What motivates you?

[Ryan Greenberg]

Yes. It gets boring after awhile with the same people in charge.

[Lanore]

[quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1331425190' post='2936616']
If my posts mean nothing, I find it highly intriguing so many high profile players quote them. Apparently there is some truth in them, despite all the attempts to discredit, or else I'd just be ignored completely..no?

Do not put words in my mouth. I've said nothing more then Sparta and GATO are not friends. I think that much is quite clear. If GATO wants to fix their relationship with Sparta, I don't think Sparta is going anywhere. Nor do I believe they would reject calls for discussions by GATO.
[/quote]

The issue with this is that GATO went into the last war to protect a friend from what we saw at the time as a legitimate threat. You hold it against us that we refused to drop the war immediately once realizing that the threat we saw wasn't exactly accurate, even though to my knowledge we only held demands for white peace for ourselves and our allies with a no reentry clause. You (Read:Sparta) also continually claim that we are MK lapdogs which is inherently insulting. Further, your claim that we were hell bent on the war and were looking for an entry isn't entirely correct. We saw the war as an inevitability, were preparing for it, and waiting for a strike or intel. GATO had no interest in a war with XX until Fark hit NPO. That fact is as plain as day.

I've apologized for the circumstances of the war, and I've apologized for the harm Sparta felt for it. I can not, and will not, however, apologize for seizing a moment to defend my friends, or refusing to leave the field of battle until our allies also received peace.

So the only question I have with Sparta is pretty straight forward: Will you continue to expect GATO to unconditionally feel sorry for the entire event and admit we were inherently evil and looking to cause you harm? Because that is what it seems like you want, and you'll never get that.

[Sephiroth]

I'm glad to see the first option has more votes than all the other 3 options combined, shows there are still a lot of players out there who play to win and like to see change. If you're just supporting another alliance in holding the dominate position, but your alliance doesn't hold much power itself, then you're not winning at all. It keeps things more interesting when people have the attitude of wanting to defeat the current hegemony and set goals like that for themselves to give them a purpose behind every political move, rather than just randomly tying themselves into the treaty web very badly. Personally I don't dislike MK as much as some of their allies, but to take down MK's allies they need to be knocked down a notch as well. Also I'm sure MK/DH themselves will get bored out of their minds if nobody tries to beat them and if we have to many alliances trying to do the "lets everybody be friends and not war each other" FA policies.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Methrage

[Monster]

Well, the thing is the latter foreign policy is a real issue, since people like to ignore political realities and when a war happens a lot of people bury their head in the sand and pretend like it wasn't something set up months in advance.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1331574611' post='2937229']
Well, the thing is the latter foreign policy is a real issue, since people like to ignore political realities and when a war happens a lot of people bury their head in the sand and pretend like it wasn't something set up months in advance.
[/quote]
I realize its an issue, which is why I made this thread to hopefully get more people thinking on why they do what they do. If they are just randomly signing treaties with everyone they can with no regard for where that will put them in upcoming conflicts, hopefully they'll put more thought into it now and in the future.

[Monster]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1331574751' post='2937230']
I realize its an issue, which is why I made this thread to hopefully get more people thinking on why they do what they do. If they are just randomly signing treaties with everyone they can with no regard for where that will put them in upcoming conflicts, hopefully they'll put more thought into it now and in the future.
[/quote]

Even worse is when people just don't do anything at all. A lack of ambition is probably the worst thing in politics.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Roquentin

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1331574945' post='2937232']
Even worse is when people just don't do anything at all. A lack of ambition is probably the worst thing in politics.
[/quote]
Even those who lack ambition to really get into leadership roles can give more power to alliances who would be more likely to oppose the hegemony in future wars by joining one of those. Also if they get to vote on treaties and leaders within their alliance, they can base what treaties they vote in favor of and what leaders they vote for based on which treaties would align their alliance so they would have the opportunity to help take down the hegemony in any upcoming conflicts and which leaders would lead them in a way so they are more likely to fight against the current hegemony, rather than being stuck fighting for the hegemony.

[Monster]

I agree entirely.

[IYIyTh]

It's personal.

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='Lanore' timestamp='1331563658' post='2937188']
The issue with this is that GATO went into the last war to protect a friend from what we saw at the time as a legitimate threat. You hold it against us that we refused to drop the war immediately once realizing that the threat we saw wasn't exactly accurate,
[/quote]

What you should have done is immediately declare a white peace when you found out the intel was incorrect.. Instead you chose the option of staying in because ODN didn't want to leave MK behind and don't even try and deny it.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Charles Stuart

[Lanore]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1331593085' post='2937328']
What you should have done is immediately declare a white peace when you found out the intel was incorrect.. Instead you chose the option of staying in because ODN didn't want to leave MK behind and don't even try and deny it.
[/quote]
Hint: We found out the intel was incorrect before MK entered to my knowledge. MHA Refused the first offer, things were rescheduled, and stuff got complicated for GATO. According to Laslo/Tubs it had to do with getting Hooligans out/PPO not wanting to leave or something along those lines.

Wars begin when they will, they don't end when you please.

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='Lanore' timestamp='1331594258' post='2937342']
Hint: We found out the intel was incorrect before MK entered to my knowledge. MHA Refused the first offer, things were rescheduled, and stuff got complicated for GATO. According to Laslo/Tubs it had to do with getting Hooligans out/PPO not wanting to leave or something along those lines.

Wars begin when they will, they don't end when you please.
[/quote]

So MK entered knowing the intel was faulty is what you are saying?

And we all know why MHA refused the first offer.


[quote]Wars begin when they will, they don't end until MK allows them to.[/quote]

Fixed that for you.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Charles Stuart

[Lanore]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1331594916' post='2937351']
So MK entered knowing the intel was faulty anyway is what you are saying?

And we all know why MHA refused the first offer.




Fixed that for you.
[/quote]

Nice detraction. At least you admit that ending a war isn't as easy as you make out.

I wasn't in MK at the time you should ask them. As for MHA disregarding the first offer, I've heard a few different stories. I wasn't there for talks, so I wouldn't venture to guess. I chalked it up to " The war has only been on for a few days like hell we're surrendering " . I mean, I'd be indignant too.

Enlighten me though charles, I love to learn.

Edit: If you are going to continue with the MK conspiracy theories let me know and we can stop the conversation right now. I don't debate conspiracy theorists or fanatics. It's a waste of time.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Lanore

[Charles Stuart]

[quote name='Lanore' timestamp='1331595228' post='2937357']
Nice detraction. At least you admit that ending a war isn't as easy as you make out.

I wasn't in MK at the time you should ask them. As for MHA disregarding the first offer, I've heard a few different stories. I wasn't there for talks, so I wouldn't venture to guess. I chalked it up to " The war has only been on for a few days like hell we're surrendering " . I mean, I'd be indignant too.

Enlighten me though charles, I love to learn.

Edit: If you are going to continue with the MK conspiracy theories let me know and we can stop the conversation right now. I don't debate conspiracy theorists or fanatics. It's a waste of time.
[/quote]

Ending a war is easy if you have the intestinal fortitude to do what is right. I am not talking about the moralist gibberish often sprouted here but more so sticking to a set of ethics.

Ah, the old " I cannot speak for MK in this matter". Nice backpedal but if that is true then that would make ODN a terrible ally for not informing them that the intel was faulty and that I find hard to believe. ODN has its flaws but not being able to pass information along is hopefully not one of them. Unless their treaty obligations conflict of course

You already know though Lanore. You were such a passionate defender of MK during that debate we had on GATO's forums when ODN basically said that their tie to MK took precedence over CnG when MHA refused to even consider the notion of forced tech deals. Or do I need to get a member from GATO to post the topic here in order to refresh that memory of yours which for some reason is often victim to bouts of convenient forgetfulness.

Where is the conspiracy? For the last few weeks there has been an abundance of factual evidence backing up the various claims about MK.

[Enamel32]

[quote name='Lanore' timestamp='1331563658' post='2937188']
[b]We saw the war as an inevitability,[/b] were preparing for it, and waiting for a strike or intel. GATO had no interest in a war with [b]XX until Fark hit NPO.[/b] That fact is as plain as day. [/quote]
I see. So you knew you were coming in. As you said, you were indeed preparing for it. You were going to force ODN to come in on our OTHER allies. That makes me feel [i]so[/i] much better.

[quote name='Lanore' timestamp='1331563658' post='2937188']
I've apologized for the circumstances of the war, and I've apologized for the harm Sparta felt for it. I can not, and will not, however, apologize for seizing a moment to defend my friends, or refusing to leave the field of battle until our allies also received peace.

So the only question I have with Sparta is pretty straight forward: Will you continue to expect GATO to unconditionally feel sorry for the entire event and admit we were inherently evil and looking to cause you harm? Because that is what it seems like you want, and you'll never get that.
[/quote]
Considering you just stated that you were coming in on our allies due to what you say was, inevitability. (You used the word "inevitability" which I disagree with, as most alliances take treaty conflicts into some judgement in their FA paths) Which implies you were inherently evil and looking to cause us/our coalition harm. If you want to keep denying that fact, that's your choice. Anyone with half a brain can see that's true. But consider: Umb made the decision to not come in against our allies. In fact, Umb actually unknowingly hit our allies and called off their wars early out of respect for Sparta. We applaud them for that. ODN knew this move was going to make Sparta pretty upset. If I remember correctly ODN told sparta they didn't want to go through with GATO's actions. Why gato didn't consider the opinion of ODN, I'll never know. "CnG rolls together" will not serve as an explanation. I don't understand how you can expect us to accept an apology where you say "yeah, we're sorry we hit MHA, but man, If we could have bandwagoned against your other allies, we sure would have."

[quote name='Lanore' timestamp='1331594258' post='2937342']
Wars begin when they will, they don't end when you please.
[/quote]Yep, you're right. But YOU still have to deal with it if people don't like your choices. I have to deal with your choices as well. I'm dealing with them by !@#$%*ing at you.

Anyway, on topic: DOWN WITH THE NWO!

[Chaoshawk]

The status quo is rather dull, but Bob always changes and the twists it makes through the years keeps me here and entertained enough not to give up on it. There will always be someone to piss someone else off.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1331597956' post='2937376']
I see. So you knew you were coming in. As you said, you were indeed preparing for it.[b] You were going to force ODN to come in on our OTHER allies.[/b] That makes me feel [i]so[/i] much better.


Considering you just stated that you were coming in on our allies due to what you say was, inevitability. (You used the word "inevitability" which I disagree with, as most alliances take treaty conflicts into some judgement in their FA paths)[b] Which implies you were inherently evil and looking to cause us/our coalition harm.[/b] If you want to keep denying that fact, that's your choice. Anyone with half a brain can see that's true. But consider: Umb made the decision to not come in against our allies. In fact, Umb actually unknowingly hit our allies and called off their wars early out of respect for Sparta. We applaud them for that.[b] ODN knew this move was going to make Sparta pretty upset.[/b] If I remember correctly ODN told sparta they didn't want to go through with GATO's actions. Why gato didn't consider the opinion of ODN, I'll never know. "CnG rolls together" will not serve as an explanation. I don't understand how you can expect us to accept an apology where you say "yeah, we're sorry we hit MHA, but man, If we could have bandwagoned against your other allies, we sure would have."

Yep, you're right. But YOU still have to deal with it if people don't like your choices. I have to deal with your choices as well. I'm dealing with them by !@#$%*ing at you.

Anyway, on topic: DOWN WITH THE NWO!
[/quote]

1st Bolded Part: Absolutely absurd. If you do not, by now, understand what it means to be in an MADP bloc, you never will, but you cannot make nonsense assertions like that. No matter what anyone thinks, or no matter what intel was faulty or what intel was 100% accurate, the military action against MHA was 100% a sound strategic move for our coalition and it's efforts to end the war quickly. You cant add up the score until all the cards are turned face up, this card needed nudged, but even MHA gov doesnt stick to any nonsense idea that they planned to sit out. So, since they did not plan to sit out, it is a perfectly sound tactical policy to damage them before they can damage us(our coalition.)

2nd Bolded Part: Possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read. Here is a newsflash for you: Every member of our coalition was committed to causing harm to members of your coalition until such time as you surrendered. You know what that is called? WAR. The notion that the intent to cause harm to an alliance is "evil", is stupid.

3rd Bolded Part: Herp Derp Olympus faked logs (even though Sparta's idiotic EoD got caught with his foot in his mouth, and decided to play the "it was all faked" card, and your genius gov went along with it. Ironically, shortly thereafter, said EoD all but vanished. Its ok to sit on your denial and nonsense. At least 1 member of your gov had the balls to admit to me in private that SS was 100% guilty of everything in those logs. Crying cuz an ally hit an ally, AFTER your EoD had already tried to reach separate peace deals so Sparta could hit MK is hypocrisy at its finest. The only question that needs answered is was he acting in a rogue fashion, or did the Kings know.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

You've made Rush angry.

[Enamel32]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1331610721' post='2937441']
1st Bolded Part: Absolutely absurd. If you do not, by now, understand what it means to be in an MADP bloc, you never will, but you cannot make nonsense assertions like that. No matter what anyone thinks, or no matter what intel was faulty or what intel was 100% accurate, the military action against MHA was 100% a sound strategic move for our coalition and it's efforts to end the war quickly. You cant add up the score until all the cards are turned face up, this card needed nudged, but even MHA gov doesnt stick to any nonsense idea that they planned to sit out. So, since they did not plan to sit out, it is a perfectly sound tactical policy to damage them before they can damage us(our coalition.)[/quote]
Bawww, This is merely "CNG ROLLS TOGETHER" in tl;dr form. Yeah, strategic move. Hyperion argued that against aztec, until which, despite winning, it was deemed other approaches should have been taken. You jumped the gun. It made GATO look like the runt in the litter, and exposed dis-unity within CnG. Now you'll have to deal with any repercussions just as Sparta did with aztec. Had MHA hit a CnG ally, and CnG declared in response, I doubt there'd be any issues.

That still doesnt explain why Umb refused to hit Sparta allies but CnG was, for whatever reason, unable to do that. Chomping at the bit to get a win were we? Something something about honor? I believe GATO too phrased it as: CnG rolls together!

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1331610721' post='2937441']
2nd Bolded Part: Possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read. Here is a newsflash for you: Every member of our coalition was committed to causing harm to members of your coalition until such time as you surrendered. You know what that is called? WAR. [/quote]
Great, I'm glad the leader of CnG said this. I agree 100% This leads me back to my point, Why should we accept an apology from gato, when they clearly don't mean it?

Admit you were going to stop at nothing to add another win/gangbang to your record, no matter how many allies you had to step on or what the CB. That's it. I don't see why that's so hard for GATO. TLR did the dirty work for you, GATO.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1331610721' post='2937441']
3rd Bolded Part: Herp Derp Olympus faked logs (even though Sparta's idiotic EoD got caught with his foot in his mouth, and decided to play the "it was all faked" card, and your genius gov went along with it. Ironically, shortly thereafter, said EoD all but vanished. Its ok to sit on your denial and nonsense. At least 1 member of your gov had the balls to admit to me in private that SS was 100% guilty of everything in those logs. Crying cuz an ally hit an ally, AFTER your EoD had already tried to reach separate peace deals so Sparta could hit MK is hypocrisy at its finest. The only question that needs answered is was he acting in a rogue fashion, or did the Kings know.
[/quote]
Oh, interesting! If govt doesnt already know who said that, I'm sure they'd be interested to know. Perhaps you should get Tulak on IRC? I don't know anything about the logs, and frankly I dont care. I do know it's not difficult to fake logs, and PM's are even easier: ctrl+f find-replace 2 names. Personally, I don't trust anything coming from your coalition past or present right now, so I wouldn't put it past them....just sayin'

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1331574751' post='2937230']
I realize its an issue, which is why I made this thread to hopefully get more people thinking on why they do what they do. If they are just randomly signing treaties with everyone they can with no regard for where that will put them in upcoming conflicts, hopefully they'll put more thought into it now and in the future.
[/quote]

I think the main problem is a lack of proactivity. Inactivity would be the wrong word. There are a [i]lot[/i] of active people on Digiterra who use full aid slots and such.

But to have political movement, people need to be proactive. You can have a static world full of active leaders, but nothing would happen. There wouldn't be any wars because people would be too scared of the consequences.

Wars are planned out in advance and won before the first nuke is fired. A proactive leader plans out these sides. They encourage people to cut or sign treaties, often citing coalition warfare for a future war. Proactive leaders win coalition wars. Or they just don't get hit as hard. It's easy to sign treaties, but it takes active effort to actually get security from them.

You don't need a proactive leader to keep an alliance in shape or recruit heavily. You can have big alliances that serve only as pawns for these proactive leaders, if they don't have a goal for themselves. The proactive leaders are really the ones who run Digiterra. They start the wars, they control the political climate, they make sure that they don't lose wars. I wouldn't call their allies meatshields... but rather, followers. Much like the NS added by membership of a warring alliance. They willingly follow the more proactive ones to war.

And as far as proactive leaders go, MK and TOP score very high. For example, TOP is perhaps the most proactive in PF - even though BN, Gre, etc are very active, they don't actually maneuver to control the politics of Digiterra. TOP has the most political... tension.. of the rest of PF and is more likely to bring the bloc on their side. Many of MKs allies also share this quality. Hence, why people get the impression that MK has more political power than all of Digiterra, even though they only hold about as much NS in direct allies as other alliances like Fark and Sparta.

(Also, quite often people do mistake being talkative for being proactive, but that's another discussion)


On answering the big "What motivates you?" question of this thread... I wanted to keep people guessing, but I'll just say it since I'm not long for this world.

Alliance building motivates me. I don't care too much about which side I'm on. I think this whole game of "kill the Hegemony" is a little unfair on whoever's sitting in the Hegemony chair at the moment. But I like building solid alliances and not having to do all the dirty work myself.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1331610721' post='2937441']
3rd Bolded Part: Herp Derp Olympus faked logs (even though Sparta's idiotic EoD got caught with his foot in his mouth, and decided to play the "it was all faked" card, and your genius gov went along with it. Ironically, shortly thereafter, said EoD all but vanished. Its ok to sit on your denial and nonsense. At least 1 member of your gov had the balls to admit to me in private that SS was 100% guilty of everything in those logs. Crying cuz an ally hit an ally, AFTER your EoD had already tried to reach separate peace deals so Sparta could hit MK is hypocrisy at its finest. [b]The only question that needs answered is was he acting in a rogue fashion, or did the Kings know.[/b]
[/quote]

I'd also love an answer for this bolded part but it's probably unlikely that I'll ever get one.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Johnny Apocalypse

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1331596877' post='2937369']
Ending a war is easy if you have the intestinal fortitude to do what is right. I am not talking about the moralist gibberish often sprouted here but more so sticking to a set of ethics.[/quote]

To tag along to the early conversation that led here, the war was not dragged on to accommodate MK's entry, as there were other fronts that were not willing to peace out. ODN requested our assistance due to MHA having them outnumbered in the upper tier, and we obliged. Although this comment telling those alliances smaller than GATO to be forced to listen to GATO's "ethics" is hilariously hypocritical considering what you constantly accuse my alliance of.

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1331596877' post='2937369']Ah, the old " I cannot speak for MK in this matter". Nice backpedal but if that is true then that would make ODN a terrible ally for not informing them that the intel was faulty and that I find hard to believe. ODN has its flaws but not being able to pass information along is hopefully not one of them. Unless their treaty obligations conflict of course [/quote]

I don't give a damn about how reliable or non-reliable the intel ended up being. To argue that MHA wasn't going to enter that war speaks much more to the kind of alliance they are.

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1331596877' post='2937369']You already know though Lanore. You were such a passionate defender of MK during that debate we had on GATO's forums when ODN basically said that their tie to MK took precedence over CnG when MHA refused to even consider the notion of forced tech deals. Or do I need to get a member from GATO to post the topic here in order to refresh that memory of yours which for some reason is often victim to bouts of convenient forgetfulness.[/quote]

Care to explain what this is talking about? As peace talks were going on, we thought about structuring in some tech deals to the peace agreement. MK is a historically very reliable tech buying alliance, and we felt that securing some tech deals in exchange for economically boosting MHA nations seemed like a fair trade off. When Umbrella and ODN requested we not go down this path, we pulled the idea off the table. I'm sorry that this info doesn't fit with the rampant belief that any relationship with my alliance is a one-way street.

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1331596877' post='2937369']Where is the conspiracy? For the last few weeks there has been an abundance of factual evidence backing up the various claims about MK.
[/quote]

...which you're, once again, accusing of being the case here. I would love to see more of this readily available "evidence," because I seem to be having trouble finding much of it at all.

[quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1331617843' post='2937485']Oh, interesting! If govt doesnt already know who said that, I'm sure they'd be interested to know. Perhaps you should get Tulak on IRC? I don't know anything about the logs, and frankly I dont care. I do know it's not difficult to fake logs, and PM's are even easier: ctrl+f find-replace 2 names. Personally, I don't trust anything coming from your coalition past or present right now, so I wouldn't put it past them....just sayin'
[/quote]

Adding a "just sayin'" doesn't suddenly validate your baseless claims. The logs from your EoD were confirmed true because he seems to have forgotten that he was [i]negotiating with alliances within our coalition[/i], so the people he was talking to were obviously informing us of what Sparta - or I suppose the rogue EoD as you conveniently ostracized him - were planning.

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1331194194' post='2935417']
There really isn't any group or power comparable to NPO pre-Karma.The world is far more multi-polar today.

For those who focus on MK: there are at least a half dozen alliances with at least comparable power to MK.

Voted 'yes' for the hell of it.
[/quote]
True but MK has always had a knack for bringing folks together in order to assure their victory.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1331370606' post='2936310']
Even two or three works. The reason for the most part people do it is because they don't trust each other.

They weren't covered well and MK was declaring 3 wars on MHA nations, again successful because they sucked. There was no reason to preempt an alliance with extremely limited offensive capacity and GATO would have been better suited to Fark anyway. MHA could be dealt with if they countered anyone without too much fuss, regardless.

Let me repeat this in clear terms: you do not have fronts covered properly when you are 1 v 3ing !@#$. Simple.

TIDTT made the same mistake in bothering with GR/LOST/FOB. Instead a full court press on Vanguard/MK/ODN would have really made a difference. Instead of FoB, NATO and TFD should have declared any one of the three.
[b]Valhalla was a waste on FAN,[/b] too. Would have gone a long way on MK, Vanguard, or ODN.

Basically, if you break the most capable alliances, the war is won or at least a tie regardless of how much fluff the other side has against you.

Hell, if everyone who got $%&@ed up anyway had chained on in those three, it'd have been hard to demand reps.


So basically, while I suck at recruiting, this is where you *should* listen to me.

edit: Man, I can't wait for the Crymson reply. I do know he asked TFD and NATO to hit Vanguard, but they didn't because of NV, but the other two would have made sense.
[/quote]
No way anyone could have known this. From what I understand FAN was at one point one of the best fighters on this planet. In retrospect you may be right as their tactics were out dated and while they dished out damage it was not in the proportions we had expected. Its easy to play should of, could of, would of when talking about the past.

Me personally every power structure is doomed to eventually fall. The current is no different from the past.

[Lukapaka]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1331610721' post='2937441']
The only question that needs answered is was he acting in a rogue fashion, or did the Kings know.
[/quote]

With no solid evidence from either side (c/p'd logs aren't evidence ) we are going to trust our own. Even since then, the Spartan in question has denied the logs. During peace talks (or after, rather) I heard a first hand account from a member of Olympus government (months after the alleged affair), but with no hard evidence I still don't [i]know [/i]the truth. As for the claim that someone in our government does know the truth, I'd say this is likely an exaggeration considering they've never approached Tulak or myself with logs proving it one way or another. I can see why it's tempting to press this issue, especially for folks who've got a beef with Sparta, but I'm not losing any sleep over it. If the allegations are true, Sparta didn't backup the plan of a distraught EoD. And if any of you guys going on about this [i]do[/i] have solid evidence, feel free to message me with it and we can continue discussing the issue then.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Lukapaka' timestamp='1331652127' post='2937625']
With no solid evidence from either side (c/p'd logs aren't evidence ) we are going to trust our own. Even since then, the Spartan in question has denied the logs. During peace talks (or after, rather) I heard a first hand account from a member of Olympus government (months after the alleged affair), but with no hard evidence I still don't [i]know [/i]the truth. As for the claim that someone in our government does know the truth, I'd say this is likely an exaggeration considering they've never approached Tulak or myself with logs proving it one way or another. I can see why it's tempting to press this issue, especially for folks who've got a beef with Sparta, but I'm not losing any sleep over it. If the allegations are true, Sparta didn't backup the plan of a distraught EoD. And if any of you guys going on about this [i]do[/i] have solid evidence, feel free to message me with it and we can continue discussing the issue then.
[/quote]

Your preposterous inability to accept logs as "evidence" leave people with little other means to persuade you if you're not going to take the word of said Olympus government official over the word of your backpedaling EoD.