IRON Notice

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Voytek' date='19 July 2010 - 09:56 AM' timestamp='1279558599' post='2378972']
Who's upset? I don't see anyone upset by this; I think you're confusing "upset" and "amused".
[/quote]

Dont worry. Even though you didnt understand the point your alliance mate did and she answered the question.

[Drai]

Yes Andrew, obviously that logic can be applied to any scenario... Or maybe you could be realistic in your train of thought. Guess that gives you no ground to stand on though.

[andrew734]

[quote name='Drai' date='19 July 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1279560234' post='2379004']
Yes Andrew, obviously that logic can be applied to any scenario... Or maybe you could be realistic in your train of thought. Guess that gives you no ground to stand on though.
[/quote]

actually i was being serious as i expect zak was. I never remember anyone in our forums or elsewhere saying we would defend people we are not tied to.

[The Warrior]

[quote name='Drai' date='19 July 2010 - 06:24 PM' timestamp='1279560234' post='2379004']
Yes Andrew, obviously that logic can be applied to any scenario... Or maybe you could be realistic in your train of thought. Guess that gives you no ground to stand on though.
[/quote]

He was simply following the same train of thought that the poster of his quoted post was on. Thank you for hurling blind insults at him though. Surely he deserved it.

[Drai]

That wasn't my train of thought though if you care enough not to follow things so mechanically and instead take it into perspective.

Btw I didn't realize you wanted the post from this thread, sounded like you were asking for proof of IRON getting upset at Gre a few months ago. Give me a few hours to find the post as I don't have time right now.

Edit: nevermind, looks like I had enough time to find it. See below.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Drai

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='nikko' date='19 July 2010 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1279559730' post='2378990']
Sometimes you have to burn the bridges behind you in order to be able to move forward.
Best of luck on your new path IRON.

o/ IRON
[/quote]

Burning bridges? I thought they were trying to remain friends!

[Drai]

[quote name='bcndwilson' date='18 July 2010 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1279478491' post='2377478']
Not at all, the friendships with these fine alliances will not go away simply due to the lack of a treaty, some of my best friends still reside there and you can be sure that IRON will be looking out for all of our former and current friends.
[/quote]I guess you may interpret it differently but how many ways do you plan to legitimately be there for them? Offer moral support?

(this is what I was referring to Andrew but like I said I'm sure it can be interpreted differently from your point of view)

Edited July 19, 2010 by Drai

[Voytek]

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='20 July 2010 - 03:22 AM' timestamp='1279560159' post='2379002']
Dont worry. Even though you didnt understand the point your alliance mate did and she answered the question.
[/quote]
I saw the point you were trying to make, but you were let down by your poor choice of words. I tend to respond to the posts people actually make rather than the ones they might intend to.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Voytek

[bcndwilson]

[quote name='Drai' date='19 July 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1279561461' post='2379033']
I guess you may interpret it differently but how many ways do you plan to legitimately be there for them? Offer moral support?

(this is what I was referring to Andrew but like I said I'm sure it can be interpreted differently from your point of view)
[/quote]

Like has been pointed out many times in this thread, most of these alliances and IRON are still fairly well connected on the treaty web.

Hell I wouldn't bet against us being on the same side of the war next time around but you do have a point we can only do so much now, such as be cordial to each other and cooperate when it is needed. I know I will still be present on their boards due to how many fine people are over there.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Voytek' date='19 July 2010 - 10:55 AM' timestamp='1279562103' post='2379053']
I saw the point you were trying to make, but you were let down by your poor choice of words. I tend to respond to the posts people actually make rather than the ones they might intend to.
[/quote]

Sematics? Really? You are trying to get out of a silly comment through semantics. Well even if you want to play the semantics game your alliance mate was still bright enough to understand what I was talking about and she had the good grace to respond to my question. You on the other hand have done nothing but dodge the question. Why is that? Especially since you now admit you understood the question all along?

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='Mick Jones' date='19 July 2010 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1279559914' post='2378993']
Later IRON, I had fun losing half my NS strength to defend you in the last war.

By the way, I have a couple of aid slots open, I'm sure you intend on compensating all of your "still friends" for all the reps we got to pay for a war that we defended you in. A war, I might add, that NATO lost over a third of its NS strength in.
[/quote]
I'm not IRON but two points could be made:
1)NATO was going to enter in the BiPolar War no matter what. You were present in the war channels of the coalition centered around the NpO. Actually, for all the "we entered in your defense, IRON!!11!!" talk coming from NATO, I'd like to point out that you actually entered the war [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79901]aggressively[/url]. It's not really a defensive move if you enter on the oA part of a treaty.
2)NATO had 375 millions in reparations to pay. Given the precedents, it's light. You wanted to be a part of that coalition. No one forced you to.

