IRON Announcement

[Goldie]

I understand that point...but IRON themselves has direct ties to CnG.....so what is the point of calling CnG conflicting in the case of NPO? It seems IRON is in the same boat as NPO as far as CnG is concerned. You would think IRON and NPO would have a common interest as far as CnG goes. I wonder why they don't.

I don't wish any ill will to NPO and IRON but I wasn't happy with how their allies in our coalition protected them. Why can't IRON not be happy with how NPO was trying to protect C&G without holding ill will toward C&G?

[Auctor]

I don't wish any ill will to NPO and IRON but I wasn't happy with how their allies in our coalition protected them. Why can't IRON not be happy with how NPO was trying to protect C&G without holding ill will toward C&G?

 

If that is a real question, I'd imagine it's b/c OUTRAGE sells better. Get with the times bro.

[magicninja]

I don't wish any ill will to NPO and IRON but I wasn't happy with how their allies in our coalition protected them. Why can't IRON not be happy with how NPO was trying to protect C&G without holding ill will toward C&G?

It doesn't seem logical to reconcile the two. From what I understand IRON and others wanted to try to pile even more onto our front to try to make us quit before DH was out....NPO knowing that would never happen squashed it to save us a little extra damage.

[Neo Uruk]

I don't wish any ill will to NPO and IRON but I wasn't happy with how their allies in our coalition protected them. Why can't IRON not be happy with how NPO was trying to protect C&G without holding ill will toward C&G?

It depends, is NPO a long-term ally? Did you cancel a treaty with an ally over their protection of NPO, who again you are tied to in this scenario?

Edited May 28, 2013 by Neo Uruk

[Roadie]

It doesn't seem logical to reconcile the two. From what I understand IRON and others wanted to try to pile even more onto our front to try to make us quit before DH was out....NPO knowing that would never happen squashed it to save us a little extra damage.

 

I guess what I'm not following is why IRON shouldn't have wanted see gigantic piles of nations onto any alliance on the other side, at least the ones they aren't allied to. We all picked our sides. While those of us with multiple high level treaties with CnG didn't want to see them get hammered, that could also be in part because we felt it served no end. I don't see a reason why it would have been wrong of me to want to see more thrown at ODN or TLR (I didn't, but it was easy not to because I didn't think it would do any good) if it would have helped accomplish a goal. I certainly don't see why an alliance with a single level treaty to CnG should not want to see their enemies smashed to bits just the same as I wouldn't have faulted INT if they had wanted to see Ai get smothered.

 

In fairness, INT and IRON may well have some issues to work on. That would be taking us all well off course though. While we are all free to speculate at the reason for this cancellation, it doesn't seem realistic to think that alliances with as much history between them as NPO and IRON do, would cancel treaties based on the how a single bloc was treated in a single war.

 

I'm sure there is more to this than what IRON did or did not want in regards to CnG in that war. Even if it was, I don't see a problem with IRON wanting something more than what there was even if I do think it's being conveniently forgetful to think there was anything more to throw at the Union.   

Edited May 28, 2013 by Roadie

[Sir Humphrey]

It doesn't seem logical to reconcile the two. From what I understand IRON and others wanted to try to pile even more onto our front to try to make us quit before DH was out....NPO knowing that would never happen squashed it to save us a little extra damage.

Why on earth would IRON have wanted to pile even more onto your front? The C&G front was already well covered (or, at least, not impacting on the core fronts), and IRON was already heavily engaged on other fronts with a higher priority.

[Neo Uruk]

I guess what I'm not following is why IRON shouldn't have wanted see gigantic piles of nations onto any alliance on the other side, at least the ones they aren't allied to. We all picked our sides. While those of us with multiple high level treaties with CnG didn't want to see them get hammered, that could also be in part because we felt it served no end. I don't see a reason why it would have been wrong of me to want to see more thrown at ODN or TLR (I didn't, but it was easy not to because I didn't think it would do any good) if it would have helped accomplish a goal. I certainly don't see why an alliance with a single level treaty to CnG should not want to see their enemies smashed to bits just the same as I wouldn't have faulted INT if they had wanted to see Ai get smothered.

 

In fairness, INT and IRON may well have some issues to work on. That would be taking us all well off course though. While we are all free to speculate at the reason for this cancellation, it doesn't seem realistic to think that alliances with as much history between them as NPO and IRON do, would cancel treaties based on the how a single bloc was treated in a single war.

 

I'm sure there is more to this than what IRON did or did not want in regards to CnG in that war. Even if it was, I don't see a problem with IRON wanting something more than what there was even if I do think it's being conveniently forgetful to think there was anything more to throw at the Union.   

