.jpg.28338e97980f94875824f19b3b4a669b.jpg)
Roquentin
-
Posts
1456 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Roquentin
-
-
1 minute ago, Buorhann said:
Yeah, we know that's bullshit. Both Adrienne and Keegoz have shown that your side has constantly kept them going around.
Pretty sure at one point it just died off when they were told about the NAP/surrender being the essential parts and then walked away.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Prefonteen said:
The 20 days before I posted, they were ignoring me with silence because they wanted to drag out the war. The 20 days after the post, they are doing the same thing but pretending it's because I posted.
So..
1: drag out war
2: blame coal A in public
3: if coal A responds --> use response to justify dragging out war more.
Do I need to set up an automated message or something? The key points to my posts seem to be flying right past you.
It does contribute. I mean the others could have started negotiating the terms. They decided to walk away instead. That's not our fault. If you formally state you end the negotiations and go public with it, then they're not ongoing.
Keep in mind in your side dragged out its surrender to try to get ours go totally broke. Did you anticipate no backlash?
-
1
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, Zim said:
Would your side let our side surrender? Because the constant leaks from your coalition, seem to say otherwise.
That new players get discouraged from playing the game, is a problem that should be addressed if you actually interested in the continuous long livity of the game, or are you saying that you prefer to see the game die?lol. Get off the pity party. There is no better time to be a new player than now. The current situation only harms people who have had entrenched advantages for years. There is functionally no difference between a longer war and losing two wars in a 6 month span. It will have the same result in terms of attrition. For the new players it makes little difference and they can have a blast at the lower levels raiding.
It's like turn of the century robber barons complaining about some temporary hardship.
-
1
-
5
-
-
4 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:
Doesn't change that you're doing stuff you feigned to have a problem with. You're merely trying to shift the blame on it (which is irrelevant if you want to claim actual high ground on it, nor accurate anyways, because such rhetoric that you're exaggerating only came after your own actions. Before then, you had people willing to work with you, and even considerations to intervene on your behalf in the case of an opportunistic hit mid split. Those aren't indications of permanent, undying hatred). You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
The rest is fluff (though, I chuckle at the claims of arrogance and entitlement).Just the war continuing on doesn't do what you describe. If I was genuinely trying to make it completely inhospitable and give no quarter ever, then yeah you might have a point, but that's never been what's described. Your mind is made up. If you feel you had the purest of intentions and your good will was burned, then I'd feel sorry, but we're at where we're at either way. Not much to be done here.
idk what you expect me or the other people to say. "Yeah, we're killing everyone off and it has nothing to do with anyone else's willpower or endurance."
-
1
-
1
-
8
-
-
Just because you saved the ones gorge(the ones in the op) had doesn't mean some of them you've posted aren't altered. Gorge is the source of some of them and someone else is the source of the others. Doesn't really matter though.
-
4
-
-
I did say that about the beiging. Too bad it didn't get any traction.
-
5
-
-
5 minutes ago, Adrienne said:
He posted multiple screenshots, some as late as mid October. Try again.
Well they were all collected after the post I made then but those were the minimum for a while and that's what the discussions previous reps had raised primarily. The solicitation after finalized them. The NP ones had repayments in mind as well so I was referencing that one more in the October 16th post. Most of the terms are pretty meme-y.
-
1
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Adrienne said:
This is in regards to the "we only have surrender/NAP/meme terms" statements? Convenient how that was your party line up until we posted our surrender and things only changed the second you got what you wanted and got us into talks.
Wrong. He linked a screenshot from August 30th. You posted your topic on November 2nd. At the time, those would have been sufficient not my fault you just spent all the time antagonizing people. =\
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, durmij said:
Correction to you both, there was a war where NPO wouldn't surrender until a clause saying they did a good job was included.
Wow, @George Clooney I'm getting credit for your brilliant line.
Still inspires so much bitterness lol
@Cooper_ things change.
-
1
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:
TKR is a pretty good example.
It's not at all. While NPO and TKR at the time had differing political alignments and would likely end up on opposite sides, how they handled that was entirely related to the grudge on their end. It wasn't a good faith relationship. Had I been gunning for TKR or had I been the one to reveal that prior animosity was driving my actions, you'd totally have a point. However, that wasn't the case. They used their superior established position in the community along with others to try to stigmatize and discredit me .
