Open Invitation from the SuperFriends

[Penkala]

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1312772530' post='2774603']
if they wanted to take advice they would have done it before trying to extort DT
[/quote]

Pretty much the only reason DT had to pay those reps is because of the way people like [i]you[/i] handled the situation. Read Delta's response early in the thread. He explains it pretty well.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1312807243' post='2774801']
Pretty much the only reason DT had to pay those reps is because of the way people like [i]you[/i] handled the situation. Read Delta's response early in the thread. He explains it pretty well.
[/quote]

No, the reason for the reps was that CSN[i] chose[/i] to impose reps. Whatever the reasons were for their choice(and those can be debated), the bottom line is it was their [b]choice[/b].

No more, no less...

Edited August 8, 2011 by chefjoe

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1312755799' post='2774372']
Well it would have cost us seeing it would have taken at least R&R offguard. That said we are pretty much able to mobilize in 48 hours max from def 5 to def 1 so it would be a big inconvenience but not the end really. Xiph and Delta talked because Xiph and Delta where or are allied to SOS, R&R is not. How often is NSO involved in negotiations of allies of allies? That way every negotiation would be pretty messy if 2 parties have a problem and bring in all their allies and those allies bring in their allies too. As for ourselves i'm glad to say most R&R's allies don't get into messy situations by their own doing that often where they're not able to find a peaceful solution themselves. One of the few times i recall was between DMI and NSO and i believe that was settled soon enough after a little talk no?[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I agree that not everyone needs to be part of discussions, but somehow Xiphy always seems to end up in there. Deny it all you wish (your Stockholm Syndrome will only be more apparent), but it is clear to us all who runs things over there.

As for the incident with Dunder Mifflin, "settled" would not be the word I would use to describe it. Rather, consider it momentarily dropped, but not settled.

For those of you unfamiliar with this incident, a Dunder Mifflin member attacked the NSO. After hours of headache, Dunder Mifflin allowed us to attack the rogue to defend our member and kicked him from their alliance. Shortly after, their MoFA aids the rogue 3 mil, and then Cable allows them member to return to the alliance (while still at war with NSO). NSO could not have resolved it, as Dunder Mifflin was intentionally difficult, and having the full backing of RnR and SF was feeling bold.

Dunder Mifflin was not worth a suicide run at SF, but understand, I've not forgotten. There is so much that I still remember, and still more that remains to be settled.[/color]

[quote]I wouldn't call R&R a leader either no. Not in our nature, though we really don't follow Xiph blindly and though our support for GOD is big, it's not unconditional to say that they can just do anything they please. In many cases that means when disagreeing, let things cool off a bit, don't attack but just discuss an issue and suddenly you see Xiph isn't such an unreasonable person at all, who would figure that being friendly and talk instead of yell and curse would work so well.

how did we unconditionally support Xiph when he said he wanted to disband UPN? Did i fall asleep and miss the disbanding part? That you don't see discussions between GOD and R&R doesn't mean they are not their nor that we go spread around "yeah we no like either, we doing everything against it". We prefer to settle matters we don't agree with in private, sometimes that doesn't work usually it does. When it doesn't work you have to decide is it worth cancelling a treaty over or are we going another way with this. So far the treaty is still there so apparently we haven't thought it necessary to cancel just yet.As far as CSN-DT, i know xiph was involved, honestly i'm not sure about how much his involvement really was, from my understanding it wasn't anything more then a little helping hand but whatever it was, it was CSN's decision to include Xiph or not. How many R&R negotions do you know Xiph got involved in? Only time i recall was when he and Jim pushed for a last round of negotiations and wanted to help out with UINE. They wanted to try one last talk, find some way out while we where busy preparing to attack and pretty much done with talking. They asked for one last meeting, I didn't turn it down, at the end it worked (kinda for the moment).

