Everyone Expects This

[Senry]

I mean, Lord fought alongside IQ in the last war. Actually joining the formal bloc means little for those looking in, and I imagine is more for internal reasons.

[Guest Curufinwe]

5 hours ago, Keegoz said:

I mean it was no longer easy to roll you because their sphere dismantled itself...

You're basically forcing them to 1) Get back together and roll you or 2) Slowly wait for the game to die or 3) Hope IQ does something other than sign more treaties

Not really - if people are bored and want to do something, there's plenty of opportunities to do so.  RW and Sparta (and Arrgh and CoS for that matter) have demonstrated that it is possible to do stuff: they've all either conducted wars (or mass raids or whatever you want to call the nothinging) in the past few months and IQ certainly hasn't directly interfered with their ability to do so.  Hell, Pantheon (and by extension its allies) acquired what many considered a valid CB on KT that they could have pursued if they were so inclined and a similar argument could be made for UPN (and its protector Rose) versus the current incarnation of Hogwarts, and I don't think that IQ would have hindered either in any way had people chosen to act on them.  Seems to me that there's plenty of opportunities for people to engage in conflict but IQ is being used as a convenient excuse to justify not pursuing it.  I suppose it's easier to blame us for not 'doing something' than actually doing something yourself (note that signing or dissolving treaties doesn't count as 'doing something' if it's not followed by action, which is the criticism you're levying against us), but trying to claim that we're the only stumbling block to you all doing something when we haven't given any indication that we'd intervene to prevent you from doing so is a bit rich.

[Smith]

This constantly repeated idea that new treaties don't matter because an alliance was already within IQ sphere is ridiculous. IQ would not be signing these treaties if it did not do anything. With each new treaty an alliance further becomes "bought in" to the sphere and makes it increasingly difficult for them to ever break away from the IQ sphere. This is because now they would have to sever ties with essentially all of their allies if they one day decided they no longer wanted to be part of IQ sphere. And with every new treaty within IQ sphere (especially the bloc itself) that becomes increasingly difficult for an alliance to do. 

 

Edit: For an example of this look at Seven Kingdoms. They just recently cancelled Zodiac in an attempt to create a new thing and break away from IQ but are still tied to Polaris because they don't want to cancel on more of their friends despite Polaris being as loyal to NPO/IQ as it gets. I don't fault them for this really it's just a result of the rampant consolidation going on in IQ sphere and SK was never even close to being one of the more extreme examples of this. 

Edited December 29, 2017 by Smith

[Roquentin]

12 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

So now consolidation is only an issue if its after winning a war? Is that really the argument you are relying on? That is a ridiculous defense and you know it. If IQ signs 95% of the alliances in the game, you are gonna say "hurr durr but we haz not wonz a war", whilst not declaring any wars.

 

It's after winning wars. If we don't win a war then us sticking together doesn't make it an overpowering group either way.  Usually opposing groups broke up in response to repeated losses. We didn't diminish the opposition by winning. They cancelled some treaties and it hasn't had a tangible impact on the overall situation as of yet.

12 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I didn't claim IQ's formation in itself had no effect on politics or was not a change, you are straw-manning my argument.. Basically any relevant alliance signing a treaty has some degree of an effect on the game. I contested that SINCE the formation, you've done nothing with that formation.

Arguing that the formation of your sphere forced others to react in a certain way, therefore you are the arbiters of said situation is ridiculous. Best case scenario, if I was being generous it would be an even split of credit. BUT, It also completely undermines your point still, as that is an admission that you with intention provoked a specific reaction with the goal of triggering a war. You still can't both be responsible and not be responsible for that war, and you know it. Pick a lane.

It's about the specific impact it has. A treaty between two small alliances has limited impact.

I don't know when it was said that black and white. All that's been stated is the move caused the political climate to change which facilitated a war since people were upset over it. Actions can indirectly play a role in how the war happen. I don't think we said that none of our actions may have led to it being a war situation.

 

12 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Just to clarify, Redarmy (roses current leader) was in Rose during that time. He left Rose after Silent War, and came back before Git Gud Friday, he was the head of FA in Rose under Keegoz for a time. Either way, that is a deflection. You have tried to draw lines between t$-oo and EMC in the past, so that you could then draw lines between t$-oo and Rose, so you could use the history of a t$-oo and their hegemoney as a narrative cudgel with which to beat Rose over the head. Ever if we concede Rose is a different alliance, you can't argue they are culpable for anything they weren't involved in due to you know, being your ally at the time. Your arguments about t$-oo don't apply to Rose and therefore your entire argument is undermined, period.

I was fairly sure he was in WTF at the time. You assume I was only talking about Rose, but they do apply to the other alliances. I would say they do apply to Rose since they made the active decision of signing Mensa and others, so not undermined. It's a conscious decision to become part of the dominant grouping, no matter what your spin is.

12 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

 

No, you don't think the split is fake because if you concede even the smallest possibility it might, at the very least be a genuine attempt at a split, regardless of success or not, than you can't use that as a defense when justifying your own consolidation and general politically stagnant behavior. To argue its not likely to be successful is very different from arguing its fake. The former is a debatable but potentially genuine concern, the latter is a political narrative designed to undermine the split, pure and simple. Speculating things loudly with no evidence is just a sly way of building a narrative and you aren't nearly stupid enough to claim otherwise.

If we don't have confidence in the split, why would it impact our actions fake or not? This was in talks before Rose announced anything and why would jeopardize it in favor of something potential? It's also not only Rose that has been saying they're splitting. Pretty sure it started with TKR. Of course we're going to say what we think about it. As soon as those announcements were posted people began insisting we split, and the fact that we don't have confidence that the EMC alliances are adjusting their trajectories/ambitions is something bringing up in that context.

12 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

 

You said it. Adding a caveat excuse is not the same as not saying it.

Alliances not under the EMC column are not in EMC and are therefore not certain to join. You can't use convoluted "what if" situations as a defense for your strength. If we played that game, I could reference a whole host of non IQ column alliances that might enter on your behalf, including the 7 outside the sphere you are tied to, and the ones your peripheral alliances are tied to. Its not a valid argument.

They're not convoluted whatif situations for us. We've had plenty of hints to indicate certain alliances would join in that you didn't count and many of those are pretty loud about who they like and don't like and only have links/bonds with one side.  Most of the non IQ alliances that don't have ties to any center alliances usually have made it pretty clear they wouldn't help or are protectorates that aren't likely to war, while some major alliances were in the EMC leaning column along with peripheral ones. 

12 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

As for the last part, neutral alliances have been engaging in anti-EMC rhetoric just as much. Different people in many cases,but you'd be a liar to pretend there hasn't been a significant sum of people pushing for an EMC split (I know firsthand having debated a bunch of them on the subject) amongst neutrals or saying negative things about EMC alliances or EMC. This is just a victim narrative, it has no grounds in reality. If people saying mean things about alliances was enough to make them enter wars against them all the time, we'd have had more than one global war this year.

It's different people and the willingness to fight EMC simply hasn't really been there while a lot are bandying the threat of punishing IQ for not breaking up. Most of those people also had closer ties with EMC and were less likely to take action for that reason as well.

12 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Being skeptical and vocally denouncing the split are two entirely different things. You've not been quiet about your rather unfounded skepticism. Both TKR and Rose have undergone leadership changes. Neither of the current leaders have done anything to provoke IQ since they've taken over (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this point), and your mostly just creating your own self-fulfilling prophecy by treating any moves made by them with disdain.

Again, we highlight our skepticism because when people take it 100% at face value, the ball gets put into our court and I can tell you that one of those alliances definitely has pushed the need for IQ to split. It's a bit unfortunate that Rose acted first since it's overshadowed the root of the split and the backroom talk. Also just because the leader changes doesn't mean it's an entirely new set of perceptions.

12 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

As I referenced above, your narratives are still conflicting. You've actually further hurt your point by conceding the initial point of origin was indeed, as many said, the VE situation, which had absolutely nothing to do with IQ at all.

I can tell you it did have to do with IQ and you know how it tied in. One of the things was that Seeker was talking with me. The other was when he was approached about an offer to figure out how far IQ was in some sort of aggressive plot.

12 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

On paper is an indicator of potential. It gives you a guideline of relative strength, and then actual performance dictates how close to your on paper potential you achieve. I contested that last war, the hiccup with the server, was not very impactful on the war, and that you still were able to hold to a range of 12 cities, whilst staying competitive in the 13-14 city range. The "death zone" as we called it.

I've shown clear evidence that you've made massive strides towards tiering cohesion and pushed upwards, strides that make you considerably more competitive. What this means, is that, even if all the same conditions from last war were repeated, you could very easily take 15-17 cities, with a strong competition or "dead zone" up to 20. This is of course, not even considering the claim you made, that the server mess up was a larger factor in your loss last war. If this is true than the argument you can't win becomes even more ludicrous than it already was, unless you are assuming it'll happen again.

It's an indicator of potential, but most wars have seen statistical potential not work out going on for years.

I didn't contest we made gains in the mid tier. At the same time, there are variables like alliances that didn't participate in the last war joining in, quite a few are mid/lower tier which introduced a new factor. There are also still many who can drop down and cause issues like in the last war.  A lot of the nations that were involved on the initial blitz either quit, moved to other alliances, or are gone for other reasons, so as the situation is different. The MAP impacted their ability to deal with both tS and the counters which ended up sidelining even mid tier nations.  I'm not as confident as you are in thinking we could push into the upper tier since bringing people down isn't easily done. The fundamental issue still remains that since a lot of nations will likely remain unimpacted by the war, the same issue from the last war of the "we're still making money" argument persists and when large swathes of nations are far away from the kill zone, then they're obviously not going to feel defeated and will do what they did before.

12 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I mean. Casual players is another word for shit players. If a player is casual enough that they can't effectively fight, then yes that is exactly what I would call shit. So I don't think I'm really misconstruing anything. I guess we have just vastly different standards. This doesn't change anything. Those same casual players were present last war, their performance last war, can be easily be modeled into the probably outcome of a new war. 

It's really not. A good example is someone can't be on to double buy or to catch someone selling down. For a lot of people making update every time is very inconvenient, so when one of the biggest strategies is selling down to hit people and double buying, if they can't be on to respond right away they often weren't in good shape after that. Sometimes people just can't be on for enough time where they can lose most of their stuff. The war system can require consistent activity at different times of the day, which is hard for some. If they were there in the last war, then we can only assume it'll translate into the statistical potential not being fulfilled.

12 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

You argued it played a significant enough role to potentially change the outcome, and as I stated above, that is simply supporting my argument. As for the argument that its more clearly divided between high and low city counts. This is blatantly false. Last war there was very little overlap, IQ held a vast majority over the 1-10 range, a decent advantage over the 11-13 range, and a slight advantage in the 14-15 range. The advantage flipped in the favour of EMC at 16-17, was solidified in the 18+ range.

I never said it was the sole cause, but it took a lot of the momentum out of our initial hit. I said it is even more stratified now since there were at least some quantity of nations in the upper  IQ that could have suicided to help wear them down . I didn't say we had an edge in it and then lost it.Now it's more homogeneous since our gains have been mostly in lower areas so it further limits the damage the 20+ will take. It just assumes everything will go smoothly.

12 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

This time around though, you have a VAST majority from the 1-16, and have even odds from 17-20. Not having anyone in the 20+ range actually acts as an advantage for you, as all the larger whales in EMC can't feasibly fight without downdeclaring at a large disadvantage to their safety, and the reality of likely taking more damage. Add to this that once dispatching up to 20+ which is much easier then you have a larger concentrated majority of a huge portion of EMC you can with much more ease, updeclare on those whales and drag them down.

You're still assuming a bunch of alliances would sit out that are more likely to help EMC than not with those figures since I'm not sure if you're going off your previous ones.  For the 20+ It means they won't likely fight, meaning a lot of damage will be avoided. An average mid tier nation can't do too much to  a fully militarized upper tier one while also having to deal with the rest.

12 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

No point responding to this since I opened with the point of not expecting a split, and clearly arguing against the things you are doing I disagree with. If the only thing you were doing is arguing against a split this entire discussion wouldn't be happening. Keep your strawman arguments and argue with the people who are actually saying these things.

I mean I don't really get what you want here. The majority of the things I'm doing that you seem to take issue are mostly in reaction to people demanding we split since like October and it getting even bigger now. You can't say you're not arguing for a split and then call me out for being a hypocrite on the dynamism or consolidation thing without that being the implication. "You were being fake about dynamic" "You don't feel the need to be dynamic anymore" and all that points to having an issue with  not splitting.  So your thing is, if I don't want to split I'm a hypocrite but you don't expect us to split. You paint  a rosy picture for us since that's your worst case scenario based on the paper stuff, but ours is different and I don't think a lot of people expected a hands down victory for IQ if a war had been launched a month ago even. If I and others just don't agree with your analysis, then it's not going to change if you keep going after anything I say.

