Complacency

[Neo Uruk]

In all fairness you can see why people would think there was a refusal to fight, right?

[kerschbs]

[quote name="Neo Uruk" post="3292263" timestamp="1407207236"]

In all fairness you can see why people would think there was a refusal to fight, right?[/quote

Of course I can, however as the person who created GATO's strategy in conjunction with a number of alliances on our side (MK and NG especially) I've discussed this multiple times and have grown tired of arguing about this. The only thing I disagreed with Magic on is I wanted to pull nations out of PM earlier than he did, but neither of us knew Brehon was going to force peace like he did and genuinely thought that was was going to be fought for another 6-8 weeks. I also thought the chest banging was unnecessary, but that's Magic being himself which shouldn't have surprised anyone.

We were told to expect a 6+ month war, had a pretty large upper tier at the time, and planned accordingly off of what we were told to do. Unfortunately it backfired in a major way PR wise, and our side wasn't on the same page which is too bad. I think GATO showed last war that we aren't afraid to commit everything considering the damage we took (especially Umbrella and TOP crushing our upper tier) but it still irks me that our reputation was sullied when I don't think it is completely fair to do so.

Edit: damnit got sucked in. If anyone wants details PM me but I don't want to derail this thread further.

Edited August 5, 2014 by kerschbs

[Dre4mwe4ver]

In all fairness you can see why people would think there was a refusal to fight, right?

Why certainly, it's understandable for a third party to get that impression from the outside looking in. That's why we've been more than willing to speak honestly about and address any questions from those who are seeking the truth, and it's through that type of open dialogue that we find informed resolution over blind ignorance. However, what's interesting here is those who were on the same side of the conflict who raised no objections during war, now suddenly changing direction and attempting to portray things differently from how they actually were to fit their narrative. Now, I have nothing to say regarding the other allegations about other alliances and any backroom dealing as I was not involved with any of that, but someone who's doing this type of flip flopping might not be best spokesperson to be outraged at others' alleged lies. Or perhaps he is the best, being a firsthand expert on the matter. Hard to say.

[Groucho Marx]

You guys sold your soul to XX to get a shot at Non Grata.
 
*slow claps*
 
It's just like 2011 all over again..  back then you guys wanted to sell your soul to XX to get a shot at Mjolnir and DuckRoll...

When C&G and Non Grata made their intentions known, we adapted to the changing political dynamic just as many before us have done, and many will continue to do in the future. No one (in GOONS, I won't pretend to speak for anyone else) set out to attack Non Grata, you made that possible on your own.

Why certainly, it's understandable for a third party to get that impression from the outside looking in. That's why we've been more than willing to speak honestly about and address any questions from those who are seeking the truth, and it's through that type of open dialogue that we find informed resolution over blind ignorance. However, what's interesting here is those who were on the same side of the conflict who raised no objections during war, now suddenly changing direction and attempting to portray things differently from how they actually were to fit their narrative. Now, I have nothing to say regarding the other allegations about other alliances and any backroom dealing as I was not involved with any of that, but someone who's doing this type of flip flopping might not be best spokesperson to be outraged at others' alleged lies. Or perhaps he is the best, being a firsthand expert on the matter. Hard to say.

What I find truly interesting is how committed you are to that lame excuse for why it isn't true that a chunk of your top tier refused to fight and that's why you couldn't get anybody out of PM. At least this time when you came out to fight you did it, even if it was only to soak up as much damage as possible for the NPO. Perhaps that is a good indicator of how much you were willing to burn for an alliance that has a lower opinion of you than you did of DH and why your members were so eager to fight in this war but not in the last. Hard to say.

[Dre4mwe4ver]

What I find truly interesting is how committed you are to that lame excuse for why it isn't true that a chunk of your top tier refused to fight and that's why you couldn't get anybody out of PM. At least this time when you came out to fight you did it, even if it was only to soak up as much damage as possible for the NPO. Perhaps that is a good indicator of how much you were willing to burn for an alliance that has a lower opinion of you than you did of DH and why your members were so eager to fight in this war but not in the last. Hard to say.

