Sketchy

Don't worry I'll post a new thread every month like I did with tax brackets until you lose the willpower to fight it anymore and give into the whims of the masses.

CB's are PR fluff and PR is all about perception. Ultimately its all about the what individual people perceive to be a just/unjust act that defines whether something is a valid CB or not. Like for example, I would personally argue you need a strong CB if you intend to hit another alliance/s whom you have a large or overwhelming statistical edge over. Otherwise you come across as weak and cowardly. If an alliance/coalition hits a target evenly matched or stronger than them, I don't see any need for a CB. That being said, if you do decide to post one, it better be good lmfao.

About time I've been waiting like a week.

Says the guy who plotted to hit Roses protectorate alongside Hogwarts, I assume without telling your best buddy WTF, then betraying your own ally TKR and helping to hide that alliance inside your own to presumably protect your complicity in the plan. Not only that, but that very situation was part of the CB TKR used to go after nuke bloc in the first place. So good job getting all your allies rolled and blaming it on Rose who was already in the middle of a larger conflict, and chose not to throw all their other allies under the bus by splitting their focus (they had multiple MD allies in the conflict), to defend your treacherous ass on an OD treaty. Thats not even pointing out the obvious case that it was an OD treaty, and WTF never defended Rose when they were rolled in NPO's first time, nor helped them in Silent War.

I still think it should be renamed to Shitposting and Spreadsheets.

Don't worry Pusha T has that covered.

Its been tried, its just you don't notice because they implode before they ever become remotely successful. A benevolent dictatorship with a strong, smart and decisive leader who surrounds themselves with other smart people who are experts in their respective areas of alliance administration is the ideal system. Unfortunately, in most cases, eventually those people retire, and they lack talented replacements, and that alliance falls to shit. Very few players with talent have the patience to stick with an alliance long enough to move up the ranks.

In this thread sure, because the thread topic was about a specific treaty, and before it was derailed into OOC shit it was about the two alliances involved in it. Outside of this thread, we've not just focused on one alliance, we regularly call out people whom we disagree with. Also, I don't think you were talking about respectfulness, otherwise you'd have no made a point about "military themes" as if that somehow is relevant. Its pretty obvious you were trying to imply that a military themed alliance shouldn't react negatively to an alliance they had begun to work with plotting against them. But since you point that out, why then focus on only one side of a dispute with 1/2 actors from either side of some 40+ alliance members being "disrespectful"? Why respond to me specifically, someone whose not engaged in most of this crap because of the OOC shit that surrounds it? It seems like you should take your own advice and not focus on specific people or alliances. It wasn't limited to that specific situation. It happened both before and after, and it involved supporting a second alliance who also made the same complaints. I didn't really want to call out the people involved, since they aren't the ones in here talking shit, and because while they were problematic within the coalition, they did fight, which I can recognize. But hey, thats why you don't talk shit when you have no legs to stand on. You are right, we a 3 month old alliance who participated in a global war within one month of our founding have not fought enough global wars obviously. Yet again, forcing me to bring House Stark into it, since its only fair to compare, you've existed for 18 months, and have fought 2. You spent a great deal of your existence as a protectorate of an alliance that founded its own sphere, fought one war for them, split out on your own, created a bloc, didn't join a global war with it when it arrived (A move I don't even disagree with, but you see the point I'm making here), then that bloc broke up, you floated on the outskirts for a long time after that, then finally you recently and with great initial hesitation, joined a war. You really couldn't think of a better narrative angle than that? >why are you being mean. >stop being mean and be diplomatic. >why are you being diplomatic, I thought you were supposed to be warriors. GG you literally just played yourself and contradicted your first post.

So just to clarify, your argument is...... Military themed alliances...... have to be nice to people who plot against them? I'm not sure you though that line of logic through very far lmfao. As for the whole, "I am still waiting for the wars you promised" I guess you must have missed the global war that literally just happened. You know, the one where House Stark leaders spent most of their time whining "please let us out omg we need peace".

Durmij, you do realize the reason relations initially deteriorated between our alliances, was because we caught Queen M plotting against us right?

I mean, you could base it on nation age. 60 days before you can make your own alliance (the time period for new nation bonus) would resolve the issue.

Can confirm.

Deja Vu.

Man that got confusing when your reply looked like it was part of the definition of coup.