But this is what puzzles me, you question why i wasn't involved in the SOS-NsO talks, you question about Xiphs involvement in the CSN-DT situation and most of all you point at our absence and how we only follow. But tell me, should we have stuck our nose in all those things, wouldn't we be doing EXACTLY what you accuse Xiph of doing? We have no business in negotiations of allies and certainly not allies of allies unless our presence is requested. Just like none of our allies has any business in ours unless we or maybe the people we're negotiating with request it.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]While I am glad to see that you have it in you to admit your passive follower nature, you must understand that you are following Xiphy blindly. Sure, you may not like some of his nonsense, and may even complain at times. Yet you've said it has never reached the point of canceling a treaty, and let me tell you, it never will. Xiphy knows that you will not cancel, even if you object to some of his unnecessary posturing. In the end you will always back up him up. So tell me, how is RnR not the very definition of a follower?[/color]

Edited August 8, 2011 by Rebel Virginia

[Khyber]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1312769738' post='2774573']
I think it's a combination of accepting the painfully obvious combined with a few poor ways of expressing our thoughts (especially from me in my last few posts about PB). Let me correct a few things.

1. We're not rolling over crying why us. We realize why for most and we're gonna try to change whats coming instead of just taking it without a fight.
2. My last few posts in which i referred to PB where very poorly worded, we have several good ties to PB, so to say they are on the other side was both not true and in a way disrespectful. We're not considering them our opposition or "on the other side", we do however realize looking at most likely points of conflict, they might get in a very tricky position, in which we can't automatically assume they will be on our side.

So yeah as i stated earlier, we're in a tough political position, in which anything can happen, the outcome will highly depend on where a conflict starts and how and how several alliances deal with that. That said, you don't plan your future on how it works out if everything works in your favor, you look at most likely scenarios and worst case scenarios and try to work to a better place from there on.
[/quote]

I don't understand how you are in a tough political position. Two of the three DH alliances are directly allied to XX or SF members with MDP level treaties. Mj has one ODPs with one alliance in DH, and one ODP with IRON which is in DR which Valhalla is part of as well. So DH is firmly on your side as it stands now.

Then you have VE, and FOK which your heavily tied to as well. Leaving the only alliance that could go Mj by itself is NG which I doubt would happen.

PF is not committed to any side with ties to both DR, through IRON and DH, through Umbrella and MK. MK for their dislike would likely roll with DH or at worse if they don't want to support SF/XX they can go neutral.

SF/XX has gathered NpO on its side as well, and their allies. NPO is not likely to play a roll, or come in on the side of Mj at most through a long treaty chain where many of those treaties have none chaining clauses, and if that happens it may secure PB's backing of SF/XX.

I understand your being trolled a good deal, but tough position you are not in.

Then again NSO is on the other side, and I know how scary they are. Best advice I got for you is use the swartz it is far more powerful then the force.

[Diabloz]

[quote name='Khyber' timestamp='1312811148' post='2774814']
I don't understand how you are in a tough political position. Two of the three DH alliances are directly allied to XX or SF members with MDP level treaties. Mj has one ODPs with one alliance in DH, and one ODP with IRON which is in DR which Valhalla is part of as well. So DH is firmly on your side as it stands now.

Then you have VE, and FOK which your heavily tied to as well. Leaving the only alliance that could go Mj by itself is NG which I doubt would happen.

PF is not committed to any side with ties to both DR, through IRON and DH, through Umbrella and MK. MK for their dislike would likely roll with DH or at worse if they don't want to support SF/XX they can go neutral.

SF/XX has gathered NpO on its side as well, and their allies. NPO is not likely to play a roll, or come in on the side of Mj at most through a long treaty chain where many of those treaties have none chaining clauses, and if that happens it may secure PB's backing of SF/XX.

I understand your being trolled a good deal, but tough position you are not in.

Then again NSO is on the other side, and I know how scary they are. Best advice I got for you is use the swartz it is far more powerful then the force.
[/quote]

You won't know what is happening and how it is unless you are in DH/PB/SF/XX . Things right now look like that, but how will things look like when the war arrives is the question, you can't build assumptions on how the web looks now, because you don't know what is happening internally in each of these blocs.

