Jump to content

BK recognition of hostilities


DVDCCHN
 Share

Recommended Posts

So if your goal was to shake things up then how exactly did you think such a state of affairs was to occur?

 

Usually in this realm such things acompany conflict so I would be most interested in your novel approach to shaking things up without planning hostilities against your former sphere.

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if your goal was to shake things up then how exactly did you think such a state of affairs was to occur?

 

Usually in this realm such things acompany conflict so I would be most interested in your novel approach to shaking things up without planning hostilities against your former sphere.

It was basically "Hey, lets make a new bloc with blackjack and hookers." And everyone went "YEA!"

 

Thats about as far as we got.

q8nfyvc.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No amount of projection can save you from knowing you'll never be as good as Yoso or Strum.

 

For someone who's been a part of BK playing under Yoso, Strum and Curufinwe, I'd say Curu's been doing a fab job of making BK tick and our community fun. He's generally popular within our alliance, and we've heard no complaints about our leadership as a whole either which is pretty impressive considering our large membership base. So for someone who sounds like he's having an anuerysm every time he posts, your comment is worth but a pinch of salt.

  • Upvote 1
Screen_Shot_2015-09-17_at_11.58.16_pm.thumb.png.b00a465ac4d36381a4e529773e5fdfd9.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really want to talk about how you assumed that your 4 month old untested treaty superseded a bloc alliance that had been around for 9 months and in multiple wars together? Ignoring the fact that the Obsidian Accords tied our alliances together in a way that made it impossible to declare war on one another?

We did exactly what TKR did in OO and encouraged BK against UPN in the same war.

 

Also we will send help; just coordinating our responce with TKR against Hogwarts.

:sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:               :sheepy:              :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy:


Greatkitteh was here.-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... I am curious as to what suggestions tkr is alluding to that bk refused, and why bk refused them.

 

Cause one of you two is lieing, and I am a paragon of truth

 

Neither is lying. TKR did propose something. However, it was a flawed premise, and would never be successful in practical implementation. It was so insincere of an idea it helped cement our belief that TKR did not want any actual change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither is lying. TKR did propose something. However, it was a flawed premise, and would never be successful in practical implementation. It was so insincere of an idea it helped cement our belief that TKR did not want any actual change.

What was it?

:sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:               :sheepy:              :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy:


Greatkitteh was here.-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... I am curious as to what suggestions tkr is alluding to that bk refused, and why bk refused them.

 

Cause one of you two is lieing, and I am a paragon of truth

 

Neither is lying. TKR did propose something. However, it was a flawed premise, and would never be successful in practical implementation. It was so insincere of an idea it helped cement our belief that TKR did not want any actual change.

 

Our scientists have de-spun this statement. A printout of the actual sentence should be coming any minute now. Just a sec.....

 

Here it is

 

"We didn't like the idea because we would not have a safety net of syndisphere treaties and we were scared. We'd rather just pretend to be for a changing dynamic instead of actually doing something of substance." 

 

A few scientists had to work overtime on that one. The spin was highly encrypted, but they think its pretty spot on. 

 

I'm curious what they told you Partisan, pm me and we can chat about it. 

PvczX3n.jpg?1

 

“ Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination. â€

–The First Ideal of the Windrunners,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our scientists have de-spun this statement. A printout of the actual sentence should be coming any minute now. Just a sec.....

 

Here it is

 

"We didn't like the idea because we would not have a safety net of syndisphere treaties and we were scared. We'd rather just pretend to be for a changing dynamic instead of actually doing something of substance."

 

A few scientists had to work overtime on that one. The spin was highly encrypted, but they think its pretty spot on.

 

I'm curious what they told you Partisan, pm me and we can chat about it.

Wasnt TKR the one that rejected OO taking a stand against ts?

:sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:               :sheepy:              :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy:


Greatkitteh was here.-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep reading posts by FA people about making the game more interesting... for me war every two months seems boring already. I ve seen the same rethoric throughout too many alliances to count. This sacrifice and lies in order to make the game more interesting. It s not working guys. The game is not interesting. So let's change something. either a more neutral and transparent body for world affairs, like a League of Nations or UN. Or competitions and world olympics like the one organized by that dwarf.

 

We ve seen not one war started because of a lie. The world foreign affairs is too shady and being schemed out by a hand of ppl. It s time we make it more transparent. Otherwise we risk of being deceived and start wars because of schemes of one man... no offence Partisan, this time probably wasnt your fault.

