Leaderboard

A few weeks ago, in a surprising turn of events, a well known executive of the Multinational Corporation and humanitarian institution 'The $yndicate inc' announced his retirement. Partisan, known for his sneky shenanigans, predisposition for theatrics, and his ingenuity in navigating the business world, was a driving force of the $yndicate's Strategic Planning. His contributions too many to list, we at The $yndicate Corporation give our thanks to him for his service. In his place Hilmes will be taking the wheel as the Executive of Strategic Planning. I have large...socks to fill but I'll do my best to see a continued rise in The Syndicate's (NASDAQ:T$) value in the markets <3. Finally, in the corporate world there are times when business partners recognize that their joint venture has reached the end of it's viable life cycle, and that it is time to diversify their product lines. As of 12/23/2018 The Syndicate was no longer the parent company of long time subsidiary Afrika Korps. We wish them the best whenever their path leads them. /$/igned for the $yndicate: Chief Operations Officer (IA): Leopold von Habsburg Chief Financial & Security Officer (Econ & MilCom): Timmy Strategic Planning (FA): Hilmes

TFW when you have a party at your house and invite a bunch of your friends over but someone steals your TV so you go to your friendly and dependable friend and accuse them and cut them from your life and sucker punch them in the face while that greasy ass snake mofo who is lazy and poor and is always asking you for money is standing there with a shiteating grin that says "I did it and I got away with it". Only after visiting your snake friends house and noticing a TV that looks suspiciously like yours do you realise the gravity of your mistake so you go back to your old friend and grovel asking for forgiveness and because hes a champ he agrees but things are the never the same again. The moral of the story here is stupid people don't deserve friends.

It has come to my attention, that we here at Bad Company, never officially apologized to Kevanovia, for mistakenly believing the lies Cynic had spread about him, and we ended up believing, simply because we were duped. I had told Kev an apology would be included in the Peace Agreement, in one of the comments, and I forgot. Kev.......myself and the rest of BC Gov is very sorry for how things played out, and for believing the lies and shenanigans that where told to us, but the scumbag Cynic. DemonSpawn COO of Bad Company

I appreciate it Demon. No hard feelings BC, all is well. ? I got to make some additional new friends in the process, so it ended up working out. Best of luck on your rebuild. ? ❤️ Thanks Dear.

Who is Kevanovia

And their allies https://politicsandwar.com/index.php?id=15&amp;keyword=Tesla&amp;cat=alliance&amp;ob=score&amp;od=DESC&amp;maximum=50&amp;minimum=0&amp;search=Go&amp;memberview=true

I’m actually glad to see the war ongoing. Shows you who really sticks it out for their respective alliance.

Welcome back to OrbisMojo, today we will be discussing the top ten reasons why NationRP is for degenerates. 10. It doesn't affect the game what so ever making it useless 9. It's boring, like who cares about your nation running out of milk 8. Shifty doesnt like it, shifty has to approve 7. Alex likes it, that's just bad 6. RPers are losers ingame They never post in orbis central or alliance affairs because they are cowards 5. Only libtards use NationRP 4. There is an actual game called NationStates that is only RP. PnW is an actual game, play one or the other. 3. DISCORD, we have that too it contains RP that actually effects the game 2. no one but themselves care about what they have to say It's all "good work, now go look at my RP and upvote or else you're a hater and we need to change the mod rules again" 1. they spend too much time on it

Lol, the image ain't working buddy.

That's the worst part of the night.

I don't remember signing off on this apology... I disapprove.. If Kev wants his apology he'll come to Kilo's Korner and get an official apology from me.

Didn't parti already announce he was leaving last month when he left?

Did you ever want to know a bit more about members of our community OR just simply wanted to get to know someone or anyone? ORB Weekly has been interviewing members of our community since our first day, it is our mission to learn about people in our community and hopefully connect you to those people. We don't just keep it 'game' related, we step over into their RL, their history, everything we can possibly think of to get you a natural interview. Our questions change as the game changes and events in our real world change - so always keep a lookout for our interviews - want to be interviewed? Just ask! Serephiel/Emperor Kevenovia/Kev from Great Job! Radoje/Radovanko Adrienne Queen of TKR Alexio Buorhann/Beerhoe Prefontaine/Pwe Keegoz Mad Titan/Thanos Lucifer Morningstar Max Keza Alex/Sheepy Hannah ❤️ Fraggle - Coming Soon

Kev is Great Would smash 8/10

I did this once! It was on your old forums. Classic Partisan, being so vain he omniretires just to get more sendoffs.

Further to the point it's just plain bad decision-making to protect an alliance that can't offer anything in return. I get the impression that a lot of treaties get signed without having a functional purpose in mind and it's just the FA head or the alliance leader wanting to propogate the idea that they're working hard doing FA things. As a general rule I think protectorate treaties are often deeply misunderstood. At their most basic a protectorate treaty is just a one-sided defense agreement, yet so many players simply look at the number of green lines on the treary web as a representation of "power projection" or "proactive FA", when in fact they're black holes that suck resources away from the protector and typically return nothing of value. Barring any exceptional arrangements like payment, vassilization or the like, the protector gets no immediate benefit, economic or military, from protecting an alliance. Because of this, there's usually some understanding (often likely never elaborated at the outset of the agreement) that the protectorate will reciprocate the favour at a later date once they become stronger. For players thinking in 2015-16 terms, this might seem smart, as BK and TKR started out as t$ protectorates and went on to help prop up a bona fide Syndicate-led hegemony for years. But more recently we've seen alliances such as the original TEst splinters, Dark Brotherhood, Bad Company, and doubtless many others I'm forgetting all split with their protectors and return nothing of value to them. The historical record should be evidence enough for the great powers of Orbis to question the validity of the assumption that protecting a new alliance will make them loyal to you. So my overall point is that if the protector isn't extracting any explicit commitments from the protectorate to provide something of value, like a future mutual defense agreement or short-term payment, then the FA team of the protector is doing their own members a disservice. After all, if someone decides to raid the pro then its the members who are responsible for actually carrying out the protecting, not necessarily the FA guys who want to look busy.

❤️ you Kevvy!

I cant see anything

Oh crap, I forgot about kosmokenny. He definitely needs to be on the list for Worst poster along with the others I named. That is actually going to be a toughtopic to vote on.

@The Mad Titan This is only a suspicion, but part of the point of dragging out these war negotiations is to make sure everyone knows that declaring war on TKR-sphere is a pain in the ass; even if you win, you will be stuck fighting an Arrgh-type or VietTKR war for months after substantial combat operations are over, all while taking nukes. The problem is how well a coalition employing this strategy can hold out. At first, the members who leave will be garbage, EMC-type members. Next you get vacillators who fought it out for a while, but then decided they were bored of the game and weren't really contributing much anyways. But where this starts to hurt is when quality members begin to leave. I am basically a "pixels mean nothing" type of guy, but the third imposes substantial losses since the lifeblood of an alliance is its members and organization. Bleeding out bad blood isn't a problem, but when you start losing healthy members, you have a more serious problem than any of the damage SynDIQ has inflicted on a statistical basis. I think TKR-sphere has already bled off their EMCers, and is either bleeding vacillators or quality members right now, depending on who you ask. What's worse is the post-war losses, i.e, there will be some members who decide not to rebuild and decide to quit instead. I think TKR-sphere can hold out at least to breaking the DDR / "69" days war record, maybe to 3 months or more. But they are better off ending this before they reach the breaking point. I like TKR-sphere, I obviously don't want to see them get rerolled, but excess qualitative bleed isn't good either. @Apeman There was an ex-TCW nation that, I believe, deleted, but the gentleman or lady involved left TCW for TFP. That's sort of an individual surrender, but the nation was promptly attacked by SyndIQ assets after joining TFP. Re: Prefontaine: Angry screaming about how you're losing, my balls are bigger than yours, and that you should kneel down and obey isn't conducive to good peace negotiations. And to insightful people, it just makes the party doing so look bad, i.e, a party roused to anger is often impotent. The Mad Titan, at least, is talking about the real damage that TKR-sphere is taking, and is focusing on that. But then again, what I'm told is that Prefontaine isn't formally part of these negotiations.

At least 2 of those pages are just posts of people commenting on the length of the topic.

Sure, we did walk off for three weeks but that's already been discussed on here. That was an intentional walk off because we weren't done fighting, you all said you weren't done fighting, and we weren't happy with the terms, the progress of the discussions, or any of you really. Trying to paint us as flaky since returning is ridiculous. We talked and scheduled a time on a Sunday and arrived on that. No one walked away for a week after that. Your side asked about the next Sunday for a time, which we weren't sure we could make because of the holidays and so proposed the running talks instead, which you all agreed to. I was going to try and sit down to get something up and post sometime on Sunday but when I hadn't managed to find the time to do so by update, you decided that meant I was skipping a meeting. I didn't even think there was one because we'd swapped those for running talks. And then your side decided we should just wait until after the holidays, which is fine because who wants to deal with PnW instead of spending time with their families at Christmas? Definitely not me. But we're there and we're trying to work on things with you guys. You're free to continue reading into our actions and completely misunderstanding us. Or you can actually talk to us and ask what's up. My DMs are always open, Leo.

How dare anyone call them pixel huggers? AK is a independent alliance that has gotten in many conflicts over it's time that were definitely very hard because they were dogpiles. And even then. It's not as if they were 1.5billion in negative damage. Or that they were protected by 2 alliances. Stop being such bigots smh.

Basic Info So I'm bringing this idea from another game. Basically I'll call them territories in the thread but it can be any of the preferred names either in the title or whatever you like. Ill call them territories for consistency sake Basically You would have certain places on the map where you can capture to make them your territory. This would be very few as in maybe 3? Not sure put down what you think would be an appropriate number of Territories to have. You could choose to begin capturing one of the territories and there would be like a certain number of available slots Such as this very crude but i think it gets the point across excel graph Basically each second you're on the wall it would "tick" a point. You would need an xxx amount of points to capture the territory which could be whatever is deemed balanced. I used 100,000 just as an example Now one big thing that could deter pixel huggers and nations with common sense alike is the cost vs gain Basically infra lost. I'm proposing Infrastructure lost is reduced by 75% While on the slots Infrastructure lost is reduced by 25% in wars VS Nations on the slots Improvement lost is reduced by 25% For both sides if at least on side is on the capture Loot taken is reduced by 50% for both sides if at least on side is on the capture Alliance banks looting is 0% As in you cannot get anything from alliance banks if at least one side is on the wall (IF YOU ARE FOUND USING THIS TO PREVENT AN ALLIANCE BANK FROM BEING RAIDED, Meaning you joined the wall after being declared on to take advantage, similar to VMING a bank. there would be punishment) % Are subject to change based on if its balanced Monopolies One of the concerns might be. "Well the top alliances will just hog all the territories" Well theres an easy solution. Each alliance may only have 1 territory. this bonus is given to only them and no one else (Like procterates mdps etc) Another concern would be "Well won't they just sit on their one territory and farm it???" Solutions Make it so territories are automatically "Neutralized" Every ??? days/months. I'm thinking towards 4 months an alliance has had it Or Make it so territory bonuses are changed every ??? days/months to encourage them to move to a bonus they want more of Or Make it so after ??? Days/months They have a combat disadvantage to encourage them to "Throw away" the territory as in there would be an option to abandon Also a rule must be in place. Alliances can not intentionally give up a territory to another alliance to prevent trying to create a monopoly of territories. they must have a valid reason to abandon (Which could be bonus change) If they have given that as their reason they are not to attack the alliance trying to capture to help their allied alliances as they have already declared disinterest Attack Ranges Now you might be thinking Wouldn't this mean Alliances could just hire very low score nations to abuse the -25%/+75% Attacking range? Well there would be some solutions to that 1. Would be tiers to prevent low/high score campers Tier 1 - Top 25 Nation OR Consists of 8000+ score Tier 2 - From The 26th nation to 5000 score OR Consists of 5000-8000 score Tier 3 - Consists of 3500-5000 Score nations Tier 4 - Consists of 3500-2000 Nations Tier 5 - Consists of 2000-1000 Nations Tier 6 - Consists of Everything below 1000 NOTE: Your recruitment of all military besides spies, missiles , and nukes are reduced by 50% while on a capture slot (To prevent people from Decom sitting on the wall and waiting lower tiers to declare then buying) PROS Would make it so nations of all score can play their part and contribute Solves the cant hit nations cause of score problem 100% Still makes it so nations way above can't abuse the weak Decoming then double buying isn't worth it Nations are encouraged to be at max military when they join the capture Nations are disadvantaged due to the 50% Recruitment rate which prevents a powerhouse from camping CONS Would make it so nations at lets say 2000 could hit 1000 score nations IF The 1000 score nation goes on the Slot If your blitzed by 3 Max nations and you aren't near the top score range in your tier it can be very detrimental ETC I don't know more please put them down in posts and i'll add in any pros/cons You would also always be able to declare on nations 1 tier higher than you. Now keep in mind this does not mean that the alliances fighting for the territory would be applied these tiers. ONLY The nations on the wall would have these tiers applied to counter having Either super large nations not being able to be touched or super low nations not being able to be touched 2. Another Solution would be to INCREASE The Attacking Range From 25/75 To 75%/100% if your declaring on a nation on the wall. I think this solution is very flawed and bad but perhaps there might actually be a way to make this work. I don't know how but i might as well put this out. PROS Prevents low/high score camps to a point. Increases ranges so all nations can participate CONS Would allow high score nations to declare on very small nations Not guaranteed to prevent low score campers Nation bullying from high scores IF you have anything to add to no.2 just pm or post Now one confusing part. The point system The basis of territory wars is basically you gain points until you get the required amount to capture, however how will that work with multiple alliances? Make it so all point gain is permanent meaning the points you gain are put into the total and cannot be removed Make it so if your on the wall your points accumulated is worth 100%. However once you get knocked off 50% will go into total (Which means if your on the capture to the end your 100% efficient!) Make it so all points gained are permanent but getting knocked off will deduct points from your total SUCH AS Tier 1 - Loses 5000 pts when beiged Tier 2- Loses 3000 pts when beiged Tier 3 - Loses 2000 pts when beiged Tier 4 - loses 1000 Pts when beiged Tier 5 - Loses 500 pts when beiged Tier 6 Loses 300 Pts when beiged If you have anymore post! thank you for @Akuryo for pointing out the tier problem, for some reason I remembered the top nation being 5k when it was actually 10k score Changelog -Added more tiers. The sweet sweet rewards! Now with all this effort you might be thinking what would be the rewards?? I'll list out some bonuses for factions which i think would be Balanced yet enticing enough for alliances to go for. 15% Bonus to commerce Generation 15% Bonus to RAW Generation 15% Bonus to MANU Generation — Changed Generation 5>15% More worth? Perk : Combat Training 10% Ground COMBAT Strength 10% Airforce COMBAT Strength 10% Naval COMBAT Strength ^^^ NOTE: The combat strength will have to be tuned to a point where its not broken. I'm using 10% On each as a starting point. —- Perhaps make it so you would get a flat 10% boost to all combat instead of indivdual? 5% Recruitment Rate (Like a PB) — Seems fine, up to debate? 5 Extra spies. — Starting with 5 extra spies. Underpowered or Op? Recruit 1 Extra spy per day Op? It’s like an IA without the increased spy capacity, however it might make it worthwhile 30% Population Bonus (Technically it would affect both millitary recruitment and commerce so perhaps?) — Set POP % to 30% Perk: Rapid expansion - Cities are 10% Cheaper -Infra cost is 15% Cheaper - Land cost is 20% Cheaper (2nd “Bundle” Type perk. I would appreciate if experienced players could tell me if this is underwhelming or OP) ETC IF you have more suggestions for rewards post Changes to rewards — Deleted 5% Defensive combat bonus (Reason being Combat strength in my mind is working like defensive combat bonus but on offensive also. Sorry if that wasn’t clear) - Deleted Increased power Gen - Changed 10% Combat perks to all be in one Perk - Added Perk: Rapid Expansion Keep in mind all these % aren't set in stone. they are just numbers i thought MIGHT be balanced enough yet good enough to war over Also obviously but i feel like i have to say it. You would only get 1 of these buffs from the territory. Also all territories would get a randomized buff every xxx amount of days to make it so you cant just sit and farm. But wait! What if another alliance just declares right after i capture it?!?!? There would be a grace period of i'm thinking 1-3 months where that territory cannot be captured to give time for all alliances to rebuild and enjoy their respective reward! NOTE: THIS IS ONLY A ROUGH OUTLINE THAT I HAVE SPENT TO MUCH TIME ON Its only an idea. if the community doesn't like it. so be it, scrapped. however i think this would be a very good addition to the game albeit needs a lot of work

PLAYER CATEGORIES Player of the Year: @Sketchy Most Powerful Player: @Sketchy Best Alliance Leader: @Ske -- uh, @Ripper Most Controversial Player: @Sketchy Most Dynamic Player: @Sketchy Best OOC Poster: @Sketchy Best IC Poster: @Sketchy Nicest Player: @Ripper Player Most Likely to Achieve Greatness in 2019: @Sketchy Best New Addition to the Community: @Kevanovia COMMUNITY CATEGORIES Best Declaration of War: link Biggest Meme: @Sketchy Largest E-Peen: @Sketchy Most Missed Player: @Sketchy (rest in peace mr econ man)

F

By parti-boi! Hilmes is pretty kinky so I’m down with this change. Also bye bye AK

I love how he had to put a heart emoji on HannaH's name. :P

My idea is basically this. During the creation of an alliance, you would be able to choose what "type" of an alliance it is going to be. There are going to be three options, a democracy, a dictatorship, and a monarchy. Each of them will add different elements into the game, and of course slightly change how alliances functions. Let's begin with the Democracy. Choosing the democracy category, the game will automatically update every, let's say, week. During the week, members are allowed to vote for people to become a government member, or something of the sort. There will be a required amount of days before the alliance can start voting on new government members, let's say, twenty-five days. Coups will be impossible for this style of government, and the government members will of course be chosen by the members. Side note, all members of government will have access to the bank. But, I was thinking of giving this certain alliance type a 5% population boost to all of the nations in the alliance, but this can easily be removed from the idea. The second being a Dictatorship. This is more like the modern alliance format. With a leader or two, a heir, and officers. This category of alliances has a leader, and they are the one who "controls" the alliance. However, even officers are allowed to coup the alliance leader, should any of them deem it fit (or they're going for bank), and the leader can manually allow certain members access to the bank, for example, if he had someone named Joshua in Officer position, and another Officer named Zeke, he could give Joshua access to the bank, and disallow Zeke access. I was thinking of giving this alliance type a 10% boost to military recruitment, (similar to Propaganda Bureau). Lastly, a Monarchy. This is basically the modern alliance format. With a maximum amount of two leaders, any amount of heirs, and any amount of officers. This category has the government previously mentioned, but they are exempt from taxes. Yes, I am aware that government members can create a tax bracket for themselves in the current game, but this would just be automatic, and unavoidable. Trying to coup a monarchy is going to be somewhat difficult. My idea with this, is that a majority (not 50%, at least 51%) of the alliance heirs have to "vote" to get rid of the current leadership. It should make formulating a coup much harder for larger alliances, and a monarchy could rig the system in their favor by having some of their "friends" as heirs so that they have almost no chance of getting couped. Also, Monarchies could have a 7% boost to commerce. Side note, for a Dictatorship and Monarchy, I was thinking of allowing the regular membership start a "Revolution", for example, if at least 50% of the player base (but there would be a requirement of at least 20 members), the alliance will be split into two parties, one being the dissenters, and the other being on the side of current leadership. From there, a two round war will occur, war ranges will basically be nullified, and either side can get outside help as they deem fit. However, any victory, or loss, wars by outsider alliances will not count. At the end of the two round war, the winning side (The side who won the most wars) will be able to choose government members. If the side with the original government wins, then the original government gets to stick around, however, if the dissenters win, then they will be able to place whoever they deem fit into the government positions.

I assume congrats to both sides are in order. Thanks for the quick replies ripper and inst. In my opinion the people whom are left fighting a long drawn out war are the real winners here. Zi really inst that bad. Did commonwealth lose a member the pantheon? Duck bay needs a slap, just saying. Who jumps sides to the victor and gets accepted?

I'm sorry, I didn't quote you in that post and thus wasn't directing my comments at you what so ever. Not everything is about you. If I was talking to you I would have quoted you, or said your name, Ryan. As I am currently. Can you grasp this simple concept? Ho ho ho-lyshitballs you're dim. EDIT: Oh, I see the confusion. I stated I was talking to "Dumb scrooges", the dumb part must've gotten you to think I was talking about you.

I'm not sure if you're trolling, or stupid.

ALERT CONAINM/^}* %... Merry Christmas Instances of SCP-784 have increased and are highly dan~+*>^* JOLLY The Foundation is under att@># the MISTLETOE Item #: SCP-784 Object Class: Euclid Special Containment Procedures: SCP-784 has been disguised as a gated community and is currently surrounded by a 3.5-meter-high, 0.8-meter-thick concrete wall to deter intrusion. The top of the wall is lined with electrified steel cable, and the gate is to be locked. Any non-Foundation personnel attempting to enter SCP-784 are not to be interfered with, due to the possibility of provoking a violent reaction from the occupants of SCP-784. Non-Foundation personnel exiting SCP-784 are to be detained, questioned, and released following administration of a Class-B amnestic. Foundation personnel entering SCP-784 are to be dressed in traditional Christmas wear prior to entering SCP-784. The area composing SCP-784 is to be monitored remotely by a Foundation-controlled weather balloon. In the event that personnel are required to enter SCP-784, all involved personnel must have memorized the entire contents of the A██ P███████ 'Beginners Guide to Christmas Carols'. They are to be checked for precision prior to entering SCP-784. Due to SCP-784's proximity to suburban housing developments, as well as the ramifications of provoking SCP-784-1, patrols within SCP-784 are to be unarmed except during a Noel event. In the case of an unexpected Noel event, members of SCP-784-1 are to be restrained as non-violently as possible while Foundation personnel prepare procedure 784-C. Description: SCP-784 is a neighborhood in the town of ████, Texas. Currently SCP-784 is made up of twenty-four houses and two apartment buildings, all of which are decorated with ██████-brand Christmas lights at a density of approximately fifteen lights per square meter of housing. SCP-784 will always be covered by between 12 and 33 centimeters of snow, though no unseasonable weather will occur above SCP-784. All houses within SCP-784 are occupied by a variable number of instances of SCP-784-1. SCP-784-1 is composed mostly of adult humans, all of whom wear sweaters typically associated with holiday gift giving. The number of unique instances of SCP-784-1 within SCP-784 has been estimated at three hundred. Instances of SCP-784-1 have not been observed engaging in reproductive activity, and no instances of SCP-784-1 have ever observably been born within SCP-784. Instances of SCP-784-1 appear to age normally, though the death of an instance of SCP-784-1 has never been observed by Foundation personnel. All instances of SCP-784-1 express traits commonly associated with 'Christmas spirit' throughout the year. These traits include singing of Christmas carols, performance of plays commonly associated with the birth of Christ, and various eggnog-related festivities. These activities are engaged in daily, though specific activities will never repeat more than once per week. STAY IN DOO<~#* GO OUTSIDE! JOIN THE CELEBRATION!

I'm so glad you asked! Let's see... A. War stats don't matter and have zero relation to proposing terms B. SK is on the winning side, who usually propose terms in this sort of thing. C. SK are big boys and can propose whatever terms they like, all that matters in the end is whether they're accepted or not. Why are you making a fool out of yourself on behalf on an alliance that booted you to the curb? Smith can't hurt you anymore (probably) bby.

Man if I had to go down (getting banned) for telling members to do things It'd be all the single females, holla this way. ? This is milquetoast, weak ass shit Welcome to Orbis

Hey, Buorhann, lay off our protectorate

@Ameyuri is alive and kicking, currently in TGH.

ALLIANCE CATEGORIES Alliance of the Year: Black Knights or Knights Templar - hard pick, honestly, between these two. Both were active throughout the year and actually did things. KT fought against BK, NPO, and TKR/Friends blitzes, and still performed well against that adversity - as well as made a drastic move to leave the comfort of the treaty web clusterfrick. Black Knights actually took the initiative for once and hit KT/TKR. Most Powerful Alliance: Before the rolling, I would've said TKR. Then before Partisan left, I'd have said Syndicate. Now? No idea. BK I would lean on now given their sudden activity. Maybe CoS too, if they continue on the path they've taken. Best Military: TKR - Despite the rolling and despite their boneheaded FA moves, they still perform well and maintain activity with the core group of TKR members. Behind TKR, I'd say TGH or KT. Best Rookie Alliance: TGH? I guess? Are we really a rookie alliance? Maybe United Hoods? They were created this year and did stuff, right? Technically CoS since they did a 180 with Ripper in charge. Camelot maybe? Nobody really stands out. Best Flag: Mensa HQ Best War Flag: Mensa HQ Most Active Alliance: KT Most Honourable Alliance: N/A Most Improved Alliance: BK, KT, and CoS deserve to be on this list. Best Diplomatic Team: N/A (Seriously, all alliances have had shit diplomacy, including myself, this year) Best Economic System: N/A Best Recruiting Staff: N/A Best Propaganda Staff: BK (The ads on Great Job! are priceless) Best Alliance Growth: N/A Best Forums: N/A Alliance Most Likely to Succeed in 2019: NPO or BK Most Immoral Alliance: TGH or KT Most Controversial Alliance: TRF Best Alliance for New Players: N/A Most Missed Alliance for 2018: N/A Best Re-started/Re-branded alliance of 2018: TEst PLAYER CATEGORIES Player of the Year: Abbas, Keegoz, and LeotheGreat deserve to be on this list. Most Powerful Player: For 2018? I honestly don't know. There were a lot of potential ones, but they quit out or run inactive for a time before really doing things. Best Alliance Leader: Sketchy Most Controversial Player: Shifty or Queen M Most Dynamic Player: Shifty Best Player Sig: N/A Best Player Avatar: N/A Best OOC Poster: N/A Best IC Poster: N/A Nicest Player: Ripper Funniest Player: TheNG Most Active Player: N/A Player Most Likely to Achieve Greatness in 2019: Someone in IQ sphere. Just pick a random leader in that sphere. Best New Addition to the Community: N/A COMMUNITY CATEGORIES Best Wall of Text: (provide a link) N/A Best P&W Forum Topic: (provide a link) I forget what it was, there was a topic where I stated someone's post was post of the year. I'll look for it later. Biggest Controversy: Queen M/Sheepy/Thalmor situation Funniest Event: TheNG/Smith Pigeon rivalry Most Entertaining Discord Channel(Please don't include Slack): N/A Best Treaty Announcement: (provide a link) N/A Best Declaration of War: (provide a link) N/A Biggest Meme: Hippo face on random pictures earlier in the year Largest E-Peen: Lordstrum Best Villain: Nizam/Adrienne (Not that she wanted to go this route, but the actions taken by TKR under her lead kinda pushed this out) Most Hated Poster: Inst, element85, and Noctis need to be on this list. Most Missed Player (Player that has gone inactive/quit): Partisan (Yeah, it was recent, but I feel he had a lot of potential to turn Syndicate and it's allies around for a Syndisphere 2.0) WORST CATEGORIES Worst Alliance of the Year: TRF Worst Military of the Year: All the ones that got trashed hard in the wars, feel free to pick one Worst Diplomatic Move: TKR and Friends hitting TGH/KT - the build up to that conflict was some of the most stubborn and blindly made moves I've ever seen in this game that led to the revelation of so much dumb shit. Queen M/Sheepy, Felkey being stupid, Lordship not giving a damn about the FA consequences for TKR, negotiations with Nizam, etc. All of which eventually led to the culmination of how they're being treated now. A shame, really. I could rant on about this. Most Inactive Large Alliance: Pantheon Alliance Most Likely to Fail in 2019: TCW or Bad Company - Internal issues, some poor diplomatic mistakes, etc. It'll build up and come crashing down unless either of them make a big turn around. Worst Player of the Year: Felkey Worst Princess of the Year: Gorge, for not having any decency and honor. Worst Alliance Leader of the Year: TheNG Worst Treaty of the Year: (provide a link) Whatever TheNG signed this year Worst Forum Poster: TheNG Worst Nation Setup: TheNG Worst Fighters of the Year (must have fought in 2018 ?: TCW Alliance Most Likely to get Rolled in 2019: Any alliance that doesn't want their pixels burned Sidenote: The N/A answers may change before submission deadline. I also tried not to submit myself or my alliance into topics if I could.

