Open Invitation from the SuperFriends

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Dontasemebro' timestamp='1312541108' post='2772569']
I challenge all of NSO to a duel with all the power I have in RIA at my command! Except for my nation. My nation can sit out. The rest of those that I command in RIA will duel NSO!
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]If NSO only had a few more larger nations we'd easily tear your inactive husk of an alliance apart. Will you deny this? RIA is quite inactive. As a former member I can attest to this. RIA has always been lackluster and less than mediocre. So, let me ask you, when will RIA put as much effort into putting itself in order as it does in making stupid jokes and repeating exhausted memes?[/color]

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1312567782' post='2772728']
... and the world collectively yawned. [/quote]

At you perhaps, but please let's continue down the rabbit hole of your lies for a moment...it's Friday and I'm bored.

[quote]You jumped to the Hegemony because you were certain SuperFriends was about to be curbstomped.[/quote]

[b]FALSE[/b]. Indeed as I stated, I went to Valhalla because I considered them to be worth trying to [i]save[/i]. Implicit in that was the recognition that there was sufficient force already in place to withstand a Q/1V assault and that SF and its allies would not just win, but dominate. Q had their shot to bust up SF in December and with a valid CB sitting in front of them they couldn't even agree on a course of action. That should have put the lie to the whole notion of there being a "hegemony" before the war even started, but propaganda is propaganda.

[quote] You jumped at the end of February? Two months before the war? That's great. Because 2 months before the war (and 5 months before the war, and one week before the war, and 30 seconds before Pacifica attacked in the middle of the peace negotiations) we were all 100% certain we were going to lose. And not even [i]lose[/i], but get drilled. On the day that you left, there was an active thread in Fark about going to RoK and insisting you be removed from .gov because we knew you were completely untrustworthy and were worried about you supplying information to the other side. I remember this, because the thread ended with a post of mine saying (paraphrase) "Well, that was a shock. He just jumped ship last night. He's in Valhalla now."[/quote]

That's an interesting bit of fabrication made up to look like revisionist history (also would explain why NPO was convinced that Fark would sit out the war..I don't think they would have gotten that impression from a bird in the corner...). Perhaps you had fears and doubts. I *never* did. I watched NPO for too long. They were scared !@#$less. NPO wouldn't have been scared !@#$less unless they knew they were in an incredibly weak position and they were. They couldn't even get their closest allies to roll on a REAL threat, let alone a perceived one.

Once again, [b]you lied[/b] about when I left. Don't dismiss the lie as irrelevant and continue to sell the !@#$%^&* that I was a coward or a traitor.

FYI: Chefjoe and I didn't sit down for a conversation about what was going on inside SF and the coalition it was organizing until 3 weeks after I arrived (wow, I was such a snitch... ). There were very few details that he didn't already know...like within days after it happened. This brings up another point--who was the real leak? Hmm? Maybe it was YOU. After all, you were convinced you were going to die. I welcomed the opportunity to die with my boots on for honor's sake. Who's the more likely "leak"? The man with nothing left to lose or the man who is afraid of losing everything?

[quote]Now, as I stated earlier, you're threadjacking - this thread has nothing to do with your inability to salvage your reputation. Start a new one if you want to discussed who was and wasn't a traitor in the build-up to the Karma War.[/quote]

I will not discuss moderation issues in this or any other thread.

My reputation is fine. If anything, it's now better than it has ever been. Yours is now of a liar who can't be trusted.

[i]EDIT FOR RELEVANCE: My apologies, I started my reply before I saw the Moderation post. The background of SF is of interest to this conversation because the dynamics in place within the bloc aren't all too different today from what they were in 2009. Xiph was the charismatic leader after Hoo left and rather frequently got his way, even while he annoyed the rest of us and even made us angry from time to time. Still, back then we had faith in "The Cause", The Cause being SF. My sense is that the remaining members of SF still hold that "us against the world (if necessary)" mentality and no one should make a mistake and assume that SF will simply dissolve or lay down and die, even if it is really in the best interest of its individual members to do as Ragnarok has done move on. One should also not make the mistake of assuming that Fark won't be there as usual--they do still hold a MDoAP treaty with each individual member of SF. It could be that SF's number of up soon...or not. Time will tell.[/i]

Edited August 5, 2011 by ChairmanHal

[Delta1212]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1312573542' post='2772795']
At you perhaps, but please let's continue down the rabbit hole of your lies for a moment...it's Friday and I'm bored.



