brucemna
-
Posts
147 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by brucemna
-
-
1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:
The thing is that you did violate multiple agreements to get people into the war, killed off multiple allies out of spite and backstabbed people. Your POV disagrees, that's cool. It doen't change why we don't really believe you on good faith.
The issue is that the bond does not dissuade rogues. It just allows you to attack us for things we can not control.
Greetings, friend!
I can understand ur concern for the rogue part but generally I think most AAs have a policy if rogues or unaligned raiders attack them they come up with a target list to deal with them on a individual basis. Maybe if someone rogues u can boot them off the AA they maybe on or using them both sides can agree they are fair game for anyone. That way they are not thinking for say if it is a TS (just a example dont overread or think) u can kick them off ur AA and attack them as well as members of the AA they attack until some kind of resolution comes .. though one could say slots can be filled but in that regard then ur AA would be responsible to produce battle logs to show effort in dealing with it.
-
Congrats and all ..
-
16 minutes ago, Epi said:
From memory, didn't Sphinx write half those terms? If we could agree on the principal of a bond, we can negotiate what would break it.
Makes sense ... as a matter of fact I think bonds at naps are good as they are almost a guarantee no one will make a stupid excuse for breaking them at will. As loans maybe should be a subsection of the peace agreement on a pending approval without holding peace I would think with a financial review of some kind with the borrowing AA
-
12 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:
Counter offers are reserved for private channels, and those were at the time rejected. Every time talks have stalled it came due to strange behavior or an outright rejection/unwillingness to compromise on your side's part. You have not been privy to logs. Most of the people you argue with on here have seen them. You're wagging your finger blindly, unaware as to the bullshit your leadership is pulling.
I'll note that at least Jazz and Aero have been straightforward.
For and this is not on u personally I am surprised logs have not been posted on the counter to use in justification that our terms r to harsh. U r right we dont know what is in the private channels. As for what our leaders are saying we can say the same and have counter argued the perception u are trying to give. The only bull I have heard is public slander. Seriously though it is obvious to the word the PERCEPTION is different on both sides and no one should be called a liar. As mentioned before u have surrendered and yes negotiation involves rejection. Now as I have mentioned my perception is that 2 years there were reps paid by three alliances of 525 mil. At that time the precedent was set for any AA to go that road. There may have been reps even before that but am just working off memory at the moment of what is mentioned here. SO reps in this instance are justified as it is just a matter of perception on how much. Forward teo years maybe almost 3 and we also have to look at the state of the world then and length of war. Nations are bigger now .. as well axlonger war so damage and such is greater so pro rated the terms being suggested to u do not seem all bad given thought
That does not mean u dont have the right to negotiate and with that in mind knowing ur perception and the hold for the past u way low balled ur counter I would think to 1/8 of the original terms which is just a guess. Mayne i am wrong maybe i am right but if u want this to end as u say u do then frick get on the ball and suck the road to get it done. One thing I am sure of is given the diplomatic state of the game right now u have lots of time to rebuild. If u say NPO is vulnerable to be able to build a sphere of strength then man the longer and more bull u guys keep posting will ruin ur window to even get there.
-
1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:
The various logs which disprove your claims have at this point been buried in pages upon pages of your incoherent drivel. Adri just linked one. Must we go and find the rest again?
You purposefully brought in tS, tcw and many others. It's undeniably proven.
Why have I got the feeling that u love nascar racing as it seems u can only turn left and keep going in circles with the same one thought mind. Seriously I would think u would be coming with counter offers but then I guess u dont know how to turn right to the proper room u should be negotiating
-
7 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said:
That full sum is expected to be paid upfront. 45b.
One also has to look back to 2016 were I beleive the precedent of reps was made in we were to pay 525 mil to someone which if I recall was a shorter war in comparison. Though I haven't figured out the exact ratio and all it seems that this is not all that unreasonable agian I will bring up it has mostly been betrayed that NPO is receiving close to 50b. Which is not the case and as well even the question was tcw was not included when i blatantly see they are receiving reps though they may have to pay out something which may end up a wash . They point is that ur trying to make the 50b worse than it is. 2cyears later larger nations larger damage so maybe the ratios are not far off.
-
1 minute ago, Charles the Tyrant said:
It will be something like "we will increase the reps if you don't do as we please" I suspect.
Your comments actually bring to life why there is no peace. If everyone acted like u do I would turn my back period as the tone u gi e is screw it why make a effort. Hence probably why the world is in the mess in the first place
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said:
*Coalition B not Opus Dei alone but since you asked nicely....
