Which alliance is the biggest MK lapdog?

[King Louis the II]

To OSRavan

If you dont know the difference between following treaties in an agressive plot and following treaties to defend from BS or no CBs whe should not discuss at all.

But dont feell lonely when we call OPTIONAL DEFENSE NETWORK. There is also THE INTERNOPTIONAL.

I am sure, TLR allies are much more secure about their treaties than the ones that are allied to the the AAs cited above.

Maybe you should ask LSF or RnR.

Added: when you say "what happen behind closed doors" thats exactly what the perception is. It is that the likes of ODN and Internoptional seem to be more timid and less vocal about their allies. Which is the opposite to what happen with TLR and MK (despite MK not being in C&G). You can like it or not but that is the perception of most alliances. Otherwise, we would not discussing whether you are laptogs or not.

Edited July 15, 2012 by King Louis the II

[potato]

[quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1342362673' post='3010470']
To OSRavan

If you dont know the difference between following treaties in an agressive plot and following treaties to defend from BS or no CBs whe should not discuss at all.

But dont feell lonely when we call OPTIONAL DEFENSE NETWORK. There is also THE INTERNOPTIONAL.

I am sure, TLR allies are much more secure about their treaties than the ones that are allied to the the AAs cited above.

Maybe you should ask LSF or RnR.

Added: when you say "what happen behind closed doors" thats exactly what the perception is. It is that the likes of ODN and Internoptional seem to be more timid and less vocal about their allies. Which is the opposite to what happen with TLR and MK (despite MK not being in C&G). You can like it or not but that is the perception of most alliances. Otherwise, we would not discussing whether you are laptogs or not.
[/quote]

If we're going by outside perception, the reputation of your own alliance isn't exactly spotless. Are we right to think you're a useless blob made of cowards and morons?

Edited July 15, 2012 by potato

[OsRavan]

[quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1342362673' post='3010470']
To OSRavan

If you dont know the difference between following treaties in an agressive plot and following treaties to defend from BS or no CBs whe should not discuss at all.

But dont feell lonely when we call OPTIONAL DEFENSE NETWORK. There is also THE INTERNOPTIONAL.

I am sure, TLR allies are much more secure about their treaties than the ones that are allied to the the AAs cited above.

Maybe you should ask LSF or RnR.

Added: when you say "what happen behind closed doors" thats exactly what the perception is. It is that the likes of ODN and Internoptional seem to be more timid and less vocal about their allies. Which is the opposite to what happen with TLR and MK (despite MK not being in C&G). You can like it or not but that is the perception of most alliances. Otherwise, we would not discussing whether you are laptogs or not.
[/quote]


I assume you are talking about last war? ::amused:: you do realize the treaty sparta followed... FARK... was an aggressive attack over BS right? I'm just saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Instead of worrying so much over 'bs' cb, accept that every CB is equally bs and just enjoy the damn war.

You are complaining that ODN didn't follow sparta into war (and I wont even bother e-lawyering to show you the half dozen flaws in that logic.) I could just as easily complain sparta didn't follow ODN in that war. Its silly. You chose to ride with your bloc XX in an aggressive war against NPO. Good for you, it was probably the smart move for sparta. But we get back to the hypocrisy then. A little hypocritical of you to be complaining ODN didnt join the XX side of that war, when you werent joining the cng side.

Or if you are referring to *this* war, ODN went in via an MDP with MK. Are you implying ODN should not have honored our MDP in this war? Please tell me if thats what you are saying.

So again, Im not actually sure what you are going on about. If allies don't trust each other and have a mutual relationship, they tend to drop each other. Case in point odn/sparta. Which is as it should be. And if anyone questions ODNs willingness to fight and lose pixels then all I will say is time will prove me right in the future as it has in the past. Words are cheap, actions carry much more meaning. I think anyone who doesnt have a political axe to grind will be pretty dismissive of your claims.

Finally, dont you want DH/CnG to lose this war? If so, us being 'optional' will be in your self-interest. Since it means we are going to be abandoning our allies any moment now. And will do so again next war. ::grins:: I wonder if thats why you stress it so much? Wishful thinking?

[flak attack]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1342365158' post='3010481']
You are complaining that ODN didn't follow sparta into war (and I wont even bother e-lawyering to show you the half dozen flaws in that logic.) I could just as easily complain sparta didn't follow ODN in that war. Its silly. You chose to ride with your bloc XX in an aggressive war against NPO. Good for you, it was probably the smart move for sparta. But we get back to the hypocrisy then. A little hypocritical of you to be complaining ODN didnt join the XX side of that war, when you werent joining the cng side.
[/quote]
This is a very solid point. Didn't Sparta have more allies on the other side of the war than ODN? Why weren't you helping ODN, Asgaard or Umbrella?

[Azaghul]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1342376720' post='3010527']
This is a very solid point. Didn't Sparta have more allies on the other side of the war than ODN? Why weren't you helping ODN, Asgaard or Umbrella?
[/quote]
It seems kind of silly that they Sparta were so taken aback that ODN and Umbrella weren't going to join Sparta in siding with NpO/SF/FARK when both ODN and Umbrella had been clear about where they stood for months.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1342385423' post='3010539']
It seems kind of silly that they Sparta were so taken aback that ODN and Umbrella weren't going to join Sparta in siding with NpO/SF/FARK when both ODN and Umbrella had been clear about where they stood for months.
[/quote]

I've heard this argument before and I don't buy it. Just b/c you say you are going to say something doesn't suddenly justify it. ODN had to have been a willing participant in the plotting against SF and XX, which obviously includes Sparta, and if I found out that my ally was plotting against me, then I would be upset.

[flak attack]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1342385764' post='3010541']
I've heard this argument before and I don't buy it. Just b/c you say you are going to say something doesn't suddenly justify it. ODN had to have been a willing participant in the plotting against SF and XX, which obviously includes Sparta, and if I found out that my ally was plotting against me, then I would be upset.
[/quote]
You make it sounds like most of XX/SF was worth plotting against. The actions of that war were aimed at two alliances: GOD and NpO. I don't recall Sparta being allies with either of them at that point.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1342385942' post='3010542']
You make it sounds like most of XX/SF was worth plotting against. The actions of that war were aimed at two alliances: GOD and NpO. I don't recall Sparta being allies with either of them at that point.
[/quote]

If you think that plotting against GOD and NpO wouldn't impact XX, then you're quite frankly dumb.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1342386038' post='3010543']
If you think that plotting against GOD and NpO wouldn't impact XX, then you're quite frankly dumb.
[/quote]
While I'd cast my net further than flak (I'd add FARK and CSN), there's a big difference between targeting alliances that Sparta would be inclined to support, and directly targeting Sparta. Sparta was never a direct target, at least in DH and C&G.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Azaghul

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1342388092' post='3010550']
While I'd cast my net further than flak (I'd add FARK and CSN), there's a big difference between targeting alliances that Sparta would be inclined to support, and directly targeting Sparta. Sparta was never a direct target, at least in DH and C&G.
[/quote]

Still everyone in there right mind would know what Sparta was going to do, and should do, given their treaty sets. That some people expected Sparta to help ODN/MK/any body else roll Sparta's allies and bloc mates, is evidence of the kowtowing that is done by alliances like ODN and expected by MK.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1342385764' post='3010541']
I've heard this argument before and I don't buy it. Just b/c you say you are going to say something doesn't suddenly justify it. ODN had to have been a willing participant in the plotting against SF and XX, which obviously includes Sparta, and if I found out that my ally was plotting against me, then I would be upset.
[/quote]

Allies ending up on different sides happens all the time, due to the all-encompassing nature of the treaty web. It happened between CnG and GATO in the NpO-PB war. They remained friends and GATO later joined the bloc. TOP and IRON did it during Karma, they made it work and came out the other side, fighting together in multiple wars since. Umbrella and VE were on different sides this war, we're still allied and working together. Sparta and ODN/Umbrella were on different sides the last war. Despite ODN and Umbrella making reasonable choices to stay on the side we were on and Sparta making a reasonable choice to stick with their bloc and despite all of the efforts and promises made to make the time of discord as smooth as possible, Sparta still freaked out like a bunch of children, cancelled on ODN then treated Umbrella like !@#$ until we cancelled on them. It's not a crazy or unknown situation for two allies to have to fight on different sides of a war. Alliances led by adults can work it out.

I know that you're perpetually stuck in the opposition but coalitions are not monolithic entities. Alliances on our side definitely hated Sparta, but CnG and DH, for our (ODN + Umbrella) respective sakes, did not plot against Sparta and supported our ideas when it came to making things simple for Sparta. Fark made things more complicated for Sparta by aggressively attacking NPO and Sparta made things worse for themselves by cancelling ODN and engaging in the litany of horse!@#$ that made us cancel on them.

[Monster]

Yes, because those circumstances are entirely similar. In the GATO case, they had pledged to hit both sides, so they weren't really bitter about C&G already being on the opposite side of them and they were in another bloc.

In the other example, TOP did or tried to do a lot for IRON during and after the war and it was never a question whether or not TOP would back IRON after that.

