James Spanier Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 I'm glad you're not grasping I'm easily able to paint a picture of this being a reoccurring theme of IRON. Coalition of Cowards ring any bells? So why all the focus on a PIAT? If you can sit down and list all of IRON's sins to create a massive tome, why would you even sign a PIAT with them? Maybe it's because you could probably do that with a lot of alliances, some of which you're allied to. Or your allies are allied to, since they are apparently fair game in your world. If IRON is the big demon pariah, why were they not rolled like Pacifica or NG? I think you're trying to cope with the fact that you didn't get a result you wanted by concocting a fantasy that it's all IRON's fault. Surly they could have stopped all of this, right? Maybe if they MA'd off of your PIAT and struck an ally of their ally things wouldn't be a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 Yeah, but can you say that with a Sean Connery accent? Great. Thanks to this, MI6 will now have to endure months of Myth practicing that speech in a Sean Connery accent. I daresay that could be construed as an act of war... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 oAing on an oD, yeah you're really helping disprove my point. Is that not helping allies fighting in a global war by joining their side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 So why all the focus on a PIAT? If you can sit down and list all of IRON's sins to create a massive tome, why would you even sign a PIAT with them? Maybe it's because you could probably do that with a lot of alliances, some of which you're allied to. Or your allies are allied to, since they are apparently fair game in your world. If IRON is the big demon pariah, why were they not rolled like Pacifica or NG? I think you're trying to cope with the fact that you didn't get a result you wanted by concocting a fantasy that it's all IRON's fault. Surly they could have stopped all of this, right? Maybe if they MA'd off of your PIAT and struck an ally of their ally things wouldn't be a problem. I am not the one focusing on the PIAT? that's everyone else. Who says they won't be? IRON selected the winning side, as they have usually done, only next war I don't see them getting the same option they've had. Grudges make the world go round after all. Is that not helping allies fighting in a global war by joining their side. That's being too much of a bitch to just offensively declare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzos Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 Good luck IRON, Sparta has never been defeated in a war!. :smug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Spanier Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 I am not the one focusing on the PIAT? that's everyone else. Who says they won't be? IRON selected the winning side, as they have usually done, only next war I don't see them getting the same option they've had. Grudges make the world go round after all. I may be mistaken, but I believe it was you who brought up the PIAT, in multiple threads. I know it's hard to remember back to one whole page ago, but it's easy to find because it's archived. I'll do you a solid and provide it though: Call me whatever you'd like, I don't plot on my allies and pretend I have the moral high ground, nor do I ever go back on my word. I"d love to hear exactly how you can rationalize that your alliance's behavior has behaved in the spirit of friendship towards RIA while actively plotting against the RIA's ally, and then attacking a member of a bloc RIA is heavily allied to. I could also quote when you brought up that IRON should adhere to the PIAT in Sparta's DoW, but I'd rather not get cluttered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 "I don't see them getting the same option they've had. Grudges make the world go round after all. That's being too much of a !@#$%* to just offensively declare. I'm pretty sure that's what most people hating IRON were thinking in the last war and immediately after it ended. That IRON would be the next target. Not that the rest of what you said is true about picking sides to be victorious. You can't really expect IRON to fight on the same side that wants it dead again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIEIXIAIS Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 I am not the one focusing on the PIAT? that's everyone else. Who says they won't be? IRON selected the winning side, as they have usually done, only next war I don't see them getting the same option they've had. Grudges make the world go round after all. That's being too much of a !@#$%* to just offensively declare. Mogar, Raging never solved anything. Neither is trolling a treaty partner, especially when you are government. You're isolating yourself and, by association, your alliance. Quit claiming that others do not have RIA in their best interest when you're demeaning your own credibility and pushing away potential future allies. You're turning any alliance that has cordiality agreements with your alliance off with your banter and you're hurting your own alliance far more than any IRON decision. You have been nothing but belligerent towards a number of alliances that hold a treaty with RIA. It's mind boggling how little consideration you have for other alliances and more importantly your own. You have only demonstrated gross negligence in discretion, and you've hijacked a number of threads with your ludicrous banter. I think a fair number of Nation Rulers have had enough of your nonsense. So I'll ask you kindly to stop letting your mind wander, it is far to small to be out on it's own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saladjoe Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 Mogar honestly: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAdder Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 Mogar honestly: QFT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Spanier Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 You snuck this in, and since it takes a swipe at Argent I'm of course obliged to reply. If you have differences than actually attack those you have differences with directly with your greivances as the reason and let the cards fall how they may. Win or lose you settle your score, no? We've held the treaty for a long time and yet IRON has no issues being a major part of a coalition they could look at the wiki and realize we have multiple links to, you'd think that'd fall under the intelligence aspect of a PIAT. I was speaking for RIA, personally I also stick to that same rule and have declared wars in defense of friends. So you should screw over your allies and friends so long as you end up being