Jump to content
丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™

Shifty News Network-Pepper

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bollocks said:

> Gets contradicted by Oblivion 

> Gets rekt rhetorically 

> “everyone” was making

Kek. Classic Kastor.

 

Again, you can’t seem to argue any facts so you stick to personal attacks. It isn’t a good look.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Again, you can’t seem to argue any facts so you stick to personal attacks. It isn’t a good look.

I’ve only been arguing facts. The fact that you are sticking to incomprehensible  babble is not surprising.

Share this post


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

>Papers, Please

 

Just going based off history here, and current events.

So your logic here is everyone's a pixel hugger.  While completely valid, and completely correct....  Pathetic.

Share this post


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

How were they undermined by a lack of political understanding again?  You look at the treaty web and Coalition is paperless.  Having...  what...  three alliances counter them that have no confirmed solid ties to Coalition isn't a lack of political understanding.  It's a lack of transparency from those "friendly" alliances, and it's one of the few things that the biggest bloc in the game stressed about (IQ talking about paperless ties and hence their consolidation and/or refusal to take chances elsewhere).

The fact that none of you leaders from previous Syndisphere/EMC don't understand that is baffling, and we see what happens when people do take chances - they just simply get ripped apart.

This is no better than TKR and Friends (+Guardian) tearing apart Nuke Bloc when they were already handled.

 

If you're going to defend your "friends", have some sort of tie to represent it.  So people know the consequences ahead of time, or perhaps it'll encourage them to actually pursue political banter before then.  Only those of previous Syndisphere/EMC leadership know exactly what those past ties are (And still are).  No one else does.

Partisan giveth. Partisan taketh. Partisan signeth. Partisan burneth. Partisan showeth. Partisan hideth.

 

But among all Partisan does not negotiate 6 month NAPs.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

Partisan giveth. Partisan taketh. Partisan signeth. Partisan burneth. Partisan showeth. Partisan hideth.

 

But among all Partisan does not negotiate 6 month NAPs.

You're right.  You either disband and run or you contribute to dogpiles where a NAP isn't needed.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

You're right.  You either disband and run or you contribute to dogpiles where a NAP isn't needed.

Salty is the tongue of the Saint erected by the snake for his amusement. Lost is the soul of the NAPbringer.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Prefonteen said:

Salty is the tongue of the Saint erected by the snake for his amusement. Lost is the soul of the NAPbringer.

Kinda hard to have NAPs with alliances that disband and hide.  At least I'll stick around to the end of my engagements.

How many more paperless ties do you have remaining again?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alliance Leader who doesn’t do anything criticizes other alliance leader for not doing what he wanted him to do. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

Kinda hard to have NAPs with alliances that disband and hide.  At least I'll stick around to the end of my engagements.

How many more paperless ties do you have remaining again?

HW did not disband though. I stayed on AA throughout ;).

 

Fewer than you have alliances you're NAP'd to.

10 minutes ago, Kastor said:

Alliance Leader who doesn’t do anything criticizes other alliance leader for not doing what he wanted him to do. 

Who are you?

Edited by Prefonteen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing like a good NAP. Despite all the shit TGH Is taking for it, they still got into a war anyway. I'm sure they would have started something at some point even if they hadn't gotten attacked.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

How were they undermined by a lack of political understanding again?  You look at the treaty web and Coalition is paperless.  Having...  what...  three alliances counter them that have no confirmed solid ties to Coalition isn't a lack of political understanding.  It's a lack of transparency from those "friendly" alliances, and it's one of the few things that the biggest bloc in the game stressed about (IQ talking about paperless ties and hence their consolidation and/or refusal to take chances elsewhere).

The fact that none of you leaders from previous Syndisphere/EMC don't understand that is baffling, and we see what happens when people do take chances - they just simply get ripped apart.

This is no better than TKR and Friends (+Guardian) tearing apart Nuke Bloc when they were already handled.

 

If you're going to defend your "friends", have some sort of tie to represent it.  So people know the consequences ahead of time, or perhaps it'll encourage them to actually pursue political banter before then.  Only those of previous Syndisphere/EMC leadership know exactly what those past ties are (And still are).  No one else does.

This doesn't actually address my point at all. They were looking for a fair fight. If they'd made an arrangement instead of blindsiding someone, they'd have one, and the presence of treaties, secret treaties, paperless agreements, out of context friendships or any other thing the people of Orbis can think up of wouldn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Avakael said:

This doesn't actually address my point at all. They were looking for a fair fight. If they'd made an arrangement instead of blindsiding someone, they'd have one, and the presence of treaties, secret treaties, paperless agreements, out of context friendships or any other thing the people of Orbis can think up of wouldn't matter.

Name 3 times an “arrangement” has been made between non-allies that has resulted in a war/training.

 

Share this post


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

Name 3 times an “arrangement” has been made between non-allies that has resulted in a war/training.

