Congrats to Sparta

[Ejayrazz]

You were like the second or third alliance to declare, it's not like you were the vanguard going in against impossbile odds.

So that makes us dishonorable? You are entirely incorrect mate. Just because TPF, GGA, Valhalla, etc are getting owned has NOTHING to do with IRON vs. Gremlins in the upper ranks. We aren't expecting to be praised for merely doing what we needed to do, but your accusations are unreasonable. We aren't the ones going all around the forum preaching about how awesome we are, how honorable we are, how we are inherently right because of Prankoism.

As Mogar said, Citadel has done its best. You wish to offend other alliances, go for it, but Gremlins being attacked for illogical reasons is something I find hysterical. I am Grämlins biggest critic, well, besides Ramirus Maximus, I will advocate when Grämlins screw up, but to seriously call us dishonorable? Coming from a former ally?

Eh, doesn't rub off right. You have your opinion, I respect it, but I honeslty believe its a biased opinion rather than an observational view.

[scutterbug]

MHA made an announcement stating that you would simply not honor certain treaties. TOP is among the handful of alliances that have at least made some attempt to try and reconcile their conflicting obligations in a decent way. MHA is among the larger crowd that decided to just give up on that and ignore the obligations you didn't like. MHA is also among the more select group (along with Sparta) that directly benefitted for a long period of time from your relationship and connection with the NPO and with the "hegemony" and have now turned your back them. Yes, they made a mistake, and maybe you disagree with how they've played the game for awhile now, but you benefitted from it, and from their actions, and you cannot simply walk away from them and act as if you've been opposed to them all along. Gramlins left Q months ago, long befor ethere was any assurance that it would play out like this, as did FOK. I have my own disagreements with both of them, but I can at least respect that they moved on when they felt it was time, and didn't continue to enjoy the benefits and privileges of being in that power bloc right up until it collapsed.

NPO turned their back on us first in ignoring our attempts at helping reach a peace agreement, and then declaring the war against our recomendations.

Thanks for getting the facts straight first before posting though .

Regards,

ScutterBug

Minister of Hitchhikers

Edited May 4, 2009 by scutterbug

[Duncan King]

Mogar said, Citadel has done its best. You wish to offend other alliances, go for it, but Gremlins being attacked for illogical reasons is something I find hysterical. I am Grämlins biggest critic, well, besides Ramirus Maximus, I will advocate when Grämlins screw up, but to seriously call us dishonorable? Coming from a former ally?

Eh, doesn't rub off right. You have your opinion, I respect it, but I honeslty believe its a biased opinion rather than an observational view.

Zenith has never been an ally of Gremlins, unless you're talking about ICE. And as to that treaty, we basically left aqua like we were escaping a fire and haven't ever looked back.

And I never claimed to be an unbiased observer. Unlike some, I freely admit that I have an opinion and that that opinion is influenced by where my alliance is geopolitically. Where you stand determines where you sit. The only alliances I'd really trust to be unbiased are GPA and TDO, everyone else has an angle.

/really trying to leave this conversation now...

Edited May 4, 2009 by Duncan King

[Newhotness]

Sparta is definitely gonna pass NPO. By tomorrow i say, the day after at the latest. This war is gonna go on for a bit so im sure they will also get passed by TOP and MHA

[Ejayrazz]

Zenith has never been an ally of Gremlins, unless you're talking about ICE. And as to that treaty, we basically left aqua like we were escaping a fire and haven't ever looked back.

And I never claimed to be an unbiased observer. Unlike some, I freely admit that I have an opinion and that that opinion is influenced by where my alliance is geopolitically. Where you stand determines where you sit. The only alliances I'd really trust to be unbiased are GPA and TDO, everyone else has an angle.

/really trying to leave this conversation now...

Biased observations leads to illogical statements. Reminds me of those guys trying to claim the holocaust never occurred. You can hate us mate, you have that right, but try having more factual evidence. You don't need to, I am sure you do not go out of your way to please me haha, but I still do not see your point. Maybe myself am the one biased as it is my alliance, though I usually tend to remain unbiased for the past 3 years and perhaps its me being illogical, but I am open to any criticism which has valid statements and knowledgeable information, which nothing really has been provided with your assertions against Grämlins.

