Sisyphus Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Maybe, but as I said, wasn't worth my time. You have odd priorities. 1 One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yosodog Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Maybe, but as I said, wasn't worth my time. Why is it worth your time replying to me then? You seem to have something to interject all the time even when HBE isn't involved. The micro drama is to your left. 2 [22:37:51] <&Yosodog> Problem is, everyone is too busy deciding which top gun character they are that no decision has been made BK in a nutshell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiber Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Maybe, but as I said, wasn't worth my time. Ayy lmao. Negotiating peace for your alliance in an aggressive war wasn't worth your time? Your members must be proud of you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiki Mod Dr Rush Posted October 2, 2016 Wiki Mod Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) It's become beyond apparent that no one in BK understands how a negotiation works. This comment is just laughable at best. Very funny. Wait your serious? You need leverage to have any say in terms nubcake. Your side has basically none. Edited October 2, 2016 by Dr Rush 23:38 Skable that's why we don't want Rose involved, so we can take the m all for ourselves 23:39 [] but Mensa is the cute girl at the school dance and she's only dancing with us right now to get our friend jealous 23:39 [] If Rose comes in and gives Mensa what she wants, she'll just toss us aside and forget we ever existed 23:39 zombie_lanae yeah I do hope we can keep having them all to ourselves 23:40 zombie_lanae I know it's selfish but I want all their love 6:55 PM <+Isolatar> Praise Dio Pubstomper|BNC [20:01:55] Rose wouldn't plan a hit on Mensa because it would be !@#$ing stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cromstar Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 I barely even noticed when BK signed a random treaty with Mensa, but apparently it's the sign of the end times, proof that the game is dead, and a CB for every alliance in the game to rally against us. About that...all I remember is we sent the Hippo over so he'd give us a little room and maybe make some friends...then later, he comes back all relaxed, eats ALL the snacks in the clubhouse, brags about his new tattoo and says we've got a new treaty... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ungawa Jones Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Best of luck rebuilding. Thanks for the missiles and nukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) IF NPO's leadership wishes to keep fighting then let them, by all means allow them to keep digging their own grave. It is after all NPO's leadership who will have to answer to their membership at the end of the day. Oh wait, I forgot, this is NPO we are speaking about. Drones gotta be dronish and accept their terrible leadership without having much say in the matter. Edited October 2, 2016 by Night King 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infice Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Speculation is not a substitute for actual evidence. This statement is completely unfounded, whether or not it may be true, it's yet to be seen. Except that's never been our argument...You may not have been planning to attack us then and there, but you SURE AS !@#$ were going to attack us AT SOME POINT. Why would we wait until you're bigger and stronger and ready to hit us on your terms? Your side continued to consolidate after ours broke up. That left ours with no choice but to get back together for a pre-emptive strike when we had even some kind of chance. We lost. Oh well. Please tell me more about how waiting for you to decide you were ready to roll us individually would have been a better idea. The argument is only valid when it suits you. We can't speculate but you can speculate whether we are going to hit you and base your actions on it. Okay. You mean how like NPO signing UPN justified your side hitting them both? That was okay but our justification isn't? lol. I don't think anyone has ever shot your side's justification for war. We do have an issue with your side's justification to squirm out of peace though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Very funny. Wait your serious? You need leverage to have any say in terms nubcake. Your side has basically none. That's kind of his point. The only thing we can decide is whether or not we accept the terms offered to us. We don't get to decide if you offer separate terms to UPN or not. That is dictated by YOU, not US. So it is laughable to blame us for it. We have no control over that other than the control you're artificially imposing on us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) In all truth though, NPO's leadership should resign. That or NPO's membership should appoint new leaders or vote with their feet. Appoint new and responsible leadership who won't sign treaties with terrible allies who get you rolled every 3 months. It is rather amusing to see these so called "leaders" refuse to take any responsibility for their own failings and instead deflect all responsibility to the winning side but I do pity the NPO membership in possessing such a reckless leadership who refuse to even acknowledge the concept of responsible governance. Edited October 2, 2016 by Night King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) In all truth though, NPO's leadership should resign. That or NPO's membership should appoint new leaders or vote with their feet. Appoint new and responsible leadership who won't sign treaties with terrible allies who get you rolled every 3 months. It is rather amusing to see these so called "leaders" refuse to take any responsibility for their own failings and instead deflect all responsibility to the winning side but I do pity the NPO membership in possessing such a reckless leadership who refuse t o even acknowledge the concept of responsible governance. Breaking news, Charles: No one cares what you think. You contribute nothing constructive to any discussion and are a pompous blowhard no one takes seriously. Even some of your own alliancemates are annoyed by you. I get you're high off of being a big nation here and a winner, but your inferiority complex oozes out. The bragadoccio is charming. pretty much it seems like everyone who is like you gets intoxicated off winning in a game for a change of pace. You Holton, Eumir, and the list just goes on. I love how you guys constantly prove me right. Maybe when you finally lose enough times, you can rogue out and delete here too? Your assessment of our leadership has never mattered. Edited October 2, 2016 by Roquentin 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodo Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) Breaking news, Charles: No one cares what you think. You contribute nothing constructive to any discussion and are a pompous blowhard no one takes seriously. Even some of your own alliancemates are annoyed by you. I get you're high off of being a big nation here and a winner, but your inferiority complex oozes out. The bragadoccio is charming. pretty much it seems like everyone who is like you gets intoxicated off winning in a game for a change of pace. You Holton, Eumir, and the list just goes on. I love how you guys constantly prove me right. Maybe when you finally lose enough times, you can rogue out and delete here too? Your assessment of our leadership has never mattered. Edit: Real talk for a second, sounds like you need a break dude. Go jam some music, play a game, and then come back or something. Hell you can hit me up on discord or something and we can just chill and play something. Edited October 2, 2016 by Doom Marine 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Edit: Real talk for a second, sounds like you need a break dude. Go jam some music, play a game, and then come back or something. Hell you can hit me up on discord or something and we can just chill and play something. I'm just responding to him with the same vitriol he usually employs. Just I've seen the same post a few times as he's made it in several topics. I'm just having fun with his whole "oh I know what's best for Paracovenant alliances because I'm on the winning side and particularly NPO because I have an axe to grind" shtick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apeman Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) We discussed possible terms but it was made clear from the outset that the talks were preliminary and nothing was set in stone, partially to avoid the misunderstandings that occurred last war. Our position then evolved with the circumstances - in between the second and third day of our talks it became apparent that Rose was seeking an out and the NPO would be the last major belligerent on your side, which left us in the unenviable position of being stuck warring the last holdout for an indefinite period. Once it became clear you were unwilling to agree to a reasonable amount of reps, the attraction of cutting a separate deal with TC faded - why allow them to rebuild and regroup when we have to spend our time and effort fighting NPO? Nothing was reneged on because nothing was formally agreed on before our position evolved to encompass NPO and its major allies. Pretty much this, with the added caveat that we did actually offer UPN the opportunity to pay a portion of the collective reps on their behalf once it became apparent that NPO was unwilling to come to reasonable terms and end the war. Actually my point was that it's counterintuitive to oppose 'ransom' when it's directed against your side and but be okay with it when it's practiced by your AA. I don't actually consider what we're doing ransom (more like joint accountability), but if you do and you find it objectionable then your actions appear to belie your words. And my point was I was upfront with them and said pay me or else. They wanted to fight. You are pretty much saying if we win we are gonna make them pay. This is definitely setting a precedent on winning a war. I honestly don't care either way, really just being objective. This is all based on the fact you were defending right? If you guys attacked and won, would you still be looking for cash? Maybe that will be the newer precedent. Let's sit back and look Edited October 2, 2016 by Apeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yosodog Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Listen, I'm going to go ahead and break character here and have a real talk. You guys think the game is over, you think that you can't do anything to improve your situation and that's just wrong. That's the defeatist attitude that you guys should be getting rid of. We're not invincible, and I think this war proved that. You guys can improve and get better. Why not improve your situation rather than complain about it? It's like in real life, if you are bad at something or hate something about yourself, you try to get better rather than just complain that "life isn't fair." It sounds !@#$ing cheesy but it's true. By staying in the war, you guys are doing nothing but digging your own graves. You can't improve if you don't try and you can't try if we're keeping you down. Will you get rolled again in three months? Who knows? A lot can change in three months in this game. But nothing will change for NPO as long as you guys are beat down and can never grow. We don't want you guys to die and we're willing to work with you guys. But you have to understand the situation we're in. I'm sure we can work out something that works for both alliances but we need to have an open dialog and both alliances have to understand that we're going to have to compromise. UPN, I'm sorry you guys are caught in the middle of this. You have to understand the complicated position we were put in. We saw what happened to tS with Alpha and we wanted to avoid that situation and our best hand was to group your sphere together. Does it suck? Yes. We have no ill will towards UPN and you guys are understandably pissed offed. So let's get back to the negotiating table, hash out a deal that works for all of us, hold hands, and sing kumbaya. The alternative is to be in a perma war and that doesn't help NPO or UPN anymore than peace does. 2 [22:37:51] <&Yosodog> Problem is, everyone is too busy deciding which top gun character they are that no decision has been made BK in a nutshell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 The alternative is to be in a perma war and that doesn't help NPO or UPN anymore than peace does. This is the entire point though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curufinwe Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) And my point was I was upfront with them and said pay me or else. They wanted to fight. You are pretty much saying if we win we are gonna make them pay. This is definitely setting a precedent on winning a war. I honestly don't care either way, really just being objective. This is all based on the fact you were defending right? If you guys attacked and won, would you still be looking for cash? Maybe that will be the newer precedent. Let's sit back and look We did attack NPO and win during Pacifica and no reps were extracted from them. NPO was granted a white peace when the treaty was signed. This time around they attacked us and lost, so we're requesting that they pay reps to repair some of the damage they caused in the war they started. And it's hardly a new precedent that aggressors who lose a war are called upon to pay reps - TC paid out quite a bit