Roquentin

The award I'd care about is nicest player and I didn't get nominated .

Now that the transparent purpose of this RoH is evident to all. Hopefully the situation is dealt with so as not to set dangerous precedents.

You're being intentionally obtuse; it's clear that it is meant to mock us and the accompanying commentary by their IA head made it clear. The mockery happened before any other events transpired. They referenced their prior mockery in the treaty topic meaning no remorse. No one would tolerate the sheer level of disrespect shown in both words and actions.

I said yes in the channel. There's no reason for this to go south if Avengers adheres in good faith and doesn't plot or scheme to hit us anyway. Given the demeanor and prideful references to abrogations by said MD "allies" being referenced in a mocking treaty text(Mirror Accords), it should come as no surprise that they were treated as enemies when they had acted as such.

Most of the discussion has revolved the concept of picking winners on certain criteria. How about making it not about anyone winning in particular and each group could present its opinions about unaffiliated alliances they'd consider for each? So someone not affiliated with coalition B but with Coalition A would pick 2 between those. Someone not aligned with either would pick one of each for each category. Someone from Coalition B would pick two from Coalition A. If the motivation is to have a community event, then this way of doing it where people have to evaluate other groups might be beneficial and would eliminate the concern of there being an invalidation of the popular vote.

Yeah, um, then why do you have the Black Sun? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sun_(symbol) but colored yellow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_Nazism#Miguel_Serrano There were a bunch of other Ancient Aliens you could have used. More than one person from IG ended up in your alliance who had been known to have those tendencies before, too.

I wasn't talking about automation and warfare isn't automated. The accusation has been around yeah, but it's never been the case. The thing I was talking about was specifically was the pace of casualties and rebuy capacity. For many more casual alliances, they would get wrecked because their members couldn't be on to respond or go on the offensive right away at the specific times they needed to, so they would be zeroed and stay zeroed as most didn't have the cities advantage to be able to do max soldiers down declare thing or it wasn't as useful, they were often without recourse. Most of the mass recruiting alliances and others would bleed people constantly since back then it was a lot harder to keep fighting after getting zeroed and countless players quit during or after each war. The system at the time facilitated a mass blitz being able to immobilize a larger group and it still was happening earlier in the war. Now it's turned around and the complaints come in about getting blitzed while not online or whatever. The majority of the reaction before this war was that they could either just get good or keep losing by getting outblitzed and zeroed. There was very little sympathy for people who had that issue of not being able to do much after getting zeroed.

Yeah, idk how the anti-communism stuff would square with their theme. I assumed the theme was just related to the anime/wehraboo stuff and the anti-socialism stuff separate. There isn't really a need to adopt Afrika Korps to be against socialism, but it doesn't even make sense to be against socialism in the context of the game in Africa even. Are there socialist movements in the in-game continent? What would they even be doing? There have been Libertarian(recruited off libertarian websites like protest warrior), Conservative alliances, gun alliances, and so on that all had their RL beliefs against socialism as the unifying glue but extolled them without invoking Aryan supremacy and German militarism. I've always thought the theme was distasteful and could definitely attract the wrong type of people(some of the banned guys) for one, but I never thought Khai or Skae were nazis as they gave no indications of such. The theme isn't really defensible on the grounds of anti-communism; at best, it was an ill-conceived way to RP girls und panzer and at worst an intentional lure for the wrong type of people. It's the precise issue with these types of themes; they can't be truly sanitized or handwaved away as non-malicious. Like Shifty had Hyperborea to troll and see if he could get away with the invocation of estoeric Nazism but the type of people who surrounded him did have the real beliefs even if it's doubtful that Shifty himself is a believer in fascism in the real world, he was still doing stuff that caused him to be in that orbit.

In the spirit of African-related things, I'd like to wish everyone good luck and a happy Kwanzaa.

It's an interesting year with Hannukkah, Festivus, Christmas, and Kwanzaa all so close together.

Pulp Fiction is actually my favorite movie. This was great.

