Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kriegskoenig

  1. @Eva-Beatrice  Your perceived injuries are primarily self-inflicted.  You were warned of the outcome of continued behavioral issues repeatedly.  You chose to ignore that warning and do precisely as you had been told NOT to do.  It's entirely unsurprising to anyone with working cognitive ability that you were punished and not given yet another chance.


    Your inability to accept discipline and act with a modicum of humility was the final straw.  Repeatedly "leaving" when you were disciplined or didn't get your way before had the effect of making your eventual departure much less unexpected, and much less unpleasant.  Hostage-taking by means of making threats or implied threats is simply childish, and is unacceptable in a cooperative workspace such as PnW alliance gov...unless you're in a true 2-week micro.

    I personally am sorry to see you go.  You were a good admin, and a good organizer.  I'd have like to have seen you remain in Polaris as a resource for administrative tools and Discord management, and I'm sorry that it didn't work out in the end.  Sadly, your own choices left the combined panel of government with no options in determining your fate.  None of your initial actions were unforgivable, but your entitlement and arrogance--on the heels of repeat violations of direct orders--demonstrated that you simply could not be an effective contributing member of Polaris.


    Resorting to airing your grudges in a public, one-sided story has not helped you at all.  If anything, you've simply confirmed that we made the correct choice, and our sorrow at having been pushed into that choice has been greatly ameliorated by seeing your reaction to it.  I'll remind you that I could likewise air a long list of ongoing issues with you outside of the relevant one for which your admin authority was terminated, but I don't think we have any need to stoop to that level.  We have no interest in inflicting damage to you personally.

    I would suggest that you might want to recognize your own responsibility in where you are now, and perhaps consider owning that.  Seeing yourself as the victim of others doesn't lead to growth.  Your worth is not determined by being a mod, being an admin, or being in government in a web-based browser game.  Your worth is not determined by the number of upvotes you get on the OWF.  You have value because of who you are and what you can bring to the community as a friend and a kind helper to others, if you choose to do so.  We'll miss that from you.




    "What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others."--Confucius

    • Upvote 1
  2. 4 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

    Just going to touch on this bit since it directly pertains to BK. We did not get “mad salty” about returning a bank. Command economies have the least amount to gain from encouraging bank heists. The only time the bank was “in” BK was a few days was while it was on Cynic’s nation. Once he was convinced to deposit it he was kicked and the bank returned within a day. 

    Yeeeep.  But no, @Aragorn, son of Arathorn it was definitely a "BK man Bad" scenario, you've just brainwashed yourself.  ?

    @Kiloist II if you're in the habit of taking what a member says as what an alliance gov thinks, that explains a lot.  You can't honestly be surprised that BK members, who you had routinely trashed to their faces, despised you and wished ill on you, in spite of their returning your bank because it was the right thing to do.  Personally, had I foreseen your behavior since, and the fact that you apparently learned nothing from it, I'd have suggested BK keep it.  Your behavior is that of a lapdog that bites the person feeding it.

    @Kevanovia, I'm not coaching you on anything other than how to stop leaking.  We all have core competencies, and you've indicated that you're not familiar with basics there.  I learned a long time ago that it's ok to learn from others, rather than insist you know everything. 

    See you in the war, y'all have a real nice day now.

    • Downvote 2
  3. 12 hours ago, Charlie Traveler said:

    *snipped the excuses*

    3) A sting operation against your allies. Good look, my dude.

    4) TGH/KT stated that they heard the leak from Polaris long before Cynic came to them with the intel.

    Bad Company left Vanguard as we had been pushing to do for weeks. The next day, the Inquisition hit BC. This is on the coattails of Cynic leaking OPSEC intel and promptly sending BC's bank to BK. Please tell me that wasn't a set up prompted by BC's obvious moves to withdraw from Vanguard.

    12 hours ago, Kevanovia said:

    *snipped more excuses*

    3) Naw fam, Cynic ended up being a turdbag - also Polar leaked as well.

    4) Errrrr what? The leak was manufactured from Polar/Pacifica. Therefore Polar had the info. Sure Cynic leaked it, but it was found that Polar were the first ones to hand out that info to TGH and friends.

    OK.  Last time I'll do this with you two particular individuals over this, but let me help you with some pointers here.

    Don't make excuses for bad behavior.  The reasons you think you have for acting out are never good enough.  That's a lesson both of you will hopefully learn with maturity and long-term relationships.

