Sisyphus
-
Posts
1339 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Sisyphus
-
-
35 minutes ago, Syrachime said:
Which is funny to me... We offered our surrender a month and a half ago, and there was a four and a half month gap between that and the start of the war marking six months and counting of this conflict. The fact that one side can't come up with terms to deliver in that time span is honestly laughable. I'm starting to think maybe we'd get somewhere if Coal A started offering terms to Coal B. Outside of white peace, that might be the only way negotiations are gonna get going at this rate. Especially if it is true that it is taking one side half a year to come up with something to deliver to the other side.
It would be more productive for representatives of Col A to speak with representatives of Col B if Col B is willing to allow Col A representatives to represent Col B until Col B can come up with a cohesive and comprehensive list of terms.
I, of course, nominate Partisan.
-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
When the double buy can change everything:
-
15
-
32 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:
I heard he doesn't clean up his fingernail clippings after he cuts them, too. Evil.
I wanted to start small before I worked my way up to the big guns.
-
1
-
-
So we've all learned that Roquentin will:
Backpedal on his commitments, or refuse to honor his end of an agreement.
Collude with "rivals".
Break allied terms of engagement.
Insert his alliance into an aggressive war against the wishes and stated goals of his sphere.
Actively plot an aggressive war against his own allies/sphere with "unaffiliated" antagonists.
Encourage and participate in duplicitous negotiation tactics designed to force players from the game.
Promote the concept of disbanding entire communities.
Actively infringe upon the sovereignty of his own allies by making external demands on their internal operations.
A real example of moral integrity, that.
I get that everyone's at least beginning to abandon the pretense that anybody in Col B (who hasn't already left the war) is operating in good faith on any level, and we're all starting to gravitate to the classic "might makes right / bend the knee" angle - but if nothing else let us set the record straight on what parts you'll all be playing postwar:
Good Dog or Bad Dog.
Servant or Enemy.
-
1
-
2
-
-
36 minutes ago, Roquentin said:
How did i plot against HS at all? They just took you into account as likely to defend HS. There would be no reason for me to "plot" against HS besides you getting drawn in. The intent wasn't to draw HS in. While some people had bad blood with HS, for NPO it wasn't a goal for HS to be in and get fought. Just because you were going to keep the tS treaty, tS' actions would draw you in. We did discuss HS dropping tS and it was clear it wouldn't happen.
Why did you violate the intel clause of your treaty with HS?
-
5
-
-
Who is Duke Arthur and what did killzbob do to him?
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:
What has it produced?
An entertaining political exchange to keep us interested while Farmville is paused is something.
On top of the self-satisfaction of exposing the disorganized hypocrisy and confused belligerence of your coalition in the meantime, it's not been so bad tbqh.
-
6
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:
It's really not. It differs from yours based on perspective and interpretation, but that's hardly skewed.
I'm pretty sure that's close to the definition of skewed.
I believe Partisan meant to ask why you were so wrong.
-
2 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:
So... Basically they've wasted a month or so hoping Partisan whining in public would help the cause.
1. It's not whining, it's all been a pretty standard and even playful approach from him.
2. It has forced your coalition to abandon their Col A obstruction narrative and now you guys are either ducking the assertion entirely or moving on to the next petty, impotent argument. Which is pretty significant for a coalition that literally wants their opponents to disavow the truth as a term for peace.
3. No time was wasted, really. Well, maybe your time has been wasted but we haven't wasted it. It isn't exactly our problem that your coalition partners obstructing the peace process also obstructs your peace as well.
-
6
-
-
10 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:
I was responding to the poster who was referencing the very same things except that poster was quite confused about things.
The problem, and I've noticed this with several GOONs posters lately, is that you're responding to posts referencing years of context and background within this game but you're informing your opinions with context from an entirely different game.
There's a large gap in your community's understanding of how exactly everyone has arrived to where they are currently at.
-
2
-
-
On one hand, I think this NAP is pretty silly.
On the other hand, knowing what I know about the situation, I can completely understand why Fark doesn't have anything close to a single dog in this fight and would want to telegraph quite certainly that they have no interest in getting involved.
-
- Popular Post
38 minutes ago, Sphinx said:I'm not saying t$ is on purpose exploiting this, but I worry if rank and file members see this glitch and try to use it to their advantage. e$ being a newbie alliance is probably more prone to this happening than t$ would be. I've also said to my members that we won't tolerate people exploiting the glitch so if it happens a few times to your guys please let me know and I'll investigate.
"I'm not saying t$ is on purpose exploiting this."
He says after making a whole thread to imply it.
-
2
-
2
-
3
-
1 minute ago, Roquentin said:
Haha no. When someone pulls out abruptly and are like "jeez guys. I had no clue NPO would do this and you're really swell and they manipulated us into all of this. Let's be friends again." It doesn't work.
I know that the only intel you get nowadays is whatever you've told BK to repeat back to you but that's just absolutely completely wrong.
-
Yeah, not gonna bother quoting any specific points but if Roq had experienced my private DMs after we declared on Grumpy and Guardian he'd know better than to tread this line of rhetoric.
Though of course, Roquentin isn't opposed to outright lies and deceit though, so he'd probably attempt it anyway.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:
How is it a golden oppurtunity to be hit by the number two alliance in the game who has multiple top 10 alliances while fighting a war? T$ was only countered once they attacked BK and brought multiple allies in on them making it apparent you were supporting the enemy side.
I wish you'd just grow enough balls to say you wanted to escalate the war instead of slinging around all of this impotent spin.
-
1 minute ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:
When you decide to get involved and meddle in a war generally being proactive is on the ones interfering.
TEst was at war with us hitting them was justified.
WE CARED SO MUCH
Says the coalition that sent one person to talk to one person that said they had a lot going on IRL but couldn't bother to direct message literally anybody else for a week until they saw a golden opportunity to go on an aggressive war in the middle of good faith negotiations after making outrageous demands.
-
6 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:
I’m not here to say if you not responding was for a valid reason or not, but the point was T$ did not have any communications with us till we were forced to reach out to someone in IA. That made it apparent it wasn’t a serious concern for T$.
God forbid you lift a finger.
I'm not your keeper.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Just now, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:It’s entirely true that the only interest is for BK and NPO to fight while no upper tier alliances truly commit. It’s obvious informal connections are still there when you see Rose being low paper, Rose opting in, ketog chaos collusion, t$/Kerchog collusion, etc.
Now I'm sure it had nothing to do with your caustic and fumbling FA approach at all.
Thank you for setting me straight.
-
1
-
6
-
14 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:
The only bearing OWR and Carth have was highlighting how T$ was intentionally ghosting us during negotiations. Their head of FA had multiple week gaps but was fully capable of two new M-level treaties indicating they were not negotiating in good faith.
Or I wasn't negotiating much at all in those talks more than checking in.
I'm actually surrounded by capable government who can handle things while I'm away.
I told Phoenix I have a lot going on, and I'm not about to delve into my real life to justify this, but that was two weeks ago when I suggested Phoenix reach out to someone else.
And your gonna see my activity taper right back off as things go on beyond this initial upset.
Phoenix waited around for a week before reaching out to anyone, just before you escalated by attacking our protectorate.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:
No the idea was to dominate the game through informal relationships.
Except that's precisely false.
Of all the narratives you guys vomit out this really is the worst one, informal relationships were burned left and right in pursuit of more dynamic politics, it's unfortunate y'all have locked yourself into your little feedback loop or else you might've actually picked up on that.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Always enjoyable to see those calling out NPO for not coming to the aid of t$ here. I don't remember the same concern when all those alliances with no treaty to TKR hit NPO.
(nonchaining) Mutual Defense =/= Optional Aggression
I think that's sort of the same argument the NPO is currently trying to make about their recent cynical play, but only because they can't read.
-
2
-
-
49 minutes ago, Kyubnyan said:
BoC is muuuuuuuch older than all of the others just so ya know
Which one?
-
5 minutes ago, Dio Brando said:
as you say, my brah
Wah?
-
16 minutes ago, Dio Brando said:
For the most part.
Yah
Something to consider
in Orbis Central
Posted
Your capacity for hope exceeds even your tenacity for posting.