 

And BK... it wasn t something new... I feel like the last war just postponed this change of heart... from my side, one thing I have to say to ya.. second 06. enjoy

https://youtu.be/uAtLV26wnCE

 

Iam sure we can all start behaving like adult ppl and not looking to prove something. Happy easter you sexless nerds.

Edited by LostWorld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep reading posts by FA people about making the game more interesting... for me war every two months seems boring already. I ve seen the same rethoric throughout too many alliances to count. This sacrifice and lies in order to make the game more interesting. It s not working guys. The game is not interesting. So let's change something. either a more neutral and transparent body for world affairs, like a League of Nations or UN. Or competitions and world olympics like the one organized by that dwarf.

 

We ve seen not one war started because of a lie. The world foreign affairs is too shady and being schemed out by a hand of ppl. It s time we make it more transparent. Otherwise we risk of being deceived and start wars because of schemes of one man... no offence Partisan, this time probably wasnt your fault.

 

And BK... it wasn t something new... I feel like the last war just postponed this change of heart... from my side, one thing I have to say to ya.. second 06. enjoy

https://youtu.be/uAtLV26wnCE

 

Iam sure we can all start behaving like adult ppl and not looking to prove something. Happy easter you sexless nerds.

 

Dear god this.

 

I've been saying for years that foreign affairs needs to be more transparent. Alliances need more member input or this, and every nation sim, will continue to bore 99% of its audience.

Superbia


vuSNqof.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe

Yoso for emperor, you da real OG

He's safe and happy at the farm and he has plenty of other dogs to play with, honest.

 

So... I am curious as to what suggestions tkr is alluding to that bk refused, and why bk refused them.

Cause one of you two is lieing, and I am a paragon of truth

Truthful Snek?

 

Our scientists have de-spun this statement. A printout of the actual sentence should be coming any minute now. Just a sec.....

 

Here it is

 

"We didn't like the idea because we would not have a safety net of syndisphere treaties and we were scared. We'd rather just pretend to be for a changing dynamic instead of actually doing something of substance."

 

A few scientists had to work overtime on that one. The spin was highly encrypted, but they think its pretty spot on.

 

I'm curious what they told you Partisan, pm me and we can chat about it.

 

We didn't tell Partisan anything, because there wasn't anything to tell him. Since I wanted to make sure we were accurate on this, I went back and checked the logs and the only time that IC made any mention of potentially breaking up Syndi-OO was on January 4th, when I straight up asked him what he thought we should do going forward in the wake of the Paperless war. And, no, this wasn't a 'proposal' we rejected, it was a 'well if we were going to do something, I guess this would be okay' musing, which was quickly followed by 'but we'd just be doing it for the sake of doing it, so we're not too enthusiastic about it,' a sentiment which you yourself echoed in a conversation we had shortly afterwards. Unless you made some formal proposal I'm unaware of, this was the only time TKR mentioned anything to that effect in the 60 or more days before we finally decided to go ahead and dissolve OO. By that point it had become obvious that you had no real intention of seeing any substantive changes in Orbesian politics take place, especially considering your reaction to BoC's proposed treaty to WU and CS's prospective bloc with Lord. Given that TKR appeared to feel it should have a de facto veto over the FA of its allies (a point you and I disagreed on in a private conversation regarding BoC's WU treaty) and the fact that you repeatedly opposed the creation of cross sphere ties (WU, Lord, NPO), you can't turn around now and claim that TKR was eager to embrace change. And that's fine - like I said in an earlier post, you guys worked hard for your top spot and desparately wanted to hang on to it, which was a choice you had a right to make. But trying to turn around and claim that TKR was openly advocating the break up of the Syndisphere or seeking to revitalize the stagnant FA environment is a bit much - mentioning something once in a half hearted manner and then never following up on it again, while at the same time opposing your allies efforts to shake up FA, doesn't make TKR the champions of dynamic change. Edited by Curufinwe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We didn't tell Partisan anything, because there wasn't anything to tell him. Since I wanted to make sure we were accurate on this, I went back and checked the logs and the only time that IC made any mention of potentially breaking up Syndi-OO was on January 4th, when I straight up asked him what he thought we should do going forward in the wake of the Paperless war. And, no, this wasn't a 'proposal' we rejected, it was a 'well if we were going to do something, I guess this would be okay' musing, which was quickly followed by 'but we'd just be doing it for the sake of doing it, so we're not too enthusiastic about it,' a sentiment which you yourself echoed in a conversation we had shortly afterwards. Unless you made some formal proposal I'm unaware of, this was the only time TKR mentioned anything to that effect in the 60 or more days before we finally decided to go ahead and dissolve OO. By that point it had become obvious that you had no real intention of seeing any substantive changes in Orbesian politics take place, especially considering your reaction to BoC's proposed treaty to WU and CS's prospective bloc with Lord. Given that TKR appeared to feel it should have a de facto veto over the FA of its allies (a point you and I disagreed on in a private conversation regarding BoC's WU treaty) and the fact that you repeatedly opposed the creation of cross sphere ties (WU, Lord, NPO), you can't turn around now and claim that TKR was eager to embrace change. And that's fine - like I said in an earlier post, you guys worked hard for your top spot and desparately wanted to hang on to it, which was a choice you had a right to make. But trying to turn around and claim that TKR was openly advocating the break up of the Syndisphere or seeking to revitalize the stagnant FA environment is a bit much - mentioning something once in a half hearted manner and then never following up on it again, while at the same time opposing your allies efforts to shake up FA, doesn't make TKR the champions of dynamic change.

 

Ya, no. IC himself through out an idea of changing things up on two separate occasions and both times OO leaders were too scared at the prospect of actually taking any sort of risk. Do not try to paint as as being complacent and uncompromising when on both occasions an idea our King pitched was rejected. You were just too scared to do anything of substance. No one has to look any further than the fact you kept your Syndi ties post Inq formation even though you knew what would eventually end up happening. 

 

You don't have to think too hard on it, we're already fighting in it. 

Edited by Kayser

PvczX3n.jpg?1

 

“ Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination. â€

–The First Ideal of the Windrunners,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, no. IC himself through out an idea of changing things up on two separate occasions and both times OO leaders were too scared at the prospect of actually taking any sort of risk. Do not try to paint as as being complacent and uncompromising when on both occasions an idea our King pitched was rejected. You were just too scared to do anything of substance. No one has to look any further than the fact you kept your Syndi ties post Inq formation even though you knew what would eventually end up happening. 

 

You don't have to think too hard on it, we're already fighting in it. 

 

Would you mind enlightening us again what those ideas were? Your generic statements of having 'ideas' are not at all convincing, and act as a poor rebuttal to Curu's points.

  • Upvote 1
Screen_Shot_2015-09-17_at_11.58.16_pm.thumb.png.b00a465ac4d36381a4e529773e5fdfd9.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, no. IC himself through out an idea of changing things up on two separate occasions and both times OO leaders were too scared at the prospect of actually taking any sort of risk. Do not try to paint as as being complacent and uncompromising when on both occasions an idea our King pitched was rejected. You were just too scared to do anything of substance. No one has to look any further than the fact you kept your Syndi ties post Inq formation even though you knew what would eventually end up happening. 

 

You don't have to think too hard on it, we're already fighting in it. 

 

I have no idea what the proposals were, but to imply that OO leaders (BK and CS in this case) are too scared to take and risks is laughable. The actions that both alliance took were so risky that it did indeed brought out another world war. In this case, it is more evident that TKR was the one who refused to take any risk that threatens its position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe

Can confirm. We didn't talk too much (BK and I) :P

I know I should call more, but things have just been busy lately. I swear you're still my favorite snek.

 

Ya, no. IC himself through out an idea of changing things up on two separate occasions and both times OO leaders were too scared at the prospect of actually taking any sort of risk. Do not try to paint as as being complacent and uncompromising when on both occasions an idea our King pitched was rejected. You were just too scared to do anything of substance. No one has to look any further than the fact you kept your Syndi ties post Inq formation even though you knew what would eventually end up happening.

 

You don't have to think too hard on it, we're already fighting in it.

 

Well that doesn't seem to to be in accordance with the conversation (and the logs) I recently reread, but I can't speak to what IC may or may not have said to Bezzers. And I'm not painting you as complacent and uncompromising - I'm simply using the evidence provided by your past actions to demonstrate that TKR repeatedly opposed​ substantive change. I'm sorry if that doesn't match with your current argument that you represent a progressive and evolutionary force in Orbesian politics, but if you were sincerely interested in seeing some sort of dramatic shift in FA you certainly had an odd way of going about it. Generally dramatically altering the status quo involves doing more than having one vague conversation (that I'm aware of) and then never mentioning anything again until you're publicly called out for it 4 months later. But hey, you guys had an idea that you perhaps would have eventually given serious consideration to maybe actually pursuing, so I suppose that's a start. Edited by Curufinwe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclaimer from your local spaz: No, this is not what BK thinks and all that jazz. I'm just simple BKer. Also if I'm not making sense, I'm hyped up on caffeine and not thinking straight so that might explain it :P

 

Okay I wasn't going to post anything serious on here because really that's what Curu's for :P but I thought why not.

 

Let it be known I have a lot of respect for t$, Mensa, and TKR. They've proven themselves to be good allies and I can definitely say they've earned their reputation. I can also say I can definitely understand some of the anger and frustration at how this all turned out. T$ and Mensa players have been upfront with saying they're just upset BK wasn't upfront with them with what we were doing, which was Understandable as I recall Mensa players being the ones saying there was no reason for the old gang to break up on the forums the most and next thing you know OO breaks up and they find out things weren't as good as they thought it was. Kind of like that one person who thinks all of their friends get along because it looks like it only to see they've been fighting when he wasn't looking. Really again, I can understand that. I've even got some other concerns t$ players had about this that I can actually also understand.

 

And from what I can see with TKR (kayser I do have respect for you an recall the brief times we talked when I was assigned to TKR unless of course I'm confusing you with someonene else lol). If it really is that you guys didn't agree with how we were going to do it that's fair and I can respect that.

 

With that being said, I don't believe Curu or anyone within BK wanted to stab any of their allies in the back. As said, we just wanted to try something new and shake things up. Could BK have done something's better with how we kickstarted this. I'm gonna risk getting fired and say yes (boss seriously don't fire me I'll pay for your next night of fun :( ). Would it have prevented all of this? Maybe.

 

TL,DR: Syndisphere's feelings are understandable, BK's intentions were never evil, and I'm a spaz.

 

Return to whatever you were doing and I'll return to sugar rush.

Edited by Amaryllis
  • Upvote 1

Nerd To The Core

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curu, at least for me, this is more the key for the disappointment. To my knowledge, outside of the earlier informal touch-points on the issue of sphere split that occurred right before the DONG WARS, where the consensus was that we understood there was a very good chance it would happen and we would make sure it was transparent and amiable if it did, t$ was never approached about any serious plan or desire to get the process formally started. My disappointment is that it seems you didn't trust us in what we had said on the matter. Once again, to my knowledge based on what I've learned since then, all discussions were limited internally to OO (I'm not sure about CS, and from what we were told the Chola segment of Zodiac didn't know either). I can assure you that if you had came to t$ and made it clear to us your deep dissatisfaction with the status quo, we would have worked with you. We are each other's oldest treaty partners. We wouldn't have ignored your concerns. I think Mensa would have listened too, along with other alliances. Also to my knowledge, the disagreement with TKR seems to be based on how such a split would occur rather than a split itself, though I'm not fully privy to those details (I know you viewed it as untenable). I'll reiterate though, I'm confident we could have worked out a dynamic sphere shift to Orbisian politics, rather than as Thrax has pointed out, just a structural shifting of the status quo which we now have. 

 

Also, I think the idea of easing concerns for something you intended to do either way does somewhat validate the concerns others have shared in this thread. 

 

And Roq, if your assumption was correct, then I'd agree completely. There would be no other logical move. But I think that the assumption is incorrect, as I stated above. As for Paragon, that is a whole different discussion we can get into somewhere else :P There are similarities there but also very large differences. That would be a major derailing though, but feel free to hit me up on discord if you'd like to chat about it. ;)

 

So what's BK's thoughts on this ??

                                              aA9XUQZ.png                                                              



           

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what the proposals were, but to imply that OO leaders (BK and CS in this case) are too scared to take and risks is laughable. The actions that both alliance took were so risky that it did indeed brought out another world war. In this case, it is more evident that TKR was the one who refused to take any risk that threatens its position.

 

Help me out here. What is risky about allying NPO and having about 250 nations around the same NS range, exactly?

  • Upvote 1

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TL,DR: Syndisphere's feelings are understandable, BK's intentions were never evil, and I'm a spaz.

 

Return to whatever you were doing and I'll return to sugar rush.

I am unable to get it if your intentions were not evil then for what you made a bloc ?? just to hangout with new friends?? I think one discord channel would have better if that's the case. Like as I mentioned earlier I personally don't think it's wrong to shake things up but then why you guys kept those treaties with us ?? the answer is simple you knew that one day or another you are going to start a war against us and will simply use those treaties as shields. like you guys hit rose (ally of your ally) but mensa can't counter you coz you kept that treaty so I think it is only safe to say that your intentions were to use those treaties to make yourself safe and to roll your allies. 

                                              aA9XUQZ.png                                                              



           

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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

Important Information

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