[Khyber]

[quote name='Diabloz' timestamp='1312812911' post='2774822']
You won't know what is happening and how it is unless you are in DH/PB/SF/XX . Things right now look like that, but how will things look like when the war arrives is the question, you can't build assumptions on how the web looks now, because you don't know what is happening internally in each of these blocs.
[/quote]

I agree, but they're actions will play a hugh role in how things will look from now until the war arrives. Their suggestion that they are in a weak position now is false. Are they seeing their power wane? Yes. Are they seeing powerful alliances realigning? Yes. But what are they doing about this besides Xiph continually clinging to lies that Chill himself has publicly stated here before saying he created to pressure his allies to conforming with what he wanted, and several posts and another thread of how bad they have it.

[D34th]

[quote name='Khyber' timestamp='1312811148' post='2774814']
PF is not committed to any side with ties to both DR, through IRON and DH, through Umbrella and MK.

SF/XX has gathered NpO on its side as well, and their allies.
[/quote]

PF has treaties with two blocs but isn't committed with any side, Polaris has a optional treaty with Fark and that automatically make us committed with both XX and SF, your logic confuses me.

[Diabloz]

[quote name='Khyber' timestamp='1312814021' post='2774832']
I agree, but they're actions will play a hugh role in how things will look from now until the war arrives. Their suggestion that they are in a weak position now is false. Are they seeing their power wane? Yes. Are they seeing powerful alliances realigning? Yes. But what are they doing about this besides Xiph continually clinging to lies that Chill himself has publicly stated here before saying he created to pressure his allies to conforming with what he wanted, and several posts and another thread of how bad they have it.
[/quote]

As i said maybe they are noticing things you might not have seen. But you are forgetting that Mj will have AZTEC and their Co on their side as well. Now they know they aren't in such a bad position but where they will be placed when war arrives is the difference.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1312807243' post='2774801']
Pretty much the only reason DT had to pay those reps is because of the way people like [i]you[/i] handled the situation. Read Delta's response early in the thread. He explains it pretty well.[/quote]

I don't think you realize just how bad that makes SF look about right now.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1312815317' post='2774843']
I don't think you realize just how bad that makes SF look about right now.
[/quote]

Penkala is in Non Grata, which last time I checked isn't in SF.

[Diabloz]

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1312815882' post='2774848']
Penkala is in Non Grata
[/quote]

News to me

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1312815882' post='2774848']
Penkala is in Non Grata, which last time I checked isn't in SF.[/quote]

So then SF as a group repudiates Penkala's statement, he misinterpreted what Delta was saying, and in fact the reparations that were demanded by CSN were in hindsight unjustified, correct?

[Delta1212]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1312817073' post='2774861']
So then SF as a group repudiates Penkala's statement, he misinterpreted what Delta was saying, and in fact the reparations that were demanded by CSN were in hindsight unjustified, correct?
[/quote]
I believe I already answered this question for Magnet about the same confusion over the difference between justifying something and making a distinction between Bad and Worst Thing Anyone Has Ever Done.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1312817561' post='2774869']
I believe I already answered this question for Magnet about the same confusion over the difference between justifying something and making a distinction between Bad and Worst Thing Anyone Has Ever Done.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]So because other people have done worse things we should forget about CSN's glaring incompetence? Oh Delta, you're better that.[/color]

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1312818398' post='2774872']
[color="#0000FF"]So because other people have done worse things we should forget about CSN's glaring incompetence? Oh Delta, you're better that.[/color]
[/quote]
Which is why I didn't say it.

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1312809102' post='2774806']
[color="#0000FF"]I agree that not everyone needs to be part of discussions, but somehow Xiphy always seems to end up in there. Deny it all you wish (your Stockholm Syndrome will only be more apparent), but it is clear to us all who runs things over there.

