Jump to content

Equilibrium Coalition & Umbrella Coalition Agree on Peace


Brehon
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 744
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


No one is saying that. I simply pointed out to Omni that he has no reason to puff his chest out and say y'all beat the shit out of anyone, much less Umbrella.


I think you mistook my "we" as me personally instead of what it meant "Equilibrium". It's ok, I know it's difficult to interpret pronouns sometimes. Caliph was the one who brought up Argent, all posts before that are referring to the coalition as a whole. Edited by Omniscient1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So GOONS, I just want to know. How does it feel to get you're asses kicked? I mean, how does it feel?

"My am" asses are feeling pretty good right now.  This war was not a referendum on GOONS or our policies.  Business will continue as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
You chose your side.  You chose allies who wanted to roll another one of your allies.  You are not the victim here.  DR is not the victim.  TIO is not the victim.  You chose your side, and your side was the ones who wanted to make the moves to roll us, not the other way around. 
 


This seems to be a chicken and egg question. So I will just have to take your admission of contemplating rolling AI as the closest agreement manageable.

As an illustration, if you pull a gun on mr and my buddies I'm not going to ask your intentions, I'm not going to check if it's loaded, and I'm probably not going to politely ask you to put it away. My only response will be to attempt to break your arm. If you somehow view that as excessively aggressive and claim you never had intentions of shooting me then that's too bad.

Overall what is done is done. It is finished. I await our fracture and destruction or round two. Whatever happens admin willing I'll still be here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umbrella and Argent just drifted apart, I for one (having been in Argent for a considerable length of time) have no ill will towards Umbrella whatsoever.


TOP? TOP can go frak themselves for all I care.  We were close allies for a long time, yes. But for TOP members who certainly should know better to walk around here acting like we suddenly just left you in the dust through no fault of your own is disingenuous even by the incredibly loose standards of the OWF.

Feeling like a victim much?

I know most people have a difficulty admitting they have chosen a path without first blaming others but you did choose a path. We simply pointed out to your other most gracious friend Omniscient that it was rather disingenuous, as you say, to claim he chose his "longest allies" when he ditched both Umbrella and TOP to favor IRON and AI.

 

We didn't complain about it but some of you in Argent seem to have this conception that we were monsters to you and you were "forced away from us". We're not the ones who drastically decided to change their government line-up and outlook on politics by doing a 180 and lining with the moralists. You did.

 

Now, I don't expect much from you in specific, Trimm. Your hatred of Paradoxia has been pretty steady for the past few years.

Edited by Yevgeni Luchenkov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all of the talk of working diplomacy and the interesting FA after the war, you'd think that people wouldn't be so fast to come in here and act like a bunch of condescending jerks so soon.  You're making it tough to be a nonpartisan fence-sitter.

 

Agreed. In this post, I'm agreeing with my alliance-mate. 

 

Conventional wisdom tells us that the original aggressor aggresses due to confidence in their ultimate victory. In the OP, though, we see Umbrella, the original aggressor, surrendering. In subsequent posts, however, we see attempts by the surrendering party to negate said surrender and thereby restore the established tradition of aggressors winning the day.

 

We also see in various posts, people claiming strategic victory in part due to the absence of reparations. On the other hand, a concurrent discussion attempts to show the leniency of the hegemony that was (or some will say is) Doom House. In that discussion, some extol the virtues of said hegemony in their taking of little-to-no reps when victorious.

 

It leaves one wondering why DH is lenient and virtuous when requiring little-to-no reps and yet others face a different standard.

 

Whomever first said it was absolutely correct:  CN: A Double Standards Game 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it will be the lame attempts by MK to claim victory after admitting defeat in writing.  I've come to expect no less however from people who have trouble separating reality and fantasy.

 

To your point, indeed there should be some very intriguing FA moves.  I might even have to start being nice to people I've never been particularly nice to in the past.  I've done it before, but it just seems unnatural at first.

 

I've only made it to page 19 so far, but in all fairness. I've read responses from BOTH sides spitting on the peace, including from your own alliance. It must be nice to read the OWF if you close your eyes and skip posts you don't want to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. In this post, I'm agreeing with my alliance-mate. 