    Now, Charlie, for you in particular. 
    If you don't occasionally leak-test your alliance, then I'd hardly be surprised that you're leaky.  If you don't leak-test your allies, especially after an obvious leak or two, you're completely incompetent.  Everyone competent already knows how to do this and why, but for you and anyone else who doesn't, read Spycatcher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher) Peter Wright's biography covering his work in MI5.  Pay particular attention to the "barium meal test" descriptions, and you'll learn how to use this to catch a leaker in a remarkably effective way.

    "TGH/KT stated." Oh, Charlie.  I'm sorry I have to even explain this to you...When you have a leak, to an outside group, and that group tells you that the source of the leak is someone else, why do you think they might do that?  It shouldn't be too hard to figure out.  Also, barium meal test, buddy.  Nobody else could have leaked the info that BC had, because only BC was given it.

    Now, if you think Cynic was a BK plant to leak your intel, make you look bad, steal your bank and give it to BK, and get you kicked out of VG and rolled, well...I'm sure that's as fun as most conspiracy theories are.  I do remember that BK roflmao-ed...and sent your bank back to you. Maybe they should have kept it, since you usually leave that part out.

    Kev, I figured you could do better, but you and Charlie seem to be attached to the same unimaginative hivemind.
    "Cynic ended up being a turdbag."  Yeah, no argument there.  BC DID put him in gov though.  So that does still reflect poorly on you as gov at the time. Did Cynic have any prior history that might have indicated his tendencies?

    "Also Polar leaked as well." Right.  So, you're really going with whataboutism and "no u" as your chosen excuses?  "Polaris" couldn't have leaked, mate.  Barium meal test.  Research it, and you'll realize how funny your claim is.  Only a very, very small group knew who was given what info.  Despite the rather desperate protestation you make that the intended leak was "manufactured from" a combination of "Polar/Pacifica," you make a classic mistake here.  NPO had nothing to do with the info, nor was involved.  Polaris had only two individuals involved, because it turns out we actually know how to keep a "secret" secret. 

    Yes, BC leaked it.  And got caught doing so.  Maybe it was Cynic.  Maybe it was another of you that has an affinity for KT/TGH.  It wasn't my gov, so not my problem.  That was for you guys to handle internally.  (Given the issues with leaks, planned departures, and the rapid deterioration of the gov group in the aftermath, it just wasn't a solid and loyal enough group anyway.  I do feel for Alexio trying to keep the herd of cats aligned.) Regardless of who we want to blame in that gov for the leaks at the time, saying "it was found" (nice use of passive voice for an unsourced statement) that Polar handed out the info is delicious.  The only way you'd know that, especially given that the leak was proven to exist, would be if the counter-intel operation had told TGH, which then would then have to tell you. That would have sabotaged the entire operation, obviously.  You really need to THINK before making these kind of wild accusations or believing what you're told by the group that is exploiting an intel source within your own government.  

    Don't worry though.  Polar man bad, TGH man good.  There was no leak, you were set up.  BK hated you and took your bank by planting a BK deepstate spy in your campaign while Russia/TGH did nothing wrong...

    Hey!  I've got this sweet bridge in Brooklyn for sale, it's a great business opportunity!

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 11
  4. 6 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

    I just find it odd you're trying to give James some leeway.

    Either BC was kicked out or not.  Simple as that.  That was the argument.  So which was it, @Kriegskoenig?

    It's not entirely that simple.


    I wasn't involved in the vote and discussion, but my understanding is that the bloc leaders determined that BC could not remain in the bloc and met with Alexio.


    I believe Alexio had independently arrived at the same conclusion before the official "termination meeting"  and at the point of the discussion being broached I believe Alexio stated an intent to move on.  So I'm not calling old BC gov liars in saying they intended to leave, I think they already knew the relationship trust was irretrievably broken, and the situation was untenable.


    It was basically that meeting with a soon-to-be-ex girlfriend when there have already been issues and you know she's been talking behind your back. You've already had the fight.  This was the "let's meet for coffee" when you both already know it's not going to work out, and if she isn't batsh*t crazy she's already  preparing to move on as well.

  5. 11 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:


    Lol, give James SOME credit for knowing his allies. 


    You're not ALWAYS wrong either.


    If even a broken clock is right twice a day, Thrax can't always be wrong, and nor can anyone else. 


