Sparta goes for a swim

[DeathAdder]

6 minutes ago, berbers said:

 

Oh whatever, people have been attacking other people's ODP allies for years without informing then in advance, the web is so stupid that intel clauses will shut down a war before it even starts.  You had choices, you made them, you can say all you want that we should shared intel, but you decided to cancel and then declare war on your longest MDoAP ally, going against all norms in existence on planet bob for decades.

 

All because we didn't tell you in advance that we were responding to a war declared by DBDC last fall.

 

Lol. Your alliance went so far as to outright lie to other alliances.

 

NATO is deceitful, NATO are liars. I will choose anyone who is honest and who shows good faith in honoring their treaties any day of the week.

 

Now quit derailing Sparta's DoW because your AA sucks at basic FA.

Edited July 4, 2022 by DeathAdder

[Johnny Apocalypse]

2 minutes ago, DeathAdder said:

 

Lol. Your alliance went so far as to outright lie to other alliances.

 

NATO is deceitful, NATO are liars. I will choose anyone who is honest and who shows good faith in honoring their treaties any day of the week.

 

Remember when you honoured your intelligence clauses with Polar during Bicycle War? Me neither, I'd suggest you get on a slightly less high horse if you're going to grandstand on this subject.

[DeathAdder]

1 minute ago, Johnny Apocalypse said:

 

Remember when you honoured your intelligence clauses with Polar during Bicycle War? Me neither, I'd suggest you get on a slightly less high horse if you're going to grandstand on this subject.

 

Yes.

 

A regrettable mistake, for sure.

 

I have discussed my issues with the entire war elsewhere. I was indisposed during Bicycle due to health reasons.

 

The moment I stopped being indisposed, I addressed those mistakes with Polar.

[berbers]

31 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

I'd really like to hear your response to my simple logic post. I think this is a treaty order issue on the end of your leadership.

MDoAP vs ODP... you ask us to attack a defense treaty partner. We say no.
You go ahead and attack defense treaty partner. They ask us to protect. Either we say yes... or our oDP treaties aren't worth the paper written on... so we say yes.

You literally auto-triggered your own demise by putting us in a corner where our integrity or your welfare was at stake... and no.. we're not going to tell an ODP member we're going to stand a side while an overly ambitious oAP member wrecks them. You violated our trust by trying to force us into a position where we'd have to violate our own treaty integrity. Reap the whirlwind of your own design.

DBDC declared war on everyone in the fall, why didn't your morals kick in then?

[berbers]

32 minutes ago, DeathAdder said:

 

Lol. Your alliance went so far as to outright lie to other alliances.

 

NATO is deceitful, NATO are liars. I will choose anyone who is honest and who shows good faith in honoring their treaties any day of the week.

 

Now quit derailing Sparta's DoW because your AA sucks at basic FA.

 

NpO lied to just about everyone, on  both sides, so where is the cancellation?

[DeathAdder]

Just now, berbers said:

 

NpO lied to just about everyone, on  both sides, so where is the cancellation?

 

Sorry, kid.

 

Unlike your AA, NpO made no secret of the fact that NG/others were trying to court them to flip.

[berbers]

29 minutes ago, DeathAdder said:

 

Sorry, kid.

 

Unlike your AA, NpO made no secret of the fact that NG/others were trying to court them to flip.

Well if you think they were the courtee and not the courter, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you

 

Edit:  Edited to remove redundant "well"

Edited July 4, 2022 by berbers

[DeathAdder]

Mm, yes. Both of us were looking at the potential to drop Oculus at first, a fact we both acknowledged.

 

It would be quite silly to drop them for that, and obviously, both Alliances ultimately made the right choice. Your liking it or not doesn't really enter into the equation.

 

I really have nothing more to say on the matter, other than to enjoy your new side.

[berbers]

3 minutes ago, DeathAdder said:

Mm, yes. Both of us were looking at the potential to drop Oculus at first, a fact we both acknowledged.

 

It would be quite silly to drop them for that, and obviously, both Alliances ultimately made the right choice. Your liking it or not doesn't really enter into the equation.

 

I really have nothing more to say on the matter, other than to enjoy your new side.

 

So you were considering dropping Occulus with NpO, did you let the rest of Occulus know about these discussions, considering intel clauses are so important?

 

Did DT know NpO was planning on hitting their allies, did that intel clause get used?

 

Inquiring minds would like to know...