IRON wanted a longer war, juddging on their screaming that they didn't want reps. Alonger war means IRON would have lost, as EQ alliances were slowly having less to throw at our side. Some alliances were considering bowing out. IRON wanted to implode its own coalition, as if the fallout AI had wasn't enough.

[Goldie]

It doesn't seem logical to reconcile the two. From what I understand IRON and others wanted to try to pile even more onto our front to try to make us quit before DH was out....NPO knowing that would never happen squashed it to save us a little extra damage.

Again, I can simultaneously hold no ill will to NPO or IRON but want to see them hit harder in a war they are opposing me in. Can IRON hold no ill will to C&G but want to see them hit harder in a war they are opposing them in?

[Roadie]

IRON wanted a longer war, juddging on their screaming that they didn't want reps. Alonger war means IRON would have lost, as EQ alliances were slowly having less to throw at our side. Some alliances were considering bowing out. IRON wanted to implode its own coalition, as if the fallout AI had wasn't enough.

 

Okay, for the sake of debate, let's say this cancellation is because IRON wanted a longer war. Or because of some other reason because the reason doesn't really matter, but let's still say IRON wanted a longer war. I still don't understand why that would be some sort of transgression against CnG. Against INT I can at least see a case for (though we don't see them out here) , but not for the rest of CnG.

 

I don't see a reason why IRON should have to share the same concerns NPO does. They well may want to be concerned about developing a New Complaint House vs. SuperRoll dynamic, I just can't see where they did anything wrong.  

[Schattenmann]

Or, while we're inching out of the IRON C&G fetish mindset--and this is going to be a real shocker, here--maybe IRON and other alliances could have even just wanted a longer war without any regard for C&G.

[Neo Uruk]

Okay, for the sake of debate, let's say this cancellation is because IRON wanted a longer war. Or because of some other reason because the reason doesn't really matter, but let's still say IRON wanted a longer war. I still don't understand why that would be some sort of transgression against CnG. Against INT I can at least see a case for (though we don't see them out here) , but not for the rest of CnG.

 

I don't see a reason why IRON should have to share the same concerns NPO does. They well may want to be concerned about developing a New Complaint House vs. SuperRoll dynamic, I just can't see where they did anything wrong.  

If IRON solely wanted a longer war, they didn't have to mention NPO's interest in CnG. They could have said Pacifica ended the war early for their taste withot taking them into as much consideration as they wanted.  Really, it just makes them look like children no matter what angle you speculate at, but it looks just as petty if you take their words at face value.

[iamthey]

If IRON solely wanted a longer war, they didn't have to mention NPO's interest in CnG. They could have said Pacifica ended the war early for their taste withot taking them into as much consideration as they wanted.  Really, it just makes them look like children no matter what angle you speculate at, but it looks just as petty if you take their words at face value.

 

IRON is suggesting that CnG/NG and NPO's various allies in competence were the decisive factor in motivating NPO to press for closure. Their identity is apparently incidental, but not fundamental to IRON's criticism of NPO's war conduct.

Edited May 28, 2013 by iamthey

[magicninja]

Or, while we're inching out of the IRON C&G fetish mindset--and this is going to be a real shocker, here--maybe IRON and other alliances could have even just wanted a longer war without any regard for C&G.

That isn't what I have seen said.

Again, I can simultaneously hold no ill will to NPO or IRON but want to see them hit harder in a war they are opposing me in. Can IRON hold no ill will to C&G but want to see them hit harder in a war they are opposing them in?

Wanting to see someone hit harder is ill will in and of itself Goldie.

@Schatt- IRON said themselves they wanted CnG out do they could hit DH unimpeded.

@Humphrey- Like I just said they wanted us out so those 20+ alliances they had to pile on us could move onto the core fronts.

There is no doubt their main goal was DH. We stood in the way enough that people thought we needed to be dealt with first. In the end it just looks like IRON's care to hurt DH was more than their care to see us take less damage. For NPO it wasn't. Fine but I don;t have to like it.

[Neo Uruk]

IRON is suggesting that CnG/NG and NPO's various allies in competence were the decisive factor in motivating NPO to press for closure. Their identity is apparently incidental, but not fundamental to IRON's criticism of NPO's war conduct.

Then leave the names out, and say you didn't want closure that NPO pressed for. Name-dropping leaves too much in it. And if you didn't want closure, surely enough EQ alliances were willing to continue the war. After all, IRON has said that they were one of the best performing alliances in this thread and the treaty thread with VE.  Surely losing NPO's endorsement wouldn't have caused the coalition to fall flat?

[iamthey]

Then leave the names out, and say you didn't want closure that NPO pressed for. Name-dropping leaves too much in it. And if you didn't want closure, surely enough EQ alliances were willing to continue the war. After all, IRON has said that they were one of the best performing alliances in this thread and the treaty thread with VE.  Surely losing NPO's endorsement wouldn't have caused the coalition to fall flat?