- 10b bond (under easily exploitable conditions) from the KERCHTOGG half of Coalition A to Coalition B
- 10b bond (under easily exploitable conditions) from the Starksphere half of Coalition A to Coalition B
- 500m from TGH to GOONS
- 500m from CoS to UPN (already paid)
- 50m from Soup Kitchen to UPN
- 300m from Soup Kitchen to TCW
- ~15b in money/resources from KT to Polaris
- 2b combined from KT/TKR/t$ to UPN
- 2b from CoA to The Covenant
- 5b from CoA to BK
- 50m from CoA to UPN
- An undisclosed amount from t$ to Coalition B (Gringotts Bank term)
That all adds up to ~45.45b w/o the Gringotts term and that's just Coalition A and not TCWsphere.
Actually this makes more sense that the total was near50b .. as for tcw my understanding they were offered to come to the table with the last peace talks with the Panth and co .... but I guess with the new treaties signed is why they didnt come ... them treaties probably hung on them staying in. And just saying but it seems to me that NPO does not really benefit as much as certain peeps in coalition A are trying to make people beleive ... hmmmmm
-
1 hour ago, Charles the Tyrant said:
I will just repeat a point I made earlier as a counter since I don't have the time right now for a wall of text. There are people who were at c8/10 during ToT who are now at c24/26 and that's without the benefit of 100/100. I say benefit because even though I oppose 100/100 for community reasons , I can acknowledge that if performed correctly and efficiently, 100/100 is superior for reasons of long term productivity. So if former TKR members who have taken a couple beat downs, particularly in these ranges I might add, have achieved that level of growth mostly of their own volition and can during peacetime buy a city every 5/6 weeks (4/5 is possible with good loans). So if that is possible then surely NPO can do the same with an Econ system which has more wealth at its disposal and advance more than just a few members gradually over a period of a few months into the whale tier?
Tldr: if you wanted a whale tier, you would grow one. There are whales who are 800ish days old after all.
How bout instead of these economic lessons AMD whinning the terms are to much there is this thing called negotiation and it does not involve using ur feet walking away from the table. Like this ...
Coalition b ... we want 100b
Coalition ..A ... hahahaha .. way to much .. how bout 50 ....
A ... TOO LOW 90
B .. no way dumbass how 65 .. and we through in some
......
See get it hint hint ...good luck wah wahs
-
7 hours ago, HeroofTime55 said:
I'll be honest, I always forget that the lunar surface was a thing. I couldn't remember a damn thing about that place, and I barely remember what alliance I was even in (I think it was FAN?)
I would be thrilled if your stay here was extended. My expectations do not match my hopes. Please surprise me.I miss Jack
-
1 hour ago, Charles the Tyrant said:
There are members of NPO who have been around just as long or even longer than members in coal A and have fought in just as many wars or even less than coal A members. Yet they are a good 4-6 cities behind their coal A counterparts with a corresponding drop in longterm productivity.
If you need to find a reason to understand the disparity in economic power, you need to look closer to home and examine the tiering choices NPO made a few years ago and their subsequent impacts.
The fact that NPO relies on 20 billion dollar loans from whales across the web to sustain its own growth speaks volumes.
To be honest, the quality of NPO's leaders when it first rose to power was far better than the shabby excuses we have to put up with here.
The likes of Ivan, dilber, Vlad and so on would not be overly impressed with this realm's NPO.
Can't compare two entirely different NPO's separated by a decade and a half. Heck, I was a member of that old school NPO and I would likely join an alliance like the original NPO if it was formed here. But not this poor excuse we have for an NPO which is basically a personality cult fueled by fumes of paranoia.
Stop comparing different times from old age to new age. People have to change and adapt as time progresses.
-
19 minutes ago, Azaghul said:
Until you can see that there's more to the world than just dominating it statistically you're never going to get it. At this point this will end when enough more of your allies, those that actually care about having fun and the health of the broader community, realize how selfish and toxic you are and abandon you.
It's funny that you think a war where we "lost horribly" can also be some kind of "favorable outcome". The idea that you somehow can't compete in peace time is an admission of your own political and economic incompetence. Incompetence doesn't give you the right to extort people.Statistics do matter. They give u answers to what economic building u must do to make urself stronger. They matter when u go diplo to be able to find allies that are comparable and comparable to male sure in the world that u can protect and help each other where one may lack in one area or another. Stats do habe a place. First of in war there is never really a winner or loser cause everyone suffers in the physical and diplomatic sense. Where u win in one area ur going to lose in another. Point is it matters how we rebound amd move forward. Ur side in this case surrendered on condition of terms. Instead of showing the patience to find the terms u decided to walk away and then try a propaganda campaign. It almost worked until some found they were just gonna be meat shields and treated it seems as if they domt matter. Ur case for the propaganda trail would of been more stronger and successful if u had of took the terms and gotten the peace in november December and then start the war of words in the back channels . Now with what has happened with these alliances that found out ur intentions and thoughts about them u have taken 3 steps back. Now u want to try and say this is NPOs fault or BK or goons
.. I wouldn't I would look back at the road u choose ..the words u used and maybe just maybe choose the right direction u intended when u surrendered. It dont matter what u say here in the owf cause quite frankly NPO membership are strong loyal and in this for the long haul and loyal to the leadership group we have to make the desicions they do.