If anything, Grämlins almost made the mistake of not joining, but we did for logical reasonings. Either way we'd have the other side complaining, but we have fought this war honorably and IRON has been an awesome opponent. I see good things for them in the future.

Don't leave. I'm not done with you yet.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Heft]

NPO turned their back on us first in ignoring our attempts at helping reach a peace agreement, and then declaring the war against our recomendations.

Thanks for getting the facts straight first before posting though .

Regards,

ScutterBug

Minister of Hitchhikers

NPO made mistakes, everyone knows that, and if you think I'm unaware of NPO's problems with communicating with allies, then you're wrong. That's beside the point, and largely irrelevant. I am confident that had MHA made a mistake NPO would have still backed you, just as they, and others, had supported you before. You attached yourselves to them with the most ridiculous treaty this game has ever seen, and then you proceeded to just ignore that, and turn your back on them and all of the influence and power you had gained through your associations with them and with Continuum. NPO making some stupid decisions and bad calls does not magically erase all of that.

[Feanor Noldorin]

Wow, I disagree with you and suddenly I'm stupid. You didn't even bother with the argument, you went right to the insult. I'm sorry if I'm too dense to understand the great intellectual body that is TOP. We may disagree, but that doesn't make either of us stupid.

You referred to my alliance as a bunch of cowards and opportunists so do not expect to receive flowery language from me when speaking to you. Your original post was a categorical statement damning my alliance even though you have no clue what we were thinking at all. This situation was/is not as black and white for us as you are trying to paint.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Feanor Noldorin

[BlackKnight]

Quit being a bunch of party-poopers. This topic was meant to congratulate Sparta, not criticize them for playing the game of Politics decently.

As Somi said earlier, the track record of those up top isn't very spotless, so to criticize Sparta would be baseless.

Congratulations, Sparta, on your new milestone. May your stay up top be a long and prosperous one.

[delgursh]

If anything, Grämlins almost made the mistake of not joining, but we did for logical reasonings. Either way we'd have the other side complaining, but we have fought this war honorably and IRON has been an awesome opponent. I see good things for them in the future.

Don't leave. I'm not done with you yet.

Hey Ejay Its been fun fighting you Grems too. I don't think there is any ill will coming from IRON after this war. Internally, I've seen less talk about the sides and the reasons for war on our forums...and more talk about how excited everyone was to finally get to fight. But having to fight MHA and Gramlins did suck. I like yous guys and a lot of IRONers do as well.

On a different note...theres things I agree with in here from both ends of the spectrum. The point is...this war has a lot of old friends fighting friends. After its over, we all hope to move on and have a time of peace while alliances (like IRON) rebuild and re-evaluate where we stand. This for me at least, is a learning experience that we can use to grow and put ourselves in a better spot in future CN politics.

More importantly and on topic, heres my wholehearted congrats to Sparta on passing us...no one can say they got to the top without some sort of help. Its all part of how the game works. Good luck on keeping it though...when we rebuild, we're gonna shoot up.

If anyone on Karma would ever like to chat with an IRON member (and I think Im a fair enough and unbiased person), say hi on skpe or IRC anytime.

Edited May 4, 2009 by delgursh

[Kevin Cash]

First, if NPO recklessly declared war on all of Citadel for "spying" without warning any of their allies of their intention or motive, and Citadel's allies come running to defend them, Sparta is expected to drop their treaties with our other allies and exclusively protect NPO despite the fact they knowingly put us in danger too?

I'll do you one better. NPO did actively plan to harm our alliance by proxy by planning the demise of OV. They should have known starting a war like that would put us in danger too so they expect us to destroy ourselves defending an ally who doesn't respect us or even keep us in the loop about their military actions? By your "rules" we were then not obligated to defend them. Any way you slice it, you're incorrect about us.

Second, you didn't answer my question about your apparent creation of a new account just to harass us.

answering each paragraph:

1) please show me where npo declared on any element of citadel, i'm a bit confused about this one.

