Shadowthrone

Yes TCW have been the greatest dynamic force in this game and are content to do more than just existing. Also congrats fam! Roll Gorge 2018.

Depends on the cheese? Extra salty cheese would be perfect.

1. Honestly, like I clearly posted above, clear communication would go a long way in helping me trust their word. I don't trust most members in EMC and have reason to doubt their sincerity with the opinions spewed on these boards to some extent. So yeah, you want me to believe you, then show me why I should. 1b. I can't really give any guarantees, but Curu pointed out above the likelihood of us joining in either of the scenarios mentioned would not have been quite high. I can't give you any guarantees, I'm just a simple low gov member in NPO (yes we have them!) and that'd be something you'd need to discuss with Roq/Auctor/Prince Henry/LoD in detail if you want something like that. 2. This is a loaded question. I literally spelt out the difference in scenarios/situations in the last page. The scenario where BK/CS/Zodiac split from tS-OO was entirely different to the current political paradigm. The analysis of this specific situation is in the last post on the previous page, feel free to read it. If you want a tl;dr: essentially the scenarios are different any claim that they are similar is a lie or false equivalency and it wouldn't make the game any better, and just simplify rolling the constituent parts of IQ that folks don't like, going back to previous scenario of a uni-polar world. 3. Its not incompetence as much as being cautious. Rather than pushing the narrative that we're uber awesome military machine, I'd rather wait to see how the next war we participate in ends up. 4. Don't see the point in a 1 v 1. Sounds like a stupid and almost impossible idea to take seriously. That being said, I don't particularly care if theres a Trail of Tiers II or not. Depending on the situation and the CB, I'd support any war if its a rational decision. I don't think EMC has really split, so if war does break out, it might become Trail of Tiers II, but I don't particularly care for any specific scenario. I also don't think we're playing the bad guys but automatically made out to be so, just because of well NPO. I don't think other folks would be receiving as much flak for the present scenarios as much as they have because of some unnatural hate towards Roq or NPO that has become poisonous within this game. We're automatically the bad guys and every action IQ takes is put under further scrutiny just because NPO's a part of IQ.

