Shadowthrone

There are none. Our actions aren't based off secret treaties. Again I've explained our reasoning. You just don't like it, but it had nothing to do with a secret treaty with BK. This is what Edward is pointing out as the pigeonhole you keep trying to force us into. We're not here to promote the aesthetics of something, at the cost of our safety and security. If there is a threat, we will deal with it, aesthetics be damned. I doubt you going your own ways. Nevertheless, we aren't going to leave our safety in your hands, in the belief that KETOGG/Chaos will keep their word of breaking apart post war. That's a fools errand, and leaving our safety in the hands of someone else, is something we'd prefer not having it come to. Thanks. Looking forward to continuing to do the same I mean supplementary questions are always fair in any discussion Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. I mean is it too early to state minispheres have always been a terrible idea, and bound to fail due to its own dogma? Also the reason I specifically ask for a repudiation of such statements is to circle back to the point of toxicity and hostility shown on the boards regarding the war. Not repudiating such statements, only continues to build the toxicity from the war, which was a topic of discussion a few pages ago. Such antagonism while denied, and not repudiated could be effectively argued as tacit approval for the statements but the lack of necessary military power to carry out the proclaimed intent. I mean, I'll gladly repudiate any NPO'er and Government official who posts with a serious intent to scorch the earth/disband and politically neuter alliances in public but that's a subjective standard I imagine.

So Sketchy's statement of intent is not the coalition's or TGH's intent and your coalition repudiates his statement?

I see, should probably have Akuryo stop going around posting those as terms and then claiming to be in servers with coalition gov regarding this stuff. Probably you know ideal to clarify that, since what Akuryo said isn't the first time I've heard about those terms.

I mean we had all of Knightfall and post Knightfall. So that's October 2018 - June 2019. I guess the problem came down to a lack of will on either side which is fair. But I don't believe any concrete offer was made in earnest or significance. The only other offer we had was to roll BK, which we kindly turned down since we weren't interested at the time. Because I've made it clear its coalition decision and pointed out that Sphinx/Aragorn stating what they'd like to see is simply that. I'm hearing nothing from your side, and no significant repudiation of those comments from anyone else from the coalition. You may feel its an insignificant matter to have other members of coalition repudiate, but to us, its a sign of tacit support from others for the same. Straight forward question, does your coalition as a whole concur with Sketchy's view on a scorched earth and burning NPO/BK permanently? Till there's a clarification from say other members of your coalition, like I offered to your to clear that up, I'm hard pressed to believe that there is no tacit support for said demand. That's literally what Akuryo claimed was your coalition demand in the public PnW discord a couple of days ago. I have the screenie somewhere, I'll post it up when I find it. Akuryo stated the original terms before NPO entered was punitive reps and revenge KF terms from what was spoken about in your coalition server.

That's categorically false. Being the first one to post about the tS-NPO agreement in public, I always mentioned it was our agreement with Kayser, not BK. Continuing to side with them? Again, we wouldn't be siding with them if it was not in our interests. In this circumstance it is. Tomorrow it may not be. That's the nature of not being allied with BK

Inst isn't high government of the NPO. I'm curious to see who this high government member you're quoting, since that'd be news to me. We fully expected to be countered by KT/TGH and the coalition as a whole, but I mean being prepared for it, does not mean we expanded to hit TGH/KT first. Our DoW mentions TKR, our entrance was on TKR, we fully expected counters and when they came, dealt with it at a case by case basis. We were prepared to be countered. We knew what we were walking into. The coalition had what lesser planes than Coalition A, and we knew fully well that this would be painful for a while. My specific point though is, KT/TGH don't have treaty ties with TKR, if they were expanding because we expanded from GG, it's their right, but thats the decision they made, and it wasn't us hitting them. That's a specific technicality I'm pointing out that folks seem to gloss over. I mean its not paranoid nuttery. But looking at the rest of the post, the tS/HS plan we pointed out was problematic in and off itself and Roq has argued why so. We received information that TKR wished to hold BK down and then swing around to hitting us. This could mean two things: 1) they expand the present war, which would give them a first strike advantage, moreover, with the rest of Coalition B, defeated or within the grind, we'd be on our own or 2) the coalition would continue post war, and hit N$O, and given that under your own admission, the only peace terms for Coalition B would be punitive reps and revenge for KF, we'd have no one to lean on for support to deal with the numbers potentially arrayed against the N$O. So that was an important discussion we had. If its case 1, all we had was the promise of Thrax I think to Sisyphus at the time, that there would be no further expansion. In case 2, it was the "word" of the coalition to break up post war. Now in case 1, we can give some credence to the word given it'd be a massive overextension if they break that agreement. Case 2, was something that was problematic for us by a mile. Firstly, I don't trust Chaos/KETOGG enough to take your word for no paperless/automatic withdrawal of the coalition post war. Moreover, you needn't really need paperless, if you had Rose, who seems to roll whenever KETOGG does, and whenever Abbas is active, seems to be someone that pulls in old crew EMC more often than not. That was a circumstance not under our control. Moreover, given that any bulwark to maintain that balance, was damaged and either facing punitive terms/reps and unable to fight/defend anyone else, it'd mean we're by ourselves dealing with two spheres + Rose. Thats a scenario we weren't particularly interested in facing. So case 2, was based of a lot of "trust" and "faith" in your words, none of which was deserved and none of which would be given. So yes, we did indeed fear TKR and Chaos. The discussions on TKR's intentions to me by folks made it clear, it's a problem and that problem affected the security and the existence of the NPO. The latter may seem paranoid nuttery, but given Sketchy's posts here, I guess you can see why that fear exists. Given following case 1, could lead to disastrous consequences for us, it made logical sense to hit TKR when the opportunity arose. If TKR had made it clear from the get-go that their beef was BK and Adrienne wasn't busy talking to people about NPO's hand in it, and how she hopes tS will keep us out long enough to roll us later on, gave us sufficient reason and a credible threat to expand our hit on TKR. You can call this clever, I call this a logical analysing of the situation and threat perceptions with the information we had. We're not particularly interested to be beholden to promises/words from people who have no need to back them up, given they aren't allied to us. Rolling the minisphere in pieces was a net lose-lose situation and hence we decided to roll the dice, knowing fully well the consequences of our actions. But our safety/security required that and we did it. The logs released by Dio were given to us after the fact we entered the war actually. They were shared to showcase how Adrienne was lying to a lot of folks with her intentions and outright lied to Dio. I mean she has no interests to be truthful with plotting to roll IQ, but the logs themselves are not why we hit. The specific IQ-plotting logs of Adrienne, proved to us the narratives regarding TKR and their leaders and only cemented the distrust, but was never our motivation for war. Our motivations stemmed from looking at the cases and the information we were given regarding Adrienne specifically discussing how NPO's somehow connected to a BK plot on TKR. I mean we're more or less back to 220k planes~ Our strategy was to hit TKR and deal with whatever happens next. If your coalition decided to blow their load focusing on us, and reducing us to what 70/80k planes and allowed the rest of Coalition B to rebuild, that is incidental but I mean yeah. We knew what we could do, we did it, and here we are. If you're attributing your own views to what happened, fair enough. But I have no real comments regarding this. The CB isn't a lie. We have the information, we vetted it, we went with it. Your refusal to believe it, does not make it any less true. I mean paranoia is an interesting term to ascribe to individuals who have little information but makes decision regarding a community of 100+ members and their security in this world. We may never have perfect information, and this information asymmetry is something that must always be counted when making a monumental decision, such as going to war in this specific conflict. What we can do, is delve into the options before us, based on the information we have and pick actions that could best protect our community. So does that make us paranoid? I don't know. But I sure as hell waste enough time attempting to predict the course of actions taken by most major alliances in this game, and after a few years at it, especially with similar players in leadership positions, makes it very easy to do so. There are only so many actions/wars/battles/games that can be played when we have similar set of leaders/actors for years. This is not a criticism of tenured leaderships, but more a statement of fact. So sometimes imperfect information can be solved through predictions, based off past patterns of behaviour and work out well for those who attempt to do that.

