Will t$ protect their protectorate?

[Thalmor]

45 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Whatever.

I think this post sums up everything. There's been a lot of back and forth this whole war and it seems like to me - someone who doesn't keep up with 'backchannel' talk and who doesn't really know anything - that the entire dialogue can be broke down to KETOG/Chaos/t$ saying 'NPO you're acting shitty and not in good faith' and NPO responding with 'not really but it doesn't matter because we're looking after our interests'.

Correct me if I'm wrong because I've only ever skimmed over half the shit ever said since the war started and maybe I'm only posting cringe but it seems like that's a fairly accurate representation to me.

So I'm curious for myself, @Roquentin, what is your goal? What are you striving for? What does an ideal 'Orbis' look like for NPO? I think I know what my 'side' wants but I don't really know what you want or what your side fights for.

 

[Prefonteen]

2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.

But in seriousness, there's just no reason not expect the same patterns to repeat. We never had any ground rules set out in terms of making minispheres or wars work within that framework. So it all ends up with whoever has the most informal understandings having an edge going in. The whole "we had zero ambitions to act on issues we already had" thing just never really works since it's a giant leap of faith.

It doesn't really matter now since it wasn't desired but that's the thing when we have relationship asymmetry. The people on our side aren't as connected historically.

I've always tried to be as sincere as possible so if people think it's paranoia, it's better than thinking I'm lying  which is to say something false intentionally. Wars have been started on less than anything that's been deemed purely speculative coming from me.

"roq is being paranoid" 

 

 

 

 

Roq: "NO U" 

[Charnel]

13 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

"roq is being paranoid" 

[Charles Bolivar]

20 hours ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

Arken's Law has been reached.

I also love this analogy when it's presented from a Faux Communist Command Economy Alliance with a "everyone else is out to get me" leader mentality.

Where's Snowball, Napoleon? What did you do to him?

This could be the start of something special...

[Shiho Nishizumi]

20 hours ago, Roquentin said:

iirc, the Chaos-KETOG was in talks about how it would end before this war kicked off after. Are you referring to acting based on the screenshots related to nova? The issue was more if you start the war, someone who wants it will want their fill. It doesn't really make a lot of sense for KETOG as a whole if it feels threatened to delay that permanently and he still would have no reason to hit BK as they weren't able to do anything to him.

Who you determine you want to be neutral or friendly is the thing though and the fact that it can stay constant.

What would "he" be referring to?

[Roquentin]

5 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

What would "he" be referring to?

SRD flipping on working with Chaos and that determining your course of action. Your post basically said KETOG didn't peace out with Chaos to hit BK sooner because he didn't feel BK was a big enough deal to end the fighting with Chaos until after the Rainbow screens appeared. I can believe that he didn't care about BK because the Adrienne-Sphinx screens logs also showed that he preferred to focus on CoS. What's hard to believe is a bloc of more than 4 alliances was against peacing out because of one objection. Are you saying that was actually the case?

 

13 hours ago, Thalmor said:

I think this post sums up everything. There's been a lot of back and forth this whole war and it seems like to me - someone who doesn't keep up with 'backchannel' talk and who doesn't really know anything - that the entire dialogue can be broke down to KETOG/Chaos/t$ saying 'NPO you're acting shitty and not in good faith' and NPO responding with 'not really but it doesn't matter because we're looking after our interests'.

Correct me if I'm wrong because I've only ever skimmed over half the shit ever said since the war started and maybe I'm only posting cringe but it seems like that's a fairly accurate representation to me.

So I'm curious for myself, @Roquentin, what is your goal? What are you striving for? What does an ideal 'Orbis' look like for NPO? I think I know what my 'side' wants but I don't really know what you want or what your side fights for.

 

I've mentioned it a few times, but the main thing has been to promote more widespread fighting all around with relatively balanced outcomes. We've been willing to go into wars where it's guaranteed we will take significant damage no matter what. The game had more frequent wars in its first year when there was a more bipolar climate. When one side suffered too much strain from repeated losses, the dynamic broke down which was partly due to the skill gap that the sides had but the one side didn't have a massive numbers advantage to keep it going. Usually for the past 2.5 years, it's been some variant of noobs/casuals vs git gud squad  or just curbstomps on unconnected alliances with Knightfall being a major exception.

After Knightfall, it just seemed like a lot of people were either trying to avoid taking more damage or were trying to get certain types of wars going so they could go back to taking less damage usually. This war offered enough of a opportunity to make sure most major actors were impacted which is why I didn't see it as gamebreaking and I didn't see how people could be asserting the aim of the war was to install our own hegemony when an actual hegemony would be decisively winning the entire time or at least within the first week.

On other hand, people are saying why we don't just drop any pretense of justification and just say we're the villain and try to stop us, but that inherently means everyone else no longer has to worry about their own justifications because someone is being the bad guy for them and there isn't going to be someone else to volunteer if we take on everyone. People don't want to lose the moral standing that embracing the villain role entails and tbh, it's not a cartoon, video game, or movie, it's a persistent game so once you cross the line into being malicious purposefully with no real limit,  it'll be with you forever. Stuff from 10 years ago is still brought up even.

