An MHAnnouncement

[Thorgrum]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 March 2010 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1269347649' post='2234137']
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.[/quote]

As you well know the citadel had a rich history and the claim that IRON was more important isnt soely based on the karma war. Again, might want to try selling that to someone else, Im not buying and I have no desire to skip through the history of when TOP came into the Karma war, how they came in and how Iron came in.


[quote]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.[/quote]

Ah, but you left out a couple of pieces of data, the trouble stemmed from Gramlins conclave members thats true but i seem to remember the undying loyalty to OG by TOP during the explusion pissing more then just gramlins off Bob, of course at the time I was in the sensible argent so my perspective may be skewed by objectivty on that one. Gramlins didnt choose supergrievances, we interpreted the TPF thing differently then top, and there was verbal hell to pay for it. That verbal tongue lashing made it clear whom the more important treaty was, and it was Iron. TOP proclaimed the theory was supergrievences was drawing them into a conflict through the TPF tie to Iron and came screaming to citadel for unity. when they didnt get it, they took a hefty !@#$ on the gramlins, to bad you werent there you likely would have blunted a lot of it so it wouldnt have traveled down to grunts like me.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

You have a fair point here, however your ability to discern who gramlins should have chosen left when you bailed from your position. As far as being let on, no bob again you need to sell someone else my opinion of top is based on what I have read while in citdel, what i have been given access to in confidence by others and of course that wonderful little thing we call IRC and those nasty log dumps you that tend to make the circuit dependent on who you know.

[ajaxpenny]

I wish MHA the best of luck in their future travels through the galaxy.

There's not much to say here anymore. As per usual, it seems that communication breakdowns and misunderstandings caused mutual misconceptions of the goals and aspirations of both alliances. This treaty should either have been canceled earlier when TOP and Gre were failing to bridge their divide or we should have gathered by some sunny beach and frolicked and partied until we knew each other once again in the best of ways. The fact that neither happened, and that we were both willing to live with this half fulfilled and not necessarily happy relationship, proved to be a mistake by both alliances.

While I may look on in dismay at MHA's actions this war, that does not discount the happy relationship we had for a long time. At this time I look back and see what may have been and what was, and I cheers to those better times and my belief that such times are possible in the distant future.

[Bob Janova]

I'm not going to get sidetracked into an in depth discussion about Citadel in this thread, except in the context of how it caused this treaty to end up being worthless – which is largely a result of Grämlins' decision to leave it and downgrade their relationship with TOP. Just briefly re OG's expulsion, can you blame TOP for standing by a long time ally and blocmate, when all they did was follow a treaty on the 'wrong' side? Those debates were heated, certainly, but both sides were as right or wrong as each other.

[quote]Gramlins didnt choose supergrievances, we interpreted the TPF thing differently then top, and there was verbal hell to pay for it[/quote]
You interpreted the situation differently and chose not to support TOP. I'm sure there was verbal hell to pay for it, there would have been from me too had I still been there – TOP had chosen our side in Karma despite us having directly attacked an ally of theirs, and then Grämlins would not support TOP when a major TOP ally was about to be the victim of a coordinated and aggressive attack. Bluntly, you made it clear that you would rather let Supergrievances have its political interests furthered and let TOP and IRON get rolled through no fault of their own than join the defensive coalition (as we did in Karma) to protect friends.

You may have reasons you believe justify your choice, but it's simply factual to say that you chose SG over TOP. Compare that to TOP's decision when they were finally put to the test – in Karma, when they stood with a united Citadel against several of their own allies – and you will see that it is not TOP that is (primarily) responsible for the breakdown in that relationship. TOP may have had paranoid fantasies about them being the ultimate target, but the fact of the matter was that IRON was a mandated defender, it would not be fair to expect TOP to abandon them when the other side was clearly the aggressor and Grämlins (and the rest of Citadel) should have sided with the side of defence and justice.

And since MHA simply followed Grämlins on their FA in recent times, trashing the Grämlins-TOP relationship caused the MHA-TOP one to be neglected too. If IRON and TOP had entered this war conventionally I would have expected to see this announcement at some point anyway.

[AvengingAngel256]

[quote name='ajaxpenny' date='23 March 2010 - 08:32 AM' timestamp='1269351136' post='2234167']
I wish MHA the best of luck in their future travels through the galaxy.

There's not much to say here anymore. As per usual, it seems that communication breakdowns and misunderstandings caused mutual misconceptions of the goals and aspirations of both alliances. This treaty should either have been canceled earlier when TOP and Gre were failing to bridge their divide or we should have gathered by some sunny beach and frolicked and partied until we knew each other once again in the best of ways. The fact that neither happened, and that we were both willing to live with this half fulfilled and not necessarily happy relationship, proved to be a mistake by both alliances.
[/quote]
I think you and Jerdge should just win the award for classiest blokes [ooc: in this thread.]
(Not to discount others who should get honorable mention, not everyone was throwing %$#% around)


Thanks for the well wishes and despite heated words exchanged following this announcement, I along with many in MHA do wish TOP the same well wishes. good luck to you guys in the future.


Edit: grammar

Edited March 23, 2010 by AvengingAngel256

[Nizzle]

[quote name='Tromp' date='22 March 2010 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1269310468' post='2233792']
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]
[/quote]

I find it incredibly ironic that you say this after claiming you were treated as a "second rate" ally. The argument could be made for both sides in any treaty cancellation, but you've completely undermined it with this post.

It comes down to: You are upset TOP didn't select you as an ally to primarily support. TOP is mad you didn't select them as an ally to primarily support. Such things happen when a scattered FA is present, and it's a fact of life. There is most definitely no need, for any parties (FOK, MHA, TOP), to get so upset when it's a likely occurence when you sign more than one treaty. Treaty partners cannot always assist, and sometimes they do not want to assist. It is an important distinction to make. Quite honestly, the continual painting of each other as horrendous alliances gets old and only shows that many are incapable of co-existing peacefully and being the "better" alliance. It is not impossible to maintain friendships, no matter the side, though it is quickly becoming apparent that many believe an ally's presence on another side is the largest insult. The irony in this, of course, is the limited applications of the much acclaimed "friends > infra" argument.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='neneko' date='22 March 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1269301540' post='2233614']
TOP always put IRON before citadel and expected citadel to follow them.

My comment was towards the snide remarks aimed at umbrella for not allowing TOP to control their foreign affairs.

For the record I was in citadel for over a year.
[/quote]
Really? I could have swore that the argument years ago was that we put the NPO before the Citadel and not IRON. As Bob J has accurately pointed we made that quite clear in Karma even though Gramlins (our closes ally) attacked IRON. Even if the NPO had not attacked during the negotiations we would have stilled ended up on the Karma side because that was the side the Citadel was on.

I am well aware of your time in Umbrella and of your attitudes towards us during that period so your perspective on who you think we held in the highest regard is expected. My comment in regards to you not being in the bloc should have stated that I was speaking about the time period before the end of the bloc not its entire existence.

[quote name='Tromp' date='22 March 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1269309280' post='2233758']
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.[/quote]
I made sure to clarify FOK's position multiple times and while your government members tried to avoid the word "ultimatum" that is exactly what it was. If we wanted to keep our treaty with you we had to drop IRON. Don't try to sugarcoat it.

[quote]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. [/quote]
I remember us coming to you (then MoFA) about discussing the possible upcoming war when our alliance had not decided if it wanted to get involved or not. You told us right away that your alliance supported Athens/RoK and that you would side with them. I don't remember demanding FOK do anything, I do remember Crymson getting upset that you would make this decision without first speaking with us* (and yes, I realize you had a heated conversation). Of course, we later find out that your alliance, after your resignation, wasn't going to side with Athens/RoK and that what you told us was not the position of your alliance.

*Funny story, one of the reasons in your cancellation was that we didn't speak with FOK before deciding if we were going to get involved in the war. Of course, we did speak with you and it was you who had already made up your mind already. So, we made our decision (after talking with you) but we are still blamed for not doing so. I found it all rather hilarious.

[quote]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.[/quote]
Let me get this right, we dumped you? That's a rather strange way of putting "you need to cancel on IRON or we'll cancel on you." The bigger and stronger part is also strange. While you may not be as big as IRON your connections are much larger than theirs in terms of strength. If we were looking for someone to keep us safe the best bet would have been to cancel on them.

You cancelled on us because you had a separate FA path than us. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't understand why you are trying to sugarcoat it with all this BS.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Feanor Noldorin

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='Näktergal' date='22 March 2010 - 11:14 PM' 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.
[/quote]

Apart from the first three months where there was a Citadel but no Q...

Amirite?

[Ejayrazz]

As TOPs ally for 2 years, I feel the need to chime in.

Did TOP put IRON before Citadel? No, but they did try supporting their ally as much as possible. Anyone trying to argue this is simply ignorant of the real facts behind this history; allies help allies, no matter what. TOP did its best and Gremlins agreed to help TOP. TOP didn't force Gremlins to help IRON; we willing chose to as we felt bad in terms of what we were doing to TOP and putting them in a difficult position. There was also disorganization in Gremlins' leadership during this time which directly effected TOP.

Citadel was meant to be a close-knit crew. Who ruined it? TOP/Gremlins/OG by joining Continuum, which put FCC in an awkward position. Citadel became hard to deal with because of many circumstances which none can particularly be placed upon one specific alliance or person; many made mistakes and many alliances within Citadel changed. The OG situation put everyone at an awkward angle, and by the time people wanted change, individual alliances began changing too quickly.

[Volgan]

Given the tone of the thread the decision of MHA to cut from TOP is entirely correct. It's clear that a lot of bad blood has been created. Reading the feeble efforts to claim hyprocracy. Its a big distance between one country helping another and an Alliance helping an Alliance your at war with.

I congratulate TOP for being less than TOP of the "respect your allies" league. All you IRON flunkies get it into your thick skulls that you have been played like a banjo.

As for TOP fighting for their lives, well yes they are but they started it. TOP knows the price to end it but ther prepared to see IRON go down to buy them time.

The ODN surports it's allies in this war. Thats why we are winning. That's why IRON are trashed . Theres going to be a new saying on Bob after this is over - as hard as IRON and just a thick.

Best of luck to MHA for taking an entirely justified decision.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Volgan

[Venizelos]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 March 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1269347649' post='2234137']
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.[/quote]

in other words, TOP chose infra>friends. if they wanted to protect RON they should have joined in on their side and gotten rolled in karma.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Venizelos

[Carlton the Great]

[quote name='Venizelos' date='25 March 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1269549164' post='2236554']
in other words, TOP chose infra>friends. if they wanted to protect RON they should have joined in on their side and gotten rolled in karma.
[/quote]
How would that have helped? TOP alone was not remotely enough to affect the strategic situation. We felt we could do more good if we helped Karma and then used that goodwill to get IRON a good deal.

Not to mention that at the time we were pretty pissed at the NPO for attacking in the middle of TOP mediated negotiations and had no interest in their side winning.

[Monster]

[quote name='Venizelos' date='25 March 2010 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1269549164' post='2236554']
in other words, TOP chose infra>friends. if they wanted to protect RON they should have joined in on their side and gotten rolled in karma.
[/quote]

Had they done that, it would have been an outright betrayal of Gre, Umbrella, FOK, and a number of others. It certainly wasn't infra over over friends at all. You're just being critical for no reason at all here. It would have been disastrous(even if it wouldn't have changed the outcome, Karma would not have been as absolute of a victory) if TOP had entered on the Heg side. That you think they would have gotten "rolled" exactly is far off the mark.

It would have also been an endorsement of NPO's actions, and NPO had spat in their faces. The fact that they tried to advocate for IRON during the Karma is not a negative thing in itself. Plenty of alliances have done the same for allies that found themselves on the other side of a war.(those who advocated on Aurora Borealis' behalf in karma, for example.) It was how TOP handled it that caused the problems.

I really hate anything that would justify TOP being right to think "Everything would be better for us if we had entered on the NPO side," or "We are in this position because we let Heg get rolled in the first place," when it is their recent actions that are the actual cause.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Antoine Roquentin

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Venizelos' date='25 March 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1269549164' post='2236554']
in other words, TOP chose infra>friends. if they wanted to protect RON they should have joined in on their side and gotten rolled in karma.
[/quote]
This is basically zero credibility posting right here. TOP chose (sort of) Citadel friends over Hegemony friends, because they were put in a tight spot, and because Hegemony had betrayed them. What they really did was did the best they could for all of their friends at that time. And you should be very glad they did, because if they had chosen IRON and NPO, they would probably have hit C&G (since the rest of Karma was made up of friends) and they would have done a lot of damage then.

[bcndwilson]

Good luck to both parties, especially our friends in TOP.

Shame that they are 2 such distinct sides of the membership in MHA, one side I wanna be friends with and the others...well I will leave it there.