Yes Sketchy sinking ships and burning everyone involved with us, isn't a threat to our existence whatsoever. Good attempt at trying to deflect though. We never have had hegemonic ambitions and none of our actions has ever led to that. That being said, it's chill that you're not walking back your words. @Hodor here mate, tell me why again we have to somehow give you the benefit of the doubt when your leader has no interest to deny he's not out to disband/scorch the earth with regards to the NPO?

Your arguments for disbanding alliances are toxic and hostile. Like I pointed out earlier, we haven't lied. We based our actions on the facts that have been laid out before us. You can choose to ignore the facts, or choose not to believe the reasons we expanded the war to TKR. As I pointed out earlier, before our expansion was solely TKR since that is where our CB lay. You're free to counter for you coalition mate and I'm not dissing you for it. But making it clear, we expanded in our official DoW to TKR. I don't remember including KT/TGH in it, but you decided to focus on us. That is a technicality rather than a specific grouse/issue. I mean there hasn't been any serious reaching out in the last few months, and neither have we reached out. I just don't see where we had mutual interests at the given time. But that doesn't mean we're antagonistic towards you either. We've not really done anything to spit on your face. We're in this war because TKR was hoping to use the predicament to roll us. The point regarding minispheres is far more nuanced than what you're attempting to point here. When I was part of signing up for it, the idea that was agreed principally that the consolidation of two or more spheres is a threat to the idea itself. If the counter point is BKsphere/blob was too large and needed such numbers, I posit multiple reasons for that: 1) The actions of Chaos specifically Soup hitting Fark at the start of minispheres ensures that folks who remain outside or are too small by themselves, will be hit. There are alliances who do not wish to be pinatas for the fun of KETOGG or Chaos. 2) The idea of minispheres requires balance. As long as individuals are allowed to hit whomever might be too small to defend themselves but have a right to exist, they will seek protection from any and all larger alliances willing to offer that protection. In this case it was BK. The security umbrella they built through Citadel and tying up with tC simply existed because those alliances aren't interested in being your weekly statpads to pat yourselves on the back for being great military fighters. 3) If the threat of war, or security through a larger party was the option, a rational actor would choose the latter. If minispheres are to exist, it requires maturity in the nature of war and not weekly/monthly beatdowns to make someone feel happy that they've done a war. At the end of the day, the failure of minispheres as an idea is due to a comprehensive failure of every sphere to push the idea forward while ignoring how rational actors would function to protect their communities. Far too often folks have pushed that idea as a cudgel to weaken their opponents while maintaining unofficial ties in the case of Rose always rolling with KT/TGH 99% of the time Abbas is alive and kicking in the game, and a seeming affinity for folks to keep these going. If one side is constantly doing it, I'd posit it's only natural others may think of competing in the said grand politics to ensure their security is protected. At the end of the day, minispheres can exist so long as people aren't rolled for existing. Until that maturity exists, minispheres fail due to folks forgetting the security paradox leaders have to constantly face in protecting their communities from constant warring and seemingly persecution, like in the case of Sketchy calling for the disbandment of communities or perma war because he's salty one morning. Until folks start acting differently, one cannot expect the others act differently. But I mean this parallels real world theories regarding IR, since unilateral changes in action may backfire tremendously. So at this moment we're in a loop of security vs security on different sides of the game, with 0 trust/faith in between and I'm fine with that. But to argue that KETOGG/Chaos haven't added to the toxic failure of this idea, is your shirking your responsibility for the meta of the game you seem to keep proclaiming to defend.