 

If it's too hard to set up practice, and you can't be arsed to wait for something else to jump in on, then you kind of have to accept that it might go pear shaped. Demanding conformity to the appalling decade old CN treaty system is lazy. This is a different game, damn it. At least come up with some new ideas. Even going "paperless" is just a term devised under that system to define people who don't follow it.

Share this post


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

This doesn't actually address my point at all. They were looking for a fair fight. If they'd made an arrangement instead of blindsiding someone, they'd have one, and the presence of treaties, secret treaties, paperless agreements, out of context friendships or any other thing the people of Orbis can think up of wouldn't matter.

Like when we offered partiboi a 1v1 and y'all turned it down and hit us with another alliance instead?😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, there's no such thing as a fair fight. That doesn't even make sense. Even if you set it up so that there was no interference, and everyone started with exactly the same amount of everything, it comes down to RNG, internet speed, and the whims of fate. Warfare is about looking for the advantage, and taking it. If you're going to put in restrictions to prevent certain advantages from coming into play, then at some point you might as well flip an actual coin.

If finding your advantage means calling in reinforcements from an unexpected angle, then that's a fair play. That is, as long as it isn't in violation of the agreements made prior to the practice/thunderdome/trial-by-champion/tournament/whatever, an NAP, or the game rules.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Avakael said:

If it's too hard to set up practice, and you can't be arsed to wait for something else to jump in on, then you kind of have to accept that it might go pear shaped. Demanding conformity to the appalling decade old CN treaty system is lazy. This is a different game, damn it. At least come up with some new ideas. Even going "paperless" is just a term devised under that system to define people who don't follow it.

Never has an agreed fight between 2 non-allies happened. It’s always pushed as a narrative to explain dogpiles. In reality you guys should just say “we saw an opportunity to hit them and we were bored and took it”. All this other stuff is irrelevant and you should stop trying to bring up irrelevant points.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, James II said:

Like when we offered partiboi a 1v1 and y'all turned it down and hit us with another alliance instead?😂

I do not play by your rules. You got what you deserved, scum.

3 hours ago, Kastor said:

Never has an agreed fight between 2 non-allies happened. It’s always pushed as a narrative to explain dogpiles. In reality you guys should just say “we saw an opportunity to hit them and we were bored and took it”. All this other stuff is irrelevant and you should stop trying to bring up irrelevant points.

 

There is no reason whatsoever why the Syndicate "Should" tell you that "we saw an opportunity to hit them and we were bored and took it". That's a reasoning/explanation which you've cocked up. Not us. Keep it.

You're essentially telling avakael this: "Your reasoning and explanation for things you did is irrelevant. The only relevant argument is what I believe your motivations are". That's not how discussion works, Kastor. Ava is simply saying 2 things:

- tS decided to defend tC from Oblivions hit

- tS' counter was a volunteer effort of a handful of (bored) members greenlighted by gov; not an all-out tS war or blitz. We went in lazily because we were aware of our advantage and opted to expend minimum resources and time while still getting the job done.

Now if you wish you can ask us/me why we defended tC. Maybe you'll get an aswer. You do not however get to attribute motivations and opinions to us while simultaneously telling us to shut the frick up.

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

I do not play by your rules. You got what you deserved, scum.

 

There is no reason whatsoever why the Syndicate "Should" tell you that "we saw an opportunity to hit them and we were bored and took it". That's a reasoning/explanation which you've cocked up. Not us. Keep it.

You're essentially telling avakael this: "Your reasoning and explanation for things you did is irrelevant. The only relevant argument is what I believe your motivations are". That's not how discussion works, Kastor. Ava is simply saying 2 things:

- tS decided to defend tC from Oblivions hit

- tS' counter was a volunteer effort of a handful of (bored) members greenlighted by gov; not an all-out tS war or blitz. We went in lazily because we were aware of our advantage and opted to expend minimum resources and time while still getting the job done.

Now if you wish you can ask us/me why we defended tC. Maybe you'll get an aswer. You do not however get to attribute motivations and opinions to us while simultaneously telling us to shut the frick up.

He literally said:

“We did these incredibly lazy things because we knew we'd be able to get away with it.”

”If you wanted a fair fight and a proper test of your skills, you should have contacted tC and offered them a challenge, where both parties pick an exact starting date and time for hostilities to commence equally both ways.”

”Ifyou'd done that, you wouldn't have been kerb-stomped by a handful of guys who were pinged on Discord and replied with "eh, why not".

 

The points he is making is not defense of the dogpile/tS attack. He’s made several points about how Oblivion could’ve AVOIDED being hit by tS, not by WHY they were hit by tS.

tS has yet to say why they defended tC, they have no paper obligations to tC and haven’t for over 6 months now. 

 

Stop trying to distract from the point and change the conversation, Partisan. You all never said why tS attacked, Avakael has been BSing points that are irrelevant because they’re irrelevant. I never said that your reasoning and explanations were irrelevant because all Avakael did was detail how they hit tC and how the war could’ve been avoided, not why. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was common knowledge that t$ and Guardian protect tC?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair even paperless alliances tend to mention protection agreements on their pages.

