Jump to content

Terms for KETOG


Kastor
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

@Cooper_ things change. 

This is in regards to the "we only have surrender/NAP/meme terms" statements? Convenient how that was your party line up until we posted our surrender and things only changed the second you got what you wanted and got us into talks.

  • Upvote 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Adrienne said:

This is in regards to the "we only have surrender/NAP/meme terms" statements? Convenient how that was your party line up until we posted our surrender and things only changed the second you got what you wanted and got us into talks.

Wrong. He linked a screenshot from August 30th. You posted your topic on November 2nd. At the time, those would have been sufficient not my fault you just spent all the time antagonizing people. =\

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

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Wrong. He linked a screenshot from August 30th. You posted your topic on November 2nd. At the time, those would have been sufficient not my fault you just spent all the time antagonizing people. =\

He posted multiple screenshots, some as late as mid October. Try again.

  • Upvote 2

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

He posted multiple screenshots, some as late as mid October. Try again.

Well they were all collected after the post I made then but those were the minimum for a while and that's what the discussions previous reps had raised primarily. The solicitation after finalized them. The NP ones had repayments in mind as well so I was referencing that one more in the October 16th post. Most of the terms are pretty meme-y. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Roquentin said:

Well they were all collected after the post I made then but those were the minimum for a while and that's what the discussions previous reps had raised primarily. The solicitation after finalized them. The NP ones had repayments in mind as well so I was referencing that one more in the October 16th post. Most of the terms are pretty meme-y. 

TIL 10b+ in reparations is meme-y. Can't wait for the real "meme" terms.

  • Upvote 3

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CandyShi said:

Which raises the question of: Why not present all the terms at once? If you consider most of them to be meme terms then surely presenting them would progress peace talks?

Because the entire point of the set-up is to make it as drawn-out as possible.

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

Which raises the question of: Why not present all the terms at once? If you consider most of them to be meme terms then surely presenting them would progress peace talks?

 

 

The suspense is exciting.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CoS and Valinor pay 500 mil to UPN for... What? The Soup term to TCW has been explained, the 50 mil from soup to UPN is pretty easy to dismiss, the others seem to have some context and meaning but the CoS giving reps to UPN seems rather... Meaningless. If @Sphinx wanted our cash maybe I'd understand bettera, if anyone in that coalition has a claim to reps from us, it would be TCW. I don't think anyone actually does, most of the combatants here entered willingly and the others are asking for reps over a war they wanted, regardless of whether or not you consider the original logs validating our CB outdated, but anyway. Can someone explain that to me? Or is the simple explanation just that UPN is broke as hell and really needs that cash bro 

  • Upvote 1

Roll Squeegee pact with Redarmy and Ameyuri

Blues Brothers pact with Redarmy

Leader of the Elyion Resistance. If it's backed by NPO, you know it's evil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener

Perhaps it's because I haven't been around as long as some of the other people here, but I find it interesting that one group of players seem to post ~a lot~ about how they aren't owned or something. Not really sure about what this furious ownzone-posting will actually accomplish, but it seems to assuage some form of hurt ego, perhaps.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Sounds like a shitty shark week then. What happened to the unbiased, ballsy GOONS?

All good things come in time, snek.

 

2 minutes ago, MCMaster-095 said:

 

Might want to make sure your posts don't contradict each other.

You'll note that Sardonic and I aren't actually the same person.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AppealDenied said:

You'll note that Sardonic and I aren't actually the same person.

The "you" was referring to Goons as a whole. And I was unaware being different people means that you get to say whatever you want, regardless of whether it's true or not.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MCMaster-095 said:

The "you" was referring to Goons as a whole. And I was unaware being different people means that you get to say whatever you want, regardless of whether it's true or not.

Perhaps you should point to the things GOONS leader(s) are saying and not mid gov? But, I mean, I revert back to my previous post about reading comprehension. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AppealDenied said:

Perhaps you should point to the things GOONS leader(s) are saying and not mid gov? But, I mean, I revert back to my previous post about reading comprehension. 

Well I would advise not directly contradicting what your leaders are saying, especially if you just end up saying to defer to your leaders. Makes for a bad look overall, and looks like you're just making up stuff to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, AppealDenied said:

Shark Week does not apply to members of Coalition B.

Then why does it necessitate the additive "These raids cannot be countered." It wouldn't make sense to present coalition B with terms to sign on behalf of all non-involved parties. Furthermore, it implies Pantheon, Fark, WTF, and Immortals will be subject to these raids, which most of us expect IQ to go after down the road anyways. Thank you for the confirmation.

  • Upvote 1

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MCMaster-095 said:

Well I would advise not directly contradicting what your leaders are saying, especially if you just end up saying to defer to your leaders. Makes for a bad look overall, and looks like you're just making up stuff to say.

AppealDenied is correct, I misunderstood the scope of the term.  The failure is my own.  Your lectures are misplaced, pubbie scum.

Edited by Sardonic
  • Downvote 8
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.