A Briefest Comment on RIA

[Heft]

Yea people really do suck at running wars these days. Been true for a few years now. I'm just happy that for once it's not us getting screwed over.

Also, SF sucks, etc.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1322700104' post='2857385']
The accusations against RIA in this thread are at this stage un-testable and it's possible the discussions that have happened between them and Polar will never be fully disclosed.
[/quote]

Hindsight isn't 20/20... [i]yet[/i]. Though I don't necessarily understand all the hooplah; most of you have waited almost three-quarters of a year for [i]this[/i] war. Admin forbid you have to wait a little extra time -- obviously I'm not in RIA and I am not privy to their internal discussions but I'd imagine (given their track record) they are good for their word?

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1322700842' post='2857391']
Yea people really do suck at running wars these days. Been true for a few years now. I'm just happy that for once it's not us getting screwed over.

Also, SF sucks, etc.
[/quote]

Who said you guys weren't screwed over? Whoever it is needs to re-do the coalition.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1322700104' post='2857385']
Fog of war. The truth is no one has any idea what the intentions of Polar's allies that have yet to declare are. There are a number of possibilities but two that spring immediately to my mind are:

1. They aren't going to enter for a number of possible reasons.

2. They plan to enter at a time of theirs and Polar's choosing.

The accusations against RIA in this thread are at this stage un-testable and it's possible the discussions that have happened between them and Polar will never be fully disclosed.
[/quote]
Fine points, however three things remain:
1)A lot of those people/AAs who are today taking their time to enter "when they want it" have mocked other alliances in the past for their "incompetency" (read, didn't join a war fast enough).

2)NpO-CCC-STA-UPN-Avalanche are burning in the meantime.

3)There just isn't a whole lot of strategies, in this case, that makes sense. This delay seems to have more to do with inactivity and a lack of military preparedness rather than military geniuses at work.

You have five alliances already into the war. If you're not adding more, those AAs will burn. And I'm willing to bet that a lot of those guys don't have massive warchests.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[Sabcat]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1322701143' post='2857398']
Fine points, however three things remain:
1)A lot of those people/AAs who are today taking their time to enter "when they want it" have mocked other alliances in the past for their "incompetency" (read, didn't join a war fast enough).

2)NpO-CCC-STA-UPN-Avalanche are burning in the meantime.

3)There just isn't a whole lot of strategies, in this case, that makes sense. This delay seems to have more to do with inactivity and a lack of military preparedness rather than military geniuses at work.

You have five alliances already into the war. If you're not adding more, those AAs will burn. And I'm willing to bet that a lot of those guys don't have massive warchests.
[/quote]

I'm not sure previous call outs tell us anything other than people like goading their opponents into doing what they want them to do.

The information publicly available so far points to your analysis being right though. Time will tell.

[MitchellBade]

Oh how quickly everyone's memory seems to fade these days. Why, was it not just earlier this very year when RIA rode to the defense of their allies in the PB-NpO conflict for not one but both sides, honoring treaties that obviously did not necessarily need to be honored due to extraneous obligations? And you dare say they lack honor?

And now in this instance where the ramifications for entering this war would be logically, no pun intended, insane on their part, you dare chastise them? Need you all be reminded that RIA has done no wrong by [i]not[/i]coming to the aid of Polaris. As it has already been stated, Polaris retains the right to request the assistance of RIA. And I am certain without doubt that if such a request were to be submitted, RIA would gladly take up arms and march onto the field of battle, as they have shown in the past.

Now would you rather RIA go against the word of their ally? (Obviously for you folks, the answer is yes, but that only goes to prove a point). All this talk about dishonor and yet no one realizes that going against Polaris' request, or acting in absence of a request, would an act betrayal and far more dishonorable and treacherous than the cowardice that you all accuse them of. And for there is no crime truly more atrocious than that of betrayal. It truly is a sad day when good deeds are overlooked due to everyone's insatiable appetite for war. The true cowardice would be the continued escalation of this war.

TOP and IRON have already clearly stated that their quarrel lay with Polaris' actions from many years ago. And as such, this should remain a conflict between them. Prior to AZTEC's intervention in this war, many of you should be pleased to know that this was statistically a relatively fair fight, or at least fairer than now. But of course, as certain Polar allies failed to take the bait and as Polar held against the relentless attacks, more peons were sent in to tip the scales and almost guilt RIA into war. Then there are threads such as this.

