Kitschie Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Wake me up when this thread becomes relevant again and TKR + compny start showing up to the peace discussions they scheduled... *yawn* Quote ? Kitschie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 How about this. Ill give the other side 16k and we can call this whole thing over. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 7 hours ago, Kitschie said: Wake me up when this thread becomes relevant again and TKR + compny start showing up to the peace discussions they scheduled... *yawn* TKR is rapidly losing relevance. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRebelMan Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said: TKR is rapidly losing relevance. Riighhttt...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 #14 and falling. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said: #14 and falling. Is that how relevance works? Huh. News to me 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Petition to change the war name to the Apathy War, because neither side gives a flying rainbow colored stoned on meth hippogriff shit about when it ends or how utterly pointless its become at this point. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sphinx Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 On 1/8/2019 at 8:44 AM, Buorhann said: Holy hell, how many members did TCW lose? Weren’t they and TKR above 100 this summer? On 1/8/2019 at 9:14 AM, Akuryo said: TCW was at 97, has lost 36. TKR was at 157 and has lost 60. We started the war at 96 members, (93 + 3 in offshores), we are now down to 65 members (tCW + Offshores) with 18 members at 7 days or more inactive. Considering some of the VM users have told us they will be quitting, and expecting several of the inactives won't be coming back we could be down to 50 members at a worse case scenario. Needless to say we've taken a massive hit but our core membership group is still here and we can recover from this. On 1/9/2019 at 2:26 AM, Akuryo said: Snip Ultra cringe........ 5 years of University history that's probably one of the worst comparisons I've ever read. Did someone seriously compare this peace treaty to the treaty of Versaille? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 9 minutes ago, Sphinx said: We started the war at 96 members, (93 + 3 in offshores), we are now down to 65 members (tCW + Offshores) with 18 members at 7 days or more inactive. Considering some of the VM users have told us they will be quitting, and expecting several of the inactives won't be coming back we could be down to 50 members at a worse case scenario. Needless to say we've taken a massive hit but our core membership group is still here and we can recover from this. Ultra cringe........ 5 years of University history that's probably one of the worst comparisons I've ever read. Did someone seriously compare this peace treaty to the treaty of Versaille? Yes. Dr Rush of Guardian, to be specific. To be ultra specific, some no-name in T$ said it, and Rush readily agreed and continued on from that point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sphinx Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Akuryo said: Yes. Dr Rush of Guardian, to be specific. To be ultra specific, some no-name in T$ said it, and Rush readily agreed and continued on from that point. I mean the treaty was pretty punitive but its nowhere near Versaille level of punishment. You also forgot the part where they blamed Germany for starting the war. ;,P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Just now, Sphinx said: I mean the treaty was pretty punitive but its nowhere near Versaille level of punishment. You also forgot the part where they blamed Germany for starting the war. ;,P That too. It's honestly not that punitive. It affects like 15 people, who can sell down. It makes the war shorter, and gives you more time to recover and wait for the SyndIQ divorce to divide and conquer. Simultaneously, its also not worth the effort for anyone because of how little it actually affects anything. Just a waste at this point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sphinx Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 15 minutes ago, Akuryo said: That too. It's honestly not that punitive. It affects like 15 people, who can sell down. It makes the war shorter, and gives you more time to recover and wait for the SyndIQ divorce to divide and conquer. Simultaneously, its also not worth the effort for anyone because of how little it actually affects anything. Just a waste at this point. The VM part isn't that bad and since most of the people got hit anyway so its basically fulfilled. Articles VI-VIII are worse than Article V. Not going to say anything that may jeopardise talks on-going, but I think its pretty clear the outcome of the war was decided weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 12 minutes ago, Sphinx said: The VM part isn't that bad and since most of the people got hit anyway so its basically fulfilled. Articles VI-VIII are worse than Article V. Not going to say anything that may jeopardise talks on-going, but I think its pretty clear the outcome of the war was decided weeks ago. If that's what's considered punitive these days no wonder politics is boring. Everyones too whiny about everything. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, Sphinx said: The VM part isn't that bad and since most of the people got hit anyway so its basically fulfilled. Articles VI-VIII are worse than Article V. Not going to say anything that may jeopardise talks on-going, but I think its pretty clear the outcome of the war was decided weeks ago. Not entirely sure why you'd want a treaty with GoB at this point. So I'd just void the article by saying no treaties exist. Does the trading bot matter that much at this point? I mean you can still counter arrgh... Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 25 minutes ago, Keegoz said: Not entirely sure why you'd want a treaty with GoB at this point. So I'd just void the article by saying no treaties exist. Does the trading bot matter that much at this point? I mean you can still counter arrgh... The complaint about the Arrgh one is TKRs protectors. Even though I’ve personally known from day one that this was expected and that it would be changed if asked because it’s perfectly damned reasonable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sphinx said: The VM part isn't that bad and since most of the people got hit anyway so its basically fulfilled. Articles VI-VIII are worse than Article V. Could you explain how exactly is Article VI terrible/worse than other articles quoted exactly? Edited January 11, 2019 by Shadowthrone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Anarch Caelum Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: Could you explain how exactly is Article VI terrible/worse than other articles quoted exactly? If it’s within the rules (with it being made clear in this thread for everyone it is allowed), I’m sure other alliances with the skills needed are creating or have created their own similar bots. So giving up their bot they’ve put a lot of work into making wouldn’t make much sense in my opinion. So that would probably be the most damaging term for them long term or at least I would think so. The more people make a big deal out of their bot, the more useful it sounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 4 hours ago, Akuryo said: The complaint about the Arrgh one is TKRs protectors. Even though I’ve personally known from day one that this was expected and that it would be changed if asked because it’s perfectly damned reasonable. Yeah, also just like to point out that their protectorates are also pretty dead now. :P Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 This is the equivalent to Neville Chamberlain’s peace in our time Quote "There's nothing you can know that isn't known,Nothing you can see that isn't shown,There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be, All you need is love,Love is all you need." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sphinx Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 6 hours ago, Akuryo said: The complaint about the Arrgh one is TKRs protectors. Even though I’ve personally known from day one that this was expected and that it would be changed if asked because it’s perfectly damned reasonable. They haven't gotten to that one yet. 6 hours ago, Keegoz said: Not entirely sure why you'd want a treaty with GoB at this point. So I'd just void the article by saying no treaties exist. Does the trading bot matter that much at this point? I mean you can still counter arrgh... The consensus is its an attempt to control the FA direction of Grumpy. People from TKR and other alliances aren't happy with Article VI and VIII so until we as a unified front are in agreement the terms cannot be accepted, talks are still on-going so maybe something may result from them soon. But until then the war continues. I'd hope we can at least get to $1 trillion in total damages before the war ends though. 8 hours ago, ComradeMilton said: #14 and falling. You clearly have no concept of what influence is and isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Sphinx said: They haven't gotten to that one yet. The consensus is its an attempt to control the FA direction of Grumpy. People from TKR and other alliances aren't happy with Article VI and VIII so until we as a unified front are in agreement the terms cannot be accepted, talks are still on-going so maybe something may result from them soon. But until then the war continues. I'd hope we can at least get to $1 trillion in total damages before the war ends though. You clearly have no concept of what influence is and isn't. What FA direction. Aren't they supposedly paperless? Seems like an easy answer to me if so. SRD's a charming old bloke i'm sure he can woo some new friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu Xun Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Paperless doesn't exist, except that there's a lot less "legal" ties forcing an alliance to defend its allies. But then again, as TFP shows, an alliance, even when treatied, could ignore or be asked to ignore a MDP pact. In practice, all paperless have relationships, some of which are de facto secret treaties. The paperless commitment basically adds ambiguity, as none of their de facto allies are officially obliged to protect them, and to the casual observer it's unknown who their de facto allies are. It also increases their ability to attack other alliances, as since every war they attack in is a bandwagon, it becomes less of a bandwagon when they engage. I see the GoB treaty term as hypocritical, but enforceable and reasonable. The paperless alliances are basically asking Grumpy to cease being considered a paperless alliance, in effect kicking them out from paperless. Quote . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 2 hours ago, Sphinx said: The consensus is its an attempt to control the FA direction of Grumpy. People from TKR and other alliances aren't happy with Article VI and VIII so until we as a unified front are in agreement the terms cannot be accepted, talks are still on-going so maybe something may result from them soon. But until then the war continues. I'd hope we can at least get to $1 trillion in total damages before the war ends though. It doesn't control their direction, it controls the means in which they do it. If their FA direction depends on hiding their treaties then I suggest you oust them now. Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Hunter Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 6 minutes ago, Inst said: Paperless doesn't exist, except that there's a lot less "legal" ties forcing an alliance to defend its allies. But then again, as TFP shows, an alliance, even when treatied, could ignore or be asked to ignore a MDP pact. In practice, all paperless have relationships, some of which are de facto secret treaties. The paperless commitment basically adds ambiguity, as none of their de facto allies are officially obliged to protect them, and to the casual observer it's unknown who their de facto allies are. It also increases their ability to attack other alliances, as since every war they attack in is a bandwagon, it becomes less of a bandwagon when they engage. I see the GoB treaty term as hypocritical, but enforceable and reasonable. The paperless alliances are basically asking Grumpy to cease being considered a paperless alliance, in effect kicking them out from paperless. Paperless absolutely exists, not sure what you're talking about. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted January 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted January 11, 2019 23 minutes ago, Inst said: Paperless doesn't exist, except that there's a lot less "legal" ties forcing an alliance to defend its allies. But then again, as TFP shows, an alliance, even when treatied, could ignore or be asked to ignore a MDP pact. In practice, all paperless have relationships, some of which are de facto secret treaties. The paperless commitment basically adds ambiguity, as none of their de facto allies are officially obliged to protect them, and to the casual observer it's unknown who their de facto allies are. It also increases their ability to attack other alliances, as since every war they attack in is a bandwagon, it becomes less of a bandwagon when they engage. I see the GoB treaty term as hypocritical, but enforceable and reasonable. The paperless alliances are basically asking Grumpy to cease being considered a paperless alliance, in effect kicking them out from paperless. Paperless does exist. GoB is a form of fake-paperless, the kind with secret treaties. TEst is actual paperless. Yes, they're friendly with t$. However, under Pre's leadership and probably still even now, they'd be friendly towards Guardian as well, who they happen to have blitzed. Paperless alliances are friends with you but not your ally. Everyone in TEst and CoS including leadership likes Guardian, and that fact only made them more happy to be the ones hitting them. A wise man once said, just because they're your friend, doesn't mean you can't fight them. I'd count SK as actual paperless too. Sure, they're not quite like TEst or CoS, their situation came about from their allies disintegrating, and i'm sure they have people they're friendly with. They're not allied to anyone though, nobody is obligated to help them nor they help anyone. The same cannot be said of GoB. So what's really being asked, is for GoB to just be honest and blatant about its treaty situation, to either admit and showcase its treaties or to admit having none saying it is ACTUALLY paperless and then act as if it is so. 7 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.