Prefonteen

Fair enough. It was the tone alongside the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) reference which I referred you. I'm understanding of your worldviews and your rationale behind refusing terms (though I don't necessarily agree).

It's adorable how you are yet again using (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) as a frame of reference when discussing PW occurrences and events. It's even cuter how you then move on to provide a (rather patronizing) value-based jugement of Orbis' players' use of historical PW occurrences and events as a frame of reference for their worldviews in PW. If this behavior is a part of the 'culture' which you mention as well, then you would do the world a favor if you would refrain from sharing that culture in the future.

To world domination, GPA!

Again: PnW is only a few years old.

What history?

This has gone on long enough. My slithering is inhibited by your shenanigans. End your madness. Snek Peace, not War.

Discord is horrible and whomever first introduced it to this game should feel bad. Bring back the golden days.

I can confirm that Prefontaine bullied tS into attacking Alpha this war. Prefontaine also bullied me into tangling with Steve in the first war. I didn't mean it Steve. I was all Pre. I miss you.

HI

Needs less talk and more plays. Get to it boy

sounds like either you or azaghul is misinterpreting the post. Azaghul interprets it as the guy saying that reps will be paid *to* NPO. You interpret it s the guy saying that reps will be paid *on behalf of* NPO.

More auctor comics would go a long way in refurbishing npo's public image.

Same.

Inactive. He still thinks of us every now and then though. Sends me snake-related stuff every few months.

Now it makes sense why so many alpha members stuk it out in that war... IT WAS ALL STEVE MULTIS

Sometimes, I feel like the only reason you talk to me is to further your own agenda.

This one primarily comes from a sense of disappointment which quite a few in our coalition had over Alpha cooperativeness at the time. Slow build up, late entry while others had to go in semi-prepared etcetera. There were some mishaps in our peace talks as well which led to additional frustration. Most of it was kept wayside and out of the public. This whole narrative about Alpha being shit and entering late seems fishy to me too, given that they entered only a day later than your actual allies. Your biggest coup in that war was to convince Arrgh that we are some sort of hegemoney, and take the money to war, followed by being helped by Alpha.

Is this not a case of BK holding NPO accountable for NPO's actions?

I'm confused

This, pretty much. After Impero demanded my resignation in private, I put my faith in the hands of the rest of govt initially. They backed me up. At that point I had govt pose the exact same question to the member body at large while I remained uninvolved in the internal discussion. A poll was held following the discussion. Membership decided that I should stay on for various reasons. It was made very clear that I could not afford another mistake like that though. tl;dr- accountability.

Actually, I was on a hotseat following my Cynic mishap. If i'd led us into a losing war by making strategic mistakes following that, trust in me would likely have eroded to a point where it's likely that i'd have been asked to step down. Accountability is important. Activity and involvement amongst members is great in a lot of way, if channeled right. When it comes to mistakes and dissent however: The pressure to perform is higher as well, if only because there are so many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak In terms of attitude and weird notions.... Not once in my gaming career have I seen anyone so consistently bring up "the activity of the opponent" and "the opponent wanting to win" as the primary reasons for literally everything. Activity, however you look at it, is a good thing. Good for the alliance(s) involved. Good for the game in general. You're literally achieving nothing by trying to use that to mask your own inadequacies. 'winning is everything'..... Are you referring to Eumir's trolling? Because frankly, we you're the one making a big deal out of that stuff while arbitrarily attributing that fictional motivation to any entity that no longer wishes to affiliate with you. The world is not black-and-white. There are a lot of reasons why one may want to flip over to our side. Can consistently losing be a factor? Certainly. Can it also have to do with other intangibles? Certainly.

You promised us you'd limit yourself to Roz Wei. There was no caveat added to that. The natural assumption in a global war *is that it will escalate naturally*. You knew this. Claiming that you 'never promised to stay on roz wei if the war changed' when that topic was never discussed and you just promised to stick on Roz Wei period is trying to absolve yourself by arguing semantics.

*you* are the one who brought up Roz Wei. That prompted me to move the conversation to a channel including Roy where that agreement was finalized. You can't go a sentence without lieing can you? As for triggers: Wasn't your treaty non-chaining?

But... you weren't up front about the degree of your involvement. - you made it clear you didn't support mensa. Correct. We understood that. We notified you that we viewed rose hitting mensa for a paperless vanguard in questionable circumstances as a trigger of our treaty. You told us you understood (though you ofcourse tried to convince us not to defend mensa)). For your sake, we pushed hard for a mutual solution. To the point of outright asking rose what they specifically wanted. We were told mensa had to burn and given no specific options. Rose informed us they'd go in alone the night before they hit. We'd at that point made it clear that we'd defend. Rose then entered along with a fark oA. We entered along with allied oA's. After a lot of discussion you agreed to limit your involvement to just hitting roz wei who went in paperless. We agreed. At that point we were understanding. Then you expanded your involvement to sk without notifying us while using a bunch of bogus reasons and began blaming us. You spun around and around in our query. I can go into the specifics there but we've done that a thousand times by now. So I'll leave it at this: You made us a promise. Then you broke that promise in a very deliberate way. You then refused to own up to that and instead blamed us. That is not 'setting you up by design'. It's reacting to feeling wronged.