As for the incident with Dunder Mifflin, "settled" would not be the word I would use to describe it. Rather, consider it momentarily dropped, but not settled.

For those of you unfamiliar with this incident, a Dunder Mifflin member attacked the NSO. After hours of headache, Dunder Mifflin allowed us to attack the rogue to defend our member and kicked him from their alliance. Shortly after, their MoFA aids the rogue 3 mil, and then Cabal allows them member to return to the alliance (while still at war with NSO). NSO could not have resolved it, as Dunder Mifflin was intentionally difficult, and having the full backing of RnR and SF was feeling bold.

Dunder Mifflin was not worth a suicide run at SF, but understand, I've not forgotten. There is so much that I still remember, and still more that remains to be settled.[/color]


[color="#0000FF"]While I am glad to see that you have it in you to admit your passive follower nature, you must understand that you are following Xiphy blindly. Sure, you may not like some of his nonsense, and may even complain at times. Yet you've said it has never reached the point of canceling a treaty, and let me tell you, it never will. Xiphy knows that you will not cancel, even if you object to some of his unnecessary posturing. In the end you will always back up him up. So tell me, how is RnR not the very definition of a follower?[/color]
[/quote]

The DMI issue was settled, agreed it took more hassle then something like that should have taken but your gov gave no indication the end result was something they couldn't live with. So unless they were to afraid to speak up there's no need to discuss it further really.

As for the other part.. well you keep thinking that if that makes you happy.

Edited August 8, 2011 by EgoFreaky

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1312819453' post='2774894']
The DMI issue was settled, agreed it took more hassle then something like that should have taken but your gov gave no indication the end result was something they couldn't live with. So unless they were to afraid to speak up there's no need to discuss it further really.

As for the other part.. well you keep thinking that if that makes you happy.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]That issue was not settled. Do not delude yourself for a moment thinking that it is over. The Sith remember. We had more than enough reason to attack Dunder Mifflin for aiding a rogue (if I recall correctly RnR supports the use of that as a CB, and rightly so, although you were far less diplomatic during that incident than we were towards your protectorate). But you would have supported your protectorate's provocation of us, and its attempts to do us harm. Likewise SF would have supported you. That put us in an uncomfortable situation, and 3 Mil was not worth making a huge fuss over, or getting killed over.

But we remember, and we're waiting. That score is not yet settled.[/color]

[hizzy]

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1312807243' post='2774801']
Pretty much the only reason DT had to pay those reps is because of the way people like [i]you[/i] handled the situation. Read Delta's response early in the thread. He explains it pretty well.
[/quote]

you know we always joke about people cutting off their own nose to spite their face, but not too often do you have someone try to defend such a notion and actually blame the face.

[ImperialCubanacan]

Xiphosis likes me, I have very lovable qualities. He knows it, I know it -- we both know it.

I have no questions. Only fact. =]



Regards,
Cuba

P.S. Gibbs and Liz are cool.

[WarriorConcept]

How do you feel about the recent FOK govt changes and its cancellations?

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1312817561' post='2774869']
I believe I already answered this question for Magnet about the same confusion over the difference between justifying something and making a distinction between Bad and Worst Thing Anyone Has Ever Done.[/quote]

Let's go back here then...

[quote]A good recent example of this is CsN. It insults CSN by implying that they aren't a sovereign alliance. People who don't like CSN (and there are a lot of them) find this funny for obvious reasons. Implying Xiph has control of them adds all the people who don't like Xiph. It spreads around and helps cement the idea that Xiphosis is in control of CSN and the rest of SF, despite this having [I]literally no basis in reality[/I]. The entire idea started with speculation that because the terms were harsh, and people didn't think CSN was a harsh alliance, they must have been secretly forced by Xiph. Now enough people legitimately dislike CSN that I doubt this would have any traction as an idea, but it persists because people thought it was funny at the time, and once it's out there, the source becomes irrelevant.[/quote]

That statement more or less lines up with what Chefjoe was just implying, that is that the decision to demand high reparations was ultimately CSN's and CSN's alone, even if they handed Xiph a virtual piece of of paper and said, "hell I dunno, make up some stuff."

