Jump to content

Dear TKR- A Hogwarts message


Prefonteen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Tywin Lannister said:

I would assume they would give the notice so that countdown can start and let everyone else know too perhaps. Has the notice been given already? Please enlighten us. Would be very interesting if they haven't given the notice yet though! 

As a general rule of thumb, HBE does not post cancellations. I've heard TKR doesn't either. When TKR cancelled us, notice was not posted on the OWF. Point being, I don't know if they have or not or if they will. Don't care either. But it's none of your business or anyone else's besides TKR and NK's.

  • Upvote 1

gkt70Td.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hadesflames said:

So because you lack honor and would attack someone you have a NAP with, means TKR should too?

I mean coming from you, a person who knows what honor is. This statement makes sense.

  • Upvote 2

settradirect.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Partisan said:

Lordship/Sketchy's prosecution literally:
 

"You committed a crime because you posted mean videos".

 

Please up your spin game. This is a terrible show Sketchy.

You admitted to undergoing aggressive action already Partisan. You've literally admitted to all the charges we'd need for a CB. Get your story straight fam.

Partisan this is weak form my friend.

  • Upvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hadesflames said:

As a general rule of thumb, HBE does not post cancellations. I've heard TKR doesn't either. When TKR cancelled us, notice was not posted on the OWF. Point being, I don't know if they have or not or if they will. Don't care either. But it's none of your business or anyone else's besides TKR and NK's.

It's my business if I want it to be though.. No one can stop that. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sketchy said:

You admitted to undergoing aggressive action already Partisan. You've literally admitted to all the charges we'd need for a CB. Get your story straight fam.

Partisan this is weak form my friend.

I've admitted to considering aggressive action. Yes. Undergoing aggressive action would require me to actually act on it. I.e. declare war.

 

But my post was more of a play on your satirically presented statement. I'm sure you can appreciate that. ;)

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hadesflames said:

As a general rule of thumb, HBE does not post cancellations. I've heard TKR doesn't either. When TKR cancelled us, notice was not posted on the OWF. Point being, I don't know if they have or not or if they will. Don't care either. But it's none of your business or anyone else's besides TKR and NK's.

If you publicly post a treaty then it stands to reason that you publicly post its cancellation; without that you have no credibility outside of those in the know. And if you don't care about your public credibility then just go paperless; that way your treaties are harder to keep up with and plan around.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Partisan said:

I've admitted to considering aggressive action. Yes. Undergoing aggressive action would require me to actually act on it. I.e. declare war.

 

But my post was more of a play on your satirically presented statement. I'm sure you can appreciate that. ;)

Undergoing is still an accurate way of phrasing that you screwed the pooch. You tried to put plans in motion and they failed. Although grammatically it should be underwent.

So 10 points to Gryffindor and 10 points to Ravenclaw.

Edited by durmij
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

If you publicly post a treaty then it stands to reason that you publicly post its cancellation; without that you have no credibility outside of those in the know. And if you don't care about your public credibility then just go paperless; that way your treaties are harder to keep up with and plan around.

But playing by the rules is boring. And all of ^THAT is playing by the rules.

Contact me if you have questions, concerns, or just want to chat. I have an open door policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When will this game realize that CB's and arguing over them is a pointless exercise. The strong destroy the weak because it is their right. I hope Lordship will come to realize what he must do.

  • Upvote 1

Former Imperial Officer of Internal Affairs and Emperor of the New Pacific Order, Founder of the Syndicate, Current Chief Global Strategist of the Syndicate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, hadesflames said:

As a general rule of thumb, HBE does not post cancellations. I've heard TKR doesn't either. When TKR cancelled us, notice was not posted on the OWF. Point being, I don't know if they have or not or if they will. Don't care either. But it's none of your business or anyone else's besides TKR and NK's.

As a general rule of thumb: you both just don’t want your name dragged thrubthe mud. A REAL alliance would post it

Let’s be honest. TKR can’t risk losing nuke bloc. IQ will jump and slap THE !@#$ outta TKRsphere if that happens. tS will probably clap TCW since they hate them too. 

 

So let’s stop. TKR ain’t gonna do shit. Lordship is a !@#$, and so is Woot.

~Kastor since my name hasn’t been updated

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, James II said:

Don't get cocky because you're hiding behind nuke bloc.

EDIT: Be gracious.

 

Not cocky at all just on a field trip. I am quite grateful i get to visit a group of very nice people. I dont travel often so its nice to see new faces.