 

Conventional wisdom tells us that the original aggressor aggresses due to confidence in their ultimate victory. In the OP, though, we see Umbrella, the original aggressor, surrendering. In subsequent posts, however, we see attempts by the surrendering party to negate said surrender and thereby restore the established tradition of aggressors winning the day.

 

We also see in various posts, people claiming strategic victory in part due to the absence of reparations. On the other hand, a concurrent discussion attempts to show the leniency of the hegemony that was (or some will say is) Doom House. In that discussion, some extol the virtues of said hegemony in their taking of little-to-no reps when victorious.

 

It leaves one wondering why DH is lenient and virtuous when requiring little-to-no reps and yet others face a different standard.

 

Whomever first said it was absolutely correct:  CN: A Double Standards Game 

 

It does get annoying when people over-analyze shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not contest that defeat is defeat, but it may be unwise to play the tech card. I haven't run new figures on my other computer yet to check all alliances, but AI alone lost some 450,000 tech in the course of this conflict. I do not believe any other alliance for eQ took quite so much damage, but there was substantial injury across the board. As far as defeats go, this was a pretty bearable one for Competence.

No matter the outcome of the war, the spirit of victory thunders in the hearts of Competence--so the roaring shall go on!

Its a bearable loss because you guys had to admit a loss and surrender, in no way was it a victory for your side just because the winning side doesn't feel the need to impose reps to further damage the loser afterward. If we consider it correct for alliances to move away from the crippling rep taking mentality, then your opponent not using it on you in no way signifies a victory for the losing side. While you guys might be able to point to some damage stats you guys did to make it feel like a win for you, considering the damage your side took it doesn't put you in a better position. So bringing up damage you guys managed to do while ignoring what you guys took seems pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to be a chicken and egg question. So I will just have to take your admission of contemplating rolling AI as the closest agreement manageable.

As an illustration, if you pull a gun on mr and my buddies I'm not going to ask your intentions, I'm not going to check if it's loaded, and I'm probably not going to politely ask you to put it away. My only response will be to attempt to break your arm. If you somehow view that as excessively aggressive and claim you never had intentions of shooting me then that's too bad.

Overall what is done is done. It is finished. I await our fracture and destruction or round two. Whatever happens admin willing I'll still be here.

Incorrect analogy.  Its like a group of people talking about who to fight next, and then crossing off names to that list.  Then someone finds out their name was crossed off the list, gets pissed that they were even on the list, despite being crossed off it as a non target, and then decided to come on us swinging.

 

You decided to help them run on us swinging.  I'm ok with that, I'm not ok with you spinning like we started it and needed to be put down.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. In this post, I'm agreeing with my alliance-mate. 

 

Conventional wisdom tells us that the original aggressor aggresses due to confidence in their ultimate victory. In the OP, though, we see Umbrella, the original aggressor, surrendering. In subsequent posts, however, we see attempts by the surrendering party to negate said surrender and thereby restore the established tradition of aggressors winning the day.

 

We also see in various posts, people claiming strategic victory in part due to the absence of reparations. On the other hand, a concurrent discussion attempts to show the leniency of the hegemony that was (or some will say is) Doom House. In that discussion, some extol the virtues of said hegemony in their taking of little-to-no reps when victorious.

 

It leaves one wondering why DH is lenient and virtuous when requiring little-to-no reps and yet others face a different standard.

 

Whomever first said it was absolutely correct:  CN: A Double Standards Game 

Except DH wasn't the original agressors here mate, DR and NPO (and whoever else was on that original DOW on Umbrella) were.  Not saying Umbrella didn't "deserve" to get hit, but be honest about who the agressors really are.  The OP states that the agressors in this conflict won.  Its ok to be the agressor, just stop, for the love of Admin, stop playing the victim card.  It just doesn't fit what you lot did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except DH wasn't the original agressors here mate, DR and NPO (and whoever else was on that original DOW on Umbrella) were.  Not saying Umbrella didn't "deserve" to get hit, but be honest about who the agressors really are.  The OP states that the agressors in this conflict won.  Its ok to be the agressor, just stop, for the love of Admin, stop playing the victim card.  It just doesn't fit what you lot did.

 

Why are you so keen on explaining the dirty deeds to these people, they be tripping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...