Vynneis

hehe might as well respond with a 3 point response 1. Don't understand what you mean by this at all. He didn't VM or delete, just went afk. (Unless that's the point you were making..?) 2. We can't beat camelot there (not even meant as an insult, y'all have outdone us by a lot) 3. Didn't know anything about the 500mil, if so, I agree we did shit looking at the growth we had then. Our growth has been pretty shit compared to yours too, so fair enough. NR propaganda stuff - fair enough again, respect them a bunch for actually fighting pretty well (<3 @pooball) Guess i'd best start running now :^)

I'll respond to these in order of what you wrote. 2. "90% of micros", yes, how does this apply to us being 'infamous' due to our not very good leadership? 3. Okay, i'll respond to it whenever you mention it. 5. "you seem to get very touchy when your own alliance is brought up in a bad light", repeating the same point does not magically make it correct. The reason none of our FA has bothered to respond to this is because the alliance itself doesn't care. This was just a little thing that I wanted to respond to, this isn't some PR campaign. Your point was that a head of IA was doing pseudo PR, which we're not, now you've magically changed that point to "I don't control my emotions," when I haven't felt angry about this convo in anyway whatsoever, I don't think i'm "controlling my emotions" because I don't really care much about them emotionally, just wanted to point out a dumb thing someone else said a point I have repeated multiple times. If me being 'touchy' is what comes off when I reply to stuff like that, it's not how I actually feel lmao. 6. "Discussion becomes overly toxic" - Please point out where the discussion has become in any way toxic. 7. "PnW Discord" - the only time i've actually responded seriously to a time in the recruitment channel was once. Everything besides that has been banter with people who say not to join us. I really don't care about that. Fair enough if you consider the one time I actually got a bit pissed off. 8. I did not say that you couldn't criticize it in anyway whatsoever, I said that you're criticizing it more than any of our allies have. "Sabotaging our allies" - honestly, whatever amount of sabotage we're doing isn't affecting shit, they don't seem to care about it, hence why we were allowed to join. Is TKR holding out because some micro is arguably a detriment to the other side? No. So what's happening is we're getting some amount of war experience for... being a slight hindrance, our allies don't seem to care, (because it very clearly isn't affecting the war at all) so I don't see why you should, not saying that you CAN'T. 9. "begrudging" - if that's the way it came off, my bad, I should've worded that differently, but that was not in anyway how I meant them 10. "throwing a tantrum" - funny how you seem to be throwing more toxicity than I am, please point out where anything I have said seems to imply a "tantrum" 11. Yes, that can be argued as a psuedo 'attack'. This doesn't change the fact that before that message was sent, you claimed I was 'attacking' people, when that's the closest thing to 'attacking' i've said. 12. Read 9. 13. Basically all of the terminology you've used are bloated out of hell, it's ridiculous. You seriously think that all the stuff I've said is a "tantrum, rampage or vicious," the fact that you consider this discussion to be "toxicity" shows you know very little about what actual toxicity is. (From your POV, I don't see them as attacks) a lot of the stuff I argued against would be considered 'attacks' and 'toxicity' from the degree to which you consider refuting points as 'toxic', yet you haven't bothered talking about those 14. Refer to 11. Props to actually reading through all of my points and pointing out what you meant though.

Ok, i'll reply to each of your points there. 1. Joining late is pretty bad - Yes I agree, I've never argued against that point, or refuted it. 2. Crappy leadership - Sure, our leadership isn't the best, don't see how that makes someone 'infamous', because if so, 90% of micros would be considered 'infamous'. 3. Massive Ego - Sorry..what? Where have we ever done anything that seems to connote and ego, please point them out, (inb4 you point out the stupid shit Richard said), the closest thing i've said is that we couldn't really be called pixelhuggers if we stuck around this long, if you feel that you can argue this somehow connotes we've got a 'massive ego' feel free to show me. 4. Our garbage war performance - Sure, never refuted that either, I even said our war performance wasn't that good. Wouldn't call it garbage, but definitely not good, again, me saying we didn't do well completely goes against your point of a 'massive ego' 5. Head of IA doing FA/PR - Sorry, what? Guess you aren't allowed to point out failings in other peoples' alliances who criticize your own unless you're FA? I saw a stupid point, I partially agreed with it, but pointed out how the other persons alliance was far worse. This isn't for PR or any random shit like that, this was just me wanting to point out some stuff. 6. "Need to chill out when people talk shit about GodFury, especially me." - AFAIK, nobody has shown hostility when someone called us shit, we've argued against that, sure, because although we certainly aren't good, I wouldn't say we're shit. So, what you want me/us to do when someone shittalks us is to.. be quiet and not argue against it? 7. "Me specifically needing to chill out" - This is literally the only time in a post, where i've argued against someone insulting us, because what their original point of us being tied to Pantheon being the only thing notable was garbage. 8. "Causing more of an annoyance to our allies" - Yes, we have been more trouble for our allies very likely, but even if it's a very small level, we're at the very least getting some small amount of war experience out of this, funny how you, someone uninvolved in the war, feel the need to call us out for being more of a hindrance to our allies when, to my knowledge, none of our allies have called us out on it. 9. "Inability to take criticism" - honestly, you're correct to call what i'm about to say angry, but you're actually dumb. If you actually bothered reading this thread, you'd have noticed the huge number of times I've said we aren't the best, when i've agreed with some shit pointed about our alliance, and when i've agreed with that criticism. Please read over everything before you try to jump in on a discussion with little to no idea of what's happened prior. I agreed with some stuff, disagreed with others, don't see how that makes us unable to take criticism. 10."Going on a forum rampage" - that's actual stupidity, where have we ever gone on a "forum rampage", is me arguing against some dumb stuff said about us a "forum rampage", throughout this entire thread i've made NO personal attacks against anyone, besides the few odd insults of stupidity, i've argued against every point, but I haven't "attacked people". Calling this a 'rampage' is utter bullshit. 11. "Replying to anyone who isn't on your side" - I replied to those who said points I believe weren't valid, if you feel like pointing out stupid points is "attacking", that's absolutely wrong. 12. "Actual problems about our alliance" - I have NEVER said that there aren't problems with us, I've agreed with a shitton of points against us. 13. "Vicious reply" - Sorry, my bad, I didn't know arguing against things you believe are stupid is considered a "vicious reply", I don't believe i've responded to anyone "viciously" besides arguing against their own ideas, if you consider someone responding to shittalking "vicious", ok then lmfao. 14. "Or maybe you'll simply ignore all the above statement" - Too bad i'm not like you and simply don't even bother reading previous convos before trying to attack someone based on things they've responded to, and even if some cases agreed with. I'd suggest you read over previous stuff before making points that aren't worth anything. I'd suggest you actually provide instances and proof of claims you make, and respond to actual points AGAINST what you said.

Don't see how it's up to me, being IA.

""Fair enough about the protectorates though, I'd have liked us to get rid of all of ours. (irony that this is in a protectorate thread) "" - me in this same thread Agree with you there lmao, we shouldn't be having any protecs unless we upgrade to an MDP with Rose, though these guys are the same people Richard signed, just rebranded.

Haha, not arguing over it, just curious, how's Oliver a war dodger?

"Having a war deserter as leader is worse imo. ", if that wasn't about him, my bad lmao.

Never said being top 10 made you good, but I said they were pretty good/decent enough, atleast from an outside perspective, no clue about their inner stuff because, obviously I'm not a member of SK. Seems like you ignored what I said, Richard isn't leader anymore, he's not even in GodFury, he isn't a war deserter though because he had to go inactive from IRL reasons, not because of the war, he's not even in VM.

What makes us "infamous", joining late? If it's something else, do tell. Those early gov problems that aren't even something to point at us because Richard isn't leader anymore? Seems like you know nothing about how war stats actually work in dogpiles ? You know how many alliances are in our coalition? 36 afaik, you realise that all that damage dealt is spread out across those 36 alliances, and with IQ being IQ, they have large member counts spreading it out even more. t$ is in negatives, SK are, does that make them shit at the game? No, they're pretty solid AAs. Not saying we'd be positive net if there was noone else, we definitely would've been rolled into the ground if we were alone lmao, but negative net doesn't actually mean much in wars like this.

No, I never tried to prove we were relevant. I tried to prove that we are a lot more relevant than you guys, not relevant in general. Don't see where I seemed to be upset about it in anyway lmao.

Didn't shittalk them because they called us bad, shittalked them because they called us bad while being far worse. Didn't know relevance is needed to be considered 'not pixel huggers', never said we performed amazing in the war, never even said we performed well in the war, the closest thing to 'bragging' I got to was saying we've stuck around in it for 90 days, when we could've peaced out far earlier and made a lot more profit if we were pixel huggers. Fair enough about net, that point is correct, except it was never even hinted at in your previous replies, the closest thing you said was about us being "7 quadrillion percent irrelevant" which I agree with. "my point here in case you don't get it: *something never mentioned before in this topic" I never have claimed we were/are good. My point here in case you don't get it is that if we were pixel huggers, we'd have left the war ages ago rather than sticking around for 90 days, if you disagree with that or think it's wrong, feel free to tell me why, you haven't responded to that at all so curious if you even have something to say about that.

Oof, personal comments is the best way to win an argument. Hold on..we're expected to be relevant? Fair enough about the protectorates though, I'd have liked us to get rid of all of ours. (irony that this is in a protectorate thread) Don't get who's "trying to be relevant" though, TMA? Because they did a DOE? Lmao. Us? Because we did.. according to you, nothing besides signing Pantheon..?

??? "sure we joined late" ? seems to imply that I was saying us joining late was a bad thing. Didn't flex about us joining late, didn't flex at all. Does "Not denying that we certainly aren't in any way the best, or even good" sound like flexing to you lmao? I pointed out that we can't really be accused of pixelhuggery if we decided to stay this long, late or not, since our DoW it's been 90ish days. If we were pixelhuggers, we'd have left a long time back. Not saying we're on the level of TEst but you can't really accuse us of pixelhuggery. Never claimed that our involvement in the war was relevant in any way whatsoever, not sure where you got any inkling of that idea.

Doesn't change that you guys haven't done anything at all. Never said that you claimed your alliance did anything, just pointed out that it hasn't done anything, and yet one of it's high gov feels as if they're able to claim other alliances have done nothing. The fact you guys aren't even top 50 after 102 days shows how shitty your AA is. Not denying that we certainly aren't in any way the best, or even good, but we've actually improved, what have you guys done besides sit on your asses for 102 days? Also, regarding the only times you heard of us being Panth and Great Job!; Rose protects us, we're fighting in the global (sure we joined late, but if you call us pixel huggers despite us staying in the war this long you're beyond saving), had some minor conflicts at the start of GF that nobody bothered documenting cause, to be fair, they were irrelevant. idk what kinda standard you're setting as your expectations for us, but they're hella fricking dumb.