Prefonteen

Steve is going full eumir ðŸ˜

BRB, deleting word wall response I had prematurely prepared

Lolwhat

It's not about getting upset. It's about correcting a factual inaccuracy. No more, no less.

You are free to comment. You are not entitled to a reply.

This...has occurred in every single war i've had to lead. Not being privy to backroom deals does not mean they do not occur.

I don't feel like replying to you on this matter is valuable to me, tS or SK whatsoever. You are a third-party observer without inside knowledge attempting to interject yourself in the discussion for god knows why.

The leaked logs featured Carmen and Brooklyn. Not me. If you're going to interject), at least know what you're talking about.

Hmmm yeah I remember that! You were on the other side. Guardian-Mensa-SK struck. I think you were pissed off with being left in the dark or something? You probably know that better than I do. I do recall when you came to us to negotiate peace. We negotiated that you'd hit SK (who you didn't like or something along those lines) and we'd let you off the hook. We didn't have syndisphere at the time and it was more of a peace term than i was an entirely voluntary entry. But I guess we'll count it? 3/1/2/2

Hey, if it's worth anything to you: I feel like we're actually making progress. Sometimes you got to fling some shit at one another before you can move on . Anyways. I do agree that it's entirely possible that it has not been intentional on your part. In practice, it may still have ended up !@#$ us in a way, but naivity does not equate to duplicity and that would be a redeeming factor. If anything, i'm glad you are at leas acknowledging our grievance and trying to establish the dialogue. Part of the frustration is that it's hard to get a read on where naivity ends and intention starts, if that makes sense. I certainly agree on all 3 points, and I also agree that it doesn't make much sense if you explain it that way. Should definitely note that people do not always act rationally. We've seen this in this game over an over . If we deduct that way: - Maybe you thought that with SK moving, you could tip the scales and as such the move seemed beneficial enough (given the reward of being heralded as a savior of sorts within paracov, and the foundation for a or even the lead role in a now winning sphere) - I can reasonably assume that you (read: SK as a whoe) approached others within our sphere to join you in moving away from tS as well (correct me if i'm wrong?). Maybe this is a worst case scenario. - Maybe you started out wanting a third sphere, realized it wasn't viable and then decided you had no option but to come at us. - Maybe you somehow felt slighted over something (anything) that occurred between tS-SK and that we are unaware of, and maybe that has driven you to move. - Or maybe it was indeed all a plot. Point being... there can be many rational, semi-rational and irrational motivations that influenced your decisions. There is a case to be made for every scenario, and every scenario can be refuted in a different way as well. Your line of reasoning does make sense on its own. There have been conflicting messages going out from SK though. A point of contention I want to bring up is that I recall a prominent SK figure stating that in order for your plans to succeed, tS had to be defeated, or something along those lines. If you wish I can dig for the quote. It's on the OWF here somewhere. That quote on its own would invalidate the entire proposition brought forth in this particular discussion. Could you elaborate on how we need to interpret that? EDIT: got it! (It was Mikey) If your third sphere's viability is considered mutually exclusive with peaceful relations with tS, I can understand that... but that kind of invalidates any claims of your involvement in this war being no more than the direct result of Rose aggression.

Nah. TEst has never been in "Syndisphere". Our goals have however aligned on a few occasions. Our military interactions with TEst: - TEst joined us in proxy war by hitting VE - TEst got lumped in and hit alongside tS-SK by UPN-DEIC-BoC during oktoberfest - TEst sat out 168 - TEst coordinated with tS in striking Alpha. They did have their own motivations for this (ask prefontaine). - TEst did not involve itself in the following global war (NPO's first time). They did offer themselves to whomever was willing to pay 1 billion. No one took the offer. - TEst hit Pantheon, a tS ally in this war. All in all, this means that TEst: - Opted to fight for us as 'allies' in 2 out of 6 situations. One of which was a simple manner of 'mutual objective but different motivations'. - Got attacked and thus forced to coordinate with us in 1 out of 6 situations. Not their choice. - Sat out in 2 out of 6 situations - Fought tS' extended sphere in situation. That's 2/1/2/2. Haaaardly part of a sphere.

Actually: From UPN's charter- As I understand, the treaty had passed the senate and was therefore ready to be ratified. It got torpedoed when Hansarius leaked it to the members in a riling post which depicted tS as "UPN's gravest enemies". Bits and pieces of informtion can be powerful in the right context. Members got riled up and a cluster!@#$ occurred. This forced UPN government back to the table. That is why ultimately the ODP got dropped. @UPN and/or ex-UPN: Correct me if i'm wrong

tS cancelled Alpha because Alpha broke our trust. C'moooooon

Nah. Mensa would have drifted to Covenant at the time.