    Except maybe Akuryo and Scarf. They may just defy the laws of nature.

  6. 36 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

    Because that’s not what happened

    And yet it really kinda was.  James isn't wrong. Perhaps BC had previously planned to bail on VG.  I don't pretend to be a mindreader.  But either way, BC was in a smallish bloc with three other alliances.


    While in that bloc, the gov of BC, which was later rebranded as FR, (and from whence the gov has largely moved on to Soup) proceeded to:


    1) Antagonize and insult, openly and deliberately, the M-level allies of your bloc partners, in inter-alliance cooperative channels.  This behavior was even more aggressive in bloc channels, and was symptomatic of a general attitude of entitlement, arrogance, and lack of consideration for the interests and relationships of others.


    2) Leak repeatedly, violating the trust of your bloc partners and their allies.


    3) Get caught in a sting operation to catch leakers.


    4) Try to blame other bloc members for the leak, which, unbeknownst to BC gov, was specifically tailored information that no one else had. (LOL)


    These were significant issues that effectively ended the participation of BC since it was obviously impossible to engage with any level of trust and mutual respect.


    That being said:

    --not all the issues were Alexio

    --not all the issues were Kiloist

    --not all the issues were Charlie

    --not all the issues were Kev


    But as a whole, all the BC gov issues combined to a really unpleasant situation for the rest of the bloc.  Maybe Kev, Charlie, Kilo, Cynic and Alexio can all be great gov seperately, but like an ex-wife in an amicable divorce, "we're just not great together."


    Ironically, I was most pissed at Alexio at the time, as he was the leader of BC. Interestingly, as it went on, and BC's chickens came home to roost, he seemed to handle it much more maturely than the rest.

    • Like 3
    • Downvote 2
  7. 4 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:


    War Slot & Espionage Filling

    "Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them"


    Would you see a nation declaring war and doing very little to no damage, and the only goal is to circle through blockades, not the same as having no intention of fighting? you should change it from fighting to no intention of trying to win the war.

    Here's the thing: tactics often require an intentional sacrifice for others to be able to win.  If that means I "lose" my war, I'm ok with that,  because the team wins in the end.  IMO, that's totally different than me "not fighting," it's me fighting (however ineffectual my attacks) in a strategic way to reduce enemy defenses enough for someone else to win. Do we really want to insist that you must have "intent" (subjective, must be interpreted by admin/mods for enforcement) to "win" a war when declaring? 


    We already know that "beiging is bad" because the enemy rebuilds if it isn't done in a strategic way.  I don't think Alex ever "intended" that, but that's me interpreting that I think he wanted it to be a straightforward way to benefit the "winning" nation in war, without foreseeing the unintended effects.


    Now, as a result of the war mechanics and incremental changes to them causing even more convoluted strategies, we ALL (except Arrgh, or when raiding) avoid "winning" wars because "winning" too many individual wars causes the large-scale wars to be extended longer.


    All of these counterintuitive tactics, from the first T$/Jessica Rabbit strategies, and including MaxAir, NoShip, 1-Ship, downselling, score-capping & tiering, etc., began with clever people realizing that the war system had begun to inadvertently present disincentives to operating within "normal" war strategies.  They simply did math and figured out the best M.O. based on the best outcomes.


    At its core, this whole thing is a reflection of deeper issues in war mechanics.  I'm not sure anyone, from Alex down to any alliance with complaints, has a comprehensive plan for a complete, fair, and straightforward remake of the war mechanic to make it more logical.


    In short, simply changing the wording to "you must intend to win" is so subjective, and impossible with the current mechanics, as to be completely unenforceable with any degree of fairness or impartiality.  It would be unfair to ask any admin or mod to consistently enforce that rule in a logically defensible way.

    • Like 3
    • Upvote 2
  8. 17 minutes ago, Dwynn said:

    Ah yes... the age old "fair fight is pointless" argument. Sure, if your entire purpose is to create a powersphere great enough to dominate the game so you can sit in circles telling each other how great you are, then yes going into a fair fight is pointless.

    However, if your purpose is to create some atmosphere of uncertainty about war or to create an atmosphere where war is more abundant so there is more activity in this world, fighting to break apart the powershperes and allow for more dynamic war structure that doesn't rely on who can pull the most treaties is actually more useful and productive.

