Zhadum reveals NPO information: organized logs

[Bob Janova]

That's what happens when your alliance culture (or at least the culture of the top tiers of the alliance) encourages backstabbing, betrayal, politicking and infighting.

Edit: @Esus. This thread moves too fast.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Bob Janova

[TypoNinja]

While you are at it why dont you blame us for all the alliances that died due to inactivity as well? we obviously destroyed their members internet access.

Blaming us for the destruction of Goons ,\m/ and genmany is laughable. yes we could have done something to actually save them but their blood is definitely not on our hands, I think one of the victims listed is responsible for that. and you are obviously very inclined in believe zhadhum has said in the logs why dont you also believe when he said that we didnt bail on torn? or are we only believeing things that fit your agenda?

Not being here for the UJW I can't comment, but as far as VE goes, yea "becuase GGA told us to" is pretty accurate, and we didn't need logs to tell us that, it was NPO's official and public position on it at the time. Now their FA team knew their elbow from their $@! at that point, so NPO's actual statement on it was something flowery including following treaties and what not so it sounded a lot better than "GGA told us to" but the essence is the same.

Its not news, its just so damn old most of the game either forgot or wasn't around for it.

[KingEsus]

That's what happens when your alliance culture (or at least the culture of the top tiers of the alliance) encourages backstabbing, betrayal, politicking and infighting.

Edit: @Esus. This thread moves too fast.

Some of us can move on without feeling the need to slate our previous alliance....

[silentkiller]

Not being here for the UJW I can't comment, but as far as VE goes, yea "becuase GGA told us to" is pretty accurate, and we didn't need logs to tell us that, it was NPO's official and public position on it at the time. Now their FA team knew their elbow from their $@! at that point, so NPO's actual statement on it was something flowery including following treaties and what not so it sounded a lot better than "GGA told us to" but the essence is the same.

Its not news, its just so damn old most of the game either forgot or wasn't around for it.

I am sorry we followed the MADP(ie we didnt have a choice if requested for help) bit of WUT to attack ve on the request of GGA, I know alliances following their treaties is a rare sight but damn getting slack for following treaties must be a new trend around here

[Lord of Destruction]

Some of us can move on without feeling the need to slate our previous alliance....

And some of us were brutally screwed over in our time there and feel that since we're no longer a member of that alliance, we can give our full opinion of it.

[KingEsus]

And some of us were brutally screwed over in our time there and feel that since we're no longer a member of that alliance, we can give our full opinion of it.

#

Look, I owe them nothing but you can GTFO. You left during a war. After three years you don't think I have some opinions on them?

[Gopherbashi]

I am sorry we followed the MADP(ie we didnt have a choice if requested for help) bit of WUT to attack ve on the request of GGA, I know alliances following their treaties is a rare sight but damn getting slack for following treaties must be a new trend around here

"Following treaties" is (and may always have been, if less overtly) often overruled by "Your decision to (not) follow this treaty did (not) benefit me." Most people will use the latter argument as a basis for striking out at their adversaries, using the former when appropriate.

[TypoNinja]

I am sorry we followed the MADP(ie we didnt have a choice if requested for help) bit of WUT to attack ve on the request of GGA, I know alliances following their treaties is a rare sight but damn getting slack for following treaties must be a new trend around here

Actually in this case you didn't have to, I know its old history, but the WUT wasn't actually an iron clad MADP, when it came to the A part there was a lot of wiggle room written in, but thats a different topic entirely, and derailing is bad. Suffice it to say, NPO chose to attack, they were not forced to do so, and we can take this to a separate thread if you like.

[shahenshah]

This post just adds another angle and layer of opinion to things many people know already, Gluk and HF.

Edited September 29, 2009 by shahenshah

[flak attack]

I am sorry we followed the MADP(ie we didnt have a choice if requested for help) bit of WUT to attack ve on the request of GGA, I know alliances following their treaties is a rare sight but damn getting slack for following treaties must be a new trend around here

VE was also in WUT when GGA asked you to kill them, so that treaty is irrelevant.

[DDragon]

VE was also in WUT when GGA asked you to kill them, so that treaty is irrelevant.

VE left WUT before that happened.

[Haflinger]

VE was also in WUT when GGA asked you to kill them, so that treaty is irrelevant.

No, they weren't.

VE left WUT on April 9th and GGA declared war on May 25th.

I don't think WUT had a year-long cancel clause.

[Necromancer V4L]

I maintain faith in the Body Republic. I always have. Things can change. Perhaps not with a purge as I attempted, that wasn't right for the alliance at the time, even if I thought it was right for the alliance for its future, but subtle redirection is possible.