Neither of the two closely resemble the ODN/Umbrella dynamic, which basically was "we're not going to do jack !@#$ for you and you should leave your bloc so you can follow us around."



Just to make it clearer since the FOK thing was brought up earlier.

Alliance whose leadership changes so it's people who don't spend most of their time sucking up to MK: see FOK how responded in that war.

Alliances who suck up to MK: see ODN/Umbrella

Edited July 15, 2012 by Roquentin

[Azaghul]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1342390129' post='3010552']
Still everyone in there right mind would know what Sparta was going to do, and should do, given their treaty sets. That some people expected Sparta to help ODN/MK/any body else roll Sparta's allies and bloc mates, is evidence of the kowtowing that is done by alliances like ODN and expected by MK.
[/quote]
We (MK, Umbrella, ODN) didn't expect Sparta to side with us (though the offer was there). The same should have been true for Sparta, they shouldn't have expected ODN/Umbrella to side with them against [i]their[/i] blocks and allies.

CSM pretty much said all that I could have said about allies often being on different sides and respecting each other's choices in the matter.

[OsRavan]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1342391248' post='3010557']
We (MK, Umbrella, ODN) didn't expect Sparta to side with us (though the offer was there). The same should have been true for Sparta, they shouldn't have expected ODN/Umbrella to side with them against [i]their[/i] blocks and allies.

CSM pretty much said all that I could have said about allies often being on different sides and respecting each other's choices in the matter.
[/quote]

This. To be perfectly honest, there were numerous discussions between Sparta and ODN leading up to the war. We could see the sides developing, and sparta made clear that XX was going to be their priority and we made clear cng was going to be ours.

The point SCY, is not that anyone should have expected Sparta to help their bloc get rolled. The point is it is hypocritical to expect ODN to have helped sparta roll *our* bloc if you arent going to hold sparta equally to account.


Further... if we decide to leave the PR spin to the wayside for a second and deal with the facts... they are as follows. Sparta went in via a treaty with a bloc member. ODN went in via a treaty with a bloc member. Both of those treaties were activated *before* any MDP portion of the odn/sparta treaty was activated (though since it was non-chaining I dont expect sparta or odn were going to abandon their blocs. The cng treaty by the bye is not non-chaining.). Further, the treaty was cancelled by sparta *without* being activated. Finally, both Sparta and ODN knew which 'side' the other was on and had discussed the situation specifically as the war broke out. And part of that discussion as I recall, was how Sparta would not be able to fight with us. I dont mind spartans being upset or not wanting to remain tied to ODN. But to act as though we somehow 'betrayed' them by honoring a treaty that was activated is eye-roll worthy.


Did it Suck? Sure. But no one did anything 'wrong' in terms of there treaties in that situation. Sparta had every right to cancel the treaty if they so wished. But I find attempts at historical revisionism sad, and the hypocritical stuff (odn backed an 'aggressive' attack as if sparta wasnt doing the same with fark) ridiculous.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1342390672' post='3010555']
Neither of the two closely resemble the ODN/Umbrella dynamic, which basically was "we're not going to do jack !@#$ for you and you should leave your bloc so you can follow us around."
[/quote]

We were actually going to help out Sparta despite our grievances until you got involved.

[Monster]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1342394153' post='3010570']
We were actually going to help out Sparta despite our grievances until you got involved.
[/quote]

This isn't actually true. You can pretend it was, but it's a pretty lame excuse because you weren't and it was made crystal clear that there had been no plans made for doing anything.

Convenient excuse, but the treaty was already on the ropes before that. It was only that JA stalled it by saying he was going to do x,y,z which he couldn't follow through on at any point. False pledges were made to Sparta and it prolonged the treaty's existence. I'm not sure if it was done with the intent of lying on the part of individuals involved like JA since I don't doubt their desire but the will carry it out, but an non-MK centric foreign policy was never going to be adopted and that was the premise the treaty's prolonged existence was based on.

You see, there was a certain change in course that was promised as well, and it wasn't going to happen. That is the premise the treaty still existed on at that point.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Roquentin

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1342392939' post='3010565']
This. To be perfectly honest, there were numerous discussions between Sparta and ODN leading up to the war. We could see the sides developing, and sparta made clear that XX was going to be their priority and we made clear cng was going to be ours.

The point SCY, is not that anyone should have expected Sparta to help their bloc get rolled. The point is it is hypocritical to expect ODN to have helped sparta roll *our* bloc if you arent going to hold sparta equally to account.


Further... if we decide to leave the PR spin to the wayside for a second and deal with the facts... they are as follows. Sparta went in via a treaty with a bloc member. ODN went in via a treaty with a bloc member. Both of those treaties were activated *before* any MDP portion of the odn/sparta treaty was activated (though since it was non-chaining I dont expect sparta or odn were going to abandon their blocs. The cng treaty by the bye is not non-chaining.). Further, the treaty was cancelled by sparta *without* being activated. Finally, both Sparta and ODN knew which 'side' the other was on and had discussed the situation specifically as the war broke out. And part of that discussion as I recall, was how Sparta would not be able to fight with us. I dont mind spartans being upset or not wanting to remain tied to ODN. But to act as though we somehow 'betrayed' them by honoring a treaty that was activated is eye-roll worthy.


Did it Suck? Sure. But no one did anything 'wrong' in terms of there treaties in that situation. Sparta had every right to cancel the treaty if they so wished. But I find attempts at historical revisionism sad, and the hypocritical stuff (odn backed an 'aggressive' attack as if sparta wasnt doing the same with fark) ridiculous.
[/quote]

The problem isn't that ODN or Umbrella didn't defend Sparta or MHA. The problem is that you let the war happen in the first place. ODN as a member of CnG and Umbrella as a member of DH are both part of very influential blocs. Both alliances had a huge amount of NS. Both alliances have leadership that I believe to be competent. So there is no reason why you shouldn't have been able to say, while alliances starting acting as if that war was going to happen, "This war you guys are starting to talk is going to end up in our direct allies getting rolled, and so its not going to happen" ODN and Umbrella combined in making such a thing clear [i]should [/i]have the clout to make that happen. You both were big alliances strong alliances that should be able to project power. Instead both Umbrella and ODN showed no will to turn around the plans being made by MK and others and instead went along with plans being made that led to their allies being rolled. I don't blame you for not defending Sparta, or for Umbrella not defending Sparta and MHA. I do however blame you for the plans you made.

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1342394463' post='3010572']
This isn't actually true. You can pretend it was, but it's a pretty lame excuse because you weren't and it was made crystal clear that there had been no plans made for doing anything.
[/quote]
"What can we do for MHA/Sparta without making us look like jackasses to the coalition" was a daily discussion in Umbrella.

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1342404774' post='3010617']
The problem isn't that ODN or Umbrella didn't defend Sparta or MHA. The problem is that you let the war happen in the first place
[/quote]
Let's count the wars that were held up by someone because a fringe alliance or two in the enemy coalition was allied? Let's go ahead.

There was a reason the war on Polaris was put off for so long: PB wasn't all-in with the idea. Umbrella wanted to be sure MHA and Sparta weren't targeted too heavily, which was basically ruined $%&@ed up because of Fark.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Neo Uruk

[OsRavan]

And you are going to pretend sparta's allies werent plotting against ours? Come on. Just because they *lost* doesnt mean they werent plotting damn hard to win or to come up with a way to take out DH. Again,.. you are complaining about something BOTH sides did. One just happened to win the war and the other lost.

Also, one had anything planned against sparta *or* any of sparta's allies going into that war, which is why you saw everyone avoiding them in that war till the NPO pre-empt. We were working damn hard to help avoid conflicts with XX prior to XX leaping in with two feet heh. But there were also legit grievances with allies of their allies. And that fact was not hidden from sparta ahead of time. Anymore then the dislike sparta's allies held for our crew was hidden from us.

Edited July 16, 2012 by OsRavan

[Monster]

[quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1342405394' post='3010620']
"What can we do for MHA/Sparta without making us look like jackasses to the coalition" was a daily discussion in Umbrella.
[/quote]

I'm talking about following the war. End result of what you're talking about is Umbrella signing off on the preempt of MHA, so idk.

Chief is implying Umbrella was actually going to do something for Sparta. I'm saying they had nothing actually planned(because they didn't and it was even admitted there were no plans by a government official) and were paying lipservice.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Roquentin

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1342405591' post='3010622']
I'm talking about following the war. End result of what you're talking about is Umbrella signing off on the preempt of MHA, so idk.[/quote]
Umbrella had alliances that were friendly to Umbrella and would therefore make a quick peace with MHA hit them, instead of letting someone more unstable or aggressive hit.

[quote]Chief is implying Umbrella was actually going to do something for Sparta. I'm saying they had nothing actually planned(because they didn't and it was even admitted there were no plans by a government official) and were paying lipservice.
[/quote]
Sparta $%&@ed itself over with respect to post-war assistance. Nothing more than that.

[Monster]

[quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1342406165' post='3010625']
Umbrella had alliances that were friendly to Umbrella and would therefore make a quick peace with MHA hit them, instead of letting someone more unstable or aggressive hit.

[/quote]

Like who? There wasn't anyone more aggressive or unstable than the alliances that were hitting them anyway. Again, trying too hard to make Umbrella into the good guy.