    So the real question is what do you want to do? Sit in a circle jerking chains on how awesome you are, or actually playing the game and proving how great you are?

    My dear friend from Rose makes thoughtful points, rare on here these days.  So I'll respond before taking off for another couple months of ignoring the OWF.

    1) Dwynn suggests fair fights don't create a superpowersphere.

    2) Dwynn suggests uncertainty and abundant war is desirable.  

    I understand the motives behind your statement.  I too, would like to be able to go toe-to-toe with an equally-sized opponent over an issue rather than getting into repeated globals with the entire game on a side, which require longer downtimes for preparation, and are almost always more destructive for both sides.  Superpowerspheres have always limited the options in play for smaller alliances.

    However, psychology, political science, and economics IRL all make it abundantly clear that human nature hates both uncertainty and abundant war, especially war with high losses.  We desire the ability to engage in smaller wars.  That requires less protection.  But as soon as ONE alliance began signing another alliance to a treaty to fight a third, that Eden was over, and we all left the garden.  The slide toward hegemonic spheres is almost inevitable without adjusted game mechanics to make it less attractive.  I'd agree that in a game, fluidity, change, and an ability to have an immediate, observable effect on your surrounds is desirable in gameplay to preserve interest and activity.

    In other words, take a large part of the politics out of the game, or reset it/level it at intervals.

    But I think you need a different game for that, unless Alex makes some massive changes...in which case it's already going to be a different game.

    Hit me up on discord if you want to talk polisci, human nature, economics, and psychology!  Y'all have a fun war.

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 3
    • Downvote 1
  9. Oh, the irony. 

    Really, none of you complaining here can be taken seriously being salty about what BK does, because, save a few alliances that lean paperless, your entire group has done the same thing repeatedly, for years.  But I don't expect most of you to be objective enough to grasp that. ?

    And seriously, has none of you ever read Von Clausewitz, Machiavelli, or Sun Tzu?  Going into a "fair fight" is the utter height of stupidity for anyone that wants to achieve something beyond pointless destruction.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 10
    • Downvote 18
  10. 1 hour ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

    Enterprise is Rosesphere.


    ...are you suggesting that Rose dominates TSphere? Whew lad.

    You can call NPO/BK IQsphere and not have an issue because they're so aligned.  But T$ and Rose?? the same hivemind? ...or did you legit forget 
    "The Enterprise is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Syndicate."


  11. 1 minute ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

    The fact that you made a diagram to "explain" that no one seems to want to visit your sphere might actually be a good demonstration of why no one wants to visit your sphere...?

    I'm smirking so hard right now.


    A ) Polaris has no major sphere, we're not big enough to be the center of anything that important.  Thanks for getting triggered though.


    B ) Rosesphere, NPO/BKsphere, and TKRsphere, arguably the 3 of the 4 most important groups in the game, haven't even had a visit yet.  That's the point you apparently missed.


    Also @Buorhann 

    Re: disbanding. Polaris will likely be around long after TGH is as dead as Mensa.  We're older players, stubborn, and quite set in our ways, and oddly, we don't all want to be Emperor, so we remain supremely stable.  You're welcome to explore a merger if you feel otherwise, but you'll need to make a stellar offer.  We could offer you the official "Resident Grouch" position in The Polar Horde, though, since ours has recently vacated his post.

  12. Well.


    That's that, I guess.  @Kevanovia I was starting to think this might get interesting, but y'all have a definite pattern.  The coverage of KTsphere has been exceedingly thorough, and you're most of the way through the rest of the old "paperless" alliances.


    I had high hopes to see more spheres explored in detail when you went to The Enterprise, because I've discounted your stop at BC as comfortably visiting your old home, but no, back to the "paperless" comfort zone it is.  50/50 Arrgh or Valinor is next?


    Are you having trouble getting major alliances to let you in?


    Enjoy this crude illustration of your travels, and we'll see if anyone else can see the pattern I'm talking about. 



    • Downvote 5
  13. @Angel Lara iirc, MOST alliances don't require participation in raiding.  Some do not allow raiding.

    Pretty much every alliance except GPA (dead, but there are GPA wannabes) has always required members to engage in wars in defense of the alliance, or in furtherance of the alliance's goals.  If you want to dodge wars entirely, you'll have to whale up super big and find a fatty-whale-alliance...but lately even THEY have been warring.  NOBODY wants a war-dodger.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.