But I ask why, when we have/had a chance to actually witness a statistically even fight, between parties who respectfully needed to settle their differences, must we ruin it by turning it into a potential curbstomp? Those of you who may have your quarrels with SuperFriends should take your quarrel somewhere else and let these warriors fight on their own stage. Do not disgrace yourselves and the rest of us due to your lack of a plausible or righteous casus belli. For there is no honor in having others do the work for you.

[size="1"]Disclaimer: The opinion in the post above does not reflect that of NPO, so please don't try to be all cute and point out the alliance affiliation. It gets old[/size]

Edited December 1, 2011 by MitchellBade

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1322701143' post='2857398']
This delay seems to have more to do with inactivity and a lack of military preparedness rather than military geniuses at work.
[/quote]

There's really nothing to back this up but opinion.

[Letum]

[quote name='MitchellBade' timestamp='1322701584' post='2857407']
Now would you rather RIA go against the word of their ally?
[/quote]

If Polaris wanted to sacrifice itself and not allow its allies to be harmed, then it would be a bit strange to have called in everyone they have already.

It's usually all or nothing with these things.

[Thom98]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1322700104' post='2857385']
Fog of war. The truth is no one has any idea what the intentions of Polar's allies that have yet to declare are. There are a number of possibilities but two that spring immediately to my mind are:

1. They aren't going to enter for a number of possible reasons.

2. They plan to enter at a time of theirs and Polar's choosing.

The accusations against RIA in this thread are at this stage un-testable and it's possible the discussions that have happened between them and Polar will never be fully disclosed.
[/quote]


I normally stay away from these types of threads however it seems that there has been one very probable option left out

3. They keep eating all the popcorn and having to make more while watching Polar get treated as they have treated their allies in the past.

[Sabcat]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1322702069' post='2857411']
If Polaris wanted to sacrifice itself and not allow its allies to be harmed, then it would be a bit strange to have called in everyone they have already.

It's usually all or nothing with these things.
[/quote]

This is true, without being privy to the conversations between Polar and RIA though it's impossible to know for sure what's happening.

[quote name='Thom98' timestamp='1322702085' post='2857412']3. They keep eating all the popcorn and having to make more while watching Polar get treated as they have treated their allies in the past.
[/quote]

RIA signed just to be able to blow Polar out? Doesn't seem likely to me.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Joe Kremlin' timestamp='1322697483' post='2857358']
The only reason it's a bad callout thread is because callouts only work against those who have honor. You should have targeted a different alliance if you wanted this thread to have any effect.
[/quote]
No, callouts only work when you successfully prey on someone's insecurities. Ardus could have taken his pick from a whole range of things to play on, but he went with cowardly abandonment of allies, probably because it seems most people around here have some kind of phobia about being accused of that. Unfortunately, it's a bit like calling me out for being a drug addict, in that such an attack is so far removed from my personal experience of reality that it winds up being more amusing than aggravating.

I do what I need for my allies. Always have, always will, and while I occasionally screw up, accusing me of intentionally doing wrong by an ally isn't going to get you anywhere. What Polar needs from me at the moment doesn't happen to match up to what Ardus (or a whole bunch of other people I'm not allied to for that matter) want from me. Luckily, my choices are pretty easy to make in this regard, because on this issue I answer to Polar, and not the rest of you.

You can continue to tell me I'm hiding to protect my pixels, and I'll continue to roll my eyes at you. We've pretty well established over the last three years or so that stats aren't to be valued. The rather strong emphasis on this fact is a natural and justified response to the tragically, or hilariously depending on your perspective, stupid way in which alliances used to positively trip over themselves in order to abandon people that were about to get rolled, dropping treaties literally either immediately before or even after the war declarations. That sort of behavior has been effectively eradicated on the systemic level, regardless of what insults people like to bandy about during war time. What passes for cowardice now looks like heroism compared to what used to be the socially expected behavior back in the day. But the extreme blowback against that time still exists years after the culture has fundamentally changed.

But, if you don't care about your pixels, if they truly hold no value to you, what exactly are you sacrificing for your ally? You may as well donate your garbage to charity and congratulate yourselves for your generosity. Declaring in support of an ally has largely stopped being about actually helping them and is now about proving to the rest of the world what a great ally you make. Sorry, folks, rushing into the battle at the first opening isn't always the most helpful thing you can do for an ally, and I'm perfectly willing to sit here and bear the attacks on my reputation until such a time as I will actually be useful, rather than depriving my ally of actual support in order to prove to everyone else that I'm a "good ally."