2) what? is this a new game where we throw all logic and fact out the window now? i can't even respond because i have no idea how you are even getting your misinformation.

3) yes i spared you the embarrassment in responding to your ad-hominem attacks by willfully ignoring what is both a logical fallacy and a violation of the forum rules, but apparently you want to make it an issue. why dont you try attacking my points instead of commenting on the age of my account?

the point is, from what i can gather, ov committed acts of aggression against npo by aligning itself with underground groups set out to destroy it. however that fact is irrelevant, unless your treaty had a clause which stated 'its ok to plunge a knife in our back if you think our cb is not watertight.' i dont even know why i am debating with someone who clearly has no idea how the cyberverse works (claiming npo attacked citadel, among other silly remarks), because your type will just pull facts out of the air, you are so convinced of your own lie that youll go to any length to 'prove' it, and youll claim anyone who says otherwise is a 'troll' set out to 'harass' you.

can we get someone who at least knows what hes talking about in here? thanks

[HellAngel]

You were like the second or third alliance to declare, it's not like you were the vanguard going in against impossbile odds.

We were the first ones to declare alongside Fark. Also, we expected a very tough fight since almost all upper rank IRON nations were assigned to Gremlins. We also didnt exactly count on MHA coming in so quickly (o/ härmlins).

Btw: Shoutout to IRON, you guys have been a pleasure to fight. You didnt roll over the slightest but put up a hard fight for every inch of your land. More importantly, you did it without any hard feelings. I hope once this is over we can start anew.

Edited May 4, 2009 by HellAngel

[Matthew Conrad]

answering each paragraph:

1) please show me where npo declared on any element of citadel, i'm a bit confused about this one.

2) what? is this a new game where we throw all logic and fact out the window now? i can't even respond because i have no idea how you are even getting your misinformation.

3) yes i spared you the embarrassment in responding to your ad-hominem attacks by willfully ignoring what is both a logical fallacy and a violation of the forum rules, but apparently you want to make it an issue. why dont you try attacking my points instead of commenting on the age of my account?

the point is, from what i can gather, ov committed acts of aggression against npo by aligning itself with underground groups set out to destroy it. however that fact is irrelevant, unless your treaty had a clause which stated 'its ok to plunge a knife in our back if you think our cb is not watertight.' i dont even know why i am debating with someone who clearly has no idea how the cyberverse works (claiming npo attacked citadel, among other silly remarks), because your type will just pull facts out of the air, you are so convinced of your own lie that youll go to any length to 'prove' it, and youll claim anyone who says otherwise is a 'troll' set out to 'harass' you.

can we get someone who at least knows what hes talking about in here? thanks

1. I heard there exists such things in a far away land called hypothetical examples. Notice I never said it actually happened. The word "if" does have a purpose in the English language you know.

2. Your second point is quite undecipherable as I have no idea what "misinformation" you're talking about.

3. The age of your account and breadth of knowledge of current and underlying events as a combination is entirely uncommon, thus posing a conundrum as to why someone like that exists and isn't a multi. All your posts are aimed at attacking Sparta in only this thread, so it very much is on point because you would be a coward (by posting on another account), thus a hypocrite according to your own previous statements.

4. Your understanding of this world in certain aspects astounds me to no end. Nothing I have said is a lie or fabrication. All the facts I've stated are verified and true; you can even search the forums for them if you don't believe me. So you're saying NPO is allowed to preemptively strike anyone they choose if they are deemed a threat; even if they have no proof? No one asked NPO for a completely water-tight CB. We only asked for a half valid one. Maybe you should read some more

[Bob Janova]

I suppose the fact that the alliances currently arrayed against the NPO and her allies are the same ones that were proposed somewhat famously as an anti-NPO force something like six months ago is just a coincidence then?

My dear Bob, I don't believe in coincidences.

Of course it's not a coincidence; any group of friends that isn't directly tied to the hegemony is painted with the 'anti-Order' brush, but there was a group of friends (Superfriends and some between SF and Citadel) that was more divorced from the hegemony six months ago than most others. It's no surprise that the hegemony tried to kill off that group and therefore no coincidence that that group ended up defending against NPO aggression. That still doesn't mean that they planned a war, which they didn't.

E: And yes, IRON have been fairly strong and very fair opponents. It is a shame that politics threw us against each other and didn't let us hit anyone we actually dislike. And, calling us cowards is simply stupid when we charged head first into probably the toughest enemy that Karma has. A cowardly alliance would have hoarded its pixels and let its friends die. I find it particularly ironic coming from the head of an alliance which surrendered.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Bob Janova

[Kevin Cash]

3. The age of your account and breadth of knowledge of current and underlying events as a combination is entirely uncommon, thus posing a conundrum as to why someone like that exists and isn't a multi. All your posts are aimed at attacking Sparta in only this thread, so it very much is on point because you would be a coward (by posting on another account), thus a hypocrite according to your own previous statements.

4. Your understanding of this world in certain aspects astounds me to no end. Nothing I have said is a lie or fabrication. All the facts I've stated are verified and true; you can even search the forums for them if you don't believe me. So you're saying NPO is allowed to preemptively strike anyone they choose if they are deemed a threat; even if they have no proof? No one asked NPO for a completely water-tight CB. We only asked for a half valid one. Maybe you should read some more

perhaps i am a reroll of a long-time player? perhaps i have been observing the boards before joining? there are many possibilities, and all of them are entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, this is the exact definition of an ad-hominem attack, and id like if you would quit your backseat moderating and accusing me of breaking rules. i aim to debate, and id rather not be accused of silly things like 'trolling' and 'harassment,' and even 'being a multi' when i bring up facts that you dont like to admit. this is not what the debate is about, it is irrelevant, a logical fallacy, and a rules violation though i will not be so petty as to report it

as for the topic at hand, since your entire post brought nothing new to the table, and indeed nothing old beyond the ad-hominem attacks, i will reiterate my points, hopefully you can actually respond to them

sparta did indeed have a right to ignore the aggression clause of their treaty with npo due to the fact that npo, as silly and trivial as the mistake was, did not inform them of the war (probably because they knew you would betray them but that is another debate). however, the defense clause of a treaty is something separate (you can even see its usually given a separate section in the treaty itself). due to the nature of defensive wars, it is generally impossible to predict exactly when an alliance is going to be attacked and so it is accepted that the alliance who is attacked doesnt need to share information they do not have access to. instead of honoring your treaty when npo was attacked, you ignored your obligations (even though the cancellation clause had not yet expired), and when it finally did expire, now having failed to honor your word and defend npo, you decided to attack them instead. no amount of e-lawyering in this pathetic little show you are putting on can change that fact. at most, and this is stretching it considerably, you would have been justified to declare neutrality. instead, you decided to backstab the alliance you had given your word you would defend. try as you might you will never be able to justify this act of incredible treachery, and i sincerely hope history remembers you and your alliance for who they are, for you are among the lowest scum in this game, even lower than the cowards that populate much of this game.

why did you do it? well to me that is obvious, and deny as you might it is clear you wanted to be the top dog in cn... which brings the debate to a full circle back to the op. perhaps thats a stretch, but it is obvious that you at least did not want want to lose your precious 'pixels,' though i dislike using that term as the numbers this game involves are even less significant than any graphical element. you sacrificed honor so that the values in your data structures would not decrease. thats really sad

[Matthew Conrad]

perhaps i am a reroll of a long-time player? perhaps i have been observing the boards before joining? there are many possibilities, and all of them are entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, this is the exact definition of an ad-hominem attack, and id like if you would quit your backseat moderating and accusing me of breaking rules. i aim to debate, and id rather not be accused of silly things like 'trolling' and 'harassment,' and even 'being a multi' when i bring up facts that you dont like to admit. this is not what the debate is about, it is irrelevant, a logical fallacy, and a rules violation though i will not be so petty as to report it

as for the topic at hand, since your entire post brought nothing new to the table, and indeed nothing old beyond the ad-hominem attacks, i will reiterate my points, hopefully you can actually respond to them

