Can I axe a question?

[Dontasemebro]

[quote name='Litha Riddle' timestamp='1312756768' post='2774384']
Maybe its because you use axe instead of ask. Unless it really is possible to chop a question.

It is a mystery.
[/quote]

Futurama

[hizzy]

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1312785572' post='2774704']
Zog I don't think you've ever been to our boards or talked to any of us at all, so where are these conclusions coming from?

The brief PM exchange we had like a year ago is the longest contact with RIA I think you've had.
[/quote]

so you ask why people feel a certain way about you and when they give you an answer you dismiss it as unfounded because the person isn't on your forums?

quite honestly, even if your forums are half as retarded as your announcements, I'd still rather swallow barbed wire and floss myself than read any of it. and Zog's answer actually had very little to do with his presence on your forums; you are enablers because of what you do in public with your allies, not because of your spam board content.

[Dontasemebro]

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1312786519' post='2774715']
so you ask why people feel a certain way about you and when they give you an answer you dismiss it as unfounded because the person isn't on your forums?

quite honestly, even if your forums are half as retarded as your announcements, I'd still rather swallow barbed wire and floss myself than read any of it. and Zog's answer actually had very little to do with his presence on your forums; you are enablers because of what you do in public with your allies, not because of your spam board content.
[/quote]

Actually, I asked why people feel a certain way, not him. And if you asked "Why did you steal my money?" and I answered "Because I can" you'd probably denounce that reason. It's natural to argue against a concept that you think is an unreasonable answer to your question.

[Sephiroth]

I was going to say you guys didn't focus enough attention on SLCB, but they've disbanded since. So guess maybe you did.

o7 RIA

Edited August 8, 2011 by Methrage

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1312784440' post='2774691']
As an alliance you're an enabler. You seem to take this as people being upset that 'you're true to your allies' or something like that. This only tells me and others that you don't understand that criticism at all.
[/quote]
I find this reply a little ironic coming from the guy (and alliance) that did the same thing when I criticized your lulzy bandwagon on NPO and asked NoR to close our private embassy/Q&A. "[i]Sorrrrrrrry[/i] for being good allies." You're all enablers--that's what compulsory treaties are designed to do; it's the entire point of compulsory treaties. And when someone questions your actions, you [i]all[/i] go into 5th-grader mode with the "true to our allies" crap.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/JlGK4.png[/IMG]

[i]I just wonder how long until people realize that RIA has no sides, rather they have a close group of tightknit friends gobbledy-goo sentimental crap, haters gonna hate, we don't think so you shouldn't either.[/i]

Whenever [i]anyone [/i]puts aside sovereignty with a compulsory treaty and then marches off to war or to the negotiating table when something is wrong, [i]they [/i][b]are [/b]wrong, and the wrong is made possible [i]because [/i]they are there, and they are [b]more [/b]guilty than the initiator.

My irony rant aside, RIA, I don't dislike [i]you[/i], but Zog has a point; your allies [i][b]suck.[/b][/i] They don't suck in the, say, AcTi sense, but in the sense that they are all giant jerks, and your military support for them is your explicit support for their sucky actions. VE? We've been through that. GOD, [i]Jesus.[/i] CSN? puh-lease. How does RIA--an alliance which holds ODPs--sit back and stay allied to an alliance that charged reps for activating an ODP? You cannot explain that. Gotham? phew. Why sign a treaty with The International when you can just sign a treaty with ODN?

Delta is probably in my top 5 of people I admire, and it absolutely boggles my mind at the people that RIA throws its weight behind. It's disheartening. It is an indictment of the silly friends-based foreign policy that I so adamantly and vocally oppose.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1312787508' post='2774723']
I find this reply a little ironic coming from the guy (and alliance) that did the same thing when I criticized your bandwagon on NPO. "[i]Sorrrrrrrry[/i] for being good allies." You're all enablers--that's what compulsory treaties are designed to do; it's the entire point of compulsory treaties. And when someone questions your actions, you [i]all[/i] go into 5th-grader mode with the "true to our allies" crap.
[/quote]

