Imperium Recognition of War

[Lord Hitchcock]

3 minutes ago, kingzog said:

 

This is a logical impossibility, unless they were denied both before and after the threat, in which case the threat served no purpose whatsoever.

 

They were denied after. As confirmed from an old friend.

 

 

Saturday 09:21: BMTH: What happens if they were to join a bloc? Tonight? I’m all for not letting them join, but I may be out voted. 

Never mind, I had them rejected

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Lord Hitchcock

[Jack Layton]

This whole narrative that this bloc posed a threat to Monsters Inc is undermined by the fact that one of the prospective members was POSSE, an alliance that is on friendly terms with MInc and whose leader apparently also knows Hitchcock personally outside of the game (if I understand this correctly). If the goal was to undermine MInc, why would we form a bloc with a friend of Hitchcock's? Why is it that POSSE approached VG to start such a bloc and not the other way around?

[Galerion]

3 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

They were denied after. As confirmed from an old friend.

 

 

Saturday 09:21: BMTH: What happens if they were to join a bloc? Tonight? I’m all for not letting them join, but I may be out voted. 

Never mind, I had them rejected

 

 

Since when was BMTH a reliable source of information he's a spuddler like you.

[Walshington]

5 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

They were denied after. As confirmed from an old friend.

 

 

Saturday 09:21: BMTH: What happens if they were to join a bloc? Tonight? I’m all for not letting them join, but I may be out voted. 

Never mind, I had them rejected

 

 

If this is that non-existent "Anti-MInc SRA-VG-POSSE-SCOTLAND Bloc" that you've railed against before that I didn't even know about, then sure -- why wouldn't we all give BMTH veto power over membership?  It makes about as much sense as anything else.

[Lord Hitchcock]

10 minutes ago, Jack Layton said:

This whole narrative that this bloc posed a threat to Monsters Inc is undermined by the fact that one of the prospective members was POSSE, an alliance that is on friendly terms with MInc and whose leader apparently also knows Hitchcock personally outside of the game (if I understand this correctly). If the goal was to undermine MInc, why would we form a bloc with a friend of Hitchcock's? Why is it that POSSE approached VG to start such a bloc and not the other way around?

 

Actually it wasn't brought to my attention (or I wasn't paying attention) that posse was even in the bloc until BMTH talked to me about it (shortly) Saturday night.

 

And it was a surprise considering a few months prior he asked if M Inc would hit SCOTLAND- however, we didn't have any reason to hit them.

 

And our intelligence was in fact correct. As shown through Galarion's own screenshot. I would collaborate more on this- however I do not want to give away our sources.

 

OOC- my relationship with BMTH on the outside is via Skype, which isn't much more personal than IRC

Edited July 13, 2016 by Lord Hitchcock

[Jack Layton]

5 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

Actually it wasn't brought to my attention that posse was even in the bloc until BMTH talked to me about it (shortly) Saturday night.

 

And it was a surprise considering a few months prior he asked if M Inc would hit SCOTLAND- however, we didn't have any reason to hit them.

 

OOC- my relationship with BMTH on the outside is via Skype, which isn't much more personal than IRC

 

 

Too lazy to screenshot right now, but I am looking at a post on VG's forums written by Alonso dated on July 1st, nearly two weeks ago, that he told you about this bloc. Your own friend outside the game told you about the bloc.

In fact, you recognized it yourself on July 1st:

 

[Walshington]

[hartfw] should be angry, let's think about this logically and truthfully:

 

Well, yeah, let's look at it logically and truthfully:

 

17 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

2) If we really wanted to disband SCOTLAND- Would we have given them 48hrs to run into peace mode?

Starting to make sense now? 

 

Actually, it is making less sense. If you really didn't want to disband Scotland, why would you announce that you did?  And reiterate it?

 

n 7/9/2016 at 11:44 AM, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

We will not allow terrorists cells to exist on our watch. 47 hours left Scotland, run for the hills

 

 

On 7/9/2016 at 1:41 PM, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

I wish nothing more than for them to become refugees rather than victims of their own doings.

 

Terrorism, regardless, will be dealt with.

 

 

On 7/9/2016 at 4:24 PM, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

There is no try, they will disband 

 

 

Puts you in a bit of a logical quandary -- were you lying when you said it, or are you lying about not meaning it now?

 

Further, regarding the antagonistic stance of Scotland toward Monsters, Inc, I can find no attacks against you or your allies.  You explained it thusly:

 

17 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

Of course, Scotland did antagonize M Inc whether they realized it or not with their consideration of being included in a bloc which included notable members with past grievances towards Monsters Inc.