26 minutes ago, hadesflames said:

So because you lack honor and would attack someone you have a NAP with, means TKR should too?

I lack honor? Well thats a first. Who says i would attack someone i have a nap with. I just posed a question which i see now i forgot to add a question mark to my original post.

Edited by General BAMF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rip Hunter said:

As a general rule of thumb: you both just don’t want your name dragged thrubthe mud. A REAL alliance would post it

Let’s be honest. TKR can’t risk losing nuke bloc. IQ will jump and slap THE !@#$ outta TKRsphere if that happens. tS will probably clap TCW since they hate them too. 

 

So let’s stop. TKR ain’t gonna do shit. Lordship is a !@#$, and so is Woot.

~Kastor since my name hasn’t been updated

 

  • Upvote 1

Chief Financial Officer of The Syndicate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, General BAMF said:

Not cocky at all just on a field trip. I am quite grateful i get to visit a group of very nice people. I dont travel often so its nice to see new faces.

I lack honor? Well thats a first. Who says i would attack someone i have a nap with. I just merely posed a question which i see now i forgot to add a question mark to my original post.

If it was meant to be a question then the answer is because attacking someone you have specifically agreed to not attack under any circumstances is scummy af.

gkt70Td.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Partisan said:

Yet you refuse to acknowledge context.

You could have you know, discussed that issue with me. Instead I got a "who are you hitting" to which I did reply you nor your allies would be hit, but that we were going to try something out. Honesty and assurance despite a tense situation. That's merely one of many examples where communication and diplomacy was employed to soothe what seems to be your fragile state of mind.

2 months back, perhaps. Now? Iffy. Why did you not swing back then? Why did you wait for us to be tied up defending your ally?

Thing is, that rather than ending my plots, you have taken a pacified snake, and turned him into a reinvigorated snake. Great decisionmaking there, bud.

But... Hogwarts did not use anything to justify hitting anyone? Are you really creating a hypothetical situation and using that to try to incriminate me and justify your CB? what the !@#$ lordship.

Let me put it out again:

Grumpy told me you were concerned (which made no sense whatsoever)

I told SRD that we were not gonna do jackshit except for defending GOB

I then sent you the 3 hour thing for shits and giggles. You played along.

Right after the hit, I sent you a message along the lines of "So what made you think we were gunning for you?" and engaged in discussion on the subject.

 

The notion that nothing was attempted there is dumb, and you stubbornly zeroing in on "OMG THREATENING VIDEO" is rather ... telling of your predisposition.

 

So why did you not hit back then then? Why wait until we are engaged defending GOB? Why not talk to me about it in the interim? Naturally you have no obligation to, but this all seems a little too ....convenient.

 

My hand was, if you want to call it that, in the cookie jar a month ago. A more apt analogy would be a group of jocks who see a baller from another school who just got in a scrap and justifying a beatdown because of something that occurred a month earlier but the jocks didn't want to act on because they weren't sure if they'd take a bloody nose.

 

 

8

Again, no trust means there's really no point in discussing the issue considering we wouldn't trust anything you said.

"2 months back, perhaps. Now? Iffy. Why did you not swing back then? Why did you wait for us to be tied up defending your ally?"

We didn't know for sure back then, but everything was confirmed on the KT radio show as well as subsequent conversations. The fact that you were tied up defending Grumpy was pure coincidence, not something we "waited" on.

 

"Thing is, that rather than ending my plots, you have taken a pacified snake, and turned him into a reinvigorated snake. Great decisionmaking there, bud."

Thanks!

 

"Let me put it out again:

Grumpy told me you were concerned (which made no sense whatsoever)

I told SRD that we were not gonna do jackshit except for defending GOB

I then sent you the 3 hour thing for shits and giggles. You played along.

Right after the hit, I sent you a message along the lines of "So what made you think we were gunning for you?" and engaged in discussion on the subject."

Yeah, doesn't change the fact that it was menacing in nature, which is the core issue. This issue, in particular, is irrelevant to the cb by the way, which you seem to be trying to take attention away from :P 

 

"The notion that nothing was attempted there is dumb, and you stubbornly zeroing in on "OMG THREATENING VIDEO" is rather ... telling of your predisposition."

A predisposition brought about by the way you operate in public channels :P 

 

"So why did you not hit back then then? Why wait until we are engaged defending GOB? Why not talk to me about it in the interim? Naturally you have no obligation to, but this all seems a little too ....convenient."

Already answered, didn't have concrete proof, and the timing was completely incidental which I have said multiple times. Are we going to just repeat ourselves? Like you said, you are being cynical.

 

My hand was, if you want to call it that, in the cookie jar a month ago. A more apt analogy would be a group of jocks who see a baller from another school who just got in a scrap and justifying a beatdown because of something that occurred a month earlier but the jocks didn't want to act on because they weren't sure if they'd take a bloody nose.

I disagree with your premise because you're implying we'd be afraid to fight you if you hadn't just helped Grumpy fend off Sparta. But your hand was certainly in the cookie jar! That's really the only point being made here, and you are acknowledging it, so anything else is just fluff at this point.

4 minutes ago, Partisan said:

Correct. But it does mean that one of the key points in your narrative - that I was gunning for your allies in particular - is factually invalid. That's a big distinction to make and I will keep hammering on it until you realize that.

No it does not force them to do anything. I am not jumping in their government holding a gun to their heads and telling them to do what I want. I'm creating a scenario where alliances who who move proactively are rewarded. There's a different because of the inclusion of free choice. Frankly, this line of arguing on your part is disingenious at best.

 

Aha. When was this radio show?

There is such a thing as mutual allies. You having an ally is not mutually exclusive with me having an ally ;)

For someone who is "just stating empirical facts", you make an awful lot of assumptions throughout this thread. It's quite interesting.

You mean the same M.O. which persisted far before we became a "threat" to you and before our "plot"? I can see how that consistency feels menacing.

 

1. It's not arrogance. It's statistical knowledge and the ability to piece together a hypothetical scenario.

2.Correct. You made it appear as if the garnering occurred over a longer period of time, rather than just the brief (few day) window during which the plot was developed. As long as you understand and remember that distinction, we're fine.

 

5

"Correct. But it does mean that one of the key points in your narrative - that I was gunning for your allies in particular - is factually invalid. That's a big distinction to make and I will keep hammering on it until you realize that."

We figured that was the case because of your hostility towards our alliances in particular, but the point remains and it does not at all alter the justification.

 

"Aha. When was this radio show?"

It was this last Friday, the 13th. Spooky night heh

 

"There is such a thing as mutual allies. You having an ally is not mutually exclusive with me having an ally "

Sure but I'm not sure what the point is lol. Has nothing to do with the point I made earlier.

 

"For someone who is "just stating empirical facts", you make an awful lot of assumptions throughout this thread. It's quite interesting."

Not really. The fact remains that you had your hand in the cookie jar, and you don't deny it, so that's good at least. But your defense of "I was goona shoot you but don't be mad man, I was gonna shoot them too" doesn't hold up heh

 

"You mean the same M.O. which persisted far before we became a "threat" to you and before our "plot"? I can see how that consistency feels menacing."

Whether or not it is the same MO is pretty irrelevant here, considering we were directly implicated in your recent schemes.

 

"1. It's not arrogance. It's statistical knowledge and the ability to piece together a hypothetical scenario.

2.Correct. You made it appear as if the garnering occurred over a longer period of time, rather than just the brief (few day) window during which the plot was developed. As long as you understand and remember that distinction, we're fine."

 

1. That is a very arrogant thing to say lol

2. Whether it was over 2 months or 3-4 days, doesn't really matter because the point remains that your hand was in the cookie jar. The semantics aren't relevant to the CB further than you were plotting, we confirmed, we responded.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Tywin Lannister said:

Fun fact: TKR had no problem in hitting me and Warpool when we left Sparta and were in Political Pirates. I wonder what's the problem now. I can link you to where the members are if that's an issue.

I actually think we were planning on hitting you before you left Sparta , grumpy just took a bit long and was a bit cautious in the planning is all. 

I might be wrong but I do distinctly remember the counter being pushed back an update.

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I don't really buy into the idea that this was all a gigantic 4d inside out upside down backwards chess move that was scrapped later on because it seemed like it would require effort, but it does seem like there was some amount of trolling about to see what you could get away with here. And it seems like you've hit upon a way to mostly get away with it with relatively minimal consequences. Bravo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To certain parties:

Don't play coy. I give you props for your manuver up until this point, but claiming actively and clearly plotting to hit an individual, is and always will be, a valid cb to rofl stomp someone. It's been this way well before pnw, and will be well after.