So many others have as well, and that is why they continue to slave away, plugging in numbers, sending out pms, and rearranging data. They think to themselves, "Someday, if I just keep working really hard, I'll become an IO or a member of IAC, and then I can make some real change to this alliance." So they toil and toil, and spend more time working in one day than there counterparts in other alliances do in a week, and never move up. Friends of the IO's, IAC, and Moo join and are members of those prized groups in a week, a month.

-----

So yes, I am pathetic. Pathetic for leaving during a war in which I fought back from ZI not once, but twice. Pathetic for abandoning my comrades, who were willing to drop my friendship over an AA change. Pathetic for opening my eyes and realizing that for every hour I spent on the cause of the Pacific, nothing good came of it, and that for every hour I would spend elsewhere, real things would happen, real decisions would be made, and I wouldn't live frustrated with my inability to be "good enough" for an IO or an IAC position, I could live enjoying what I did as a member of this community.

[Essenia]

VE was also in WUT when GGA asked you to kill them, so that treaty is irrelevant.

VE withdrew from WUT well before the attack on them.

[Dr. Dan]

 MHA and Gramlins- Had a Q meeting without these alliances, ultimately causing them to leave Q.

To be fair, TOP/MHA had confirmed that they were leaving Q before said meeting and was partially a cause of that meeting.

Edit: Or, if my memory is failing me, it was the confirmation about the "Hangout" bloc. I can't remember which for the life of me.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Dr. Dan

[Bob Janova]

WUT mandated support, but not military support – a fact that was used in GW3 to claim that several alliances had not been involved in the war when Aegis counter-attacked the Initiative. Since that was only a month before the Viridicide, no, the interpretation of that treaty at that time by the Initiative was not an MADP. You chose to support your allies' wish to kill someone over your friendship with VE, you were not mandated to support it militarily (as indeed several Initiative alliances did not).

[King Chill I]

I fail to see any earth shacking info revealed that deserves the length of this thread.

Pacifica has been drawn to some wars due to her allies. We tried for too long to balance ourselves in two boats alienating in the end most of our allies, typical mistake in politics. Some of our allies had not so honest motives and we didn’t noticed, some were honest but we thought they were not, it happens every day.

Phew, thanks for clearing that up. For a moment there i had almost bought into the fact that NPO could be anything other than the bestest and kindest folk around.

Good to know it was all their allies' fault who so cunningly manipulated Dilber and the rest of NPO gov and forced them into terrible deeds of which they were oblivious.

Edited September 29, 2009 by King Chill I

[bbrownso]

I can certainly give credit where credit is due. I am not at all certain they "knew" they would be on the losing side - I was on the right side and I certainly thought the odds were stacked against us going in. (I knew Pacifica was sick but honestly, who had any idea they were THAT sick at the time?) I know my own war plan anticipated ZI fairly early and was mostly focused on how to inflict the maximum damage, not just "on the way down," but on a continuing basis for months or years afterwards.

But for the sake of argument I'll just accept your assertion that they somehow miraculously knew that for the first time in YEARS being on the side of Pacific wouldnt ensure victory. Let's assume they knew, in fact, even more - that contrary to the entirety of CN experience after GWI it would ensure defeat instead. And they still jumped in. Ok. So?

It seems unlikely to me, but even if it's true, I am not sure what you think it gets them. An award for bravery? Well, ok, but you are going to have to give it out to LOTS of people that aligned with Karma over the year or more preceding, under circumstances at least as frightening.

Oh we had a good idea at the time. SSSW18 didn't attack until a day after NPO was attacked because well, at 1.2 million NS, we weren't going to last long. Not with 6-7 nuclear nations and no warchest requirement.

Also, at the time we were planning our offensive (if you can call one alliance attacking an offensive), it was NPO, Invicta, and SSSW18. Those are the alliances I remember being in the channel at the time. We had gotten commitments from VA and GRAN to support whatever action we took. And we had some hope that TOOL would jump in on their treaty with VA (?). So yeah, we have a darn good idea that we were gonna get completely and utterly smacked around. Against roughly 200 million NS, we knew it was time to take a smackdown.

And trust me, I want nothing from you. I don't really think it earned us too much outside of pride in ourselves. The whole "we were honorable and followed our treaties" thing is passe in today's political landscape for many of the assorted peanut gallery. So I really don't care for their opinion.

BTW, Starfox, you really should be nicer to your alliance's allies. I think we should spend some time together, as enemies, so we can try to learn how to deal with people we dislike.

