Dear BK and NPO

[Roquentin]

Screw it, I'll bite.

 

We have a different membership composition (MI6 was a source of membership, but so was Sparta, IRON, and quite a few other AAs), a different leadership structure as well as leadership, a different set of allies (certainly when we started - now we have a healthy mix between PnW "originals" and (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)-rooted alliances, because it's kind of tough these days to *not* be allied to one ), a different play style as well as theme. What else could you possibly want from us to demonstrate that we don't "just want to make sure we dominate here"? Risky attacks that could backfire politically? Done that. Large political pivots without a lot of cover? Done that. Fight in large-scale conflicts without treaty cover? Done that too. Reach out to former enemies? Done that, been rebuffed several times.

 

This sentiment keeps persisting and clearly I have no idea how to clear it, since everything we do just leads to people (yourself included) doubling down on the meme that "tS/HegemOOny is salty about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and wants to kick our ass here".

 

So tell me. If you don't have an answer, then drop that whole line of argument because it's clearly bunk if there's literally nothing we could do in your eyes to prove that we (writ large) don't care about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). Individual members might care about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). Doesn't matter, them's the perks of being a dictatorship

 

Okay I wouldn't say people being from Sparta or TOP(biggest clusters of membership origin independent of MI6) would really be much different. These are your initial pools and were allies of MI6 at the time(November 2014), so your ally set is already there.  I can give you different gov structure, but this seems to be a result of thinking democracy to be inefficient at producing the wanted results.  Which risky attacks? The last war wouldn't count as the reason for it was the perception that the opposition was potentially getting too big to beat and you wanted to maximize your chances of  maintaining dominance by attacking them first. Wouldn't it be riskier if you felt that way to wait for them to hit first?  Large political pivots without a lot of cover? I assume this means leaving Paragon, given tS was the junior partner statistically and found VE to be overbearing, it would certainly get in the way of dominance to remain within it. The leader of Guardian at the time of your signing has said that you had plans to  make your own sphere already, so that's prior to Syndicate leaving. Signing Mensa after gave you more cover and you assumed Covenant support vs Paragon in Proxy as is well known.  In terms of reaching out to former enemies, trying to divide and conquer if you think they are getting too consolidated is part of dominating, especially if you see other enemies as the bigger problems e.g Alpha/Rose vs VE/UPN. I get there's a tendency everyone will have to self-mythologize what they did, but this wasn't hard  to provide with an alternative interpretation.

 

Unfortunately, it seems like the only way to have cleared it would have been to lose the last war since Partisan said he would have tS return to its roots in that scenario and fade out from trying to be a major power since he was tired of what he perceived to be tS vs the World. I don't think your sphere have sufficient incentive to give it up but that results in a stagnant boring repetitive mess. 

 

It does matter, especially when it's an issue at every level except for what the Triumvirate actually says publicly. It stops being individual members when it's a fairly high number. You wouldn't be able to do something grossly contradictory to the desires of the membership if you wanted to without risking backlash.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Roquentin

[Spaceman Thrax]

Let's be real here. A thing Partisan used against NPO was its radio silence. We did not address it for a very long time. It was hardly engaged and yet still happened. Hell, even after the last war, we did radio silence and there was more and more.

 

Shoulda stuck it out longer, is my point. The first thing you did say much of anything in public about was a blowup related to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). You can go back and forth on why that happened with the Parti boy if you like, but since then (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and the supposed stigma it brought to you has been a consistent part of your narrative.

 

Believe me or don't: If at any point you'd given that a rest, I'd have been the first person to go to bat for you. Importing grudges from another game is dumb as Hell, and if it was clear you weren't stoking those fires, there are a lot of people who'd be looking quite foolish for bringing them up about you apropos of nothing. As it stands it's muddled at best.

[Roquentin]

Shoulda stuck it out longer, is my point. The first thing you did say much of anything in public about was a blowup related to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). You can go back and forth on why that happened with the Parti boy if you like, but since then (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and the supposed stigma it brought to you has been a consistent part of your narrative.

 

Believe me or don't: If at any point you'd given that a rest, I'd have been the first person to go to bat for you. Importing grudges from another game is dumb as Hell, and if it was clear you weren't stoking those fires, there are a lot of people who'd be looking quite foolish for bringing them up about you apropos of nothing. As it stands it's muddled at best.