[b]FALSE[/b]. Indeed as I stated, I went to Valhalla because I considered them to be worth trying to [i]save[/i]. Implicit in that was the recognition that there was sufficient force already in place to withstand a Q/1V assault and that SF and its allies would not just win, but dominate. Q had their shot to bust up SF in December and with a valid CB sitting in front of them they couldn't even agree on a course of action. That should have put the lie to the whole notion of there being a "hegemony" before the war even started, but propaganda is propaganda.



That's an interesting bit of fabrication made up to look like revisionist history (also would explain why NPO was convinced that Fark would sit out the war..I don't think they would have gotten that impression from a bird in the corner...). Perhaps you had fears and doubts. I *never* did. I watched NPO for too long. They were scared !@#$less. NPO wouldn't have been scared !@#$less unless they knew they were in an incredibly weak position and they were. They couldn't even get their closest allies to roll on a REAL threat, let alone a perceived one.

Once again, [b]you lied[/b] about when I left. Don't dismiss the lie as irrelevant and continue to sell the !@#$%^&* that I was a coward or a traitor.

FYI: Chefjoe and I didn't sit down for a conversation about what was going on inside SF and the coalition it was organizing until 3 weeks after I arrived (wow, I was such a snitch... ). There were very few details that he didn't already know...like within days after it happened. This brings up another point--who was the real leak? Hmm? Maybe it was YOU. After all, you were convinced you were going to die. I welcomed the opportunity to die with my boots on for honor's sake. Who's the more likely "leak"? The man with nothing left to lose or the man who is afraid of losing everything?



I will not discuss moderation issues in this or any other thread.

My reputation is fine. If anything, it's now better than it has ever been. Yours is now of a liar who can't be trusted.
[/quote]
So... You did sit down and discuss gov level information with our opponents. See, that's weird because I was [I]positive[/I] you'd spent the last two years swearing up, down and sideways that you never did that.

[Krack]

Oh how I wish we had the rolling on the floor smiley readily available.

I'll repeat a question I asked earlier, but was probably missed ... why isn't VE in SF?

[quote]So... You did sit down and discuss gov level information with our opponents. See, that's weird because I was positive you'd spent the last two years swearing up, down and sideways that you never did that. [/quote]

oops

Edited August 5, 2011 by Krack

[ShouAS]

All:

If you had to chose to either disband all blocs, or merge all alliances in a bloc to form a single super alliance, which would you chose and why?

[Lord Fingolfin]

So Xiphosis, remember when you cooked up this plan with Kronos to try to scare Valhalla by spreading rumors that you had a CB and were going to roll them. And you guys looked !@#$%bags. Would you consider that your best FA move of the year or best FA move of the century on your part now that Valhalla and MJ seem poised to ramrod you?

EDIT: Word filter?

Edited August 5, 2011 by Lord Fingolfin

[Delta1212]

[quote name='ShouAS' timestamp='1312574489' post='2772802']
All:

If you had to chose to either disband all blocs, or merge all alliances in a bloc to form a single super alliance, which would you chose and why?
[/quote]
Merge them, no question. Squeezing people together makes for a more volatile situation than spreading them out, and the game thrives on volatility.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1312572825' post='2772784']
[color="#0000FF"]If NSO only had a few more larger nations we'd easily tear your inactive husk of an alliance apart. Will you deny this? RIA is quite inactive. As a former member I can attest to this. RIA has always been lackluster and less than mediocre. So, let me ask you, when will RIA put as much effort into putting itself in order as it does in making stupid jokes and repeating exhausted memes?[/color]
[/quote]

Counter-question: do you enjoy your constantly antagonizing (but tiresome) tone? Or do you just enjoy the comfort your blue text brings when you click on "Add Reply"? Notwithstanding your own desire and convictions (and whatever wit you will no doubt respond to future posts with), I can safely say that even as an "inactive alliance" (which I dispute, but Delta or someone else can answer this better), they are still more relevant than the shell NSO has become. And I'm not sure how you can possibly define an alliance that goes to bat for its allies, despite stark and dichotomous treaty obligations, and fights on two opposing fronts of war, and maintains their honor, as mediocre? To each his own, I guess?

