Jump to content

peace talks


Utter Nutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

It's wall or nothing my friend :P but oh boy here it comes.

I don't see anything here beyond conjecture and circumstantial evidence at best if anything at all.  If you really want to know how we chose the alliances we did, then it's quite simple.

1) We gave our members a survey on their impressions of alliances in Orbis because culture is one of the most important points of any treaty as you probably know.

2) We talked with lots of different alliances and found a few major options.

3) We discussed our goals, and came to the previously stated conclusions 

I almost fear responding to your points because it is creating a false equivalency between the facts that have been proven with logs, our declaration of existence and the people who actually have knowledge of our internal affairs versus your characterization (that is quite likely biased) of our alliances and taking more out of logs than is there.  I don't doubt your ability to intuit, but I do doubt your ability to objectively analyze the facts (at least in your public statements).  I mean, using your form of logic, I can rationalize Chaos as being formed to hit BK, KETOGG as a vehicle to hit Chaos, and citadel as a bloc formed to hit Camelot.  There really isn't too much water in this argument especially when we try to generalize it to similar structures and find that the main theme here is a shared FA goal.  KETOGG wished to maintain independence, Chaos wanted to create chaos and "press reset" as kev said (not some notion of revanchism nor depoliticization), citadel wanted to try something new among some of the smaller/medium-sized alliances.  Also, a question here on the "IQ as a generic thing."  If we weren't just focused on IQ, how come you have no evidence of our plans against NPO post-IQ breakup?  I mean sure there are out-of-context logs and banter, but there are no plans.  That seems to be a major flaw in that argument besides the fact that it wasn't even based in facts in the first place

In the context of transparency, you can look at our bloc declaration.  I have to yet to see us act against those philosophies.

iirc it was CoS inviting you not it being based on a survey.  CoS butted heads with other alliances in the prior war. CoS signs TKR who has tensions with those same alliances. See the picture? Why would KETOG be a vehicle to hit Chaos? I've known that it was in the works for a while and that Chaos wasn't typically seen as their primary rival. Citadel is a different thing all together since it was more like a way to not get chained into wars from what I can tell. 

Chaos had tensions with alliances and specific grievances which have been cited. The whole "delightiing in players leaving", the Valinor raid, etc. There's enough tension with the actual alliances where it would make sense. I mean, it was denied by Ripper after but Manthrax said before that Chaos was in part a reaction to perceived excesses by certain people.

 

 

Quote

If niz didn't communicate that to you, then yes that is something we can work on, but I also posit that you most likely didn't listen (or didn't want to listen) to what she was saying.  Also, we both know that Mitsu, Lordship and Smith getting rightfully annoyed at you and T$' games wasn't a buildup to anything you hadn't already engaged.  Chaos is the last bloc you should list if you want to discuss who is threatening who.  FYI they have no influence on our FA policy at all given that they are either non-gov or econ in the case of mitsuru.  I won't engage the shadow gov argument because that is just plain disrespectful to Adrienne who AFAIK is the sole female leader of a strong alliance in Orbis.

I don't know what she said, but ultimately it was just too little too late after a solid week of sniping. Also no, they got upset because they already had those prejudices and weren't fond of NPO. It's sort of dancing around the issue. I never signed up for a one and done deal in terms of people like GOB/Guardian having to actually do more than one round of war.  I'm sure they have the ear of the government at times and shadow gov is a very real thing and has nothing to do with me being a male chauvinist(i'm not but that's where you were going) . Some of the best puppets have been male like Redarmy and Dynamic.  There are  plenty of shadow gov influenced alliances like Rose. Ever meet the guy who has more power than most gov officials in the game but has no high gov title?

Quote

The only attention was directed at keeping you out.  There are numerous logs or forum archives you can check to affirm this.  Yes, when T$ entered that put a spotlight on you as well, but we had no interest to expand and have stayed consistent to that externally and internally.  I don't think "bring it on" is a prelude to an attack rather it's by definition reactionary and defensive.

