Jump to content

No shade (but some legit questions from a mere pleb)


Queen M II
 Share

Recommended Posts

@Shadowthrone - Partisan was using himself as an example to show that others do work with IQ sphere.  Hell, there's other people working with IQ as well that's not part of the sphere.  The whole narrative of people not wanting to reach out and work with NPO and/or IQ is stupidly dense and incorrect.

12 minutes ago, Micchan said:

TKR not at war is bad BAD!!!! I WANT TO KILL!!!!

Come hit Terminal Jest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Partisan was using himself as an example to show that others do work with IQ sphere.  Hell, there's other people working with IQ as well that's not part of the sphere.  The whole narrative of people not wanting to reach out and work with NPO and/or IQ is stupidly dense and incorrect.

What is incorrect really is believing that folks have been wanting to cross the aisle to work with NPO but have been shut down. There has literally been no movement towards thawing relations as much as blaming NPO/IQ for all the ills in the game. It's just what it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, NPO hasn't exactly done much to give an incentive for others to reach out to them within the past 9 months or so, but instead would rather just have their sphere further consolidate.  I'd presume that you're expecting people to cater to you instead.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

You alone posting here that you were willing to work with us, does not somehow extend to everyone else. For the most bit, our present allies have lost other treaties just because they are allied to NPO or some leader or the other has some sort of hatred towards what Roq did to their alliance in another cyberverse. The problem does not lie with you, but more so with any alliance that could really make an effort chose not to at the time. Using the loans as some sort of great FA move by you seems disingenuous for the most bit, since a lot of it did come from HW members and HW banks, but based on other calculations than some sort of FA move. I mean, you would not be here rolling us, if those massive amounts of loans you so love to point out, was meant to be more than what they are, just making sound investments. Also for you to expect an invitation into IQ's table or any relationship with NPO deeper than a financial transaction would have required you to put in some serious effort. If Roq did not trust you, simply put you didn't try hard enough. You concede in some vague examples further on, that you opened some chats and left it at that. Given your history in wanting to frick us over, makes sense to not trust your word, unless you particularly put in any effort to make those changes.

I gave you a variety of examples, past and present. I bring up a slightly more distant past because your narrative has been the exact same for a long, long time now- dating back to before IQ. It revolved then, and revolves now, around the idea that no one has been willing to work with you. Well, i've given you multiple exhibits of syndisphere alliances an/or players crossing that bridge one way or anoher.

As for the latter parts:

- The loans are not being used as a "great FA move". They are a clear example of someone you have historically claimed to be predisposed against you being willing to benefit you. Was it for mutual gain? Sure. Could we have gained that profit elsewhere if we really did not want to help you or work with you? Sure. The point is simple: If the grudge(s) are/were as thick as is claimed, it would not have happened.

 

- No, that was not my point, once again. There was no expectation or entitlement. Merely a blanket offer to work together on what could be a mutual goal, which was not taken. There is nothing bad about that, but I am using the example to -again- highlight willingness to work together by a non-NPO party. Something that you lads claimed did not exist.

- So you're saying that because Roq distrusts me (and this one *can* be extrapolated to half the game- there seems to be very little trust in any ex-EMC alliance and various other parties on y'alls part, be it justified or not), it automatically means that no legitimate attempt was made?. Sounds like we've touched on a core point in the constant discussions had: Your definition of what is an attempt at mending relations/working together seems to be very, very, very narrow. Perhaps that's something to revisit?

 

Quote

 

Here is where you really are starting to make huge logical leaps and extrapolating a huge line of argument from my points, that at best is a straw man. I do not consider you a part of the EMC sphere or HW any practical player within the present FA scenarios at play. My point solely lies with the happenings of the last two months, while you seem to bring in examples from different periods to prove your point. The majority of your examples there were almost a year ago, within a different FA scenario, before the creation of IQ. Zodiac, CS and BK willing to work with us, had nothing to do with you, as much as their leaders deciding in flipping the FA scenarios available to the game. They literally did more to change FA scenarios than any other efforts from other folks within EMC, in the last nine months. The reason being is their willingness was unconditional, did not require NPO or our allies at the point to sign some sort of charter of what is required, as much as wanting to truly make a change and build bridges/relationships with former foes. Using those examples here, is disingenuous, especially trying to paint BK/CS/Zodiac along the same lines of present day EMC. 

