Jump to content
Rolling Thunder Forums

Alliances and Wars


Kurassier
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gary Carpenter Posted: Oct 15 2004, 07:45 AM

You are correct, The PA has not vieiled, that should give some credibility, unlike, those that say one thing and do another..

 

I said Martin appears to be a good player, IE high quality, knows what he is doing, NOT referring to him as white hat. You could not figure that out?

 

From my point of view, I only point out where people are wrong, and they can not take it.

We think you misunderstand. We are not coming down on you for your stance or the image you've built. We are tolerant of those that display tolerance. We simply do not understand why you sound frustrated at having to explain and defend yourself to so many players as you stated earlier.

 

And perhaps part of the problem lies in the poor advertising you do for your alliance in relating to others. "You could not figure that out?" Uh, yes, it was difficult to figure, but thanks for the subtle tutoring. I did indeed mean "good" as in talented, but please relook at the message, as our emphasis was on "appears". We simply meant that you seem quite content to go off appearances, ignoring a good deal of reality. Do you mean to seem this way?

 

But since you brought your credibility up again, let's not forget your active recruitment of MMB. You knew MMB had "baggage" as you call it. Fine, you made the choice and the consequence is that you didn't reap a lot of galactic credibility with that decision. But don't sit back and say some of us are wrong for questioning that decision because that flies in the face of that whole appearance problem as addressed above. Many of us were present to witness MMB's actions we speak of and you were not. Or is this the part where we just take it on faith your ability to "point out where people are wrong" again. If it is credibility you seek, maybe you could meet us halfway and at least entertain the position that we're not simply making this up as we go.

 

We are pleased to hear your point of view, truly. But a little recognition that other views might be tolerated would go a long way, rather than your response of "they can not take it." Such toleration builds credibility much more effectively than the alternative.

 

Valkor sends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had great visions of forming an alliance to stand against the US players who would be just out to get the Europeans - we all knew it - we'd been told so....

Well I for one am an American, and have never heard of attacking the Europeans, just because they were European. Now mind you, I'm sure there are some who would, just not me.

Besides, I need my British Ale, German Beer, French/Italian wine, Russian Vodka, etc....... (and of course any combination of the above and others)

I for one have never believed in pigeon holing someone just because of where they are from. I have too many friends around the globe to do something like that.

 

Is it me, or has our whole galaxy gone banana's?

It's just you! :cheers:

Attacking Europeans, Maybe the French, certainly not our allies the British, who as a rabid American warmonger are not getting enough credit for their aid in the current real war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Carpenter Posted: Oct 15 2004, 07:45 AM
You are correct, The PA has not vieiled, that should give some credibility, unlike, those that say one thing and do another..

 

I said Martin appears to be a good player, IE high quality, knows what he is doing, NOT referring to him as white hat. You could not figure that out?

 

From my point of view, I only point out where people are wrong, and they can not take it.

We think you misunderstand. We are not coming down on you for your stance or the image you've built. We are tolerant of those that display tolerance. We simply do not understand why you sound frustrated at having to explain and defend yourself to so many players as you stated earlier.

 

And perhaps part of the problem lies in the poor advertising you do for your alliance in relating to others. "You could not figure that out?" Uh, yes, it was difficult to figure, but thanks for the subtle tutoring. I did indeed mean "good" as in talented, but please relook at the message, as our emphasis was on "appears". We simply meant that you seem quite content to go off appearances, ignoring a good deal of reality. Do you mean to seem this way?

 

But since you brought your credibility up again, let's not forget your active recruitment of MMB. You knew MMB had "baggage" as you call it. Fine, you made the choice and the consequence is that you didn't reap a lot of galactic credibility with that decision. But don't sit back and say some of us are wrong for questioning that decision because that flies in the face of that whole appearance problem as addressed above. Many of us were present to witness MMB's actions we speak of and you were not. Or is this the part where we just take it on faith your ability to "point out where people are wrong" again. If it is credibility you seek, maybe you could meet us halfway and at least entertain the position that we're not simply making this up as we go.

 

We are pleased to hear your point of view, truly. But a little recognition that other views might be tolerated would go a long way, rather than your response of "they can not take it." Such toleration builds credibility much more effectively than the alternative.

 

Valkor sends.

Hmmmm. You are confused. Has the PA declared war on any of the empires that are attacking the Eyre? No.

Did I back the Eyre's call for an investigation? Yes.

Did I blast the GS, when they dragged their feet, ignoring their own bylaws? Yes.

 

Did I blast the GS for other times they did not follow their own bylaws? Yes.

 

 

SO does this mean I have no crediblity, and an evil, and should be attacked? Ill let you answer that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Carpenter Posted on Oct 17 2004, 01:50 AM

Hmmmm. You are confused. Has the PA declared war on any of the empires that are attacking the Eyre? No.

Did I back the Eyre's call for an investigation? Yes.

Did I blast the GS, when they dragged their feet, ignoring their own bylaws? Yes.

 

Did I blast the GS for other times they did not follow their own bylaws? Yes.

 

 

SO does this mean I have no crediblity, and an evil, and should be attacked? Ill let you answer that one.

...and I will.

 

Let's see.

Didn't ask about the investigation.

Didn't ask about the GS.

Didn't ask about the bylaws.

 

We did question your credibility and your not understanding why it's under scrutiny right now. That's really it. We never said you had no credibility (you must have some)...just that it has taken a big hit vis-a-vis your actions with MMB. Maybe it's unusual, but there is no hidden agenda. We queried and were hoping for an answer that resembled the topic.

 

If you dislike the question and some public scrutiny on your very public alliance, we respectfully withdraw the question. We wish your credibility a swift recovery.

 

Valkor sends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Carpenter Posted on Oct 17 2004, 01:50 AM
Hmmmm. You are confused. Has the PA declared war on any of the empires that are attacking the Eyre? No.

Did I back the Eyre's call for an investigation? Yes.

Did I blast the GS, when they dragged their feet, ignoring their own bylaws? Yes.

 

Did I blast the GS for other times they did not follow their own bylaws? Yes.

 

 

SO does this mean I have no crediblity, and an evil, and should be attacked? Ill let you answer that one.

...and I will.

 

Let's see.

Didn't ask about the investigation.

Didn't ask about the GS.

Didn't ask about the bylaws.

 

We did question your credibility and your not understanding why it's under scrutiny right now. That's really it. We never said you had no credibility (you must have some)...just that it has taken a big hit vis-a-vis your actions with MMB. Maybe it's unusual, but there is no hidden agenda. We queried and were hoping for an answer that resembled the topic.

 

If you dislike the question and some public scrutiny on your very public alliance, we respectfully withdraw the question. We wish your credibility a swift recovery.

 

Valkor sends.

Missed my point again.

 

It appears you have a blind spot, called MMB, not me, or the PA, it will be interesting to see what happens next.

 

 

 

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it is likely that the GSL's inability to incorporate MMB's play style is in large part the reason for its ultimate demise.

From what I recall of the conversations on the board, what you so politely refer to as MMB's "style" was the sort of behavior that likely got his ancestors thrown off riverboats from New Orleans to St. Louis... you start acting like your allies are your marks and people start to take it personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I blast the GS for other times they did not follow their own bylaws? Yes.

 

 

SO does this mean I have no crediblity, and an evil, and should be attacked? Ill let you answer that one.

...and I will.

 

Let's see.

Didn't ask about the investigation.

Didn't ask about the GS.

Didn't ask about the bylaws.

 

We did question your credibility and your not understanding why it's under scrutiny right now. That's really it. We never said you had no credibility (you must have some)...just that it has taken a big hit vis-a-vis your actions with MMB. Maybe it's unusual, but there is no hidden agenda. We queried and were hoping for an answer that resembled the topic.

 

If you dislike the question and some public scrutiny on your very public alliance, we respectfully withdraw the question. We wish your credibility a swift recovery.

 

Valkor sends.

Missed my point again.

 

It appears you have a blind spot, called MMB, not me, or the PA, it will be interesting to see what happens next.

 

 

 

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

It would more likely seem that the two of you aren't having the same conversation... Valkor discusses the baggage the PA picks up by admitting MMB to their ranks and you... you keep fishing for a distraction.

 

Filed under "Things to make you go "hmmmmmmmm...""

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No distraction here. It is real simple. PA did not pick up any MMB baggage. MMB brought his baggage and continues to own his baggage. Should his conquest bring him near another PA empire who chooses to assist him, then they will, or not. Demanding that all other alliance members come running to the defense (or offense) of another member is counter-productive. I'm fighting WKE. I do not expect nor demand that the Colony assist. If I were to fight Eternus, we certainly do not demand nor expect Ed to come running.

 

PA is a group of players intent on winning who believe that they can trust each other and work with each other when the time comes. That's why membership is so picky. We believe we can (and do) work well with MMB and that we can trust him to make good choices. It is not a requirement that the rest of the galaxy trust us nor believe our selection criteria are "credible".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I back the Eyre's call for an investigation? Yes.

Did I blast the GS, when they dragged their feet, ignoring their own bylaws? Yes.

 

Did I blast the GS for other times they did not follow their own bylaws? Yes.

 

:lol:

 

Gary c'mon man be fair.

