Sketchy

If you think Discord is cool, have you heard of this thing called IRC? I reckon it's gonna take off soon, and alliances like TKR should join us and get in on the ground floor before it is too late!

Bruh

I don't think we should give Singularity another chance. Every time we do, they keep attacking people. I think we need to stop them. How will we farm in peace if Singularity continues to interrupt our inactivity to wake the game up? They are monsters.

WELCOME TO THE STAGE SYNDICATES NEWEST SPIRITUAL LYRICAL MIRACLE

NGL if this is the cringe you are posting you should take Keegoz advice lmfao. WANA Rn:

Alliance of the Year: Eclipse Most Improved Alliance: Carthago Best New Merged Alliance: Singularity Best Rookie Alliance: Weaponized Assault Penguins Best Alliance for New Players: Singularity Most Likely to Succeed in 2024: Eclipse Most Likely to be Rolled in 2024: Rose Most Honorable Alliance: Best Fighting Alliance: Eclipse Worst Fighting Alliance: United Purple Nations Best Alliance Growth: Singularity Best Foreign Affairs Team: Best Foreign Affairs Move: Florida Worst Foreign Affairs Move: TKR and t$ signing eachother. Alliance with Best Propaganda: Singularity Most Missed Alliance: Mensa HQ Best Alliance Flag (please link): Best Holiday Flag (please link): Biggest Alliance Decline in 2023: Bourbon Street

Player of the Year: Most Influential Player: Most Likely to Succeed in 2024: Best Alliance Leader: Veins Worst Alliance Leader: Lysander Best In-Character Poster: Darkblade Best Villain: George Long Nicest Player: Shwin Most Controversial Player: Most Missed Player: Kev Best Nation Page: Best Fighter: Ben Zene Best High Government Member: Most Online/Likely to respond in 1 minute: Best War Criminal: Hatebi

Might wanna fix that.

You'll have to excuse darkblade he has trouble keeping track of all the smaller AAs in SAIL when you have so many bigger ones like Carthago or KT.

The very CB presented in this thread contradicts what you are saying. Are you trying to argue the two conflicts are actually one conflict?

And since you haven't provided any evidence of this, still, other than speculation or "thoughts" as you put it, I'm going suggest you take it up with Alex. Syndicate choosing to double down on the subject is noted. Alright that one I'll cop to as I was told it was November. Problem now is you have the same argument in reverse. We build nukes before the change is implemented, you argue we implemented it to our benefit, we build the nukes after the change is implemented, well you implemented it to your benefit. Which is why who advocated for the changes in the first place was pretty relevant. Ultimately, if you are going to inject these sorts of accusations into the politics of the game without any evidence, you shouldn't be surprised by a more pointed response. Your avenue for taking up this issue is Alex, not IC war declarations.

You realise it was implemented almost 2 months ago right? That it was delayed for the ODOO vs Eclipse war. You claim I obfuscated the reason for it being implemented. I didn't, it was delayed because of the war. It was supposed to be implemented after the war was finished, but as we all know, this game's development doesn't exactly move at lightning pace. It took people reminding the development team and Alex/Village to push through the changes for it to even happen. Also it's funny you said there were "wars still ongoing" but conveniently ignored which war it was. Us vs House Stark. House Stark could have easily taken advantage of the change to build nukes at the time and do to us what we are doing to you. You didn't bother to fact check the timeline before posting this stuff so allow me. The changes were implemented on November 14th. Singularity didn't begin building nukes until early December, almost 2 weeks later, and after our second run in with Aurora. There is a clear and very public record of our disagreements with Aurora all over RON that illuminates the timeline much clearer than your cobbled together attempt at a narrative. Also spare me with the "It's not part of the CB" shit. It's in the post your alliance made to justify your entry. It's part of the narrative you are building. You put it there in the hopes you could bolster your argument and slander people at the same time. And yeah, I responded to it in focus, because all of your other arguments are IC arguments about in-game things. I may not agree with most of them, but as far as I am concerned, t$ is not the focus or relevant party in this war, our beef here stems from Aurora and only Aurora. Now stepping out of character for a moment. The game has enough problems without you trying to insinuate political narratives into the design team for your own political benefit. Many of the people in your coalition are in the design team, some of them were proponents of the change in question. I myself publicly opposed the change by the way, more than once. I get that things get heated and people sling mud each other, but all of that is within the game context. I would think improving the game is one of the few areas of common ground most players should have and I find it rather insidious to inject politics into it. You know you don't have any actual basis for these claims rather than speculation. You personally Shiho, know me and Keegoz well enough to understand our priorities, so I'd have expected at least some level of restraint on your part on parroting this shit. If you think undermining what little development the game gets to win a few political points in a conflict is worth it, continue as is I guess.

Hmm only just noticed this. If you are going to lie and bring Dev team related things into discussion, you should at least get your timeline straight. The changes to updeclare ranges were proposed during Village's time, not by anyone in SIN, and were slated for implementation before being delayed by the previous war. The code was already written, the change was already approved, and the only reason it hadn't been is because Alex/Village hadn't pushed it through. Can't say I am surprised to see Syndicate alter facts in order to fabricate grievance about things not within game politic though.

