Jump to content
Nizam Adrienne

Dancing Was a Metaphor, Guys

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, 8mrgrim8 said:

@Hodor

Here's what you were looking for I guess.

Yea, I guess. About what I expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lordship said:

It's incredibly incriminating. The "brainstorming hypotheticals" line is bullshit because when Seeker pulled this exact excuse, we all made a mockery of him for that. If you're going to plot and scheme, and it gets out, don't be surprised when people show up at your door.

He talked about us being a bigger threat than IQ randomly, out of the blue, if Panth merged into TCW (and only a handful of them, since TCW has standards for who they do and don't take in.)

"You linked a screenshot of our deputy FA talking to another alliance leader and trying to justify rolling TKR, it's only a meme because he was joking!"

Did you read the screenshots? "Which tells you who our obvious target is" Come on dude. You knew we were coming for you over the last few days and intentionally stayed low so that it would be harder for us to hit you. As confirmed by Hodor and a couple of other members in Smith's thread. I also have information from other sources that confirm this as well heh.

It comes down to you guys plotting against us, and we responded. You also shit talk us constantly, and we responded. When you guys founded TGH, Buorhann told me you were gonna hit the first person who shit talked you. Why are you applying a double standard to us?

3 spheres? We're only hitting you and KT, (the only ones who we have screenshot of plotting against us) and the only ones who consistently shit talk us on the forums and in discord.  Should we have waited for you to have an opportune moment? lol

Uh, we're literally fighting KT, an alliance that has been in only one global war, and TGH, made up of ex-tkr and traditional allies in Buorhann, Sketchy, Justin, etc. How is this same old same old? Would you prefer we split into three alliances and wait for you to come at us?

 

@Buorhann I'm being used as a source of evidence. Can I be head of FA now? This is my chance to be relevant again.

 

Whoops double post, thought for sure this topic was more popular than this...

Edited by Hodor
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn’t you know @Hodor, every member of the Horde is a FA delegate of the Horde.  The community here decided so.

(I also didn’t read that wall of text fully.  Holy shit that’s bad.)

Regarding that first paragraph quoted on Lordship, there’s a HUGE difference between plotting BETRAYAL “as a hypothetical” to what your reasonings are here.

 

>Hit the first person who shit talked us

You mean like I did with Polaris??

Edited by Buorhann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Golden Horde's OWF FA policy has been one that has generated much FA for the FA dept, as a member of the FA dept I approve of the Horde's efforts at FA work, it is greatly appreciated FA.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Didn’t you know @Hodor, every member of the Horde is a FA delegate of the Horde.  The community here decided so.

(I also didn’t read that wall of text fully.  Holy shit that’s bad.)

Regarding that first paragraph quoted on Lordship, there’s a HUGE difference between plotting BETRAYAL “as a hypothetical” to what your reasonings are here.

  

>Hit the first person who shit talked us

You mean like I did with Polaris?? 

Sure, betrayal is worse, we can agree on that. My point is that the "hypothetical" defense is not an acceptable one based on the fact that we fought a massive war over it already.

>with Polaris

Not saying that as a general rule we hit whoever shit talks us. I'm saying that you of all people know best what could happen if you spend your time shit-talking alliance since you hit Polar over it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We know what Thalmor did!" 

*inserts logs from Horsecock*

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

"We know what Thalmor did!" 

*inserts logs from Horsecock* 

I think the Thalmor thing was a joke lol

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lordship said:

I think the Thalmor thing was a joke lol

Damn it, did Thalmor force you into saying that? :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Can we just acknowledge that KT may get rolled but will win the war on the sole basis of forcing the word horsecock to be used so many times in serious conversation.

Culture Victory?

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna restate what I've always maintained, there were no plans to roll TKR that KT participated in and that just because one gov member who doesn't control the FA direction of the alliance, doesn't like you, is a pretty weak justification for war.

But hey, if that's all we need as a cb now, I'll take it. It means I have a lot of cbs now.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Keegoz said:

Gonna restate what I've always maintained, there were no plans to roll TKR that KT participated in and that just because one gov member who doesn't control the FA direction of the alliance, doesn't like you, is a pretty weak justification for war.