-
7 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:
I find that wars end quicker (and are more enjoyable) when winning. The strategy your coalition has been taking is losing, which is a poor strategy for a war. Try winning more, that's what we do and it works for us.
Shhhhh ... that's to easy .. it gotta be more complicated and dramatic for some to understand
-
1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
Bahahaha, look at all the toxic IQ hypocrites trying to spin this as "look, we are willing to peace".
That the terms of this peace do not include reparations speaks way, way, way more than anything else.
Coalition A has:
Not attacked their own treatied allies nor protectorates thereof
Always been willing to entertain peace talks in good faith
Always been willing to peace under reasonable termsMeanwhile, lest we forget, Coalition B has never once, not once fit any of those basic, common decency categories outside of extreme duress.
Naw we dont show mercy or nothing ... dam I agree with u these peace terms for these menaces are way to harsh. As what these terms stand for is giving the little guy a break that got sucked in by ur own gaslighting to use them instead of respecting them. Hmmm actually I hope the leaders of my side when they do discuss peace for u include reps for these people u used and insulted.
-
Congrats on the peace. Enjoy ur rebuild and fry some eggs on me
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
You are straight up describing IQ's chance for peace. Please stop your useless gaslighting, you're not fooling anyone at this point.
No just coalition A making fools of themselves. And the only gas I have is either in my car or butt thanks. Here is the meaning of gaslighting.
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, or sanity.
the only gaslighting I have seen is coalition A posting leaks and trying to twist around the events of the past. All I have read is Coalition B answering the same thing over and over consistently but A tries to twist
-
5 minutes ago, James II said:
It wasn't hacked or breached. Leo gave access to his account to a lot of people. The only ips logged are from Leo's devices.
Just out of curiosity how can other peoples ips show from Leo's devices? If I understand right then the person would have to be at Leo's location using the same internet company using Leo's phone or what not. And just asking not judging and how do u see the ips on what is posted as well or how did u find the ips ?
-
On 1/14/2020 at 8:09 AM, namukara said:
If you truly want people to have fun in this game, here's what you should do.
Stop cooperating with those who don't to keep peoples score down. BK and NPO want to kill this game, and as someone who's invested considerable time and money in it, that's something I don't want to see. Use your nations to hit BK's low tier, there's a place for anybody in our coalition.
Escalating does not warrant peace. You are just dragging things out. Seriously coalition A had a chance for peace but instead decided they are sensitive people and backed away from talks amd decided to try amd win the war of words.
-
2 hours ago, Bjorn Ironside said:
If I am not mistaken we call that IQ rank, so insane and such a huge lie with a massive ego, that the person telling it, believe it to be true.
Do not think NPO will be about next year with the way you keep burning yourselves,
Yep.. and another 13 years beyond that..
-
4 minutes ago, Inst said:
Ooh, let's start abusing single data points from low-level NPO members for propaganda!
Yes let's:) ...
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Pubstomper said:
Agian this answer is just as useless as the one Roq posted. I was asking about the roq post because it seemed more reliable, while still not really answering
Can u re quote the Roq quote ur talking about ? And then maybe u will answer ur own question or maybe even Roq will give a more detail answer
-
1 minute ago, Pubstomper said:
Are you talking about this?
Where your leader says "we don't know anymore"
Agian read his words .. he said the post he made not Roq lol
-
4 minutes ago, Pubstomper said:
And yet you just posted why KT isn't allowed the same courtesy. Was that an official statement and you're just the messenger?
Agian a spin lol .. and u wonder why we keep saying u guys keep spinning and assuming ... lol no where in tibbets post did he say or use the letters except TK lol and he mentioned he is giving his own opinion
-
10 minutes ago, Bjorn Ironside said:
who are you again?
not like it matters, you have no one who can hit me, i will be out of VM in 39 turns
And ur nation does not exist ?
TF Peace Announcement
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
Who cares now about this semantic of validity 8 months later. Deal with today and move on. Seriously this argument is so repetitive it is like coalition A finding a excuse to keep this going.