of cash following its defeat in Oktoberfest, just to name one example. So, to answer your question, no we didn't demand reps when we won and no we're not setting a new precedent by requesting compensation now. Edited October 2, 2016 by Curufinwe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) Breaking news, Charles: No one cares what you think. You contribute nothing constructive to any discussion and are a pompous blowhard no one takes seriously. Even some of your own alliancemates are annoyed by you. I get you're high off of being a big nation here and a winner, but your inferiority complex oozes out. The bragadoccio is charming. pretty much it seems like everyone who is like you gets intoxicated off winning in a game for a change of pace. You Holton, Eumir, and the list just goes on. I love how you guys constantly prove me right. Maybe when you finally lose enough times, you can rogue out and delete here too? Your assessment of our leadership has never mattered. Even some of your own alliancemates are annoyed by you. I am totally shocked by this, I thought I was loved by everyone and respected by most of my fellow alliance buddies. It is most hurtful to find out that by having an opinion I might annoy a few people. Thank you for bringing this to my attention roq, I will make it a mission now to find out who these people are who are annoyed by me so I can go back to not really giving a shit And lolroq, for someone who blames (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) for the reason he keeps getting rolled, you just love to keep mentioning it here when the truth of the matter is you are the only person who cares about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). Or cares enough about it to use it as an excuse for why he keeps failing in this game. Either one works so feel free to keep ranting about either. You are right though, my assessment of your leadership doesn't matter. What matters is how your own membership assesses your leadership. Or lack of it. get you're high off of being a big nation here and a winner, but your inferiority complex oozes out. Actually, I reckon these people who I do annoy only tolerate me because I am a winner. If my damage stats weren't as consistently high as they usually are I predict I would be expelled instantly Edited October 2, 2016 by Night King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 ParaCov attacks Syndisphere for consolidating. "No reason at all". Syndisphere attacks ParaCov for consolidating two months ago. "You guys where a threat, valid CB." Hi. I haven't been mixing in much lately but: I'm very curious about the reverse. See, I'm not at all lamenting you for taking the offensive if you viewed us as a threat. Doing so would be hypocritical. That said; when I pulled the trigger on pushing for a strike on you guys in the previous war, I most certainly did so with the knowledge that if the gamble failed, we would have been torn to shreds and forced to pay large reps. We also made the calculation of military benefits vs giving up the moral high ground to an extent. And when we hit (over your consolidation), your side decried us. It paid off and so we did not have to pay. But I think you know full well what would've happened if we'd lost. Anyhow; now you made the same considerations and pulled the trigger on us. Yet... our guys are not allowed to feel the same way? You made a calculation and it didn't pan out. So now we should go out of our way to make it easier on you? Cmooooon. More importantly: does your sides rhetorical flip flop mean that I am now no longer considered evil for my actions? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) I'm just responding to him with the same vitriol he usually employs. Just I've seen the same post a few times as he's made it in several topics. I'm just having fun with his whole "oh I know what's best for Paracovenant alliances because I'm on the winning side and particularly NPO because I have an axe to grind" shtick. An axe? Don't give yourself too much credit. All I need is a couch so I can sit my rear end on it and watch you flailing around looking for someone else to blame for your own failings Edited October 2, 2016 by Night King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 It really has nothing to do with good or evil. Pretending we're supposed to operate in a way that doesn't take into account our enemy's mode of operating and then reacting to it in a way calculated to thwart it's ill effects on us is just basic. I don't go around kicking cats but you can bet I'll change my tactics if I've been attacked by cats in the past and one makes moves I see as threatening. Does that mean I'm selling out my position of not kicking cats? ask greatkitteh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 More importantly: does your sides rhetorical flip flop mean that I am now no longer considered evil for my actions? Sorry dude, but you're inherently evil because... idk, reasons or something. 1 One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 It really has nothing to do with good or evil. Pretending we're supposed to operate in a way that doesn't take into account our enemy's mode of operating and then reacting to it in a way calculated to thwart it's ill effects on us is just basic. I don't go around kicking cats but you can bet I'll change my tactics if I've been attacked by cats in the past and one makes moves I see as threatening. Does that mean I'm selling out my position of not kicking cats? ask greatkitteh. I fully, fully concur. Which is why at the time I reacted to the UPN-NPO treaty (perceiving it as further consolidation of a sphere which had historically gone on the offensive against tS and its allies, at least from our POV) in a way calculated to thwart its ill effects on us. You reacted to that by decrying our actions in a variety of novel ways. Then went on to do the exact same, only less successfully. So I'll pose to you the question in a different manner: Does this current rhetoric imply that we (read: you lads and I personally. I can't speak for others on my side) have at last found common ground on the legitimacy (and necessity) of my CB in the previous war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 If it had been your actual reason, it would have been perfectly valid. Sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 If it had been your actual reason, it would have been perfectly valid. Sure. It's good to see that we have found that our viewpoints may not be so different. I assume that you too conducted a cost-benefit/risk-reward analysis with regards to military benefits vs PR losses and risk if losing. I imagine that being an experienced player, the thought of being made to pay reps crossed your mind when you made said analysis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts