What is 2x2?

[Mandellav]

I love it when people not in CnG tell us what CnG said to each other in our government to government channels. Has any alliance in CnG ever been threatened with expulsion? Never. CnG bickers and comes to a decision that is best for the bloc. Always. That's why we're a bloc and a bloc that's still around. LSF went rogue like idiot terrorists and all you guys wanted was for INT and CnG to strap on the suicide vests. NEW did the same thing. CnG does not support the actions of idiot terrorists who intentionally put us at risk for no valid reason. If your ally all of a sudden declared war on any alliance for no reason other than to get some kicks off, would you follow like a lemming off a cliff or would you think about the merits of optional aggression clauses? That's what the LSF situation was when you boil it down.

[Vol Navy]

They're lying to one of us then. If it's us, I'd hope we take appropriate action but I've no control over our FA.

Just did. They say you be bat shit insane. :P

 

[Jgoods45]

They're lying to one of us then. If it's us, I'd hope we take appropriate action but I've no control over our FA.

We have no reason to believe that INT would intentionally lie to us. Perhaps you misunderstood what you were being told? 

[Vol Navy]

No, it was a pretty direct statement.

[Jgoods45]

No, it was a pretty direct statement.

Regardless, no member of C&G government typed out the words "We will have you expelled after this war" towards INT or any other alliance in this bloc. 

 

There was only one time where this has ever happened within this bloc and it was from Londo directed at FoB. (It didn't have to do with any war) 

Edited January 26, 2013 by Jgoods45

[Rush Sykes]

No, it was a pretty direct statement.

 

To be bluntly frank, you even posting this is something TPF should be embarrassed by. If the worst that you said WERE true, its a shit pile of dirty laundry to publicly unload about your ally. That you posted something so absurd, that has absolutely no basis in fact is an even worse insult to your allies. Before you air something so sordid as this, you should make sure your I's are dotted and your T's are crossed and go back to your source and get clarification. The truly sad thing is I KNOW you are better than this.

[Anarquista]

LSF went rogue like idiot terrorists and all you guys wanted was for INT and CnG to strap on the suicide vests. NEW did the same thing. CnG does not support the actions of idiot terrorists who intentionally put us at risk for no valid reason. If your ally all of a sudden declared war on any alliance for no reason other than to get some kicks off, would you follow like a lemming off a cliff or would you think about the merits of optional aggression clauses? That's what the LSF situation was when you boil it down.

 

interesting perpective, what are your thoughts on the UMB situation when you boil it down?

[Mandellav]

interesting perpective, what are your thoughts on the UMB situation when you boil it down?

 

I have never said once anywhere that I liked what UMB did nor would I try to influence TLR policy into following their lead, but attacking a specific nation for specific reasons following a specific policy is surely different than the mass direct attack perpetrated by LSF and the alliance-wide aiding of an alliance at war like NEW. 

[Azreal]

No, it was a pretty direct statement.

Please tell me who this liar is immediately and I'll have it dealt with.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

And this proves what exactly? that you have been a tech whore? :P also for a nation of that size how come your not challenging for the top 20 in casualties despite fighting in all major wars in the last five years? seriously dude what is with that?. But hey if your arrogance keeps you warm at night more power to you.

 

EDIT: Also lol at the tee shirt, did you really get that made for yourself?

It proves he's worse than anyone could have imagined. 

[Momentum]

No, it was a pretty direct statement.

 

I'm pretty sure that by this juncture people should know that there is not a single individual at INT that can determine FA, present and future, on his own.

 

What I'm sure about though is that if the individual that has been talking with you is still at INT he'll be more careful from now on to discuss alliance matters with you, breaching confidence to score brownie points on the OWF is not a solid move.

[Crownguard]

They're lying to one of us then. If it's us, I'd hope we take appropriate action but I've no control over our FA.

 

I would be interested to know how your source becomes "they".  You see, I'm in INT government and this is the first I heard of all this.

 

 

We decided to hold off going in on NoR for a number of reasons, all of which I don't feel particularly compelled to share here.  I assure you given how close the vote came between going in or out (and I kinda know because I wrote it, thanks).

 

I'll even tell you the vote results: Aye 14, Nay 16.

 

Vote fails, and democracy moves on. I could get out Mr. Bill on Capitol Hill to explain it again, but I hope to avoid having to use Schoolhouse Rocks to explain something as simple as majority vote.  We vote for the good of our alliance, and that means all the members, not just the talking heads here on the OWF.

 

Right now, I don't give much a damn about NoR.  They haven't harmed us, but hey, here are all sorts of alliances who joined together to try to give us a black eye.  Ideological reasons aside (and there's no lack of faux-fascists around....looking at your Aryan83/DB4D), I can think of people who we are more annoyed with now.

 

Some of us disliked MK after the vote.  No @#$%.  I imagine who talked to you felt the same.  Such is how democracy works...everyone gets a vote, everyone talks and votes, then they move on with the alliance as a whole.

