Great Ukraine Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 All participants of Endgame at 10:09 AM (Eastern Time), 2019-06-21 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Adrienne Posted June 26, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted June 26, 2019 I can't comment on the other thread anymore so I'm addressing your concerns here on a related thread, @Dio Brando. Quote I've replied to this here, but I will reiterate regardless. The viewpoint that IQ had not split was something your bloc members and your alliance was spouting before Surf's Up, or T$/NPO entry in Dial Up was ever a thing. The major rallying cause you referenced was that we were a "threat to the game". That by itself demands that we are thinking of IQ not just as a bloc but a grouping of alliances you deem strong enough to label a game-level threat. My alliance was spouting this? I told Marina, your FA head, over a week before you blitzed that I believed the split was real and I reiterated this publicly on the OWF the day before you hit, along with my belief that you intended to keep the conflicts separate, as did Manthrax. My members and gov can have their opinions and viewpoints but the final decisions come down to me, same as with your alliance, by my understanding. NPO's CB, as expressed by you, is predicated on us believing you and BK were one and the same and we didn't. It doesn't matter that you were part of IQ because IQ isn't supposed to exist anymore and our goals in that discussion were against IQ as a whole, not NPO individually, which is what I was trying to express. Regardless, the discussion over these logs is irrelevant because your leader doesn't even reference these logs. You have two different CBs. It cites more recent events, of which there is no evidence beyond an anonymous log you claim belongs to a gov member of mine but, in keeping it anonymous, haven't even given us a chance to dispute it. Also, like I said before, I can show you log after log of me/my gov, in our internals, in our bloc internals, in our coalition channels saying we were against entering against you because we believed you were separate. I don't know who your source is but they are definitely misinformed. 9 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Roquentin Posted June 27, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 27, 2019 11 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said: I can't comment on the other thread anymore so I'm addressing your concerns here on a related thread, @Dio Brando. My alliance was spouting this? I told Marina, your FA head, over a week before you blitzed that I believed the split was real and I reiterated this publicly on the OWF the day before you hit, along with my belief that you intended to keep the conflicts separate, as did Manthrax. My members and gov can have their opinions and viewpoints but the final decisions come down to me, same as with your alliance, by my understanding. NPO's CB, as expressed by you, is predicated on us believing you and BK were one and the same and we didn't. It doesn't matter that you were part of IQ because IQ isn't supposed to exist anymore and our goals in that discussion were against IQ as a whole, not NPO individually, which is what I was trying to express. Regardless, the discussion over these logs is irrelevant because your leader doesn't even reference these logs. You have two different CBs. It cites more recent events, of which there is no evidence beyond an anonymous log you claim belongs to a gov member of mine but, in keeping it anonymous, haven't even given us a chance to dispute it. Also, like I said before, I can show you log after log of me/my gov, in our internals, in our bloc internals, in our coalition channels saying we were against entering against you because we believed you were separate. I don't know who your source is but they are definitely misinformed. Well maybe your tone in that conversation conveyed something else since it was a similar impression that was corraborated by someone else who talked with you and it's very different from what you're saying. It depends on whether the source wishes to out themselves. I think I have a decent track record here of there being at least something behind the stuff I claim and not just making it up especially in these situations. Usually when someone relays information out of concern for the would-be attacked party, it's not necessarily to injure the plotter in question. This is sort of the dilemma whenever someone informs someone else of their intent that can harm a friend of the informed party. In ToT, it was kept quiet and I took the heat. In AC it came out and there were equally negative consequences. So it's essentially a lose-lose. They could like both sides and it puts them in a difficult position. I know for a fact that they would have next to zero motive to implicate TKR in anything false. 