 

I mean, it was in response to direct callouts that demanded a response during the lead-up to the war and it looked pretty bad for us when Partisan dropped the screenshot. People have continue to provide ammunition for the argument. We can choose to not address it, but see it done anyway or we can choose to point it out at times. It won't likely make it a difference as people will generally go by the party line of their coalition, but the discourse becomes more honest. Eventually I will tire of it and stop as it is a sisphyean task, but it will not go away.

 

I wouldn't really say it'd be me/us stoking the fires when other people keep bringing it up. I certainly didn't want to have to deal with it, but people won't leave it alone. It's not really unclear who started it, to be honest since everyone who had an issue started coming out of the woodwork as soon as I started posting, which was in response to the callouts and screenshot leak. It's continued unprompted.

[Charles Bolivar]

 

 

I wouldn't really say it'd be me/us stoking the fires when other people keep bringing it up. I certainly didn't want to have to deal with it, but people won't leave it alone. It's not really unclear who started it, to be honest since everyone who had an issue started coming out of the woodwork as soon as I started posting, which was in response to the callouts and screenshot leak. It's continued unprompted.

 

This much is true, the anti-NPO rhetoric was negligible until you started the never-ending flood of victim card posts last war and complete refusal to acknowledge that MI6 and tS were two entirely distinct entities.

 

Like honestly, if anyone wants to see the lengths we at tS went to in order to convince Roq that we were entirely distinct entities then apply for a NPO mask on tS' forums. It became a constant merry go round of "you guys are MI6" followed by a wall of text from tS members with logical points proving otherwise only for roq to respond "but you guys are MI6" repeated page after page

 

When you take such things into account, the recent public dislike for NPO shown on these forums even by alliances who have had minimal contact with NPO in any realm is perfectly explainable. 

 

The dislike has nothing whatsoever to do with the conduct of other NPO branches or actions in other realms.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Night King

[Roquentin]

This much is true, the anti-NPO rhetoric was negligible until you started the never-ending flood of victim card posts last war and complete refusal to acknowledge that MI6 and tS were two entirely distinct entities.

 

Like honestly, if anyone wants to see the lengths we at tS went to in order to convince Roq that we were entirely distinct entities then apply for a NPO mask on tS' forums. It became a constant merry go round of "you guys are MI6" followed by a wall of text from tS members with logical points proving otherwise only for roq to respond "but you guys are MI6" repeated page after page

 

When you take such things into account, the recent public dislike for NPO shown on these forums even by alliances who have had minimal contact with NPO in any realm is perfectly explainable. 

 

The dislike has nothing whatsoever to do with the conduct of other NPO branches or actions in other realms.

 

No, this is self-serving as hell and just fits your "I hate Roq" narrative. The NPO sucks poll was up way before I started posting and there are other examples. Hell, the Chim comment would fit or some of the responses to most of the NPO treaty topics before that.  Everyone who has been in NPO for the past year or so knows this is bullshit.

 

 

They could go and read, but I don't think it will help you much.

 

 

Um, I would fully expect people on the opposing side to show dislike for a polarizing alliance on the other side, which happened with previous enemies.

 

It's not really recent and it's not unrelated. I can point to Fist's comment and similar ones about reps and such all day. 

 

This will be the last time I address your anti-Roq bullshit and honestly it reflects poorly to keep injecting your personal feud into things, Charles.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Roquentin

[Roy Mustang]

Okay I wouldn't say people being from Sparta or TOP(biggest clusters of membership origin independent of MI6) would really be much different. These are your initial pools and were allies of MI6 at the time(November 2014), so your ally set is already there.  I can give you different gov structure, but this seems to be a result of thinking democracy to be inefficient at producing the wanted results.  Which risky attacks? The last war wouldn't count as the reason for it was the perception that the opposition was potentially getting too big to beat and you wanted to maximize your chances of  maintaining dominance by attacking them first. Wouldn't it be riskier if you felt that way to wait for them to hit first?  Large political pivots without a lot of cover? I assume this means leaving Paragon, given tS was the junior partner statistically and found VE to be overbearing, it would certainly get in the way of dominance to remain within it. The leader of Guardian at the time of your signing has said that you had plans to  make your own sphere already, so that's prior to Syndicate leaving. Signing Mensa after gave you more cover and you assumed Covenant support vs Paragon in Proxy as is well known.  In terms of reaching out to former enemies, trying to divide and conquer if you think they are getting too consolidated is part of dominating, especially if you see other enemies as the bigger problems e.g Alpha/Rose vs VE/UPN. I get there's a tendency everyone will have to self-mythologize what they did, but this wasn't hard  to provide with an alternative interpretation.

 

Unfortunately, it seems like the only way to have cleared it would have been to lose the last war since Partisan said he would have tS return to its roots in that scenario and fade out from trying to be a major power since he was tired of what he perceived to be tS vs the World. I don't think your sphere have sufficient incentive to give it up but that results in a stagnant boring repetitive mess. 

 

It does matter, especially when it's an issue at every level except for what the Triumvirate actually says publicly. It stops being individual members when it's a fairly high number. You wouldn't be able to do something grossly contradictory to the desires of the membership if you wanted to without risking backlash.

 

Well it's quite nice that you provided us with an alternative interpretation, but unfortunately that wasn't actually the question. We already know your interpretation, and restating it as if it's a refutation doesn't actually make it so. 

 

The meat of your own post is you basically conceding that the only way you would think we weren't trying to trying to kick your ass here because of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) would be for us to lose - which is odd, because let's be perfectly honest, if you really think we're salty about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), us losing wouldn't make us any less salty - if anything it would probably just exacerbate the situation. I'm gonna just interpret that as you not having a real answer to my question, which I didn't really think you did.

 

Also lol at saying Sparta was part of MI6's ally set - technically true at points, but we also got dropped by Sparta as part of a pivot towards your own alliance Umbrella. If you think things were all sunshine and rainbows after that, I dunno what to tell you dude.

[Roquentin]

Well it's quite nice that you provided us with an alternative interpretation, but unfortunately that wasn't actually the question. We already know your interpretation, and restating it as if it's a refutation doesn't actually make it so. 

 

The meat of your own post is you basically conceding that the only way you would think we weren't trying to trying to kick your ass here because of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) would be for us to lose - which is odd, because let's be perfectly honest, if you really think we're salty about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), us losing wouldn't make us any less salty - if anything it would probably just exacerbate the situation. I'm gonna just interpret that as you not having a real answer to my question, which I didn't really think you did.

 

Also lol at saying Sparta was part of MI6's ally set - technically true at points, but we also got dropped by Sparta as part of a pivot towards your own alliance Umbrella. If you think things were all sunshine and rainbows after that, I dunno what to tell you dude.

 

 

Well here's the issue. You basically wanted me to take your own narrative onboard and then refute that when it wasn't as risky or game shaking as you made it out to be.  It doesn't really work. 

 

I'm saying that's the condition *you* set. You could choose to change your MO at any time. If it's the only condition in which you can do so, then there you go.

 

I was referring to at the start of tS(November 2014) so the initial group, including a current triumvir. There was a split for a while after, yes, but it seemed when you were closer after that more Sparta people joined.

[Charles Bolivar]

No, this is self-serving as hell and just fits your "I hate Roq" narrative. The NPO sucks poll was up way before I started posting and there are other examples. Hell, the Chim comment would fit or some of the responses to most of the NPO treaty topics before that. 

 

 

They could go and read, but I don't think it will help you much.

 

 

Um, I would fully expect people on the opposing side to show dislike for a polarizing alliance on the other side, which happened with previous enemies.

 

It's not really recent and it's not unrelated. I can point to Fist's comment and similar ones about reps and such all day. 

 

This will be the last time I address your anti-Roq bullshit and honestly it reflects poorly to keep injecting your personal feud into things, Charles.

 

There you go again, "Charles is mean to me" therefore he has some hidden agenda. Just to clarify here, I hadn't spoken to you for over a year, perhaps even more, I didn't keep track until the build up to the last war. What broke that silence is when you deliberately took a quote of mine concerning my personal opinion on you alone and posted it here in this realm as some evidence of my bias against NPO entirely and applied that same bias to tS entirely.

 

I don't have a personal feud with you Roq, if any other person acted in the way you have been acting I would be just as critical of them (Ask tS gov if you don't believe me, heck, they probably get far worse and more rigorous criticism to be honest). I genuinely believe you are just a manipulative and deceptive person. I truly don't believe that even you believe this constant nonsense of NPO is a victim because of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) narrative you post constantly because no reasonable person could reasonably believe such a preposterous notion. It is all just a ploy at attempting to manipulate simple-minded persons into agreeing with you and a poor attempt at deflecting the responsibility for your own leadership failings onto our side.