Um, if you antagonize someone you want to keep out, then it means you want it to happen later on and think they won't react. Don't provoke someone if you don't want them to hit you. 

Quote

As for your PR, it would've been much better because you would've affirmed the breakup of IQ which we were skeptical (albeit still believed for all intents and purposes in terms of actions).  Also, that whole BK thing is just untrue because the only thing uniting our coalition were those logs, which we allowed that N$O weren't aware of.  Consider that even if BK fell you'd be the most powerful sphere (although not necessarily so powerful as to invite anti-hegemony claims) and you'd be in a position where the coalition that took down BK would have a lot less in common with the loss of uniting logs post-BK fall.  

Not really.  I was getting tons of heckling and the people who wanted to dismantle BK aren't traditional friends and don't have any common goals.  There has been a BK hate bandwagon for a long long time looking to leave the station. Making it seem like the logs provoked a spontaneous reaction is just ill-informed at best, disingenuous at worst. There is no other logical target.

Quote

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how you and your allies should cooperate.  This should be a healthy relationship not one based on power dynamics.  It seems that your problems go much further than a lack of continuity of an FA head.  It's important to note as well that Kayser is also as anti-TKR as they come, so it's not exactly a fair perspective.  Concerning burned bridges, there shouldn't have been an obligation for you to help BK, so if they held that against you then that is assuming a broken obligation.  Otherwise, it's just as baseless as those who get mad at Fark for not joining in the war.  

Here's the thing: the basis of the relationship is shared interests and mutual goals. The initial idea was to do a war to bond the sphere and the target was decided on as KETOG for a variety of reasons.  By adding GOB/Guardian, it was essentially the same thing as the TKR/Guardian/GOB/TCW combo.  They also had links to Rose and intel on Rose's internals that made it even more powerful, so a war to test the sphere's capabilities against  a powerful group was the best way to do it. tS didn't do much of the lifting in Knightfall after the initial round so it would have offered an opportunity to shake off the cobwebs. Some in tS had issues with KT and it was posited it'd be a logical hit to do since there was some resentment towards them and TGH over past issues.  The sphere had agreed on a plan and the plan ended up going to shit when Kayser disappeared, the leaks happened, etc. rather than just letting it go forward a bunch of BS ways to bandwagon on BK were proposed that would have offered no benefit to us and empowered others. An inaccurate version of the N$O plan leaked and people were calling us out, so it's in for  a penny in for a  pound. The idea behind just doing the gob/guardian thing is it was supposed to be meant to escalate and it wasn't conveyed to me the intent was to avoid escalation at all costs. 

As for Kayser, again, mutual goals, mutual distrusts, and so on. If we have an agreement we don't trust TKR and a common view they are looking to be top dog again, then if someone changes that last minute, the relationship is problematic. No mutual goals,  no ambitions, no common targets(wishy washy on KETOG) = pointless. Condescension, last minute changes,  accusations of leaking, accusations of covert treaties made to justify pulling the rug out from under us, etc are just manifestations of fundamental dislike from tS. 

Obligation isn't the same as expecting someone who can make a difference to do so. Everyone knows a situation where the other blocs are in a more powerful position is bad for us. There's nothing in common with them. They want to entrench their advantages and entrench others disadvantages.  It's more an ethic of reciprocity than obligation.  If I need help and only one group can help make a difference and we have common rivals that we can't beat on our own, then I'd expect them to jump in against the greater threat. I'll be frank, I recall I was super resentful when I found out TEst made the deal with Pantheon in Silent War since I was hoping for more of a shake up in the war. Eventually that coalition went on to roll TEst and there was no one left. TEst was fine getting rolled on its own, but it splintered after. We can go to the Paracov situations as well where one party would pass the buck to the other but neither could get the job done on their own and each individual failure led to more resentment of the other. It's not the same as Fark at all since people rolled Fark already earlier in the year and Fark isn't a coalition warfare proponent.

Quote

With any bloc that isn't BK (including your own allies), your PR is much worse.  

