Jump to content

The Day Today - A Brief History of January 2021


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, James Spanier said:

there was no point in presenting or litigating the logs publicly.

I mean, that's a pile of manure as it would have made it clear why you were fighting the war and given Cobra/NG the ability to counter the falsehoods inherent in your position without having to wait for Polar to pressure you all into letting them know why you were attacking them.

But I suppose if my CB was as weak as yours, I'd want to hide it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your position is that we didn't provide the logs at the start because we knew the CB was weak, then why would we present them to argue?

 

If our position is that your side would deny everything anyway if we provided the logs at the start, then why would we present them to argue?

 

There wasn't a scenario where it mattered in either narrative, and of course the favoring of narratives will for the most part be down partisan lines.

Edited by James Spanier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, James Spanier said:

If your position is that we didn't provide the logs at the start because we knew the CB was weak, then why would we present them to argue?

 

If our position is that your side would deny everything anyway if we provided the logs at the start, then why would we present them to argue?

 

There wasn't a scenario where it mattered in either narrative, and of course the favoring of narratives will for the most part be down partisan lines.

Impasse time. Let's just be glad it's over.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kapleo said:

So yeah, be clear on your cb and your target may have a harder time gathering support from their allies, but a seemingly war of aggression will only get you exactly what you got: a crapton of alliances getting ready to start a global, unless the target's allies are a bunch of pixel huggers, in that case you'll be fine.

 

46 minutes ago, Kapleo said:

I know, it was an example, just pointing out the fact that a clear cb tends to be more beneficial for everyone. Solid CB? Allies could go like "well you brought that on yourself". Weak CB? "Don't worry mate, we'll give them hell".

 

30 minutes ago, Kapleo said:

Yeah, that's an open statement of a war of aggression which is totally ok and honest. Point here was that they tried to put it as if NG was the offending AA without providing any evidence of it. In the absence of information, speculation takes place and speculation leaned towards war of aggression and war of aggression means MD treaties get activated.


Hard to argue with that. Like one time Polar hit SNX posting a solid CB on the forums and I posted in response yeah looks like a solid CB, I'll stay out. Then another time Grub just straight up refused to give me his CB and I was like alright we're about to go to war I guess. Even OsRavan, who notoriously hates doing anything was like "Alright I guess ODN has gotta back you here." .. we were geared up ready to go but at the last moment Grub started cooperating, we worked out a quick peace agreement and escalation was prevented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James Spanier said:

If our position is that your side would deny everything anyway if we provided the logs at the start, then why would we present them to argue?

 

Uhh probably because the alliances engaged in the war weren't the only alliances that had an interest in knowing why it had been declared? The point that I think Kap is making is that allies do tend to avoid defending people who deserve to be attacked more than people who were unfairly attacked. Also, like someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, there is still a peanut gallery in this game that will always influence public sentiment towards aggressors and defenders, and refusing to explain your motives as the aggressor tends to not play well with them either, for whatever that's worth.

 

You're right that COBRA and NG were going to argue the CB either way, but you should at least acknowledge that the approach you took made it far easier for them to drive the narrative (especially with people who don't traditionally show up on their side), if not that you knew subconsciously that it wasn't going to be easy to defend to anyone who wasn't already looking for reasons to roll COBRA and NG.

Edited by lilweirdward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, lilweirdward said:

The point that I think Kap is making is that allies do tend to avoid defending people who deserve to be attacked more than people who were unfairly attacked.

 

I understand the point he was making, I also noticed his example of when CLAWS declared on TIE being justified, but also acknowledging that their allies needed to be told to stand down. Now imagine this scenario where we have every belief that the strategy would be to deny everything. Was NG and COBRA going to tell their allies to stand down? I doubt it, so why cater to a reality that isn't going to happen?

 

33 minutes ago, lilweirdward said:

but you should at least acknowledge that the approach you took made it far easier for them to drive the narrative

 

I don't know where I implied that wasn't the case.