[Shadowthrone]

17 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

So now consolidation is only an issue if its after winning a war? Is that really the argument you are relying on? That is a ridiculous defense and you know it. If IQ signs 95% of the alliances in the game, you are gonna say "hurr durr but we haz not wonz a war", whilst not declaring any wars.

Not really no. If we won a bunch of wars, and there exists no real organised sphere and in essence we are unrivalled in projecting power across the game and then we add more folks, yeah thats consolidation. We're making the other spheres weaker and destroying any chance for any real opposition with no military alternative. Thats really the difference in how I'd see consolidation. IQ has not been in such a position yet and solidifying relations amongst folks we've been tied with for an extended period of time is not really consolidation. We haven't weakened EMC by signing say Guardian or Pantheon, or signed folks like KT/Rose to consolidate the power within out side. Winning a war and doing all of those above things would then make any claims of consolidation as bad as Syndisphere/OO from us valid. Seeing how the situations are starkly different, its just neat wordplay with no real facts. 

 

24 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Arguing that the formation of your sphere forced others to react in a certain way, therefore you are the arbiters of said situation is ridiculous. Best case scenario, if I was being generous it would be an even split of credit. BUT, It also completely undermines your point still, as that is an admission that you with intention provoked a specific reaction with the goal of triggering a war. You still can't both be responsible and not be responsible for that war, and you know it. Pick a lane.

Roq's statement regarding the start of last war has always been based around the notion that Syndisphere/OO were gearing up for a hit and he had evidence that it would be very likely and hit to keep the first-strike in play. It was pre-emptive in nature to try to maximise our advantage but thats about the most we did. It does not undermine the point that IQ being formed sort of helped continue build-up tensions. The act of formation of IQ sort of heightened tensions but was not created or designed specifically to provoke a war as its sole goal. Neat wordplay there. The intention was to balance the sides and change the political spheres within the game, it happened during times of heightened tensions and the whole VE civil strife ensured the creation of IQ would create different means of reactions from Syndisphere and co. 

35 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

No, you don't think the split is fake because if you concede even the smallest possibility it might, at the very least be a genuine attempt at a split, regardless of success or not, than you can't use that as a defense when justifying your own consolidation and general politically stagnant behavior. To argue its not likely to be successful is very different from arguing its fake. The former is a debatable but potentially genuine concern, the latter is a political narrative designed to undermine the split, pure and simple. Speculating things loudly with no evidence is just a sly way of building a narrative and you aren't nearly stupid enough to claim otherwise.

For me to believe that it is a genuine attempt at a split, would involve trusting the actors involved. I just don't and they have shown me no reason to believe that its a genuine attempt. To believe its genuine and not just a method to get us to open ourselves up for another dog-pile would involve those folks to genuinely want to move in a new direction and work on building bridges across the board to ensure that their motives are communicated clearly. None of which has happened. The cancellation of treaties does not undo the EMC sphere, just makes it easier for folks involved to win brownie points at this point. Give it time and if there is effort to genuinely communicate amongst different alliances and show that there exists a splitting up of EMC, I'd be the first to be interested in listening, but it just has not happened till date, and therefore I tend to believe that its not really a genuine attempt. 

 

54 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Alliances not under the EMC column are not in EMC and are therefore not certain to join. You can't use convoluted "what if" situations as a defense for your strength. If we played that game, I could reference a whole host of non IQ column alliances that might enter on your behalf, including the 7 outside the sphere you are tied to, and the ones your peripheral alliances are tied to. Its not a valid argument.

As for the last part, neutral alliances have been engaging in anti-EMC rhetoric just as much. Different people in many cases,but you'd be a liar to pretend there hasn't been a significant sum of people pushing for an EMC split (I know firsthand having debated a bunch of them on the subject) amongst neutrals or saying negative things about EMC alliances or EMC. This is just a victim narrative, it has no grounds in reality. If people saying mean things about alliances was enough to make them enter wars against them all the time, we'd have had more than one global war this year.

I'd agree with that notion, but actions in within Orbis have showcased before that one doesn't really need paper to be within a sphere. I don't see Rose splitting away from EMC means they would not enter to support the same. This ties in with my argument above, that folks who've split haven't really shown that its genuine yet. I do not believe its genuine and will stand by my belief that folks splitting from EMC would very likely defend EMC if we started a war against EMC. The uncertainty of their motivations and the general affinity shown towards EMC goes to add another layer of belief that EMC hasn't really split and that just because IQ has more solid ties on paper, doesn't mean that we've somehow won. 

 

58 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Being skeptical and vocally denouncing the split are two entirely different things. You've not been quiet about your rather unfounded skepticism. Both TKR and Rose have undergone leadership changes. Neither of the current leaders have done anything to provoke IQ since they've taken over (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this point), and your mostly just creating your own self-fulfilling prophecy by treating any moves made by them with disdain.

Its more caution towards the whole notion of the split. We're cautious because of the lack of trust and actions that have occurred till this point in time. With regards to whether they've taken actions to provoke us at this point, I'll leave it for high gov to answer that one as its above my pay grade  

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

As I referenced above, your narratives are still conflicting. You've actually further hurt your point by conceding the initial point of origin was indeed, as many said, the VE situation, which had absolutely nothing to do with IQ at all.

On paper is an indicator of potential. It gives you a guideline of relative strength, and then actual performance dictates how close to your on paper potential you achieve. I contested that last war, the hiccup with the server, was not very impactful on the war, and that you still were able to hold to a range of 12 cities, whilst staying competitive in the 13-14 city range. The "death zone" as we called it.

I've shown clear evidence that you've made massive strides towards tiering cohesion and pushed upwards, strides that make you considerably more competitive. What this means, is that, even if all the same conditions from last war were repeated, you could very easily take 15-17 cities, with a strong competition or "dead zone" up to 20. This is of course, not even considering the claim you made, that the server mess up was a larger factor in your loss last war. If this is true than the argument you can't win becomes even more ludicrous than it already was, unless you are assuming it'll happen again.

The server shutting down did have a large effect, at two very distinct levels. First it reduced the damage we could have done through update because well we did not get the chance to conduct the blitz. Giving our opponents a greater chance to pick themselves up and regroup faster than under normal circumstances. That snafu really went to screwing my round 1 blitzes against nations who had 4-5 cities more than I did personally. Thats just at the mechanic level, at a moral level it had a massive effect because it literally meant that the game !@#$ing up would mean that any advantage we gained was already lost. I remember waiting for update and then pestering Roq for a while on wtf was going on before getting annoyed with the whole scenario. It was highly demoralising and helped add another layer of crap that Roq and the other military planners had to deal with other than just the mechanics at play. 

That being said, Roq's caution and mine stems from how and when the war takes place and the timing of it all. We aren't assuming an easy victory as much as preparing for all eventual scenarios because well he's a cautious bloke. His caution has served us well, and its why we've used the last six months to become far more competitive within the game and keep ourselves ready for another war, in whichever manner it goes. Losing three wars in a row, really tempers one's expectations and we've seen pretty much different shit happen to us through three different wars, all of which were out of our control and its safer to plan and act accordingly. 

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

mean. Casual players is another word for shit players. If a player is casual enough that they can't effectively fight, then yes that is exactly what I would call shit. So I don't think I'm really misconstruing anything. I guess we have just vastly different standards. This doesn't change anything. Those same casual players were present last war, their performance last war, can be easily be modeled into the probably outcome of a new war. 

Thats your opinion of how folks should play. Casual players are still players and have added a lot to our communities so to call them shit just because they aren't pressing refresh every five seconds. That being said you still didn't really answer his major point is that the more elite alliances or called the best of the best this game has to offer have really not gone at each other in the recent past. Just because I do not expect all 131 members of the NPO to be brilliant fighting machines, doesn't mean that we have shit players within the alliance. I know most of the folks and we're active on discord or on the forums and there exists different motivations for folks to play. 

 

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

You argued it played a significant enough role to potentially change the outcome, and as I stated above, that is simply supporting my argument. As for the argument that its more clearly divided between high and low city counts. This is blatantly false. Last war there was very little overlap, IQ held a vast majority over the 1-10 range, a decent advantage over the 11-13 range, and a slight advantage in the 14-15 range. The advantage flipped in the favour of EMC at 16-17, was solidified in the 18+ range.

This time around though, you have a VAST majority from the 1-16, and have even odds from 17-20. Not having anyone in the 20+ range actually acts as an advantage for you, as all the larger whales in EMC can't feasibly fight without downdeclaring at a large disadvantage to their safety, and the reality of likely taking more damage. Add to this that once dispatching up to 20+ which is much easier then you have a larger concentrated majority of a huge portion of EMC you can with much more ease, updeclare on those whales and drag them down.

Maybe, maybe not. I do believe the mechanics and the tiering of different spheres makes it harder for us to really gain any advantage in dragging down too many nations of EMC at this point. It requires different things playing into our hands to ensure the situation is as simple as you make it out to be. We're still limited in the number of up declares while ensuring those within our range are effectively dealt with. Its just the concentration of tiers makes has clearly demarcated how wars would be fought, and this also has a huge effect on the political side of things. 

The things that we are doing simply put is being cautious and strengthening ourselves to the best possible extent. I disagree with the notion that IQ and ourselves have somehow led to the stagnation of this game or that we're continuously doing nothing to help it anyway. IQ itself as a creation did more to shape a two-pole world rather than one hegemoney and since then we've used the time to organise ourselves better. Other folks have had multiple opportunities in the recent past just to let it slide and then comeback and blame us for all that is wrong with this game at the moment. I mean as I stated earlier, there have been instances within the last few months that folks could have used to their advantage or see fit to go to war, and they let it slide and came to amicable diplomatic results. Thats still fine, but to claim that IQ has to continuously be the antagonist is !@#$ing annoying. I mean if other folks want to do things they can, just stop placing the burden solely at our feet to feed into your NPO/IQ bogeyman narratives. 

[Guest Curufinwe]

6 minutes ago, Smith said:

This constantly repeated idea that new treaties don't matter because an alliance was already within IQ sphere is ridiculous. IQ would not be signing these treaties if it did not do anything. With each new treaty an alliance further becomes "bought in" to the sphere and makes it increasingly difficult for them to ever break away from the IQ sphere. This is because now they would have to sever ties with essentially all of their allies if they one day decided they no longer wanted to be part of IQ sphere. And with every new treaty within IQ sphere (especially the bloc itself) that becomes increasingly difficult for an alliance to do. 

Well we're not holding anyone hostage Smith - people are free to leave whenever they like and we've never exacted retribution on an AA that cancelled on an IQ member (SK being only the most recent example of an AA that has transitioned to another sphere with no negative repercussions from us).  In Lord's case, they expressed an interest in joining IQ and, after some discussion, we saw no reason to deny them but if they had changed their mind or decided to move on tomorrow there certainly be no hard feelings on our part.  Suggesting that we are somehow compelling people to stay by the simple act of allowing them to join is entirely incorrect, especially there are various spheres that would no doubt be happy to replace the ties a IQ member lost if they were to leave.  Generally people who do choose to leave our sphere do not sit paperless and alone for any length of time, so suggesting otherwise isn't exactly an accurate representation of past events.

[Smith]

2 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

Well we're not holding anyone hostage Smith - people are free to leave whenever they like and we've never exacted retribution on an AA that cancelled on an IQ member (SK being only the most recent example of an AA that has transitioned to another sphere with no negative repercussions from us).  In Lord's case, they expressed an interest in joining IQ and, after some discussion, we saw no reason to deny them but if they had changed their mind or decided to move on tomorrow there certainly be no hard feelings on our part.  Suggesting that we are somehow compelling people to stay by the simple act of allowing them to join is entirely incorrect, especially there are various spheres that would no doubt be happy to replace the ties a IQ member lost if they were to leave.  Generally people who do choose to leave our sphere do not sit paperless and alone for any length of time, so suggesting otherwise isn't exactly an accurate representation of past events.

 

Yup I understand that, I wasn't saying that anyone is being held hostage. I am saying that with each new tie it becomes increasingly difficult to break away from IQ sphere. This is true for internal things like selling the idea to your membership ("hey we're going to reevaluate our treaty with this one alliance" vs "hey we're going to cancel 4 of our treaties") and others factors. This is especially true if one of those is a bloc where you would be essentially be cancelling 5 other AAs at once (assuming you didn't have even more separate treaties to them which is often the case in IQ sphere). 

That is why the idea that these additional treaties don't change anything is ridiculous. 

 

[Guest Curufinwe]

23 minutes ago, Smith said:

 

Edit: For an example of this look at Seven Kingdoms. They just recently cancelled Zodiac in an attempt to create a new thing and break away from IQ but are still tied to Polaris because they don't want to cancel on more of their friends despite Polaris being as loyal to NPO/IQ as it gets. I don't fault them for this really it's just a result of the rampant consolidation going on in IQ sphere and SK was never even close to being one of the more extreme examples of this. 

SK is actually a really poor example to cite - if they dropped Zodiac and Polaris (which is a member of the sphere but not bloc BTW) in order to pick up KT and AIM they're not losing any allies, which rather undermines your overall point that someone will be friendless and alone should they leave IQ.

1 minute ago, Smith said:

 

Yup I understand that, I wasn't saying that anyone is being held hostage. I am saying that with each new tie it becomes increasingly difficult to break away from IQ sphere. This is true for internal things like selling the idea to your membership ("hey we're going to reevaluate our treaty with this one alliance" vs "hey we're going to cancel 4 of our treaties") and others factors. This is especially true if one of those is a bloc where you would be essentially be cancelling 5 other AAs at once (assuming you didn't have even more separate treaties to them which is often the case in IQ sphere). 

That is why the idea that these additional treaties don't change anything is ridiculous. 

 

Actually, most IQ members have at least some individual treaties that would carry over unless someone chose to cancel them which (coincidentally) is what happened when IQ members came together to form our bloc in the first place - all of us retained our former ties unless (as in the case of TKR with BK) the former tie refused to sign a successor treaty due to the dissolution of OO.  Also, the very fact that SK can drop Zodiac and still retain its tie to Polaris undermines your point, since obviously cancelling one IQ treaty doesn't automatically mean that others members of the IQ sphere will cancel their treaties in retaliation.  Given that we're not compelling anyone to join (quite the opposite in fact, since the two members that have joined since our formation have done so at their request, not ours) and then we're not cancelling treaties with people who selectively cancel their own, claiming that our ties make it impossible for our allies to pursue their own FA doesn't really hold up to any sort of scrutiny.  It would be more accurate to state that we allow every AA who wishes to work with us to decide their own level of involvement, which our treaty relations reflect, and that if someone wants to alter some or all (or any combination in between) of their arrangements, we are supportive of their decision to do so.  

[Smith]

2 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

SK is actually a really poor example to cite - if they dropped Zodiac and Polaris (which is a member of the sphere but not bloc BTW) in order to pick up KT and AIM they're not losing any allies, which rather undermines your overall point that someone will be friendless and alone should they leave IQ.

Actually, most IQ members have at least some individual treaties that would carry over unless someone chose to cancel them which (coincidentally) is what happened when IQ members came together to form our bloc in the first place - all of us retained our former ties unless (as in the case of TKR with BK) the former tie refused to sign a successor treaty due to the dissolution of OO.  Also, the very fact that SK can drop Zodiac and still retain its tie to Polaris undermines your point, since obviously cancelling one IQ treaty doesn't automatically mean that others members of the IQ sphere will cancel their treaties in retaliation.  Given that we're not compelling anyone to join (quite the opposite in fact, since the two members that have joined since our formation have done so at their request, not ours) and then we're not cancelling treaties with people who selectively cancel their own, claiming that our ties make it impossible for our allies to pursue their own FA doesn't really hold up to any sort of scrutiny.  It would be more accurate to state that we allow every AA who wishes to work with us to decide their own level of involvement, which our treaty relations reflect, and that if someone wants to alter some or all (or any combination in between) of their arrangements, we are supportive of their decision to do so.  

That's why I said they were far from being one of the more extreme examples, they're just the only one to try and break away. And I actually used the phrase IQ sphere multiple times (though I'm pretty sure most people by now use IQ as shorthand for the sphere, not sure why you felt the need to point this out). And yes I know you can trade treaties Curu, I am saying it becomes increasingly difficult with each new treaty you sign into IQ. 

 

Again I am not saying you are cancelling or retaliating against people trying to leave. I am not sure why you keep projecting that argument. I am saying that with each new treaty it becomes increasingly difficult to break away due to external and internal factors such as selling to membership. And yes of course people can choose their own FA paths. But that doesn't have anything to do with what I am saying. My point is that there is a reoccurring narrative that signing these new treaties doesn't change anything and that is wrong. 

[Guest Curufinwe]

8 minutes ago, Smith said:

That's why I said they were far from being one of the more extreme examples, they're just the only one to try and break away. And I actually used the phrase IQ sphere multiple times (though I'm pretty sure most people by now use IQ as shorthand for the sphere, not sure why you felt the need to point this out). And yes I know you can trade treaties Curu, I am saying it becomes increasingly difficult with each new treaty you sign into IQ. 

 

Again I am not saying you are cancelling or retaliating against people trying to leave. I am not sure why you keep projecting that argument. I am saying that with each new treaty it becomes increasingly difficult to break away due to external and internal factors such as selling to membership. And yes of course people can choose their own FA paths. But that doesn't have anything to do with what I am saying. My point is that there is a reoccurring narrative that signing these new treaties doesn't change anything and that is wrong. 

And I'm saying that the basis of your critique (that signing one or more treaties with IQ members makes it harder to sign one or more treaties with non IQ members or cancel one or more existing treaties) doesn't stand up to scrutiny when it's contrasted against the evidence I've outlined to the contrary.  Therefore, since the only evidence you've presented to make your case that our treaties lock in our sphere mates actually demonstrates the opposite, your general point appears to be wholly unsubstantiated, which is the point I'm driving home here.

Edited December 29, 2017 by Curufinwe

[Smith]

5 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

And I'm saying that the basis of your critique (that signing one or more treaties with IQ members makes it harder to sign one or more treaties with non IQ members) doesn't stand up to scrutiny when it's contrasted against the evidence I've outlined to the contrary.  Therefore, since the only evidenc you've presented to make your case that our treaties lock in our sphere mates actually demonstrates the opposite, your general point appears to be wholly unsubstantiated, which is the point I'm driving home here.

I never said it made it harder to sign with non IQ members though (though you could look at the case of lordran who cancelled Rose because they felt that lines should be more clearly drawn). I said it made it harder to break away i.e. cancelling treaties. The point of me mentioning SK is that even for an alliance on the very edge of IQ sphere  like SK (they had two and cancelled 1) they had difficulty breaking away due to their ties. And this is not to fault SK at all, it's just the reality of having such a consolidated core. And then there are alliances who are much more bought in and would have an even more difficult time. 

[Micchan]

This thread it's getting really too long to read

Curu and Smith are the only still really talking about the argument of this thread and both have a point, yes when you are tied with and entire bloc it's hard to leave because you have to cut many treaties, but it's also true that nothing can really stop you

 

To NPO guys:

1. What must happen to make you believe that all the changes in the rest of Orbis are genuine?

1b. If your reply is "a war, a real war and not a dogpile" what guarantees are there that you will not exploit it to attack one of the two belligerents or a third coalition?

2. If BK-CS-Zodiac leaving Syndisphere to create IQ with the other folks was such a good thing (and I agree) why you hate so much the idea of IQ splitting when there's a similar situation?

3. When you say that IQ sphere on paper is not stronger that any other bloc although the stats show a number of nations at least double if not triple, how can you justify it without saying you're with a bunch of incompetent? I mean, you pretty much said it but they don't seem to care, it makes me think they know you're lying

4. Do you want an old style world war 1 vs1? I feel like you don't want to see ECM split because you first want a Trail of Tiers round 2, I feel like you're playing only to finally get that victory over the same team that defeated you many times and you don't want to see a split because it would not be the same, I also feel like you're playing the "bad guy" role to be sure there is always one side who likes you and one side who dislike you

Pls not a giant wall of text

[Smith]

I know you didn't want a wall of text but I've had enough micchan

 

I've listened to much of @Curufinwe's voluble oratory, but I admit I'm a little confused. Sure, I'm just an average person and not some intellectual, all-knowing brainiac, but it seems to me that Curufinwe's vaporings represent the most bizarre and conspiratorial use of nepotism I've ever seen. By way of introduction, let me just say that you could put most of Curufinwe's acolytes, who are legion, into what I call the “basket of deplorables”. These are the exponents of priggism who are amateurish, chippy, pot-valiant, conniving—you name it. Curufinwe has lifted such people up and given them a voice. As a result, one could safely say that Curufinwe acts as if he were King of the World. This hauteur is astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling.

Pardon my saying so, but if it weren't for self-seeking stupes, Curufinwe would have no friends. Unfortunately, the English language contains so few words of reprobation and invective that I cannot satisfactorily describe his conscienceless projects. At least our language's lexicon is sufficiently voluminous for me to explain that I plan to do something good for others. Are you with me—or against me? Whatever you decide, it is a sad state of affairs when pharisaism-prone traitors like Curufinwe acquire public acceptance of his insecure analects. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

If a cogent, logical argument entered Curufinwe's brain, no doubt a concussion would result. Curufinwe has had some success in insulting the intelligence, interests, and life plans of whole groups of people. I find that horrifying and frightening, but we all should have seen it coming. We all knew that if Curufinwe's thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, he wouldn't consider it such a good idea to vilify our history, character, values, and traditions. Many people lie. Curufinwe, however, lies with such ease it's troubling. Please forgive my directness, but he has been going around claiming that criminals are merely social rebels. When challenged about the veracity of that message, Curufinwe attributed its contradictions of the truth to “poetic license”. That means “lying”. To reiterate the main message of this letter, Curufinwe's brain must work very different from mine.

[Senry]

35 minutes ago, Smith said:

I never said it made it harder to sign with non IQ members though (though you could look at the case of lordran who cancelled Rose because they felt that lines should be more clearly drawn). I said it made it harder to break away i.e. cancelling treaties. The point of me mentioning SK is that even for an alliance on the very edge of IQ sphere  like SK (they had two and cancelled 1) they had difficulty breaking away due to their ties. And this is not to fault SK at all, it's just the reality of having such a consolidated core. And then there are alliances who are much more bought in and would have an even more difficult time. 

6

If an alliance can be in a sphere, and transition towards another sphere, they do not have to cancel all of their treaties. You make it sound like they would have to cancel all of their IQ treaties to separate, but you yourself gave the example of SK and Polaris.

If now, for example, Lord wanted to officially leave the IQ bloc, they would not have to cancel all of their IQ treaties. In practice, they will cancel the treaties they dislike, when and if they dislike them. The end result is still them not being signed with certain alliances in IQ, and still being signed with other alliances in IQ.

The phrasing you use here makes normal social behavior seem so Machiavellian. If I wanted to stop being friends with my current friends, of course, my first reaction would be, "well why do I want to do that?", same goes for an alliance, bloc, whatever. The key factor is, I have to want to move away first for it to make a difference.

 

Also, your latest wall of text is comprised solely of the ad-hominem, derogatory generalizations that you're purporting to rail against. Don't do me like this.

[Keegoz]

1 hour ago, Curufinwe said:

Not really - if people are bored and want to do something, there's plenty of opportunities to do so.  RW and Sparta (and Arrgh and CoS for that matter) have demonstrated that it is possible to do stuff: they've all either conducted wars (or mass raids or whatever you want to call the nothinging) in the past few months and IQ certainly hasn't directly interfered with their ability to do so.  Hell, Pantheon (and by extension its allies) acquired what many considered a valid CB on KT that they could have pursued if they were so inclined and a similar argument could be made for UPN (and its protector Rose) versus the current incarnation of Hogwarts, and I don't think that IQ would have hindered either in any way had people chosen to act on them.  Seems to me that there's plenty of opportunities for people to engage in conflict but IQ is being used as a convenient excuse to justify not pursuing it.  I suppose it's easier to blame us for not 'doing something' than actually doing something yourself (note that signing or dissolving treaties doesn't count as 'doing something' if it's not followed by action, which is the criticism you're levying against us), but trying to claim that we're the only stumbling block to you all doing something when we haven't given any indication that we'd intervene to prevent you from doing so is a bit rich.

Not even worth arguing with you guys. You either act dumb or the rumours about BK FA is 100% accurate, either way I won't play ball.

[Shiho Nishizumi]

They're not rumors. They're well established facts by now.

[Smith]

1 minute ago, Senry said:

If an alliance can be in a sphere, and transition towards another sphere, they do not have to cancel all of their treaties. You make it sound like they would have to cancel all of their IQ treaties to separate, but you yourself gave the example of SK and Polaris.

If now, for example, Lord wanted to officially leave the IQ bloc, they would not have to cancel all of their IQ treaties. In practice, they will cancel the treaties they dislike, when and if they dislike them. The end result is still them not being signed with certain alliances in IQ, and still being signed with other alliances in IQ.

The phrasing you use here makes normal social behavior seem so Machiavellian. If I wanted to stop being friends with my current friends, of course, my first reaction would be, "well why do I want to do that?", same goes for an alliance, bloc, whatever. The key factor is, I have to want to move away first for it to make a difference.

 

Also, your latest wall of text is comprised solely of the ad-hominem, derogatory generalizations that you're purporting to rail against. Don't do me like this.