I'm not everyone.  I'd like to believe I only operate on facts, a few guiding principles and ideals, and a healthy dose of optimism for the future of the game.  My argument is still valid irrespective of what others say.  What I'm saying is that you acting in your perceived interests is not actually helping your interests.

And yes all of TKR FA is now like this.  @Menhera and I are new players with a lack of prejudice against most alliances along with @Benfrowho is not really significantly tied or biased besides maybe some previous bank ties.  This is the TKR FA team who can all claim this "innocence" :).  Just remember that when you're analyzing our actions because we are the ones who are advising Niz on her actions.  I hope that more alliances, including NPO, shares our perspective in looking forward and moving past our past old grudges.

We don't have anything to offer those blocs. With allies, it's more of a tS issue,  as there's no common interest  due to the damascene conversions upon Kayser's disappearance, so the relationship was devoid of anything that brought it together and there was no interest there in bridging the gap in a strategic manner. Other people allied to tS had different thinking that wasn't all  or nothing. This idea you have where everyone else thought KERCHTOGG were on the road to making the game great again is wrong though.  So to move off tS and talk about the other blocs: They don't have anything to offer us.  We have nothing to offer them besides staying out they can roll BK or rolliing BK ourselves. Those are both counter-productive actions because they lead to nowhere good. See the problem? We have no common interests or goals, so appeasing them does us no benefit and is only injurious to us.  Their worldview is one where what they want to do is not something we  stand to benefit from. Same reason why most alliances on your side don't have any particular concern for the issues we brought up with how they do things. They see it as balanced on their end and they can have their connections and use them to kill off the mid-tier swarms and for me it's just they like having rodeo clowns and jobbers to beat down on, entrench their advantages, and like to isolate alliances they don't like by encouraging peripherals to ditch so they have a comparative advantage. These are two irreconcilable perspectives.

You're thinking of everyone being a neutral observer and it being that type of PR when it's about target demographics and interests groups. If we're a menswear company, we're not advertising in Cosmopolitan.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

iirc it was CoS inviting you not it being based on a survey.  CoS butted heads with other alliances in the prior war. CoS signs TKR who has tensions with those same alliances. See the picture? Why would KETOG be a vehicle to hit Chaos? I've known that it was in the works for a while and that Chaos wasn't typically seen as their primary rival. Citadel is a different thing all together since it was more like a way to not get chained into wars from what I can tell. 

Chaos had tensions with alliances and specific grievances which have been cited. The whole "delightiing in players leaving", the Valinor raid, etc. There's enough tension with the actual alliances where it would make sense. I mean, it was denied by Ripper after but Manthrax said before that Chaos was in part a reaction to perceived excesses by certain people.

 

 

I don't know what she said, but ultimately it was just too little too late after a solid week of sniping. Also no, they got upset because they already had those prejudices and weren't fond of NPO. It's sort of dancing around the issue. I never signed up for a one and done deal in terms of people like GOB/Guardian having to actually do more than one round of war.  I'm sure they have the ear of the government at times and shadow gov is a very real thing and has nothing to do with me being a male chauvinist.  There are  plenty of shadow gov influenced alliances like Rose. Ever meet the guy who has more power than most gov officials in the game but has no high gov title?

Um, if you antagonize someone you want to keep out, then it means you want it to happen later on and think they won't react. Don't provoke someone if you don't want them to hit you. 

Not really.  I was getting tons of heckling and the people who wanted to dismantle BK aren't traditional friends and don't have any common goals.  There has been a BK hate bandwagon for a long long time. Making it seem like the logs provoked a spontaneous reaction is just ill-informed at best, disengenuous at worst. There is no other logical target.

