Kriegskoenig

Riiiiight. Imma pay you to sh*tpost, which you do anyway, because I want you to sh*tpost more and tell me useless rumors and innuendo like a gypsy fortune teller. I'll think about it. Don't call us, we'll call you. Thank you for discussing this opportunity with me. Btw, pls send a full prospectus, tax filings, and your expense reports for the last 2 years. Are you planning on selling shares? If so pls provide S-1 filing. If nonprofit, pls provide Form 990 or 990PF. Thanks.

Hmm. I didn't think Polaris was #4. Better pay more attention. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. --Kriegskoenig, Minister of Peace ...We've always been allied with Eurasia.

I agree that overtly plotting against your allies is pretty bad, but mate, for you to be the one saying that, REALLY? You pulled Kastor into your alliance, and let him have a role there, immediately after we dumped him for EXACTLY that kind of behavior...literally asking an alliance to, and I quote, "betray" their ally. We don't tolerate dishonorable, faithless, and reckless behavior, and we appreciate those who understand what it means to honor their word, regardless of personal cost. On the other hand, if you are overtly discussing who to attack next, and someone decides to hit you before you try to form a big coalition to hit them, well, I think they've made a smart move. I wouldn't consider it exactly a friendly gesture to be discussing, in-depth, not merely whether an alliance is a threat to you but whether and how to plan an attack on them. Hypothetical or not, those kind of logs don't arise from a momentary checkup on the status of your relationship to TKR. Now, as for your second attempt at moral equivalence, Polaris trashtalked TGH? Hmmmmmm. When would that be, and where was there any suggestion of hitting TGH, plotting to roll TGH, or hypothetically discussing hitting TGH? I'd be quite amused to see what you can come up with to justify that. Either TGH is way too credulous or deeply paranoid. I'm guessing paranoid; with the cast of derelicts that quickly assembled under TGH's roof, it'd make sense that you'd constantly be looking over your shoulder, but I think you had a lot more reason to be paranoid of other alliances that had a good CB on you.

Excellent. I've not presumed to put words in your mouth, thus the excess of "maybes" and "ors" in what I said. Crimes by Nazis against those who were born Jewish, crimes by soviets against those born Cossack or Polish. Same-Same. Not on the same plane? Seriously? In no way, shape, or form? That's quite a statement. Quite a reach. Quite an OVERreach, tbh. I'd like to see it defended rationally. And yes, my points re: Rommel apply equally to the many Soviet officers who were brilliant, career-motivated, and overlooked serious problems with the regime in their own interest. (FYI, I admire a number of Soviet military figures, despite the evils of their regime.) But I'm not the one suggesting your symbolism is deeply inappropriate and you should be censured or banned for using it, am I? That'd have been you, speaking about the symbolism of the Afrika Corps. I could not have painted a better picture of double standards had I spent several hours trying to find one. Thank you.

Oh, @durmij don't play into childishness. Your own behaviors and symbolism appear to mark you as a either a selective apologist for genocide and political purges, or someone who fails to recognize a double standard. "Fine for me, but not for thee," is hardly an appropriate stance to take on mass murder. The flag attached to your profile here bears the symbols of the regime that ordered the Red Terror, Lenin's Hanging Order, the anti-Cossack genocide, the Great Purge, the Katyn and Khatyn massacres, and the mass deportations of ethnic minorities. Either you are, by your own statements, supporting these actions, or you are recognizing something you admire in the regime and using the symbolism for that purpose. You're merely fortunate that by through a twist of history, thorough western hypocrisy, and cynical American complicity in covering up Soviet crimes and genocides, the symbol is not regarded as being as evil as a swastika: arguably, it should be.

