Jump to content

Syndicate Declaration of Actually Making Declarations


Spaceman Thrax
 Share

Recommended Posts

Watching SK fall further into the abyss of obscurity and irrelevance is plenty for me. No reps needed.

 

Better than having you as King ;)

  • Upvote 2

Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, hey, I must have missed Cody moving to the Syndicate. Glad to see your utter contempt towards literally everything is still intact. :P

 

0/10 still not the flame levels I expect from him.

 

 

 

Ah, the old personal grudges leading to the downfall of an alliance. I know I've seen this script somewhere before.

 

I've been hating on Cody since before it was cool!

Edited by Mikey
  • Upvote 2

Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, hey, I must have missed Cody moving to the Syndicate. Glad to see your utter contempt towards literally everything is still intact. :P

Nothing can be beautiful until I cast my shadow of disdain and vexation on it. Only then do we see what truly shines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time to extract very very punitive reps from these guys. 1 billion cash and 100k of each resource from each of the initial alliances that attacked. Then, all the treasures that the other side gets is given up to an alliance of our side's choosing for an entire year. That should be very very good incentive to git gud.

 

But tS preempted us

 

084.png

eStUYHv.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But tS preempted us

 

084.png

 

 

When we spoke, I told you that you were lucky that you had Manthrax dealing with you and I told you to be careful not to shit on that.

 

You did anyways.

 

Let's look at our recent history this way:

 

- In Valdoroth's first war (168), you took early peace after randomly hitting NAC and prompting UPN to come in.

- The very next war kicked off prematurely because your head of FA leaked confidential information to what was at the tim the biggest rival/enemy/threat to tS. Technically speaking? This was a direct breach of trust.

- You sat out the following war, though I can understand that one.

- You did not take care of the leaking govt member and instead reinstalled him as head of FA with the objective to push away from us and take us down. In you (as in, SK's) on words: 'for our third sphere to be viable, we need to take you out'.

- You transparently feigned a desire for cordiality in order to placate us out of fear for pre-emptive measures.

- Simultaneously, you coordinated with our historical rivals to mount a coalitionwide strike on us.

 

 

- By your own admission, you were set to go in on the same night we pre-empted us. You were going to hit tS. Your allies had already hit tS allies.

 

- We nipped that in the bud because frankly, you lost your moral high ground a long time ago, and we had no intent to give you any military advantage whatsoever.

 

Personally? I still view this war as aggressive of your part. It was prepared and planned by you. Initiated by you. Intended and desired by you.

 

I no longer make our decisions. But shit, I would certainly support any and all punitive measures. Because why not at this point?

  • Upvote 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we spoke, I told you that you were lucky that you had Manthrax dealing with you and I told you to be careful not to shit on that.

 

You did anyways.

 

Let's look at our recent history this way:

 

- In Valdoroth's first war (168), you took early peace after randomly hitting NAC and prompting UPN to come in.

- The very next war kicked off prematurely because your head of FA leaked confidential information to what was at the tim the biggest rival/enemy/threat to tS. Technically speaking? This was a direct breach of trust.

- You sat out the following war, though I can understand that one.

- You did not take care of the leaking govt member and instead reinstalled him as head of FA with the objective to push away from us and take us down. In you (as in, SK's) on words: 'for our third sphere to be viable, we need to take you out'.

- You transparently feigned a desire for cordiality in order to placate us out of fear for pre-emptive measures.

- Simultaneously, you coordinated with our historical rivals to mount a coalitionwide strike on us.

 

 

- By your own admission, you were set to go in on the same night we pre-empted us. You were going to hit tS. Your allies had already hit tS allies.

 

- We nipped that in the bud because frankly, you lost your moral high ground a long time ago, and we had no intent to give you any military advantage whatsoever.

 

Personally? I still view this war as aggressive of your part. It was prepared and planned by you. Initiated by you. Intended and desired by you.

 

I no longer make our decisions. But shit, I would certainly support any and all punitive measures. Because why not at this point?

 

Why don't you go ahead and take several seats. First of all, I want to dismiss out of hand the laughable notion that we should be genuflecting to you or that you we live and die by your generosity and magnanimity, although it does speak a lot to how you view your position in the game. "If only we had bowed our heads lower and said more nice things about our overlords, maybe they wouldn't have disowned us." Go ahead and save this garbage for someone who cares.

 

As for the rest, here we go:

 

1. True, but couldn't be less relevant to anything happening now, so I really have no idea why you're bringing it up other than to throw out one more minor blemish on our record that everyone already knows about.

2.  True, but you guys won by a landslide anyway. If you were angry enough about it then to drop us and/or roll us then or even months after, you had every opportunity to do so, but you didn't. You accepted our decision then so you forfeited the right to bring it up every time you want to blame us for some unrelated shit way later as if it was some sort of fresh wound.

3. Nothing to disagree on here.

4.  See number 2 but also with the additional note that we're not responsible for trying to refute your paranoid delusions. I also don't know who those quotes are from but they're not from me. I don't deny it's possible someone else in sk said that, but if you're gonna put words in our mouths, you better have receipts.

5. See my preamble and the above vis a vis paranoid delusions. I personally went way above and beyond to try to keep things cool between us after the split, and I steered SK in that direction even when others didn't want to. If you want to believe it was all a lie and some elaborate conspiracy (although to what end I can't possibly imagine), that's on you. One of two things is true though: either we are master manipulators who plot and scheme the likes of which would make Cersei Lannister proud, or we are incompetent and can't even win a war. You can't have it both ways.

6. Sorta true, but let's have a little context here. This is a browser based game, not the Hundred Years War, so feel free to tone down the melodrama and histrionics, although I know you won't.

7. True, I don't disagree.

8. We've never ever mentioned or pretended to have a moral high ground because we don't care. That's your game.See the above.

9. I don't give a sack of rotten bear turds what you personally think. There's zero precedent for this (because it's an absolutely ridiculous notion). "We attacked you but you are the attackers because we said so!!" Good luck in all of our future wars where you are the aggressive party because the other person said so.

10. See the above. At this point this has become a pretty transparently personal grudge because we had the gall to do something different, and the more you protest the more obvious it becomes. But it's ok, I fully expect you to do so anyway. Gotta demonize big bad SK who has half the members you do and is losing a war to you but is still somehow an existential threat.

 

And now I'm quite finished.

eStUYHv.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10. See the above. At this point this has become a pretty transparently personal grudge because we had the gall to do something different, and the more you protest the more obvious it becomes. But it's ok, I fully expect you to do so anyway. Gotta demonize big bad SK who has half the members you do and is losing a war to you but is still somehow an existential threat.

 

I'm going to ignore the rest, because I'm neither qualified nor caring enough to go into it. But this bit made me chuckle. In what way are you doing anything different? Your "third sphere" is coordinating with the sphere you "broke away from" in an attempt to take down Syndisphere/OO. Seems to me like you are doing the exact same thing that has been done for many turns of the wheel.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to ignore the rest, because I'm neither qualified nor caring enough to go into it. But this bit made me chuckle. In what way are you doing anything different? Your "third sphere" is coordinating with the sphere you "broke away from" in an attempt to take down Syndisphere/OO. Seems to me like you are doing the exact same thing that has been done for many turns of the wheel.

 

It's not a coded message. It means exactly what it means, which is "not being your allies anymore". I'm pretty sure that's the textbook definition of different, regardless of what you think our sphere is. I'm not sure why you thought picking apart this one very clear point was worth anything.

 

In case anyone else is confused and needs help understanding my big words, "different" means "not doing the same thing we were doing before" ; as in not being allies to tS anymore. I can make some visual aids if this still isn't clear.

Edited by Brooklyn666
  • Upvote 1

eStUYHv.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you go ahead and take several seats. First of all, I want to dismiss out of hand the laughable notion that we should be genuflecting to you or that you we live and die by your generosity and magnanimity, although it does speak a lot to how you view your position in the game. "If only we had bowed our heads lower and said more nice things about our overlords, maybe they wouldn't have disowned us." Go ahead and save this garbage for someone who cares.