 

I don't like you, that much is  a given but to somehow say I am biased against NPO entirely due to my dislike of you is simply stretching the limits of logic. Either that or it is just a convenient manner of dismissing posts which reveal exactly the sort of conduct you have engaged in both privately and publicly. I don't like you, you don't like me but this constant reversion of claiming bias from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) every time someone disagrees with you is just not doing you any favours.

 

Start acting with some dignity befitting an Emperor of NPO in a manner similar to your predecessors and you might get a different reaction on these forums which is actually beneficial to NPO. That isn't some jab, it isn't some low blow, it is just a dose of constructive criticism aimed at helping you because I genuinely want nothing for the best for NPO. We on this sphere need a competent alliance on the opposing side and so far in this topic and a few others, all you and a few other pacificans have done is drive away potential supporters and friends. It is a selfish reason I agree but I am being honest at least

 

In regards to disliking alliances on the opposing side, I myself don't really dislike any of them. I have criticisms of various alliances but then again I have criticisms of every alliance including my own (which is perfectly natural and indeed healthy I think?) But you yourself cannot honestly look over the last few relevant topics and believe that NPO's conduct has been in a manner aimed at gaining respect. Instead we have all been subjected to this constant playing of the victim card coupled with condescending posts about NPO's apparent superiority.

 

How do you honestly expect to gain positive results by acting in such a manner?

Edited October 13, 2016 by Night King

[Prefonteen]

No it doesn't. Refugees often want to settle scores with the people where they came from if they have a chance. I'm not going to go over all the historical examples of this. Well, you have it now. 

 

I'm just not seeing it being the case. A different name is good and all, but it just looks basically, "let's make sure to dominate here since we couldn't quite do it there." Note this isn't exclusive to tS, but spherewide in terms of a lot of the former/current (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) elements.

 

The problem, Roy, is it's not true. It won't die. When people bring (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) up in virtually every context where some sort of comparison can be applied, it's not going to die. The issue I have with you and Partisan is you wash your hands of it despite it being done so pervasively at least publicly; I don't know what the inner thinking is. This war had nothing to do with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and it constantly got brought up throughout it.

 

 

 

 

 

Let's be real here. A thing Partisan used against NPO was its radio silence. We did not address it for a very long time. It was hardly engaged and yet still happened. Hell, even after the last war, we did radio silence and there was more and more.

 

Comparing your roots or even VE's isn't really realistic because NPO is uniquely polarizing. Virtually no one on either side had a negative predisposition to tS when you arrived. People on the non-tS side even included people from your (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) roots like abbas who were in positions of power.   

 

 

edit: with that said, I would favor a rule against invoking other nationsims.

\

Political radio silence in the post-yas era.. The OWF is irrelevant.

[Prefonteen]

Okay I wouldn't say people being from Sparta or TOP(biggest clusters of membership origin independent of MI6) would really be much different. These are your initial pools and were allies of MI6 at the time(November 2014), so your ally set is already there.  I can give you different gov structure, but this seems to be a result of thinking democracy to be inefficient at producing the wanted results.  Which risky attacks? The last war wouldn't count as the reason for it was the perception that the opposition was potentially getting too big to beat and you wanted to maximize your chances of  maintaining dominance by attacking them first. Wouldn't it be riskier if you felt that way to wait for them to hit first?  Large political pivots without a lot of cover? I assume this means leaving Paragon, given tS was the junior partner statistically and found VE to be overbearing, it would certainly get in the way of dominance to remain within it. The leader of Guardian at the time of your signing has said that you had plans to  make your own sphere already, so that's prior to Syndicate leaving. Signing Mensa after gave you more cover and you assumed Covenant support vs Paragon in Proxy as is well known.  In terms of reaching out to former enemies, trying to divide and conquer if you think they are getting too consolidated is part of dominating, especially if you see other enemies as the bigger problems e.g Alpha/Rose vs VE/UPN. I get there's a tendency everyone will have to self-mythologize what they did, but this wasn't hard  to provide with an alternative interpretation.

 

Unfortunately, it seems like the only way to have cleared it would have been to lose the last war since Partisan said he would have tS return to its roots in that scenario and fade out from trying to be a major power since he was tired of what he perceived to be tS vs the World. I don't think your sphere have sufficient incentive to give it up but that results in a stagnant boring repetitive mess. 

 

It does matter, especially when it's an issue at every level except for what the Triumvirate actually says publicly. It stops being individual members when it's a fairly high number. You wouldn't be able to do something grossly contradictory to the desires of the membership if you wanted to without risking backlash.

Here's the issue with your logic:

 

You randomly attribute my will to find the optimal situation for tS (what you call 'Dominate' ) to some kind of attempt at compensating for (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

 

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is irrelvant for my decision in the aforementioned scenarios. I'm not that hard to understand: I weigh risk-reward and go for the best move for tS while trying to keep things dynamic. Once a decision is made, I will move to mitigate risk and maximize benefits.

 

Tell me why correct leadership is supposedly tied to the hip to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). Should I purposefully lose? Should I have taken extreme risks without chance for payout just for the sake of 'loldifferent things'?

 

No. I took the risks without a need to make them (sticking with VE would have been a tougher pill to swallow in terms of relations for various reasons at the time, but the option was there. Paragon could have easily dominated Covenant at that point, leading to an immediate hegemonic structure). 

Edited October 13, 2016 by Partisan

[Prefonteen]

I mean, it was in response to direct callouts that demanded a response during the lead-up to the war and it looked pretty bad for us when Partisan dropped the screenshot. People have continue to provide ammunition for the argument. We can choose to not address it, but see it done anyway or we can choose to point it out at times. It won't likely make it a difference as people will generally go by the party line of their coalition, but the discourse becomes more honest. Eventually I will tire of it and stop as it is a sisphyean task, but it will not go away.

 

I wouldn't really say it'd be me/us stoking the fires when other people keep bringing it up. I certainly didn't want to have to deal with it, but people won't leave it alone. It's not really unclear who started it, to be honest since everyone who had an issue started coming out of the woodwork as soon as I started posting, which was in response to the callouts and screenshot leak. It's continued unprompted.

 

Let's look at this particular situation (past days).

 

I was drawn out of the woodworks because you were *constantly* referring to last war and claiming it was all about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). You have consistently pointed out that 'tS' own leaders literally told us that they'd hit NPO an/or Alpha allies on the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) forums as retalliation'. Even though that is inherently false (as I have proven just now in this thread). You then skip-dodge and move subject while altering your general narrative to exclude communication about what used to be the core of it. You evolve it to be able to (supposedly) stand on its own without requiring the refuted points.

 

So again: Manthrax is correct. My posting is a direct response to your references to and interpretations of my actions and decision because they seem intellectually dishonest to me.

[Roquentin]

\

Political radio silence in the post-yas era.. The OWF is irrelevant.

 

So is this supposed to mean just not talking to you? Since you already had at least one other person to talk to, which you did.

 

Post "Yas" era - to your DoW: a total of a month and a half at most. 

 

 

Let's look at this particular situation (past days).

 

I was drawn out of the woodworks because you were *constantly* referring to last war and claiming it was all about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). You have consistently pointed out that 'tS' own leaders literally told us that they'd hit NPO an/or Alpha allies on the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) forums as retalliation'. Even though that is inherently false (as I have proven just now in this thread). You then skip-dodge and move subject while altering your general narrative to exclude communication about what used to be the core of it. You evolve it to be able to (supposedly) stand on its own without requiring the refuted points.

 

So again: Manthrax is correct. My posting is a direct response to your references to and interpretations of my actions and decision because they seem intellectually dishonest to me.

 

I don't remember having said that here, actually personally. Maybe you're referencing another poster?  Didn't you reply to Perg's RP post about domination and other nation sims?  The issue is, Partisan, it's not inherently false since people still think it is plausible. It could be false, but not inherently so. It's not "the sky is green".  If it is thought you attacked for that reason and you even realize that will be the narrative, people can continue to think that without it being intellectually dishonest. The reason I don't feel we need it is because there were groundswells of the sentiment before it that only increased when the war happened as many had felt their fear of NPO hegemoney had been extinguished. It's really not moving subject when the issue is the general infusion of  it into PW political stances. It doesn't require the "refuted" points because there are plenty of other examples of people having allowed it to affect their attitudes that someone could form the same conclusion about what happened independently of them. My counter was that if it had just been one war that was coincidentally timed with an event somewhere else and I took your proximate cause at face value, then the sentiment wouldn't have independent expression, which it does. 

