An MHAnnouncement

[Choader]

[quote name='Diomede' date='22 March 2010 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1269305941' post='2233684']
Nice quip, but thanks for highlighting how it was a group failure, not one alliance in particular.
[/quote]
Of course it was a group failure, there's no question though that one alliance in particular was responsible for most of it's stress.

[Eddard Stark]

[quote name='Diomede' date='23 March 2010 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1269305367' post='2233674']
You people discussing the break-up of Citadel should get back on topic.
[/quote]

This is actually a good suggestion. You should follow it.

[Diomede]

[quote name='Eddard Stark' date='23 March 2010 - 01:06 AM' timestamp='1269306351' post='2233695']
This is actually a good suggestion. You should follow it.
[/quote]
I've already said what I wanted to on the actual topic, so best of luck to both parties.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='Näktergal' date='23 March 2010 - 12:14 AM' timestamp='1269299666' post='2233585']
Ironic, then, since for the first year or so of Citadel's existence, TOP generally seemed to be the alliance [i]least[/i] invested in Citadel. At least that's absolutely what it felt like from the inside. Certainly, there was at least some suspicion on the part of a number of people that, if a Continuum vs. Citadel war ever broke out, regardless of the reasons why, TOP was the alliance most likely to side with Continuum over Citadel.

Maybe that changed over the last year or so of Citadel's existence - I've been out of the loop on Citadel internal affairs for a while now. But pre-NoCB War (and even for a time afterwards), there definitely seemed to be a feeling that TOP saw Citadel more as a political tool than something worth being committed to on its own merits, and would willingly throw it over the moment it became politically advantageous to do so.

Whether or not that was actually TRUE at the time (or even if it was absolutely untrue from the perspective of TOP membership but more true for TOP leadership), perhaps it's unrealistic to expect your allies to support the bloc whole-heartedly when they don't perceive you as having the same level of commitment.

And perhaps, when faced with a choice between a bloc which has been riddled by internal conflict since before it even officially announced its existence and one which has always seemed to be more casual and fiercely loyal to its members, the choice becomes obvious.
[/quote]

I agree that pre Karma war it might have seemed to others that TOP wasn't totally invested in Citadel. Most in TOP could see once Q started to break up that there was a greater possibility we would have to choose between Gremlins and NPO. We had many internal debates over whether or not we should move away from NPO. The opinions of members ranged from those who were staunch supporters of NPO and wished to back them 100% to those who despised NPO's actions and wished to move our FA more in line with Gremlins. When push came to shove we knew what we had to do and backed Citadel (minus OG).

After the Karma war the only treaty we kept with "ex heg" was our IRON treaty. I don't see why we wouldn't have since they have always been truly great allies and have never caused any problems for any of our other allies. For the most part all of our allies were Citadel or Citadel friends. The only thing we really had at this point to be invested in was Citadel. However, Gremlins and Umbrella began moving closer to CnG all while we came to despise that bloc for their constant bad mouthing of us. Couple this with some radical changes in Gremlins and our relationship with them deteriorated past the point of no return. So leading up to this war our Citadel relationships were already shaky and then FOK comes up to us and gives us an ultimatum to drop our IRON treaty. IRON wass still our good friend though and the only reason they wanted us to cancel on them was because of IRON's friends. This of course wass crazy since FOK was directly allied to an alliance that was openly hostile toward TOP, yet they wanted us to cancel on our ally because of said allies friends.

So we lost both FOK and Gremlins leading up to this war not because of any horrible actions we committed. We had also made up our mind that we weren't abandoning IRON again. With the TPF war it became clear that Supercomplaints intended to clash with ex heg, and that included many of IRON's allies. It was really a no brainer for us considering how much we despised CnG and how we had a great respect for IRON. There was no way we could live with siding with alliances that did nothing but badmouth us while watching IRON burn. Sadly, half of our allies or former allies were in the CnG sphere of influence. So while some of the blame should be placed on TOP, it is not fair to say we caused everything and are the sole reason Citadel and our other former allies have moved apart. And of course to top it off we made the big mistake of performing a pre-emptive attack on CnG. I do believe if NpO had not peaced out that night it would have been seen much differently and we would not have had such a horrible back lash. We made that mistake and we will have to live with it.