 

I would hope we are all capable of digesting a little extra information and these resulting conversations could serve to answer any lingering questions. Irrespective of what cynical analysis would inform us though, they chose to name drop, and as you said this did raise a number of questions - questions that have been decisively answered by IRON and their auxiliaries. Spectators can choose to either accept these answers, or reject them necessarily denying IRON's premise of sincerity and goodwill, but in opting for the latter they reveal an impasse which no further debate can hope to resolve.

 

As to the latter point (NPO leaving and IRON carrying on), realistically no, coalitions are a delicate balance of forces and often the perception of their integrity is just as significant as the actual force they bring to bare. NPO's withdrawal, as a power of repose, might have forced similar withdrawals on the part of the other status quo powers. This is the lesson Ramirus taught us all: will and desire alone can never be a substitute for good politics and diplomacy. 

Edited May 28, 2013 by iamthey

[Sarkin]

Wanting to see someone hit harder is ill will in and of itself Goldie.

 

That's not necessarily true. Many peripheral alliances nominally in the Equilibrium coalition worked hard to improve the efficacy of the coalition war effort on the basis of professionalism, not ill will. If you're in a war, and if you have some measure of pride in your ability to wage war, you'll fight to your utmost. If your coalition is not doing the same, and you push them to do better, you're not necessarily doing so because you hate your opponent. You're doing so because you fight wars to win wars, decisively. I'll leave it up to OWF's judgment whether or not that's what occurred in the past war.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Sarkin

[Rush Sykes]

I don't wish any ill will to NPO and IRON but I wasn't happy with how their allies in our coalition protected them. Why can't IRON not be happy with how NPO was trying to protect C&G without holding ill will toward C&G?

 

I think the disconnect comes with the absurd notion that NPO tried to protect C&G at all. Did anyone bother to look at our numbers? For IRON to stand up with a straight face, and point to protection of C&G in the context of the numbers that we lost... DOES say that IRON felt that hitting C&G more was acceptable collateral damage to a 3 more months on iRON. Then IRON want to be clever and counter with "well you could have exited sooner." Our coalition, top to bottom, was made up of much sterner stuff than the fluff that about 6 allliances in EQ carried for 2 months. That IRON cherry-picked C&G as the protected entity is insulting to both us and should be to NPO as well.  That they further use C&G and only C&G as examples of NPOs lack of commitment to their war, shows an underlying agenda. You see.... All of NPO's initial maneuvering was to try to protect NG. It isnt that they valued NG over TLR, for instance. Its that they knew, without question, where TLR was falling in that war. NG, on the other hand, could be kept out. Turned out, they were not. Yet, what you do not see cited by IRON as lack of NPO commitment to that war... is their protection of NG. It makes IRON inherently hypocritical. Because IRON full on, 100% supported the protecting of NG, even openly campaigned for it. Surely you see the... hypocrisy in this? 

[Neo Uruk]

I would hope we are all capable of digesting a little extra information and these resulting conversations could serve to answer any lingering questions. Irrespective of what cynical analysis would inform us though, they chose to name drop, and as you said this did raise a number of questions - questions that have been decisively answered by IRON and their auxiliaries. Spectators can choose to either accept these answers, or reject them necessarily denying IRON's premise of sincerity and goodwill, but in opting for the latter they reveal an impasse which no further debate can hope to resolve.

 

As to the latter point (NPO leaving and IRON carrying on), realistically no, coalitions are a delicate balance of forces and often the perception of their integrity is just as significant as the actual force they bring to bare. NPO's withdrawal, as a power of repose, might have forced similar withdrawals on the part of the other status quo powers. This is the lesson Ramirus taught us all: will and desire alone can never be a substitute for good politics and diplomacy. 

As to the latter half of you post, I wasn't speaking necessarily of NPO withdrawing altogether, rather them shifting most of their efforts to reaching an amicable closure and withdrawing some of their forces. I highly doubt NPO would have left the war without it being done after playing such a large part in it.

[Rush Sykes]

Again, I can simultaneously hold no ill will to NPO or IRON but want to see them hit harder in a war they are opposing me in. Can IRON hold no ill will to C&G but want to see them hit harder in a war they are opposing them in?

 

It is not about ill-will. It is about who and what you commit to, to become acceptable collateral damage for 2? 3? more months of war on Umbrella.