[quote]I guess you may interpret it differently but how many ways do you plan to legitimately be there for them? Offer moral support?[/quote]
Offer them public support when they most need it, help them with reconstruction should they be attacked, etc. Lots of ways to help an alliance out without necessarily being tied to them.

[Vol Navy]

Well, we bled pixels for days waiting on you to enter in early January, then we turned right around and bled more in February for the whole Cluster&@#& that you played no small part in getting rolling.

Oh well, at the end of the day pixels is all they are. Sorry to see you go and good luck.

[Voytek]

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='20 July 2010 - 04:00 AM' timestamp='1279562395' post='2379060']
Sematics? Really? You are trying to get out of a silly comment through semantics. Well even if you want to play the semantics game your alliance mate was still bright enough to understand what I was talking about and she had the good grace to respond to my question. You on the other hand have done nothing but dodge the question. Why is that? Especially since you now admit you understood the question all along?
[/quote]
I play semantics because I feel it promotes the usage of words that actually reflect the author's intentions rather than weasel words that might sound better, or have more bite, but ultimately are really just kind of lame and unfunny. In this case that would be the word "upset".

As far as your question goes, I'm not in any way critical of this move. I absolutely would not have done it in quite as fell a swoop as IRON did (maybe canceling some and only downgrading others), but anything that weakens IRON's support base or tarnishes its reputation has my seal of approval.

[Xiphosis]

[quote]2)NATO had 375 millions in reparations to pay. Given the precedents, it's light.[/quote]

By contrast, GOD paid 200 million in UJW. That was 2007. You paid 175 more [b]three years later[/b]. With inflation you basically paid crap all, and you did it with many more members than we did. Only took us a month anyway, so I'm not sure why you're complaining. Those were light reps by pre-Karma precedents, much less post.

[shilo]

[quote name='Voytek' date='19 July 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1279550683' post='2378825']
Why do you see this kind of thing as a quality burn? Everyone was always going to have some kind of reaction to an FA shift on such a large scale; clearly not all of those opinions were going to be positive or supportive ones.
[/quote]
Of course.
We've seen a classical example of typical reactions coming from the alliances who got their treaties canceled by IRON. Some made it clear they aren't happy about it. I truly understand that.
We've seen people supporting those cancellations for various reasons.
We've seen people who don't care particularly.

And then there is you and some others from your group. They fought most of those alliances in more than one conflict, and usually do their best to throw insults at them when their is a possibility to do so, and even when there really isn't.
For some reason, you too are unhappy that IRON canceled on the alliances you dislike. You are unhappy that an alliance you don't like canceled on alliances you don't like. This is rather odd.

But of course, looking back at the sentence regarding throwing insults at them when there really is no opportunity to do so: well, obviously, you just found one of those



A natural reaction to your desperate and literal attempts to grasp at insults straws here is making fun of you using parody. That's why it's a quality comment.

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='19 July 2010 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1279556217' post='2378922']
Bold moves Iron, much respect, I love it when an alliance can stir the world through a single announcement.
[/quote]
You sir need to be more active while i may not like your alliance i do how ever enjoy your posts
also Hey MM

[quote name='Mick Jones' date='19 July 2010 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1279559914' post='2378993']
Later IRON, I had fun losing half my NS strength to defend you in the last war.

By the way, I have a couple of aid slots open, I'm sure you intend on compensating all of your "still friends" for all the reps we got to pay for a war that we defended you in. A war, I might add, that NATO lost over a third of its NS strength in.
[/quote]
A lot of us lost NS its called war.

Much love Iron you still have the purple hot line should you need it

[Voytek]

[quote name='shilo' date='20 July 2010 - 04:20 AM' timestamp='1279563596' post='2379090']For some reason, you too are unhappy that IRON canceled on the alliances you dislike. You are unhappy that an alliance you don't like canceled on alliances you don't like. This is rather odd.[/quote]
It certainly would be if I or anyone else in MK that has posted in here thus far actually held this view. The closest I've seen anyone come to being unhappy about this is quinoa, and even she isn't actually unhappy that IRON's done this - she thinks it's a bad move, but she's far from [i]unhappy[/i] that it's happened.

Or is this another ~incisive parody post~?

Edited July 19, 2010 by Voytek

[shilo]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='19 July 2010 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1279563089' post='2379072']
By contrast, GOD paid 200 million in UJW. That was 2007. You paid 175 more [b]three years later[/b]. With inflation you basically paid crap all, and you did it with many more members than we did. Only took us a month anyway, so I'm not sure why you're complaining. Those were light reps by pre-Karma precedents, much less post.
[/quote]
What inflation? Unless I misremember something, aidslots have been pretty constant, and income wise, the end of 2007 saw most nations easily able to pay the fine as they can now. It's just those aidslots that always stayed the same.
Well, the greed of the victors definitely inflated though




Regarding Voytek:

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' date='18 July 2010 - 08:37 PM' timestamp='1279478246' post='2377466']
So, if I'm reading this correctly, you guys are essentially saying "hey, you guys were good, loyal friends for years and all, but we're gonna go get some shiny new friends now who are [i]much[/i] better than you."