We're not trying to burn resources, but yeah. I'm sure if it continues then we can figure something out for people in similar situations as you. That's not the answer. If you ingratiate yourself with everyone else you had fought to take down a certain a group, you are picking that group. IQ was competitive yes, but it wasn't a hegemony as it couldn't beat everyone else on its own. It would top out and was usually worse off than the other groups. It had a lot of treaties between constituents yeah, but they were redundant. There was never a point where IQ had the type of strength the actual hegemonic powers have had. In essence you wanted to isolate and then when it dind't wwork beat up the people who weren't well-liked. No one else would count as a hegemony by your definition. Attriton isn't damage done by the war itself. It's due to people leaving because of the war. They made the choice. We didn't make it for them. It would have had zero impact on TKR if they had kept their nations. The assessments Mitsuru and Radoje provided were accurate that it wouldn't really dent TKR much in terms of the fundamentals. I get TKR might be journey before destination but it was more of a justification to execute what they wanted to do. Did the CB mean they were on the defensive and on the backfoot yes? That was the main problem for them. The wheels had been in motion for a long time. It was just a convenient CB. I can sympathize with not wanting to get hit mid-rebuild, but it hasn't been an ethical problem for most of your side. Yeah, I mean it's totally possible we can get along well in terms of just generic chit chat and what not, but that's not what makes things happen. TKR made the choice to approach KT/TGH earlier in the year and strategically dispatched someone who was more on their wavelength culturally to make inroads. That's pragmatic but pragmatism is the motivation rather than ideological commitment to fluidity and whatnot. It doesn't really matter if pasky or you have a problem or you as a low gov member personally, the high gov made its decision a long time ago about wanting to work with KT and co for political benefit. That's fine but expect a response. They coveted hegemony in their own ways. The top damage doers ended up with them mostly. Rather than minispheres, the vision seems to have been one of upper tier niche power blocs with some padding. I mean yeah I also know it's easier to justify just siding with each other without paper so it's not called hegemony. They would use any specter to continue to be unified. Well I've heard others felt differently. It was inevitable the BKsphere's inflated nation count would come crashing down because it was mostly micros and people who hadn't fought much before. Given what happened with Egyptian Empire beforehand, the issues with Carthago weren't unforseeable. We had dealt with nation counts being propaganda in the past, so we took the claims to be cynically made. So here's the problem we get into you went in thinking you were going to be eradicated, so it's very much a self-fulfilling prophecy as the way you acted made it seem you were out to eradicate others. Again, you keep missing the point where short wars are only good for the side that gets quick damage in as it will produce a gap if it's repeated oftne enough. It was needed to avoid it being a curbstomp. Tripolarity doesn't work if you unify into something much bigger and it's 2 spheres vs 1. The previous PR lines was that bipolarity was always expected but the journey would be worth entertaining minispheres or whatever. We always had a cautious cynicism about that.. How exactly? What work? Basically, the goal wasn't to reunify long-term but only prevent the curbstomp from continuing so the BK/Cov group would continue to exist as an independent entity so there'd be a sphere still able to compete with the others. The issue is we never promised not to intervene in such a crisis. Bipolarity is just a product of counter-consolidation in this case. Scenarios where opposition was fractured against the elites had happened in the past and we did not care to repeat the divided opposition's mistakes in the past. We didn't flop. The justification was one for hitting TKR specifically. The last line was always more operative in that we felt that the balance of power would shift too heavily if we didn't intervene. Yes, the BK/Cov side asked us for help and the military decision was one of preventing it from getting to the point of no return. You guys just wanted to read selectively. I had mentioned it repeatedly that we held off using the TKR CB until it was clear BK/Cov's military counts would not hold up. The tS thing is more nuanced than you can explain. tS peaced out and was showered with praise for leaving us out to get rolled. They benefited massively but instead of just counting their blessings they didn't try to make amends. They antagonized us instead and had been waving the red flag to the others. The bulls were going to charge eventually. When they undermined our war effort by signing two alliances that peaced out so they could do so without any ramifications, it was a huge victory for the other side and humiliated us as we had no prior indication. Alliances like those were our main problem with BK's sphere as we had to deal with a bunch of pixel huggers not being willing to do what it took to win. The response from tS when we reacted negatively was "we don't have to tell you anything since you'll leak to BK." and "we had intel you would leak to BK so we acted. I can conjure up reasons to do things too and listen to the voices in my head like you did". If they didn't want to cancel then they would have apologized and it would have been an oversight rather than intentional. It wasn't really unprecedented. It was expected of various alliances to surrender to end the conflict. All you did was say you'd surrender as part of a final settlemnt. There just weren't any other terms in those caes and ours were mostly joke terms at the time. You stoked antagonism throughout the months of stubborness. You did not actually surrender as the surrender takes place when you actually agree to every single term one by one. It was on the table because we had an investment in keeping the more warshy alliances onside hoping they would improve. You instead jumped on the weakness shown by some to pursue a strategy of attritioning our side of alliances and resources so you could force a white peace. They're not really devastating because it's literally just our own channel where we talked a lot of shit. It wasn't meant for public consumption and the stuff in there wasn't revelatory. Our stances had been more or less known. I mean we had ample justification for being upset with the conduct of your leaders which led to those stances being adopted and since you'd remain unified going forward, we had no reason to rush anything if you didn't want to make all the concessions. There isn't going to be much for us to say when private closed circle conversations get logdumped because someone got tired of not being able to milk his alliance for stuff and wanted to move onto making his own. As I said, it's not morality operative here. We can't act angelically when you have cutthroat groups who will try to break people if they can. It's just not via a long war as they don't need it so they don't have to worry about attention spans. We've not been trying to achieve hegemony. The issue is we've had to show some semblance of military capacity and willingness to act on it so people don't treat us as pushovers. In the past people relied on us being too impotent to stop them from screwing us. Opus Dei is nowhere near EMC's level of dominance. It's not CN 2.0 as there are factors in your favor. We don't overwhelm you in every regard. It is easy for you to be relatively mechanically competitive. With CN, the needed things weren't there for everyone. If you want something different then there need to be established ground rules rather than just paperless cooperation. idk since you seem to be projecting a view where we desire hegemony as a default. We want to do well yeah but when the culture of the game is one where it's okay to screw us because we're unpopular unless we can beat people up all the time since everyone else has gotten away with screwing us/Cov/BK/etc., we have to reach a certain high ground. You seem pretty naive and you're not actually leading TKR so not sure whether you can say you represent it truly. By then it was known you'd stick together and try to get outside support. It wasn't the gorge logs that showed it. It was Alexio's logs and your side embraced him. Syndicate gave us a chance so BK could get rolled easily from what I can surmise at this point. With HS, it was initially through tS, but they seemed to be keen on pragmatic thinking rather than narrow-mindedness like tS. You usually said there'd always be two sides, though. Okay then but KT did frame it that way. So we're going back in time on this and I mean if you didn't tell me that's fine. They told outside questioners that a few months back. People inquired about their intentions. You might be mixing the timelines now. tS will eventually get terms but they will be dealt with separately. It's not to disband them or anything. They have a different starting point so are less affected by the war. They also are more energized and have an axe to grind as rather than Partisan cleaning up the mess by admitting tS screwed up in its dealings with NPO and Coalition B, he's chosen to act as if he was wronged when his alliance pushed this scenario into being. I don't think we ever thought we could roll tS out of the game. The idea was more to see if we could pull off winning knowing it'd most likely cause them to split because it would no longer be a guaranteed success. Winning was elusive for us at the time and it's taken this long to win against this combination of alliances, which is what mean with 4.5 years. It's not about a grudge but rather it was impossible to beat them in any prior version of this war. The fact that we keep fighting versions of the same war with some skips in between is a problem yeah but this was the only time our side got this far.

That's not really how it reads. It reads as if you are planning to do stuff in your new alliances to unify further I don't recall you being open about it. It has been confirmed that you and Chaos had planned to stick together post-war for several months now. Don't dress it up otherwise. I said it before, but the only thing that is harmful to you is attrition and there is no way of telling who is actually gone or who will come back post-war and is just chilling out. Any attrition is ultimately on you. With what you have accumulated there is no way to "eradicate" you, only decrease the gap by limiting further accumulation or terms.

I'm talking about a particular type of dissent. The dissent has been one largely related to material concerns throughout the war. If the material concerns weren't an issue and no one had to sacrifice stuff, then we'd have only ideological dissent at most which would be low. That's now yeah. I know plenty of coal A people who are just waiting for the war to end to get active again since they don't want to bother with the guerilla tactics. We're not trying to kill whole communities. They're still around. It's not any hint. It's a consolidated group that has indicate its intention for quite some time. It won't be a stagnant wasteland where no one does anything but buy cities. If anything, this has helped curb inflation in that regard. Most of our problems in the war have been precisely because people want to buy stuff and just build without warring. The challenge would still be there. I mean, we had EM using his nation size to get out of justice and Coalition A rallying around him and his vision has always been buying cities endlessly. You might want to look in the other direction if you want to talk about just buying cities and not fighting. I think you're alone in this type of stance. Most people on your side are happy with what Adrienne, Keegoz, Theo, Buorhann, Sketchy, and so on have been doing. With KT, it's hard to tell what te actual motivations are given the evacuation of principal leaders has been to combat "IQ" from a distance. They don't agree with your assessment for sure and they've been deadset on unifying more. This isn't really about people who jumped in as rerolls or new players in the middle to be honest, so I can get why you're more irritated since you're not a stakeholder. It's less about just shitting on people and strategy. I mean, like I said, I wouldn't be opposed to letting people who aren't integral go to a POW AA or somewhere else since it's not about your rerolled nation or any of the other people who came in and joined a TKR, TGH, etc. We don't care about setting you back personally. You don't have the stuff they do. I mean, if you're hurting that much I'm sure tS or TKR can spare you some stuff from their infinite hoards of cash. No one seems upset with any of them. Like I said I'm sympathetic if you feel this way genuinely but it's not the case in terms of what the brass has in mind on your side. It doesn't matter if he has authority or not. I didn't say tS' leader said it. I said someone on your end could see the rationale and knows it's not in our strategic interest. This is especially given you feel you were betrayed and have continuously used the logs to illustrate some sort of innocence on your end and victimhood.

Not sure how I proved it. I would be paranoid and nothing would be good enough if the numbers stacked up in such a way, yeah, but it's not the case. It's been an uphill climb and when you've gotten this far, to give up the tenuous advantage you have is problematic. If we were really in the best position ever, then we wouldn't have had any dissent and these concerns wouldn't exist outside of my own if we were going with the concept of me being paranoid being a given. Here's a post acknowledging the situation:

Thing is, I'm not the only one holding these beliefs. Most people who prefer peace just want it because the war is long or they want to make peace time income without looking at the wider numbers. The logs said 3.5 but that was including wars NPO fought in more or less. It would go back to 4.5 maybe that some version of this war has been fought. Until this war, it had been without success and advantages accumulated over time after Paracov definitively fell. Even someone at war with us currently acknowledged the rubicon had been crossed and there is no strategic incentive to peace without a favorable outcome.

Nope. Carthago complained about not having stuff. People helped. Most if not all of the exiters all wanted to just collect stats in peace and they need to rid themselves of the albatross of their ally to do it if possible. The micros didn't even try. Valorizing pixel huggers because it suits you is par for the course.

When the last war was ongoing, people raised the question of what would happen after. Would TKR/Guardian/GOB/etc. be more angry at the ex-EMC who had hit them or at Inquisition? The question was answered pretty quickly. It would be Inquisition. They coalesced with their brethren who had fought them and their brethren who had sat out the war to plot against the Inquisition. Their battlecry had always been that Inquisition was seemingly overpowered. Even though steps were being taken to fulfill the split, it became an uneasy affair when the knowledge became known the more rambunctious half would be likely targeted regardless. Thus, a stipulation was asked for to the FA head of tS that if the rest of the game ganged up on them, we would have the ability to enter. We knew their condition was relatively fragile. They had been targeted about a year before and largely heckled for their decision to stick with IQ before that and it did have an impact on the economies of all the alliances on that side. In contrast, EMC had barely been impacted by Knightfall. The attrition was the real damage and that was because they had coddled those members for years by avoiding harder fights in the upper tier. The TKR low gov had openly stated at the start of Knightfall that the war would accomplish nothing. As a result, the only damage done was losing members who could not cope with the hard fight. The financial dominance of former EMC was not affected in the slightest by the war. They felt entitled to beat down their traditional bugbears, however. When they interrupted their playfight, it became clear that they would be in an unparalleled position of dominance if the BK/COvsphere could not hold them off. One war had done little to them aside from the attrition. They were back to full form or as full as they could be given the attrition partially offset by the incorporation of KT/TGH/Oblivion and Rose to a lesser extent. They all cackled with glee at their initial success and only bad things could result. Rumors of forced treaty cancellations circulated. When we chose to try to make it a non-curbstomp, their entitlement incensed them into a rage and they vowed permanent enmity more or less. Simply not winning against "IQ" was beneath them. Only they could bring each other down. No one else. The rubicon had been crossed and it was clear they would not take it as a normal war. It was an existential struggle and they would only change their minds when it stopped going well for them. The words were not forgotten and it was clear who would benefit more from a quick peace. The historical elites sought to entrench themselves further and go for a better shot and with tS most likely with them. We dealt with the threat when they played their hand. The other side knows that is is easier for them to financially set back Coalition B vs vice versa. Thus, they play the victim of the long war. A long war requires more discipline and it can get tiresome, but that is the hand we have had to play. The refusal to come to the table earlier pushed us into more extreme stances. When people abandoned the coalition when it was about a refusal to surrender, they did so on the premise of seeking shelter from hostile powers. When this type of precedent has been historically enabled, action is required to thwart it becoming a norm. It has become clear they will treat any war as a severely rancorous conflict if it is not a playfight. It's not about eliminating them but there is no other way to wear them down until a suitable deal can be reached. They'll be fine if it ever peaces. They brag about how well off they are. Don't worry about them.

Then it still won't be dumped anyway. It's a fact that Kayser was approached by people to hit BK well before the war. You know it at this point as well. Um, they bailed out because they couldn't cope with a real war. If it had been easy street the entire time and they didn't take damage, they wouldn't have. No one besides Empyrea dropped out of Knightfall for instance. The nationcounts you and others attributed to BK were just paper and those alliances had no intention of ever fighting for real. They were micros that disbanded or just severely unprepared alliances that can't cope with war. It has nothing to do with us ultimately except that we expect people to not ditch if they have to fight for real. Your political goal of isolating BK by saying "this is what you get for being allied to BK and Covenant" was operative and people took it to be the case. They just don't like to fight especially not people like EM lol who wanted to just be left alone to grow forever to 50 or whatever. They wanted greener pastures. Keep pretending it has anything to do with good guys vs bad guys.

Hm, the side that required more initial sacrifices wasn't attractive? Nice. With Gorge it has nothing to do with betrayals or morality. His personal goals of self-enrichment just were no longer in sync and he chose to logdump as a result as it would curry favor with people who don't like us. To pretend it was some moral awakening is super disingenuous. His attention was no longer there, so he didn't like it. It's marketablity and not morality. If we had been able to affect the same outcomes in a shorter war, then he'd have been fully onboard as he was because he didn't care for the other side. The length is what annoyed him after the demotion(or maybe even before) and that's just a product the difference in the hands we have available to play. It doesn't make you or him any more moral than we are. We couldn't make it any faster for him. Not at all. The treaty was going to be canceled and it was treated as a fact. You made a power play with the treaties and the context they were signed in; it was essentially a challenge to do something about it or just stay angry until you made an even more flagrant move. We can go over all the other prior things where you took measures that were counter-productive/provocative beforehand like Sanreizan. It would depend on how long it'd take to happen. The reason the KETOG/Chaos hit was a win-win for them was they had nothing to lose infra-wise. They wouldn't have to wait around for long to affect a similar charge. On a short-term basis maybe, but it would have forced us into a permanently reactive role. We don't know how prepared BK or whoever would have been or how much resentment would result from sitting pretty. In previous wars where two sides duked it out, it was often easier to resent the biggest alliances that sat out especially when they occupied the top spots. You as in tS were relying on it not fostering resentment which I brought up as a potential ramification or maybe you wanted that to happen. Anyway, it was known you were partially engineering the scenario with a limited front. I'm not really sure what "working with the sphere" entails as you had no interest in doing anything worthwhile and as I said, the lack of willingness of tS to commit to real war scenarios that weren't limited or curbstomps wasn't particularly reassuring. It didn't have to be in "coalition" but just stay where it was which wouldn't be breaking the terms and the interpretation where it only applied to tS was even brought up in the conversations, but that was killed off by Sisyphus. The rules never stated if we hit someone else that anything would change. You're twisting them to make it incumbent on you to react to what we did that way. The condition was never supposed to be unconditional. Such a condition with no wiggle room was utterly self-defeating and it's not how I interpreted the concept. It would be the smartest thing to not counter until the rest had been fully cleared out and when it would be most opportune go for the throat if someone was knowingly tying a hand behind their back in such a fashion. That's basic logic. I pointed to every other instance of limited front not being productive. Um, your own private channels were where it was leaked from. It wasn't an intentional leak by you, but rather it was from when Fillmore logdumped your stuff. That's why I don't take this at face value right away. The fact that your line and the line used by the others in tS is the same referring to "contacts" makes it hard to believe "it was a joke".

