Seeker

That literally wasn't what I was saying though? I was saying you're not taking responsibility which you currently are not taking responsibility for it. If you work as a team then it just enhances my argument that you're trying to disprove by implying you have the high amount of communication across the board. It literally proves me right. That's fine and dandy but you just admitted that you accepted it entirely so it's an alliance issue that was adopted whole sale. So there's no issue then? If they want to say stuff that I deem as unnecessary and entirely not aligned with how myself and @Cinomoo envisions our alliance being then you're correct. They will not be promoted into high government to represent Guardians of the Galaxy. That's definitely how we operate. You're still drawing false pretenses when it's literally a LEADER talking vs a member. There's a big difference that you're dismissing entirely to conveniently paint your own narrative that is flawed. So, we admit that isn't wasn't an IQ issue as much as it was an Abby issue? It's fine to be busy with RL, nobody is going to harp you for that. However, when you try to frame others at fault when they afforded you every ability to be apart of the group, that is when I have a big issue. It's just being disingenuous and downright disrespectful which I do not appreciate. Nobody had an issue with RL problem; You can cite my previous conversations trying to help you/advise you as a friend as proof that it wasn't a problem. Shit happens. I understand it and so does literally anyone else I never tried to drag you into the game more so than your RL, I am really surprised you're bringing RL into this whole conversation given how I have tried my best to help you. It's not exactly fair or what I desired. I wanted to help you out cause I want to help people out in general, it doesn't matter if it helps me out or not (in-game). You should know that based on my RL services that I told you about... (just saying). I literally never stated I judged you for keeping RL ahead of the game, if you ask people who were high gov at the time I was a strong push for you keeping RL first and I'd cover the rest. That wasn't the issue. The issue was you were saying you weren't being active etc. You shouldn't just make false accusations. You are really down playing it heavily.

I am not going to dig into the specifics but Thalmor experienced the same issues I experienced regarding Max. (We discussed it pre joining and post leaving) It wasn't what you're implying and I'm not going to delve into it unless you want to keep pushing the issue. Your reasoning seems to switch every time we talk however, so keep to a story instead of flip flopping on it which seems to be an apparent issue with you. You won't feel welcome if you aren't actively doing you part to be involved. Inactivity isn't an excuse to accuse others as not being involved cause you were in chats that were highly active that you didn't participate in due to your "RL". It's pretty disingenuous to paint it otherwise when we have logs to prove otherwise.

You're literally throwing another "leader" under the bus by saying he doesn't represent the alliance. He's not just a member, he's literally a leader. You're being obtuse for the sake of it. I have already stated earlier that I wasn't a fan of gagging members hence why you see some of the responses that have been posted so that's a bit of a reach to claim otherwise. If that's the case then his actions were condoned by the alliance entirely so the response was justified. I wouldn't call this a DoW, it's a low government member posting a thread and members voicing their opinion. There's a difference, you're just willingly absolving it to fit a narrative. If I was going to gag my members like you implied earlier then the thread wouldn't exist however it does so your previous statement is invalidated. You're connecting dots that I view everyone as children which inherently incorrect nor is it stated anywhere by myself. You keep citing max as some general member when he literally is not only the creator but the prominent and active leader of TI. It's just blatantly a false narrative.

You are more than welcome to throw your fellow leader under the bus to be the scape goat. Regardless of who you want to throw under the bus it's not my responsibility to handle your high government members. If you believe they were acting inappropriately then you should have brought it up previously but evidently that wasn't the case. It was allowed and it persisted so that either means 1.) He runs the show 2.) You're too inactive to notice what goes on Based on relationships and common denominators it leads me to believe that it was both of the options (considering I "worked" with all three of you) You're just making blanket assumptions to pass judgement. I have never said anything what you imply. BTW connecting dots is childs play so you saying you can do that just proves your point more LOL. EDIT: I am basing my assumptions based on what I have experienced and other alliances have experienced regarding you and Mad Max. It's a solid track record that illuminates the full picture.

There's nothing debatable regarding a leader exemplifying a distinct hatred/antagonist role towards Guardians of the Galaxy. It is proven through various things stated on the forums and via Discord. You can't reasonably say that someone in high leadership role isn't responsible (leader/creator), that's an absurd train of thought. You're drawing false pretenses at best.

I don't have an issue regarding someone voicing their opinion. I don't really value gagging members, if they view something a particular way then so be it. However it becomes an issue (with me) when it becomes absurdly toxic. It has been a trend long before this thread was created; even with alliances currently criticizing people in this thread of being too hostile. It's pretty grand to see them chirp in despite their own alliances toxicity. Pot calling the kettle black or something /shrug Not entirely sure why Bad Company is being brought up here; If we were going to be stickler to rules then that is the rule that is being broken. Topic HijackingDerailing a thread, or inducing topics that are not related to the original subject. You could argue it relates to BC but nobody relevant to Guardians of the Galaxy has stated so. The only connection you're pointing towards is via ties in-game that weren't cited in this thread. @Mad Hatter If you're gonna make a warning then you need to pay attention to the rules which that one was obviously broken. War is not meant to be fair, there are always going to be people who have a significant advantage given their strategy. We have a track record of hitting alliances that have a running record of working against ourselves and/or our allies. Whether it be spoken via forums or via discord. We have moved to put ourselves in a position to eliminate the said threats. It will happen sooner or later, however, the result is the same. We are fair lads in Guardians of the Galaxy but we will not take consistent aggressive tones towards us or our allies lightly and the repercussions will follow.

