[PnW Academy Awards - Final Voting Part 1]

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

[Syndicate-North Point RoH]

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.

[[TREATY] Avengers - Opus Dei]

1 minute ago, Ripper said:

I don't see how they are mocking you in the Mirror Accords. There is no NPO reference there. Could it be you feel guilty about something?

Also, even if they do mock you right now, this proves absolutely nothing about the kind of allies they were, so I have no idea why you bring that up. If I was backstabbed by someone, I would also mock them.

Unless that's the best proof you have about their "treachery", that is, so I understand. You do need some sort of defence line.

Still, the arguement "I backstabbed my ally because they would mock me (as they did) after backstabbing them", doesn't make much sense in any context.

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.

[[TREATY] Avengers - Opus Dei]

8 hours ago, Ripper said:

checks signatories

checks Keshav's signature

 

Yeah... If I were you, I would feel safer if I had Roquentin signing that.

As safe as you can feel towards a person that goes forward with rolling his MDP allies.

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.  

[PnW Academy Awards]

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.

[A little message from AK]

On 12/29/2019 at 3:05 AM, 丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™ said:

The alliance was supposed to be based on ancient aliens and the conspiracy theory of ancient humans from space who left pyramids and micro dyson sphere civilizations under Antarctica.

There wasn't fascism in the alliance, the whole government system was that I was the sole leader and the physical incarnation of god throughout the existence of humanity.

It had a slight homage to Highlander.

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.

[Solution to remove the ability to pid down players forever]

1 minute ago, Rosey Song said:

Just want to point out, I heard plenty of complaints about the way NPO automates warfare and economics, even before Knightfall.  I don't frankly care much on the topic, but it has been a persisted complaint.

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.

[A little message from AK]

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. 

[A little message from AK]

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

[Happy Holidays!]

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

[War Fiction]

On 12/16/2019 at 10:52 AM, Micchan said:

MS Paint quality = best quality

 

This is only half, I need to go and I don't have time to make the rest, I will add part 2 tomorrow (I hope)

Italian language as usual so you don't understand what they say and you can focus on the subtitles

At 2:20 something went wrong, just pretend I did a perfect job

War Fiction part 1: https://webmshare.com/play/VrmNP

War Fiction part 2: https://webmshare.com/play/BAgKD

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

[Question for all Coalition leadership.]

  

16 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

Heh, im not actually hurting cashwise or resource wise to the point where I need any help at all. If you know what you are doing, it's pretty easy middle tier ( if 16 is even the middle tier anymore?) and downwards to fight and exist off loot alone and stash some away for a rebuild. It's probably another reason why continuing the war at this stage in an attempt to burn resources is maybe futile since cheap infantry based war is largely self-funding and profitable if done correctly with some luck.

But yeah, asides from that, I suppose we generally agree on most other things. That's if we are both being genuine of course ?

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.

 

10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

The answer was that by the end of KF, we had a choice to hate everyone or to move on.  We chose the latter because grudges are pointless in the meta and it would clearly not be strategically sound to hate the 30 alliances that just rolled us.  Ever since we dropped EMC in early 2018, our goal was to make a more interesting meta, and after KF we saw lots of opportunities save the giant treaty spam of stagnation that was IQ.  Our goal was to get rid of the hegemony of the game and to continue to add to what we saw as a dynamic future.  During the formation of Chaos, the minisphere idea was a key idea that linked our desires with a realistic FA path to achieve it.  Yes, our vision for the game required the dismantling of IQ because minispheres and the then IQ hegemony were mutually exclusive.  This meant working with people who had just hit us and finding common ground with old enemies.  Many of our plans were leaked by Sphinx.  If you read them, none point to personal grudges against the constituent alliances of IQ rather just the bloc itself.  If another hegemony had arisen that threw our desires for the game asunder, then we would've had the same response.

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.

