Smith

Any particular reason you keep ignoring Partisan's post pointing out your previous claim was false? You previously justified your new and much slower method of peace negotiations by saying that's how most peace talks were conducted. His post also points out the several actions your side has been doing to delay peace talks and why your argument of us not making peace a priority is inaccurate

Personally I blame Fraggle Hahaha "What did we do to try to kill our opponents alliances besides try to kill our opponents alliances". You are specifically making the war as long as possible in the hope more people on our side quit the game. You are intentionally stifling the activity and gameplay of the global community in an effort to drive people out. You are then justifying this by saying others did the same such as above even though you quickly had to admit that was wrong Edit: Also why do you keep ignoring Partisan? He is presumably a person with feelings too

Misrepresentations of peace talks aside, you are responsible for your intentional actions to drive players from this game. "not our exact way" No it did not resemble it at all

It is not a lack of willpower but a lack of desire to run our opponents out of the game. Also, you seemed to have missed Partisan's post pointing out your second point as being incorrect and my response reaffirming that. What were you talking about there?

1. I doubt a debate over historical positioning will change much here but I'm sure if our side had kept the war going on for another 6 months we would have been able to ask for more if we wanted. Regardless of that reps were not sought, the terms were easy, and the talks went quickly despite complaints on your side. Also feel free to take the credit for adding that phase, I certainly don't want it! 2. You are wrong here but Partisan can better address this point

The last time TKR was in a coalition that gave peace terms to IQ we simply asked for a surrender. If I remember correctly your side complained and then requested we add in a term saying you "fought hard". Here is a link: In those talks we also did not intentionally drag them out by proposing terms one at a time. We did it in a quick way like every other major war has seen before this one (at least since I've played). What a coincidence you change the style of negotiations to a much slower format now after the war has already been dragging on for over 6 months.

You're right, the best thing to do after suffering from toxicity is to be as toxic as possible yourself. I'd also argue there are different kinds of toxicity. Before this there was a never a war where the opposing side so clearly was trying to drag the war out as long as possible in an effort to bully as many people from the game as possible. Oh really? That's actually a good program/idea. Might have to suggest that for ourselves.

Big talk from an alliance that shields their membership from the OWF ?

Hodor: I am cynical about the game but hope it could one day be less toxic. A fleeting dream, but one I yet hold onto Malal: lol ur mom fat

Happy to see people took my advice and implemented the Keshavbot: if anybody { 'mentions NPO'}; then keshav ('brings up TKR from 3 years ago') if keshav = { 'has no argument' } then keshav posts = ( 'passive aggressive emoji' )

NPO congratulating GPWC on the #1 spot

Happy Birthday, hope you didn't invite any Frey's ?

I am starting a petition to give relief to our dear friend Keshav. This war has dragged on for months and months and he deserves a break. Therefore I am suggesting we create a "Keshavbot". I believe with just a few lines of code we can have Keshav's OWF posts fully automated by 2020! Here is an example: if anybody { 'mentions NPO'}; then keshav ('brings up TKR from 3 years ago') if keshav = { 'has no argument' } then keshav posts = ( 'passive aggressive emoji' )

I actually have logs of you planning to hit them but I can't post them because reasons

I think the question being asked is you are say we are working against our "supposed goals" as if you had specific ones in mind. What are the "supposed goals" you are referencing? Though I will point out our sphere's coalition name is Chaos

Reread the post.... those aren't noodles ?

I can't believe the alliance that has a history of making up CBs and not providing any proof would make up a CB and not provide any proof

Adrienne has found a way to incorporate duck wangs even into OWF posts now. God help us all

You are right I am being silly. I thought you were being perverted but now I understand you were just letting kids into your pants ? no

Don't start being funny now, my heart can't take it

This will be used as a CB by NPO 6 months from now So uh it really looks like you have an arrow pointing to your wang that says "Kid-tested, Roquentin approved"

Sir, this is a text based browser game

>BK accusing others of hiding behind NPO

For those who wonder "Why do people reference the NPO from C N? Shouldn't that not matter in PnW?" I'd like to point out the title of this treaty is a direct reference to the treaty GOONS and NPO had in C N. Specifically it is a reference to the peak of NPOs hegemony where they would go so far as to install Viceroys in opposing alliances. The image of a boot stomping on an enemy is also from that era. Combine that with the ODN and Polaris ties which were both directly lifted from C N to PnW and then combine that with the consistent influx of C N recruits they bring you can probably start to see the problem. With that said there are plenty of problems with NPO's actions just in PnW that could be focused on but this is still something worth pointing out

I posted this months ago but it's even more relevant now