But hey, if that's all we need as a cb now, I'll take it. It means I have a lot of cbs now.

 

On 6/9/2018 at 4:16 PM, Nizam Adrienne said:

As an additional note, Keegoz got the privilege of seeing a few of these logs a couple days again – a sneak preview if you will.
His response? “So your logs show that one of our gov members doesn’t like you?”

It’s heartwarming to see treaty partners learning from one another and growing but maybe pick a different lesson than the lack of accountability one, Keegoz?
I know TGH is a pro at that but – bit of free advice here – it won’t make you any friends.

 

Day late and a dollar short, love.

Edited by Nizam Adrienne
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im just gonna throw this out there...

..but when have CBs been technically needed for a war? I mean I understand people want a publicly stated reason, but in my history of simulation games, the only time there seems to be this insane push for a CB or a proper CB for that matter, is when one side is just legitimately upset over the fact they are being hit in war. 

This is also not a jab at anyone in the war, just actually trying to comprehend -when have CB's been actually needed. 

Why not just a - Just cuz - war? Cb? nahhh we doin this shit just cuz.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Not sure about others but while i technically agree with you that cb's are not needed, I believe the inclusion of them enriches gameplay. It provided favor and meaning to wars. Sim games like pw generally consists of bland, simplistic gameplay mechanics and rely on their respectieve communities to keep themselves engaged. CB related stuff is one tool to keep things interesting.

I know i definitely would get bored of perpetual war (And peace) without purpose.

Alright pops, that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mad Max said:

Im just gonna throw this out there...

..but when have CBs been technically needed for a war? I mean I understand people want a publicly stated reason, but in my history of simulation games, the only time there seems to be this insane push for a CB or a proper CB for that matter, is when one side is just legitimately upset over the fact they are being hit in war. 

This is also not a jab at anyone in the war, just actually trying to comprehend -when have CB's been actually needed. 

Why not just a - Just cuz - war? Cb? nahhh we doin this shit just cuz.

Because no CB means a huge stability hit and aggressive expansion penalties, of course

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Buorhann said:

[...*snip*]

Regarding that first paragraph quoted on Lordship, there’s a HUGE difference between plotting BETRAYAL “as a hypothetical” to what your reasonings are here.

 

>Hit the first person who shit talked us

You mean like I did with Polaris??

I agree that overtly plotting against your allies is pretty bad, but mate, for you to be the one saying that, REALLY?  You pulled Kastor into your alliance, and let him have a role there, immediately after we dumped him for EXACTLY that kind of behavior...literally asking an alliance to, and I quote, "betray" their ally.  We don't tolerate dishonorable, faithless, and reckless behavior, and we appreciate those who understand what it means to honor their word, regardless of personal cost.

On the other hand, if you are overtly discussing who to attack next, and someone decides to hit you before you try to form a big coalition to hit them, well, I think they've made a smart move.  I wouldn't consider it exactly a friendly gesture to be discussing, in-depth, not merely whether an alliance is a threat to you but whether and how to plan an attack on them. Hypothetical or not, those kind of logs don't arise from a momentary checkup on the status of your relationship to TKR.

Now, as for your second attempt at moral equivalence, Polaris trashtalked TGH?  Hmmmmmm.  When would that be, and where was there any suggestion of hitting TGH, plotting to roll TGH, or hypothetically discussing hitting TGH?  I'd be quite amused to see what you can come up with to justify that.  Either TGH is way too credulous or deeply paranoid.  I'm guessing paranoid; with the cast of derelicts that quickly assembled under TGH's roof, it'd make sense that you'd constantly be looking over your shoulder, but I think you had a lot more reason to be paranoid of other alliances that had a good CB on you.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Kriegskoenig said:

I agree that overtly plotting against your allies is pretty bad, but mate, for you to be the one saying that, REALLY?  You pulled Kastor into your alliance, and let him have a role there, immediately after we dumped him for EXACTLY that kind of behavior...literally asking an alliance to, and I quote, "betray" their ally.  We don't tolerate dishonorable, faithless, and reckless behavior, and we appreciate those who understand what it means to honor their word, regardless of personal cost.

On the other hand, if you are overtly discussing who to attack next, and someone decides to hit you before you try to form a big coalition to hit them, well, I think they've made a smart move.  I wouldn't consider it exactly a friendly gesture to be discussing, in-depth, not merely whether an alliance is a threat to you but whether and how to plan an attack on them. Hypothetical or not, those kind of logs don't arise from a momentary checkup on the status of your relationship to TKR.

Now, as for your second attempt at moral equivalence, Polaris trashtalked TGH?  Hmmmmmm.  When would that be, and where was there any suggestion of hitting TGH, plotting to roll TGH, or hypothetically discussing hitting TGH?  I'd be quite amused to see what you can come up with to justify that.  Either TGH is way too credulous or deeply paranoid.  I'm guessing paranoid; with the cast of derelicts that quickly assembled under TGH's roof, it'd make sense that you'd constantly be looking over your shoulder, but I think you had a lot more reason to be paranoid of other alliances that had a good CB on you.
 

 

Do you even know what we’re referencing or talking about to begin with?  Or did you just type up a bunch of words for the sake of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2018 at 12:24 AM, Micchan said:

26134323938658aae538a42722ee7706882dc1dd

Pretty sure I forgot someone

Completely ignoring you have the next largest alliance in score working with you as well. I commend the graphic but it ignores so many situational conditions for each of those wars. 

Also, it's true - people won't go to war anymore unless they are pretty convinced they will win. The last war I can think of that was really "could go either way" great VE war. Oktoberfest /should/ have been an easy win for UPN but uhh didn't work out. "You're too big" is an argument you'll see in every war you have so long as you guys keep on doing math before you hit. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Partisan said:

Completely ignoring you have the next largest alliance in score working with you as well. I commend the graphic but it ignores so many situational conditions for each of those wars. 

Also, it's true - people won't go to war anymore unless they are pretty convinced they will win. The last war I can think of that was really "could go either way" great VE war. Oktoberfest /should/ have been an easy win for UPN but uhh didn't work out. "You're too big" is an argument you'll see in every war you have so long as you guys keep on doing math before you hit. 

So because we have been successful in war and in peace we should drop our longest standing allies and friends because you don't like it? It's not like we have the entire top 10 tied to us or anything like that, so when you have a real reason why we should cut our ties, come and talk to me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, apparently militarizing is unfair (since TCW wouldn't be #2 if not militarized, and the score gap would be much smaller). Apparently growing well in peace is also unfair( TKR wouldn't be #1 without our great econ and IA programs, we literally built up from being a micro of 10 people, well not me since I joined with VI, but you get the point). Apparently being not !@#$ in FA is also unfair(We wouldn't have hit you without CB) So, in conclusion, the only way for a fight to be fair is to intentionally handicap yourself so everyone fights 1v1 with the same score. Seriously?? I think the term y'all are looking for is an "even" fight, not fair. Last I checked, in-game nor out-of-game stuff inherently favors TKR and co. Y'all made your decisions, now learn to live with them rather than trying to run away from them. That's like a 10 year old's response to a situation, I expected a level of maturity from y'all, but instead have been disappointed. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Partisan said:

Completely ignoring you have the next largest alliance in score working with you as well. I commend the graphic but it ignores so many situational conditions for each of those wars. 

Also, it's true - people won't go to war anymore unless they are pretty convinced they will win. The last war I can think of that was really "could go either way" great VE war. Oktoberfest /should/ have been an easy win for UPN but uhh didn't work out. "You're too big" is an argument you'll see in every war you have so long as you guys keep on doing math before you hit. 

Oktoberfest might have being a win if the alliances involved in it day 1 were the only ones involved in it and even that is somewhat questionable if the war dragged on. 
 

Edited by Lightning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Felkey said:

So because we have been successful in war and in peace we should drop our longest standing allies and friends because you don't like it? It's not like we have the entire top 10 tied to us or anything like that, so when you have a real reason why we should cut our ties, come and talk to me.

Lol literally this could be about TKR pulling the trigger on EMC. I can’t take this reply seriously actually, get me out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

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