Sengoku, have some honor.

[Mogar]

I was asked that in my application thread as a hypothetical, there was nobody in the low tiers during that conflict for our side, Crispy99 of TOP was one of the few I can remember being able to coordinate with, there was a total of about 20 of us against about 150 nations in the low tier from R&R.

[Saladjoe]

I don't believe MI6 was ever at war with R&R or RIA, but I may be wrong about that.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=119765

 

After we hit NATO and R&R hit us back in Disorder. I'm pretty sure RIA didn't fight MI6 though, I think it was just STA.

[Commander shepard]

Well war time betrayal wasn't the point in my post, alliances want politics to change but they don't want to do anything to bring about a change. 

[Mogar]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=119765

 

After we hit NATO and R&R hit us back in Disorder. I'm pretty sure RIA didn't fight MI6 though, I think it was just STA.

I was on RAGE, not RIA.

 

Well war time betrayal wasn't the point in my post, alliances want politics to change but they don't want to do anything to bring about a change. 

No, Alliances want to win, those in the hegemony are quite happy with how things play out. Those of us who are in the Usual Suspects grouping don't have an interest in selling their ideals for security, I can think of a list of alliances RIA wouldn't hold a treaty with, unless some dramatically different diplomacy occurred, and I know Polaris is the same.

[Isolatar]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=119765

 

After we hit NATO and R&R hit us back in Disorder. I'm pretty sure RIA didn't fight MI6 though, I think it was just STA.

 

Oh I see, I just remember fighting NPO, NoR and TPF in Disorder.

[Mogar]

I never attacked TPF due to my former membership there, but hit the rest.

[hartfw]

War or no war there was very little chance that Aztec and TOP&Co were going to work well together. Umb saw that well in advance of the war you are talking about and actively chose your side over theirs. I don't believe that there was anyone who believes we were anywhere close to drawing up of sides but there was an active effort to choose Aztec over TOP/MI6 by Umb which seems to be what they are miffed about. 

 

I feel like there is a good amount of hindsight coloring this view.

 

Sengoku fought on the TOP&Co side in disorder (although only became aware of coalition boards/channels/planning/anything after shots hit an ally) and upgraded a strong TOP ally in DoD around the time that Umbrella formalized their longstanding relationships with Aztec aa's.  I would say more, and have in the past, but since it doesn't really relate to mi6's honor so I will just leave it at that.

[Commander shepard]

No, Alliances want to win, those in the hegemony are quite happy with how things play out. Those of us who are in the Usual Suspects grouping don't have an interest in selling their ideals for security, I can think of a list of alliances RIA wouldn't hold a treaty with, unless some dramatically different diplomacy occurred, and I know Polaris is the same.

That's because they have everything to lose, it should be primarily up to the loser to try something because they lost. 

Well then they can't really complain about getting rolled over and over again.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Commander shepard

[Mogar]

That's because they have everything to lose, it should be primarily up to the loser to try something because they lost. 

Well then they can't really complain about getting rolled over and over again.

Again, allying your enemies simply to be on the winning side of a war isn't logical, they're still your enemies.

As the sith say, let the hatred flow through you, I know who my enemies are, and thankfully I'm not holding a treaty with any of them, can you say the same?

Edited September 28, 2015 by Mogar

[Commander shepard]

My point wasn't about allying enemies, Polar already allied enough of their enemies to be on the winning side and are still in the same sphere. 

Loser alliances are reason this game has bad politics, they're just content to do nothing and get rolled, occasionally getting a break from war when someone else changes things up. 

Edited September 28, 2015 by Commander shepard

[Mogar]

So you suggest to be "winner" alliances, you help those who harmed you in the war previous, at no real benefit to your own besides a W in the wiki? This game has bad politics because nobody wants to risk losing, try it out sometime, it's nowhere near as bad as people want you to believe.

[Jackie Moon]

So you suggest to be "winner" alliances, you help those who harmed you in the war previous, at no real benefit to your own besides a W in the wiki? This game has bad politics because nobody wants to risk losing, try it out sometime, it's nowhere near as bad as people want you to believe.

 

Tbf, wasn't that MI6's self-espoused strategy at its inception? To "win" the game by playing pragmatic realpolitik and abandon concerns over moral judgement?

[Mogar]

 

Tbf, wasn't that MI6's self-espoused strategy at its inception? To "win" the game by playing pragmatic realpolitik and abandon concerns over moral judgement?

And they're still by far the most active alliance that isn't DBDC, and I suspect their community won't collapse if they get stuck in a VietFAN war, I do not believe your alliance can say the same.

[Commander shepard]

So you suggest to be "winner" alliances, you help those who harmed you in the war previous, at no real benefit to your own besides a W in the wiki? This game has bad politics because nobody wants to risk losing, try it out sometime, it's nowhere near as bad as people want you to believe.