 

The validity of the cb, however, does not force the offended party to use it at the offenders discretion. It is up to the offended when the cb will be used.

 

I know you like to get the salt, but stay classy plox

Edited by Spectral
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might be totally naive, childish, un+informed and ignorant but  here I go: So Partisan tried to scheme us all into another pissing-match of global war for fun and chaos and for the ultimate goal of any failed schemer: more dynamic political landscape. He failed, then played the only move left to scatter his AA under the protections of others, which in my book was a smart thing to do cause why take a voluntary beating when there is another way out. So it's the move of the people wanting to roll Partisan and his comrades, either they forgive and forget or they wait until Partisan gets his band back together sometime in the future and use eternal CB which Partisan has well established by his scheming and strike him out of the blue. Or they try to make a global deal with everyone wanting to roll Partisan which would be much harder thing to pull off and may end up creating more drama and backstabbing either way Partisan has  achieved his stated goal of making the game more interesting plus the coward-like scattering of the AA to avoid punishment as some see it actually adds options and creates precedent for the future schemers and shitlords alike.

         

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hadesflames said:

It's the middle of the night in Autumn though... 27 degrees in the middle of the night in the middle of October is relatively hot.

 

But it's not spring. It's Autumn. And it's the middle of the night. The sun isn't even out.

Bro you're from Florida. Stop being such a weeb and use fahrenheit like a patriot missile.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Victor Truchev said:

But playing by the rules is boring. And all of ^THAT is playing by the rules.

Nah, what I said was that if someone goes paperless, then they're declaring themselves to be not bound by the rules of politics, and so they're not playing by those rules. If one says that they are but actually aren't, then they're weak and scummy.

26 minutes ago, Agent W said:

When will this game realize that CB's and arguing over them is a pointless exercise. The strong destroy the weak because it is their right. I hope Lordship will come to realize what he must do.

Rights don't factor into this; especially not when talking about military power. True strength isn't having pixels and hoarding them, true strength is a willingness to be honest and avoid hipocrisy; a willingness to take risks, even to risk showing mercy and forgiveness; and a willingness to commit to the long haul, should it come to that.

I've seen almost a dozen games of this type fall to utter ruin, with circlejerks of a single power bloc lording over all and crushing all that didn't immediately surrender to them entirely, or just killing everyone that joined outright to prevent any new players from coming in. Sometimes it's 3 players alone playing their little GDP simulator, or just nobody playing at all. These games all die in the same way: through the complete weakness of their players, who in their feebleness persist in the same self-destructive patterns out of cowardice and ignorance.

That's why I oppose those that think they're strong, but are actually deeply weak.

1 minute ago, Quichwe10 said:

... I mean... I'm pretty sure plotted secret attack still pretty good cause for a CB. Like, wasn't the Zimmerman Telegram one of the reasons why the US went into WWI?

One of the reasons, but there were a lot more. And it is a decent CB, but not completely unassailable. For a start, it's a cause for war, not an act of war, which is different. Acting on a CB is aggression, getting hit by a secret attack isn't aggression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sir Scarfalot said:

Nah, what I said was that if someone goes paperless, then they're declaring themselves to be not bound by the rules of politics, and so they're not playing by those rules. If one says that they are but actually aren't, then they're weak and scummy.

Rights don't factor into this; especially not when talking about military power. True strength isn't having pixels and hoarding them, true strength is a willingness to be honest and avoid hipocrisy; a willingness to take risks, even to risk showing mercy and forgiveness; and a willingness to commit to the long haul, should it come to that.

I've seen almost a dozen games of this type fall to utter ruin, with circlejerks of a single power bloc lording over all and crushing all that didn't immediately surrender to them entirely, or just killing everyone that joined outright to prevent any new players from coming in. Sometimes it's 3 players alone playing their little GDP simulator, or just nobody playing at all. These games all die in the same way: through the complete weakness of their players, who in their feebleness persist in the same self-destructive patterns out of cowardice and ignorance.

That's why I oppose those that think they're strong, but are actually deeply weak.

One of the reasons, but there were a lot more. And it is a decent CB, but not completely unassailable. For a start, it's a cause for war, not an act of war, which is different. Acting on a CB is aggression, getting hit by a secret attack isn't aggression.

Errrrr..... That's why it's currently a CB, and not Hogwarts getting smeared on the sidewalk right now. Act of war would have all the treaties activated like Yugioh activates trap cards and the guy in question getting a very bad day.

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.