Jump to content

Let the trolling commence.....


DemonSpawn
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Uhhh yeah, good luck with the rebuild.

 

I wouldn't mind an explanation on exactly why your government went into this war, and what you were hoping to get from it. Perhaps that is just me?

We went into this war because Ketog declared on us. Not entering the war wasn't exactly an option.....

7 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

 

 

Edited by Filmore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Uhhh yeah, good luck with the rebuild.

 

I wouldn't mind an explanation on exactly why your government went into this war, and what you were hoping to get from it. Perhaps that is just me?

Did they enter or attacked due to being complicit in those leaked logs? Anyways from what Elijah said in another thread, that plan was related to Soup poaching from FR. 

So think they had no choice, although hard to keep up.

Good luck to FR on the rebuilding.

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Filmore said:

We went into this war because Ketog declared on us. Not entering the war wasn't exactly an option.....

We went into this war because Ketog declared on us. Not entering the war wasn't exactly an option.....

Thanks for the reply. I made an edit because my question was (apparently) unclear. You had agreed to hit our allies in the TCW leak. Everything past that was just gravity. That is what I meant.

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Isjaki said:

We went in to defend FR since FR invoked the ODP. I wonder what's so difficult to digest about an alliance actually honouring it's treaty obligations rather than dropping their protectors when being hit hard and stuff like that. 

ODP aka Optional Defense Pact

I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Skittles said:

ODP aka Optional Defense Pact

You wouldn't be saying the same after sitting out and being dogpiled on Knightfall. We would rather kill stuff tha let stuff kill us.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Isjaki said:

You wouldn't be saying the same after sitting out and being dogpiled on Knightfall. We would rather kill stuff tha let stuff kill us.

Iirc, TFP was ultimately the ones that got themselves rolled in that war, as in, it could have been avoided had they played by the rules given to them.

I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Don’t think people should be to hard on TFP for honoring a treaty, some alliances take ODPs more serious than others & that’s not always a bad thing. TFP got wrecked for it.

It's a little situational. When it's "defending" an optional ally that is being hit because they signed off on an aggressive war plan they did not initially tell TFP about, I'd have told them to buzz off, probably.

  • Upvote 5

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Skittles said:

Iirc, TFP was ultimately the ones that got themselves rolled in that war, as in, it could have been avoided had they played by the rules given to them.

I'm curious what 'rules' are you talking about? Ghosting? There are no children here, my friend, let's admit it already that TFP got hit for fun. And thus, we preferred to go to the war rather than let the war come to us. And I still don't get the point you are trying to make.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

It's a little situational. When it's "defending" an optional ally that is being hit because they signed off on an aggressive war plan they did not initially tell TFP about, I'd have told them to buzz off, probably.

Probably, but always the chance you’d back them anyways. :P

Edit: Although if Rose wants nothing to do with FR, cutting it might make sense if TFP still has loyalty to them. Although I can just understand the TFP POV of honoring a treaty activation request when asked as well.

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Don’t think people should be to hard on TFP for honoring a treaty, some alliances take ODPs more serious than others & that’s not always a bad thing. TFP got wrecked for it.

Why not? They signed off to defend someone who is technically the aggressor, and flying in the face of their two other allies, who are willingly aiding the side which are technically the defenders. 

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Spaceman Thrax Tbf we did have some extensive communication with TFP as they entered the war.  We were quite annoyed with their reasoning upon entering the war, but from entry to exit they've been transparent and straightforward about their intents and justifications.  I can respect that, and it's a lot more than we can expect from some of our other enemies.

 

@Quichwe10@Alfred the Great You guys are great, and I hope you enjoy this hard-fought peace.  Congratulations!

 

Edited by Cooper_
Added text
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

It's a little situational. When it's "defending" an optional ally that is being hit because they signed off on an aggressive war plan they did not initially tell TFP about, I'd have told them to buzz off, probably.

I'll engage in this because I've been bored not participating in OWF drama and this is vague enough to not be "picking a side."

This whole argument is made under the assumption that an alliance takes the contract that is a treaty seriously and not as a superfluous document that can be scrapped at convenience.

 

I personally feel that the exact reasoning you're expressing disdain for TFP's actions are the reason why Optional treaties should honestly be the norm. TFP doesn't have a contractual obligation to hide behind, they have to own their actions and to their credit they're doing just that. It also opens the door for other people to hold them accountable for their actions. Every Optional pact that gets activated is a debatable, and more importantly engageable, action. In other words, every time someone utilizes an Optional pact it creates an event from which metagame politics can be derived. Which I believe is healthy for the community and the game.

It can also be said that the concept of Mutual (ie. binding) treaties is an inherently sovereignty-infringing pact. Someone else screws up and gets hit? If it's an Optional pact, you now have contractual reason to sit this one out and any argument is now centered around your actions. If your mutual ally got hit and you don't want to be involved? It's now an argument centered around contractual obligation rather than any actual action or reasoning. You lose face if you dishonour a Mutual pact, and the contractual obligation chains you into a much greater world than any one nation ever signed up to defend. Allies of allies of allies can hypothetically pull you into a global war where you get rocked and never recover. Not to mention political ramifications when your mutual partners are doing things you or your other friends disagree with.

I know the norm around here is to say Optional pacts don't matter and shouldn't even bother being signed, but honestly I feel the exact opposite. I think mutual pacts are bad for the game because they remove sovereignty and accountability for the individual alliances and I think they create more problems than people think they solve (typically being able to defend yourself).

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clear some whatevers up, yes, we entered the war because FR invoked the treaty. Not Rose or Ming.

Mostly, I agreed on it to give our guys some more experience and to get some sense into their heads. Knightfall was a complete and utter failure, with us losing over half of our member base, going from 120 guys to 50.

Now, we have a solid core of 60 members who are willing to fight. And look, we've only had 1 leave/reroll/delete.

Of course, we're TFP, so our performance was probably pretty bad in the eyes of others. Eh, I don't care. I say that on my nation description. I think it was a good idea on the terms of getting experience, seeing what our core is and where to go next. I didn't want it to be like Knightfall where both sides kept us on the fence and neutral until there was no one to protect us, and we got steamrolled. If Rose and Ming drop us, oof. We were only doing what we were supposed to do. But we'll accept it, since we'll have 1 side to join and no debates on it. I think it'll make it easier for TFP to go forward.

tl;dr pixelhuggers suck. Have a cookie.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were declining and joined in expecting what? A morale boost? 

 

Welp, good luck on your rebuild, you'll need it. 

 

I am aware we hit you, but you asked this upon yourself by agreeing to hit Soup. Good job FR, you played yourself.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Gatorcock
Posted the remix, closed the page so enjoy the remixed version.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't want to quote stuff

TFP just honor treaties that allow them to participate in dogpiles

Nonetheless, TFPs blitz was far better than rest of IQs, including NPOs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ShadyAssassin said:

Don't want to quote stuff

TFP just honor treaties that allow them to participate in dogpiles

Nonetheless, TFPs blitz was far better than rest of IQs, including NPOs

Experience from AC has taught us that you can never have enough dogs dogpiling on KT-TGH.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Keegoz said:

Good luck with the rebuild.

Also inb4 Another Bites the Dust

If four alliances surrendered, do I have to listen to the song four times over?

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Avakael said:

If four alliances surrendered, do I have to listen to the song four times over?

Yes. Another Bites the Dust must follow a cessation of conflict by one faction.

It's heresy otherwise and the God-Emperor of the Imperium of Man will personally pass through a wormhole to smite Orbis to dust.

Edited by Kerbollo
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Attempting to contact Kerbin since 1983 (in-game)...

Hey, have anyone seen those fireworks? What do you mean, Jeb had them strapped to SRBs?

Discord: Ray3501#0305. I frequent the SK Network discord (duh).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Avakael said:

If four alliances surrendered, do I have to listen to the song four times over?

Any excuse to listen to it, so yes.

[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

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...
 Share

  • 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.