Sigrun Vapneir Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Margrave worked his ass off to get your boys MI off the hook, but when they attacked our allies at SRA, there was nothing margrave could do for em. SRA attacked MIncs allies. You could have backed them up. You could have cited conflicting treaties and washed your hands of it. But hitting MInc over it? Utterly despicable. You think they will be an easy war because they have been on the ropes for so long, and the backstab will sap their morale. It's the most astonishingly cowardly move I have seen in... I don't know how long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOLO SWAG Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I don't give a damn if an alliance we're not protecting has one of their allies attacked. Especially when their allies suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 From now on, I won't be responding to methrage or sigrun, because everything they say is the opposite of correct. To victory!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenMorningstar Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 From now on, I won't be responding to methrage or sigrun, because everything they say is the opposite of correct. To victory!! It's like you are me. I have felt your pain before and do not envy you, arguing with those two is like shooting a nail gun into you feet and trying to walk it off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Don't make me laugh when I'm waring you. :ph34r: :war: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) It's like you are me. I have felt your pain before and do not envy you, arguing with those two is like shooting a nail gun into you feet and trying to walk it off. Why thank you Ken, that might just be the nicest thing you've ever said about me. :awesome: Edited June 16, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walshington Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 From now on, I won't be responding to methrage or sigrun, because everything they say is the opposite of correct. To victory!! Good god man, get some Chapstick. It looks like your lips have been completely thread on. o7 Kush, thanks for the backup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurthwaite Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 It's like you are me. I have felt your pain before and do not envy you, arguing with those two is like shooting a nail gun into you feet and trying to walk it off. This is why am campaigning for the title of Viceroy. I figure I can show these little !@#$%^&* how to properly run !@#$ into the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 At least Kashmir will win the mad respect of KenMorningstar out of this, why don't you give him some knuckles back? With Rey, Ken and Zog cheering you on, you know you're going places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenMorningstar Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Places of infinite entertainment. Everyone enjoys beating the hell out of you, and you are systematically alienating everyone from your silly "cause." GOOD JOB BROSEF!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I alienated Ken from my "cause", I think that proves my cause just, which currently is hurting those who are attacking us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Layton Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 SRA attacked MIncs allies. You could have backed them up. You could have cited conflicting treaties and washed your hands of it. But hitting MInc over it? Utterly despicable. You think they will be an easy war because they have been on the ropes for so long, and the backstab will sap their morale. It's the most astonishingly cowardly move I have seen in... I don't know how long. I would like to know in your opinion what more we could have possibly done for them, other than the massive military, financial, and diplomatic aid that we already gave them. I fought in their ranks for a month as did Kal. I sent them aid despite being broke myself and got other Kashmiri to send them war and rebuilding aid. One of the guys I sent aid to just told me today to die in a housefire, by the way. Other than arranging no less than three separate peaces in very short time, all of which were threatened by the actions of MI, how did we not "back them up"? We did everything we could to back them up. When a direct attack is launched upon our ally, and when I arrange for a quick white peace that is then violated instantly, what do you expect our reaction to be? When we are sent a message saying that we just sit on the sidelines and blow in the wind, what do you expect our reaction to be? Especially considering all the help we literally JUST provided them. What do you mean "You could have backed them up"? That's what we've been doing for the past month and this is how we're repaid. With a direct attack on our ally that we told them not to go forth with and a message that basically insults all we've done for them. Come back when you know what you're talking about, Sigrun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I would like to know in your opinion what more we could have possibly done for them, other than the massive military, financial, and diplomatic aid that we already gave them. I fought in their ranks for a month as did Kal. I sent them aid despite being broke myself and got other Kashmiri to send them war and rebuilding aid. One of the guys I sent aid to just told me today to die in a housefire, by the way. Other than arranging no less than three separate peaces in very short time, all of which were threatened by the actions of MI, how did we not "back them up"? We did everything we could to back them up. When a direct attack is launched upon our ally, and when I arrange for a quick white peace that is then violated instantly, what do you expect our reaction to be? When we are sent a message saying that we just sit on the sidelines and blow in the wind, what do you expect our reaction to be? Especially considering all the help we literally JUST provided them. What do you mean "You could have backed them up"? That's what we've been doing for the past month and this is how we're repaid. With a direct attack on our ally that we told them not to go forth with and a message that basically insults all we've done for them. Come back when you know what you're talking about, Sigrun. Whatever peace was agreed on with SRA lower government was voided by Walsh right away anyways, so there was no real peace agreement, even if those Mi nations didn't send more attacks. You're backing the wrong ally here. Also since when was Margrave War Jesus material? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I would like to know in your opinion what more we could have possibly done for them, other than the massive military, financial, and diplomatic aid that we already gave them. I fought in their ranks for a month as did Kal. I sent them aid despite being broke myself and got other Kashmiri to send them war and rebuilding aid. One of the guys I sent aid to just told me today to die in a housefire, by the way. Other than arranging no less than three separate peaces in very short time, all of which were threatened by the actions of MI, how did we not "back them up"? We did everything we could to back them up. When a direct attack is launched upon our ally, and when I arrange for a quick white peace that is then violated instantly, what do you expect our reaction to be? When we are sent a message saying that we just sit on the sidelines and blow in the wind, what do you expect our reaction to be? Especially considering all the help we literally JUST provided them. What do you mean "You could have backed them up"? That's what we've been doing for the past month and this is how we're repaid. With a direct attack on our ally that we told them not to go forth with and a message that basically insults all we've done for them. Come back when you know what you're talking about, Sigrun. I'm sorry he said that to you. But surely you can see how he feels backstabbed? I have been helping MI through this entire episode and I do not remember them once screwing up a deal. (I do remember Margrave screwing up a deal and blaming them for it however.) If you cannot help, yes, sitting on the sidelines and letting them find their own way would have been good. Sabotaging them diplomatically was just cold. Actually attacking them? Unbefreakinglievable. Seriously. Kashmir just lost a ton of karma so far as I am concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Layton Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) I'm sorry he said that to you. But surely you can see how he feels backstabbed? I have been helping MI through this entire episode and I do not remember them once screwing up a deal. (I do remember Margrave screwing up a deal and blaming them for it however.) If you cannot help, yes, sitting on the sidelines and letting them find their own way would have been good. Sabotaging them diplomatically was just cold. Actually attacking them? Unbefreakinglievable. Seriously. Kashmir just lost a ton of karma so far as I am concerned. Really? The peace deal I arranged for them with Atlas was responded to by a poaching attempt on Atlas' vice president. Thank God I have good relations with Alexio. The peace that Margrave arranged with that massive coalition was threatened with constant chest-beating on the OWF. We had to beg them to stop (which thankfully they eventually did after a few attempts). That's not to mention this latest SRA incident. If we cannot help, we should sit on the sidelines? We were helping them massively for the past month and they were complaining that we were sitting on the sidelines and attacked our ally in kind when we told them not to. If your ally was attacked how would you respond? Maybe you should check your memory, Sigrun. Edited June 16, 2015 by Jack Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) I would like to know in your opinion what more we could have possibly done for them, other than the massive military, financial, and diplomatic aid that we already gave them. I fought in their ranks for a month as did Kal. I sent them aid despite being broke myself and got other Kashmiri to send them war and rebuilding aid. One of the guys I sent aid to just told me today to die in a housefire, by the way. Other than arranging no less than three separate peaces in very short time, all of which were threatened by the actions of MI, how did we not "back them up"? We did everything we could to back them up. When a direct attack is launched upon our ally, and when I arrange for a quick white peace that is then violated instantly, what do you expect our reaction to be? When we are sent a message saying that we just sit on the sidelines and blow in the wind, what do you expect our reaction to be? Especially considering all the help we literally JUST provided them. What do you mean "You could have backed them up"? That's what we've been doing for the past month and this is how we're repaid. With a direct attack on our ally that we told them not to go forth with and a message that basically insults all we've done for them. Come back when you know what you're talking about, Sigrun. Let's clarify the situation- we hit SRA because you sent us a message asking us to hit Xanth. Okay- we looked at Xanth, he's sitting in SRA, SRA is still fighting LN. We are tied to LN, it's an easy treaty to activate and I don't regret us activating it. Say whatever you want, pull the "we should've ghosted in to LN" BS and since when did War Jesus care about the 'technicalities' of sticking up for their friends? I don't give a !@#$ what AA Xanth is sitting in, he still would've gotten hit. And not only was SRA provoking fighting on Methrage, but they were nuking their lower teir and making fun of him. Sure, it's Methrage, he has a poor track record. However SRAs actions didn't condone what they did- they prolonged the peace for LN. And what exactly did Methrage do? Run for a senate position? Stuck up for himself when he got sanctioned twice? -he shouldn't have to apologize for that. So of course we hit SRA and the same guy you asked us to hit... well, then you are telling me that he's calling the shots for Kashmir "firing at will". Per Kashmir "blowing in the wind" comment- I hope you have that entire conversation because it was in regards to how Kashmir does business and I was frank with Margrave, because we do treaty-less too. How can friends work if they aren't straight up with each other? I've always been straight up with you, Jack. Now if that spineless !