I will also tell you as pointed out earlier, we're a coalition, send your offer to the coalition and let us discuss it. If you're point is there will be no negotiations ever, that's on you. If Sphinx wants your surrender, he can bring it up and it'll be discussed as with any proposal put forth by you. The coalition and its representatives decide. Until and unless Sphinx is the sole representative of our entire coalition, as declared by the entire coalition, there isn't really much of a debate. You literally mentioned in the portion I quoted and wrote that response for, that we would never flip damages. I outlined extensively why the metric you seem to be using, fails to take into account damage already been done, and that if that's the metric you're expecting us to go off, how it's fundamentally flawed. I doubt the tone of the post was antagonistic by any means. But I mean, if that's the response I get, I'll have to live with it. Go for it. Being involved in the planning and execution of this war to some extent, I can point out that the material you have does not really discredit the whale portion. Our arguments against low infra whales are two fold and depends on the context itself. If we were awaiting to be struck by the low infra whales later on in the war, with no support, it'd be problematic. But if we used our position to hit them first and attempt to control, we'll be where we are today. But to argue that somehow low infra whales is the sole motivator for our entrance in the war, is easy enough, it doesn't cover our reason for the war entirely. If reopening discussions on our CB is toxic, fair enough, but I fail to see how that really is a toxic discussion to be had. But I guess it's a tangent to the main thrust of your argumentation. I haven't switched my argument. I've always maintained, if you want peace, send your offer to the coalition. The coalition will decide and respond. You're hiding under the umbrella of but "Sphinx said this, so I can't open negotiations." I'm pointing out, that logic is inherently flawed. Sphinx is a leader, and is one of the multiple leaders within a big-tent coalition, of different view points and designs on peace. If/when you decide to open the negotiations with the coalition as a whole, depending on where/when it starts, I imagine you'll have the process in place accordingly. Given that the negotiations haven't officially begun and heck we haven't even begun to seriously consider it, I find your argument here a grasp at best. No I thin you missed the point. You made a comment on antagonism. I pointed out where, why and how I see it take root and pointed out that both sides are at fault. But the focus of my argument lay in the fact that if you want it to end, there's a lot you can look at what your coalition has done to push that levels of antagonism, and feel free to point out where we've done it. Starting from there, one could go forward and transact an agreement on how to break that cycle. Or was it just an off the cuff remark on antagonism, without understanding how your alliance leader, and quite a few coalition mates have had a large role in the present level of antagonistic feelings here. If you read my post, I never pointed a finger at you, but pointed a myriad of instances from your side of the web. I did so, to respond in earnest to what seemed a serious set of posts, giving you due respect for the same. Let's break this down into its constituent threads. NPO's switch from Guardian/GoB was in a large part due to the threat we faced from Chaos/TKR. The tS/HS/NPO hit on Guardian/GoB was to damage them given how they were continuously above the fray. The specific NPO expansion is because we believed in the threat Chaos/TKR was to the NPO. I'm looking forward to that log dump if you'd please. If I'm here to solely protect BK, it'd have been a much easier war declaration. Given different circumstances, I could see us watching BK burn and doing nothing, but given the lack of faith/trust we have in Adrienne/TKR's word at this point, that option was in and off itself weak at best, and when we received what information we did, we acted. I mean I've repeated that a few posts here in this thread. At the end of the day as Roq pointed it out, you don't like our reason for entering and therefore refuse to believe it. Fine with us, but doesn't change our reason for entering nonetheless. I mean, we expanded the war to TKR solely. If we're getting really technical here, KT/TGH hit us from that expansion. I'm not complaining about it, but to claim we specifically hit KT/TGH/Empyrea would not be entirely true either. I mean if doing my best to explain in detail to Hodor's posts is somehow not good faith, I have no idea what would convince you. But I mean you have spent most of this war trying to portray Roq/myself as deranged liars, so I doubt I should expect anything better from you. With regards to the actual wording, don't think it mentioned tS, but enemies of the Order, but I'll try searching for it through the archives to give you a factual response regarding the post.

I did not. I would prefer if you did not presume what I said, since it comes off as sanctimonious and cheapens your arguments. Sphinx, Aragorn and the operative portions of my rebuttal point to the same strain of logic. We aren't interested in opening peace talks, and are content continuing the war. If you want peace, send your terms through the official channels and the coalition will be alerted and respond as and when that offer is received. If the condition is we're not interested in peace, but if you are and hit us up, guilty as charged. NPO has been net positive continuously since the 10th of July? The last couple of weeks, we've been killing roughly 5x planes of your coalition, in comparison to the planes lost by us. We alone have what the total plane count as your entire coalition and that is giving us control that you do not have. If the question comes to other military units, you may have a solid argument to make regarding that, but I'd say the fact that we have overall control and can switch builds and move into other into the other commons when we desire, gives us unrivaled control and a luxury your coalition does not have at the present moment. Operational control is not to flip damage counts. Firstly, that argument falls flat here because of the following reasons: 1) Given the damages done in Surfs Up and barely any rebuilding, that damage is something your coalition has eaten and hardly recovered from. Expecting us to cover that damage done is unrealistic and disingenuous, given there is nothing there to damage. 2) Our coalition isn't looking to flip damages, since point 1) holds true. What we see is, if the damage done in Surfs Up is added to your damage eaten (given little or no rebuilding for the vast number of members of your coalition), we maybe behind, but not by the sums that you're going off. If 1) and 2) hold good, then we're taking about a few billion in damages that can be done, given we've reached nations on within KETOGG who didn't eat much damage during Surf's Up and therefore that's fresh damage, which gives us enough *actual* damage to flip the total damage done to your side. It may not have been done entirely by us, but that's what you get for trying to run two back to back wars. Damage has been done, you've eaten those losses, and we're nailing you down with more losses your sphere (KETOGG) specifically haven't eaten. That being said, our coalition does not consider the total damage metric as a sign of victory, unless you account for the damage you've already eaten during Surfs Up + the fresh damage this war has done, that gives you the best picture of the total damage your coalition has eaten and therefore the real economic terms of damage you've eaten. If all of that somehow still showcases 350 billion+ in a damage gap, I'd be surprised, but running the plain numbers off the top of my head, I don't think that would be the case. So even then by your own metric, given the real value of damage you've eaten, combined through these set of wars, you're at a far greater handicap. You may respond with the usual "upper" tier argument and I can partly buy that in the case of KETOGG, but Chaos/Rose can't really claim that, unless of course GoB is going to be funding all their rebuilds too, and you've officially moved into a single sphere format. If that's the case, it's fine, but given that we're able to damage GoB, it'll reduce their capabilities to do so, and in the long run, hurt them more than it'd hurt us, since we're basically hitting your piggybank at that point. tl;dr Operational control is all that really matters and given that we have that, we can continue pushing forward and you folks don't have the luxury of responding to the plethora of options available to coalition B. Even if you disagree with that premise, given the damages you've eaten since May, you'd have a far better picture of the real damage done to your coalition, and the gap between ours won't be so wide as you'd like to claim. Any additional damage we do over and above that starting point, is in essence covering the tiers you didn't have an issue with earlier, and that's a huge setback. NPO entered due to the credible threat of Chaos/TKR attempting to hit us, and we have no tools to keep them down if that happened. It isn't solely low whales with no infra. The insecurity you claim that we were worried of, is inherently false and based of your assumptions, that has no rational basis in our operational strategies. Low infra whales and dealing with them is something we've accounted for and don't mind. Your whales aren't thwarting much at this point, and given the extension of this war, it gives us time to switch focuses/strategies as we need to and that is a luxury we enjoy, that you do not. The command of the commons within this game is always important, and as long as we're able to maintain that, low infra whales would not be as big an issue as you seem to be implying. Again if the precondition is when you're ready for peace, send your offer over, then guilty as charged. If there are any other specific conditions, I have heard of none. I have seen Sphinx's screenshot regarding North Point, and he cleared that claim out here in this thread earlier. If you believe Aragorn's implying anything nefarious within his post outside of he's not really keen on peace or offering anything at this moment, but if you are, knock yourself out, feel free to bring those specific issues to my DM's' and that could be easily remedied. I'd say the problem with that statement lies with your coalition in begetting this level of antagonism. We could have been better in answering the said provocations with lesser bravado and counter-threats but alas, when people are pushed with continuous threats of disbandment, rumours regarding reparations/breaking up spheres unilaterally/ punitive terms for some sort of revenge from Knightfall floats around, you wouldn't expect any good to come out of it. Just a couple of nights ago in the PnW discord channel, Akuryo basically flat out stated that the terms were going to be reps/ revenge terms from Knightfall on BK and co. Given that, and given when you were in a position of victory, to come out, with your very own leader calling for disbandment/salt the earth terms that have never really been denied up till last night by your 2IC and I imagine yourself, its hard to believe we'd have to be the "better" people. Like Roq said, when you were in a position of victory, your leaders publicly and privately have stated of wanting to go for the jugular. You have given us no reason to return those proclamations with good will and faith. Moreover, your own coalition has spent time gaslighting and posting OOC nonsense of NPO's Emperor, and given those individuals were enabled and promoted at some level by your very own coalition leaders, it's hard for me to suddenly find kindness in dealing with your coalition. If you want good will, it'd be best trying to build that good will with your opponents, rather than running a toxic and vile attempt at going after Roq in an OOC manner. Yes, the issue might have died down, and it has been a few weeks, but the actions of a few still sting, given in some sense it continued post the said video itself. So if you really want to cut the cycle of antagonism, holding your own coalition leaders to a higher standard would help. If there are grievances against Coalition B leaders, I'm all ears, and I can't promise changing their behaviour much, but sure as hell let them I disapprove of said behaviour. So I mean it works both ways, but here I'm pointing out the specific conditions and a small set of events that your specific coalition has carried out that is a huge sticking point, if you truly want to break this cycle, this a good starting point. EDIT: Apologies for any grammatical errors you may find in the post.

If you don't agree with us, that's your right. But did you first attempt to reach and have us explain things? If yes, then that's okay (even if you disagree with our motivation for the war). If no, continue with your circle jerk, I don't really need to respond to that

I mean I'm quite certain every sentence is logically valid. Far more valid than claiming BK supports slaves. But I mean go on, teach me how to english senpai. That's not true. There's no real fantasy over why we've entered. You can disagree with the reasons, does not make it a "fantasy" lol. I mean that is not true. We entered because we believed in TKR looking to roll us, and had people tell us the same. The question at the end of the day is how much trust/faith you place in the words of folks and in this case, the events made sense. We looked at how things played out and the options on the table and what could happen, and took the one we believe was our best choice. We spoke to tS/HS about it at length, but at the end of the day, we were threatened and took the best option to defend ourselves. No logs of what? My DM's with folks? Those exist, those were shared with relevant parties. I'm not burning friends for your pleasure. Those conversations that were in my DM's were shared and we ran a different set of arguments, looking at our options. Given that non-expansion of the war at that point was counter-productive for our safety, given the knowledge of TKR wanting to eventually swing around to hit us, made us act lol. I'm just posting how things were received by the NPO and how the information added up. Lol. I wish I had a paperless tie to BK at this point just to troll you tbh. But the only agreement that was ever made was something discussed with Kayser on defending mini-spheres, regardless of whom. That went to shit when he went AWOL and seemingly didn't mention it to everyone involved when the sphere was being created. Lessons learnt Lol okay. I mean if you want to start peace talks, feel free to lay your terms to the appropriate parties. Aragorn/Sphinx have spoken what they'd like to have seen, but we're a coalition and at a coalition level is where the peace works. If you want a victory condition, it's quite straight forward. I've always considered operational control as the key factor to deciding a war. We have operational control and access to keep pushing up, while your coalition is on the backfoot, with far lesser number of planes, and definitely not destroying more planes than we're able to rebuy in a day. You aren't able to maintain the said control across the board. While the war is no way yet decided, seeing the trends, I do believe we can maintain operational control and ensure that your nations sit in the grinder for however long you wish them to be there. Given that GoB is sitting pretty and those whales are far too busy hiding from getting down to help folks, and that the only real number of nations left are about 20-25 in Guardian/GoB and about 8-9 coalition wide, its a valid assumption to make that we have the command of the commons as such within this war~ Our assumptions are not incorrect, as much as you'd wish them to be incorrect. There is no level evidence that you'd find acceptable given the fact that we are in the position of warring you. There is no PR to be found within KETOGG/Chaos for the NPO and none that we want either. We believed that TKR posed a threat, we received information regarding their intent, and we acted upon it. It's at the end of the day down whether I believe Adrienne with her word, and I do not. Akuryo asked earlier why I point to Roq agreeing with the information? From my dealings with him for the better portion of the last decade, he's probably the hardest individual I've come across when its dealing with information. Our gov has seen all of the information and it has been vetted and we are in agreement that there was a credible threat. It's not ideal when I had to tell them I don't have the specific logs of Adrienne but there is this information and looking at how the war was playing out, we believed it was credible. It wasn't the easiest decision to make, but I for one have zero regrets and do not believe our information was bad. I mean I haven't seen any precondition here. We aren't interested in approaching y'all for peace yet, and you are content to continue the war, so I don't see where the question of peace arises at the moment. We're content to keep it going as long as you want it, and if you want to start peace talks, feel free to hit up the coalition through official channels. Given how there has been minimal discussion regarding peace and the conditions of it as a coalition wide level outside of jokes/troll terms, I find it weird to assume we have specific preconditions or have designed a set of terms (we have not done either iirc). With regards to the NPO's stance, I'll leave that for Roquentin to answer via the multiple communication channels you have to reach him. I haven't seen any of your denials up till this post. If you have posted elsewhere, I may have missed it, but up till this post, it seemed Sketchy's opinion on how to run the war was an acceptable position of TGH. NPO/BK do not do secret treaties. If I wanted a treaty with BK, I'd sign it. The only real relationship that exists between BK and the NPO at this point is that we are in the same coalition together ?‍♀️ Let's break this down shall we? 1) Someone posted claiming we're toxic since Roq/Leo (specifically) were rooting for perma-war and disbanding alliances. I pointed out how that's false and the only leader to publicly state that was Sketchy here on the boards. 2) If you're really trying to twist what I've said, try harder. I'd say Paksy has a better grasp of doing that, than you at this point. 3) Yes, from TKR. Never once did we state the threat arose from TGH/KT/Empyrea. The original entrance on GoB/Guardian and the N$O plan hinged on fighting upper tier consolidation. Given what we heard from TKR, it became imperative for the NPO to expand, N$O disagreed but that was our call at the end of the day. There was a credible threat from TKR. You have not seen me mention threats from KT/TGH/Empy because I have not heard of any. What I have seen though is your leader calling to salt the earth and your member(s) calling for our disbandment. The latter is out of your control, the former like I mentioned above I haven't seen denied up till the post. Let me point you back to point number 1) as to why I brought up Sketchy, rather than trying to extrapolate an argument that does not exist

I mean our narrative is predicated on the logic behind the action. I wish I told my members something different, and came out here and pronounced something else There was a credible threat, we acted upon it. That threat was by means of a DM I had with folks, shared that conversation and here we are That's a very logical narrative!

I have multiple times. There was a credible threat, and sitting and waiting by is something we'd have preferred not to have done. We expanded accordingly. I've also stated the only logs that I do have are from folks who are trusted sources, and there are enough people in NPO government including Roq, who concur with the validity of the threat and hence we did what we had to. I said there are those who've agreed and those who have not. Those who've heard us out entirely and know how we've operated and trust our word, know there are solely special circumstances when we act, and have agreed and there are those who like yourself, who do not. It's not a blanket system, its the truth. People have agreed and people have disagreed, but thats how it is, and that is okay.

I mean its one of the upper gov/high gov of TGH publicly posting it. I don't see anyone from TGH denying thats the prevailing opinion and then you had the Scarf meltdown on the OWF declaring that we should be disbanded etc. Neither Sketchy nor anyone else from TGH has taken those words back and their member(s) actions have continued pushing that narrative over here on the boards. Seeing their public statements, I mean its hard not take that as their stance given there has been no other reason to go off. On the other hand, none of our leaders have said the same in public, and we haven't argued for the disbanding/salting the earth of alliances are harming their right to exist as a political organisation working with alliances throughout the course of this war. TGH's upper gov has. NPO's actions have a logical reasoning to them, and those who've heard us out have understood and agreed with the actions, those who do not, so be it. If public pronouncements of disbanding/salting the earth of alliances by leaders in your coalition and pointing that out makes us deranged, then half your coalition leaders are deranged, since quite a few them have been busy trying to do gotcha posts all war lol. Also @TheNG is on point. I'd take Sphinx and his whales who get down and dirty to assist the overall coalition to win.

Oof. This is what a tirade is now? Neat. I really how hard you folks are trying to keep a semi-focused narrative on this war though

Yes, it's funny to have folks claim to want to burn anyone related to NPO/BK. Got it.

Read the previous post

Let's break it up shall we, now that Sphinx cleared up what he said? No one on our side has *seriously* argued for perma war, or disbanding alliances here in public or in private on our coalition servers. Here is Sketchy publicly announcing with serious intent that he's out to kill BK/NPO and anyone tied to us: Not only did he post that with serious intent, he even got upvoted and support from folks with regards to his intent. Then there is the Scarfalot meltdown thread where he claims we're literal cancer and need to die to save the game. I ask you to pull posts of equivalent nature of intent from either Roq/ Leo (specifically mentioned by Scarf and Aku a few posts above) or any specific coalition leader who has argued for the same with the same serious intent portrayed above. I'd say you'd find nada. If you do, then those coalition leaders won't have my support, and I'll let them know in private that being shitheads with the intent of disbanding alliances is not something that'd have my support. With regards to assuming that Roq or Leo wants to perma-war anyone is funny. I doubt Roq and the NPO has ever had any intention in perrma-warring TKR lol. The only alliance we did ever seriously consider perma-warring was BK back during Silent. Alas, here we are a couple of years later.

I mean I can't speak for @Sphinx, but the NPO and BK haven't argued for perma-war and I don't think there has been a serious discussion within the coalition about peace yet lol. But I mean, sure, if you wan't to keep arguing that Roq/Leo argued for perma-war, I'd call bullshit. But given how Sketchy/Scarf and a loud bunch from KERTCHOGG wanted to salt the earth and have us disband/killed, I doubt there's much sympathy for a quick/easy end to the war right away

You do realise those screaming perma war publicly have literally been Scarf, and Sketchy who claims to want to salt the earth, and watch us burn etc. We've never said that, and no one in our coalition has publicly come out with the idea of perma war lol.

Roq's will doesn't supersede anyone's lol. Its a war, if people who're refusing to work with the coalition at large and their actions are harming the coalition as a whole, it is in our best interests to act upon it. If people want to be jackasses over it, its up to them, but we sure as hell aren't going to be easy and chill about it, if repeated efforts at discussions and coming to a common understanding doesn't work. Its disingenuous of anyone here to call this hegemonic or some sort of power play, when I remember a large number of alliances who are now constituent members of KERTCHOGG for this war who wanted to roll people for less in KF, when it came to interfering with coalition objectives. So I find the moral outrage funny now.

I mean the standard I was setting for TFP, was don't flex and hope everything goes okay and it'd be ignored lol. If you think that I'm a douche, all well and good, but feel free to hit me up on discord and we can't talk about that one there TFP were told we'd consider their actions, specifically when they referred to taking Adrienne's commands regarding the war as interference. We offered to negotiate through it, offered to pay them to not interfere, and we got Quich flexing hard with the strong belief we were in the place to be walked over. TFP got hit for the interference, Quich being aggressive about it, was not the reason he got hit for, but certainly didn't help his case out

I mean given that folks were declaring wars all around the place with the intention of eating beiges and doing nothing and given that we were focusing on IC and having TFP take up the third slot within the hour of our hits, you can see why we believed it was most likely a means to an easy beige. The meta is fricked, and we took it up with the appropriate authorities. If Sphinx's nation strike is valid, we applied the same definition here. It is up to Alex to decide ofc, and it is his prerogative ?‍♀️ Roq explained why he believed it was a slot fill and why he had Alex check the war out. But its okay when y'all complain to Alex, just not us! Got it. Flexing hard and working with TKR in the hope that they'd protect you is a valid CB Being a douche is an added bonus

I mean a single beige when we were struggling to hold down tiers is a shit move. A refusal to negotiate and to tell us Mama Adrienne wouldn’t be happy if they negotiated with us, was pointed out as problematic by Roq then. That it took us a while to hit them, comes from their tiering and our own objectives being met before any major expansion. TFP was 60+ nations, until we were certain that the logistics and the ability to keep them down was met, one did not expand lol. I mean I’m all for your gotcha posts, but it’s silly, we pointed out how it’s not cool to collude without TKR and flex over it. He then descended to being a douche about it, quite a straightforward CB. If you’re neutral you work with both sides to find a proper solution to interference. Hiding behind TKR and hoping that given the situation at that point, that he could try to flex his way out of the situation was noted and his alliance was hit for his actions. I aim to never disappoint