Shiho Nishizumi

I'm aware that the ghost MAP issue existed prior to it, but it certainly seems like this brought it to the fore. I don't know if it's because they managed to link it to e/a other unintentionally, or if by adding a superfluous mechanic they overburdened a script that already wasn't working properly. Whichever it is that got implemented, it's quite obvious that it hilariously !@#$ed with the war mechanics for no value added.

This new map tallying thing should just be ditched entirely. Other than for the fact that it's so undercooked that it may get you food poisoning, it's simply a flood of pointless information to have an entry for every MAP generated.

They're focused first. It's just a matter that more pop up in between. It's a constant undertaking.

They wouldn't be able to be a knock off grumpy if they did that.

You're free to read my response to Kev as being a response to this, since both of you make the same point. You're the most vocal because you're the one relatively most affected by it (by virtue of the chaining being blocked and you sitting max milled while Cele/HW are partial mil). Other parties are less so if not at all, hence the discrepancy in the response. It's got nothing to do with game health as folk in your camp have pushed, but simply bottom lines. It really doesn't go further than that.

I've seen those. It's what I based my comment off of. It's disingenuous to pretend that a simple dislike is equal to lengthy WoT's and some guy dropping one log on his treatise, in terms of investment with regards to the dissent. It doesn't hold water even numerically; Clock represents a disproportionate amount of the public disagreement.

They aren't. Neither are the loud Clock people that make up the overwhelming part of that "community backlash" you're talking about.

You're effectively talking about the t$-TKR relationship (one which history is filled with collaboration and confrontation alike, not exactly uncommon for relations this old), as neither Rose nor Grumpy were in Quack. Said relationship is also just one factor that plays a role in Celestial-HW relations. Quack likewise does nothing to negate the fact that two of the three wars t$ partook in since Quack's dissolution involved TKR on the opposite camp. Perhaps too inconvenient a fact to be recognized by those criticizing us, but a fact nonetheless.

Theo revoked said creds due to you not being gov (if memory serves, you were IA gov in CotL for a good while). That also happened after a couple of days of chatter rather than immediately. You can most certainly disagree with the decision, but to me your claim seems odd since you weren't really combative either, and way more bellicose peeps were allowed to stay.

Because usually only one party in that entanglement has lean infra. The others' isn't pristine, but it's also not just 800-1000 across the board either. This is specifically true for a war like yours where BR is hopelessly outmatched at the upper/top tier. This isn't just due to conventional war but also the poll of people that could reasonably be there expected to be able to turret those peeps.

You aren't banned from the diplo server though.

Can't speak for Chaos' plans, but for KETOGG, part of SU was because it was deemed to be the most feasible war as we couldn't convince Chaos to tag along for a hit. They were also seemingly caught by surprise with that war. People in KETOGG most certainly didn't go into it expecting a follow up war on BK.

So it's not a tilt towards bipolarity in the sense of tiering and sphere size. It's a tilt towards that in the sense of concentration of considerable political players... ...when both HW and CB have two of such players themselves, as Vemek highlighted. Are all of those from one of the trifecta you've mentioned? No. They are nonetheless significant actors who are able to compete with those older entities. To their credit, I might add. As such, I struggle to see your point when it's not about tiering and when having a pair of major players in one sphere seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

That "outside of the box" move hinged on taking advantage of the weakness that we (and others) identified, that being t$/Rose being relatively unsupported due to there not being any other relatively comparable alliance in the sphere in terms of "who do we kill first?". They were easy to focus down and once taken down, the rest of the sphere followed. This happened in both conflicts, so the argument of a poor BW/t$ war performance simply can not be the sole reason for this shared outcome across different conflicts. I also don't think that this is a weakness found in the other spheres. It's certainly to your credit that you leveraged it in the way you did. It would've been foolish for us not to work on finding a way to address it. And we did so in a way that, in spite of the lines being pushed, doesn't lead to this Quack 2.0 hegemony thing that I've seen some people talk about. Such would have been to do a straight merger of the two spheres with no cuts elsewhere. You can say that this a strong contingent. The sheets point to that. Those sheets likewise also do not point at dominance or hegemony by our sphere. No matter the spin you try to give it.

I echo Partisan's comments regarding the roots of said alienation. You're also right in that there's been a shift on how public FA operates that's very distinct from pre NPOLT times. One thing that I'd add as for the discrepancy between the way t$ conducts public FA and that of other alliances also likely comes down to the people that have been in charge thereof since the end of NPOLT. I don't think I need to elaborate on Partisan's style. Adam opted on emulating it. W's style is unlike that of Partisan's, but he's nonetheless still a player cut out from a much older piece of cloth than most other FA's currently in the game, and I suspect, and would expect, there is an increasing amount of this new generation of FA who are unfamiliar with this older approach to things, and misunderstandings ensue. That the divergence has, in my opinion, only increased as time has passed also points towards this I think. Elaborating on this trend of reducing toxicity and RP'ing; obviously reducing toxicity is good. But I have to ask if perhaps people haven't oversteered on the inclination to reduce IC RP. The way I see it, it's not so much that it's been reduced, but is really a tad bit absent. Discord discussions and Radio shows have certainly steadily taken a bigger share of the pie, but I think that OWF-based stuff still has a place (in no small part because it's much easier to follow discussions pertaining to specific topics on a forum format as opposed to the high fluidity and ephemerality of Discord. And Radio Shows have issues with availability) which can genuinely enhance the experience pertaining to political affairs, which, at the end of the day, are still half the aspect of this game.

No, I'm fully aware that a bunch of people are chiming in just because there's an opportunity to do so for them. It certainly doesn't need to be politically rooted. If what you're talking about what I think you're talking about; yes, obviously there's a cost to those actions. It's most certainly gauged whether it's worth pursuing or not.

A bunch of them have misgivings which are unrelated to what HC said, and it's politically expedient to accuse your opponent with this game's Godwin. The comparison is most certainly not limited to just t$; it tended to be thrown around fairly often in wars because again, pure expediency. Frankly, it's disingenuous as !@#$. As it stands, no leaders or AA's are anywhere near similar to what NPO was in terms of behavior. The FA's landscape has been very tame compared to what it was pre (and very obviously, during) NPOLT. That comparison being levied to any AA simply holds no water.

We had a tie with CoA from even before NPOLT.

That's the culture he's more than happy to let flourish. Moreover, he's perfectly content with Yang being his high gov. It reflects on him, whether he likes it or not.

Yet, you're more than content to continue it. This isn't the first time TKR's signed an alliance that had shared grievances on another alliance, to/and then attack/ed said alliance. I'd argue there's a pattern to it by now. From what I can see, your words ring hollow. Counting on just hope to get things done too is, to be blunt, foolish, wishful thinking. It's genuine effort and concrete actions that get things done. And the only concrete action here was one that took a step backwards, a step contrary to what you purport to wish. How things develop in the postwar is obviously for you and W to iron out on. What that'll entail, I have no idea. I have a strong suspicion that it'll take a bit more than preaching talks you didn't walk to get anywhere though.

Your only regret was that the people propping you up quit. So yeah, it's not genuine. Glad to see that you only ever know how to speak when someone else's enabling it for you.

You're complaining about a half a year old cancellation and oversimplifying for the spin of it. Obviously someone will come along and amend it. I've no qualms in saying that I supported the drop. That said, your failure (or uncaringness) to understand how awful those ties were and how people didn't wish to be even tangentially linked to is on you.

Not sure why you're bothering to DC over something fairly old by this point, and that Polaris probably wouldn't bother reading and most certainly wouldn't act on anyways. Alliances can't dictate their allies' FA (or at least shouldn't be able to), but they can cut them instead if they're dissatisfied with them. Which is what was done.

T$ dropped CoA because (among other things) CoA reneged on a promise to drop Polaris; effectively signalling that it chose Polaris over T$. The subsequent results are not surprising. You're entitled to tying whoever you want, but not to having others just put up with such ties for no good reason. Even truer once commitments start being broken.

I'd like you to recount which ones those were.