4 1 2 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Adrienne Posted June 27, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted June 27, 2019 3 hours ago, Roquentin said: Well maybe your tone in that conversation conveyed something else since it was a similar impression that was corraborated by someone else who talked with you and it's very different from what you're saying. It depends on whether the source wishes to out themselves. I think I have a decent track record here of there being at least something behind the stuff I claim and not just making it up especially in these situations. Usually when someone relays information out of concern for the would-be attacked party, it's not necessarily to injure the plotter in question. This is sort of the dilemma whenever someone informs someone else of their intent that can harm a friend of the informed party. In ToT, it was kept quiet and I took the heat. In AC it came out and there were equally negative consequences. So it's essentially a lose-lose. They could like both sides and it puts them in a difficult position. I know for a fact that they would have next to zero motive to implicate TKR in anything false. I have no reason to believe you, having heard some of the spins placed by you on other conversations I've had with people who supposedly have no motive to implicate my alliance in anything false. 1 2 12 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sketchy Posted June 27, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 27, 2019 5 hours ago, Roquentin said: I think I have a decent track record here of there being at least something behind the stuff I claim Lolololololololololololololololololol  3 8 8 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Emperor Adam Posted June 27, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 27, 2019 6 hours ago, Roquentin said: Well maybe your tone in that conversation conveyed something else since it was a similar impression that was corraborated by someone else who talked with you and it's very different from what you're saying. It depends on whether the source wishes to out themselves. I think I have a decent track record here of there being at least something behind the stuff I claim and not just making it up especially in these situations. Usually when someone relays information out of concern for the would-be attacked party, it's not necessarily to injure the plotter in question. This is sort of the dilemma whenever someone informs someone else of their intent that can harm a friend of the informed party. In ToT, it was kept quiet and I took the heat. In AC it came out and there were equally negative consequences. So it's essentially a lose-lose. They could like both sides and it puts them in a difficult position. I know for a fact that they would have next to zero motive to implicate TKR in anything false. This may be the best joke made all war, props for your skill in comedy. 9 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 4 hours ago, Sketchy said: Lolololololololololololololololololol  I'm gonna quote this just to say lol more because wow, whew, WHEW. Can you bottle that, Roq? I find its total lack of fidelity strangely refreshing.   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...
Roquentin Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 (edited) 21 hours ago, Sketchy said: Lolololololololololololololololololol    16 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said: I'm gonna quote this just to say lol more because wow, whew, WHEW. Can you bottle that, Roq? I find its total lack of fidelity strangely refreshing.   Oh wow. Sketchy and Manthrax and their entire respective friend groups dislike me and call me a liar? That's really new to me. Not like it has been the case for the past 3 year or so years. Edited June 28, 2019 by Roquentin 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hope Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Roquentin said:   Oh wow. Sketchy and Manthrax and their entire respective friend groups dislike me and call me a liar? That's really new to me. Not like it has been the case for the past 3 year or so years. pot meet kettle 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Roquentin said:   Oh wow. Sketchy and Manthrax and their entire respective friend groups dislike me and call me a liar? That's really new to me. Not like it has been the case for the past 3 year or so years. TBF, you lie a lot, so it makes sense to call you a liar. If they called you something inaccurate, like a good leader, you would have a reason to be upset. 3 Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, durmij said: TBF, you lie a lot, so it makes sense to call you a liar. If they called you something inaccurate, like a good leader, you would have a reason to be upset. Oh man. Look who's back. That other guy who's always shit on me and is in a hostile bloc who unironically championed the philosophy of "if you can't beat em join em" and now is part of a side decrying hegemony. Durmij is a totally impartial and not full of shit party and a true paragon of excellence and virtue. Edited June 28, 2019 by Roquentin 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 On 6/27/2019 at 8:27 AM, Nizam Adrienne said: I have no reason to believe you, having heard some of the spins placed by you on other conversations I've had with people who supposedly have no motive to implicate my alliance in anything false. Were you privy to the forum post where he argued that us critiquing his econ policy was just an excuse to inflict more damages? We were arguing that they should go to 1500 infra after a war, and they said that they would just lose it when they got rolled. We did the math and the extra 200 infra pays it's self off in under a month on commerce alone, nvm the slots. But nope. Got the same tone argument you did, which is what reminded me. Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, durmij said: Were you privy to the forum post where he argued that us critiquing his econ policy was just an excuse to inflict more damages? We were arguing that they should go to 1500 infra after a war, and they said that they would just lose it when they got rolled. We did the math and the extra 200 infra pays it's self off in under a month on commerce alone, nvm the slots. But nope. Got the same tone argument you did, which is what reminded me. You do realize that was at a time when people threatened to raid us regularly, when our treasure would get stolen by default because people knew we were isolated, and it was a real possibility they would constantly hit us or hire people to hit us if it would be worth it? This all while you were enjoying the safe comforts of the unipolarity you helped establish. So you suggest a huge capital expenditure for us at a time when we had severely limited capital and had to pay reps? How does that make sense? Have I ever done those low infra levels since ToT? Nope. Because I've had a measure of security for those periods. You've been attacking me since you became leader of Rose and probably before, so you have zero credibility here. Edited June 28, 2019 by Roquentin 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post durmij Posted June 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2019 8 minutes ago, Roquentin said: Oh man. Look who's back. That other guy who's always shit on me and is in a hostile bloc who unironically championed the philosophy of "if you can't beat em join em" and now is part of a side decrying hegemony. A totally impartial and not full of shit party and a true paragon of excellence and virtue. I wouldn't shit on you if you weren't so bad. And, for the umpteenth time, I signed Mensa because I liked Buo et al. I despise real politik and always have. Which is just one of the main reasons I think you're a horrible player. For perspective, Partisan insulted me to my face while thinking I was too stupid to pick up on it, lied to me, arranged to get my alliance rolled because he didn't like my honest FA style, then ran like a coward into NK when he got caught. And I still don't bear him any ill will because he didn't expect any pity party after the fall out and eventually copped to it. You are the architect of the isolation you and by extension NPO endure. Your paranoia and perpetual victim-hood fuel this. People have been trying to get you to change your ways for years, carrot and stick approaches. But nothings going to change unless you want it to, and you do the work. 2 6 Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 6 minutes ago, Roquentin said: You do realize that was at a time when people threatened to raid us regularly, when our treasure would get stolen by default because people knew we were isolated, and it was a real possibility they would constantly hit us or hire people to hit us if it would be worth it? This all while you were enjoying the safe comforts of the unipolarity you helped establish. So you suggest a huge capital expenditure for us at a time when we had severely limited capital and had to pay reps? How does that make sense? Have I ever done those low infra levels since ToT? Nope. Because I've had a measure of security for those periods. You've been attacking me since you became leader of Rose and probably before, so you have zero credibility here. You do realize that those "safe comforts" started out with a scheme to eat alliances out from under Rose and implode us for good so we could be cannibalized into a new bloc? And that Mensa has said, through many people, that if they thought we were just looking for safety, they wouldn't have signed us. I really hate the whole "You have an investment so you're argument doesn't count" angle. It is literally a non-argument that can be applied to anyone at any time. It just as much applies to you and your baggage. And since you want confirmation of a timeline, yeah, I disliked your in-game conduct before I assumed leadership. Silent War pushed it over the edge and I have yet to see one redeeming act from you our the alliance you have near complete control over. Again, this scenario is mostly of your own making. You want it to change, then change. People believed the IQ split up and gave you the benefit of the doubt, and you fell back into old patterns and made everything about yourself again. Not even about NPO, but you. If you don't want to be back here in 6 months doing the same song and dance, you need to change. Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 Do we need to get a room for you two? you can cut the sexual tension with a knife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasky Darkfire Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 Guys, stop. Otherwise we're going to get another thread locked and another message from Alex about unity and being nice to one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said: Guys, stop. Otherwise we're going to get another thread locked and another message from Alex about unity and being nice to one another. Edit- Struck my joke cuz it was a little too over the top, though accurate. Edited June 28, 2019 by durmij Self moderation Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooper_ Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Roquentin said: Durmij is a totally impartial and not full of shit party and a true paragon of excellence and virtue. Uh oh here we go again... Syndisphere, assemble! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 I don't intend to shit on you personally, Roq. And I think you're a very good leader, actually: the measure of a leader is if they represent their community, so my own opinions on your play style are totally irrelevant. However, you have a nasty habit of deliberately pushing false narratives against my friends. People I know to be earnest, and not playing the game in the same way as you. When you do that, I'm going to push back, and I don't feel at all wrong to do it. Sorry: you don't get to act like a victim when declaring an aggressive war on TKR, again, for flimsy reasoning without me both trying to slap down your alliance, and your narrative. That's the whole game. Â 3 Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. Â ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 Since it keeps going back to a few things, I'll post something to try to tone down the animosity and vilification: 1. I really don't like being dishonest or saying things I don't believe. I posted the DoW even though I typically don't post them and prefer joke DoWs to avoid it being tS breaking their own rules since they felt strongly on the subject. 2. This chain of events goes back to last year with a discussion between myself, Prefontaine, and Partisan. The idea of tS-NPO sphere was proposed with both alliances cancelling all their treaties. This would be a balanced thing as it wouldn't necessarily disadvantage other alliances. With the lead-up to AC involving a lot of criticism towards BK for being allied to NPO and people attacking them and their allies in vulnerable tiers starting with tJest, I thought it would give us a way to end that dynamic, aid in pursuing some other golas, and BK would be able to pursue their goals of getting bigger. We would no longer be a liability for them and it would avoid  This was never fully fleshed out and I had no clue it was given out beyond the three. It was also never specified that I had to start hating BK or that we'd never be able to be on the same side of a war. 3. Partisan disappeared and tS was less interested in the total cancellation and we hesitated when we found out other people have a stake in it and that they feel shunted because it didn't happen at x point when they wanted it to happen. Prefontaine had also retired and one of his biggest qualities is that he's willing to do things that are unpopular in terms of public opinion and had ambitions most people didn't have so an effective guarantor was now missing. The motives of many interested parties seemed questionable and Chaos bloc formed and we bring up a variety of concerns about CoS/SK. Eventually a deal is reached way later on and it was that if two spheres combined in a war, we unite with the one harmed in a war. Various war proposals to test out the sphere concept were  made with one of them is an independent war on KETOG in which there's to be limited animosity and the people in Syndicate/etc. who have issues with them can box it out and deal with them along with addressing the upper tier issue. This was not meant to be a follow up to any other war or done as a support action. There were events in between that like the Alpha thing that could have stimulated the idea of a joint war, but it was not the intention of the sphere to do it as some sort of long-term powerplay. Then the KETOG-Chaos war happened, which was odd since until then the apparent intention of KETOG was to pursue a bigger war. The redefined position that  if it ended and everyone rebuilt, we would only hit relatively unharmed big nations to avoid harming those who had rebuilt to normal levels. 4. Sphinx leak happens and war starts. Questions about previous shelved plan are brought up even though Kayser disappeared and his last stated had been about the limited war. I deflect a bit. Initially, I think Cov/BK should be able to stalemate it so I'm not particularly adamant about intervention outside of just figuring out a way to provide some form of war within the 3-6 months time table post-Knightfall I had hoped to be on schedule with. However, we are eventually informed that Adrienne is upset and what they got from their conversations with her was that she would be relying on tS keeping us out,   wanted to lock down BK first and then swing in our direction. The initial dec from tS happened and there was a lot of anger. It's possible she told them that out of anger but with every passing day, the situation was deteriorating and a coalition of angry people with low infra and high air was staring us down, there was constant rhetoric about us plotting, having a chokehold on the game, and so on. It's a coalition of the most well-connected and powerful, individuals in the game's history mowing down a coalition of perpetual beat down targets, inexperienced alliances, and some alliances where it's mostly noobs. It has had no indications of stopping. For us, this necessitated taking action because it