Here's the thing: the basis of the relationship is shared interests and mutual goals. The initial idea was to do a war to bond the sphere and the target was decided on as KETOG for a variety of reasons.  By adding GOB/Guardian, it was essentially the same thing as the TKR/Guardian/GOB/TCW combo.  They also had links to Rose and intel on Rose's internals that made it even more powerful, so a war to test the sphere's capabilities against  a powerful group was the best way to do it. tS didn't do much of the lifting in Knightfall after the initial round so it would have offered an opportunity to shake off the cobwebs. Some in tS had issues with KT and it was posited it'd be a logical hit to do since there was some resentment towards them and TGH over past issues.  The sphere had agreed on a plan and the plan ended up going to shit when Kayser disappeared, the leaks happened, etc. rather than just letting it go forward a bunch of BS ways to bandwagon on BK were proposed that would have offered no benefit to us and empowered others. An inaccurate version of the N$O plan leaked and people were calling us out, so it's in for  a penny in for a  pound. The idea behind just doing the gob/guardian thing is it was supposed to be meant to escalate and it wasn't conveyed to me the intent was to avoid escalation at all costs. 

As for Kayser, again, mutual goals, mutual distrusts, and so on. If we have an agreement we don't trust TKR, then if someone changes that last minute, the relationship is problematic. No mutual goals,  no ambitions, no common targets(wishy washy on KETOG) = pointless. Condescension, last minute changes,  accusations of leaking, accusations of covert treaties mad to justify pulling the rug out from under us, etc. 

Obligation isn't the same as expecting someone who can make a difference to do so. Everyone knows a situation where the other blocs are in a more powerful position is bad for us. There's nothing in common with them. They want to entrench their advantages and entrench others disadvantages.  It's more an ethic of reciprocity than obligation.  If I need help and only one group can help make a difference and we have common rivals that we an't beat on our own, then I'd expect them to jump in against the greater threat. I'll be frank, I recall I was super resentful when I found out TEst made the deal with Pantheon in Silent War since I was hoping for more of a shake up in the war. Eventually that coalition went on to roll TEst and there was no one left. TEst was fine getting rolled on its own, but it splintered after. We can go to the Paracov situations as well where one party would pass the buck to the other but neither could get the job done on their own and each individual failure led to more resentment of the other. It's not the same as Fark at all since people rolled Fark already earlier in the year and Fark isn't a coalition warfare proponent.

We don't have anything to offer those blocs. With allies, it's more of a tS issue,  there's no common interest  due to the damascene conversions upon Kayser's disappearance, so the relationship was devoid of anything that brought it together and there was no interest there in bridging the gap in a stategic manner. This idea you have where everyone else thought KERCHTOGG were on the road to making the game great again is wrong though.  So to move off tS and talk about the other blocs: They don't have anything to offer us.  We have nothing to offer them besides staying out they can roll BK or rolliing BK ourselves. Those are both counter-productive actions because they lead to nowhere good. See the problem? We have no common interests or goals, so appeasing them does us no benefit and is only injurious to us.  Their worldview is one where what they want to do is no something we  stand to benefit from. Same reason why most alliances on your side don't have any particular concern for the issues we brought up with how they do things. They see it as balanced on their end and they can have their connections and use them to kill off the mid-tier swarms and for me it's just they like having rodeo clowns and jobbers to beat down on, entrench their advantages, and like to isolate alliances they don't like by encouraging peripherals to ditch so they have a comparative advantage. Two irreconcilable perspectives.

Tl;dr Orange Man Bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

 the Valinor raid

Hey. Hey. Hey. HEY. As a member of Valinor, I prefer the term Skirmish and Subsequent Paddling of BK Aggressors. 

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

You're thinking of everyone being a neutral observer and it being that type of PR when it's about target demographics and interests groups. If we're a menswear company, we're not advertising in Cosmopolitan.

But at some point, wouldn't you have to expand your demographic? Maybe you could be a Men's Wear company who advertises their new line of women's suits in Cosmo. Also, The fact that you used these two specific examples after saying:

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

has nothing to do with me being a male chauvinist(i'm not but that's where you were going) .

Made me giggle a little. Way to use the most stereotypical feminine magazine juxtaposed against Men's Wear. I don't know if that was on purpose, but it was good. 

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Hey I mentioned what I disliked about other people too! Don't forget that. 

