Nutty Carrot Cakes Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 It's not exactly the same thing, but it is as close as it gets. The number one reason is that Athens wasn't even involved in the war, so defacto you are saying that you don't care if CnG gets on the other side of the war. Because that would've happened. Secondly, you could have said something along the lines of "Well, I'd rather have you not attacking Athens since they are a MADP partner of our close allies in MK and Vanguard". Instead you said that you would cheer if Athens would've get attacked. If you don't like Athens that much, why in hell are you treatied to Vanguard and MK then? If I hated a MADP partner of someone I wanted to ally, I wouldn't ally that person. idk Vanguard was allied to ARES which, let's be honest, a lot of people in SLCB don't like. I don't think the fact that they have friends that we don't is really a reason to restrict the development of your CN-love. Besides, the real issue is that the only thing that is recognized is treaties; if wars happened based upon an alliance's honest perception of the CB instead of how stuff chains it wouldn't even be a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted January 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 It's not exactly the same thing, but it is as close as it gets. The number one reason is that Athens wasn't even involved in the war, so defacto you are saying that you don't care if CnG gets on the other side of the war. Because that would've happened. Secondly, you could have said something along the lines of "Well, I'd rather have you not attacking Athens since they are a MADP partner of our close allies in MK and Vanguard". Instead you said that you would cheer if Athens would've get attacked. If you don't like Athens that much, why in hell are you treatied to Vanguard and MK then? If I hated a MADP partner of someone I wanted to ally, I wouldn't ally that person. It's not as close as it gets. We have treaties with MK and with Vanguard. We have no relationship with Athens. If someone were to attack Athens, it has zero effect on STA. Even if MK were to defend Athens, and then be countered themselves, our treaty wouldn't be activated. Non-chaining clauses exist for exactly this reason. I've seen multiple people in this thread say "It's their MADP partner! An attack on one is the same as an attack on all!" That has absolutely nothing to do with an MADP, and everything to do with only the defensive aspect of their treaty. By attacking someone in C&G other than someone we were directly allied to, the same objectives could have been met without putting us in a very uncomfortable position. Finally, I'll echo what other people have said in this thread. This is, and was, a tough war with many allies on opposite sides. We did, and will continue to do, the best we can to make it the least painful for ourselves and our allies. If you feel that criticizing STA for trying to find a workaround to directly attacking our allies is the way to go, so be it. We feel we did the best we could and don't regret a single thing we said in these logs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneBallMan Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 It's not exactly the same thing, but it is as close as it gets. The number one reason is that Athens wasn't even involved in the war, so defacto you are saying that you don't care if CnG gets on the other side of the war. Because that would've happened. Secondly, you could have said something along the lines of "Well, I'd rather have you not attacking Athens since they are a MADP partner of our close allies in MK and Vanguard". Instead you said that you would cheer if Athens would've get attacked. If you don't like Athens that much, why in hell are you treatied to Vanguard and MK then? If I hated a MADP partner of someone I wanted to ally, I wouldn't ally that person. I am seriously disappointed in STA here. I can't find another more politically correct way to put it. The alliance that is led by Tyga has dishonored everything I thought that STA stood for. The fact of the matter is that I think Londo and Athens are total !@#$%s. I can't disagree with that in any way. I left the other side of the treatyweb for the very reason that treaties are conveniences, trifles to be honored at leisure and opportunism. The absence of Tyga from this thread saddens me more, as I've not known him to hide from the facts. And, even though it does my side no goodwill for me to wag my finger at you, I see your actions as dishonoring the history of an alliance who has put doing what is morally righteous ahead of what is easy in every occasion. This is sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) As a government of Vanguard I appreciate your honesty STA. You were in a rough position, we were in a rough position, and I dont blame you. I also whole heartedly agree that since we have an MDP, not an MADP, attacks on our treaty partners is far different than attacks on us directly (one triggers our treaty while the other doesn't). I dont understand what people find so hard to understand about that last statement. Also, HEY EVERYONE, LET CNG DECIDE HOW WE FEEL ABOUT STA WHILE THE REST OF YOU STOP TRYING TO DECIDE FOR US. Edited January 30, 2010 by Stumpy Jung Il Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted January 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) I am seriously disappointed in STA here. I can't find another more politically correct way to put it. The alliance that is led by Tyga has dishonored everything I thought that STA stood for. The fact of the matter is that I think Londo and Athens are total !@#$%s. I can't disagree with that in any way. I left the other side of the treatyweb for the very reason that treaties are conveniences, trifles to be honored at leisure and opportunism. The absence of Tyga from this thread saddens me more, as I've not known him to hide from the facts. And, even though it does my side no goodwill for me to wag my finger at you, I see your actions as dishonoring the history of an alliance who has put doing what is morally righteous ahead of what is easy in every occasion. This is sad. Why exactly are you disappointed in STA here? You're disappointed in us because we didn't approve of an attack on your alliance? Do you think it was easy for us to be on the opposite side of a war from you, who we have long considered to be right up there with Polaris in our own personal treaty book? There was NOTHING easy about anything we've had to do. Furthermore, STA has been in constant contact with MK's government throughout the war. They saw these logs shortly after the attacks on C&G happened, and expressed gratitude, rather than whatever it is you are spewing our way. I'm sorry you feel that way. We stand behind our support of your alliance. Edited January 30, 2010 by pezstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Levistus Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 OBM: Tyga is on vacation, Uthred and Pez are in charge of STA, and i think you can see the results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 The absence of Tyga from this thread saddens me more, as I've not known him to hide from the facts. And, even though it does my side no goodwill for me to wag my finger at you, I see your actions as dishonoring the history of an alliance who has put doing what is morally righteous ahead of what is easy in every occasion. This is sad. There's no dishonouring in realizing you only have 2 !@#$%* choices and use "which is the least !@#$%*" as a standard. If STA was not getting piled on without support, then maybe this announcement would be here... but given that they had no military resources to use to help their friends, they did the best they could by directing attention away from their primary treaty partners. Even if "it's nearly the same thing", it doesn't matter because it's the only thing they could do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 How is it that as the "offended party" I don't feel anything wrong with what happened but everyone else does? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 OBM: Tyga is on vacation, Uthred and Pez are in charge of STA, and i think you can see the results. And if you can't yet, you probably will soon. And no, that's not a generic "you"... that's a "you" as in "you who I am quoting". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted January 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 How is it that as the "offended party" I don't feel anything wrong with what happened but everyone else does? The moral outrage, Stumpy! It BURNS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 If you don't like Athens that much, why in hell are you treatied to Vanguard and MK then? If I hated a MADP partner of someone I wanted to ally, I wouldn't ally that person. Could just be that STA bases its friendship on the experiences that they have had with Vanguard/MK, rather than on MK's/Vanguards treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 How is it that as the "offended party" I don't feel anything wrong with what happened but everyone else does? Cause you're not trying to win a mystical PR campaign which, even if won, yields no reward for the winner, thus making any effort to win said campaign an absulte waste of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 The moral outrage, Stumpy! It BURNS! Yeah, and I heard that you shouldn't get it in your hair. It'll bleach it forever. STA always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 How is it that as the "offended party" I don't feel anything wrong with what happened but everyone else does? You will be offended/outraged/insulted and like it, Stumpy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 You will be offended/outraged/insulted and like it, Stumpy! The masses have convinced me, I hate that damn STA! Down with STA! Traitors! Cowards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted January 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) You will be offended/outraged/insulted and like it, Stumpy! I, personally, am offended/outraged/insulted that you got fakecouped. Would you like to like to make self-righteously indignant posts on the forum with me? Edited January 30, 2010 by pezstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryievla Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) So you approved of the hitting of Athens knowing full well it would tie in with MK. Regardless of you specifying not MK or Vanguard it ultimatly brings them in if another partner of C&G got hit. Not too smart admitting that here. Why is it 'not too smart' to admit it? I may not be overly fond of the STA, but I will give them that they are honest and straightforward. Edited January 30, 2010 by Kryievla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) I don't see where STA did anything all that wrong here. They tried to direct attacks away from their allies. That's good, but I guess I can see where people might have a problem with them not trying hard enough to dissuade an attack on other CnG members. All in all, I'd say they did the best given the circumstances, which were that they knew full well and attack on CnG was coming. At that point the best you can do is try to deflect that attack toward the members you aren't treatied to. Just a note to Pez, you may want to change that quote in your sig. It might not be the best for the current situation. Edited January 30, 2010 by Roadie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scutterbug Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 Why is it 'not too smart' to admit it? I may not be overly fond of the STA, but I will give them that they are honest and straightforward. We have a difference of opinion so be it. I also don't see why this had to be posted on the OWF seeings as Vanguard/MK the two concerned parties are aware of this privatly. But oh well, some will hail some will disagree such is the planet we rule on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogeWilliam Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 Wait, you mean we missed out on a chance to fight The Legion? I think this whole peace thing ruined the chance of the most largest, evenest, coolest war ever. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 Good luck STA, you've done well in difficult circumstances. It was an honor to fight alongside you for a time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted January 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 I don't see where STA did anything all that wrong here. They tried to direct attacks away from their allies. That's good, but I guess I can see where people might have a problem with them not trying hard enough to dissuade an attack on other CnG members. All in all, I'd say they did the best given the circumstances, which were that they knew full well and attack on CnG was coming. At that point the best you can do is try to deflect that attack toward the members you aren't treatied to. Just a note to Pez, you may want to change that quote in your sig. It might not be the best for the current situation. It's been there for years. I've found that it can fit any situation for some people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James I Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 Even in the recent absence of your leader, you have all handled this whole affair better than we could ever have hoped to in the same set of circumstances - you've had precious few easy decisions to make of late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted January 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 Even in the recent absence of your leader, you have all handled this whole affair better than we could ever have hoped to in the same set of circumstances - you've had precious few easy decisions to make of late. Thank you. He has not been completely out of contact, and has given a bit of input here and there. Even so, a few of us have been working with him for 2 and even 3 years now, and have a pretty good handle on knowing what Tyga would do in a given situation. He would have done exactly as we have done. I find it cute that a couple of people earlier attempted to insult us for that, having no idea exactly how closely-knit the STA gov. is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 If you don't like Athens that much, why in hell are you treatied to Vanguard and MK then? If I hated a MADP partner of someone I wanted to ally, I wouldn't ally that person. Perhaps our alliances with Vanguard and MK pre-date that MADP? Perhaps they pre-date the reasons for disliking that MADP? Perhaps in one case they even pre-date that alliance entirely? It might even be all three. The fact of the matter is that we satisfied our obligations to the best of our ability despite extremely undesirable circumstances. We have no obligations to C&G beyond Vanguard and MK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.