sparta did indeed have a right to ignore the aggression clause of their treaty with npo due to the fact that npo, as silly and trivial as the mistake was, did not inform them of the war (probably because they knew you would betray them but that is another debate). however, the defense clause of a treaty is something separate (you can even see its usually given a separate section in the treaty itself). due to the nature of defensive wars, it is generally impossible to predict exactly when an alliance is going to be attacked and so it is accepted that the alliance who is attacked doesnt need to share information they do not have access to. instead of honoring your treaty when npo was attacked, you ignored your obligations (even though the cancellation clause had not yet expired), and when it finally did expire, now having failed to honor your word and defend npo, you decided to attack them instead. no amount of e-lawyering in this pathetic little show you are putting on can change that fact. at most, and this is stretching it considerably, you would have been justified to declare neutrality. instead, you decided to backstab the alliance you had given your word you would defend. try as you might you will never be able to justify this act of incredible treachery, and i sincerely hope history remembers you and your alliance for who they are, for you are among the lowest scum in this game, even lower than the cowards that populate much of this game.

why did you do it? well to me that is obvious, and deny as you might it is clear you wanted to be the top dog in cn... which brings the debate to a full circle back to the op. perhaps thats a stretch, but it is obvious that you at least did not want want to lose your precious 'pixels,' though i dislike using that term as the numbers this game involves are even less significant than any graphical element. you sacrificed honor so that the values in your data structures would not decrease. thats really sad

You speak of logical fallacy? You are completely ignoring the fact that I've addressed every single one of your points in my last post. You haven't answered my point about you attacking me for posting lies. Why is that? Too afraid to admit you were wrong? It seems to me that you're the one not bringing anything new to the table as all I see here is an entirely too long paragraph saying what you've said before, and to which I've already responded to.

I'm breaking rules by pointing out the obvious? I didn't say you were any of those things. I said "it wouldn't be too far a stretch." Once again, try to understand my posts instead of simply increasing your word count.

Finally, you call me a coward and pixel hugger. I'm the one sharing my ideas while putting my nation on the line. When you put yours on the line or at least one of any size, you can speak to me about being a coward.

[Andrewbw]

perhaps i am a reroll of a long-time player? perhaps i have been observing the boards before joining? there are many possibilities, and all of them are entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, this is the exact definition of an ad-hominem attack, and id like if you would quit your backseat moderating and accusing me of breaking rules. i aim to debate, and id rather not be accused of silly things like 'trolling' and 'harassment,' and even 'being a multi' when i bring up facts that you dont like to admit. this is not what the debate is about, it is irrelevant, a logical fallacy, and a rules violation though i will not be so petty as to report it

I lol'd

as for the topic at hand, since your entire post brought nothing new to the table, and indeed nothing old beyond the ad-hominem attacks, i will reiterate my points, hopefully you can actually respond to them

Nice flame bait.

sparta did indeed have a right to ignore the aggression clause of their treaty

It was an MDP (Mutual Defense Pact). No A or oA there.

instead, you decided to backstab the alliance you had given your word you would defend. try as you might you will never be able to justify this act of incredible treachery, and i sincerely hope history remembers you and your alliance for who they are, for you are among the lowest scum in this game, even lower than the cowards that populate much of this game.

But this isn't Ad Hominem right?

Disclaimer: I'm not going to address anything you said in your post because it's not my argument to fight. Just wanted to point just some teeny itty bitty points that I saw being contradictory or incorrect. And anything else was just my personal reaction to what you said. Take it for what you will

[Haflinger]

Heh.

Ejay and Bob, I'm going to assume for the moment that you're both being honest and you missed that logdump. For various reasons, I can't post it here, but feel free to contact me directly and I'll provide it to you.

The source of the information was not anyone who you would associate with the New Pacific Order. To put it mildly.

[Oktavia]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a mass exodus of NPO members after this war is concluded. They'll probably drop by 100 players. Seems to be a common trend.

