Jump to content

Coalition A is trying to do something very obvious


Raigen
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Roquentin said:

lol. You clearly aren't reading the actual logs. It says right there if their community is based on pixel hugging and ditching during a war, then we don't care because it's not a community. Just because it benefited doesn't make it logical to say getting rolled for ditching is destroying a community. You're the one who insisted on not surrendering earlier on the premise of getting these alliances to break. Keep that in mind.

lol. NPO is made up of Roquentin, Frawley, LoD and 100 Roqbots. It does not qualify as community in my book, perhaps we should disband it.

Edited by alyster
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Roquentin said:

So GPA could have said they were just a peaceful community and rolling it was ruining it? That's stupid. Your in-game stats don't constitute a community sorry.

It is in Buorhann's interest to have a bunch of farmville players bend the knee to people like him, so this type of mentality is beneficial and he preys on it

He didn't accommodate neutrals or anything like that before. 

Roq please, if even slightly possible I´d prefer to leave GPA out of the current shitfest, a  long time ago rebranded AA because it got constantly rolled, can not be your reasoning for the current permawar shit-fest.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Karl VII
1 hour ago, alyster said:

lol. NPO is made up of Roquentin, Frawley, LoD and 100 Roqbots. It does not qualify as community in my book, perhaps we should disband it.

Little does he know that every player other than him is either roq or one of his bots and this whole game is just his own Truman show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kalev60 said:

Roq please, if even slightly possible I´d prefer to leave GPA out of the current shitfest, a  long time ago rebranded AA because it got constantly rolled, can not be your reasoning for the current permawar shit-fest.  

It doesn't have to be GPA, just any AA they rolled for  funsies. We can count the countless micros KT had snuffed out and laughed at on their alliance page. Was that destroying a community? The point was that this humanitarian argument about how people need to be left alone to pixel hug and ditch their allies was utter crap. That was just the example where people didn't tolerate a neutral alliance being left alone. The comment in the logs buorhann posted was that  Asierith said we destroyed their community because we didn't let them just ditch us and be with tS who were hostile towards your own bloc/allies. The argument is if your community can't handle people getting hit because of pixel hugging schemery and pixel hugging schemery not working out, it's not much of a community.

Buorhann tried to be a moralist with his "destroying communities" shtick and it's not a good look on him. Plenty of the logs show me saying how it benefits KT/TGH to have a political atmosphere where peripheral alliances back down to them easily. That is what I have sought to combat. Plenty of wars have occurred where smaller alliances back down and let the main AAs take the heat and this type of thing works solely in the favor of people like Buorhann,  KT,  TKR, tS, etc. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It doesn't have to be GPA, just any AA they rolled for  funsies. We can count the countless micros KT had snuffed out and laughed at on their alliance page. Was that destroying a community? The point was that this humanitarian argument about how people need to be left alone to pixel hug and ditch their allies was utter crap. That was just the example where people didn't tolerate a neutral alliance being left alone. The comment in the logs buorhann posted was that  Asierith said we destroyed their community because we didn't let them just ditch us and be with tS who were hostile towards your own bloc/allies. The argument is if your community can't handle people getting hit because of pixel hugging schemery and pixel hugging schemery not working out, it's not much of a community.

Buorhann tried to be a moralist with his "destroying communities" shtick and it's not a good look on him. Plenty of the logs show me saying how it benefits KT/TGH to have a political atmosphere where peripheral alliances back down to them easily. That is what I have sought to combat. Plenty of wars have occurred where smaller alliances back down and let the main AAs take the heat and this type of thing works solely in the favor of people like Buorhann,  KT,  TKR, tS, etc. 

 

Are you denying that there are multiple logs of you and your coal B gov colleagues calling for not just extension of the war, but destroying us, forcing attrition, making people quit and so on?

 

Because we've all seen 'em.

  • Upvote 4

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Prefonteen said:

Are you denying that there are multiple logs of you and your coal B gov colleagues calling for not just extension of the war, but destroying us, forcing attrition, making people quit and so on?

 

Because we've all seen 'em.

