enderland Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 I still LOL at the "We thought we were going to get stomped." which has now slowly turned into "We thought sides were going to be equal." claims by certain portions of Karma. The bolded portion of Grub's OP below pretty much shows this. TPF had a similar matchup list which is why we were on high alert for fighting a one sided war with us not on the good side for months leading up to this. Well we didn't have the luxury of knowing that NPO would be making poor political mistake after another, followed by them and all their allies having essentially no military plan at all other than "come get us plz!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) How about Option 3 - utilize moderation instead of brute force as the only tool in the box? We did that, which was our mistake. Had we not, at the 11th hour, requested a lighter sentence we wouldn't have 'attacked in the middle of negotiations' as you are so VERY fond of saying. Negotiations were over, making a last ditch counteroffer is not the same as restarting negotiations. Edited July 7, 2009 by James Dahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 How is that different from option 1? Option 1 - "you violated our sovereignty, time to war you now or you give into our demands" Option 3 - "this causes us distress, any chance you can help rectify the situation in a mutually agreeable way" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 We did that, which was our mistake.Had we not, at the 11th hour, requested a lighter sentence we wouldn't have 'attacked in the middle of negotiations' as you are so VERY fond of saying. Negotiations were over, making a last ditch counteroffer is not the same as restarting negotiations. So it's ok to attack in the middle of a "counteroffer?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) Option 1 - "you violated our sovereignty, time to war you now or you give into our demands"Option 3 - "this causes us distress, any chance you can help rectify the situation in a mutually agreeable way" Response: LOL NPO, you suck. Edited July 7, 2009 by James Dahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) So it's ok to attack in the middle of a "counteroffer?" define 'middle'. According to you, if I make a final counteroffer and you say 'no', are we still in negotiations? Edited July 7, 2009 by James Dahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 You're hypocrites. Not the boogeyman. I dont think anyones actually intimidated by you enough to consider Sparta anything except as Hypocrites and opportunists. I'm glad to see you've resorted to beating your chest as ES is so fond of saying. It's brave to play the opportunist card considering the convenient timing of this decree. Why didn't you immediately post a decree against the formation of Karma since we're all such back-stabbing hypocrites? Very convenient timing... I don't recall Sparta claiming the moral high ground, I think you're doing that. You cast stones from the sidelines. And just to clarify, I am not criticizing your neutrality, I am criticizing your willingness to suddenly get involved by publically slandering other alliances. You could have gotten involved diplomatically even but instead you opted to grand-stand. If anyone is making a play for the moral high ground, it is this decree. I have not responded to much of what we have already been beating to death over the past while. I'm sick of the "no, you!"s and I feel like I am paddling in circles and you are my oar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 You too, I see, drank the kool aid to get a chance to score points with your buddies in the back ground. Of course I know you well enough to know how you like to ignore inconvenient evidence and jump straight to fantastic conclusions.EDIT: spelling Evidence?If Sparta/TOP/etc have provided any evidence to rebut Grub's OP, I frankly must have missed it. I also don't recall any conclusions Ive jumped straight to in the face of such unseen evidence. Although, to be fair, it's not Kool-Aid, its Hawaiian Punch. I can see why you wouldnt be able to tell the difference, but thats not really important right now. Besides, Im sure someone like you can do more to refute my posts than a simple "snip" and dismissal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) Well we didn't have the luxury of knowing that NPO would be making poor political mistake after another, followed by them and all their allies having essentially no military plan at all other than "come get us plz!" I did some scenario analysis when I first joined NPO for kicks, and we were always going to get rolled. It was going to be a closer matchup and less of a curbstomp originally, but we were always going to lose. The only way we would have won is if your side attacked ours, since the MDP web favors the defender. Edited July 7, 2009 by James Dahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 You too, I see, drank the kool aid to get a chance to score points with your buddies in the back ground. Of course I know you well enough to know how you like to ignore inconvenient evidence and jump straight to fantastic conclusions.EDIT: spelling What evidence was given? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) I did some scenario analysis when I first joined NPO for kicks, and we were always going to get rolled. It was going to be a closer matchup and less of a curbstomp originally, but we were always going to lose. Did you run it by your super-computer before you rode off to a millionaire party in your bat mobile... ? I did some scenario analysis when I first joined NPO for kicks, and we were always going to get rolled. That is an amazing statement and I hope Planet Bob will not let it pass easily into obscurity. EDIT: I like that we are being asked to prove a negative now in the name of logic and truth. Genius. NSO et all: "Prove you weren't plotting to roll NPO!" Sparta: "We can't prove that, you prove that we were..." NSO et all: "You see! They don't even deny it!" Edited July 7, 2009 by Drostan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 That is an amazing statement and I hope Planet Bob will not let it pass easily into obscurity. It will, sadly. It becomes rather difficult to distinguish any one thing from the torrent of amazing statements that flow whenever he steps up to the plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Response: LOL NPO, you suck. Heh, I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too. I forget that NPO is filled with people to proud to allow themselves anything other than exactly what they want and have built that image up greatly define 'middle'.According to you, if I make a final counteroffer and you say 'no', are we still in negotiations? That final counteroffer took place the day before, yet NPO still was talking to OV/VE about the situation and a possible resolution when the war happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) Did you run it by your super-computer before you rode off to a millionaire party in your bat mobile... ? That is an amazing statement and I hope Planet Bob will not let it pass easily into obscurity. You don't need a supercomputer to figure out who will side with who if war breaks out. 1) Sparta was always going to side with anyone in NOIR before they sided with us, meaning their alliance with us basically didn't count except in extraordinary circumstances. 2) Our MDoAPs with various Superfriends nations also basically were meaningless in any matchup where SF gets involved. 3) Gramlins and FOK!, along with the League of Extraordinary Oranges and all their associated treaty partners would enter the war on the other side. 4) TOP will always side with Citadel over us Edited July 7, 2009 by James Dahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 I'm glad to see you've resorted to beating your chest as ES is so fond of saying. It's brave to play the opportunist card considering the convenient timing of this decree. Why didn't you immediately post a decree against the formation of Karma since we're all such back-stabbing hypocrites? Very convenient timing... Im not Grub...And to be fair, I have been calling out hypocrisy when I see it.[ooc]I kind of made a thread in the OOC portion of the OWF actually using one person as an example...Protip: If you're going to accuse someone of holding their tongue about calling folks out until the timing is convenient, dont direct it at me. Half the people in this thread had something to say about that particular "decree" of mine. [/ooc] And the timing of this post apparently lines up with some anniversary of the Polars. Frankly ive lost track due to my returning to this world only two months ago. I don't recall Sparta claiming the moral high ground, I think you're doing that. You cast stones from the sidelines. And just to clarify, I am not criticizing your neutrality, I am criticizing your willingness to suddenly get involved by publically slandering other alliances. You could have gotten involved diplomatically even but instead you opted to grand-stand. If anyone is making a play for the moral high ground, it is this decree. Im not a Diplomat. Im actually a part of the NSO's media staff, which is considered Internal Affairs. I dont see why you're addressing that comment at me.I have not responded to much of what we have already been beating to death over the past while. I'm sick of the "no, you!"s and I feel like I am paddling in circles and you are my oar. From my perspective, the position is reversed...And you're not an oar, but a paddle. And you're being used to haze George the Great, which I frankly feel is a far more accurate image to describe whats going on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 You don't need a supercomputer to figure out who will side with who if war breaks out.1) Sparta was always going to side with anyone in NOIR before they sided with us, meaning their alliance with us basically didn't count except in extraordinary circumstances. 2) Our MDoAPs with various Superfriends nations also basically were meaningless in any matchup where SF gets involved. 3) Gramlins and FOK!, along with the League of Extraordinary Oranges and all their associated treaty partners would enter the war on the other side. 4) TOP will always side with Citadel over us And yet, you didn't try to improve your relations with any of these guys but opted instead to declare war? It's good to know that NPO makes no attempt to better relations with its allies when it sees they're flagging. Why'd you bother keeping these allies if they were all so bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Heh, I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too. I forget that NPO is filled with people to proud to allow themselves anything other than exactly what they want and have built that image up greatly That final counteroffer took place the day before, yet NPO still was talking to OV/VE about the situation and a possible resolution when the war happened. No, the final counteroffer was a single round of war for sethb. I don't think any logs have been posted of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 And yet, you didn't try to improve your relations with any of these guys but opted instead to declare war? It's good to know that NPO makes no attempt to better relations with its allies when it sees they're flagging. Why'd you bother keeping these allies if they were all so bad? It