your answer to #2. Having said that, is it fair to say that CSN’s allies generally accepted your position, a position you yourself just admitted was driven by pride and stubbornness? If that is the case, then perhaps you may want to reconsider your answer regarding what you did to SF given that there is now a “lesser opinion” of CSN “because of the whole DT affair”, and that “informed” SF alliances are complicit in that decision by virtue of your extensive communication. Or actually, maybe you did reconsider that answer and that’s why we see this treaty? Good old fashion strategic treaty to help defend against the target you put on SF’s collective backs, hmm? Perhaps I’m just naïve, but when we look at the speed at which this was conducted and the very public (poor form btw) expressions by a GOONS member asking about where this relationship came from, only to get the response that he couldn’t see it because “Sard prefers to do his wheelings and dealings over IRC” aka this “relationship” developed in the backrooms, I’m forced to think that this is CSN’s way of apologizing for being so stupid by shoring up SF’s political position. Good for you guys CSN, and good for GOONS. I’m sure they’ll enjoy being able to continue to tote around SF when they need them. Gee though, I do hope that SF is a bit more united as a meatshield next time around. My point here is that this was a timid move by GOONS. There were other ways to do what you (GOONS) were trying to do without having to be tied to such incompetence. I think the disappointment you’ve seen in this thread reflects just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 [quote name='Goose' timestamp='1304216550' post='2702862'] Ughhh. This is horrible. I can't stand either of them. [/quote] This was actually my original thought, but I guess I've been warming up to both of these alliances recently. Congrats you two. Also I do know Goose was being sarcastic. I'm not though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefspari Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 [quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1304374675' post='2704395'] Chairman Hal may have his own opinions but for goons mine can be found [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=101494&view=findpost&p=2703470"]here[/url] csn= in my books, Goose can explain in further detail if you're curious. [/quote] If only we had known this in advance. Please fill us in so we can cancel this treaty before it's too late! [img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL11.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironfist Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) [quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1304361063' post='2704243'] How does that make any sense? People are going to bother to get to know you, so it's up to the MoFA to gain credibility... You gain credibility by getting people to know you, but if people aren't going bother to get to know you... How exactly does that work? It's one thing for a MoFA to gain credibility, but it's also required for the "listening" parties to have some semblance of maturity as well (which includes all parties, as well, CSN included). It's difficult when [i]certain[/i] alliances close our embassy outright, but that's all in the past and water under the bridge. I have no interest in trying to sell "CSN" to people who they, themselves, have no interest in CSN. [/quote] You don't have to get to know someone just to communicate with them. An alliance gains credibility through their FA actions which are also decided primarily by their MoFA. I would say it does make sense. But this applies to all alliances, not just CSN. It irritates me when people assume everyone can't comment until they know all the details. That's not how this place operates. Analyse this as you will. EDIT: And [I]certain alliances[/I] are welcome to behave in ways that don't cause cessation of communication. Edited May 3, 2011 by Ironfist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadrian Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Definitely a contender for WTE. Strengthened ties between SF and PB though...could work out for the best. I suppose we'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Lord Curzon' timestamp='1304388839' post='2704548'] Ok, so just sorta bad. I suppose that’s acceptable.[/quote] /me shrugs Matter of perception. [quote]Well I’m glad to see that you too, are not a fan of your terms. Also, I’m glad to see your astute analysis of public perception.[/quote] One would have to have their head in the sand to not notice. [quote]I’m actually quite sure you did keep in touch with your allies, which is why I’m rather skeptical about your answer to #2.[/quote] Why would you be skeptical of my answer? If we hadn't had any original thought, that would mean that our allies wanted to accomplish the goal of forcing the issue, which was (and is) most certainly not the case. I honestly can't think of any of our allies that were actual fans of the end-result regarding the reparations; we stuck to our guns (vain perhaps?). We didn't like our ally (Legacy) being hit and although some may see that as being childish or redundant (since allies generally get hit during war), we have no desire to let people "hit and run" our allies. In hindsight, if we had [i]stuck[/i] to that position by just adding to the duration of the war for, say, another week, instead of letting it devolve into what it actually did, I do believe that we would be in better standing without having sacrificed any sort of pride or 'honor'. [quote]Having said that, is it fair to say that CSN’s allies generally accepted your position, a position you yourself just admitted was driven by pride and stubbornness?