Sketchy

We had one global war all year. It was a shit year. I expect next year to be even worse.

The Roquentin Dynamic Alliance Measurement Index™

Alliance name: opsec Alliance Color: opsec Alliance Flag: opsec Government. FA head: opsec IA head: opsec MA head: opsec Econ head: opsec FA direction: opsec opsec opsec

Your mom is an egregious offense.

Of course not, winning 2 years in a row wouldn't be very dynamic.

Ladies and gentlemen, have you ever wondered what it means when people say things like "you need to be more dynamic" or "stop consolidating"? Never fear because today I'll explain just how you can be dynamic too using our flawless measurement system, The Roquentin Dynamic Alliance Measurement Index Here is how it works. Each alliance starts with a 50 in dynamic rating, the higher the dynamic rating you have, the more dynamic you are. This rating is continuously adjusted as alliances do any of the following things: Sign Treaties Non IQ alliance signs an IQ alliance: +10 Dynamic Rating IQ alliance signs an IQ alliance: +20 Dynamic Rating Non IQ alliance signs a Non IQ Alliance: -20 Dynamic Rating Cancel Treaties IQ alliance cancels a treaty with a Non IQ alliance: +20 Dynamic Rating IQ alliance cancels a treaty with an IQ alliance: +20 Dynamic Rating (or -20 Dynamic Rating if its convenient) Non IQ alliance cancels a treaty with an IQ alliance: -20 Dynamic Rating Non IQ alliance cancels a treaty with a Non IQ alliance: 0 Dynamic Rating Declare War Non IQ alliance declares war on an IQ alliance: -30 Dynamic Rating IQ alliance declares war on a Non IQ alliance: +5 Dynamic Rating (Would be +30 but IQ only preempts they swear) Non IQ alliance declares war on a Non IQ alliance: +50 Dynamic Rating And that is it. I hope this helps you and your friends to be as dynamic as possible.

Well in that case feel free to stop at any time.

Good to know all people have to do in the future in order to get a thread locked is continuously post about the weather. If a topic going off topic is enough to lock threads now you might wanna retroactively lock every single alliance affairs thread for the past 2 years since they always go off topic. Smh

You've already proven you can't enforce rules based on Racism evenly and fairly so I'm sure this will go down perfectly.

Breaking news terrorist attack failed in New York after poorly made pipe bomb blows off the terrorist's cock. I hope the poor fellow gets a replacement from Allah or he'll have trouble making use of his 72 virgins.

You do realize you are both agreeing with each other right.

Because Kastor did it once.

Not sure exactly what people would expect to be done about it. Since when is coordinating a vote considered cheating? How do you determine how many votes are "legitimate"? Ultimately if people choose to just vote for whatever their leader or whoever tells them to its still their choice lmfao. Stop whining and whip votes yourself. Voter turnout is pretty low after all.

We aren't at the hegemoney stage yet but it seems everyone is eager to get there lmfao. edit: smh why does hege mony autochange to hegemoney sheepy

I mean, you are completely butchering the context lmfao. EMC/IQ =/= politics. I didn't say nothing would ever change, small things change all the time, its just the games politics remain mostly the same and are cyclical in nature, and all the grudges and beefs held by various players stay the same. The current dynamic between IQ and EMC mirrors the dynamic that existed between t$-oo and paracov down to the narratives and rhetoric. Here lemme make a nice pic for you Some things can delay the cycle but it'll always go back to that lmfao. These days it just takes twice as long to get through the cycle apparently lmfao.

I heard about this, pretty sad really. It seems more like a side effect of social media in general, tends to make people major twats over really small and trivial shit. I do find it ironic that the people responsible for her harassment are among the same people who constantly rattle on about female consent only to turn around and blast her when her consent is violated.

This is going to be a long war lmfao.

Is everyone still !@#$ing about the results? If you care enough why not devote your energy to whipping votes against the popular choices atm? smh lmfao cmon

That video was 10/10 well done lmfao.

We literally just had a discussion about it and now suddenly it moved on? Spinning what narrative? I'm literally trying to get the topic onto a more constructive path so it has some actual positive results if at all possible. As for your second post, no it wouldn't be okay because that would be a bad idea, which is literally my entire point, bias is irrelevant to an idea because something is either a good idea or a bad idea, WHY a person proposes an idea has no bearing on whether or not that idea is a good proposal or not. This point seems continuously fly right over your head. You seem to have issues with basic comprehension. Anyway I'll cut my losses and just ignore you in the hopes other people who understand context and have basic comprehension skills and actual proposals fill up the gaps.

All the other people !@#$ing (who I disagree with just to be clear) are not Bourhann. Normally people respond to what a person says not what other people say. You questioned his motives, he said he wasn't biased, you said he was, he said he wasn't. He addressed your response directly and then you both argued over whether he was lying which is a completely redundant argument. I suggested you both move on and just discuss the proposal. I said bias was irrelevant to a proposal not in general. You really aren't great at context are you. Let me quote myself to save time. So you can keep harping on about how biased Bourhann is, or you can provide constructive arguments about the actual topic and not Bourhann. If you don't pick up what I'm putting down this time I'll add you to my ever growing list of "Don't talk to this person unless you feel like tormenting the intellectually challenged for amusement".

Okay so clearly yet again you've missed the point of what I was saying for the final time I'll try to illuminate it for you. If your goal is literally just to smear Bourhanns character than fine w/e carry on. If your goal is to object to the proposal, then actually address the proposal and its flaws not the perceived motivation behind them (or atleast do both). If your goal is to actually constructively propose ideas and arguments for improving the voting system, then object to the proposal and counter with your own. Arguing about bias doesn't serve to further the argument, you'll just be arguing about it over and over and nothing constructive will come about it. Not sure how you could have so completely misunderstood my posts lmfao. I was pretty clear.