Official Announcement from The Order of the Paradox

[Timmmehhh]

BobJanova you, and also TOP think way different than I do. You think in my humble opinion way to much in "sides", while most alliances are in wars to defend their allies and friends and don't give a crap about "which side is right" or if the initial casus belli is legit. Maybe C&G was trying to sit the war out as long as possible, and was in the meantime trying very hard to get peace between Polar, FOK, PC and \m/ because they didn't want friends to fight each other. Maybe Polar, \m/ and PC saw in the end that it was pointless to fight because they both had allies and friends in C&G who were about to get destroyed by a huge coalition (TOP, IRON and their treaty-partners) and wouldn't want to let that happen.

Maybe C&G were only entering the Second Unjust War if some friends were severely out-gunned and could get destroyed (the IRON attack on FARK scenario comes to my mind). We will never know now.
I hope this war shows you that its not only about sides. Sides can change throughout the war and most alliances aren't fighting for a side or for some kind of cause, they are just fighting to help their friends and allies out.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Timmehhh

[Locke]

[quote name='o ya baby' date='01 February 2010 - 06:40 AM' timestamp='1265024436' post='2150250']

[/quote]
o/ ya baby. That's hailworthy military performance there.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Timmehhh' date='01 February 2010 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1265048709' post='2150776']
BobJanova you, and also TOP think way different than I do. You think in my humble opinion way to much in "sides", while most alliances are in wars to defend their allies and friends and don't give a crap about "which side is right" or if the initial casus belli is legit. Maybe C&G was trying to sit the war out as long as possible, and was in the meantime trying very hard to get peace between Polar, FOK PC and \m/ because they didn't want friends to fight each other. Maybe Polar, \m/ PC saw in the end that it was pointless to fight because they both had allies and friends in C&G who were about to get destroyed by a huge coalition (TOP, IRON and their treaty-partners) and wouldn't want to let that happen.

Maybe C&G were only entering the Second Unjust War if some friends were severely out-gunned and could get destroyed (the IRON attack on FARK scenario comes to my mind). We will never know now.
I hope this war shows you that its not only about sides. Sides can change throughout the war and most alliances aren't fighting for a side or for some kind of cause, they are just fighting to help their friends and allies out.
[/quote]
This largely sums up what we were doing. CnG saw our entry into this war as the point of no return for diplomacy. We were worried that once we entered the war, our allies on the other side would be less receptive to our attempts to broker peace and that people on our side would use our protection to keep the war going and cause further damage to our allies. CnG thought this whole thing was stupid and the entire planet was worse off for was done by people on both sides.

I ask you this, if CnG was prepared to enter the war, why did we need to wait until the next update to launch our counter attack? It would have been pretty easy to modify existing target lists to reflect the first couple of hits TOP got off. He don't just churn those things out five minutes before the war starts.

[AirMe]

[quote name='avernite' date='01 February 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1265045568' post='2150685']
You're the one who said MK is 100 times more politically skilled than we are, if I read you correctly.

TOP- Chooses right ally, wins 3 great wars in a row while being out of nr 4 (which was inbetween) and somewhat on the winning side in nr 5, and is part of the powers-that-be for 3 years.

MK- Is created on the losing side of a great war, loses the next one, and only on nr 3 manages to win and rise to power.

Now, it may be that crappy conditions and bad world situation made them lose, but *100* times more skilled?
Results may be bad as a way to check this skill, but the margin of error is not big enough to justify a 100 times skill difference in favour of the one who kept losing.
[/quote]

UJW was lost because of GOONs. The next big war we were drawn into it because of GGA and Valhalla trying to black mail Hyperion. To stay alive we had to be 1 step ahead of the blacklist and the tyrants that wanted us dead, some of them TOP has notoriously supported throughout their history. Whether that's passively and actively.

TOP makes a habit of crapping all over their allies in Citadel. TOP makes their allies broker a deal for them to enter wars so they don't take too much damage. TOP finds every excuse not to fight for the allies they are treatied to. TOP didn't have the foresight to at least question the approval of a man who hates their guts.

I can go around in circles like this all day, but for 18 months people were looking to crush us for the most miniscule transgression. It takes a lot more skill to stay ahead and alive in that situation than it does from your ivory tower.

EDIT: Choosing the right allies. HA! I remember Reyne calling Vanguard a bunch of pit vipers when in all reality there was a cobra living in her kitchen.

Edited February 1, 2010 by AirMe

[avernite]

[quote name='AirMe' date='01 February 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1265050065' post='2150818']
UJW was lost because of GOONs. The next big war we were drawn into it because of GGA and Valhalla trying to black mail Hyperion. To stay alive we had to be 1 step ahead of the blacklist and the tyrants that wanted us dead, some of them TOP has notoriously supported throughout their history. Whether that's passively and actively.

TOP makes a habit of crapping all over their allies in Citadel. TOP makes their allies broker a deal for them to enter wars so they don't take too much damage. TOP finds every excuse not to fight for the allies they are treatied to. TOP didn't have the foresight to at least question the approval of a man who hates their guts.

I can go around in circles like this all day, but for 18 months people were looking to crush us for the most miniscule transgression. It takes a lot more skill to stay ahead and alive in that situation than it does from your ivory tower.

EDIT: Choosing the right allies. HA! I remember Reyne calling Vanguard a bunch of pit vipers when in all reality there was a cobra living in her kitchen.
[/quote]

In short: 'yes our situation sucked, but it's not our fault! Your situation was also entirely not your fault, so the actual results you achieved were useless for finding out if you are good!'

Give me a break.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='avernite' date='01 February 2010 - 07:13 PM' timestamp='1265051608' post='2150847']
In short: 'yes our situation sucked, but it's not our fault! Your situation was also entirely not your fault, so the actual results you achieved were useless for finding out if you are good!'

Give me a break.
[/quote]


more like: ' our situation was forced on us, you $%&@ed up and its all your fault'

[AirMe]

[quote name='avernite' date='01 February 2010 - 02:13 PM' timestamp='1265051608' post='2150847']
In short: 'yes our situation sucked, but it's not our fault! Your situation was also entirely not your fault, so the actual results you achieved were useless for finding out if you are good!'

Give me a break.
[/quote]

Some of it was our fault, we fully admit that. No where did I say otherwise. The debate that you have replaced with condescending smugness proves you can't really refute what I have said.

[quote name='tamerlane' date='01 February 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1265051906' post='2150859']
more like: ' our situation was forced on us, you $%&@ed up and its all your fault'
[/quote]

I agree with my friend here.

Edited February 1, 2010 by AirMe

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Chalaskan' date='01 February 2010 - 04:34 AM' timestamp='1265016869' post='2150191']
Guess Johan/LM trumped him .
[/quote]
Except not. Cause oyababy is clearly winning. Silly TOP with your logical fallacies.

[avernite]

[quote name='AirMe' date='01 February 2010 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1265052000' post='2150861']
Some of it was our fault, we fully admit that. No where did I say otherwise. The debate that you have replaced with condescending smugness proves you can't really refute what I have said.



I agree with my friend here.
[/quote]

Debate? You came in here claiming MK was 100 times more skilled at politics than we are. I prove that results do not show it. It is now up to you to explain why, despite that, MK is actually more skilled.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Hmmm.

I think both situations are comparable; MK's leaders didn't fit in well with the major leaders of the time for various reasons, much like TOP's leader(s?) don't fit in well with many of today's major leaders, aside from their own circle of allies.

[quote]I can go around in circles like this all day, but for 18 months people were looking to crush us for the most miniscule transgression.[/quote]
I'd disagree. While MK was a "threat" to the powers that be, back then, it wasn't the only one and I'd say ouvertures were made by those same powers to mend relations with MK (NPO treaty?). MK did very well in managing to avoid getting killed, despite wanting to get its revenge on the Continuum, that much is sure though.

As for the rest, good luck and have fun Shrooms. I sure am.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[HisK Owns You]

[quote name='avernite' date='01 February 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1265052399' post='2150869']
Debate? You came in here claiming MK was 100 times more skilled at politics than we are. I prove that results do not show it. It is now up to you to explain why, despite that, MK is actually more skilled.
[/quote]

You didn't prove anything champ.

[AirMe]

[quote name='avernite' date='01 February 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1265052399' post='2150869']
Debate? You came in here claiming MK was 100 times more skilled at politics than we are. I prove that results do not show it. It is now up to you to explain why, despite that, MK is actually more skilled.
[/quote]

Your boy blue is the one that claimed MK didn't have a grasp on the politics of the situation. When one could clearly make that case against TOP in this situation.

You would know this if you would have referred back to the original comment that I quoted to start this fun little exchange.

Edited February 1, 2010 by AirMe

[Believland]

God damn, I don't even complain this much about MK. Please Airme, stop fighting their battles for them. They're big boys and can handle themselves.

[avernite]

[quote name='AirMe' date='01 February 2010 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1265052671' post='2150874']
Your boy blue is the one that claimed MK didn't have a grasp on the politics of the situation. When one could clearly make that case against TOP in this situation.

You would know this if you would have referred back to the original comment that I quoted to start this fun little exchange.
[/quote]

I was not debating with Blue though, I was arguing against your claim that MK is 100 times more politically skilled than TOP.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Believland' date='01 February 2010 - 02:48 PM' timestamp='1265053683' post='2150888']
God damn, I don't even complain this much about MK. Please Airme, stop fighting their battles for them. They're big boys and can handle themselves.
[/quote]

I take pride in my roots. And I will fight battles where I see fit and not where you tell me too. If TOP took the advice that you just gave to me, the Blue Balls war would have actually happened.

[AirMe]

[quote name='avernite' date='01 February 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1265053978' post='2150894']
I was not debating with Blue though, I was arguing against your claim that MK is 100 times more politically skilled than TOP.
[/quote]

Clearly that is not an accurate statement and I exaggerated the number a bit. Seriously, you guys take every word a little to literally. Exaggeration aside, MK is more politically skilled than TOP is.

[UberSpion]

[quote name='AirMe' date='01 February 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1265053983' post='2150895']
I take pride in my roots. And I will fight battles where I see fit and not where you tell me too. If TOP took the advice that you just gave to me, the Blue Balls war would have actually happened.
[/quote]

And the plight of any former \m/ member cherishing their roots, you should never question again...

[Bob Janova]

[quote]BobJanova you, and also TOP think way different than I do. You think in my humble opinion way to much in "sides", while most alliances are in wars to defend their allies and friends and don't give a crap about "which side is right" or if the initial casus belli is legit.[/quote]
The final part of this is why we end up with the just being beaten down by large coalitions (like the Continuum). Defending your friends is, of course, quite right. Backing up your friends when they go into a hole of their own making, that is a much greyer area, and if you say to your friends 'We will always be with you' then you give them carte blanche to do no end of aggressive, oppressive or mean things to other alliances and use you to bail them out of any consequences. We saw this for years with alliances like TPF and Valhalla and it is no prettier when it's LEO and SF backing up aggression than it was Continuum and One Vision.

And it's just a fact that all major wars end up with two sides, and if you want to win you coordinate with your 'side'. Heck, your alliance even asked for access to the Viridian mil-intel tool I administrate during this war, on the basis of being part of the same coalition.

Yes, TOP took a higher level strategic view of the war than just where their friends were engaged. They did so in order to protect their friends and interests (mostly IRON), just like everyone else who decides to go to war. I don't think they were even that bothered about which side was right or the CB – you and TOP are not so different after all

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='01 February 2010 - 08:16 PM' timestamp='1265055378' post='2150929']


Yes, TOP took a higher level strategic view of the war than just where their friends were engaged. They did so in order to protect their friends and interests (mostly IRON), just like everyone else who decides to go to war. I don't think they were even that bothered about which side was right or the CB – you and TOP are not so different after all
[/quote]

There is a major point of departure that you left out of this, we did not immediately jump into the fray to protect our friends as they were split between the two sides. We tried to mediate between them as we were straddled between two sides of the conflict. Our actions and those of TOP couldn't be any more different.

Ill echo the other shrooms that have spoken here that any involvement would have been done with the greatest reluctance given that there was a general consensus that both sides had f'd up

Edited February 1, 2010 by tamerlane

[Chickenzilla]

[quote name='Believland' date='01 February 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1265053683' post='2150888']
God damn, I don't even complain this much about MK. Please Airme, stop fighting their battles for them. They're big boys and can handle themselves.
[/quote]
You know, you could stop fighting TOP's battles for them too.

[Budlight]

[quote name='Chickenzilla' date='01 February 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1265068847' post='2151446']
You know, you could stop fighting TOP's battles for them too.
[/quote]

I for one, am glad to have people like BE standing up for TOP. OTS, TSO, IRON and the like voluntarily walked into Armageddon with us. God knows any one of them could have found a way to preserve themselves, but they didn't. That's what's nice about true friends - we burn together even when the odds are completely against us.

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='AirMe' date='01 February 2010 - 04:15 PM' timestamp='1265040901' post='2150582']
First off, check my AA. After you realize what alliance I am in son, realize I have been playing the politics of this game since before your nation was born. I am fully aware of the politics at work. Only one alliance allowed itself to be blatantly manipulated by someone they put faith in who up until the \m/ conflict hated your guts.

Stop projecting, the only ones who were apparently manipulated are yourselves. The rest is just lashing out.

Oh, and the alliance that you thought I was in when you made your original post, is 100 times more politically skilled than your own. Especially when for 18 months of their existence it was excellence in politics that kept it from being disbanded by your former overlords.
[/quote]
I'm well aware of what alliance you are in. Maybe you missed what I was trying to say.

In the post of yours that I quoted, you said that Ronin only entered the conflict because we attacked CnG pre-emptively. And that had we waited for them to declare war before attacking them, then Ronin would not have joined at all. This stance makes no sense at all, since everyone (at least those with some political foresight) knew that, should the conflict expand in a certain way, CnG would have entered at some point. And since we (being "team Polaris" or whatever you want to call our side) knew that the conflict would inevitably expand in that way, the involvement of CnG was also inevitable. Now, rather than going through the foreplay of tentatively watching DoW by DoW, waiting for CnG to be drawn it, we took the initiative and declared war early for reasons stated in the OP.

Now, what does Ronin think about this? Well, despite the fact that the conflict would expand to include your allies in MK, you decide to stay neutral. That's fair enough, if that's what you think is best for your alliance. However, when the conflict escalates in a way that is different to how you expected it to escalate (namely that we skipped the foreplay and declared), you now change your stance and enter the war in support of your ally.

Therefore, according to your post, Ronin's stance on the war was entirely dependant upon the way in which the conflict escalated. And you go on to suggest that we should have manipulated the declarations differently in order to change your stance on the war to a more favourable one for us. Hence why I said you allow yourselves to be manipulated based on the timing and sequence of the declarations.

For the record, I'm fine with you guys entering. It doesn't bother me and I hope you enjoy the battle as much as I have. I just think it's odd to criticise us for not trying to manipulate you out of the war with our declaration. I didn't think you would stand for that sort of crap.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='01 February 2010 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1265071199' post='2151542']
I'm well aware of what alliance you are in. Maybe you missed what I was trying to say.

In the post of yours that I quoted, you said that Ronin only entered the conflict because we attacked CnG pre-emptively. And that had we waited for them to declare war before attacking them, then Ronin would not have joined at all. This stance makes no sense at all, since everyone (at least those with some political foresight) knew that, should the conflict expand in a certain way, CnG would have entered at some point. And since we (being "team Polaris" or whatever you want to call our side) knew that the conflict would inevitably expand in that way, the involvement of CnG was also inevitable. Now, rather than going through the foreplay of tentatively watching DoW by DoW, waiting for CnG to be drawn it, we took the initiative and declared war early for reasons stated in the OP.

Now, what does Ronin think about this? Well, despite the fact that the conflict would expand to include your allies in MK, you decide to stay neutral. That's fair enough, if that's what you think is best for your alliance. However, when the conflict escalates in a way that is different to how you expected it to escalate (namely that we skipped the foreplay and declared), you now change your stance and enter the war in support of your ally.

Therefore, according to your post, Ronin's stance on the war was entirely dependant upon the way in which the conflict escalated. And you go on to suggest that we should have manipulated the declarations differently in order to change your stance on the war to a more favourable one for us. Hence why I said you allow yourselves to be manipulated based on the timing and sequence of the declarations.

For the record, I'm fine with you guys entering. It doesn't bother me and I hope you enjoy the battle as much as I have. I just think it's odd to criticise us for not trying to manipulate you out of the war with our declaration. I didn't think you would stand for that sort of crap.
[/quote]

MDoAP non stacking is what our treaty was. MK was fully aware that we would not enter a conflict to defend \m/. The words in our treaties we mean. We even had a vote, prior to the preemption, and it was 85% in favor of neutrality. We can't activate an oA without membership approval you see. After you attacked, we took another poll, 95% in favor of defending Mushroom Kingdom and =LOST=.

The only criticism that I levied in your direction is instead of doing in a way that would have been advantageous to YOU and YOUR allies, you gift wrapped it in the opposite direction with lack of foresight and the idiotic notion that declaring on a full bloc was a good idea.

I am fine with where we are now and we will take this road to the end if we have to. And yes, I do realize that I am a loudmouthed windbag leader of an insignificant 31 man alliance.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' date='02 February 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1265071199' post='2151542']
hurf durf hurf durf
[/quote]

You keep forgetting the minor detail that MK was suing heavily for peace and that our involvement was not inevitable but tentative. Please stop asserting that which you have absolutely no idea about, it only makes you look desperate.

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='02 February 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1265071929' post='2151569']
You keep forgetting the minor detail that MK was suing heavily for peace and that our involvement was not inevitable but tentative. Please stop asserting that which you have absolutely no idea about, it only makes you look desperate.
[/quote]
As I said in the post, we knew that our involvement would escalate the war significantly, even if we just declared on an involved party. We knew that people would be ready to back us up if countered and that they would then be countered as well. And we knew that at some point in this escalation of treaties, an ally of CnG would have had to have been attacked directly which would have brought CnG in, assuming they honoured their treaty.

At the time of the declaration, your participation may well have been in question. However, you didn't know what we did, namely that the war was going to escalate to that point. We probably will never know exactly how it would have gone, though. It is academic at this point and it doesn't make for much of a debate when it's just one opinion on a hypothetical against another.