The difference here is that I stay committed to the truth, even if it inconveniences me or paints me in a darker light, while you're labeling them as excuses to explain things that didn't happen the way you're saying. I can chalk it up to a rhetorical tactic to fit your current agenda and not an inability to understand or remember the way things happened, but looking at this trend... yeah, hard to say.

[Rush Sykes]

When C&G and Non Grata made their intentions known, we adapted to the changing political dynamic just as many before us have done, and many will continue to do in the future. No one (in GOONS, I won't pretend to speak for anyone else) set out to attack Non Grata, you made that possible on your own.

 

 

One can only wonder the vitriol with which you would have attacked C&G had they taken the well-known offer to flip sides pre-EQ. You would not have/// and please do not insinuate that you would have.... chalked it up as C&G adapting to the changing political dynamic. You would have portrayed it as us turning our back on... or stabbing in the back... our long time closest sphere. The fact is, there is no black and white. One man's adjustment is another man's betrayal.

[Groucho Marx]

The difference here is that I stay committed to the truth, even if it inconveniences me or paints me in a darker light, while you're labeling them as excuses to explain things that didn't happen the way you're saying. I can chalk it up to a rhetorical tactic to fit your current agenda and not an inability to understand or remember the way things happened, but looking at this trend... yeah, hard to say.

 
You should chalk it up as reality since GATO's membership and government deliberately held back in that conflict but clearly did not in the most recent one. The statistics don't lie, and neither do the wartime coalition boards and logs from that era. You can sell that line about your "commitment" to the truth to your ignorant electorate to justify GATO's poor decision making and weak long term political strategy if you want, though.  

One can only wonder the vitriol with which you would have attacked C&G had they taken the well-known offer to flip sides pre-EQ. You would not have/// and please do not insinuate that you would have.... chalked it up as C&G adapting to the changing political dynamic. You would have portrayed it as us turning our back on... or stabbing in the back... our long time closest sphere. The fact is, there is no black and white. One man's adjustment is another man's betrayal.

Oh, no, C&G definitely adapted to the changing political dynamic. One they were also responsible for creating and perpetuating for their ulterior motives. The reality is that if you had taken that offer, you wouldn't have this thin veil of innocence to hide behind for your behind the scenes betrayal that C&G is guilty of committing. It would have totally ruined your post war prospects, and even NPO wouldn't want to be associated with that kind of behavior even though they're responsible for fostering it anyway. Your calculations about NPO's prospects after eQ were as wrong as we had all told you they were, and now you get to live with selling out your allies and destroying your credibility. Though congratulations on limiting the exposure of your true character. At least that was something you were able to do right when selling out your allies.

[Dre4mwe4ver]

You should chalk it up as reality since GATO's membership and government deliberately held back in that conflict but clearly did not in the most recent one. The statistics don't lie, and neither do the wartime coalition boards and logs from that era. You can sell that line about your "commitment" to the truth to your ignorant electorate to justify GATO's poor decision making and weak long term political strategy if you want, though.

You're the only one trying to sell lines here, but it doesn't matter how many times you repeat an untruth, it remains so: untrue. You said so yourself: go check those boards and logs. Or continue speaking as if you've never seen them. Actually, it's time I step back and let you continue this act you're so committed to putting on. I suppose I can't say I haven't seen worse performances.

[mattski133]

After reading all of this and re-reading the OP, I find it curious that you guys haven't changed all that much about this place.  You all see to have nothing but contempt for each other, to the point where dumping half your NS in a war you didn't start is viewed as avoiding it (also: that was brutal).  Not to mention that you probably didn't want to enter in the first place and did anyway because you really had no recourse.  Yet, I'd bet there are only a couple of degrees of separation between any one of you guys when it comes to war, today.

 

If something new were to break out unexpectedly tomorrow, people would scrambing to review their obligations to see where they'd even fall in the mix.  But nothing unexpected really happens, most of this stuff is choreographed and pre-made ready to go long before anything occurs.  It hasn't gotten anyone anywhere, and this all seems very scripted to me.  there's hardly any "Et, Tu?" going on and whole lot of, "well, guess we have to go do exactly what everyone knows we're going to do and get this over with".

