Rotavele is Confused

[Starcraftmazter]

This topic should have ended with the title.

[Dochartaigh]

Please do. If I'm making you feel this way, It might make me change my future plans for your alliance. No need to enact revenge when I've already made you butt hurt.

 

Please enact your plans. I have a feeling I will be bored in the future and your plans will provide a day or two of diversion.

[Beauty]

 

Please enact your plans. I have a feeling I will be bored in the future and your plans will provide a day or two of diversion.

 

Please refrain from addressing Royalty when they do not address you directly. To do so is rude to the crown. Especially with material that has been days old now.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Rotavele

[Dochartaigh]

 

Please refrain from addressing Royalty when they do not address you directly. To do so is rude to the crown. Especially with material that has been days old now.

 

I did not realize you were Ariana or Selena... Sorry mate, you ain't no queen, just a pretender to no throne.

[Beauty]

 

I did not realize you were Ariana or Selena... Sorry mate, you ain't no queen, just a pretender to no throne.

 

The use of a double negative allows you to contradict what you were meaning to say. Grammar has chosen my side.

[ChairmanHal]

It's got nothin to do with me or my 'personal army.' Sister.

They ignored a treaty, fact is fact. They made the choice, thus they bear the consequences - even if the consequences only end up being the mere words of random leaders towards their folly. You can try and spin that any way you wish, but it remains as such.

 

Nah, they kept treaties, but they couldn't do everything all their treaties called for due to circumstances beyond their control.  Happens to every alliance at some point.  

 

You on the other hand are dealing with the consequences of actions that were in your alliance's control.  That's the real folly.

[Beauty]

 

Nah, they kept treaties, but they couldn't do everything all their treaties called for due to circumstances beyond their control.  Happens to every alliance at some point.  

 

You on the other hand are dealing with the consequences of actions that were in your alliance's control.  That's the real folly.

 

This has been what I have been trying to say, but maybe I just couldn't convey my point correctly. Thank you ChairmanHal.

[Ying Yang Mafia]

 

Nah, they kept treaties, but they couldn't do everything all their treaties called for due to circumstances beyond their control.  Happens to every alliance at some point.  

 

You on the other hand are dealing with the consequences of actions that were in your alliance's control.  That's the real folly.

 

Is that what happened to Valhalla too? You guys are about as scummy as IRON.

[Rayvon]

 

Nah, they kept treaties, but they couldn't do everything all their treaties called for due to circumstances beyond their control.  Happens to every alliance at some point.  

 

You on the other hand are dealing with the consequences of actions that were in your alliance's control.  That's the real folly.

 

Ha. I didn't even notice this new post till seeing YingYang Mafia's post.

 

Nah Hal, their situation was well within their control for quite some time. They knew war was coming, they didn't want to cancel their one treaty, but they didn't want to honour it either. That was a choice that was totally in their control to make, and they just chose not to choose either options. What they had chose, was to "arrange a brawl between TOP and NG" [as BaronAaron words it; and unbeknownst to NG] that went awry on them. 

 

I see no folly in dealing with the consequences of my actions, that's called accountability. However, my actions aren't what this is all really about. And at least I have taken action in the best interests of my alliance and allies for which I need to be accountable for, rather than complete inaction.

[Delta1212]

People don't speak of flies every day. I'm a common topic on IRC it seems. It's not like I ask people to do it.

Also welcome to another one of my topics. I've told you before that I'm a hot commodity to you and you once again prove that. I've told you I only take appointments boo.

Also since it appears you like me and my topics so much, who do you think IRON will hit and when? I'm interested in your opinion, you have my attention since you fight so much to get my attention. Despite what I give off, I do care for my fans.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think I've ever mentioned you in any discussion I've ever had. Certainly not in the last three or so years.

I don't know that anyone talks about me much, either, though. Perhaps more relevant people than I talk about you.

[Beauty]

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think I've ever mentioned you in any discussion I've ever had. Certainly not in the last three or so years.

I don't know that anyone talks about me much, either, though. Perhaps more relevant people than I talk about you.

 

Don't say that Delta. You're a person. That alone means you're relevant in my eyes. :)

Edited December 22, 2013 by Rotavele

[Starfox101]

 

I see no folly in dealing with the consequences of my actions, that's called accountability. However, my actions aren't what this is all really about. And at least I have taken action in the best interests of my alliance and allies for which I need to be accountable for, rather than complete inaction.

In the same sentence that you claim accountability for your actions, you shed the blame and spout paranoia. 

 

Sure. You're a bastion of accountability while blaming everyone but yourself for this war. Dilber took the early blame as he is much more well regarded than yourself, but as Emperor, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

[Rayvon]

Shed the blame how? "However, my actions aren't what this is all really about." - RON and what they did/didn't do for or say to any of their allies has nothing to do with NSO. The line of discussion was about RON until Hal tried to turn it to NSO with his cut.

 

- or - 

 

"However, my actions aren't what this is all really about." - This war has nothing to do with NSO, it's all about NPO.

[ChairmanHal]

 

Is that what happened to Valhalla too? You guys are about as scummy as IRON.

 

Our participation was requested in the coming war by some of our allies.  We received NG's request to defend them long after we were engaged.  Why exactly is it scummy to not want to fight on two fronts and on both sides of a global war?

 

 

Ha. I didn't even notice this new post till seeing YingYang Mafia's post.

 

Nah Hal, their situation was well within their control for quite some time. They knew war was coming, they didn't want to cancel their one treaty, but they didn't want to honour it either. That was a choice that was totally in their control to make, and they just chose not to choose either options. What they had chose, was to "arrange a brawl between TOP and NG" [as BaronAaron words it; and unbeknownst to NG] that went awry on them. 