[Bob]

47 minutes ago, berbers said:

 

So you were considering dropping Occulus with NpO, did you let the rest of Occulus know about these discussions, considering intel clauses are so important?

 

Did DT know NpO was planning on hitting their allies, did that intel clause get used?

 

Inquiring minds would like to know...

 

NpO/NPO can think about leaving Oculus just like we can at any point. We've had a number of conversations with both of late.

 

Doom can ask me privately if they want an answer to that question.  Don't see any purpose to sharing our internal bloc communications in a public setting.

[berbers]

10 minutes ago, Bob said:

 

NpO/NPO can think about leaving Oculus just like we can at any point. We've had a number of conversations with both of late.

 

Doom can ask me privately if they want an answer to that question.  Don't see any purpose to sharing our internal bloc communications in a public setting.

 

Thinking about leaving a bloc vs thinking about leaving a bloc to roll over allies of your blocmates are two different things imho, but my point is mostly that NATO got dropped like a hot rock and then attacked over an intel clause that doesn't seem to have that much importance in other dealings, so it has the appearance of a double standard.

 

Just my two cents.

[Sarkin]

1 hour ago, berbers said:

 

So you were considering dropping Occulus with NpO, did you let the rest of Occulus know about these discussions, considering intel clauses are so important?

 

Did DT know NpO was planning on hitting their allies, did that intel clause get used?

 

Inquiring minds would like to know...

 

Intel clauses are pretty vague, but I'm pretty sure no intel clause has ever been held to a standard of "internal discussions within the alliance about a potential FA change must be communicated to allies before the decision is made to pursue it." Would I have to go to my allies every time someone comes back from inactivity and is mad that we're allied to NPO because *insert thing that happened pre-Karma* and argues we should hop the fence? That would be an extremely high bar.

 

Polar's situation is a notch below that; they were discussing potential FA changes with external people. I'm sure that some folks have/do treat intel clauses as covering that scenario. If that's your definition, fair enough. From my perspective, though, I've seen chatter between different alliance leaders about potential FA changes (often of the "this would admittedly screw over one of my allies" variety) from everyone under the sun and across the various spheres over the past 15 years. I would guess that <1% of it ended up getting communicated to allies, in large part because <1% of it ends up happening. 

 

The notch below that, and the case where I think intel clauses obviously *do* apply, are when you've made a decision to do something, whether that's signing someone new, canceling on someone, or declaring a war. NATO obviously did not spontaneously decide on June 25 to start a war with another ally of NPO's and therefore just didn't have any time to mention it; the decision was made earlier and not communicated to NPO. I don't think there's a lot of nuance here or room for debate that that's an intel clause violation.

[firingline]

2 hours ago, berbers said:

DBDC declared war on everyone in the fall, why didn't your morals kick in then?

 

The DoW was nearly 2 years ago, not 'in the fall'...

 

The snarky reference to the DBDC DoW was a fun way to start this war, but let's not pretend it was actually the reason (or that this war is a legitimate defensive action.) FTW and NATO wanted a war, and this was a cheeky way to start one, and I applaud them for that.

[berbers]

3 minutes ago, Sarkin said:

 

Intel clauses are pretty vague, but I'm pretty sure no intel clause has ever been held to a standard of "internal discussions within the alliance about a potential FA change must be communicated to allies before the decision is made to pursue it." Would I have to go to my allies every time someone comes back from inactivity and is mad that we're allied to NPO because *insert thing that happened pre-Karma* and argues we should hop the fence? That would be an extremely high bar.

 

Polar's situation is a notch below that; they were discussing potential FA changes with external people. I'm sure that some folks have/do treat intel clauses as covering that scenario. If that's your definition, fair enough. From my perspective, though, I've seen chatter between different alliance leaders about potential FA changes (often of the "this would admittedly screw over one of my allies" variety) from everyone under the sun and across the various spheres over the past 15 years. I would guess that <1% of it ended up getting communicated to allies, in large part because <1% of it ends up happening. 

 

The notch below that, and the case where I think intel clauses obviously *do* apply, are when you've made a decision to do something, whether that's signing someone new, canceling on someone, or declaring a war. NATO obviously did not spontaneously decide on June 25 to start a war with another ally of NPO's and therefore just didn't have any time to mention it; the decision was made earlier and not communicated to NPO. I don't think there's a lot of nuance here or room for debate that that's an intel clause violation.