[/quote] No, that is not the case. At least amongst our allies, we [i]try[/i] to keep things between us instead of airing dirty laundry about one another in public forum (similar to what happened to the CSN-The Brain cancellation thread). Did our allies support us? Yes, but that doesn't necessitate them to support our cause(s) in the affair. Ultimately that is (more or less) the exact reason why treaties with The Brain and TYR (long-standing treaties) were dropped, and a semi-pertinent cause of the Athens treaty being cancelled. If our allies were so ashamed by the affair that they could no longer bear the 'immorality' of our actions, we gave them ample opportunity to air those grievances and cut ties. Every alliance makes mistakes, but that doesn't necessarily (rather it shouldn't) mean that their friends and allies should just cut ties and let the relationship die. Although a bit masochistic, it takes a [i]real[/i] friend to not only accept that you will make mistakes, but also call you out on it. Our allies made their opinions known and we moved forward. And if you are wondering: it was a pretty good "panning" across the board regarding our decision. [quote]If that is the case, then perhaps you may want to reconsider your answer regarding what you did to SF given that there is now a “lesser opinion” of CSN “because of the whole DT affair”, and that “informed” SF alliances are complicit in that decision by virtue of your extensive communication.[/quote] Is the act of informing an ally that you are going to war become a complicit affair where that informed ally now supports the war since it was simply discussed? No, and I can't think of any other asinine logic that would lead anyone to such a conclusion. When Ragnarok entered the war in defense of NpO, there was a !@#$storm that happened, which led to intermittent discussions and conversations. Does that mean that since discussions occurred between Ragnarok and SF!, SF!, "by virtue of our extensive communication" support RoK's defense of NpO, therefore transitively supporting NpO? Not at all. Our allies respected our sovereignty to defend our allies, and ultimately respected our sovereignty to wade through the cesspool and fecal-ridden waters that we had dove head first into. [quote]Or actually, maybe you did reconsider that answer and that’s why we see this treaty? Good old fashion strategic treaty to help defend against the target you put on SF’s collective backs, hmm?[/quote] SuperFriends! has [i]always[/i] had a target on its back since the first war it involved itself in. Nothing there has changed. [quote]Perhaps I’m just naïve, but when we look at the speed at which this was conducted and the very public (poor form btw) expressions by a GOONS member asking about where this relationship came from, only to get the response that he couldn’t see it because “Sard prefers to do his wheelings and dealings over IRC” aka this “relationship” developed in the backrooms, [/quote] Yes, we (as in Liz) started talking to Sardonic in back channels a while ago. I've had a great many conversations with several GOONS members. It's not like before talking to Sardonic, GOONS and CSN had never had any interactions [i]at all[/i] prior to. After thinking about it for a bit, we decided to open up a Q&A (on both forums), which allowed membership to weigh in. Our membership has had, and still has, a rather high opinion of GOONS (with the only reservations stemming from the GOONS 1.0), so there was overwhelming support for it, and I'd imagine that the GOONS membership can reciprocate it since they signed the treaty. [quote]I’m forced to think that this is CSN’s way of apologizing for being so stupid by shoring up SF’s political position.[/quote] You mean by tying ourselves to GOONS, who is a part of a bloc that most of the rest of SF! has distinct reservations and not-higher-than-average opinions at best? Yes, clearly this is our way of thanking SF! by treatying GOONS because we actually like them and know that they are not only loyal, but an awesome group of people. Yep, makes perfect sense. [quote]I think the disappointment you’ve seen in this thread reflects just that. [/quote] If you thought we were looking to impress people, you clearly don't follow GOONS and CSN very well. [quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1304408765' post='2705012'] [...] Stuff [...] EDIT: And [I]certain alliances[/I] are welcome to behave in ways that don't cause cessation of communication. [/quote] Fair enough, I was just pointing out that you can't make FA decisions [i]without[/i] communication. On the contrary, FA policy hinges on communication and the ability to be able to express your ideas and opinions. And so much a cessation that GATO still maintains a presence in the embassy on our forums? Nonetheless, our doors have always remained open and I'm not too interested in past uncivilized rantings by either my own membership or some other. Edited May 3, 2011 by SpacingOutMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 [font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2][quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1304430821' post='2705146'] Is the act of informing an ally that you are going to war become a complicit affair where that informed ally now supports the war since it was simply discussed? No, and I can't think of any other asinine logic that would lead anyone to such a conclusion. When Ragnarok entered the war in defense of NpO, there was a !@#$storm that happened, which led to intermittent discussions and conversations. Does that mean that since discussions occurred between Ragnarok and SF!, SF!, "by virtue of our extensive communication" support RoK's defense of NpO, therefore transitively supporting NpO? Not at all. [/quote] It will be a fine day, my friend, when it becomes a common theme among the alliances of the world to finally regard one other with sovereignty, each making their own decisions based solely upon what they think of a single alliance, rather than basing their opinions solely on who that alliance's allies are.