Crust

Now that's not a very nice thing to say.

My message to Polaris:

Who's that?

Everyone should really think more about where they position themselves, what risk they put themselves and their allies in when they treaty up. You can't have +3 treaties without making a mess, it's not gonna happen, especially when you got allies in two separate blocs.

firth, twirth, thirth

Mods!

Oh, didn't know homosexual muslims don't exist. I guess I'm just a figment of your imagination, Rozalia.

Valakias confirmed as a time-travel criminal scum!

I for one am thankful this is happening on the forum rather on IRC because ain't nobody got time for that. Here's a gif

denial is one of several steps towards acceptance. my condolences

finally! I've not been able to sleep a wink, figuring out this conundrum

Please don't. The guy is on his final days of his life, let him have this game.

Military shuts down, I think? Not sure tho

Next poll is actually gonna be about whether Manthrax's avatar is a duck or a rabbit.

Ugh, FINE dad

But he's such a qtpie. I hope this alpha thing never dies, I ain't got much else to amuse myself with these days.

I don't get it tho, why the heck would t$ end a war just to start it again? If it's to start another world war, shouldn't this war have been one? I mean if Alpha didn't do all those things t$ are saying, if it's all a bullshit spinn, this should have ignited a sphere war. It didn't. Why would t$ attempt it again, knowing they risk losing face and without Alpha's allies jumping in once again (if that's what they want). Or is it cause t$ wants alpha to rebuild so they can do more cash damage? If that is true and also the claim that t$ is losing more money rn than Alpha, why would they wanna go at it once again? A month gives y'all enough time to buy a bunch of nukes + armies, why would they want to risk losing more cash on another war? There's a lot of things that makes little to no sense without some sort of proof or explanation.

Disgusting.

I wouldn't say NAP entirely runs on trust. A lot of alliances have had an NAP because of lack of trust. The difference between them and alpha on the other hand is that those alliances had a reputation they wanted to preserve. Most AA's don't want to lose face by breaking a NAP treaty. Alpha has nothing left to lose on that front. Who would be shocked by them breaking a treaty (again)?

I don't really agree. Having these discussions in the open serves a purpose. Members who are affected, but have for a lack care or thought not directly talked to sheepy, may add their view on the matter. The community as a whole gets a better understanding of what's up. And in a similar way we, the members, can understand how you the mods operate. Seeing your and sheepy's response in this thread actually made me less apathetic towards the forum community. Now I know you won't close a thread willy-nilly. Openness can be good!

You know there's a different between the words "should" and "must"? Aka, if an Alpha member were to contact someone other than Valakias, say Roy for example, it wouldn't be odd for t$ to accept their peace request. Nor does it automatically . I guess that's hard to understand for a person who refuses to talk to someone who's "only" a stand-in for Partisan because of reasons. Refusing to see a peace out for what it is just cause someone didn't go to the exact specific person is contrarian as heck.

Isn't it suspicious that Roy had Tim in his copy history? That can only mean one thing, t$ is gonna roll TEst

I think you're linking to the wrong nation, Roy.

Damn, that's savage.

What's the minimum amount of land one could buy from you?