I suggest to try something new, out with the old and in with the new. You don't have to get on your knees to be a winner, maybe you might even keep an ally or two if they change as well. 

You can't just blame the winners, the losers have just as much power to change things if they stop being a target which they can do.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Commander shepard

[Mogar]

I suggest to try something new, out with the old and in with the new. You don't have to get on your knees to be a winner, maybe you might even keep an ally or two if they change as well. 

You can't just blame the winners, the losers have just as much power to change things if they stop being a target which they can do.

The only way to not be a target is to join the very power structure that doesn't like them, better to keep being rolled even while not threats and laugh when those who did the rolling come begging for help once its their turn. You could roll Polar every 6 months for the rest of eternity, they will ALWAYS rebuild to a sanctioned alliance, and remain a middle tier powerhouse. You most certainly have to get on your knees, look through this thread at the words directed to MI6, their choices were to beg for forgiveness or be themselves and lose another war, they made the right choice.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Mogar

[Jackie Moon]

And they're still by far the most active alliance that isn't DBDC, and I suspect their community won't collapse if they get stuck in a VietFAN war, I do not believe your alliance can say the same.

 

They have more members on IRC in a given day, sure.

 

But you really kinda dodged my question there.

[Mogar]

 

They have more members on IRC in a given day, sure.

 

But you really kinda dodged my question there.

Thing is, winning doesn't always mean emerging Victorious from a conflict, Umbrella won EQ even though they lost the war.

I think MI6 more than accomplished their goal, if they do end up being a main target of the next war it means their culture was so threatening to the powers that be they are attacked for it, there's a reason they havent changed the smugness, yall feed into that ego quite nicely with your hatred.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Mogar

[KahlanRahl]

 

That's an interesting interpretation of what was said.  

 

We didn't have to do anything to ensure those FA efforts wouldn't bear fruit at the point in time I was referring to in that conversation. We've had this discussion with MI6 before on your forums, so there's nothing really new in the discussion you copy/pasted here. There was little chance of the treaties one set of alliances was pushing for  being accepted on the other end(especially given the opposition of the allies of the intended treaty target(s), which was well known and widely broadcasted) and we advocated against raising further suspicion by continuing down that route as other parties could move to countermeasures. The entire purpose was to avoid clashing between our two ally sets(heading off an arms race between them) and you are taking that to mean we were undermining one set of allies to give the other an edge. 

 

It's not an interpretation, it's pretty black and white. You said a whole lot here, but you're not really saying anything. 

 

You essentially cast us and TOP aside in favor of your new friends in AZTEC because they and the rest of your current ally set were the stronger choice. And that's fine, it was the smart choice, politically. I can respect that. But I can't respect your insistence on slandering us up and down despite the fact that all we ever did was try and do right by our allies, every time.

 

Whether any of you believe that or not isn't my concern, because at the end of the day, we know who we are. We know what we stand for. You don't have to believe we are as honorable as we claim, because we know what we've done. We've admitted to our mistakes and this past year we've made serious efforts to build some bridges with different alliances, but we won't accept the lies all of you are so fond of telling about us. I'd wager you'll wait till the end of days till you see us fold. 

Edited September 28, 2015 by KahlanRahl

[hartfw]

 all we ever did was try and do right by our allies, every time.

 

Whether any of you believe that or not isn't my concern, because at the end of the day, we know who we are. We know what we stand for. You don't have to believe we are as honorable as we claim, because we know what we've done. We've admitted to our mistakes and this past year we've made serious efforts to build some bridges with different alliances, but we won't accept the lies all of you are so fond of telling about us. I'd wager you'll wait till the end of days till you see us fold. 

 

I would love to hear how this jives with the concept of allying Aztec while planning on a war on Aztec so your existing allies before then face more of the burden.

 

Cause it doesn't.

[Auctor]

 

It's not an interpretation, it's pretty black and white. You said a whole lot here, but you're not really saying anything. 

 

You essentially cast us and TOP aside in favor of your new friends in AZTEC because they and the rest of your current ally set were the stronger choice. And that's fine, it was the smart choice, politically. I can respect that. But I can't respect your insistence on slandering us up and down despite the fact that all we ever did was try and do right by our allies, every time.

 

Whether any of you believe that or not isn't my concern, because at the end of the day, we know who we are. We know what we stand for. You don't have to believe we are as honorable as we claim, because we know what we've done. We've admitted to our mistakes and this past year we've made serious efforts to build some bridges with different alliances, but we won't accept the lies all of you are so fond of telling about us. I'd wager you'll wait till the end of days till you see us fold. 