[jerdge]

There would be several points that need to be addressed, but unfortunately I haven't the time for all of them...
Anyway, I really need to comment on a few.


First of all, [b]this cancellation makes me sad[/b]. I confess that I am one of the Hitchhikers that eventually said that we had to cancel the treaty, and my main motive was that the treaty was evidently dead: both TOP and us weren't willing to do much for the other party anymore - sadly - and that paperwork had just bec[b]o[/b]me hypocritical and silly (each day more).
That said, it was awesome while it lasted: we had a lot of love for TOP (many of us still have some form of it) and I'm sure that they loved and (some) love us too.
I just roll my eyes to all these people that decided that the best way to go about this cancellation was to find any possible tiny detail to use it for some silly bickering - like that was a classy way to end a relationship - and yes, I'm equanimous and I'm also looking in a mirror. On the other hand, as much as I like the Hitchhikers even when they're doing it wrong, I continue to love those Paradoxian "that go wrong".
One day we will sit down and we will laugh and cry, shaking our heads at our mutual stupidity. May that day come soon.


Second, the discussion over [b]the "dishonourability" of the MHA and/or TOP[/b] in their relationship with the other, in this war, is again something really stupid (I again glance to that mirror also).
The MHA and TOP were not the only alliances that had to manage conflicting treaties/friendships/(enmities!) in this war, I don't see why any of us should sit here and defend themselves from those idiotic accusations.
Crap happens, and when it hits the fan anybody can only [s]do[/s] [i]be[/i] what is their best at that moment.
Should the MHA support an aggressive, "unjustified" action, only because it comes from a good ally and despite its being against some historic ally of its best ally? Why not the other way round, then?
(Pro tip: don't let your FA be dictated by the order some foreign distant people decide to join a big conflict with - that's retarded and you all know it. Cheers!)
Now, I know that my doctrine is not how Stonewall inteprets our papers. Meh...

[i](Hey SJ, no ill feelings from me - I wish I could say the same about your feelings but you evidently care too much about the MHA and not enough about the remaining of our [b]Cobwebby(tm) Planet Avril[/b]...)[/i]



Again, about alleged "guilts"... TOP thought that it was a good idea to "pre-empt" C&G, so what? We are all witnesses of how badly that played out, in the MHA we probably had all the reasons to be upset that one of our allies put us in such a "precarious" position (to do something that stupid, no less! Sorry TOP for my wording, but I think you too realize it by now); but only a few insane individuals can [i]really[/i] believe that TOP had the genuine intention to "destroy" C&G for the sake of it, and that their plan was anything different from an attempt to "just" gain a strategical advantage.
TOP made a mistake - a [i]huge[/i] one - and they probably "need" to pay for it, but I can understand that they became angry with their former friends when they didn't get "enough" support in bargaining an exit from the war.
I trust my government and I know that they have been trying to broke an acceptable peace agreement, but in the end the result didn't came, thus I can understand that TOP could feel "abandoned". Heck, I am too disappointed, why not them?


The reality is that none of the two fine alliances involved suddenly became the paradigm of wickedness. [b]We were just unlucky[/b]. The sooner we all realize it, the better, because tomorrow is another day, and we will all be there looking at each other (hopefully, feeling embarassed).


And now please excuse me but I have an annoying mirror to br[b]ea[/b]k.


[size=1][[b]Edit:[/b]gramm[b]a[/b]r][/size]

Edited March 23, 2010 by jerdge

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Alterego' date='19 March 2010 - 07:52 PM' timestamp='1269042714' post='2230685']
Pathetic cancellation! I really love the way you mention the aiding your enemy crap, it obviously crippled your alliance. TOP are fighting for the existance of their alliance and you ditched them for the new in crowd and whined on about a little bit of desperately needed aid while your buddies are run out of existance. Grow a set and admit the truth, you sat back and watched one of your best friends get crushed and now ditched them for the ones who crushed them. Days like this make me wish for a return to the days of GPA being number 1. They may have been hippys but at least they didnt ditch a good friend who is being beat out of existance and make a lame attempt to make it look like it waS their fault. [b]P A T H E T I C![/b]