10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

I think your opening line seems a bit contradictory.  Attrition is a significant impact.  TKR lost a third of its memberbase, its upper tier was essentially gone, and it ended KF with better part of 1000 cities less than it started.  It was a hard hit, but we survived and we grew despite it not because some TKR low gov said so.  However, this concept has nothing to do with the hit on BK/Cov.  Its extreme bad faith to just not mention the logs and myriad of evidence that started this war in the first place.  They wanted to hit Chaos and draft you in to hit KETOGG.  The validity of that CB is night and day.  There is even public evidence that shows that Cov had plans to hit Chaos during rebuild.  The only choice that was made was when this war started not if.  And its not as if Coalition A is our ideal coalition of alliances.  We had just come out of a war with KETOGG, and we were definitely not fans of KT especially.  Frankly, we have a lot more in common culturally with your own alliance, Roq, than anyone in KETOGG (which honestly would've been a really interesting result of the aforementioned ideology).  After some events that transpired during Surf's Up, many in Chaos and TKR gov were not having it with KT.  This isn't a relationship of anything besides what we saw as survival because that's what the BK/Cov threat merited.  KETOG and Chaos were no long-term allies, and neither of them coveted hegemony nor could really be considered EMC.

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.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

We thought this was going to be the fight for our lives, and it was quite surprising to us when BK sphere got rolled in just a few days.  Personally, I went into this war thinking that I was going to get rolled twice in a row because BK sphere was so massive.  Perhaps, y'all were smarter than us and saw correctly that BK would crumple and offer no significant resistance, but we most certainly did not.  It was a fight of the survival of our blocs, our alliances and of our ideology.  And this is why TKR especially pushed as hard as it did to not expand the war you.  We had believed your lack of relation to the initial logs and we knew that NPO's entry would ensure bipolarity, anathema to our ideals.  After we saw a victory in sight for the war, our goals were simply to try to break up what we perceived as the hegemony of the game and end the war with three simple, easy terms.  A big part of our goals is short, more frequent wars with less animosity, and at the moment we thought it possible even for a global war as such: a rolling, war goals achieved and peace.  

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.

10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

NPO's entry into the war changed all of this.  It wasn't so much that we were losing.  Remember that TKR had come out of KF just a few months prior and we were losing Surf's Up.  Rather the problem was twofold.  First, the ideals that we had were shattered.  In the span of a DoW, the game snapped back into bipolarity with the same alliances against each other.  What was TKR/KT/Rose (not a before-seen combination) against TcW/BK (similarly as unconventional) became TKR/KT/Rose vs. BK/NPO/Cov (IQ + TcW).

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..

10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

 Years of work on behalf of some of the Chaos alliances and even some in KETOGG was erased.  It seemed at the time that no amount of relations-building, effort or even subjection to harm/risk would be enough to overcome the personal ties that bind us all in Orbis.  IQ was too entrenched as a mindset.  And for people like Sketchy, this hit a nerve.  For something like 3 years, he had been working along with others across Orbis to change the meta out of bipolarity into something else.  He made regrettable comments, which thankfully were disavowed months ago publicly by Hodor and coalition leaders.  

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. 

10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Second, NPO had broken the trust we had all placed in it to stay true to its breakup of IQ.  We took a leap of faith when we believed NPO in its denial of involvement in Rainbow's leaks.  We thought that good faith might lead somewhere in the future, or maybe it was the only way that we could keep the nightmare of bipolarity away.  This was compounded by a shoddy CB, especially relative to the CB that started this war, against TKR, which is just a rehash of an age-old feud that I know TKR wanted desperately to put in the past in light of a path towards our desired meta.  And the loss of trust just continued to compound.  NPO broke T$' conditions, then they continually flopped on their reasons for attacking (even shifting to openly admitting that they did so in defenses of BK and the dynamic), to finally planning and conducting hostilities against a treatied ally.  It seemed that there was no end to the breaking of precedent, and that this choice of NPO's was completely out of our control.

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. 

 

10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

To make these matters worse, NPO didn't just play dirty during the war, but also in the preparations for peace talks.  Possibly, the focus here shifts to the coalition as a whole, but undoubtedly NPO plays an integral role of enforcing these actions.  There was an unprecedented ask for a surrender before talks even began combined with a condition of talks only one day a month although fortunately they were only asking for a NAP, surrender and meme terms.  It took many months of back and forth in the coalition to come to terms with our defeat with what it meant for the meta and for our alliances.  Finally, in November, both T$ and KERCHTOGG both surrendered, our representatives were trolled, ignored and gaslighted.  They weren't shown the terms as promised nor were the terms just a NAP, surrender and meme terms.  The argument they presented against us was that we had pushed this war thus far because of comments from Sketchy and co that "crossed the Rubicon," and yet months after these comments in late June/early July the offers for simple surrender and peace terms was still on the table.  It finally reached a point where we our good faith had run out, and rightly so we concluded that there was no interest in real peace talks.  

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.

10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Partisan makes his post after days of researching, looking for the required evidence and exposing the truth to the public on how peace talks were going.  Our situation was untenable.  Damned if we do and damned if we don't.  Yet coalition B was slandering us publicly for the lack of progress.  The choice was clear.  Predictably, the stance of coalition B changed because a lot of their bs had been called out although the worst was yet to come.  George and Kastor leaked devastating (or what should be devastating) logs from the upper echelons of coalition B's internals.  

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.

10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

On the public record, was Leo, Keshav, Roquentin, Under, TheNG stating that their intent with the peace talks was to attrition us to death, to disbandment.  Now, I have always tried to see the bright side of things and engage with as much good faith as possible, but for me and many others in our coalition, that was the line.  What NPO had decried for a refuted microcosm was being perpetrated on a mass-scale to heinous effect.  It was hypocritical and it was unbelievable.  That wound will need time to heal, but despite these damaging logs being thrown into the open Coalition B didn't flinch.  They gaslighted, they deflected and they even tried to justify it.

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.

10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

 Roq, the golden rule stipulates "do to others what you wish to have done to yourself," and even the vestige of this cardinal value escapes the NPO and the actions it enforces.  If you want to find your metaphorical "rubicon," then here it is.  For the living humans behind the discord users, nations, forum accounts and everything that makes up our own communities and the Orbis community, I choose that hill to die on every time.  

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.

10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

And a note is that I address this post to NPO mostly because I see them as a principal agent in many of these actions and it is in response to your post.  It is possible that at least some of this can be contributed to your coalition.

The thing is that pure hegemony isn't the point of this game.  A lot of the above was about fleshing out how this game can be made better without it.  I always find it funny that you were the one who coined EMC, easy-mode coalition.  You had a point.  This game is supposed to be a challenge in politics and in war.  On that point, I'd like to say you usually make a great enemy and promise lots of fireworks and difficulties, and I respect that.  To bested in the political theatre or mechanically in war is a part of the game, and the entertainment or the "fun" is overcoming those challenges with one's community to later become the defeater instead of the defeated.  The evolution of paracov into IQ is a great example.  Its simple choices that aren't always the easy path like BK leaving OO, TKR leaving EMC, or NPO originally joining up with cov that provide the dynamic framework that really lets these sims tick.  I admonish you using your own words.  Don't let Opus Dei become the new EMC.  Different names, but the meaning still carries on.  

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. 

10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

For the sake of NPO players and the orbis community, its not essential to milk out every little thing until you are unparalleled but to work in such a way that benefits your community.  Evolving this game into a stagnated CN 2.0 isn't the way to achieve that.  As I've said before, we're open to ideas on how to fix the game besides minispheres for the sake of a dynamic environment.  And yet it's clear that consolidation, bipolarity and the sole desire for hegemony are only conducive for promoting stagnation and facilitating paranoia where none should exist.  

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.

10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

So @Prefontaine to answer your question after my magnum opus of a post.  I think it boils down to three aspects.  A difference in ideology of the future of the game.  Personal relationships that have developed over time generally as a reflection of ideological alignments, mere exposure effect.  Finally, a drastically distinct set of perceptions on the game, the meta and actions that was perceive to be justified or precedented.  As a note though, I'm not a coalition leader, but I am intimately involved with TKR, the Chaos alliances and much of Coalition A in an FA setting.

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.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

You mean how back in September there's quotes of Roq, Leo, and under (To some extent even TheNG) making statements on disbanding/dissolving our side?  At which those same statements are very consistently made up till the most recent dates the logs have?

That should answer your OP.  They're either holding onto long time grudges or they're paranoid.

It's been very clearly stated that the only reason why Chaos/KETOG banded together was due to the massive leak from BK/TCW about having both of our spheres rolled.  The Gorge dumped logs even showed that they planned on rolling Chaos out of the game once they rebuilt.

This isn't a problem on our end for this war, it's theirs.  So your OP should be directed to their leadership core.

Syndicate/HS gave NPO a chance.  Somebody leaked out a screenshot of my own announcement saying we'd defend any alliance from IQ if they get hit after their disbanding.  etc.

 

In short, there's been plenty of actions and statements on our side throughout the year(s) that showed the old vets of EMC/Syndisphere were willing to do something new with their past rivals.

Hell, I was trying to promote smaller spheres to help promote a more dynamic political landscape.  Instead of the usual 2 sides to politics/war, it'd be multiple sides to politics/war.

