Open Invitation from the SuperFriends

[Krack]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1312675102' post='2773836']
Can you also be anti-social? Why are you answering questions for SF? Your 1 man army isn't in SF.
[/quote]

I'm not answering questions for SF.* I'm asking a question of Buscemi because I wanted to know the answer. To answer your other question: Yes, I am capable of being anti-social.

[size="1"]*Well, that's not entirely true. I answered a question addressed to them early in the thread, but I digress.[/size]

[quote]Wouldn't your obsessive moralism be more suited to being in a bloc with polaris and not SF?[/quote]

Yeah ... um ... im not in SF.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Krack

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1312666984' post='2773749']
Wow. 29 pages in 2 days and I just now saw this. If this question has already been answered feel free to just point me to a post rather than retyping things.
I was recently told that Xiphosis/GOD has been spreading rumors about MK--what are they and is it true or not?

Can GOD be a good ally to both SuperFriends and it's PB connections?
Can RIA meet its obligations to both XX and SuperFriends?
Ditto for CSN and its PB pals.

In any situtation except a direct attack on SF, can SuperFriends really, honestly be considered anything but an anachronism given it's million splits to other blocs?
[/quote]

As everyone you work with what you have and most of what you have comes form someone else (hopefully a first hand source), this of course gives room for errors and little inconsistencies, which i don't know but also wont exclude as possibility. That said, no, nor Xiph nor anyone else in SF has been willingly spreading rumors about MK. I know of which you speak but i'm not entirely sure of what those alledged rumors where, i'll try to find them and get back to you on it.

For all 3 so far it has not caused big issues in the past, and seeing we'll probably be the target next war we have the luxury of not having to worry about which side of treaties can conflict with the SF treaty

As for R&R, we still believe as the day we signed XX we can and will fullfill our obligations to both blocs.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1312668715' post='2773766']
The question included "What are they" because I don't know, I've just been told that GOD itrying to start stuff with MK, is that true?


Neither of these really address the points of the two questions. Everyone in SF has treaties pulling them all over the place and in directions that would bring you all into conflict with each other. Can SuperFriends bring itself to a point of internal fidelity again, or is this something you're all holding onto because of memories?
[/quote]

We're hardly in a position to start anything, on top of that not everyone in SF always liked MK, but neither have we ever plotted against them in any way shape or form really. Unless you consider a tactical discussion about power spheres and such plotting against someone.

Actually, i think it's not that bad.. we all have treaties to XX and we all have treaties to PB and very few outside that. Well the maroons have some allies there as well and we have a connection to C&G with int. But doesn't every bloc have connections to each other. It's been so for years now, the treaty web is a !@#$%*.

As for how to call or view SF. We still think it's worth it, disbanding it would only force us all to sign separate MDoAP's and who wants to start signing that many treaties. We would still be allied, still be friends and for convenience, still have a coordination channel with the same talks as now, and probably a forum to share info relevant to all on. So yeah we can stop calling it a bloc but what would it really change?

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1312669421' post='2773777']
but it's not like we sit in a private channel, stroke our egos to new heights, and constantly scheme. In actuality, it generally consists of Liz praising Xiphosis' culinary prowess and Game of Thrones.

[/quote]

Haha so much this, some serious OpSec stuff right here in this post It's about 90% of the discussions in SF

[quote name='Diabloz' timestamp='1312671393' post='2773794']
Could you be more specific as to who you mean by 'opposition'
[/quote]

The Big Red ofcourse, who else. The only enemy worth having

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1312672510' post='2773803']
Can someone from GOD, RIA, RnR, and CSN answer this question.

If you [b]had to[/b] cancel 3 treaties between SF/XX and PB which ones would they be?
[/quote]

Probably RIA-VE because it's oDP although i think that downgrade was done with hot heads and is a shame it ever happened. For the rest i would take all but the R&R-FOK treaty and toss a coin to see which goes. If i really had to that is.

[Matt Miller]

IRON is still waiting on a response to this.

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1312563057' post='2772685']
Question for Xiphosis:

00:37:32 [@bud] <bud> so how long is this going to last
00:37:32 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> we shall see
00:37:32 [@bud] <bud> popcorn is good
00:37:32 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I don't know what you and yours are playing at
00:37:32 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> But it will not end well
00:37:32 [@bud] <bud> LOLOLOLOL
00:37:32 [@bud] <bud> wtf are you talking about
00:37:32 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Ask IRON.
00:37:32 [@bud] <bud> not playing at anything
00:37:32 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> They're playing both sides.
00:37:32 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Again.
00:39:06 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> And it will not end well
00:39:06 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I'm really in absolutely no mood for this
00:39:06 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Do you remember MCXA?
00:39:06 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> CSN-GATO?
00:39:06 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> This is going to be 50x worse.
00:39:06 [@bud] <bud> you threatning me Xiph
00:39:06 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> No.
00:39:06 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I'm telling you
00:39:06 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> To tell them
00:39:06 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> That they do not want to $%&@ with me
00:39:06 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> right now
00:39:07 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> Nothing more and nothing less
00:39:08 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I'm not threatening you
00:39:09 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> I AM threatening them
00:39:10 [@bud] <bud> fair enough
01:00:51 [@bud] Xiphosis[GOD]> I'm saying whatever you think your plan is
01:00:51 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> make sure IRON's with you
01:00:51 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> because I'm being told by reliable people that they're not
01:00:51 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> lol
01:00:51 [@bud] <Xiphosis[GOD]> and I really don't need this


I'm sure you will remember this conversation from your most recent war effort. I wonder if you could clarify exactly what IRON was doing to play both sides? It's still a complete mystery to me. Can you also clarify if you still believe what we supposedly did warranted you openly threatening my alliance?
[/quote]

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Matt Miller' timestamp='1312678565' post='2773888']
IRON is still waiting on a response to this.
[/quote]


I think you already know the answer, It's mindless huffing and puffing with some melodramatic chest thumping thrown in for good measure. Doubt you will get the answer your looking for. It was a bit girly threatening you by proxy. He should have came to you and done it face to face.

[Banksy]

Two questions still need to be answered:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=104209&view=findpost&p=2773457
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=104209&view=findpost&p=2772685

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1312674722' post='2773826']
As for the thread, Xiphosis suggested something like this, then we discussed how to proceed, what we where gonna post etc, then it was time to post it, it was pretty much agreed on that Xiph wasn't the best person to post, for some as i've seen gibs state it was because of the false image that Xiph is the sole leader of SF, for me personally it was more because any topic with him as topic starter will draw the haters to it that much faster. But then I never really cared for people thinking Xiph was the big puppetmaster, as long as there are no strings coming out of me, i'm confident enough that it isn't true to not really care what others think of it.[/quote]
Considering the point of this post was to not paint Xiph as the puppet master, it's pretty hilarious.

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1312678964' post='2773892']
Two questions still need to be answered:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=104209&view=findpost&p=2773457
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=104209&view=findpost&p=2772685


Considering the point of this post was to not paint Xiph as the puppet master, it's pretty hilarious.
[/quote]

Can't answer either (inb4: aren't you allowed to )

But actually you apparently missed the point of the post, as it was to answer why xiphosis didn't post the topic. Again, i really don't mind people thinking whatever about it. Hell i often enough call him the puppetmaster and when i want to check something with my allies (yes all of them) I usually say something along the lines of "i'll get back to you after xiph approves it". There are a lot of wrong ideas and claims i would like to correct, Xiph being the boss of SF isn't really one of them.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1312655355' post='2773599']
Having been in Hyperion gov I can all but guarantee that the other alliances would have found a way in. Just like what will happen in the scenario you are mentioning for the future. Especially when so many treaties don't specifically state non-chaining. If you think there was any realistic chance that had BLEU only countered GGA they would have isolated it to a 1-vision war then you may as well draw up any scenario you want and hope it comes true because it's probably just as likely.
[/quote]

The attack on Polar was being planned before the war against Hyperion was launched; it was unrelated and would most certainly have occurred even if the war against Hyperion had not existed. War planning began immediately after the NPO finally ceased its unofficial protection of Polar in the face of political pressure. The attacks upon BLEU were planned as an adjunct to the war against Polar.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1312661931' post='2773686']
The word clueless comes to mind.
[/quote]

That's not uncommon when Krack is in the picture.

[Xiphosis]

[quote]I'm sure you will remember this conversation from your most recent war effort. I wonder if you could clarify exactly what IRON was doing to play both sides? It's still a complete mystery to me.[/quote]

Eh. It has to be taken in heavy amounts of context; our coalition was getting short of boots to put on the ground at that point [I believe the NPO front had already opened up, which consumed all the free NS] and there were some suggestions in the upper chans that IRON might be considering entering on the other side.

[quote]Can you also clarify if you still believe what we supposedly did warranted you openly threatening my alliance?[/quote]

Nope. IRON's conduct in that war in no way warranted threats.

[quote]PLEASE TELL EVERYONE WHICH ALLIANCE NORDREICH BETRAYED. WE ARE HAVING TROUBLE FIGURING THAT OUT SINCE OUR ALLIES STILL SEEM TO LIKE US.[/quote]

As UnknownSmurf has pointed out, you can 'betray' without betraying an ally. Rewind time and you'll see that when NoR signed with Ragnarok, you already had ties to both Polaris's sphere [at the time - via NV] and and the ex-Heg sphere [I believe via Val, but it may be another tie I'm thinking of]. It was my suspicion that you intended to use these conflicting ties on a realpolitik level to side with whatever sphere you thought would win. That's what I said, and Hoo can confirm for any curious as to the validity.

