Daveth

As foretold in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Thanks for the food, I was getting bored.

I for one bow down to the might of TI's military and political genius.

Truly a masterful play.

Sounds like a perfect opportunity to roll Legion to celebrate.

Hi. I demand a tldr, thanks. Also @His Holy Decagon

Yeah, @Leopold von Habsburg just because they're the #2 Reds doesn't mean you gotta dunk on them.

Is this TI's official FA stance or should we ignore it again? @Lord Tyrion

Credit to @Kyubnyan

Is there any other way to have crisps?

The terms were blanket, even if they were directed at House Stark - which they resisted ferociously for some reason. Like shit, I didn't and don't want to be friends, just wanna call it even.

Should have known I'd have my heir swear a blood oath in revenge @Lysander.

Indeed a Red Wedding ain't it, comrade Snow?

First off, I'm going to reiterate what I said within our FA Server. Usually I treat the OPSEC nature of diplomatic exchanges with the due seriousness, and I'd say the vast majority of Orbis would agree. I initially posted the terms provided to us by House Stark on their behalf of their coalition within our server because it's never been my style to make a spectacle of things and I hate posting on the OWF beyond what I determine is necessary, as it were, nor sharing beyond the scope of who needs to be aware. That being said, the circumstances that occurred yesterday are an exception to this principle in my eye - because they're frankly absurd, and I deem it in the public interest people are aware of the contents, so I'll also offer my thoughts on the matter here and what I specifically take issue with. Assuming they're willing to take this in good faith, I don't believe it would be necessary to further take this publicly. 1. The terms themselves. (The image in question) I would argue these terms were clearly presented in bad faith, as demonstrated by the preface where they state "I'm pretty sure I know what it'll be" regardless of them being. The contents of the terms themselves are subject to debate, but from my perspective they aim to be incredibly punishing --- 2. They spoke on behalf of a party that no interest nor standing in the matter per their own statement. If you'll recall, we agreed to split the OWR shares in question between us, and you didn't mind that then. I can understand trying to get the most out of your case, but this seems deliberate malpractice to me, once more. 3. House Stark openly said they would be considering the damages themselves as the reparations of the conflict. I mean, pick a lane? You can't have it both ways. TLDR: I'm sorry, what? Is this a bad joke?

The screenshot proves what we're claiming, that Krampus was busy (we all lead busy lives) but was trying to make it work. That being the case, I explored the possibility of either putting someone else after asking if the head of Econ of House Stark, Revan would be willing to take on that responsibility - not sure how a low gov Econ can be trusted to manage billions like that, but they didn't follow up on that idea anyway. In all, I think they're only interested when raking in the profit of large sums of money is involved, not really in the operational details or keeping up with the healthcare of the business we are supposedly in a partnership on. Throughout this post and their Statement of Facts I think that their desire for more money than we were willing to reasonably provide is fairly clear, per that document, which it seems few people read in interim.

With regard to my attempt at assuring House Stark we'd handle the Foundation issue as soon as possible, I'm frankly starting to think I should stop treating people with the courtesy of letting them know I share their concerns and want to see the dispute resolved - which is what I'd think all my messages here amount to. I was not imminently aware of what had been discussed beyond the fact they spoke, because I was in the middle of midterms and honestly couldn't help in financial matters I have no depth in while I was conducting merger talks, which is what I was working on, in case y'all didn't connect the dots with the timing.

I generally think of you as a reasonable person, but the notion someone shouldn't let their IRL impede with the game is utterly out of bounds. Throughout this entire process, we have tried to adequately provide a solution throughout our busy lives (I'm a Law student working as a paralegal at a law firm). Despite the utterly unacceptable comment, in so far as replacing Krampus, I questioned House Stark on the possibility and that conversation with regards to Revan (their Econ head) went nowhere - because the standards clearly only go one way.

Darn, guess I'll settle for a downvote.

Attaboy, finally a "temporary treaty" with a written down expiration period.

Yes. Next question.

What part is confusing? They're here as the peacekeepers they are.

That's how those work, yes.😉