 

Your alliance attempted to get a treaty with my alliance in a cynical attempt to block our attempts to defend our allies and all going so far as to admit that your other allies would suffer more if it worked. There is no honor in that, the term you're looking for is underhanded skullduggery.

 

While we turned down that treaty for other reasons, just knowing that that was the reason yall wanted it more than validates the criticism that yall're deceptive and untrustworthy.

[IYIyTh]

 

Your alliance attempted to get a treaty with my alliance in a cynical attempt to block our attempts to defend our allies and all going so far as to admit that your other allies would suffer more if it worked. There is no honor in that, the term you're looking for is underhanded skullduggery.

 

While we turned down that treaty for other reasons, just knowing that that was the reason yall wanted it more than validates the criticism that yall're deceptive and untrustworthy.

 

Well look who found their way back to this topic. Running your mouth and finding a fist wasn't enough, was it?

 

No one in MI6 knows what you're talking about. Keep on keeping on holding your multi-year grudges over what you believe was said in some smoky query/back channel and justifying your willfull, calculated and continued provocation of their alliance. MI6 has done nothing but burn for its allies and in turn you have the audacity to question their commitment to them based on hilariously self-serving perception you've created of them. Anyone who has been in a coalition channel with MI6 in the past during a war knows full well we're very blunt about our positions. There is very little ever left to be imagined. If we wanted to ally you, it was because we thought you an alliance worth allying. Everyone makes mistakes, including MI6. It's amusing to see you call anything MI6 has done cyncial.

 

Let's entertain your blabbering.

 

No one cares enough about your alliance to go to such depths, for one. As if the weight of the world were going to be thrust on your shoulders to decide a global war if Sengoku decided because it was allied to several people in a conflict to simply not participate. ( I think this is the biggest cop out of a reason for not defending your allies, but you are allied to Umbrella after all and this trick is their MO. Ally everyone, pick the winning side, betray or offer their sincerest cynical tears for not being able to lift a finger to those they allied, see: fulfill their treaty obligations. Fight a round of war and call it a war. Best political players most honorable!)

 

Your claims that you were offered a treaty and didn't accept it is really all I can see you blabbering on about.

 

But clearly, based on your opinion of MI6 they can't be that smart.

Good grief, I've never seen so much whining over simply declining a treaty. It's as if MI6 was torching your hand on fire by offering to have your back should you come under attack.

 

Your complete deflection of your atrocious showing of late and attempting to justify it by any means possible even when caught red handed belies who you really are. 

Edited September 28, 2015 by IYIyTh

[Jaiar]

The alliances trashing MI6 today will be the alliances allying MI6 tomorrow. I can see some version of unholy alliance sigs already. More R&D investment is needed to get these CBs manufactured more efficiently. One year waits are ridiculous.

[IYIyTh]

The alliances trashing MI6 today will be the alliances allying MI6 tomorrow. I can see some version of unholy alliance sigs already. More R&D investment is needed to get these CBs manufactured more efficiently. One year waits are ridiculous.

 

The sigs are already made for every potential scenario.

[Auctor]

 

Well look who found their way back to this topic. Running your mouth and finding a fist wasn't enough, was it?

 

No one in MI6 knows what you're talking about. Keep on keeping on holding your multi-year grudges over what you believe was said in some smoky query/back channel and justifying your willfull, calculated and continued provocation of their alliance. MI6 has done nothing but burn for its allies and in turn you have the audacity to question their commitment to them based on hilariously self-serving perception you've created of them. It's amusing to see you call anything MI6 has done cyncial.

 

 

http://cn-sengoku.com/forum/index.php?/topic/1849-you-seem-to-have-misplaced-something/

 

It's all right there for all of you to see.

[IYIyTh]

 

 

http://cn-sengoku.com/forum/index.php?/topic/1849-you-seem-to-have-misplaced-something/

 

It's all right there for all of you to see.

 

Yeah some groundbreaking !@#$ right there.

 

You have a former MI6 member who has done everything he can to be a snake and log dump any and every query, conversation he has had on a whim with MI6 government and claim that it was some sort of grand machination.

 

[3:16pm] Chimaera: I don't think there's an MoE on the planet I'd trust with this level of Operational Security than you, D_T

 

That's the only mistake I see being made here. You blabbering on and attempting to read into hypothetical scenarios laid out by a former member who actually now resides in Umbrella really isn't that groundbreaking and doesn't even become close to sniffing why your alliance has gone out of its way to spy on MI6. And not the !@#$%^&* you claim you just did it once for funsies because your gov member was drunk, I'm talking about the repeated, concerted effort you made as if you're scared of MI6 and need all the intelligence you can on them before you have the balls to put your alleged seething over being offered protection of your alliance into action.

Edited September 28, 2015 by IYIyTh