KERTCHOGG: holy and pure

everyone else: orange man bad

I offer up my one image opinion once more:
The_Truth.JPG?width=400&height=214

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

Hey. Hey. Hey. HEY. As a member of Valinor, I prefer the term Skirmish and Subsequent Paddling of BK Aggressors. 

But at some point, wouldn't you have to expand your demographic? Maybe you could be a Men's Wear company who advertises their new line of women's suits in Cosmo. Also, The fact that you used these two specific examples after saying:

Made me giggle a little. Way to use the most stereotypical feminine magazine juxtaposed against Men's Wear. I don't know if that was on purpose, but it was good. 

I offer up my one image opinion once more:
The_Truth.JPG?width=400&height=214

I mean we could want to expand our demographic, but we'd have to give up too much of the brand's identity to appeal to the forum most likely.

It wasn't on purpose but it was just the easiest one I could think of tbh. I sort of realized it was kind of awkward after the chauvinism comment. I guess a better one is we don't want advertise our hip hop album on CMT? We don't take our craft beer to an alcoholics anonymous meeting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Epi said:

Camelot coined the term skirmish to refer to brief 1 round wars on protectorates and peripherals. 

Well... Technically at the time we were a Prot treaty with CoS. And it was one or less than one round albeit a limited front. So, It fits?

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

hip hop album on CMT? We don't take our craft beer to an alcoholics anonymous meeting?

I would like to point out that Dirt Road Anthem is a thing that happened, and so did Old Town Road. Which was a major hit in the country community, believe it or not.
And why wouldn't you? Quitters never buy more beer.

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Some of the best puppets have been male like Redarmy and Dynamic.  There are  plenty of shadow gov influenced alliances like Rose. Ever meet the guy who has more power than most gov officials in the game but has no high gov title?

I like you when you're crazy. It's cute. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Redarmy said:

I know that's a perception. A perception I didn't care to correct. 

Okay, well sorry for name dropping you if you're offended since it was kind of over the top to do it out of the blue. I didn't really think about how you'd feel, just was more to illustrate someone can be thought to be a puppet regardless of their gender and that it's not a "she's a girl lol so someone's pulling the strings" thing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

Plz tell me more about how Chaos was founded. I’m truly interested in hearing your expert take on the matter, since you were so heavily involved.

You guys told me it was so we could summon the Old Eldritch Gods and finally be rid of the mortal coil. Was I lied to?

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

Plz tell me more about how Chaos was founded. I’m truly interested in hearing your expert take on the matter, since you were so heavily involved.

2016%252F08%252F29%252F9c%252Fmeme.87149

PUZ9Hcd.jpg

 

sZ9zQDA.png

 

Okay, so both of these indicate TKR was approached.

 

Then the actual announcement says that too

 

ivJKLfxTRZCxAqaaCZ4x7Q.jpeg?width=913%26

You could dismiss this part as just being for the comic's sake, but it fits the rest.

 

So what am I missing here?

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
17 hours ago, ChloeJessica said:

do you have anything to actually contribute or do you do nothing but shitpost? cause all ive seen are shitposts.

 

16 hours ago, dancemasterlee said:

giphy.gif

its not shit posting, just your got shit in your eyes

10 hours ago, Epi said:

IRC one of Citadel's goals was to wipe out Camelot. Teabags body, loads assault rifle for Syndi-no-sphere. 

@Cooper

On a different note, if y'all wanna surrender come join Le Mushtopia

wiping out Camelot was not a goal, just an enjoyable event we planned on having lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

So what am I missing here?

Everyone else in the block's perspective, apparently. TKR may be the center of your world, mate. They practically have free real estate in your brain-space at this point. But they ain't ours.

We formed to wake Cthulhu from his slumber.

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!

  • Upvote 1

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

 

its not shit posting, just your got shit in your eyes

wiping out Camelot was not a goal, just an enjoyable event we planned on having lol 

For once he's sort of correct. Wiping Cam was not on the docket for citadel.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Roquentin said:

iirc it was CoS inviting you not it being based on a survey.