 

So now allying yourself with people that MInc has had differences with in the past is a disbanding offense?  Particularly when you ALREADY have a NAP with one of the parties (that you are currently violating), and were offered another one:

 

n 7/9/2016 at 2:21 PM, Morphine said:

 

I invite, Monsters Inc, SNX, Varangian Guard and SCOTLAND to sign a NAP agreement.

 

Your threat indicator must be on the fritz. You keep imagining these conspiracies against you (TCA back in the day, and now this imagined bloc), the people involved do everything they can to set your mind at ease, and it is still not enough.  Weird coming from the "greatest lower tier fighting machine", who has launched far more offensive attacks against alliances who have done nothing to provoke it than it has been the victim of attacks.  Oh, but then there is this:

 

n 7/9/2016 at 1:30 PM, Lord Hitchcock said:

Scotland has long been on our terrorist watch list, day by day they continue to threaten the common good planet Bob nation- findings which were based on reliable M Inc intelligence- and now they will meet their maker.

 

 

Well, this is twice your "reliable intelligence" has foretold a micro-bloc forming against you, consisting of VG, POSSE, SCOTLAND and SRA.  Newsflash:  you need a more reliable intelligence system. We allied VG because we knew them (you have a NAP with them now).  We learned POSSE existed about a week ago.  I had never heard of SCOTLAND until you threatened their disbandment.  SRA is not forming a bloc with anyone at the time -- not now, and not when you asked us to form one a month or two ago.  You know, if you're curious, you could just ask -- I'm pretty open.  Don't really care about MInc, you are not the center of our FA world.  It makes you less credible when you act -- and act big -- on intel that is wrong and a little paranoid.  

 

Not to mention that MInc seems to be claiming the right to unilaterally determine the FA course of uninvolved alliances entirely based on past grievances?  Who actually does this?  If this were actually a thing -- and it's not -- no one would be able to treaty anybody.

 

But I digress:

 

18 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

4) The only thing Hartw did, literally, was set a channel up for a peace summit and encouraged and invited all parties to participate. And he encouraged peace.

 

If anything, you owe Hartw a sincere apology, considering he took the time to help YOUR ally.

 

 

If hartfw brokered an agreement that, in response to an announced forced disbandment,  had SCOTLAND curtail it's FA policies, apologize for a non-existent affront to MInc, and alter it's tech deals, I hardly think Junka owes him an apology.  Seeing as MInc got every term they were looking for in response to an act of aggression based on a trumped up charge, I think Junka owes SCOTLAND an apology for not backing them up more in those talks (which I readily admit I haven't read the full text of.  But I did see this:   @hartfw[Cowboys]: My interest here is making sure my L_H is satisfied with the resolution, and I persoanlly have no direct qualms with Scotland.) That may or may not be out of context, but seeing the outcome it certainly seems like MInc got every thing it wanted and SCOTLAND got...  peace at any price, I guess.  If that is helping out an ally, I guess my mileage varies.

 

Don't know what Junka said or didn't say to hartfw on IRC, but his response here on the OWF seemed reasonable given the situation -- unless he agreed to this stuff in the talks themselves, in which case he should hang his head in shame.

 

I have not seen a railroad job like this since the reps of the Beer Guzzlers War, and I can't believe MInc got people who should be able to see through this to back them up on it.

[Lord Hitchcock]

7 minutes ago, Walshington said:

 

Well, yeah, let's look at it logically and truthfully:

 

 

Actually, it is making less sense. If you really didn't want to disband Scotland, why would you announce that you did?  And reiterate it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Puts you in a bit of a logical quandary -- were you lying when you said it, or are you lying about not meaning it now?

 

Further, regarding the antagonistic stance of Scotland toward Monsters, Inc, I can find no attacks against you or your allies.  You explained it thusly:

 

 

So now allying yourself with people that MInc has had differences with in the past is a disbanding offense?  Particularly when you ALREADY have a NAP with one of the parties (that you are currently violating), and were offered another one:

 

 

Your threat indicator must be on the fritz. You keep imagining these conspiracies against you (TCA back in the day, and now this imagined bloc), the people involved do everything they can to set your mind at ease, and it is still not enough.  Weird coming from the "greatest lower tier fighting machine", who has launched far more offensive attacks against alliances who have done nothing to provoke it than it has been the victim of attacks.  Oh, but then there is this:

 

 

Well, this is twice your "reliable intelligence" has foretold a micro-bloc forming against you, consisting of VG, POSSE, SCOTLAND and SRA.  Newsflash:  you need a more reliable intelligence system. We allied VG because we knew them (you have a NAP with them now).  We learned POSSE existed about a week ago.  I had never heard of SCOTLAND until you threatened their disbandment.  SRA is not forming a bloc with anyone at the time -- not now, and not when you asked us to form one a month or two ago.  You know, if you're curious, you could just ask -- I'm pretty open.  Don't really care about MInc, you are not the center of our FA world.  It makes you less credible when you act -- and act big -- on intel that is wrong and a little paranoid.  