became a major liability to have that unstoppable momentum continue. I've conveyed my opinions on the potence of these informal arrangements some of the alliances have each other and the personal ties many do. tl;dr IQ splitting doesn't mean we can't intervene if it happens to put us on the same side as BK and does not constitute a reconstitution of IQ. KETOG/Rose/Chaos combined is super potent so if someone's angry and the coalition has momentum it's a huge problem for us as the odd man out if they can definitely beat down/lock down the other side.  1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 4 hours ago, Roquentin said: Oh man. Look who's back. That other guy who's always shit on me and is in a hostile bloc who unironically championed the philosophy of "if you can't beat em join em" and now is part of a side decrying hegemony. Durmij is a totally impartial and not full of shit party and a true paragon of excellence and virtue. If I remember correctly, part of the reason they left, beyond simply getting bored of the dynamic they were stuck in, was to get some material help from Mensa on rebuilding their war prowess as an alliance. Or something to that effect. Considering they went from the but of most PW jokes with inactive members and single digit blitzes, to one of the most effective milcoms in the game, I'd say they made a good choice. Especially when most alliances that have changed in quality have done so in the other direction. If I also recall correctly, there wasn't supposed to be two sides in the silent war, when ostensibly paracov broke up and they were just joining back for a one off war while feeling threatened. If that is the case, they didn't even have a side to leave. Except VE's I guess as they were still allied. Quote Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Mikey Posted June 28, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Roquentin said: Eventually a deal is reached way later on and it was that if two spheres combined in a war, we unite with the one harmed in a war. So, this little line sounds a lot like the collusion/consolidation everyone is blaming you for. The most cursory of glances at the treaty web will reveal the vast disparity between your two spheres and ours. Chaos or KETOGG alone vs either of your spheres would be utterly crushed. Hence why KETOG apparently came to you guys seeking support in a war against BK (unless I am misreading some of your earlier posts, and I might well be). The only way for either smaller sphere to fight against the larger ones, defensively or offensively, would be to work together. So your agreement to prevent any two spheres from cooperating, is basically an agreement that either of you can pick off whichever smaller sphere you want with impunity - because a 1v1 with either of you vs Chaos or KETOGG would, by the numbers, be a blowout - but if the little guys ever have the audacity to work together to defend themselves, you'll get the gang back together to stomp them into the ground. I suppose I can see why you claim to have truly supported the 'mini-sphere' world, if you define that as two mini IQs taking turns to stomp smaller alliances with impunity. Edited June 28, 2019 by Mikey 12 Quote Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Mikey said: If I remember correctly, part of the reason they left, beyond simply getting bored of the dynamic they were stuck in, was to get some material help from Mensa on rebuilding their war prowess as an alliance. Or something to that effect. Considering they went from the but of most PW jokes with inactive members and single digit blitzes, to one of the most effective milcoms in the game, I'd say they made a good choice. Especially when most alliances that have changed in quality have done so in the other direction. If I also recall correctly, there wasn't supposed to be two sides in the silent war, when ostensibly paracov broke up and they were just joining back for a one off war while feeling threatened. If that is the case, they didn't even have a side to leave. Except VE's I guess as they were still allied. The point of the break up they did was because Syndisphere was supposed to recipocrate. Syndisphere didn't have an intention to recipocrate. Joining contradicts the purpose of breaking up one side. I think Rose's homegrown talents like DtC are to be credited more with war prowess than outside intervention. It's also difficult to get good at war by joining an overwhelmingly large side. They also didn't have single digit blitzes before that. You're thinking of VE. My criticism of durmij is his friendship narrative doesn't really translate into tangible stuff. It only enlarged and consolidated a dominant grouping and he continued doing so before Trail of Tiers and after. So when the main criticism of other people is now consolidation, it's a huge problem for him to throw that stuff out. I can get his perspective where always being conciliatory to your enemies is way better than pushing back on the OWF, but the main purpose isn't to win enemies over especially in cases where they'll have many deep-seated personal issues, it's to offer a counter-narrative so no one side dominates the discourse. He doesn't see that as desirable while it's the reason I post at all. 1 1 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.