15 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:I'll keep it brief because, again, you're trying to steer the topic away from it's point (none of what you said changes the fact that you're pushing for what I've already stated). Either way, those were brought about by your own actions. "Permanent hate" is bullshit. Just a year ago, everyone was happily dunking on TKR for the myriad of miss-steps they had taken that had placed them in such a position. It's not anyone's fault that your own calculated actions have repercussions that you are now trying to be a pretend-victim over.
TKR was a sidetrip for most. They had their primary objectives, so it's not exactly the same. Oh no it doesn't work that way. If you have the fire in the belly to think you can do something, then there's no need for charity. If you simultaneously act vengeful but at the same time say you'll quit if you don't get your way, that's not a terrible option. Anything is a kindness from us given the tone taken. Again the entitlement you felt to continuing a curbstomp is the ultimate factor here. So if we have to deal with the spitefulness as a result, then we're going to be shedding no tears for you and the situation will change when we're ready. If a lighter injury of a destructive war on all sides is that bad, then the bigger one you've induced by being so bitter is the medicine you need.
15 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:I'm well familiar with what dissent in-coalition looks like (do I need to remind you that Yarr was in ours for a week or two?). Your grievances with Carthago behaving in such a manner would be more justified if they were trying to drop week two of the conflict. But three to four months in? In a conflict that's, for all intents and purposes, being artificially dragged out with non-standard requests, a deliberately slow negotiating process, and (as Kastor's most recent leaks indicate) intentionally excessively punishing terms? Yes, it's not a surprise that, when their requests are being ignored, they'll ultimately ditch you. You're not presenting them any other alternative, because with your mindset, if they don't keep throwing themselves at your foe until they disband (or bleed dry as the ANZAC did in Gallipoli), they're the equivalent of a worthless collaborator.
There's nothing "pixel hugging" about wanting to call it in such an exceptionally protracted conflict ("some war", please spare me of the nonsense) like this. I didn't hold it against them, no. I also didn't hold it against NP when they, and other similar AA's on our side, packed up and bowed out of the war.
So yes, you are driving people away from the game, and throwing people under the bus, INCLUDING FRIENDS AND ALLIES, because of your warped mindset. That's no one's fault, or problem, except your own.Who says they didn't try earlier on? The main point of contention at the time they left was whether KERTCHOGG would surrrender or not. They were under very little pressure militarily and it's not like North Point at all. North Point was continuously getting thrashed and had no obligation to enter the war at all. Then we found out why they were pushing peace so hard: they were planning to drop the ally they entered in defense of and sign new treaties. If everyone who wanted peace after x months was going to be a solid ally going forward and fight their utmost, you wouldn't see these attitudes but no it's just enabling people to find the next place that looks safe while giving the other side a big win.
It's not really our problem if they can't take the heat so much that simply fighting them causes them to drop that much. I recall at the time of the Carthago peace, Buorhann said "Why would we surrender? Your coalition is eating itself." So until the topics, the attrition was squarely on you and is ultimately the product of your own side's vicious/arrogant rhetoric.
-
19 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:
Says the guy with grudges older than this game.
How are any grudges I have older than this game? Can you point to a situation where it wasn't someone else using grudges older than the game? I think pretty much the only time grudges older than the game were brought in were against me and no one had an issue with it. I've worked with people I didn't get along with in other games. It was always about me and me being the bad guy. Who exactly am I going at because of a grudge older than the game?
QuoteYour stance is proactive, and you merely try to find excuses to make it appear reactive. Whatever else is said here is mere fluff meant to deflect the topic to something else. None of this changes the fact that you are, at the end of the day, artificially keeping this war going for longer because you ultimately want to drive as many people out as possible (you never try to disprove/argue this directly, simply because you can't), while having yourselves feigned appallment at others seemingly suggesting something similar, which as turns out, wasn't apparently that appalling given that you joyfully embrace it yourselves. Certainly loving the twist that Keshav hopes for Carthago to die, when he shed crocodile tears on me over a meme.
Ultimately, it's just as Thrax said: "You revel in toxicity, as long as it's your own.".
I mean, it could be something else since we don't actually have the power to get people to quit. If an opponent takes forever to concede, then you'd like to make sure they're tired out. You're mistaking the reaction to the previous sentiments. If we feel that we've taken on permanent hatred and that even the people who benefitted from our actions will be asked to help punish us for them, then yeah we'll be pretty worried.
With Carthago, you don't really have the context, they tried to undermine the war effort quite a few times, argued we wouldn't be able to obtain a surrender, and the opposition had a strategy of "starving out" our side. They played right into it. They abruptly peaced and then signed treaties to hide their move. So Keshav and others were notably frustrated so when the pixel hugging motives were known and then they complained their community would fall apart without just being allowed to farmville, he latched on that. I don't like the idea where we're put onto a guilt trip because an alliance needs to be at peace to survive. It's not much of a community if some war can tear it apart. It's more an object lesson that ditching some people isn't going to keep you safe than an actual extermination quest. It's a continual theme that whoever screws us over gets a golden parachute including some of the current gov in kertchogg.
-
1
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Reuben Cheuk said:
I must say, of all possible responses you could have made, the social darwinist one is one of the worst. I'm also surprised that this is coming from a GOONS member and someone whose national economic policies are "Extreme Left". Surely GOONS, who ideally seeks to provide a safe area for those traditionally trodden upon by society, condemns this sentiment. I, as a disabled person who would have been killed in Nazi Germany for a quirk of my DNA, find this attitude incongruent with the times. While I sympathise with your temporal predicament, which prevents you from ever writing sweet love letters to the long-dead Francis Galton, I suggest you avoid taking out your frustration on us.
Do be mindful that this dynamic you speak of, in which the strong crush the weak, is not necessarily grounded in reality. I hope you realise that while the strong may be more powerful, the weak are not going to take such indignities lying down. The weak can work together, and plan. So, for a counter-example to the predator-prey dynamic, observe that the sabre-toothed tiger, which evolved to prey on humans, is now extinct, dead by our hand.
All I want to say is that you should probably stop idolising hierarchies you would probably be at the bottom of.
He's not a social darwinist irl and you shouldn't take people's in-game policies as reflective of their stances irl. He's just playing up the war thing. Like no one's advocating for disabled people to get euthanized. It's more of a commentary on player attitudes. The damage nations take isn't flesh and blood. It's just numbers. As long as people see it as RL damage, then they get the wrong idea. It's more like sending robot armies into battle but some people freak out if their robots get wrecked and then treat it as if it's actual people. Most of the anti-war arguments from the real world just don't apply to here. The question is ultimately of mental toughness/endurance rather than someone actually dying.
-
2
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Reuben Cheuk said:
So, a couple of people here have accused George of stealing $5 billion. I've combed through his bank and trade history, and cannot find anything. I do not believe that many people would so dumb as to tell such a transparent lie as this, which leads me to conclude that perhaps my search methodology is flawed. If anyone could be so kind as to provide evidence that George's heist took place, it would be much appreciated.
So usually when someone's in charge of managing a bank, they're on their own alliance and bank to bank transactions aren't publicly visible. BK had x amount and a certain amount was no longer there when they got it back. There was no other explanation for the 5b being gone.
Gorge was given the benefit of the doubt that he simply lost it when doing a bank swap. Then it was found out the money didn't disappear from the game unlike another incident where the money got lost.
In the mean time, he also joined Pantheon and was given gov and stole their bank. He had also previously colluded with Cynic to steal Bad Company's bank and BK returned it against his wishes.
With the war, basically, when he got demoted he lost interest in BK and it no longer suited him to continue the war while he had been all for everything up to that point and one of his term ideas is a particularly unprecedented one that will be interesting to see play out. It no longer captured his attention span and he wanted to move onto making his alliance with Kastor and others.
Coalition A is so spiteful as to make Gorge and any other Benedict Arnold like Alexio a cause celebre which shows their impassioned vigor to harm us specifically. That's why our stance is as hardline as it is.
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, REAP3R said:
It's startling, the complacency of coalition B members aiding in the destruction of the same game we all play, let alone that their governments are the ones pushing and fulfilling these ambitions. If there was ever a time to act, it would be now.