[Kevin Cash]

neither of you who responded (from sparta) have yet in all of these posts to address the 'meat' of my post, the fact that you turned around and backstabbed those you swore to protect. this little dance that people buy for those who simply ignored their obligations doesnt work for them and it most certainly will not work for you. and the ad-hominems and backseat moderating, which you continue to do even now, is the only point you seem to focus on, i wonder why, is it that you cant actually refute my points?

and even if i did have this imaginary multi you accuse me of, are you going to attack me simply for the expression of words that i make? i was under the impression that you guys were for 'change' and all that jazz. funny how you ignore things at your own convenience.

anyway, not to stray off-topic and into a derail in clear violation of the rules, i will reiterate my point: you turned around and backstabbed those you swore to protect. this is the main point i am trying to get across and you have yet to attack this point directly instead opting to quite literally dance around the issue in an assortment of ways.

[Bob Janova]

Well, I am interested in these logs, but as a government member of Grämlins both when we left Continuum and for most of the time up to now, I know we weren't planning anything

Also I think this is off topic now

[Andrewbw]

neither of you who responded (from sparta) have yet in all of these posts to address the 'meat' of my post, the fact that you turned around and backstabbed those you swore to protect. this little dance that people buy for those who simply ignored their obligations doesnt work for them and it most certainly will not work for you. and the ad-hominems and backseat moderating, which you continue to do even now, is the only point you seem to focus on, i wonder why, is it that you cant actually refute my points?

and even if i did have this imaginary multi you accuse me of, are you going to attack me simply for the expression of words that i make? i was under the impression that you guys were for 'change' and all that jazz. funny how you ignore things at your own convenience.

anyway, not to stray off-topic and into a derail in clear violation of the rules, i will reiterate my point: you turned around and backstabbed those you swore to protect. this is the main point i am trying to get across and you have yet to attack this point directly instead opting to quite literally dance around the issue in an assortment of ways.

Disclaimer: I'm not going to address anything you said in your post because it's not my argument to fight. Just wanted to point just some teeny itty bitty points that I saw being contradictory or incorrect. And anything else was just my personal reaction to what you said. Take it for what you will

I think that explains things a bit for you.

But, I'll go ahead and address something:

You went off-topic and derailed this thread as soon as you brought up your theory of, "You're backstabbers and cowards" etc. etc when the OP was:

Congrats to Sparta, they just surpassed IRON for 2nd place in the alliance rankings rolleyes.gif Big question is will they surpass the NPO also which is losing ground daily? Should be interesting to see how the rankings will change in the next week or so popcorn.gif

Edited May 4, 2009 by Andrewbw

[Kevin Cash]

I think that explains things a bit for you.

But, I'll go ahead and address something:

You went off-topic and derailed this thread as soon as you brought up your theory of, "You're backstabbers and cowards" etc. etc when the OP was:

except it has been my claim that you backstabbed those you swore to protect in order to protect your database values and, consequentially, become 'number one'

continue to dance around the facts though, its really the only thing you can do at this point.

[Andrewbw]

You're so awesome. Really, you are.

I'm not disputing anything you're saying, because I'd be beating a dead horse. If you want rebuttal to your arguments or explanation, see George The great's post, as well as any other post relating to this topic that we've made throughout the forums.

I don't see the logic in arguing until I turn blue

Edited May 4, 2009 by Andrewbw

[Kevin Cash]

You're so awesome. Really, you are.

I'm not disputing anything you're saying, because I'd be beating a dead horse. If you want rebuttal to your arguments or explanation, see George The great's post, as well as any other post relating to this topic that we've made throughout the forums.

I don't see the logic in arguing until I turn blue

except all ive ever seen from sparta is dodging the issue that you backstabbed the people you swore to protect, telling me to look elsewhere, saying im wrong without backing it up, performing ad-hominem attacks, ignoring main points while selectively responding to minor points, taking things out of context, etc. all i want is a consistent response as to why sparta feels it is acceptable to backstab people they swear to protect

[Wabooz]

1. What business is it of yours?

2. Why do they owe you a response?

You sound like a jilted lover or something..

Edit: oops, clicked this subject to say congrats...so Congrats Sparta

Edited May 4, 2009 by Wabooz