.jpg.f6b3f4433e314c16aa01f6308b5ef572.jpg)
Sketchy
-
Posts
2392 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
129
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Sketchy
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
18 hours ago, Tyfighter said:When you all realize that roses entire plan was to get Camelot to disband by attempting to buy there debt through a extension or 3rd party alliance so they could break the nap by saying that Camelot is defaulting on loan rose has just been able to manipulate most of the community at this point
Unfortunately it’s blankly obvious MO did respond to the event but there wording indicates that’s no official representative attempted to buy the debt but a 3rd party alliance that’s heavily tied to them like valinor could’ve done it in there stead
Defaulting on a loan debt would not be grounds to void a NAP.
Rose wouldn't have been able to use it as justification to break NAP, anymore than Camelot can use this fake loan buying scheme as a justification to break a nap against TFP.
Also, the idea that an offshore, which is typically controlled by government members or people with trust within the alliance, doesn't fall under Rose is ridiculous.
If Epi was so certain Rose was intending to break the nap with some ridiculous loan scheme that no major alliance would look at and say Rose had a case, why did Epi hit TFP and claim it was part of the event, instead of hitting Rose.
Because he's trying to find any angle to justify what's he's done and each time one is thoroughly debunked he has to conjure a new excuse.
-
1
-
8
-
2
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I take full credit for badgering him for hours until he finally cracked and unwittingly admitted he can't prove anything.
Reminder: He broke the NAP and hit TFP. None of these claims ever mattered anyway.-
1
-
1
-
14
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
12 hours ago, Firwof Kromwell said:Apparently ole friend, you're stuck as I've already talked you in DMs n rehashed here. I even asked you what I should do & I decided to.do what I've been poked at to do, blaze my own trail half careless of onlookers. You recommended I do so
I admit one thing, you did recommend staying out of diplomatic/public relations matters. I just couldn't resist the itch to stand to defend old friends between Cam & Buck himself. I'm saying what I can gather as true whilst not caring for all the excess noise as you put it. Your words against your words yikes...
Apparently, old friend, you're stuck in a loop—because we've already gone over this in DMs, and now again here. I even asked you directly what path you thought I should take, and in the end, I chose the one I was being pushed toward anyway: to carve my own trail, half indifferent to the crowd watching.
To your credit, you did advise me to steer clear of diplomatic and public affairs. I’ll give you that. But I couldn’t ignore the pull to speak up—not when it involved old friends, not with Cam and Buck both in the picture. I'm sharing what I believe to be true, cutting through the noise you so often warned about.
But here’s the thing: your past advice now stands in contradiction to your current stance. Your words are colliding with themselves. That’s not on me.
5 hours ago, Firwof Kromwell said:What's too assume we're not civil, not agreeing to disagree on a warm homely note? I still see him as a viable friend regardless of disagreement, has concern n criticque which I do appreciate. Gawd we can't be humanely compassionate regardless of differences anymore? Way to jump the fence before reading the apprehending signage again May May😆
keep it coming shmuckems 💋 the saltier you are, the wetter you make me.
Why assume we’re not civil? It’s entirely possible—and in this case, true—that we’ve simply agreed to disagree on a warm, familiar note. I still consider him a friend, disagreement or not. He’s offered both concern and critique, which I genuinely appreciate.
Funny how quickly people leap to conflict before even reading the signs. Whatever happened to showing a little human compassion despite differing views?
But hey—keep it coming, schmuckems 💋
The saltier you get, the more entertained I am.4 hours ago, Firwof Kromwell said:Ayyrite so nobody is allowed to make even continue to hold friends that disagree w/ each other every so often, got it. Not finding ways to settle disputes & seek forgiveness is now part of my mental inventory, I got chu homles 101% 😉
P.S. other ppls lack ofs are my problem not theirs, also noted
Ah, I see—we’re not allowed to maintain friendships with people we occasionally disagree with. Got it. Apparently, resolving conflicts and extending grace is off the table now. Noted, and added to my mental checklist. I got you, homie—101%. 😉
P.S. Seems like other people’s shortcomings are now my responsibility, too. Duly noted.
-
1
-
7
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
48 minutes ago, Firwof Kromwell said:Well hello there, I'm. not surprised but you know you can't talk like that cuz is be a phat lie, you know that 😏 more certainly so after what SIN pulled last war both ingame and forums was an HORRENDOUSLY UTTER DISASTER. That's also an obvious since SIN did contain most of the merge potential at 1st since it's the end of the merge list of all steaming from Soup.
