Exar Kun -George Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 11 hours ago, Who Me said: Because you don't like it? lolololol Poor babies, teach your people to check their trades if you don't like them screwing them up. If you are OK with the term, then apply it to all of your people that went into VM to dodge the war. Seems reasonable. I think your lacking the basic ability to see ya'll are loosing, we can impose whatever we want tbch. In fact you should be happy the people making the terms are fair people. Dont like it fight us at a later time to reverse the terms. Lets not forget ..... <was going to be a ss of your alliance's great net damages but down for maintenance> 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Me Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Silly child, you can try and impose whatever you want. Also, you have been in BK long enough to know what happens from this point forward in terms of net damage amounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, Who Me said: Silly child, you can try and impose whatever you want. Also, you have been in BK long enough to know what happens from this point forward in terms of net damage amounts. True but most of the net damage gains are due to fighting one specific alliance. Most of the coalition will remain similar to where they are now. Edited December 3, 2018 by The Mad Titan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post 丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™ Posted December 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) 37 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said: So a more serious breakdown of why the VM needs to happen in the opinion of our coalition. Start by taking look at these links: TCWTKRGoB TCW obviously loses the most in this arrangement, and its obvious these VM nations are the rebuild plan for their side. Allowing this to happen is simply unacceptable when addressing the economic disparity of sides. Those TCW nations can generate over 300 million a day for TCW's rebuild, something that we won't allow to happen. You can argue some of the VM is legitimate reasons, but the simple fact is it doesn't matter. We don't care if it's legitimate, I fully agree that its their responsibility to decide if they want to keep deserters in their alliance or not. However, this occurs after we equalize the damage dealt to them, not before. The argument is we are "punishing" them, which is flat out wrong. Lets start with the definition of punish: Punish VERB Treat (someone) in an unfairly harsh way. Their VM nations are not being treated in an unfair way relative to their alliance mates. All members still fighting are below 1k infra, or on their way there. In fact, most are substantially below that so VM nations are being treated less harshly. Then the argument that the winning side should do the same is also frankly ridiculous. This isn't a Global Summit building a player consensus, this is a war they lost and that's the demands for peace. We are holding their members accountable, since we don't trust them to do so. The winners can deal with their own, and owe nothing to those who lost in the most complete loss in a global since NPO's first time. Sure they can stay at war, but it's a lot harder to maintain a losing war than a winning one. If they want to keep going so be it, but it is easier to sell making sure perennial war deserters lose their infra to the winning coalition's members than protecting them to the losing side's members. Ultimately it will come down to their membership to deciding when they no longer want to protect pixel huggers at their own expense. Buy me city 24 and I'll buy up nukes and nuke 'em post-war. Shifty is a butcher for sale. Also my boi Leo/Thanos dropping truth bombs like a B-52 over 'Nam. The losers are losers and have zero say. Drive the knife in deep and twist. TKR sphere deserves this. "Omg but you're making this CN 2.0." "Omg, you're making bad enemies and bad blood." TKR needed their ego and teeth kicked in. Guardian is smug, but they ain't that bad. (Exception) TCW, who cares about pissing them off? They can't fight their way out of a paper bag. GoB had it coming. Tesla is basically dead and proved to be a useless offshoot of The Chola/Zodiac. Statesmen, Nova Riata, Silenzio, and any other micros are irrelevant and should just be tossed to the raiders anyway. Idk who the frick came up with this idea that this game doesn't need drama. Your stagnant shit filled minds keep coming up with ideas on how to kill any fun and conflict. Y'all rather have passive aggressive, "listen here pal" wars that end in nothing instead of salt filled, humiliating, and punishing defeats. The weak should fear the strong. Shifty says what's on everyone's mind, but they're too afraid to say it because they're playing model UN. Prove me wrong Protip: You can't. Edited December 3, 2018 by ☠ϟħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™☠ 4 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esentia Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) Perhaps this has already been pointed out, but it is worth referencing: https://politicsandwar.com/account/vacation/ Quote Vacation Mode Vacation Mode is an option to preserve your nation during a temporary absence. This tool is intended for players who are going on vacation or are for some other reason going to be unable to access the site for an extended period of time (i.e. Military Service). While in Vacation Mode, your nation will be unable to declare wars, fight existing wars, be declared war on, spy on other nations, be spied on, receive any sort of revenue, pay any bills, trade with other nations, or use alliance banks. There is no way to end Vacation Mode early. Vacation Mode is not intended as a tool to use to avoid wars, and it is not a "peace mode". Once you put your nation in Vacation Mode, administrators will not