Thrawn

Grumpy:

Listen I don't know where you're going with this and I don't think you do either. I'm just saying that minispheres banding together to fight common enemies doesn't "diversify politics", it does the opposite.

That makes no sense. Many sides uniting to fight a perceived common enemy doesn't diversify politics, its an us vs them situation. Its bipolar.

Its only through my brief involvement in this thread that I discovered I can't delete my posts. This thread really ain't a good look for anyone seriously posting in it, especially those not even directly involved.

I'm aware you said something regarding the "it" part, but the statement prior seemed like you were telling onlookers to ignore what Firwof said and it would be better, which is how I interpreted it. I stand corrected, however. Apologies for the confusion and the remark. Only Firwof has lost his mind it seems.

The first observation was accurate. I don't see the need to forego the part where he dehumanizes them by referring to them as "it". You requested everyone ignore the unnecessary spiel about gender, because you feel he made valid points. In which alternate reality do you live in for that to not be considered making excuses for him? That has nothing to do with me though. I just can't believe you'd be pleased with Firwof for saying something absolutely cracked, just because you agreed with part of it.

Your friend went on a zealous rant about gender confusion amidst his incoherent wall of accusations and you're making excuses for him and you're asking me why I think that?

You two have lost your goddamn minds.

Mate, the war is over and you're still looking for "Ronny's HM leader" for you to get to the bottom of this. No one with the info you want is talking to you, that's why you're still here. You leaked because people are confused as to why the war started? But everyone knows why the war started, there is like 28+ page thread for it. The only point of contention was who was at fault for the escalation. That doesn't justify a leak. I don't know what you understand from trustworthiness. You can be honest without being a liability, you can give the truth and provided evidence when prompted for it WITH support from your source in doing so. But no, you leak conversations and blindside the other person and that's without being challenged or prompted for evidence by anyone. How does that make you trustworthy? Its not just about being 100% transparent.

Its not though. Have you noticed that the only people who have the information you want are the also the ones not talking to you? Why should it be made public and why was it more important for that information to be public? It didn't shed light on anything, and only turned people against you. With all this leaking, what information do you have that wasn't already known by the time you arrived? I don't think you have grasped that we all get what you're trying to do. The issue is, you are now being told that you "putting the pieces out there" (leaking) is not appreciated. Again, you are not doing a service or making demonstrating anything that isn't already known, you are just marking yourself as an untrustworthy individual.

Phoenyx, what would you be confirming by leaking and expecting an opposing party to play along? You don't have any guarantee of honesty or transparency there at all. Apparently you haven't been paying attention: Leaking as carelessly as you have puts cooperating sides at odds with another, and damages reputation since there is potential for it to be misrepresented. We've seen it with Ronny and Tyrion, we've seen it with you, and we've seen it with Boyce and Sphinx (although this was deliberate). You're not illuminating anything by leaking, you're just showing everyone you are naive and untrustworthy.

To begin with, this analogy is just strange bruh. Parents shouldn't confide in their kids in this manner. Second, what does this example illustrate and how does it relate to this game? What is it about your parents venting their problem to you, that proves keeping information given to you in confidence can be harmful?

> I tell you to stop trying to start discussions with people who have no interest discussing the war, like you did when Ronny and Adrienne only brought up the fact people won't talk to you because of your conduct. > You proceed to try and start discussion about the war with me, when all I did was criticize your conduct. I'm banking on the hope you'll finally recognize what I'm getting at here for the second time.

This is prolly a waste of time but mate, you were just told no one wants to talk about this further WITH YOU because you have no sense of discretion, are persistent to the point of being annoying and are way too convinced in Swamp's innocence in all of this to even foster a fair discussion. I don't mind or care that you keep making these threads... but why are you still trying to have people engage with you about the war, when all they said to deserve this response was this:

Same man, glad I could make things more interesting I guess.

My guy you can't add in your own narrative and then call it truth of the matter. As soon as you make claims like that its no longer the truth.

Thanks pop. Came back at the right time too now that I'm beige. These posts attracted attention from nations who reminded me words here have an impact on my precious pixels. I don't understand, what do you mean by (yet)*? That post outright says that Rose "was out". At worst the intention to roll you guys existed, but never become anything more than that and would've remained that way until further steps were taken in that direction. Is there something else to make you think otherwise? I thought you attacked because you KNEW an attack was coming FOR SURE. That's not what said by Ron or any other leader to my knowledge. As far as I've seen the most damning thing here is that there were attempts to form a coalition to attack Quack, but that never went anywhere. You and several others made the claim that a hit by our spheres was imminent. Unless new revelations popped up and I'm essentially just wasting your time here, I don't think that proves that claim. Wasn't even talking about me here, but ok. But the only reason I'm asking for proof is because I honestly think its lacking. Now I don't mean to waterboard you with long posts, but I figure I'll include it here since I would be saying some of it here anyway. Its not really directed at anything you said to me, but a summary of everything said in this thread. Many of you think this damning evidence that confirms what's outlined in the CB. No, this is literally cherry-picking. In Ron's post he also mentions that these discussions ceased after a week of silence. The only interaction here is whether HM would attack on a certain condition which that was never met. If taken at its word (which you all happily did), it means in the end, there were no existing plans to hit Quack. At worst, one can only argue that the intentions existed at some point, but even still those intentions were never actualized and remained that way until the militarization begun. In the end, the claim in the CB that a dogpile by tCW, Hedge, Swamp or Rose was coming for sure is unsubstantiated and unless the goals are being shifted... At best, all you guys have shown you started a war to a ghost of the intentions to begin the plan to roll Quack. I honestly think you guys just got the logs, launched this pre-empt banking you were right, got confronted with the fact this is all hearsay and with nothing to dispute that, grasped onto anything that could be used to justify actions that would seem rash and this case its information supplied to you by your opponents. This info was then selectively framed to affirm your claims. So far the only thing you guys can concretely prove is the rest of the blocs see you as a threat, and that someone between Tyrion and Ron isn't telling the truth. I'm not saying you guys are wrong about this (certainly not saying you're right either) I'm saying you haven't proven what lies in the CB with just this.

From the recently browsing bar at the bottom of the page, it looks like they're still here silently watch you guys sit in your echo chambers and bridge logical gaps in your arguments with fallacies and cherry-picked evidence, but apparently that's the meta in these forums. I myself hope to get back to Partisan on what he last said to me, or make a longer post explaining my grievances with the prevailing arguments here but it'll be a while since I got school work. Hope you guys will be patient till then.

Sphinx Ducks over the Hedge

Demanding certainty = "shilling". Do you guys just read anything that can be remotely used to further whatever narrative you have? All this time I have only asked for one thing and its just proof. In that same post you referenced of Ronny saying they were in talks with Swamp a month prior, it says all discussions ceased after 3 weeks. Later you're told these talks were supposedly "defensive". So now, you've been told the discussions were not for planning a 3v1, and these talks never went anywhere. I get it if you don't believe them, but why are you dismissing them as liars, instead of scrutinizing the reasons given? They very well could be lying, but you dismissing it doesn't get at anything.

If they said they were discussing defensive options, shouldn't you that scrutinize first? Without that, how are about to affirm anything?

Like on this thread? Cuz I haven't seen this addressed anywhere. When I brought it up Sisyphus responded with: "this is just obtuse rambling" lol. Is there a specific post? Which 2 were you certain would hit? Hedge and Swamp, or Hedge and tCW? Why were you only certain 2 would hit, while the logs supporting your CB says 3? Here's what I don't buy: You thought it best to inform a bloc that in your minds planned on hitting you alongside Hedge about your plans. The answer given so far is "This is just obtuse rambling", "Ask Partisan" and "We wanted to hit Hedge first". Yes, there is gov confirmation that they were secretly collaborating. You only know that they're doing it to position themselves against you, you don't even know if was defensive or offensive. As far as I can tell you guys came to this conclusion by just confirming whatever biases you already had. No, there is no gov confirmation that they planning this 4 v 1. Notice how your argument is that there were plans between Rose, HM and Swamp to roll Quack? Two posts prior to this you admitted that this only hints to what you think they did. Its a start, but its not a confirmation. This again just sounds like confirming whatever biases you already had. You came in to this with the idea that you had a dogpile coming for you, and now that you've attacked, and have instead been dogpiled in response, you believe this was all coming anyway. Pretty much the only way to know that for sure, was waiting to see if it happened. I can understand why that was not option for you guys too, but I can't say those reasons are logically backed.

Thought so. So you received a leak from Boyce saying tCW, Hedge and Swamp intend on attacking in November and are even confident Rose wants in on the dogpile: As far as I can tell you believe this to be the absolute truth, So lets go with that viewpoint. You get ready to open a can of whoop-ass on Hedge and then decide to let Hedge's co-conspirator and Rose know you're going to attack Hedge, but not them because they've been friendly to you... never mind that they too are plotting against you WITH Hedge... they're friendly. Am I missing something? Is there a reason Quack found Swamp to be exempt from the ass-beating that HM was about to receive? Are you sure you just didn't want to roll Hedge regardless? Then D-day arrives and you hit Hedge hard, only to find Swamp and Rose have almost immediately countered. You find out that Hedge, Swamp and Rose have been in kahoots with each other specifically to position themselves against you. You take this as confirmation that the 3v1 was all planned. That's a non sequitur. You literally can't prove anything with that, especially if there's already been existing rhetoric among them that Quack is getting "too big" for a while now. Does Hedge, Swamp or Rose have a secret alliance with tCW to even tie them to this conspiracy aside from hearsay? This part is beyond me, I know nothing about "seeing your competence as a threat", I respect that you guys are killing it and doing well for yourselves. I'm just a guy who's seeing his pixels burn for wishy-washy reasons and getting very sus justifications for it.

Alright thanks for the breakdown, just one question before I proceed: Regarding the leaks, are these same ones seen in this thread? Namely, Vader and Boyce's conversation?