Recognition of hostilities

[Supreme Emperor Daeg]

If anything I will have less. But its okay, I wouldn't know what to do with a proper war chest even if I had one. GPA is at least a respectful opponent, I like that in both friends and foes.

 

[firingline]

31 minutes ago, jerdge said:

In talks with Kashmir I learned a bit more about their stance on this issue.

While they contact SW and decide what to do, I committed to ask our members not to involve other Kashmir nations.

 

Also hello Doom Squad.

If you had just done that first a lot of this would never have happened and your membership would be better off.

 

Hello.

[Ninja R]

1 hour ago, jerdge said:

Kashmir attacked, the GPA did not. To this moment, the only Kashmir nation at war with GPA nations is SirWilliam's, Kashmir's Owner, and he's the aggressor.

Yes, Kashmir is responsible for the actions of its Owner.

We haven't escalated anything, we have only publicly clarified where we stand. Then people, you included, started to cry because of my big threatening words.

There's a saying about not going into the kitchen if you can't take the heat, but this is on par with not being able to take the heat of the kitchen's refrigerator.

 

It's true, anyway, that I didn't came to Kashmir's servers to say the same things I posted here. Not wanting to spend more time then what was strictly needed played a role in that, along with the intent to timely publicly clarify what was happening and our views about it. I knew that Kashmir would have had the opportunity to have its say, anyway, which in fact it definitely took advantage of.

If it made a difference, I apologize, I'm not known for being infallible, for sure. But, does it make a difference? Is Kashmir willing to disown SirWilliam's aggression?

Since it was needed to make a point about it, Kashmir might want to also explicitly explain its stance about the issue.

Kashmir didn't attack.  You know good and well Kashmir didn't attack.  SW did.  

Now, you can sit there all day insisting SW's actions define an entire alliance's actions, but that doesn't make it true.

In fact, here are SW's last 10 messages in our private channel posted *just for you*.  I can probably go back a few months like this.  Here are his directives:
 

Quote

GG @Rud25, you just advanced to level 1 :jason8: :hakai:
GG @The Splendiferous Beaker, you just advanced to level 9
GG @Violated Troutbish LOL, you just advanced to level 6 :jason8: :hakai:
GG @The Splendiferous Beaker, you just advanced to level 8 :jason8: :hakai:
GG @Serberus, you just advanced to level 9 :jason8: :hakai:
GG @SalL6350, you just advanced to level 11 :jason8: :hakai:
GG @SalL6350, you just advanced to level 10 :jason8: :hakai:
GG @S to the E to the D., you just advanced to level 31 :jason8: :hakai:
GG @Violated Troutbish LOL, you just advanced to level 5 :jason8: :hakai:
GG @Serberus, you just advanced to level 8 :jason8: :hakai:

Like I said, inactive in leadership for months. 

And even when it's blatantly obvious there's one dude doing his thing and it's not exactly the alliance doing his thing, you ran here to *recognize hostilities* against the entire alliance when you know that's not the case at all.

And that's fine; you can sit around ignoring facts all you want -- that's your prerogative, but don't sit around feigning you're all about diplomacy and reason when it's exceeding clear from this post you aren't interested in it.  

You want to go after SW?  Fine, no one cares because *he* doesn't care.  PZI him if you want.  I'll send your dudes aid to do it.

[firingline]

24 minutes ago, Ninja R said:

Kashmir didn't attack.  You know good and well Kashmir didn't attack.  SW did.  

Now, you can sit there all day insisting SW's actions define an entire alliance's actions, but that doesn't make it true.

In fact, here are SW's last 10 messages in our private channel posted *just for you*.  I can probably go back a few months like this.  Here are his directives:
 

Like I said, inactive in leadership for months. 

And even when it's blatantly obvious there's one dude doing his thing and it's not exactly the alliance doing his thing, you ran here to *recognize hostilities* against the entire alliance when you know that's not the case at all.

And that's fine; you can sit around ignoring facts all you want -- that's your prerogative, but don't sit around feigning you're all about diplomacy and reason when it's exceeding clear from this post you aren't interested in it.  