 

Here's the issue with your logic:

 

You randomly attribute my will to find the optimal situation for tS (what you call 'Dominate' ) to some kind of attempt at compensating for (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

 

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is irrelvant for my decision in the aforementioned scenarios. I'm not that hard to understand: I weigh risk-reward and go for the best move for tS while trying to keep things dynamic. Once a decision is made, I will move to mitigate risk and maximize benefits.

 

Tell me why correct leadership is supposedly tied to the hip to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). Should I purposefully lose? Should I have taken extreme risks without chance for payout just for the sake of 'loldifferent things'?

 

No. I took the risks without a need to make them (sticking with VE would have been a tougher pill to swallow in terms of relations for various reasons at the time, but the option was there. Paragon could have easily dominated Covenant at that point, leading to an immediate hegemonic structure). 

 

 

It's how it comes across. I don't know your actual motivations, but they do not appear to be to do anything different from traditional models of acquiring and maintaining power. The marketing has usually been that things are more exciting and dynamic here than elsewhere and that you try to be responsible about avoiding stagnation and try to shake things up. This would also include your criticisms of other power structures and complaints about their potential formation here.  tS can't say tS is here to avoid the same "stagnant and repetitive boring crap"  from elsewhere and then bring it here.

 

No, but in essence, you have basically done the same things any ruling bloc in any context has done. It will naturally be seen as a way to put things into play you couldn't have elsewhere hence the "overcompensation" accusation especially when you are at odds with the other side (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)-based alliances who you have been at odds with over there. It becomes more suspicious when individual members at every level hold grudges with either institutions or individuals they see as problematic. If you can't see why it will come across this way especially when all the "fresh and exciting" begins to ring hollow, I'm not sure what to say.  The issue also is, you can't say you care more about  game health without actually following through on it.

 

The point about Paragon is if your issues with Impero were so severe  as to cause you to leave, any domination would be uneasy and not one that was fundamentally centered around the Syndicate. It would still be Paragon and not Syndisphere.

 

edit: with that all said, in the spirit of my other topic, I'm not going to pursue this line of discussion of further. I just felt I owed you a reply here since it's mainly an interpretation thing. 

Edited October 13, 2016 by Roquentin

[Sabcat]

If NPO are this annoying here when they're losing, imagine what a royal pain in the ass they'll be if they ever have any power or influence.

 

This thread is why NPO need to be kept down.

[Ivan the Red]

If there's someone who screams into their phone every day on your morning commute, you're not going to like that person. So when they show up at your office one day, you're not going to want to deal with that person. Not because of any one incident, but because you know how that person acts.

Then you have a guy who screams, farts, and push others at the bus. One day he shows at your office and you think "well, maybe he is a nice guy who just has a problem with behaving at public transportation". And you try. But after a few days you certify that he is also farting, yelling and pushing people around at the office. And at the restaurant. And at church. And at the pub. And at every fragging browser game he plays.

[Prefonteen]

Then you have a guy who screams, farts, and push others at the bus. One day he shows at your office and you think "well, maybe he is a nice guy who just has a problem with behaving at public transportation". And you try. But after a few days you certify that he is also farting, yelling and pushing people around at the office. And at the restaurant. And at church. And at the pub. And at every fragging browser game he plays.

 

Manthrax?

[Ivan the Red]

Get out of my mind, damn it!

[Foltest]

ChimaeraToday at 9:08 PM

And I would promise to get one too, but not actually go through with it
because I'm a snek
 

 

 

 

Chimaera and Partisan confirmed as the same person.

Edited October 16, 2016 by Holton

[Betulius]

ChimaeraToday at 9:08 PM

 

And I would promise to get one too, but not actually go through with it

because I'm a snek

 

 

 

 

Chimaera and Partisan confirmed as the same person.

 

Dat's racist.

 

Or specist, whatever.

[Prefonteen]

I think you're racially profiling my kind now.

[Buorhann]

Damn.

 

Why did I click this thread again?

[Kurdanak]

I wonder how many other games politics we can drag into this debate, just to make it more infuriating to read for anyone who doesn't know the details.

Just wait until we bring Martian Empires into this. Bella Grata represent, !@#$s. We got to #1 and then immediately treatied our only competition in #2, Guardian.

 

(also R.I.P. this war)

Edited October 19, 2016 by Kurdanak