Syndicate Declaration of Actually Making Declarations

[Mikey]

As one of the more casual leaders of the game i don't understand why people spend hours arguing on this yeah it's a great game but yanno, arguing wont solve anything haha

 

Some of us have nothing better to do thank you very much!

 

 

[Placentica]

 

 

To you, sure.

 

Syndicate only attacked Alpha ( TEst aided, by their own admission though ).

 

Mensa attacked GPA

 

There was SOPA as well, which involved TKR, BoC, and Resplendent (?) on Arrgh/RW.

 

The only Syndi/OO sphere wide declaration was NPO's First Time.

 

 

If you're including Mensa on Vanguard, let's remember that Vanguard was paperless and it was only Mensa on Vanguard.

I think everyone sees tS-BK-Mensa-TKR as one bloc.  No matter what your treaties are, you have been in lockstep for quite some time now.  Even going as far to throw shade on your tightness so people wouldn't catch on until it was too late.

 

Newest prior to this war, with a few minor wars included:

1) TKR on Arrgh/Roz

2) Mensa on GPA

3) tS/BK/etc in the OOC War

4) tS on Alpha with TEst joining - this wasn't even "technically" aggressive, it was 100% unprovoked aggression based on a 168-war grudge.  Alpha was bulked along with Sparta b/c we thought TEst was going to attack one of us - that's why Seabasstion's fliparoo was believed so quickly.

5) Mensa attacks/raids Vanguard (a raid is an ingame war which is an attack, without Mensa hitting Vanguard no war with Rose happens, it's silly to argue that it was 100% Rose aggression, but if you want you can make a case 50/50 for Rose aggression vs. Mensa aggression, I will give you that. Like many alliances here, I respect paperless aggreements equally with paper.  As an alliance that bailed out TEst, who was broken by TC in Oktoberfest, I'm consistent here.)

6) Mensa attacks Vanguard

7) lastly Oktoberfest. This is the best case for "100%" defensive war, one that most will agree on.

 

This is more than enough evidence to suggest who is the aggressive bloc of alliances.  I think Mensa has basically said they are aggressive and I can respect that.  But The Syndicate repeatedly tries to claim they are defensive and are under constant attack.  This is just so overwhelming false.  You can't play the victim card when their/your de-facto bloc are so often the aggressor.  Even you disagree with a few examples, I still have a very strong case.

 

 

What also helps with dominance is organizing with your allies.

 

When Fark/Alpha hit Mensa - those that were attacked by Mensa should've double built back up.  They would've been able to keep us down while Alpha/Fark dealt with the counters our allies put on them.

Fark/Alpha hit Mensa after update.

 

We dealt with counters?  Hahahaha, your allies and their allies filled every single war slot with much more well stocked nations, most of which 100% maxed and with rebuy even.  We were all zeroed within 12 hours.  You had 250 nations on 44.  There was no hope to even beige you before we were zeroed.  That's just the war system.  You put that many alliances on two small ones and that's what happens.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Placentica

[Boony]

I think everyone sees tS-BK-Mensa-TKR as one bloc. No matter what your treaties are, you have been in lockstep for quite some time now. Even going as far to throw shade on your tightness so people wouldn't catch on until it was too late.

 

Newest prior to this war, with a few minor wars included:

1) TKR on Arrgh/Roz

2) Mensa on GPA

3) tS/BK/etc in the OOC War

4) tS on Alpha with TEst joining - this wasn't even "technically" aggressive, it was 100% unprovoked aggression based on a 168-war grudge. Alpha was bulked along with Sparta b/c we thought TEst was going to attack one of us - that's why Seabasstion's fliparoo was believed so quickly.

5) Mensa attacks/raids Vanguard (a raid is an ingame war which is an attack, without Mensa hitting Vanguard no war with Rose happens, it's silly to argue that it was 100% Rose aggression, but if you want you can make a case 50/50 for Rose aggression vs. Mensa aggression, I will give you that. Like many alliances here, I respect paperless aggreements equally with paper. As an alliance that bailed out TEst, who was broken by TC in Oktoberfest, I'm consistent here.)

6) Mensa attacks Vanguard

7) lastly Oktoberfest. This is the best case for "100%" defensive war, one that most will agree on.

 

This is more than enough evidence to suggest who is the aggressive bloc of alliances. I think Mensa has basically said they are aggressive and I can respect that. But The Syndicate repeatedly tries to claim they are defensive and are under constant attack. This is just so overwhelming false. You can't play the victim card when their/your de-facto bloc are so often the aggressor. Even you disagree with a few examples, I still have a very strong case.

 

 

We dealt with counters? Hahahaha, your allies and their allies filled every single war slot with much more well stocked nations, most of which 100% maxed and with rebuy even. We were all zeroed within 12 hours. You had 250 nations on 44. There was no hope to even beige you before we were zeroed. That's just the war system. You put that many alliances on two small ones and that's what happens.

You automatically disqualify yourself to be taken seriously when you say us rolling you was "100% unprovoked". Cry me a river.

[Callum]

Alright ladies and gentlemen. just a page and a bit until this is an official DOW.

 

Lets keep it pleasant?

[Placentica]

You automatically disqualify yourself to be taken seriously when you say us rolling you was "100% unprovoked". Cry me a river.

It was a reply to Partisan saying it was only "technically" aggressive, go back and re-read.  It was full aggression with zero threat of being attacked by a 30-man alliance when you were the #1 alliance at the time.  The only people trying to provoke that conflict was tS.  Me asking you, "Hey, looks like you said you are going to attack us, please comment" doesn't qualify as "provoking" you, lol.

[Ayayay]

 Out of these 5 wars, we were struck pre-emptively on 3 seperate occasions, and in all 3 of these case, no Syndicate offensive was planned anywhere in the near future. 

In GW2 Mensa was raiding Rose protectorates trying to goad them into war. In GW4 you planned to hit Paragon, then decided not to, after which Paragon found out that you wanted to hit them so they thought they were pre-empting you, never having realized you'd already canceled your war plans. (idr if you actually canceled your war plans or simply delayed them, but you can't plan to war someone then complain when you're hit a week or so later about how you had no intention of starting a war)

 

GW3 you claim to have had no intention of hitting TC. However, considering that you were both the main proponent for the formation of paragon and the most outspoken for hitting TC before they could pose a reasonable threat, I'm sure you can imagine why TC wasn't entirely convinced of your change of heart and claims you had no intention of hitting them.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Malal

[Beowulf the Second]

It was a reply to Partisan saying it was only "technically" aggressive, go back and re-read.  It was full aggression with zero threat of being attacked by a 30-man alliance when you were the #1 alliance at the time.  The only people trying to provoke that conflict was tS.  Me asking you, "Hey, looks like you said you are going to attack us, please comment" doesn't qualify as "provoking" you, lol.

 

I thought we had established long before that you had been working REALLY hard to diplomatically sh!t on t$ and spread lies about us prior to that war: something about hiring Arrgh as secret mercenaries, something else about plotting to roll you as revenge for our treaty break (I forget, idrc about it lmao). When you overreacted on IRC, spilled it all over the forums, and was promptly beaten back by actual evidence, you earned the ire of our entire membership, who promptly rolled you--that was really kind of your fault. That was a huge mistake on your part tbh, and I think everything else was recoverable until you... well you made every regular t$ member dislike you with 1 move

 

In fact, I'll go back and find the thread of you in essence begging to be spared lmao. I get that the military threat to t$ at that point was probably defused: that we had publically proven you wrong and you didn't have much of a chance at organizing a coalition against us at that point, but you can't expect to go on the POLITICAL offensive and then scream bloody murder when someone hits back

 

I had no interest in that FA period though so feel free to modify sum'n

Edited September 17, 2016 by Beowulf the Second

[Boony]

It was a reply to Partisan saying it was only "technically" aggressive, go back and re-read. It was full aggression with zero threat of being attacked by a 30-man alliance when you were the #1 alliance at the time. The only people trying to provoke that conflict was tS. Me asking you, "Hey, looks like you said you are going to attack us, please comment" doesn't qualify as "provoking" you, lol.

No no no buddy. You did much more than that and gov folks from the other side pretty much admitted it as well. Everything you did was outlined by Partisan somewhere. I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but even if you had no plans to do anything ton tS, it really doesn't matter. War doesn't only happen because one alliance is afraid the other alliance is going to attack them. War should happen for lots of different reasons. A valid CB is telling our allies that we paid Arghh to hit them (something along those lines) when it wasn't true and no had no evidence for it.

 

All I'm saying is, when you say "100% unprovoked aggression", no one is going to want to seriously respond to you because it looks like you're only pushing a narrative rather than seriously discuss tS aggression.

[Sisyphus]

It was a reply to Partisan saying it was only "technically" aggressive, go back and re-read. It was full aggression with zero threat of being attacked by a 30-man alliance when you were the #1 alliance at the time. The only people trying to provoke that conflict was tS. Me asking you, "Hey, looks like you said you are going to attack us, please comment" doesn't qualify as "provoking" you, lol.

you can't plan to war someone then complain when you're hit a week or so later about how you had no intention of starting a war

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[Charles Bolivar]

Kinda ironic that we have been preempted a few times yet we are labelled the aggressive ones.