Let's not slide into Germanophobia or German collective guilt simply because we cannot comprehend more than a simplistic view of human nature and the Second World War. There were criminals, rapists and murderers on both sides. War is ugly, and the chivalrous version in which no surrendering soldier is executed really barely exists. "War crimes" are commonplace in a close war. Genocide is much more rare. That being said, we should examine Erwin Rommel on his merits, and by his actions as a man of the time, rather than through the lens of all-knowing hindsight and anti-Nazi fervor. In so doing, we should remember that much of the US and European population ALSO admired Hitler in the early years, before knowing what he would do, that few believed that the camps were to be used for killing, and that until the first American troops arrived at the camps, we had no concept of how incomprehensibly horrible the hidden evils were. Of war crimes, Rommel was not guilty. He is known to have insisted on fair and honorable treatment of captured enemies. Rommel was neither a member of the Nazi party nor an adherent to it, rejecting some of its core philosophies and finding himself at extreme odds with the core of the party. Of greed, egotism, and hubris, Rommel was thoroughly guilty. He supported Hitler, a man whom he deeply appreciated for his own career advancement, but then conspired to kill the man when he thought Hitler's policies would lead to disastrous defeat. Rommel was an excellent field general, but, I suspect, not a man whom you would wish to have as a friend. His ambition, lust for glory, and love of militarism, chivalry and aristocracy led him into a number of poor decisions and, in the end, possibly to his death. It is unknown whether Rommel knew he was suggested as the replacement leader of Germany after Hitler's assassination in the 20 July plot, but had he known, it is likely he would more readily have agreed to the plot. It is known that it took him some time to agree to the plot, and that he did it in the belief that it was better for Germany to remove Hitler. Rommel apparently wanted Hitler brought to trial, but recognized the impossibility of arresting the (then) very popular leader with his very tight security. Rommel is known to hate despised the SS and the SA, and to have intervened against the SA after some of their attacks on Jews. However, it is likely that he was motivated rather by a preference for order and legal means of action than hatred for anti-semitism. It is likely that Rommel knew something, at least, of the SS-guided "Final Solution" and the death camps, though it is impossible to say how much he knew of what happened in the camps. It speaks in favor of Rommel that he was hated by the SS and the core of the Nazi party, but the reasons are likely to have been rivalry for Hitler's favor rather than any direct opposition by Rommel to their treatment of the Jewish population. Rommel was, by most accounts, a good general and a decent man, although he certainly had faults. If he ignored whatever he knew of the plight of Europe's Jewish population in favor of the Nazi party's glorification of militaristic tradition and the image of chivalry, I would not be surprised. It is telling that his inspiration for joining the 20 July plot was allegedly to save Germany from Hitler's reckless war decisions, rather than personal moral objections to any policies. Who knows what Rommel's end would have been had he not been arrested and forced into suicide. He would likely have escaped Nuremberg alive, but no doubt his reputation would have been irrevocably damaged. He benefits from the doubt today, as a man cannot be proved to have known of the destruction of Europe's Jewish population, and a man who died as a result of his attempt to end Hitler. I would not call him a German hero, but neither would I call him a true Nazi. He is certainly no worse than many of the other figures of history who ignored evils when it suited their ambitions. If that makes him and his celebrated military command impossible to use as a theme, we must also censure and erase all reference to Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Rodrigo Duterte, Winston Churchill, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and many others. There are certainly toxic players and ideas in PnW. One need only explore Discord to find them. But the difference between a theme reflecting one of the most recognizable elite fighting units of WWII, and overtly voicing support for genocide and extermination of entire people-groups, is vast indeed. I hope we have not become so simplistic and foolish as to be unable to recognize the brilliance of men such as Adolf Galland, an excellent pilot and chivalrous man who nonetheless killed other men in service of an expansionary evil empire.

Errr....yeah, that ain't one of ours. Sorry folks, you've been snookered.

Congrats! Should be a relatively good size, you'll have some weight to throw around now. @Cynic look at me while I acknowledge you, grumpy fella!

Bruh. M8. Boii. Son, I am disappoint. Did you REALLY think you were the nano I mentioned? That's deserving of a true Picard triple-facepalm. Look at the post again. Elysium. 11 members. 507 avg score. 5572 total score. Boy, get you some specs and reading comprehension. Now, since you've asked, I congratulate Frostbite and Defcon 1 on building a decent low-mid-tier alliance. Have you been in a good war yet? Got curbstomped yet? Let me know when you've been hit by bigger blocs of alliances twice, we'll check out your score then and see if your members have the same spine as ours. Until then, keep your boasting a little hushed and prepare yourselves for the storms that all larger alliances seemingly must partake of. Be careful, be thoughtful, be prepared, and have some serious balls-to-the-wall members, or you'll go the way of Cerberus, Night's Watch, and many other FORMER top-40 alliances. Best of luck. Do stop making assumptions so easily, it makes you look oversensitive and defensive, as if you feel insecure or inadequate, while I'm sure you have a great deal of confidence in your members and their capability to keep growing.

*Yawn* Is anything this old and mild really 'news'? Is anything involving nanoalliances really news? Come on, newpaper boiis. Do better. BE better. Make better choices.

Are you not entertained? Let the gladiator arena begin. ...also, who's going to be the bookie for our bets?

This. This is fun. Religious wars when? ?

.... I thought this was already over. Anywho, uh...Congrats on Peace, folks. Please sell me food at $70 now?

*They're Thanks, that's all.

Congrats @Quichwe10 and @HannaH. I don't know the rest of you so...*insert vague hand-waving speeches here*

If you're asking Buorhann for enlightenment, I suspect you'll be waiting a looooooong time.

But dem boiis kin lern 2 speel gud l8r? And punctuate. And generally be literate, intelligent, wise, honorable gentlemen. ... I can't even say it with a straight face. No, let's not kid ourselves, it's too late for them already.

Why not, @Smith? Just don't assume I won't shoot Squeegee in the back now...

