State of Orbis

[Buorhann]

UPN have done it.

 

Obviously anyone can get easily rolled if the numbers are stacked against them...

 

 

The Great VE War, yes.  When we were still organizing ourselves.

[Buorhann]

Also, to be honest, the problem outlined in the OP is only one aspect. The other thing is the "COME WIN WITH US. JOIN THE WINNERS CIRCLE GET THEM WS" culture that is promoted in this game. Most of the alliances that end up switching sides weren't military powerhouses, but it just adds more NS to deal with. When someone makes a new alliance, they usually want to be associated with the winners as well, so it's a self-perpetuating cycle. The game culture presently is severely problematic for this reason.

 

 

The amusing thing about this is the loser mentality in your post.  There's been a few people who managed to reshape the dynamic of this game.  Two of them - Prefontaine and Partisan - have shown that communication works pretty damn well when you treat alliances with trust and respect.  Oh, and also teaching and disciplining your members when they do something stupid ( Like waste Spy Ops on "destroying Infra" or using Air Strikes and destroying money, etc ).

 

Seriously, the other sphere?  You guys?  If you would tighten up your planning and execution, you wouldn't have so many issues.  It just seems that you guys would rather cry foul instead of learning from the war and taking the time to teach your members on how to properly war.

[Roquentin]

The amusing thing about this is the loser mentality in your post.  There's been a few people who managed to reshape the dynamic of this game.  Two of them - Prefontaine and Partisan - have shown that communication works pretty damn well when you treat alliances with trust and respect.  Oh, and also teaching and disciplining your members when they do something stupid ( Like waste Spy Ops on "destroying Infra" or using Air Strikes and destroying money, etc ).

 

Seriously, the other sphere?  You guys?  If you would tighten up your planning and execution, you wouldn't have so many issues.  It just seems that you guys would rather cry foul instead of learning from the war and taking the time to teach your members on how to properly war.

 

You're referring to very different situations at different points in the game. Positions are much more rigid and stagnant than they were back then. Partisan took advantage of the losers of the VE war being upset at VE/Rose rather than tS. That's a very unique kind of opening.

 

Obviously, everyone could work on the micro level things, but the specific things you mention just seem to be jabs.

It's not about crying foul, it's about legitimately addressing the overall political situation and political culture of the game. If people keep insisting on siding with the "winners", there is no way to change it. It's just you guys don't like an opposing narrative to Syndisphere triumphalism. It's cool if you guys want it to be a hegemoney. I had avoided using that term, but it's clear it's what you guys want. I'm just tired of all the pretending that this is some sort of amazing political atmosphere that isn't stagnant. The political game will more or less be dead after this short of a major change, which is why we gave this an all out effort.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Roquentin

[Foltest]

You're referring to very different situations at different points in the game. Positions are much more rigid and stagnant than they were back then. Partisan took advantage of the losers of the VE war being upset at VE/Rose rather than tS. That's a very unique kind of opening.

 

Obviously, everyone could work on the micro level things, but the specific things you mention just seem to be jabs.

It's not about crying foul, it's about legitimately addressing the overall political situation and political culture of the game. If people keep insisting on siding with the "winners", there is no way to change it. It's just you guys don't like an opposing narrative to Syndisphere triumphalism. It's cool if you guys want it to be a hegemoney. I had avoided using that term, but it's clear it's what you guys want. I'm just tired of all the pretending that this is some sort of amazing political atmosphere that isn't stagnant. The political game will more or less be dead after this short of a major change, which is why we gave this an all out effort.

 

You are a broken record with this stuff lately.

[Roquentin]

You are a broken record with this stuff lately.

 

You guys usually repeat the same talking points and can't handle criticism. I'm usually trying to expand on previous points. If this is the best you can do to contest them, lol.

[Saru]

You're referring to very different situations at different points in the game. Positions are much more rigid and stagnant than they were back then. Partisan took advantage of the losers of the VE war being upset at VE/Rose rather than tS. That's a very unique kind of opening.

 

Obviously, everyone could work on the micro level things, but the specific things you mention just seem to be jabs.

It's not about crying foul, it's about legitimately addressing the overall political situation and political culture of the game. If people keep insisting on siding with the "winners", there is no way to change it. It's just you guys don't like an opposing narrative to Syndisphere triumphalism. It's cool if you guys want it to be a hegemoney. I had avoided using that term, but it's clear it's what you guys want. I'm just tired of all the pretending that this is some sort of amazing political atmosphere that isn't stagnant. The political game will more or less be dead after this short of a major change, which is why we gave this an all out effort.

 

I agree with you in regards to the politics likely becoming stagnant, but I don't think tS or whomever else should be blamed for it. I think it's just a natural consequence of these type of games, and would of been the case with other alliances involved had things shaped differently. Unless we see a surge in new players and alliances I think the politics may get pretty bland.

[LordRahl2]

I agree with you in regards to the politics likely becoming stagnant, but I don't think tS or whomever else should be blamed for it. I think it's just a natural consequence of these type of games, and would of been the case with other alliances involved had things shaped differently. Unless we see a surge in new players and alliances I think the politics may get pretty bland.

Shit will change over time enough to stay sorta interesting.

 

Was it super fascinating before?

[Roquentin]

I agree with you in regards to the politics likely becoming stagnant, but I don't think tS or whomever else should be blamed for it. I think it's just a natural consequence of these type of games, and would of been the case with other alliances involved had things shaped differently. Unless we see a surge in new players and alliances I think the politics may get pretty bland.

 

It's a regular pattern in the games and I agree with that, but the thing is tS sphere sells this game as being more dynamic than other games and as some sort of dynamic utopia when it is going to be no better politically. I was frequently told about how  because there's no political bloc in control here that it's better by people on that side and given statements like "Lordship prevented this becoming (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) 2.0" from alliance leaders on their side, it's just getting absurd.  It was sort of dynamic for the first two years, but  it's heading to an end of history stage.  If they were more honest and simply admitted "I like this game because I win here and remain relevant," it'd at least seem far less disengenuous.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Roquentin

[Saru]

Shit will change over time enough to stay sorta interesting.

 

Was it super fascinating before?

 

Yeah I used to find it pretty fun, mainly because this world was somewhat of a blank slate in terms of politics. Obviously over time relationships get more and more set in stone. And it's not like I am criticising tS/Mensa and co, because UPN literally has the longest held treaties in the game, existing even before the live version/before most alliances existed lol. But yeah I think it is more boring now.

 

It's a regular pattern in the games and I agree with that, but the thing is tS sphere sells this game as being more dynamic than other games and as some sort of dynamic utopia when it is going to be no better politically. I was frequently told about how  because there's no political bloc in control here that it's better by people on that side and given statements like "Lordship prevented this becoming (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) 2.0" from alliance leaders on their side, it's just getting absurd.  It was sort of dynamic for the first two years, but  it's heading to an end of history stage.  If they were more honest and simply admitted "I like this game because I win here and remain relevant," it'd at least seem far less disengenuous.

 

Fair enough.

 

I would say that there is a chance that the situation gets worse than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), purely because of the fact that there aren't enough of those "realpolitik" alliances around, and not enough significant alliances in general.

 

And to be fair I think the game hasn't gotten out of control just yet. At the start of the game I was convinced that an alliance would grow to be so dominant, where it would be hard to bring them down. GPA was looking like it may get there, but then obviously people didn't allow it. Maybe TEst will be that next?

[Foltest]

You guys usually repeat the same talking points and can't handle criticism. I'm usually trying to expand on previous points. If this is the best you can do to contest them, lol.

 

I have been contesting them since the war began on BK's forums. I didn't realize we needed to repeat talking points on twelve different forums.

 

You're flat out wrong, You've been espousing nothing but self-pity since the war started and you've tried to market it as a war for the fate of Orbis when it will only serve to extend the repetition of the Syndicate/BK/TKR/Mensa vs. NPO/Rose/VE/UPN cycle.

 

 

 

You tried to change politics by repeating the same scenario. Now you're on this public awareness campaign - during yet another Syndi/OO vs Paracov war that you started - trying to sell people on this idea that we should somehow make a great change to allow you more room to shine. I've said it on BK's forums and I'll say it here.

 

NPO has consistently been in the top 10 for months. You have the statistics.

 

NPO is the de facto head of their sphere. You have the numbers.

 

NPO pre-empted us and actually did a decent job on BK. You had the opportunity.

 

 

 

You want to cast yourselves as victims of fate, but at worst you just don't have the massive advantages you're used to.