[Delta1212]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1312574658' post='2772807']
Counter-question: do you enjoy your constantly antagonizing (but tiresome) tone? Or do you just enjoy the comfort your blue text brings when you click on "Add Reply"? Notwithstanding your own desire and convictions (and whatever wit you will no doubt respond to future posts with), I can safely say that even as an "inactive alliance" (which I dispute, but Delta or someone else can answer this better), they are still more relevant than the shell NSO has become. And I'm not sure how you can possibly define an alliance that goes to bat for its allies, despite stark and dichotomous treaty obligations, and fights on two opposing fronts of war, and maintains their honor, as mediocre? To each his own, I guess?
[/quote]
I enjoy RV's posts. They're a lot more entertaining when you realize he's doing it all on purpose.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1312571663' post='2772770']
wot
[/quote]


You really are all about the WoTs EF.

Also what is something opsec that you don't want us to know?

Also, if you don't answer that, I will repost the same question, pat my self on the back, and and think I'm oh so clever.

Edit: Speaking of clever why am I so awesome and you all are so horrible?

Edited August 5, 2011 by supercoolyellow

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1312574755' post='2772808']
I enjoy RV's posts. They're a lot more entertaining when you realize he's doing it all on purpose.
[/quote]

Oh I know he is doing it on purpose and I do enjoy his posts; I just still don't understand [i]why[/i] he does it.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1312574658' post='2772807']
Counter-question: do you enjoy your constantly antagonizing (but tiresome) tone? Or do you just enjoy the comfort your blue text brings when you click on "Add Reply"? Notwithstanding your own desire and convictions (and whatever wit you will no doubt respond to future posts with), I can safely say that even as an "inactive alliance" (which I dispute, but Delta or someone else can answer this better), they are still more relevant than the shell NSO has become. And I'm not sure how you can possibly define an alliance that goes to bat for its allies, despite stark and dichotomous treaty obligations, and fights on two opposing fronts of war, and maintains their honor, as mediocre? To each his own, I guess?
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I thought this was a SF QnA and not an RV/NSO one. So would you please just answer my question?

As for RIA's little two-sided stunt last war, did that really prove anything at all? Besides that RIA is a joke of an alliance that cannot choose a side and commit to one.

But since you're asking about NSO, I can assure you that we have twice the activity of RIA in our private channel during peace time. Also, we have more than five members who frequent our forum. When war does come, our performance is much more than the mediocre rubbish RIA can turn out, and I think it is safe to say that NSO is much more liked than SF at this point. We also choose our side and commit to it, fully (no playing both sides for us).

So tell me, with those simple facts kept in mind, if NSO is an irrelevant husk, what does that make SF?[/color]

[Dontasemebro]

RIA must choose one side of the mangled treaty web and stick to it! NO HONORING TREATIES!

[berbers]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1312577705' post='2772840']
[color="#0000FF"]I thought this was a SF QnA and not an RV/NSO one. So would you please just answer my question?

As for RIA's little two-sided stunt last war, did that really prove anything at all? Besides that RIA is a joke of an alliance that cannot choose a side and commit to one.

But since you're asking about NSO, I can assure you that we have twice the activity of RIA in our private channel during peace time. Also, we have more than five members who frequent our forum. When war does come, our performance is much more than the mediocre rubbish RIA can turn out, and I think it is safe to say that NSO is much more liked than SF at this point. [b]We also choose our side and commit to it, fully (no playing both sides for us).[/b]

So tell me, with those simple facts kept in mind, if NSO is an irrelevant husk, what does that make SF?[/color]
[/quote]

Didn't you end up in GOONS nuking Legion last war?

[Dontasemebro]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1312572825' post='2772784']
[color="#0000FF"]If NSO only had a few more larger nations we'd easily tear your inactive husk of an alliance apart. Will you deny this? RIA is quite inactive. As a former member I can attest to this. RIA has always been lackluster and less than mediocre. So, let me ask you, when will RIA put as much effort into putting itself in order as it does in making stupid jokes and repeating exhausted memes?[/color]
[/quote]

Do you like mudkips?

[Bob Ilyani]

[quote name='Dontasemebro' timestamp='1312579983' post='2772862']
RIA must choose one side of the mangled treaty web and stick to it! NO HONORING TREATIES!
[/quote]

This is the most ironic thing I've seen an SF member say this thread.

[Steve Buscemi]

Fark has been intent on destroying Non Grata for several months now. Why do you think this is? If Fark were to attack NG (so basically PB) with XX/SF's support who would GOD defend, VE or RnR? In a battle of XX vs. PB who would win?

edit: I feel like this is relevant since RnR dual affiliation and SF/XX's close ties.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Steve Buscemi

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1312580130' post='2772867']
This is the most ironic thing I've seen an SF member say this thread.
[/quote]
Would you mind letting me in on the irony of one of my members saying that?