I disagree. Having compulsory treaties doesn't [i]necessarily[/i] forfeit one's independence. It's a matter of whether you have leadership who have the spine and the political capital required to make their own decisions. I don't really like Nordreich much, but 'lapdog' isn't the first word that springs to mind when someone mentions the alliance. Certainly it's not how I would describe the relationships between Nordreich and FAN. RIA, on the other hand... well Delta is undoubtedly an intelligent guy, but they'll always just go with whatever SF does.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Kalasin

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1312787995' post='2774727']
I disagree. Having compulsory treaties doesn't [i]necessarily[/i] forfeit one's independence. It's a matter of whether you have leadership who have the spine and the political capital required to make their own decisions.
[/quote]
You miss the point/defy reality. Compulsory treaties remove the decision; it was made when the treaty was signed, and you either "honor" the treaty/agreement, or break your word.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1312789072' post='2774731']
You miss the point. Compulsory treaties remove the decision; it was made when the treaty was signed, and you either "honor" the treaty/agreement, or break your word.
[/quote]

Zog is saying that RIA's sole purpose in life is to do what Xiph says (correct me if I'm wrong, Zog.) He's not criticising them for honouring their treaties, he's criticising them for their failure to show more independence.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1312789448' post='2774736']
Zog is saying that RIA's sole purpose in life is to do what Xiph says (correct me if I'm wrong, Zog.) He's not criticising them for honouring their treaties, he's criticising them for their failure to show more independence.
[/quote]
How can you act independently when you have signed your allegiance to another alliance as NoR has done with FAN or as RIA has done with GOD? They are the same.

[SWAT128]

Schatt, I think being friends is a prerequisite to being allies. Doesn't mean everyone were friends with is an ally of ours. Some of our allies have made questionable decisions in the past, but we don't have any reason to leave them.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='SWAT128' timestamp='1312789776' post='2774742']
Schatt, I think being friends is a prerequisite to being allies. Doesn't mean everyone were friends with is an ally of ours. Some of our allies have made questionable decisions in the past, but we don't have any reason to leave them.
[/quote]
That is the misunderstanding. If you do not sever the treaty over the decisions that are made--if you decide that friendship comes above anything--then you endorse it all. The spying on, setup, and disbandment of LoFN; the sanctions on raid targets; the crap with NoR/Thor; the crap with Non Grata; etc et--[i]all of it[/i]. A treaty is an endorsement. If you will go to war for it, you endorse it.

Being friends is a pre-requisite to being allies, but it is not a reason to be allies. Treaties are political unions, not valentines cards.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1312789580' post='2774738']
How can you act independently when you have signed your allegiance to another alliance as NoR has done with FAN or as RIA has done with GOD? They are the same.
[/quote]

Do you not see the difference between the NoR-FAN relationship and say, the relationship of NPO-GGA? NoR and FAN are two equals who love each other to death and have agreed to go to war together. NPO-GGA was not an equal relationship because one alliance was dominant and GGA would have done whatever NPO wanted them to do (and they in fact did.) Having binding treaties means that you'll roll with someone no matter what, but there's a difference between that and being an enabler or a lapdog.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1312790226' post='2774749']
Having binding treaties means that you'll roll with someone no matter what, but there's a difference between that and being an enabler or a lapdog.
[/quote]
They are one in the same.

[SWAT128]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1312790014' post='2774747']
That is the misunderstanding. If you do not sever the treaty over the decisions that are made--if you decide that friendship comes above anything--then you endorse it all. The spying on, setup, and disbandment of LoFN; the sanctions on raid targets; the crap with NoR/Thor; the crap with Non Grata; etc et--[i]all of it[/i]. A treaty is an endorsement. If you will go to war for it, you endorse it.

Being friends is a pre-requisite to being allies, but it is not a reason to be allies.
[/quote]

I agree. Like I said, not every decision our allies have made in the past I agree with. I think the reps CSN gave to DT were tremendously stupid and unwarranted. But we will not leave our friends out to die. The alliances in SF right may have very different viewpoints and we are very different in how we run our alliances, but we make it work. Who knows, maybe SF's days as a bloc are numbered. But I'll be there for our allies until that day comes. It isn't probably isn't the most logical thing to do, but I can't see us doing anything else.

[Ogaden]

Pretty much what SWAT128 said. If people are gunning for your friend and ally, they need your support more than ever.