@#$%^& wants to take that as an 'f you' to Kashmir- then whatever. Have your War Jesus title, we don't need a title to know who our friends are- or any permission to stick up for them. Edited June 16, 2015 by Lord Hitchcock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Conrad Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Sabotaging them diplomatically was just cold. Actually attacking them? Unbefreakinglievable. Seriously. Kashmir just lost a ton of karma so far as I am concerned. You do realise we're talking about MI, right? The alliance that doesn't know the word 'diplomacy' and can't go a week without attacking someone? They've been doing this since they were under Kashmiri protection. They used us to get them out of fights they started then. They tried to use us to bail them out of their most recent screw-ups. Jack and Kal volunteered to back them up as a gesture of their friendship even when most of us were fed-up with them. Margrave has worked diligently to broker peace for people he doesn't even like, only to have them start yet another fight. MI has been nothing but a headache for Kashmir, and has taken advantage of our good nature one too many times. Their attack on SRA, an alliance that has stood with us through war and peace and actually reciprocated our friendship, was the final straw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) Really? The peace deal I arranged for them with Atlas was responded to by a poaching attempt on Atlas' vice president. Thank God I have good relations with Alexio. The peace that Margrave arranged with that massive coalition was threatened with constant chest-beating on the OWF. We had to beg them to stop (which thankfully they eventually did after a few attempts). That's not to mention this latest SRA incident. If we cannot help, we should sit on the sidelines? We were helping them massively for the past month and they were complaining that we were sitting on the sidelines and attacked our ally in kind when we told them not to. If your ally was attacked how would you respond? Maybe you should check your memory, Sigrun. I have no knowledge of any poaching attempt, if one was made that was in poor taste and I wont defend it but it's long past at this point. You talk about them 'hitting your ally' but we have ALL effectively been at war with SRA since the 7th, lack of significant counters at first being due to trying to give diplomacy time to work as well as due to having no shortage of other targets that needed to be hit. The 7th is the day the first assault on our ally from the SRA AA occurred, and efforts at diplomacy to remedy that situation have consistently failed since. Finally, yesterday, we agreed as a group to peace it all (once Margrave quit pretending to help diplomatically that actually went pretty smoothly) but then Walsh blew it up. And admitted as much, all this talk of late hits - you know as well as I do they happen. I deal with them very strictly myself, ask TDE if you dont believe me. But a couple of late hits from MInc wouldnt be a reason to scuttle the peace even if they had not only come to light after the peace was scuttled. They are a classic red herring. Edited June 16, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) You do realise we're talking about MI, right? The alliance that doesn't know the word 'diplomacy' and can't go a week without attacking someone? They've been doing this since they were under Kashmiri protection. They used us to get them out of fights they started then. They tried to use us to bail them out of their most recent screw-ups. Jack and Kal volunteered to back them up as a gesture of their friendship even when most of us were fed-up with them. Margrave has worked diligently to broker peace for people he doesn't even like, only to have them start yet another fight. MI has been nothing but a headache for Kashmir, and has taken advantage of our good nature one too many times. Their attack on SRA, an alliance that has stood with us through war and peace and actually reciprocated our friendship, was the final straw. Have we ever asked war jesus for help? I think Layton can attest that one time (this string of wars, we asked). the other time we planned a prussian conferation hit and you guys hit them before we even did... so don't act like we 'used' you to any extent while under your protection. the only reasoning you have was way prior to when I was in riot society- and again, we offered to help kashmir if they ever warred (i dont think there was any question of our loyalty to you guys) Edited June 16, 2015 by Lord Hitchcock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I have no knowledge of any poaching attempt The poaching attempt they are referring to was my conversation with Tevron on IRC where we talked about our blogs and the similarities. what we pointed out was basically what we already do, and I invited him to monsters inc if he wanted a different view of the world. So yeah, I guess you could call it 'poaching' but it was more because of our similar ideologies of planet bob and nothing about the current conflict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Layton Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Let's clarify the situation- we hit SRA because you sent us a message asking us to hit Xanth. Methrage asked me to hit Xanth. I couldn't because not only is Xanth not in my range, I had three attacking war slots full (helping your alliance, no less!). I also cited Kashmir's alliance with SRA making that action impossible. I forwarded Methrage's request onto you. We have an ODP with LN and I didn't want to leave them hanging. I offered LN nations sanctuary in Flying Sabres (protected by Kashmir) and was going to speak to SRA and resolve the situation diplomatically. I left the decision up to you if you wanted to send a ghost into LN. When you told me and Margrave that you were going to attack SRA directly, we told you not to. I told you it was unnecessary (because I was going to help solve this diplomatically). It's not about "permission" to stick up for anyone. The lesson you should learn here is "sticking