[Neo Uruk]

I think the disconnect comes with the absurd notion that NPO tried to protect C&G at all. Did anyone bother to look at our numbers? For IRON to stand up with a straight face, and point to protection of C&G in the context of the numbers that we lost... DOES say that IRON felt that hitting C&G more was acceptable collateral damage to a 3 more months on iRON. Then IRON want to be clever and counter with "well you could have exited sooner." Our coalition, top to bottom, was made up of much sterner stuff than the fluff that about 6 allliances in EQ carried for 2 months. That IRON cherry-picked C&G as the protected entity is insulting to both us and should be to NPO as well.  That they further use C&G and only C&G as examples of NPOs lack of commitment to their war, shows an underlying agenda. You see.... All of NPO's initial maneuvering was to try to protect NG. It isnt that they valued NG over TLR, for instance. Its that they knew, without question, where TLR was falling in that war. NG, on the other hand, could be kept out. Turned out, they were not. Yet, what you do not see cited by IRON as lack of NPO commitment to that war... is their protection of NG. It makes IRON inherently hypocritical. Because IRON full on, 100% supported the protecting of NG, even openly campaigned for it. Surely you see the... hypocrisy in this? 

Oh my god I don't know why I didn't even remember NG in this scenario.

[AntyCrist]

I find the assertion that the NPO is to blame that coalition called Equilibrium failed to achieve "solid victory" is wrong. I find the conflict against Doomhouse due to Umbrellas action in handling the rogue on Ai, ending in a clear victory. That it could have been even more decisive, I find not the failing on part of NPOs action during that war.

 

Among many words, there was a clear level of criticism leveled at us on that point, I felt so called to shortly answer it.

 

Good luck and happy trails IRON.

This point is hotly debated inside IRON the OP is in the middle.  Best of luck to you, hope to se the ODAP reestablished in time.

Edited May 28, 2013 by AntyCrist

[Goldie]

I think the disconnect comes with the absurd notion that NPO tried to protect C&G at all. Did anyone bother to look at our numbers? For IRON to stand up with a straight face, and point to protection of C&G in the context of the numbers that we lost... DOES say that IRON felt that hitting C&G more was acceptable collateral damage to a 3 more months on iRON. Then IRON want to be clever and counter with "well you could have exited sooner." Our coalition, top to bottom, was made up of much sterner stuff than the fluff that about 6 allliances in EQ carried for 2 months. That IRON cherry-picked C&G as the protected entity is insulting to both us and should be to NPO as well.  That they further use C&G and only C&G as examples of NPOs lack of commitment to their war, shows an underlying agenda. You see.... All of NPO's initial maneuvering was to try to protect NG. It isnt that they valued NG over TLR, for instance. Its that they knew, without question, where TLR was falling in that war. NG, on the other hand, could be kept out. Turned out, they were not. Yet, what you do not see cited by IRON as lack of NPO commitment to that war... is their protection of NG. It makes IRON inherently hypocritical. Because IRON full on, 100% supported the protecting of NG, even openly campaigned for it. Surely you see the... hypocrisy in this? 

I don't have any knowledge of what happened in the opposite coalition channels, so I'm not going to speculate on what NPO tried or didn't try to do. I'm simply saying that when you're at war with someone and your comrades have sympathies on the opposite side of the war, is it not appropriate to be frustrated by that? I know people were frustrated with RIA in PB-Polar, with VE in the Grudge War, and I know people were frustrated with you in this war. Even if you have the best intentions, when you have sympathies on the opposite side of a war, and act on those sympathies, you frustrate some of the people in your coalition. Cancellations should be seen as an extreme but justified outcome from that frustration.

[Rush Sykes]

I don't have any knowledge of what happened in the opposite coalition channels, so I'm not going to speculate on what NPO tried or didn't try to do. I'm simply saying that when you're at war with someone and your comrades have sympathies on the opposite side of the war, is it not appropriate to be frustrated by that? I know people were frustrated with RIA in PB-Polar, with VE in the Grudge War, and I know people were frustrated with you in this war. Even if you have the best intentions, when you have sympathies on the opposite side of a war, and act on those sympathies, you frustrate some of the people in your coalition. Cancellations should be seen as an extreme but justified outcome from that frustration.

 

It's the singling out that is disconcerting. It is the complete lack of credibility that we were being protected in any way, shape, or form.  It is basing a cancellation on what amounts to a blatant falsehood while pointing the finger at me and mine and my allies and friends. IRON is quite simply full of ****.

[AntyCrist]

I've already made a post address that. IRON is welcome to think what our intentions were, but that doesn't make them right.

In the end, it doesn't matter what the intentions were: the fact so many of the rank and file came to that conclusion means the trust nessery for MDP has failed but I wold have liked to see a downgrade not cancellation.

[AntyCrist]

Just for clarity, to IRON the destruction of CnG would have been a preferable end to the last war?

not as a gole in itseff but as it wold have hapened if we got what we wanted on the Umb/MK frunt.