This concern never seemed to exist when other alliances lost a lot of their memberships. Pretty sure I remember people using the opportunity and consolidating to maximize their advantages via treasure island and other things.
1 hour ago, Thalmor said:NPO has lost wars before. In fact, NPO has lost several wars in the distant past. In each case, disbandment was absolutely never pushed. Your argument that 'hurr you would do the same' is completely false. Never in the 5+ year history of P&W has disbandment ever been a goal in any war outside of micro nonsense.
Coalition B is attempting to set a new, very disturbing precedent where the winning coalition can attempt to push hundreds of players out of the game because... reasons.
Except you have targeted and tried to discredit both as viable allies in the past by making it clear that it would be a losing proposition and that was the objective of the hit on BK. You didn't see them as invincible and you knew people would stop being interested in their sphere under pressure. It was true so much that even one of the people advocating financially crippling Chaos and pushing for the war turned on them in return for 30 pieces of silver from you. There is no forced disbandment button. It'll just be you can't take the heat and you decide to disband. Plenty of people attrited whenever the other side's alliances won.
-
1
-
3
-
6
-
-
The guy who brags about how his investments from stealing Pantheon's bank will be paying off big trying to moralize about game health and it's the same guy who wanted to keep BC's bank that Cynic stole. Awesome stuff Gorge.
Did you ever object to what Leo the Great said in the screenshots you've leaked? Anyway, the point missed its not that people give up because they get hit hard or whatever. It's that people in softer alliances will stop doing much under pressure if they are accustomed to having an easy ride and most of the alliances experienced it earlier on. All Leo anticipates is that people who haven't had to fight hard in a few years aren't going to be as willing to stick it out and thus deflate tS' stats.
The only difference between this and trying to do multiple hits on the same people in a short span is it's just more of a grind. Coalition A has tried to financially cripple alliances before and brags regularly about its wealth, so there is no reason to see them as downtrodden victims and only the naive don't see it.
-
1
-
3
-
2
-
-
43 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:
Erm... you're making the wrong comparison.
You've finally found yourself on the winning side, and these are the policies you implement. Having been on the winning side plenty, I can with confidence state that in your situation, I would not stamp out any dissent with military force.
It's a completely different thing than your situation. You won wars right off the bat or within a few weeks so "dissent" was minimal. It's easy to keep people happy when it's easy to win or they have no other option. The side that can just barnstorm in and do heavy damage quickly doesn't have the problem of needing people to grind it out. On the other hand, we're fighting some rather tough nuts to crack which requires a tougher attitude from alliances involved. I also don't recall the Syndicate taking too kindly in Knightfall when an ally wanted to peace out. Most of the issues have been from people not being able to handle difficult circumstances. We can't make it an acceptable norm at this point for people to peace and sign the best pixel hugging destination they can find.
43 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:Your second comment seems to be misdirected :).
Okay, so it's a matter of not wanting to peace yet then, and it has nothing to do with "we're still drafting terms, please hold" as was conveyed to us over and over. Thanks for clarifying.
They are stilll deciding on front specific terms.
-
Just now, Prefonteen said:
That's.... literally..... a parody post....while I wasn't even in gov......
What is it a parody of? I mean if I can just start saying anything is a parody post if it's written in a certain tone and convey some nasty sentiments. It was reflective of overall Syndicate sentiment at the time. I don't really think it's great that you can slide in and out of gov on a whim and then play off everything as non-serious.
-
2
-
7
-
-
22 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:
Can you link me to the post where I did that?
-
3
-
3
-
-
Just now, Prefonteen said:
I'd be curious to hear about these schemes we're apparently involved in.
Well you already vowed future reprisal in a different topic but that was directed at James. If he wants to sphere/coalition-build while saying we're the big evil, it's not gonna get any charitable consideration. He had every opportunity to not get involved and no one had ever had any reason to have issues with CoA. No one had ever trolled CoA throughout the war. No one had ever considered CoA a potential war target or anything. He wanted to get involved so if he doesn't like being at war anymore, not really our problem.