Yeah that's exactly my point if they cancelled one tie they would still be in IQ sphere. Signing more treaties into a sphere makes it more difficult to leave because your making those new friendships and requires cancelling on your friends if you decide you want to leave to do something different. This is important when talking about a sphere that many people now see as the dominant power. That's why I'm pointing out that the narrative that these new treaties doesn't change anything is untrue. 

Also, that WoT is from a complaint generator thing that Curu frequently uses, it's not meant to be taken seriously and Curu is in on the joke   

[Senry]

:sweating:

It struck a bit close to home in what some people might actually think of Curu (No idea personally, don't know the guy at all).

 

But it actually doesn't change anything. It's like the same argument certain people make about treaties that don't exist. The whole, "Well t$ doesn't need treaties because we have friends anyway", which is just the equivalent of an ODOAP but by not signing it they get to have their cake (being so cool without papers) and eat it too. Which is crap and goes against the point of having treaties just for the sake of looking dynamic kinetic electric I/O Nuclear Fission like they're in an interesting state of some kind of fluctuation or chaos.

Now, I'm not a huge fan of more papers being everywhere, but I'm definitely against people pretending like the papers aren't there already in a vain attempt to virtue signal about how their playstyle is superior.

[Shadowthrone]

1 hour ago, Micchan said:

This thread it's getting really too long to read

Curu and Smith are the only still really talking about the argument of this thread and both have a point, yes when you are tied with and entire bloc it's hard to leave because you have to cut many treaties, but it's also true that nothing can really stop you

 

To NPO guys:

1. What must happen to make you believe that all the changes in the rest of Orbis are genuine?

1b. If your reply is "a war, a real war and not a dogpile" what guarantees are there that you will not exploit it to attack one of the two belligerents or a third coalition?

2. If BK-CS-Zodiac leaving Syndisphere to create IQ with the other folks was such a good thing (and I agree) why you hate so much the idea of IQ splitting when there's a similar situation?

3. When you say that IQ sphere on paper is not stronger that any other bloc although the stats show a number of nations at least double if not triple, how can you justify it without saying you're with a bunch of incompetent? I mean, you pretty much said it but they don't seem to care, it makes me think they know you're lying

4. Do you want an old style world war 1 vs1? I feel like you don't want to see ECM split because you first want a Trail of Tiers round 2, I feel like you're playing only to finally get that victory over the same team that defeated you many times and you don't want to see a split because it would not be the same, I also feel like you're playing the "bad guy" role to be sure there is always one side who likes you and one side who dislike you

Pls not a giant wall of text

 

1. Honestly, like I clearly posted above, clear communication would go a long way in helping me trust their word. I don't trust most members in EMC and have reason to doubt their sincerity with the opinions spewed on these boards to some extent. So yeah, you want me to believe you, then show me why I should.

1b. I can't really give any guarantees, but Curu pointed out above the likelihood of us joining in either of the scenarios mentioned would not have been quite high. I can't give you any guarantees, I'm just a simple low gov member in NPO (yes we have them!) and that'd be something you'd need to discuss with Roq/Auctor/Prince Henry/LoD in detail if you want something like that.

2. This is a loaded question. I literally spelt out the difference in scenarios/situations in the last page. The scenario where BK/CS/Zodiac split from tS-OO was entirely different to the current political paradigm. The analysis of this specific situation is in the last post on the previous page, feel free to read it. If you want a tl;dr: essentially the scenarios are different any claim that they are similar is a lie or false equivalency and it wouldn't make the game any better, and just simplify rolling the constituent parts of IQ that folks don't like, going back to previous scenario of a uni-polar world. 

3. Its not incompetence as much as being cautious. Rather than pushing the narrative that we're uber awesome military machine, I'd rather wait to see how the next war we participate in ends up. 

4. Don't see the point in a 1 v 1. Sounds like a stupid and almost impossible idea to take seriously. That being said, I don't particularly care if theres a Trail of Tiers II or not. Depending on the situation and the CB, I'd support any war if its a rational decision. I don't think EMC has really split, so if war does break out, it might become Trail of Tiers II, but I don't particularly care for any specific scenario. I also don't think we're playing the bad guys but automatically made out to be so, just because of well NPO. I don't think other folks would be receiving as much flak for the present scenarios as much as they have because of some unnatural hate towards Roq or NPO that has become poisonous within this game. We're automatically the bad guys and every action IQ takes is put under further scrutiny just because NPO's a part of IQ. 

[Betulius]

These are some of the walliest walls of text I've ever seen, and this is just a treaty. Just fight already and spare my eyes. Please.

[Buorhann]

2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

The other was when he was approached about an offer to figure out how far IQ was in some sort of aggressive plot.

One of my best moments.

That action cleared up a lot of confusion I had with the logs I was given.  It did eventually help prevent Syndicate from being betrayed on.

[Insert Name Here]

I personally don't care about yet another thread of inconsequential yappity yap yap. It's been almost 7 months since the last world war has ended - that says pretty much everything. The FA  in this game has increasingly been a back and forth "no u" and in the end nothing happens.

 

[Guest Curufinwe]

1 hour ago, Smith said:

I never said it made it harder to sign with non IQ members though (though you could look at the case of lordran who cancelled Rose because they felt that lines should be more clearly drawn). I said it made it harder to break away i.e. cancelling treaties. The point of me mentioning SK is that even for an alliance on the very edge of IQ sphere  like SK (they had two and cancelled 1) they had difficulty breaking away due to their ties. And this is not to fault SK at all, it's just the reality of having such a consolidated core. And then there are alliances who are much more bought in and would have an even more difficult time. 

Well no one forced (or even requested) that Lord cancel their tie with Rose - that's something they did of their own volition.  Had they chosen to retain that would have been their own affair, not ours.  The same goes for SK and Polaris - for whatever reason SK opted to keep that tie, but they recieved no compulsion from us either way.  Given our record, it's actually pretty safe to assume that if someone does want to leave IQ (in whole or in part) we're not going to exact retribution against them for doing so.  And, considering there's plenty of recent examples of people cancelling multiple treaties at once (tS being the example that springs to mind) saying that our treaties prevent people from leaving doesn't really fit with the facts.

1 hour ago, Micchan said:

This thread it's getting really too long to read

Curu and Smith are the only still really talking about the argument of this thread and both have a point, yes when you are tied with and entire bloc it's hard to leave because you have to cut many treaties, but it's also true that nothing can really stop you

 

To NPO guys:

1. What must happen to make you believe that all the changes in the rest of Orbis are genuine?

1b. If your reply is "a war, a real war and not a dogpile" what guarantees are there that you will not exploit it to attack one of the two belligerents or a third coalition?

