Announcement from the New Sith Order

[heggo]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1284337794' post='2451761']
Care to Elaborate?
[/quote]
Sure.

RV was told not to further inflame relations with IRON in this thread, as doing so would be unnecessary and inappropriate. He continued to do so. Now he's not the Dark Lord anymore. He's been replaced by Lennox, by the way.

[AirMe]

[quote name='heggo' timestamp='1284339354' post='2451799']
Sure.

RV was told not to further inflame relations with IRON in this thread, as doing so would be unnecessary and inappropriate. He continued to do so. Now he's not the Dark Lord anymore. He's been replaced by Lennox, by the way.
[/quote]

Oh sweet jesus, not meg!

[Ragashingo]

[quote name='heggo' timestamp='1284339354' post='2451799']
Sure.

RV was told not to further inflame relations with IRON in this thread, as doing so would be unnecessary and inappropriate. He continued to do so. Now he's not the Dark Lord anymore. He's been replaced by Lennox, by the way.
[/quote]

Good move.

[Felix von Agnu]

This is quite the interesting cancellation. I do find it interesting how the spotlight always seems to gravitate towards NSO.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1284339539' post='2451805']
Oh sweet jesus, not meg!
[/quote]
This actually made me laugh.

Meg.

[SirWilliam]

What, really? I'm bummed.

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1284334211' post='2451663']
NSO doesn't really talk about RnR very often, and as far as I know doesn't have any strongly negative opinion of RnR in general, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

People like to imagine we do and say things we don't a lot, though, so I'm not very surprised.
[/quote]

Funny thing from being a quiet alliance that doesn't try to be in the spotlight is that you easily notice when people talk about you So it's not imagination. From your perspective it wasn't that much. From ours it was enough to draw our attention

We don't hate NSO or anything either, there's also no love between our alliances. We're a quite alliance you're more of the "don't like us, do something about it" alliance. we're in most ways exact opposites. that in itself is a nice reason to go at it from time to time

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1284334633' post='2451680']
Let's see.

Propaganda that IRON is just TOP's puppet. Check.
Propaganda that IRON is just R&R's puppet. Check.
Claims that IRON asked R&R to declare war on NSO to avoid defending NSO. Hoo kind of substantiates, but R&R denies it.

I'm not quite sure how IRON can be TOP [i]and[/i] R&R's puppet, considering they're not allies themselves. For additional claims about IRON, I'd like to see some actual evidence.


Anyway, I like this cancellation. It was an annoying treaty anyway.
[/quote]

TOP and R&R have had good relations in general over the last year or 2 maybe longer. That's how we came up with "operation puppetmaster" seeing we aren't allied they never saw it coming

[Kalasin]

I totally called this cancellation. Congratulations, NSO!

[Diomede]

Congrats to both of you, I guess. Never liked this treaty anyway.

[dvdcchn]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1284339162' post='2451792']
Yeah, except that's not what Hoo said in this thread.
[/quote]


really? are we talking about the same Hoo, as seen here..


[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1284335072' post='2451698']
We chose to request R&R's assistance based on the comments I received. We were already going to bring an alliance in to help with a handful of mid-range targets. [b]Since it was hinted that IRON would stay out if that alliance happened to be R&R, then it made the most strategic sense for that alliance to be R&R.[/b]
[/quote]


[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1284336046' post='2451723']
I have no idea if they leaked it on purpose, were just hoping that would happen, or were just discussing possibilities. I only know that it was enough to make our decision on how to go about our attack easier ...
[/quote]


i think he made it pretty clear he wanted to keep IRON out, and speculatively the wider world. Other than being wrong, good job.

[Lord Fingolfin]

Well this is rather disappointing to see, from both parties. Best of luck to my former homes


[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1284335072' post='2451698']
We chose to request R&R's assistance based on the comments I received. We were already going to bring an alliance in to help with a handful of mid-range targets. Since it was hinted that IRON would stay out if that alliance happened to be R&R, then it made the most strategic sense for that alliance to be R&R.
[/quote]

Who exactly did the hinting? If it was just SF gov trying to figure out how to hit NSO without dragging IRON in then I don't see any fault on IRON's part. If, however, they did the hinting, then that was most definitely poor form

[quote name='heggo' timestamp='1284339354' post='2451799']
Sure.

RV was told not to further inflame relations with IRON in this thread, as doing so would be unnecessary and inappropriate. He continued to do so. Now he's not the Dark Lord anymore. He's been replaced by Lennox, by the way.
[/quote]

I would have put my money on Jrenster, always seems to have a cool head and know what he's doing. But anyways, I'm sure Lennox will do a fine job. Good luck guys

[RePePe]

Twelve pages of back-and-forth, heated debates, mudslinging, and some sensible posts, and yet the only idea that is not here-say across which I have come is that RoK chose RnR for the simple strategy of forcing IRON into neutrality.

So when do we get to the part where IRON violates the spirit of the treaty?

If the relationship simply was not there, fine. It happens. For one reason or the other, what was a strong friendship becomes divergent. Whether members, government, or whoever no longer values the other alliance, the treaty is no longer of value, and is cancelled. If you don't agree with an alliance's FA path, war decisions, or the like, cancel the treaty, say it was a fun ride, and move on.

Even if full logs in-context were posted (they weren't), even if key figures involved admitted to the wrongdoing (they didn't), even if it was proven that what you said happened actually happened (it wasn't), is this the manner in which an alliance professionally and respectfully handles their formerly-close allies?

Twelve pages and counting in this thread. Where is the respect, honor, and professionalism?

If you [i]are[/i] the better man, act like it.

[Cairna]

This was very much a one-way relationship and I am happy to see it go. Onwards and upwards, gentlemen.

[TheDeathBringer]

This is highly entertaining.

[Iserlohn]

I couldn't care less about the treaty, but RV's sacking saddens me greatly.


[color="#0000FF"]You sank our battleships [/color]

[Penkala]

The treaty was useless anyways. When I was in NSO, one of the topics I brought up was the IRON treaty. Not one member in the private channel at the time (including government members) liked the treaty or supported it.

[SupremePrince]

This was a rather interesting development but it make sense. I really don't think IRON match well with NSO at all.

[Creeping Death]

So... RV got the paddle huh?

[Little Fame Monster]

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1284351027' post='2451958']
The treaty was useless anyways. When I was in NSO, one of the topics I brought up was the IRON treaty. Not one member in the private channel at the time (including government members) liked the treaty or supported it.
[/quote]

Why sign a treaty if the membership and the government never liked it to begin with?

[Penkala]

[quote name='Sentinal' timestamp='1284353589' post='2451984']
Why sign a treaty if the membership and the government never liked it to begin with?
[/quote]

NSO sent the treaty over with signatures to IRON. IRON wanted nothing to do with NSO until TPF was about to be rolled. IRON saw the option for another ally and took it, and accepted the treaty. This was, iirc, when FB was dissolving. So I'd imagine NSO wasn't about to turn down another tie with the bloc crumbling. In addition, they didn't want to 'take back' an offer that had been made. At least, that's how it was described to me several months ago.

[New Frontier]

[quote name='cookavich' timestamp='1284320061' post='2451249']
And so the treaty that wrecked Frostbite disappears.
[/quote]
Right, because had that treaty not been signed NSO and STA would have continued to enjoy FANTASTIC relations as bloc-mates.

[SupremePrince]

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1284353915' post='2451993']
NSO sent the treaty over with signatures to IRON. IRON wanted nothing to do with NSO until TPF was about to be rolled. IRON saw the option for another ally and took it, and accepted the treaty. This was, iirc, when FB was dissolving. So I'd imagine NSO wasn't about to turn down another tie with the bloc crumbling. In addition, they didn't want to 'take back' an offer that had been made. At least, that's how it was described to me several months ago.
[/quote]


So basically, they both used each other. Nice.

[New Frontier]

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1284353915' post='2451993']
NSO sent the treaty over with signatures to IRON. IRON wanted nothing to do with NSO until TPF was about to be rolled. IRON saw the option for another ally and took it, and accepted the treaty. This was, iirc, when FB was dissolving. So I'd imagine NSO wasn't about to turn down another tie with the bloc crumbling. In addition, they didn't want to 'take back' an offer that had been made. At least, that's how it was described to me several months ago.
[/quote]
This is basically how it went down, except we also made the classic mistake that if an alliance is !@#$%*, they must be good meat shields. Turns out IRON is !@#$%* as an individual and as part of a unit.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='RePePe' timestamp='1284344733' post='2451871']
Twelve pages of back-and-forth, heated debates, mudslinging, and some sensible posts, and yet the only idea that is not here-say across which I have come is that RoK chose RnR for the simple strategy of forcing IRON into neutrality.

So when do we get to the part where IRON violates the spirit of the treaty?

If the relationship simply was not there, fine. It happens. For one reason or the other, what was a strong friendship becomes divergent. Whether members, government, or whoever no longer values the other alliance, the treaty is no longer of value, and is cancelled. If you don't agree with an alliance's FA path, war decisions, or the like, cancel the treaty, say it was a fun ride, and move on.

Even if full logs in-context were posted (they weren't), even if key figures involved admitted to the wrongdoing (they didn't), even if it was proven that what you said happened actually happened (it wasn't), is this the manner in which an alliance professionally and respectfully handles their formerly-close allies?

Twelve pages and counting in this thread. Where is the respect, honor, and professionalism?

If you [i]are[/i] the better man, act like it.
[/quote]

I don't think people like you actually understand what happened here. This was a mutual agreement for cancellation between us and IRON. IRON membership had issues with us and wanted to cancel. We had some issues with IRON as well. We discussed it in a meeting, and it was clear to us that IRON would not back down from their stance. Therefore, we mutually made a decision to cancel rather than go through the process of prolonging the discussions with circular conversations about who's cooler than the other.

As for the hostility, I agree that it was unnecessary.

[DevastationStation]

As a former member of IRON, this saddens me to see this back and forth. However, the end result of all of this looks to be the best resolution for both parties - I wish both of you luck.