----------------------

 

Also, props to everyone else whining about LSF-INT when we continue to talk to LSF on our own forums.  They explained their point, we explained ours, and we're talking on our own about fixing the breakdowns that led to this current state of events.  We're happy to work on issues irrespective of the baw-hawing here on the OWF.  Thank you.

 

 

NEW we canceled with because they didn't talk to us on IRC, didn't talk to us on our forum embassy, didn't talk to us period, and then decided to start a potential war.  No harm no foul, then turned around and attacked a week later with a bunch of closet fascists after we're already fighting 20 other alliances.  I wouldn't be exactly using them as the case of a martyr to the evil red machine of INT.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Crownguard

[King Louis the II]

It proves he's worse than anyone could have imagined. 

I dont think you had the same opinion when alexandros play a major role against Liquid Mercury and Genovia in bipolar war.

You can say whatever you want but people like Alexandros, Liquid Mercury, Hime themis, O ya baby are part of CN history and alone had made more damage than single micro alliances.

Others of course make history by being the major players (Ivan Moldavi, Xiphosis, Archon, Grub, Londo, Van Hoo, Sardonic. Etc...


Edit add: And he is right, Cataduanes can not say the same, he is not in neither of the 2 categories cited above.

Add 2. I think the tee was a Prize for CT. Edited January 26, 2013 by King Louis the II

[Zoomzoomzoom]

I dont think you had the same opinion when alexandros play a major role against Liquid Mercury and Genovia in bipolar war.

You can say whatever you want but people like Alexandros, Liquid Mercury, Hime themis, O ya baby are part of CN history and alone had made more damage than single micro alliances.

1. Your alliance was a pawn used for better alliance's interests. 

2. Alex isn't part of CN history. I'm pretty sure he's 5 years into this game and still learning what a war chest is. 

3. LM isn't either. He was literally humiliated in bi-polar and has always been a sub-par coalition planner. 

4. Hime's addition in the history book comes from his pocketbook. 

5. Causing more damage than micro AAs is nothing special. Anyone with a decent level of tech can accomplish that. 

[K1L1O]

LOL

 

You knew from the very beginning that NEW have always been inactive during peace time, not even our closest allies like FEAR, DB4D, and WFF talk with us during peace time in IRC and even on our forum. Face it dude, you're just being on opposite side. Luck is on our side that we got chance to get 'closer' to you on another way.

NEW we canceled with because they didn't talk to us on IRC, didn't talk to us on our forum embassy, didn't talk to us period, and then decided to start a potential war.  No harm no foul, then turned around and attacked a week later with a bunch of closet fascists after we're already fighting 20 other alliances.  I wouldn't be exactly using them as the case of a martyr to the evil red machine of INT.

 

[Cataduanes]

I dont think you had the same opinion when alexandros play a major role against Liquid Mercury and Genovia in bipolar war.

You can say whatever you want but people like Alexandros, Liquid Mercury, Hime themis, O ya baby are part of CN history and alone had made more damage than single micro alliances.

Others of course make history by being the major players (Ivan Moldavi, Xiphosis, Archon, Grub, Londo, Van Hoo, Sardonic. Etc...


Edit add: And he is right, Cataduanes can not say the same, he is not in neither of the 2 categories cited above.

Add 2. I think the tee was a Prize for CT.

 

heh, unlike your trumpet blowing compatriot I am not claiming any godly status vis a vis CN so your poke back at me is a non-starter. And thanks for clarifying about the tee. As for the rest of your dribble I think Zoom has covered it more than adequately. 

[Azreal]

LOL

 

You knew from the very beginning that NEW have always been inactive during peace time, not even our closest allies like FEAR, DB4D, and WFF talk with us during peace time in IRC and even on our forum. Face it dude, you're just being on opposite side. Luck is on our side that we got chance to get 'closer' to you on another way.

 

The main point in that post was you trying to start a potential war without even the decency of letting us know what was going on, so bassicly you put a chance at a war in aid of an unallied party over your allies. Treaties have been cut for less but sure INT are evil or whatever really tired of arguing these same tired points over and over again with people who refuse to accept logic as a reasonable response.

[Roadie]

I'm pretty sure that by this juncture people should know that there is not a single individual at INT that can determine FA, present and future, on his own.
 
What I'm sure about though is that if the individual that has been talking with you is still at INT he'll be more careful from now on to discuss alliance matters with you, breaching confidence to score brownie points on the OWF is not a solid move.

I'm not sure I remember the post or posts in question, but I think I recall something that could have been taken the way vol took it. I had presumed it was just someone venting about the situation looking bad, and that could well have been because I do the same myself. For instance, I'll say something like "all our allies are going to cancel on us" when I request that certain gov members tone it down :P. Vol on the other hand, isn't much for hyperbole. I can understand someone taking a statement more literal than it was intended and since vol doesn't do politics, I would have to say this is my fault for not explaining unwritten rules to our members.

Any heat here rightfully belongs on me. I encourage you stop by and get to know vol. You'll like him. He holds an important place in our hearts for a reason.

[Micheal Malone]

So, you're saying that the "pretty much direct "we're being kicked out" never really happened?

[Azreal]

I'm not sure I remember the post or posts in question, but I think I recall something that could have been taken the way vol took it. I had presumed it was just someone venting about the situation looking bad, and that could well have been because I do the same myself. For instance, I'll say something like "all our allies are going to cancel on us" when I request that certain gov members tone it down :P. Vol on the other hand, isn't much for hyperbole. I can understand someone taking a statement more literal than it was intended and since vol doesn't do politics, I would have to say this is my fault for not explaining unwritten rules to our members.

Any heat here rightfully belongs on me. I encourage you stop by and get to know vol. You'll like him. He holds an important place in our hearts for a reason.

 

Was it a direct statment or something that could be taken out of context, this doesn't seem to add up to be honest.

 

EDIT:headche =/= good spelling.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Azreal

[Pingu]

for the sake of complete honesty, let us not forget you were part of the said hegemony until one day before the war and oh, you had no problems calling in your friends in the 'hegemony' to rescue you when VE thought your friends reneged on their promises. 
 
How many years has it been since you were not part of the hegemony? I think its longer than any other significant alliance. 

The Hegemony (capital H) refers to the dark period of Bob's history when NPO, aided and abetted by your alliance and others, imposed draconian rule on the planet, including viceroys etc. as alluded to above. The point I made, that others seem to have understood (even if they don't agree with it), is that the post-karma order is not comparable to that period, being relatively benign. Relatively, of course - not utopia - no-one is claiming that. ODN was never to my knowledge complicit in imposing viceroys and the other horrors of that period.

(OOC) In the list of complaints Starfox raises, I see nothing to compare with what went on back then in-game. Out-of-game stuff I can in no way condone, but I can't even comment on it, since it is unconnected to any alliance's ability to dominate international politics, be part of a militarily dominant coalition etc. Hegemony is about overhelming power in-game and what you do with it - that is what I am comparing.

[OsRavan]

You asked by a list, now that I gave you one you either use ignorance as an excuse or try to spin the facts, it's impossible to satisfy you. 

 

Legit reason to cancel a treaty to CnG alliances is: You put our chance to be in the victory side on risk, therefore this treaty is null and void. 

 

 

So if i provide you with a random list of alliance names that will mean polar betrayed all those people? ::snorts::.    You do realize in the case of sparta that they cancelled on us without ever activating their treaty?  In fact I seem to recall they canceled on us before they were even declared on. For that matter, why arent you yelling at sparta for not backing cng?  Ohh thats right, cause it furthers your political goals to make sparta the victim here.  You have two alliances on opposite sides of a coaltion.  Both knew that was going to happen and told the other well ahead of time.  Both stayed with their blocs and didnt go join the other.   And thats not even getting into the whole "XX started the war by pre-empting NPO" part of this.  You do remember that, right?

 

And why are we having this conversation about cng allies at all?  Ohh right, cause you want to distract from your mistake where you hit TLR and you figured this was a nice controversial thing to change the tone of the conversation.

 

[Sabcat]

LSF went rogue like idiot terrorists and all you guys wanted was for INT and CnG to strap on the suicide vests. NEW did the same thing. CnG does not support the actions of idiot terrorists who intentionally put us at risk for no valid reason. If your ally all of a sudden declared war on any alliance for no reason other than to get some kicks off, would you follow like a lemming off a cliff or would you think about the merits of optional aggression clauses? That's what the LSF situation was when you boil it down.

This is a pretty accurate description of what went on. The problem with it is the omission of Int's knowledge and involvement. Their Gencom knew everything months in advance, was actively involved in the discussions that led up to it and provided assurances. It is a fact that if Int's gencom had not said what he said the war as it happened would not have happened. It could have been prevented at any point with the simple post on our forums - Don't do it, we can't back you. What we got instead was various members of Int gov with anti NoR sigs. When the fighting actually started Int bailed but kept the sigs and pretended only Trotsky knew anything about what was going on. We cancelled on them. That was the end of it for us apart from a some baiting, I'm good at that.

 

Int hit NATO, we're fighting Int. That's all there is to it.

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

I almost feel obligated to throw my two cents into this bickering since I did indeed have a role in all of this, despite that role being quite overstated by some, but at the end of the day Sabcat is right. It's just not worth it. What's done is done and no amount of arguing is going to change that now. Everyone of you got the war you wanted. No need to start building animosities now that will carry over into the post-war world.

 

 

Besides. This is TLR's thread, and you're all shitting it up.  :v:

Edited January 26, 2013 by Ayatollah Bromeini

[Johnny Apocalypse]

I almost feel obligated to throw my two cents into this bickering since I did indeed have a role in all of this, despite that role being quite overstated by some, but at the end of the day Sabcat is right. It's just not worth it. What's done is done and no amount of arguing is going to change that now. Everyone of you got the war you wanted. No need to start building animosities now that will carry over into the post-war world.

 

 

Besides. This is TLR's thread and you're all shitting it up.  :v:

 

 

The point of war is to act on old animosities so that new ones may be born in the fires of combat.