Sir Scarfalot

Oh, so OFA are just NPO's soldiers to be executed for non-compliance? An action which you define as "cooperation"? Aight then.

Read Curu's posts; he clearly states that the intention is to keep us away from declaring on OFA. And even if that wasn't the main intent, the effect remains: Their slots are filled, and due to that we are unable to attack those OFA nations. What part of that isn't literally filling slots?

They're your coalition partners and protectorates of another coalition partner of yours. That's just three individual levels of treaty violations, that's no better.

NPO did it to prevent us from attacking. They don't want us to attack OFA, since OFA has a track record of beiging us due to their own poor discipline. That's their reasoning. Which is very clearly scummy behavior at best, and quite literally "filling slots" of an ally. While the means may not be direct, they are declaring wars on their allies to prevent hostile actions against their allies. You know though, a refinement to the mechanics where all wars end up in beige would be a really good idea, maybe I should suggest that 🤔 The rules are there, the report is made. If you can find any instance of our coalition declaring war on ourselves for the purpose of denying your coalition an aggressive option, then feel free to make an actual report. That you have not and indeed cannot do so shows that you're the one desperately acting in bad faith.

So, NPO is the entity that provides "judicial review" of BK's treaty partners? Is that what you're saying? And here people wonder where I get the idea that IQ doesn't respect their protectorates' sovereignty. Sure, but selling a treasure or clearing a bounty during peace-time, without completely filling the targets' slots, is in no way comparable to large-scale and complete slotting of allies during war when said allies would otherwise be attacked by their actual enemies.

Heck, seems we been found out. Rip.

Win against which enemies, the ones that are attacking you or the ones that aren't attacking you because your other enemies are attacking you? You've been declared on by both coalitions, and therefore the only appropriate measure is to defend yourselves against both.

The definition of slot-filling is the abuse of game mechanics to prevent hostile action from taking place. In this case, we are being prevented from attacking our enemies in OFA. Your entire admitted reason for attacking your allies in OFA is to prevent us from attacking them ourselves. Tell me, can you find a war TKR declared that filled a slot in our coalition and prevented you from hitting one of our allies? Or one where our side beiged ourselves? No? Then your narrative is completely irrelevant to this report.

That doesn't answer the question of whether it is beige farming, slot-filling, both, or just treaty violations.

Our “point” is that “your” bloc is “entirely” treatied to “BK”, which you just “confirmed” is the “case”, and “therefore” is not an “independent” “bloc” but in fact a “part” of BKsphere, and therefore is not a bloc at “all” but just a “bunch” of pretentious “goons” that haven’t made a single “move” without “acting” in lockstep with BK. “Quotes” added purely “to” “troll” “you”. If you want me to shoosh, all you gotta do is stop giving me accurate things to say about you. Also, neither Justin nor I speak with any FA authority, but then again it seems neither do you.

NPO entered the war on my birthday. It was the best birthday present they’ve ever given me, and frankly it’s sad when you feel that war isn’t something to celebrate and have fun with. I mean, who doesn’t play games on their birthday? Sad people is who.

The TKR information from months ago and that predated the both supposed split of IQ and large-scale military losses by TKR? That information? The information that even if it were relevant (which it very much never was nor could have been) still doesn't actually disprove (and indeed provides fairly compelling evidence towards the existence of) a paperless tie to BK? Or perhaps you mean the logs that clearly show an anonymous source describe how there were no plans to hit NPO or syndicate? Even after Syndicate declared war on two of our coalition partners? Attacks that were clearly promised, by your allies, to be isolated from the main war and wouldn't be expanded on by you? A promise that you broke? That information?

In their alliance affairs section, there's 2 threads that have been posted in this week. And that top one? It's a news article, which includes this excerpt: Your move.

....Yes... that's our point. They're wholly part of BKsphere. Glad we're on the same page. That first sentence just makes no sense at all though.

Wait, I'm confused... Are you saying it was Citadel's policy to not have BK enter in their defense? Why sign treaties with BK then? Or was it Citadel's policy to not enter into wars in BK's defense? If so, then why did they do exactly that? Either way, that's transparently nonsense.