Robster83 Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='DarkEra97' timestamp='1357875840' post='3074455'] And if they did, we wouldn't see you in here !@#$%*ing anyway? [/quote] For the 34823478219th time. I don't think anyone disagrees with BFF's decision to cancel on NEW. It's the way they went about it to score some sort of political points and save face. If you consider the treaty void, then don't !@#$@#$ enter the fray... why do it half-assed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='longnameislonger' timestamp='1357875409' post='3074446'] Him having those logs points to his presence in the right discussions. Perhaps he fabricated them! [/quote] Cherry picked logs that were overruled by others in NEW. [quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1357875441' post='3074449'] Well they would be defending but not assisting them to win the war, so I think it's a fair statement. The best thing that could have happened to help both BFF and my allies would have been for BFF to cancel on NEW. Our allies agreeing to absorb BFF and NEW even in a limited capacity so BFF could save face, I think shows the lengths they were willing to go to in order to contain this rather than the other way around. All BFF had to do was drop NEW who recklessly broke and voided their treaty, but that was to much for them [/quote] Why yes, the easy option was for BFF to just drop and bail, thanks Mr. Obvious. Let's not even pretend NPO would have needed help for BFF, I fought them last war and they can take care of themselves, especially for a limited time encounter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Holton Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 Am I late for the call-out thread??? Come at me Baltus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 To help clear things up, let me explain some things. What TheDon is posting about is that NEW wasn't planning on pulling BFF into their war in support of Kaskus, and that they never intended to do so. In fact, the opposite is true. The leader of NEW, the person from that alliance with the most contact with BFF's gov by far, specifically stated that NEW would be aiding Kaskus in an effort to get into a war, and that they would be activating their treaty and expecting BFF to support them. That is not the act of an ally who cares about other alliances, that is the act of true selfishness, not caring about what effect your actions have on others, and in wanting war so badly that they would compromise their most traditional ally to ensure that pain came to them. What Robster cites is a situation that was proposed not by BFF as a way to save their hides, but by others in the channel seeking for ways to benefit themselves and their own, rather than caring what happened to NEW (or how it made BFF look). Is it Chax' fault for listening to proposals that were being shoved down his throat at gunpoint, with talks of pre-empts and coalitions, and then working to make those proposals into something real that could avert the crisis that potentially awaited BFF's extended allies and the allies of their allies if they appeared stubborn? No, I feel that a lot of people, TheDon especially, are passing blame onto BFF's shoulders that rightfully belongs to pretty much everyone involved in the negotiations. Without further ado, here is Vibi, the leader who represents NEW in nearly all of its dealings with BFF gov, stating what kicked all of this off, that they would be trying to get in a war and calling BFF in. [u]Chax:[/u] NSO and Non Grata found out about NEW's aid drop to Kaskus. They're probably going to declare war on NEW. [i]Vibi:[/i] Great than [u]Chax:[/u] So what's your plan with this? [i]Vibi:[/i] i decided aided kaskus cos NSO got bombed aid from shangrila and also i read your pm about your situation [u]Chax:[/u] That situation blew over, haha [i]Vibi:[/i] any possible war, i will going it just create war this is my reason aided kaskus lol [u]Chax:[/u] I figured. What's the position on NEW regarding BFF? [i]Vibi:[/i] We could use help if you dont mind we activating treaty [u]Chax:[/u] Allllright, I'll chat with BFF about it, but we're bound into this. [i]Vibi:[/i] Ok, thanks for the info I prepare new There was no reason for any of the stress BFF has been under, for any negotiations to happen, or any wars to have been hypothesized about, if NEW had told BFF that they would not be activating their treaty. To assume that NEW did not want to see BFF get hurt is to be naive, because if that was the case, then BFF, Int, and all of their allies, would not have had to even consider the war expanding past NEW getting simply hit by NSO's allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) oops quoted my own post :v Edited January 11, 2013 by Robster83 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Craig Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1357870876' post='3074357'] BFF inked MADP with NEW knowing they were stupid. NEW decided to act in character and do something stupid. BFF panicked, struck a deal so it didn't take damage for NEW's stupidity. BFF cancels treaty on NEW but pledges to honour treaty anyway. [/quote] So what you're saying is that she shouldn't have worn that dress? -Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkfox Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='thedon125' timestamp='1357873152' post='3074401'] [font="Arial"][color="#000000"]snip[/color][/font] [/quote] You act innocent. You blame us. Yet you were there and no objections were heard. You disappoint me Don. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1357875610' post='3074452'] I was under the impression the likes of NG would only get involved if BFF enterred. Therefore making the situation worse. Correct me if I am wrong. I still don't see how you can justify the whole termed war idea. BFF should of either committed themselves to NEW fully, or told NEW to $%&@ off. [/quote] NEW would get rocked regardless of BFF entering or not. Do you honestly think NG or NPO's other allies aren't bored/dedicated enough to come in and kick their teeth in? The "termed" war idea was BFF fighting until the grace period of their treaty wore off. You're completely entitled to your opinion but that's just the way it is, BFF honoring their treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1357876239' post='3074465'] NEW would get rocked regardless of BFF entering or not. Do you honestly think NG or NPO's other allies aren't bored/dedicated enough to come in and kick their teeth in? The "termed" war idea was BFF fighting until the grace period of their treaty wore off. You're completely entitled to your opinion but that's just the way it is, BFF honoring their treaty. [/quote] I don't see how a non-nuclear war for a set amount of time is "honouring" a treaty at all. But hey, let's not argue over semantics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1357876239' post='3074465'] The "termed" war idea was BFF fighting until the grace period of their treaty wore off. You're completely entitled to your opinion but that's just the way it is, BFF honoring their treaty. [/quote] [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1357876342' post='3074467'] I don't see how a non-nuclear war for a set amount of time is "honouring" a treaty at all. But hey, let's not argue over semantics. [/quote] Which was also a proposal handed to BFF, not proposed by them, and with the threat of pre-empts on their MADP partner looming. Edited January 11, 2013 by goldielax25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloin Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) The tears in this thread is just delicious! I'm pretty sure if BFF burned to the ground defending them or cancelled without helping you lot would still find a reason to cry. Edited January 11, 2013 by Gloin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Far as I am concerned, NEW have acted in a manner contrary to the spirit of the[i] mutual [/i]treaty between them and BFF and therefore the treaty is void, cancellation clause and all. The treaty was made for the mutual benefit of both parties, not to enable NEW to have back up when they went full stupid. Edited January 11, 2013 by Charles Stuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1357876342' post='3074467'] I don't see how a non-nuclear war for a set amount of time is "honouring" a treaty at all. But hey, let's not argue over semantics. [/quote] Let's just agree to disagree then, I think we've both made our case plenty enough here. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1357876492' post='3074471'] Far as I am concerned, NEW have acted in a manner contrary to the spirit of the[i] mutual [/i]treaty between them and BFF and therefore the treaty is void, cancellation clause and all. [/quote] Honestly, BFF could have played that card and been done with this. I've seen alliances do stuff like that before. That BFF spent all day yesterday trying to figure out how to best handle their inevitable defense of NEW, even when NEW did not deserve even the consideration of defense, is a testament to BFF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 Stay away folks, character assassination in progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 Cancelling on NEW was completely understandable and required no explanation. The laughable part is BFF trying to secure a non-nuke agreement with us and NPO so they could look "honorable". It always looks bad when alliances try to cut backroom deals. Very dissapointing BFF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1357875976' post='3074456'] It's the way they went about it to score some sort of political points and save face. [/quote] Same can be said about those incessantly posting that point of view as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrews Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='thedon125' timestamp='1357873152' post='3074401'] [color=#000000][font=Arial]I am airing this because I am saddened by the treatment of our long-time ally, NEW. Gov of BFF, you cannot kick an ally to the curb and seriously expect good PR from the OWF, though I know that was your plan.[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]As Stewie, MCRABBIT, and assorted other members of the OWF are alluding to, yes, within hours of this nonsense starting, certain gov members were on the phone with Brehon and assorted others trying to fix the war, to ensure BFF would walk out unscathed. If NEW were to have kicked off the war, BFF would have followed right after. NPO and NSO would counter BFF, and the expansion would end there. BFF would fight non-nuclear combat with NPO/NSO until our treaty obligation ended, then white peace would begin. ODN and INT would aidbomb us, while half of Bob dogpiled on NEW. I believe these diagrams show the picture well enough (I do not take credit for these, someone else made them, they may step forward if they want to take credit).[/font][/color] [url="http://imgur.com/a/6GK72"][color=#1155cc][font=Arial][u]http://imgur.com/a/6GK72[/u][/font][/color][/url] [color=#000000][font=Arial]]Much of the nonsense was kicked off when we queried vibi from NEW, to get the story. Unfortunately, English is not vibi’s strong point, so out of the gate, we made some rather dumb assumptions “NEW is just trying to kick off a huge war, NEW is planning to drag us down with them, NEW has been conspiring against us all along!!!!”[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]Then, coekrix came online later that evening, and lo and behold, none of that was really true (coekrix has far better English skills, and so it is much easier to figure out what he is saying). The aidbomb was a spur of the moment decision on NEW’s part, and yes, they did expect to get countered by someone. NEW likes their war, what can I say. However, they would not have pulled us in to burn unless we were on-board. They actually asked us (FEAR/BFF) to stay out during NEW-DF, and I have no doubts that they would have done the same here. NEW is not, and has never been manipulative, and to treat them as we did is despicable.[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]<coekrix[NEW]> it's not only bout NEW[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]<coekrix[NEW]> but BFF as well[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]<coekrix[NEW]> we will end this war[/background][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]<coekrix[NEW]> NEW has to help kaskus[/background][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]<coekrix[NEW]> but NEW doesn't wanna BFF got crushed too[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]<coekrix[NEW]> we have to think bout you[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]<coekrix[NEW]> coz this isn't bout NEW self[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]<coekrix[NEW]> it's started because third party, which is K[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]<coekrix[NEW]> if this is only bout NEW of BFF, we won't think twice [/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]Clearly, NEW is a bunch of puppetmasters.