 

I find it ironic that an alliance like Non Grata (just as an example, it really applies to all of you big alliances) wouldn't leave the web and strike out on its own.  Sure, you face off against 7 or 8 alliances every war as you've noted, but the mere existence of your defensive treaties has brought you into that position anyway!

 

*alliance needs treaties to protect itself*

*alliances gets destroyed because it has signed many treaties*

*alliance rearranges treaties to better protect itself*

*alliances gets destroyed because of these new treaties*

 

it should be pretty clear at this point that this is not how you go about winning the game.  or make it interesting.

[Stewie]

Who says we won't in the future.

[Walshington]

After reading all of this and re-reading the OP, I find it curious that you guys haven't changed all that much about this place.  You all see to have nothing but contempt for each other, to the point where dumping half your NS in a war you didn't start is viewed as avoiding it (also: that was brutal).  Not to mention that you probably didn't want to enter in the first place and did anyway because you really had no recourse.  Yet, I'd bet there are only a couple of degrees of separation between any one of you guys when it comes to war, today.

 

If something new were to break out unexpectedly tomorrow, people would scrambing to review their obligations to see where they'd even fall in the mix.  But nothing unexpected really happens, most of this stuff is choreographed and pre-made ready to go long before anything occurs.  It hasn't gotten anyone anywhere, and this all seems very scripted to me.  there's hardly any "Et, Tu?" going on and whole lot of, "well, guess we have to go do exactly what everyone knows we're going to do and get this over with".

 

I find it ironic that an alliance like Non Grata (just as an example, it really applies to all of you big alliances) wouldn't leave the web and strike out on its own.  Sure, you face off against 7 or 8 alliances every war as you've noted, but the mere existence of your defensive treaties has brought you into that position anyway!

 

*alliance needs treaties to protect itself*

*alliances gets destroyed because it has signed many treaties*

*alliance rearranges treaties to better protect itself*

*alliances gets destroyed because of these new treaties*

 

it should be pretty clear at this point that this is not how you go about winning the game.  or make it interesting.

 

Or at least make treaties with people you like who are worth getting rolled for.  If you treaty people for the simple fact that it is politically expedient to do so, it stings a little more to get to ZI for them.  Plus, one of you WILL turn your back on the other eventually, when your use to each other runs out.  The true version of friends>infra.

[Unknown Smurf]

 

Or at least make treaties with people you like who are worth getting rolled for.  If you treaty people for the simple fact that it is politically expedient to do so, it stings a little more to get to ZI for them.  Plus, one of you WILL turn your back on the other eventually, when your use to each other runs out.  The true version of friends>infra.

 

I'd disagree. There are some allies that are by your side forever, your inner circle if you will. The rest you may eventually turn your back on, but there are always some that stick through it all. There are countless examples of this throughout Bob. 

 

EDIT: mm I misread Walshs post so take mine with a grain of salt.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Unknown Smurf

[Dre4mwe4ver]

 
I'd disagree. There are some allies that are by your side forever, your inner circle if you will. The rest you may eventually turn your back on, but there are always some that stick through it all. There are countless examples of this throughout Bob. 

I think those are the allies who belong to the first group: those worth being rolled for.

[Steve Buscemi]

 

Or at least make treaties with people you like who are worth getting rolled for.  If you treaty people for the simple fact that it is politically expedient to do so, it stings a little more to get to ZI for them.  Plus, one of you WILL turn your back on the other eventually, when your use to each other runs out.  The true version of friends>infra.

Last war was one of the most fun I've had in a very long time.  And I was more than happy to go in for NSO, to stay in while NPO figured out what reps it was willing to accept, and to stay longer while NoR got the peace it was comfortable with.  And TLR even went in for us knowning they'd be facing terrible odds yet again.  I'm more than happy with our treaties and it's part of the reason why it was so fun, because for a change I really liked everyone in our coalition that stayed until the end.

 

And I wasn't even aware people were slamming GATO for their effort in eQ.  They were wonderful to work with and it was the start of a friendship that lead to our treaty.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Steve Buscemi

[The Zigur]

 

I'd disagree. There are some allies that are by your side forever, your inner circle if you will. The rest you may eventually turn your back on, but there are always some that stick through it all. There are countless examples of this throughout Bob. 

 

EDIT: mm I misread Walshs post so take mine with a grain of salt.

 

"Sticking by friends" aka sacrificing the interests if your own alliance to advance the interests of the sovereigns of other alliances is not honorable. This is why conflicting treaty doctrine is so important. If you have an honorable way out of a losing conflict through a conflicting treaty but instead decide to put up resistance on behalf of your personal friends, you deserve absolutely no mercy in my book and a regime change should take place.

[Neo Uruk]

"Sticking by friends" aka sacrificing the interests if your own alliance to advance the interests of the sovereigns of other alliances is not honorable. This is why conflicting treaty doctrine is so important. If you have an honorable way out of a losing conflict through a conflicting treaty but instead decide to put up resistance on behalf of your personal friends, you deserve absolutely no mercy in my book and a regime change should take place.

Can we get a re-post of your war record?

[The Zigur]

Can we get a re-post of your war record?

 

I did not support engaging IAA against NPO because I had personal friends in GATO government.

[Neo Uruk]

I did not support engaging IAA against NPO because I had personal friends in GATO government.

I'm just wondering how well you are at maneuvering your alliance in general, and I feel as if your war record should reflect that!

[Artigo]

I'm just wondering how well you are at maneuvering your alliance in general, and I feel as if your war record should reflect that!

 

Only barbarians fight wars

 

#francoism

[The Zigur]

I'm just wondering how well you are at maneuvering your alliance in general, and I feel as if your war record should reflect that!

 

There wasn't much maneuvering to do when the NPO already hated your alliance. I joined IAA late in the game and hoped to change things up and get us into BLEU, but NPO was a bit more sadistic under the reign of the Imperialist Officers than it would have been under Ivan. I certainly did not engage on behalf of friendships in GATO.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Dajobo]

I find it ironic that an alliance like Non Grata (just as an example, it really applies to all of you big alliances) wouldn't leave the web and strike out on its own. Sure, you face off against 7 or 8 alliances every war as you've noted, but the mere existence of your defensive treaties has brought you into that position anyway!

Not us. I quite like how the world is and wouldn't hesitate to burn for any of our allies. I do agree with the wider point of what you say though, if you aren't happy with a situation, change it!

[Garion]

 

"Sticking by friends" aka sacrificing the interests if your own alliance to advance the interests of the sovereigns of other alliances is not honorable. This is why conflicting treaty doctrine is so important. If you have an honorable way out of a losing conflict through a conflicting treaty but instead decide to put up resistance on behalf of your personal friends, you deserve absolutely no mercy in my book and a regime change should take place.

 

 

It's a game of balances, though: when you earn a pushover reputation, it takes years to wear it off.

 

At times sacrificing your resources for someone you know will do the same for you is worth it: you just need to be very good at choosing who deserves that trust.

[The Zigur]

It's a game of balances, though: when you earn a pushover reputation, it takes years to wear it off.

 

At times sacrificing your resources for someone you know will do the same for you is worth it: you just need to be very good at choosing who deserves that trust.

 

Agree 100%. My problem is not with honoring treaties, my problem is with alliances leaders patronizing other alliances leaders and putting their own membership in jeopardy as a result (Friends > Infra).

[CubaQuerida]

According to #thestruggle, it's Infra>Warchest>DailyIncome>DailyBills>Casualties>TechSlots>EMP>Friends

Edited August 9, 2014 by CubaQuerida

[Neo Uruk]

Agree 100%. My problem is not with honoring treaties, my problem is with alliances leaders patronizing other alliances leaders and putting their own membership in jeopardy as a result (Friends > Infra).

You know that's not quite what he said, right?