Viva Cuervo!

[Phineas]

[quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1332551900' post='2942425']
As for Raken planning to bring up a Sparta cancellation? mrcalkin is stating facts. There was no support for any such thing. Umbrella wanted to keep that treaty until we realized Sparta supported your actions, thus clearly showing that our two alliances had vastly differing world views and could not continue together.
[/quote]


I don't know you, JoshuaR so I'll try to show a little restraint.

This post you made.... this post right here... really should be framed front and center of all of this silliness.

I guess I should say, thanks, Sparta for supporting just one guy defending himself and in the process making that your [b][i]entire whole world view[/i][/b]. Wow, I mean seriously, just wow.

Back to the treaty behind this whole soap opera. In hindsight, things seem pretty cool, zero-sum wise since Sparta effectively traded one nation ready to fight with them for 20.

Not bad.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Phineas

[JoshuaR]

I'm glad I can make smile the slower among us. You don't seem to realize that Sparta ejected Roquentin, I guess. And Roquentin defending himself, Or calling for the destruction of numerous alliances, asking others to back the campaign, and exposing confidential information?

Clearly being on opposite sides of a war already strains a relationship. There's step two. (Step one was already having different foreign policy such that step 2 could even occur). Step 3 consists of lingering anger and disappointment between the two sides, and both sides being annoyed at the actions or lack of certain actions between the other parties. This might be enough to lead to the end of any normal treaty. However, we recognized that most of these initial differences stem from being on opposite sides of a tough war, and we hoped that such differences could be put behind us as we moved forward.

We fully intended to start an aid boom once all the participants had declared peace, yes partly as a symbolic gesture considering that money is less important these days, but for many smaller nations very useful indeed. What threw a wrench into this was Roquentin joining Sparta and immediately using this soapbox to call for the destruction of the Mushroom Kingdom (a close Umbrella ally), and Non Grata (a co-signatory to Pandora's Box). Roquentin was given a government title and duty to revamp Sparta finances.

From his viewpoint, part of that, in working with Umbrella, was asking for the promised aid windfall. From our viewpoint, we now saw a government member of an alliance calling for our closest allies' destruction, hence our hesitation in providing aid to this alliance.

That said, no other Spartans were commenting in public or elsewhere regarding this one man's mission to destroy Umbrella's support structure. Initially, we were assuming that Spartans just hadn't SEEN what Roquentin was doing. So still we supposed it was just one man alone. But as the days went on, as Roquentin's target list grew, still there was nothing from Sparta. And now in this thread I learn that the reason for this was because Sparta DID support Roquentin's ideals of destroying MK and NG. All of THIS supports the notion that we can clearly NOT be allies at this time.

I'm sorry for you, that I had to waste my time spelling it out in more detail.

[Phineas]

Oh, we're cool, I got all of that. I just did not see how that suddenly became Sparta's new worldview. I can understand how you're upset, especially given that this is the only thing really keeping drama up (even with a super strategic GOONS war ablazin), but really, no one outside of really important people like you could possibly understand what really happened, so I'm cool with that.

ttl,dr: It's all good.

and edit: the tone came back

Edited March 24, 2012 by Phineas

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1332569611' post='2942529']
Roquentin was given a government title and duty to revamp Sparta finances.
[/quote]
You guys have proven from what Roq did for you guys that he would of benefited Sparta greatly doing this, that you guys wanted them to censor their members from having freedom to say how they felt about you guys after you ditched them in the previous war was you guys having unrealistic expectations on what they should of been doing for you guys.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Methrage

[JoshuaR]

Yes, when he first joined, I even commented in their embassy that I felt he would be a good addition for them.

However, there is a difference between censoring general membership opinion and a full-fledged government member calling for your destruction. When government wants you dead, it would seem improbable that you would be allied.

[Roadie]

Congrats to both on this. I've grown to appreciate an alliance taking on a certain amount of treaty risk as opposed to making all the safe choices.

Y'all have this one, we have the Ponies and GOONS has MK. Let the bloc discussions begin.

[Monster]

[quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1332587598' post='2942568']
Yes, when he first joined, I even commented in their embassy that I felt he would be a good addition for them.

However, there is a difference between censoring general membership opinion and a full-fledged government member calling for your destruction. When government wants you dead, it would seem improbable that you would be allied.
[/quote]

I don't think you're getting this and it's been clear for a while since I've stated on repeated occasions that I had free reign on MK and NG and to defend myself from people. I also said it on the radio show with Brehon.

In what fantasy world were you living where Sparta had a positive opinion of PB/DH(outwith VE/FOK) and that the treaties would be compatible long-term? The only reason it hadn't been cancelled before was that JA had promised change in terms of FA policy to Sparta. Again, a disconnect between the leadership and people like you. So either, you should abolish any position that can claim to speak for umbrella in an official capacity, so they don't mean anything or actually do what your leaders want.

The hilarity of you crying about someone wanting MK's destruction when MK has demanded the destruction of Umbrella's allies in the past is the best part.

They were never going to be compatible. I mean, honestly, before I joined Sparta, they knew about my situation with MK and putting someone who wants MK dead in gov should have cleared it up enough. How the hell was it a surprise to you? I told you what I was going to do and I'd find people who had similar interests in mind.


What does annoy is me everyone wants to indulge in Continuum-era thinking where simply avoiding getting rolled is the ultimate goal.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Roquentin

[Chalaskan]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1332552160' post='2942428']
By supporting MK, you're also supporting everything GOONS does. As MK supports whatever GOONS does and are empowered to do so thanks to alliances like TOP. That's what I dislike about the MK/TOP relationship and the direction of your alliance in general lately.
[/quote]

MK supporting everything GOONS does is a perception. Just as is the perception that we support everything MK does and vice versa. Regardless, MK has been an alliance that has stood behind their word and been honest with us, which is more than can be said about many of our previous allies.

After getting burned so long, you start looking for someone that isn't as fickle, and has a tendency to blow smoke up your ass. MK fits that bill whether anyone wants to acknowledge that or not.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1332569611' post='2942529']
I'm glad I can make smile the slower among us. You don't seem to realize that Sparta ejected Roquentin, I guess. And Roquentin defending himself, Or calling for the destruction of numerous alliances, asking others to back the campaign, and exposing confidential information?

Clearly being on opposite sides of a war already strains a relationship. There's step two. (Step one was already having different foreign policy such that step 2 could even occur). Step 3 consists of lingering anger and disappointment between the two sides, and both sides being annoyed at the actions or lack of certain actions between the other parties. This might be enough to lead to the end of any normal treaty. However, we recognized that most of these initial differences stem from being on opposite sides of a tough war, and we hoped that such differences could be put behind us as we moved forward.

We fully intended to start an aid boom once all the participants had declared peace, yes partly as a symbolic gesture considering that money is less important these days, but for many smaller nations very useful indeed. What threw a wrench into this was Roquentin joining Sparta and immediately using this soapbox to call for the destruction of the Mushroom Kingdom (a close Umbrella ally), and Non Grata (a co-signatory to Pandora's Box). Roquentin was given a government title and duty to revamp Sparta finances.

From his viewpoint, part of that, in working with Umbrella, was asking for the promised aid windfall. From our viewpoint, we now saw a government member of an alliance calling for our closest allies' destruction, hence our hesitation in providing aid to this alliance.

That said, no other Spartans were commenting in public or elsewhere regarding this one man's mission to destroy Umbrella's support structure. Initially, we were assuming that Spartans just hadn't SEEN what Roquentin was doing. So still we supposed it was just one man alone. But as the days went on, as Roquentin's target list grew, still there was nothing from Sparta. And now in this thread I learn that the reason for this was because Sparta DID support Roquentin's ideals of destroying MK and NG. All of THIS supports the notion that we can clearly NOT be allies at this time.

I'm sorry for you, that I had to waste my time spelling it out in more detail.
[/quote]

You have had pretty recently allies campaign for you to actually take part in destroying your own support structure including but not limited to attacking your other allies and I haven't seen you nearly as upset as this.