 

[Prefonteen]

3 hours ago, Roquentin said:

SRD flipping on working with Chaos and that determining your course of action. Your post basically said KETOG didn't peace out with Chaos to hit BK sooner because he didn't feel BK was a big enough deal to end the fighting with Chaos until after the Rainbow screens appeared. I can believe that he didn't care about BK because the Adrienne-Sphinx screens logs also showed that he preferred to focus on CoS. What's hard to believe is a bloc of more than 4 alliances was against peacing out because of one objection. Are you saying that was actually the case?

 

I've mentioned it a few times, but the main thing has been to promote more widespread fighting all around with relatively balanced outcomes. We've been willing to go into wars where it's guaranteed we will take significant damage no matter what. The game had more frequent wars in its first year when there was a more bipolar climate. When one side suffered too much strain from repeated losses, the dynamic broke down which was partly due to the skill gap that the sides had but the one side didn't have a massive numbers advantage to keep it going. Usually for the past 2.5 years, it's been some variant of noobs/casuals vs git gud squad  or just curbstomps on unconnected alliances with Knightfall being a major exception.

After Knightfall, it just seemed like a lot of people were either trying to avoid taking more damage or were trying to get certain types of wars going so they could go back to taking less damage usually. This war offered enough of a opportunity to make sure most major actors were impacted which is why I didn't see it as gamebreaking and I didn't see how people could be asserting the aim of the war was to install our own hegemony when an actual hegemony would be decisively winning the entire time or at least within the first week.

On other hand, people are saying why we don't just drop any pretense of justification and just say we're the villain and try to stop us, but that inherently means everyone else no longer has to worry about their own justifications because someone is being the bad guy for them and there isn't going to be someone else to volunteer if we take on everyone. People don't want to lose the moral standing that embracing the villain role entails and tbh, it's not a cartoon, video game, or movie, it's a persistent game so once you cross the line into being malicious purposefully with no real limit,  it'll be with you forever. Stuff from 10 years ago is still brought up even.

 

Don't stop justifying. That's genuine- from an out of this world vantage point we need more leaders willing to argue their political position, however tiring. It's one of the reasons i've always made the time to engage you when we disagree, and one of the reasons why we are still on decent terms outside of the political arena.

With that said, your goals are noble. I just wish you hadn't thrown my alliance under a semitruck to get there. We could've found common ground here (tS' motivations overlap with yours to some varying degree) but your choice of BK as your partner in crime instead of tS sent us on this path we're on now. It's a shame, really.

 

Knifes in my back won't put me down, friend.

[Prefonteen]

On 10/5/2019 at 2:33 AM, Inst said:

The wording is telling, isn't it? Forced. Like, it'd be against your nature to argue for your former treaty partner. Why have a treaty in the first place, then?

 

I am not government anymore, Inst friend. I am just a valiant forum warrior with no ingame skills whatsoever. I apply myself where I am useful for the greater good.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Prefonteen

[Shiho Nishizumi]

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

SRD flipping on working with Chaos and that determining your course of action. Your post basically said KETOG didn't peace out with Chaos to hit BK sooner because he didn't feel BK was a big enough deal to end the fighting with Chaos until after the Rainbow screens appeared. I can believe that he didn't care about BK because the Adrienne-Sphinx screens logs also showed that he preferred to focus on CoS. What's hard to believe is a bloc of more than 4 alliances was against peacing out because of one objection. Are you saying that was actually the case?

Oh, no. The rest of the sphere also had no compelling enough reason to stop the war. I'm pretty sure that TKR and friends would've also preferred if it had gone a bit longer to dish out some extra damage.

[Tiberius]

28 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Oh, no. The rest of the sphere also had no compelling enough reason to stop the war. I'm pretty sure that TKR and friends would've also preferred if it had gone a bit longer to dish out some extra damage.

Maybe, but they decided they preferred hitting BK over continuing Surfs Up.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

18 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Maybe, but they decided they preferred hitting BK over continuing Surfs Up.

I mean who wouldn't? Have you SEEN BK? thicc. Just cause NPO didn't notice don't mean nobody else did.

[Tiberius]

16 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

I mean who wouldn't? Have you SEEN BK? thicc. Just cause NPO didn't notice don't mean nobody else did.

Well I remember this one alliance who preferred peace over hitting BK, I think they were called North Point. Did you hear about them?

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Well I remember this one alliance who preferred peace over hitting BK, I think they were called North Point. Did you hear about them?

Yanno i did! I think what happened is they just felt everybody was starting to get greedy about it yanno like enoughs enoughs right. thicc thighs save lives, the cheeks have been slapped, it's time go back to your island home and practice flying your winged death machines. 

Really, they sound like truly humble and generous people.

[Pasky Darkfire]

47 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Maybe, but they decided they preferred hitting BK over continuing Surfs Up.

"Ohh yeah, They just 'Preferred' to stop this other war to hit BK for no apparent reason. It came as a shock to everyone! Why would CHaoS do such a random thing as to stop that war to hit BK? Definitely has nothing to do with a leak!"

