Bella,
I have purposefully avoided responding to you, as I believe it will end badly. I have dealt with you for the better part of a year through your mass-merger of FUSE players off the BA frontline (would that count as a MM home K?) and the recruitment of T~S players off the BA frontline (would that count as a MM home K?).
I have come to certain conclusions about your style of diplomacy and truthfulness.
This will be news to you, I'm sure, as I have attempted to maintain civility and respect throughout all negotiations with you and your tribe.
If Apoc & BA are so chummy, why did BA break away from the UA?
Ask Zurtle* for more details. As one of the TWA members I worked most with, he might remember. It had to do with several issues. One, I outlined in the DS thread here:
http://forum.tribalwars.net/showthread.php?p=4948496#post4948496.
Zain was the only other Apoc leader who knew. It was a long time ago. But it was planned.
What you're structuring here is a simplistic "straw man". I never said BA and Apoc are "chummy." I never characterized the relationship as anything other than one born of trust, communication and time-consuming work. Obviously, this was to further the goals of both families. It is pretty standard game theory, actually. We played by a set of rules that all agreed to. And we trusted each other to follow through when our members broke those rules.
Here's another little secret from the UA split...
It didn't really change anything. Zurtle* can affirm - there was concern among UA leaders that the constant propaganda against the UA was creating morale problems inside the rank-and-file. There were some leaders who suggested staging a "fake split". I believe Zurtle* thought that this was the best route to take. At the same time, there were the issues with DS -- who actually WANTED a split. BA leaders had grown weary of the bickering between the leaders of the various families, and so we said -- let's do it all.
So, I (with Zurtle*'s and Zain's knowledge) helped remove BA from the UA. For people who did not know, it appeared to be a major rift had occurred. And there had - but it was between DS and TWA. Not BA. We just took the opportunity to save the alliance, avoid a DS bloodbath, keep active DS players playing the game, and continue our wars against T~S, GOC, FUSE, and A/S without adding another tribe into the mix.
This is not to say that BA's split from the UA was "fake." It was real. The UA governance structure did, indeed, go away. But the ties BA and TWA & RKN had continued.
And if you don't know... now you know.
Why was their a 3 page contract, that Peter posted, that specified no nobling inside an ally's cluster?
It wasn't a 3-page contract. The Alliance Agreement had nobling rules that were set in place 18 months ago. The contract shoud've been reviewed and agreed to by all the parties involved. Without rules for everyone to follow, trust is difficult to build. The fact that neither side tried to set some rules in place BEFORE marking each other as allies, indicates a rushed process. I was not involved, obviously, with the Apoc & V negotiations. It did seem like there was some missed steps, though. However, given my experience negotiating with you, Bella, this is not surprising in the least.
It took you 2 years to foster a 'trust'. The way i see it, the 'trust' that Apoc and BA have is not trust at all, it is a means to an end. Apoc want to recruit and ally anything with a heart beat and BA can't fight a war front alone whilst that mighty battle against their inactives is ongoing.
The two ideas you assert are not necessarily mutually exclusive, Bella. The trust is built upon a shared goal. If either BA or Apoc were to decide their goals were on divergent paths, then the trust would likely be shattered. Even so, you have no idea what relationships exist between all the various members of Apoc/TWA/RKN and BA leaders. Please quit acting like you do. There were so many people who built the trust over 2 years, that to assume you can speak with certainty on the subject betrays your own hubris. Some Apoc leaders were good to work with. Some were not. Likewise, some BA leaders were easier for Apoc to work with. Some were not.
I had some real knock-down-drag-out arguments with Apoc guys. But that never was spread through the rank-and-file.
The funny thing is after 2 years, none of you actually like each other. You don't even know what loyalty means. How many chats are there about taking out RKN? Or Apoc-N? Even ones making fun of the BA/S 'war'. That is one thing you have all perfected brilliantly - backstabbing, along with aliases and proxies.
I know I don't like you. How's that? Is that funny? Here's what I find funny... you first denigrate the alliance between Apoc and BA because it's based on a shared goal... and that this alliance has lasted for 2 years. This is somehow a negative. Then, in the next breath, you criticize us for not knowing what loyalty means. A bit of a disconnect there, eh?
To me... loyalty means abiding your agreements with your tribemates, your allies and your NAP'd tribes. That's something that every tribe you led has had a problem doing. First MM ... and now V.
We'd never attack an ally or NAP without explicit permission. It's a matter of honor and... loyalty. Loyalty to one's word. BA gave you our word we'd not attack V. You did the same by agreeing to the NAP. Your tribe broke it's word.
So, go talk to someone else about loyalty.