If I'm remembering correctly tS and TC haven't had any formal tie (and as far as I know haven't done anything to imply any sort of treaty) for almost a year(?), so anyone not closely following what goes on in the forums, or who have more important things to remember,  could easily be justified in thinking that no sort of tie/treaty exists between them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kastor said:

He literally said:

“We did these incredibly lazy things because we knew we'd be able to get away with it.”

”If you wanted a fair fight and a proper test of your skills, you should have contacted tC and offered them a challenge, where both parties pick an exact starting date and time for hostilities to commence equally both ways.”

”Ifyou'd done that, you wouldn't have been kerb-stomped by a handful of guys who were pinged on Discord and replied with "eh, why not".

 

The points he is making is not defense of the dogpile/tS attack. He’s made several points about how Oblivion could’ve AVOIDED being hit by tS, not by WHY they were hit by tS.

tS has yet to say why they defended tC, they have no paper obligations to tC and haven’t for over 6 months now. 

 

Stop trying to distract from the point and change the conversation, Partisan. You all never said why tS attacked, Avakael has been BSing points that are irrelevant because they’re irrelevant. I never said that your reasoning and explanations were irrelevant because all Avakael did was detail how they hit tC and how the war could’ve been avoided, not why. 

 

Uhh. 

To quote ava in full:

Quote

" For context, none of us who hit you had more than about 45 minutes of notice that we were going to war, and we attacked with just a single-buy of units. We attacked with 18-19 hours remaining before our next possible unit purchase; even a full hour before the next tick was coming. We did these incredibly lazy things because we knew we'd be able to get away with it. "

This was in reference to the sloppy entry by the tS guys: They were lazy in their executions because they knew they could get away with it. That has nothing to do with "hitting because we saw an opportunity", as you attributed to us. Bad kastor. Bad argument.

Next quote:

Quote

"You complain, because you felt like you had a "fair" war going on with tC; without realising that attacking an alliance that is not expecting or prepared for you is almost never a fair fight, unless you are attacking utterly overwhelming odds. If you wanted a fair fight and a proper test of your skills, you should have contacted tC and offered them a challenge, where both parties pick an exact starting date and time for hostilities to commence equally both ways. They might have even accepted the offer, and you would have then been able to conduct a war that would not have seen external interference. If you'd done that, you wouldn't have been kerb-stomped by a handful of guys who were pinged on Discord and replied with "eh, why not"."

In context, ava's "fair fight" quote is clearly an address to the complaint that tS' entry was seen/felt as "unfair". He poses that a fair fight would have been a straight 1v1 offer. Such an agreement would have negated the risk of outside interference. This has nothing to do with tS' motivation. The point is also correct: They could have avoided being hit by outsiders by offering it. Now you could argue that it wouldn't have been accepted, but you won't know unless you try. In either case, it's irrelevant to the point holding ground.

 

Regarding the last bit of your point:  The subject of what tS' motivations were was not even the topic at hand until you pissed yourself trying to gloriously interject and out-debate ava. Ava's comments did not touch on tS' motivations: You made it about that, and inserted your *own* guesswork on why we may or may have not entered. I called you on that in my initial post and told you you could simply ask us. 

...And now you respond by trying to flip that by saying Ava is BS-ing irrelevant points in a conversation which is not even about the points you are trying to make (are you even trying to make one?). Me calling you on that is not akin to me "trying to distract from the conversation" as I called for you to simply ask me the question.

 

To summarize:

Why they were hit by tS was not the topic of the conversation, and therefore ava did not need to address it. You can turn that into the topic of conversation if you wish and i'll play ball. But you're better off quitting while you're ahead with the extremely weak attempts at winning a debate which shouldn't even be a debate.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2018 at 2:34 PM, Loshi said:

So your logic here is everyone's a pixel hugger.  While completely valid, and completely correct....  Pathetic.

I just noticed this reply.  That’s not my logic, but when you decide to stop dogpiling behind hidden partnerships and treaties, lemme know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kastor said:

tS has yet to say why they defended tC, they have no paper obligations to tC and haven’t for over 6 months now. 

 

Stop trying to distract from the point and change the conversation, Partisan. You all never said why tS attacked, Avakael has been BSing points that are irrelevant because they’re irrelevant. I never said that your reasoning and explanations were irrelevant because all Avakael did was detail how they hit tC and how the war could’ve been avoided, not why. 

 

I could tell you why tS defended them if you’d like. And this isn’t a pre and partiboy are the same person joke attempt. TEst was considering a raid on tC a few months back but I did my due diligence and found out who would come to their aid if we hit them and why. I’m not going to speak for them and would encourage you to speak to tS privately if you actually want to find the answer. Or you could just keep grandstanding.   

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.