 

As for the rest, here we go:

 

1. True, but couldn't be less relevant to anything happening now, so I really have no idea why you're bringing it up other than to throw out one more minor blemish on our record that everyone already knows about.

2.  True, but you guys won by a landslide anyway. If you were angry enough about it then to drop us and/or roll us then or even months after, you had every opportunity to do so, but you didn't. You accepted our decision then so you forfeited the right to bring it up every time you want to blame us for some unrelated shit way later as if it was some sort of fresh wound.

3. Nothing to disagree on here.

4.  See number 2 but also with the additional note that we're not responsible for trying to refute your paranoid delusions. I also don't know who those quotes are from but they're not from me. I don't deny it's possible someone else in sk said that, but if you're gonna put words in our mouths, you better have receipts.

5. See my preamble and the above vis a vis paranoid delusions. I personally went way above and beyond to try to keep things cool between us after the split, and I steered SK in that direction even when others didn't want to. If you want to believe it was all a lie and some elaborate conspiracy (although to what end I can't possibly imagine), that's on you. One of two things is true though: either we are master manipulators who plot and scheme the likes of which would make Cersei Lannister proud, or we are incompetent and can't even win a war. You can't have it both ways.

6. Sorta true, but let's have a little context here. This is a browser based game, not the Hundred Years War, so feel free to tone down the melodrama and histrionics, although I know you won't.

7. True, I don't disagree.

8. We've never ever mentioned or pretended to have a moral high ground because we don't care. That's your game.See the above.

9. I don't give a sack of rotten bear turds what you personally think. There's zero precedent for this (because it's an absolutely ridiculous notion). "We attacked you but you are the attackers because we said so!!" Good luck in all of our future wars where you are the aggressive party because the other person said so.

10. See the above. At this point this has become a pretty transparently personal grudge because we had the gall to do something different, and the more you protest the more obvious it becomes. But it's ok, I fully expect you to do so anyway. Gotta demonize big bad SK who has half the members you do and is losing a war to you but is still somehow an existential threat.

 

And now I'm quite finished.

 

yay I baited someone into world walls!

 

BREAKDOWN

 

Why don't you go ahead and take several seats. First of all, I want to dismiss out of hand the laughable notion that we should be genuflecting to you or that you we live and die by your generosity and magnanimity, although it does speak a lot to how you view your position in the game. "If only we had bowed our heads lower and said more nice things about our overlords, maybe they wouldn't have disowned us." Go ahead and save this garbage for someone who cares.

 

 

No seat needed. I'm a snake.

 

There has been no point where I said anything about you needing to 'bow your head' or 'say nice things'. Neither did we ever 'disown you' or treat you as your 'overlord'. The notion is laughable and idiotic. Quit the charade. We both know that you do not even support that notion yourself- you expressed as much in query, weeks ago.

 

When you !@#$ed up and pissed us off, we talked it out and moved on. You then cancelled on us and plotted (and executed) a coalition war against us. Now you claim that we disowned you? Bullshit, Brooklyn. Don't even try to play this whole 'booh evil overlord' rhetoric with me. It's silly.

 

1. It matters exactly because of your post just now. Some of you have driven the narrative (in private and/or public) that tS has somehow wronged you. I see the history of SK !@#$ ups and us working it out as direct evidence to the contrary and will therefore consistently present it when any within SK bemoan the position they currently find themselves in.

2. We won despite you, not because of you. I do not see how us winning in any way negates the breach of trust. We were angry about it. We didn't drop you nor roll you, because we did not want to dictate your internals to you and because you were our ally- shit happens. You try to work it out. Thing is, as allies we interpreted it as mishaps- inexperience perhaps. In light of your recent actions, it looks a bit more coordinated and deliberate. Or do you disagree that it seems suspicious?

3. Word. At least we agree on something.

4. What delusions have we had with regards to SK? We did all we could to part without bullshit. Your own high govt member went around bullshitting us throughout his tenure. First thing coming from Gandalf's mouth when you cancelled on us was a bunch of 'OMG hegemoney LELELEL' stuff. How exactly do you expect us to interpret that, along with other hostility? Let's stick to the SK-tS relationship here. I'll be interested in hearing your answer.

5. You personally put in effort for certain. But lets face it brooklyn: We're at war and this one was *not* initiated by tS. It was planned an coordinated by SK alongside a coalition of paracov. That in itself *directly* contradicts all the claims yo made to us in query when you tried to amiably part. On the latter part of your point: I have not stated any judgement on your capacity to win a war, nor on your manipulative abilities. That one's entirely irrelevant and you should probably drop it because it does not add any value to the discussion at hand.

6. Everyone plays the game in a different way. Who are you to make me change the way I play it? :P. If you're going to put out a PR narrative (lol tS pre-empted us), it's silly to call out the response because 'lel its just a game'. We all know it is. We also all know that that's irrelevant. This type of callout is usually not much more than a hollow 'no u'.

7. Hey look, agreement!

8. You personally? Agreed. Others in SK? Disagreed.

9. And again: my opinion =/= tS policy. With that said: I've always looked at the bigger picture/surrounding circumstances when assessing a situation. In this case? I view you as a defacto aggressor by virtue of your political manouvers and military intentions coupled with already conducted military strikes by clear coalition partners. 

 

Simply put: If you have two forces with each 3 regiments (e.g. blue and red): Regiment R1 and R2 hit regiment B1 and B2. Regiment B3 sees what's happening and sees regiment R3 taking aim. Regiment B3 pre-empts R3. Who is the aggressor? To me? The broader coalition of R.

 

10.This is yet another idiotic brainfart stemming from the irrational delusion that you are somehow 'breaking the mold' or 'doing something different'. You switched sides. That's all. We do no care about you 'doing something different', or even 'cancelling on us'.  What we do care about is you literally planning and executing a war against us and our allies on a coalition-wide scale. Are you really going to shift the cause for our grievance from 'you literally went to war against us and our allies' to 'ITS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO DO SOMEHING DIFFERENT'? Bullshit spin.

 

Whether you succeed or fail is entirely irrelevant to how we should treat you. You sacked up and came at us. Now we're simply doing our thing. You're right: You're not an existential threat. You are however an adversary. Simple and clear. Your member count is equally irrelevant.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a coded message. It means exactly what it means, which is "not being your allies anymore". I'm pretty sure that's the textbook definition of different, regardless of what you think our sphere is. I'm not sure why you thought picking apart this one very clear point was worth anything.

 

In case anyone else is confused and needs help understanding my big words, "different" means "not doing the same thing we were doing before" ; as in not being allies to tS anymore. I can make some visual aids if this still isn't clear.

 

Just read this after I posted. That's a fair definition. Even then: We don't give a much of a !@#$ about you no longer being allied to us. We give a shit about you launching  coalition-wide strike on us. That's a pretty big difference and pretending it's anything else is obtuse on your part.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yay I baited someone into world walls!

 

BREAKDOWN

 

 

No seat needed. I'm a snake.

 

There has been no point where I said anything about you needing to 'bow your head' or 'say nice things'. Neither did we ever 'disown you' or treat you as your 'overlord'. The notion is laughable and idiotic. Quit the charade. We both know that you do not even support that notion yourself- you expressed as much in query, weeks ago.

 

When you !@#$ed up and pissed us off, we talked it out and moved on. You then cancelled on us and plotted (and executed) a coalition war against us. Now you claim that we disowned you? Bullshit, Brooklyn. Don't even try to play this whole 'booh evil overlord' rhetoric with me. It's silly.

 

1. It matters exactly because of your post just now. Some of you have driven the narrative (in private and/or public) that tS has somehow wronged you. I see the history of SK !@#$ ups and us working it out as direct evidence to the contrary and will therefore consistently present it when any within SK bemoan the position they currently find themselves in.

2. We won despite you, not because of you. I do not see how us winning in any way negates the breach of trust. We were angry about it. We didn't drop you nor roll you, because we did not want to dictate your internals to you and because you were our ally- shit happens. You try to work it out. Thing is, as allies we interpreted it as mishaps- inexperience perhaps. In light of your recent actions, it looks a bit more coordinated and deliberate. Or do you disagree that it seems suspicious?

3. Word. At least we agree on something.

4. What delusions have we had with regards to SK? We did all we could to part without bullshit. Your own high govt member went around bullshitting us throughout his tenure. First thing coming from Gandalf's mouth when you cancelled on us was a bunch of 'OMG hegemoney LELELEL' stuff. How exactly do you expect us to interpret that, along with other hostility? Let's stick to the SK-tS relationship here. I'll be interested in hearing your answer.

5. You personally put in effort for certain. But lets face it brooklyn: We're at war and this one was *not* initiated by tS. It was planned an coordinated by SK alongside a coalition of paracov. That in itself *directly* contradicts all the claims yo made to us in query when you tried to amiably part. On the latter part of your point: I have not stated any judgement on your capacity to win a war, nor on your manipulative abilities. That one's entirely irrelevant and you should probably drop it because it does not add any value to the discussion at hand.

6. Everyone plays the game in a different way. Who are you to make me change the way I play it? :P. If you're going to put out a PR narrative (lol tS pre-empted us), it's silly to call out the response because 'lel its just a game'. We all know it is. We also all know that that's irrelevant. This type of callout is usually not much more than a hollow 'no u'.

7. Hey look, agreement!

8. You personally? Agreed. Others in SK? Disagreed.

9. And again: my opinion =/= tS policy. With that said: I've always looked at the bigger picture/surrounding circumstances when assessing a situation. In this case? I view you as a defacto aggressor by virtue of your political manouvers and military intentions coupled with already conducted military strikes by clear coalition partners. 

 

Simply put: If you have two forces with each 3 regiments (e.g. blue and red): Regiment R1 and R2 hit regiment B1 and B2. Regiment B3 sees what's happening and sees regiment R3 taking aim. Regiment B3 pre-empts R3. Who is the aggressor? To me? The broader coalition of R.

 

10.This is yet another idiotic brainfart stemming from the irrational delusion that you are somehow 'breaking the mold' or 'doing something different'. You switched sides. That's all. We do no care about you 'doing something different', or even 'cancelling on us'.  What we do care about is you literally planning and executing a war against us and our allies on a coalition-wide scale. Are you really going to shift the cause for our grievance from 'you literally went to war against us and our allies' to 'ITS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO DO SOMEHING DIFFERENT'? Bullshit spin.

 

Whether you succeed or fail is entirely irrelevant to how we should treat you. You sacked up and came at us. Now we're simply doing our thing. You're right: You're not an existential threat. You are however an adversary. Simple and clear. Your member count is equally irrelevant.

 

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syndicate a few weeks from now:

 

ali-frazier-1971.jpg

 

Didn't see that left hook coming did ya?

 

Nope, not from you. Then again, I don't expect much from pacificans besides inferior ability so that isn't much of a surprise. 

 

I swear we just mollywhopped you lightweight pacificans not too long ago?

Edited by Night King

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I want to dismiss out of hand the laughable notion that we should be genuflecting to you or that you we live and die by your generosity and magnanimity

 

I don't know about living, you certainly are dying though.

 

qLvb4y6.png

Edited by Night King

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brooklyn: Fair warning, he can go alllllll day. :P

 

Me personally? I think a genuine shift in this game's paradigm requires us to take a few steps away from the history that you and Partisan are now miring yourself in, and an allowing for slightly more nuance than a "with us or against us" outlook.

 

That said? You know that you're on shaky ground. There's a lot here I could get into, if I thought it wise. I'm glad we took a couple days to cool off since the DoW: let's not undo that.

 

Hit me up if you want to chat.

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.