You say that last part as you know better, it's the truth & you know it. More so after yall tried so hard to convince ppl to do what ya wanted last war, epic flop. Yalls mouths have been fluently recorded through the forums since that. Rose & TFP only come into the mix as TFP-TI have fluid history of dog piling together, more correctly using a secret treaty w/o paper multiple times, you know that true to. That is the same for Oblivion as they still defended Rose related targets, even from a diff sphere throu Spy ops & merc work, something that both Rose and Obliv are known for throughout the years in the backrooms.
Now tell me, how is it not that suspicious, especially this past yr alone, to have all those aa's separated by treaty yet untied by backrooms decks n motives. More than Cam exists of IQ aa's from npolt Era who also hold that post war disposition, why single out just one group while other aa's specially BK still exist w/ those core values from then still existing when I talked to them last(past few days).
Add on that anyone on the list, more so highlighted, further directly mentioned can easily be searched whereas you have one if the most seen/heard distinguished voice. All information I posed as evidence is at our figure tips both Discord and forums. When there's that much evidence throughout the yrs, I'm compelled to let ppl run aces wild w/ thoughts and curiosity like myself, even more to act direct on my resolve than espionage and merc-proxy
May I advise you put your posts into chapgpt and say "make this smarter".
Here let me do it for you:
Here’s a refined and more articulate version of your post that keeps the fiery tone while making it clearer and more polished:
Well, hello there. Let’s be honest—it’s no surprise to anyone that your statements are far from accurate. After what SIN pulled in the last war, both in-game and on the forums, it was an unmitigated disaster, plain and simple. Everyone knows that, and anyone pretending otherwise is just fooling themselves. SIN held most of the merger potential at the outset—no shock there, given that it was the final stop for everyone spinning out from Soup.
You’re trying to paint it otherwise, but the truth is obvious, and you know it. Especially after the last war, when you tried so hard to convince people to do your bidding—epic flop. Your words have been well documented across the forums since then. Let’s not forget that Rose and TFP’s involvement was hardly random, either. TFP and TI have a long history of teaming up, often through backchannel deals with no paper trail. And Oblivion? Still defending Rose-aligned targets, even across different spheres, through spy work and mercenary operations—everyone knows it. They’ve been playing this game in the shadows for years.
So let’s talk about this year. Isn’t it suspicious how all these alliances—supposedly separated by treaty—still manage to pull the same strings from the backrooms? There’s more than just Cam’s connections to IQ alliances from the NPOLT era—many of them still hold the same post-war dispositions when you talk to them now, even as recently as a few days ago. Why single out one group when BK and others still cling to the same core values?
And let’s be real—any alliance I mentioned here can be easily checked. Their words, actions, and even Discord logs are right there at our fingertips. With that much evidence built up over the years, how can I not let people chase their own curiosities and push their own resolves? There’s no need for espionage or mercenary proxies when the truth is already this plain to see.
Let me know if you’d like to tweak the tone or emphasize any particular part!
It still reads like nonsensical crack addict stream of consciousness drivel but at least I can understand it lmfao.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
Bro I have been trying to get included in a conspiracy theory all week but instead of getting Epi I get discount Epi.
Like 80% of the people in this list are literally currently in Singularity. A bunch of them have quit.
I wish I could argue with you over this but it's actually so mentally deranged it defeats itself lololol
-
4
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Extensions are doing DoWs now?
When did this become the meta.
You mean we need to write a DoW for our offshores too now?
Is there no end to this torment?
-
20
-
3
-
3 minutes ago, Daveth said:
Still funny as !@#$ though.
1000 points to Camelot for being based.I am disappointed. I only skimmed over the logs but I don't think I or Sin was mentioned even once.
A real blow to all the conspiracy theories.
-
4
-
1
-
-
>Me expecting some crazy leaks.
>Bunch of people trying to find ways to preempt a hit they knew was coming. Paranoid about who was entering.
Ngl I'm underwhelmed.
-
2
-
-
Me agreeing with WANA wasn't on my bingo card for the year.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:
He certainly can, its just a question of will the other members of the NAP hold him accountable for it, which so far seems like a no.
I would imagine its up to TFP what the timeline of their defense is. I haven't seen any one claim the treaties aren't being honored, rather that TFP is looking for additional support.
But if you'd rather focus on that then the actual nap break, might want to work on your priorities.
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, EpimetheusTalks said:
- Myrmidon's said that they attacked us (at least in part) because Velyni was talking to them about us betraying Rose Sphere. He was simultaneously telling us that we had not betrayed Rose Sphere and that we were justified. When we asked him if he'd spoken to Myrmidon he lied and said he hadn't. I provided the log of him talking with Myrmidon, talking with us, and then lying both in the video and in the document. If what he'd said to Myrmidon was true and acceptable then he wouldn't have hid it. He was being two faced.
