Sans

Smash face, wreck dat a$$. You're da best <3

Heh, nice try spin doctor. Not going with BK's option ie choose OO over Syndisphere and destroy half our allies is not equal to not wanting to take steps to keep the game interesting. We just wanted a comprehensive change that involved all of our allies. You know, instead of plotting behind their backs. We were so busy trying to convince BK to stop looking at it as us vs them for the longest time, I guess you just broke and decided to say just &#33;@#&#036; it. Ayy lmaos may only be capable of linear thought :/

Ya pretty much, we were aware of the potential for stagnation as much as the next guy. We just didn't want to have to choose between Syndisphere and OO, which is exactly what was suggested. Something more comprehensive rather than just a shift that would see us on opposing us allied to folks we have no business being allied to and rolling folks we were with since our inception. That apparently was not a reservation that was shared.

And BK's plan to betray its allies is better in comparison I suppose. Guys seem pretty content with it. You can ask sure. This is not a question of complacency vs discontent. It is about common decency with regards to the people you make a commitment with. Bk was content to plan to roll half its allies. Thats the bottom line. You can make up excuses in order to legitimize the idea, but thats a fact you cannot deny, we're fighting in it. Suck it up and own it. Trying to backpedal and make it seem its all worth because dynamic change isn't going to cut it. A shit move is still a shit move.

Public callout is what happens when you roll half of your allies buddy. What I don't understand is how BK could feel any sort of self righteousness or vindication regarding anything that is happening at the moment. You'd expect the allies who you planned to roll to be all sunshine and rainbows at the fact they're getting dicked over? Lol. But that doesn't matter because BK got to change the dynamic right fam. If you didn't want to be ridiculed you shouldn't have literally planned and executed an aggressive war your allies.

Ya see this is why people call you out on the bs. You wanted to change they dynamic of the game and not have it concentrated in a unipolar sphere but retained your ties to said unipolar sphere. That makes absolutely zero sense. How did you see this new dynamic going down? Syndi and Inq sphere would just sit by into eternity, everyone would be a happy family? No, you wanted conflict and war and the only logical direction that goes to is war on the same allies you decided would be a good idea to retain a tie to. Those ties were offered to calm down the tensions, kinda like how a prisoner gets a last supper before he is put down. If what you said is true and you wanted to settle the fears of conflict between the two spheres, then there would never be another war ever again. Either you wanted to change the dynamic and war your allies or you didn't want to change the dynamic and the entire reasoning for your move was a lie. Choose one. There was no self fulfilling prophecy here, only the logical result of a series of moves made at BK's behest. Folks were open to the idea of changing up the dynamic just not on board with doing some last minute behind the scenes dealing. We gave you our idea of dynamic change, one that wouldn't make us force to choose one ally over another, but that wasn't good enough you just had to try to roll them. If anything the choice to dogpile tS and this offensive war is indicative of the fate you wanted for Syndi if we had gone with you isn't it? Don't try to play your selfish desires and shady cloak and dagger fa off by tying it to the health of the game. Its insulting. Just be honest like Zoot.

Oh shit waddup son

So you wanted to change the dynamic by splitting the sphere and warring the other side. I'm at least glad someone was kind enough to admit it. What you done &#33;@#&#036;ed up and did was conveniently hold on to your treaties to act as a shield even though you knew if your minds eye that you planned on rolling those same individuals. That is a shit move and you and your co-conspirators deserve to get shit for it. You kept them because you did want to win contrary to popular belief and you believed those ties would help you get it. You don't get to say you want to watch the world burn while hiding behind false pretenses like "wanting to retain the relationship with your Syndisphere allies" because it comes off like the giant pile of BS it is.

Nice work on the gifs guys. Glad to have you with us, smash some skulls.

Do you believe in magic?

k

Surely you jest. You wouldn't be soliticing an attack on a close friend of your bloc. Would you?

Yeah, no. It is a backstab. Just because you can't defend your stance doesn't mean your opponents will let the narrative be buried under the false guise of an honorable conflict. It is what it is and it is a backstab.

I'm sure back-stab coalition will provide the proofs to back up their allegations. They're honorable and all and never wanted war or anything like that.

Evil is subjective but there is no doubt there was a mastermind behind both the drawing of the lines in the sand and the war. Both Curu and Bezzers are right. OO did fail because of changing goals between its members. BK and BoC wanted to roll half of their allies and TKR didn't.

Ya, god forbid someone doesn't shit all over their associate in public. What a travesty that would be. How unreasonable it would be to ask a guy not to shit all over his associate in public. You'd think shitting all over an associate in public wouldn't be in good taste or something. Geez

The Great Release

Oh, thats not what it said. I'll reply anyway. What we held above all was not putting allies ahead of one another at each other's expense. If there was some sort of universal dialogue on how to change the dynamic rather than some cloak and dagger shady shit, we would have been on board. But apparently, to you not wanting to subvert our allies is grounds for discontinuing relations. Fine with me. OO failed because we had different goals and aspirations, 2/3s wanted to war their own allies and we didn't. Thats the gist of it. If you think otherwise, just check the war screens.

Holy savage, isn't KT Panths protect? Is there no sense of courtesy?

Tried to make help OO What does this even mean? Yeah and we had such a policy for how long without any sort of problem? Yet, it starts to be a problem when BK wants it to be right? It was TKR that actually put forward maintaining the relationship between its allies. You cannot find fault in that policy and call us bad allies in the same breath, it makes no sense. The extent to our control or lack there of concerning our allie's fa was telling them how we felt about potential moves and asking to be kept in the loop. If that is not within the parameters of acceptable conduct between allies, then Inq is going to have a lot more problems than OO ever did.

"If anyone wanted to follow us and our lead they were welcomed to lick our boots. If not you're a bad ally and we're going to roll you" Roger. You're coming in loud and clear.

So that gives you the excuse to turn on half of the alliances you ever did anything worth doing with. You didn't even do them the favor of being honest with them and just cancelling the damn treaties. You lied and strung them along because it was convenient. !@#$ that.

Looks like they wanted their own version of a hostile takeover.

Nah fam. TKR wanted to keep the boys together but that wasn't good enough for you. What we are witnessing here today is the eventuality TKR saw whenever the push for "dynamic change" was brought up. War on our own allies, our own sphere in a selfish attempt to take control of the game. If postponing that eventuality is what made TKR a bad ally to you, then &#33;@#&#036; it, glad we cancelled

You mean the irony where you said you wanted to maintain the relationships with your allies not in Inq when it went up...only to aggressively blitz their entire sphere later. That irony right? Because that sounds pretty darn ironic to me.