[quote]Sparta $%&@ed itself over with respect to post-war assistance. Nothing more than that.
[/quote]


Seriously, unless Umbrella was going to actually do something the treaty was already not wanted by Sparta. They weren't and which is why it was going to likely be downgraded anyway. There were no plans to do anything at all regardless. It was made clear that Umbrella's focus was on half-assed techbuying. The attempt to somehow spin Umbrella as a good ally to them at any point and then Umbrella was wronged is hilarious.

No, Umbrella wanted to have its cake and eat it too and expected people to eat the !@#$ sandwhich they were serving.


End result: They didn't really do anything for either and were indignant when one of them was upset at them.

I guess they pushed against reps for MHA, but that was after approving a preemptive strike on them.


Like I said at the end of the day, look at how FOK when people who weren't MK-centric got in charge and the response they had to the one Umbrella had.


Basically, at the end of the day, if you have a treaty with Umbrella and you're on the opposite side of MK, you're not going to get any help and it's kind of the reason they got the label.

edit:Objectively speaking, Sparta had done a lot for Umbrella over the years and they were right to feel wronged by Umbrella's treatment of them because it basically meant they were always going to get screwed in favor of MK.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Roquentin

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1342406534' post='3010626']
Like who? There wasn't anyone more aggressive or unstable than the alliances that were hitting them anyway. Again, trying too hard to make Umbrella into the good guy.[/quote]
I know you think MK and co. are pure evil, but they really do have to maintain a level of respect for their allies to be in this position.





[quote]Seriously, unless Umbrella was going to actually do something the treaty was already not wanted by Sparta. They weren't and which is why it was going to likely be downgraded anyway. There were no plans to do anything at all regardless. It was made clear that Umbrella's focus was on half-assed techbuying. The attempt to somehow spin Umbrella as a good ally to them at any point and then they were wronged is hilarious.
[/quote]
Implying aiding Sparta was the only way they could ever help. Implying Umbrella wasn't going to do anything other than "half-assed techbuying" You're slipping, Roq.

[quote]Like I said at the end of the day, look at how FOK when people who weren't MK-centric got in charge and the response they had to the one Umbrella had.


Basically, at the end of the day, if you have a treaty with Umbrella and you're on the opposite side of MK, you're not going to get any help and it's kind of the reason they got the label.

edit:Objectively speaking, Sparta had done a lot for Umbrella over the years and they were right to feel wronged by Umbrella's treatment of them because it basically meant they were always going to get screwed in favor of MK.[/quote]
I don't see how having DH take priority is a bad thing. I mean, XX took priority for Sparta.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Neo Uruk

[Monster]

[quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1342407411' post='3010631']
I know you think MK and co. are pure evil, but they really do have to maintain a level of respect for their allies to be in this position.
[/quote]

Not really. The Umbrella stuff shows you can basically just call people names and pressure them until they come around to your point of view if they get uppity. It basically showed MK could get away with treating them like crap and they'd still follow them around because it was just "DH being DH"

It's either someone is completely submissive, onboard from the beginning, or !@#$%*ed into doing it in terms of dealing with MK.


[quote]Implying aiding Sparta was the only way they could ever help. Implying Umbrella wasn't going to do anything other than "half-assed techbuying" You're slipping, Roq.
[/quote]

It's the truth. JA couldn't follow through on his foreign policy change thing. They weren't.



edit: Difference between having DH as a priority meant that Umbrella was going to sell certain allies out because of it.

XX is a generally passive bloc.

I don't believe XX had any aggressive intentions towards MK until they became targets of MK. Of course, after that, they can't really be blamed.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Roquentin

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1342407620' post='3010632']
Not really. The Umbrella stuff shows you can basically just call people names and pressure them until they come around to your point of view if they get uppity. It basically showed MK could get away with treating them like crap and they'd still follow them around because it was just "DH being DH"

It's either someone is completely submissive, onboard from the beginning, or !@#$%*ed into doing it in terms of dealing with MK.[/quote]
You of all people know that most of MK's talk is just that.




[quote]It's the truth. JA couldn't follow through on his foreign policy change thing. They weren't.[/quote]
lol @ this point tbh



[quote]edit: Difference between having DH as a priority meant that Umbrella was going to sell certain allies out because of it.

XX is a generally passive bloc.

I don't believe XX had any aggressive intentions towards MK until they became targets of MK. Of course, after that, they can't really be blamed.
[/quote]
So why was Fark so hostile to Umbrella? Why did Fark try to abuse MHA (specifically Myth) and Sparta's interactions with Umbrella to try and strengthen their position?