up" doesn't always mean declaring war, especially when you're declaring war against an old ally of the alliance that's just massively helped you in the past month and up until recently offered you protection when that alliance tells you not to do that. You know Kashmir and SRA are allied. You could have simply waited for us to resolve this diplomatically. Your eagerness to click the "Declare War" button gets you into these messes that up until recently Kashmir has had to constantly clean up. I did everything I could to prevent this situation and unfortunately you did everything you could to get into it. You won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 You could have simply waited for us to resolve this diplomatically. . I actually agree completely with a lot of what you said, but this is nonsense. The situation with SRA has been on since the 7th. Plenty of time for Kashmir to resolve it diplomatically if that was going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Methrage asked me to hit Xanth. I couldn't because not only is Xanth not in my range, I had three attacking war slots full (helping your alliance, no less!). I also cited Kashmir's alliance with SRA making that action impossible. I forwarded Methrage's request onto you. We have an ODP with LN and I didn't want to leave them hanging. I offered LN nations sanctuary in Flying Sabres (protected by Kashmir) and was going to speak to SRA and resolve the situation diplomatically. I left the decision up to you if you wanted to send a ghost into LN. When you told me and Margrave that you were going to attack SRA directly, we told you not to. I told you it was unnecessary (because I was going to help solve this diplomatically). It's not about "permission" to stick up for anyone. The lesson you should learn here is "sticking up" doesn't always mean declaring war, especially when you're declaring war against an old ally of the alliance that's just massively helped you in the past month and up until recently offered you protection when that alliance tells you not to do that. You know Kashmir and SRA are allied. You could have simply waited for us to resolve this diplomatically. Your eagerness to click the "Declare War" button gets you into these messes that up until recently Kashmir has had to constantly clean up. I did everything I could to prevent this situation and unfortunately you did everything you could to get into it. You won. Right, because it's okay for SRA to hit MInc through a TCA treaty but it's not okay for MInc to hit SRA through an LN treaty. of course, SRA was justified for hitting MInc because we were the original 'aggressors' but LN wasn't justified to call us in because SRA had full authority to stick their head in III%s business. whatever helps you sleep at night Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Layton Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) I have no knowledge of any poaching attempt, if one was made that was in poor taste and I wont defend it but it's long past at this point. You talk about them 'hitting your ally' but we have ALL effectively been at war with SRA since the 7th, lack of significant counters at first being due to trying to give diplomacy time to work as well as due to having no shortage of other targets that needed to be hit. The 7th is the day the first assault on our ally from the SRA AA occurred, and efforts at diplomacy to remedy that situation have consistently failed since. Finally, yesterday, we agreed as a group to peace it all (once Margrave quit pretending to help diplomatically that actually went pretty smoothly) but then Walsh blew it up. And admitted as much, all this talk of late hits - you know as well as I do they happen. I deal with them very strictly myself, ask TDE if you dont believe me. But a couple of late hits from MInc wouldnt be a reason to scuttle the peace even if they had not only come to light after the peace was scuttled. They are a classic red herring. Except that a ceasefire was agreed upon and communicated to all MI nations at war. All we were waiting on was LH's word to agree to the white peace offered from SRA. The Monsters who replied to me agreed to ceasefire until they heard word back from LH. Now obviously that didn't happen. It's not just "late hits". It's late hits with a peace offer sent immediately at the end knowing exactly what had been negotiated (because I communicated that to everyone in in-game messages). I can't blame SRA for revoking their peace offer in that instance. I'd likely do the same if I gave my enemy a generous peace offer and they responded by hitting me and then offering peace. With Xanth's invitation to join the fray, Kashmir had every excuse to do what it's doing right now. Right, because it's okay for SRA to hit MInc through a TCA treaty but it's not okay for MInc to hit SRA through an LN treaty. of course, SRA was justified for hitting MInc because we were the original 'aggressors' but LN wasn't justified to call us in because SRA had full authority to stick their head in III%s business. whatever helps you sleep at night You think you can simply hit our allies without any sort of response from us just because you have a treaty to do it? Kashmir doesn't give a rat's ass about your treaty. We even gave you a way out without shame. Completely white peace. White as the virgin snow. We gave you an opportunity to correct this mistake and you responded by making another. And only after that mistake was made (after quite a long string of them that we had to help fix), you complain that we didn't help you enough or give enough opportunity. How much more did you need? Regarding the TCA treaty, maybe you're forgetting another salient fact: That MI were the aggressors (no quotation marks). You attacked because of failed merger talks. And we STILL jumped in and fought in your ranks for a month to defend your terrible decision to do that. So yes, when you attacked our ally's allies, we STILL defended and aided you (and probably shouldn't have). When you attacked our allies directly, especially after we told you not to, this is what happens. You have nobody to blame but yourselves for your predicament. Edited June 16, 2015 by Jack Layton 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.