[Sans]

The fact that the ParaCov coalition has once again found itself in a disadvantageous position is no one's fault but your own. You say you want change, that the current political dynamic is stale and boring. You say the meanies in the Syndisphere want to keep you down. What you do is attack us without warning with absolutely no reason. What you do is refuse to change yourselves in favor of keeping your (friendship ties), what you do is refuse opportunities to change in favor of keeping the status quo. What you do is offer nothing to changing the political landscape of the game. Having aggressively attacked us again, any calls for political change is going to fall on deaf ears. All you have done is, once again, brought our side closer together. 

 

The ParacCov sphere was given the reason they were targeted in NPO's first time, you were too big of a bloc and were a threat to us. For the sake of our well being and for the sake of the game we called on ParaCov to separate. The war was fought your side lost again and a bit later, Paragon broke it's treaties. Cool, we're on our way to getting somewhere. Wait, what? "The Covenant + NPOsphere doesn't want to break their treaties? Friendships > infra you say?" Ok, well some folks are going to see them as hypocrites for not wanting to change. They'll prolly call them out on it too.  Whats that? "SK dropped its treaties with tS and shacked up with Paragon?" Well, some folks who disliked SK are prolly going to be slinging some shit. I mean SK did shit the bed in 168, they also leaked info before NPO's first time. Won't be surprising to hear people call them out either. Hold up, VE is militarizing lets do the same to be sa.....wait, we were attacked? By ParaCov again? So much for change amiright?

 

Thats how I feel about the string of events that have led us to this current war. I don't think I'm the only one that feels this way about the calls for change and the actions that contradict them.

 

 

For this next part, I'm going to comment on some statements about the metagame and some folk's opinions of the endtimes.

 

Don't want to be that guy, but I can't be the only one who is thinking this as I am reading Roq's posts about how unhealthy the state of PnW is right now. 

 

I find it absolutely hilarious certain prominent members of the ParaCov coalition are screaming of the end times. You viciously attack Syndisphere bemoaning the situation your collective alliance's are in, most of which are a direct result of your own actions. Screaming foul, that a hegemoney is making the game boring, that the game is going to die if our side doesn't win. All while gleefully sustaining an ACTUAL hegemonic bloc in a land beyond this one. If we're talking political dynamics and the meta state of games, you cannot divorce your actions in one setting from your words in another. Fact is, you and yours are content with perpetuating a hegemoney that is ACTUALLY killing a game but you expect your words to find waiting ears when we have to just look over the hedge to find the state of a game where you have any resemblance of influence on how it operates? Where alliances don't even have to be tied to the megabloc in order for you and yours to stick your nose in their business? Where the same people are getting rolled got rolled and disbanded, for literally no reason? For making a political environment where the first sign of dissidence from your megabloc by anyone of your allies means they are cut, ostracized and rolled into oblivion? 

 

F$ck that. No thank you, feel free to continue pouting in the corner and repeating about the end times for the nth time but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Kayser

[Kastor]

The fact that the ParaCov coalition has once again found itself in a disadvantageous position is no one's fault but your own. You say you want change, that the current political dynamic is stale and boring. You say the meanies in the Syndisphere want to keep you down. What you do is attack us without warning with absolutely no reason. What you do is refuse to change yourselves in favor of keeping your (friendship ties), what you do is refuse opportunities to change in favor of keeping the status quo. What you do is offer nothing to changing the political landscape of the game. Having aggressively attacked us again, any calls for political change is going to fall on deaf ears. All you have done is, once again, brought our side closer together. 

 

The ParacCov sphere was given the reason they were targeted in NPO's first time, you were too big of a bloc and were a threat to us. For the sake of our well being and for the sake of the game we called on ParaCov to separate. The war was fought your side lost again and a bit later, Paragon broke it's treaties. Cool, we're on our way to getting somewhere. Wait, what? "The Covenant + NPOsphere doesn't want to break their treaties? Friendships > infra you say?" Ok, well some folks are going to see them as hypocrites for not wanting to change. They'll prolly call them out on it too.  Whats that? "SK dropped its treaties with tS and shacked up with Paragon?" Well, some folks who disliked SK are prolly going to be slinging some shit. I mean SK did shit the bed in 168, they also leaked info before NPO's first time. Won't be surprising to hear people call them out either. Hold up, VE is militarizing lets do the same to be sa.....wait, we were attacked? By ParaCov again? So much for change amiright?

 

Thats how I feel about the string of events that have led us to this current war. I don't think I'm the only one that feels this way about the calls for change and the actions that contradict them.

 

 

For this next part, I'm going to comment on some statements about the metagame and some folk's opinions of the endtimes.

 

Don't want to be that guy, but I can't be the only one who is thinking this as I am reading Roq's posts about how unhealthy the state of PnW is right now. 

 

I find it absolutely hilarious certain prominent members of the ParaCov coalition are screaming of the end times. You viciously attack Syndisphere bemoaning the situation your collective alliance's are in, most of which are a direct result of your own actions. Screaming foul, that a hegemoney is making the game boring, that the game is going to die if our side doesn't win. All while gleefully sustaining an ACTUAL hegemonic bloc in a land beyond this one. If we're talking political dynamics and the meta state of games, you cannot divorce your actions in one setting from your words in another. Fact is, you and yours are content with perpetuating a hegemoney that is ACTUALLY killing a game but you expect your words to find waiting ears when we have to just look over the hedge to find the state of a game where you have any resemblance of influence on how it operates? Where alliances don't even have to be tied to the megabloc in order for you and yours to stick your nose in their business? Where the same people are getting rolled got rolled and disbanded, for literally no reason? For making a political environment where the first sign of dissidence from your megabloc by anyone of your allies means they are cut, ostracized and rolled into oblivion? 

 

F$ck that. No thank you, feel free to continue pouting in the corner and repeating about the end times for the nth time but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

You guys won't really break up your treaties either tho.

[Roquentin]

The fact that the ParaCov coalition has once again found itself in a disadvantageous position is no one's fault but your own. You say you want change, that the current political dynamic is stale and boring. You say the meanies in the Syndisphere want to keep you down. What you do is attack us without warning with absolutely no reason. What you do is refuse to change yourselves in favor of keeping your (friendship ties), what you do is refuse opportunities to change in favor of keeping the status quo. What you do is offer nothing to changing the political landscape of the game. Having aggressively attacked us again, any calls for political change is going to fall on deaf ears. All you have done is, once again, brought our side closer together. 

 

The ParacCov sphere was given the reason they were targeted in NPO's first time, you were too big of a bloc and were a threat to us. For the sake of our well being and for the sake of the game we called on ParaCov to separate. The war was fought your side lost again and a bit later, Paragon broke it's treaties. Cool, we're on our way to getting somewhere. Wait, what? "The Covenant + NPOsphere doesn't want to break their treaties? Friendships > infra you say?" Ok, well some folks are going to see them as hypocrites for not wanting to change. They'll prolly call them out on it too.  Whats that? "SK dropped its treaties with tS and shacked up with Paragon?" Well, some folks who disliked SK are prolly going to be slinging some shit. I mean SK did shit the bed in 168, they also leaked info before NPO's first time. Won't be surprising to hear people call them out either. Hold up, VE is militarizing lets do the same to be sa.....wait, we were attacked? By ParaCov again? So much for change amiright?

 

Thats how I feel about the string of events that have led us to this current war. I don't think I'm the only one that feels this way about the calls for change and the actions that contradict them.

 

 

For this next part, I'm going to comment on some statements about the metagame and some folk's opinions of the endtimes.

 

Don't want to be that guy, but I can't be the only one who is thinking this as I am reading Roq's posts about how unhealthy the state of PnW is right now. 

 

I find it absolutely hilarious certain prominent members of the ParaCov coalition are screaming of the end times. You viciously attack Syndisphere bemoaning the situation your collective alliance's are in, most of which are a direct result of your own actions. Screaming foul, that a hegemoney is making the game boring, that the game is going to die if our side doesn't win. All while gleefully sustaining an ACTUAL hegemonic bloc in a land beyond this one. If we're talking political dynamics and the meta state of games, you cannot divorce your actions in one setting from your words in another. Fact is, you and yours are content with perpetuating a hegemoney that is ACTUALLY killing a game but you expect your words to find waiting ears when we have to just look over the hedge to find the state of a game where you have any resemblance of influence on how it operates? Where alliances don't even have to be tied to the megabloc in order for you and yours to stick your nose in their business? Where the same people are getting rolled got rolled and disbanded, for literally no reason? For making a political environment where the first sign of dissidence from your megabloc by anyone of your allies means they are cut, ostracized and rolled into oblivion? 

 

F$ck that. No thank you, feel free to continue pouting in the corner and repeating about the end times for the nth time but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

Like Kastor said, you were never going to drop your treaties either. You kept signing more instead. I'm really glad you posted this because it just proves me right. You offered nothing and forced us into a corner. There was no other way for thing to go. Signing Pantheon and getting them to downgrade VE was the nail in the coffin along with BK-Mensa, honestly.  The problem with this game is people don't value friendships and just hop to the winning side when they want to. Cancelling our treaties would do nothing and just cost us long-time relationships. We're loyal and the fact that people don't really espouse friends > infra here is part of the reason for this situation. Your side was already growing closer. Stop pretending otherwise.

 

You had no plans to break up after Paragon split. In fact, you tied more and more, so don't give this bs.  The fact that nothing changed after they genuinely split off showed we had to get back together to work on a war. Keep trying to pretend otherwise. What did you expect? You guys didn't like SK. You didn't like UPN. Plenty of hate towards other alliances too. "Let's raid an alliance hoping HBE will respond." Haha. You're so full of it.

 

I'm glad you're using the OOC hypocrisy thing. I already brought it up. The difference is I'm not cognitively dissonant. I don't really care about making things interesting in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) because it's a dead game independently of the politics that isn't updated by the creator and most people are playing out of habit and would quit if there was a reset so I have little motivation to change things there.  Good to know you just want (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) 2.0: role reversal. This has been pretty typical of your alliance thus far.

 

 

tl;dr "I'm a bitter ex-MI6 guy(I remember you) and I like being on top here."

Edited September 16, 2016 by Roquentin

[LordRahl2]

what is an ex-MI6?

[Foltest]

You guys won't really break up your treaties either tho.

 

Because we're winning.

 

 

In absolutely no scenario will asking for a handicap work in any of these political sims. It hasn't worked for years in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), and it won't work here. Stop wasting time and pursue another strategy.

[Roquentin]

what is an ex-MI6?

It's alliance that has been rolled repeatedly in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). If he was going to start talking about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), I was going to reveal his bias. Their side has consistently denied bitterness over (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), yet it's all over the place.

[Foltest]

what is an ex-MI6?

 

Roq is trying to craft a grand conspiracy where PnW is secretly controlled by MI6 (an alliance in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) that didn't get along with NPO) and the secret ruling class is trying to keep NPO (in PnW) down.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Raymond Reddington

[Roquentin]

Roq is trying to craft a grand conspiracy where PnW is secretly controlled by MI6 (an alliance in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) that didn't get along with NPO)

 

It's not a grand conspiracy.  MI6 members are prominent across alliances and obviously have carried biases over. Of course, it's not just them and there are other people who are holding grudges over other things and there are people who didn't get very high in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) but are doing well here so they don't want it to be like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), but they have always tried to deny it motivating their politics. In Kayser's case, he decided to play the hypocrisy card due to our actions in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), which I had addressed previously and I remember him being very bitter when MI6 was rolled last year.

 

It's pretty natural to like a game where you win/matter, so it doesn't surprise me, but it's hilarious to be so open about it.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Roquentin

[Insert Name Here]

I believe we all have a treaty with TEST.

 

 

Indeed.

 

Original Edictum Est : http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/7895-edictum-est/

Updated Edictum Est: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10820-terminus-est-an-edictum-est-update/

 

Still waiting for Pre to add all them treaties to the treaty web... 

Edited September 16, 2016 by Insert Name Here

[Sans]

Like Kastor said, you were never going to drop your treaties either. You kept signing more instead. I'm really glad you posted this because it just proves me right. You offered nothing and forced us into a corner. There was no other way for thing to go. Signing Pantheon and getting them to downgrade VE was the nail in the coffin along with BK-Mensa, honestly.  The problem with this game is people don't value friendships and just hop to the winning side when they want to. Cancelling our treaties would do nothing and just cost us long-time relationships. We're loyal and the fact that people don't really espouse friends > infra here is part of the reason for this situation. Your side was already growing closer. Stop pretending otherwise.

 

You had no plans to break up after Paragon split. In fact, you tied more and more, so don't give this bs.  The fact that nothing changed after they genuinely split off showed we had to get back together to work on a war. Keep trying to pretend otherwise. What did you expect? You guys didn't like SK. You didn't like UPN. Plenty of hate towards other alliances too. "Let's raid an alliance hoping HBE will respond." Haha. You're so full of it.

 

I'm glad you're using the OOC hypocrisy thing. I already brought it up. The difference is I'm not cognitively dissonant. I don't really care about making things interesting in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) because it's a dead game independently of the politics that isn't updated by the creator and most people are playing out of habit and would quit if there was a reset so I have little motivation to change things there.  Good to know you just want (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) 2.0: role reversal. This has been pretty typical of your alliance thus far.

 

 

tl;dr "I'm a bitter ex-MI6 guy(I remember you) and I like being on top here."

 

Signing Panth who was being courted by both sides was such a grievance injury to the game right? I mean if NPO had signed Panth instead alls would be right for the world. Next you'll tell me singing a protectorate with tS was the nail in the coffin and we should have let ourselves be used as a NPO shield in the previous war. No, the hypocrisy lies with your side. That BK-Mensa treaty was signed well after the previous war. You and yours were given an opportunity to put your money where you mouth was, Paragon obliged but tC and friends decided they didn't want to play ball. Fair enough, but you can't whine about your opposition not suiciding to make this game a more dynamic when you make absolutely no move to do so yourself. Singing new treaties to guaranteeing our political situation is fine when NPO does it, keeping treaties because of friendships is fine when NPO does it. Not doing anything to change the political system is fine when NPO does it. This cognitive dissonance you speak of is there, I can see it no problem. Its starting me right in the face. 

 

People genuinely did push for a dynamic change when Paragon split. But you know what the detractors said? Well, tC+NPO are still sitting there and they've made it clear they aren't willing to play ball. The exact reason nothing did happen was because you and your allies think of themselves as the eternal victims and are in a constant state of unwarranted paranoia. You constantly shit the bed when overtures are handed over to you and refuse to consider whether the fault lies with yourselves. The first thing tC/NPO shoul have done when Paragon split was split themselves. That would have led to a political situation vastly different from the one we find ourselves in now. You know the only thing on most folks mind now? How ParaCov will continue to be ParaCov and they're not going to change of their own volition. Congratz, you shit the bed again. 

 

"Its fine when I do it in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), but its not if I think other people want to somewhere else because of reasons"

 

You're embarrassing yourself. Keep on keeping on, NPO is sure to prosper.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Kayser

[Roquentin]

Signing Panth who was being courted by both sides was such a grievance injury to the game right? I mean if NPO had signed Panth instead alls would be right for the world. Next you'll tell me singing a protectorate with tS was the nail in the coffin and we should have let ourselves be used as a NPO shield in the previous war. No, the hypocrisy lies with your side. That BK-Mensa treaty was signed well after the previous war. You and yours were given an opportunity to put your money where you mouth was, Paragon obliged but tC and friends decided they didn't want to play ball. Fair enough, but you can't whine about your opposition not suiciding to make this game a more dynamic when you make absolutely no move to do so yourself. Singing new treaties to guaranteeing our political situation is fine when NPO does it, keeping treaties because of friendships is fine when NPO does it. Not doing anything to change the political system is fine when NPO does it. This cognitive dissonance you speak of is there, I can see it no problem. Its starting me right in the face. 

 

People genuinely did push for a dynamic change when Paragon split. But you know what the detractors said? Well, tC+NPO are still sitting there and they've made it clear they aren't willing to play ball. The exact reason nothing did happen was because you and your allies think of themselves as the eternal victims and are in a constant state of unwarranted paranoia. You constantly shit the bed when overtures are handed over to you and refuse to consider whether the fault lies with yourselves. The first thing tC/NPO shoul have done when Paragon split was split themselves. That would have led to a political situation vastly different from the one we find ourselves in now. You know the only thing on most folks mind now? How ParaCov will continue to be ParaCov and they're not going to change of their own volition. Congratz, you shit the bed again. 

 

"Its fine when I do it in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), but its not if I think other people want to somewhere else because of reasons"

 

You're embarrassing yourself. Keep on keeping on, NPO is sure to prosper.

 

When you get  a huge swing alliance, it pretty much gives an advantage. It was pretty much gone over in that treaty thread the position it put your side in. We were never given any opportunity. The fact that you think we have to unilaterally split up for you to take any action is hilarious.  It would just leave us raidable in  brush fire wars like you did with Arrgh/Roz Wei. No one said keeping treaties because of friendships isn't fine, but it's just going to lead to stagnation when you have a concentration of active alliances on one side which everyone has said. You were never going to really move and there were just more and more treaties. At least Holton is admitting the real motivations are there is no reason for you to and that's fine. It'll just stagnate things. I just want people to admit it.

 

You never tried to play and there was no reason for us to split. Like I said, splitting up just leaves us extremely vulnerable to brushfire wars and everyone knew that. Your side has beaten up plenty of isolated alliances in the past.  Again, you never address the actual things I said about who your side hated, so it's just "trust us. if you had spit up, things would have been totally different."

 

I already gave my reasons and I don't deny that (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is at an endgame stage. You guys deny it here.

 

You're the one who couldn't avoid invoking your boogeymen  from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), so I feel bad for you. I really don't care about your opinion of us.

[Foltest]

It's not a grand conspiracy.  MI6 members are prominent across alliances and obviously have carried biases over. Of course, it's not just them and there are other people who are holding grudges over other things and there are people who didn't get very high in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) but are doing well here so they don't want it to be like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), but they have always tried to deny it motivating their politics. In Kayser's case, he decided to play the hypocrisy card due to our actions in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), which I had addressed previously and I remember him being very bitter when MI6 was rolled last year.

 

I know NPO has done nothing but actively try to reinforce their own thoughts of "everyone is coming for us because we're NPO", but it may come as a continual surprise that most of the leadership in PnW doesn't care about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

 

It also seems really salty of you to constantly state your opinion that PnW leadership is somehow lesser than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) leadership. It's funny, because you're not wrong. You're just pointing your comments in the wrong direction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really don't care about your opinion of us

 

400 posts into the argument.

 

 

 

If you guys had signed Pantheon, wouldn't TEst/Arrgh/Roz Wei being on our side thus cancelling them out? Who's to say!

[Roquentin]

I know NPO has done nothing but actively try to reinforce their own thoughts of "everyone is coming for us because we're NPO", but it may come as a continual surprise that most of the leadership in PnW doesn't care about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

 

It also seems really salty of you to constantly state your opinion that PnW leadership is somehow lesser than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) leadership. It's funny, because you're not wrong. You're just pointing your comments in the wrong direction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

400 posts into the argument.

 

 

 

If you guys had signed Pantheon, wouldn't TEst/Arrgh/Roz Wei being on our side thus cancelling them out? Who's to say!

 

Enough people do care. Did you see Fist's post in the other topic where he said Lordship  was a hero stopped the hegemoney from making this (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) 2.0? That's the ex-leader of the #1 alliance. Are you blind?

 

I don't think I said PW leadership is inherently lesser than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) leadership. I said a lot of people who couldn't get far in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) are prospering here and are attributing it to it not being (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).  Also I appreciate the shot at me. Thanks Holton.  

 

I'll make this clear: I'm not posting because I expect you to agree with me. I'm posting because there is no alternative voice to your side's triumphalism narrative and I find it entertaining. I'll eventually get tired of it, but no, I'm not here to ingratiate myself with anyone and especially not your side. That would make the game even worse were that to be my agenda.

 

It's not about us signing Pantheon or not, it's more it swung the balance. There are a variety of factors in what happened with Pantheon. I never had any intentions of signing Pantheon anyway.

[LordRahl2]

This thread now that you people are talking (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways):

 

[Buorhann]

@Roq, there's no conspiracy because of "NPO".

 

We just don't like people who act like !@#$es.

 

 

 

 

Just an example of what some of us deal with.

 

Minor details:  I was already fighting 4 people by the time I got 3 declared on me.  I also zeroed my tanks ( Couldn't do planes as I rebuilt, hoping for a third "Moderate" or lesser hit - didn't happen ) quickly once I saw the immense to save resources, then immediately double bought back into the fight the following day to turn the battles around once I received assistance from Mensa's glorious friends~

 

Some of you folks should just stick to lobbing nukes if you can't grasp the strategies in this game, both militarily and politically.  At least you can feel somewhat accomplished nuking a 1000ish Infra city.