If your framing wasn't loaded and taken at face value, then even then we're not destroying any communities or trying to do that. It's your own decision to not be able to take the heat and leave. If you show the "we deserve to win or we'll quit" mindset, it will be blood in the water.  If you intentionally avoid intensive wars and you show the weakness of having members who won't be able to tolerate hardship, then that's still not us destroying the community. 

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

4 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

If your framing wasn't loaded and taken at face value, then even then we're not destroying any communities or trying to do that. It's your own decision to not be able to take the heat and leave. If you show the "we deserve to win or we'll quit" mindset, it will be blood in the water.  If you intentionally avoid intensive wars and you show the weakness of having members who won't be able to tolerate hardship, then that's still not us destroying the community. 

That's a non-answer. You are being called out on your entire narrative for the past months having been absolute bullshit, and it's supported by a large amount of your internal logs.

 

That's what's going on. The rest isn't really relevant to the conversation atm.

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Upvote 3

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

That's a non-answer. You are being called out on your entire narrative for the past months having been absolute bullshit, and it's supported by a large amount of your internal logs.

 

That's what's going on. The rest isn't really relevant to the conversation atm.

We would have been more amiable if things were different. There's nothing inherently contradictory in there.

You can only even come close to pinning anything on us as of the surrender topics. Rest is all you(collectively). :)

There's nothing else to say. 

 

 Roquentin10/24/2019, 10:52:14 AM like i normally wouldn't be like 'haha they're quiting'

Roquentin10/24/2019, 10:52:19 AM but since they were super toxic

Roquentin10/24/2019, 10:52:23 AM it's good riddance

 

 

 

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

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

We would have been more amiable if things were different. There's nothing inherently contradictory in there.

You can only even come close to pinning anything on us as of the surrender topics. Rest is all you(collectively). :)

There's nothing else to say. 

It is probably better for you not to say anything when you know logs will probably come out later contradicting it heh

  • Haha 3

C0r3Fye.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

We would have been more amiable if things were different. There's nothing inherently contradictory in there.

You can only even come close to pinning anything on us as of the surrender topics. Rest is all you(collectively). :)

There's nothing else to say. 

 

 Roquentin10/24/2019, 10:52:14 AM like i normally wouldn't be like 'haha they're quiting'

Roquentin10/24/2019, 10:52:19 AM but since they were super toxic

Roquentin10/24/2019, 10:52:23 AM it's good riddance

 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Smith said:

It is probably better for you not to say anything when you know logs will probably come out later contradicting it heh

Let me rummage through my little pouch of logs for a second.

 

Ah there we are!


 

Quote

 

Aragorn30-9-2019, 01:32:18
Were going for the throat

Aragorn30-9-2019, 01:32:20
T$

underlordgc30-9-2019, 01:32:30
uh

underlordgc30-9-2019, 01:32:43
npo has a treaty

underlordgc30-9-2019, 01:33:00
I thought we were gonna force ts to act to elawyer the nonchainning?

Aragorn30-9-2019, 01:33:06
They violated the intel clause of it

Roquentin30-9-2019, 01:33:09
well we can jsut say it's violaed

Roquentin30-9-2019, 01:33:10
so yeah

underlordgc30-9-2019, 01:33:15
lmfao

underlordgc30-9-2019, 01:33:17
okay

Roquentin30-9-2019, 01:33:25
it's just gone too far

Roquentin30-9-2019, 01:33:29
we basically got told to frick  off

Roquentin30-9-2019, 01:33:33
and sisyphus is around

Roquentin30-9-2019, 01:33:36
and he didn't say anytihng in there

Roquentin30-9-2019, 01:33:46
and it was revealed it was in the works fro a while

Roquentin30-9-2019, 01:33:50
so there's no real good faith in it

Roquentin30-9-2019, 01:34:07
we can just say tS acted aggressively by protecting demonspawn or somethign

Roquentin30-9-2019, 01:34:27
or itachi being gov is an act of war

underlordgc30-9-2019, 01:34:48
HS/R&R too then?

Roquentin30-9-2019, 01:35:10
well they're slow at hitting

Roquentin30-9-2019, 01:35:23
so would proabbly be better to use the time to finish tS off

Roquentin30-9-2019, 01:35:26
and then deal with them

 

 

 

 

I recall we still held a treaty...

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Upvote 3

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:

 

Let me rummage through my little pouch of logs for a second.

 

Ah there we are!


 

I recall we still held a treaty...

It was violated by tS' earlier betrayal and multiple violations of the intel clause and therefore the articles applied on a selective basis. :) What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Malice reciprocated by malice.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roquentin said:

It was violated by tS' earlier betrayal and multiple violations of the intel clause and therefore the articles applied on a selective basis. :) What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Malice reciprocated by malice.

Yes you did mention "you were just going to say that".

Or claim that itachi being in gov was a violation.

 

Anything else?

  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Prefonteen said:

Yes you did mention "you were just going to say that".

Or claim that itachi being in gov was a violation.

 

Anything else?

Could have used "beiging guardian/gob on their request" too. Just a whole litany of unresolved shit e.g. providing comfort to NPO's enemies, protecting nations at war with NPO, undermining NPO publicly, and so on.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Prefonteen said:

You literally plotted to roll your ally while the treaty was active, and *still* try to find a way to deflect it.

 

Stick it, hamster.

You committed various acts of war and antagonized your "ally" actively while the treaty was active. Signing OWR/Carthago was the last straw  as it was indicative of  the bankruptcy and termination of the relationship when combined with the insults given after as it emboldened our enemies and gave them confidence.

 

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

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

You committed various acts of war and antagonized your "ally" actively while the treaty was active. Signing OWR/Carthago was the last straw  as it was indicative of  the bankruptcy and termination of the relationship when combined with the insults given after as it emboldened our enemies and gave them confidence.

 

Signing an ally is an act of war? Being upset with you for shady shit you pulled is also an act of war?

 

I'll reiterate:

 

Quote

You literally plotted to roll your ally while the treaty was active, and *still* try to find a way to deflect it.

 

  • Upvote 6

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Prefonteen said:

Signing an ally is an act of war? Being upset with you for shady shit you pulled is also an act of war?

 

I'll reiterate:

 

 

Again, multiple treaty violations occurred meaning it no longer had any value. You had time to redeem yourselves after the original betrayal and you doubled down and provoked the reaction. It's a mutual defense treaty not a unilateral defense treaty and there was no mutual in it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cooper_ said:

Here's a crazy thought.  You talk with your ally about it, and if that doesn't work you cut the treaty tie.  There is no justification for backstabbing your ally especially BEFORE you even cut the treaty.  Or, is only NPO privileged enough to break treaty contentions?  It's a bad spin you are playing.

And this is if we forget the pressure y'all exerted to get into the war, the priority of BK over T$ (don't retract this we have solid evidence otherwise), and lest we forget the whole set of planning y'all did to hit T$.  We're not 2 years old: "but he did it first"  is not a valid defense.  

They backstabbed us by signing people in a way that would weaken us and not informing us even. They also backstabbed us by selling us out to a ravenous horde.. :) Just because you're in it doesn't mean it was right. If your 'ally' is waiting to cancel until it's in their benefit then you're going to have to play it strategically as well.

Where was the priority of BK over tS listed? Again, it's just mere reciprocity. tS wanted to spit on our face and that was the consequence.  They nullified the worth of the treaty by doing what they did. Until they actually made it clear the relationship was dead, we shielded all kinds of bullshit from them, so this is outright false.

  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Again, it's just mere reciprocity. tS wanted to spit on our face and that was the consequence

So basically a fancy way of saying this?

7 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

We're not 2 years old: "but he did it first"  is not a valid defense.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cooper_ said:

So basically a fancy way of saying this?

Yeah, they did it first obviously isn't the same as in just an rl argument which you're comparing it to. When one party is trying to screw you, you have not let yourself get fricked.  The whole turn the other cheek maxim doesn't work in this setting.

  • Downvote 1
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.