 

Not to mention that MInc seems to be claiming the right to unilaterally determine the FA course of uninvolved alliances entirely based on past grievances?  Who actually does this?  If this were actually a thing -- and it's not -- no one would be able to treaty anybody.

 

But I digress:

 

 

If hartfw brokered an agreement that, in response to an announced forced disbandment,  had SCOTLAND curtail it's FA policies, apologize for a non-existent affront to MInc, and alter it's tech deals, I hardly think Junka owes him an apology.  Seeing as MInc got every term they were looking for in response to an act of aggression based on a trumped up charge, I think Junka owes SCOTLAND an apology for not backing them up more in those talks (which I readily admit I haven't read the full text of.  But I did see this:   @hartfw[Cowboys]: My interest here is making sure my L_H is satisfied with the resolution, and I persoanlly have no direct qualms with Scotland.) That may or may not be out of context, but seeing the outcome it certainly seems like MInc got every thing it wanted and SCOTLAND got...  peace at any price, I guess.  If that is helping out an ally, I guess my mileage varies.

 

Don't know what Junka said or didn't say to hartfw on IRC, but his response here on the OWF seemed reasonable given the situation -- unless he agreed to this stuff in the talks themselves, in which case he should hang his head in shame.

 

I have not seen a railroad job like this since the reps of the Beer Guzzlers War, and I can't believe MInc got people who should be able to see through this to back them up on it.

 

 

I fail to see the point you are trying to make. If anything, the beer guzzlers war was a great indication of making sure a micro bloc doesn't form as a threat to us.

 

And rather than giving SCOTLAND the benefit of the doubt, it would have been much less messy if we had just hit them outright. 

 

My views of SCOTLAND were simple, they were active enough to sign SNX, were being 'considered' to be in a bloc with past enemies, and rather than let them run their course, we made sure it didn't happen.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Lord Hitchcock

[Jack Layton]

Another quote from alonso in POSSE on our forums:

 

Quote

Not that it was needed, but it's nice to have that NAP. 
So, who wants to write the bloc up?

 

What exactly did Monsters Inc perceive to be a threat to their security? VG which immediately offered MInc an NAP when confronted with MInc's concerns? POSSE which is on good terms with MInc and whose leader is friends with Hitchcock outside the game? SCOTLAND with zero military power? Where is this threat? Where is the antagonism?

[Lord Hitchcock]

Just now, Jack Layton said:

VG which immediately offered MInc an NAP when confronted with MInc's concerns?

 

A NAP does not prevent a bloc from forming. It just buys time. Which, while it was pitched on our end, it did not halt on yours. Outside of the open talks we shared last night- the extent of our relationships prior was purely enemies. 

 

 

[Walshington]

1 minute ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

 

I fail to see the point you are trying to make. If anything, the beer guzzlers war was a great indication of making sure a micro bloc doesn't form as a threat to us.

 

And rather than giving SCOTLAND the benefit of the doubt, it would have been much less messy if we had just hit them outright. 

 

My views of SCOTLAND were simple, they were active enough to sign SNX, were being 'considered' with past enemies, and rather than let them run their course, we made sure it didn't happen.

 

I find it amazing that you didn't see my point.  I'll condense it:

 

You don't have the right to determine the course of who another alliance allys based on past grievances, particularly when it is based on faulty intel and is all in your head.  The fact that you think you can, and have people who know better backing you on this, is ridiculous.

[Mogar]

2 hours ago, Auctor said:

In before tywin sets out to provoke a war with RIA.

I am sure all of the RIAers under 10k are shivering in their boots.

1 hour ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

Achieving peace is one thing, it's how Junka reacts thereafter that becomes the concern.

 

as a potential viceroy candidate, how would you handle that issue?

I would probably make Galerion the diplomat to actually represent SNX, as he seems to be more politically savvy than his boss.

1 hour ago, kingzog said:

I will co-moderate those talks.

 

Seriously. What could possibly go wrong?

This seems like a wonderful plan.

1 hour ago, Galerion said:

If there are any talks we need someone more neutral than Mogar.

I'm as disinterested in all parties involved equally, that makes me as neutral as possible, thank you very much.

1 hour ago, kingzog said:

Are these individual parties or one venue with six rooms?

I also like this idea, lots of space for everyone to relax, maybe a pool, some drinks and a buffet?

[Lord Hitchcock]

3 minutes ago, Walshington said:

 

I find it amazing that you didn't see my point.  I'll condense it:

 

You don't have the right to determine the course of who another alliance allys based on past grievances, particularly when it is based on faulty intel and is all in your head.  The fact that you think you can, and have people who know better backing you on this, is ridiculous.

 

 

We have a right to exterminate anything we view as direct threats. Past grievances are a great motivator. And the Intel was clearly proved by Galerion.

 

 

 

 

[Jack Layton]

This is alonso, your own friend, telling you that SNX is not invited into the bloc (and given Junka's position on SCOTLAND joining, it's likely SNX would have declined anyway). You had reassurances from VG that we would not act aggressively towards MInc or its allies. We offered an NAP and did not violate it (MInc did violate it). Your own friend in POSSE who told you about the bloc in the first place (why would he do that if the purpose was to threaten MInc?) reassured you that you're just being paranoid and welcomed the NAP. SCOTLAND, as much as I like them, can't fight their way out of a paper bag in their current form, much less against MInc. Again, where is this threat? I'm just trying to understand your position of how you can possibly view a POTENTIAL bloc as threatening given these circumstances.

[Auctor]

tbqh, some amount of displeasure would have been fine. Tywin coulda kept it all IC and out in public and by and large, it would have registered an eyeroll at most. I'll admit to not really paying attention or giving a good goddam about what monsters inc's interest is, but SNX was free not to participate in the talks at all if they'd not wanted to and that would have been alright as well.

 

Pushing a dude that went out of his way to help you and an alliance that is already primed to go off was prolly not an amazing strategy for someone that claims to value the interests of his membership. Unless SNX's membership get off on seeing how far tywin can push people. Then it was likely brilliant.

[The Zigur]

1 minute ago, Auctor said:

tbqh, some amount of displeasure would have been fine. Tywin coulda kept it all IC and out in public and by and large, it would have registered an eyeroll at most. I'll admit to not really paying attention or giving a good goddam about what monsters inc's interest is, but SNX was free not to participate in the talks at all if they'd not wanted to and that would have been alright as well.

 

It's nice of you to distance yourself from Minc so late in the game.

[Jack Layton]

This is another quote from alonso from the VG forums:

 

Quote

I'm not sure we offer SCOTLAND a position now, they rebuffed our advances at first. We shouldn't go around, and offering entrance to our bloc because they may get attacked. Especially if you have an NAP, it throws it in their face. Let's see where this goes, and defend SNX if anything goes south.

 

Even after SCOTLAND was threatened by you, POSSE's position (and VG's) was to deny them entry into the bloc on this basis. In fact, we took pains to consider how letting SCOTLAND in at that point might actually antagonize MInc and chose not to because we had a signed NAP. Although it wouldn't violate the NAP, we didn't want to do anything that could be considered antagonistic. It seems so far the only "threat" you perceived was this bloc existing despite all evidence that it wasn't created as a threat to MInc, it took every effort to avoid antagonizing MInc, and is now taking every effort to even build relations with MInc. Where is the threat? Where is the antagonism?

 

Edit: Hell, even after it's "gone south" and SNX was blitzed, we're STILL attempting a diplomatic solution and haven't declared war on anyone yet.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Jack Layton

[Lord Hitchcock]

5 minutes ago, Jack Layton said:

This is alonso, your own friend, telling you that SNX is not invited into the bloc (and given Junka's position on SCOTLAND joining, it's likely SNX would have declined anyway). You had reassurances from VG that we would not act aggressively towards MInc or its allies. We offered an NAP and did not violate it (MInc did violate it). Your own friend in POSSE who told you about the bloc in the first place (why would he do that if the purpose was to threaten MInc?) reassured you that you're just being paranoid and welcomed the NAP. SCOTLAND, as much as I like them, can't fight their way out of a paper bag in their current form, much less against MInc. Again, where is this threat? I'm just trying to understand your position of how you can possibly view a POTENTIAL bloc as threatening given these circumstances.

 

BMTH asked me about a month ago if we would hit SCOTLAND for them and we had zero interest, as SCOTLAND did nothing to us.

 

For !@#$% and giggles, we probed them to find out a bloc was forming- it's how you and I formed are NAP based on our own thread.

 

Later one we found out SCOTLAND was still being considered, which was annoying as we caught grief of forming our own bloc for protection, it annoyed us- and we took proactive action.

 

[Morphine]

5 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

BMTH asked me about a month ago if we would hit SCOTLAND for them and we had zero interest, as SCOTLAND did nothing to us.

