Shattered Star Exiles Announcement

[JWConner]

You seem to base their dislike of your alliance upon communication between you and them. I don't have to talk to someone to dislike them. If your actions do not sit well with them, then they dislike you, its simple.

Agreed, but if it's a dislike that causes you to want to stop being allies with a long-standing friend, you'd think there'd be more to it. Eh, oh well. I'm not quite sure what VA could have done that was so heinous, but for whatever it's worth 57th, we're sorry.

[James Wilson]

Agreed, but if it's a dislike that causes you to want to stop being allies with a long-standing friend, you'd think there'd be more to it. Eh, oh well. I'm not quite sure what VA could have done that was so heinous, but for whatever it's worth 57th, we're sorry.

What I got from this was that SSX wasn't comfortable with the treaty you shared with 57th and they brought it to their attention. They wanted an ODP, which I'm sure they would honor it to the best of their abilities. What I don't understand is the need for SSX to NAP the alliances that were called into question in order for the treaty to be an ODP. I'd say thats more the reason then your alliance. Of course, I just love speculation .

[Prodigal Moon]

My only real question is...what the hell did we ever do to SSX? To be honest, I've never talked to a one of their members, at least not knowingly.

Honestly, I'm guessing it's much more your political orientation than anything about VA. You're squarely in the TPF/former hegemony grouping, and a lot of people don't want to be even indirectly MDP'd to that side. Nothing a non-chaining clause couldn't help, for the most part. I'm sure VA are fine folks.

[raasaa]

My only real question is...what the hell did we ever do to SSX? To be honest, I've never talked to a one of their members, at least not knowingly.

you smell funny

[JWConner]

you smell funny

I tried to cover it up with cologne

oh, and HI RAASAA! been a long time.

[JWConner]

Honestly, I'm guessing it's much more your political orientation than anything about VA. You're squarely in the TPF/former hegemony grouping, and a lot of people don't want to be even indirectly MDP'd to that side. Nothing a non-chaining clause couldn't help, for the most part. I'm sure VA are fine folks.

Yeah, that's going around a lot lately. Used to be that you'd have friends and that superseded political boundaries. Looks like the times they are a changin'.

[Erixxxx]

Honestly, I'm guessing it's much more your political orientation than anything about VA. You're squarely in the TPF/former hegemony grouping, and a lot of people don't want to be even indirectly MDP'd to that side. Nothing a non-chaining clause couldn't help, for the most part. I'm sure VA are fine folks.

I find it interesting that it hasn't caused them any concern until now. We've been treatied to 57th since they DoE'd, and we were treatied to HPS before that.

EDIT: Damn you and your fast typing, Conner.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Erixxxx

[Vasuda]

My only real question is...what the hell did we ever do to SSX? To be honest, I've never talked to a one of their members, at least not knowingly.

Normally, alliances that have a problem with VA at least have let us know they have a problem with us directly. I'm definitely sorry that VA has somehow been a factor in 57th losing an ally, although I'm still dumbfounded as to why we played the role we did.

Sorry 57th. We're bad people

We have no quarrel, either personally or politically, with any member of your alliance. To imply so is somewhat absurd given that I don't think I've spoken to you in almost two years, and I'm not sure if I have ever talked to any other VA member. VA has done nothing to wrong us, and that was not part of the concerns we presented to the 57th.

There was some concern generated due to the 57th's closeness to an alliance that sits squarely on the opposite side of the treaty web as all of our other allies, which creates a rather large window for us to get involved in a war that forces us to point our guns at our friends, and the friends of our allies. The most recent example being the extremely short-lived war between the 57th and Nemesis, LoSS, Browncoats, and CoJ. We were poised at DEFCON 1 for three days prior to the war's outbreak, ready to engage should 57th be attacked. However, both Nemesis and LoSS have very close, direct ties to our allies in IAA. Despite our willingness to help our allies, we would rather not be put into positions like this in the future, where we are stuck between having to choose which one of our friends to harm; especially in controversial situations such as the 57th-BC War, where the 57th did much to agitate the situation and bring it to armed conflict.

Veneke seems to have posted a somewhat accurate description of our discussions, despite there being a naturally strong bias towards his point of view. Although Veneke seems to have aired some of the 57th's private business in public, I will continue to refrain from releasing additional background information into the public light, and will simply respond to the points posted. However, there is one particular line of this post which is simply incorrect.

Countering the downgrade option, we presented SSX with several alternatives.

1. A temporary downgrade to ODP (on their end, the 57th would still maintain her end of the MDP, which was why I insisted on this option being implemented as a private measure - this was the 57th's wrong, and we would honour our end of things until we had it righted) with a review of the situation after X days, during which time alliances that SSX had no wish to enter into combat against could be NAP'd or treatied in another fashion, and also during which time they could get to know the 57th's government better. After the X day review, the treaty could be returned in force, or else cancelled.

2. A temporary (public) suspension of the treaty in it's entirety with the same revision clauses.

The part in parenthesis that I have bolded simply was never mentioned in our discussions. At the very least, it got swept up in all the chatter taking place. Indeed, a large part of the reason we were so taken aback by your and colleagues' behavior during these discussions was due to your reluctance to admit any wrongdoing at all. In any case, we would not have agreed to such a gesture anyway, as such a proposal is unequal and unfair, and we would not choose to put you in a subservient position to ourselves. Treaties should be an equal agreement between two parties bonded together by friendship and respect.

While we were disappointed that you felt inclined to counter and debate the compromise we at SSX made out of friendship, we would have been willing to hear you out, had your alternatives been in line with what we reasonably could accept. As to the two alternatives you did provide, we were unable to accept them for the following reasons:

In our view, an ODP downgrade was a temporary measure. Your alternative was also an ODP, with an added arbitrary time frame for an upgrade. There is no way to blindly guess at what point our concerns would have been alleviated, and so it is meaningless to impose such a time limit on the treaty. Although as I expressed to you, we certainly did wish to upgrade again at some point. I also think you know how ridiculous it was for you to demand we sign empty NAPs with every alliance we are on friendly terms with, especially considering that it is work we should not have to do in the first place. Indeed, that was a key point in our primary concerns regarding the position our treaty with you put us in.

Furthermore, the SSX does not sign secret treaties under any circumstances, and such a demand was completely unacceptable simply because you wished to pretend to the world that our treaty remained an MDoAP. I still don't know why you would be so quick to accept a secret ODP, but claim that a publicly declared ODP goes against all of your ideals.

As to the possible suspension of the treaty, all of the same problems inherent in your first alternative remain, but with the added addition that a suspended treaty is of much less worth to both of us than a downgrade

As to the last point of why we posted the announcement instead of you, the answer is simple. Our treaty officially expired yesterday, and we felt it necessary to announce this change to the world at large, as is standard procedure in international affairs. You were evidently "AFK" all day yesterday, and my attempts to reach you were met with no response. I also got a response from Lord Panda that he did not know there were any plans for you to make an announcement that day. When I asked him if it would be alright if I posted the announcement instead, I was again met with no response. At half after midnight of the next day, I considered it past due to notify the public, and posted this thread. Given the situation, I really was unsure if you were ever planning to announce it at all.

[MiasmaCircle]

Furthermore, the SSX does not sign secret treaties under any circumstances,

There has been discussion of 57ths ideals.

Here are ours. Make no mistake.

I know nothing of VA, and have no issue with them.

But as selective as SSX is with treaties, it is not a situation we want to find ourselves in where we face friends on both sides of the fight.

[Lord Panda]

But as selective as SSX is with treaties, it is not a situation we want to find ourselves in where we face friends on both sides of the fight.

We offered alternatives that would make it so that such a situation would not arise.

You declined all of our alternatives, with the full knowledge that we would not sign an ODP or lower treaty, which we made clear several times.

And so, here we are.

Can we move on now please?

[MiasmaCircle]

We offered alternatives that would make it so that such a situation would not arise.

Can we move on now please?

First off, that wasn't directed at the 57th. Moreso the people who would like to turn this into yet another debate. (Which seem to be neither SSX nor 57th.)

Aside from that, yes, let's please.

[Lord Panda]

First off, that wasn't directed at the 57th. Moreso the people who would like to turn this into yet another debate. (Which seem to be neither SSX nor 57th.)

I noticed that, but I figured I might as well get my say in now, instead of five pages from now.

Regardless, what's done is done, the people who need to know what's going on know ( And that doesn't include you, Schatt ), and now we can all go happily on our way.

[DirtDiver]

miasmacircle

good luck SSX!

Edited January 12, 2010 by DirtDiver

[Schattenmann]

I noticed that, but I figured I might as well get my say in now, instead of five pages from now.

Regardless, what's done is done, the people who need to know what's going on know ( And that doesn't include you, Schatt ), and now we can all go happily on our way.

Keep invoking me out of one side of your mouth like the boogeyman while dismissing me out the other. It's cute.

[Lord Panda]

It's cute.

Being cute is part of being fuzzy.

The hat helps too.

[ChairmanHal]

Honestly, I'm guessing it's much more your political orientation than anything about VA. You're squarely in the TPF/former hegemony grouping, and a lot of people don't want to be even indirectly MDP'd to that side. Nothing a non-chaining clause couldn't help, for the most part. I'm sure VA are fine folks.

People say there isn't a cold war on Planet Bob?

There are a lot of people who are happily allied with IRON, Valhalla, and any number of other "former hegemony grouping" alliances, thank you very much.

Lines are being drawn and not just between the major alliances. If what you are saying is true, this affair seems to be a typical example.

[MiasmaCircle]

People say there isn't a cold war on Planet Bob?

There are a lot of people who are happily allied with IRON, Valhalla, and any number of other "former hegemony grouping" alliances, thank you very much.

Lines are being drawn and not just between the major alliances. If what you are saying is true, this affair seems to be a typical example.

Emphasis my own.

But this is always the catch in many a nice story.

Where they lie on the treaty web means nothing, aside from the likelihood that in any scrum SSX would have been likely to have allies on both sides of the fighting.

Some alliances are willing to live with that, SSX is not.

And on this note, I take my leave from this thread. And I shan't return.

Edited January 12, 2010 by MiasmaCircle

[Chimaera]

Being cute is part of being fuzzy.

The hat helps too.

For the record, I'm pretty sure when SSX brought up concerns with the competence of 57th's government, they specifically and explicitly meant you. Also for the record, I doubt they're wrong. As much as I personally admire Veneke for his talent and abilities, every time I see you speak it detracts a little of my respect for the Overlanders, and I wish Veneke would post more often to prevent this from occurring.

[Lord Panda]

For the record, I'm pretty sure when SSX brought up concerns with the competence of 57th's government, they specifically and explicitly meant you. Also for the record, I doubt they're wrong. As much as I personally admire Veneke for his talent and abilities, every time I see you speak it detracts a little of my respect for the Overlanders, and I wish Veneke would post more often to prevent this from occurring.

For the record, it has already been explicitly stated that it was in fact me.

As for it being right or wrong, that's their opinion, and yours as well it seems, based on OWF posts that are childish, rude, etc. Yeah, what I do on the OWF does not reflect on my skill as a member of the Government, considering that the military is the aspect of it that falls under my command. FA does not, for obvious reasons.

In any case, I really have nothing to explain or apologize for, especially not to you. Considering this thread is not about you, or about me, it's about two alliances attempting to part ways on friendly terms. Apparently, the Peanut Gallery can't have THAT happening.

[TheListener]

In any case, I really have nothing to explain or apologize for, especially not to you. Considering this thread is not about you, or about me, it's about two alliances attempting to part ways on friendly terms. Apparently, the Peanut Gallery can't have THAT happening.

Welcome to the OWF, where the Peanut Gallery never lets anything go as planned. You slip up, we'll jump on it, run with it for a week, then 6 months down the road it's a full-fledged meme.

[Lord Panda]

Welcome to the OWF, where the Peanut Gallery never lets anything go as planned. You slip up, we'll jump on it, run with it for a week, then 6 months down the road it's a full-fledged meme.

You mean one day I can be a meme?

[TheListener]

You mean one day I can be a meme?

yea if you say something incredibly stupid... which shouldn't be too hard for you...

Edited January 12, 2010 by TheListener

[ChairmanHal]

Emphasis my own.

But this is always the catch in many a nice story.

Where they lie on the treaty web means nothing, aside from the likelihood that in any scrum SSX would have been likely to have allies on both sides of the fighting.

Some alliances are willing to live with that, SSX is not.

Not so much "a nice story", really. It's also pretty clear which side of the "fence" SSX sits.

For the record, it has already been explicitly stated that it was in fact me.

As for it being right or wrong, that's their opinion, and yours as well it seems, based on OWF posts that are childish, rude, etc. Yeah, what I do on the OWF does not reflect on my skill as a member of the Government, considering that the military is the aspect of it that falls under my command. FA does not, for obvious reasons.

In any case, I really have nothing to explain or apologize for, especially not to you. Considering this thread is not about you, or about me, it's about two alliances attempting to part ways on friendly terms. Apparently, the Peanut Gallery can't have THAT happening.

Sometimes a cigar is a metaphor and not just a cigar. As for the treaty with SSX, I wouldn't be crying myself to sleep over the loss of it if I were you and it seems, you won't be.

[Lord Panda]

yea if you say something incredibly stupid... which shouldn't be too hard for you...

Well played.

Edit~

Hal gets it in one, as usual.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Lord Panda

[Asriel Belacqua]

As for it being right or wrong, that's their opinion, and yours as well it seems, based on OWF posts that are childish, rude, etc. Yeah, what I do on the OWF does not reflect on my skill as a member of the Government, considering that the military is the aspect of it that falls under my command. FA does not, for obvious reasons.

A military leader is still a leader. People don't care much whether or not you're in FA or Military, they care whether or not 1: you're in gov, 2: how high you are in govt, and last and least: Which alliance you're in.

People will still remember that a member of 57th said the things you have said, they won't think about you being a military leader or FA leader, they will think of you simply as "a leader."

Trying to give you advice mate, I suggest you take it and run with it and go for the touchdown before you fumble the ball.

As for Veneke's post:

Any Brown alliance (with exception to the reformed Browncoats, who are too new to the sphere to be aware of this) can confirm this.

Mate, I think that you forget that a majority of the people in Browncoats currently (not under the AA, but official members that are counted on our forums, since a few of those under our aa are totally inactive), have been in this world as leaders longer than you yourself have. So before you go around saying we don't know a thing about what's going on, you might want to remember who is placed where in the historical timeline.

Our new members learn a bit of history mate, and I can assure you that they are more than well-versed in the history of the Brown sphere going back quite a while.