[Haflinger]

Also, at the time we were planning our offensive (if you can call one alliance attacking an offensive), it was NPO, Invicta, and SSSW18. Those are the alliances I remember being in the channel at the time. We had gotten commitments from VA and GRAN to support whatever action we took. And we had some hope that TOOL would jump in on their treaty with VA (?). So yeah, we have a darn good idea that we were gonna get completely and utterly smacked around. Against roughly 200 million NS, we knew it was time to take a smackdown.

That was in the very early going; there were a few other alliances that had all their government asleep then that committed right when they woke up. But yeah. Invicta, SSSW18, GRAN and VA all jumped in not knowing if there was gonna be anyone else at all.

[PhysicsJunky]

To be fair, TOP/MHA had confirmed that they were leaving Q before said meeting and was partially a cause of that meeting.

Edit: Or, if my memory is failing me, it was the confirmation about the "Hangout" bloc. I can't remember which for the life of me.

I've seen comments regarding the issue going both ways by people on both sides of the conflict. I think all the spin, combined with all the other conversations going on around that time and all the pretending different things occurred or didn't occur, or needed to be conveniently switched around in various time lines, to different groups managed to scramble the participant's collective memory. In the scheme of things it doesn't matter much, I don't think one particular meeting would cause or prevent what happened.

[Lord Brendan]

I am sorry we followed the MADP(ie we didnt have a choice if requested for help) bit of WUT to attack ve on the request of GGA, I know alliances following their treaties is a rare sight but damn getting slack for following treaties must be a new trend around here

"We were only following a treaty" is not and has never been an excuse. You signed the treaty in the first place, after all. A treaty is essentially agreeing ahead of time that you'll support a war in certain situations; basically by signing WUT your alliance agreed that "if GGA ever decides it wants to kill VE and asks for our support, we've got their back", along with a million other scenarios. Just because you agreed to kill VE ahead of time doesn't make it any better.

[Mussolandia]

And some of us were brutally screwed over in our time there and feel that since we're no longer a member of that alliance, we can give our full opinion of it.

None of us are saints. We all had our motives. But at least we can all agree that in this case we are witnessing nothing but a cry for attention like that of a scorned woman. A sad, pathetic person who turned friends into enemies and was just biding his time before being expelled.

[ChairmanHal]

No, they weren't.

VE left WUT on April 9th and GGA declared war on May 25th.

I don't think WUT had a year-long cancel clause.

Actually it had no cancellation clause whatsoever. You could be kicked out if 2/3 of the other alliances wanted you gone, but there was no provision for withdrawal.

WUT mandated support, but not military support – a fact that was used in GW3 to claim that several alliances had not been involved in the war when Aegis counter-attacked the Initiative. Since that was only a month before the Viridicide, no, the interpretation of that treaty at that time by the Initiative was not an MADP. You chose to support your allies' wish to kill someone over your friendship with VE, you were not mandated to support it militarily (as indeed several Initiative alliances did not).

Sorry, wrong. Unless the wording of the treaty changed over time.

IV. Defense and War

A - The signatory alliances commit themselves to the defense of all other signatory alliances through direct military action as well as though not limited to financial and political means.

B - An attack on one signatory is considered an attack on all signatories and will be met with all available strength in defense.

C - Should a signatory be engaged in war it is the duty of the other signing parties to come to their assistance whether this aid is military, financial or political, wherever practicable.

D - Any signatory engaged in war may request that some, or all, signatories not become involved.

E - Wars shall be organized as each signatory sees fit including individual organization or cooperation between some or all signatories.

F - Signatories who partake in aggressive wars against non-signatory alliances must notify the other signatories of their planned actions beforehand. Failure to do this could lead to that alliance being put up to a membership vote.

Clause 'D' does however give an alliance an out should it decide that it does not want the others involved. However, that appears to be at the discretion of the alliance involved in a war, not the other members.

That said, Clause 'F' allows for the booting of an alliance if it engages in an aggressive war that the other members do not want.

Edited September 29, 2009 by ChairmanHal

[Bob Janova]

Hal, you bolded the wrong one. That's the MDP clause. The aggression one is this:

C - Should a signatory be engaged in war it is the duty of the other signing parties to come to their assistance whether this aid is military, financial or political, wherever practicable.

(emphasis mine)

[Kowalski]

I simply can't believe - never have, never will - that the planning for the Karma war would be so inept. Believing that two allies who had recently been excluded from a bloc meeting, left said bloc and who weren't even told about the attacks would side with NPO and therefore willingly neutralize other allies with which they held stronger treaties, including the alliance of one of the Karma groups main voices, is a bit of a stretch, but MK and Fark falling where planned? You can't put that down to arrogance. Something smells fishy, and I'm not talking about the contents of Baldrick's apple crumble.