[quote]PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR PREVIOUS CONTENTION THAT NORDREICH HAD A 'STRANGLEHOLD' ON THE BLACK TEAM. IS THIS STILL TRUE? IF SO, WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN BECAUSE WE HONESTLY HAVE NO CLUE. IF NOT, WHEN DID WE LOSE THIS 'STRANGLEHOLD'?[/quote]

Again, something I think you're blowing out of context. At the time, Umb/Sparta/GOONS combined had good relations in NOIR and it was my view that NoR was pretending to be friendly with them while forming your own clique of sorts - Asg, DT, etc. My point to them was that if they didn't pay attention to their team relations, they'd erode and NoR would be the driving force behind eroding them. I never contended you could dominate the team itself.

[Banksy]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1312679610' post='2773901']
Can't answer either (inb4: aren't you allowed to )

But actually you apparently missed the point of the post, as it was to answer why xiphosis didn't post the topic. Again, i really don't mind people thinking whatever about it. Hell i often enough call him the puppetmaster and when i want to check something with my allies (yes all of them) I usually say something along the lines of "i'll get back to you after xiph approves it". There are a lot of wrong ideas and claims i would like to correct, Xiph being the boss of SF isn't really one of them.
[/quote]
The question as why he didn't post the topic, yes. But your answer indicated that it was because it was a PR move and he didn't want to be seen as controlling SF. However, the fact that he suggested the topic (coupled with him having the second highest total of posts ITT so far at 26) means that it's contradictory (and therefore funny).

That aside, thanks for your answer. I'll bow back out for now.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1312683175' post='2773931']
The question as why he didn't post the topic, yes. But your answer indicated that it was because it was a PR move and he didn't want to be seen as controlling SF. However, the fact that he suggested the topic (coupled with him having the second highest total of posts ITT so far at 26) means that it's contradictory (and therefore funny).

That aside, thanks for your answer. I'll bow back out for now.
[/quote]
It's not so much contradictory as ironic.

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1312683175' post='2773931']
The question as why he didn't post the topic, yes. But your answer indicated that it was because it was a PR move and he didn't want to be seen as controlling SF. However, the fact that he suggested the topic (coupled with him having the second highest total of posts ITT so far at 26) means that it's contradictory (and therefore funny).

That aside, thanks for your answer. I'll bow back out for now.
[/quote]


No that wasn't my answer but gibs's, my reasoning was that it would give us a brief window to get it kicked off before all the hate flew in Plus even though i don't subscribe to the theory that Xiph is the boss of SF, i do realize the perception of others is as such, therefor having Xiph post the topic would have been more likely to turn this into a Q&A with Xiph then a Q&A with SF, which we wanted to avoid.

Thanks for at least backing critique up by checking if he indeed replied as often, though I don't completely agree. I'm pretty sure i responded to more or at least as many questions as him. I just refresh less often and am not around at peek hours of the OWF so my posts tend to contain many more responses per post instead of all separate answers (gimme some credit dammit ). Xiph is also one of the most active people in the SF delegation, so it's only natural that he often can answer all questions where Delta may have to let shadow take a question for example, just like i can't expect one of the other 2 R&R delegates to be able to answer all questions i answered, because they either weren't around or because it was before their time. AND on top of that, the most questions directed at one person in particular are also most often to Xiph and not one of the others obviously. So him posting as much as he does, shows a lot but not really that he controls SF as a whole. At least imo.

Anyway, always glad to answer, even if you get a good laugh out of it it was worth it, so feel free to ask more if you have them

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1312682749' post='2773927']
Eh. It has to be taken in heavy amounts of context; our coalition was getting short of boots to put on the ground at that point [I believe the NPO front had already opened up, which consumed all the free NS] and there were some suggestions in the upper chans that IRON might be considering entering on the other side.
[/quote]

Um, yeah, no. Funny, but ill informed.

There was someone playing games for political benefit within those channels, but it wasn't IRON in that case.

[EgoFreaky]

It happens, and especially in wartime rumors tend to be taken seriously even if fact checking gets harder. Better safe then sorry and all that. IRON gov told me they wouldn't they never gave me a reason to not trust them, but still them entering would have been a major event. So only a fool would not consider the threat of something like that.

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1312686823' post='2773966']
Um, yeah, no. Funny, but ill informed.

There was someone playing games for political benefit within those channels, but it wasn't IRON in that case.
[/quote]

That I'm sure of, however, I unfortunately bought into that particular rumor.

[Duke Nukem]

To All:

If you had to treaty one member from each major bloc (PB, XX, MJ, CnG, PF) who would it be?

Who do you think the overall voice of SF is (Alliance and Leader Wise)?

If you had to be one pokemon which one would it be?

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Duke Nukem' timestamp='1312688713' post='2773992']
To All:

If you had to treaty one member from each major bloc (PB, XX, MJ, CnG, PF) who would it be?[/quote]

I'm going to assume you mean not including treaties we already have, so...

PB: Umbrella
XX: MHA
MJ: RoK
C&G: ODN (Personal bias ODN )
PF: Argent

[quote]Who do you think the overall voice of SF is (Alliance and Leader Wise)?[/quote]

Delta. It's perceived to be Xiph, for reasons which Delta explained, though. So from an internal point of view, Delta. External point of view, it's Xiph.

[quote]If you had to be one pokemon which one would it be?
[/quote]

Charzard.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Gibsonator21

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Duke Nukem' timestamp='1312688713' post='2773992']
To All:

If you had to treaty one member from each major bloc (PB, XX, MJ, CnG, PF) who would it be?

Who do you think the overall voice of SF is (Alliance and Leader Wise)?

If you had to be one pokemon which one would it be?
[/quote]

not including allies we already have:

PB: Umbrella
XX: well.. yeah..
MJ: RoK
C&G: ODN, ever since the cancellation so long ago it has been ups and downs and rocky terrain, but i think there's still some of the love left.
PF: Argent, seems like a decent group of people

The VOICE of SF is Xiph, can't deny that, he talks the most and the loudest On top of that its a nice little cycle, if anyone wants to know something about SF, they often go to Xiph (having in mind he's the dominant force in SF), then go away thinking Xiph is the one that talks for SF, well yeah, if that's the one you go to he'll be the one that talks for SF for sure XD. Within SF, whole different ballgame, everyone has it's role i guess personally i would call Delta usually the voice of reason within SF if there are disputes. He's like the wise old man of the bloc As for people talking for the individual alliances (let's say lead delegate, or go to person) within SF i would say it's Xiph, Liz, me and strangely enough for RIA Shadow. And as far as the alliances concerned who takes the front, of course again GOD as voice seeing they are the most active on the OWF. So yeah, those are the voices i guess

hmm i would be pikachu! because pikachu is awesome and yellow and the only pokemon i know.

[Ryan Greenberg]

You sure do love the () smiley Ego.

[D34th]

I love people who love emoticons

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1312692702' post='2774018']
You sure do love the () smiley Ego.
[/quote]

Damn don't remind me.. it's like an addiction I have to reread everything i type to get rid of them, including essays, emails and letters. The later it gets the more that stay in ..

[IYIyTh]

Why are you, the way that you are?

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1312682749' post='2773927']
As UnknownSmurf has pointed out, you can 'betray' without betraying an ally.[/quote]

You really can't Betrayal requires both a subject and an object, unless of course one is violating the peace that is written on all men's hearts.

Anyone who says betrayal can occur without someone being betrayed is a moron.

[quote]Rewind time and you'll see that when NoR signed with Ragnarok, you already had ties to both Polaris's sphere [at the time - via NV] and and the ex-Heg sphere [I believe via Val, but it may be another tie I'm thinking of]. It was my suspicion that you intended to use these conflicting ties on a realpolitik level to side with whatever sphere you thought would win. That's what I said, and Hoo can confirm for any curious as to the validity.[/quote]

So you were making things up in order to poison the well. Not surprising, really.

[quote]Again, something I think you're blowing out of context. At the time, Umb/Sparta/GOONS combined had good relations in NOIR and it was my view that NoR was pretending to be friendly with them while forming your own clique of sorts - Asg, DT, etc. My point to them was that if they didn't pay attention to their team relations, they'd erode and NoR would be the driving force behind eroding them. I never contended you could dominate the team itself.
[/quote]

'Stranglehold' was your word, not mine. If anyone was blowing something way out of proportion, it was you. As to the rest, this is yet another example of pure fantasy on your part. For example, GOONS has never been in NOIR.

Thank you for your replies. They were only slightly less ridiculous than your original paranoid fantasies.

[Hereno]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1312674766' post='2773829']
I've always gotten along great with Diabloz, he even made our pip (hate him for it ) so what's your point?
[/quote]

It was more a stab at NG for making the ex-leader of Gotham any position higher than "member".

Plus I have these logs where I was able to get him to agree to help me coup Tetris' leader in about a half hour. Pretty funny.

But thanks for answering all my questions so far. You're the only SF gov who hasn't ignored me.

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1312688123' post='2773986']
It happens, and especially in wartime rumors tend to be taken seriously even if fact checking gets harder. Better safe then sorry and all that. IRON gov told me they wouldn't they never gave me a reason to not trust them, but still them entering would have been a major event. So only a fool would not consider the threat of something like that.
[/quote]

So even though we (as your allies) told you we would not enter, you still thought we might and allowed your block mate to threaten us? We never gave you a reason not to trust us, yet you still didn't trust us. That's good to know, Ego.