MrHat
-
Posts
135 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by MrHat
-
-
That's a numerical superiority, especially considered that Mensa's hit on Vanguard (who was by far *not* a major hitter on your side at the time) squandered the first strike opportunity and handed initiative to Rose/VE (who were both top 5 at the time, with Rose's upper tier outnumbering us heavily at the time).
I'm a fan of your bs you snek.
If Vanguard wasn't a major hitter THEN WHY WERE WE HIT FIRST. We were a threat, plan and simple and they had to take us out first or Mensa would have fallen.
Trust me on this I am no snek.
-
This game has always and will always be "whoever complains to Alex first about something being unfair gets to screw whoever took advantage of Alex's rules."
-
4
-
-
It's been a pleasure.
-
I'm just curious, how else would Pfeiffer have handled that?
The raids stopped on the day they were meant to stop by. He didn't care whether you guys retaliated or not ( I mean, if you were leading a military power house, how would you feel? ), because Mensa had nothing to fear from Vanguard.
Also, "expecting Mensa to continue raiding" - I mean, there was a pretty decent gap between the raids halting and Vanguard declaring. There was little to no reason, other than being commanded to, for Mensa to stop raiding. Mensa had plenty of stockpile, plenty of military firepower, and plenty of activity to really demolish Vanguard if Mensa wanted to. The fact there was a week at least in between the raids stopping and the war starting - that should've showed something to you guys.
The gap between the raids halting and Vanguard declaring were exactly the amount of time it took us to get out of beige, when we expected Mensa to keep raiding, as I said before.
You realize I'm agreeing with you right? That is why we hit Mensa, because there was no reason for Mensa to stop raiding us unless being told to stop. Pfieffer could've told us that he told Mensa to not raid us?
If NPO didn't want the stigma and history to follow them, they shouldn't have brought the NPO name/brand/etc here. Same for every other alliance with a history of other worlds.
.... Isn't that the point being made by leaving (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) alliances back in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question/implication.I agree that NPO is getting shat on for doing the same thing every other new alliance does when they come into the world.
NPO didn't come in with 6+ treaties, they founded with like one or two - like any normal new group.
I appreciate the sentiment but haven't you guys basically signed with all your traditional (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) allies and I remember most of your gov from when you were in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)?
To be honest, I see a huge difference in calling NPO evil and "NPO (needing) to prove to Orbis that they aren't the same fascist monster goosestepping their way to global domination." and being friendly with people that you already know.There are more members in gov of P&W NPO that aren't in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) NPO then there are who are in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) NPO.
Yes sure, they're both crossovers. But holding grudges for something that happened 8 years ago and talking to people that you already know are quite different.-
1
-
-
Also NPO has a bad reputation, I know we're not supposed to mention Bob but NPO was pretty evil in their (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) heydey, the blocs they led steamrolled over every alliance who even slightly looked at them at the wrong way, and some were rolled just because. Their was a time during the hegemoney when even saying something on the forums that could be interpreted as anti-NPO could get your nation abandoned by its alliance and rolled. It's up to NPO to prove to Orbis that they aren't the same fascist monster goosestepping their way to global domination.
Literally the opposite of what NPO has been doing in this game, yet people still somehow think this is what we are doing.
NPO hasn't been that way for years.
-
Now it's my turn to correct you
The concern was specifically with Vanguard peacing out, as we did not have any wild notion that either Vanguard or Rose had any influence over Arrgh (pirates gonna pirate, after all). We were told that Vanguard declined to peace out, so whether or not Arrgh peaced out would have been a moot point either way.