 

For !@#$% and giggles, we probed them to find out a bloc was forming- it's how you and I formed are NAP based on our own thread.

 

Later one we found out SCOTLAND was still being considered, which was annoying as we caught grief of forming our own bloc for protection, it annoyed us- and we took proactive action.

 

But they weren't being considered. They turned us down way back and we never considered them again. Not once

[Galerion]

9 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

which was annoying as we caught grief of forming our own bloc for protection, it annoyed us- and we took proactive action.

 

You got grief because you advertised it as a anti-bloc implying hostility towards the alliances you mention in that thread.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Galerion

[Lord Hitchcock]

10 minutes ago, Jack Layton said:

This is another quote from alonso from the VG forums:

 

 

Even after SCOTLAND was threatened by you, POSSE's position (and VG's) was to deny them entry into the bloc on this basis. In fact, we took pains to consider how letting SCOTLAND in at that point might actually antagonize MInc and chose not to because we had a signed NAP.

 

This was after we already hit them, and the 'pains' you considered were correct, just a little late.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Jack Layton said:

 

Although it wouldn't violate the NAP, we didn't want to do anything that could be considered antagonistic.

 

What was antagonistic was that it was even being considered.

 

10 minutes ago, Jack Layton said:

 

It seems so far the only "threat" you perceived was this bloc existing despite all evidence that it wasn't created as a threat to MInc, it took every effort to avoid antagonizing MInc, and is now taking every effort to even build relations with MInc. Where is the threat? Where is the antagonism?

 

Edit: Hell, even after it's "gone south" and SNX was blitzed, we're STILL attempting a diplomatic solution and haven't declared war on anyone yet.

 

SNX was blitzed entirely separate of our war against SCOTLAND. They were blitzed because of Junka's personal attacks and slander on Hartw 

 

[Lord Hitchcock]

5 minutes ago, Galerion said:

 

You got grief because you advertised it as a anti-bloc implying hostility towards the alliances you mention in that thread.

 

 

Anti, as in defensive. And we did get grief, and later annoyed to find out that our historical enemies  (NAP or no NAP) were still working on their own.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Lord Hitchcock

[Jack Layton]

In that thread I link to earlier, alonso said explicitly that you only knew about the bloc because of him. Now I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that he told you before you threatened SCOTLAND and you're apparently friends. So even if you heard it from SCOTLAND, you heard it from the mouth of your own friend as well. Ask him if we discussed attacking MInc or doing anything "antagonistic" at all. In fact, the only times MInc came up was in the context of building relations.

It's clear here that whatever fears MInc had for their security, while I can sympathize with those suspicions given our past history, does not justify the threat of disbandment to SCOTLAND. It's abundantly clear now that this unestablished bloc had no intentions of pursuing any antagonistic actions with MInc and that SNX was not apart of it. SNX's only involvement was to denounce the peace terms on SCOTLAND which were unfair given the circumstances. SNX voiced their displeasure in an undiplomatic way, sure, but surely this is not an offence worthy of being blitzed.

 

Since there is no threat to MInc and this war is unproductive for all parties, SCOTLAND has already willingly agreed to terms, and SNX has been blitzed for the sake of a couple choice words on the outcome of this, everyone has seemingly gotten what they want. MInc no longer has reason to believe they're threatened, SCOTLAND will not join any bloc for 6 months, and SNX got licked for Junka's poor choice of words. Can we call this thing over with a white peace and everyone goes their separate ways?

[Walshington]

8 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

Later one we found out SCOTLAND was still being considered, which was annoying as we caught grief of forming our own bloc for protection, it annoyed us- and we took proactive action.

 

 

Oh, well if you were annoyed, then this all makes sense.

 

Was this the bloc that you tried to get SRA to join?  Because when I turned you down, I didn't "give you grief".  I simply stated I "Cannot join you in this venture for a number of reasons. "

[Walshington]

27 minutes ago, Auctor said:

 

Pushing a dude that went out of his way to help you and an alliance that is already primed to go off was prolly not an amazing strategy for someone that claims to value the interests of his membership. Unless SNX's membership get off on seeing how far tywin can push people. Then it was likely brilliant.

 

All due respect, I'm not sure that hartfw went out of his way to help SNX, unless appeasing a paranoid alliance completely at the expense of their ally Scotland was helpful.  I mean, honestly, did Scotland or SNX benefit in any way after a public forced disbandment attempt by an alliance who was jilted nowhere but in their leader's mind?  If Junka had just swallowed the pill like a good boy, was this a win for SNX or Scotland in any scoring rubric?  I honestly can't see any alliance leader taking this well, much less being thankful. Shoe on the other foot, can you?