He is. Just unintentionally and not ironically.

checks the title of the topic Did you really miss the chance of writing "Ayyfrikan Safari"?

3 paths: 1. AK really does want BK and will eventually choose them as they cannot serve 2 masters. Makes sense considering tS has been reigning them in as seen recently against Arrgh. 2. AK is there as a deepseated mole/will be a piece to play in the upcoming IQ vs tS powerstruggle. 3. AK is really just looking for help since they've managed to piss people off. Shifty banking on the 1st, maybe 2nd. 3rd is just the easiest to imagine.

I'd actually support this. I would seriously promote the hell out of this in my show and push it on other shows too.

Relax BK is getting more and more prots so they can finally hold the great Burger King Hunger Games. Rules are: 1) All prots of BK will fight each other. 2) Losers will need to merge into the winning prot. 3) Winner gets to merge into BK. 4) Biel gets new city.

Having two protectors is pathetic. Having two from different spheres sounds like crafting a VG style copout of a conflict we know is coming. I'd agree with Buor here, but i don't. He doesn't go far enough. You're just pixel-hugging cowards, honestly. Hope you actually get rolled for it too.

So, Syndi protectorate and BK protectorate? Why not get Grumpy to sign as well?

Well I have some friends who are mad at me, but I think Ripper's done a pretty elegant job explaining some of our rationale. I love Guardian but I also am excited to fight someone of their caliber. With the current state of politics, I didn't see a better way to be friends to Guardian than to bring them a good fight. I'm hoping you guys will see it similarly. Give us Hell, and best of luck.

<insert fruit of LOIN's loins joke here>