I'm perfectly fine with reading subtext when it actually makes sense. Perhaps you can show me how I should interpret the whole 'disown' line? How was it intended? On accusing you of lieing: In hindsight, it definitely looks that way. That's the problem. I realize that there may be a grey middle ground but shit. Your word definitely did not hold up- be it deliberate or not. With that established: If I look back at the chain of events I noted, it looks like complete and total garbage and arguably a ploy to simple stab us. Now I am told to believe your word that it isn't. Can you see how that might be troublesome for me? 1. I'm well aware that SK is not uniform in its thoughts. Not a single alliance is. That is exactly why I base my interpretation of your intentions on your actions, rather than your words. 2. No, I am not angry. However, you have to agree with me that these recent events (See: coalition war and your intended DoW on us) paint that particular chain of events in a rather damning light. That's not anger, it's deduction. Where the truth lies? I don't know. The problem is that literally every word that has ever come out of Gandalf's mouth has literally pointed towards this exact chain of events occurring. That is subsequently also why we 'anticipated this'. The leak was the first domino in that regard, and when it occurred you did not stamp it out. You (re)installed him into FA and seemingly gave him carte blanche to A) run his mouth, execute the plan to move away from us and C) eventually adopt what to us looks like a hostile stance 5. So you are saying that you signed Rose, and within 3 weeks, they approached you with a fully planned war plan against the ally you dropped 3 weeks ago. You then agreed to pre-empting your former ally while your allies pre-empted your other former allies. Are you aware that you had the option to tell them to sod off if you did not like the idea of hitting us? More importantly though, are you saying that no discussions whatsoever took place to form the coalition and warplan? Rose just randomly had everything ready and came to you? That's without even touching on the fact that both Gandalf and Keegoz telegraphed this: Keegoz has been openly hostile for some time now, and it was quite easy to see that he would probably strike if given the opportunity. I'm having a hard time following how you can have been oblivious right up until the war was there. 9. I'm pretty sure you'll find a distinct difference in how Manthrax in his capacity of head of FA approaches his interactions with you and how I in my capacity of retired snek do. I'm simply giving it to you bluntly. You've engaged in a dick move and i'm making sure you know that. It's not much different from when we talked earlier. 10. Sure, it's a different position. That's not at all the point I made in my follow-up post though: My point is that it's idiotic to scope in on *that* as the reason for any negative sentiments towards you, rather than you literally looking to engage in a war against us. I already touched on this earlier in my message: I believed you personally when we spoke. Since then, events have unfolded that make me feel like the benefit of doubt given to you was misplaced. That is why I touched on those various incidents. In each particular one, we gave you the benefit of the doubt and continued working with you. Now we are at war. Can you really fault me for thinking that perhaps there was something to it? Is it an accusation? Yes. Can I 100% prove it? No. Can you 100% disprove it? No. Does the accusation have a reasonable foundation? Yes.

What orders did you specifically get from Jessica? We did have her send orders re: actual coalition)-approved targeting. NAC was never discussed for SK as our strategy revolved around dodging all UPN chains (meaning: ve and NAC)

Uh no? I'd told TKP to coordinate with Guardian and Mensa on the VE front when VE hit TKP. TKP messaged SK govt with NAC targets. SK went in om NAC without checking with us (or any other coalition partner, really). That brought UPN in. Question: who told you this 'jess ordered it' bogus?

Hahahahaha HI STEVE

1. The position of power was not unprecedented. Clear positions of dominance have been established in the past, and will be established in the future. More importantly, they have always fallen in the end, be it by slow crumbling or large mishaps. 2. I agree about the wear and tear. But the thing is: These alliances willingly put themselves in that position over and over again. Madness is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different esults. 3. "im canceling my treaties to avoid getting rolled" only to then suicide into your previous opposition is counterproductive to the goal of removing the target from your back." 4. Treaties have been avoided and broken over and over for years now. On both sides. This has nothing to do with any 'endgame' or with us winning. It has everything to do with (sometimes hidden) agendas and the circumstances of any specific situation. About an endgame stage... This is not the war to end all wars. PnW has quite a few left. But two sides continuing to drive the exact same strategies against the exact same people without considering reconciliation is most certainly going to lead to an endgame stage.

