Khai Jäger
-
Posts
108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Khai Jäger
-
-
14 hours ago, King Arthur said:
To those who support Alex’s decision and the impacts they will have on the game: f u
no u? lol
-
What a garbage game.
-
For the record, only 14 AK members have decided to remain playing the game. 14 out of 35. That is less than half. Rest VMed or deleted.
-
1
-
-
On 10/16/2019 at 12:12 PM, CandyShi said:
And before you default to “hurr KT white supremacist”... I’m Asian.
Lmfao, and before you default to "hurr AK white supremacist"... I'm black.
So let's all pull out our race cards.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Good riddance to the cheaters.
I've talked to Alex, AK has had nothing to do with this. Our bank has been returned to us and the member who was accidentally banned has been voided of implication to this issue.
-
1
-
6
-
7
-
-
17 minutes ago, Buorhann said:
Sounds like AK wants a 1v1 after this war is over.
Sounds like a date.
11 minutes ago, Buorhann said:Khai-whatever the hell his name is-Avien had a couple plots to hit us (Wish he did, would’ve been a fun fight to put them in their place).
Just one, which Shiho leaked to you from Panth. I would have liked that too, as Pantheon could have been a very different AA.
-
3
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:
I was high govt and left because I got tired of the entire thing. Your lot were low govt rejects.
Besides, I certainly don't behave like one. Even Fist acted with more grace and less salt on his gloating than you lot are. For the ones "winning", you certainly are acting like a bunch of sore losers on this one.Rejects? Not at all. I left with my buddies to create AK. Same as how you left to create tGH. In a way, we're very similar alliances.
I'm not the salty one here. I've simply laid out my thoughts, just as Buorhann did. (And it's not the first time he's mentioned us the way he did) If you have no logical response, then there's no need to take pot shots. Why don't you address what I've laid out?
@Elijah Mikaelson I will apologize for Lycus. He was a bit out of hand in how he said what he said.
-
2
-
-
25 minutes ago, Epi said:
I'm quite the sugar daddy, tyvm.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Buorhann said:
Don’t remind them of that. They’re having fun being relevant riding on the coattails.
Meanwhile...
be hunting 
Looks like your your horde could use some work. You should purge some of those utterly useless members of yours.
I also recommend you change your membership requirements. "The Golden Horde only accepts those who are active and able to coordinate and engage with their fellow warriors. If you cannot login regularly, and communicate with your fellow warriors, don't apply." Clearly almost half don't meet it.Keep Ame tho, she bae.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
For @Cooper_ @Akuryo @Mad Max @Sir Scarfalot
15 hours ago, Mad Max said:Trust would be needed in general to even have an adult conversation on the matter. Trust is what delivers a dialogue - if both sides don't have trust in each other, both sides wouldn't be reluctant to sit down and hash out end terms. Big talk this war has been the idea that the aggressiveness would just boil over again into another war or political engagements post war to drop the 'hegemony' of IQ from the game and be the dymanic heroes in the world creating minispheres.
How about it. This is fundamentally wrong. You do not need trust to talk to someone you have differences with.
Let's take a simple example. Grumpy despises and has no trust for Guardian. Assume Grumpy hit Guardian in a 1v1 war. Guardian ends up completely wiping the floor with Grumpy to the point that they can't even fight back, You are staying that at that point it's a matter of trust to come to the table and discuss peace. This is wrong. If one side is unwilling to come to the other for talks it would be a matter of pride, not trust. You do not need to trust them to have civil discussion.
Another example. Let's say my girlfriend does something to completely lose my trust. If she wants to make amends, is that going to stop her from coming to me for a civil discussion? If I want to make it right, is that going to stop me from "hashing out my terms." Trust actually has nothing to do with having civil discussion when you are required to have it.
You actively work with someone at work and you don't trust him. Are you just not going to talk to him despite having to? As players of this game we have to talk, whether each side likes each other or not. Not having trust is a mere excuse to avoid the reality in-front of you in this case.
7 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:Incidentally, I'd like to acknowledge that there's not really been any single event that's broken trust; what matters is the perception of broken trust. IQ believes what they believe, EMC believes what they believe, and whoever is actually right is irrelevant to the decision making process of either.
Yes, this is merely a false perception. Where has it stemmed from in the first place? I personally would like to know.
Trust has nothing to do with a difference of beliefs, as those are mere opinions. What is clear to everyone is that it's the difference of opinions that has postponed peace talks until now. Just as Scarf said, Memesphere has their beliefs as KERCHTOGG has their own.
What's even more funny is that something commonly and openly implied is this, "One side will give in eventually." Now when that is openly implied or said, it becomes a competition to see who will outlast who. That in itself extends the conflict by a lot, not to mention discourages talks because it gives a semblance of weakness at that point/in that mentality.9 hours ago, Cooper_ said:Most often this is achieved through more inter-alliance communication, which is a strategy that TKR has attempted to employ recently, including with you guys although y'all don't talk too much
. Maybe it's idealistic but I wouldn't call it naive to have more conversations between enemy factions where people actually hear each other out before moving to walls on the OWF.
I'm not calling conversations between alliances naive. What I'm calling naive is blaming the lack of communication on trust. It's like saying you won't talk to your mother because you don't trust her, but you need to talk to her because she's the one who has been and still is taking care of you. There is nothing that has declared one side or the other can't be trusted for the fulfillment of peace. All the precedents of the past clearly say that if peace was achieved and discussed it would be upheld in a proper manner.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Akuryo said:
It's a positive feedback loop
Technically speaking, peace talks aren't lovey dovey discussions in which everyone is happy. Someone takes a hit when they lose, and it doesn't feel good to lose a war. Someone typically gives in unless it's a clean white peace for both sides.
13 minutes ago, Akuryo said:You have people who legitimately think the best way to ward off someone attacking then again is to treat them harshly now
This has nothing to do with trust issues between sides. If one side/alliance decides to turn someone into an enemy then that is their issue. I agree treating people harshly isn't the best way to have good relations. However, you don't need good relations to have peace talks.
16 minutes ago, Akuryo said:Yeah, no. That much is visible to me just from negotiating for my own peace.
Do explain what trust issues you may have with negotiating peace with us. I'm curious.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Mad Max said:
I mean, even though you're Koalition B scrubs, I like you Khai - but Mr. AlotofScarf is pretty on the button. Spend some time talking to your own slave coalition if you even have access and the opposition as well, you'll soon find out that - sure they are seeing eye to eye - but that common ground is both sides not backing down. Unless something drastically changes, which I doubt it will - 1) both will not accept a loss as both feel they have not lost. 2) white peace is somehow 'out of the question' 3) levels of twatness and ego will keep the war engaged until someone just decides frick it.
Knowing slave coalition from previous wars, you know the aggro, you know the possibilities.
Knowing the constant drama argument since the war happened, you know the tension.
There are deep cuts. If you think this is just going to be a simple 'haha' peace out on a whim, wrong.Well the point they are trying to make is that neither side is able to trust each other to peace out which is completely wrong. All sides have a history of upholding their peace terms.
I am not addressing the peace/terms itself, but the supposed "lack of trust" which is brought up here.2 minutes ago, Akuryo said:-snip-
Above^
-
1
-
-
On 9/2/2019 at 9:08 PM, Cooper_ said:
- Reestablishing Trust @Sir Scarfalot
On 9/2/2019 at 10:03 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:As for re-establishing trust... It can't happen outside of extreme behavioral shifts and insanely implausible things happening. Neither side feels it can afford to back down, because neither side can possibly afford to trust the other anymore. I just don't see that changing.
This entire notion is naive. This is a game, and saying that anyone is going to not abide by peace terms as they have done time and time again is ridiculous. TKR has surrendered to BK, just as KT has surrendered to TKR. This is normal game play.
Rid your mind of such implausible notions. Not to mention, it doesn't benefit the community but rather intends to divide.-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Sir Carlo said:
I also know that there is a possibility of this bloc failing
Minimize dat possibility mate.
Good luck to you all.-
1
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
>tries to farm upvotes and it backfires
-
10
-
46 minutes ago, Seb said:
.
42 minutes ago, Seb said:.
39 minutes ago, Seb said:.
.
.
. -
2 minutes ago, Senatorius said:
So your whole issue is that you perceive it as breaking the rules?? If it turns out that Alex did approve of it then you don't have an issue??
I still think that Alex made the wrong call with it but my position is that I think most alliances would have done the same thing if they too had Alex approval and that is based on previous statements and actions by other alliances.
Perceive? lmao
Maybe you should read the rules.
-
2
-
-
Let's see the logs of Alex approving slot filling to protect the grumpy bank.
51 minutes ago, Migraine d'al Braskia said:Oh please
Deposits bank in the safety of a slot fill. Not to mention the entire double buy timeframe was protected by the slot filling.
3 minutes ago, Senatorius said:Genuinely serious and not just on this matter, the thing is broader than just this. Why do both sides here only cry about fairness when they have lost out? I am yet to see even a hint of it this whole conflict except with possibly the withdrawal by tS who's best interests were served by continuing to fight with an overwhelming coalition but felt that it was unfair or deceitful. Both sides reserve the right to look after themselves despite the affect on the game as a whole... and for the record I fully agree here that Alex made the wrong call on this one but a call was made (a rule was set) and the alliance did what was best for them... and damn the enjoyment of everyone else. Standard PnW.
Do say. So we can break the rules of the game now?
-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 minute ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:I tell ya, we try to help you guys out and remove some of our largest member's infra for ya, because obviously you guys don't have what it takes to hit him. All you do is complain... That being said we spoke with sheeps before we attacked and we got his blessing. We were planning on nuking the crap out of him for ya, toss him some defeats, but now you are going to have to do it yourselves again.
Try to help the other side out one time...
-
1
-
7
-
Totally not slot filling.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
So, after running out of natives to betray/lie to/gaslight, you decide to attempt to flood the game with ignorant newbies in the hopes of getting more people for cannonfodder.
What do you even hope to achieve from this? They'll have no fun being your pawns, and you'll gain nothing you don't already have. You're still losing, and even a million nations won't change that.
Shouldn't you be happy that the game is receiving new players? This will benefit the entire community if people stay inviting their friends from other games.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Rosey Song said:
Is it desperation? I see your side constantly upset and stressed, while we're over here having a good time.
Looks like you're having fun. Totally. Lmao
Every single one of your wars are like this. You attack once or not even attack at all. Seems like you have given up fighting all together.
-
2
-
2
-
-
17 hours ago, Evernt said:
August 12th - The Coal Mines and The Socialist League officially admit defeat to KERCHTOGG**.
Following the admission of defeat the following terms have been accepted:
-Complete and unconditional surrender
-No Further Terms at this time.
KETOG + Chaos rn ^
-
2
-
-
Yup, yup, yup
-
2
-
[Elections] A new era of the Green Protection Agency.
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
Following in my footsteps I see.