Shadowthrone

TMC broke the NAP the moment they hit BoC, even if the NAP extends to them. BoC is protected by Camelot. It's quite straightforward heh.

TMC hit BoC. Peace was offered to pay the reps/etc for mass escalation. They then called in NP to roll BoC, that activated Camelot's treaty. Camelot's MDoAP with BK was invoked. BK holds a MADP with GOONS/NPO that is chaining, and voila here we are. We are here to defend Camelot's interests.

He also embezzled a tonne of everyone else's money that was entrusted to him, to pay off debts he had taken from other people, and then attempted to pressurise Coal B with his log dump lol. Dude's pissed off a variety of folks who for the most bit of his PnW gaming experience, was with him, promoted him and dealt with him as an RL friend, for an in-game 15 minutes of fame. It's always good to roll those.

TMC got involved in this war, and chains were invoked on their war of aggression. The NAP isn't touched. The war isn't with Fark.

Hasn't happened and won't happen. Again we have no beef with Fark and they haven't taken aggressive actions against us ever. I don't see why we'd rock the boat.

I for one am glad that Pestilence left BK. I do enjoy having him on our roll list. More targets good.

Yay! This is good.

If pointing out how retconning awards and disenfranchising players is problematic leads to such salt, I'm glad to continue doing so

You're starting to sound like TKR and Coal A. Oh my, was Jazz just playing us all ?

I'm sorry didn't know official diplomatic policy should be allowed by TKR now? Would you folks get over your entitled high horse? @Kevanovia cute. I didn't know Coalition A represents the community now.

To insinuate that our memberships are somehow less free, and have less knowledge because they think and act differently to your opinions is an interesting insinuation. I did not know you had access to how the NPO and our internals function. Our members are free to hold their own opinions and act in any way they see fit. They are not less free just because they are not in TKR. The inequities being? That some alliances have members who like to vote/participate, while some don't have that. So penalising people who turn up to take part in an open awards process is alright, as long as Coalition A wins stuff. Got it. It pretty much is an attempt to retcon, however you try to package it. You folks believe that somehow an open voting, open nomination system is flawed and are trying your best to cut that down so your friends and yourselves can set up exclusive "community" awards. Feel free to host a Coalition A awards thing if you want to win stuff that badly. Just do not try to claim that any exclusionary system devised by you folks is the fairest representation for the rest of us. Because as we've pointed out, any process that tries to undo or change a completely open process is a legitimisation of the exclusionary nature of what you're trying to do here.

The point isn’t whether we’re invited or not. It’s literally the premise of closed nominations and some weight age system to undo an open nomination/polling system. That’s literally exclusionary when it’s a cabal of leaders who are somehow better positioned to decide IC awards. But nice to see that point fly over everyone’s head and think this is about the NPO or something.

Yes because arguing against the exclusion of the community at large is entitlement. I have no idea where this has anything to do with the NPO being a victim, but its nice of you to see it that way. This whole "elite" alliance leaders deciding things for everyone else is the fundamental problem with this and is inevitably a circle jerk for folks to try and undo results that they have no control over. In fact no one has control over an open nomination/voting process which will and should always be the process if its representing the PnW community at large. A secret cabal of players should not decide on the legitimacy of stuff and disenfranchise everyone else. If that's a toxic position I really can't help it. Yes because an OOC community event based on IC political events is somehow solely OOC. That logic doesn't fly mate, but its nice to question the logic of folks and being called cancerous for it. Here have a gold star. Again I do enjoy how some of you have taken upon yourselves to define your community as the gold standard for selection of things when there are those who are against an exclusivity criteria when it comes to these events. It's a political simulator. It's an event that's dealing with IC politics. It kind of by nature political. Especially if its an attempt at retconning recent results, it most definitely is political. But trying to use this whole "this is only OOC" as a cudgel is absurd. Feel free to host a Coalition A awards ceremony in your own time and don't claim it to be representative of Orbis at large. I have no idea how disagreeing with this is suddenly OOC beef. It's just a terrible idea, and legitimising exclusion principles for community awards is by nature a terrible step to undertake.

More well rounded than folks actually being able to nominate anyone? Interesting logical leap there again. As I recall, that's literally the present system and it works just fine. I've joined the conversation here and pointed out how any new system suggested simply doesn't work. Feel free to keep brushing it off, doesn't make your system any less exclusionary or disenfranchising/penalising the community at large though.

But for once I'm supporting something you wrote, friend.

So you agree with him, by suggesting a closed off cabal that decides for everyone else. Interesting. A fun exclusive OOC event that is somehow meant to be held in a vacuum over IC events of the past year and retain all objectivity. That's some interesting logic there. I mean joining your server and stating these same points for tokenism is fine and dandy or you know pointing out the issues in your official post does literally the same thing. I've engaged with you in telling you how exactly creating an exclusionary event does not promote fun or inclusive anything. It's literally done three days after because some of you are unhappy at losing stuff, and it comes out every year after the players who do turn up to vote are now suddenly meant to be penalised for doing so. If the goal is to penalise everyone who did turn up to vote because they did so, and it was more than those from your alliance/allies, this sounds like a great idea. I mean the very next post in that thread I linked has Partisan suggesting the same thing I am, and a host of us agree with. Simple, transparent, open nominations, open voting, and longer discussions of stuff is such a simpler, fairer system than some complicated effort at suppressing the community at large, to suit your own ends.

My entire argument is invalid because I don't see a problem with the present system and literally explained it out here? Glad to hear! The circus of the absurd seems to be getting more absurd day by day. I don't see problems with the system to spend time trying to find a "fairer" or better solution. None exists that isn't inherently exclusionary. I don't see the point joining a discord server to say these exact same lines. I mean if you want to argue for the sake of opposing me feel free. Maybe you'll read this post and see why it's preposterous to think there's some better system than a completely open one as done presently. Nice to see your veneer of "fairness" and "objectivity" finally slipping though.

Imagine reaching out after the fact you announce an entire system made up of TKR, OWR and CoS. Yes. But I mean I don't even care enough who makes up the team or not. The awards are already within a fair framework open to everyone in the game. That is most definitely representative of my alliance, and to be quite honest, representative of my actual opinion. You and your lot have for the better part of three years tried your best to disenfranchise change a completely fair system the moment TKR started losing out on it. That's just something as Curu pointed out, normal behaviour from quite a few folks who find it easier to blame a completely fair/open system and arguing it needs to be closed down in favour of them. I'd love to buy your arguments of objectivity but its quite doubtful to expect leaders to be "objective" about any of this lol. I do enjoy you quoting CM/Teaspoon. Simply put all they had to do was participate in it. It's not really that hard. Thats why this format is far better than most other things. Also its cute you think a transparent system that one can't vote for themselves somehow can't be gamed. Friends vote for friends, regardless and this system only further skews that to backroom circle jerks. It delegitimises the rest of the game so that Coalition A can finally win what you believe you are entitled to. The community at large I daresay disagrees. A circle jerk of leaders disagreeing doesn't somehow delegitimise all of those who turned up to vote. This is so screwed up on so many levels its not even funny. So a group of people decide the performance for everyone else? And this system some how isn't prone to be gamed by those leaders who are friends with one another to further skew awards? This is laughable at best. Yeah just have friends vote for you, and vice versa. This is totally a better system. There is nothing here that needs any improvement. I don't see why I'd have to join a predefined circle jerk to state the same things I can confidently say publicly. There is nothing to improve in the present system. It's the fairest, most diverse, open system. Your ideas of excluding everyone else in the nominating process, disenfranchising voters and the 9950 other players who play the game, and leave the power to decide things in the hands of people who just happen to be game "leaders" is inherently wrong in a community event. By closing it off, and trying to build a cabal of circle jerks to decide for everyone else on how the year went, is by far one of the more absurd ideas I've heard. I didn't know taking time post serious responses about this is now whining.

Hey! A secret cabal of folks are by far the best deciders of who deserves stuff. It's clearly not filled with bias, completely objective and extremely participative! You heard it here first! Next time someone tells you that disenfranchisement is a great idea because they know better, it has nothing to do with the entitlement they believe they deserve. Its all to be fair and protect the rest of us!

Not really. It most definitely is about in-game politics. You lost the awards, so the system is now broken. I have 0 reason in changing the present system of one person, one vote since its the most fair, least exclusionary and most enfranchising system that one can get on deciding Community Awards. Anything else is open to subjective biases, especially a jury/secret cabal of IC political leaders. I mean come on, do you seriously expect me to think you would suddenly be objective and no bias whatsoever would turn up in your decisions with that kind of power? I don't think anyone here can willingly state the same. The present system works best, I've been saying this for years now and I see no reason to change it whatsoever. Nice try. False. The system was reversed for a couple of years. Guess what we stepped up and ensured that within the present system things change. It isn't particularly hard, given how the system is far fairer than any other secret cabal. Lol. There is no fairer system than one person one vote. But good try trying to call the disenfranchisement of people as a "fair system". No. Again wrong. Any exclusionary cabal of folks deciding who deserves something isn't how something should be decided. The choices available weren't particularly terrible and if anyone had problems with it, they were free to nominate choices as they saw fit. See that's the great thing about a simple, open for all, fair system. It's the same rules for everyone, and nothing is exclusionary about it. Any change to that is something you believe would help your side win more awards. Its absolutely silly to paint it as anything else.

Unless one is fine with the most open, least exclusionary system of selection of awards, which I am. There is not much to discuss in terms of a "better" system, because the best system exists in that it isn't discriminatory in nature to any player. It is one player, one vote, and open for all. What exactly needs to be changed with that? Again those who complained seemed to come mainly from Coalition A. Feel free to organise yourselves better to vote, rather than trying to decide what's best for everyone else through secret, exclusionary high level cabals that penalises everyone else.

I'd buy it, except for the fact it comes right after the awards for 2019 is over and folks seem unhappy with the results. Secondly, any system that's inherently exclusionary/ deciding for the rest of the community is simply attempts at taking a community affair into backroom politics. The simplest and most open of systems will always be better in these cases. It's the fundamental premise + timing that I disagree with. Again I do enjoy the magically new platform coming two days after folks lose stuff. I really do enjoy these intellectual exercises of trying to find the "right balance" for selection of awards, but leaving it to a high-level panel of politically involved leaders is open to far more bias/disenfranchising folks, than any other system with regards to these yearly community awards.

The vast majority of those complaints are from Coalition A, for not being able to win stuff. It looks like a retcon attempt because a free for all voting system doesn't suit your needs, so tailor-make one that has least openness and built to exclude/disenfranchise folks accordingly. I do enjoy the gerrymandering attempts though. This most definitely seems to be a one-sided affair, but again, try again next year!