[/size][/font] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 [quote name='Mergerberger II' timestamp='1304431045' post='2705151'] [font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2] It will be a fine day, my friend, when it becomes a common theme among the alliances of the world to finally regard one other with sovereignty, each making their own decisions based solely upon what they think of a single alliance, rather than basing their opinions solely on who that alliance's allies are.[/size][/font] [/quote] Realistically, I don't fault RoK at all; they made a gut decision to burn for you guys, and they were happy to do so. That is [i]more[/i] than honorable, but as we have all seen, it generally results with repercussions pertaining to other allies. All the Xiphosis jokes aside, CSN willfully inserted itself into the position we are now in (without hindsight naturally); that is not the fault of our allies, but our own exercised sovereignty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1304431238' post='2705154'] Realistically, I don't fault RoK at all; they made a gut decision to burn for you guys, and they were happy to do so. That is [i]more[/i] than honorable, but as we have all seen, it generally results with repercussions pertaining to other allies. All the Xiphosis jokes aside, CSN willfully inserted itself into the position we are now in (without hindsight naturally); that is not the fault of our allies, but our own exercised sovereignty. [/quote] I didn't mean to insinuate that you didn't willingly put yourself in your current position. My statement was more of a general observation based on the behavior of a great number of people during my interactions with them. More opinions of us are based on who our allies are than who we are. And it is frustrating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironfist Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1304430821' post='2705146'] Fair enough, I was just pointing out that you can't make FA decisions [i]without[/i] communication. On the contrary, FA policy hinges on communication and the ability to be able to express your ideas and opinions. And so much a cessation that GATO still maintains a presence in the embassy on our forums? Nonetheless, our doors have always remained open and I'm not too interested in past uncivilized rantings by either my own membership or some other. [/quote] So we're sort of arguing the same point? Cool. Sort of fitting for this world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 [quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1304434467' post='2705188'] So we're sort of arguing the same point? Cool. Sort of fitting for this world. [/quote] Indeed, it does seem that we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 [quote name='Mergerberger II' timestamp='1304431335' post='2705156'] My statement was more of a general observation based on the behavior of a great number of people during my interactions with them. More opinions of us are based on who our allies are than who we are. And it is frustrating. [/quote] I think you guys might be the exception to the rule actually; most people I know base their opinions of you on, well, what Grub did when he was your Emperor. What you say is frequently true of many alliances though, and it shouldn't be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckmanero Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 [quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1304216074' post='2702848'] [color="#0000FF"]I like GOONS, but CSN is a godawful alliance. You really could do better.[/color] [/quote] I know this post is from a lot earlier... But I seem to remember NSO being the worst alliance in this game, with UPN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 [quote name='ckmanero' timestamp='1304448017' post='2705329'] I know this post is from a lot earlier... But I seem to remember NSO being the worst alliance in this game, with UPN. [/quote] You're thinking of Legion. I can't remember how NSO did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) [quote]I’m forced to think that this is CSN’s way of apologizing for being so stupid by shoring up SF’s political position.[/quote] No. A couple months back I was talking to Liz about a few alliances and leaders I really liked, and one of them was Sardonic and GOONS. So she joined their channel and talked to them a bit, and soon various gov members of the two alliances were talking. From there they formed a good relationship between the two alliances, and eventually signed a treaty. This wasn't really a move orchestrated by SF, or an attempt to shore up their political position (in the time since I recommended that, RIA canceled on VE, for example). It was, quite simply, two alliances meeting each other and deciding that they had quite a bit in common and liked each other. It's really as simple as that. It's been a friendship that's been in the making for some time now, and I'm glad to see this treaty. Now will you drop the tinfoil hat? Edited May 3, 2011 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 ooooo so Liz was taking FA advice from Penkala? well this explains everything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted May 4, 2011 Report Share Posted May 4, 2011 [quote name='ckmanero' timestamp='1304448017' post='2705329'] I know this post is from a lot earlier... But I seem to remember NSO being the worst alliance in this game, with UPN. [/quote] CSN has MA in it. You can't beat that, not even with the UPN card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted May 4, 2011 Report Share Posted May 4, 2011 (edited) [quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1304465133' post='2705554'] ooooo so Liz was taking FA advice from Penkala? well this explains everything [/quote] Yes. I direct CSN's FA. .... Do you even know how to read? Or are you just being purposefully obtuse? Go back and try it again. Edit: If I were directing CSN's FA, they'd have a treaty with VE too. Edited May 4, 2011 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.