 

Was just informed that as of today, tS is 666 days old. I guess we are evil

Edited September 18, 2016 by Night King

[Yosodog]

You know, Paracov says we make the game boring by having a hegemoney... has no one thought about how they make the game boring by being so shit? We have little to no competition and we barely even have to try. If you want to make the game more interesting for everyone, get better.

[LordRahl2]

You know, Paracov says we make the game boring by having a hegemoney... has no one thought about how they make the game boring by being so shit? We have little to no competition and we barely even have to try. If you want to make the game more interesting for everyone, get better.

 

[Prefontaine]

You know, Paracov says we make the game boring by having a hegemoney... has no one thought about how they make the game boring by being so shit? We have little to no competition and we barely even have to try. If you want to make the game more interesting for everyone, get better.

 

[Kurdanak]

Seriously, who gives a !@#$ about the wiki?

The all knowing wiki. No one should dare oppose the wiki.

 

Do people read the wiki?

There is a Wiki?

Edited September 18, 2016 by Kurdanak

[Callum]

I'm sorry Kurdanak. its really great. i swear.

[Memph]

You know, Paracov says we make the game boring by having a hegemoney... has no one thought about how they make the game boring by being so shit? We have little to no competition and we barely even have to try. If you want to make the game more interesting for everyone, get better.

Get better and maybe more people will want to be on your side.

[Foltest]

I'm sorry Kurdanak. its really great. i swear.

 

The wiki is pretty bad. A solid 95% of the articles are snubs.

 

Wikis already are bad websites by design but ours isn't even worth checking in its current state.

 

Get better and maybe more people will want to be on your side.

 

Paracov currently has a numerical advantage in terms of nations and score over BK-Syndisphere.

 

It's not really the numbers they lack and I would even argue it's not the quality of leadership. Roquentin has pointed it out several times but it's been drowned out by his other points.

 

Multiple Paracov alliances are so inactive and disinterested that they think the game itself is nearing the end.

 

 

 

So what's the solution?

 

 

Stop collecting inactive members. Stop letting people who aren't enjoying the game stay in your alliance. Remove the doomsayers, remove the chaff, remove the dead weight. You might not be as big on the stats page - and one or two of you might not even exist (sorry VE and UPN), but eventually people need to start thinking about the politics in terms of individualism rather than clinging to dead communities.

[Buorhann]

Stop collecting inactive members. Stop letting people who aren't enjoying the game stay in your alliance. Remove the doomsayers, remove the chaff, remove the dead weight. You might not be as big on the stats page - and one or two of you might not even exist (sorry VE and UPN), but eventually people need to start thinking about the politics in terms of individualism rather than clinging to dead communities.

 

 

I would put up a strong argument that their leadership is subpar.

 

<Ogaden>: what really makes me sad about this war

<Ogaden>: is how when Alpha and Fark hit Mensa, noone Mensa was fighting double bought

<Ogaden>: but when Mensa was relieved, they did

This is just one example, but it goes to show you what is taught/expected out of their members. Individually, they have some strong alliances ( UPN was one of their strongest active military alliance and NPO showed up this war ), but they have horrible communication when it comes to coordinating outside of "X alliance attacks Y alliance at this Z time." VE was once a threat, but this war they only pulled off 13 out of 78 nations in blitzing ( Granted it would back up your claim that a lot of them are inactive, which I won't contest that point ).

Edited September 18, 2016 by Buorhann

[Kurdanak]

The wiki is pretty bad. A solid 95% of the articles are snubs.

 

Wikis already are bad websites by design but ours isn't even worth checking in its current state.

Then do something about it and contribute; it's open to public edits for a reason.

[Charles Bolivar]

The wiki is pretty bad. A solid 95% of the articles are snubs.

 

Wikis already are bad websites by design but ours isn't even worth checking in its current state.

 

 

Paracov currently has a numerical advantage in terms of nations and score over BK-Syndisphere.

 

It's not really the numbers they lack and I would even argue it's not the quality of leadership. Roquentin has pointed it out several times but it's been drowned out by his other points.

 

Multiple Paracov alliances are so inactive and disinterested that they think the game itself is nearing the end.

 

 

 

So what's the solution?

 

 

Stop collecting inactive members. Stop letting people who aren't enjoying the game stay in your alliance. Remove the doomsayers, remove the chaff, remove the dead weight. You might not be as big on the stats page - and one or two of you might not even exist (sorry VE and UPN), but eventually people need to start thinking about the politics in terms of individualism rather than clinging to dead communities.

 

It is definitely the leadership. Your last point even reinforces poor leadership being the issue since decent leadership would impose stricter recruiting policies instead of just accepting anyone in order to get tax revenue.

 

Half the alliances in paracov lack much sense of community and exist solely as a testament to a few gov members' egos who just want a mask and a position of authority to feel relevant.