Phoenyx

Very funny :-p. I fully admit that it's currently not fashionable in the forums to care who the HM leader was and, more importantly, who their source(s) was/were. So I won't be naming anyone other than myself.

Some people actually do still care. Not a huge amount of people, which is a large part of why I haven't posted about it in around a month, but a few. It's something that's talked more about on Discord.

I think it's possible. I also think it's possible that they deny it. But regardless of what they do, at least we will finally get a step closer to the source of this rumour that some part of Swamp wanted to attack Quack. Because at this point, that's all it is, a rumour. To be strong evidence, you would need someone -from- Swamp saying that this was actually a plan.

If I'd been around during other times, I might have focused on those things. But during my time, the causes of the global war became the thing that I found to be most interesting. There's also evidence that others find it interesting as well, but I've come to believe it's something that's -generally- more suited to the Discord servers. Perhaps once a month there might be cause to post a thread about it here, but yeah, now that the war's over, it's definitely something that is less on people's minds.

Very funny :-p. One of my PnW friends who I persuaded to join this game actually goes by Snowy. Fortunately, he has not really spent any time here yet :-p.

I fully agree that Partisan can be pretty funny and his creative writing can really be top notch. Today though, just some dull posts, first about making a treaty with SK and then about it not working out. Which is fine, just not something that really interests me. As to your contention that this thread isn't relevant, that's clearly in contention. Now, I think it's clear that many here aren't so keen on this subject, but for -some- reason, they don't just ignore it- they respond to it, in various ways- whether that's downvotes, comments, etc. Why do you suppose that is?

Not sure what you mean about being deceased. In any case, everyone goes on about beating a dead horse. I think it's more like a lot of people beat on me for bringing up this issue that could easily be resolved and, in my view, should be. To this day, there are strong disagreements on various aspects of the war. The one about whether Swamp was going to attack Quack, however, should to be easily resolved. All that's required is knowing who said what and then questioning them on what was meant. Now I understand that a lot of people don't really care what started Global War 16, but some most definitely do. To be honest, I think more people should be, as it would mean that people care about the truth in matters that affect a great deal of the Orbis community, which the last Global War certainly did.

His recent posts seem a lot duller. Perhaps that's the trick?

I haven't seen you in the Discord servers I frequent like Thalmor Radio and Orbis Report, but this is actually a subject that tends to get some traction there. In other words, I'm not the only one who actually wants to know the identity of this HM leader and more important, the identity of their source(s).

Well, it's been almost a month since I've made a thread in these forums, I figured I might as well give it a go now. Perhaps I can beat my previous record of 37 downvotes from the last thread I made here -.-. Anyway, while there is no shortage of people here who think I post too much (while Prefonteen can post multiple times a day and it's all peachy keen), over in the Discord servers, curiosity over the true identity of the HM leader that Ronny referenced so long ago continues. For those who are relatively new to the politics in this game, you might want to read this thread, wherein I appealed to the HM leadership to finally reveal who Ronny's HM leader was. It didn't happen, but perhaps now that the war is long over, things might change. Multiple HM leaders know who it is, I'm even on relatively good terms with one of them. What would the harm in revealing who this is now? Or, if those who know want to maintain the HM leader's secret identity, if they could at least reveal who this HM leader's -source- was, that could work. Now, one person who knows the HM leader's identity has said that said identity might be revealed to Tyrion if he made a formal request, but Tyrion has opted out of making such a request. I think I may understand his reasoning- my long search for the answer has generated a lot of negativity and I figure he's decided it's best to just stay out of all of that. So, with that said, here are the reasons that I think the HM leader's identity, or at least their source's identity, should be reaveled: 1- It might be able to conclusively answer whether or not 1 or more Alliances in Swamp really wanted to attack Quack. 2- It would show that HM actually cares enough about its former Allies in Swamp to answer this question. Back when Ronny first made the post where he stated his belief that Swamp had had plans to attack Quack and Tyrion had denied ever hearing of such plans, I would have thought that the logical thing for Ronny to do at that point would have been to go to his source and clear things up. He apparently never did that. Neither did any other HM leader from what I can tell. Is that something a good Bloc would do to a Bloc that was currently defending them? I think not. There's still time to try to fix this, but the longer that this languishes, the more HM's reputation becomes tarnished, in my view.

Pfffft :-p. Just trying to fill the void in this place a bit :-p.

Alright, with that comment, I'm guessing you were joking :-p. As to why people downvoted you, I can think of multiple reasons there.

I don't see a downvote. So either you changed your mind or you were just joking :-p.

I agree, I think that Leaky Faucet was the most neutral name. Now it seems that "Duck Hunt" is going to win- not exactly a neutral name for it -.-

I may always disagree with Parti on whether or not tCW, HM and Swamp were going to attack Quack first, but I also always believed that he was telling me what he truly believed. Also, for anyone like me who wasn't sure, zig was just joking with his comment :-p.

A good idea. Wars for water are already starting in the real world, and planners are predicting much more of them in the future: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/19/water-war-us-mexico-border-just-begun-chihuahua-boquilla-dam-farmers-drought/ https://unherd.com/2020/07/the-coming-water-wars/ https://news.yahoo.com/coming-wars-over-water-000000734.html A good graphic in this one: https://www.caseyresearch.com/daily-dispatch/coming-water-wars/ I once heard it said that the wars over oil will pale in comparison to the future wars over water. Hopefully not true, but, well, we need water a lot more than we need oil.

Agreed. I see that Leaky Cauldron is an official option, but as you say, people have been calling it leaky faucet. Everyone seems to agree that this war was caused by Quack's belief Boyce was right when he said that tCW/HM/Swamp was going to attack Quack. The leak doesn't have to be true for it to be the cause, so that can work.

Remember when this came out. Popped into my head recently for some reason -.-...

It makes sense, considering a member of Fighting Pacifists was telling the tale. If a story teller from Aurora or United Purple Nations had been telling it, I imagine they would have been included...

Depends how much time he's either at his phone or at his computer. If he's on a lot, the "incredibly unlikely" might actually go to "likely". Having been struck twice, I can see why you might assume that he did it by bot, but people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and I think it's quite likely that he's just close to a cell phone or computer a lot of the time.

I don't know what Hinata said about Chocolate Castle, but the post of his that you're responding to seems solid to me. I find that sometimes, the best way to deal with people who most agree did or are still doing terrible things like Hitler can be through humour. Comedians around the world do this to this day concerning dictators and the like and I think it's a good thing as it gets us to think not just of the most terrible, but of those heading in a bad direction.

Funny thing, I was just explaining to a family member why I'm not a fan of Alex Jones. I mean, I think he gets it right -sometimes-, but he also says a lot of things that are, well. I won't link to it, but you just need to google "Alex Jones Song" to see what I'm talking about :-p.

I do indeed. Lol Corpsman :-). I'm not taking much time in responding here any more. It seems that I get better responses in the Discord servers, so saving most of my arguments for there.