reverse it for you, and you must wait the length of time you chose before you will regain full access to your nation. Specifically: Vacation Mode is not intended as a tool to use to avoid wars, and it is not a "peace mode". So while IQ/BK might not "Punish" for using it this way... perhaps Sheepy should consider whether many of those who went into Vacation Mode during the latest Alliance War were abusing the VM Mechanic and take appropriate action. Edited December 3, 2018 by Esentia 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Esentia said: Perhaps this has already been pointed out, but it is worth referencing: https://politicsandwar.com/account/vacation/ Specifically: Vacation Mode is not intended as a tool to use to avoid wars, and it is not a "peace mode". So while IQ/BK might not "Punish" for using it this way... perhaps Sheepy should consider whether many of those who went into Vacation Mode during the latest Alliance War were abusing the VM Mechanic and take appropriate action. Yep. That's been pointed out. Alex has stated he has no intention of policing that, so the point was made that at the very least he should probably change that misleading description, and apparently he has not. 1 Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 24 minutes ago, Esentia said: Perhaps this has already been pointed out, but it is worth referencing: https://politicsandwar.com/account/vacation/ Specifically: Vacation Mode is not intended as a tool to use to avoid wars, and it is not a "peace mode". So while IQ/BK might not "Punish" for using it this way... perhaps Sheepy should consider whether many of those who went into Vacation Mode during the latest Alliance War were abusing the VM Mechanic and take appropriate action. Thrax hit it on the head with this one (ew). That means enforcement is on the player base rather than the admin, which is fine. If ensuring VM nations are held accountable, regardless of reason, that's a good precedent to set within the game. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 You guys had 3 weeks to hit Endiness, I cant help that you took your time to get around to it. And its fascinating how now that IQ isnt losing a war, that now is the time to push a bunch of terms at people. But if you want to push terms that violate our sovereignty, then we can keep fighting till you change your minds. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodor Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 23 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said: Alex change Hello! Welcome to Orbis, we've noticed you've used the words "Alex" and "change" in a sentence. Please note that this behavior is taxing to great lord emperor Alex, but if you would like to light a candle at the Altar of Please make this game less suck, please deposit 1 donation into the box. We'll even give you shiny credits with which to make your game less suck! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: You guys had 3 weeks to hit Endiness, I cant help that you took your time to get around to it. And its fascinating how now that IQ isnt losing a war, that now is the time to push a bunch of terms at people. But if you want to push terms that violate our sovereignty, then we can keep fighting till you change your minds. The VM term is a coalition term, notice how Ripper and Partisan have also defended it. "Hurr Durr Big Bad IQ" -SRD, 2018 You can see exactly what IQ requested and its a fairly minor detail, so nice try. As for the second part, well if people had to take bets on if TCW and GoB, the biggest offenders of pixel hugging, and if IQ/T$/Paperless last longer, I have the a feeling I know where most peoples money would go. Edited December 3, 2018 by The Mad Titan 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 16 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: You guys had 3 weeks to hit Endiness, I cant help that you took your time to get around to it. And its fascinating how now that IQ isnt losing a war, that now is the time to push a bunch of terms at people. But if you want to push terms that violate our sovereignty, then we can keep fighting till you change your minds. 3 1 Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonK Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 On 12/1/2018 at 11:50 PM, Buorhann said: Way too wordy. Waaay too many terms. I sure as hell wouldn’t accept it till it was trimmed down to something more manageable. EDIT: Looking through these more closely, the only ones that I like are the AoD, Color Bloc, and War Dodgers. The rest is just too much. The Arrgh one seems odd. It’s allowing Arrgh the initiative to raid TKR, and TKR can only reply once a hit happens. Should just push for a blanket NAP there. Fairness in Trading is a odd demand too. Public Statements, while lulzy, that’s a lot there to pay attention too. I had personal displeasure to accept TKR's peace 3 times over in 6 months. No alliance made such moves as they did towards Arrgh. They hit us with 2 other alliances for hitting their ally's protectorate ffs! And after paper's please where we accepted general terms so our allys could get out of war (so tehnically I accepted their terms 4 times). And then 2 weeks after Arrgh changed to 1 ship raiding and we've been more or less at perma war with TKR. So yeah frick them and frick their initative. They get to respond, just like any other alliance does, while Arrgh gets to do it's own thing, like other alliances do. And, it would be retarded to ask of Arrgh to not raid TKR, if raiding TKR is profitable. Members would just make their own alliances and raid them anyway. I'd rather Arrgh be place of gathering for the disobent and free willed, than Arrgh being a shell of it's former self and those people scattered all over the place doing just as much, if not more, damage to farmers and the like. 22 hours ago, Prefontaine said: Lets go through the terms in a condensed form Article 1 and 2: Obvious end of the war. Article 3: cosmetic terms for various alliances. I can tell you the TEst ones come from the Mensa guys forcing people to write a Dio-based essay, so this is just a jab back. I fully expect something mocking Khorne. The GPA one is a result of our love for GPA, and the fact that it's what tCW effectively is in our opinion (and it's only a week). Article 4: Color names, if you care about this, you deserve more war. Article 5: War dodging, the main problem apparently. Some people VM'd legitimately, some people did not. During papers please TKR and friends issued a "no nation above 700 average infra" clause in the wars peace terms. This is basically no different. The people who tried to hide from damage, legitimately or not, need to have a certain infra level. Article 6: The answer to fake paperless alliances. Article 7: Arrgh was in perma-war with TKR for being pirates. Call it square and let them pirate, unless they pirate you, then defend against those pirating you. There are no "harsh" terms anywhere in there if you look at the history of terms imposed by alliances in this game. If any of these terms are too unacceptable, a coalition wide payment of 10B per term that needs to be removed could probably be arranged. ^ This. Terms like these were the norm for a while now, and if other side has done it before, why couldn't it be done to them as well? 20 hours ago, ℟Ø₣Ḹ Wⱥ₣₣Ḹᙦ said: They didn't work hard enough, otherwise they would have double checked their trade offer before posting. Edit: It's basically the same as not putting a lock on your bike before leaving it unattended, if you don't take the time to ensure it's security then oh well, sucks to suck. It's more like getting off your bike, and then remembering you didn't put the lock on, after taking half a step, just to see an idiot speeding on your bike, that he stole a second ago and is already 100m away. Yeah. And stealing bike is still theft, regardels of if the victim was an idiot or not. 20 hours ago, Noctis said: I guess I’m just not aware of what they did to really deserve these terms. If the losing side wants peace & doesn’t think the terms are unfair; then nothing wrong with accepting. Although if they agree to the terms & think they’re unreasonable; they mostly just have themselves to blame for accepting an offer they’re unhappy with. Would the alliance who needs to help another in their color politics rather do that or keep fighting? Then there are a bunch of other terms they need to make same decision on, although maybe progress can be made if they separate out which they’re willing to do. Maybe the other side should pick one or two of them they’re willing to do & counter offer with that. (This was posted as a discussion, rather than a take it or leave it proposition.) These are proposed terms, aye. They don't need to accept and they can perma war. Or they can suck it up and accept it. I've accepted more than one bad term in my day, but overall, it's not always as bad as it initially seems. The only terms that were kind of harsh that my predecesors accepted was the one for Purple Spy War. Everything else was more or less a hit on a ego, and we all know TKR's side has enough ego to take it all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ripper Posted December 3, 2018 Author Popular Post Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Who Me said: Silly child, you can try and impose whatever you want. Quoting the terms served to TGH/KT at the previous war, terms that your alliance and TKR within the coalition of that war supported: "- CB Validations (recognize their legitimacy to pursue this war) - Thalmor apologizing to Queen M (for OOC reasons) - Buorhann apologizing to Felkey - TGH flies a flag by custom design of TCW for a month (Without us knowing, TCW got a similar term in this war!)- KT flies TRF war flag for a month - Knights Templar place 2 pictures on their alliance page for a month (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/464071431974551571/470625344983007252/image.jpg, https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/464071431974551571/470625371939799050/image.png) - KT puts TRF war flag on their alliance page for a month - KT puts up a text "Revolution was here" on their alliance page for a month - KT puts an image on their alliance page of TRF pissing on the KT flag on their alliance page for a month - KT/TGH write a glorifying story about TRF and Queen M on the OWF" I thought you liked ending wars with white peace. Probably that's the case only when you are losing. I didn't know about the terms till yesterday, but now I am not surprised at all that your side did accept Articles I, II and III, at least at the beginning of the negotiations. Such kinds of terms were already familiar to you. Although ours are less "punishing". Edited December 3, 2018 by Ripper 12 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) While I voiced my opinion on the current terms, Ripper has a point there. (And to back my word on lengthy terms, we only pushed for TRF to move off Black after 2 rounds. Nothing else.) Edited December 3, 2018 by Buorhann 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biel Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Daily Reminder to disband your respective alliance and join BK 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Kell Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Can you imagine this being the negotiations towards the end of world war II? Germany: We except a blanket peace, but we don't agree with the term that we have to say "Heil Stalin" everytime we a Russian troop. That's just silly, grow up. And what about the Nazis that are now hiding amongst civilians, we can't be held responsible! Russia: Then we'll just keep destroying you? Germany: Yep! Alternative History better be making a video about this 1 Quote Listen to J Kell's new single: About The Author An early member of Roz Wei in 2015, J Kell went on to stay within the paperless world of Empyrea before signing with Soup Kitchen while scoring a record deal in 2019. J Kell went on to release multiple Orbis Top 40 hits. In 2020, J Kell took a break from Orbis. He's back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esentia Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 I just want to make sure folks know this War has not been easy on those of us in BK (and I am guessing the rest of our side as well) either. No one who is not suffering through it with us will ever truly appreciate how hard it is to find an Open Slot. You need to be seriously On The Bounce to be able to get a spot. The moment someone TKR, GOB, etc... comes out of Beige there are bunches of folks eager to take a bite. So sad there is only room for three at a time. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apeman Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Balish said: Can you imagine this being the negotiations towards the end of world war II? Germany: We except a blanket peace, but we don't agree with the term that we have to say "Heil Stalin" everytime we a Russian troop. That's just silly, grow up. And what about the Nazis that are now hiding amongst civilians, we can't be held responsible! Russia: Then we'll just keep destroying you? Germany: Yep! Alternative History better be making a video about this Just want to point out that Germany is still paying reps for its crimes (determined by the winners) over 70 years later I think the peace demands are fair and doable but not needed. Enjoy the rest of the war 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mars Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Arrgh! 1 1 Quote Throw me to the wolves and I’ll return leading the pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Adrienne Posted December 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 3, 2018 Since there seems to be so much discussion and debate on why we walked and what exactly it is we take issue with, allow me to clarify a few things just to give you all a better understanding of where we stand at the moment. Contrary to some of the statements presented here, our coalition went into these talks with the understanding that we were not on the "winning" side and we would have to accept terms we "didn't like". Per that understanding, when talks first started and we were presented the terms document, our coalition accepted four of the eight terms nearly immediately. It wasn't until we reached discussion on the fifth term that we really started to have issues. The term I'm referencing immediately starts off by insulting our members and directing what we do with "war dodgers". War dodgers have traditionally been defined by this community as individuals who have an established pattern of behavior in avoiding wars, either through VMing or deserting. This is something we all recognize as an issue in the community and, per that belief, we each have our own internal methods for handling war dodgers. Our issue with this term is that, given our knowledge and understanding of our members, we fundamentally disagree with the opposition that all of the members they specifically outlined in their terms were true war dodgers. If holding war dodgers to the same standard as their non-war dodging alliance mates was the goal, no research was done to determine if there was a historical reason to classify those members as war dodgers. Additionally, given that the opposition has accepted war deserters from our side into their alliances and sent messages to our members to try and encourage them to desert, we believed the perceived intent behind this term to be misguided and hypocritical. Based on that viewpoint and despite our feelings regarding the opposition's actions with our war dodgers/deserters, a counter to the term was suggested, which outlined our plans for dealing with our actual war dodgers. It ultimately got rejected. Following the rejection of our counter offer, a significant amount of time and energy was put into trying to understand the opposing coalition's viewpoint on this term and why they wanted it, so that we could work on presenting a new counter offer that addressed both our concerns. Every time we thought we finally understood what it was they were trying to achieve with this term and started trying to work on a new counter, another opposition representative chimed in with something that contradicted the prior stated goal and we were back to square one. There was no consistent message being presented and every effort we made to understand was being met with derision and/or trolling by nearly all the opposing coalition representatives. We didn't hold much faith the discussions on the other remaining terms would fare any better if that was the environment we were going to be met with. In the end, we felt the opposition made it very clear they weren't willing to negotiate on terms in good faith. After three back to back days of discussion on this one term, we were no closer to settling the term or even figuring out what is was they hoped to accomplish. With that viewpoint in mind, we decided to step away from the discussions. If the opposition wishes to continue this discussion enough to try and spark a debate here on the OWF, we encourage them to return to the server and start up a conversation with us there. Until they decide they are ready for us to return however, we're happy to continue fighting. 