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.

43 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

I made no announcement about my departure, I didn't even have internet access when it was announced I had left. I hit VM for my planned trip away and was told the night I was leaving to get my affairs in order because our departure was going to happen before the war concluded.

Okay then but KT did frame it that way.

43 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

Just because I wasn't open to you about it doesn't mean I wasn't open to others about it. You can ask abbas if you like because he was the one I talked to the most about it at the time (I was looking for somewhere that I could genuinely help out and TKR on the whole seemed fine but KT wasn't).

So we're going back in time on this and I mean if you didn't tell me that's fine. 

43 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

Show me the log that details that we intended to stick with Chaos post-war. At best we thought we could convince them to join us in a war against someone else but were doubtful of it happening once we hit them. What's more is that we agreed that if we ever teamed up with Chaos, it would be a one time thing because we knew people like you would throw accusations that we were allied in some way. Working with Chaos wasn't even an isolated idea, I approached NPO and t$ as well but was promptly turned down.

They told outside questioners that a few months back. People inquired about their intentions. You might be mixing the timelines now.

43 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

If you want to negotiate peace I am all ears, you didn't say a word last time but I'll gladly negotiate with you. That's of course if you have terms to present.

Considering the delay in any peace actually occuring is because t$ and their allies still have no gotten any terms, there isn't a lot to talk about. That's basically where we're at. We left negotiating with wanting 2 things to proceed. The first was to know our terms and the other was for t$ to at least get terms. They've delayed the t$ terms to what seems to be indefinately. I agree, I've almost certainly said in the heat of the moment that I want to roll X alliance out of the game. Heck when I was in Rose with Roq it was probably to roll t$ out of the game.

As stated, I am happy to negotiate with @Roquentin at any time but they must have a path for everyone on our side to exit. I have no intention of leaving anyone behind unless they state otherwise.

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.

[Question for all Coalition leadership.]

1 minute ago, Keegoz said:

I think you'll find that the reason why I left was because we no longer saw KT's original goal being viable any longer (minispheres is a dead dream). Horse believed he could take KT in a different direction and we agreed to allow him to do it. We however did not want to be in his version of KT and so we went our seperate ways.

I've always been pretty open that I was going to join TKR but decided to join KT instead a long time ago. So I decided that I'd join them this time, there was no agreement for me to have any position within TKR and currently I am just a member. I am combating you because you're at war with me and because it seems you have an intent to disband this coalition or knock it so far into the dirt that you'll have a advantage that can never be questioned. I know you enjoy making boogeymans out of everyone but you made me your enemy not the other way around. Stop using any sort of resistance as an excuse to continue this war. We're unified in the belief that you don't want this conflict to end (despite us trying to conclude it) and that your ultimate goal is to eradicate us. It's the classic saying that an enemy of my enemy is my friend at this point.

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.

[Question for all Coalition leadership.]

52 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

Again proving Aza's point that no matter what level of dominance your side has, it will never be enough to placate your paranoia and that you will never feel safe.  There will always be some dissent, on our "side" or in your own and trying to foolishly end it all is a fool's pursuit. Do you even realise you just proved him right?

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.

Quote

All smack talk aside, Coal A is defeated and a shell of their formerselves, probably lucky if 200 of us are still declaring wars and these of us still fighting are living off loot essentially. 

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.

Quote

How much is enough? Do you actually want to kill whole communities and eradicate any hint of future opposition? Turn the game into a stagnant wasteland where no one ever does anything besides buy cities because your paranoia and ego demands it? Where the hell is the challenge in that going forwards?

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. 

Quote

Enough is enough roq, let the paranoia go and be the better man. We are beaten, you beat us at long last. I suspect a large amount of our side will form new AAs with new leaders out of disgust at how this war has become a giant pissing match between leaders staking whole communities on the grudges of a few. Either that or they will cut ties with former coalition allies much as KT has done. We are done as a coalition and if our own leaders don't realise that then they are fools too.

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.

Quote

If you wish to continue the war on for a month or so to get your last kicks in, go ahead and do it, get your last kicks in and have all the fun you want. At the very least start granting and broadcasting lenient terms for individuals not wishing to fight any longer who want out of this mess of a war and who are rightfully pissed at their own leaders for how this has went down.

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.

Quote

You won,  now it's time to end this charade.

Edit: As for Ava's comment, well, I disagree with him. And if he and whoever else wants to take your side on again in 6 months they will be doing it on their own.

 

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.

 

 

  

3 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Why are you quoting avakael to illustrate your point? He is holds no authority in t$...

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.

[Question for all Coalition leadership.]

4 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

You just proved Aza's point you pathetic little man.

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:

On 11/28/2019 at 3:21 AM, Avakael said:

 If I was in their shoes, I wouldn't see a benefit to peace at all; the Rubicon has been crossed in such a large way that it's hard to imagine a negotiated peace turning out to be any more than a 6 month armistice. If peace terms do ever arrive, they will be designed to win the next war. I hope they aren't permanently crippling, and I hope they are only pointed at alliances, and not individuals.

 

[Question for all Coalition leadership.]

1 hour ago, Azaghul said:

Having been in gov with a close ally of an alliance Roq led for many years in another world, he is very paranoid and no level of statistical advantage or dominance is going to likely ever be enough for him to feel "safe".  I say this not in an attempt to attack him but to provide context for his viewpoints and NPOs actions.  No matter how much he hurts an opponent he's never going to be happy that they aren't a future threat, so he's never going to be happy with a peace agreement.

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.

[A plea to consider Co A line members]

29 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Surely, it's got nothing to do with being NKVD' by your own allies. Nope.

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.

[Question for all Coalition leadership.]

6 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

I know different alliances have different reasons for fighting, to still be fighting, seeking peace, or whatever stance you currently have in this war. I don't want to debating the validity of those reasons, and I don't want the thread to go down that route (not that this part will be listened to) knit-picking the reasons people have but I wanted to ask the various leadership a question. Recently a certain idea has been presented by both major sides, that this war is a "zero sum" war, or a "fight to the death". Both sides blame the other for bringing it to this point. My question is why is it? I get wanting to see the other sides pixels burn, I get wanting to defeat them, I get wanting some form of terms for surrender and such. What I don't quite get is why you would want to eliminate the enemy entirely in a game like this. So why is this war a zero sum game now, why is it a fight to the death? What brought it to that point? What events does your side view the other side of having done to cause this? If you're not some level of gov, I'd rather you stay out of the conversation for the most part unless you have something to add to a post of your leadership. If you're just going to troll there are several other threads you can take the opportunity to do so. 

Having a civil thread would be a nice change of pace, no? Maybe having a respectful conversation about things could even help. 

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.

[A plea to consider Co A line members]

23 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Oh! Oh! I can answer this one!

Things have to be logdumped because certain parties in coalition B keep lying about events which transpire in backchannels, as proven by the logs we dumped.

 

See: The TEst situation.

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. 

 

15 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Is that why more than half the alliances that were on your side eventually bailed out, at which you attacked them for doing so?

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.

[Coalition A is trying to do something very obvious]

17 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Morality @Roquentin?

Only one side this war has pushed so many away, resulting in multiple betrayals, lies, and even pushing one long time supporter of yours into dropping a massive log dump.

Want to talk more about morality in this conflict?

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.

10 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

 

Again: recognizing that the treaty might be canceled is a far step from actively plotting to roll both allies while the treaty was still active. What you did was duplicitous no matter how you try to justify it by pointing at t$.

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.

Quote

 

I frankly don't know what to make of it besides paranoia, because you're simply overstating the threat. Even if the intention was there, economic gains by t$-NPO would've outweighed being rolled, and the wake of that war would have seen BK-TKR even further entrenched, which would have given plenty of diplomatic options to mitigate any threat.

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. 

Quote

Instead of working with your sphere, you decided to default back into the BK-NPO vs the world mentality, and in doing so you put t$ in a shit position. There is no real way for me to make sense of our rationale in that light beyond paranoia.

 

You weren't screwed for PR. You knowingly put t$ in a shitty situation where you forced it to choose between:

- being pushed into coalition with an alliance it considered hostile (BK) in a war t$ didn't care about (since BK *was* caught plotting anyway). This option also forced t$ to break its own rules of engagement.

- Following the rules of engagement it had laid out prior to you pulling the trigger, and leaving the war without any semblance of victory or satisfaction, while pissing you off.

Frankly, if you first agreed to the terms of engagement but reneged "because new intel hurr durr", I can see why @Sisyphus went with option two. t$ never has and never will take kindly to its hand being forced.

 

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. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Tbh with you, I actually didn't know you were entering. My IQ post was just a troll joke which hilariously coincided. I recall my gov finding it quite funny when it happened.