I see one screenshot, with no context, where he makes one statement about you "flipping narratives" on RON. Which is immaterial. That doesn't constitute a NAP breach. Nothing in this paragraph constitutes a NAP breach. Payment, or quid pro quo, is what constitutes a NAP breach. If you have evidence of payment of a quid pro quo post that.
8 hours ago, EpimetheusTalks said:They're a mercenary alliance that was paid for fighting in the last global war and the one before that. It is not outside the realm of possibility that they were hired and as an alliance that has hired them in the past we can attest to their discretion. Furthermore, you do not need quid pro quo for there to be a breach of the NAP. If Rose tells someone to hit us then that is a violation of the NAP even if they don't pay them.
You haven't proven nor claimed they told them to hit you. You've claimed Velyni said you betrayed them, that he told his view of what went down in the prior war, and that it was at odds with what he told you. None of that is a NAP breach. Myrmidons being a mercenary alliance is immaterial again. You need proof they were hired. You cannot break a NAP on a hunch.
8 hours ago, EpimetheusTalks said:We signed the NAP on a coalition level and therefore Rose's breach was their coalition's breach. "NAP between Rose Coalition and Camelot". This was consistent with our last NAP with Rose in December wherein they made us responsible for Samurai's breaches of the NAP. For example, if the NAP they imposed on us in December had been on the individual level then Samurai could breached it on day 1 and we'd have still been protected. This issue came up a bunch a bunch of times and we both consistently affirmed the coalition interpretation. The Fighting Pacifists/Rose have only decided the individual level is a good idea because it's convenient for them in the moment. Their decision has no bearing on our interpretation though and we don't have to defer to them. If in future they want to reform the precedent that's fine but they should include it in the treaty text, here is a potential reform that we'd agree with:
You were made responsible for Samurai's breaches of the NAP because they are an extension of Camelot. I warned you not to bring Samurai too deep into the discussion on RON. If you want to have THAT conversation we can, but we both know I know enough to argue against that. That'll be the last warning I give you.
You cannot withdraw from a NAP unilaterally, without evidence, and then target a party not in breach of the nap. Every single nap ever signed was done at a coalition level, coalitions fight people, that does not mean that if one member of a coalition breaches the nap, that you can then target a party that wasn't in breach.
Even if somehow this logic worked, you never sufficiently proved that Rose was in breach of the nap, as evidenced by your response to me, where you haven't provided evidence that they did any of the things you are claiming.
If you had such evidence, and presented it, that would be enough to condemn Rose (Assuming the evidence lived up to the accusation, a point I need to clarify given your tendency to leap 10 logical steps on a small shred of information), but it still would not absolve you of breaking the NAP to hit TFP.
You have done your utmost to try and make this entire situation about Rose, because public sentiment against Rose is negative, and that means people will be more likely to take accusations you make against them at face value without any actual concrete evidence. But you didn't hit Rose, you hit TFP.
TFP did not breach the NAP. You still had a NAP with TFP, and you broke it.8 hours ago, EpimetheusTalks said:We did intend to avoid fighting alliances we used to have a NAP with in the auction if possible. However, when the choice was presented to us we were more comfortable hitting TFP and it was better logistically.
This is literally just a lie. You didn't intend to avoid fighting alliances you used to have a NAP with because you were presented with the choice, and as you say in the next sentence, and chose to hit one. You contradicted yourself literally the next sentence.
You broke the NAP. It's that simple.-
6
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Already had this debate in RON, but for posterities sake:
You broke a NAP. This whole argument falls flat on multiple levels.
1. You haven't proven Rose goaded anyone into hitting you. No logs. No basis for this claim at all.
2. BUT even if you had proven this claim, it wouldn't be a nap breach. It's not breaking the terms of a nap to discuss your grievances with an alliance to other alliances. You would need proof of a payment or quid pro quo for this to be a nap breach. You've not even made the claim, yet alone shown proof of it.
3. BUT even if it was a nap breach, as you claim, this still wouldn't justify hitting TFP. You cannot unilaterally leave a NAP you signed with multiple parties to hit a party that wasn't in breach of the nap. If for arguments sake, you could prove Rose had broken your nap, which you haven't at all, you could justify hitting Rose, not hitting TFP.
4. Your claim regarding the need for rebuild money is irrelevant. You had two options to target in the Arrgh event. You could have chosen to target the party whom you didn't possess a NAP with. You still chose to violate your nap.
Everything I read from both the video you provided and the logs you shared was a complete mish mash of logs much of which didn't seem to directly connect to claims you were making. Many other points in the post seem like pieces of claims to try and build/support a case against Rose, such as this loan/debt trapping scheme, which you've not sufficiently proven either, but since you didn't hit Rose, and nothing short of a NAP violation can justify you breaching the nap, they are irrelevant.