[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]NEW, if you still choose to go in, know that your former BFF’s have alerted all the wolves and baited a trap just for you. You’ll be in for a tough fight, though I suppose that’s what ya’ll enjoy.[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]Chax, please remove my name from the OP of this conversation. You know as well as I do that I wanted to give NEW a proper send-off, not this garbage.[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]NEW, in my opinion, you have always been steadfast allies. Sure you have a thirst for war, but you have always stood by us. If we ever needed your help, you were always among the first to respond, and we have truly let you guys down. Besides, you made Bob interesting for us, and it is unfortunate to see this tie cut in this manner. You deserved us to go in guns blazing, even if we still canceled after 7 days. None of this “fixed war” nonsense. Even cutting the treaty and saying “you violated the spirit of the treaty, we will not protect you” would have been more courteous.[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]BFF has clearly abandoned the values that made the bloc great, and today is a sad day in CN for me.[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]--[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]TheDon125[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]-Former Trium of FEAR[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]-Former dMoFA of Europa[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial]-Former Trium of BFF[/font][/color] [/quote] If this is true today surely is a sad day. I fear that if i write much more I'll go on a rant so I'll keep it short. BFF, I am disappoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1357875984' post='3074458'] Why yes, the easy option was for BFF to just drop and bail, thanks Mr. Obvious. Let's not even pretend NPO would have needed help for BFF, I fought them last war and they can take care of themselves, especially for a limited time encounter. [/quote] Really what I just can't wrap my head around is why this announcement was even necessary. If anything this really just proves that it is always better NOT to announce this stuff to everyone. I mean really what an embarrassing circus- gov resigning, log dumps here and elsewhere, public infighting, ridicule from all sides: perhaps you are right and the deal with NPO was in everyone's best interest- this entire public spectacle is still a HUGE indication of poor judgement on the part of BFF. Self-serving or not, they attention whored themselves to score honor points and now they just look silly. I suppose I am at least grateful for the entertainment. :| Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1357876618' post='3074476'] Honestly, BFF could have played that card and been done with this. I've seen alliances do stuff like that before. That BFF spent all day yesterday trying to figure out how to best handle their inevitable defense of NEW, even when NEW did not deserve even the consideration of defense, is a testament to BFF. [/quote] I'm not making any judgement about BFF's character at all. I personally would have seen them cancelling the treaty in the manner I described as perfectly reasonable however as we all know..other people would disagree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1357876618' post='3074476'] Honestly, BFF could have played that card and been done with this. I've seen alliances do stuff like that before. That BFF spent all day yesterday trying to figure out how to best handle their inevitable defense of NEW, even when NEW did not deserve even the consideration of defense, is a testament to BFF. [/quote] Are you sure NEW wouldn't of rather had a cancellation than be messed around with. I assume they didn't know about BFF's backroom dealings. A fixed non nuclear war would serve of no practical utility to NEW. So are BFF doing this just so they can claim they are following through their obligations? [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1357876732' post='3074483'] I'm not making any judgement about BFF's character at all. I personally would have seen them cancelling the treaty in the manner I described as perfectly reasonable however as we all know..other people would disagree [/quote] I am in agreement with you. Either cancel or commit. Cut the crap. Edited January 11, 2013 by Robster83 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloin Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1357876659' post='3074478'] Very dissapointing BFF. [/quote] I'm sure they'll be crying themselves to sleep tonight over what you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1357876659' post='3074478'] Cancelling on NEW was completely understandable and required no explanation. The laughable part is BFF trying to secure a non-nuke agreement with us and NPO so they could look "honorable". It always looks bad when alliances try to cut backroom deals. Very dissapointing BFF. [/quote] If I am not mistaken, things like limited non-nuking were things proposed to BFF under duress. Can you fault them for not rejecting them outright when facing pressure from all sides to work out a deal, any deal, and fast? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1357876920' post='3074488'] If I am not mistaken, things like limited non-nuking were things proposed to BFF under duress. Can you fault them for not rejecting them outright when facing pressure from all sides to work out a deal, any deal, and fast? [/quote] Yes. It's completely illogical... unless this was consciously done by BFF to save face. And I have a suspicion that is the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1357876659' post='3074478'] Cancelling on NEW was completely understandable and required no explanation. The laughable part is BFF trying to secure a non-nuke agreement with us and NPO so they could look "honorable". It always looks bad when alliances try to cut backroom deals. Very dissapointing BFF. [/quote] You do realize it wasn't BFF who offered the no nuke term, right? Stop the tough guy act, especially considering NG also didn't want this war to escalate when they could have made it happen. Edited January 11, 2013 by WarriorConcept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.