But it's probably easier to pretend I knew so you can accuse my gov of leaking

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".

 

 

[Coalition A is trying to do something very obvious]

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

 

You plotted to escalate a war you knew full well would roll not only your ally in t$, but also force your other ally in HS to defend and thus get rolled. You did so with the explicit purpose of destroying your old allies as punishment.

In doing so, you *at best* broke your intelligence clause with HS, something you've often cited as one of your main grievances against t$ (not informing you of OWR/CTO). At worst, you broke a damn NAP clause. Depends on your interpretation. 

Regardless of interpretation: It was a hypocritical and malicious breech of both the terms and the spirit of your treaty with HS.

Old tS gov was upset with you, yes. This was clear. It's funny how your knee-jerk reaction to you viewing an ally as hostile is plotting to roll them, rather than you know uhh... canceling the treaty.

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.

Quote

 

 

 

This whole "NPO WAS GONNA DIE NEXT" narrative of yours as a justification for going back on your word and forcing your entire sphere into a shit spot for your own gain is little more than weaponized paranoia.

We'd also be in great shape if our ally hadn't plotted to get us rolled. Our shape has nothing to do with the GOB-Guard war and everything to do with NPO's actions. 

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.

 

  

4 hours ago, Buorhann said:

BK/Cov wasn’t going to die you paranoid jackass, lol.

Never in any of our history (The leadership vets on our side) ever thought about pulling the same shit like you’re doing now.

You lied.  You betrayed.  You freaked out.

Thats all on you Roq.

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.

[In regards to the holidays and the war]

I celebrate Festivus so am offended by this suggestion.

[Coalition A is trying to do something very obvious]

Just now, Legoboyvdlp said:

How... ironic...

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. 

[Coalition A is trying to do something very obvious]

On 12/7/2019 at 7:03 PM, Zygon said:

Well I suppose I will respond and not meme around here with gifs. Correct I told you all to go on with your TKR crusade after 4 days of HS/t$ telling you why it was not only an extremely poor idea but how it would destroy any strategy we had with our front. Through these four days you made it ever so clear that you would not back down after HS/t$ made it more than clear that we were not OK with this course of action and we would not stand for it if there was to be an attack on TKR. Actions have consequences. As NPO made it more than clear you were not going to listen to your two closest allies at the time, we made it clear to NPO by our immediate peace with our front due to the lie you would have us told on the strict post we made entering, not to mention you agreed to.

As to the countering I supposedly promised, we only said that we should look at TKR once we were done with Guard/GoB and if there was something there, we would be perfectly happy going to war against them then. Unfortunately copy pastes of Polaris logs aren't enough evidence. So, as you can imagine there was some animosity seeing the devolution of the plan we had had and agreed to and unfortunately, paranoia got the better of you and you completely cleaned the whole channel of the log’s history, as you claimed things were being leaked with no clear evidence. If anyone is revising history here, it's you.

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. 

 

  

On 12/8/2019 at 4:59 AM, Prefonteen said:

 

Maybe you did, and if that's the case i'm orry you got caught in the middle. Your direct superior (roq) plotted against them though, and irrespective of your personal efforts, thats not justifiable.

The choices you note aren't really all your choices. You had a choice not to plot a war on t$/HS behind their back. You had a choice to simply cancel the treaty and move from there.

Why was the poison pill term added, and why is your gov on record, strategizing to make the situation escalate to draw t$ in?

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.

 

  

On 12/8/2019 at 3:25 AM, Prefonteen said:

Then why have you and your coalition been doing exactly this with regards to your escalation on TEst with the explicit purpose of drawing in t$ and exterminating us? You plotted to roll your ally and attempted to frame it as an aggressive move by us. That's you literally revising the actual event on your convenience.

 

Before you deny this, I remind you that the logs proving my claim are readily available on this forum.

 

My bullshit-o-meter is going off again.

Shadow friend, the polaris copy pasta logs which HS refers to weren't admissable as unrefutable proof that NPO faced an existential threat. They were circumstantial at best. Unless you have some smoking gun material which you haven't shown HS, your entire premise for joining the war and fricking over 2 allies falls with 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.

 

[A plea to consider Co A line members]

19 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

Again, I’d like to see some evidence. Y’know, the stuff we provide to back up our claims. 
 

Surely you have some on hand, since you think it’s a 100% fact? I think we’d all like to see it. Again, IQ February doesn’t count. 

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.