Jump to content

A plea to consider Co A line members


Guest John Q Listener
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Plotted to hit BK this year, last year, the year before.....and likely to do so again next year. 

 

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Evidence suggests Coalition A alliances did plot to hit BK, which means you are chatting bs. Cute, try again.

And the Award for Most Brainwashed Peon of NPO goes to...

  • Haha 5

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener
Just now, Buorhann said:

Still ignoring the log dumps I see.

Thanks for responding.

Not sure why the big focus on the logs, I'm merely calling for the Co A & associates leaders to actually consider the situation they are in right now and think about the welfare of their alliance members. You are just being disingenuous and deflecting from the topic at hand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:

Thanks for responding.

Not sure why the big focus on the logs, I'm merely calling for the Co A & associates leaders to actually consider the situation they are in right now and think about the welfare of their alliance members. You are just being disingenuous and deflecting from the topic at hand. 

I got time, so I'll take the bait.

You mean the two threads that both Adrienne and Partisan posted about the "surrenders" on Co A's behalf?

Or do you mean you're willingly ignoring the logs that clearly state Co B & associates leaders are stalling/ignoring the peace talks?

In any case, a quick search shows that you're glossing over these points.  So it's pretty obvious you're simply just shitposting for the sake of it.  Either that, or you're a dunce.  Could be both, who knows.

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

6 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

You obviously have no idea how Slack works, or how a community functions.

You brought this up 4 months ago, and Hodor, the actual FA gov of TGH, gave you a consistent answer then:

No, you don't get to make an equivalence here because there isn't one to be found.  It was quite clear how these statements were not reflective of the coalition and NO ACTIONS were ever taken to ever back them up.  Now, we're sitting here listening to you ramble on about these isolated comments as some sort of defense for the clear, obvious and evidenced actions you are currently taking that back up the litany of statements of basically every person in power in your coalition, including you.  I've already explained this to you personally, but in no world does any of this justify the actions you have taken. 

An eye for an eye makes the whole blind, right?  I don't think a concerted effort of annihilation for one disquieted peep is any better.  So continue on forcing alliances to disband and members to delete while trying to gaslight us to shift the blame off of yourself.  If that isn't hypocrisy, I really don't know what is.

/ Thread

This seems to be a classic instance of someone projecting their own motives and thinking onto others.  They can't imagine other people not thinking the way that they do.  Lost in all of it is the point that this is a game. The point isn't to establish permanent security and dominance at all costs.  Neither victory nor defeat is permanent 

  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

So original.

Still my facts are 100% factual. 

Your facts have been proven wrong over and over again. You're just too dug in to realize it. It's sad, really. I feel bad for you.

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tiberius said:

So original.

Still my facts are 100% factual. 

Your facts are factual? Well, that speaks for itself don't you think? What else could a fact possibly be if not factual?

In this case however, your facts are well, not facts and therefore are not factual at all.

What you do have however, are your own interests along with events which support your narrative from your own viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with that of course and our side is doing much the same (minus some obvious BS of course).

You're welcome.

 

 

 

Edited by Charles the Tyrant
  • Thanks 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener
2 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

Your facts are factual? Well, that speaks for itself don't you think? What else could a fact possibly be if not factual?

In this case however, your facts are well, not facts and therefore are not factual at all.

What you do have however, are your own interests along with events which support your narrative from your own viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with that of course and our side is doing much the same (minus some obvious BS of course).

Your welcome.

 

 

 

Isn't this exactly what Co A & Co have been doing this whole time??

I guess I'm really interested to hear justification from any Co A & Co leaders on why they aren't taking this whole situation seriously and resorting to trying to spin a positive narrative for themselves right now. I don't think the spin attempts are working and it's time to change strategy as it's pretty clear that Co B are willing to keep the war going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Q Listener said:

Isn't this exactly what Co A & Co have been doing this whole time??

I guess I'm really interested to hear justification from any Co A & Co leaders on why they aren't taking this whole situation seriously and resorting to trying to spin a positive narrative for themselves right now. I don't think the spin attempts are working and it's time to change strategy as it's pretty clear that Co B are willing to keep the war going.

 

Of course Colby's leaders are willing to keep the war going, that was their stated goal the entire time. I'd hate to be the sort not to indulge them.

 

Edited by Charles the Tyrant

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

Your facts are factual? Well, that speaks for itself don't you think? What else could a fact possibly be if not factual?

In this case however, your facts are well, not facts and therefore are not factual at all.

What you do have however, are your own interests along with events which support your narrative from your own viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with that of course and our side is doing much the same (minus some obvious BS of course).

Your welcome.

 

 

 

Nope its 100% fact alliances in Coalition A plotted to roll BK. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

He has a welcome?

Touche :P

44 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Nope its 100% fact alliances in Coalition A plotted to roll BK. 

A 100% fact is it? Tell me, what is a 98% "fact". 

Is it a fact, mostly fact, nearly a fact, unfactual fact or a fake fact?

How about 70%, or even 51% for that matter? Still a fact or are we pushing it?

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

Touche :P

A 100% fact is it? Tell me, what is a 98% "fact". 

Is it a fact, mostly fact, nearly a fact, unfactual fact or a fake fact?

How about 70%, or even 51% for that matter? Still a fact or are we pushing it?

Yes 100% fact. Politics is all about the variable % of fact. Get to know your percentages noob. However trying to change the narrative doesn't get away from the fact your coalition leadership talk bs. 

Edited by Tiberius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Yes 100% fact. Politics is all about the variable % of fact. Get to know your percentages noob. However trying to change the narrative doesn't get away from the fact your coalition leadership talk bs. 

So a fact can be variable? Can a variable fact be considered reliable?

What percentage range does a variable fact cover? I think 75% - 99.99% personally. Anything less than 75% is a bit sketchy don't you think?

Edited by Charles the Tyrant

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
14 hours ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

 

And the Award for Most Brainwashed Peon of NPO goes to...

I resent this and contest it's factuality.

I leave you one of these.. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

So a fact can be variable? Can a variable fact be considered reliable?

What percentage range does a variable fact cover? I think 75% - 99.99% personally. Anything less than 75% is a bit sketchy don't you think?

Yeah its similar to how you can turn water alcoholic by adding a leaf from on Oak tree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

Again, I’d like to see some evidence. Y’know, the stuff we provide to back up our claims. 
 

Surely you have some on hand, since you think it’s a 100% fact? I think we’d all like to see it. Again, IQ February doesn’t count. 

Why does everything have to get logdumped to be real? It's been acknowledged multiple times that  some core alliances in Coalition A asked people to help beat on BK well before the war because they wanted a big coalition because they thought BKsphere with all of the smaller alliances/rpots was so big. It can't be denied because it's what actually transpired and fit with the public rhetoric espoused at the time. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Karl VII
55 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

Again, I’d like to see some evidence. Y’know, the stuff we provide to back up our claims. 
 

Surely you have some on hand, since you think it’s a 100% fact? I think we’d all like to see it. Again, IQ February doesn’t count. 

Why don't you guys leak all your own logs for a change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Why does everything have to get logdumped to be real? It's been acknowledged multiple times that  some core alliances in Coalition A asked people to help beat on BK well before the war because they wanted a big coalition because they thought BKsphere with all of the smaller alliances/rpots was so big. It can't be denied because it's what actually transpired and fit with the public rhetoric espoused at the time. 

Oh! Oh! I can answer this one!


Things have to be logdumped because certain parties in coalition B keep lying about events which transpire in backchannels, as proven by the logs we dumped.

 

See: The TEst situation.

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Like 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

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.