Blatantly Self-Serving War suggestion Volume 2

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

So we can agree that I've never said it. It's just the usual salt found on both sides of any conflict.

By "you" I was referring to your coalition. 

[WISD0MTREE]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

By "you" I was referring to your coalition. 

I must've missed that official statement somewhere.

[ComradeMilton]

On 7/17/2019 at 12:10 AM, Sir Scarfalot said:

In their alliance affairs section, there's 2 threads that have been posted in this week.

Active alliance section. Doesn't sound dead to me. (You really just exaggerated the activity of CN and are for some reason continuing to argue as if it'll change someone's opinion and you keep posting things confirming CN is not dead.

On 7/17/2019 at 12:39 AM, WISD0MTREE said:

Alright, let's use what you meant.

For simplicity, let's assume PaW has been around for 4 years. If CN has been around for 50% time than PaW, 1.5*4=6. Therefore, it is safe to say that PaW has been around 4 of the 6 years CN has been around. 4 of 6 can be represented by the fraction 4/6. I stand by my statement that PaW has been around for a fraction of the time CN has.

That's usually not how that saying is used because any two numbers can generally be turned into a fraction.

[Sir Scarfalot]

1 minute ago, ComradeMilton said:

Active alliance section. Doesn't sound dead to me. (You really just exaggerated the activity of CN and are for some reason continuing to argue as if it'll change someone's opinion and you keep posting things confirming CN is not dead.

That's usually not how that saying is used because any two numbers can generally be turned into a fraction.

"It should come as no surprise to whatever viewers remain out there, that stagnation on Bob is endemic. Almost all alliances have shown a continuous downward trend in overall strength and technological capacity on account of most leaders being too bored to rule their people."

What possible interpretation of that statement conflicts with "It's dead, Jim"? If you're willing to maintain your objectively false opinion in the face of conclusive proof to the contrary, then you're just not acting sapient. There's no reason to bother arguing with a brick, so that's the last I'll say on the matter.

[ComradeMilton]

2 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

What possible interpretation of that statement conflicts with "It's dead, Jim"? If you're willing to maintain your objectively false opinion in the face of conclusive proof to the contrary, then you're just not acting sapient. There's no reason to bother arguing with a brick, so that's the last I'll say on the matter.

The remaining active players and server indicate it is not dead.  It might be correct to characterize it as almost dead, but it is certainly not dead.

[ComradeMilton]

21 hours ago, CandyShi said:

Alright let's use other examples of games considered dead.

Dead. No players remaining. Corporate servers no longer online. No further development of the game clients.

[WISD0MTREE]

On 7/18/2019 at 8:23 PM, ComradeMilton said:

That's usually not how that saying is used because any two numbers can generally be turned into a fraction.

It may be different from wherever you're from, but that's common use where I'm from.