You want to go after SW?  Fine, no one cares because *he* doesn't care.  PZI him if you want.  I'll send your dudes aid to do it.

 

Is this the official position of Kashmir?

[Ninja R]

17 minutes ago, firingline said:

 

Is this the official position of Kashmir?

Heck if I know. Ask Greenpeace over there.  He seems to understand alliance positions better than the alliance members themselves.

[Supreme Emperor Daeg]

Lets see what's the most complicated answer possible. Unofficially official response is that SW raided GPA in a raidy raid that was raidishly raiding. What we have now is a cross roads. 

[Master Hakai]

3 hours ago, jerdge said:

Then people, you included, started to cry because of my big threatening words.

 

I haven’t been online today but this explains why I was crying earlier. I thought it was just hormones. 
 

hi jason8 thanks for clearing things up here I think!

[Jason8]

2 hours ago, lilweirdward said:

 

Yes they did. I had no problems with them raiding neutrals that time, or when Bundy got declared on by UCR for doing it, or even the situation now.

 

I guess I should clarify. I'm not pulling for GPA because I like GPA or think no one should raid neutrals or anything like that. Doesn't even have anything to do with DW - Bundy doesn't seem like the kind of guy to be upset that GPA "recognized hostilities" and if anything is probably hoping that this actually turns into an entertaining fight. I'm specifically rooting for GPA to embarrass Jason and the rest of Kashmir for being so terrible at CN that they can't even raid neutrals without crying "defensive war" the minute that the neutral fights back. Do I think GPA can do it? No, but boy would it be funny if they did, huh?

I don't see any crying, just questions being asked as this thread is for asking questions.  But please, continue narrating, it's entertaining.

[Master Hakai]

31 minutes ago, Jason8 said:

I don't see any crying, just questions being asked as this thread is for asking questions.  But please, continue narrating, it's entertaining.

Shut up, we’re crying

[Ninja R]

10 hours ago, jerdge said:

UPDATE: for the time being "Kashmir" means "SirWilliam only". See below for further details.

 

Well, that was a convenient update, wasn't it? You went on at length telling the world in general over multiple dispatches: greenpeace's stance on government members' actions speak for the entire alliance.

Now you're backtracking on that stance. Is it greenpeace policy to *not* recognize government members' actions speaking for the entire alliance now?

Regardless, .gov already recognized your recognition.  They get to decide when that changes, not you.

[Master Hakai]

I’ll admit I didn’t read everything here, but I basically told my alliance do whatever you want! I’m a good leader I think

[Supreme Emperor Daeg]

I think I'm mostly neutral about rolling the neuts, though I do consider their crimes against bacon (in 2018) to be sufficient reason to raid them.

[SirWilliam]

I have a track record, defined in terms of weeks, of jumping in on DW raids. I’m never invited but that’s part of my charm: I just show up nonetheless.

 

My handlers are showing up too it seems. Gnarly.

[jerdge]

1 hour ago, Ninja R said:

Well, that was a convenient update, wasn't it? You went on at length telling the world in general over multiple dispatches: greenpeace's stance on government members' actions speak for the entire alliance.

Now you're backtracking on that stance. Is it greenpeace policy to *not* recognize government members' actions speaking for the entire alliance now?

Regardless, .gov already recognized your recognition.  They get to decide when that changes, not you.

It's GPA policy to consider the other party's explanation of what happened worthy of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate things.

 

Then you have Kashmir telling us that they're not going on an offensive and they need to talk with SW, and then send three more attackers two hours later.

 

I'll let you work out by yourself who backtracked and who's being aggressive here.

[jerdge]

(A new day is starting here and I won't have time for you people for the entirety of it. Have fun.)

[Ninja R]

35 minutes ago, jerdge said:

It's GPA policy to consider the other party's explanation of what happened worthy of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate things.

 

Then you have Kashmir telling us that they're not going on an offensive and they need to talk with SW, and then send three more attackers two hours later.

 

I'll let you work out by yourself who backtracked and who's being aggressive here.

Oh, it's greenpeace policy to consider the other party's explanation? Is that before or after you declare war?