In fact, it's almost like they were rewarded for having the gaul. Why stop now?

Edited March 26, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Monster]

Like I said, me going to any alliance means I will be anti-MK in it. There never was any pro-MK policy I overturned. You knew what was going to happen. I said what I was going to do and that I'd find people with similar interests. The idea that it was going to end up with me being some humble IA guy letting MK do whatever it wants is your most idiotic expectation at that. Econ/Def is a means to an end always.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Chalaskan' timestamp='1332793505' post='2943418']
MK supporting everything GOONS does is a perception. Just as is the perception that we support everything MK does and vice versa. Regardless, MK has been an alliance that has stood behind their word and been honest with us, which is more than can be said about many of our previous allies.

After getting burned so long, you start looking for someone that isn't as fickle, and has a tendency to blow smoke up your ass. MK fits that bill whether anyone wants to acknowledge that or not.
[/quote]

When you shake their hand, count your fingers to make sure you're not missing any afterwards.

Edited March 27, 2012 by James Dahl

[Monster]

I don't think Chalaskan knows about the actual track record of MK allies. Hint: it's not very good.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1332806926' post='2943501']
I don't think Chalaskan knows about the actual track record of MK allies. Hint: it's not very good.
[/quote]

Where exactly do they have a negative track record with allies? (inb4 Gunnergate)

[Devilyn Caster]

Couldn't be bothered to check if anyone had said this yet, but here goes:

[i]you two deserve each other.[/i]

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Chalaskan' timestamp='1332793505' post='2943418']
MK supporting everything GOONS does is a perception. Just as is the perception that we support everything MK does and vice versa. Regardless, MK has been an alliance that has stood behind their word and been honest with us, which is more than can be said about many of our previous allies.

After getting burned so long, you start looking for someone that isn't as fickle, and has a tendency to blow smoke up your ass. MK fits that bill whether anyone wants to acknowledge that or not.
[/quote]
Been a while since I've seen the 'not as bad as NPO!' argument.

[Monster]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1332811946' post='2943539']
Where exactly do they have a negative track record with allies? (inb4 Gunnergate)
[/quote]

There's that. Let's look at STA, Polar, GR, TORN, etc. Or why do you think this treaty is happening to begin with? Why am I constantly against MK?

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1332806926' post='2943501']
I don't think Chalaskan knows about the actual track record of MK allies. Hint: it's not very good.
[/quote]

Old alliances don't have good track records. There is always something that came up. See NPO, ODN, GATO and many more.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1332832684' post='2943657']
Old alliances don't have good track records. There is always something that came up. See NPO, ODN, GATO and many more.
[/quote]

Yea tbh, if you dig into 98% of alliance's past you'll find they or their leaders betrayed someone somewhere down the line. It's just the nature of the world I guess.

[Monster]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1332833040' post='2943658']
Yea tbh, if you dig into 98% of alliance's past you'll find they or their leaders betrayed someone somewhere down the line. It's just the nature of the world I guess.
[/quote]

Um, except MK has been allied to literally everyone at this point. Some alliances don't change allies like they change oil.

[potato]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1332828380' post='2943638']
There's that. Let's look at STA, Polar, GR, TORN, etc. Or why do you think this treaty is happening to begin with? Why am I constantly against MK?
[/quote]

You have so much dirt on us and [i]this[/i] is the line you're going with? Seriously?

[Monster]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1332840290' post='2943672']
You have so much dirt on us and [i]this[/i] is the line you're going with? Seriously?
[/quote]

Hm? Not really sure what that has to do with anything. It's more that Chalaskan was saying MK was a reliable ally. How many times do I have to mention that every enemy turned potential ally for MK is just another ODN? In MK-world everyone is a potential new ODN. NPO, TOP, Sparta, etc if they're either big or competent at fighting. Fickle defines MK, more or less, going against what Chalaskan said. Just because MK is impressed by TOP's ability to fight, and it's the reason they play nice with them, doesn't mean they're a good ally in general.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Roquentin

[potato]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1332840406' post='2943673']
Hm? Not really sure what that has to do with anything. It's more that Chalaskan was saying MK was a reliable ally. How many times do I have to mention that every enemy turned potential ally for MK is just another ODN? In MK-world everyone is a potential new ODN. NPO, TOP, Sparta, etc if they're either big or competent at fighting. Fickle defines MK, more or less, going against what Chalaskan said. Just because MK is impressed by TOP's ability to fight, and it's the reason they play nice with them, doesn't mean they're a good ally in general.
[/quote]

Being open to new relationships is a bad thing, now? What you call fickle, I call being open-minded. TOP [b]did[/b] impress and, as time passed, we realised we had more in common than we initially thought. Sorry if that hurts your "reality".

[Monster]

No, it's called "hating RandomInterrupt for not being pro rolling TOP enough" and then allying TOP when they want to roll the former for rolling TOP and you want to roll the former for not being compliant enough with your expectations before. Truly paradoxical.

TOP still dislikes a lot of other people like Sparta for helping you to begin with. That's where I get even more confused at the nature of the relationship. They hate people who were "fickle" by helping you.

Basically, the virtue of the lesson learned is you're not tied directly to MK in the fashion C&G was/is, you are totally disposable at any point. Or even if you are, but you get uppity, they will turn on you. ie: FOK

No real point in continuing it if you keep ignoring the obvious facts and it's getting a bit off-track at this point.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Roquentin

[potato]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1332841401' post='2943675']
No, it's called "hating RandomInterrupt for not being pro rolling TOP enough" and then allying TOP when they want to roll the former for rolling TOP and you want to roll the former for not being compliant enough with your expectations before. Truly paradoxical.

TOP still dislikes a lot of other people like Sparta for helping you to begin with. That's where I get even more confused at the nature of the relationship. They hate people who were "fickle" by helping you.
[/quote]

That's not it at all. And I seriously hope you're using Alterego-level rethoric in hopes of gathering support. You know of RandomInterrupt's love for us. And of his last words to us. That's not exactly what you can call a functionning relationship, is it? To the point of MK rolling Polar? Remind the rest of the class: when did that happen again? Or are we the big bad boogeyman playing puppetmaster again? MK saying "Roll XYZ", where XYZ changes every other week, is nothing new. How many times have we acted on it? You, of all people, should know this. Otherwise we'd have rolled pretty much everyone, allies and ourselves included, at least 6 times this year only.

TOP can dislike who ever they want. They're free to do so. What I find funny though is you lambasting TOP/MK for being "fickle" while lauding Sparta who has proved in the past they just go where the wind blows.

[Monster]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1332842183' post='2943676']
That's not it at all. And I seriously hope you're using Alterego-level rethoric in hopes of gathering support. You know of RandomInterrupt's love for us. And of his last words to us. That's not exactly what you can call a functionning relationship, is it? To the point of MK rolling Polar? Remind the rest of the class: when did that happen again? Or are we the big bad boogeyman playing puppetmaster again? MK saying "Roll XYZ", where XYZ changes every other week, is nothing new. How many times have we acted on it? You, of all people, should know this. Otherwise we'd have rolled pretty much everyone, allies and ourselves included, at least 6 times this year only.

TOP can dislike who ever they want. They're free to do so. What I find funny though is you lambasting TOP/MK for being "fickle" while lauding Sparta who has proved in the past they just go where the wind blows.
[/quote]

Usually, if there is a consistent enemy, it'll be clear who it is. He was pissed off precisely for the reasons I've already mentioned and he didn't like MK because he didn't like MK's other allies. Eventually MK did take his advice and stopped having 14 treaties to all kinds of blocs, but that didn't end well for him lol.

I'm lambasting MK for being fickle and TOP for thinking MK is a stalwart ally to anyone who isn't new and shiny or in C&G or DH. Um, Sparta could have lived up to the reputation for real by leaving XX and treatying you, as requested by yourselves. lol

Anyway, like I said it's veering off course, so that's all I'm going to say on the subject.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Roquentin