It is also not for you to ask the question "ok, now how do we make this right?", since RIA clearly has no intention of making it right. That is for CSN to do. I also recognize however that people are reticent to apologize for things in the past many times because that would be seen as a sign of present weakness or an admission of guilt that goes beyond the act itself. That CSN may have placed itself in the position of having an eternal enemy is why one does not make over the top demands of an enemy you aren't prepared to exterminate, along with all its closest friends and allies. In the end, within the context of this simulation not even NPO welded that much power as the Karma War and the lead up to it showed. An even better analogy, you will never see a treaty between Valhalla and STA, even though both alliances have at various points more in common in terms of philosophy and goals than either is willing to admit.

Your concern however, and that of RnR and alliances outside of SF treatied to individual members of the bloc really, is that you have agreed to stand by people and support their actions publicly and by force of arms that engage in behavior that is considered unacceptable to a growing number of people. No, Xiph isn't ordering you about, anymore than Electron Sponge was ordering about all the members of BLEU. But on the other hand, is your "no" taken as "no" in backroom IRC channels or is it taken as "he'll come around later if I keep harassing him about it" or "he'll support us whatever he is saying now?" When it is taken as "no", is it seen as an act of disloyalty rather than a difference of opinion?

I don't expect an answer to these questions here. I would however suggest that you go back to your own private IRC channels, away from SF, and think about the implications of whatever answer is an honest one.

[SpacingOutMan]

Eternal enemies? That's a rather exaggerated statement. Both Bob and I agreed that, OOCly, there are no real qualms (none personally anyways), and most of that angst and hate exists ICly. Eternal enemies, at least in my eyes, represents both an IC/OOC opposition, which doesn't exist (or at least not very clearly) between us. Likewise, there is no such thing as eternal enemies as exemplified by almost every rivalry in the game. Either a rival becomes a friend, or they disband.

[IYIyTh]

To R&R: Do you consider RV's feelings for DMI stronger than MHA's?

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1312825358' post='2775017']
Eternal enemies? That's a rather exaggerated statement. Both Bob and I agreed that, OOCly, there are no real qualms (none personally anyways), and most of that angst and hate exists ICly. Eternal enemies, at least in my eyes, represents both an IC/OOC opposition, which doesn't exist (or at least not very clearly) between us. Likewise, there is no such thing as eternal enemies as exemplified by almost every rivalry in the game. Either a rival becomes a friend, or they disband.[/quote]

Now you've made me step away from the gaming table again...

Oh, you can be absolute, eternal enemies with people in this game and wouldn't know them if they sent you an IM on Facebook, let alone showed up and parked a lawn chair in front of your house. You can even disagree OOC with the way the people game, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't buy them a beer at a Cyber Nations convention. True OOC rivalries, let alone eternal enemies, are rare in this game, though I've known of some.

It's fun to get rivalries and hate going at times, though if you annoy enough people often enough, you'll get pounded on severely--numerous wars including a few global conflicts have that more or less as a CB. You can even have two groups that will never be on the same side on purpose and that's fine. Looking people's RL phone numbers on the Internet because you want to harass them? Not so much...

Point of being here is to have fun, learn something, and don't act like a moron in the process. You and Bob get along OOC, cool. You want to put a knife in each others back IC, cool. Maybe someday IC you're allies, maybe not. Right now, I'd say most certainly, not.

Now back to that table....

[youwish959]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1312819453' post='2774894']
The DMI issue was settled, agreed it took more hassle then something like that should have taken but your gov gave no indication the end result was something they couldn't live with. So unless they were to afraid to speak up there's no need to discuss it further really.

As for the other part.. well you keep thinking that if that makes you happy.
[/quote]
The issue was not settled and the only reason it was really dropped is that your good buddy Cable quit responding to PMs.