And this is the most succinct explanation. This is more about building trust and bridges than it is about rolling Arrgh. In fact, Polaris alone could have rolled all of Arrgh's members who were not on beige, with the possible exception of Bluebear. It wouldn't be the first time, either. We did it very successfully once before, until Arrgh went and got TEst to come bail them out. TEst is gone now. Partisan's Final Joke is not half the dragon that TEst was, and they seem to be willing to keep out of this. The reality is that Orbis has been severely divided into completely separate spheres of influence for too long. Mass quantities of treaties WERE preventing movement. There has been an attitude of complete distrust or hatred, although arguably irrational, toward members of another bloc simply because of who their allies were, and because of old grudges. People change. Alliances change. If your alliance lives long enough, you will see your brothers become your enemies, and your enemies become your brothers. Those with whom you've warred to the death turn out to be real people with morals and ethics, and real reasons for their actions. We should all be open to learning about each other, supporting goals and morals we can agree upon, and respecting each other even when our disagreements lead to war. I will admit that I am not immune to shortsightedness and suspicion, or treating historical enemies as permanent ones. I am not a saint. I ask only that you hear my words and judge for yourselves. We have taken the step of trusting another alliance's word--one that has been a historical enemy--that their buildup was in fact for a joint project. Could TKR have hit and rolled Polaris with their buildup? Quite possibly. And I am willing to admit having MDPs to rely on does make that trust easier for me personally. But I would not see us refuse the hand of friendship in a small matter when it is offered as a gesture of brotherhood against a common aggressor. Perhaps small issues may be resolved by other means than war. Perhaps we should have allies, not based on who is going to help us attack and defeat those alliances we see as our rivals, but based on common beliefs and core principles. War will never end whether on Earth, or in Orbis. But it need not be sought for petty causes. There is always a cost to war, and the efforts should be spent well. I will always prefer the just war against a transgressor to any war of conquest or dominance. Your view of what a transgressor is may differ, as Arrgh's does from ours. In that case, we may one day stand on opposite sides of the battlefield. I merely ask that we be rational beings, and at least learn who they are that we are told are the enemy, and decide for ourselves. 6 Hours ago, Bourhann said: I don't even know who you are. Perhaps you could change that. Feel free to chat me up! You'll find I have no irrational hatred of you, and that I am quite willing to hear all about your ethics and ideals.

My pip says I'm in a bloc? I think you read that wrong. Perhaps you mean Polaris, the alliance. In that case, you're free to have your opinion, and welcome to it. Also--and I can't believe I have to say this again--My good sir, your pip references an alliance which does not exist. I believe it was rolled to dust and disbanded by...hmmm...wait, was that TKR? My god, your saltiness suddenly makes so much more sense. Please change your pip to an alliance that exists. Orbis thanks you for letting the dead rest in peace, and not clinging to ghosts.

I think they're jealous. Maybe they need some attention? Bourhann...Lemme help you out. Your pip says MensaHQ...and that's not a thing anymore. Pls change it.

@Smith THAT is what we needed. Actual, solid evidence with names attached. BasH, there, is Bastion/Wall/Eric. When was that taken? This is probably the best one yet, and most recent, warmest smoking gun. Better than what I have from April. Obviously if this is still being posted in October, he hasn't reformed.

I think it's symbolic, Kosmo, but I'm not sure. Not a bad movement to start, if it is! And @James II I know you're pretty heated over the abuse you guys have dealt with, but I appreciate the exchange of ideas and debate. And @Rozalia you really should have dropped them. They're not worth it, and as much as you love controversy sometimes you pick bad fights. This is one, IMO. They're not harmed for life by being run out of a game where they made themselves an abomination. At least after their leaders PUBLICLY called Gabranth a traitor for apologizing, it should have been clear.

I think you've misunderstood: I don't think, and did not say, that discord is unrelated to gameplay. Roz may, but that's not a contention I'd support. On the other hand, I can understand Alex not enforcing his rules on Discord as he does on the forums and in-game. It'd be too much work and controversy. He certainly has banned any nazi-related in-game "speech," but I don't think we can fairly ask him to enforce that on Discord. Do we, the players, want to enforce that via war? Should we? Should we be allowed to? That's where most of us and Roz apparently differ.

Assumptions are sloppy thinking and intellectually dangerous. You know, we the players can have intellectual disagreements, and make our cases on OWF, without devolving into ungentlemanly behaviors. Nobody needs to lie, twist others' words, or devolve into childish insults. And yes, I know that's what the OWF IS, but that's not what it should be. Roz is as guilty of massive spin as Kosmo. At the point it becomes an OOC personal attack based on your disagreement with someone's philosophy, you've obviously gone too far. Roz can believe he has an obligation to protect players' ability to engage in controversial speech, essentially making the gamespace American in nature. You can believe in your right to coercively censor that speech by punishing it via gameplay for being unacceptable in society. Great: you now have a perfect situation for Politics and War. Argue over it, work it out, or fight it out. On the other hand, labelling Roz, personally, a nazi when he has repeatedly overtly mocked and argued against their beliefs (crude as you may find some of his own) is careless at best, and likely slanderous. Demanding that he respond to your accusations when there is much public evidence against them is unlikely to gain you much. Let's keep this on a higher level and not make it personal, or at least not disingenuous. We can criticize Roz for many things before you need to start pulling up "Nazi!" from the bottom of the barrel as an accusation.