I'd say you were most certainly up there around the guardian-VE war. Your military execution in oktoberfest was decent too- especially as a mass alliance. That war was lost due to other factors. I feel like the assessment of Mensa --> TEst --> tS is probably accurate. In terms of fighting ability per head I would coin The Coalition and Guardian as well. Especially TC has shown up in every war and punched above its weight.

That's right. I can keep going all day. I ain't restrained by the chains of goodwill. Come at me.

CHallenge accepted

Just read this after I posted. That's a fair definition. Even then: We don't give a much of a !@#$ about you no longer being allied to us. We give a shit about you launching coalition-wide strike on us. That's a pretty big difference and pretending it's anything else is obtuse on your part.

yay I baited someone into world walls! BREAKDOWN No seat needed. I'm a snake. There has been no point where I said anything about you needing to 'bow your head' or 'say nice things'. Neither did we ever 'disown you' or treat you as your 'overlord'. The notion is laughable and idiotic. Quit the charade. We both know that you do not even support that notion yourself- you expressed as much in query, weeks ago. When you !@#$ed up and pissed us off, we talked it out and moved on. You then cancelled on us and plotted (and executed) a coalition war against us. Now you claim that we disowned you? Bullshit, Brooklyn. Don't even try to play this whole 'booh evil overlord' rhetoric with me. It's silly. 1. It matters exactly because of your post just now. Some of you have driven the narrative (in private and/or public) that tS has somehow wronged you. I see the history of SK !@#$ ups and us working it out as direct evidence to the contrary and will therefore consistently present it when any within SK bemoan the position they currently find themselves in. 2. We won despite you, not because of you. I do not see how us winning in any way negates the breach of trust. We were angry about it. We didn't drop you nor roll you, because we did not want to dictate your internals to you and because you were our ally- shit happens. You try to work it out. Thing is, as allies we interpreted it as mishaps- inexperience perhaps. In light of your recent actions, it looks a bit more coordinated and deliberate. Or do you disagree that it seems suspicious? 3. Word. At least we agree on something. 4. What delusions have we had with regards to SK? We did all we could to part without bullshit. Your own high govt member went around bullshitting us throughout his tenure. First thing coming from Gandalf's mouth when you cancelled on us was a bunch of 'OMG hegemoney LELELEL' stuff. How exactly do you expect us to interpret that, along with other hostility? Let's stick to the SK-tS relationship here. I'll be interested in hearing your answer. 5. You personally put in effort for certain. But lets face it brooklyn: We're at war and this one was *not* initiated by tS. It was planned an coordinated by SK alongside a coalition of paracov. That in itself *directly* contradicts all the claims yo made to us in query when you tried to amiably part. On the latter part of your point: I have not stated any judgement on your capacity to win a war, nor on your manipulative abilities. That one's entirely irrelevant and you should probably drop it because it does not add any value to the discussion at hand. 6. Everyone plays the game in a different way. Who are you to make me change the way I play it? . If you're going to put out a PR narrative (lol tS pre-empted us), it's silly to call out the response because 'lel its just a game'. We all know it is. We also all know that that's irrelevant. This type of callout is usually not much more than a hollow 'no u'. 7. Hey look, agreement! 8. You personally? Agreed. Others in SK? Disagreed. 9. And again: my opinion =/= tS policy. With that said: I've always looked at the bigger picture/surrounding circumstances when assessing a situation. In this case? I view you as a defacto aggressor by virtue of your political manouvers and military intentions coupled with already conducted military strikes by clear coalition partners. Simply put: If you have two forces with each 3 regiments (e.g. blue and red): Regiment R1 and R2 hit regiment B1 and B2. Regiment B3 sees what's happening and sees regiment R3 taking aim. Regiment B3 pre-empts R3. Who is the aggressor? To me? The broader coalition of R. 10.This is yet another idiotic brainfart stemming from the irrational delusion that you are somehow 'breaking the mold' or 'doing something different'. You switched sides. That's all. We do no care about you 'doing something different', or even 'cancelling on us'. What we do care about is you literally planning and executing a war against us and our allies on a coalition-wide scale. Are you really going to shift the cause for our grievance from 'you literally went to war against us and our allies' to 'ITS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO DO SOMEHING DIFFERENT'? Bullshit spin. Whether you succeed or fail is entirely irrelevant to how we should treat you. You sacked up and came at us. Now we're simply doing our thing. You're right: You're not an existential threat. You are however an adversary. Simple and clear. Your member count is equally irrelevant.

This is immoral and you should feel bad. Sorry. I had withdrawals. Missed exchanging shit.