 

33 minutes ago, lilweirdward said:

if not that you knew subconsciously that it wasn't going to be easy to defend to anyone who wasn't already looking for reasons to roll COBRA and NG.

 

Again, it was always going to be a waste of time arguing about it in a DoW thread. Kapleo himself can attest that, post peace accord, we had a conversation wherein I laid out my perspective. As I recall without looking (or log dumping), he didn't agree with our action (as was expected), but I believe he understood my position. It wouldn't have changed any of the actions taken if we had had it the day before the war, the day after, or never.

Edited by James Spanier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James Spanier said:

If your position is that we didn't provide the logs at the start because we knew the CB was weak, then why would we present them to argue?

 

If our position is that your side would deny everything anyway if we provided the logs at the start, then why would we present them to argue?

 

 

Because as I understand that, that was the requirement for NG and COBRA coming to the table with Polar, who were quite miffed that you'd dragged their allies into a war without giving them any explanation and were leaning heavily on your foot to understand why their Oculus allies were attacking another one of their allies.

Still fits my understanding of it like a glove Low.

Quote

There wasn't a scenario where it mattered in either narrative, and of course the favoring of narratives will for the most part be down partisan lines.


Except that once the truth came out Oculus withdrew from the war and peace talks began. So it seems pretty relevant. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If RFI/Oc initial problem was with NG and a certain COBRA members ties to them. Ignoring for a moment how based or not the accusations were. One wonders why the aggessing party didn't approach COBRA first about this particular pillar in their AA instead of going straight to war. I mean the agenda is clear, diplomacy and dialog were secondary and tertiary to their goals here. To say you weren't looking for reasons to roll I think may be dishonest. 

 

COBRA still would have told claws and the others to go fly a kit. But they could've said then that they tried diplomacy. 

Edited by Lucius Optimus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, James Spanier said:

 

I understand the point he was making, I also noticed his example of when CLAWS declared on TIE being justified, but also acknowledging that their allies needed to be told to stand down.

 

Case here is different because Lucius fell into a trap. He told us he was lured into saying those things but we didn't have a way to prove it until later on when TDE himself told me they actually had planned the whole thing. I didn't give him enough credit for that, but it was an honest action. Coming clean I mean.

 

9 minutes ago, James Spanier said:

It wouldn't have changed any of the actions taken if we had had it the day before the war, the day after, or never.

Maybe not yours, but ours could have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tankobite said:

Because as I understand that, that was the requirement for NG and COBRA coming to the table with Polar,

 

Which was fine, the understanding we had was that we always intended to put things on the table during the peace conference. While it happened earlier than we expected and slightly altered (we intended to provide them during, not immediately preceding, but that was whatever).

 

16 minutes ago, Tankobite said:

who were quite miffed that you'd dragged their allies into a war without giving them any explanation and were leaning heavily on your foot to understand why their Oculus allies were attacking another one of their allies.

 

Yeah, I imagine they were. That wasn't my department and is something Oculus will have to reconcile.

 

16 minutes ago, Tankobite said:

Still fits my understanding of it like a glove Low.

 

That's great, and as I said, it fits mine too.

 

16 minutes ago, Tankobite said:

Except that once the truth came out Oculus withdrew from the war and peace talks began. So it seems pretty relevant.

 

As someone who was not only there, but a primary voice in the negotiations, the Oculus draw back was at the request of Polar to avoid immediate escalation. Negotiations had a time limit that I set specifically allowing for Pacifica and IRON to catch staggers as necessary if time ran out (which it technically did, but we still hammered something out). Had negotiations outright failed, Pacifica and IRON would have snapped right back on at any time. I'm not sure why this "truth" you think came out dictated Pacifica and IRON's response, they weren't even particularly fond of the idea of drawing back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kapleo said:

Case here is different because Lucius fell into a trap. He told us he was lured into saying those things but we didn't have a way to prove it until later on when TDE himself told me they actually had planned the whole thing. I didn't give him enough credit for that, but it was an honest action. Coming clean I mean.