-
1
-
4
-
-
10 hours ago, Prefonteen said:
Fair, We'll skip the NPO-t$ topic this time around.
With regards to it being a clear provocation: We definitely do not see eye to eye on this, as I don't believe in holding alliances at war under threat of repercussions, and by virtue of that... I can't rally indulge your point.
Seeing as you have never been in a coalition war where allies ditched for greener pastures, I'm not sure you can understand. This is the first time you have ever been on the losing side. The stakes are too high to take such soft stances on betrayal.
QuoteReturning to this:
A lot of the rhetoric since our initial post on peace progression has, rather than addressing the core issue of negotiations being trolled/delayed, focused on chastising us for seeking the public fora. We've also attempted to keep our forum dialogue relatively clean, at multiple points allowing for conversation. The problem is that there were events which led us to that decision.
What exactly constitutes a "less advantageous outcome" and a "more advantageous outcome" to you? At least on the t$ end, the entire issue for us is that you haven't been able to give us any framework to work in, nor any terms or milestones which should be fulfilled before you are willing to peace out.
So far, we've been given 2 concrete requirements for peace:
- Signal our surender
- Do so seperately
We initially fulfilled them both. If you had been or are now willing and able to provide us with your *other* requirements for peace, perhaps a dialogue can be started. Until you give us that though, it's hard for there to be any progression.
tS is a later thing and the concerns people have there are different as was noted, tS members were still at large militarily until fairly recently. When people feel they're ready to move forward with tS, then they will. Peace isn't an inherent good. tS had more to lose than everyone else so that plays into it too as it had been relatively unscathed compared to the other combatants. PM bombing people to take advantage of the less involved players' war fatigue doesn't help though.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, James II said:
So when are NPO and BK going to let us surrender? We've asked you a month before this post, and we've asked after to surrender, you still haven't presented any terms. How long will you force your allies (Who are willing to accept our surrender) to fight a war they don't want to be in?
So um which allies are these? The ones you're not fighting that aren't very battle-hardened? There's no reason for us to be nice to you as we know you're already scheming. So we don't owe you anything.
It'll happen when it happens.
1 hour ago, Leo said:Will be fun to see what alliances NPO/BK are left with once peace is achieved. Maybe thats why they are stalling
Lmao AO 2.0 made Arrow of head of FA.
-
1
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:
Would coalition B's doctrine of turning on/threatening to turn on anyone who leaves the coalition be a potential factor playing into t$' decisionmaking process with regards to not telling you- particularly considering the clear deprioitization of t$ which NPO displayed when it opted to defend BK?
It could have played into it, certainly but that just means it was a clear provocation which is how it was taken especially given the justifications provided at the time. As for the "deprioritzation" narrative, that's been addressed countless times, so not bothering again.
6 hours ago, Buorhann said:You mean when NPO first joined and we were suddenly drawn back into the CN shit between Syndicate, NPO, and Alpha?
Um, that was someone in Alpha who wasn't gov who wanted to troll people that were going to get hit anyway independent of the Alpha war. There were people in tS who were in alliances that hit MI6 even. lol
-
10 hours ago, James II said:
False, I spoke with t$ gov, as well as you (as you know) about trying to keep the treaty alive. While reluctant, they were willing to humor me and had decided not to cancel the treaty. You however, as admitted previously, decided the treaty was dead the day you assumed t$ was out to get you when we declared war on grumpy and Guardian. You consistently deny equality at the table unless an alliance is a macro like BK. You've threatened your own allies with war if they don't comply, you've gone against the wishes of a vast majority of your allies by forcing the continuation of this conflict as outlined here:
and you continue to pretend to be the victim of some elaborate plot. BK and NPO are the sole reason this conflict rages on, and you choose to only listen to the few micro loyalist to prop yourself up on the throne of morality. Implicating that all the other voices of dissent are not relevant, and don't have a seat at your table. If anyone disagrees with you, you throw them out. The moment someone tells you no, you've decided they're your enemy, just like you did with t$.
