[TEst Occupation]

First, PnW has a lot of animals, and they can do wonderful things. How dare you insult the animals of Orbis. 

 

Second, we're not mad. It's more of we're surprised. Surprised you would chose the option you did. Had you chose the flag, you would be halfway to not having to fly it already. Your individual nations would have never had to fly it, just you AA page. Normally plucky resistance can be given praise (see: not the current NPO/Alpha situation), especially by us. The problem being you're all bark and no bite. You claim to be ready to fight, but no one's fighting. Your former alliance leader claimed he was going to nip at our heels and be a constant pest. You could organize overwhelming our bottom few people, possibly so much so we'd have to ask an alliance with a larger middle tier to help us out. But you have not. You've chosen to talk about fighting, and honor while showing none. You're an insult to alliances who actually have these things. So no, we're not mad. 

 

I mean. If attacking Arrgh is your idea of putting pressure on us, and bitting our ankles.. Well you guys aren't even doing a good job at that.

 

 

A waste of a perfectly good leader name

[Dear BK and NPO]

Because your assessment of that character is inherently bound up with your perception of events that occurred *in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)*. You're not actually making a distinction between the worlds, you're just pulling from the things you want to carry over with you and then denying that's what you are doing for the purposes of getting some temporary oomph in your argument. It's illogical and inconsistent.

Wait, so because I knew Roq in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), I am unable to criticise Roq for his specific actions in this realm?

 

Roq will do his usual " Charles is mean to me" routine but if he acts in pretty much an identical manner in both realms then surely I'm permitted to have the same opinion on him correct?

 

Just wondering now if that also applies to Roq, does that mean he can't criticise these of us he knew from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and use the blanket (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) excuse for why NPO is getting rolled?

[Dear BK and NPO]

Haha. Remind is all again how this has nothing to do with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)?

I don't see how assessment of character is related to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)?

[Dear BK and NPO]

Trust is only a measure of the perceived propensity an alliance has that they will, in fact, honor their agreements. If your word is worth anything, it should be believable to everyone regardless.

 

The believably of my or anyone else's word is really based on the specific people who either believe it or not with reference to past events and so on.

 

Example, If Frawley agreed to a NAP, I would trust him to stick to the spirit of the treaty completely. If say Roq agreed to an NAP, I would trust him to publicly uphold the spirit of the treaty and in private begin plotting for the next war attempting to deliberately take advantage of the delusion of protection offered by an NAP thus making the NAP agreement itself entirely void.

 

End of the day, not everyone is going to agree with everyone else in regards to whether one person should be believed or not. We all have different opinions and competing interests at the end of the day and a person I regard as being honest and forthright may be called a sneaky scheming liar by someone else. That isn't something extraordinary but just reality at the end of the day.

[Dear BK and NPO]

It's true, an agreement is only as good as the honor of the people making it. The same is true of any form of treaty, and it's been shown already that more than one MDoAP is worthless at the end of any given day. I imagine in the interests of intellectual consistency, it would follow that you are against all forms of treaties?

 

I would say that treaties only formally recognise the level of trust placed between two alliances. If the trust goes then the treaty itself is worthless. The fundamental foundation of a treaty isn't the actual treaty itself but the trust which exists between the alliances signing it.

 

Probably why I don't have an issue signing an NAP with NPO or anyone else, if we uphold our end and NPO upholds their end then there is nothing to worry about. If someone decides to act against the spirit of the treaty itself then the treaty itself is void.

[Dear BK and NPO]

Not sure what you expected. Denying reality to suit your current argument doesn't get us much. Particularly considering this is the tS that swore seven ways from sunday only a few months ago that NAP's weren't worth anything.

 

I am actually concerned that anyone could possibly think a NAP offers any protection at all to be honest. The key concept of an NAP is trust in the other party or parties to the agreement to uphold the specific clauses.If the trust goes then the NAP itself is void.

[Dear BK and NPO]

The NAP lasted 13 minutes roughly.

[A better, safer, more secure NPO]

Reason = Explaination

 

Incentive = Motivation/Encouragement.

 

The second half of your sentence is exactly what I am saying - there is no INCENTIVE because neither side sees a net benefit.  There are lots of "reasons" like being bored though

 

Kind of amusing to see a post making reference to specific definitions whilst also possessing a notable spelling mistake in the first line.