Nope. We had discussed the tS-NPO situation with HS and it was taken for granted that tS was ending the relationship and even mentioned. We discussed the scenario of HS cancelling and they wanted to keep a situation where NPO and tS wouldn't be allied but they would still be allied to both. Seeing tS' power move made it clear their knives were sharpened and they would cancel at an opportune time and then be a problem going forward as their hostility was self-evident, so I did the smartest thing which was to avoid them being able to take the initiative there. They(you) must have assumed I would continue taking the abuse until you were ready to make a more definitive move in addition to all your provocations, sheltering of problematic actors, shittalking, etc.Cancelling when the treaty is dead and we're insulted to our face and it's a matter of who shoots first is just a choice: one of cover for a plan vs messing up the plan. You were beyond any such consideration at that point. I don't really care. If you're going to continue playing dumb and ignoring the obvious outcome of one sphere being taken out and leaving another with bad history as the biggest and as a managable chunk, then we don't really need to keep indulging this "paranoia" argument. It has everything to do with the choices you made with trying to either screw us for your PR or just pure spite and your desire to facilitate what had been transpirng. Had you not been so eager to stick it to us, you would be in a much better position than now. You just assumed you could keep provoking us and get away with pulling it so many times. Again, the clear lack of contrition is severely telling and unfortunate. This propaganda line has been addressed before. You don't really need a long war to do the same thing. You just can keep hitting at different times as your damage will get in faster and the same impact occurs. Again it's always been marketability on your side rather than morality for what you guys have tried.

I celebrate Festivus so am offended by this suggestion.

It's not ironic at all though. tS would be in great shape right now if it had just stayed in lol. Pretty much everyone fighting GOB/Guardian that wasn't tS was fine with some expansion. The war would have gone much faster and if tS had wanted to sign some peirpheral alliances after, it wouldn't have been a problem. The alliances tS itself called into help them disliked KETOG and preferred expansion if the overall wouldn't be won otherwise. Simple fact. It would have been a pretty decent scenario for tS not to screw us. They cared about PR with KERTCHOGG instead and facilitating the destruction of BK/Cov who were already going to take copious amounts of damage anyway.

I'll just spell it the falsehoods here. 1. You never said you would not stand for it and peace out. Wrong wrong wrong. 2. HS had barely any targets to hit on Grumpy/Guardian and was equally free as NPO and had said it would do what it could with regards to counters. So yeah it comes down to you not caring about the evidence in question and some sort of untold reason for giving the benefit of the doubt to TKR for apparently. And you can take the whole no clear evidence thing away, because Leopold was literally twisting things to other people about the contents of the channel while ignoring us. The "contacts in BK" line is apparently based on something different I said that was leaked to Partisan who wasn't in the channel as there would be no way for him to know we were entering otherwise. I'm glad I don't have to feel an ounce of guilt now that you're literally just repeating BS. How did I plot against HS? They chose to stick with you. Had they be willing to cancel, they would have been able to get out of the way. They decided to stick with tS and liked the OWR/Carth treaties, so we can't enable that. You made your hostility clear with your actions prior to any of that. You had multiple opportuntiies to resolve the issues. You as in tS refused. You became severely hostile and we couldn't let you just continuously provoke us without a reaction. We don't need unrefutable proof to deal with a threat. We have no reason to allow a non-allied entity to clear the field enough for an eventual hit. People have gone to war on much less. If we hit someone we considered to be a friend then we might need unrefutable proof, but an alliance that was actively antagonizing us and when an openly antagonistic coalition was gaining ground, then we don't. We knew tS and co wouldn't be able to fight all of the alliances on their own if it came down to it. You wanted Cov/BK to die and that's what it comes down to even if it would screw us over.

Why does everything have to get logdumped to be real? It's been acknowledged multiple times that some core alliances in Coalition A asked people to help beat on BK well before the war because they wanted a big coalition because they thought BKsphere with all of the smaller alliances/rpots was so big. It can't be denied because it's what actually transpired and fit with the public rhetoric espoused at the time.