 

I see no folly in dealing with the consequences of my actions, that's called accountability. However, my actions aren't what this is all really about. And at least I have taken action in the best interests of my alliance and allies for which I need to be accountable for, rather than complete inaction.

 

You're still doing a lot of "Monday morning quarterbacking" here.  No one cancels all potentially conflicting treaties prior to a war.  You are also insisting that IRON come to NG's defense long after they had committed to coming into the war with another faction.  That would be very much against their best interests.

[Rayvon]

 

Our participation was requested in the coming war by some of our allies.  We received NG's request to defend them long after we were engaged.  Why exactly is it scummy to not want to fight on two fronts and on both sides of a global war?

 

 

You're still doing a lot of "Monday morning quarterbacking" here.  No one cancels all potentially conflicting treaties prior to a war.  You are also insisting that IRON come to NG's defense long after they had committed to coming into the war with another faction.  That would be very much against their best interests.

 

Whether or not anyone does or doesn't cancel conflicting treaties (while they're actively making the plans that actually create that conflict) doesn't change the fact that it is within their control to do so. There's nothing armchair about this.  I'm also not insisting anything anywhere in that post, I don't give two shits what they do nor do I allude to what they should do [i]now or in the future[/i]. That doesn't change what already happened in the [i]past[/i] though.

[Delta1212]

 
Our participation was requested in the coming war by some of our allies.  We received NG's request to defend them long after we were engaged.  Why exactly is it scummy to not want to fight on two fronts and on both sides of a global war?

Even though I agree with you: :smug:

[Starcraftmazter]

Our participation was requested in the coming war by some of our allies.  We received NG's request to defend them long after we were engaged.  Why exactly is it scummy to not want to fight on two fronts and on both sides of a global war?

So what you're saying is, you conspired against your allies.

[berbers]

So what you're saying is, you conspired against your allies.

 

Also, it's typically not possible to ask for help from an MD ally until that treaty is triggered, so if you are planning a war that involves rolling your ally, it's pretty much next to impossible for that to chain out in a sensible manner :|

[King Cyan]

 

 Why exactly is it scummy to not want to fight on two fronts and on both sides of a global war?

 

Pardon the (in)formality of my being here given my recent circumstances (Hi again OWF!), but isn't this what ended up for VE during the Grudge War?  No one seemed to have a problem with it (although if memory suites correctly, VE was also way stronger & tied to Doom House at the time back then too).  Therefore the opposite is untrue.  

[Ying Yang Mafia]

 

Our participation was requested in the coming war by some of our allies.  We received NG's request to defend them long after we were engaged.  Why exactly is it scummy to not want to fight on two fronts and on both sides of a global war?

 

Conspiring against your allies and then doing your best to pretend that the treaty never existed would do the trick.

[Feanor Noldorin]

IRON was a part of the initial war plans very early on so their stance throughout this shindig has been humorous, to say the least.

[ChairmanHal]

Even though I agree with you: :smug:

 

As I was writing that I thought of RIA...you paid a very high price for honor.  *tip of hat*

 

Much of what's going on here though is a lot of posturing.  They know what they would have done in the same circumstances and it wasn't what you did.  Any answer that doesn't involve IRON backstabbing everyone and running to defend NG at all cost is the wrong answer, it seems.

 

So what you're saying is, you conspired against your allies.

 

Let me check our treaty documents here for a moment...nope.  Though if we're being honest, most every well connected alliance would, in theory, be conspiring against some portion of their allies on the opposite side of the web treaty in a given conflict and would be open to this charge unless they some how manage to go through an entire conflict and never launch an offensive war or a counter offensive war against an alliance on the other side.  

 

If what you are advocating is a world with a lot fewer treaties, then I'm fairly certain that there are people at Valhalla with whom you would find much agreement.

 

 

Pardon the (in)formality of my being here given my recent circumstances (Hi again OWF!), but isn't this what ended up for VE during the Grudge War?  No one seemed to have a problem with it (although if memory suites correctly, VE was also way stronger & tied to Doom House at the time back then too).  Therefore the opposite is untrue.  

 

On rare occasion an alliance ends up caught between rival blocs and ends up fighting essentially for both sides.  Typically they come out of it permanently damaged, even if their reputation isn't hurt.  Thus the reason so few alliances go that route, though many more could if they wanted to do so.

 

 

Conspiring against your allies and then doing your best to pretend that the treaty never existed would do the trick.

 

See above.  All you are actually doing is arguing against the treaty web.  At this point, that's also your best strongest argument.  Fewer treaties wold lead to fewer dilemmas.

[King Cyan]

 

 

On rare occasion an alliance ends up caught between rival blocs and ends up fighting essentially for both sides.  Typically they come out of it permanently damaged, even if their reputation isn't hurt.  Thus the reason so few alliances go that route, though many more could if they wanted to do so.

 

"Our ingame pixels are really not all that good, therefore we're exempt from honoring MD-level treaties.  Oh no... NO not my pixels!!!  Oh but we have realpolitik coalition power... who needs pixels (and treaties) when you have sheer bulk awesome realpolitik coalition power anyway???  Come at us losers!"

 

 

And would say Valhalla is already permanently damaged (per the above).

 

[ChairmanHal]

 

 

 

 

"Our ingame pixels are really not all that good, therefore we're exempt from honoring MD-level treaties.  Oh no... NO not my pixels!!!  Oh but we have realpolitik coalition power... who needs pixels (and treaties) when you have sheer bulk awesome realpolitik coalition power anyway???  Come at us losers!"

 

 

And would say Valhalla is already permanently damaged (per the above).

 

 

 

Clearly we didn't war you enough upon departure, I'll fault us that much.   <_<