This_is_true.JPG

Also this, just a snipped from your thing. I'm sure it's normal to be invited and then conduct a survey, there bud, to see if everyone is onboard. which is what cooper said.

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That log post was epic! Put Marianna in High Gov't immediately! Quote:

"Please say we can choose someone else, other than SK...."

I'll buy that! That line made my day!.....ROTFLMAO!!!

  • Like 1

P&W SK Flag Small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Roquentin said:

PUZ9Hcd.jpg

sZ9zQDA.png

You lose credibility the moment you use Light Mode on anything

2 hours ago, Gudea said:

That log post was epic! Put Marianna in High Gov't immediately! Quote:

"Please say we can choose someone else, other than SK...."

I'll buy that! That line made my day!.....ROTFLMAO!!!

This is old logs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2019 at 9:13 AM, Zim said:

Aren't you zeroed? Your beige time is nearly over and you not even trying to rebuild. 

The GOONS hit 3 alliances on our side, before the coalition even acknowledge they where at war with them, no idea what you on about. If our coalition wasen't as passive as it was, the frist blitz would have been enough to pull them into the war, as Arrgh wanted.
GPWC had several incidents, before they got involved where they acknowledged they where in the wrong, and even paid reparations for this. And their excuse for finally joining the war, was attacks from mirco meme alliance... that split of from Empyrea. 
So they hit a bunch of alliances not even treaty bound to Empyrea... make sense i suppose. 

Sacrificing the low tier? Mate i think you need to drop your score down, and get a reality check. Because all does 15-25 city guys you pressed out of the mid tier, where do you think they are? 

What are you talking about? We got involved because your coalition greenlit us for an espionage campaign after two newbie nations made a mistake and then you (collectively) declared us an enemy in the negotiations. Your decision to treat us like an enemy is what prompted us to join the war. There was no alternative after your side made that abundantly clear.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kevanovia said:

TKR’s inclusion was heavily debated on before and during Chaos-creation talks. Their hesitation was that they didn’t want to abandon their current allies. However, the rest of us wanted nothing to do with TCW and also wanted the bloc to be smaller in size. So the requirement was for them to drop their current allies. The resolution was that we would protect TCW for 30 days while they figured their crap out. But you are incorrect with your narrative that CoS colluded with TKR to create a power sphere with TCW/KETOG/Everyone other than NPO. We wanted to destroy hegemonies, not build them up. In fact, if we ever got too big/powerful it is written in the bloc charter that we would disband.

Chaos all stemmed from Soup approaching CoS about a treaty and it expanded from there (the reason why it wasn’t brought up in Adrienne’s announcement is that we asked to keep our alliance a secret until we founded).

Like we stated before, the goal was to push a reset button on the political landscape.

At the end of the day your side fricked up by colluding against us and continue this hypocritical narrative that we were the ones colluding.

I kind of feel bad, because you guys (NPO) are obviously smart and aren’t necessarily the ones responsible for the cluster that was created. But the alliances you chose to sleep with continue to make mistake after mistake, and you attempting to spin their mistakes are only making you look bad. 

Again, it’s tough to blame you as you don’t have much to work with narrative-wise.

Kev, I love you bud, but everything you just said (ESPECIALLY the line about "TKR had to drop their allies to join us") would be defined as collusion by straight up anyone if asked. Like oof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Archibald said:

Kev, I love you bud, but everything you just said (ESPECIALLY the line about "TKR had to drop their allies to join us") would be defined as collusion by straight up anyone if asked. Like oof.

Also not to mention TKR planned to keep tCW at an arms length and use them to peel away BKsphere allies and keep it paperless from their own logs. They just got caught in the cookie jar though :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Also not to mention TKR planned to keep tCW at an arms length and use them to peel away BKsphere allies and keep it paperless from their own logs. They just got caught in the cookie jar though :P 

That's stretching it bit far isn't it. Specially coming from the guys prefering paperless ties to BK instead of paper ties to t$.

  • Upvote 6
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.