 

The whole situation was bad and everyone involved should feel bad. The fact remains, lured or not, he did it and it was not only rhetorically defended, but it required him to stand his allies down. That's not encouraging to the idea we should have bothered to try and convince people to not defend NG or COBRA in this case, much less hope they stood you all down.

 

5 minutes ago, Kapleo said:

Maybe not yours, but ours could have. 

 

Could have, could have not. At the end of the day, it's all hindsight regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, James Spanier said:

 

 

 

That's great, and as I said, it fits mine too.

 

 

No, it really doesn't. Despite what you say, I've never seen it done this way before. There's a reason even neutral parties are balking over the shenanigans you all pulled. Even your own spheremate sat this one out.
What does that say about it?


But whatever helps you sleep at night. The facts of how it was settled seem to say otherwise.

Edited by Tankobite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, James Spanier said:

 

The whole situation was bad and everyone involved should feel bad. The fact remains, lured or not, he did it and it was not only rhetorically defended, but it required him to stand his allies down. That's not encouraging to the idea we should have bothered to try and convince people to not defend NG or COBRA in this case, much less hope they stood you all down.

 

 

Could have, could have not. At the end of the day, it's all hindsight regardless.

Lowsten, what you are saying is that diplomacy is not an option anymore. If you feel you have a strong reason to fight us you will use it without explaining anything, or even try to clarify what's going on which is nothing but concerning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kapleo said:

Lowsten, what you are saying is that diplomacy is not an option anymore. If you feel you have a strong reason to fight us you will use it without explaining anything, or even try to clarify what's going on which is nothing but concerning. 

 

The leadership of both sides wants to avoid that sentiment, per the rhetoric of the summit. It's a valid concern, and something I believe will get its due investment with the attention of so many influential sphere leaders working towards it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, James Spanier said:

 

As was stated (and demonstrated) within the peace summit as well as several DM's, there was no point in presenting or litigating the logs publicly. Literally neither side will ever agree they committed wrongdoing regardless if they have or not, and the two sides that generally be at the moment make up the vast majority of the posters on this forum. There's no real middle ground to convince, so why commit to an argument that will never resolve in a satisfactory way? Everyone thinks they're the hero of the story.

 

Folks are free to DM me for details I have, the 'no logs until a peace conference' stipulation our coalition set has was obviously met and thus my embargo on talking about it has as well.

 

 

By this logic there is never any point in presenting evidence/justiification to the public, if the intent is to prevent it being debated at all. As someone already said; by not presenting the evidence you created a void which was filled with speculation and growing frustration at your refusal to do what pretty much every alliance declaring war has done in the past- giving actual justification (even if it is "we don't like you")

 

I agree that revealing your evidence would not have facilitated convincing any middle ground in any satisfactory way, it would have been debated until the cows came home etc. But by not revealing your evidence you actually created a middle ground consisting of uninformed and skeptical parties which had more potential to be convinced than if they had all the information at the beginning. It doesn't matter if you don't see the merit in going back and forth over the legitimacy of a CB, that is ultimately half the battle and the duty of the declaring party- whether they want to or not. You have to be willing to defend your actions to the public, if not then you have to be willing to concede when you are wrong.

 

To be clear, I'm not debating the validity of the CB here; I'm actually challenging your assertion that you thought it beneath you or ultimately redundant to actually justify your actions along with your evidence. It's frankly a bit insulting and counter-productive toward promoting any kind of open dialogue and activity in this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Johnny Apocalypse said:

To be clear, I'm not debating the validity of the CB here; I'm actually challenging your assertion that you thought it beneath you or ultimately redundant to actually justify your actions along with your evidence.

 

Your position is acknowledged.

 

12 minutes ago, Johnny Apocalypse said:

It's frankly a bit insulting and counter-productive toward promoting any kind of open dialogue and activity in this world.

 

I'm simply explaining one of the "why's" left over from the now completed conflict. Moving forward, the goal is to make sure this conflict doesn't repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, James Spanier said:

 

Your position is acknowledged.