 

[Tiberius]

Just now, Pasky Darkfire said:

"Ohh yeah, They just 'Preferred' to stop this other war to hit BK for no apparent reason. It came as a shock to everyone! Why would CHaoS do such a random thing as to stop that war to hit BK? Definitely has nothing to do with a leak!"

 

I was merely replying to someone who insinuated that TKR would have preferred to keep fighting Surfs Up to inflict more damage. I pointed out that they obviously preferred hitting BK more because that's the option they chose. I'm not here to argue the reasons why, that's been done to death. 

[Pasky Darkfire]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I was merely replying to someone who insinuated that TKR would have preferred to keep fighting Surfs Up to inflict more damage. I pointed out that they obviously preferred hitting BK more because that's the option they chose. I'm not here to argue the reasons why, that's been done to death. 

As someone not in TKR but in CHaOs, I can affirm that I would have much preferred to keep hitting Kettogg because frick roughly 88% of those guys. But you can't ignore the reason.

Plus. Like Akuryo said.

They were T H I C C C and obviously wanted it.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Pasky Darkfire

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

As someone not in TKR but in CHaOs, I can affirm that I would have much preferred to keep hitting Kettogg because frick roughly 88% of those guys. But you can't ignore the reason.

Plus. Like Akuryo said.

They were T H I C C C and obviously wanted it.

Actions speak louder than words. 

[Pasky Darkfire]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Actions speak louder than words. 

Coming from an NPO Prawn, that's hilarious.

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

Coming from an NPO Prawn, that's hilarious.

[Pasky Darkfire]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

That doesn't make any sense in the context of the conversation going on. But I'll bite.

Please inform me of an alliance who has said one thing and then done another as much as NPO has in the last 3-4 months.



I mean. Definitely nothing against you personally. Your banter is entertaining and makes me laugh. Probably could be good friends when this is over.

But your government makes me question if they understand the words coming out of their own mouths most of the time.

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

That doesn't make any sense in the context of the conversation going on. But I'll bite.

Please inform me of an alliance who has said one thing and then done another as much as NPO has in the last 3-4 months.



I mean. Definitely nothing against you personally. Your banter is entertaining and makes me laugh. Probably could be good friends when this is over.

But your government makes me question if they understand the words coming out of their own mouths most of the time.

The context was in the need to stoop to an insult because you didn't have anything else to reply back to  

I mean the only thing that fit's "said one thing and then done another" is the engagement rules t$ posted, and the explanations for that don't really make it a clear cut case in my opinion.  I don't particularly take much notice of the politics on a whole so I do not have any other sources to compare against and I am not dredging through the OWF to look lol  

[alyster]

17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The context was in the need to stoop to an insult because you didn't have anything else to reply back to  

I mean the only thing that fit's "said one thing and then done another" is the engagement rules t$ posted, and the explanations for that don't really make it a clear cut case in my opinion.  I don't particularly take much notice of the politics on a whole so I do not have any other sources to compare against and I am not dredging through the OWF to look lol  

Lets not lose focus and derail the topic from the key thing. NPO is an awful ally who is in  love with BK. 

Just saying to get you guys back on track. 

[Pasky Darkfire]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

The context was in the need to stoop to an insult because you didn't have anything else to reply back to  

I mean the only thing that fit's "said one thing and then done another" is the engagement rules t$ posted, and the explanations for that don't really make it a clear cut case in my opinion.  I don't particularly take much notice of the politics on a whole so I do not have any other sources to compare against and I am not dredging through the OWF to look lol  

Ohoo! Well Played. lmao. Good strategy.

So this is just one thing I noticed a lot of. NPO gov has lambasted and blasted TKR, CHaoS as a whole, and Kettogg for maintaining miniscule-civil relations with one another without having paper ties. I've had a couple NPO people tell me that "If you have such good relations with someone, you should just have a treaty and get it over with." When I brought up "Then why didn't you just say screw everyone else and keep your paper tie to BK?" I get downvoted. And I never got a real response, I feel. I think the response I got was somewhere along the lines of "We had a backroom deal with people to prevent yada yada yada." What they're shitting on others for is exactly what they are doing/did. NPO maintained good relations with BK, so good, in fact, that they were willing to come to their defense when they thought BK was going to lose the war, without any actual paper ties.

The original t$ thing is another one, and then the new t$ thing is I guess an extension of the first one but still technically a new one.

And I'm with you on not dredging the OWF. If I want to read the same circular argument over and over again, I'll just go make another thread and title it something along the lines of "NPO <Insert generic question here>"

[Prefonteen]

18 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The context was in the need to stoop to an insult because you didn't have anything else to reply back to  

I mean the only thing that fit's "said one thing and then done another" is the engagement rules t$ posted, and the explanations for that don't really make it a clear cut case in my opinion.  I don't particularly take much notice of the politics on a whole so I do not have any other sources to compare against and I am not dredging through the OWF to look lol  

So your only source is NPO gov?

 

Dismissed.

[Tiberius]

29 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

So your only source is NPO gov?

 

Dismissed.

Roq is my wisdom and voice. 

The Order is always right.