That being said, I did not say that there has to be a war for friction to exist. Just that the long ties and seemingly similar cultural ties makes an amicable split hard to buy at face value. You and TKR have not been allied for a while, and enough time has elapsed for the NK drama to play out and for the natural decay of FA relationships with the change of leadership etc. Extending that logic, for us to buy these amicable splits at face value and to act immediately because folks say its all real, is at best the stupidest method of conducting FA. At this point in time, I do not believe there exists any real friction between former EMC, though there exists an opportunity for folks to start drifting away from each other. No where do I argue that these splits could not lead to any change, just within the timeframe you're all operating on and presenting to us as some sort of gospel of change; we find it hard to buy and would rather wait and watch. If any folks want to use this time to go about proving change in opinions and that the split is real, like I said our DM's are always open and we're willing to listen. Just the folks who've taken that opportunity have been extremely limited, hence continuing with the narrative that the change does not really exist within the status quo. Feel free to dig up more examples, the point will be they will only be old and older and not relevant to the debate, simply because it isn't during the EMC/IQ FA status quo of the last nine months or heck even within the last couple of months. 

 

See my previous points: The historical examples are relevant to the discussion because they directly discredit the claim you have been making- a claim you made then, as well as now. Your narrative has not changed despite it having been disproved by the formation of IQ (along with various other events I dont feel like restating *again*.)

The problem is that you've jumped on the opportunity to split some Syndisphere alliances and doing a new thing (Hence: IQ), but then immediately reverted to the stale old 'woe is me, no one wants to work with me' propaganda. I don't really know what else I can bring forward to bring my point across. Perhaps it's owf posturing, perhaps now. If you wish we can talk about this one in query. I don't care- either way.

Quote

 

You do seem to have a knack of misrepresenting words during an argument. Definitely a changed Partisan from when I first knew you a few years ago heh. The PR campaign from 2016, set the steps for creating a pervasive culture within certain alliances, and members who would prefer to disband than work with NPO or something. The culture that exists because of the cross-game bullshit associated with our name, and the migration across worlds and invariably leaders of different alliances who've bought into those narratives you helped create, has not made our job easier. The fact that up until recently, most of EMCsphere had leaders who grew up within those cultural systems and acted within those frameworks of anti-NPO you helped bring into this game, is not political brilliance as much as helped reaffirm that NPO bad. Logically speaking, to change such a culture would take time and possible with alliances who want to change those narratives, case in point: BK. Of any of the former syndisphere folks, BK and us pretty much fought two wars, one of which that ended up in tense negotiations and a lot of bad blood. The cultural change started from the top and helped bring about some sort of detente and eventually led to the formation of IQ. In other EMC folks, that churn from the old to new is still ongoing, and the cultural values set up in 2016, has sort of pervaded down for quite a while. A lot of folks seem to hate us, but have had zero interactions with Roq or NPO. I mean its not overcoming a single PR ploy, as much as trying change cultural narratives which up until recently would have been difficult seeing the leadership teams of most alliances having been in place for most of 2016/2017. 

I'm still waiting to hear of this plenty who've reached out. I've been in gov of NPO for the better part of the last six months, and from what I know of serious discussions about folks reaching out have been minimal at best because none seemed to be particular serious in their efforts. Shittalking and collecting info for leaks seems to be a favourite pastime of folks here, hence our reluctance to believe in every leader/gov member who randomly opens up a chat. While I love chats, I can categorically state that its been minimal or at least overstated by you on the folks willing to work with us haha. Also since you love the snek theme, you can imagine why a lot of chats could be considered as info collection efforts rather than honest effort in building ties.

 

 

Likewise. It seems my point has been flying entirely over y'alls head :P. 

 

While yes, a PR campaign was waged, it touched on notions and matters which were tangible within NPO. Constant reference to MI6, off-board recruitment. The chimaera matter. I've been forward with you during those interviews later on in that I did make a specific effort to target your weak spots at the time. But let's not pretend it was one-way traffic. There had to be something to work with for me to make the connection in the first place.

Politically and in-character however, you have had plenty of chances and opportunities, and you made your choices of allies yourself. Back then (before the "campaign"), with IQ and even now. That's all i'm attempting to point out to you: You have had and still have the largest hand in your own fate.

You have made very little to no attempt at countering the "culture" you keep pointing at as the singular reason for any political issue you might encounter. Perhaps if you did make that effort, it would fade quicker. No argument with regards to churn though: It's always a factor in every scenario. But looking at leaders in Zodiac govt, in Cornerstone govt and even a lot of major figures in and around BK govt at the time of IQ's formation.... there wasn't *that* much churn. The churn came after, for the most part. Syndicate for example had more churn than Zodiac/CS.

Your last point does not make sense at all in the context of what we're discussing: My serious talks with Roq prior to the formation of IQ were rather confidential. My post-TKR spat talks with roq have mostly been me signalling wilingness and even going out of my way to allow for opsec toward me on Roqs part.

You can't bring your political mistrust/cynicism forward as the reason why the other party is supposedly not doing enough to cooperate. That's not really a valid argument, Shadow.

  • Upvote 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Partisan said:

I was referring to the points already mentioned in my post to shadow. As i'm lazy, i'll just point you that way.

No, this war is not punishment nor is it "hitting the pinata", nor are you "the underdog". We did not decide on who to hit until late in the plan. Terminal Jest is not a political entity, and there is no political motive for our hit. Hogwarts is seperate from it.

With that said, The lack of communication towards HW around the formation of IQ and the inaction when HW (a "third' rival to the parties whom you so fear, at the time) squared up with TKR *are* relevant to this discussion, because they signify concrete points in our relations where foreign parties ended up not working with you as the direct consequence of your own decisions, rather than as part of some universal grudge/disposition towards you. I refer to the HW case because my involvement there means that I have complete knowledge, rather than hearsay. If I may be bold however, i'd daresay that the example is not unique in its kind, and that similar stories exist in other cases.

Then you haven't really done a good job distinguishing between the two since it basically seems like a continuation of HW with more people added from traditionally unfriendly alliances. So far it's just looked like you were upset with IQ and chose to hit its vulnerable areas. It's not really on us to figure out the motivation given the rhetoric.

You didn't really show any plan before IQ except some vague stuff which was fine since I knew you had a lot of things to juggle, so it was easier to move with a concrete offer than something nebulous. Here's also the issue: you said once the TKR thing died down you'd go back to being on lower activity and laying low so I didn't really anticipate any more moves from you, especially since before the TKR thing you had appointed someone else to fulfill your functions and then he went inactive as well. It's not really about HW in particular since I never said you weren't more open to cooperation than most. You'd be surprised that you're the only outside party where anything had come close prior. Acting as if there were huge amounts of outreach/missed opportunities by other entities to work with IQ as a bloc is wrong. It's too bold if anything and while I give you credit for being more open, it wasn't exactly actionable. Maybe it was a case of miscommunication or mixed signals, but it certainly didn't look like there was anything to move forward with and then you shifted later on to complaining to IQ leaders about perpetuating a sphere of mass boredom implying it should break up.

21 hours ago, Partisan said:

There was discernible tension between key players, as evident by TKR's current FA situation. The problem is that TKR's initial intent *was* one of hoping for mutual splits. When this did not occur, they found themselves somewhat isolated with former allies annoyed at the (seemingly unilateral) decision, yet IQ still unwilling to move. That was and is a source of tension. To say it does not exist is to stick your head in the sand.

Do you truly believe that every single EMC alliance still has a paperless agreement with one another? I do not mean informal friendship. I mean an actual agreement to assist one another? I think that's a stretch, and I think it's a stretch you're making deliberately because it suits you :P.

I should note that I don't believe you're ruining everything. I have not discriminated in who I shit on for being boring. Go ask the commonwealth what I think of them ;). Be that as it may, I do think you're boring. Is it your right? Yes. Is it something I don't like? Sure. But that's not what i'm trying to debate here. I'm merely telling you that you're not as helpless as you portray yourself sometimes.

As for there being plenty of pieces that could make a war a loss... yes. That's the nature of geopolitics in these games, and the nature of coalition warfare. Unless you literally have over half the game at your disposal, there will be plenty of pieces that could potentially swing the war into a defeat. Every leader ever has had to deal with that :P.

Again digging a bit further into this discussion: That was not my point. Recall that at the time I queried you with a blanket "We'll take this one on the chin, but know that this will change my disposition toward TKR moving forward"? That was a defacto open invite while allowing you plausible deniability if you so pleased. It was a "Look. Here's where I stand, but I don't need/want to know where you stand yet, because I know theres trust issues". You never followed up. Your choice not to do so. I didn't care much as I tend to keep things flexible. You didn't approach us, so we made a different plan. But it's a good example of a missed window for you.

So again... half the shit you bring forth as restricting your movement, are self-imposed limitations.

 

See the above. I think i've already responded to this.

 

 

We attacked because we could. Because it seemed like a fun opportunity to suicide ourselves (we expected a loss, much quicker than what it became). We also figured if we'd be able to dip, you could be our warm up to more hits. We were mistaken on that as you refused peace ;).

You're free to pretend this is a grudge match. We've had a blast, and that's what the war was about for us.

 

 

 

 

It's a source of disagreement, but it isn't a source of conflict. The favorable predispositions don't change. Who is likely to join in in with who? For IQ, when there's a gaggle of people constantly railing against it including govs of various alliances open against it as their favorite past time, what exactly do you expect people to think? They won't act on the words? It's all just talk?

I don't believe *every* former alliance has an actual strict paperless agreement, but I do think it's likely there were a lot of contingencies they had in mind before the cancellations. When there was some sort of real dispute leading to a cancellation, there was much less chance of that, but when there wasn't a definitive clash there was and is a much greater potential of cooperation.

The point about talking about pieces that could swing a war into a defeat is more one of likelihood rather than just positing the alliances exist and thus might do something. The predispositions didn't change and no one really reset their stance towards IQ as a product of the splits.

Again, as I said before, when I did ask if you'd continue to be around back in November, you said you'd be lowering activity once the TKR thing settled down and it did appear you were laying low, so there wasn't an impetus to follow up. If you remember you still had a lot of people on NK for quite some time after and some of your other allies had moved on. There wasn't anything to indicate you wanted to rock the boat further after that.

Then it was up to you to manage the narrative better if you hadn't wanted people to take it personally. Basically, the constant switching back and forth between joking around and seriousness really impairs any "war for fun" narrative, especially the opening posts which did signal some political motivation for it along with the individual histories of the members. Then the whole "I did not intend for this to become a war" and asking for peace when you had already rampaged a lot of the nations was really sending mixed signals. The main reason people didn't want to give a quick peace was that it basically encourage more hit and run incidents. Then after it was originally rejected you sent a third party to negotiate, which was bizarre.

------

 

21 hours ago, Sketchy said:

The first is a result of your political position. You put yourself in the position of having large amounts of lower tier ties, and are staying with those ties rather than shifting away from them. Also the only reason that is true is IQ seems to have an aversion to large updeclares. If you want to play it safe that is your decision, but that is a part of your strategy not a part of some cosmic or mechanical injustice.

The original post I was responding to was talking about economic disparities. Having to fight more during war, which is a flaw of your strategy not the mechanics, is not relevant to the 9 months of accrued wealth that would happen during peace. Other IQ alliances seem to be either stagnating, or intentionally capping themselves in order to meet tiering goals.

I have no idea how much independent investment is going on, but I'm skeptical its significant enough to create or even make a slight difference to an economic disparity as large as you are claiming. I'd need to see numbers on that before I concede that point.

I agree with your first sentence. but the distinction to point out is the alliances you were opposed to have split and are going in various different directions politically. We could debate whether you could actually win a war, which I would argue you can, but since we've had this argument before I'll just address your point about political positioning.

I didn't argue political positioning was balancing, I argued if you are in such a bad position, what is the justification for staying where you are rather than moving. You seem to be intentionally or accidentally creating your own situation and then using it somehow as a justification for not moving away from it which makes 0 sense. If you don't want to move that is your decision but then you can't use the consequences of that decisions as a basis for the justification and to shift the blame onto others.

All true, not really a defense. As we've seen evidence of time and time again, some alliances often will front up risk in order to achieve far less pragmatic results than the results you would get considering you are claiming you are in such a dire economic situation. We've seen this both recently and in the formation of your sphere as you've so eagerly jumped to citing in the past.

So what is the overall goal then? Survival for survivals sake? This seems in stark contrast to a lot of the claims made upon IQ's formation.

Tiber was making the opposite case the other day in regards to pushing for "IQ's success as a bloc" but so far I've not seen any clear indication what that is supposed to be. 

Just to be clear, I'm trying to work out exactly what the purpose of IQ as a political entity is anymore in your minds, as its becoming increasingly difficult to discern. 

It make sense to count on reliable ties rather than on nothing. It's only playing it  safe in so far as reliability in times of difficulty. That's the main distinction. At this point plenty of people have had fairweather groups ditch them. The usual alternative is some would come severely isolated and prone to random hits and that would ultimately negatively affect balance in the long run. Every sphere split that's motivated by a desire to improve the circumstances of the individual alliances rather than something else usually results in further imbalance.

In general, there will always be people have to fight more in war since it's a product of score being determined by military, so if an alliance of upper tier players loses, the mid tiers will have to keep them down for quite some time. If a group doesn't really have enough upper tier to win definitively then they can only do comparable damage by endurance fighting. You brought up the increased value of resources, so if someone had a lot more from lack of use prior the change, then they can save by not having to spend on either purchasing or manufacturing them.

The different directions have yet to be fully fleshed out and it's more likely there will be some sort of bipolar configuration in a war scenario. That's the tendency, so when a lot of them tend to have similar worldviews and don't actually clash outside of limited instances, it's kind more likely the familiar groups will bind together. That, of course, might change and we may see actual rivalries surface, but it's only been a developing process so far.

If you're not in a good position, doing something else can still make it worse. Just not having the upperhand doesn't make every alternative more feasible. I'm sure some alliances could end up benefiting from flipping on an individual level which could then leave the others isolated but so far they haven't chosen to have themselves attach to a winning horse because they didn't like everything being tilted to one side before.  It's not really shifting blame if others have an established pattern where it doesn't make sense to play into it.

The point is it's not a frequent thing. It was a risky thing for some of the alliances and they took on the risk but that doesn't go for the majority of alliances. The culture is still one where losing is still too much to endure.

I don't think that implies survival for survival's sake. It's having a group that  is able to cope with taking difficult hits even when the material incentive is low and can compete in at least one area in a game that has a lot of stratification.  The alternative is likely some  form of entrenched domination in all areas by whatever group is able to accumulate the biggest spread.

 

I don't know what Tiber said since I didn't listen to the show.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All these sexy ass motherfrickers can stop posting now because we all know that the root of all evil that has been happening in Orbis has all been orchestrated by the baby back bullshit of @Kayser. He must pay for causing stress to my dear snek @Partisan, rich oil baron @Abbas Mehdi, the 1 ship 1 man army pw ball homeboi @Ripper, and whoever the frick decided to become active again to give @Kastor's dignity back. This is your answer @Queen M. @Kayser's incompetence.

Edited by Ebeezy
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Lxr4VfE.png

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.