takes 2 to tango, Spartan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 It takes 2 to tango, Spartan. Apparently not when we're plotting the end of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) A defensive war is a war. If alliances such as Sparta had reason to believe that NPO planned on attacking their allies and reason enough to join defensive war plans, then maybe Sparta should have cut their ties to those they were planning against first. We did. We cut our ties with everyone on the Hegemony side except IRON and NPO just in case they hit our allies. We even canceled on TORN, who was one of the only alliances in Hegemony that Sparta still really liked, because they were the ones who were going to hit OV. It saddened us a lot, but GOD came before all of them. I, personally, made small emergency target lists for about 3 or 4 different situations if everything went crazy before the war kicked off....which it did. We weren't planning on attacking NPO given that we promised to keep our treaty with them. If they just informed us that they were going to attack OV, or at least kept us in the loop, we would have had no reason to cancel on them, and we would not have declared war on NPO. We would have just waited in reserve and taken out somebody in the second wave like my other lists had planned. However, not informing us of what they were going to be dragging us into made our treaty feel more like a meat shield, than any attempt to save a relationship. That was the last straw - that was why we were comfortable with attacking them after the expiration. They took what little was left of our relationship and stomped on it repeatedly with every war declared on OV. In regards to someone saying earlier that my statements contradict those of George (iirc he said we had "been on the Karma side months before the war even happened"), he was not saying that we were planning a war with Karma for months. What he meant was that after some events occurred in the early part of the year, primarily the Valhalla incident, we started to side ideologically with the alliances that would make up Karma (nobody knew of what would happen in the future. We just all knew that we shared common opinions). When he said we had been with Karma for months, it was purely ideologically, nothing else. We did not plan to take anyone out, we merely expressed hopes for what we would like to see the in the world one day (No EZI, No super harsh terms, etc...). Only when the Heg alliances planned to hit OV did we call that the last straw and switch over to whatever the other side was at that time. Edited July 7, 2009 by Hyperion321 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 I did some scenario analysis when I first joined NPO for kicks, and we were always going to get rolled. It was going to be a closer matchup and less of a curbstomp originally, but we were always going to lose.The only way we would have won is if your side attacked ours, since the MDP web favors the defender. Wait you knew this and still started the war in the manner you did!? Somehow I do not think this is how it went down in NPO - "Hey we think we are going to lose this war." "Why start it then?" "Well we're going to lose." "We do not have to start it then." "Well we actually have to start the war because we're bad $@! like that." "...." "While we're at it, let's see how many ways we can mess it up." "like what?" "Well, first let's see how many alliances we can get to join the other side by attacking in negotiations. I bet we can get almost all those on the fence to do so." "Are you trying to lose?" "Why not? I mean we have to start this war we are going to lose, might as well screw it up royally. We can always try to backstab some of our allies after starting the war too." etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 What evidence was given? Feel free to read Delta's blog. If you don't want to believe him, that's your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 You don't need a supercomputer to figure out who will side with who if war breaks out.1) Sparta was always going to side with anyone in NOIR before they sided with us, meaning their alliance with us basically didn't count except in extraordinary circumstances. 2) Our MDoAPs with various Superfriends nations also basically were meaningless in any matchup where SF gets involved. 3) Gramlins and FOK!, along with the League of Extraordinary Oranges and all their associated treaty partners would enter the war on the other side. 4) TOP will always side with Citadel over us 1) Having a Continuum meeting without them probably helped them along to that conclusion. 2) As were they in any matchup where tC gets involved. 3) Yes. 4) see #1, as well as attacking during negotiations, followed by the (probable) lack of informing them about the war you were engaging in until last minute. I think you folk not gone ahead and given them reason after reason to not side with you it could have had a different outcome (which side they ended up on). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) Wait you knew this and still started the war in the manner you did!?etc. Well, I believed it to be the case and I was obviously proven right. At the time my opinion was considered to be paranoid and defeatist, and that our treaty partners would come through for us in our hour of need. I take cynicism and paranoia over optimism and faith anyday though. Edited July 7, 2009 by James Dahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Feel free to read Delta's blog. If you don't want to believe him, that's your choice. You cant reference something that isnt common knowledge and expect everyone to know it automatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts