TORN Q&A

[NeCoHo]

Does TORN still accept the word of their enemies as truth instead of checking with their allies who are supporting their bid for war?

Considering we have a treaty with MK I wouldn't call them our enemy.

Edited July 12, 2009 by NeCoHo

[Cortath]

Considering we have a treaty with MK I wouldn't call them our enemy.

We had treaty with them too! That's almost as if we have a treaty, right?

Edited July 12, 2009 by Cortath

[enderland]

We had treaty with them too! That's almost as if we have a treaty, right?

I think the circumstances which the two treaties were signed under had a bit of a different significance.

[TrotskysRevenge]

We were close with TPF and NPO for quite a long time. The relationships we held with them began deteriorating long before the war. Unfortunately, these things happen, and we must look to the future. Quite simply, we wish them the best of luck.

They were deteriorating so much that bigwoody, mhawk and I were on Skype up to the very night the war started trying to support bigwoody's thirst for war. You do know that this started as bigwoody's war, right; that if this war didn't happen he would be couped? Or did he neglect to tell you that? I don't suppose he told you he was played by Archon and others the night the war started, and that the alleged "betrayal" and "treachery" of the NPO didn't happen, that he believed his enemies over his allies. I don't suppose he told you that mhawk told him the same thing, the same thing that Archon also has said.

Nothing like revising history.

Edited July 12, 2009 by TrotskysRevenge

[dwthegreat]

They were deteriorating so much that bigwoody, mhawk and I were on Skype up to the very night the war started trying to support bigwoody's thirst for war. You do know that this started as bigwoody's war, right; that if this war didn't happen he would be couped? Or did he neglect to tell you that? I don't suppose he told you he was played by Archon and others the night the war started, and that the alleged "betrayal" and "treachery" of the NPO didn't happen, that he believed his enemies over his allies. I don't suppose he told you that mhawk told him the same thing, the same thing that Archon also has said.

Nothing like revising history.

Yeah, I also remember them canceling on LoSS and a few other allies. What would give you the notion to cancel on your allies that went to the other side if your relationship was dwindling away from the side you were attacking with?

On a side note

What do you think of me now, almost a year after the BAM! incident?

dw

[bigwoody]

They were deteriorating so much that bigwoody, mhawk and I were on Skype up to the very night the war started trying to support bigwoody's thirst for war. You do know that this started as bigwoody's war, right; that if this war didn't happen he would be couped? Or did he neglect to tell you that? I don't suppose he told you he was played by Archon and others the night the war started, and that the alleged "betrayal" and "treachery" of the NPO didn't happen, that he believed his enemies over his allies. I don't suppose he told you that mhawk told him the same thing, the same thing that Archon also has said.

Nothing like revising history.

Well given that you first, and later mhawk came to me with evidence that, as mhawk put it, was a "rock solid CB" and demonstrated possible acts of war against my alliance, yes I was up for taking action. But calling it "bigwoody's war" is a pretty significant revision in and of itself, especially as I was openly shouted down when I stated a desire to keep any resulting war isolated due to allies of mine likely to fall on the other side.

As far as the oft repeated claim that Archon manipulated the situation to make the appearance of something that was not there for a tactical benefit, everyone has said it, no one has offered proof. I'll trust Archon until I have a good reason not to, one that has not yet appeared.

[Archon]

And to back up bigwoody, to the best of my knowledge I've never made any claim of purposely playing bigwoody. I was talking to bigwoody on a daily basis, as close MDoAP allied gov does, and when I received 3 lines of query from Moo-Cows implying a ceasefire, I sent it to bigwoody to confirm. What happened from there was not premeditated, but is indeed history.

I'm sure there can probably found logs of me implying otherwise, be them out of context or me poorly choosing words, but what I have said above is truth. While I'd love to claim it was Machiavellian genius, it really wasn't anything more than what I have said.

[TrotskysRevenge]

Well given that you first, and later mhawk came to me with evidence that, as mhawk put it, was a "rock solid CB" and demonstrated possible acts of war against my alliance, yes I was up for taking action. But calling it "bigwoody's war" is a pretty significant revision in and of itself, especially as I was openly shouted down when I stated a desire to keep any resulting war isolated due to allies of mine likely to fall on the other side.

As far as the oft repeated claim that Archon manipulated the situation to make the appearance of something that was not there for a tactical benefit, everyone has said it, no one has offered proof. I'll trust Archon until I have a good reason not to, one that has not yet appeared.

Openly shouted down? In what universe do you reside? You had list after list of possible "sides;" you and mhawk both had different scenarios of how this could play out. I guess the lack of honor you showed your longtime allies has not become a pathological habit of lying. But don't you dare say you were not pushing for war for weeks before this happened; it was not mhawk's doing and you know it. You were the one who was saying over and over how you would be couped if this war didn't happen, that your alliance would have your a**, etc. if this war didn't happen. You messed up badly, bigwoody, and you know it. Trying to backpedal only makes you look more pathetic than you already are.

As far as Archon, I am going on what I have been told. If that is wrong, then I apologize.

Edited July 12, 2009 by TrotskysRevenge

[TrotskysRevenge]

And to back up bigwoody, to the best of my knowledge I've never made any claim of purposely playing bigwoody. I was talking to bigwoody on a daily basis, as close MDoAP allied gov does, and when I received 3 lines of query from Moo-Cows implying a ceasefire, I sent it to bigwoody to confirm. What happened from there was not premeditated, but is indeed history.

I'm sure there can probably found logs of me implying otherwise, be them out of context or me poorly choosing words, but what I have said above is truth. While I'd love to claim it was Machiavellian genius, it really wasn't anything more than what I have said.

As I said, I am going on what I have been told; if it was not the case, then I apologize. It is an interesting piece that your query beat mine to bigwoody, and that he chose to read yours first. We'll never know what would have happened if that had been different, but sometimes it is fun to speculate.

[bigwoody]

Openly shouted down? In what universe do you reside? You had list after list of possible "sides;" you and mhawk both had different scenarios of how this could play out. I guess the lack of honor you showed your longtime allies has not become a pathological habit of lying. But don't you dare say you were not pushing for war for weeks before this happened; it was not mhawk's doing and you know it. You messed up badly, bigwoody, and you know it. Trying to backpedal only makes you look more pathetic than you already are.

As far as Archon, I am going on what I have been told. If that is wrong, then I apologize.

That event did, in fact, happen. And while everyone in the entire game wanted a war, myself included, trying to say that everything is my doing is pretty funny, and you know full well you're glossing over quite a bit in doing so. I was involved. I never claimed otherwise. Yelling that loudly over and over again as if I'm denying I had a role is quite bizarre.

I agree that I messed up though...things should have gone down far differently than they did. Believe me that I've looked upon a lot of what I did, what I agreed to, and what I didn't agree to, on many fronts, and facepalmed at myself. Probably not in the way you're thinking though.

EDIT: In short, the blame you're trying to pin on us already exists and we haven't ever hidden from it. Which makes you trying to put everyone's role on it solely upon me look pretty weak in and of itself.

Edited July 12, 2009 by bigwoody

[Archon]

As I said, I am going on what I have been told; if it was not the case, then I apologize. It is an interesting piece that your query beat mine to bigwoody, and that he chose to read yours first. We'll never know what would have happened if that had been different, but sometimes it is fun to speculate.

No need to apologize - I just wanted to bring clarity to the conversation and pre-emptively address anything that might yet come up.

[Penguin]

I agree that I messed up though...things should have gone down far differently than they did. Believe me that I've looked upon a lot of what I did, what I agreed to, and what I didn't agree to, on many fronts, and facepalmed at myself. Probably not in the way you're thinking though.

I notice a lot of "we did the best we could with the information at hand" sentiment. I would be interested in hearing what, in full hindsight, you would have done differently in the lead up to the Karma War. Any chance we can delve a bit further into the more delicate topics in this Q&A?

Edited July 12, 2009 by Penguin

[Wes Walz Pants]

Yeah, I also remember them canceling on LoSS and a few other allies. What would give you the notion to cancel on your allies that went to the other side if your relationship was dwindling away from the side you were attacking with?

On a side note

What do you think of me now, almost a year after the BAM! incident?

dw

Part 1: If I'm not mistaken the TORN drop of LoSS came after you guys vacated the majority of your own treaties. As for the rest of the treaties you suggest TORN dropped I'm not quite sure what the hell you're talking about.

As for Part 2 I'd have to say there's not much difference IMO.

[dwthegreat]

Part 1: If I'm not mistaken the TORN drop of LoSS came after you guys vacated the majority of your own treaties. As for the rest of the treaties you suggest TORN dropped I'm not quite sure what the hell you're talking about.

As for Part 2 I'd have to say there's not much difference IMO.

For one I am not apart of LoSS, nor was I at the time LoSS dropped their treaties.... and they know how I feel about it ( You can look at the treaties of BTO)

Now to the second thing, You don't know what treaties were dropped? I mean seriously do you not remember VE and OV?

[Alterego]

Do you think the nature of the withdrawal of your founders from the Unjust War meant the latest withdrawal was unavoidable and abandoning your allies at the beginning of unwinnable wars is ingrained in the psyche of TORN as a result?

[Frocony]

What made you so sure that you should trust your allies at MK, who you were allied for five months at the time, over TPF and NPO, who you were allied to for a year and a half and a year respectively?

[Wes Walz Pants]

For one I am not apart of LoSS, nor was I at the time LoSS dropped their treaties.... and they know how I feel about it ( You can look at the treaties of BTO)

Now to the second thing, You don't know what treaties were dropped? I mean seriously do you not remember VE and OV?

VE and OV treaties were dropped for good reasons dw and I admit that I forgot about them as so. I suspected you were referring the the number of treaties that were dropped on and not by TORN.

As for what alliance you are with, who can really keep track.

[dwthegreat]

As for what alliance you are with, who can really keep track.

Do you know what you are talking about? LOL

I have been in two alliances since September, LoSS and BTO.

[Chalaskan]

Why are you copying Athens in posting a Q&A?

Who actually posted the first original Q&A?

What do you think of the "other" order? Ya know the one that is a paradox?

[Rach86]

Who actually posted the first original Q&A?

What do you think of the "other" order? Ya know the one that is a paradox?

Brothers on Orange. B)

We think TOP is an impressive alliance in both stats and diplomacy, but what were you thinking when you let that Crymson guy in?

Edited July 13, 2009 by Rach86

[Lord Boris]

A while before the war a thread was posted on these boards in which FOK war propaganda against IRON and TORN amongst others was leaked.

Given the evident dislike that exists within different parts of Orange, where does TORN see the future of the Orange Unity Treaty, if a future is even possible?

Edited July 13, 2009 by Lord Boris

[Cortath]

We had treaty with them too! That's almost as if we have a treaty, right?

I notice a lot of "we did the best we could with the information at hand" sentiment. I would be interested in hearing what, in full hindsight, you would have done differently in the lead up to the Karma War. Any chance we can delve a bit further into the more delicate topics in this Q&A?

I am interested in hearing the answers to these.

[bigwoody]

I am interested in hearing the answers to these.

The first one is not a question.

As far as the latter goes, knowing what I know now, I would have pressed to have the CB not acted on. The why and what that would have probably lead too is a bit long winded for a Q&A answer, but perhaps sometime I'll get it down on paper (a la Delta1212).

[Rach86]

A while before the war a thread was posted on these boards in which FOK war propaganda against IRON and TORN amongst others was leaked.

Given the evident dislike that exists within different parts of Orange, where does TORN see the future of the Orange Unity Treaty, if a future is even possible?

The Orange sphere has always been home to alliances with varying political ideas and visions. It has always been the case that we have put aside our political differences in an effort to work together for the betterment of Orange as a whole. The future of OUT depends on this continued willingness, and the particular situation you point to has not changed that fact.

[bigwoody]

To add to this, there has never been a major world war with all of orange united on a single side. There likely never will be.

I feel Orange succeeds because we don't base Orange Unity on aligned political views...that is NEVER sustainable in the long term. Orange has a gentleman's agreement that encompasses what a successful sphere needs.

-We do not drive people off the color.

-We do not attack each other.

That is not rocket science, and its worked for a damn long time. OUT has survived multiple incredibly divisive wars...that should say something.

EDIT: Sure, animosity exists. I have been the target of a chunk of it, to boot. It is because of OUT not being a political tool that it survives.

Edited July 14, 2009 by bigwoody