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Dontasemebro' timestamp='1312580118' post='2772866']
Do you like mudkips?
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I have another question. Is the standard RIA post (a stupid meme) done intentionally to make people think less of your alliance, or do you honestly have no idea who obnoxious a lot of us find you and your "humor" to be?

Also, that didn't answer any of my questions. Am I making you uncomfortable pointing out the simple truths about your alliance?

So, let me ask you this, will RIA answer any of my questions, or will you instead try to find a way to skirt around the issues?[/color]

[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1312579993' post='2772863']
Didn't you end up in GOONS nuking Legion last war?
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]That might be my favorite memory of the war. But I'm not sure what exactly your point is, or why you're even bringing it up. Is this about SF or RV? Although I do not blame you for your obsession with me. It is true, I am pretty great.[/color]

[King Louis the II]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1312580797' post='2772874']
Fark has been intent on destroying Non Grata for several months now.
[/quote]

Man I am not sure what you have been smoking, but is not doing you good...

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1312580797' post='2772874']
Fark has been intent on destroying Non Grata for several months now. Why do you think this is? If Fark were to attack NG (so basically PB) with XX/SF's support who would GOD defend, VE or RnR? In a battle of XX vs. PB who would win?

edit: I feel like this is relevant since RnR dual affiliation and SF/XX's close ties.
[/quote]


This makes no sense at all. NG dropped a perfect CB in FARK's lap and FARK chose diplomacy.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1312580797' post='2772874']
Fark has been intent on destroying Non Grata for several months now.
[/quote]

They've been trying to disband MCXA too!

[Dontasemebro]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1312580130' post='2772867']
This is the most ironic thing I've seen an SF member say this thread.
[/quote]

You do know we stuck our necks out into the guillotine for your alliance, right?

[wiccan high priest]

[quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1312519277' post='2772420']
I'm not a delegate of course, but you may have noticed that the showing of most of the Maroon alliances was pretty subpar.

[/quote]


Can you explain this in more detail for Me? subpar in what way?

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Diabloz' timestamp='1312566887' post='2772716']
Some may say, SF has been quite the past 3 months or so FA wise...in terms of signing treaties as oppose to your 'opposition', what would you say regarding to that?
[/quote]

Personally i feel you don't sign treaties with all your friends, but you have to be friends with whomever you sign treaties. I think this goes for more alliances then just R&R, so yeah, maybe they're friends with more people, maybe they don't subscribe to this, or maybe they where further along with establishing the needed foundation for their treaties. We've had a few alliances we would like to sign and have liked to sign/get closer too for quite some time now, and only one who sparked our interest recently. We know our political position has been weakened but for us there has been no change in how we would do FA at any point in time. Seeing we don't usually sign a lot of treaties in a 3 month timespan, don't expect us too now. Unless several of the alliances we like enough to treaty too suddenly all agree to wanna sign with us.

[quote name='ShouAS' timestamp='1312574489' post='2772802']
All:

If you had to chose to either disband all blocs, or merge all alliances in a bloc to form a single super alliance, which would you chose and why?
[/quote]

Disband all blocs, i'm not looking for a merger myself Though having them all merge would be interesting too see.


[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1312574755' post='2772808']
I enjoy RV's posts. They're a lot more entertaining when you realize he's doing it all on purpose.
[/quote]

^^ i agree, it's hard to get used to at first but when you finally do it's actually pretty entertaining.

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1312574975' post='2772812']
You really are all about the WoTs EF.

Also what is something opsec that you don't want us to know?

Also, if you don't answer that, I will repost the same question, pat my self on the back, and and think I'm oh so clever.

Edit: Speaking of clever why am I so awesome and you all are so horrible?
[/quote]

Ha, well luckily you only obsess about my WoT's and not my ass i suppose . That said, i just tend to type out my thoughts while thinking them, so indeed when i feel i have something to say i tend to get it all out there. My apologies for making you suffer for it

Well i suppose i wouldn't want you to know that possibly, somewhere in R&R you will find someone without an adequate warchest... OpSec enough for you? I mean wars have started over people finding out

Well you can answer me why you're so awesome, and also answer me on why all our conversations are about my WoT's, isn't it time we should talk about something else too?

We are obviously horrible because Xiph commands us to be. Silly question!