on the victorious side of a war? I'm glad Argent cares for their allies so much. So instead of a large coalition war you call for many individual wars? I remember in EQ when Aftermath and Polar wanted NG. They didn't declare the war on their own accords, they waited to trigger NG until after the global war had started and cited defensive clauses like it was a happy coincidence. So you should talk to your good friends about declaring wars of opportunity. I again respond with "if they're so evil, why have the treaty so long?" I'll also point out that everyone has lots of treaties everywhere, nobody has your impossible standards of information sharing for third degree passing. Oh, and if IRON was part of the coalition, why would they willingly sabotage it for a PIAT or because they had one ally allied to their target? Again, really high bars your setting for an alliance as large and as connected as IRON. Somewhere a toe will be stepped on, would you complain this much if IRON was fighting Sengoku, NATO, or TLR? It's not about being on the victorious side, it's about being on the side you agree with more. The side Sparta is on is heavily tied to groups that really, really don't like IRON. And groups IRON doesn't like either. Why would they work with them? Because it's convenient for Fark, CCC, and RIA? Why haven't said allies looked out for IRON's well being and realized "hey, IRON isn't compatible with our friends friends"? Because that would be living up to your own standards, that's why. You want an example of a time we fought on the opposite side as a few of our allies? Look no further back than Disorder. Anarchy Inc and TIO, our MDoAP allies were on the other side, and we oA'd in on TLR for Sengoku. Ask AI, our MDoAP partner, if they feel eternally scorned by our decision. I'd say ask TIO, but we weren't on the best of the terms at the time, and as well, Galvatron wasn't government (at least not to my knowledge) at the time and I'm not even sure was aware we had cancelled the treaty when they took office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 good times. Bout time you guys made it to a war! o/ They entered at TOP speed!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garion Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 Mogar, you have every reason to be disappointed or pissed at R&R for attacking Polar or IRON for attacking Sparta as during this war... But to go from there to believing we should shape our direction according to who you're tied to is a bit of a stretch: otherwise we should assume you should do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 But yet, you are perfectly fine letting those on one side burn simply to hit Sparta and Polar for not sucking up to you enough last war. "we love you, we just like having you burn and have no issues participating in letting you get rolled, even though our main grievance is allegedly the poor treatment of Pacifica last war because we held an NAP with them and that should totally mean we have a say in how they are treated." Do you see how your logic might be a little flawed there? If we were allies you would not have signed off on GLoF hitting us tomorrow night, but that'd mean you actually give a !@#$ about RIA. If you have differences than actually attack those you have differences with directly with your greivances as the reason and let the cards fall how they may. Win or lose you settle your score, no? We've held the treaty for a long time and yet IRON has no issues being a major part of a coalition they could look at the wiki and realize we have multiple links to, you'd think that'd fall under the intelligence aspect of a PIAT. I was speaking for RIA, personally I also stick to that same rule and have declared wars in defense of friends. So you should screw over your allies and friends so long as you end up being on the victorious side of a war? I'm glad Argent cares for their allies so much. I really don't think this has anything to do with how much or little Sparta/Polar sucked up to us last war. Fact is, people like you would bitch about our decision regardless of what it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helios Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 Good hunting IRON, may your artillery shells blot out the sun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 Good luck IRON, Sparta has never been defeated in a war!. :smug: Except against those Pesky BAPS/Olympians in the Battle of #Olympus ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAdder Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 And you abandoned it! D: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 And you abandoned it! D: You tainted it!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAdder Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 Bet that ruined your day, too. :smug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 Bet that ruined your day, too. :smug: Nope, just agreeing with you :( Have fun the rusty people who are on my side it seems, rar, rar Nuke em good. Enjoy Death Adder whom I don't hate (this ruins my day more) and his Spartans of Dubious Sobriety, Nuke the Rust of Shah for me please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAdder Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 It's against Spartan Law to wage War with a BAC under .10%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty of the Herm Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 Except against those Pesky BAPS/Olympians in the Battle of #Olympus ;) I'm pretty sure we stomped Sparta pretty bad in our skirmish with them right after Dave's War too. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 I'm pretty sure we stomped Sparta pretty bad in our skirmish with them right after Dave's War too People count Dave? What a shitty war that was, glad I hugged my pixels in that one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAdder Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 No. He was talking about the Wargames. Brehon and my Gov set up a duel in which they pre-empted Sparta in an NNC duel to test out their revamped Skynet. I accepted it because I wanted to test out the new reforms Lykoi put into place following my ascension to the Throne. It was about 3-4 months after Dave, iirc. At least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 No. He was talking about the Wargames. Brehon and my Gov set up a duel in which they pre-empted Sparta in an NNC duel to test out their revamped Skynet. I accepted it because I wanted to test out the new reforms Lykoi put into place following my ascension to the Throne. It was about 3-4 months after Dave, iirc. At least.My opinion on Dave still stands :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.