4 8 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Anarch Caelum Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 (edited) I think a peace agreement should include peace for all, especially if both sides used vacation mode & not.everyone who used it are terrible people who don’t deserve to be the included in peace. Edited December 3, 2018 by Noctis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbas Mehdi Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 15 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said: Based on that viewpoint and despite our feelings regarding the opposition's actions with our war dodgers/deserters, a counter to the term was suggested, which outlined our plans for dealing with our actual war dodgers. It ultimately got rejected. What was the counter offer made and the parameters for your description of war dodgers? 2 Quote I am not a member of Guardian p&w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utter Nutter Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 23 minutes ago, Abbas Mehdi said: What was the counter offer made and the parameters for your description of war dodgers? Abbas is sad nobody replied to his question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 (edited) The winning side doesn't have to negotiate in good faith, that's what the war was for. 1 hour ago, Nizam Adrienne said: The term I'm referencing immediately starts off by insulting our members and directing what we do with "war dodgers" dodge /däj/ verb 1. avoid (someone or something) by a sudden quick movement. So, did they not avoid the war? EDIT: I believe we offered to call them "Heroes" to make you feel better in the negotiations. Edited December 4, 2018 by Prefontaine 3 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 50 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said: Since there seems to be so much discussion and debate on why we walked and what exactly it is we take issue with, allow me to clarify a few things just to give you all a better understanding of where we stand at the moment. Contrary to some of the statements presented here, our coalition went into these talks with the understanding that we were not on the "winning" side and we would have to accept terms we "didn't like". Per that understanding, when talks first started and we were presented the terms document, our coalition accepted four of the eight terms nearly immediately. It wasn't until we reached discussion on the fifth term that we really started to have issues. The term I'm referencing immediately starts off by insulting our members and directing what we do with "war dodgers". War dodgers have traditionally been defined by this community as individuals who have an established pattern of behavior in avoiding wars, either through VMing or deserting. This is something we all recognize as an issue in the community and, per that belief, we each have our own internal methods for handling war dodgers. Our issue with this term is that, given our knowledge and understanding of our members, we fundamentally disagree with the opposition that all of the members they specifically outlined in their terms were true war dodgers. If holding war dodgers to the same standard as their non-war dodging alliance mates was the goal, no research was done to determine if there was a historical reason to classify those members as war dodgers. Additionally, given that the opposition has accepted war deserters from our side into their alliances and sent messages to our members to try and encourage them to desert, we believed the perceived intent behind this term to be misguided and hypocritical. Based on that viewpoint and despite our feelings regarding the opposition's actions with our war dodgers/deserters, a counter to the term was suggested, which outlined our plans for dealing with our actual war dodgers. It ultimately got rejected. Following the rejection of our counter offer, a significant amount of time and energy was put into trying to understand the opposing coalition's viewpoint on this term and why they wanted it, so that we could work on presenting a new counter offer that addressed both our concerns. Every time we thought we finally understood what it was they were trying to achieve with this term and started trying to work on a new counter, another opposition representative chimed in with something that contradicted the prior stated goal and we were back to square one. There was no consistent message being presented and every effort we made to understand was being met with derision and/or trolling by nearly all the opposing coalition representatives. We didn't hold much faith the discussions on the other remaining terms would fare any better if that was the environment we were going to be met with. In the end, we felt the opposition made it very clear they weren't willing to negotiate on terms in good faith. After three back to back days of discussion on this one term, we were no closer to settling the term or even figuring out what is was they hoped to accomplish. With that viewpoint in mind, we decided to step away from the discussions. If the opposition wishes to continue this discussion enough to try and spark a debate here on the OWF, we encourage them to return to the server and start up a conversation with us there. Until they decide they are ready for us to return however, we're happy to continue fighting. I think this would be a very valid response if "War Dodging" was an internal affair. It isn't, its always been a global one. Coalition A has every right to want to continue to hit the people who are "hiding" in VM to avoid damage, and you have every right to drag out the war to try to stop them from being hit so they can rebuild you. But that's a very valid reason for them to continue fighting. For a long time, your side has taken in people who didn't want to fight or get involved with the war efforts. Now those same people VM'd on you to avoid losing this war. That isn't acceptable. Everyone gets rolled. They can either sell down or get beaten down, however they want to go out, but they don't get to avoid a war. Especially a war that war fought over hitting and destroying those guys. Sadly for you, the CB fits the Reps. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.