Real classy.
[/quote]


[quote name='Quinoa Rex' date='18 July 2010 - 08:47 PM' timestamp='1279478819' post='2377496']
Feel free to enlighten me. Realpolitik is one thing, but I'd be upset if a longtime friend told me to shove it for the sake of opportunism.
[/quote]
Those two above posts don't look like someone is happy about it. But I remind you I wrote your "group" not your "alliance". Since Llondo made it clear he is the official spokesperson for the new hegemonic superpower SuperComplaints, I was just lazy and put you all in one bag.

Ok. Admittedly another one of those...

Edited July 19, 2010 by shilo

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='19 July 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1279562450' post='2379061']
I'm not IRON but two points could be made:
1)NATO was going to enter in the BiPolar War no matter what. You were present in the war channels of the coalition centered around the NpO. Actually, for all the "we entered in your defense, IRON!!11!!" talk coming from NATO, I'd like to point out that you actually entered the war [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79901]aggressively[/url]. It's not really a defensive move if you enter on the oA part of a treaty.
2)NATO had 375 millions in reparations to pay. Given the precedents, it's light. You wanted to be a part of that coalition. No one forced you to.
[/quote]

Well, $%&@ you. Neither us nor NATO wanted part on your lunatic campaingn to destroy a perfectly controlled war scenario we had when we were simply fighting Umbrella (granted it wasn't easy, but they were outnumbered on the upper tier, which is where it hurts) during the first round.

NATO was on the first part of the Bi-Polar war on TFD's request to defend Nueva Vida and we retributed the favour for the second round because NATO genuinely wanted to help IRON by drawing declarations from them. I, and TFD, didn't like it at the time, but NATO had been there for us and our friends less than a week before, we had to be there for her and her friends - we're friends, we make sacrifices for eachother.

Was it entered at optional aggression? Yes it was, it was based on a stupid strategy that if we declared on someone from CnG, it'd only make the CnG available treaty partners declare on us, thus taking pressure off IRON. Of course, it failed on taking into account that other people can use oA clauses too as well as the NOIR effect. Regardless, helping IRON was all that was on NATO's mind, in a war NATO had 0 obligations of participate because you and your buddies were dumb enough to ruin an entire war effort.

Hearing: "It's not really a defensive move if you enter on the oA part of a treaty." has got to be gold when considering the line thrown around has been that IRON, in some distorted way, entered the war not because you, TOP, are idiots, but because they were defending NSO.. by not declaring on FARK.

EDIT: I missed the conclusion that makes the post in-topic. Such a big demonstration of ungratitude on a thread about the cancellation of a treaty that NATO valued alot (and apparently IRON not so much) is something I hadn't seen yet. I am sorry you and your friends have to be like that.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Lusitan

[NoFish]

[quote name='shilo' date='19 July 2010 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1279564381' post='2379106']
What inflation? Unless I misremember something, aidslots have been pretty constant, and income wise, the end of 2007 saw most nations easily able to pay the fine as they can now. It's just those aidslots that always stayed the same.
Well, the greed of the victors definitely inflated though
[/quote]

Aidslots have not stayed constant as nations have developed the FAC, and more nations have DRA's than the had before. Also most alliances have more memebrs who can more easily aid 3m than they did three years ago.

That's not even beginning to touch on the fact that regardless or slots, the money itself goes less further than it used to. Since you seem to be new here, let me remind you that in the UJW-era very few people had warchests at all. Warchests over 100m were virtually unheard of.

[Earogema]

Hmm

I like it. I don't know why, but I do. I don't think I've ever done this, but good work IRON.

[janax]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='19 July 2010 - 01:37 PM' timestamp='1279564646' post='2379108']
Well, $%&@ you. Neither us nor NATO wanted part on your lunatic campaingn to destroy a perfectly controlled war scenario we had when we were simply fighting Umbrella (granted it wasn't easy, but they were outnumbered on the upper tier, which is where it hurts) during the first round.

[/quote]
You outnumbered...Umbrella...in the upper tier?


I have a hard time believing that, honestly.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='janax' date='19 July 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1279566088' post='2379131']
You outnumbered...Umbrella...in the upper tier?


I have a hard time believing that, honestly.
[/quote]
It is hilariously untrue.

[Joseph Black]

Interesting, does this mean IRON will not have to comply with their surrender terms at all?

[WalkerNinja]

[quote name='janax' date='19 July 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1279566088' post='2379131']
You outnumbered...Umbrella...in the upper tier?


I have a hard time believing that, honestly.
[/quote]

Yeah, being called an idiot by this guy hurts a lot, lemme tell ya.