You may have your timelines mixed up. At the point where they signed additional treaties with alliances that peaced out abruptly, it was clear they were not wanting to keep the sphere together. It seemed that for tS it was dead the day they pulled out of the war without informing us and started ghosting us and that it would take them vastly adjusting their stances going forward to make it viable as it is not possible to have a sphere when one alliance actively dislikes and distrusts the other to such an extent that it can justify cutting communication. They were coaxed by third parties into trying to resolve it yes like your alliance and another alliance, but they clearly did not have much interest. It was made clear by someone else close with tS that they were just going about ending the tie the wrong way. You gave them the benefit of the doubt because you wanted their upper tier heft, but let's not pretend otherwise.
It has nothing to do with size. A more politically involved alliance will just see more of the bigger picture so we are trying to not give any wins to KERTCHOGG. For many less experienced people, they don't immediately see the consequences and since it's not their names being listed as the evil people, the consequences of a less advantageous outcome aren't as apparent to them. War fatigue is more likely to impact people who haven't had fought as much and one of KERTCHOGG's main strategies has been to tire out/drain out our side. Our pathway to victory is more grindy so it requires a tougher mentality that we have had to cultivate. As Keshav said, we have worked to build consensus on the basis of a comprehensive victory. A bad peace that for us is worse than war. Your plans aren't exactly a secret so we don't really need to delve into your motives here.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Redarmy said:
"The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. "
Hmmmm not a very leftist thought.
Well, you guys aren't fond of the other narrative of the necessity of the mass movement to topple the cultural hegemony of the traditional power elite who brag about their wealth and mock the relative poverty of their opponents. It's inconvenient to the perception of being the underdogs at the mercy at the big bad guys so maybe he thought you'd prefer the Melian Dialogue.
8 hours ago, Cooper_ said:I don’t buy that. Y’all fault TKR for enforcing terms that weren’t ours because we were part of the peace treaty. Now, NPO is responsible for trying to enforce the invalidation of our CBs. To say that your or coalition B doesn’t care about them is just patently false otherwise I expect that wouldn’t be involved in your first term. CBs are preeminent in determining the harshness of terms. You and Keshav have said as much in the “lightness” of KF terms.
Also, the point that people have desires to hit people is just not unique. That is involved in nearly any consideration of war and it is unfortunate, but without those logs this war wouldn’t have happened (at least not in a preemptive form). You can continue to parrot whatever you want about Chaos’ formation, but I point you to Chaos’ DoE. As far as I know Chaos has stayed true to those values, so let’s stop scapegoating and start taking responsibility for clearly described actions in the OP.
The necessity the Covenant/BK see in diminishing the CBs is because of the aim KERTCHOGG had of using a proximal reason for hitting to delegitimize them as a political entity. It was frequently stated that everyone had been bamboozled despite the tensions between BK/TCW and TKR being known along with FR/Soup. Had it simply been treated as a preempt of a rival with the screen being a pretext, they would not feel such a need to bring it up. To contrast, there was a leak of a planned hit by KT/SK/AIM on BK for AC and it actually was the reason for the preempt solely and it carried zero moral value to anyone outside. KT was lauded for the initiative and the only issues were due to it being harder on some of the peripheral alliances.
Before the war, the narrative of the BKsphere being too big and a problem was one brought up by both Chaos and KETOG. If they were able to get enough critical mass on the same page, they'd have gone for it. I've never denied people have reasons to dislike BK and others but it was a more fragile alignment that would create a bad situation if it collapsed as it would leave a relatively friendly group of "minispheres" in a position of power where they would be in position to dominate in every sense. Even though the professed intent of Chaos is to do outside of the box stuff, the incorporation of a top 5 alliance meant that it was a major political player as opposed to simply a maverick mini-sphere and it could only be assumed to act in such a manner. The deterioration of Chaos during Surf's Up showed the power balance would lean more to one alliance than the others and that alliance was the most amenable to cross-sphere cooperation with others the more subaltern elements in Chaos would not want to work with.
A plea to all
in Orbis Central
Posted · Edited by Roquentin
iirc there's a way to view total money over time without giving out any special info. It's for VIPs.
Idk if I"m supposed to say the above, but anyone could just get VIP access easily.
Anyway if the money was deleted, then it'd have shown a downturn when it was supposed to be deleted. A separate incident was the smoking gun.
No he had to take a break between bank heists and loan defaults. XFD