Infra is fleeting, self respect is forever.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1312785572' post='2774704']
Zog I don't think you've ever been to our boards or talked to any of us at all, so where are these conclusions coming from?[/quote]

Well, I've read your announcements and think they're stupid. And I look at a couple of your friends and see that you don't even attempt to distance yourself from their more questionable actions.

If I sign up for your forum and you tell me you're doing so in private, then good for you. But I haven't the time or inclination to sign up for another forum, so I must make decisions based on what I see in public. And in public it seems that you enjoy kowtowing.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1312787508' post='2774723']
I find this reply a little ironic coming from the guy (and alliance) that did the same thing when I criticized your lulzy bandwagon on NPO and asked NoR to close our private embassy/Q&A. "[i]Sorrrrrrrry[/i] for being good allies." You're all enablers--that's what compulsory treaties are designed to do; it's the entire point of compulsory treaties. And when someone questions your actions, you [i]all[/i] go into 5th-grader mode with the "true to our allies" crap.
[/quote]

I don't see why you find it ironic at all.

First, let's point out that the tone of our comments was inspired by your histrionics.

Second, if you wish to point out what FAN -- the alliance in question -- did that was so terribly wrong then perhaps your 'ironic' comment will make some sense. You can't, though, so it doesn't.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1312789448' post='2774736']
Zog is saying that RIA's sole purpose in life is to do what Xiph says (correct me if I'm wrong, Zog.)[/quote]

You're wrong. That's not what I intended to say at all.

[b](Caveat: This may read as if I'm addressing an RIA member. I know you're not in the RIA; it's just easier to write this way rather than constantly referring to them in the third person.)
[/b]
Think back to everyone's favorite ruler, noWedge. He was dumped overboard by Valhalla owing to "increasingly erratic behaviour.... including threatening and intimidating behaviour to foreign officials [and his alliance's] own allies...."

That quoted part may as well be about Xiphosis and, to some extent, GOD generally.

Understand that I was probably the last person to hop on the 'Don't waste your time trying to reason with GOD' bandwagon within NoR. Xiphosis and I once had a workable relationship. However, the last couple of times I've approached him over matters that affected both of us he has acted in a manner which is quite simply bizarre, bringing up four-year-old arguments and saying that NoR's leadership is the same as NoV's or NoR 1.0's. (It isn't, and if it were I don't see why it would be such a big deal.) He has invented arguments out of thin air, citing events which never happened. He has said things about alliances and their relationship with NoR that were flat-out untrue, as indicated by the fact that on one such occasion I was speaking with all of the leaders of NoR's allies in one room while Xiphosis was "confidentially" telling me how they "really" felt in another. (We all got a good chuckle out of that.) Reports of his private paranoid musings with respect to Nordreich have popped up several times, and quite apart from their being laughable they seem to indicate a level of instability most would find uncomfortable in a close associate.

These are things he has done in private. Others have provided more examples in that complete trainwreck of a thread that Xiphosis thought would somehow help SF's cause or....hmmm....y'know....I honestly don't know what the purpose of that Q&A was, but it reads like, "Please don't hurt us!" It has a feel of desperation to it that should be both an embarrassment and a wake-up call to the alliance leaders who [i]didn't[/i] suggest it.

*whew*

Alright, where was I....?

Oh yeah, and CSN. Well, my only interaction with CSN was over the 'DT reps' thing and....

[spoiler][b]....it was Xiphosis who acted as CSN's go-to guy.[/b]


[color="#FF0000"][size="5"][b]DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!!!!!!![/b][/size][/color][/spoiler]


So really, understand that when I say Xiphosis speaks for CSN, I really mean it. CSN's leadership is/was pretty crappy anyway; having Xiphosis act as their mouthpiece is merely the rancid cherry on the !@#$ sundae.

One of the funniest threads I've seen in a long time was the one announcing that Legacy was ditching GOD/CSN and bringing themselves closer to NoR/DT. I've no doubt that in SF's back-channels there was discussion about how we were trying to undermine member alliances, specifically GOD and CSN. The only problem with any kind of conspiracy theory is that Legacy came to us, not the other way around. They dumped your allies because they were tired of being treated like crap, and picked alliances that had dealt with them as equals. It's really that simple.

I don't know that Legacy has ever explained in public their rationale, so I won't say more on that.