Dont expect ally of the yeay this year. [size="3"][b]PATHETIC![/b][/size]
[/quote]

Alterego. You are one of the last people to be calling someone else pathetic. You, through time and time again, spout acid and flames with no substance at all. It's all a show. Time and time again... you, sir, are the one who is [b] p a t h e t i c[/b]. See, I can do it too. Nice try though, but next time, perhaps you should 1) use facts to support your premise and 2) not get so angry over a situation that is entirely justified. But perhaps you were never taught what is and isn't acceptable. That is a matter of nature vs. nurture, however.

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='20 March 2010 - 01:19 AM' timestamp='1269062349' post='2231030']
Come on man. You sent aid to someone at war with your ally (when TOP did it it was bad too). Don't try to spin it.
[/quote]
[quote name='sacramento' date='20 March 2010 - 01:23 AM' timestamp='1269062574' post='2231037']
LOL, yeah, keep telling yourself that. You send money that helped destroy TOP. I dont think it is condemnable, but you very hypocritical of you guys to raise that against TOP when you were:

1.- Doing the same
2.- Where actively plotting against our allies which at the moment were uninvolved in the war.

Again, I cant condemn you four doing what you thought was right, but a thread like this is in a different level of hypocrisy.
[/quote]

I just want to make a note in this case of MHA aid to their allies. I never realized that the acts of a handful of members represents the entirety of an alliance. I will keep that in mind for the future. If you even read any thing that that specific member of MHA said... it was clear that what he did was more or less on his own. If someone from MHA govt. said otherwise, I apologize and admit fault.

But man... that is some bad logic.

[quote name='Carlton the Great' date='20 March 2010 - 06:08 AM' timestamp='1269079683' post='2231175']
Grub personally approved our entry into the war that was then being waged. We were to target C&G and ensure that they would not interfere with Polar's operations. He neglected to tell us about the white peace arrangement.
[/quote]

I didn't realize that you were still grimacing about TOP et. al.'s rather major mistake. You guys messed up. Get over it.


And to the entirety of this thread. TOP: you asked MHA to make a decision between TOP and Fark. They chose Fark over you. No matter how you slice it, they chose Fark over you. Get over it. Don't even claim to be the victim because you did the [b]same thing[/b] in the Karma War... as did many people in that and this war.

[jstep]

[quote name='neneko' date='22 March 2010 - 07:45 PM' timestamp='1269301540' post='2233614']
TOP always put IRON before citadel and expected citadel to follow them.
[/quote]

TOP stuck with Citadel despite alliances from Citadel attacking IRON... quit spewing garbage

[Tromp]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='23 March 2010 - 02:15 AM' timestamp='1269306921' post='2233709']
After the Karma war the only treaty we kept with "ex heg" was our IRON treaty. I don't see why we wouldn't have since they have always been truly great allies and have never caused any problems for any of our other allies. For the most part all of our allies were Citadel or Citadel friends. The only thing we really had at this point to be invested in was Citadel. However, Gremlins and Umbrella began moving closer to CnG all while we came to despise that bloc for their constant bad mouthing of us. Couple this with some radical changes in Gremlins and our relationship with them deteriorated past the point of no return. So leading up to this war our Citadel relationships were already shaky and then FOK comes up to us and gives us an ultimatum to drop our IRON treaty. IRON wass still our good friend though and the only reason they wanted us to cancel on them was because of IRON's friends. This of course wass crazy since FOK was directly allied to an alliance that was openly hostile toward TOP, yet they wanted us to cancel on our ally because of said allies friends.
[/quote]
Just to correct the parts about FOK:
For one, what hostile ally. Second, there never was an ultimatum. What you are referring to was a comment made by a government member with no authority over the specific subject. There's more to it though.
We did make clear that we would never (want to) fight alongside the likes of IRON and its allies. I'm sure you will recall the WWE, and the enormous stress that my alliance had to endure those days, not in the least because TOP was insisting on supporting IRON, and even went as far as demanding FOKs support if WWE had gone global. So what was decided, was to back all of our treaty partners in case the war would expand. This, we did solely for TOP, even though it put us in a very tough spot.
After WWE ended, it became clear TOPs position had not changed, to FOKs great displeasure. It's always a sad thing when one has to face the reality, a reality in which you're being dumped for the bigger and stronger guy around the corner. Luckely valuable lessons are learned from such experiences, and I think in the end, we're both better off right now.

[WalkerNinja]

Jerdge says wise things.

I've also noticed two things happening in this and other threads. One is that there are lots of people claiming that IRON has enslaved themselves to TOP's will and shackled themselves to her destiny. The other is that there are lots of people claiming that TOP was unswervingly loyal to IRON to such a degree that we placed the majority of our relations at hazard on their behalf repeatedly.

If you add those two things together, it seems that what is being described is a very deeply loyal bond between two alliances, the sort that most all treaties refer to but seldom ever live up to.

Interesting.

[Tromp]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='23 March 2010 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1269309581' post='2233764']
Jerdge says wise things.

I've also noticed two things happening in this and other threads. One is that there are lots of people claiming that IRON has enslaved themselves to TOP's will and shackled themselves to her destiny. The other is that there are lots of people claiming that TOP was unswervingly loyal to IRON to such a degree that we placed the majority of our relations at hazard on their behalf repeatedly.
[b]
If you add those two things together, it seems that what is being described is a very deeply loyal bond between two alliances, the sort that most all treaties refer to but seldom ever live up to.
[/b]
Interesting.
[/quote]
I'm not sure if you should be proud of that, since it put all of your other allies in the 'B' category.
But hey, FOK learned it's lesson. And I think more did too.

[Ian Dox]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='22 March 2010 - 08:15 PM' timestamp='1269306921' post='2233709']
I agree that pre Karma war it might have seemed to others that TOP wasn't totally invested in Citadel. Most in TOP could see once Q started to break up that there was a greater possibility we would have to choose between Gremlins and NPO. We had many internal debates over whether or not we should move away from NPO. The opinions of members ranged from those who were staunch supporters of NPO and wished to back them 100% to those who despised NPO's actions and wished to move our FA more in line with Gremlins. When push came to shove we knew what we had to do and backed Citadel (minus OG).

After the Karma war the only treaty we kept with "ex heg" was our IRON treaty. I don't see why we wouldn't have since they have always been truly great allies and have never caused any problems for any of our other allies. For the most part all of our allies were Citadel or Citadel friends. The only thing we really had at this point to be invested in was Citadel. However, Gremlins and Umbrella began moving closer to CnG all while we came to despise that bloc for their constant bad mouthing of us. Couple this with some radical changes in Gremlins and our relationship with them deteriorated past the point of no return. So leading up to this war our Citadel relationships were already shaky and then FOK comes up to us and gives us an ultimatum to drop our IRON treaty. IRON wass still our good friend though and the only reason they wanted us to cancel on them was because of IRON's friends. This of course wass crazy since FOK was directly allied to an alliance that was openly hostile toward TOP, yet they wanted us to cancel on our ally because of said allies friends.

So we lost both FOK and Gremlins leading up to this war not because of any horrible actions we committed. We had also made up our mind that we weren't abandoning IRON again. With the TPF war it became clear that Supercomplaints intended to clash with ex heg, and that included many of IRON's allies. It was really a no brainer for us considering how much we despised CnG and how we had a great respect for IRON. There was no way we could live with siding with alliances that did nothing but badmouth us while watching IRON burn. Sadly, half of our allies or former allies were in the CnG sphere of influence. So while some of the blame should be placed on TOP, it is not fair to say we caused everything and are the sole reason Citadel and our other former allies have moved apart. And of course to top it off we made the big mistake of performing a pre-emptive attack on CnG. I do believe if NpO had not peaced out that night it would have been seen much differently and we would not have had such a horrible back lash. We made that mistake and we will have to live with it.
[/quote]

An excellent post with information that sheds light on the current situation and the thought process behind it. Something I can apprecaite.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='Tromp' date='23 March 2010 - 03:02 AM' timestamp='1269309723' post='2233768']
I'm not sure if you should be proud of that, since it put all of your other allies in the 'B' category.
But hey, FOK learned it's lesson. And I think more did too.
[/quote]

Oh please... Don't even try to act like TOP treated FOK as a second rate ally. We were with you from your beginning and have helped you out countless times. Last I check it was you who dropped the treaty and ended up attacking us.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='22 March 2010 - 08:08 PM' timestamp='1269302917' post='2233630']
Fallacy. You're twisting my words to fit your agenda/talking point. I'd really appreciate if you'd refrain from doing that, it for some reason grinds my gears.
One glance on how long I've been part of MHA [ooc:ie on left from my post/aa seniority] would reveal, that I'm part of MHA for only 3 months, and thus my explanation cannot be stretched to fit 4 times longer period.

You also sort of missed the point of what I said. We've recognized the problem and were working on it. So seeing it cause more complications is hardly a surprise, now is it?
Not only that, but you completely ignored second part of post you've quoted. I pointed out the important arguments, and shifts in opinions this conflict brought to our attention. So even if we'd work much faster and managed to address [b]all[/b] problems visible a [i]year[/i] ago, we'd still end up having some problems with it in this conflict (vide TOP treaty).
Don't quote me on statements you did not read and comprehend, please. Next time just write "MHA sucks!" and get over with it, it will save both yours and my time.

[edit: mine->my d'Oh!]
[/quote]

First of all, I have no agenda. MHA is a strong ally of one of my closest allies, and has twice now helped to sway the odds in our favor in a global war. I am merely stating my opinion on the matter, as is the right of all members of my alliance. You will notice SOM posting above me with an opposite opinion.

I'm not sure what your seniority in MHA has to do with anything, unless you happen to be the sole person responsible for reviewing MHA's treaties.

One year ago it was shown quite clearly that you held two incompatible treaties; your eternal MDoAP with Gremlins and your quasi-eternal MDoAP with NPO. That specific conflict is unrelated to the recent ones, but it should have made a strong impression in all of MHA that signing conflicting treaties is bad.

Although there were growing signs in the fall of 2009 that you once again held conflicting treaties, it is understandable not to act upon them. However, as the TPF War began to escalate, it was made abundantly clear that the Mostly Harmless Alliance could not honor all of its agreements. Luckily for you, the war was nipped in the bud and you were given a chance to cancel on one side or the other without having to break your treaties. Other alliances were given this very same opportunity and took it, such as FOK.

But the MHA did not. You continued to hold your impossible treaties for another month and a half, when the decision was finally forced upon you and you chose to abandon TOP in a rather slimy fashion. All this to say that a treaty with your alliance is worthless if you cannot guarantee your ability to honor it when the time comes.

[WalkerNinja]

[quote name='Tromp' date='22 March 2010 - 09:02 PM' timestamp='1269309723' post='2233768']
I'm not sure if you should be proud of that, since it put all of your other allies in the 'B' category.
But hey, FOK learned it's lesson. And I think more did too.
[/quote]

I'm very proud to be faithfully allied to someone that has yet to put us in a compromised position, who has never created a litmus test for us to prove ourselves, and who has never called for us to adapt our constant FA direction to their evolving one.

EDIT: I'd best say something that is applicable to MHA before I get warned.

As a former Grand Chancellor that has served since the Karma War, I will readily admit that I wasn't very familiar with MHA, never became familiar with them, and basically outsourced it to my deputies. Accordingly, however, during my administration, they never caused us any problems, nor did we place any demands on them.

Since then, MHA/TOP relations were sporadic: sometimes very active, and sometimes null. As someone said pages ago,I think that we mostly realized that we ranked a long way below the Gramlins with them, and that fact tinged our relations and expectations of them accordingly. Particularly after we parted ways with the Gramlins. To my mind, from that day forward, our MHA treaty was meaningless paper.

As such, I'm not particularly upset by this cancellation, and am puzzled by my fellow Paradoxians reacting so violently to this. A blind man could have seen it coming. We all knew it was coming.

Save the faux outrage. Cool off. Do something useful, like painting your toenails new and interesting colors.

Mine are now chartreuse.

Edited March 23, 2010 by WalkerNinja

[Tromp]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='23 March 2010 - 03:07 AM' timestamp='1269310053' post='2233779']
Oh please... Don't even try to act like TOP treated FOK as a second rate ally. We were with you from your beginning and have helped you out countless times. Last I check it was you who dropped the treaty and ended up attacking us.
[/quote]
I have made my position very clear, numerous times. And seriously, we don't 'owe' you anything, what you are seeming to imply. Allies are there to help each other in times of need, which is exactly what we both did.

And ofcourse it was FOK that dropped the treaty. That we ended up attacking TOP was because of your own actions though, not ours.

[size="3"]Apologies to MHA for derailing the thread.[/size]

[Tromp]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='23 March 2010 - 03:13 AM' timestamp='1269310407' post='2233790']
I'm very proud to be faithfully allied to someone that has yet to put us in a compromised position, who has never created a litmus test for us to prove ourselves, and who has never called for us to adapt our constant FA direction to their evolving one.
[/quote]
Ya, my response could be well summed up with 'no u', so I'll leave it with this...

I'm proud to be part of an alliance that is still capable of thinking of its own, doing as it likes, that values their allies opinion and isn't afraid to make hard decisions when push comes to the shove. Some on this world seem to have a problem with that.

[jstep]

[quote name='Tromp' date='22 March 2010 - 10:18 PM' timestamp='1269310691' post='2233799']
I'm proud to be part of an alliance that is still capable of thinking of its own, doing as it likes, that values their allies opinion and isn't afraid to make hard decisions when push comes to the shove. Some on this world seem to have a problem with that.
[/quote]

I'm proud to be part of an alliances that doesn't enable the taking of archaic reparations. Proud to be part of an alliance that doesn't stand for allies who troll other allies. Proud to be part of an alliances that remembers when allies have stood up for us and when we've let allies down (IRON in Karma war) I'm proud to be a part of an alliance that is at war with 22 alliances and still fighting hard.

[mitchh]

Good luck MHA.

Edited March 23, 2010 by mitchh

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='22 March 2010 - 08:15 PM' timestamp='1269306921' post='2233709']
However, Gremlins and Umbrella began moving closer to CnG all while we came to despise [b]that bloc for their constant bad mouthing of us.[/b]
[/quote]
They were bad mouthing us because of all the #&$#@ we pulled in the Karma war. We deserved EVERY bit of it. Non-nuke deals, bandwagoning in, trying to get lighter terms for IRON (a main reason we entered the Karma war)...and this is just what was on our forums, I'm sure Crymson and gov. did even worse things behind closed doors.

Maybe you should get over yourself and realize that people dislike TOP for good reasons. Maybe a change in [i]behavior and attitude[/i] should come right about now and that this is the only fix to TOP's massive problems.

[uaciaut]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='22 March 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1269294590' post='2233486']
TOP always wanted to be centered around Citadel while some other Citadel members seemed to be moving toward CnG.
[/quote]

This is untrue. There were plenty of TOP gov members, many of which who participated in the creation of citadel and q, who saw citadel mostly as a backup plan for when Q would fail and only used Citadel to back up their political revenue inside Q.
You keep spinning that record of yours though.

Edit: Sorry i took this even more off-topic, i'm just gonna drop it before the army of bawwwwing comes in.

Edited March 23, 2010 by uaciaut

[fallin]

Badmouthing? Are you guys seriously bringing this up as a point of contention? Did the winds of fate bring me back to high school or something?

Hey MK, I heard TOP was talking smack bout your mom.

[Monster]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' date='22 March 2010 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1269323786' post='2234008']
They were bad mouthing us because of all the #&$#@ we pulled in the Karma war. We deserved EVERY bit of it. Non-nuke deals, bandwagoning in, trying to get lighter terms for IRON (a main reason we entered the Karma war)...and this is just what was on our forums, I'm sure Crymson and gov. did even worse things behind closed doors.

Maybe you should get over yourself and realize that people dislike TOP for good reasons. Maybe a change in [i]behavior and attitude[/i] should come right about now and that this is the only fix to TOP's massive problems.
[/quote]

With regards to "bandwagoning in", it's not true at all. Every front that TOP entered was in need of some help. I would say most of the people they helped by entering initially appreciated it. What happened after that(non-nuke deals, IRON, pulling out uniltaterally out of echelon) is the source of the problems you describe.


http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55691

If you read the first page, the reaction was largely positive.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Antoine Roquentin

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

[quote name='jerdge' date='23 March 2010 - 06:52 AM' timestamp='1269307346' post='2233721']
~As ever the voice of reason and sensibility in a world, going south, fast.~
[/quote]


Cant say this often enough, folks need to listen to this guy.

Relationships are transient. Some endure for longer than some that die sooner. It is the test of a relationship in how it unravels. Not just of the relationship but of the people involved. More often than not, that which we so fondly[?] refer to as the peanut gallery is more than happy to bask in the heat given off by angry commentary from the two that part. It behooves the both of you, both, MHA and TOP being what you are, have been, continue to be [admin willing] to keep the good memories and let go of the bad ones. I know MHA, having been allied to them in the past, i know the good that is there. I also came to know TOP a bit both during karma and the period following it, both as part of discussions with leadership and talks with the rank and file members. In my opinion you both can move on and try to reconnect at a later date.

Do that.

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='22 March 2010 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1269291568' post='2233447']
The funny thing is we did hold Citadel as our most important treaty. Did you ever see who we sided with in the Karma war? You know the same war where we let IRON get stomped by our closest ally. You expect us to let IRON get stomped a second time by our same allies?
[/quote]

1. My recollections of Citadel were TOP attempting to strong arm people into thier paranoia, multiple times with less then civil tactics. I am 100% certain i am not alone in this recollection. If that was your most important treaty it must suck knowing your behaviors had a great deal to do with its splintering and enivitable death.

2. Karama: technically yes, you ended up on the opposite side of Iron in Karma. you neglected a lot of back story in your statement of fact, which I dont think I need to bring up as its been hashed and rehashed many times.

3. No I didnt expect you to let Iron get stomped, I expected you to choose Iron over other alliances you held treaties with. Which you did, the fact they are or were to get stomped is largely debatable as to the cause as I have no doubt someone will come rushing in soon saying "but they were going to attack anyway so we beat them to it."

If you are looking to sell the concept that IRON is and was not your most important treaty you might want to try selling that to someone who wasnt allied to you for over a year and witnessed your behaviors.

[Bob Janova]

It really doesn't make sense to claim that their IRON treaty was more important than Citadel when they chose the side of Citadel over IRON in Karma when Citadel alliances directly attacked IRON.

Yes, during the Continuum time there were a few senior TOP members (on and off gov) who did not seem to be putting Citadel at no. 1. I remember some heated discussion about that. But the fact is that when TOP was required to make a choice, Citadel [i]was[/i] put at no. 1, despite the fact that Grämlins explicitly broke a clause of the treaty.

Citadel was in grave trouble from the moment Grämlins elected a strongly anti-TOP member to government, who went around trashing our historic relationships and those within the Citadel sphere in particular. It had long been two main factions, with TOP having many friends in the old Hegemony and Umbrella being closely tied to C&G (the new one ), and the presence of a large and moderate Grämlins (along with the also sensible Argent and FCC) was quite important in fighting the more extreme tendencies of both sides. Once Grämlins decided it was going to choose Supergrievances over Citadel (which came during the TPF war when they issued a statement that said, essentially, they would not join TOP on the defensive side), the writing was on the wall.

Certainly TOP precipitated the breakdown of Citadel and of this treaty, which was essentially an extension of the Citadel sphere, by their poorly judged decision to open a new front as they did. But the claims of 'conflicting treaties' are still not true – MHA had an MDP with TOP, and no treaty (apart from ICE, which is a colour treaty and does not contain an MDP clause) with C&G. Grämlins had no treaties with anyone, except MHA, but its 'paperless treaties' included MDPs with MK, Argent, TOP, FCC and Umbrella, so it should not have chosen a side so early either. To be honest, you have all let yourselves be led on by the anti-TOP and pro-SG leanings of a few senior figures who had already picked a side back in December, and this historic relationship, along with many others in the Citadel sphere, are victims of that.