 

We did follow the Bylaws.....and stopped the investigation once we found out it was bogus. You and Martin then basically mocked us for not noticing that Valkor was never in the Senate to begin with.

 

Had Valkor been a member, we would have followed through with the investigation.

 

So I'm not sure where the Senate failed :cheers: Well we did drag our feet (it was our first one and I was SWAMPED with RL affairs)...but it now seems for very good reason. Oh well.

 

Hey - one could say the PA is 'dragging its feet' in taking over the local universe, too I suppose :cheers:

 

It is not a requirement that the rest of the galaxy trust us nor believe our selection criteria are "credible".

 

Fair enough...then why so defensive about bringing him in?

 

Demanding that all other alliance members come running to the defense (or offense) of another member is counter-productive.

 

Decent point.

 

This raises issues about the whole pre-packaged alliance concept anyway. It appears that if you start at the same time you can get super lucky with being in the same neighborhood...but beyond that...and info exchange....using a pre-packaged alliance as a cohesive defensive network has severe limitations.

 

Attacking Europeans, Maybe the French, certainly not our allies the British, who as a rabid American warmonger are not getting enough credit for their aid in the current real war.

 

I agree with the sentiment of this statement.

 

The Europeans rarely get enough credit in international affairs these days. :cheers:

 

:cheers: <--- to my ancestoral homeland across the Pond D'Atlantic :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MMB brought his baggage and continues to own his baggage. Should his conquest bring him near another PA empire who chooses to assist him, then they will, or not.

* * *

We believe we can (and do) work well with MMB and that we can trust him to make good choices. It is not a requirement that the rest of the galaxy trust us nor believe our selection criteria are "credible".

OOC: The Israelis call this strategic ambiguity. This strategy makes sense in some defensive contexts. I am not sure it works here, because as we all know it is about winning, presumably in the usual sense of that word.

 

IC: What the Consultatum really wants to know is in the face of such a PA policy of "members do as thou willst," how can another rational power deal with your members in a posture other than suspicion? This is especially true when that power is in a shooting war with a known member. I posit that it is very dificult to do, short of being incredibly naive. If two PA members are bording one another and a non-member is at war with one of them, that non-member better darn well assume that the 2nd PA position is poised to strike. It reminds me of a gang that watches a member scrap with another guy and the encircling members stick a switchblade in the poor dude's kidney so the "champion" can claim a victory. If we are mistaken, we want to know because the Boo do not seek imperial conquest and prefer to trade. Yet, this PA policy of strategic ambiguity smells like a thinnly veiled screen to mask coordinated aggression. We are looking for something rationally sound upon which to hang our hats in justification of not presuming all PA members hostile.

 

Boo Consulate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[and has] suceeded in distracting all of you away from our master galactic conquest plan.

 

:lol:

 

I'm laughing in earnest because I believe Norm was utilizing his sense of humor.

 

We are looking for something rationally sound upon which to hang our hats in justification of not presuming all PA members hostile.

 

Likewise. :cheers:

 

But if they can convince others that they have been 'misinformed' about the 'true' nature of the PA, let 'em. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No distraction here. It is real simple. PA did not pick up any MMB baggage. MMB brought his baggage and continues to own his baggage. Should his conquest bring him near another PA empire who chooses to assist him, then they will, or not. Demanding that all other alliance members come running to the defense (or offense) of another member is counter-productive. I'm fighting WKE. I do not expect nor demand that the Colony assist. If I were to fight Eternus, we certainly do not demand nor expect Ed to come running.

 

PA is a group of players intent on winning who believe that they can trust each other and work with each other when the time comes. That's why membership is so picky. We believe we can (and do) work well with MMB and that we can trust him to make good choices. It is not a requirement that the rest of the galaxy trust us nor believe our selection criteria are "credible".

Let me understand this the PA is out to win? At least that is a response that I keep hearing from them. I take this to mean they plan to be the dominate force in this game when it reaches its final conclusion. Now how can you be the dominate force when you have no commitment from your members? The only sense of commitment I have heard about is that if Eternus is attacked by the PA, Ed could not give him support in any form. Ed never has to lift a finger to support the PA at all. So in all reality if one joins the PA they have to do nothing but refrain from supporting a enemy of another PA member? What happens if Ed has a trade agreement with X and then one of the PA guys come along and start attacking? Is Ed forced to cut his ties to this empire?

 

I simply can not see how the PA expects to be the dominate force in the game when they have no commitments and no real support system. From what they have posted you would be just as well off by making personal neutrality agreements with everyone you meet. It would amount to the same thing or is there something about the PA your not telling everyone? Because at this point with what was said about the PA why should one member trust another when they really have no commitment between members? :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...