I don't even think it's a historical inaccuracy so much as there were too many people involved, and no one was in the same room at the same time. You, MrHat, TUGT, and Pfeiffer were all talking in some combination, and somewhere in there Tim Armstrong (at that time of tS) and Abbas (at that time still active in Rose) managed to get involved too, and it all became a big shitpile pretty quickly. It's my understanding that Abbas had asked Tim to ask Mensa to cease the raids by a certain date, the same date by which the raids ended up actually ending, but it sounds like maybe Abbas didn't tell Vanguard he was doing that (or perhaps just didn't tell you, specifically? idk)
Meanwhile there was an alleged ceasefire that was violated by spying on both sides, and it's contested who actually spied first, and that was the logic I was given for Vanguard retaliating. All of these could be true, maybe none of them are, but I would hope you might see why I'm quite happy to peg this as a failure to communicate more than anything else.
I mean, you definitely aren't wrong about the lack of communication.
The only thing that I know of/remember about a date, neither Abbas nor Tim were involved, but that Pfieffer had told Mensa to not raid after a certain date, but that was never told to Vanguard until after we had already countered, and no one else from Mensa had either.
I had logs from Pfieffer saying that according to their raiding rules, Vanguard was free to raid and in an almost antagonistic way, told me that we were free to retaliate. Basically all of our alliance had been beiged (which is when the raiding stopped because we were all beiged), and during that is when Pfieffer went and told Mensa to not raid us without telling us. We were 100% expecting Mensa to continue raiding based on the information we had, which is why we declared on them.
-
1
-
-
I have evidence which is enough for me.
I'm curious myself as to what evidence you've obtained that validates this claim.
I second this, would love to see the evidence of this aid.
We had reason to believe that Alpha was being aided, so we had our IT team run an investigation on aid transactions. NPO came under scrutiny due to a potential correlation between you and Alpha's respective bank activity and growth spikes. As IT investigated, our FA team sent out probes to see if someone would slip. Ultimately, our IT team reported back to me and confirmed that there was no evidence of any aid, and so we dropped the matter.
LordRahl, I would also like to see this proof, Partisan confirmed that there was no evidence of any kind, but you claim to have some. NPO didn't help fund Alpha's war at all.
I'm kind and not enraged, so plz respond.
-
Yeah, I have to say I have no idea what you're talking about and neither does any of the other BK gov I just consulted with on IRC. We did approach NPO to discuss the possibility of establishing relations about 6 months ago, but we were rebuffed. Since then there hasn't been any serious discussion of NPO joining OO or even of a possible treaty between NPO and BK, as our foreign policy orientations did not appear to be compatible. I don't know what conversation you're referencing, but whatever NPO thought it was communicating was apparently so opaque that it didn't even register on our gov subforums, since I couldn't find any reference to it in past threads. So, yeah, I think you may be proceeding on faulty information there.
As for NPO being the aggressor, that's not the case, obviously - we pre-empted them to precipitate the current conflict. As I and others have previously stated our reasons derived from the fact that we believed NPO's intentions towards us were not benign based on their public and private FA moves. We continue to stand by that interpretation and believe our decision to pre-empt them was justified when viewed from our perspective.
NPO are the ones who approached BK, not the other way around. NPO are the ones who asked about a treaty, to both Yoso and Strum. I have logs from both, Yoso has the logs.
-
Happy to oblige:
You are misinterpreting my post. I was describing a historical phenomenom observed by the syndicate. This has occurred in the past wars, and we have no reason to expect it to be different this time.
If you go back to my explanation, and my explanation only (ignoring posts from other syndicate members), you will find that it specifically stated that t$ felt that its long term interest was threatened by aforementioned recurring pattern. It does not have to do with a *current* event of supposed 'plotting against us'. The problem with making such claims on my part would be that I have no way of knowing if there is or is not any unless information magically ends up in my hands. We have, in this case, based our decision to go to war on the past, and our recognition of similar events playing out.
We pre-empted the likelyhood of traditional politics being followed and the opposing side to simply wait for a CB (be it deliberately or not) before chaining everyone and their mother in on us in an equally large but more advantageous war down the road.
So yes. You can continue to be happy.
Fantastic. So we can all agree that ts are the big bad bullies.
Carry on with the shitposting you fools.
-
We started building up due to a credible threat against us and if that didn't pan out we were gonna roll GPA. Shit changed though.
I demand proof of this bs
-
<Partisan> When they are finally rebuilt (and we left them alone because peace and intentions), a 'CB' drops into the laps of one of them (Ideally they sit out a war first but hey!) and all the others chain in or threaten to chain in because treaties.
I demand proof that there was any intention of hitting TS, that anyone threatened TS, that anyone threatened to chain in on TS, or that anyone threatened to chain in because of treaties on TS.
If all others but Partisan could ignore this post I'd greatly appreciate it, as I'd like his WoT not someone elses.
kthx.
edit: i was way more happy when this was just a "meh let's go to war because" rather then a "we were threatened so we pre-empted"
-
So apparently everyone is teaming up to fight The Syndicate. This game has gotten so repetitive it's boring. The game is split into 2 sides and you know who's fighting who. There is no major changes anymore(think Paragon, then Paragon breaking up). It's the same thing again and again and it needs to be changed.
I feel so bad for them.
Poor Syndicate. If everyone would just control themselves for a frickin minute and stop attacking them for bogus reasons, we could all have nice things.
For real, demonstrate some self control please.
Poor NPO. Getting !@#$ed because they dont know PW well enough. Welcome to PW politics.
But on the other side i hadnt that much fun in PW for months
lol
-
4
-
-
My post was OOC, I don't think that was ever really a point of contention and it was fully meant to describe how I felt about roq in an OOC manner. The fact that folks are once again trying to warp it into some OOC attack just confirms everything I actually said about running around trying to get sympathy because at the end of the day, there was no actual OOC attack within the post itself. Unless of course having opinions on a person is now considered an OOC attack at which point feel free to run around saying oh noes, someone doesn't like me and said mean things about me, I am OOC attacked.
With that specific logic, describing anyone in a favourable or unfavourable manner must be an OOC attack I suppose, I could say I feel OOC attacked because roq called me stubborn and close minded. Or I could just say, take a teaspoonful of cement and harden the !@#$ up. Or grow thicker skin, either one helps.
Actually pretty sure you have called me a psychopath for that matter now that I think on it? Oh well, it's ok. I won't run around saying oh noes, I feel violated because someone on the internet doesn't like me. I will instead just shrug it off and post a gif or something.
well that's bullshit.
where's the gif?
-
wow.
i actually respect this partisan. no bullshit wot, no bullshit cb, literally just hit us and posting that you hit us.
GG WP.
-
2
-
-
Considering that peoples are playing this game, not trusting them is perfectly legit, and i don't see how it is ooc unless we all just pretend to be president and kings and only speak in formal letters and roleplay, which we don't do.
You realize who the public voice of your alliance is, right?
-
Let's examine the evidence!
I wanted to hear you guys definitively accuse TKR of OOC attacks instead of dancing around it. I'm not going to go into what Charles posts -- he's not my member. However, Azaghul is my member and as such I'll defend him. I can infer from this post:
You're saying that the following Azaghul posts are an OOC attack:
Posts in which Azaghul says he does not trust Roquentin, and clarifies himself. If you think someone not trusting you is an OOC attack, you need to grow a thicker skin.
Charles' post:
Sup, has been a long time hasn't it?
To cut the crap out so I don't have emulate partisan and waste a half hour of my time writing a wall of text, yes, I did say that any realm where a person like you has any relevance is shit. Why? Precisely because of what you are doing right now.
The common trend for you in every situation where a person expresses a personal grievance or criticism in regards to your personality is for you to play the victim card and run around using it for in game for a political purpose or point. Much like you are doing right now. This is what you continuously do and have done in both (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and now here, "so and so does not have nice things to say about me, must somehow play the victim card" whilst you sit and s!@#$ about it with your inner circle who know full well the sham you are attempting to perform whilst manipulating the greater community into possibly feeling sympathy for you. This is what you continuously do and I think everyone who knows you from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) expects it from you. No one certainly defends you even within your own allies when I express my personal criticisms of you so it can't be just me for that matter who thinks you are purely toxic for any community and that relays precisely the context of the quote of mine you dropped.
My quote has no specific bearing upon (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) or PnW. It has bearing upon my judgment of your character, I am pretty sure if I met you in the real world you would probably live up to my expectations based upon my judgement of you based on our thankfully few interactions within (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and from the looks of it now PnW too. It has nothing to do with whatever alliance you are in and it certainly does not affect my judgement of whatever alliance you are in and it certainly does not affect how I interact with NPO. The same cannot be said for you however as you just freely admitted to condoning refusing your diplomats and members to discuss in game alliance matters and concerns with a person who you particularly have a personal grievance with which originated in an another game. That is the crucial difference between you and myself and expresses exactly why I think you are a complete waste of space as a person. And before you even attempt to spin this into some in game plea for sympathy, let me remind everyone I just spent 2 months in an AA allied to you so it is pretty clear I do not let my personal judgement of persons affect how I view an alliance. If I were in the same alliance as you I would have exactly the same opinion of you so do not even attempt to somehow make this a political ingame dislike which has crossed over from a different game.
Why do I think you are toxic for this community, (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)'s community and indeed any community? Because you are manipulative and will attempt to use any justification or excuse to achieve your own ends regardless of the merit found within the justification itself. I play a few online MMO games and if I noticed you playing there or indeed any person playing the game who resembled your personality, I would say much the same as I did in the quote you dropped, so and so is a whatever and the realm/community is shit because it would be the truth. People like you ruined (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), these of us who founded tS, cynic included for that matter deliberately came to this game for a fresh start away from this sort of crap you are attempting to pull but lo and behold, here you are 18 months later pulling the same crap and even mentioning exactly the same criticisms you did in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). "Charles and chim are bad because they call me mean things because I act like a prick, tS/MI6 is bad as a result so I must get whatever alliance I am in to act against them".
It has nothing to do with whatever game I first met you in so don't try and spin it into some jab at myself not being impartial to alliances found in both communities and games. It is solely to do with my judgement of you as a person, much as I am sure you maintain grievances with particular persons from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) who now reside here in this realm. Whether they are genuine grievances or grievances maintained solely for political reasons so as to justify your dislike of alliances found here in PnW I really have no idea and to be honest, I really don't care.
Also, please feel free to somehow use my post against you as some personal OOC attack and then run around to everyone saying the syndicate is evil, it is your typical modus operandi and I expect everyone and anyone who knows you to do so anyway so you should at the very least attempt to live up to their expectations.
So let's get one thing straight - Charles post was definitely OOC. I bolded the parts that were of particular interest to me. I've seen lots of OOC posts in my days, most of the time it's joking (ur mum is fat), sometimes it's pictures, whatever it may be, but this was definitely one of the most blatant OOC attacks I've ever seen on someone. As Roq mentioned earlier, if someone who knew neither of them read that, they would immediately begin to look at Roq in a different way due to the accusations thrown at him from this post. In fact, the last paragraph that I quoted, where Charles says, "Also, please feel free to somehow use my post against you as some personal OOC attack" recognizes it himself as an OOC attack, as that is what it is.
Azaghul's post:
I'm an ally of NPO and like NPO overall, but I agree completely with Charle's assessment of Roquentin, and will never trust him as a person further than I can throw him. Totally 100% self centered.
Now, let's look at Azaghul, your member who posted the above. Sure, "will never trust him as a person" could be seen as an OOC attack, which is definitely was, but the part that I'm going to particularly focus on is the bolded part. I mean if we're being honest, "Totally 100% self centered" is also an OOC attack.
And, it isn't like Azaghul is the only person who is OOC attacking Roquentin on him being trusted:
Azaghul's been in alliances stabbed in the back by Roq on different occasions. It'd be a misstep to trust him for a second even if this is a different realm. It's common sense not to trust someone given their history.
You could have been referring to Azaghul completely, but the way this is worded it implies that you don't trust him either, which is an OOC attack given that it seems to be in a context that isn't related to online nation simulation games, and you're now basing your own mistrust of Roq on what Azaghul says. If you weren't implying mistrust on your own part, then it should have been phrased, "It'd be a misstep for Azaghul to trust him for a second even if this is a different realm."
If I'm not mistaken, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the word "completely" is defined as "totally, utterly." Hence, Azaghul completely, totally and utterly agreed with Charles post, including the OOC bits, which in my book is 100% an OOC attack. You say you aren't going to go into Charles' post...but I would say if you're going to address OOC attacks, then you most definitely have to go into Charles' post given the fact that Azaghul completely agreed with it. Sure, he didn't type it. But, he also didn't say, "I agree with parts of what Charles said."
Just so we're clear, I'm definitively accusing TKR of OOC attacks. Don't get me wrong, we've already accused Charles of OOC attacks, so you aren't the only one.
-
Let me interpret for all of those reading this fantastic thread
So where's the OOC attack at exactly? That they think you're not trustworthy?
read: "What? I have seen no such thing."
-snip-
read: "welp"
Looks like you pissed off Charles pretty good if he was willing to type out a wall of text about you.
read: "oh u rite. damn that's a WoT."
-
Throwing out accusations of OOC attacks is pretty serious, I'm interested in the name of the specific alliance you're referring to.
Aw cmon man. This is pretty OOC:
It is personal yes. I try not to bring over grudges from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), and I definitely don't for any alliances. There are a small handful of people in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (less than five) who act in such a way that it reflects on their RL personality in a bad way to me and I can reasonably expect them to act in a similar way here. If I can't trust them in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), regardless of politics, I'm not going to trust them here. Roquentin is one. I don't think any others currently play P&W.
There are more people (a few dozen) who I have a positive opinion of from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and that carries over here as well. Not in the sense of whom I am allied too (some aren't allies) or feel like I owe favors to. But I might trust their judgement or ability or honesty more because they have shown those positive qualities in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).
-
-
Yet again: Your alliance consistently brings up chim where t$ is concerned, and literally uses an out-of-context quote from him in an OOC channel to both rally its own members and score PR points in backrooms. Chim's words are directly linked to supposed Syndicate foreign policy and him being govt is heavily implied. All without at any point bringing the quote to t$' attention before you brought it out as a part of your rationale surrounding a (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) DoW. You're playing word semantics right now.By that logic, Rose, VE, UPN and various others have threatened The Syndicate, and I have reason to rally around that cry and take defensive measures? If you feel threatened by a single quote from an inactive non-member in an OOC setting, and if you feel that that constitutes enough of a threat to run around with said (cropped) quote, you are not going to make it in this game. The Syndicate has been under far, far more scrutiny in the past, and far worse things have been said about us.It was not a threat. It was a couple of grunts talking. The channel owner himself has already come out and confirmed as much. You blowing that up is why we are here right now.A screenshot specifically involving a t$ member in a PW context and the mention of a potential war against t$ was made on that forum and leaked to me. That makes it my business, whether it's a (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) forum or a PW forum. If you don't like me calling you out on it, perhaps you should not be resorting to such measures.
So you can claim it was in OOC context, in an OOC chan, a few grunts, and the channel owner himself has already come out and confirmed that...and then you use that same screenshot in a PW context to make it your business?
If we're all going to accept that fact that it was OOC and had no relevance, then we can, but you should do the same.
-
A few things are to be noted:
1. The post in question omits that Chimaera holds no sway over t$ government, and is but a member.
2. The cropped out of context log frames Chimaera- portraying him to be threatening Pacifica
3. This threat is then used to rally around.
4. Future war is implied.
We are well aware that this same log has been circulating, both in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and PW, among various alliances. The circulation of the log seems like a deliberate PR effort aimed at the Syndicate. Please view the context surrounding the log earlier in this thread for clarification.
Pacifica, from you I ask the following:
Why are you framing t$ members and t$ in order to rally around a nonexistent threat?
Why are you tieing your mass influx to supposed imminent war with t$?
Why do you continue to pretend that Chimaera holds sway in t$ government, despite having been told the contrary on multiple occasions?
Why do you and yours mix this game with planet bob, then try to pin it on t$ while secretly continuing with said mixture?
I look forward to your response.
We never claimed Chim is gov, we never claimed he has sway over TS gov. When I posted this screen shot in the other thread that you mentioned, it was in direct response to Auctor saying this:
Ok, let's get really real here. When there are folks in your alliance and in your allies alliances telling us we're going to be driven out of this world because of our standing in another, and then some of those same folks and yourself threatening retaliation on us here entirely based on what people other than ourselves said in that other world, it becomes really hard to believe that preventing crossover politics is something you're sincerely invested in.
and then the ask for proof:Screen caps of these messages? That seems strange.
Auctor said "folks in your alliance," not a gov member.Here are the full logs, as you posted:Thank you for proving my point. Full logs:
11<Chimaera> [19:20] <%Chimaera> Syndicate just happens to be the only group that isn't miserably incompetent<Chimaera> [19:20] <Prezyan> i let them go freee<Chimaera> [19:20] <%Chimaera> Which is why they keep winning<Chimaera> [19:20] <@G_Hestia[Dolor_Aliis]> I mean<Chimaera> [19:20] <@G_Hestia[Dolor_Aliis]> Y'all also have a high NS<Chimaera> [19:20] <@G_Hestia[Dolor_Aliis]> So there's that<Chimaera> [19:21] <%Chimaera> I mean, I'm pretty sure I've been here for two wars where NS at the start of the war favored the other side11<Chimaera> [19:21] <%Chimaera> They were just incompetent piles of trash compared to Syndicate's finely tuned MI6 and Spartan soldiers.<Chimaera> [19:22] <@G_Hestia[Dolor_Aliis]> There are other good alliances<Chimaera> [19:22] <%Chimaera> There...really aren't.<Chimaera> [19:22] <%Chimaera> Well, TKR seems pretty good<Chimaera> [19:22] <+NotABot> what the hell did ram, and i installed it on tkr thb<Chimaera> [19:22] <%Chimaera> I might go there after the war, I love IC and Az to death<Chimaera> [19:22] <@G_Hestia[Dolor_Aliis]> NPO?<Chimaera> [19:23] <@G_Hestia[Dolor_Aliis]> We aren't bad<Chimaera> [19:23] <%Chimaera> Eh. You'll get killed off next war...nobody in this game wants you here. Happened once in PnW already.<Chimaera> [19:23] <%Chimaera> Whether that's fair or not, that's what is going to happen<Chimaera> [19:24] <%Chimaera> Side effect of yall winning (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)11<Chimaera> [19:27] <%Chimaera> Plus your only ally who actually likes you is on some sort of insane suicide mission with regards to Syndicate.<Chimaera> [19:27] <%Chimaera> Which I respect btw, I respect intense hatred.<Chimaera> [19:28] <@G_Hestia[Dolor_Aliis]> Alpha will survive<Chimaera> [19:28] <%Chimaera> Sure, they'll survive<Chimaera> [19:28] <%Chimaera> But they'll have no money, and it'll take them ages to get back to the tier they were at once<Chimaera> [19:28] <@G_Hestia[Dolor_Aliis]> They have money<Chimaera> [19:29] <@G_Hestia[Dolor_Aliis]> Alpha isn't stupid<Chimaera> [19:29] <%Chimaera> I...wouldn't go that far.Certainly not a threat. Only a bunch of dudes from both sides kicking the shit, and chim offering his opinion. You make it out to be far more malicious than it is. Why is it that you use cropped logs to paint a false narrative?To be completely honest, I don't understand how that isn't a threat? Yes, he's a member. Yes, he has no sway. Did we show all the logs to everyone? Nope. But even if we had, I still read that as quite disturbing and yes, view it as a threat as I'm sure you would do the same if that had been an NPO member saying the same things about TS.This threat is then used to rally around
Well yes, it is. You just called it a threat, which is how we took it. And are you not using us considering it as a threat, as propoganda to rally around? You're literally rallying around us rallying around a threat to our AA.
Future war is impliedWell...yea, it is. I've heard from people that all of a sudden NPO might get hit. Future war is implied because now all of a sudden, even though NPO has made no threat towards TS, never planned against TS, and tbqh has 0 plans of attacking TS, We're quite on the defensive.
Why are you framing t$ members and t$ in order to rally around a nonexistent threat?Why are you tieing your mass influx to supposed imminent war with t$?
Why are you framing NPO with this post in order to rally around a nonexistent threat?Lol mass influx... 8-9 members who have no idea what they're doing, and even if we did get in a war any time soon wouldn't fight.Why do you continue to pretend that Chimaera holds sway in t$ government, despite having been told the contrary on multiple occasions?
Never have, and won't unless he's fairly elected to gov. Chim was brought up as reasons for the war in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), and Chim was brought up in regards to being the one who said those logs that were posted.Why do you and yours mix this game with planet bob, then try to pin it on t$ while secretly continuing with said mixture?
So first off, let's agree that we have both recruited from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)? Fair.
Why are you bringing logs from the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) branch of NPO, of which the forums are completely separate, and try to pin something on NPO?
You do realize that this post, along with the last one was brought up because of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)? You do realize that while yes, in both this thread and the other (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and P&W have been blended together? You do realize, that you started THIS post, that mixes (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) AND P&W together? Am I guilty of it? Of course I am, as I've posted in both threads that were pertaining to the mixing of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and P&W. But you are far from having your hands clean, so I ask the same question back to you - Why do you and yours mix this game with planet bob, then try to pin it on NPO while secretly continuing with said mixture?
Also, going to reply to this here as it's relevant:
-snip-
Ah the good ol victim card. I encourage you to take a gander at this OP and see how many people play the victim card.Sorry for the edits, i forgot word
-
My opinion, which I'll keep brief:
Very simply put, the message we received from Vanguard RE: a treaty being impossible simply because Chim was a member here is the first chronological blurring of the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)/PnW barrier I am aware of by a government official in this game.
That person is now high government in NPO.
We don't wish to bring (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) politics here, but the people who committed that act are the same ones who are here pretending we are somehow the ones obsessed with issues from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), after almost two years of our alliance existing without any similar issues? You want a statement, since you asked? That's it. You want a response? Whatever it is or is not will be based on issues based solely in this game. I really wish I believed it would be the same way coming back from your alliance. Given the statements in THIS game by government raising issues from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), I do not. But that's not enough for me to stoop to that level.
I'm going to assume "that person" is me, and I did give a reason to Partisan as to why I didn't think it would work for a treaty, but it certainly wasn't Chim and it 100% had to do with this game. I'm genuinely curious about it because I don't remember telling anyone that we won't treaty TS because of Chim.
-
I feel like the saddest thing of that Alpha/TS war is that Alpha had like 30 members and TS got 2 top tier alliances with 140+ people in them to gang bang them.
ftfy so that it would be p&w related
-
This one is easy:Screen caps of these messages? That seems strange.
From the information I've seen, no? I could be wrong, but just from someone who joined and got caught up with Syndicate - I certainly didn't see anything (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) related with Cynic's departure.
His first one, not his second one. His second one just a few months ago was because he leaked. Cynic helped to found/start Syndicate and that's when I'm asking, as if memory serves me correct he was ousted due to relationships being strained in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).
The war so far - v3
in Alliance Affairs
Posted · Edited by MrHat