Boony

Stop what? Responding to accusations?

Everyone needs to know. Please, do share your personal life.

Ez pz I'd do it

"They" really don't. Alpha has a case when they say we really dislike them because of how we pile on to them, but we haven't done that to NPO at all.

I don't play (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), but if they were salty about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) wouldn't they put a bunch of effort on NPO?

I don't really care how you end your treaties, but being polite/ not being a dick isn't being "deceitful".

I agree. Destroy all NRF. Sheepy should implement a way to destroy other people's projects so we can force everyone to comply by destroying their NRF.

That assume that you can win with only politics, which is not true. 100 people can declare war on 10 and lose if those 100 barley log in and the 10 log in multiple times a day. On top of that, skill plays a big role as well. The skill difference between some alliances aren't that high, but skill itself is important. If you start off with naval attacks, missiles or nukes, then I'm probably going to beat you through coordination even if you have more troops. You could also put war planning under skill. That has less to do with politics and more to do with tier match ups, etc etc.

More like, 50% politics, 30% activity and 20% skill.

I don't have nukes to protect... so nah

I'm a junior in college and I have a part time job. It isn't that difficult.

About 6 of my 1k cities have been nuked.

No no no buddy. You did much more than that and gov folks from the other side pretty much admitted it as well. Everything you did was outlined by Partisan somewhere. I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but even if you had no plans to do anything ton tS, it really doesn't matter. War doesn't only happen because one alliance is afraid the other alliance is going to attack them. War should happen for lots of different reasons. A valid CB is telling our allies that we paid Arghh to hit them (something along those lines) when it wasn't true and no had no evidence for it. All I'm saying is, when you say "100% unprovoked aggression", no one is going to want to seriously respond to you because it looks like you're only pushing a narrative rather than seriously discuss tS aggression.

No no no, SK was being attacked because there was unreleased tension between SK and everyone else because of the Gandalf thing. A lot of us didn't care much.

You automatically disqualify yourself to be taken seriously when you say us rolling you was "100% unprovoked". Cry me a river.

I'm getting the sense that you don't believe they're on vacation.

NPO's second time <3 Cause you know, retarded names

But you do

The question isn't if you have the potential to have a hegemoney right now. The question is, if you had a hegemoney in this game, would you try and break it up or keep it. In this sense, we have to look at the character of people leading alliances and when dealing with character, bias is always going be an influence. For example, I'm not going to trust someone in this game if they're known for lying in another game even if they say they're different. And I'm one of the people in tS who's been complaining that we should do something new and different. I just understand why people don't want to do that.

Yeah but I'd called that reasonable bias. I don't even play or have ever played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), but knowing you guys dominate there makes me immediately wary of you guys here. Heck, knowing you guys roll people constantly there makes me want to not even give you a chance to have that opportunity here. That point he made is valid. If you never brought up or tried to stop stagnation in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), why should people believe that you aren't complaint about stagnation simply because you aren't the ones in power? It's a question of trustworthiness and character. Only reason our sphere would split up is if we believed that politics would actually more lively and not that the other side would simply try and take hedgonomy.

That is irrelevant to what Hippo was saying.

I agree ^^ Have some fun

Not that you do it often, but maybe you should stray away from simply writing someone off and calling "bias" on them. *shrugs*

^^^ To be fair, alliances in our sphere do like to war, but to say there is a pattern is silly.

We'll just constantly renew them.