How is any of our foreign affairs ill conceived? Our foreign affairs was essentially set into motions long before you ever joined the alliance. Fam, it doesn't matter who hit you or who didn't hit you. We get this cake regardless. You make your bed then you lay in it. How many alliances have you run into the ground so far? 3? 4? 5? You're literally the original Sean Anthony. It's pretty rich to hear someone who has fought one war criticize someone who has fought several?

Joining what dogpile? I didn't have anyone join, I told IQ like 30 minutes prior to us hitting them. I can hit them now, I could hit them before, I can hit them at anytime! Stop talking out your booty.

Lets get this bread!

I guess you won then! Lets call it a wrap boys, he defeated someone!

GoB folks that were from VE didn't view it as a community that works together towards a common goal. Any idea that resulted in taking away from those individual whales growth despite the economics dictating it was by far the better method were discounted because it was more important for those select few individuals to grow instead of the broader community as a whole to grow thus being more efficient overall. The people who stayed recognized that the alliance doesn't and shouldn't revolve around that hence stunting their own growth to grow tighter was more valuable to achieving our goals as alliance than their egotism. However using ThatGuy as an example is perfect in regards to what a member should be. He's certainly a loyal member who didn't jump ship unlike the former VE-GoB members. You're willingness to shit on individuals who aren't infatuated with their own pixels is humorous. It's quite possible these individuals valued the community more so than the obsession to farmville it up and dodge difficult wars. Instead of asking why these people haven't grown as much, perhaps you should re-examine what it truly means to be a part of a community and all that it entails.

I don't know many games that exist outside of this one that you aren't forced to play the game and learn the basic fundamentals before being allowed to create a clan(alliance). I think it's bad form to set new people up for failure by having micros comprised on new people that have little to almost no experience playing the game much less being in any governmental position at all. I understand there's a possibility of people learning the game quick or coming from a game that might be similar to this one but that's few and far between realistically. If you want people to play the game and get involved, the last thing I would want is them joining micros and not learning to appreciate the game. I would definitely suggest them being required 60-90 (90 being optimal) of game play experience and ~10 cities. If they want to still try to make an alliance, so be it, but at least they will understand how to properly play the game (hopefully) in those 90 days they were required to join an experienced alliance. FYI if you want to sell more credits, it probably would be better to have the people starting the game to get invested in a more proper environment. Seems like common sense to me.

He did say it may come later. I was looking forward to it, hopefully he does his duty and provides a lengthy yet entertaining Wall of Text. The only concern is if anyone will combat him on it from the other side. That's where the fun begins.

If you ever wanted to reminisce on how dial-up was just play Politics and War! Logged in after 20mins, SUCCESS!

Good luck.

Forum Posting All posts must be in English. Common foreign phrases are permitted.

I am pretty sure if you buy VIP that you can change the town images to whatever you desire.

WHO DA FOOK IS THAT GUY?! COME AT US PLAYA!

Whenever you utilize a bot it still uses an account so it's not fair to say they can't reply to messages cause they are still able too regardless if a bot is automated. Sure, there's a possibility some bots can respond with automated responses outside the initial message but I would bet a lot don't have that because it's just not really genuine responses to whatever the new guy/gal sent back. Even if there is an automated response to people in that context, I would doubt most people would join cause they can tell it's not a person replying so that alliance is just doing itself more harm in possible losses so why not just allow it and allow others to expand upon it. Smaller alliances aka micros generally shouldn't be created unless the leader has ample days in the game. A lot of games do similar for making a "clan" in MMORPGs, it's pretty mind boggling there's no standard here as well. It's a safe guard to ensure people know what they are doing in the game (more than a typical noob) and we aren't having a cluster of alliances that don't add long term players cause they are too busy joining useless alliances utilizing failed policies that results in needless deletions. I get your point, you want to be valued for doing recruiting on your own w/o bot influence but I don't think people should be nerfed for utilizing a different system. It's up to you to make sure the message tailors to the individual and contrasts from the bot messages. Each system has its own pros/cons.

What was said before that? Context would be nice.

@Pestilence Damn, log dumped again!

Bro. Really? You can't be this obtuse. Typically people that discuss OPSEC things happen in private not on public servers etc AKA DMs or private servers/channels lol.

I came for BRRRT and left satisfied.