Rose seems to be irrelevant here entirely. You can't use them to justify breaching the nap to hit TFP.
You are in violation of the nap. Congratulations on hitting your peak crash out.-
17
-
1
-
He should have to rename his nation to Biggest Blackest Knights.
-
2
-
-
@Buck Turgidson
BIGGEST BLACKEST KNIGHTSBIGGEST BLACKEST KNIGHTS
BIGGEST BLACKEST KNIGHTS
BIGGEST BLACKEST KNIGHTS
BIGGEST BLACKEST KNIGHTS
BIGGEST BLACKEST KNIGHTS
-
2
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
2 hours ago, Corvidae said:Not to deride a peace agreement but referencing the posting here, you guys fought for exactly 30 days and signed into a Non-Aggression pact for four months.
Locking up 1/4th of the [active] game into a NAP for a third of the year from less-than-a-month of fighting is cowardly and frankly plays more into Rose's hands than the alleged victor's.
I know people rarely care, especially gov who are ditching the game anyway, but it's sad to see careless peace deals like these. NAPs set the stage for stagnant politics by removing potential coalitions or partnerships within specific windows, it takes the dynamism out of the game and creates an environment where your incentive to fight a war is not in an interesting CB but rather in the end result of guaranteed safe growth for X months.
Here's the kicker though: Safely growing in perpetuity is killing this game, the same way the lack of updates coming from the dev team are.
Congrats on an interesting war bookended by a poorly-thought peace deal.
-
8
-
14 minutes ago, Syrachime said:
Hopefully Sing got it's accounts 'settled' and we can just move on.
Of all the possible ways we could have settled our accounts, I'd say it could have been a lot worse for TKR.
It will be up to Tart, and I suppose TKR, to decide what to do there. If reading these threads is any indication, I don't think we'll be the ones who need to get over anything lmfao.-
1
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:
55 of your members quit, 30+ of them ran to vaca mode
Yes we totally had 222 members when the war started.
I'm calling rando TKR members mad because they are. Mad enough to still be posting about it when the war is over.
Apparently rando Grumpy members are also mad about it too.
Why did you guys even peace out if you are so mad still?-
3
-
1
-
-
-
5 hours ago, Canbec said:
I'm sure the 55 active members you lost since the start of that war are thankful for all the fun you provided them. It's unfortunate the ego of the few wrought such havoc upon your membership. While I will never stop mocking such a poor decision, I do feel deeply empathetic towards the Singularity members who had to suffer its consequences. I can only hope better times lie ahead for them all.
Why are you so mad?
Seems like you should be thanking me. Based on how you talk about it, I did you a favor. Unless... I didn't and it's annoying you. Is that it?
Lighten up Canbec. I cannot imagine the gargantuan effort it takes for you to keep your booty hole clenched 24/7, but it's alright bro, life is good.-
1
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, DragonKnight said:
Meanwhile, the past year:
War is over and you guys are still whining so...
Yep. Rent free. Guess I got under your skin lmfao-
5
-
-
3 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said:
You got any rooms left? Rent is expensive these days.
Why you asking me, it's his head.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
17 minutes ago, Tartarus said:factually incorrect
-
1
-
10
-
4 hours ago, Corvidae said:
This post is my personal try-hard roadmap if I were Alex:
It's time to re-analyze the design philosophy of the team. By the end of April, devs need to agree on a few things:
1. Wars will no longer prevent rollouts. If that looks like rolling out mid-war, so be it. If that looks like a global forced period of peace, so be it. If you can find another solution, great. The development cycle should not lean on player wars as an excuse. Ideally this would mean establishing a release date for updates so the players can plan around it.
This would be more feasible if people didn't immediately accuse Keegoz of bias every time a change happens, yourself included.
The reason war updates don't get pushed out during war is because an update can potentially impact the outcome and advantage someone in one direction or the other.
This most recent war, the changes were tested on the test server, during a war. That seems pretty reasonable to me, and then holding back the update to be pushed onto the main server when a global conflict is over.
My only criticism would be they should definitely prepare these updates to be ready to push immediately when a conflict ends, as many cases of conflicts starting shortly after have created problems with roll outs.-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Canbec said:
Congrats to everyone (except @Kyubnyan </3) on the promotions!
To Sketchy, I can only commend you for deciding to take a step back from FA. I'm sure your members will sleep better knowing that Tartarus cannot possibly do a worse job than you did.
Every time you post you just show me I accomplished everything I set out to do.
I'm going to cruise into the background knowing I'll live on, rent free in your head.
Stay mad bro lololol-
1
-
4
-
On Norms and the “Social Contract”
in Orbis Central
Posted
HAHAHAHA good luck with that bud
You broke the last one
Everyone else needs guarantees not you lmfao