 

If it was just leaving the bloc, I agree that probably doesn't trigger intel clauses, but when they were actively discussing leaving the bloc for the purpose of rolling your allies, that probably meets the threshhold.  Polar for example, was apparently actively involved in the planning of the operation (i wasn't involved at all so second hand info) right up until it happened.

 

Also I think we can both agree that the normal course for something like this is to not drop the treaty and attack someone instantly, but to honor the non-aggression aspect (even if you come in against others) and drop the treaty after the war.  That's been the norm for decades.

[berbers]

Just now, firingline said:

 

The DoW was nearly 2 years ago, not 'in the fall'...

 

The snarky reference to the DBDC DoW was a fun way to start this war, but let's not pretend it was actually the reason (or that this war is a legitimate defensive action.) FTW and NATO wanted a war, and this was a cheeky way to start one, and I applaud them for that.

 

Let me have my fun

[Galtian Commune]

4 minutes ago, berbers said:

 

Let me have my fun

Try to keep your fun factual next time. 

[berbers]

Just now, Galtian Commune said:

Try to keep your fun factual next time. 

I'll edit my response to 2 falls ago, instead of last fall.

Just to be fair, I love DBDC and don't think you guys did anything wrong at all, I think NPO and NpO are garbage allies and that's the point of my posts.

[Galtian Commune]

46 minutes ago, berbers said:

I'll edit my response to 2 falls ago, instead of last fall.

Just to be fair, I love DBDC and don't think you guys did anything wrong at all, I think NPO and NpO are garbage allies and that's the point of my posts.

Understandable, you’re entitled to your opinion. Might i offer some advice?

 

The only way i can see this having worked out for NATO/FTW would be if they had hit DBDC alone. Then maybe we could have had an upper tier battle royal without getting everyone involved. Hitting DS/DW while they were clearly involved elsewhere was poor form, and with them having already been at war for two months, it’s obvious they couldn’t stand up to FTW and NATO’s mid to lower tiers. 
 

Hit just DBDC, we probably would have told our allies to hold off. Instead they hit the smallest of Doom alliances while they were otherwise engaged. 
 

And why? The only reason i can think of is to harp on the whole “doom is separate but also one” thing that that side of the sphere loves to be confused by. Congrats guys, you hit DS/DW in response to a DBDC DoW on the world two years ago. Good job holding DS/DW responsible for our actions. Glad you got your little joke in lol. Hope it was worth it, as now you have to fight oculus and most of RFI instead of just DBDC. 

Edited July 4, 2022 by Galtian Commune

[berbers]

1 minute ago, Galtian Commune said:

Understandable, you’re entitled to your opinion. Might i offer some advice?

 

The only way i can see this having worked out for NATO/FTW would be if they had hit DBDC alone. Then maybe we could have had an upper tier battle royal without getting everyone involved. Hitting DS/DW while they were clearly involved elsewhere was poor form, and with them having already been at war for two months, it’s obvious they couldn’t stand up to FTW and NATO’s mid to lower tiers. 
 

Hit just DBDC, we probably would have told our allies to hold off. Instead they hit the smallest of Doom alliances while they were otherwise engaged. 
 

And why? The only reason i can think of is to harp on the whole “doom is separate but also one” thing that that side of the sphere loves to be confused by. Congrats guys, you hit DS/DW in response to a DBDC DoW on the world. Good job holding DS/DW responsible for our actions. Glad you got your little joke in. Hope it was worth it, as now you have to fight oculus and most of RFI instead of just DBDC. 

 

Yeah I also have no idea why the targets were picked, but assume it has something to do with the web (most things do).  Considering NPO and NpO showing their true colors, I think this worked out for the best, no point being allied to people like that.

 

And just FYI, if this has been a curbstomp vs DOOM, I'd have stayed on the DS AA and fought alongside you all, I just go where the fighting is heaviest

 

[CrinkledStraw]

I don't think anyone thought the Communists were that big of a problem. Sure have heard a lot about them all of a sudden.

[Smitty256]

3 hours ago, Galtian Commune said:

Understandable, you’re entitled to your opinion. Might i offer some advice?

 

The only way i can see this having worked out for NATO/FTW would be if they had hit DBDC alone. Then maybe we could have had an upper tier battle royal without getting everyone involved. Hitting DS/DW while they were clearly involved elsewhere was poor form, and with them having already been at war for two months, it’s obvious they couldn’t stand up to FTW and NATO’s mid to lower tiers. 
 

Hit just DBDC, we probably would have told our allies to hold off. Instead they hit the smallest of Doom alliances while they were otherwise engaged. 
 