[Dear BK and NPO]

Edit: double post

 

crappy australian net

[Dear BK and NPO]

Sam Hyde belongs in NPO with the amount of times he makes reference to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

[A better, safer, more secure NPO]

The best thing about the whole Roz Wei-NPO situation is that NPO really tried to talk down to us like we were lesser than they were. They also thought we'd pay them $90m. I wonder if they do this to others.

 

Logs please

 

This is hilarious, whatever happened to this principled stance against reps?

[A better, safer, more secure NPO]

RIP NPO non existant whale tier

 

Judging by the economic principles espoused by NPO in this topic including 100% taxes and having members "pay" for cities they have already paid for via their own taxes before being able to leave the alliance, I think the reason for NPO's non-existent upper tier are readily evident.

 

This is why commies can't have nice things.

[Rose's Surrender]

The number of people trying to convince NPO that paying reps is more efficient than fighting it out really says something. I mean, if you are convinced that the enemy is digging their own hole, why would you help them out of it? Let them burn. Unless of course, their defiance is starting to make you feel uncomfortable. Which is some sort of moral victory for them.

 

Oh, well. I'm from Rose. Now back to rebuilding and preparing for our next unsuccessful blitz.

 

I think it is more so that we realise NPO is the only alliance in that sphere capable of presenting a future challenge and we are doing everything possible to make sure the next war is more of a challenge than this war.

[Rose's Surrender]

The one lottery where everybody wins.

 

Except Kastor

[Rose's Surrender]

Convince Roz Wei to kick him and you can form a line to kick his ass. It's a long one.

 

Fraggle should turn it into a lottery, whoever wins gets a chance to roll him.

[Rose's Surrender]

I'm legimately getting sick of your shit.

 

Please cease protection of just him.

 

Please

[Rose's Surrender]

Syndicate should change their forum pip gif to raining salt instead of money.

 

This. 100% this.

[Rose's Surrender]

I wonder if you're posting memes because you have no real counterargument. And your meme doesn't even make any logical sense.

 

Anyways I have better things to do.

 

I predict well have 50 pages of cringe for everyone to see.

 

Probably signifies how much effort I want to put into rebutting your gibberish.

[Rose's Surrender]

There it is, the memorised one-liner text post lol.

 

Anyways we will not hand over money because we know if we did, then we would be crippled at the next war. No wonder you guys want to get back at us because of losing at (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

 

Too bad so sad

 

[Rose's Surrender]

Just admit it. Deep down you're truly salty for losing in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and are looking at every chance to get back at us even during peacetime.

 

The bridge called, it needs its troll back.

[Rose's Surrender]

Nothing is hopeless. It'd merely be foolish for us to adopt conventional strategies to a situation in which conventional strategies aren't useful.

 

I can assure you, NPO's current situation is very conventional as is the optimal solution.

[Rose's Surrender]

Lol. We did. A mutually acceptable solution wasn't reached. Where do you think this 800mil number came from?

 

I believe it would come from 10 days of taxes.

[Rose's Surrender]

[Rose's Surrender]

He's not half as wrong as you seem to think, though.

 

Per the Alliance Power Rankings, on the day that Proxy began, t$ had 53 members, and Rose had 94 members. Average scores were roughly comparable at the time, and Rose had around a 30% advantage in nation count. That seems to support his stance way more than yours.

 

I now return you to your regularly scheduled dumpster fire.

 

Forgot about that topic

[Rose's Surrender]

Let's stop in Proxy, Rose had around 95 nations, of those, several couldn't actually fight because they were so high(top 10). tS had way for than 30 nations because they had merged with TEL. They had at least 58-60 nations. It was very even and Rose messed up their blitz, nothing more.

 

Also, VE wasn't that large, they were around the same strength as Rose.

 

Every war has been even. You guys usually have more alliances while Paracov has the bigger alliances. Your side is usually even in members and around the same in score.

 

Edit: Last war is proof of that, 585 to 585 members.

 

Against rose I think we (tS) at the time had 40 or 50 members, I think it was a high 40 (48 is coming to mind for some reason).

 

After the TEL merger we only had I think a membership in the mid 30s. Both tS and TEL before the merger had membership accounts around 20 and not all of the TEL members merged into us.