Ultimately, reputation is like pixels. It can be a useful political tool when properly used, but a great portion of whether you keep it has more to do with the prevailing political winds than your own actions, and you can always build up what you lost later. The only real difference betweenthe two is that it is still fashionable to let fear of losing one drive your actions, while doing the same for the other is disdained. I fear the loss of neither. I put my allies before my reputation.

[pd73bassman]

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1322692189' post='2857293']
let's call it a joke thread.
[/quote]


Well it is your alliance being talked about here, so yes it is a joke thread.

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1322667619' post='2857023']
Sorry, we need about three more years of bottled up hate before we get there. If that's what those guys are waiting for, better get comfortable, because I'll thoroughly enjoy just continuing to !@#$ on their lack of commitment from here on the sidelines.[/quote]
Bottled up hate doesn't sound very lulzy. MK wouldn't want to get called out for taking things too seriously. That is the ultimate call out, apparently

It seems more likely that the politics of a "preemptive strike" aren't as favourable this time around.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Sir Humphrey

[The Big Bad]

What? The enemy is not fighting the war the way you want them to? How dare they! I though this war would end the last few years of TOPs never ending crying about Polar and instead its started an entire new round of crying about Polars allies by others. No doubt the end of this war will lead to someone else crying. Treaties and CBs are a thing of the past, so who knows what they are planning if anything. With all that has gone on over the last few years they could just attack whomever they want that may or may not be a part of of the enemy coalition and it may not even be in this war.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

I like how people think RIA playing both sides during the last war was some amazing feat.

If they had actually fought someone even remotely close to their NS, maybe.

[Sephiroth]

I'll give RIA more time to come to NpO's assistance before I start assuming they're not going to honor their treaty here.

[Comrade Korey]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1322702808' post='2857419']
No, callouts only work when you successfully prey on someone's insecurities... ect ect
[/quote]
After reading this wall of text, this thread may as well be closed. I think Delta has made his case and basically made everyone look like children. As a member of the peanut gallery, I wouldn't mind it if RIA got in this because that would entertain me. The fact is, the reasons they are not are probably legitimate reasons. But seriously, RIA, go fight because I am not entertained

[FlogYou]

[quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1322635783' post='2856687']
RIA has treaties on both sides.[/quote]

May I ask who? I mean who is RIA treatied to on the "other" side? Unless their wiki is not updated, am I missing something.

[MitchellBade]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1322704394' post='2857435']
I like how people think RIA playing both sides during the last war was some amazing feat.

If they had actually fought someone even remotely close to their NS, maybe.
[/quote]
Has nothing to do with NS or the quality of their opponents. It has all to do with the fact that they did not back down from their treaties. I like how people think this past week represents RIA's reputation.

[Bob Ilyani]

[quote name='FlogYou' timestamp='1322705331' post='2857455']
May I ask who? I mean who is RIA treatied to on the "other" side? Unless their wiki is not updated, am I missing something.
[/quote]
RIA has a friendship treaty/NAP with IRON. They don't have anything with TOP though.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1322699386' post='2857375']
Joined: 16-November 10
Now I understand your lack of knowledge, you should ask your alliance's older players, perhaps NoR's predecessor NoV members?
[/quote]
No one but you remembers you having anything to do with that, fyi.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1322705693' post='2857464']
RIA has a friendship treaty/NAP with IRON. They don't have anything with TOP though.
[/quote]

And strangely, its a treaty that doesn't even make its way onto the RIA wiki.

Some friendship that must be, but a NAP none-the-less, and is absolutely no reason not to attack TOP.

Edited December 1, 2011 by memoryproblems

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322705960' post='2857470']
And strangely, its a treaty that doesn't even make its way onto the RIA wiki.

Some friendship that must be, but a NAP none-the-less, and is absolutely no reason not to attack TOP.
[/quote]
What could RIA actually do to TOP? Go read Delta's post.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Gibsonator21

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='MitchellBade' timestamp='1322705452' post='2857460']
Has nothing to do with NS or the quality of their opponents. It has all to do with the fact that they did not back down from their treaties.
[/quote]
So RIA taking very easy fronts last war should excuse them from !@#$ting on their newest ally, whom they signed a treaty with [b]knowing[/b] that war was literally days away?

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1322706083' post='2857472']
What could RIA actually do to TOP? Go read Delta's post.
[/quote]
If nothing else, they could bring friends.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Neo Uruk

[Trinite]

I assume they are waiting nearly two years in order to rebuild and forge new friendships, amid fierce competition, until it is finally time. amirite?

Can I also put in a request for outside parties to keep e-lawyering treaties to a minimum? bleh