And why? The only reason i can think of is to harp on the whole “doom is separate but also one” thing that that side of the sphere loves to be confused by. Congrats guys, you hit DS/DW in response to a DBDC DoW on the world two years ago. Good job holding DS/DW responsible for our actions. Glad you got your little joke in lol. Hope it was worth it, as now you have to fight oculus and most of RFI instead of just DBDC. 

 

What exactly is your point here? We don't care about our pixels. This is WAY more fun!

[HeroofTime55]

15 hours ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

the mightiest of possible bangs

it is, after all, Herogasm, so might as well

[HeroofTime55]

8 hours ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

A Defense pact always takes priority over an aggression pact when aggression or defense are optional and you fired first. Now enjoy the consequences of your actions. If we hadn't upheld the ODP it'd have called into question any other ODP we would have made before or after it. You shouldn't have tested it. It was a strategic miscalculation on your coalition's part. That is how it calculates.

In my eyes it is a good thing. It shows we will uphold our ODPs in the face of OAPS.. to do so otherwise would have called into question their integrity. OAPs require a level of trust in the other party that they will not exploit the OAP against your own defense pact members. Your coalition has violated that trust.

Is this simple logic unsound anywhere?

This might have a slim chance at making sense if you didn't just gloss over the fact that DBDCDSDW declared an open ended war on the world and proceeded to raid various alliances on their whim.  If you want to make legalistic arguments here, you have no ground on which to stand - your ODP partners declared war on your MDoAP partner and you decided to drop the MDoAP partner for responding.

But, we all know this is just e-lawyering and isn't really what's going on. What's really going on is Pacifica doing the things Pacifica has always done, throwing loyal allies under the bus time and time again when they decide they've outlived their usefulness to Pacifica. 

Why anyone, here at the end of the world, still wants to stand beside you, or cower on the sidelines, is beyond me. Some people, I guess, are just so addicted to their spreadsheet numbers that friendships mean nothing to them.

[HeroofTime55]

5 hours ago, firingline said:

 

The DoW was nearly 2 years ago, not 'in the fall'...

 

The snarky reference to the DBDC DoW was a fun way to start this war, but let's not pretend it was actually the reason (or that this war is a legitimate defensive action.) FTW and NATO wanted a war, and this was a cheeky way to start one, and I applaud them for that.

How long ago that war was declared means little. It was declared, it was never concluded, and most importantly, the intervening years have been filled with raids by DBDC upon various alliances, under the guide of this DoW.

A DoW made, clearly, with the assumption that Mommy Pacifica would step in if anyone responded - as we see now.

What is tiring is the effort to pretend this is anything other than what it is, pretending that some minor legal technicality (which doesn't even exist, mind you) is justification for throwing longstanding relationships under the bus.  That just isn't how that plays out, unless there are other unspoken reasons for dropping such treaties at the first whiff of a possible excuse.

[Smitty256]

26 minutes ago, HeroofTime55 said:

15 minutes ago, HeroofTime55 said:

1 minute ago, HeroofTime55 said:

How long ago that war was declared means little. It was declared, it was never concluded, and most importantly, the intervening years have been filled with raids by DBDC upon various alliances, under the guide of this DoW.

A DoW made, clearly, with the assumption that Mommy Pacifica would step in if anyone responded - as we see now.

What is tiring is the effort to pretend this is anything other than what it is, pretending that some minor legal technicality (which doesn't even exist, mind you) is justification for throwing longstanding relationships under the bus.  That just isn't how that plays out, unless there are other unspoken reasons for dropping such treaties at the first whiff of a possible excuse.

This might have a slim chance at making sense if you didn't just gloss over the fact that DBDCDSDW declared an open ended war on the world and proceeded to raid various alliances on their whim.  If you want to make legalistic arguments here, you have no ground on which to stand - your ODP partners declared war on your MDoAP partner and you decided to drop the MDoAP partner for responding.

But, we all know this is just e-lawyering and isn't really what's going on. What's really going on is Pacifica doing the things Pacifica has always done, throwing loyal allies under the bus time and time again when they decide they've outlived their usefulness to Pacifica. 

Why anyone, here at the end of the world, still wants to stand beside you, or cower on the sidelines, is beyond me. Some people, I guess, are just so addicted to their spreadsheet numbers that friendships mean nothing to them.

it is, after all, Herogasm, so might as well

 

Damn you HoT for making me agree with you. I never thought that this day would come. 🤣🤣