 

 

I'm simply explaining one of the "why's" left over from the now completed conflict. Moving forward, the goal is to make sure this conflict doesn't repeat.

 

 

Your rationalisation for the leftover "why" is also acknowledged. So yes, onwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lilweirdward said:

 

Uhh probably because the alliances engaged in the war weren't the only alliances that had an interest in knowing why it had been declared? The point that I think Kap is making is that allies do tend to avoid defending people who deserve to be attacked more than people who were unfairly attacked.

 

 

Depends on who decides if an ally deserves to be attacked. An Aggressors DOW is a bit bias, the peanut gallery can provide different views sure, but part of a being an ally of a defending party is getting their ally's perspective and should be the priority over most everything else that is essentially noise.

 

 

1 hour ago, lilweirdward said:

You're right that CLAWS and NG were going to argue the CB either way, but you should at least acknowledge that the approach you took made it far easier for them to drive the narrative (especially with people who don't traditionally show up on their side), if not that you knew subconsciously that it wasn't going to be easy to defend to anyone who wasn't already looking for reasons to roll COBRA and NG.

 

I'm of the belief that when CBs aren't agreed upon by mutual parties white peace is the best option. When surrenders do occur usually it's because a party has submitted that it was in the wrong or a case has built enough support that enough alliances are willing to impose their will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, White Chocolate said:

You might have another good point.  Perhaps I should just do it Cobra style and simply claim all my memberships while sitting in one AA.  I will talk to my friends in CLAWS about that.  If it is good enough for Lyanna to claim all her joint memberships while sitting on the Cobra AA, it is good enough for me.   CLAWS, like Cobra, allows tech raiding too.  Maybe it's time just to upgrade the tech raiding rules to include inactive alliances.  It's something to think about anyway.
 


 


 

 

 

You should claim all of your memberships. It is just like GK always taught me, be proud, be loyal.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lyanna Mormont said:

 

You should claim all of your memberships. It is just like GK always taught me, be proud, be loyal.

 

I will bite on this because I understand this frustration. Having fought Doom Squad for years and their alias as other alliances, it was sorta ridiculous. One minute they were part of Doom Kingdom and the next minute they'd run off and form Doom Squad and waive any accountability back from the alliance they were just on- and ultimately went back to. 

 

That being said, Cobra appears to be the complete opposite of that. The perception of 'cobra sphere' is many alliances that move in the same direction. Though I'll give TIE credit for forming a beer bloc that isn't inclusive to the usual suspects; there was a point where I often wondered why TPF, Cobra, and TIE didn't just merge into one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

there was a point where I often wondered why TPF, Cobra, and TIE didn't just merge into one. 

 

This. This is the part that you never understood and it is freaking sad. When GK spoke, did you just refuse to listen? The reason that we do not merge? Is because we are not the same. We have different cultures. We have different identities. You saying this only proves that you never once understood what GK believed in or what he was working to accomplish. Some people build. They inspire loyalty. GK was like that. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, James Spanier said:

I understand the point he was making, I also noticed his example of when CLAWS declared on TIE being justified, but also acknowledging that their allies needed to be told to stand down. Now imagine this scenario where we have every belief that the strategy would be to deny everything. Was NG and COBRA going to tell their allies to stand down? I doubt it, so why cater to a reality that isn't going to happen?

Really, as allied leadership sitting in the coalition channel, the DoW made it real easy to say "Well, the aggressors are idiots, we're all in, no questions asked."  Had there been definitive proof of stupidity showing COBRA didn't deserve the backup, I would've had a hell of a time (with SirWilliam and master hakai) committing Kashmir to enter the conflict, let alone talking our alliance membership into it.  That's literally how this all works.  I've personally been on both sides of that coin in the past.

Obviously Kashmir ❤ COBRA, so we were obviously here, yo.  But CBs are important, no matter what some people say.  Being straightforward and honest is the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...