So sure, let me work out who backtracked: You "recognized hostilities" first without considering anything whatsoever except your own shortsighted policy built on nonsense you would never dare to try with anyone else.  We recognized your declaration as well.  You don't have to like it, but that's what it is.

Your declaration here was the initial aggression, then you backpedaled pretty quick.  We expected the same thing from you that virtually every other alliance expects -- a heads up, a little diplomacy, something.

You didn't even bother with that.  Not sure why, but you definitely don't seem to like it anymore.  So yeah, we recognized your declaration and we're holding you to it.  You don't have to like that, either.

[Bionic redhead]

Don't you just love all these people attacking GPA, then blaming GPA for being 'aggressive' for defending themselves?

[lilweirdward]

6 hours ago, Ninja R said:

Your declaration here was the initial aggression

 

Jerdge has basically already lost this fight by backtracking while you all sent more people to keep hitting GPA, so none of this really matters anymore, but I still want to point out that this is completely wrong and is not how CN has ever worked. The former leader and active owner of an alliance declaring multiple wars on another alliance has always been considered an act of war. You're just lucky that you happen to be trying this act against one of the only alliances left that's somehow more incompetent than Kashmir.

[firingline]

8 hours ago, jerdge said:

I'll let you work out by yourself who backtracked and who's being aggressive here.

 

I'll let you work out for yourself what the better way of handling all this would have been. Hint: a DoW on entire AAs, followed by complaining as members of those AAs and their allies begin attacking you, isn't the best way to handle all this.

 

If I were you I'd stop worrying about attacks and start worrying about what the conclusion of this looks like. I think there's still a chance for white peace for GPA, but if you keep pushing it you're likely to see more attacks and talks of surrender terms.

 

2 hours ago, Bionic redhead said:

Don't you just love all these people attacking GPA, then blaming GPA for being 'aggressive' for defending themselves?

 

I didn't blame them for a second for attacking the raiders. I don't even "blame them" for blanket DoWs, but I'm going to hold them accountable for them. 

Edited January 31, 2022 by firingline

[Bionic redhead]

8 minutes ago, firingline said:

 

I didn't blame them for a second for attacking the raiders. I don't even "blame them" for blanket DoWs, but I'm going to hold them accountable for them. 

 

I mean it was only 3 out of the 6 nations in DW that attacked them. How silly of GPA.

[firingline]

5 minutes ago, Bionic redhead said:

 

I mean it was only 3 out of the 6 nations in DW that attacked them. How silly of GPA.

 

And 1 out of 46 in Kashmir, so clearly percentages didn't play into the equation for GPA.

 

There were a lot of ways GPA could have played this. They chose the dumbest possible option.

 

I think it's time for @jerdge to start putting his membership's well-being before his own ego.

Edited January 31, 2022 by firingline

[jerdge]

21 hours ago, jerdge said:

UPDATE 2: Kashmir decided that they wanted full war, after all.

Until the next episode I guess.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

@jerdge

Don't backtrack or half-ass these things. Full ass it every time (preferably a screaming one) 

 

Imagine being an alliance that managed to antagonise the Neutral Menace (of all people) into recognising hostilities with you. This may be more of a reflection of how dead this world truly is though, who can say?

 

Imagine also being in one of the alliances currently chest-thumping about their attack on GPA and trying to justify it as being the Neutral's at fault. I'm getting really crappy Woodstock flashbacks. Don't take the brown acid  

 

 

[jerdge]

I'm not backtracking, I gave Kashmir the benefit of doubt, it's just SOP. They didn't really want peace, I found out about it. That's all.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

5 minutes ago, jerdge said:

I'm not backtracking, I gave Kashmir the benefit of doubt, it's just SOP. They didn't really want peace, I found out about it. That's all.

 

My apologies, the crowds at these attempted festival reboots are very loud with their own chanting it can sometimes drown out the headlining act (and in this instance they seem very forgetful about what happened to them less than a year ago, when they tried to cherry-pick members of an alliance to hit and argue it wasn't a blanket act of war on that alliance.....)