2. If BK-CS-Zodiac leaving Syndisphere to create IQ with the other folks was such a good thing (and I agree) why you hate so much the idea of IQ splitting when there's a similar situation?

3. When you say that IQ sphere on paper is not stronger that any other bloc although the stats show a number of nations at least double if not triple, how can you justify it without saying you're with a bunch of incompetent? I mean, you pretty much said it but they don't seem to care, it makes me think they know you're lying

4. Do you want an old style world war 1 vs1? I feel like you don't want to see ECM split because you first want a Trail of Tiers round 2, I feel like you're playing only to finally get that victory over the same team that defeated you many times and you don't want to see a split because it would not be the same, I also feel like you're playing the "bad guy" role to be sure there is always one side who likes you and one side who dislike you

Pls not a giant wall of text

Well I'm just speaking for myself on this, but;

1) I'd be more convinced if announcements were followed by concrete actions that would substantiate them.  There's past actions where expansive claims were made regarding changes (GoB/TKR splitting but not really being one example) that turned out to be untrue, so there's still a bit of a credibility gap when people go around claiming a fundamental change has taken place.  I'm personally not hostile to the idea of change, but given the past record on the matter I'm hesitant to just take people's word for it.

1b. Well people would be free to talk with us if they are concerned about that.  Treating us as a hostile blob that's out to get everyone is half the reason that people seem upset that we exist.  Maybe discussing our FA goals (in a less public venue) and seeing where they align with other people's rather than automatically assuming hostility might allay some of these fears people seem to have.

2. As I demonstrated in my earlier chat with Partisan, IQ hasn't achieved the level of dominance Syndi-OO did, so it's not an analogous situation.

3. Actually I used your figures to demonstrate that IQ constitutes a clear minority of Orbis' paper ties (you missed some important paperless AAs, but the numbers still place IQ in the minority).  I mean I'll concede we're strong in some tiers and weak in others, but the question of relative competence isn't really one I can answer Orbis wide.

4. I don't have a particular wish to refight Trail of Tiers and i don't think anyone else is chomping at the bit to do so either.  And BK/Zodiac only lost one war to EMC and fought (in the latter's incarnation as Chola) on Syndi's side in multiple wars, so, no, we don't have a record of losses we're burning to avenge.

1 hour ago, Smith said:

I know you didn't want a wall of text but I've had enough micchan

 

I've listened to much of @Curufinwe's voluble oratory, but I admit I'm a little confused. Sure, I'm just an average person and not some intellectual, all-knowing brainiac, but it seems to me that Curufinwe's vaporings represent the most bizarre and conspiratorial use of nepotism I've ever seen. By way of introduction, let me just say that you could put most of Curufinwe's acolytes, who are legion, into what I call the “basket of deplorables”. These are the exponents of priggism who are amateurish, chippy, pot-valiant, conniving—you name it. Curufinwe has lifted such people up and given them a voice. As a result, one could safely say that Curufinwe acts as if he were King of the World. This hauteur is astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling.

Pardon my saying so, but if it weren't for self-seeking stupes, Curufinwe would have no friends. Unfortunately, the English language contains so few words of reprobation and invective that I cannot satisfactorily describe his conscienceless projects. At least our language's lexicon is sufficiently voluminous for me to explain that I plan to do something good for others. Are you with me—or against me? Whatever you decide, it is a sad state of affairs when pharisaism-prone traitors like Curufinwe acquire public acceptance of his insecure analects. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

If a cogent, logical argument entered Curufinwe's brain, no doubt a concussion would result. Curufinwe has had some success in insulting the intelligence, interests, and life plans of whole groups of people. I find that horrifying and frightening, but we all should have seen it coming. We all knew that if Curufinwe's thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, he wouldn't consider it such a good idea to vilify our history, character, values, and traditions. Many people lie. Curufinwe, however, lies with such ease it's troubling. Please forgive my directness, but he has been going around claiming that criminals are merely social rebels. When challenged about the veracity of that message, Curufinwe attributed its contradictions of the truth to “poetic license”. That means “lying”. To reiterate the main message of this letter, Curufinwe's brain must work very different from mine.

As poorly qualified as I am to show some backbone, I hope you will bear with me while I begin this sincere and earnest attempt. And please don't get mad with me if, in doing so, I must condemn Smith[TKR]'s criminal ineptitude. To get immediately to the point, Smith[TKR] twists and turns, flatters and gibes, lulls and attacks. This sneakiness is particularly evident when one considers that when I first heard that there exists a logorrheic yo-yo who has been placing our freedoms under more sustained and subtle attack than at any time in recorded history, I was completely bumfuzzled. Who could be so anal-retentive, so deficient in human grace, as to do such a thing? After learning that Smith[TKR] was the jaded beatnik in question, I realized that if I were to compile a list of Smith[TKR]'s forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that Smith[TKR] certainly isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. This issue is coming to the fore because as Smith[TKR] matures emotionally he'll eventually grow out of his present way of thinking and come to realize that his spinmeisters want so much to convince every smear sheet in the country to refer to his rivals as meretricious spalpeens that the concept of right vs. wrong never comes up. Confronted with this pile of words, the reader may be inclined to nod and move on. However, I ask that you stop for a moment and look: Many years ago, I came to the then-tentative conclusion that Smith[TKR] must mend his ways. While there are indubitably exceptions to that rule, all these years later my conclusion is no longer tentative. In particular, if I didn't think Smith[TKR] would regiment the public mind as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers, I wouldn't say that you should never forget the three most important facets of his reports, namely their avaricious origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. Let me close by reminding you that Smith[TKR] throws a temper tantrum every time I suggest that my life's work is to keep his chums at bay.

1 hour ago, Keegoz said:

Not even worth arguing with you guys. You either act dumb or the rumours about BK FA is 100% accurate, either way I won't play ball.

I'm not really sure that KT is in a position to criticise BK's (award winning) FA, considering you guys managed to get your treaty with Pantheon voided and threw your leader (and founder) under the bus because he encouraged a nuke rogue to attack your former protector and longest running ally.  I mean, I understand why you wouldn't want to debate that either, but suggesting your recent FA is pristine isn't exactly accurate, now is it?

[Sval]

Would anybody care for some cheese with their whine?

[Buorhann]

Alright, I'm interested in this Keegoz vs Curu bit.  Some barbs being thrown to each other.

Let's now circle around like elementary kids and chant "FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT"

1 minute ago, Sval said:

Would anybody care for some cheese with their whine?

Funniest man this year, everybody.