Omniscient1 Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 I have no idea what you're talking about on any of this. Indeed, very much par for the course. You rarely ever know anything you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcortell Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 He corrected himself like 2 posts later...........wow....someone wasn't paying attention. Hilarious. Crying over a slight that never really happened.....really? You read the slight, so it did happen, right? He corrected himself because he got told he was full of shit by hart. Have to save face after that. He wouldn't want to be called a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcortell Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) I answered the leash question. About the spreadsheets, bcortel was given a task for the coalition. It went to his head. Out of one side of his mouth he wanted help and out of the other he was talking trash. His spreadsheets and great work for that front isn't a free pass to act as if he was more than a soldier. Omni if you feel my misquote is a lie (aka intentional) then so be it. No one told me to do anything. I just didn't trust you and AI to run anything correctly- not when my AA's fate was to be considered. I think my concerns were shown to be more than valid throughout the war. You want to look that one up, too, Brehon? I would love to see someone say hey bcortell go do this before several weeks of already doing it. Edited May 24, 2013 by bcortell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcortell Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 D34th, you are experienced enough to be well aware of the treaty chess that takes place in every single war in order to carefully select who gets attacked and avoid triggering particular treaties. Perhaps, like a lot of other people here, you are not particularly fond of that treaty chess, but lack of fondness does not change the fact that it exists and is a critical aspect of alliance politics. Trying to go on the aggressive by saying that the problem is all NPO/IRON's for allowing a situation where conflicting treaties exist misses the entire point. Of course we're aware of the challenges and vulnerabilities our various conflicting treaties can create. And to address those challenges, there is a strategy employed (read above) to try and diminish unwanted treaty chains. That is a strategy that is not only to the benefit of NG's allies in IRON and NPO, but also to the benefit of the coalition collectively. So yes, if that strategy gets ignored, anger is a fairly righteous response. HI bcortell. A passing reference to someone talking with the TOP front doesn't constitute some assault of blame that you need to get all huffed up about "defending" against. Chill out. yes, he should go through all of his logs to make a passing comment that didn't even really blame you for the mistake. When he says that they coordinated with us about it, it might not be blaming us, but it certainly implies we gave them permission or saw nothing wrong with it. Him mentioning us (TOP front) at all in the TLR hit/NG entrance is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingervites Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 I answered the leash question. About the spreadsheets, bcortel was given a task for the coalition. It went to his head. Out of one side of his mouth he wanted help and out of the other he was talking trash. His spreadsheets and great work for that front isn't a free pass to act as if he was more than a soldier. Omni if you feel my misquote is a lie (aka intentional) then so be it. Him and hart ran that entire front from start to finish. When the rest of y'all were still dicking around we were a well oiled machine. You're upset that did a better job then you and your image was hurt because of the war, it is seen through your terrible attempts at insulting him. I love the spreadsheet comments btw, trying to make a snide comment about us being overly prepared...QH did the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bd428 Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 Like everyone else has said I like how things were explained in the OP. Good luck to both parties moving forward, especially our ally IRON Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malabyte Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 Thanks for the fun Bcortell & D34th o/Once again best to you IRON o/ I totally agree. IRON has so many friends of ours. Our friendships that we developed will remain even without an official document full of official terms. It's just as simple as our alliances have gone in separate directions politically and it was smart for IRON to be preemptive to not continue our official treaty. I personally do not think it takes a team of 20 unofficial philosophers to decide what the future holds regarding the future of the two alliances. Lets just leave it to the fact that our friends wanted to take a different direction, and that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 Rush, you reading this? Next time know what you're talking about. This is hilarious. Thank you for the entertainment. Can't run a war? Blame TOP front Don't know who wants reps (your allly)- blame TOP front. Don't know who told NpO it was ok to attack? ..Blame TOP front. in Brehon's mind, it must be TOP front's fault. Bcortell.. did you read where QH sais (and she was a trium at the time) said that AI membership wanted the war over? And why wouldnt they? They carried the war on Umb. Literally carried it. You seem to give a 0% chance to NE's sudden change stemming from him realizing that the membership did not want to fight for 5 more months, like he wanted to. I find it hilariously ironic, that you quote Brehon as supporting your notion, while ignoring one of the triums of that time who specifically said that AI's membeship did not want the war to be dragged out. You realize, sparky, they can both be the truth? And NE could have grudgingly moved towards his memberships wishes while trusting Brehon's judgement. Oh wait.. that cant be it. Clearly QH lied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 I can't believe that I'm about to say this but: You're upset that the NPO wouldn't let you destroy their other allies without them having a say about it? IRON is as dumb as they are incompetent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) ??? You never cease to amaze me on the sheer "throw shit at a wall and see what sticks" attitude Death. Tell me what your point/accusation actually is? NPO was trying to reduce damage on TLR? NPO is complaining about allies? Seriously at this point you have jumped all over the place and I have no idea what you beef really is other than your typical Evil horrible NPO. Bcortell, go read more. I specifically put up the correction. But like always the dog on the leash tries to attack. I hope your spreadsheet work is going well for you. My point is very simple: All the drama surrounding EQ coalition, including this cancellation, is your fault. Why? Because you signed treaties and established objectives that would put your allies in opposite sides of a war and I think you were smart enough to knew that would be impossible to conciliate all the interests and someone would get hurt in the end. Despise that, you keep trying to avoid all the responsibility for what happened and is still happening. You keep trying to use Polaris or someone else as a scapegoat, but at the end of the day, you and those who signed and kept treaties with NPO, including IRON, are the ones to be blamed. The lesson everyone should learn is that before go after someone, reevaluate your treaties and see if your allies will be fucked in the process, if the answer is yes, then don't go to war. Keep treaties with alliances that have different objectives and hope for the best isn't the right thing to do. Thanks for the fun Bcortell & D34th o/ Thank you. Edited May 24, 2013 by D34th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krzyzewskiville Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 I don't know how the hell this got into rehashing the crap that happened in the Equilibrium coalition... but I'm not surprised that it has gotten there. I can't say I'm happy to see IRON cancel on us - they have always been an alliance I considered a great ally and a friend, so seeing this happen is saddening. However, I still have plenty of friends there and do not wish them anything but the best right now. I can only hope that our paths will converge and we'll be able to be allied once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 Hold on. *runs to get pen and paper*"IRON wants to see CnG destroyed." Got it. Thanks. Why whats going to happen to that note? I'm sure everyone is quaking in their boots over a GATO cloak and dagger comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) D34th, you are experienced enough to be well aware of the treaty chess that takes place in every single war in order to carefully select who gets attacked and avoid triggering particular treaties. Perhaps, like a lot of other people here, you are not particularly fond of that treaty chess, but lack of fondness does not change the fact that it exists and is a critical aspect of alliance politics. It exists because your emperor and the other alliance leaders are too found of power and instead of try to fix the problem want to profit from it. I thought NPO motto was "bring order to the chaos" not use chaos as a ladder(who gets the reference wins my love). You're in the position to advise your emperor and try to change the reality of things around here. So sorry if I don't buy this line as a good excuse. Edited May 24, 2013 by D34th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) Does bcortell run Sengoku? No? Then the first leash is Sengoku. During the war who did Sengoku come in for? Ai, then they hold the second. Do I really have to do remedial explanations? It is doubtful you intended this, but your characterization of supporting actors as dogs on a leash, applies to every one who supported the coalition, to all of your members, and to any alliance in your orbit. It's really the perception of this sort of attitude which harmed NPO in the past and I think it underpins IRON, Sengoku, and other's recent foreign policy adjustments. Just saying. :/ Edited May 24, 2013 by iamthey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 Indeed, very much par for the course. You rarely ever know anything you're talking about. What? What are you talking about? Do you even know? You didn't even try to explain yourself. You just kept mumbling along....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 In this world, very. Well that party only became leader when everyone else was proven inept. Edit: and are you really gonna act like this isn't you trying to fire off some shots? It is unfortunate to have allies on various sides of conflicts, but not unheard of in this interconnected world. It would be preferable to have all on one side, but sometimes that just can not happen. I find no evil in it. I find no wrong in it. NPO acted in the best interest of its coalition, Brehons post just above explaining some critical points overlooked by some post war spinners. Edit: Directed at Prodigal Moon. Yes, I actually address the people I direct my comments to, rather then being silly. It's funny that you both reference the norms of "this world," as if it's a law of nature and not entirely the product of people making disingenuous FA moves. It might not be "evil" but you can hardly fault an ally for observing that you have conflicting loyalties, that no longer line up with their own so neatly. [I only said directed to no one specific because a huge wall of text had appeared just above my post before I submitted, and unless you're quoting people assume it is a direct response to the above post. Perhaps I should have said "directed to everyone who sees nothing wrong with their ally having conflicting treaties."] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 Why whats going to happen to that note? I'm sure everyone is quaking in their boots over a GATO cloak and dagger comment. Why would "everyone"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 Why would "everyone"? Let me rephrase that "why would anyone?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 Let me rephrase that "why would anyone?" We're one of the best built alliances with competent leadership and members more than willing to fight and follow orders? Hell our alliance infra to tech is 8:5...better than all non-neutrals in the top 12 save NG and MK, and Umb (No wonder EQ'a top end got obliterated.....) if I'm reading this right....We're about even with MK actually but they have less members so they get the leg up. What? You didn't know GATO was militarily relevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 We're one of the best built alliances with competent leadership and members more than willing to fight and follow orders? Wow, that was hilarious. Wasn't there literally a thread in these very halls about how disobedient you membership was and how they hid in peace mode? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 What? What are you talking about? Do you even know? You didn't even try to explain yourself. You just kept mumbling along....... If you can't understand what I said, you're hopeless. There was nothing implied, and it was very straightforward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malabyte Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 The fact that people ignore actual 'logically sound' posts and only respond to the posts where they will gain some kind of potential 'strategical edge' concerns me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 The fact that people ignore actual 'logically sound' posts and only respond to the posts where they will gain some kind of potential 'strategical edge' concerns me. People on both sides of the argument are pretty guilty of it- I guess welcome to the owf? :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 Wow, that was hilarious. Wasn't there literally a thread in these very halls about how disobedient you membership was and how they hid in peace mode? No there was a Schatt thread trying to defame me for 4 members out of 160 not following orders. SHow me another alliance with that level of compliance. Also, I know what you're trying to say...what I am saying is I've never heard word one about it. So, either name names...or show me something because there is no way I'm taking your word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted May 24, 2013 Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 We're one of the best built alliances with competent leadership and members more than willing to fight and follow orders? Hell our alliance infra to tech is 8:5...better than all non-neutrals in the top 12 save NG and MK, and Umb (No wonder EQ'a top end got obliterated.....) if I'm reading this right....We're about even with MK actually but they have less members so they get the leg up. What? You didn't know GATO was militarily relevant? Ignoring some of your delusion and since your ominous post regarding IRON, why would IRON quake their boots over GATO? When nobody else was in the last conflict? Wow, that was hilarious. Wasn't there literally a thread in these very halls about how disobedient you membership was and how they hid in peace mode? No the orders when not followed were changed so they ended up following orders...simples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts