Orbis on Planet Bob?

[Auctor]

"Just my opinion" doesn't really work with declarative statements.

[El Commander]

The channel yall are getting your most fancy logs from is mine, and is in no way related to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) or PnW. It's an OOC channel about a frikkin mobile game, and it's like totally pathetic people are using logs from there over here. Seeing that the whole thing is about crossover between 2 games, bringing in a THIRD game is hardly a good idea. I mean like wtf leave my channel alone pls.

Edited June 9, 2016 by El Commander

[Prefonteen]

"Just my opinion" doesn't really work with declarative statements.

 

It does when it comes from someone who holds zero sway over t$ government, and who is largely inactive. You have made a mountain out of a molehill with this one, and have demonstrated clear intent to push a perception of t$ aggression. You're not helping your own case of wanting to keep things seperate.

 

The channel yall are getting your most fancy logs from is mine, and is in no way related to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) or PnW. It's an OOC channel about a frikkin mobile game, and it's like totally pathetic people are using logs from there over here. Seeing that the whole thing is about crossover between 2 games, bringing in a THIRD game is hardly a good idea. I mean like wtf leave my channel alone pls.

 

Thank you El. I agree with you.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Partisan

[Vanek26]

I'm gonna declare war on Chim for calling Mensa incompetent. 

[Chimaera]

It does when it comes from someone who holds zero sway over t$ government, and who is largely inactive. You have made a mountain out of a molehill with this one, and have demonstrated clear intent to push a perception of t$ aggression. You're not helping your own case of wanting to keep things seperate.

 

 

I hold all the damn sway, Partisan.  Don't you know?  I'm Chimaera.

 

Edit: Vanek I sincerely apologize, I genuinely don't know anyone in Mensa.  My knowledge of Orbis is basically 'Syndicate's traditional enemies', who all seem to be mechanically awful, TKR, comprised of a bunch of my long-time friends, and Black Knights, whose members have been ayy-lmaoing it up in MI6 across the game for two years now.  

 

But now that this bullshit has made me interested in actually participating in PnW, I'll be glad to get to know you as soon as possible.  

Edited June 9, 2016 by Chimaera

[Buorhann]

<--was in Mensa

 

Don't worry Chim, you weren't too far off about Mensa.  It's led by Vanek of all people.

[Roquentin]

I have seen the logs to which you refer. They contained chim, a member in t$ who has no government authority whatsoever (and this is a known fact) speculating with a few of your members after a poaching attempt from some of your members: Chim explained why he believes you are not his choice. There was no threat. The logs in question were cropped to make it seem like an explicit threat on chim's part to implicate both him and t$.

 

The funny thing is... that this cropped log was given to me by certain people during a conversation in which I was asking for IC CB's for the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) DoW.

 

As for crossover politics... Look at your current list of allies. Then look at your list of allies in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways). Then look at the manner in which your corner of the world has consistently referred to t$ as MI6. Charles made a very eloquent post about this in your embassy on our forums. Your diplomat responded with 'I discussed with manthrax so i'm going to disregard'. Why don't you come to the embassy and try to relay charles' concern?

 

Let's look at it a different way:

 

- Alpha and t$ are at war with no end in sight due to alpha refusing white peace and t$ refusing a NAP.

- MI6 has been consistently referred to as being t$' counterpart (despite us having proven time and time again that there is no crossover politics there) by Alpha + alpha's allies only.

- NG, Alpha's (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) counterpart attacks MI6 with *all* of NG's crossover allies (NPO, Polaris etc). The DoW states: 'FOR STEVE', as a rallying cry, and no official CB is given.

- When called on it, various CB's are given:

          1. Supposed poaching by chim. Counterpoint: Everyone poaches and you know it.

          2. A quote out of context (as mentioned above) detailing chim saying NPO will get rolled/driven out in PW (Crossover alert! Why is this part of your CB?)

          3. Supposed chim plotting (unproven)

- Now, t$ obviously has questions over this: We're pissed at the principle of crossover- the principle of our actions impacting another game and the prospect of the roles being reversed one day if you are in power, with t$ being punished for MI6' actions (even if we do not see ourselves as a counterpart). We do not care about MI6 themselves being rolled one bit.

- Your side of the fence has now begun taking an accusatory stance towards t$ for being annoyed at this turn of events: You are allowed to bring PW into (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), but we are not allowed to question it: If we do, we are called out for 'crossing (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) into PW'.

 

Do you see your own hypocricy? Do you see your own insincerity? The moment the DoWs were posted, queries began to swarm about whether or not t$ would retalliate. This was before I or Val had made any statement about it whatsoever. Did you expect retalliation? Some could say this was a bait. Perhaps not sanctioned by your respective PW governments, but a bait nonetheless.

 

But then again; it could also be an attempt at putting pressure on us. Or it could be a simple joke gone wrong. The problem here is that t$ has no way of knowing. We just see the events occurring and voice our annoyance. If our annoyance displeases you, then perhaps you should be taking a different approach: like not bringing PW shit up in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) DoW's.

 

 

 

Charles also said "Any realm where a cockstain like Roq has relevance is just shit" and that kind of throws the credibility of those crossover criticisms into question and we have no reason to interact with him. Our list of allies consists of people we've cooperated with either here or elsewhere.  We've always remained open to whoever is willing to talk on a serious level and be open with us and our most recent treaties were with people we have no history in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) with. SK was based on relations from Project Terra. The govs for each are pretty different regardless of the names/composition in terms of our ally list and the initial point we made was that  our gov  really did not get along with Steve Buscemi in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) at all(which Chim tried to exploit at one point)and our issues were very serious in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways). Yours has plenty of connections that are easy to see. Just because an alliance doesn't have a (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) name doesn't mean it doesn't have (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) players with histories and those always have played a role in some of the relationships here. The fact that a lot of your allies gov members share the same (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) alliance and that tS is a recruiting ground for MI6 and vice versa kind of makes this really hard to swallow as a legit criticism. 

 

We didn't expect retaliation from tS until Chim said we were going to have problems in the other world. Simple as that. You and Roy made supporting statements and that's what we've had to go on.

 

Our apologies for taking the rationale provided in a DoW at face value. 

 

"IT'S A JOKE" is really a poor excuse, if there really was an actual rationale. Hell, making the joke isn't necessarily wrong, but the thing about DoWs is that they're not for the alliance declaring war. They already know why they're going to war. They're for everyone else, to explain why they're going to war. Saying "everyone already knows" is stupid, especially since if everyone did already know, we wouldn't be having this conversation

 

Is it really so hard to say "We're declaring on MI6 because Chim's an ass" if you're declaring on MI6 because Chim's an ass? Shit, put it in a spoiler if you want. But it shouldn't be surprising that people took the DoW at face value, that's why they exist.

 

EDIT: Excuse me, you say it's as a troll. Not a joke. My bad. Point still remains.

 

I already pointed out the fact that NG likes to have fun with its DoWs and consistently those type of DoWs have been made by them. Everyone already knows the alliances don't like each other and there was additional buy-in from those with their own issues. I was pretty quick to say we had myriad reasons for it including the term violation and agitation against us. I didn't see it before it went up and no one anticipated it would be taken seriously since again 1.  Steve and James have little influence in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) since they're not active gov 2. the imagery.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Roquentin

[Buorhann]

Can we just fight already?  Isn't this what we've been waiting for anyways? ( JUST TO BE SPECIFIC:  A World war.  Not this stupid sissy slapping stuff between NPO and Syndicate )

Edited June 9, 2016 by Buorhann

[Spaceman Thrax]

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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), I do not. But that's not enough for me to stoop to that level.

[Roquentin]

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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), I do not. But that's not enough for me to stoop to that level.

 

Still curious to see this instance of a serious offer since we were never that close. You have members that have been bigger problems than Chim here for certain and I've referenced them. Again, I'll reiterate tS-Vanguard relations were never at a serious enough level for there to even be a discussion of a treaty except in passing with an offer like "join the dark side" and the response to that by MrHat wasn't based on Chim. It's kind of odd to say that was the first instance of blurring of lines when there is always somewhat of a blurring when people give their friends from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) a sweetheart deal be it with a protectorate or aid. Didn't your alliance start off as a protectorate of people you knew from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways)(correct me if I'm wrong here)?

[Spaceman Thrax]

Parti will have to dig for the logs, as they're old. Did say "first chronological".

 

Frankly? Members are members. If they want to say crap about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), I don't like it personally and may give them a wrist slap, but it's not policy. That's the key difference here.

 

It's a tough argument for me to make to them, when it's not always the same from the other side. I don't want to dictate to those other alliances where their lines on the matter ought to be, though I know they're not anywhere near the places mine are.

 

In the times that those issues have been brought to me rather than used as attempted political fodder to paint us as trying to wage some ideological war on you, I think I've been quite even handed.

 

What some people do to Chim in <this game> is far beyond what is acceptable to me, because he's just a mostly inactive member with a big mouth. Everyone has members with big mouths, so why is he so often chosen for scrutiny? Why did you drop that log of him speaking in a third unrelated game as if it was a big deal? I am sure anyone can find any number of logs like that. Why does this one member deserve so much scutiny, if not because of your own (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) beliefs you are bringing into this game?

 

The irony here is that in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), I don't agree with Chim often at all. Here he is a member who has unfair scrutiny leveled against him based on something outside the scope of this game, though: something I would try to defend any of my members from.

[MrHat]

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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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.

Edited June 9, 2016 by MrHat

[Buorhann]

Still curious to see this instance of a serious offer since we were never that close. You have members that have been bigger problems than Chim here for certain and I've referenced them.

 

All I've seen you reference is Charles ( Who just recently joined Syndicate after being away for a while ) and Chim ( Who has been largely inactive here ).

Edited June 9, 2016 by Buorhann

[Chimaera]

All I've seen you reference is Charles ( Who just recently joined Syndicate after being away for a while ) and Chim ( Who has been largely inactive here ).

 

I don't want to treaty Buorhann because of Chim.  They spoke briefly about IC matters once.

[Pubs Dignity]

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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), I do not. But that's not enough for me to stoop to that level.

 

Dear Manthrax,

 

Also I was Mi6 and Mi6 Gov and became leader of Vanguard so I don't see how one can bring up us hating on Mi6 and than me being appointed. Plus me and the true mastermind Chim are on decent terms.(That I think of, I didn't join Mi6 after he tried to poach me last time, so he may dislike me)

 

When I was in Vanguard the only time a T$ treaty was brought up is when Mensa was raiding us and I asked how to get off the raid list and they brought up signing you guys. That instance also pushed me further away instead of bringing me closer.

 

Love,

Carter

[Roy Mustang]

Dear Manthrax,

 

Also I was Mi6 and Mi6 Gov and became leader of Vanguard so I don't see how one can bring up us hating on Mi6 and than me being appointed. Plus me and the true mastermind Chim are on decent terms.(That I think of, I didn't join Mi6 after he tried to poach me last time, so he may dislike me)

 

When I was in Vanguard the only time a T$ treaty was brought up is when Mensa was raiding us and I asked how to get off the raid list and they brought up signing you guys. That instance also pushed me further away instead of bringing me closer.

 

Love,

Carter

 

Carter,

 

If you've been following closely, you'll realize that the events presently under discussion predate your stint as Vanguard gov. While we appreciate your perspective, it is not germane to the specific discussion at hand.

 

V/r,

Roy

[Spaceman Thrax]

Dear Manthrax,

 

Also I was Mi6 and Mi6 Gov and became leader of Vanguard so I don't see how one can bring up us hating on Mi6 and than me being appointed. Plus me and the true mastermind Chim are on decent terms.(That I think of, I didn't join Mi6 after he tried to poach me last time, so he may dislike me)

 

When I was in Vanguard the only time a T$ treaty was brought up is when Mensa was raiding us and I asked how to get off the raid list and they brought up signing you guys. That instance also pushed me further away instead of bringing me closer.

 

Love,

Carter

 

Hey Carter! I love you too.

 

I don't see how one or two instances of you guys liking people in mi6 completely dispels the notion that you don't like others, that it's influenced your thoughts, and there's a lot of relevant questions in my earlier statements I don't feel have been addressed.

 

Milton has told me he dislikes Chim enough for it to have influenced his thinking about t$ based on experiences in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) just yesterday: he is lower gov. I can grab the logs when I get home if anyone cares.

 

At some point this gets dropped, and that's probably better for everyone. I kept my thinking about this to myself for a very, very long time for fear of reinforcing it. When it's being asked of me by your allies and our members are being badgered about it, I unfortunately lose that luxury.

 

There are in game reasons why NPO and t$ might feel threatened by each other anyways: why does your gov find the ones from another world to be so salient?

[Keegoz]

Hey Carter! I love you too.

 

I don't see how one or two instances of you guys liking people in mi6 completely dispels the notion that you don't like others, that it's influenced your thoughts, and there's a lot of relevant questions in my earlier statements I don't feel have been addressed.

 

Milton has told me he dislikes Chim enough for it to have influenced his thinking about t$ based on experiences in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) just yesterday: he is lower gov. I can grab the logs when I get home if anyone cares.

 

At some point this gets dropped, and that's probably better for everyone. I kept my thinking about this to myself for a very, very long time for fear of reinforcing it. When it's being asked of me by your allies and our members are being badgered about it, I unfortunately lose that luxury.

 

There are in game reasons why NPO and t$ might feel threatened by each other anyways: why does your gov find the ones from another world to be so salient?

It being dropped tbh is the best thing going forward. There is enough politics in this game to not have to heavily rely on (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) for some more.

[Spaceman Thrax]

It being dropped tbh is the best thing going forward. There is enough politics in this game to not have to heavily rely on (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) for some more.

 

Mhm.

 

I also feel like people's spines get up because of improper differentiation between "(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways)" and "(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) style politicking" when they're making comments here. The former is totally invalid, the latter is fair but should probably be worded differently just for clarity's sake.

 

Shrug. I'm about ready to peace from this thread, I think I'm clear enough on where I'm at with it. Play nice, everyone.

[Valakias]

Good thing i was a neutral in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) so i didn't pay too much attention to that shite.

[Buorhann]

I just want a world war again.

[Roquentin]

All I've seen you reference is Charles ( Who just recently joined Syndicate after being away for a while ) and Chim ( Who has been largely inactive here ).

I've brought up WANA in other venues. I also didn't refer to Chim doing stuff in P&W and he's only been referred to as far as reasons to go to war in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) are concerned, which is the purpose of this topic. You guys are the ones trying to make him a martyr here.

 

Parti will have to dig for the logs, as they're old. Did say "first chronological".

 

Frankly? Members are members. If they want to say crap about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), I don't like it personally and may give them a wrist slap, but it's not policy. That's the key difference here.

 

It's a tough argument for me to make to them, when it's not always the same from the other side. I don't want to dictate to those other alliances where their lines on the matter ought to be, though I know they're not anywhere near the places mine are.

 

In the times that those issues have been brought to me rather than used as attempted political fodder to paint us as trying to wage some ideological war on you, I think I've been quite even handed.

 

What some people do to Chim in <this game> is far beyond what is acceptable to me, because he's just a mostly inactive member with a big mouth. Everyone has members with big mouths, so why is he so often chosen for scrutiny? Why did you drop that log of him speaking in a third unrelated game as if it was a big deal? I am sure anyone can find any number of logs like that. Why does this one member deserve so much scutiny, if not because of your own (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) beliefs you are bringing into this game?

 

The irony here is that in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), I don't agree with Chim often at all. Here he is a member who has unfair scrutiny leveled against him based on something outside the scope of this game, though: something I would try to defend any of my members from.

 

The particular member is one your leadership is saying we should have engaged on his questioning. I have no desire to go through engaging with him again as our past interactions have been shit and he's taken his issues with me far beyond the bounds of just not liking what someone did IC in another game. I was content to simply ignore his existence here until he decided to reignite things which he does every time there's an event that remotely involves me.

 

Again, we didn't accuse Chim of doing anything in P&W aside from the warnings on irc and the threats he made after the DoW which were only taken seriously when Partisan and Roy made supportive statements  on there. People wanted to know the reasons the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) war happened and I gave them.  This topic isn't "try to read (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) biases into NPO gov's actions". It's one asking whether the real reason MI6 was hit was the Alpha-tS war.

 

 

 

 

 

Hey Carter! I love you too.

 

I don't see how one or two instances of you guys liking people in mi6 completely dispels the notion that you don't like others, that it's influenced your thoughts, and there's a lot of relevant questions in my earlier statements I don't feel have been addressed.

 

Milton has told me he dislikes Chim enough for it to have influenced his thinking about t$ based on experiences in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) just yesterday: he is lower gov. I can grab the logs when I get home if anyone cares.

 

At some point this gets dropped, and that's probably better for everyone. I kept my thinking about this to myself for a very, very long time for fear of reinforcing it. When it's being asked of me by your allies and our members are being badgered about it, I unfortunately lose that luxury.

 

There are in game reasons why NPO and t$ might feel threatened by each other anyways: why does your gov find the ones from another world to be so salient.

 

If he disliked him that much he wouldn't have joined tS. If he had personality conflicts with people while in tS, that's a whole another story and he has mentioned getting into it with people there. I'm unaware of the details though. Comrade Milton is also the foremost proponent of trying to engage you in spite of the problems we're having and he said we shouldn't wall it off.  

 

edit: clarification on threats after (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) DoW

Edited June 9, 2016 by Roquentin

[Roy Mustang]

I've brought up WANA in other venues. I also didn't refer to Chim doing stuff in P&W and he's only been referred to as far as reasons to go to war in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) are concerned, which is the purpose of this topic. You guys are the ones trying to make him a martyr here.

 

To the best of my understanding, WANA's axe to grind with NPO stems first and foremost with the perceived slighting he's received from this present iteration of NPO regarding his previous attempt to establish NPO here. You're free to recognize his claim as valid or invalid as you wish, I personally could not care either way, but the basis of WANA's issues with PW NPO are rooted in things that have happened specifically in PW (current Pacifican leadership's unwillingness to recognize his previous attempt). 

 

Gonna let you and Thrax just bicker about the rest of this.

[Spaceman Thrax]

I haven't seen the "supporting statements" from Roy and Partisan? I've seen them saying "this log is a single member's opinion, from another game, and taken out of context".

 

(I'm not sure it would even be germane if they had said it, really, since it's an opinion about the reasoning behind the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) war. I did take this conversation to some issues I have with that coming into this game by way of statements from your government, but what is going on in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) can be influenced by here as much as it likes and people in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) can deal with it however they see fit.)

Edited June 9, 2016 by Manthrax

[Guinevere]

This one is easy:

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&#39;t be bringing it up anyways).

Well shit. I need to tend the channel garden better because there appear to be leaks growing here that I didn't plant them. >_>