George Clooney living in the fantasy where he's the evil mastermind behind it all. Buddy we hit all the people you are talking about. They didn't counter to save you. We spent the whole time we were fighting you building nukes and we full sent into them lmfao. Everyone in the game knew what was going to happen except you apparently lmfao. Clearly all the other object lessons didn't sink in since you've been rolled like 400 times at this point.

They call him James II because that is as high as he can count.

At least you aren't 100 years old so you might survive to finish it.

Well, congratulations on your astute observation! It takes a special kind of genius to equate utilizing a tool like ChatGPT to a lack of skill in writing. Your disdain for those who choose to enhance their productivity and creativity by leveraging technology is truly admirable. I can only imagine the countless hours you must spend painstakingly crafting your messages with quill and parchment, as any form of assistance or efficiency is apparently beneath your superior standards. While some might see the value in embracing technology to streamline their tasks and generate ideas, you prefer to wallow in the self-righteous belief that authenticity can only be achieved through manual labor. It's fascinating how you romanticize the struggle of manual writing as if it somehow makes your words more profound. In the real world, people understand that tools like ChatGPT are aids, not crutches. They complement human creativity and intellect, offering a collaborative partnership that pushes the boundaries of what's possible. But I suppose your commitment to archaic methods is truly commendable; after all, who needs progress when one can revel in the glorious purity of inefficient and time-consuming processes? So, by all means, continue to cling to your antiquated principles. The rest of us will be over here, embracing the future and achieving greatness with the help of technology. But hey, at least you're consistent in your condemnation of progress.

I'm not entirely sure why you think I'm referring to you when I say people were aware of what was being proposed. If I had access to the server peace talks were in I'd go back and share the examples of people saying outright things that clearly indicated they knew exactly what we were asking for. I'm only mentioning it to you because you are the one debating the topic right now. It's pretty clear where our ire regarding the NAP situation is directed, given what caused this debate in the first place.

The logic for why the clause was opposed was laid out pretty clearly. It wasn't a misunderstanding of what was being asked.

I'd argue you can use that same line of logic to justify basically anything. My ally wants to hit X alliance I have a NAP with, their CB is strong, I don't like X alliance because they say mean things to me, why not prioritize my ally over the NAP because I don't like them? Yes I understand one is an optional aggression and the other is a mutual defense, but along this line of logic, there isn't actually any reason why that wouldn't apply to optional aggression. Or optional defence. Or mutual aggression if we ever see one of those again. This is exactly what a future allies clause is, and is exactly what was asked for. Of course other parties, not involved in the war, cannot be co-opted into a NAP they didn't personally sign, that's self evident. The point of stipulating future allies would be to prevent parties involved IN the war from circumventing the NAP to attack allies of people in the war. Given the CB's presented and pressure for Florida to split at the time, the fact this stipulation wasn't granted was purely political. It was done with calculated foresight, not as an oversight. Any allies that were signed during the period after the war, would have been exposed to a hit at any point. And were. It was done intentionally to limit our movement after the war. The reason given back to us at the time for why this clause would not be included was that it would limit options for the sides to deal with those alliances. That's another implicit example of a willingness to attack allies of NAP partners if it was in the interests of the parties involved. Given the recent issues with Aurora, and how they handled that, and the need to force through a NAP to current allies to avoid them being hit, I'd say our concerns were merited. People are just upset we abused the loophole that was designed to suppress us. I am glad you agree that adding a clause such as this is a fair middle ground, and I guess, by implication, that we weren't dealt with fairly.

I voted depends. If you specifically stipulate that a NAP covers MD allies, then it covers MD allies. The point of contention that has been discussed recently is whether defending an MD without this clause is breaking a NAP. It is always breaking a NAP, to go against the terms of a nap. Other treaties you sign don't trump NAPs. If you sign treaties that contradict each other, it's on you to put clauses in those treaties that help to reconcile those contradictions. Generally speaking, NAPs are signed under some form of duress. Whilst MD treaties and other types of treaties are voluntary. If we conceded MD's or other voluntary treaties override NAPs, then any NAP can be worked around or abused by simply signing voluntary treaties with people. As recent examples have showed. On the opposite side of things, as Keegoz mentioned, we have never seen a single instance of MD treaties actually overriding NAPs. Not one. And there is a reason for that. Some people have tried to assert that the reason this is the case is because many FA people have taken the position that MD's do trump NAPs. But of course they have, because no FA person wants to encourage other alliances to attempt to NAP chess them. It's a deterrent. Faced with the actual choice I highly doubt many of the normally careful FA people want to be the first ones to step over the line and break a NAP. So no. Generally speaking I don't think MDs override NAP treaties. Not unless you stipulate that MD's are covered in the NAP, which as we have seen, alliances are reluctant to do. Most people say it, but no one has acted accordingly.