Not really no. If we won a bunch of wars, and there exists no real organised sphere and in essence we are unrivalled in projecting power across the game and then we add more folks, yeah thats consolidation. We're making the other spheres weaker and destroying any chance for any real opposition with no military alternative. Thats really the difference in how I'd see consolidation. IQ has not been in such a position yet and solidifying relations amongst folks we've been tied with for an extended period of time is not really consolidation. We haven't weakened EMC by signing say Guardian or Pantheon, or signed folks like KT/Rose to consolidate the power within out side. Winning a war and doing all of those above things would then make any claims of consolidation as bad as Syndisphere/OO from us valid. Seeing how the situations are starkly different, its just neat wordplay with no real facts. Roq's statement regarding the start of last war has always been based around the notion that Syndisphere/OO were gearing up for a hit and he had evidence that it would be very likely and hit to keep the first-strike in play. It was pre-emptive in nature to try to maximise our advantage but thats about the most we did. It does not undermine the point that IQ being formed sort of helped continue build-up tensions. The act of formation of IQ sort of heightened tensions but was not created or designed specifically to provoke a war as its sole goal. Neat wordplay there. The intention was to balance the sides and change the political spheres within the game, it happened during times of heightened tensions and the whole VE civil strife ensured the creation of IQ would create different means of reactions from Syndisphere and co. For me to believe that it is a genuine attempt at a split, would involve trusting the actors involved. I just don't and they have shown me no reason to believe that its a genuine attempt. To believe its genuine and not just a method to get us to open ourselves up for another dog-pile would involve those folks to genuinely want to move in a new direction and work on building bridges across the board to ensure that their motives are communicated clearly. None of which has happened. The cancellation of treaties does not undo the EMC sphere, just makes it easier for folks involved to win brownie points at this point. Give it time and if there is effort to genuinely communicate amongst different alliances and show that there exists a splitting up of EMC, I'd be the first to be interested in listening, but it just has not happened till date, and therefore I tend to believe that its not really a genuine attempt. I'd agree with that notion, but actions in within Orbis have showcased before that one doesn't really need paper to be within a sphere. I don't see Rose splitting away from EMC means they would not enter to support the same. This ties in with my argument above, that folks who've split haven't really shown that its genuine yet. I do not believe its genuine and will stand by my belief that folks splitting from EMC would very likely defend EMC if we started a war against EMC. The uncertainty of their motivations and the general affinity shown towards EMC goes to add another layer of belief that EMC hasn't really split and that just because IQ has more solid ties on paper, doesn't mean that we've somehow won. Its more caution towards the whole notion of the split. We're cautious because of the lack of trust and actions that have occurred till this point in time. With regards to whether they've taken actions to provoke us at this point, I'll leave it for high gov to answer that one as its above my pay grade The server shutting down did have a large effect, at two very distinct levels. First it reduced the damage we could have done through update because well we did not get the chance to conduct the blitz. Giving our opponents a greater chance to pick themselves up and regroup faster than under normal circumstances. That snafu really went to screwing my round 1 blitzes against nations who had 4-5 cities more than I did personally. Thats just at the mechanic level, at a moral level it had a massive effect because it literally meant that the game !@#$ing up would mean that any advantage we gained was already lost. I remember waiting for update and then pestering Roq for a while on wtf was going on before getting annoyed with the whole scenario. It was highly demoralising and helped add another layer of crap that Roq and the other military planners had to deal with other than just the mechanics at play. That being said, Roq's caution and mine stems from how and when the war takes place and the timing of it all. We aren't assuming an easy victory as much as preparing for all eventual scenarios because well he's a cautious bloke. His caution has served us well, and its why we've used the last six months to become far more competitive within the game and keep ourselves ready for another war, in whichever manner it goes. Losing three wars in a row, really tempers one's expectations and we've seen pretty much different shit happen to us through three different wars, all of which were out of our control and its safer to plan and act accordingly. Thats your opinion of how folks should play. Casual players are still players and have added a lot to our communities so to call them shit just because they aren't pressing refresh every five seconds. That being said you still didn't really answer his major point is that the more elite alliances or called the best of the best this game has to offer have really not gone at each other in the recent past. Just because I do not expect all 131 members of the NPO to be brilliant fighting machines, doesn't mean that we have shit players within the alliance. I know most of the folks and we're active on discord or on the forums and there exists different motivations for folks to play. Maybe, maybe not. I do believe the mechanics and the tiering of different spheres makes it harder for us to really gain any advantage in dragging down too many nations of EMC at this point. It requires different things playing into our hands to ensure the situation is as simple as you make it out to be. We're still limited in the number of up declares while ensuring those within our range are effectively dealt with. Its just the concentration of tiers makes has clearly demarcated how wars would be fought, and this also has a huge effect on the political side of things. The things that we are doing simply put is being cautious and strengthening ourselves to the best possible extent. I disagree with the notion that IQ and ourselves have somehow led to the stagnation of this game or that we're continuously doing nothing to help it anyway. IQ itself as a creation did more to shape a two-pole world rather than one hegemoney and since then we've used the time to organise ourselves better. Other folks have had multiple opportunities in the recent past just to let it slide and then comeback and blame us for all that is wrong with this game at the moment. I mean as I stated earlier, there have been instances within the last few months that folks could have used to their advantage or see fit to go to war, and they let it slide and came to amicable diplomatic results. Thats still fine, but to claim that IQ has to continuously be the antagonist is !@#$ing annoying. I mean if other folks want to do things they can, just stop placing the burden solely at our feet to feed into your NPO/IQ bogeyman narratives.

With all due respect, Roq doesn't need to fill me on the latest narratives heh, I've spent enough time around here and been a part of NPO through three wars and different scenarios to make up my own opinions, thanks Now going back to the other points you've stated, the dynamism™ attributed to IQ or Roq on these boards is an easy spin by most folks. IQ pushed for a change in the geo-political arena, by splitting from a coalition that just won two world-wars in succeeding fashion and took out TEst and other paperless folks in the space of six months. UPN, VE, NPO just lost a conflict, Rose had moved FA directions and found new allies in Mensa and the other constituents of the Silent coalition were trying to form a third bloc if I remember right (SK, Valyria and co?). With Papers Please, tS-OO had pretty much taken out all the opposition in the space of three months and left themselves as a coalition with no real equals and creating a scenario in PnW where any war would be against the same folks, instituting the same rollings and there wasn't any real change in play. Zodiac/BK/CS took a chance to change it with IQ and it created a more equal grouping in terms of adding another opposition instead of the normal folks. We lost the last war yes, but the dynamism™ that any folks refer to, and Roq too I guess is the change in the scenario within the politics of the game. It gave a new, different side that could be created and were more solid then previous multi-spheres coming together at the last minute trying to fight a war versus Syndisphere. Thats where the differences lies between the necessity and arguments for the breaking apart of tS-OO and IQ currently lies in my opinion. IQ pushed for a change within the game from an all-consuming victory coalition into a more balanced side because CS/Zodiac/BK took the chance of trying to build another side and incorporating former foes with quite a rivalry and created IQ as an opposition point to tS-OO. Thats where the difference lies within the current cancellation of treaties within EMC and IQ also lies, simply put, I call the cancellation of treaties a PR spin because I don't see the sides really split apart except on paper. It's become an almost pet peeve of folks in TKR on these boards to take pot-shots at IQ for existing because well now they can't hit NPO every six months into the ground thanks to IQ existing. Rather than working to be dynamic™ and taking opportunities where they arose, they said no thanks and then continued taking pot-shots on these boards that we're somehow killing the game. I mean Partisan called them out and pretty much gave them a CB on a silver plate and they decided against using it for their own reasons. Other folks as Roq mentioned pretty much hit few Panth folks and then continued on their merry way. There have been instances where EMC could have done something, but did not and then still lays the blame at IQ for somehow killing the game, when we've used this time to rebuild and regroup ourselves. I mean tS/OO was in a very different political scenario than IQ is at this point and any equivalence between the two is essentially false and stems from a misunderstanding of the two scenarios or rather its easier to blame us than trying to objectively view the same. If IQ won a bunch of wars and have no real organised alternative spheres that exist within the game, its fair to claim Roq did a 180, but thats just not true. To extend another line of argument I mentioned above but did not really get into, is the idea that the cancellations carry weight. I haven't seen any public actions except for cancellations of treaties, while folks remaining on good terms with one-another. I seriously doubt, tomorrow if NPO hits TKR, folks wouldn't go into defend them regardless of treaty ties, and that belief stems from previous wars, previous interactions and the lack of overall shifting of sides within those folks trying to claim EMC is over. All of the changes in cancellations have essentially led to those folks trying to split apart the parts of IQ they like to leave other folks alone and easy for a dog pile and would love to claim that shows how dynamic™ they are. If there are real changes and frictions as Roq points out between spheres and a real danger for themselves to be a part, then I'd have heard folks reaching out to IQ to try and figure out common goals/enemies in a coalition if we matter that much. No outreach from the mini-spheres to tie themselves with the supposed hegemon, any and all outreach is to weaken IQ rather than build their own organised alternative and the lack of any real friction or outreach for change leaves me with the impression that nothing much has changed. The burden of proof is with them to show that they really are changing track and breaking away from EMC or something, rather than us believing them at face value lol. Even then, I'd be hard-pressed to find any specific reason for IQ to break apart at this moment, other than to please the peanut gallery here lol.

I don't buy that narrative. I don't see the cancellation of a couple of treaties as some larger break of EMC. To me, it seems as a PR spin rather than an actually breaking a part of the larger group of folks. Simply put, I don't see the cancelling of treaties as the dismantling of a sphere that has been developed over a couple of years. Maybe over time, there would be actions that can prove that, but none has existed so far and I would never take it for granted that natural ties and relationships can somehow overnight be removed in the name of "dynamism." The folks complaining that IQ has too many treaties forget that we really haven't added anyone new and pretty much solidified longstanding relationships and those who were interested in joining went through the processes required and got accepted as such. We haven't really gone about expanding our sphere and if we were the sole hegemoney in the game, then most other folks would have been rolled to the point where unipolarity exists, which is untrue heh. There exists a multi-polar world, with different spheres, alliances signing each other and moving in varied parts through the game. The only stumbling block to this narrative is that it isn't easy to roll NPO anymore, and that we haven't initiated a war and you folks are too lazy to do something other than complain that IQ is somehow leading to the death of this game or something. Also none of those three options are valid in essence because 1) IQsphere which consists of more or less the same grouping from the last war, lost the war against multi-arrayed forces. These forces across different tiers can always hit each other if they want but choose not to, in essence IQ is the sole enemy for a large-variety of alliances and thats the truth under your given options. We have to be the bad guys and no one else wants to do much because its always easy to label us the natural enemy to get together, rather than you know fighting against each other or w/e, which sort of is another reason why I don't take the break up of EMC narrative seriously. 2) The game isn't really dying if folks go about with goals and do something. NPO had a goal, to grow, to use the peace time given to us to finally start rebuilding our alliance after three wars and we've gone about doing it while maintaining and improving our relationships across the board. If folks had goals, and worked on them, I find it hard to believe that the game is dying. The difference really lies in the fact that one side worked on some sort of a plan for a year and it has led to some sort of outcome. The other prefers to lay the narrative under this option at the feet of those 3-4 alliances rather than actively trying to do something themselves. 3) Once again, you have your third sphere, you have EMC and IQ. There are things to be done without needing the 6 alliances of IQ to somehow always be the ones creating situations for the other two spheres to have fun. You folks can go out and go about doing something with your own treaties. If you folks are scared of losing pixels, its your fault, but you can't really blame us for not helping your IQ bogeyman narrative.

1) Nordic Sea Riders/IG/ w/e names folks follow today lol. 2) TKR vs TCW, it'd be interesting to see them go at each other, or even TKR v Pantheon, to actually damage upper tier nations. That being said, I'm always up for seeing TKR v NK, would be interesting heh. 3) NPO, that way we can go back to the most fun tier in the game!

Yeah, more like you folks want to complain all day long about how its no longer easy to roll IQ in the name of "dynamism!" Hey at least we rolled NPO two times in one year! The game is interesting! Meh.Bunch of salty crap lol.

Bunch of crap coming from the same folks who just want to see us keep losing lmao. That being said, Welcome to IQ, Lord <3

Thats a lot of BS. You're discouraging new nations from actively taking part and is counter-productive to the community as a whole. Moreover, just because I don't post here does not mean I don't know whats going on. I've seen folks pick up the intricacies of this game within 15 days better than some old farts around. So your proposal of limiting is essentially discouraging new folks and built from elitist point of view of what you consider standards which are not broad, or harmonises standards for every nation, member, new or old for this community.

I think at the lowest common level is how does a vote function within the framework of PnW. I do not think at this point that we have done anything wrong or broken the spirit of the process itself as all we have done is encourage folks to get on the community and vote for the awards. The reason being simple enough, these awards mean something in game and is usually used as some sort off huge propaganda tool. Any other means to change this by current suggestions would involve disenfranchising large amounts of the PnW community, just because they do not post here. They most talk/post elsewhere and be an active member of the community, but posting here does not excite them because of the echo chamber that has been created, specifically to shit on any non-EMC supporting post/comedy/w/e BS you folks wish to describe it as. The best change I believe as I stated earlier that @Buorhann might have missed is that those stats that can be measured be given by Alex and the staff, like best alliance growth, best membership growth, best military (he can track the damage) and we can discuss the parameters and set it up as a community (almost impossible, but one can dream) for the admins to take a final decision. The other perceptions would work on public relations and get out to vote strategies, but thats the most fair system since it gives all members equal opportunity to vote, regardless of their standing, or activity on PnW forums. The fact is we need a system that harmonises the vote for all sides, and any requirements apart from being a member of PnW, essentially disenfranchises new players and sets up an elitist structure which is unfair and bullshit when it comes to community votes. In essence a mixed system is far better for '18 than some sort of disenfranchising system which states that newer members cannot partake in community activities, just because they are new.

The only diet this game needs is a Roqdiet!

Shhh, its all just Roquentin voting. We're just masks he wears to different halloween parties! This year he wanted to be a brown dude, and hence he created my persona.

Which really is the problem when it comes to forums/awards and the like. The echo chamber within here refuses to consult, include or involve IQ folks when it comes to doing things, and as a result, created an environment that makes us feel better off outside of this place. Saying that, its not particularly your fault, as much as the circle jerk nature of the forums here. I'd be terribly disappointed if Bezzers and co. unilaterally change the awards system over night, after the process has begun. With regards to the topic at hand, for next year ( Awards 2018 ) my only suggestion to makes these awards better would be to split them into statistical/factual awards, like Best Growth and the like which can be measured and given out by the admin staff, while allowing player perception votes to continue in a similar manner. That way there are some irrefutable truths, along with a mix of the current popular culture votes, which balances community participation with a fact-based system

Damn figured out our secret plan

Wait I'm sorry I don't think anyone here has committed electoral fraud by means of hacking the administrators accounts and unilaterally increasing votes or bribed Bezzers and co. to inflate our vote counts. The only thing we've done ( which folks have agreed has happened whenever these votes come around ) is encourage folks to take part and vote. Meanwhile, Donald Trump called, he requires his royalty payments for calling out a legitimate election, as fake/rigged.

We're not scared of another poll as much as calling the BS excuses to call for another one. The criteria was set up in November, and we've followed all the requirements to ensure the legitimacy of the polls as set out originally. The sudden 180 and claiming these are fake votes or fake polls or the like is designed to essentially disenfranchise and remove our votes, from a community voting scheme which is BS. The only reason folks are complaining is because themselves/their voting choices are losing and therefore are looking for means to tailor make the polls in the image they think is 'correct' while ensuring our voting choices are no longer counted.

Agreed. But it did have a huge effect because well, I was up till 1 AM for update and the later update was impossible for a bunch of us to get on. Overall though there were a lot of things that went wrong, updated included that really hit our razor-thin advantage in my mind. Numbers is one thing, but there existed the lack of tier cohesion which really affected our overall advantage. Hopefully, if theres ever another war again, the mistakes of the past can be corrected. But having fought TKR/tS/BK at various points, I'd have to say fighting BK was the most fun/difficult of the bunch.

I think at some level update screwing up also harmed any advantage we had with our first strikes. I mean it definitely screwed me personally when I was hitting TKR folks with 14-15 cities as a 9 city nation and having the first strike/update adv p much off for a while, curtailing any momentum we had with a coordinated blitz on those nations. Made me have to cut my infra down and look at drop downs to keep within the meat grinder instead of successfully pulling down more folks.

I'll gladly deny the idea that we aren't allowed to vote as we see fit. I voted as how I saw fit. We've been encouraged to participate for the first time. Moreover, which community? Like I point out, the only people who are seemingly unhappy with this are folks who take a dump on NPO/IQ. I'm quite certain you're ignoring a whole bunch of folks who've voted the way they see fit, because they aren't part of some sorta 'cool kids community' who has issues with how the folks are voting.

And does your (plural) definition of deserving be the sole overarching definition we all are meant to follow?

I'm sorry but thats a load of horse shit. We've encouraged members to vote and take part in this process as outlined and all of a sudden those aren't legitimate votes? So the problem is not with the people who vote, but whom they are voting for, because its clearly not set up the standards some folks want it. So we have the freedom of choice to vote, as long as as its as some certain "arbitrators of whats right" decide and if their chosen candidates don't win, thats not a fair vote? To me it just an excuse for calling a fair vote, one which adheres to your individual choices and not one done by all members of this community. You know what would be better? Just pick your winners and announce it to the rest of the world, and get rid of this myth of one vote for all process.

So our votes are not worth it because we don't vote the way the peanut gallery thinks everything should work out? Or you know you should set up a new a system for next year and let this one finish based on the rules they were originally set up on.

Didn't know getting folks to get out to vote is now some evil plot by Roquentin or something. I mean its pretty worse off for you folks to claim our votes are invalid because it doesn't support your arbitrary view of how the awards have to go or something.

I mean we aren't really sitting on our asses as much as using this time to better ourselves. I mean fighting three losing wars in the space of 6-8 months vs alliances that had a longer time to build, grow and gain power did take a huge bit out of our alliance. This time has been extremely useful for us to grow and strengthen ourselves across the board and this is the best course for us. I'm happy with what we're doing, which has been quite a lot of work heh.